This article summarizes reporting by WABC.

A United Airlines Boeing 767-400 arriving from Venice, Italy, made unexpected contact with ground infrastructure during its final approach to Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) on Sunday afternoon. According to reporting by WABC, the widebody aircraft struck a light pole situated above the New Jersey Turnpike, subsequently causing damage to a commercial tractor-trailer traveling on the roadway below.

Despite the unusual collision, United Airlines Flight 169 landed safely on Runway 29. Authorities confirmed that none of the 221 passengers or 10 crew members on board were injured. The incident, which occurred at approximately 2 p.m., is now the subject of a federal investigation to determine how the aircraft descended low enough to strike the pole.

We at AirPro News are monitoring the ongoing safety reviews. The event highlights the tight tolerances and critical obstacle clearance limits associated with major airports surrounded by dense highway infrastructure.

Incident Details and Immediate Aftermath

Flight 169’s Approach

The aircraft involved was completing a transatlantic journey from Venice. As it neared Newark’s Runway 29, WABC reports that the plane’s trajectory brought it into contact with a light pole over the southbound lanes of the New Jersey Turnpike. The aircraft sustained what United Airlines described as minor damage and was able to taxi to the gate under its own power.

In a statement provided to the media, the airline confirmed its internal review process regarding the event:

“Our maintenance team is evaluating damage to the aircraft and we will investigate how this occurred,” United Airlines stated.

Impact on the Ground

The strike had immediate consequences for traffic on the New Jersey Turnpike. The falling debris or direct contact affected a northbound tractor-trailer operated by Baker’s Express. The driver, identified by WABC as Warren Boardley of Baltimore, was transporting bread products to an airport depot at the time.

Chuck Paterakis, an executive with the bakery’s parent company, told ABC News that the driver felt the impact directly above his cab.

“The driver experienced a commercial plane’s tires landing on the tractor or brushing the top of the tractor,” Paterakis noted.

According to WABC, Boardley was able to safely pull the vehicle over. He sustained minor cuts to his arms from shattered glass, was treated at a local hospital for non-life-threatening injuries, and has since been released. Paterakis confirmed that the trailer itself and its cargo remained intact, expressing gratitude that the outcome was not more severe.

Investigations and Operational Impact

Official Responses

Following the incident, multiple agencies responded to secure the scene and begin evidence collection. The Port Authority Police Department and New Jersey State Police managed the situation on the Turnpike. Meanwhile, airport officials quickly conducted runway inspections at Newark Liberty, allowing normal flight operations to resume shortly after the strike, according to WABC.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has officially launched an investigation into the event. FAA personnel, alongside representatives from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, were on-site Sunday evening to inspect the damage and gather data.

AirPro News analysis

While runway approaches are designed with strict obstacle clearance surfaces (OCS) to ensure aircraft maintain a safe distance from ground structures, incidents of this nature are exceedingly rare. Runway 29 at Newark features a specific glide path designed to keep arriving aircraft safely above the adjacent New Jersey Turnpike.

We note that investigators will likely focus on the aircraft’s altimeter settings, the flight crew’s adherence to the glideslope, and potential environmental factors such as wind shear or downdrafts that could have caused a momentary loss of altitude. The flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) will be critical in determining why the Boeing 767-400 breached the minimum safe altitude over the highway.

Furthermore, the Boeing 767-400 is a large widebody aircraft, and its main landing gear hangs significantly lower than the pilot’s eye level in the cockpit during a flared landing attitude. We expect the FAA investigation to examine whether the crew experienced a visual illusion or if a sudden sink rate contributed to the gear clipping the light pole. The safe recovery and landing of the aircraft suggest the flight crew maintained control despite the impact.

Frequently Asked Questions

What flight was involved in the Newark airport incident?
United Airlines Flight 169, a Boeing 767-400 traveling from Venice to Newark.

Were there any injuries on the plane?
No. According to WABC, all 221 passengers and 10 crew members were unharmed.

Was anyone on the ground injured?
Yes, the driver of a commercial tractor-trailer sustained minor cuts from broken glass but was treated and released from the hospital.

Who is investigating the collision?
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is leading the investigation, with assistance from local authorities including the Port Authority Police and New Jersey State Police.

Sources: WABC

This article is based on original AirPro News reporting and analysis of newly released public FOIA documents from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

On April 29, 2026, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released critical technical data regarding the fatal March 2022 crash of China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 (MU5735). The release, prompted by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by a Chinese citizen in January 2026, provides the first public, data-backed insight into the final moments of the Boeing 737-800 aircraft.

According to the newly public Flight Data Recorder (FDR) download report, originally compiled in July 2022, the aircraft experienced a deliberate manual shutdown of both engines at cruising altitude. This was immediately followed by severe manual flight control inputs that forced the plane into a fatal dive. This data release occurs against a backdrop of delayed official reports from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), which is leading the Investigation under international protocols.

We have reviewed the released documents, which were published on the NTSB’s official FOIA reading room on May 1, 2026, and subsequently mirrored on Wikipedia and GitHub. The findings offer essential technical context to an aviation tragedy that claimed the lives of all 132 passengers and crew members on board, marking it as the deadliest aviation accident in China since 1994.

Technical Findings from the FDR Data

Sequence of Events at 29,000 Feet

The NTSB’s July 2022 “Combined Download Report” details the final 90 seconds of recorded flight parameters. The data reveals a sequence of deliberate actions rather than a mechanical failure. According to the NTSB FOIA release, the incident began at a cruising altitude of 29,100 feet.

“while cruising at 29,000 ft., the fuel switches on both engines moved from the run position to the cutoff position.”

, NTSB Combined Download Report, July 2022

The FDR data plots show that this action occurred simultaneously or within one second of each other. Moving these switches to the cutoff position is a highly specific, multi-step physical action. It requires a pilot to lift and pull the switches over a mechanical detent, making an accidental deployment highly improbable.

Power Loss and Flight Control Inputs

The immediate result of the fuel cutoff was a rapid drop in engine core speed (N2) and a total loss of thrust. Following this power loss, the NTSB data indicates that the autopilot was disengaged.

Approximately three seconds later, the FDR recorded that the control yoke was pushed forward violently. This manual input initiated a steep, nose-down pitch. The data also shows continuous left-roll inputs, resulting in an inverted barrel roll maneuver, while the rudder remained in a neutral position.

The FDR ceased recording at approximately 26,000 feet, about 23 seconds after the fuel switches were cut. The NTSB report notes that the FDR relies on engine-driven generators and lacks a backup battery. Consequently, it powered down when the engines spooled down, leaving the final plunge to the ground unrecorded by this specific device.

The Investigation and Official Stances

The Role of the CAAC and NTSB

Under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 guidelines, the CAAC is the lead investigative authority for the MU5735 crash, which occurred on March 21, 2022, in Teng County, Guangxi. The NTSB serves as a technical advisor representing the state of the aircraft’s Manufacturers, Boeing.

The CAAC has yet to release a final investigation report. While ICAO guidelines expect a final report or an annual interim statement, the CAAC has deviated from this standard. In response to an open government information request on May 19, 2025, the CAAC explained its withholding of the report.

Releasing an annual interim report might “endanger national security and societal stability.”

, CAAC response to an open government information request, May 2025

Previously, in statements released in 2022 and 2024, the CAAC confirmed that no mechanical, structural, or systemic faults were found with the Boeing 737-800 aircraft.

Cockpit Voice Recorder Status

Unlike the FDR, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) is equipped with a backup battery and captured the entire event until impact. The NTSB FOIA response indicates that the CVR audio was successfully downloaded in excellent quality and handed over entirely to the CAAC. The NTSB did not retain any audio files, and the contents remain classified by Chinese authorities.

AirPro News analysis

The release of this FDR data highlights a significant transparency gap between the U.S. FOIA process and the CAAC’s ongoing withholding of the final report. U.S. federal law (49 U.S.C. § 1114(f)) mandates the release of certain technical data after specific criteria or timeframes are met, which ultimately forced the publication of these raw technical plots despite the CAAC’s reluctance to publish an interim update.

While the data strongly indicates deliberate manual inputs, specifically the fuel cutoff and the subsequent yoke push, we must avoid definitively diagnosing the motive. Without access to the CVR audio, which remains under the exclusive control of the CAAC, assigning psychological intent or confirming theories of hijacking or pilot suicide remains speculative. The empirical evidence confirms the mechanical steps of how the aircraft entered its fatal dive, but the underlying reason remains officially unanswered.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is a fuel control switch?

A fuel control switch manages the flow of fuel to the aircraft’s engines. Moving it to the “cutoff” position mid-flight stops fuel flow, shutting down the engine. It requires a specific, deliberate physical action to bypass a safety detent, preventing accidental activation.

Why did the Flight Data Recorder stop at 26,000 feet?

The FDR on the Boeing 737-800 relies on engine-driven electrical generators. When the engines were shut down and spooled down, the generators stopped providing power. Because the FDR lacks a backup battery, it powered off before the aircraft reached the ground.

Where can the public view these NTSB documents?

The documents are available in the NTSB’s official FOIA reading room under Document DCA22WA102. They have also been archived on Wikimedia Commons and translated on various GitHub repositories.

Sources:

• NTSB FOIA Reading Room (DCA22WA102)
• Wikimedia Commons (NTSB Documents Archive)
• GitHub (Unofficial Chinese Translation)

This article is based on an official press release and final investigation report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has officially released its final report detailing the investigation into a February 2025 emergency evacuation involving a United Airlines Airbus A319. The incident, which occurred at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) in Houston, Texas, involved a suspected right-engine failure and subsequent fire during the aircraft’s takeoff roll.

According to the NTSB’s findings, United Airlines Flight 1382 was accelerating for departure to LaGuardia Airport on February 2, 2025, when the flight crew executed a high-speed rejected takeoff. The swift actions of the crew, combined with passenger awareness, led to a successful emergency evacuation on the runway. Fortunately, the NTSB confirms that no injuries were reported among the 112 individuals on board, which included 107 passengers and five crew members.

We have reviewed the comprehensive data extracted from the aircraft’s Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The final report (Occurrence Number: DCA25LA114) sheds light on the critical timeline of the engine failure, the communication breakdown between the cabin and flight deck, and a notable malfunction of an emergency evacuation slide that forced the crew to adapt their evacuation strategy on the fly.

Timeline of the Emergency Evacuation

Crew and Passenger Coordination

The NTSB report provides a precise timeline of the events that unfolded on the morning of February 2. At approximately 8:16 AM local time, the Airbus A319-131 (Registration: N837UA) was accelerating down Runway 15R. The flight crew rejected the takeoff at a ground speed of approximately 115 knots after suspecting a failure of the right-hand V2522 engine.

Data extracted from the Honeywell HFR5-V CVR reveals that the flight deck was initially unaware of the external fire. At 08:15:43, following the aborted takeoff, a flight attendant instructed passengers via the public address system to remain seated. However, just six seconds later, the flight crew’s rejected takeoff checklist was interrupted. A flight attendant contacted the flight deck to report that passengers had observed a fire in the right engine.

By 08:16:20, the flight crew initiated the engine fire checklist. The situation in the cabin, however, was escalating rapidly. At 08:18:06, a forward cabin flight attendant reported light smoke in the rear of the aircraft, noting that passengers in the aft cabin had already begun to self-evacuate. This was confirmed at 08:18:42 when the aft flight attendant reported visible smoke outside the right side of the aircraft.

Equipment Malfunctions and Safety Findings

The Failure of the 2L Evacuation Slide

A significant safety finding highlighted in the NTSB’s final report is the malfunction of primary emergency equipment during the evacuation process. As passengers and crew scrambled to exit the aircraft, the aft flight attendant attempted to deploy the evacuation slide at the aft-left door (designated as 2L).

According to the NTSB investigation, the emergency slide at the 2L door was found to be “damaged,” forcing the crew to redirect passengers.

Because the 2L slide was unusable, the flight crew had to quickly pivot and funnel the evacuating passengers to the aft-right door (2R). Despite this severe bottleneck in the evacuation route, the NTSB reports that all 112 occupants successfully exited the aircraft via the functioning slides and were safely bused to the terminal.

Instrument Indication Discrepancies

Another crucial takeaway from the NTSB investigation is the lack of immediate instrument feedback provided to the pilots. The report notes that the flight crew initially stated they did not have engine fire indications on their flight deck instruments. This discrepancy underscores the vital role that cabin crew and passenger observations played in alerting the pilots to the severity of the engine fire, ultimately prompting the execution of the engine fire checklist.

AirPro News analysis

The findings from United Airlines Flight 1382 arrive during a period of heightened public and regulatory scrutiny regarding commercial aviation safety. The early months of 2025 have been marked by several high-profile incidents, including a tragic mid-air collision in Washington D.C. in January. While the Houston incident resulted in zero injuries, it highlights ongoing industry challenges regarding aging aircraft infrastructure.

The aircraft involved in this incident was manufactured in 2001, making it 24 years old at the time of the evacuation. The NTSB has historically maintained a strict focus on the reliability of evacuation slides. The failure of the 2L slide on this aging Airbus A319 may prompt the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue further Airworthiness Directives (ADs) concerning the inspection and maintenance lifecycles of emergency slides on older airframes. Furthermore, this event keeps United Airlines’ operational safety at IAH in the spotlight, following a previous runway excursion involving United Flight 2477 at the same hub in March 2024.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

• What caused the evacuation of United Airlines Flight 1382? The evacuation was triggered by a suspected failure and subsequent fire in the aircraft’s right-hand engine (V2522) during the takeoff roll at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.
• Were there any injuries reported? No. According to the NTSB final report, all 107 passengers and 5 crew members evacuated safely with no reported injuries.
• Did all emergency equipment function properly? No. The NTSB investigation revealed that the emergency evacuation slide at the aft-left door (2L) was damaged and failed to function, requiring the crew to redirect passengers to the aft-right door (2R).
• Did the pilots know the engine was on fire immediately? The NTSB report indicates that the flight crew did not initially have engine fire indications on their instruments; they were alerted to the fire by a flight attendant who relayed passenger observations.

Sources

• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Final Report: Occurrence Number DCA25LA114