Back to Squawk list
  • 43

A Badly Damaged 33-Year-Old United 767 Comes Back From The Dead

Eight months after one of United Airlines’ Boeing 767-300ERs suffered substantial frame damage during landing, the aircraft lives to see another day. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

hwh888 4
Not so sure about the “pilot lying” comment but for sure it sounds like pilot error on the landing. Seeing it was the first officer doing the landing and then the captain assumed control. Tells me, perhaps not a lot of hours on type aircraft.
Sean Awning 6
Possibly 767s don't recover well from a hard bounced landing, the cases of porpoising and fuse creases (damage goes more than skin deep) seem to include a lot of 767s. Got this list from a post at a forum that focuses on the airliners rather than the pilots:

1992 AAL in GRU
1992 OZ in CJU
1993 LOT in ORD
2000 Vietnam AL in SGN
1997 AZA in EWR
2004 LAB in VVI
2005 Skyservice in PUJ
2009 RAM in JFK
2010 TOM in BRS
2012 ANA in NRT
2018 Atlas in PSM
2020 Omni in SNN
2023 UA in IAH
2023 DHL in Beirut

Lot of articles on the GA side about how to recover a bounced landing, rather than just going around. But what works with small a/c doesn't always translate to the stretched airliners. Pilot error, but it's worth looking into how much training it takes to break the habits learned while flying smaller a/c.
cyberjet 2
It’s also worth acknowledging that most of the damaged aircraft on that list were early production versions of the 300ER. Boeing eventually strengthened the frames in the forward fuselage to reduce the chance of the kind of buckling seen in most of these accidents.
J H 2
That's well stated. I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone being born already knowing how to fly. I totally agree it's all about the training. Like almost every accident, it's a chain of events. Breaking that chain is the key to safety. That accident could quite possibly be traced back years in the pilots training history.
J H 1
Totally agree it's not about pilot lying. And IF it was an error, IMO it was probably not intentional. I don't think I ever heard in any of my thousands of preflight briefings Any pilot say "today let's make lots of errors intentionally. Maybe we can crash today" As to flying time - Checking facts from reputable sources might serve us all better.
houseofgold 11
Excuse me but A321 is hardly a replacement for a B763
Christian Base 2
UA's B763s carry 214 pax up to 10,500 km.
An A21N carries 200 pax up to 7,400 km, with longer ranges coming. As I type this, 6 carriers are using them for transatlantic services.
Seems like the A21N and the likely A321XLR will be reasonable replacements for B763s. The longer range routes served by B763's could be covered by B787s and A330s. I don't buy the whining about passenger comfort being restricted by a narrowbody aircraft. It's not like many people spend that much time outside their seat on a flight, and fewer people have a middle seat.
arfadaily 12
I have to say that I find narrow bodies a bit 'claustrophobic-feeling' on long haul flights. And when people could wander freely around on 747s for instance, my experience was that they did. General long haul aviation advice has always been to stand up and move around regularly to avoid poential complications like DVT
Christian Base 3
That's fair. I remember flying YYZ-YVR on a baffed-out AC B74. The entertainment system had crapped out on start-up so everyone was socializing. It was a *great* atmosphere.
However, these days when flying on a widebody it seems very few are up out of their seats (it's discouraged in case of unexpected turbulence anyway) and head to the aft washroom/galley area to be out of the way anyhow.
arfadaily -2
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I've never been a great believer in 'unexpected' turbulence. In controlled airspace, crew are very good at passing on turbulence reports to controllers, who in turn are very good at passing them on to following aircraft that are climbing or descending thru affected levels. Out of fully controlled airspace, an experienced crew will know the earliest signs that they are about to enter dirty air. I noticed on virtually every night time transatlantic flight I took, just after dinner was cleared away, the captain somehow got the aircraft into 'unexpected turbulence' and on went the seatbelt lights. Strangely, after just a few minutes, we always seemed to be back in clear air, but the seatbelt light stayed on for hours. On more than one occasion, I actually got up to use the facilities - when you gotta go, you gotta go, right ? - and found the cabin crew sitting on the floor in the galley, with he curtains pulled ... so am I cynical ? Maybe ...
Chris B 0
Exactly. A 767 is barely more than a 737 with twin aisles and one extra seat per row.
Torsten Hoff 1
Not on all routes, but on many. And it is cheaper to operate, so replacing the older B763s makes perfect sense.
frogandtoad 3
When all is said and done - the resurrection of this B767 shows the talent of the Boeing Crash Crew – Over the years they have shown what they can resurrect in the most inhospitable places around the world - yes I have seen some of what the do and I'm amazed
stratofan 3
It matters not who builds it, Airbus or Boeing. If you do not fix it right the first time, or build it right, what does it matter? Right Hillabeast? LOL!
Greg S 7
It says a lot about Boeing that United will replace these 767s in the next couple of years with extended-range A321's.
Leander Williams 4
Perhaps the airlines are opting to repair aircraft on hand, just in case the ones they order don't get to be in hand soon. Plus, the ones they already have may have less chances of losing doors, wing panels..
avionik99 7
Reading the story, it seems to be a clear case of Pilot Error, and then it became a case of Pilot Lying!
cyberjet 3
It is far from as simple as you suggest. A lot happened in a short time when this occurred and pilot recall is often far from accurate in such situations. That’s one of the reasons why FDRs are so valuable - their memory isn’t clouded by emotions and stressors.
J H 1
If one does not have a couple of thousand hours in transport category aircraft, perhaps it is best to reserve speculation for those areas that one is better qualified to comment. If one does, it might be more beneficial not to speculate concerning a pilots decision-making, personal attributes, or the accident without the full accident investigation information.
I have no personal information on these pilots, but as a 30 year airline, veteran working with critical incident response program, I can tell you these pilots suffered emotionally psychologically and physically. An unfounded accusation of lying is not helpful to readers, commenters or anyone else.
Yassine Cherfouni 1
We hear so much Accusations And Speculation.

The “ Pilot and The FO Are not on Trial on This Site “

The Aircraft 67-ER was Repaired, Released and Approved for Flying Again “ Not Lying “ it’s just one letter Short .

Let’s be positive, what is going to happen tomorrow is not born yet .

Let The FAA , NTSB and the Airline deal with the decision Making.’
frogandtoad 1
Interesting you say that - Obviously you don't work in the industry ??? as most know - The B767 is a 2 engine DC-10 with better wings and avionics etc.
Phil Nolden 1
"Things" happen, but I'd like to know the background, experience, and remedial training of the pilots.
Matha Goram 1
The JAL 747 repair always comes to my mind when frame damaged aircraft return to service. Of course, my concern is at the layman level since the repair is in a different area and my knowledge is barely above ignorant level.
Jaime Terrassa 1
let's hope they learned something from this incident.
Roger Curtiss 1
I was initially confused by the first photo- wondering why a 767 had the newest livery but was sporting the name of United's long-ago low afre spinoff TED!
Brian Freeman 1
Any bets on how long it will be before the repair fails and everyone will be saying "Yep, it never should have been put back into service."??
Yassine Cherfouni 1
The NTSB Report is incomplete or inconclusive.

We Know it’s Made in “ Boeing “ Some Members Blame The “ FO” Others conclude That The 33 Years “ Old” Aircraft is too old To perform in a The skies .

The Article Says “ The 767 Comes back from the Dead” In My personal opinion The 67-300ER Is a better choice and invention Than the Max’s 37 That was born Alive And went dead .

The 67-300ER was used By Many Airlines And in many cases Performed well and was a Money Making Aircraft for Some Airlines.

FAA And The NTSB is Aware of it .Series of Tests , Flight tests And Related Repairs were Made.
Since then , The Airline Made Flights to Peru / Lima , London And Munich .

In case we have not yet Noticed, Many Airlines Are Looking For Contracts with Airbus, By Which UA has Already ordered The A- 321’s .

Will Boeing Be Revived From The Dead ?

Hopefully It’s only a Bad Dream .
The 30+ year old 767’s are a tragedy waiting to happen.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Nooge 0
Get help for your WOKE Brain Virus

And dont blame the fact you are BROKE all the time on immigrants
WD Rseven -1
As usual, the copilot clearly lied to cover his ass, and he was too dumb to know that the flight recorder knows what really happened. What surprises me is the pilot made no effort until it was too late.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

arfadaily 20
Well,if it's done 33 years without issue, I think that tells us all we need to know about the build quality and reliability, does it not ?
Phil Nolden 2
The crew apparently had NOT had a lot of time without issue....
arfadaily 1
This crew with this aircraft ? References please ?
Scott Hawthorn 0
Thatwas not the case.
arfadaily 1
What wasn't ?
SkyAware123 6
You haven't understood a thing about what happened at Boeing. 33 years ago they still build good planes. It's the newer stuff that got the bean counter treatment.
Nooge 2
They still have good planes
Stef Lar 5
A 33-year-old plane would predate the merger...


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.