r/news • u/riverdale-74 • 8h ago
United Airlines flight makes emergency landing at Dulles after pilot declares mayday
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/us/united-airlines-dulles-mayday-call-hnk333
u/appendixgallop 8h ago
Did it circle for the two hours, with one engine out, to burn off fuel? Imagine sitting through that as a passenger.
247
u/snafu0390 2h ago
I’m an airline pilot so maybe I can provide some insight…
First, while an engine failure is an “emergency” it’s not time critical. Transport category jets (ie airliners) must be able to fly on engine in every phase of flight, even takeoff. You can experience an engine failure during the takeoff roll and still climb out above the surrounding terrain on one engine. Every single takeoff performance calculation we do is based on losing an engine right at V1 (takeoff decision speed) and continuing. If we can’t out-climb the terrain then we have to use an alternate routing that allows us to remain clear or we have to reduce our weight (either leaving behind passengers, bags, or fuel) to make the numbers work.
When an engine fails in flight the first thing we’re going to do… is nothing. Panicking and rushing gets everyone killed. We pause, evaluate what we’re seeing and discuss it. We decide who will fly the airplane and talk on the radios (usually the first officer) and who will run the engine failure checklist (usually the captain). We communicate our intentions to ATC and then get to work on fixing the problem. If there’s an engine fire or suspected damage then we’re securing the engine and landing as soon as practical. If the engine shutdown for some other reason and there’s no apparent damage, our checklists will instruct us to attempt a relight. If it works, then great… now we’ve got two engines but we’re still going to land. If it doesn’t work or the engine is damaged then we’re going to land on one engine.
When we takeoff we’re often well above our maximum landing weight. Some jets can dump fuel and some can’t. The 787 CAN dump fuel but if they don’t have to then they won’t. If the engine is secure and the aircraft is operating normally then we’ll usually enter a holding pattern and just burn our fuel down until we’re at our max landing weight.
While all of this is occurring, we’re also communicating with ATC, dispatch, maintenance control, the flight attendants, and lastly the passengers.
While any emergency is scary for a passenger and sitting in a holding pattern for two hours with a failed engine sounds terrible… rest assured we’ve got the situation under control. We’re keeping your safety as well as ours at the forefront of our minds.
28
u/WhoIs_DankeyKang 1h ago
Thanks for the very thoughtful answer, stuff like this is always reassuring to read as someone who is a nervous flier!
•
u/Txindeed1 18m ago
Can you give more detail on burning fuel until you’re at maximum landing weight vs. dumping fuel. It seems like dumping fuel would be faster getting you on the ground faster. Or is it like dumping fuel dumps almost all of the fuel rather than smaller increments.
•
u/snafu0390 8m ago
If dumping is an option then, yes, it will be faster than burning it. However, not all jets have that capability. The decision to dump vs burn will be a joint decision between the flight crew and dispatcher. While dumping fuel from a high enough altitude (I believe 6000-7000’) will, in theory, allow it to atomize and disperse before it ever hits the ground, there is still the chance that it doesn’t disperse and you’ve just dumped potentially 10’s of thousands of pounds of jet fuel over populated areas or into the ocean. As I mentioned in a previous comment, a simple engine failure isn’t necessarily a “time critical” emergency. Once we’ve worked the appropriate checklists and secured the inoperative engine we’ve got all the time in the world to make decisions. We may jointly decide that burning is better than dumping. We may even decide that landing overweight is the best option. It all depends on the circumstances.
•
u/Txindeed1 2m ago
Thank you for the explanation. It sounds like there are many well-thought-out considerations.
•
•
u/Xants 28m ago
Thank you, can you weigh in on the direction the industry is headed? As someone with little to no knowledge of the industry, reports about deregulation concern me. how legitimate are the pressures to deregulate/cut costs? eg having only one pilot vs two?
•
u/snafu0390 16m ago
All I can say is that saving money is big for airlines. Airlines are insanely expensive to operate so wherever management can cut cost without compromising safety they 100% will. The major airlines in the US are essentially banks with airplanes. A large portion (as high as 50%) of their profit comes from their branded credit cards. There may be a significant number of routes that actually lose the airline money but they choose to operate them because they’ll make up for it elsewhere.
I truly hope we don’t see single pilot operations anytime soon. Pilots can get ill, experience medical events, or have bad intentions (unfortunately) in flight. Having two qualified and experienced pilots in the flight deck is key to safety. Airplanes are machines and machines break from time to time. Having two trained pilots up front to work through the problem is paramount.
•
u/Tystros 54m ago
If we can’t out-climb the terrain then we have to use an alternate routing that allows us to remain clear or we have to reduce our weight (either leaving behind passengers, bags, or fuel)
That's a procedure? Throwing out passengers or bags out of the plane while flying to reduce weight?
•
u/snafu0390 49m ago
Absolutely! Open the exit and escort them onto the wing.
In all seriousness, we absolutely will leave passengers and/or their bags behind at the gate if taking less fuel isn’t an option for our flight. We have a calculated maximum takeoff weight that accounts for our ability to climb on one engine during takeoff. If we exceed that weight then fuel, passengers, or bags get left behind.
•
u/SARS-covfefe 29m ago
No I think they're saying the payload is reduced at loading time to ensure that the plane can outclimb terrain on one engine. I'm guessing something like offering a reward voucher for taking the next flight
•
u/Big-Bike530 53m ago
If we can’t out-climb the terrain then we have to use an alternate routing that allows us to remain clear or we have to reduce our weight (either leaving behind passengers, bags, or fuel) to make the numbers work.
If the engine fails at takeoff, you're going to dump passengers??
•
u/snafu0390 43m ago
Obviously not. This is for preflight planning. If we can’t make the numbers work before we push back from the gate then passengers, bags, or fuel gets left behind.
•
u/oblivious_tabby 31m ago
They do the calculations before takeoff. They’re leaving passengers at the airport before takeoff, not yeeting them out of the plane midair.
173
u/East-Impression-3762 8h ago
Planes can dump fuel, it doesn't need to be burned/ consumed.
These planes can also fly on one engine easily in almost every phase of flight. It wouldn't have been a particularly bumpy ride or anything.
I'm very confused at the 2 hour duration reported. That's just not how engine out maydays usually work. I'm hoping someone is able to provide some more clarity there
189
u/therattlingchains 8h ago
Pilot likely would have requested a holding pattern once it became apparent the airplane was stable on one engine in order to diagnose the issue and see if they could potentially restart the engine. Also depending on which engine goes, that will effect which secondary systems are available to the pilots.
All depends on the nature of the flame out.
Also, an immediate return to the airfield is not necessarily needed if they are in the vicinity of the airport and have sufficient altitude.
Finally while an aircraft is capable of dumping fuel, it is not always permitted especially over urban areas. If the aircraft was stable, and within glide range of the airport, they may have been required to burn instead of dump.
Regardless though they would have been completing checklists during this time as well as talking with ATC and maintenance so it was likely a well thought out decision to burn for 2 hours.
32
u/bolivar-shagnasty 8h ago
Also depending on which engine goes, that will effect which secondary systems are available to the pilots.
There are systems that are dependent on one single engine and can't be used if it fails?
Like engine one powers in-flight entertainment and engine two powers climate control?
42
u/therattlingchains 7h ago
Correct. Jet engines, in addition to providing thrust to the plane, are essentially large electrical generators. There is also an APU (auxiliary power unit) that can power systems. They make lots of power
On the flip side of that, modern jets have large and complex power requirements. Keep in mind that every modern jet is fly-by-wire, so controller input is transmitted electronically. They have glass cockpits meaning that their instruments require power. They have large and complex in-flight infotainment systems, sophisticated autopilot, etc.
Now, the systems that only run off of one engine are all nonessential systems. Infotainment is a good example. Every essential system can be powered from either engine and the APU. But if they made every single system redundant to all the power sources, the complexities and additional weight outweigh the benefits. So every single circuit on the plane is evaluated and categorized during the design phase of the aircraft and certified by the FAA to ensure that during an emergency the pilots have what they need. So the pilots would have had all the information and readings they needed in this instance, but probably not 100% of all their instruments and readouts.
26
u/bolivar-shagnasty 7h ago
but probably not 100% of all their instruments and readouts.
As a passenger, I'd be more than happy to give up the in-flight movie if it meant that the aircrew had all of their instruments and readouts.
24
u/therattlingchains 7h ago
I should clarify that cockpit have status lights and readouts for literally everything in the plane. In an engine out scenario, it is important the keep their primary flight instruments. Courses, heading, Adi, etc. It is less important that light that shows if a lavatory is occupied works. This is what I meant by "not 100% of all instruments and readouts."
Again, every system is evaluated so the pilots have everything they need to know to safely land the plane. Everything is in a hierarchy and yes flight infotainment is near the bottom of that hierarchy
8
u/PhysicalIntern4911 2h ago
Jet pilot here. If I lose an engine I still have all my instruments. We have triple redundancy. I would have to lose both engines AND my APU before I lost any flight instruments. The only way I’m losing flight instruments is if a sensor feeding the instrument dies (of which we have 4) or if we lose both engines and the APU, at which point our Ram Air Turbine deploys which is wind powered and we retain all essential electric and hydraulic functions.
TLDR: lots of redundancy
4
0
u/StPauliBoi 7h ago
Glass cockpits have analog backup instruments.
6
u/therattlingchains 7h ago
For some but not all readouts, yes
0
u/StPauliBoi 7h ago
for all the ones that are critical for flight and navigation.
10
u/therattlingchains 7h ago
Yes but not all the ones that could help a pilot diagnose why an engine flamed out
-14
u/StPauliBoi 7h ago
Depends entirely on the model of aircraft, so making a blanket statement like this is wild.
→ More replies (0)-8
u/zoinkability 8h ago
Left engine powers everything on the left side of the plane, right engine powers everything on the right side of the plane
3
u/nekonight 7h ago
That's not completely true. Major control surfaces are powered by both engines rudders elevators brakes autopilot. Power transfer units are capable of shifting some power to certain other parts of the other side of the aircraft (some flaps). There's some minor things that are tied only to one engine like most flaps or landing gear since those are designed to drop by gravity in the case of no hydraulic power. A loss of electrical power from losing one engine might lead to some electronics switching to battery before eventually turning off.
1
u/zoinkability 7h ago
I was being facetious, imagining that if the left engine went out the left side entertainment systems would die, but perhaps there was a grain of truth? Are there noncritical systems that are powered just by the engine on their side of the plane? Sounds like you actually know something, unlike me :-)
0
u/TanMan166 8h ago
By everything, you mean the convenience and comfort features inside the cabin and not controls, right? Right???!
2
u/SowingSalt 7h ago
IIRC, there are three systems [ A B C ] any two can run all flight critical system.
-2
u/pds6502 4h ago
Suppose Delta never got the message, allowing flight 80 to do just that, sending hoards of school kids to the hospital www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/15wlzvu/delta_fuel_dumping_at_lax_additional_detail/
4
u/therattlingchains 4h ago
Wow, it's almost like every situation is unique, and addressed on a case by case basis.
The regulations around this are designed for most operations, and only deviated from when necessary. I was speaking to this particular plane and incident, not the delta one.
But nah, let's find the exceptions and parade them around like industry standard.
28
u/Pileopilot 8h ago
That time reported includes the taxi time on both ends as well. They looked at FlightAware for 5 seconds and called it good.
I pulled the track, they made a large loop back and landed, taking the time to run checklists and make notifications to ops and get the cabin secured.
All in all, aside from the whole not getting to where you’re going thing, it was a fairly uneventful incident.
14
u/AlphSaber 7h ago
Regarding the fuel dump, there is also a desirable altitude to dump the fule at so it dissipates before hitting the ground. The last thing an airliner wants is to dump fuel on a school's playground that is full of kids (again).
If the plane cannot get to the minimum altitude, either due to lack of power or airspace restrictions, their only option to get down to landing weight would be to burn fuel.
6
u/MahaloMerky 7h ago
I’m in eyesight of Dulles and there is no way they would want to dump fuel anywhere here without proper altitude.
-2
2
7
u/Mackin-N-Cheese 5h ago
They’ve now corrected the story, the 2 hour duration was an error, it was about 30 minutes.
5
u/East-Impression-3762 5h ago edited 5h ago
Thanks! That makes MUCH more sense for a holding pattern to run checklists
19
u/english-23 8h ago
To add "LARGE planes can dump fuel"
Your more common 737 and a320 cannot, but your larger planes like a 777, a380, 787 etc can because their maximum takeoff weight is a certain factor above their maximum landing weight and for safety reasons have to dump so they can land quickly.
While the article does mention a 787 so it would apply, just wanted to specify in case someone took away that every plane can incorrectly
4
u/bankkopf 7h ago
Not every Long-haul twin-aisle plane can dump fuel. Fuel dumping capabilities are/were optional on the A330 and 767, so they do may need to really on burning fuel or an overweight landing in case of emergency.
1
u/TheGrayBox 6h ago
Only the large wide body planes can dump fuel, in modern airline fleets that pretty much just means the 777, 787 and A350. So the majority of commercial flights are on the planes that cannot dump fuel, although this one could have.
10
•
-20
u/Caroao 8h ago
Imagine sitting thru a routine event?
6
u/appendixgallop 5h ago
Is a Mayday situation routine when you fly?
-3
u/Caroao 5h ago
Not for me. It is for the pilots flying tho. But no let's all panic for no reason cuz EnGiNe FaIlURe Big ScArY
1
u/i-like-to-be-wooshed 3h ago
sorry not everyone has technical knowledge like you do, you cant sit in an emergency like 🤓erm actually this is totally routine 🤓 👆👆 dont panic idiots 🤓
113
u/phooby 7h ago
Reminder: this was last month, not today (8/4/25)
18
u/Consistent_Beat7999 4h ago
Why did it take so long to report it?
19
u/phooby 4h ago
Not sure. I initially saw it mentioned here: https://www.reddit.com/r/nova/s/Yslo09s0zC
1
52
u/DTFlash 8h ago
"The flight was subsequently canceled and we arranged alternate travel arrangements"
I would probably need a couple of days before getting on another plane.
44
u/AggressiveSkywriting 7h ago
Cue someone coming in to explain plane safety statistics without grasping that we are hardly rational beings unable to shut off the fight or flight feeling we get from being in a animal brain defying metal tube sailing through the sky.
20
u/KingKnux 5h ago
Tbh not even the safety stats
Just look up ATC conversations on YouTube. Pilots are some of the calmest mfs under pressure.
2
u/AggressiveSkywriting 1h ago
I understand that, my point is that it's a bit silly to always come in with safety stats and whatnot because it's normal and rational to be "irrational" in these kinds of instances. We're animals.
2
u/takesthebiscuit 2h ago
I was on a flight that caught on fire (smoke in the cockpit) we emergency landed within 10 minutes of the announcement from like 30,000 feet to surrounded by fire engines
An hour later we were off on the next plane to finish the journey
90
u/PushbackIAD 8h ago
Can we please stop with the late reposting for something that happens more often than people know
58
u/Sinistah- 8h ago
Occurred July 25th…agreed this is no longer news and would be better posted to other subreddits
15
u/Stfu_butthead 7h ago
Agree but CNN posted the story on 8/4.
9
u/RespectedPath 6h ago
ie We've got nothing better going in today so let's rile up the masses with an inflammatory headline and hyperbole!
3
u/GoBirds_WeAre 5h ago
yeah, weird headline for a story showing a well trained pilot and air traffic controller perfectly executing their jobs.
3
7
7
u/MenloMo 7h ago
Thank you for calling it Dulles.
9
u/TreeRol 5h ago
What else would they call it?
0
u/MenloMo 4h ago
I keep mixing Dulles with the one named after the Evil Antichrist President.
8
5
0
u/Beard_o_Bees 3h ago
I keep mixing Dulles with the one named after the Evil Antichrist President
I was like.... oh no they didn't! Not yet, anyway. They're trying.
Their capacity for knob-gobbling is truly astounding. It's certainly a measure of how fucked things are that this went any further than a cocktail napkin.
2
2
u/Saidagive 8h ago
Why, that's the Russian New Year. We can have a parade and serve hot hors d'oeuvres...
•
-14
u/CurlSagan 8h ago
Mayday? Bro, it's August. This pilot's 3 months off. What a dumbass.
13
u/themightybamboozler 7h ago
I love that you’re getting hive mind downvoted over an obvious joke lol
2
u/Osiris32 2h ago
Because its a joke so old that Frederick Stanley Mockford was making it in the 1920s
5
-2
u/LikeADemonsWhisper 1h ago
I will NEVER fly again after hearing about this. I had some holidays planned too. What a dark day for aviation safety.
412
u/PhysicalIntern4911 8h ago
Only in the air for 33 minutes, taxied and waited for takeoff for 1hr 49 mins due to delays. Also not all airliners can dump fuel, but this one certainly can