United Airlines Flight 169 struck a light pole on the New Jersey Turnpike while on approach to Newark at 2 p.m. on Sunday. The aircraft landed safely, but it appears to have done more damage than first indicated – news reports and video show it striking a bakery truck as well.
- United says the Boeing 767-400 (registered at N77066) “came into contact with a light pole” on final approach, landed safely, taxied to the gate normally, and no passengers or crew were injured.
- This appears to have happened as the plane landed on runway 29, which is a tight approach near the New Jersey Turnpike.
BREAKING: A United Airlines flight struck a light pole while landing at Newark Airport in Newark, New Jersey. pic.twitter.com/sGIiKpEEJf
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 3, 2026
What’s more troubling is that while the FAA and United both say the plane hit a pole, there are reports that it also hit a bakery truck being struck, with the driver getting cuts from broken glass. It seems likely that United and the FAA were not yet aware of this when issuing their statements.
All I can say to this video is – wow – and thankfully the driver was not injured far worse, “the wheel of the commercial plane crashed into the driver’s window.”
NEW: United Airlines Flight 169 hits bakery truck while landing at Newark Airport in New Jersey pic.twitter.com/D6RRHJUHUG
— BNO News (@BNONews) May 3, 2026
Last month I wrote about a United 777 making a jaw-dropping low approach over a Newark highway. That one ended fine. It was following procedure perfectly.
Must have been delivering those hot cross runway 29 buns. Sigh – hope everyone is OK.
29 is really not appropriate for a heavy passenger jet, even though technically appropriate. On rare occasions when I’ve landed on a 75 or 76 on 29, it was not a relaxing experience.
Sum ting wong
Comments saying the light pole hit the truck. Plane ‘only’ hit the light pole.
Glad everyone on the plane is alright; hope the truck driver has a speedy recovery. (Heyyy marone!! Get that guy some gabagool!!)
@Gary Leff — I doubt actual @Tim Dunn would say that; we got an impersonator in our midst again. (Besides, the better ‘bit’ is clearly Wi Tu Lo, if one must reference Asiana, since United here clearly was too low.)
Hey Tone! The boys down at the yard ain’t gonna be happy with that truck not making its drop!
Flight 169: a baker’s dozen of baker’s dozens. I hope everyone is OK.
Are there more near misses lately or are we just hearing more about them? Does anyone have actual data?
“United Breaks Bakery Trucks.”
This is where and how they dump all the luggage they don’t get delivered to customers
Not only does United Break Guitars, they also break lamp posts.
Even with all of their landing incidents, I don’t think WN managed to do this even once.
Maybe some UA pilots should stick to 737s
@Tim Dunn — These all you? For real?? Goofy.
I hope Trump runs for a third term! Yay MAGA!
Another DEI pilot
I have been on the NJ Turnpike when a plane was on final approach to I presume is 29. The wheels of the plane could not have been more than 10 feet above my car.
Psh. So, above is not actual ‘Tim,’ and ‘May 3, 2026 at 8:39’ pm is not ‘1990.’ Sheesh.
@Walter Barry — By ‘DEI,’ ‘low-IQ,’ ‘thug,’ etc., you all really just mean the ‘n’-word, right? Vile.
United Airlines should reward the bakery truck driver with a lifetime United Airlines Global Services Premier membership and 1,000,000 United MileagePlus miles for their Flight 169 crashing into his bakery truck on landing at Newark Airport. Imagine explaining that to your insurance agent: “Yes, I was rear-ended by a United Airlines Boeing 767 while driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. No, I didn’t spill the jelly donuts.” Honestly, United should at least throw in a donut-shaped neck pillow, a year’s supply of eclairs for emotional recovery, a commemorative model airplane, and some unsoiled underwear.
@Ken A — As always, I admire your creativity and thoroughness, sir. Bless you. Though, I think the driver may prefer a cash settlement. As much as 1 million United miles may sound nice to us aviation-freaks; at best, that’d be worth about $100K, if used wisely (worth slightly more he is a United Explorer/Quest/Club card member, no?) I say, give him the $100K or more, in cash, (and those fresh undies! Good call.)
@1990–I agree. A cash settlement would be best—unless you want a lifetime supply of in-flight pretzels. One million United miles is worth only $100,000, or just three business class upgrades if you’re feeling fancy. Furthermore, thanks to recently added tariffs, imported underwear now costs more than emotional baggage fees when a United Airlines jumbo jet crashes into a bakery truck on the New Jersey Turnpike.
“Sum Ting Wong”, “Wee Tu Low”, “Hoe Lee Fook” and .”Bang Ding Ow”! What an absolute hoot that was! I had a minor procedure done in a hospital several years ago. The “gas passer” came in to explain how she was going to put me to sleep. Her name was “Dr. Ow”. I started to laugh but had to bite my tongue. When the surgeon came in, I was laughing. “What are you laughing about?” Since he was also a friend of mine, I told him. Now both of us were laughing. What was really funny was that CNN fell for it, hook, line and sinker!
@Ken A — That’s a tough choice. Por que no los dos, as they say. Oh, and, “if you’re feeling fancy” is the name of the game, friend. Those ’emotional baggage fees’ will getcha!
@Win Whitmire — Dr. Ow as an anesthesiologist is a good one! Was your trauma surgeon, Dr. Seymour Gutts? As long as you don’t have Dr. Graves, I think you’ll be alright.
Longtime VFTW reader here. I was on the plane. I felt we were coming in low, heard the engines rev up (presumably because we were too low?), and then I heard a loud bang — the sound of metal being hit. At first I thought it was an issue with the landing gear. Crew said nothing — taxi and deplaning were as if nothing had happened. It was only later when a friend sent me this article did I understand what had happened.
“We have to get this girl to a hospital.” “What is it?” “It’s a big building with doctors in it but that doesn’t matter right now!” “…and don’t call me Shirley!” The “gas passer” was indeed Dr. Ow!
OK, THIS is funny: A NYC TV station website reported…”Untied Airlines issued a statement that said in part, “We will conduct…” UNTIED Airlines? “Unhinged”, “Unsafe”, “Unglued” but “UNTIED” THAT is a new one! Someone’s fat fingers moved the keyboard faster than their brain. In reality though, it is a VFR day. If they were shooting a visual approach, my company ALWAYS (and I’m sure “Untied” does too) backs it up with an ILS, extra safety. In any case if the pilot flying was hand flying the aircraft (not unusual on a VFR day) if the visual doesn’t look right, push TOGA and go around OR…like in “Wee To Low”, Asiana, no one in the cockpit said “GO AROUND!”. Our policy is that ANYONE in the cockpit can say “GO AROUND!” and it MUST be initiated. If the data shows that the plane WAS properly “aimed” at the touchdown zone, then there’s something “bad wrong” with the approach. “Only the black boxes know for sure”!
CFI,
you do know that there was a website called “Untied” for a number of years?
The real issue here, whether some will admit it or not, is that EWR runway 29 is pretty short for a widebody and its threshold is pretty close to the airport boundary – and adjacent roads. Esp. on widebodies, there is an urgency to “get it on the ground”
and 29 is often used to offset delays on the parallel runways when wind is coming out of the west, as it was in this case.
add in that widebodies have longer landing gear and the margin of error is even smaller than for a narrowbody or RJ that can land on a lot less distance than 29 offers.
The FAA is certain to be looking at this and other UA widebodies that have been too low but the real answer might be to further restrict EWR capacity – including the ability of widebodies to land on 29.
EWR was simply not designed to handle the amount and type of traffic that UA pushes through that hub. It would seem they need to make sure their pilots are very cognizant of closely following those high tech landing systems or they might be forced to see the airport’s use further restricted
@Eytan — Wow, glad you’re alright, and welcome back from your trip. “Crew said nothing.” Wonder if that was policy, or that they didn’t yet fully realize what happened.
1990
we hear all the time about how great UA’s app is.
I am just shocked, I mean SHOCKED, that this event wasn’t added as a detail for this flight
@Tim Dunn — That would’ve been an epic update: “UA169: Just hit a truck. Sowie.”
Ever wondered what happens when a United Airlines jet meets a truck and a light pole on the New Jersey Turnpike before landing at Newark? Spoiler: not a great parking job. Captain Steeeve breaks down the crash of United Airlines flight 169, complete with his expert tips on how to avoid becoming a viral sensation. Fly Safe, buckle up, laugh a little, and check out his analysis here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZE88BsKwqA
@Ken A — Huge fan of Captain Steeeve and Ken A.
Why are we all leaping to the conclusion that this was United’s fault? Maybe the bakery truck’s altimeter had an incorrect setting, and it was traveling too high?
Tim Dunn: I will agree that RWY 29 is short. However, 6700+ feet is OK..to a point. There is a displaced threshold effectively making it even shorter. No doubt the pilot flying was hand flying the jet. If the crosswind limits for the 767-400 were not an issue, I would rather take the crosswind component and land on one of the longer parallels. The baffling part is…why someone didn’t YELL “GO AROUND!” With 3 pilots in the cockpit, surely someone noticed the touchdown zone “rising” in the windscreen! Regarding wide bodies using that runway…they were light after a trip from Italy and I’m guessing that the approach speed would be in the neighborhood of 135K or so on short final. Their EFB will calculate the rollout needed assuming they touchdown in the TD zone, typically 1000-1500 feet from the threshold. TIGHT, yeah. As above, I’d opted for the parallels!
CFI,
the fact that this has happened repeatedly – maybe not w/ damage to ground vehicles and structures – says there is too little margin for error.
UA pushes so many widebody arrivals through EWR at certain times of day that they have no choice but to use 29 or accept limits on capacity. At some times of day, there are simply more widebody arrivals that can fit on the parallels while also operating departures.
No other major airport has safety margins as low compared to capacity. it is time for the FAA to say that 29 is just too close to the perimeter of the airport to be safely used for widebody arrivals even if it means that UA spreads out or reduces its widebody operation
Tim Dunn: I see your point. UAL “owns” EWR like FedEx & UPS “own” KMEM & KSDF. Most of the majors don’t allow their aircraft to use RWY 33 at KDCA for the same reason, too much traffic, too short and…well…”other impairments”, to be polite. Let’s see what the NTSB comes up with. Then see if the FAA will follow recommendations. So far, at KDCA, not much in the way of NTSB suggestions have been followed. The UAL pilots might have “get home-itis”. I’d still take the crosswind over the short runway. The hardest words for US pilots to say are, “PAN PAN PAN”, “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY” and “UNABLE”. One “influencer” on YouTube has the audio from UAL’s communications with EWR. IF the pilots knew what had happened, the tone of their voices would have been WAY different. They were as if nothing happened.
@Airbus CFI — Two of those are not like the other… much prefer ‘PAN’ or ‘Unable’ over ‘Mayday.’ Also, for DCA and everywhere, if ‘not much in the way of NTSB suggestions have been followed’ that is deeply concerning.
1990: If you are a pilot and, especially a flight instructor, you will know the difference among the three and you would teach that way. There isn’t a “prefer”, as you suggest. There are distinct differences. ICAO recognizes “Mayday” for immediate danger. “Pan” for lower level but urgent. There is no rule for “unable” as that would be a pilot discretion. If I have a passenger who is having an apparent heart attack and it is confirmed by onboard and/or the airline’s medical consultants..”MAYDAY”. If I lose an engine, “MAYDAY”. Low on fuel…PAN until I’m getting too close to “min fuel”. A lady having a baby, “PAN” or maybe “MAYDAY”.. dependingl. If I’m assigned a runway or clearance that is questionable…”UNABLE”. ATC works for ME, not the other way around. When I teach recurrent, I will usually throw one of those into the scenario. I will agree that the NTSB suggestions are somewhat ignored by the FAA.
good words, CFI
and the problem w/ the FAA is that the military is involved at DCA and you have them thinking they are exempt from what matters for the better good of Americans. THAT is what should be of concern.
someone needs to do something to stop these repeated issues on EWR 29. EWR just is not capable of handling the volume and type of traffic that UA pushes through it.
It is the FAA’s job to ensure everyone’s best interest is served