Watch: Boeing 777 Aborts Takeoff At Terrifying Speed—Glowing Red Brakes, Burst Tires, And Why Pilots Risked It

A LATAM Airlines Brasil Boeing 777-300ER (PT‑MUH) from São Paulo Guarulhos to Lisbon on the evening of February 15, 2026 at very high speed. Airport fire and rescue responded. The flight was canceled. The aircraft ended up on a parallel taxiway and remained there for 14-plus hours before being moved.

• No injuries were reported on flight 8146, which makes this abort all the more fascinating to watch.

• There were drone disruptions that day, and operations at the airport were suspended, though it’s unclear if that’s related.

• There are reports of possible engine overheating as well.

The aircraft accelerated, began rotation (nose gear lifting), and then the crew rejected the takeoff, stopping near the runway end and vacating at the very end onto the parallel taxiway where emergency services met it and passengers deplaned via stairs.

LATAM 777-300ER rejects takeoff at ~178 knots… past rotation speed.. on runway 09L at São Paulo Guarulhos. Nose gear lifted, then max braking!

Glowing red brakes, burst tires , safe stop but taxiway blocked 12 hours, pax offloaded there.

Standard rule: After V1, continue… pic.twitter.com/d6cpr28cA6

— Fahad Naim (@Fahadnaimb) February 16, 2026

It had reached roughly 174–178 knots ground speed. You’ll see (3) speeds referenced.

• V1 (“decision speed”): the speed where the crew is committed to continue, because rejecting beyond it may not stop on the runway. It’s the maximum speed at which a rejected takeoff can be initiated and still be expected to stop safely. It’s also the minimum speed at which takeoff can be continued after an engine failure.

• Vr (“rotation speed”): the speed at which the pilot initiates the pitch-up (“rotate”). Vr cannot be less than V1.I’m v

• V2 (“takeoff safety speed”): the target climb speed after liftoff that ensures climb with one engine inoperative.

At high speed, the airplane’s kinetic energy is enormous, and stopping turns that energy into heat. You’re seeing brake temperatures soaring – and glowing brakes from the red hot metal.

The nosewheel lifting is consistent with the aircraft being at or near Vr, which is at or above V1. So this is described as rejecting takeoff “after V1.” Normally at this speed, with a serious failure, you accept flight, and climb away from obstacles.

We don’t yet know why the pilots of this flight rejected takeoff. I’m very much not a pilot and would love to hear from pilot readers on this incident.

There may have been indications of a serious engine problem that looked worse than a normal engine failure. There are reports of pilots telling passengers there was overheating in one engine. That could mean exhaust gas temperature too high, an engine surge or stall, actual engine fire or thrust rollback.

If it wasn’t just failing but pilots believed it was violently uncontained in a way that might cause structural damange, they might decide to keep the plane on the ground even though a simple engine failure with loss of thrust would normally mean continue and climb on one engine.

A rare, severe windshear right at rotation could cause the plane not to want to fly. We see the nose come up and back down. Or there could have been a major flight control issue that showed up only when rotating, although most configuration issues would show up earlier in the takeoff roll and with the video showing the aircraft pitching up it’s not obviously total pitch-control failure.

And given that there were major drone disruptions earlier in the day, if there was some sort of hazard ahead of them they might make an emergency stop.

So how did they manage to stop past V1? That’s the pint you might run out of runway. You normally continue unless there is reason to believe the aircraft will not fly.

• They may not have actually been past V1. It’s inferred from tracker ground speed and the nose-lift. But we don’t have computed V-speeds and wind.
  
• Runway available exceeded runway required. The stop beyond V1 becomes punishing on brakes and tires, but possible.
  
• Perfect piloting. The video shows immediate aggressive stopping. The earlier the reject call and the faster they reached max braking, the better the stopping margin.
  
• Good conditions for stopping. Headwind, cool temps, and a dry runway can help.

Pilots were clearly trading risks at this point. With a contained engine failure, continuing is usually safer than stopping. But for an uncontained failure, serious fire or major structural problem (which isn’t obvious from what we’re seeing) continuing could lead to loss of control, inability to climb, or catastrophic damage while airborne.

A late abort risks runway overrun at very high speed, brake and tire failures and fire, and a hazardous evacuation. Here they wound up mainly with brake and tire damage and a disruption at the airport. So the costs weren’t as significant as they might have been. Based on what we know now, it looks like the crew perceived a severe engine or system problem at or near rotation and chose the least-bad option, which wound up as brake and tire issues rather than an airborne emergency.