Engine Issue Forces Emergency Landing at LAX

A United Boeing 787-9 experienced left engine problems shortly after takeoff.

[Credit: WikiMedia Commons]
[Credit: WikiMedia Commons]
Gemini Sparkle

Key Takeaways:

  • A United Airlines Boeing 787-9 flight from Los Angeles (LAX) to Newark was forced to make an emergency return landing shortly after takeoff due to issues with its left engine.
  • Reports indicated smoke from the engine after landing, prompting fire crews to meet the aircraft and a temporary ground stop at LAX.
  • No serious injuries were reported among the 256 passengers and 12 crew members, and the FAA will investigate the incident.
See a mistake? Contact us.

Shortly after departing from Los Angeles on Monday morning, a United Airlines flight was forced to make an emergency return landing after experiencing issues with the aircraft’s left engine. 

The Boeing 787-9 operated flight, which was cross-country bound for Newark, took off around 10:15 Monday morning and made its return landing a little over an hour later. According to reports from local affiliate KABC-TV, smoke could still be seen pluming from the engine roughly 40 minutes after landing.  

“It was crazy, we saw fire trucks and police cars everywhere. We didn’t know what was happening because there was no announcement. It was definitely chaotic and scary,” Francesca Nardelli, a passenger on a nearby flight told the outlet. 

Following the landing, the aircraft was met by fire crews who proceeded to hose off the left engine. Among the 256 passengers and 12 crew members, no serious injuries were reported. 

As a precaution, a ground stop was issued at LAX for about an hour after the flight’s return before being lifted at 12:30. 

Per a statement released by the FAA, the agency said they will investigate the incident.

Parris Clarke

Parris is a writer and content producer for Firecrown. When Parris isn't chasing stories, you can find him watching or playing basketball.

Continue discussion - Visit the forum

Replies: 3

  1. Might be an idea to use an image of a B 787-9 rather than a different aircraft in the fleet.

  2. I wouldn’t be surprised at seeing another plane in the general press or socials, but from an aviation blog such as Avweb ?
    Especially since the Wikimedia image explicitly states that it’s a 767-322ER!

  3. My point entirely. I saw that it was a 767 but didn’t want to add fuel to injury. Hahaha

Sign-up for newsletters & special offers!

Get the latest stories & special offers delivered directly to your inbox

SUBSCRIBE

Please support AVweb.

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker. Ads keep AVweb free and fund our reporting.
Please whitelist AVweb or continue with ads enabled.