Here’s a video that aviation geeks should enjoy…
In this post:
A United jet’s unusual go around in Zurich
A spotter in Zurich has uploaded a video to YouTube of a 32-year-old United Airlines Boeing 767-300ER going around at Zurich Airport (ZRH). This occurred on May 30, 2024, and involves flight UA52 from Washington (IAD), with the aircraft in question having the registration code N654UA. While go arounds happen all the time, this one is unique.
In the video, the aircraft can be seen trying to land on runway 28, which is the airport’s shortest runway, at just over 8,200 feet in length. According to the user who uploaded the video, there was no crosswind at the time of this go around, but the runway was wet.
You can see the aircraft first touching down just past the touchdown zone markings, so that’s pretty standard. Despite what looks like a pretty smooth landing, the aircraft bounces, and then struggles to stay on the ground.
Eventually the pilots decide to executive a go around, at which point they throttle up the engines and push the nose down, in order to gain speed. The aircraft ended up doing another pattern for the same runway, and landed safely around 15 minutes later.
I’m curious what exactly happened here
This event isn’t at all a big deal — go arounds are standard procedures, though this is definitely one of the more memorable ones I’ve seen.
I can’t help but be curious what exactly happened here. Admittedly part of the challenge is that the angle from which the video is shot sort of exaggerates all the movements of the aircraft. You notice every movement more than if you were at the halfway point of the runway, and to the side. That’s totally fair, since it makes for much more interesting plane spotting videos.
I wonder at what point the jet actually took off again, and successfully executed the go around, since you can’t really tell from this angle. Did the plane only get off the ground with feet to spare, or was there more room than that?
I’m also curious what caused this in the first place. Did the pilots flare too early? Were the spoilers not deployed? Was this just some freak incident?
Bottom line
While all’s well that ends well, there’s some pretty cool footage of a United Boeing 767 performing a go around at Zurich Airport. The jet bounced quite a bit, before the pilots eventually decided to perform a go around. The plane landed successfully with a second attempt, though for aviation geeks, we at least get a fun video out of it.
What do you make of this United go around?
Absolutely nothing to see here. The first approach was appearing normal but when something such as a momentary wind shift happens the crew did the standard procedure of a go-around.
Seeing some say the spoilers didn’t deploy. Looked fully deployed to me.
That Lufthansa 747 in LA was German Whites. Like the whitest of the whites. Hmm
"Looks like there's an issue with the pilot"
"The pilot? What is it?"
"It's the person that flies the plane, but that's not important right now..."
United has promised to only hire the most qualified pilots available. Oh wait, I forgot they have promised to hire 50% minimum female and minorities, qualifications and your safety is taking a back seat, like the very last row that does not recline and smells as bad as the lavatory right behind it.
They may get an invitation to have a chat with United's chief pilot!
Ah yes. The “only white males should be allowed to fly planes” trope.
Btw what came first for you, being an incel or not having your testicles descend? Inquiring minds want to know.
There's a ton of qualified minority and female pilots out there. DEI procedures are not responsible for poor flying or bad maintenance.
Hmmm. Do you have evidence there were anything other than two white males in the flight deck?
What was the difference in airspeed/groundspeed in the first attempt vs the second?
That'd be helpful information, if they were coming in hot for instance. And it's available from FR24.
This is basically a lousy landing, which you can see many times per day (or hour) at your local airport. Spoilers are a secondary issue, but an issue none the less.
A little unorthodox, but they eventually got on the ground without bending the airplane, so all was well.
no, just no.
A WN 737 veered badly off course and was headed for the tower at LGA. Not ok and all was not well.
No one was killed in the bad landing of a UA 767 but the plane spent months getting fixed. Not all was well.
ATC and pilots have screwed up multiple times and no one was killed and no metal bent but we do not consider those flights as "well"
As an airline flight instructor, the approach was stable until the aircraft crossed the threshold. For whatever reason, the pilot flying started over controlling the aircraft. At one point, the aircraft bounced and the pilot flying was trying to save a bad landing which then resulted in a further unstable landing. TOGA was the best alternative at this point. Had the spoilers come up or worse, the pilot deployed the thrust reversers, they would have...
As an airline flight instructor, the approach was stable until the aircraft crossed the threshold. For whatever reason, the pilot flying started over controlling the aircraft. At one point, the aircraft bounced and the pilot flying was trying to save a bad landing which then resulted in a further unstable landing. TOGA was the best alternative at this point. Had the spoilers come up or worse, the pilot deployed the thrust reversers, they would have been committed to the bad landing.
Most important is everything one safe and made good decisions to go around. Good job !!
I know very well ZRH I’ll be there soon
Wow the english language takes some odd turns when used by journalists. Let's execute a executive decision.
One notes an interesting omission from the weekly review ….
That being the report earlier this week that a fatality occurred at Amsterdam airport.
The fatality occurred after a person “Entered a KLM aircraft engine”. (The vague quote from one report)
Would anyone (Ben) like to elaborate?
Observe the successful landing. Go to 1:40 on the video. You can see the air action of the thrust reversers. This is readily observable on any landing. It is not present at any point on the unsuccessful landing.
Given the little time involved, is can't imagine the ability to deploy/retract the thrust reversers and spin the motors up again for take off.
I recall that current practice is never to reject a landing once reverse has been selected.
If the thrust reversers are deployed, most airlines will state that a go around is not authorized. When weight on wheels is detected, the spoilers will (usually) deploy but will retract automatically with TOGA thrust. The WOW is another reason that the pilots don't "grease" the landings as they want WOW as soon as possible. That's why a go around is initiated as early as necessary. Go around only uses up more fuel rather than...
If the thrust reversers are deployed, most airlines will state that a go around is not authorized. When weight on wheels is detected, the spoilers will (usually) deploy but will retract automatically with TOGA thrust. The WOW is another reason that the pilots don't "grease" the landings as they want WOW as soon as possible. That's why a go around is initiated as early as necessary. Go around only uses up more fuel rather than sacrifice the safety to "save" a bad landing.
“Eventually the pilots decide to executive a go around”
He Lucky I think you meant to say execute not executive.
Slow news day apparently. Ridiculous
I am sure the passengers on that UA flight expected a "slow day" on their arrival to ZRH but got a real adrenaline rush instead.
It's significant aviation news.
We understand that some people don't want to read or hear anything negative but Ben has every right and reason to cover it.
but, hey, Polaris is consistent across their fleet so it doesn't matter that UA, for some reason, has way more incidents...
I am sure the passengers on that UA flight expected a "slow day" on their arrival to ZRH but got a real adrenaline rush instead.
It's significant aviation news.
We understand that some people don't want to read or hear anything negative but Ben has every right and reason to cover it.
but, hey, Polaris is consistent across their fleet so it doesn't matter that UA, for some reason, has way more incidents on their 767s than on they or other airlines have on other fleets, right?
Looks like the spoilers failed to deploy.
You are not curious. You are a trouble maker. In my words a CUNNING person.
Music to my hears: GO AROUND and ABORTED TAKE OFF !
ORD is UA2 while IAD is UA52
Looks like arming the spoilers was missed in the landing checklist. When they touched down they didn’t deploy which didn’t prevent the airplane to bounce on a firm landing. Bouncing on landing is an immediate go around with these planes which at slow speed, low energy is a lot of work. They obviously didn’t forget to arm them the second time and you see them deploying.
DING DING DING, You and the others that noticed the lack of spoilers are spot on. No auto spoilers. At any time the non flying pilot could have and should have deployed them manually. We have a call, (different airline) NO SPOILERS, at which time someone needs to get the spoilers. Normal touchdown, lots of awful inputs afterwards. A complete breakdown of crew coordination, until someone yelled go around.
Yes, most likely spoilers were missed in checklist - although we will likely never know
Agree. Speed brakes were not armed - usually part of the landing checklist. Main gear runway contact would have deployed the speed brakes and dumped all "lift" and established firm contact with the ground.
Wonder if a go around was planned in the first place - hence Speed Brakes were not Armed!
I was on this airplane and after the go around the cockpit communicated that the control tower had required them to go around. This supports your guess about the go around being planned in the first place.
It’s possible that the tower had instructed your plane to go around after they used up half the runway bouncing around. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the spoilers failed to deploy on the first landing attempt, which strongly implies that the crew missed something or in the before landing checklist.
I’m glad everyone was safe. I fly UA all the time - I hope this crew learns from this experience and doesn’t let it happen again.
Why go from side to side like that? Was the pilot steering it like that? Scary!!
Non English speaker / low cost employee
Since when are United pilots low cost or not English speakers? Clearly you know almost nothing about flying and airlines
Also notice the almost tail strike.
This is clearly the work of not enough DEI at the airline…more diversity and they never would have had to do a go-around.
Just about the stupidest comment you could have possibly made.
It’s truly funny winding up the MAGA mouth breathers
That 737 that went off the deep end in Houston was from a 61 y/o cap. Pretty sure that was during segregation times. So good, right?
Not that it matters, but the plane came from Washington. UA53 is IAD-ZRH
One possible cause is that the vertical speed (downward, usually expressed in feet/minute) was high enough to produce a bounce after the first touchdown. If the pilot flying did not move quickly enough to arrest that, it would lead to the second and third bounces.
The best way to recover from this, assuming the bounce can't be controlled within the remaining runway, is to go around and be more careful about the vertical speed, or sink rate, on subsequent approaches.
When in doubt
Go around!!!
It's often a non verbalized feeling
It's close to instinct
" if it don't feel right.. it ain't right" the words of my flight instructor.
In the first landing, the descent looked rapid. The landing gear piston was fully extended from the pressure bouncing the wheel. The spoilers were not deployed and the flaps were minimum.
The issue is that the pilot did not maintain flair attitude. The pilot dropped the nose just prior to touching down. Chewed up way too much runway. Absolutely pilot error.
PS
If slats not deployed > stall warning > instinctual drop nose > too hot.
Upon further review by the replay official, slats were deployed on the first landing. So, not a stall warning. But, breaking flair attitude remains. Bad form. Came in too hot. Bouncing occupied pilot. Never deployed over-wing spoilers or thrust reversers. No way to stop. No choice.
How can you see if thrust reversers weren’t deployed from that angle? It’s straight on. I thought spoilers automatically engage when rear wheels hit the ground? Did they not arm them?
Sorry. See my response above as a new comment.
Go arounds, unpleasant and unsettling as they are, are fairly common. The issue here is "a 32 year old airplane". That's frightening.
This isn't a go-around, but a baulked landing. They come in nice and stabilized, but things get funky once they're in ground effect (where the distance to ground is under half a wingspan). Typically, one bounce is okay, but that second one will not end well (you're losing airspeed and lift, and will come down even harder). On the second hop, TOGA (inhibiting spoilers), nose down (speed increases), engines spool up (adding lift, slowing the...
This isn't a go-around, but a baulked landing. They come in nice and stabilized, but things get funky once they're in ground effect (where the distance to ground is under half a wingspan). Typically, one bounce is okay, but that second one will not end well (you're losing airspeed and lift, and will come down even harder). On the second hop, TOGA (inhibiting spoilers), nose down (speed increases), engines spool up (adding lift, slowing the descent), a decent touchdown, so de-crab and go around.
Only to those who don't really understand what actually causes wear on an aircraft.
I'll take a 30-yr-old widebody, that only does 2 cycles per day on longhaul segments...
...over a 10-yr-old example of the same model, that does 5x daily ATL-MCO, any day.
The latter is going to be far more worn down, with higher maintenance requirements.
If you look closely at the go around, it appears that ths spoilers didn't actuate. Weight-on-wheels sensor issue or pilots forgot go arm? I can't see them at all over the wings, but on 2nd attempt you can see them actuate. That would also explain the bounce and float.
I thought this same thing, but if you look closely at the left wing right before they drop the nose gear on the go around you can see the spoiler retract. I think they just came in too hot on the first attempt.
Very interesting.
Also, fyi, you write the following: "Eventually the pilots decide to executive a go around"
I think you mean "execute".
Weather conditions seem negligible. You can see a pitch-down input at the beginning of the video, which increases sink rate, followed by a fairly significant nose-up input, albeit insufficient to halt the descent, leading to a hard and fast touchdown with a lateral deviation favoring the right wing. You can see over-corrections in pitch and yaw motions down the runway which squirts the plane all over the place. It looks like the captain let the...
Weather conditions seem negligible. You can see a pitch-down input at the beginning of the video, which increases sink rate, followed by a fairly significant nose-up input, albeit insufficient to halt the descent, leading to a hard and fast touchdown with a lateral deviation favoring the right wing. You can see over-corrections in pitch and yaw motions down the runway which squirts the plane all over the place. It looks like the captain let the F/O try and land, and took over down the runway. Interesting video.
Not negligible, when the pilot flying was so undone by a moderate crosswind (from the right, mostly) that they forgot, or neglected, to decrab, which would have simplified a 3-dimensional problem into a 2-dimensional problem.
The pilots may have forgotten to arm the speed brakes which is part of the before landing items to do.
When SB is armed, they will deploy when weight is sensed on the main landing gears. Deployment of SB will dump lift from the wings and create the drag necessary for a safe stop. Not have SB deployed during rollout will require them to go around.
Was there a new co-pilot, who the captain let land the aircraft? Appears the issue was the noise wasn't put down. UA has been hiring lots of new pilots - many without Air Force experience.
The era of airlines hiring mainly from the Air Force (or Marine aviators) is long gone, there's just not enough feed from the military given the size of the current big airlines. Also, there was that thing about CRM skills having to be ingrained.
We don't know who was the pilot flying. I don't know, but I am rather doubting that it was an experience issue, as you don't usually attain wide-body assignment without experience...though,...
The era of airlines hiring mainly from the Air Force (or Marine aviators) is long gone, there's just not enough feed from the military given the size of the current big airlines. Also, there was that thing about CRM skills having to be ingrained.
We don't know who was the pilot flying. I don't know, but I am rather doubting that it was an experience issue, as you don't usually attain wide-body assignment without experience...though, yes, an experienced pilot can still be relatively new to the type. If there's a reason for a report escalated beyond ATC and UA's Chief Pilot, we'll know more then, but likely not...
UA is hiring 767/757 FOs with more or less no PIC time from regionals.
Yes, commenters need to shut up about "DEI" and focus on the juniority problem. There are far fewer experienced pilots, including on international widebody routes, than it did five years ago. Your chances of getting a "Sully" have gone way down.
Not a clue what happened...but such a great video! And a great location for plane spotting!
fantastic controlled response... nose down throttle up. Experienced crew
fantastic controlled response... nose down throttle up and get the hell out of there. rapid communication great captain together with co-pilot
Actually, new hires have been going to the 757/767 fleet (and 777/787) for years, now.
@TravelinWilly Grow up
Grow a sense of humour and calm down, sweetie.
I think it was just a playful, sarcastic comment… notice the “:)” at the end.
Based
Thanks, BOEING!
:)