We’ve seen endless stories of the risks that lithium ion batteries pose to aircraft, and we’ve even seen an alarming number of electronics catch fire in aircraft cabins. Well, here’s an unusual twist on that…
In this post:
United transatlantic flight diverts over lost laptop
This incident happened on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, and involves United Airlines flight UA126, operating from Washington Dulles (IAD) to Rome Fiumicino (FCO). The flight was operated by a 24-year-old Boeing 767-400ER with the registration code N76054.
The flight took off at 10:22PM local time, and started making its way northeast, climbing up to its initial cruising altitude of 31,000 feet. A little under an hour after takeoff, while the plane was around 100 miles southeast of Boston, the pilots contacted Boston center to report an unusual problem.
The pilots told the air traffic controller that they needed to return to their origin. The reason? A passenger was using a laptop (so it was turned on), and somehow dropped it along the side of the fuselage, and it fell into the cargo hold, and was no longer accessible.
Since the crew couldn’t find it, they made the decision to return to Washington Dulles. The pilots also emphasized how the area of the cargo hold that the laptop fell into was outside of the area with the fire suppression system.
The crew decided not to declare an emergency, and received vectors back to the airport. It’s funny how the air traffic controller then says “that’s a new debrief story,” and “I’ve never heard anything like that before.”
The plane ended up landing safely back at Washington Dulles as 12:35AM, 2hr13min after it first departed. The plane then departed again nearly three hours later, at 3:24AM, and landed in Rome at 5:26PM local time, over four hours after the initially planned 1:05PM arrival time.
You can listen to the entire air traffic control audio below, courtesy of You Can See ATC.
This is an unusual and costly diversion!
We’ve seen plenty of diversions due to lithium ion batteries catching fire in the cabin, but to see a diversion because a passenger somehow dropped a laptop into the cargo hold… how does that even happen?!
It’s not unusual to see laptops or other electronics get stuck in seats, and that can cause a diversion, due to the risk of moving the seat, and the electronic device then catching fire. But where is the gap that allows something to accidentally be dropped into the cargo hold?
I can’t help but wonder if that’s actually what happened, or if the laptop actually got stuck in a seat (or something), and there was some confusion about where it went?
It’s of course good to err on the side of caution, though talk about a costly laptop mistake! The amount of fuel wasted, the crew hours, etc. I would imagine this would be considered an “extraordinary circumstance” for the purposes of EC261 compensation, for those who were booked on the return flight, and delayed by hours (so while the airline had a duty of care, it probably wouldn’t have to pay cash compensation).
Bottom line
A United Airlines Boeing 767 operating a transatlantic flight returned to Washington Dulles after a passenger somehow dropped their laptop into the cargo hold. The laptop was in use, so the concern was that a laptop in the part of the cargo hold without a fire suppression system could pose a risk.
So while the chance of something happening was very small, the airline industry operates with an unwavering commitment to safety, and that’s a good thing. Imagine if the crew had decided to continue, and then something had happened…
What do you make of this United 767 laptop diversion?
There are vents on the side of the cabin below the windows. These are designed to equalize air pressure between the cargo hold and the cabin in case of a depressurization event taking place (e.g. cargo door opens mid flight). Otherwise the cabin floor might collapse and cause catastrophic damage to crucial systems. This was added after the tragic THY DC-10 accident.
There are 2 very disturbing statements in your article: 1) That there are areas in today's commercial aircraft cargo holds with no fire suppression. 2) That there are open spaces large enough for a laptop to go from the passenger area to the cargo area. This would likely provide an easy path for a cargo fire to enter the passenger area. Given the past cargo fires and lose of life, neither of these situations should be permitted.
I lost an employers laptop this way on a EWR-MIA flight in 2006. Landing interrupted late night work, and I set the laptop, on end, next to me against the bulkhead. After landing the laptop was gone. This story explains why. Contracting employer had me gone that week and never back despite good work.
Honestly, I would argue this is the airlines fault by not securing the cargo hold. Especially if something large like a laptop can drop into it causing a hazard this is neglegance. But for sure the airline wouldn't pay EC 261 without beeing sued.
With all the trouble, did they find the laptop?
I am embarrassed to say this happened to me. Sort of. On a Singapore Airlines first class A380 from Kennedy to Frankfurt my iPhone slid down the side of the fuselage and just the same way. They continued the flight to Frankfurt, but the flight was delayed three hours as the phone had gone into an inaccessible area of the aircraft. They had a whole maintenance crew unscrew like literally 1000 screws to get in...
I am embarrassed to say this happened to me. Sort of. On a Singapore Airlines first class A380 from Kennedy to Frankfurt my iPhone slid down the side of the fuselage and just the same way. They continued the flight to Frankfurt, but the flight was delayed three hours as the phone had gone into an inaccessible area of the aircraft. They had a whole maintenance crew unscrew like literally 1000 screws to get in there and recover my phone and the plane could safely go onto Singapore. It’s kind of crazy that the sides of the fuselage there are not shut and things can slide down like that. I had actually not leaned my phone up against the fuselage, but rather I left it on the seat and the flight attendant made my bed for the night and leaned at triangularly against the side. When I got back to my made up bed. I tried to grab it, and I knocked it, and it slid down the fuselage. So it was sort of only half my fault.
Even UA avoids EWR whenever possible.
This is weird…but why go all the way back to Dulles_. Why not just land in Boston, or Providence?
It was not an immediate emergency and with all that fuel, you might as well burn it on the way back rather than dump it over the Atlantic. It's also much easier for a replacement aircraft to be dispatched along with a new set of crew than having to get a reposition a replacement aircraft along with a set of crew from somewhere.
Remember back to when DC10 cargo hatches were blowing open in mid flight. The sudden decompression caused damage to hydraulic and cable systems as the floor boards collapsed. One AA flight was able to make a recovery, a Turkish flight was not so lucky.
Modifications were made by providing holes in the floors so if a cargo hatches released in mid flight, the pressure in the cabin would equalize to that the cargo hold...
Remember back to when DC10 cargo hatches were blowing open in mid flight. The sudden decompression caused damage to hydraulic and cable systems as the floor boards collapsed. One AA flight was able to make a recovery, a Turkish flight was not so lucky.
Modifications were made by providing holes in the floors so if a cargo hatches released in mid flight, the pressure in the cabin would equalize to that the cargo hold with no damage to the floor boards and hydraulic or cable systems.
AFAIK modern aircraft do not have floorboards!
An economy of term to express a complex situation!!
I would have thought it far fetched except my last (albeit domestic) UA flight last month there was a weirdly large opening at the floor of my window seat, to the point I made a mental note to be extra careful about dropping crap. I can see an ultra thin, small laptop slipping down there. Idk how one would drop it- maybe set in on their lap and reached for something and it slipped off?
Maybe when drink or dinner service started, the passenger placed the laptop or laptop to their left like by the arm rest and it slipped through?
Tim Dunn, did you tried to sabotage UA again?
sounds like UA did it to themselves.
I have never seen a gap on any airplane wide enough to let something fall through to the cargo hold.
Is this the Humpty Dumpty aircraft that UA put back together after the hard landing and creased fuselage in Houston?
Play nice, children. Wasn’t the IAH hard landing incident since this laptop was on a 764 and the incident aircraft was a 763.
Reminder that UA is not the only airline playing hard-landing ball and creasing fuselages, anyway… https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/319358
so, United has multiple aircraft with laptop size gaps between the floor and the cabin wall?
Couldn't they have diverted to somewhere like EWR or BOS where they might've had a chance to recover time better and still proceed on their way after a brief ground crew intervention into the cargo hold?
And also, how mad would you all be at that passenger?
What a waste of time, fuel, money.
Yeah, it's not great; but accidents do happen. Would you be 'mad' at the passenger who has a stroke and causes an emergency landing at Shannon, Ireland? No, you'd understand that if it happened to you (or someone you care about), then you'd want the help. Empathy is not weakness.
Empathy is not a weakness, but too much empathy definitely is. The phenomenon has been dubbed "suicidal empathy", and whilst it doesn't apply in this case it's certainly something to watch out for.
Good one, Pete. Obviously, Keep Yourself Safe.
NOPE, Not the passenger's fault that it was a crappy aircraft design if a laptop (OR a battery, or any dangerous object can go through a hole and be stocked between the fuselage and a cabin.
Blame the aircraft manufacturer and the airline for not covering the hole and protect the aircraft from passenger's objects. Probably a small piece of a metallic aluminum screen would have covered it nicely and would allowed air to go thought if air had to go through.
You go where you have replacement crew and replacement aircraft. It's no guarantee that it was to be found quickly.
You would think that EWR would still be the best location. Can't be a better place for finding new staff to roster a flight than your largest east cost hub surely?
I feel like airlines are slowly finding out that carrying passengers is not worth the trouble....
LOL!
It's funny AND true. Air freight is much more lucrative - that's why so many old, gas-guzzling aircraft like the 747-400 that are too inefficient for passenger carriage have found a home in cargo ops. Freight also doesn't argue, try to board with 200 lb of hand luggage, or demand lounge access it's not entitled to.
Another “passengers can’t keep track of their sh*t” story.
Yeah, we need more 'dogs on planes' stories... think of all the 'engagement' opportunities!
(At least Ben rarely does the gender/race/religion rage-bait stories found elsewhere... *cough*)
I can see how this happened as I lost a phone this way.
On the window side of the plane at the bottom, those are panels that can be moved. If there is a gap with the panel where it meets the floor, this can absolutely happen.
Luckily for me we just landed as planned but they did tear the plane apart looking for that phone which was never to be found.
My comment was a criticism of passengers, not Ben.
Classic Jack...
So,did they ever find the laptop??
That's a pretty slim laptop to slip through those vents!
Glad everyone is safe, and that's really unfortunate (and yes, costly for everyone, the airline, the passengers, etc.)
However, I do not believe EU261 applies, for a slightly different reason: US carriers are not obligated on the outbound flight from US-EU, only the return EU-US.
That said, if it were eligible, I'm sure the airline would argue 'extraordinary circumstances' by default, even though it is obligated to prove that, not the passengers.
I've long...
Glad everyone is safe, and that's really unfortunate (and yes, costly for everyone, the airline, the passengers, etc.)
However, I do not believe EU261 applies, for a slightly different reason: US carriers are not obligated on the outbound flight from US-EU, only the return EU-US.
That said, if it were eligible, I'm sure the airline would argue 'extraordinary circumstances' by default, even though it is obligated to prove that, not the passengers.
I've long advocated that the USA needs equivalent air passenger rights legislation so that there is at least a baseline coverage for passengers in the event of such disruptions.
Let's say, instead, this was a staffing issue (United failed to have pilots ready) or a maintenance issue (oops, we forgot to service those engines), then United should be on the hook, not only for re-booking those passengers on the next available flight (or a refund), but also to compensate for the lost time, inconvenience, and failure to operate.
Unfortunately, at the moment, we have no such protections in the USA. Basically, you gave United a zero-interest loan for all those months in-advance that you purchased your ticket, and all they have to do now is refund you (maybe only partially).
It is still wise to get travel insurance, so as to cover the loss of prepaid accommodations, for medical care while overseas, etc. But, often, those policies are limited (delay must be 72 hours or more, 50% of the trip, etc., read that fine print). Clearly, insurance isn't enough. And if the airlines can just blame you, then the incentive for them is to not try to do better.
I still think we deserve better. And, yes, it would take the FAA/DOT/Congress to actually implement something, so we'll have to wait for the adults to get back in-charge, which could be a while.
Remember, if such protections applied, those passengers could have received $600-800 each. Instead, they get nothing! ...but a headache and disappointment.
Thats not completely true that EC261 doesn't apply. If someone had a connection past FCO on a single itinerary, it could apply. You just need one EU carrier as an operator. For example, if you were booked IAD-FCO-MUC, with that FCO-MUC being on ITA or Lufthansa, then EC261 would apply and LH or ITA would have to pay the compensation. The EU carrier is deemed to be an operator on the itinerary because EC261 looks...
Thats not completely true that EC261 doesn't apply. If someone had a connection past FCO on a single itinerary, it could apply. You just need one EU carrier as an operator. For example, if you were booked IAD-FCO-MUC, with that FCO-MUC being on ITA or Lufthansa, then EC261 would apply and LH or ITA would have to pay the compensation. The EU carrier is deemed to be an operator on the itinerary because EC261 looks at connecting flights as a single flight from IAD-MUC (in the given example).
I also think it may apply (not completely sure) if you booked an LH code-share, it would also apply because UA is deemed to be an agent of LH.
Fair point, Nate; if there were some passengers with a ticket like that, then I hope they are able to attempt the claims for compensation and be approved in a reasonable time.
Yet another reason I wish we had equivalent protections for passengers of US carriers.
It's a sad indictment of the modern world when people start demanding compensation for events that even ten short years ago would have been put down to the law of "shit happens".
"I can’t help but wonder if that’s actually what happened, or if the laptop actually got stuck in a seat (or something), and there was some confusion about where it went?"
You see those dark coloured vents below the windows? Those are exhaust vents for cabin air circulation. What happened was the laptop apparently slipped into that vent and fell between into that void between the cabin floor and cargo hold.
I rather be safe...
"I can’t help but wonder if that’s actually what happened, or if the laptop actually got stuck in a seat (or something), and there was some confusion about where it went?"
You see those dark coloured vents below the windows? Those are exhaust vents for cabin air circulation. What happened was the laptop apparently slipped into that vent and fell between into that void between the cabin floor and cargo hold.
I rather be safe than sorry regardless of expense and disruption to travel plans than deal with a Swissair 111 type of incident.
And btw, won't it hurt to incorporate emojis somehow into the blog?!
No need to be a dick.
SR111 was credibly tragic. Faulty wires, but a fire nonetheless. Saudia 163 was another one. Just awful.
I meant *incredibly (though, yeah, I guess it was also 'credibly' bad).
The American 767s have holes in the floor under every seat. All the IFE wireing is done under the floors meaning no over floor seat to seat cables. Even the main IFE & Power boxes are under the floor. It must have been one of these holes that let the laptop drop in.
Uh, American (Airlines) 767s? All retired.
The American 767s have holes in the floor under every seat. All the IFE wireing is done under the floors meaning no over floor seat to seat cables. Even the main IFE & Power boxes are under the floor. It must have been one of these holes that let the laptop drop in.