Aircraft engine failures happen pretty frequently, and they’re not a huge deal. However, here’s an example of one that looked much worse than it was, given that it started a small fire on the ground.
In this post:
United flight from Washington to Tokyo suffers engine failure
This incident happened on Saturday, December 13, 2025, and involves United Airlines flight UA803, operating from Washington Dulles (IAD) to Tokyo Haneda (HND). The flight was operated by a 27-year-old Boeing 777-200ER with the registration code N78004, and it had 290 people onboard, including 275 passengers and 15 crew members.
Shortly after taking off from runway 01C, at around 12:35PM, the crew declared a “mayday,” as they lost power in the left hand engine, and part of the engine cover also separated from the aircraft. The plane continued its climb to 5,000 feet, entered a holding pattern, and then dumped fuel, to lower its landing weight.
The plane then landed back at the airport around 45 minutes after the initial departure.
Following the incident, United released the following statement:
“Shortly after takeoff, United flight 803 returned to Washington Dulles and landed safely to address the loss of power in one engine. There were no reported injuries. We’ve temporarily closed a United Club lounge at Dulles to help assist our customers and work to get them to their destinations. United is grateful to our crews and to the teams at Washington Dulles for their quick work to help ensure the safety of everyone involved.”
Impressively, United managed to rebook all passengers for a flight on the same day, so the airline got a spare aircraft and crew pretty quickly (since the initial crew timed out). The replacement flight ended up taking off at 7:15PM, around seven hours behind schedule. It’s scheduled to land in Tokyo a little before 11PM, around six hours behind schedule. That’s not bad, all things considered!
This engine failure started a brush fire near the airport
I think the most interesting aspect of this story is that the plane’s engine failure somehow sparked a brush fire on the ground right by the airport. Obviously any sort of smoke coming from an airport is scary, given fears that the smoke may involve the aircraft as such.
It would appear that what happened is that a piece of the engine cover separated from the plane and caught fire, sparking a brush fire on the ground. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy took to social media to write about this, and about how he was briefed on the situation.
That of course sounds a little dramatic for a basic engine failure, but given the optics of smoke coming from near an airport, I can understand why this was addressed.
Bottom line
A United Boeing 777 flying departing Washington for Tokyo had an engine failure shortly after takeoff. That’s not a huge story in and of itself, except for the fact that part of the engine cover separated from the aircraft, and it caused a brush fire on the ground.
All-in-all, United handled this situation really well, with no one being injured, and passengers getting to Tokyo with a delay of around six hours.
What do you make of this United engine failure with a twist?
How mush longer will it be before Ben, takes full responsibility for the misuse of this website.
This website has lost its name and it will not be very long before those who support this website commercially, will realise the error of their ways too.
Get a grip Ben, yes?
I am VERY concerned by this. Perhaps one of the organ grinding monkeys has a comment?
I sure do! This is concerning to see!
Surprising (in a good way) that it sounds like they dedicated a lounge to the passengers to help handle the disruption?
I hope IATA is investigating.
Spare aircraft and crew on the ready is pretty impressive. The 772s are getting super old. The domestic version with 2-4-2 rear-facing is my least favorite wide-body United operates. Wasn’t there a similar engine failure (and blowout) from DEN a little while back?
This particular frame was an ex-Continental bird, built and delivered in 1998. The domestic versions of UA's 777s are 777-200s (non-ER) and are among the very first off the assembly line, with the first, N777UA, retired this month after 30 years of service. UA's fleet of 767-300ERs, 767-400ERs, 777-200ERs, are getting old and while the 787s are replacements for the most part (unclear what UA will do with that A359 order from its pre-merger days),...
This particular frame was an ex-Continental bird, built and delivered in 1998. The domestic versions of UA's 777s are 777-200s (non-ER) and are among the very first off the assembly line, with the first, N777UA, retired this month after 30 years of service. UA's fleet of 767-300ERs, 767-400ERs, 777-200ERs, are getting old and while the 787s are replacements for the most part (unclear what UA will do with that A359 order from its pre-merger days), it will be a long while before the next batch of 100 787s will be able to fully replace the remaining 76s and 77s.
Duffy is such a drama queen and attention whore. I’m surprised he didn’t say, “This is what happens when passengers don’t dress appropriately.”
Aren’t they all?