United Airlines Boeing 777 Rejects Takeoff, Evacuates Cabin Due To Smoke



A United Airlines flight at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport aborted takeoff and evacuated its passengers due to smoke in the cabin. The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200, had accelerated to around 90 knots before rejecting takeoff. The investigation into the cause of the smoke is ongoing. Let’s take a closer look at this incident in today’s video.

Article: https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-boeing-777-evacuated-smoke-cabin/

Our Social Media:
https://www.instagram.com/simpleflyin…
https://twitter.com/simple_flying
https://www.facebook.com/simpleflying…
Our Website
https://simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: [email protected]

source

48 thoughts on “United Airlines Boeing 777 Rejects Takeoff, Evacuates Cabin Due To Smoke”

  1. Can you folks at β€˜Simple Flying’ get any info on how the flight crew was made aware of the cabin smoke in time to start and reject takeoff roll. Was it a flight deck warning of some kind?

    Reply
  2. 100,000+ flight hours.
    This bird needs to be retired. Especially with a past history of incidents and coming after the 2 other major United 777-200 incidents (Denver and Honolulu) in recent years with ships
    N772UA and N773UA
    The first Gen 777-200 have reached the end of their lives

    Reply
  3. Curious on what information pilots got to make the abort decision so quickly. Smok alarm on display? cabin crew calling to advise smoke in cabin (uf som would have been very fast). Did smoke start when engines revved up for take off, or did it start when engines started and pilots hope ir was just engine startup smoke that would clear, but after revving up, crew advised smoked continued?
    Aborting takeoff is usually not based on a hunch but rather hard information.

    Reply
  4. I can’t believe you all want to compare AA to UA aircraft. Thing go wrong on aircraft and nothing is probably connected to each other. This happened on aircraft all the time and are minor, but crews are safety first mindset. Then you go threw issues that happen in the past. I can tell you maintenance personnel would never let an unsafe aircraft fly if it’s not safe. Shame on you for comparing issues in the past.

    Reply
  5. Perhaps due to the fact that the Aircraft is more than 25 years old and has clocked more than 100,000 of running,, the system is showing signs of its age ,,,with history of trouble on earlier occasions also ,,it is perhaps time the Aircraft deserves a thorough check up and replace any potential or likely thorny parts before it is put back on the run,, the safety of passenger should be top concern of the airline authority

    Reply
  6. I have been watching aviation related videos/documentaries for a while and it seems that 80% of crashes/incidents happen at or going to Schiphol airport. I am never flying to or from that airport, EVER!

    Reply
  7. Nothing to see here – aircrew were made aware of a problem, and chose not to take it into the air. Followed the correct procedure with an RTO and chose to carry out an evacuation (their prerogative – they were there and made the decision on what they knew and could see). Did I really hear that it took 10 minutes for the Emergency services to arrive? They could have all been dead in that time….

    Reply
  8. I don't have a problem with United taking their 777s deep into their lives, that airframe is good for 180,000 flight hours, however they gotta make sure they are well maintained and looked after in that event.

    Reply

Leave a Comment