Passenger Trains > OT: United Airlines jet hits light pole, truck on NJ Turnpike

A United Airlines flight struck a light pole on the New Jersey Turnpike while on final approach to a runway at Newark Liberty Airport on Sunday, May 3, causing damage to a tractor-trailer truck on the highway and injuring its driver.

United Flight 169 from Venice, Italy, went on to land safely, "without incident," on Runway 29, according to officials at the airline and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the airport.

"The aircraft landed safely, taxied to the gate normally and no passengers or crew were injured," United Airlines stated. "Our maintenance team is evaluating damage to the aircraft. We will conduct a rigorous flight safety investigation into the incident and our crew has been removed from service as part of the process."

United described the aircraft as a Boeing 767-400ER, with 221 passengers and 10 crew aboard.

The incident occurred about 2 p.m., when the aircraft struck a light pole while passing over southbound lanes of the Turnpike. The damaged tractor-trailer was also on the southbound side.

Port Authority Police and New Jersey State Police responded to the Turnpike. The tractor-trailer driver was taken to an area hospital with minor injuries and has since been released, the Port Authority stated in an email response to inquiries from Northjersey.com.

Minor damage to the aircraft was observed, according to the Port Authority. "Airport staff inspected the runway for debris and normal operations were quickly resumed."
Gov. Mikie Sherrill posted on X that she had been briefed on the incident involving United Flight 169 at Newark Liberty International Airport. "I’m grateful the aircraft landed safely, and all passengers and crew are unharmed," she posted.

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2026/05/03/united-flight-clips-nj-turnpike-light-pole-while-landing-at-newark/89923096007/

Paywall bypass if needed:

https://archive.ph/6FMRC#selection-433.0-481.239

Video of the aircraft, and in-cab from the truck that was hit.

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Video of the aircraft, and in-cab from the truck
> that was hit.

Two different perspectives in that video clip, as the first video of the plane was from a car dashcam traveling in the northbound Cars Only lanes of the Turnpike, while the truck that was hit was moving southbound on the ramp from I-78 to the NJTPK. At the time he was struck, it looks like he was moving over from the left lane into the right to merge onto the Cars/Trucks/Buses lanes of the Turnpike.

- Chris

So when the hell did they start allowing heavies to land on 11/29?   

Back when i was flying DC-9's into EWR, they wouldt even let US land on 29 or 11.    we had to endure the 45 minute daisy chain to land on 4 or 22. 

 Ducking under the glide path when on a visual to a short runway is hardly unusual.   Unfortuately, when you fly different size  aircraft, its tough to remember  how much lower the main wheels are than the cockpit.  Especially nose high at low speed coming into a short runway. 
I just cant believe they were landing a 767ER on 29.   Its only 6500' with a 200' displaced threshold due to the turnpike right at the ruway end. 
22R is 9500' 

Im sure they were trying to put the mains down right at the threshold line, or as close to it as possible.  Also when its very windy, its also turbulent near the surface, especially if the wind is coming over buildings.  Suddenly dropping 10' would hardly be unusual, which would be the difference between hitting lightposts and a truck, or not. 
Chances are that the crew never landed on 29 before, as hardly anyone other than the small commuter planes ever do. 

While my personal opinion is that this should be written off to "shit happens"  (tired crew, long flight, short runway, turbulent air) , they will of course try to hang the crew.  They always do.  This is one of the great things that the Union (ALPA) does here.  They know all the rules as well as anybody, and come to the defense of the crew, get them exonerated , or will hammer out a deal with the company.  Saving ppls jobs is what they do best.

   



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/26 23:43 by pdt.

One of the local New York City local tv news stations said strong winds 25 to 40 mph from west to east was the reason for use of the short runway. I drove north on the Turnpike from Exit  4 to 16 earlier in the day and definitely dealt with the crosswinds the entire way. I passed the airport about an hour before the incident and at that time CSX's B&O heritage and the Spirit of Law Enforcement units were sitting in the intermodal yard across from the airport.

Thanks to pdt for the added information about EWR from a pilot's standpoint.

Here is a diagram of the airport, showing how much shorter Rwy 11/29 is than either of the paired 4/22.

---

And here is a Google Earth view of EWR.  Yes indeed, they were landing a 767-400ER on 29.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/26 23:43 by GenePoon.

---

DJLRailProductions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the local New York City local tv news stations said strong winds
> 25 to 40 mph from west to east was the reason for use of the short runway.

Sounds reasonable. One of those situations where one either uses the crosswind runway or finds another airport. There is not any room for a longer crosswind runway.

justalurker66 Wrote:
>
> Sounds reasonable. One of those situations where
> one either uses the crosswind runway or finds
> another airport. There is not any room for a
> longer crosswind runway.

Might we see a new reg coming out of FAA/DOT given this incident that could have been a disaster: zero use of such planes on short runways, so it goes to JFK. Bus the passengers back to EWR. 

I'm sure there is, but don't know it, what's the minimum length of runway for a landing a 767?  My wife showed me the video yestereday afternoon, couldn't believe it.  I'm glad the truck driver is ok, boy does he have a tale to tell now.  "I was minding my own business when baam, right in the kisser!"

Nathan

I would like to know what the ATIS and tower wind report were at the time.  If either  reported gusts of 40 mph 
or more, caution and perhaps diversion may have been advised.

On a prior incident, a pilot buddy, retired from a major airline, said he would not land a heavy on a short runway if 
gusts were reported at 42 mph.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/26 07:00 by GenePoon.

with the minimal height above sea level, the Port Authority can't depress the access road at the west end of the runway to add another 1000 feet to the runway.  Much less tackle US 1-9.

The property is locked into a 1930s footprint, and that's not going to change.

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So when the hell did they start allowing heavies
> to land on 11/29?   
>
> Back when i was flying DC-9's into EWR, they
> wouldt even let US land on 29 or 11.    we had
> to endure the 45 minute daisy chain to land on 4
> or 22. 
>
>  Ducking under the glide path when on a visual to
> a short runway is hardly unusual.  
> Unfortuately, when you fly different size 
> aircraft, its tough to remember  how much lower
> the main wheels are than the cockpit.  Especially
> nose high at low speed coming into a short
> runway. 
> I just cant believe they were landing a 767ER on
> 29.   Its only 6500' with a 200' displaced
> threshold due to the turnpike right at the ruway
> end. 
> 22R is 9500' 
>
> Im sure they were trying to put the mains down
> right at the threshold line, or as close to it as
> possible.  Also when its very windy, its also
> turbulent near the surface, especially if the wind
> is coming over buildings.  Suddenly dropping 10'
> would hardly be unusual, which would be the
> difference between hitting lightposts and a truck,
> or not. 
> Chances are that the crew never landed on 29
> before, as hardly anyone other than the small
> commuter planes ever do. 
>
> While my personal opinion is that this should be
> written off to "shit happens"  (tired crew, long
> flight, short runway, turbulent air) , they will
> of course try to hang the crew.  They always
> do.  This is one of the great things that the
> Union (ALPA) does here.  They know all the rules
> as well as anybody, and come to the defense of the
> crew, get them exonerated , or will hammer out a
> deal with the company.  Saving ppls jobs is what
> they do best.
>
>    It's refreshing to read a topic  where the commentator has actual experience. Thank You, pdt.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would like to know what the ATIS and tower wind
> report were at the time. 

I've listened the ATC recording. (VASAviation). KEWR tower cleared UA 169 to land on runway 29, "wind 300 at 15, gusts 31". 767 crew would have input wind, landing weight, runway condition, etc. into computer which in turn will recommend auto-brake, thrust reverse settings as well as roll-out distance. I am a commercial pilot and have landed in gusty winds. You always carry a little extra airspeed than normal approach speed.
NTSB will investigate and the flight data recorder will tell the tale. While it's possible the pilot flying had dropped below the desired glide path intentionally, it's more likely that a sudden (very common) down draft pushed the aircraft into the surface objects.

BB



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/26 07:59 by bmarti7.

The NJ Turnpike is about 12 lanes wide at that point, with merging and diverging lanes. There are usually container ships on the east side of the Turnpike. It may have been a challenging visual for a pilot team unfamiliar with the layout.

Glad nobody was seriously injured.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NJ Turnpike is about 12 lanes wide at that
> point, with merging and diverging lanes. There are
> usually container ships on the east side of the
> Turnpike. It may have been a challenging visual
> for a pilot team unfamiliar with the layout.
>
> Glad nobody was seriously injured.

The land, highways, airport, ship terminals etc. are heavily over built in this crammed in space by Newark Airport - but welcome to the metropolitan NYC area........The NEC buffers on the west and ex-CNJ freight line on the east. It's a LOT of moving parts in one area, but lets throw it all in - kitchen sink too......People often say - this is the one stretch of area where all transportation is parallel to each other (e.g. railroad, roadway, shipping, plans).

Sad to see this happen, but have driven this stretch of the NJ Turnpike and have often wondered how there hasn't been an accident before now. And yeah - 12 lanes of a highway - does that tell you we need to have better passenger rail in the United States to move people? 

They were landing on Runway 29 because it was the only usable runway because of the winds. Per the ATIS the reported winds were 300 degrees at 15 knots with gusts to 31 knots.
You always compute for the worst condition so you use the 31 knot wind. On Runway 29 the winds were only 10 degrees off of the runway heading so at most you had a 5 knot crosswind. Very easily handled in a large aircraft. But on the other runways, Runways 22L and 22R the winds were 80 degrees off the runway heading. And 80 degrees off the runway heading at 31 knots gives you a 30 knot crosswind which is outside the allowable crosswind for most large aircraft. Plus being a short (for this aircraft) runway they had their work cut out for them.
The Digital Flight Recorder, aka "The Black Box" and the Cockpit Voice Recorder will tell all.  But if it was only one of the wheels on the landing gear that clipped the light pole they may not have known something had happened. Their attention was focused on the runway ahead of them.

> So when the hell did they start allowing
> heavies to land on 11/29?

More than 20 years ago -- maybe way more. The
airliners.net discussion might say.

Looks like the truck wasn't actually on I-95,
it was on an on-ramp   https://maps.app.goo.gl/G5ARug2qkfRqAzjh8

Scroll down to post #168

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1509521&start=150

People wonder if the pic is real; in post 189 someone
is inclined to think it is.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/26 12:58 by timz.

The northbound outer (northbound) lanes of the NJ Turnpike have rising exit ramps which feed into the Hudson County extension and Exit 14.  So it is possible the ramp was 20-25 feet higher than the main roadway. And a light pole could be another 20 feet above that. Forty to 50 feet of elevation, especially for something as thin as a light pole may not have registered with the pilots. It's not a smokestack or container ship. 

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The northbound outer (northbound) lanes of the NJ
> Turnpike have rising exit ramps which feed into
> the Hudson County extension and Exit 14.  So it
> is possible the ramp was 20-25 feet higher than
> the main roadway. And a light pole could be
> another 20 feet above that. Forty to 50 feet of
> elevation, especially for something as thin as a
> light pole may not have registered with the
> pilots. It's not a smokestack or container ship. 

Then the question becomes was that light pole in the clear zone for the runway? Maybe a shorter pole or even one that does not overhang the roadway should have been installed.
I'm sure the NTSB Report will cover all this stuff.