Yikes!

 

 

 

I've driven the NJ turnpike past the Newark Airport, EWR, at least a couple hundred times.  I've never seen any aircraft use the runway perpendicular to the turnpike(11/29), only the runways that run ~ parallel.  Runway 4L/22R is 11,000 ft and 4R/22L is 10,000 ft long.

Why have a 767 land on runway 11/29 that is only 6,700 ft long.  Landing distance for a 767 is 5000 to 6,000 ft.  The ATC's fault or the pilot trying to stick the landing on a short runway?

Anyway, the poor truck driver deserves a raise and a commendation of some sort.  

Addendum:  I just read that they were directed to use runway 29 due to windy conditions. 

Edited May 5May 5 by tdflightsim

It’s common for larger aircraft to hit the runway as early as possible at Newark.  The fact this is “common” IS THE problem.

They exceeded safety margins and shouldn’t have even tried to stick the landing and gone to alternate … takes two to tango so both ATC and Pilot error.  Is the NTSB and FAA still being funded … I thought captain numb nuts felt that such organizations are a waste of “his” money 😉

 

On 5/5/2026 at 10:13 AM, tdflightsim said:

Anyway, the poor truck driver deserves a raise and a commendation of some sort.  

The fat lawsuit will do just as well.

I heard on the news that airliners normally have about 90ft of clearance over the turnpike when landing on runway 29.  Yikes!

On 5/5/2026 at 9:53 AM, SayAgain said:

It’s common for larger aircraft to hit the runway as early as possible at Newark.  The fact this is “common” IS THE problem.

They exceeded safety margins and shouldn’t have even tried to stick the landing and gone to alternate … takes two to tango so both ATC and Pilot error.  Is the NTSB and FAA still being funded … I thought captain numb nuts felt that such organizations are a waste of “his” money 😉

 

You clearly have some strong opinions about this. That being said what solutions do you propose? I don’t see how ATC was at fault for this.

2 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

You clearly have some strong opinions about this. That being said what solutions do you propose? I don’t see how ATC was at fault for this.

he says its the pilots and atc  fault for this

update

 

At a minimum, there is a United Airline PIC looking for a new job.

On 5/6/2026 at 11:40 PM, pete_auau said:

he says its the pilots and atc  fault for this

Ah ok, YouTube is the official determination of truth now? Good grief, we are in more trouble that I thought.

10 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Ah ok, YouTube is the official determination of truth now? Good grief, we are in more trouble that I thought.

guess his experience doesn't come into effect than

I have landed on EWR runway 29 several times. It is "IMPOSSIBLE" to strike a vehicle on the NJ Tpk if the aircraft is on the proper glide path as identified by visually using the PAPI (3°).

This incident has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with any ATC guidance or other communications. This pilot at the controls flew a path below the established visual glide path... PERIOD.

Using the Boeing 767 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning document, the required runway length for a 767 400EW was between 5900 and 6500 ft. Rwy 29 is 6725 ft. This is technically an acceptable runway, ASSUMING you have the full length to use. The PAPI is located 989 ft past the threshold. Leaving you with much less available runway.

I agree with @SayAgain that the Capt should not have considered Rwy 29, and proceeded to the alternate airport. But I would say that a plane with over 200 tired customers, who just flew from Italy was the deciding factor in his poor aeronautical decision making.  

 

9 hours ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

It is "IMPOSSIBLE" to strike a vehicle on the NJ Tpk if the aircraft is on the proper glide path as identified by visually using the PAPI (3°).

This incident has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with any ATC guidance or other communications. This pilot at the controls flew a path below the established visual glide path... PERIOD.

Exactly.  

On 5/6/2026 at 10:24 PM, ahsmatt7 said:

That being said what solutions do you propose?

As is taught by FAA instructors from day one, Good Aeronautical Decision Making.

I believe that a variation of "get-there-itis" came into play.

We all have fallen or started to fall for this pressure to complete the mission, as planned, and on time.

I can understand what the pilot was thinking. We all as pilots need to work harder at recognizing the internal and external pressures we face.

A procedural fix would be that "book number" required runway lengths be actual runway length minus the distance from the threshold  to the touch down aiming point (approximately location of VASI or PAPI).

In this case: 6725 - 989 = 5282

Now we see that the runway is not an acceptable safe runway if you need 5900 to 6500 feet.