logo
Terrifying moment engine bursts into flames on United Airlines passenger jet taking off for US from China - forcing flight to be abandoned

Terrifying moment engine bursts into flames on United Airlines passenger jet taking off for US from China - forcing flight to be abandoned

Daily Mail​27-05-2025

This is the terrifying moment the engine of a United Airlines passenger jet bursts into flames as it takes off from China.
Dramatic footage shows the US-bound Boeing 777 accelerating along the runway before the right turbofan becomes a ball of fire - forcing the flight to be abandoned.
Officials at Beijing Capital International Airport said that Flight UA889 to San Francisco was cancelled due to a mechanical failure that affected both engines on Monday, May 26.
A frightened passenger aboard the aircraft said: 'I was sitting by the window, half asleep, when the plane took off.
'The nose of the plane should have lifted, and suddenly, the right engine made a noise, and I saw a ball of flame gushing out.'
Another traveller added: 'We saw countless fire trucks, police cars, ambulances, and engineering vehicles from the shuttle bus. There were as many as 40 or 50 of them, all flashing different lights.'
Local media reported that all passengers and crew members were safe.
United Airlines confirmed that the flight was cancelled due to a technical malfunction.
Affected passengers were offered complimentary re-booking, with additional travel arrangements still being coordinated.
Fire crews at the airport responded swiftly, dousing the engines with fire-suppressing foam.
The Boeing 777 is designed to operate for approximately 60,000 flight cycles or 20 to 25 years, based on rigorous testing and simulations under in-service conditions.
However, with proper maintenance and regulatory approval, many 777s are expected to safely exceed their original design life.
This comes only months after another United Airlines flight caught on fire.
In February, terrified passengers were told to evacuate a jetliner via slides and stairs at Houston's main airport after the right wing caught fire.
United Airlines flight 1382 to New York City was halted while still on the runway shortly after 8.30am at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, as an engine problem had caused smoke and fire on the wing during take-off.
There were no injuries and passengers were bused back to the terminal, the FAA said.
The take-off was stopped after the Airbus A319 'received an indication about one engine,' the statement said.
This alarming experience came just a month after American Airlines passengers were forced to evacuate their plane when it caught on fire at Denver Airport following mid-air engine trouble.
Shocked passengers were seen fleeing via the wing of the aircraft as smoke billowed from the plane on March 13.
The flight, AA 1006, had departed Colorado Springs Airport at 4:52pm (local time) and was headed to Dallas Fort Worth International Airport.
The Boeing 737-800 aircraft was diverted to Denver shortly after takeoff when the crew reported engine vibrations, according to Federal Aviation Administration.
'After landing and while taxiing to the gate an engine caught fire and passengers evacuated the aircraft using the slides,' said the FAA.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Car ploughs into crowd in Germany leaving at least two injured including girl, 5, as driver arrested
Car ploughs into crowd in Germany leaving at least two injured including girl, 5, as driver arrested

The Sun

time2 hours ago

  • The Sun

Car ploughs into crowd in Germany leaving at least two injured including girl, 5, as driver arrested

A CAR has driven into a crowd of people in Germany, according to reports. The number of people injured in the town of Passau is not yet known. 1 The driver's wife, 38, and daughter, 5, are also reported to be among the injured. It is unclear if the driver intentionally drove into the crowd, according to reports. Three people are seriously injured, according to emergency services. "At this time, it cannot be ruled out that the man deliberately drove the vehicle into the group of people," police told local media. Cops are urging anyone with relevant information to contact the authorities. .

We're fighting to reclaim our seaside town from nudists openly having sex on beach… we're fed-up of it being no-go zone
We're fighting to reclaim our seaside town from nudists openly having sex on beach… we're fed-up of it being no-go zone

The Sun

time5 hours ago

  • The Sun

We're fighting to reclaim our seaside town from nudists openly having sex on beach… we're fed-up of it being no-go zone

SEETHING residents continue to fume at nudists for turning their picturesque coastal town into a public sex hotspot. Fuming locals hit out at beachgoers who get their kit off at Corton beach, near Lowestoft in Suffolk. 4 4 Now local MP Jess Asato has joined residents and councillors in a walk along the beach in a bid to reclaim the area for local children and holidaymakers. The MP said: "Residents are fed up with their beach being made a no-go area due to criminal sexual behaviour. "Our walk was a symbol of their efforts to ensure that no-one is feels afraid to use it - and send a signal that we will not tolerate what amounts to criminal acts." One local, a retired newspaper executive, added: "It's no longer safe to take children there to play on their beach. "It started about three years ago and has got worse every year since since - I was with my two and three-year-old grandchildren last summer and there were naked men deliberately showing off and flaunting themselves. "It is so offensive that we can no longer take our grandchildren to play on the beach. "Unfortunately the beach is now getting a reputation - and becoming famous - so the problem will only get worse. "Apart from the holidaymakers here there are people who live her all the time and now in the summer they can't go down to the sea." The Azure Seas village, which has more than 100 holiday and permanent cabins and homes which cost up to £200,000, is set in 15 acres of woodland on the cliffs overlooking the controversial beach and has its own direct access to the sea. Sales manager Duncan Gooch said: 'It's got nothing to do with nudity what so ever – it is the behaviour of some who go there, a group who think it is OK to indulge in lewd and sexual behaviour on the beach, openly in front of other people. Horny swingers or wholesome fun? Fabulous lets it all hang out at a naked festival to find out why naturism is booming in the UK 'It is blatant and deliberate – some are clearly exhibitionists and we take offence – as does everyone living or staying here – at their behaviour. 'Things have got worse over recent so year and are now so bad that a lot of people simply won't go onto the beach because it is full of naked exhibitionists parading up and down and having sex. "We have complained to the police and they say they will look into it." The parish council say they put up the sign after numerous complaints from local people about indecent behaviour on the beach, including individuals openly engaging in sexual acts and walkers being accosted. A parish council spokesman said: 'Businesses overlooking the beach have also been severely impacted, reporting substantial financial losses directly attributed to these behaviours. "The parish council is obligated to support and protect the parishioners and businesses within its jurisdiction. 'This is our fundamental responsibility, and the sign was intended to serve as a warning that engaging in such acts would be reported to the police. "This stance remains unchanged.' A spokesman for the council said: 'The sign stated that the beach was not a naturist beach and was intended to clarify that it is no longer a designated as such since nudism can be practiced anywhere. 'The council recognises that nudism is a legal activity and was not attempting to prohibit, outlaw, or prevent naturists from enjoying the beach and we don't intend to imply that naturists were responsible for this behaviour in any way. 'The sign was a warning to individuals whose lewd activities were causing distress to other beach-goers but we do not intend to imply or suggest that naturists were responsible for this behaviour in any way.' District councillor Paul Ashdown added: "Most people are aware that sunbathing in the nude on the beach is not illegal but some residents have witnessed lewd behaviour which is offensive and should not be conducted in a public space. 'It would be good to discourage this sort of behaviour so I understand the purpose of the sign - but I have no idea who might have taken it down. "I have now asked the council leader asking for help to resolve this issue.' An East Suffolk council spokesman said: 'We had requested removal of a sign placed without relevant permission on a signpost on East Suffolk Council land. "The parish council has informed us that the sign had been removed without its knowledge over the weekend.' Our picturesque seaside town is being ruined by NUDIST beach By Emer Scully A NUDIST beach has been slammed by locals who say perverts treat it like a porn set. The picturesque Shellness, on the popular Isle of Sheppey in Kent, has been an "official" nudist beach since the 1970s. Dozens of naturists flock to the sand dunes on sunny days to enjoy sunbathing and swimming without clothes. Yet the area has more recently been plagued by "sad, middle-aged men getting up to no good". Stuart Haylock, 50, who lives near Maidstone, claimed he has seen "shocking" things over the last few weeks - as he put up a fence close to the beach. The former Royal Navy serviceman said: "Sadly some parts of society seem to think that because it's a naturist area it should be treated like a porn set. "What I've witnessed in the past couple of weeks is sad, lonely middle-aged men getting up to no good. "I've spoken with some of the actual naturists and they're lovely people. What they're trying to do is just sunbathe naked without any interaction with perverts. "But I can only tell you what I've physically seen in the last few days. It's shocking." Another man, who did not want to be named but lives close to the beach said he has called the police"a number of times". He said: "These perverts have been using the area for sex. "There could be kids coming round here but they don't care. Many of them don't just stay for a few hours either, they park up in the nearby car park and stay for a week. "The actual naturists themselves tend to be alright. They've put some signs up now as we did used to have a problem with them staying in their area, but now it's okay." 4 4

Nursery wins fight against 'ridiculous' council order to tear down 6ft privacy fence around playground due to 'single issue'
Nursery wins fight against 'ridiculous' council order to tear down 6ft privacy fence around playground due to 'single issue'

Daily Mail​

time6 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Nursery wins fight against 'ridiculous' council order to tear down 6ft privacy fence around playground due to 'single issue'

A nursery that was at war with a 'ridiculous' council that had ordered to tear down a 6ft fence built to safeguard children has won its fight. Imperial Day Nursery, in Westcliff-on-sea, had launched an appeal against Southend Council last year after it ruled that it must remove or reduce the height of a huge fence that towers at the front of the property. An enforcement notice was issued by the local authority demanding it be ripped down or amended to a maximum height of 3.2ft within three months. But now, bringing an end to a years-long feud, the nursery has been told it can keep its fencing as the Planning Inspectorate decided it was not 'prominent' or 'out of keeping' with the character of the local area and criticised the council for 'unreasonable' behaviour. When MailOnline had visited last October, parents had expressed their fury at the council, accusing them of prioritising the 'aesthetics of the street' over the safety of their children. But neighbours living on the residential street in the seaside suburb branded the fencing as 'terrible and unsightly' and wanted it torn down. The nursery first became engulfed in the planning row in 2022 after a complaint was made regarding the structure which was erected without proper planning permissions in place. Imperial Day Nursery then lodged a retrospective planning application, but the council rejected it, claiming it was 'visually prominent and stark' and 'out of keeping' with the surrounding area. The nursery then stepped up its fight by appealing the council's enforcement action - which has led to a victory. Andrew Walker, a planning officer within the Planning Inspectorate, reversed the council's decision after a site visit in which he ruled the fence and other structures could stay intact, EssexLive reported. He stated in his decision: 'I do not find that either appeal scheme appears visually prominent, stark or materially out of keeping within the local context. 'No harm is caused to the character and appearance of the site, street scene or area. 'The degree of fencing upon the frontage under both schemes is reasonably necessary to separate the private residential section from the commercial nursery section.' The nursery has also been granted a full award of costs against Southend City Council in addition to having the enforcement notice quashed and planning application granted. The costs decision reads: 'The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 'The Council refused the planning application and issued the subsequent enforcement notice on the basis of a single main issue. 'Its case, which continued to be pursued in defending the ensuing appeals, was that the appeal developments significantly harmed the character and appearance of the site, the streetscene and the area more widely. 'I disagree with the Council on this matter of planning judgment. That would not by itself be a basis for a finding of unreasonable behaviour. 'However, the local presence of the very extensive and high close-boarded fencing serving the Essex County Bowling Club, with very long sections directly abutting the highway - quite close to the appeal property and on the same side of Imperial Avenue – does not appear to have been considered at all by the Council in coming to its view. 'There is certainly nothing in the officer reports (on each appeal scheme) which refers to it. 'Indeed, they say that 'The streetscene in this part of Imperial Avenue has a strong open character with low front boundary treatments…' To make that statement without mentioning, considering or assessing the very obvious and substantial nearby counterexample was both amiss and unreasonable. 'It seems to me that, had the single main issue in dispute been more properly assessed, there would have been no need for the appeals to have been made in the first place and that the appellant has been put to unnecessary expense. 'I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and that full awards of costs are justified in respect of both appeals.' Speaking to MailOnline outside the nursery, parents had previously told of how they felt safer with the structure being in place. They say that prior to its use, strangers could easily peer into the 'baby room' at the front of the building, and that the fence also allows children to safely play in the outdoor area in front of the property. One mother, Natalie Toby, said: 'I'm a security advisor so from my point of view, it keeps children hidden away from the public walking past. 'You can't really see where the front door is unless you go all the way down there, so they're keeping access routes nice and tucked away. 'The nursery has been here for 30 years so I don't see why the council are applying the same rules that they would to domestic dwellings. 'New-build schools are being built with fence lines not dissimilar to this, so why are they not allowing this? 'Surely the safety of the children is more important than the aesthetics.' She told of an incident, before the fencing which blocks the window of the front room was erected, when a postman unintendedly dropped heavy parcels through the window of the baby room. She added: 'So it's not just about keeping it closed off from people with malicious intentions, it's accidental things as well. 'They've got vulnerable children in that front room, and having the fence up keeps the babies safe. 'It's ridiculous, I don't understand why the council are being so stubborn about it. 'Surely safeguarding children and their safety is paramount to aesthetics. 'I don't want my daughter in a room where people can just walk past and look through.' Another parent had echoed the same concerns, saying: 'As a teacher myself, I understand the importance of safeguarding children, and I wouldn't want the fence to be taken down. 'My daughter goes to this nursery and my eldest just started school but she went here the whole way through. 'It's a brilliant nursery and they've got the best interest of the kids at heart. 'Prior to it being like this, you could see into the baby room. 'When my eldest was in the baby room, you could see her, you would be able to wave. But obviously, that's different as a parent than a stranger being able to look in. 'It feels a lot safer now, knowing that no-one can see in or get in easily. It's very secure. 'Having the fence also means they can use the outdoor space for kids. I think they have Santa there at Christmas and stuff like that.' She added: 'They do try and make it look as attractive as possible too, so they change it seasonally, so it's all Halloween-themed at the moment. 'I don't think it's an eyesore.' The council's enforcement notice for the removal of the fence had stated that the height, layout and 'solid appearance' of the fence deemed it unacceptable for the area. The decision notice stated: 'The development at the site, by reason of its height, layout and extent, and the solid appearance of the fencing within the frontage, appears visually prominent, stark, and materially out of keeping with the typically spacious setting of the surrounding area, and has resulted in significant harm to the character and appearance of the site, the streetscene and the area more widely.' But now, the Planning Inspectorate's appeal decision states that the fence does not appear 'excessive' or 'incongruous' and can remain standing. Speaking to MailOnline, one neighbour had said of the development: 'It is a bit unsightly. I was amazed they were even allowed to put it up, but turns out they weren't. 'I understand why they did it, but planning permission is planning permission and you have to abide by it. 'My personal opinion is that it is a bit unsightly. It would have bothered me more if I was right next door to it. But even from here, it is unsightly.' Another neighbour echoed the same concerns, saying: 'It's not nice, it looks awful. 'And the planning was retrospective as well.' While most parents said the fencing made them feel safer, one parent said the outdoor space is very rarely used. She said: 'We're not too bothered either way. I can understand that some of the neighbours don't particularly like it. 'Before it was up, we were funnelled a different way. So really you would only see into the baby room if you were queuing to pick up your children. 'So, if you were a stranger not part of the nursery, you would have to actually come off the street, stare in a window and be quite obvious about it. 'I know the nursery are saying it's for safeguarding but when it's just the parents having a quick look in to see their children, I don't think that's much of an issue. 'And I've never seen anyone use that outdoor space. To my knowledge, it's not really used.' Another parent, however, said he had pledged support for the nursery who at the time had a petition going. He said: 'I've actually emailed the nursery showing support for their petition. 'It seems like the council is looking at the view of the place and the aesthetics than the safety of our kids. 'The whole point was to protect the kids. 'I feel a lot safer leaving my kid here knowing the fence is up. 'It stops people from seeing in and being able to look at the kids.' A grandmother picking up her grandson from the nursery added: 'I think it's terrible. The fence gives a bit of safety for the children. 'It's very strange that the council are doing this.' The nursery said: 'Imperial Day Nursery has successfully defended itself in its dispute with Southend City Council over the frontage of the property, both Nursery and residential. 'We are thrilled with the outcome of the appeals including our applications for costs. ;This matter has hung over the nursery for more than two years now and with associated costs amounting to just over £35,000 it has been a very heavy financial burden to bear with no guarantee of success. 'Other similar children's nurseries treated and experiencing the same may not have had the resources to survive as we have managed to do. 'We feel that our approach has been fully vindicated by the appeals inspector. 'As both a business rates and a council tax payer it is extremely concerning that the council's unreasonable behaviour has cost Southend on Sea City Council taxpayers so dearly. We sincerely hope that lessons will be learnt from this judgement moving forward and applied accordingly.' The council have since acknowledged the Planning Inspectorate's decision. Cllr Anne Jones, cabinet member for planning, housing, and the local plan, said: 'The Council took a balanced decision, recognising the benefits of the fencing for the nursery, while also acknowledging the harm its prominence caused to local character. 'We respect that the Planning Inspectorate reached a different view on where that balance should lie.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store