AA#177, July 31, Diversion to Chicago (passenger curiosity)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S. East Cost and Europe (travelling too much, and at home in both)
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA#177, July 31, Diversion to Chicago (passenger curiosity)
Hi there,
I was passenger on AA177 July 31, JFK-SFO. After 2hrs delay and another hour waiting in line, fate added insult to injury: We diverted to Chicago for an "electrical problem and some smell here in the Cockpit"
(quoted from tired memory). Wasn't too big a deal, they fixed it and we moved on 1.5 hrs or so later in the same plane.
First off, thanks to the crew both front and in the back. I had bad experiences at times with flight attendends who were too busy complaining about their evening to care about us, and this set was professional and fun even after all that misery.
Same for the ground staff at ORD, btw. And the landing in SFO was great, given the crew had to deal with 20knots or so of wind, gusting at 30. I am sure I would not be that good that late at night in my job, and I had much worse landings at SFO. So thanks, folks, you truly showed professionalism and customer care.
However, passenger curiosity prevails (and it's just that) - does anybody know what the problem was? Obviously, a minor thing, but as an engineer, I am just interested.
Thanks
FC
I was passenger on AA177 July 31, JFK-SFO. After 2hrs delay and another hour waiting in line, fate added insult to injury: We diverted to Chicago for an "electrical problem and some smell here in the Cockpit"
(quoted from tired memory). Wasn't too big a deal, they fixed it and we moved on 1.5 hrs or so later in the same plane. First off, thanks to the crew both front and in the back. I had bad experiences at times with flight attendends who were too busy complaining about their evening to care about us, and this set was professional and fun even after all that misery.
Same for the ground staff at ORD, btw. And the landing in SFO was great, given the crew had to deal with 20knots or so of wind, gusting at 30. I am sure I would not be that good that late at night in my job, and I had much worse landings at SFO. So thanks, folks, you truly showed professionalism and customer care. However, passenger curiosity prevails (and it's just that) - does anybody know what the problem was? Obviously, a minor thing, but as an engineer, I am just interested.
Thanks
FC
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FC
while I have no real info on this incident, if there is a suspicion of an electrical problem or smoke or even flame, landing is the thing to do. Indeed, if there is too much smoke it may be difficult to see the flight instruments.
as an engineer you can imagine worn insulation failing or a myriad of other electrical problems including a huge amount of dust getting roasted.
[email protected] if I can help
j
while I have no real info on this incident, if there is a suspicion of an electrical problem or smoke or even flame, landing is the thing to do. Indeed, if there is too much smoke it may be difficult to see the flight instruments.
as an engineer you can imagine worn insulation failing or a myriad of other electrical problems including a huge amount of dust getting roasted.
[email protected] if I can help
j
