Diversion without approach after short hold
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Singapore
Age: 55
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversion without approach after short hold
If someone can enlighten me on the below operational matter:
Yesterday I was flying as pax GVA-FCO on an A320. The flight diverted to Naples due to heavy thunderstorms above the airfield and around.
Our scheduled time of arrival was 20.20 LT and ETA was around 20.35 (block) I believe, so we had a delay of around 15-20 min. We landed in Naples around 21.15, flight time FCO-NAP was probably 30 min so we were on hold around Rome for probably 15-20 min.
I have replayed on Flightradar24 and saw that most airplanes landed and only 2 or 3 diverted. Indeed weather was quite bad with a lot of lightning activity and probably windshear as wind gusts were strong as told by friends/collegues the following day. Trust the captain for the decision, however I cannot understand why we diverted without attempting an approach. In fact we diverted from the hold after 20 min and I could see the runways at Rome in the clear but with a TS Cell behind. The approach path seemed clear from 10000 ft, however likely windshear nearby. But why we did not even try the approach and eventually go around if landing turned out as unfeasible? It would have taken maybe another 10-15 min flying
And after only a 20 min hold why already diverting? We should have had enough fuel for the diversion.
Not aware of how much hold fuel is required, but I guess it would be 45 min. If alternate was Naples there should have been enough to carry on at least an approach at FCO, unless ATC had advised hold was longer, but another flight from GVA 5-10 min ahead of us landed.
Is it possible that alternate was Rome CIA (closer) but since weather deteriorated there as well Cpt opted to go to NAP? Maybe because TAF did show TS were forecasted later in the evening and they materialised earlier the alternate chosen was closer?
TAF's below
Are you pilots using sites such as this:
Blitzortung.org ? lightning map Europe ? thunderstorms and lightning strikes
(as a complement) to track storm movements based on lightning?
Before boarding I checked and saw the cells moving ashore and immediately thought it was not looking good estimating storm movement based on past lightning strikes vs current. TAF was forecasting TS at 24LT but they were closer...
TAF AMD LIRF 101913Z 1019/1124 16008KT 9999 SCT030 TEMPO 1019/1021 4000 TSRA BKN010CB TEMPO 1106/1112 4000 TSRA BECMG 1107/1109 22012KT BECMG 1118/1120 VRB05KT=
TAF LIRF 101700Z 1018/1124 16008KT 9999 SCT030 TEMPO 1022/1112 TSRA BECMG 1107/1109 22012KT BECMG 1118/1120 VRB05KT=
TAF LIRF 101100Z 1012/1118 20012KT 9999 SCT025 TEMPO 1012/1018 4000 SHRA BECMG 1019/1021 VRB05KT TEMPO 1023/1102 TSRA BECMG 1107/1109 20010KT TEMPO 1109/1113 TSRA=
and the METARS
METAR LIRF 101820Z VRB07G17KT 6000 TSRA SCT012CB SCT035 22/17 Q1011 WS RWY 16L NOSIG=
METAR LIRF 101850Z 15020G32KT 050V220 1500 0800N R16L/P1500N R16R/P1500N R25/1100VP1500U TSRA SCT010CB SCT035 20/16 Q1011 WS RWY 16L NOSIG=
METAR LIRA 101815Z 18005KT 160V220 8000 - TSRA SCT016 FEW020CB 23/20 Q1010=
Yesterday I was flying as pax GVA-FCO on an A320. The flight diverted to Naples due to heavy thunderstorms above the airfield and around.
Our scheduled time of arrival was 20.20 LT and ETA was around 20.35 (block) I believe, so we had a delay of around 15-20 min. We landed in Naples around 21.15, flight time FCO-NAP was probably 30 min so we were on hold around Rome for probably 15-20 min.
I have replayed on Flightradar24 and saw that most airplanes landed and only 2 or 3 diverted. Indeed weather was quite bad with a lot of lightning activity and probably windshear as wind gusts were strong as told by friends/collegues the following day. Trust the captain for the decision, however I cannot understand why we diverted without attempting an approach. In fact we diverted from the hold after 20 min and I could see the runways at Rome in the clear but with a TS Cell behind. The approach path seemed clear from 10000 ft, however likely windshear nearby. But why we did not even try the approach and eventually go around if landing turned out as unfeasible? It would have taken maybe another 10-15 min flying
And after only a 20 min hold why already diverting? We should have had enough fuel for the diversion.
Not aware of how much hold fuel is required, but I guess it would be 45 min. If alternate was Naples there should have been enough to carry on at least an approach at FCO, unless ATC had advised hold was longer, but another flight from GVA 5-10 min ahead of us landed.
Is it possible that alternate was Rome CIA (closer) but since weather deteriorated there as well Cpt opted to go to NAP? Maybe because TAF did show TS were forecasted later in the evening and they materialised earlier the alternate chosen was closer?
TAF's below
Are you pilots using sites such as this:
Blitzortung.org ? lightning map Europe ? thunderstorms and lightning strikes
(as a complement) to track storm movements based on lightning?
Before boarding I checked and saw the cells moving ashore and immediately thought it was not looking good estimating storm movement based on past lightning strikes vs current. TAF was forecasting TS at 24LT but they were closer...
TAF AMD LIRF 101913Z 1019/1124 16008KT 9999 SCT030 TEMPO 1019/1021 4000 TSRA BKN010CB TEMPO 1106/1112 4000 TSRA BECMG 1107/1109 22012KT BECMG 1118/1120 VRB05KT=
TAF LIRF 101700Z 1018/1124 16008KT 9999 SCT030 TEMPO 1022/1112 TSRA BECMG 1107/1109 22012KT BECMG 1118/1120 VRB05KT=
TAF LIRF 101100Z 1012/1118 20012KT 9999 SCT025 TEMPO 1012/1018 4000 SHRA BECMG 1019/1021 VRB05KT TEMPO 1023/1102 TSRA BECMG 1107/1109 20010KT TEMPO 1109/1113 TSRA=
and the METARS
METAR LIRF 101820Z VRB07G17KT 6000 TSRA SCT012CB SCT035 22/17 Q1011 WS RWY 16L NOSIG=
METAR LIRF 101850Z 15020G32KT 050V220 1500 0800N R16L/P1500N R16R/P1500N R25/1100VP1500U TSRA SCT010CB SCT035 20/16 Q1011 WS RWY 16L NOSIG=
METAR LIRA 101815Z 18005KT 160V220 8000 - TSRA SCT016 FEW020CB 23/20 Q1010=
No idea, but Flight Radar and the METARs won't tell the whole story, especially in a fast changing situation with thunderstorms, heavy rain and windshear...
Maybe the captain didn't like what he was hearing from other aircraft that did attempt the approach, didn't like what he could see on his weather radar, didn't like what he was hearing from ATC and perhaps to cap it all holding delays exceeded the fuel available... FWIW there's no requirement to "have a go", sometimes, in extreme weather it would be foolhardy to do so.
I think if it was a combination of rain/thunderstorms and wind shear I'm not surprised the captain decided to be conservative..... so be it, at least you're around to write your post.......
Maybe the captain didn't like what he was hearing from other aircraft that did attempt the approach, didn't like what he could see on his weather radar, didn't like what he was hearing from ATC and perhaps to cap it all holding delays exceeded the fuel available... FWIW there's no requirement to "have a go", sometimes, in extreme weather it would be foolhardy to do so.
I think if it was a combination of rain/thunderstorms and wind shear I'm not surprised the captain decided to be conservative..... so be it, at least you're around to write your post.......
Last edited by wiggy; 12th Sep 2014 at 04:44.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: _
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please let me know next time you are going to be on my flight, in order that I might consult you and factor your opinions and knowledge into my decision making process. Unless you consider that you actually pay the Captain of your flight to make those decisions for you. 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dontdoit, H'row Dctr and wiggy, I totally agree with you!
To the OP I will say "you are alive, so stop whingeing!"
Taking a "look see" is all very well if you have a safe and hopefully legal escape plan when the radar screen fills with red and the VHF radio begins to hiss, along with the heavy rain on the windscreen.
This captain + crew didn't like what they saw, and delivered their pax and 'frame safely and without hail damage, fit to operate another day.
If you have doubts about their decision, I understand European railways have a very good service, or you could try driving a road vehicle, with the statistically greater chance of coming to grief. Or as your poster name implies, you had the option of canal and boat.
Sad that these pages are contaminated with such rubbish..............
To the OP I will say "you are alive, so stop whingeing!"
Taking a "look see" is all very well if you have a safe and hopefully legal escape plan when the radar screen fills with red and the VHF radio begins to hiss, along with the heavy rain on the windscreen.
This captain + crew didn't like what they saw, and delivered their pax and 'frame safely and without hail damage, fit to operate another day.
If you have doubts about their decision, I understand European railways have a very good service, or you could try driving a road vehicle, with the statistically greater chance of coming to grief. Or as your poster name implies, you had the option of canal and boat.
Sad that these pages are contaminated with such rubbish..............
It maybe that the aircraft was given an "Expected Approach Time" due to traffic delays that exceeded the available holding fuel, so no alternative but divert.
As to why Naples, this was probably the company preferred for handling, etc.
As to why Naples, this was probably the company preferred for handling, etc.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversion without approach after short hold
You said it yourself: CBs behind tbe airport. Don't know the GA in FCO, but could lead into the CB. You say "should have enough fuel" yet u dont know the legalities. Enough for what, a week?
It's OK if you want to understand our decision making process, but u ask suggestive questions based on uninformed assumptions. How was Naples?
It's OK if you want to understand our decision making process, but u ask suggestive questions based on uninformed assumptions. How was Naples?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact we diverted from the hold after 20 min and I could see the runways at Rome in the clear but with a TS Cell behind.
Id thank the crew rather than trying to find a way to blame those who made your flight safe.
You are a sad sad man.
A real shame that the OP's request for information to help understand an operational matter cannot be answered without a barrage of abuse and sarcasm. Unless I have missed something there was nothing in the post criticising the decision to divert, merely asking for possible reasons given that most other flights were getting in ok.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You lot are embarrassing.
The OP clearly stated he trusted the captain for the decision and was only asking for understanding and enlightenment.
Now you might all be feeling a wittle bit sensitive today but really what's so difficult about answering his questions instead of taking up defensive posture number one?
The OP clearly stated he trusted the captain for the decision and was only asking for understanding and enlightenment.
Now you might all be feeling a wittle bit sensitive today but really what's so difficult about answering his questions instead of taking up defensive posture number one?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't read everything to the last letter but basically it is the captains decision on what to do. If he didn't think trying an approach was likely to lead to a safe landing he wouldn't do it. Another possibility is company limitations, maybe the wind was above a company limit of sorts.
Generally you must carry fuel to get to your destination, fuel to do an approach, go around and flight to your alternate, contingency fuel and what you are considering as holding fuel, which is 30 minutes for turbine aircraft. that 30 minutes of fuel should never be used unless as an absolute last resort and it is a mayday situation if you are using it. To speculate (and only speculate) about what happened, you arrived and went into the hold because the captain wasn't happy/company limitations prohibited an approach, but you had some fuel extra so the captain decided to wait and see if it got better. After 20 minutes it still didn't look good and all that was happening was fuel burn, so you diverted.
Generally you must carry fuel to get to your destination, fuel to do an approach, go around and flight to your alternate, contingency fuel and what you are considering as holding fuel, which is 30 minutes for turbine aircraft. that 30 minutes of fuel should never be used unless as an absolute last resort and it is a mayday situation if you are using it. To speculate (and only speculate) about what happened, you arrived and went into the hold because the captain wasn't happy/company limitations prohibited an approach, but you had some fuel extra so the captain decided to wait and see if it got better. After 20 minutes it still didn't look good and all that was happening was fuel burn, so you diverted.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 42
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suspect most operators would use CIA as the alternate, so already the captain had probably added enough extra fuel to be able to hold for 20 mins and then extra on top for the longer diversion to Naples. We carry very little extra fuel these days unless we see reason to.
CIA and FCO are so close that weather is likely to be similar at both.
It would be guess work to say why an approach wasn't flown, but we could guess windshear reported / magenta on weather radar, personal preference and gut feeling. Sometimes it pays you also to divert early... reason being, lets say the last two aircraft have gone around, both planning to divert to Naples, suddenly there is the possibility now an unknown arrival delay into Naples as the flights diverting build up. By diverting early, you can save yourself struggling late with fuel on diversion.
I once decided to have a go at an approach into Toulouse with CBs in the area. We went way over the flap limit speed in positive windshear and therefore had to delay the return flight awaiting maintenance work. Sometimes it is best to be prudent and just divert.
I would also add a difficult situation for a captain is this: making an approach in very rough weather, scaring the passengers, go around then diverting. Now you will most likely have some passengers on board who are very shaken up and the last thing they want is flying anywhere else. So you potentially have some passengers who want to get off wherever you are (convinced they narrowly escaped death), some want to stay and continue to destination; a mix of bags in the aircraft hold. It can make the day very very long and stressful. And yes, this does happen!
CIA and FCO are so close that weather is likely to be similar at both.
It would be guess work to say why an approach wasn't flown, but we could guess windshear reported / magenta on weather radar, personal preference and gut feeling. Sometimes it pays you also to divert early... reason being, lets say the last two aircraft have gone around, both planning to divert to Naples, suddenly there is the possibility now an unknown arrival delay into Naples as the flights diverting build up. By diverting early, you can save yourself struggling late with fuel on diversion.
I once decided to have a go at an approach into Toulouse with CBs in the area. We went way over the flap limit speed in positive windshear and therefore had to delay the return flight awaiting maintenance work. Sometimes it is best to be prudent and just divert.
I would also add a difficult situation for a captain is this: making an approach in very rough weather, scaring the passengers, go around then diverting. Now you will most likely have some passengers on board who are very shaken up and the last thing they want is flying anywhere else. So you potentially have some passengers who want to get off wherever you are (convinced they narrowly escaped death), some want to stay and continue to destination; a mix of bags in the aircraft hold. It can make the day very very long and stressful. And yes, this does happen!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Singapore
Age: 55
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all of you who contributed positively to answer my question. To those bashing, I struggle to understand the negative and defensive attitude. In fact as Doors to Automatic and Lord Spandex pointed out, far from me to criticise or blame the Cpt for the decision as eventhough I made my own investigation for personal interest and a willingness just to understand, I will never ever have the full picture unless I ask directly the crew. Actually, when after landing a lady in row 1 started to question the cpt (who came out of the cockpit to brief us and advised we were going to disembark and be bused to FCO) and she said that the 5 min preceding GVA-FCO flt had landed safely in Rome, I would have just told the lady to shut up (well not really, but would have told her to stay quiet as she cannot pretend to criticise not knowing things and even knowing she shouldn't).
I see how people go bezerk and pretend everything should go as planned without realising we control very little in general and we have to thank everytime things go well even if air transport is the safest transport mean.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR, I thought about showing up in the cockpit to help, but was enjoying the lightning show... actually I was a bit nervous and in the end it was very OK to land in NAP (where weather was good) and got home at 2.30 am. A good reminder of how things do not go always as planned...
And by the way, during the hold there was no turbolence at all, no hail, nothing, the approach paths of 16L and 16R were in the clear, it was very smooth. Most of the planes landed (and who knows some of them maybe were closer than they realised to an accident due to windshear, like it occurred already last year at this airport?). So in the end I just was wondering the decision making process at cpt and ATC level. But now I understand -as some of you pointed out- not necessarily you want to try the approach, maybe hold fuel was 30 min not 45, maybe ATC was overwhelmed and our flight ended up holding more than the others (though my impression was hold was really short), maybe because TS were expected later at 24 LT (as per TAF) and hence the fuel contingency not taking into account potential bad weather, maybe alternate was CIA, ...maybe a combination of all of this (in fact we were still at 10000 ft when we diverted, hence hold could have been longer).
And on the second part of the question i.e. the use of lightning strikes maps (Blitzortung.org ? live lightning map ? live thunderstorms) to track storm movement as a complement to weather briefing, maybe not the right forum to ask...
I see how people go bezerk and pretend everything should go as planned without realising we control very little in general and we have to thank everytime things go well even if air transport is the safest transport mean.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR, I thought about showing up in the cockpit to help, but was enjoying the lightning show... actually I was a bit nervous and in the end it was very OK to land in NAP (where weather was good) and got home at 2.30 am. A good reminder of how things do not go always as planned...
And by the way, during the hold there was no turbolence at all, no hail, nothing, the approach paths of 16L and 16R were in the clear, it was very smooth. Most of the planes landed (and who knows some of them maybe were closer than they realised to an accident due to windshear, like it occurred already last year at this airport?). So in the end I just was wondering the decision making process at cpt and ATC level. But now I understand -as some of you pointed out- not necessarily you want to try the approach, maybe hold fuel was 30 min not 45, maybe ATC was overwhelmed and our flight ended up holding more than the others (though my impression was hold was really short), maybe because TS were expected later at 24 LT (as per TAF) and hence the fuel contingency not taking into account potential bad weather, maybe alternate was CIA, ...maybe a combination of all of this (in fact we were still at 10000 ft when we diverted, hence hold could have been longer).
And on the second part of the question i.e. the use of lightning strikes maps (Blitzortung.org ? live lightning map ? live thunderstorms) to track storm movement as a complement to weather briefing, maybe not the right forum to ask...
after landing a lady in row 1 started to question the cpt (who came out of the cockpit to brief us and advised we were going to disembark and be bused to FCO) and she said that the 5 min preceding GVA-FCO flt had landed safely in Rome
, and most especially in this day and age of PEDs and instant access to "information" 
.Some of the rule based decisions, e.g fog and RVRs..are almost a "no-brainer" and easy to explain. What causes real problems with some passengers is the decisions which are based on experience and other factors (quite possibly a bit of something along the lines of what tom775257 described as a "gut feeling")....If you cancel your flight because of, say, being unable to adequately de-ice in heavy snow, or as in your example, divert due to thunderstorms when other's don't, you'll always get the grumbles that "well XXX or YYY didn't divert/cancel". It doesn't mean anybody's decision was wrong.....
Goes with the job I guess.......
We're seeing that more and more of that. Disruption to a single flight is often the most difficult to explain to the passengers, especially over the PA and/or at the aircraft door , and most especially in this day and age of PEDs and instant access to "information" .
But it's very hard to explain to angry passengers in China that you're not going to take off in fog when other airlines are, because they are ignoring the rules and breaking their minimums.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite often the factors dictating diversion, landing limits etc are determined by company standard operating procedures and vary from company to company. Also there have been times when I've delayed the take off due to CB's in the flight path and other carriers have departed. Quite simply I wouldn't, they did, that is my decision on the day and I'm happy to explain it to customers as I've had lightning strikes and they are not pleasant for me or the passengers.
If I can avoid it I will with the minimum of disruption.
Also passengers forget that the problems aren't all in the air. When there are intense thunderstorms around there is often severe delays on the ground. Aircraft cannot be refueled therefore they can't depart stands, landing aircraft can't park and therefore jam up taxiways. Some aircraft will depart irrespective of the weather, some won't leading to congestion at the runway holding points.
So, whilst the flight ahead 'managed' to get in there is no telling howe long they were stuck there as well. Often passengers will have a little information but not the whole picture which will be pulled from the ATC frequencies, company frequencies and listening to the other aircraft.
Hope that helps.
If I can avoid it I will with the minimum of disruption.
Also passengers forget that the problems aren't all in the air. When there are intense thunderstorms around there is often severe delays on the ground. Aircraft cannot be refueled therefore they can't depart stands, landing aircraft can't park and therefore jam up taxiways. Some aircraft will depart irrespective of the weather, some won't leading to congestion at the runway holding points.
So, whilst the flight ahead 'managed' to get in there is no telling howe long they were stuck there as well. Often passengers will have a little information but not the whole picture which will be pulled from the ATC frequencies, company frequencies and listening to the other aircraft.
Hope that helps.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 68
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds me so much of a passenger a decade or so ago that stopped to chat as he was getting off the airplane at an airport that wasn’t the originally intended destination. He, in a rather assertive fashion, was providing me with some “observations and information” that in essence was questioning the need to be at the current location. After he had finished enlightening me, he paused to allow me to respond (at least I think that was his intent). I then asked him what kind of car he drove. He was a bit taken aback I believe as he quickly blurted out automobile X. I then asked him why on earth he would drive such a vehicle when obviously automobile Y was a much safer and more reliable mode of personal transport for both he and his family. He immediately launched into the myriad of reasons that went into his choice apparently feeling somewhat rebuked at my assertion that he had not considered well prior to purchasing. After what seemed to be a lengthy time (although most likely only some 30 seconds) he stopped short as he realized that I was just standing there smiling at him. A look of puzzlement was quickly replaced by that of understanding as I could see the penny drop. A smile spread across his face as he said “you didn’t know all the factors that went into my decision to buy my car before you asked your question”. As I tapped him on the shoulder I paraphrased from a well-known movie franchise. ”You’ve grasped the situation well young Luke”.
I thought my colleague, who was still in her seat behind me, was going to pee herself with her chuckling.
I thought my colleague, who was still in her seat behind me, was going to pee herself with her chuckling.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbelsturm
Very eloquently put Wirbelsturm.
There are many factors that a Captain has to take in, to arrive at a safe decision.
Sometimes I think people think that we make decisions just to annoy them.
They do not consider that we have just made our day a longer one.
I for one like to fly from A to B and then back to A and then go home.
There are many factors that a Captain has to take in, to arrive at a safe decision.
Sometimes I think people think that we make decisions just to annoy them.
They do not consider that we have just made our day a longer one.
I for one like to fly from A to B and then back to A and then go home.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear sea man
did you ask the captain why you diverted?
I've had all sorts of advice from passengers. One flight: Why did you stop in Orlando, Florida when we were going to Tampa? I said: Weather.
Some guy came up saying that the weather in Tampa was fine and he was talking to people at the airport who were waiting for him.
I asked him if he knew what the weather was like between our current position and Tampa? He didn't.
A combination of events, including limited fuel due to payload restrictions at a certain airport for takeoff , along with changes due to ATC needs dictated a diversion, add to that a generator failure on approach to the diversion airport made for a long night.
We don't like to divert. Its not fun. We don't have some hot chick in a diversion airport just waiting for us. I am trying to think of one diversion that lead to a happier overnight. (None. If you are planning a night in Chicago, diverting to Indianapolis is not fun (no offense to Indianapolis).)
Can't think of one. In fact, some of us are guilty of trying too hard to get into an airport, rather than divert. It is called "GET THERE ITIS" especially when you crash trying too hard.
I didn't even bother looking at all of your forensic data. The captain knew best that flight. If not, he wouldn't be a captain.
I still remember one genius who explained to me that we should land into the wind. (We were within limits for a tailwind landing). We could have positioned ourself for a landing into the wind, but we would have had to battle a thunderstorm, at night, on the lee of a mountain for a non precision approach, or we could have taken an ILS to an 8 knot tailwind landing on a very nicely long runway, completely avoiding the bad weather.
WELL EXCUSE ME for landing downwind (but within limits).
Amazing too how another genius told me I was wrong for delaying a takeoff, with perfect weather. When I told him of a report of a "dry microburst" he told me I was full of it. Landing traffic had reported the need for maximum power to maintain the glideslope (decent). Waiting a few minutes made things better, but delayed this guy.
Well, EXCUSE ME. Paperwork is such a bore when you crash.
did you ask the captain why you diverted?
I've had all sorts of advice from passengers. One flight: Why did you stop in Orlando, Florida when we were going to Tampa? I said: Weather.
Some guy came up saying that the weather in Tampa was fine and he was talking to people at the airport who were waiting for him.
I asked him if he knew what the weather was like between our current position and Tampa? He didn't.
A combination of events, including limited fuel due to payload restrictions at a certain airport for takeoff , along with changes due to ATC needs dictated a diversion, add to that a generator failure on approach to the diversion airport made for a long night.
We don't like to divert. Its not fun. We don't have some hot chick in a diversion airport just waiting for us. I am trying to think of one diversion that lead to a happier overnight. (None. If you are planning a night in Chicago, diverting to Indianapolis is not fun (no offense to Indianapolis).)
Can't think of one. In fact, some of us are guilty of trying too hard to get into an airport, rather than divert. It is called "GET THERE ITIS" especially when you crash trying too hard.
I didn't even bother looking at all of your forensic data. The captain knew best that flight. If not, he wouldn't be a captain.
I still remember one genius who explained to me that we should land into the wind. (We were within limits for a tailwind landing). We could have positioned ourself for a landing into the wind, but we would have had to battle a thunderstorm, at night, on the lee of a mountain for a non precision approach, or we could have taken an ILS to an 8 knot tailwind landing on a very nicely long runway, completely avoiding the bad weather.
WELL EXCUSE ME for landing downwind (but within limits).
Amazing too how another genius told me I was wrong for delaying a takeoff, with perfect weather. When I told him of a report of a "dry microburst" he told me I was full of it. Landing traffic had reported the need for maximum power to maintain the glideslope (decent). Waiting a few minutes made things better, but delayed this guy.
Well, EXCUSE ME. Paperwork is such a bore when you crash.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some time ago I diverted to Amsterdam because my destination, Eindhoven, was 300 M RVR, sections. Knowing I was on my way, they passed the latest RVRs through AMS Radar and even predicted our response. The Met. man was allegedly standing next to the tower controller when we called for an update on Box 2. They also could see an early night as we were the last flight in and were still 35 minutes out, so NOSIG was the official forecast. Landing in Amsterdam, several passengers complained about our decision. Comments like, "This is where we were going anyway" and "You are only doing this for your own convenience" and "Why didn't you tell us before we left?" But the winner was "I phoned my wife and she said the weather was fine where she was, so why are we here?" Small details like the aircraft being in the wrong place in the morning, crew cars and some crew bags being in Eindhoven obviously weren't factors. So the implication was we diverted on purpose to annoy the passengers.
Returning to our chap who diverted; I'll not second guess his motives but CBs, thunderstorms, squalls are difficult things to predict and require very flexible thinking. Sometimes you get it right and sometimes you get it wrong, but only in hindsight. However, any decision which involves you getting off in one piece is a good one. It might not be efficient, economic or convenient but was safe.
Returning to our chap who diverted; I'll not second guess his motives but CBs, thunderstorms, squalls are difficult things to predict and require very flexible thinking. Sometimes you get it right and sometimes you get it wrong, but only in hindsight. However, any decision which involves you getting off in one piece is a good one. It might not be efficient, economic or convenient but was safe.
Last edited by Piltdown Man; 18th Sep 2014 at 20:42. Reason: peace or piece?