Well American Airlines, which one is the true reason of the diversion?
Thread Starter
Well American Airlines, which one is the true reason of the diversion?
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 65
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet Jockey
I think the statement from Calgary EMS says it all. "Calgary EMS said they did not transport any passengers from the aircraft." It was also reported that they had planned to land in Edmonton but runway wasn't long enough. Kind of makes it sound like a mechanical issue and not a medical issue.
Out of interest what is the landing distance for a zero flap landing on the 787?
I think the statement from Calgary EMS says it all. "Calgary EMS said they did not transport any passengers from the aircraft." It was also reported that they had planned to land in Edmonton but runway wasn't long enough. Kind of makes it sound like a mechanical issue and not a medical issue.
Out of interest what is the landing distance for a zero flap landing on the 787?
If it was a hydraulic problem, I can’t see why that would lead to a no flaps/slats landing. Flaps/Slats should have been available in secondary mode, or as a last resort, alternate mode.
I suspect the choice of Calgary vs. Edmonton was to do with the fact that Edmonton airport is out in the sticks whereas Calgary airport is within the city limits and is surrounded by hotels that could accommodate an unexpected 787-load of guests.
I don’t think runway length would have been an issue:
Edmonton runway length 10,995’. Elevation 2373’.
Calgary runway length 14,000’. Elevation 3606’.
I don’t think runway length would have been an issue:
Edmonton runway length 10,995’. Elevation 2373’.
Calgary runway length 14,000’. Elevation 3606’.
Totally plausible that on the way in to the diversion field they had a technical issue that would be better handled at a field with a longer runway / better facilities and decided to / were asked to divert there instead.
Seems perfectly normal airline ops to me.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How overweight do you think the diverted AA Boeing 787 would have been? It was airborne over 4 hours when the diversion took place. To quote the article " The plane was forced to burn some fuel, “to reduce the landing weight,” the airline said.
I didn’t see mention of a HYD problem.
Totally plausible that on the way in to the diversion field they had a technical issue that would be better handled at a field with a longer runway / better facilities and decided to / were asked to divert there instead.
Seems perfectly normal airline ops to me.
Also, sceptical optimist, you apparently missed the “If” at the start of my post.
If they were full I suspect they were quite a bit overweight at that point.
Takeoff was at 15:34Z. Diversion started just after four hours en route at 19:48. At 20:58 they carried out a missed approach at Edmonton and after over two hours of maneuvering, they landed at Calgary at 23:14Z (17:14 local).
Elapsed time 7h40 compared to a planned time of about 13 hours. What surprises me is that all the maneuvering between Edmonton and Calgary was at 9000' or below, which is uncontrolled airspace.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...a263/#1e2d26f3
Elapsed time 7h40 compared to a planned time of about 13 hours. What surprises me is that all the maneuvering between Edmonton and Calgary was at 9000' or below, which is uncontrolled airspace.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...a263/#1e2d26f3
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
