Our plane is just too BIG. We're going back to ORD

[mWilson0000]

(search Google news for "Plane too big" for link to USA Today story)

United flight operated by SkyWest.
A text message with details on the new flight offered more insight into the reason for the u-turn: "We're sorry for returning to Chicago. The airport in Chattanooga is unable to assist with ground operational requirements for your current aircraft type. We assigned your flight a new plane."

SkyWest spokeswoman Marissa Snow did not provide any other details, saying only that the 76-seat Embraer aircraft used on the first flight to Chattanooga was "just a different aircraft than typical for ground personnel there.'' She would not elaborate on why the airline used the plane on the route in the first place or didn't check with the airport to see about necessary ground crews.

Passengers were put on a 50-seat Bombardier CRJ 200, which United typically uses on the flight. Passengers finally arrived at the gate in Chattanooga just before 8:30 p.m. local time, more than three hours late.

[hunbet]

United didn't have a towbar for that type of A/C so they wouldn't have been able to push it back from the gate.

[Longtimer]

Originally Posted by hunbet

United didn't have a towbar for that type of A/C so they wouldn't have been able to push it back from the gate.

so why not an apron parking which would not require any push back?

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Longtimer

so why not an apron parking which would not require any push back?

Well, if Sky West at Chattanooga normally boards it's flights via a jetway, then it's very likely that they don't have equipment, procedures and staff in place to disembark passengers across the ramp. That's not the sort of thing that it's wise to improvise at the last minute.

[.Scott]

So they couldn't have simply retracted the jet way to allow the plane to continue through after offloading?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by .Scott

So they couldn't have simply retracted the jet way to allow the plane to continue through after offloading?

See previous post, which would be equally applicable to non-standard ground manoeuvering:

Originally Posted by A Squared

That's not the sort of thing that it's wise to improvise at the last minute.

[harrryw]

How long to organise the loan of a towbar from a nearby field and truck it over, surely cheaper and less disruptive.

[Less Hair]

You can park in a fashion that you don't blast innocent people and still don't need a towbar. And you can move an airplane by manually pushing it with some strong men. No need for towbars at all.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by .Scott

So they couldn't have simply retracted the jet way to allow the plane to continue through after offloading?

Well, in that particular picture, it looks like it might be possible with that particular airplane parked at that particular gate in that position. It's worth noting that the presence of an airplane in Northwest livery indicates the photo is at least 8 years old. If you look at Chattanooga on Google earth, the more recent satellite imagery shows that the current gate orientations are more or less straight into the terminal and wouldn't be possible to taxi out of. So, we'd be talking about marshaling an aircraft into a position not in compliance with the current gate markings, GSE equipment positioning marking, and estimating ad-hoc by eyeball the parking orientation that would allow; A.) the Jetway to connect to the airplane, and B.) the airplane to taxi out without a push ... none of which the current ground crew has ever done before or even been trained for, nor are there pavement markings to go by. Additionally, if all the parking stands are all now oriented nose-in to the terminal building, there's a pretty good chance that parking obliquely across one would encroach on an adjacent gate. I think that the chances they'd do that are vanishingly small.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Less Hair

And you can move an airplane by manually pushing it with some strong men. No need for towbars at all.

Jeeezus, the suggestions just keep getting dumber and dumber. So you're going to push a 60,000-70,000 lb jet beck from the gate by hand? Seriously?

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by harrryw

How long to organise the loan of a towbar from a nearby field and truck it over, surely cheaper and less disruptive.

The closest airport with airline service is Knoxville, which is 2 hours driving distance. Chicago-Chattanooga flight time is 1:45 minutes So even if you had gone through all the necessary phone calls to locate the specific towbar required, arranged it's loan, arranged a truck and driver to transport it, had it loaded on the truck, and the truck started driving at the same time the airplane took off, it still wouldn't make it in time.

[.Scott]

Could they have loaded a tow bar onto the plane itself? Of course, assuming a spare was available.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by .Scott

Could they have loaded a tow bar onto the plane itself? Of course, assuming a spare was available.

Given that the airplane had already taken off from Chicago when the lack of a towbar was noted, that would have been difficult. Not impossible, I suppose, but very, very difficult.

[Less Hair]

So you're going to push a 60,000-70,000 lb jet beck from the gate by hand? Seriously?

Before you have to turn around some commercial flight why not? If you just shut down at the right spot you can roll out without help.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Less Hair

Before you have to turn around some commercial flight why not?

OK, I'll play along here. How many persons do you estimate that it would take to push a 65,000 pound airplane? In case you're confused by the units, that's 30,000 kg, in round numbers. Assume average size and strength men. Where on the airplane would you have them push?

Originally Posted by Less Hair

Plane too big If you just shut down at the right spot you can roll out without help.

Already addressed. See earlier post

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

People have pushed aircraft before ...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...y-from-216074/

(It's an old story, maybe the photos won't show up, but the text does at least)

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Mad (Flt) Scientist

People have pushed aircraft before ...

Yes, of course they have. Pictures don't show up but on JetPhotos someone described it being around 20 people. The CRJ is substantially smaller than the ERJ-175. Are you seriously trying to insist that gathering 30 or more workers (from where?) and having them push back a jet by hand is a reasonable solution?

[Deep and fast]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-new...where-30208605
Not that I'd recommend it, but having been there I'd not recommend staying either....

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Originally Posted by A Squared

Are you seriously trying to insist that gathering 30 or more workers (from where?) and having them push back a jet by hand is a reasonable solution?

I'm not insisting anything. I'm merely pointing out that when all other ideas have failed, it's an option. Possibly an easier option to organize in China than the US (I'm guessing rounding up 20-30 employees in the US might not be too hard, persuading the same 20-30 mostly unionized employees to get on the ramp and start pushing aeroplanes around is maybe a trickier idea than in the "workers' paradise"

[Less Hair]

I have pulled a 747 out of a hangar myself with a small group of people (like 15 to 20 maybe). It's not brute force needed. The main problem is to control some super soft force application at the right spots (senior engineer advice needed) and to have wingwalkers plus somebody in the cockpit listening and ready to brake and stear as things can get very expensive in a second. Plus some aircraft wheel chocks and somebody ready to position them. Once it gets moving it is hard to stop. For an Embraer it should work a little easier.