|
Well American Airlines, which one is the true reason of the diversion?
|
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? |
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. |
"Medical Issue".
American Airlines euphemism for Sick Aircraft? :} |
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’. |
Originally Posted by Commander Taco
(Post 10272361)
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. 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. |
At a minimum the aircraft probably needed a overweight landing inspection. The crew was probably going to be illegal to continue by the time that was done. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
(Post 10272461)
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. |
Originally Posted by evansb
(Post 10273005)
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.
|
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://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....927fc41ccd.png https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....35d5bb449e.png https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...a263/#1e2d26f3 |
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 10282358)
If they were full I suspect they were quite a bit overweight at that point. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.