LH 412 to Newark rerouted 16th April
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Age: 49
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH 412 to Newark rerouted 16th April
Hi all
as a passenger of the Munich-Newark Lufthansa flight LH 412 on the 16th April, I would like to ask if anyone knows the real reason for having been rerouted to a small airport, waited there and then took off again.
Thanks!
as a passenger of the Munich-Newark Lufthansa flight LH 412 on the 16th April, I would like to ask if anyone knows the real reason for having been rerouted to a small airport, waited there and then took off again.
Thanks!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) I have no idea with that little information - a/c type. pax load, 'little airport' location? Perhaps we could get closer with those.
2) The crew knew (one hopes
). Did they say nothing? Just land, sit around and then take off again? Did the doors open? Anyone get on or off? Was fuel taken on?
2) The crew knew (one hopes
). Did they say nothing? Just land, sit around and then take off again? Did the doors open? Anyone get on or off? Was fuel taken on?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Age: 49
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
thanks for your reply.
Aircraft was an Airbus A340-600, flight LH 412 from MUC to Newark.
Hovered over NYC for a long time, then diverted to Stewart Intl airport - with crew very secretive about everything and releasing very few info.
None on or off, took fuel on, took off and landed in newark.
thanks for your reply.
Aircraft was an Airbus A340-600, flight LH 412 from MUC to Newark.
Hovered over NYC for a long time, then diverted to Stewart Intl airport - with crew very secretive about everything and releasing very few info.
None on or off, took fuel on, took off and landed in newark.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Age: 72
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH 412
LH 412 Flight Status
This flight has multiple segments. Please select a segment from the list.
LH 412 from (MUC) Munich to (EWR) Newark
LH 412 from (SWF) Newburgh to (EWR) Newark
Info from ; http://www.flightstats.com/go/Flight...ightNumber=412
(LH) Lufthansa 412
Departure Date: Sat 16-Apr-2011
Status: Landed
Delayed 257 minutes
See below for departure and arrival details including Flight Notes.
This flight has multiple segments. Please select a segment from the list.
LH 412 from (MUC) Munich to (EWR) Newark
LH 412 from (SWF) Newburgh to (EWR) Newark
Info from ; http://www.flightstats.com/go/Flight...ightNumber=412
(LH) Lufthansa 412
Departure Date: Sat 16-Apr-2011
Status: Landed
Delayed 257 minutes
See below for departure and arrival details including Flight Notes.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless we know what was going on at NYC to cause the holding on 16/4 we cannot progress. Sounds as if they just needed to top up due to extended holding. Surprised nothing said, though. Any LH around? Is SWF a nominated alternate for you?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Age: 72
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC archives
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I for one cannot believe that the FD did not give pax the reason for the diversion. Perhaps you were sleeping or listening to your IPOD or whatever and missed the PA. Sounds to me as if there was extensive holding and your flight had to divert to top up. It happens. Nothing sinister. But I refuse to believe that on a LH flight no announcement was made.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Age: 49
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hovered over NYC for a long time,
.... so surely this should be on Rotorheads.... if not Passengers & SLF?
ehehehe
well, hotel tango, it's not that they didnt say anything, but the whole thing was quite secretive: i guess the reason was bad weather conditions, however they announced to have been diverted to JFK and when approaching the airport it was clear that it was not JFK but this little runway in the middle of nothing. So pax started to think about an emergency landing for other reasons and deck trying not to spread panic.
.... so surely this should be on Rotorheads.... if not Passengers & SLF?
ehehehe
well, hotel tango, it's not that they didnt say anything, but the whole thing was quite secretive: i guess the reason was bad weather conditions, however they announced to have been diverted to JFK and when approaching the airport it was clear that it was not JFK but this little runway in the middle of nothing. So pax started to think about an emergency landing for other reasons and deck trying not to spread panic.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but this little runway in the middle of nothing
The main east-west runway is 11,818 feet (3,602 m) long by 150 feet (46 m) wide, but the landing threshold in each direction is displaced 2000 feet (610 m). Additionally, aircraft landing to the east on runway 9 are involved with landing distance available restriction of an additional 1,000-foot (305 m) reduction in length, making only 8,818 feet (2,688 m) usable for landing. Runway 27 has 9,818 feet (2,993 m) available for landing. The full length of the runway is available for takeoff in both directions.
So, worse case scenario 8,818 feet to land on (although it was most likely that you came in on 27 thus having 9,818 feet) and 11,818 feet for take-off on a short and light hop to EWR.
"Little" runway I think not.
Photos: - Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Maybe you were looking at the cross runway
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apeiron75, looking back at all your posts I don't think i deserve the rolling eyes.
It could well be that the initial intention was to divert to JFK. This may have been changed due to the traffic situation at JFK and Stewart Intl offered instead. Do understand that in what was obviously a very busy time for the FD crew they may just not have had enough time to make a further PA announcement. The basics had already been made known i.e. you were diverting.
It could well be that the initial intention was to divert to JFK. This may have been changed due to the traffic situation at JFK and Stewart Intl offered instead. Do understand that in what was obviously a very busy time for the FD crew they may just not have had enough time to make a further PA announcement. The basics had already been made known i.e. you were diverting.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Age: 72
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaos JFK and EWR 16/4 , DLH flights
Lufthansa A380 bleibt mit "Unknown Status" am Boden
Sorry thats in German try Google translate
Best Regards
Sorry thats in German try Google translate
Best Regards
