Back to Squawk list
  • 12

Divert or not Divert ... Simple Question?

प्रस्तुत
 
Fog in EZE causes British Airways Boeing 777 to divert...or it least it should have. (avherald.com) और अधिक...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
preacher1 2
10-4 on that but this one is, at least for CAT3A, but controllers said it was below that which Is 200m. You know I really never have understood all that crap; made a lot of them but at basically 600'in which to make that type decision, depending on the exact AC, you are either flaring or close to it and if visibility is that bad on the ground, I really didn't want in that mess anyway, and you get on into the B or C, that's crazy. Even if you do fly it to the ground, most airports don't have the ground radar to safely move you around anyway and it's like taking your life into your own hands. A lot of controllers have told me that they depend on the engine vortices to give the pilots a little hole to manuever in.
levyharaivan
Ivan Levy-Hara 1
good to know (y), I'm not there yet, still two weeks away from my private pilot's license
preacher1
preacher1 1
I am pretty much retired now but am still very current. I flew big iron 135 my entire career; for that I was blessed and very fortunate, but it don't matter whether you pursue it as a career or just as a hobby, to me there was never anything more thrilling or satisfying that wheels up and watching the earth fall away. You just hang in there and get that licenseI remember being young and just starting out as an FE on a 707. I really hated that because on takeoffs, my eyes were glued to the panel and the Captain hoping he didn't hear a negative word out of me. Every now and then though, I'd cut my eyes to the front.lol
spatr
spatr 1
nothing like looking over your left shoulder when ATC call "traffic at 12 o'clock"
preacher1
preacher1 1
lol, and you hope somebody sees it.
levyharaivan
Ivan Levy-Hara 1
Haha. Pretty inspirational. I'm going to college in a year and one of my requierments (like personally) are that there has to be a flight school in an accesible place. Sounds kind of crazy, so I usually don't tell anyone that lol
preacher1
preacher1 2
If the flying takes the forefront in your life, don't forsake the schooling by any means, BUT, keep that requirement as #1
preacher1
preacher1 3
And don't be ashamed to let anyone know that. You will probably find a lot more in common around a pilots group at an FBO somewhere than with those on campus anyway, and you can definitely learn from those older heads with the right attitude.
levyharaivan
Ivan Levy-Hara 1
andriy17
Andriy Tsyupka 1
all three all 777...glad all landed safely!

Musketeer1
Musketeer1 1
I wonder if there was some sort of atmospheric phenomena causing an insanely high fuel burn? I'm just trying to figure out how all 3 were triple 7's going to the same airport. I wonder if all of them had the same engines? There has to be an excuse for this, no?
levyharaivan
Ivan Levy-Hara 1
This airport is the country's major airport (internationally, mostly). Most interntional flights are scheduled for around the same time (from Miami, Dallas, Canada, and I guess London too), considering they had to wait, they all became one group, it's really not a big deal in the sense of how all three of them were there at the same time.
preacher1
preacher1 2
This was all basically around 730-800 local time, They are probably all scheduled in there early morning to give a PAX all day do do their thing. You look at a lot of schedules and you will not only see the early morning arrivals but late afternoon or evening departures. A lot of Pax will just schedule a single meeting for that day and go home, whether it's international or domestic. Our guys used to do that all the time. They'd hit early morning, we'd bunk during the day and out late afternoon.
levyharaivan
Ivan Levy-Hara 1
Yeah, I was just answering to someone's comment
spatr
spatr 1
yeah, holding at 5000' or 6000' or even 10000' for a half an hour tends to drive up the burn. Then going to climb power to divert also drives up the burn.
preacher1
preacher1 1
preacher1
preacher1 1
Seems to be all at the pilots hands for 25 and 30 min hold times. Yeah the Airlines will go minmum fuel, BUT, that said, all these were international flight and had a fairly immediate decision been made, they had fuel for a safe diversion as required. ETOPS comes into play here. All the hold time was primarily the pilots and you really can't regulate that.Seems like one of them did divert and came back later. It does look like that they would have seen this in advance and made the decision before arrival if it was still fogged in when they got there rather than hold, unless somebody was telling them it was lifting and the tried to wait it out.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Funny that all 3 got cleared to land after holding for nearly 1/2 hr and one even offering a CAT 3. Glad they all got down safely. The meat of this story would be the actual WX in this case but it just kinda makes it sound like the controllers held them up there for their health or that the pilots couldn't make up their mind. What with low fuel and ETOPS these days, you ain't got a lot of time to make up your mind whether to stay or go.
levyharaivan
Ivan Levy-Hara 1
As an argentina, I have experienced this airport first hand. Not really sure why international flights are scheduled around the same times, but weather like this happens all the time (usually from Chile's active volcano), it just happened that this time the pilots were eager to meet the passengers needs.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Could have been those pilots were familiar with the WX and that may have been wy they held so long, thinking it may lift
spatr
spatr 2
considering that the wx was improving, possibly to well above mins, there was no reason to divert. If it was legal to shoot the approach and EZE wasnt letting them, that could really have hosed them all. It sounds like AA was in the process of going elsewhere, but the METAR shows that EZE was legal. No need to spend all that gas getting to your alternate just to be at emergency fuel when you get there.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
looks like things turned pretty interesting pretty fast

[This poster has been suspended.]

levyharaivan
Ivan Levy-Hara 2
you seem to have it pretty wrong bud, if they were to put more than the minimum fuel (which few do, even in the private/recreational sector) that would mean more weight, meaning more fuel spending, meaning bigger charges for the customer. The minimums are set to be safe, and they clearly are, just pilots feel the pressure to meet the needs of the customers and make some big risks that are debatable to make or not.

लॉगिन

क्या आपका कोई खाता नहीं है? अनुकूलित विशेषताओं, फ्लाइट अलर्टों,और अधिक के लिए अब(नि:शुल्क) रजिस्टर करें!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss