Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA 935 On 28 Jan 2013 Returning To London  
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3031 posts, RR: 44
Posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

UA 935 (LHR-LAX) made a U-turn just south of Iceland and is returning to London, according to Flightradar24:

It's interesting because it's not squawking 7700, so it's no emergency due to mechanical problems.

What other issues could cause a plane to turn back after already going that far, that isn't a "real" emergency? Medical issues? Passenger on a no-fly list? That's certainly a long flight for those passengers, to be going "nowhere"  

Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
2 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlinegabrielchew From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3781 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4060 times:

Maybe the pilot fancied some cold heavy rain rather than Californian sun? (Weather in London is horrible right now). Must be very frustrating for the pax, especially if you're down the back.

http://my.flightmemory.com/shefgab Upcoming flights: LGW-VLC-LGW-MLE-LGW-SVQ-LGW,STN-ATH-LHR,LGW-OPO-LGW,LTN-CPH-LHR-ORD
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 11166 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4035 times:

From Flightaware, it looks like they descended to 18,000 ~ 21,000ft. That’s in line with what they’d do if they lost one of their packs. The airplane has to fly lower because it can’t maintain adequate cabin pressure at a normal cruising altitude. The airplane is still safe to fly, but its range will be seriously degraded. They wouldn’t have been able to make it to LAX. It’s not a good idea to fly too far when you are down on packs at that altitude since if you lose another, you have to fly down at 10,000ft, but the airplane is not required to divert to the nearest suitable alternate.

They likely could have gone to IAD/EWR, but in this case it appears they were closer to LHR. Many passengers would prefer to be in LHR to make alternate arrangements rather than fly to IAD/EWR and get rerouted there.

If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UA58 IAH-AMS Equipment Sub On 8/28 posted Wed Aug 29 2012 16:07:09 by co772
MH1 Returning To LHR posted Fri Aug 17 2012 15:51:24 by ferengi80
DL 3 Returning To Gate..MX Issue? posted Fri Jul 27 2012 16:24:21 by rwy04lga
US To US On Air Canada (or Can To Can On US?) posted Sun Jul 15 2012 09:22:56 by cedarjet
Feb 2013 KLM To YUL, Safe To Get An MD11? posted Thu Jun 14 2012 09:50:23 by Birdwatching
American Flight 62 Returning To MIA posted Sun Jan 29 2012 16:40:59 by polnebmit
Flying MSP-YUL On 8/28: Impact Of Irene? posted Sat Aug 27 2011 16:21:37 by zrs70
UA 558 On June 17 Diversion Reason? posted Fri Jun 17 2011 11:01:55 by dartland
UA 379 On 5/15/11 Went Tech Any Info? posted Mon May 23 2011 06:51:57 by B727
Do Full Fare Tiks On CO In '11 Count To GS In '12? posted Sun Feb 27 2011 10:03:17 by VC10er