DL 73 IST-JFK Diverted Due To Explosion Event? — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

DL 73 IST-JFK Diverted Due To Explosion Event?

AirlineFanatic From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 222 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

Today's nonstop DL 73 IST-JFK has been diverted to SNN, is this because of the explosion at IST?

Anyone have anymore info?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last

LXLGU From South Africa, joined Sep 2000, 1085 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

According to CRS diversion due to security screening
ETD Shannon 6.30pm
Cheers!

Tu154m From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 667 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5962 times:

Yes..........from what I have heard there were some connecting pax from the THY flight that had the bomob on board. Everyone being rescreed and all bags/cargo getting the same. Fun!
S

CEOs should swim with cement flippers!

CALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3662 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

does anyone think this may be a little too jumpy?

okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.

PresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 628 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5742 times:

Yes. Big overeaction.

WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5726 times:

Better safe than dead.

If there is a connection then the DL has to be checked just in case.

Remember it was a forwarded bag that brought down PA103

[Edited 2004-06-29 20:39:28]

Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4741 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5702 times:

Yes. Big overeaction.
****

How can it possibly be a big over reaction when it is clear that someone managed to get a bomb past security that exploded on a plane at the airpor they just departed, and while you have some of the passengers from that previous flight onboard ?.

Add to this that DL is an American carrier, and with America currently being in the doghouse of more or less every country in the world, and with America being the main targeted enemy of all of the world's nutjobs.

Personally, I think it was a logical step to re-check this aircraft.

Steve7E7 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 470 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5612 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I totally agree with the last 2 posts.....Lockerbie is still fresh in the minds of a lot of people in the UK......God forbid if it were ever to happen anywhere else again.

Steve.

Mikeymike From United States of America, joined May 2000, 406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

I totally agree that this was a necessary precaution that needs to be done. First a shoe bomb (AA flight from CDG), now a wallet bomb, what's next?. To the people who think this was a bit jumpy, what do you think should be the minimum to divert a plane, an actual explosion over mid-air?

Snnams From Ireland, joined Apr 2004, 288 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5351 times:

Agreed.. not an over-reaction.

Plane departed SNN just before 8 local this evening. It was on the ground here for at least three hours I think.

KateAV8 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 99 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Agreed...absolutely not an overreaction. I hate to use a cliche'...but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Regards,
Kate

The only justification for looking down on someone is to help them up

Skibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4423 times:

Glad to hear everything went OK with DL73.

I've got a question though....when a long-haul flight like this diverts, do they need to dump fuel to land? The leg from IST to SNN was 1928 miles, and the leg from SNN to JFK was 3072 miles, according to Delta, so when they diverted to SNN they still had a significant amount of fuel on board, enough to go to JFK plus reserves. Is the 767-300ER capable of landing with this amount of fuel?

Tailwinds!!!

AWspicious From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3885 times:

"Is the 767-300ER capable of landing with this amount of fuel?"

Evidently, yes. One did so tonight, here at YYZ. Took off for Sao Paulo (over 9 hour flight) and returned about 20min later due to technicalities. Declared a heavy landing (announced #pax, crew and fuel weight) and stopped within a reasonable distance. I believe the 767 cannot dump it's fuel.

CX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6340 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

Not at all an over-reaction. Does anyone remember the incident years ago when there was a bomb at some airport (Can't remember where) and a 707 departed with the flight engineer feeling very uneasy. He eventually forced the other guys to divert and offloaded all bags, one of which subsequently exploded, killing some people on the ground. More than one bomb had gotten through security that day,

Jumpseat70 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3194 times:

I find it disturbing that anyone on the ground, who is safe and sound, would use the word "over-reaction" to describe an airlines attempt to circumvent any type of terror towards its indefensible passengers.

Cost of diversion notwithstanding, a safe airline does what it deems necessary to ensure its crew and passengers are out of harms way.

These comments would undoubtedly be different if that same individual were in that airplane and equally concerned about his personal safety.

It is always interesting how quickly personal agendas change when personal safety is involved at 36,000 feet.

Delta always "over reacts"...Thank God!!

Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4741 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

I find it disturbing that anyone on the ground, who is safe and sound, would use the word "over-reaction" to describe an airlines attempt to circumvent any type of terror towards its indefensible passengers.
****

The people that crow on about over reactions are the same ones that take every opportunity to attack more or less everything that any American company does. There is no need to make this thread political, but there is little point in continuing with the thread without acknowledging that these are the reasons that these people make these comments. The comments are not based on logic or any sense of reality, and as you quite rightly pointed out, these same people would be the first to have a puddle below their seats.

J

Tu154m From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 667 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

AWspicious.................all 767ER models, both -200 and -300 can dump fuel. The non-ER models cannot. On ER models you will notice a nozzle just outboard of the ailerons........this is for fuel jettison purposes.
S

CEOs should swim with cement flippers!

PresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 628 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

Didn't see the earlier post in which it said that some passengers had connected from the affected flight. In that case, the diversion was wise as there had clearly been a security failure somehwere along the way.

Had there been no connecting passengers, luggage or cargo and just a coincidence as to the airport, it would have been an overreaction.

Skibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2560 times:

Yes a 767ER can dump fuel. Proof is in the photo!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter D. Baumgartner

I've got a picture of a Delta 767-300ERE dumping fuel over Cincinnati, but have no clue on how to post it.

Tailwinds!!!

Top Of Page

Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: