Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL 73 IST-JFK Diverted Due To Explosion Event?  
User currently offlineAirlineFanatic From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 222 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7592 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
 
User currently offlineLXLGU From South Africa, joined Sep 2000, 1085 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7320 times:

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


User currently offlineTu154m From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 683 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7167 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!
User currently offlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4050 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7064 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 664 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6947 times:

Yes. Big overeaction.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6931 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]

User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6907 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.


User currently offlineSteve7E7 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 478 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6817 times:

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.


User currently offlineMikeymike From United States of America, joined May 2000, 406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6674 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?

User currently offlineSnnams From Ireland, joined Apr 2004, 288 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6556 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.


User currently offlineKateAV8 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 99 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5996 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
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5628 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!!!
User currently offlineAWspicious From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5090 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.


User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6641 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5032 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,

User currently offlineJumpseat70 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4399 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!!


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4080 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


User currently offlineTu154m From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 683 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3896 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!
User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 664 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3855 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.


User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3765 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:More similar topics...
NW42 MSP-AMS Diverted Due To MX? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 06:38:11 by Acidradio
T1 @ JFK Evacuated Due To Bomb Threat posted Tue Jun 15 2004 22:35:42 by AirlineFanatic
Royal Air Maroc Flight Diverted Due To Bomb Threat posted Fri Feb 20 2004 14:19:26 by CcrlR
Northwest A321 Diverted Due To Suspicions posted Wed Sep 11 2002 18:44:59 by Funny
Air 2000 Plane Diverted Due To Golf Clubs! posted Mon Feb 4 2002 11:57:22 by Demoose
US/TZ Livery Transition On Hold Due To DL Offer? posted Fri Nov 17 2006 16:36:47 by N328KF
EI Flight From JFK-DUB Evacuated Due To Bomb Thr.. posted Sat Aug 26 2006 18:59:48 by Usair320
United Flight Diverted To DEN Due To Drunk Pax. posted Sat Aug 19 2006 11:49:15 by UAPremierGuy
UA Flight Diverted To BOS Due To Security posted Wed Aug 16 2006 16:37:28 by FURUREFA
DL To Fly JFK-LGW Up To Three Times Daily! posted Mon Jul 31 2006 16:18:50 by UAL777UK