RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6842 posts, RR: 29 Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2879 times:
Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 5): Well, the entire flight (AVL-ATL) averages about 34 minutes...
That's at altitude and cruise speed. The plane never got 1/3 of the distance to ATL. It climbed no higher than 18,000 ft and may well have been around 10,000 ft most of the time. It stayed at or near 250-300 KTAS before turning back about 15 minutes into the flight.
With an incomplete gear retraction indication, they would not be able to accelerate to cruise speed.
It looks like they had spent 4 to 8 minutes at a level altitude before turning back.
They could have not had enough fuel on board for the entire trip to ATL - at low altitude and with the potential for the nose gear to be hanging out - the plane will burn fuel at a very high rate - though I doubt that.
What type of maintenance capability exist at AVL for this plane?
What was the weather that day? Any possibility of flying into rough weather would rule out completing the flight.
I doubt it was a decision based on possibly messing up airport traffic - AVL has one runway and ATL have five. ATL will be much more capable of dealing with a runway closure.
The crew obviously felt that it was a indicator issue and not a gear issue, because certainly if they felt the gear might collapse - they would want to be at an airport with the biggest emergency services and hospitals nearby. They could just as easily have diverted to CLT.
But that's all guess work - only the crew and ASQ dispatch knows the real reasons.
Here at AVL last night it was pretty clear. A few clouds, but clear for the most part. Earlier in the day, however, we had a pretty vicious thunderstorm and winds, but I don't think that would have affected ASQ280. Not sure about the weather in ATL.
"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
NW747-400 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 491 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 7): Another interesting EV situation is that 763 diverted 2 nights in a row.
Thunderstorms affected operations in ATL both of these nights. Due to the short runways in APF, the CRJ is always weight restricted; therefore, minimum fuel is carried in order to accomodate maximum passengers (and by maximum, I mean 30-35, less on a very hot day). With thunderstorms impacting the area, airplanes were probably holding, and inbound flights from APF could not hold due to minimum fuel loads.