Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO 10 Divert On 9 NOV  
User currently offlineJaxs170 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 99 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3818 times:

99,

I was wondering if anyone out there knows why CO 10 (IAH-CDG) diverted to EWR and is listed to depart around 930am on Sat, 10 NOV? I am taking this flight in a few weeks and at the same time my mom will be flying from EWR to CDG to meet me in Paris, and suffice to say she would be a wreck if she got to Paris and I was 12 hours behind schedule. Just looking for info as to what happened if anyone can get a hold of it. Thanks.


707, 717, 727, 732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, 752, 762/3/4, 744, 772, MD-80/2/3/8, DC-9, F-100, A319/20/21, A333, DC-10, MD-11, ARJ,
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21527 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3810 times:

I think your concern is a bit misplaced as this kind of thing is not normal. There must have been a problem with the plane (as a medical emergency would not take 12 hours). The odds of you being delayed like that are about the same as she being delayed 12 hours or any other flight being delayed due to being diverted. It's part of air travel, it's not common, and it's not specific to this flight somehow.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/C...0/history/20071110/0057Z/KIAH/LFPG

Looking at the near 90-degree turn in the BUF area for EWR, my money is on a mechanical issue that involved the overwater portion.

Not likely a medical issue, as you'd really want to land in BUF or someplace closer than EWR to get an ill pax in the hands of medical care more sooner than later...

Not likely an engine-related mechanical issue, since engine shutdowns on twins (like on a 777) require diversion to the nearest suitable airport in point-of-time, even if that airport isn't a MX base like EWR is. BUF, ROC, PIT... not EWR.

Whatever it is, they'll work to get it resolved as best they can, and as fast as they can.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21527 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3748 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 2):
Not likely an engine-related mechanical issue, since engine shutdowns on twins (like on a 777) require diversion to the nearest suitable airport in point-of-time

Yes, but if they don't actually shut the engine down, they don't have to divert to closest, right? They could have an engine problem that would require repair but not an immediate shutdown, and then they'd do their darndest to get to EWR where they could put the bird into the hangar and swap out a new one if need be.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

Diverted for Mechanical, then crew went illegal

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3637 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
They could have an engine problem that would require repair but not an immediate shutdown

Like?


User currently offlineIAHcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3433 posts, RR: 41
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Offending aircraft is Ship 004... 10 will op EWRCDG with Ship 019.
CO56 EWRCDG will turn CO11 CDGIAH and CO57 will have to wait 14 hours for 10 to gat there.
Sounds like a fun time for all...  ashamed   banghead 



Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineWj From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3380 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
They could have an engine problem that would require repair but not an immediate shutdown

Like?

Could be a bunch of things, like engine temps above normal, using oil faster than expected or any one of dozens performance standards that are measured that can be off from optimal. Any one of those would alert the crew that something may be off but would not require a shut down and a diversion to nearest suitable, but still concerning enough that you dont want to cross the Atlantic with...



146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlineIAHcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3433 posts, RR: 41
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wj (Reply 7):
alert the crew that something may be off but would not require a shut down and a diversion to nearest suitable, but still concerning enough that you dont want to cross the Atlantic with...

From what I have heard Engine #1 developed a case of vibration combined with increased fuel consumption. It was decided that was not a good thing... so much so that an engine change is required.



Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineZTagged From Niger, joined Oct 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3180 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 2):
PIT.

I'll admit, it would have been really nice to see a T7 inbound for PIT.  biggrin 



Something awful.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21527 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3106 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
Like?



Quoting IAHcsr (Reply 8):
From what I have heard Engine #1 developed a case of vibration combined with increased fuel consumption. It was decided that was not a good thing... so much so that an engine change is required.

But it didn't require a shutdown.

As has been stated, there are a lot of reasons you would not want to shut an engine down, but also wouldn't want to fly 6 more hours on it. This is one of them.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJaxs170 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

First, thanks for the info about what happened. I know these types of events are rare, so in a way I am glad it happened now and not when I go  Smile (though that sucks for those aboard CO 10). Mostly it got me thinking about devising a plan in case this happens when I travel.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):

As for engines problems like this, I recently downed a jet that had an engine that was consistently overtemping on climbout. It would only be by a few degrees at MCT, but that is not right. Since we have missions we need to complete, I decided (with my FE in agreement) that we would wait for an opportunity to down the jet when it would not adversely impact us getting missions done, knowing the maintenance would take a day to complete. There are tons of grey areas like this in our operating manual (NATOPS (or -1 for you AF types)), and pilot (and FE) discresion is needed to decide what the best course of action is. Based on the high fuel consumption/vibration report, I would have been wary on taking a twin (or even a quad) across the pond as well, but if the engine was still useful and not showing signs of immenant failure, I would keep it running, even if it was at a lower power setting, to get somewhere I could get it fixed.



707, 717, 727, 732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, 752, 762/3/4, 744, 772, MD-80/2/3/8, DC-9, F-100, A319/20/21, A333, DC-10, MD-11, ARJ,
User currently offlinePilotNTrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Quoting Artsyman (Reply 4):

Care to elaborate on that one?



Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
User currently offlinePilotNTrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting PilotNTrng (Reply 12):

My bad, I think you were talking about the crew timing out right?



Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
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...
Get-together In El Paso On Nov. 30? posted Wed Aug 8 2007 00:12:51 by Pe@rson
Why Not 10 Abreast On UA 777s? posted Sun Jul 1 2007 09:43:51 by Zvezda
US And CO Business Class On 757s posted Sun Jun 3 2007 17:17:54 by Jcavinato
Main Deck 10 Abreast On A380, Unrealistic? 11? posted Sat May 5 2007 01:37:28 by Keesje
Bogus CO Gift Certs On EBay - posted Thu Mar 22 2007 15:20:56 by Clickhappy
AA And CO Remain Firm On Pilot Rest Rules posted Tue Mar 20 2007 16:42:19 by Style
CO Reward Travel On Commutair Not Available posted Fri Mar 2 2007 04:22:11 by ContnlEliteCMH
Will CO Ever Codeshare On NW's Asian Flights? posted Fri Feb 9 2007 22:27:18 by LAXdude1023
FedEx DC-10 Stuck On SAN Runway posted Thu Nov 30 2006 18:19:07 by SAN88
And So It Begins, JetBlue To Cancun On Nov. 30th posted Tue Nov 28 2006 18:07:53 by Juventus