Poh2 From Venezuela, joined Oct 2003, 219 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20473 times:
Hello everyone,
Just got back from Zurich Airport, after spending 6 hours there waiting for flight AA 65 (ZRH-JFK) that eventually was cancelled.
Here's what happened:
-Inbound flight from JFK (AA 64 operated on B767-300ER) was diverted to MXP after the pilot had circled above ZRH waiting for the weather to improve and was running low on fuel. This caused the initial delay, and we were told during check-in that the flight would be delayed about an hour and a half. The plane was to be fuelled in MXP and then flown to ZRH.
-While waiting at the gate, our departure time continually kept being pushed back. Finally at around noon, they inform us that the plane has finally left MXP and would arrive shortly.
-Being an a.nutter, I spend the time doing some spotting...which from ZRH's dock E terminal is great. I see the AA 767 (registration N350AN) come in for the landing...only to see the pilot abort the landing and throttle up and take off again!!!
-At around 1 PM or so, the AA general manager finally tells us that the flight has been cancelled. The crew had reached its maximum number of flying hours and was heading back to MXP. The plane will spend the night there and tomorrow they will fly back to ZRH. The manager went on to explain that the pilot had tried to land, but he did not feel safe performing the landing.
So, I have some questions:
1) Did the AA pilots also attempt a landing the first time they came to ZRH at 7:20 AM on the inbound AA 64?
2) Other than the AA flight, ALL OTHER FLIGHTS WERE OPERATING NORMALLY. Why is it that these AA pilots were not able to land at ZRH? The manager said something about "this aircraft type was not able to land safely under these weather conditions"...however, DL, CO, and UA all operate the 767 and all of them landed and departed again according to schedule!
There is something weird going on here...anyone have any more info? I mean the weather was pretty bad today (heavy rain/snow), but how can it be that every other flight to/from ZRH operated normally except for AA? Is there something wrong with N350AN? Does it not have the ILS system working properly? Do they even let a plane fly without that?
Also, what is the maximum number of hours that pilots can fly? I was surprised to hear that the same pilots that flew in from JFK and diverted to MXP were the ones flying the bird back to ZRH just a few hours later.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 26 Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20455 times:
It does not sound logic that other aicraft landed while AA considered the airport was not safe ..
It's either that the airport is open or closed - and what would have happend to the AA pilot if Milan was in fog ???? (which happens quite frequently ..)
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21244 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20455 times:
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): Also, what is the maximum number of hours that pilots can fly? I was surprised to hear that the same pilots that flew in from JFK and diverted to MXP were the ones flying the bird back to ZRH just a few hours later.
They weren't. I guarantee it.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
DashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1314 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20381 times:
There's about 1.5 million reasons that could have happened.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9077 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20185 times:
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): 1) Did the AA pilots also attempt a landing the first time they came to ZRH at 7:20 AM on the inbound AA 64?
Whether they arrived there for the first time or not shouldn't matter, it's the pilot's decision to land or to abort.
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): 2) Other than the AA flight, ALL OTHER FLIGHTS WERE OPERATING NORMALLY. Why is it that these AA pilots were not able to land at ZRH? The manager said something about "this aircraft type was not able to land safely under these weather conditions"...however, DL, CO, and UA all operate the 767 and all of them landed and departed again according to schedule!
The fact that other airlines did land at the time also doesn't mean anything. If a pilot just doesn't find it safe to land it is a personal action or preference. They are responsible for their flight, nobody else. If someone else jumps off a bridge are you going to do the same?
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1252 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20111 times:
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 1): It does not sound logic that other aicraft landed while AA considered the airport was not safe ..
It's either that the airport is open or closed - and what would have happend to the AA pilot if Milan was in fog ???? (which happens quite frequently ..)
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3): There's about 1.5 million reasons that could have happened.
Naaaaa
Actually only one.
Crew had problems with the ILS localizer on final which is why a go around was chosen as this was needed at that visibility. And as it is up to the Captain to divert, MXP was chosen again as an alternate.
AAJFKSJUBKLYN From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 837 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20041 times:
I would not have wanted to be on that flight. Imagine, diversions, then up and down, landing all those times, that on top of being on the plane for 7 hours already, and I am sure a delay in JFK to start. Everyone is safe thats what counts.
Boeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19963 times:
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3): There's about 1.5 million reasons that could have happened.
Well, how about giving us one or two!
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): The manager said something about "this aircraft type was not able to land safely under these weather conditions"...however, DL, CO, and UA all operate the 767 and all of them landed and departed again according to schedule!
Windshear is a possibility at the time AA 65 was on finals. What was the altitude at which the Go-Around procedure was enforced?
Another possibility is that AA has a slightly higher threshold of acceptable landing conditions, possibly enforced after the MD82 runway overrun at LIT in 1999.
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): I was surprised to hear that the same pilots that flew in from JFK and diverted to MXP were the ones flying the bird back to ZRH just a few hours later.
What may have happened - and I'm COMPLETELY guessing here - is that the return crew (ZHR-JFK) was dead-headed to MXP, with their time having started when they reported for duty at ZRH and when they (the return crew) aborted the landing at ZRH as well, they would have exceeded their time limit on the return to JFK. The decision to return to MXP was probably because they didn't believe that the weather conditions would improve to within their acceptability guidelines any time soon.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5540 posts, RR: 40 Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19912 times:
This is strange. In the news of Swiss TV SF they told that the weather is bad but there were no problems at ZRH, some flights with max 15 min delay.
When you check on the page of ZRH the AA flight is indeed cancelled but all other flights to NYC (three LX and one CO) are more or less on time.
I'm sure they were the same pilots. If it was a new crew, they would not have gone illegal after one attempt to land in ZRH. And from where would AA have brought in a new crew in MXP? It is not unusual for international flights to divert due to morning in fog in LHR, SYD, etc. The crew generally has just enough time to refuel and make one more attempt to land at the intended destination. JFK-ZRH is not so long that the crew would be illegal after one attempt to land.
I'm sure they were tired, but not over legal duty times.
Poh2 From Venezuela, joined Oct 2003, 219 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19443 times:
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 5): The fact that other airlines did land at the time also doesn't mean anything. If a pilot just doesn't find it safe to land it is a personal action or preference. They are responsible for their flight, nobody else. If someone else jumps off a bridge are you going to do the same?
Nothing unusual here in my opinion.
AA's general manager went on and on about this...that in the end it is up to the captain to land the plane safely, and that's the number one priority. I totally agree: safety first! Having said that, however, I just find it strange that every other pilot was able to land at ZRH fine. Even stranger, is that this aircraft tried to land TWO times, once at around 7:30 AM and then again at around 12:15 PM. It is very intriguing, IMO.
Quoting AAJFKSJUBKLYN (Reply 6): Crew had problems with the ILS localizer on final which is why a go around was chosen as this was needed at that visibility. And as it is up to the Captain to divert, MXP was chosen again as an alternate.
I agree with this...I think there is something wrong with the aircraft.
Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 7): I would not have wanted to be on that flight. Imagine, diversions, then up and down, landing all those times, that on top of being on the plane for 7 hours already, and I am sure a delay in JFK to start. Everyone is safe thats what counts.
Yes, I was pretty pissed off about the flight being cancelled, but those poor people coming in on the inbound flight have had a much rougher time than I have!
Quoting ZRH" class=quote target=_blank>ZRH (Reply 8): Windshear is a possibility at the time AA 65 was on finals. What was the altitude at which the Go-Around procedure was enforced?
I did not get a good look...but later talked to a gate agent who explained to me that the plane touched down briefly and then took off again.
Quoting Viasa (Reply 10): Did you have/had a connecting flight in New York?
Yes, I'm supposed to be on my way to Miami...unfortunately I'm stuck in wet, snowy Zurich for one more day! They were unable to rebook anybody and pretty much sent most people to nearby hotels. The plan (last I heard) was that the AA plane stuck in MXP would return to ZRH tomorrow at 8:00 AM and then fly to JFK at 10:30 AM.
To be on the safe side, I rebooked myself onto the regularly scheduled 9:25 AM flight which will be operated by a different B767-300ER that will fly inbound from JFK tonight.
I hope that I get some definite answers from AA tomorrow regarding what happened...I'll keep you posted.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9077 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19424 times:
Quoting Mattnrsa (Reply 9): I'm sure they were tired, but not over legal duty times.
You can't be sure, only the crew of that particular flight knows what happened. Were you in that cockpit to be so sure they were tired?
Quoting Viasa (Reply 10): And yes, all other flights are nearly on time and operate normally - also the other B767-operators!!!
Again, do you jump of a bridge when someone else does? No. You have absolutely no ground to back up any link to that flight cancellation just because other 767 operators did land at that time. There is just no link. The pilots had there reasons to abort the landing, period.
RandyWaldron From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 324 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19400 times:
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): Why is it that these AA pilots were not able to land at ZRH?
There are hundreds of reasons why the aircraft never landed in Zurich. Possibilities include: ground-based navigational equipment failure, aircraft-based navigational equipment failure, high-minimums Captain, MEL'd Autoland System, Autopilot failure, weather, etc, etc, etc.
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): The manager said something about "this aircraft type was not able to land safely under these weather conditions"
If the CSM or GM of the station has given you that information, I would assume it's most likely correct. Therefore, it's safe to say that if, as you state, every other 767 operator was able to make a successful approach, and this statement is true and accurate, then it is safe to assume that the crew chose do divert due to one of three scenarios: Either the aircraft had some type of inoperative navigational or autoflight system which increased approach minimums and the pilots, when at minimums, were required to discontinue the approach - or - the Captain was subjected to similar increased approach minimum criterion and could not continue the approach given the weather conditions at the time - or - the navigational facilities at the airport or within the approach corridor were malfunctioning or inoperative which required the execution of a missed approach.
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): There is something weird going on here...anyone have any more info?
Actually, there's nothing strange about a diversion. Although it is an inconvenience on the passengers and crew, these type of situations happen every single day. It seems strange to you because you do not experience it nor seem to grasp the concept. It's simple - as the approach evolved, something abnormal happened and the Captain chose to divert the aircraft and land at a more suitable airfield.
Boeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19398 times:
[quote=Poh2,reply=11]Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 7):
I would not have wanted to be on that flight. Imagine, diversions, then up and down, landing all those times, that on top of being on the plane for 7 hours already, and I am sure a delay in JFK to start. Everyone is safe thats what counts.
[quote]
I agree with the sentiment, but the above quote should be attributed to AAJFKSJUBKLYN (reply 6) not me.
GSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2749 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19267 times:
I don't think we know everything here. I mean, back in the '70's when I was young, we were flying into MSY thru very soupy weather, and landed perfectly. After the rollout, the captain came on the PA and said something like, "I didn't want to unnerve you at the time, but this landing was accomplished completely automatically. I haven't touched the controls for 20 min.".
If a totally automatic instruments-only landing was possible back then, why not now? Were there other weather conditions at play?
Edit: BTW - This was on a DL Tristar.
AA717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19030 times:
Just because an aircraft has autoland capability doesn't mean the parameters exist for it to be used.
I'm guessing the avionics were degraded due to a maintenance issue or a high-mins. CA.
"The agent said the airplane touched down...". I'd give that statement about zero credibility. The airplane is a lousy vantage point to judge what is going on. The gate area is worse.
Unless they burned the MXP crew that was to fly from MXP to the U.S., I doubt the original crew got switched out. TC
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1252 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18821 times:
Quoting Poh2 (Reply 11): AA's general manager went on and on about this...that in the end it is up to the captain to land the plane safely, and that's the number one priority. I totally agree: safety first! Having said that, however, I just find it strange that every other pilot was able to land at ZRH fine. Even stranger, is that this aircraft tried to land TWO times, once at around 7:30 AM and then again at around 12:15 PM. It is very intriguing, IMO.
The problem with the localizer and the glide slope being lost on final was related to the plane itself and not to the ILS system in ZRH.
MXP was chosen as it provided the right conditions for a visual landing not requiring the maybe defective APP system in the plane.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5540 posts, RR: 40 Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18244 times:
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 17): The problem with the localizer and the glide slope being lost on final was related to the plane itself and not to the ILS system in ZRH.
Yes, I think so because all other flights before and after landed without problems.
Semsem From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18147 times:
It reminds me a bit of a story my aunt told me. In 1949 she was returning to Cairo on SAIDE, the Egyptian airline from Rome. The pilot decided to delay the flight while the TWA flight to Cairo departed. The passengers complained that TWA was leaving and that they were stuck. Some pilots take more risks than others.
Poh2 From Venezuela, joined Oct 2003, 219 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18030 times:
Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 14): Actually, there's nothing strange about a diversion. Although it is an inconvenience on the passengers and crew, these type of situations happen every single day. It seems strange to you because you do not experience it nor seem to grasp the concept. It's simple - as the approach evolved, something abnormal happened and the Captain chose to divert the aircraft and land at a more suitable airfield.
Stick to the facts.
Hey there B747-600,
Actually, I am very familiar with diversions and I do grasp the concept...it's pretty simple. I know diversions happen every single day, and I do not have a problem with that whatsoever.
I think you misunderstood me, however. What I think is strange is not the diversion itself, but that upon returning from the diversion airport of MXP to ZRH and trying to land again, they were once again unable to do so. I mean, what are the odds??? Combine this with the fact that every other aircraft was able to land normally, and I think there is enough grounds to speculate that perhaps something else is going on apart from poor weather, that's it. If there is something wrong with the aircraft not being able to use the ILS at ZRH, then by all means divert to MXP! I have no problem with that whatsoever, again, safety first and diversions are fine!
What bothers me is that I'm getting the feeling that AA was keeping some information from us, and instead of trying to rebook us onto other flights, they simply dragged this thing out until it was too late to get any of us on any of the other US-bound flights, however, that is just my opinion. And in the end, all I really care about is finding out what happened.
Lastly, I am sticking to the facts. I am presenting all the information as I got it myself. I'm just using it to speculate about what could have caused this double-diversion...that's all. Also, I was hoping that at some point somebody from AA on this forum would have more information.
Poh2 From Venezuela, joined Oct 2003, 219 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 17918 times:
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 17):
"The agent said the airplane touched down...". I'd give that statement about zero credibility. The airplane is a lousy vantage point to judge what is going on. The gate area is worse.
Yes, I agree. I did not get a good look, and I don't know if the gate agent did...so I cannot confirm if the plane actually touched down or not...
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9077 posts, RR: 13 Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17522 times:
Quoting Poh2 (Thread starter): -Being an a.nutter, I spend the time doing some spotting...which from ZRH's dock E terminal is great. I see the AA 767 (registration N350AN) come in for the landing...only to see the pilot abort the landing and throttle up and take off again!!!
Quoting Poh2 (Reply 21): Yes, I agree. I did not get a good look, and I don't know if the gate agent did...so I cannot confirm if the plane actually touched down or not...
First you state you saw the aircraft come in for landing and abort the landing and throttle up to take off again, you have even seen the registration, in other words you seem to be able to describe the entire event. Spotting according to your post is great from ZRH's dock E terminal. In your last post all of a sudden you cannot confirm the aircraft touching down or not (?) What is missing in these two stories?
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5540 posts, RR: 40 Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17368 times:
Quoting A388 (Reply 22): Spotting according to your post is great from ZRH's dock E terminal. In your last post all of a sudden you cannot confirm the aircraft touching down or not (?) What is missing in these two stories?
When the aircraft tried to land on runway 14 (which is most probable) you can see it coming in from Dock E but not a possible touch down because there are trees and bushes in the way. But after the go arround it comes closer and it is very well possible to see the registration.
Boeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16767 times:
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 5): Crew had problems with the ILS localizer on final which is why a go around was chosen as this was needed at that visibility.
It could have been either the Localizer or the Glide Slope. If the deviation between the 3 engaged autopilots exceeds a certain threshold, the CAT-III defaults to a CAT-II which may not have been possible under those circumstances.
25 Vegas005: I used to fly the AA DFW_ZRH flight frequently and on two occasions we diverted to FRA due to weather even though every other airline was able to land
26 Norcal773: Give the guy a break, ZRH explains in the next post.
27 DTWAGENT: Hey be safe about things first. And if the pilot decided things where not safe for any reason. Than thank god he had the good since to not land and go
28 FlyinTLow: There are indeed hundreds of reasons this could have happened. The one which would make most sense to me is a capability degradation due to a rather s
29 Poh2: yeah seriously...I feel like I'm being cross-examined here... Anyways, sorry about any confusion, and thanks to ZRH for clearing that up. I'm dead ti
30 Maverick623: The computer probably said "ON" and then switched back to "INR".
31 Boeing747_600: Poh2, I dont know if its fatigue or your browser or whatever else, but once again, you're not quoting the right person!
32 A388: Okay everything is all clear now. Let's move on from here on. A388
33 Jetdeltamsy: How do you know? What inside information do you have that none of the rest of us do?
34 Mpdpilot: I would like to add to this. Your absolutely right, you don't jump just cause some one else does. However if it was clear blue and 22 in PHX (which i
35 Flanker: § 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final a
36 Boeing747_600: Thilo, it dosen't even have to be a receiver failure, per se. If CAT-IIIC (AUTOLAND or LAND 3) was in use and the 3 engaged Autopilots (All 3 are req
37 BOAC911: Try to remember this event the next time you choose your airline. On a recent rainy day in Dallas, AA cancelled over 500 flights. However the daily L
38 Kellmark: it is very difficult to determine why the flight was unable to land unless one was on the flight deck with the crew. The minimum requirements to make
39 N747PE: I wonder if the Captain was new to the 767. The first 100 hours of flight the Captain has much higher minimums than a normal Captain. One time I was f
40 Boeing747_600: My theory is that AA is cautious to a fault when it comes to landing in adverse weather conditions ever since the LIT MD-82 runway overrun accident.
41 Awthompson: Well, although I don't have anything at all against American Airlines and have flown transatlantic with them quite recenlty, I would say that I have w
42 PhilSquares: You are trying to speculate on a subject you know nothing about! It's already been pointed out that one reason could have been the fact the Captain m
43 SWISSER: My bet as well! you need 3 A/P's under CAT-III, even for the rollout. what was the visibility condition?
44 FlyinTLow: Yeah, that's what I meant to say, but in the hurry out the door, the obvious thought i had in my head didn't make it to my post Capability degredatio
45 OPNLguy: Actually, that FAR wouldn't have applied to the AA captain, unless he'd have been operating his own personal aircraft. In the Part 121 world, this is
46 Infodesk: I was at work yesterday morning so can tell you what I know: Shortly after 7am the pilot decided to divert to MXP. After 5 hours on the ground, they t
48 LongbowPilot: What we have here is the reason reinforced doors were installed on jetliners. If we didn't have them these MSF Simmers on here would have charged the
49 Fiatstilojtd: Yeah, really scratch that whole speculation...in the end everyone was/is safe and that is what counts at the end. I really think that it is very stran
50 Boysteve: Well the MAN-ORD flight developed a problem a few weeks ago also, it retuned to MAN 4 hours after take off also. On landing it promptly burst 2 tyres
51 LongbowPilot: Excellent post, and you made me think of one more thing. It is like Brinkmanship, only aviation nut style. People make a simple comment that starts t
52 SevenHeavy: This post implies that the intention was to attempt to fly a revenue transatlantic flight at 13000ft?? That is simply not the case. This flight was h
53 Viasa: Todays flight of AA: Arrival: 06:35 06:53 AA 064 NEW YORK John F. Kennedy 2 B763 N380AN 12:45 12:43 AA 064 NEW YORK John F. Kennedy via MAILAND Malpen
54 AAL0616: Thank you for addressing the question and offering factual, first hand information, particularly about the context of the conditions which would have
55 RFields5421: Certainly, however at the start of the thread, you chose to cross-examine and second guess the professional experience of a pilot of a multi-million
56 RFields5421: That's a bit incorrect and making light of a serious situation. It was not just a rainy day. There were at least four deaths due to weather related a
57 LongbowPilot: Hook, Line, Sinker Great Posts -Attack
58 AAL0616: See response below. Amen, re: your response to the above comment. Thank you, very well stated, factual and hopefully obvious. Could not have said it
59 AAR90: Correct. It is much much less costly and affects thousands fewer passengers when AA cancels flights instead of delaying so long that the delays affec
60 DualQual: The same LH that I saw takeoff out of IAH a few weeks ago into a wall of water while the rest of us waited an extra 5 minutes for the cell to pass? I
61 Infodesk: Thanks for clearing that point up for me From what i heard, AA do not at the moment have a station in MXP and the delay was caused because nobody kne
62 SevenHeavy: Exactly. To clarify my earlier post; AA would always rather get their aircraft stateside (as you say) but if they do have to divert within Eurpoe the
Sponsor Message: 
From Venezuela, joined Oct 2003, 219 posts, 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21244 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9077 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5540 posts, 
From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 1779 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
