AF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 696 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12200 times:
My guess only okay ? Please don't flame me even if what I'm going to say sounds stupid. Just tell me I'm wrong then.
But the winds over the atlantic between FL330 and FL370 have been really strong these days. Around 70-80 kts, from 270 to 290.
I believe that the fuel plus the fact that SFO is a really busy airport with long lines made it hard to land there in the first place, so they diverted for a quick splash and dash, and maybe a new slot; and then landed in SFO.
I believe it's a reasonable explanation don't you think ? Maybe the fuel loaded in the plane was barely enough to cope with the wind at the time. And weather changes...
It would be very interesting to know both what kind of airplane it was and how it was loaded.
Again, that's the guess of an armchair pilot whose reference is only some "real-world weather updates" and a well know computer program. Therefore, not a very good guess.
AirCatalonia From Spain, joined Nov 2007, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11860 times:
I wonder if passengers are allowed to disembark at the alternative airport in these situations. Probably some of them were already heading to Oakland or that side of the bay so they would actually do them a favor by dropping them there.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 23763 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11403 times:
Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 19): OAK to SFO. Man! That must have been one of the shortest flights ever on a 747-400. I'd have loved to have been on that segment. Takeoff and landing in only a half hour!
And because you only need to fuel the A/C with about 3 gallons of fuel for a flight like that I bet she took off like a rocket.
ChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9968 times:
Quoting AirCatalonia (Reply 18): I wonder if passengers are allowed to disembark at the alternative airport in these situations. Probably some of them were already heading to Oakland or that side of the bay so they would actually do them a favor by dropping them there.
Maybe if they carried everything on with them, otherwise, no luggage.
It's doubtful it would be allowed. I am not too familiar with OAK, customs/immigration facilities?
We did allow some people off in BOS for religious reasons on a MDW-LGA flight. We were delayed at MDW for weather in NYC, held over NYC for 1.5 hours (we put on extra in prep), and still had to divert to BOS for fuel. We did give everyone the option of getting off in BOS, but they had to find their own way to NYC as we were still going. We left a short time later and held a little longer before getting in to LGA. Once we landed and cleared the runway, a tug had to drag us in. The nose gear would not turn the aircraft, just slid on the snow/ice.
Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9135 times:
Not too long back ago a BA B744 from LHR had to go-around at SFO due to traffic ahead and was told that they had to remain in the air for another approximately 16 minutes at the earlierst before the controllers can line them up again for landing due to the congestion. The captain didn't think he had enough onboard and he opted to go to OAK. They left OAK for SFO after the fuel and paperwork for SFO for what it is a very short flight!
So sometimes circumstances do force the exceptionals in!
: If they needed it, OAK does have a FIS facility, although it's not all that great.
: I think it was because there was no FRENCH speakers in the SFO Tower
: I think I've got that beat... I've seen AF1 fly from DIA (using the east-west Runway 26/7) down to Buckley Air Base...about a 9-mile flight "as-the-j
: SJC always gets left out of the diversion fun. We even have longer runways and less congestion than OAK too.
: Sounds like 'Diversion Envy' to me. You should probably talk to someone about that.
: Back in 1997 when Chelsea Clinton came to Stanford, I watched them reposition AF1 from Moffet Field to SFO. I was up in the foothills over th and wat
: FAA is reporting 58 minuted delays because of weather and low cielings. This is at their web site. So their may not be any room on the ground for this
: Well, I couldn't think of anything funny to say myself, so may be I was a bit too harsh. Now if we were talking about reasons why a flight bound for
: Well, you're about a day late. This flight was yesterday. Oct 2.. So it has nothing to do with today's weather.
: Except that the reason for landing at OAK was likely to take on fuel. As stated elsewhere, this flight would have almost certainly landed at OAK due
: Certainly, and here is what will happen. They are talking not to the SFO tower, but to approach control with 20 or 30 airplanes which will need to be
: Wasn't it United that in years past staged a transcontinental San-Fran to New York flight, that started in Oakland, flew to S.F., and then did the eas
: got a message from a mate that works at Oakland airport, he confirms that the a/c was indeed running short of fuel.
: I wonder how much additional fuel would have to be taken on at OAK for that trip?