B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16575 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12502 times:
Catdaddy63 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 269 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 12289 times:
Over the last few days, COA15 has been routed south over LAX and out over the pacific. Today the flight plan (shown on flightaware) had it passing over SFO. OPNLguy can offer his insight, but, it looks like they may have used some enroute point to make a go/no go decision.
Quoting B747forever (Reply 2): Yes that is probably it, because if it was a emergency/tech they would divert immediately and not fly for another 2.5hours.
Not necessarily.
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 3): Strong jetstream, and probably why they're ducking the worst of it down at FL260.
Quoting Timz (Reply 5): It shows 486 knots... isn't that groundspeed? If so, they're sure nuff avoiding the headwinds
I'd have to agree with Timz here; the 486 GS suggests otherwise, not to mention the map showing the jetstream orientation pretty much perpendicular to their intended route.
After they took off, they leveled at FL300 through NY and CLE Centers, and once in Chicago Center started down to FL280 (briefly) and then FL260, where they still are. Both those altitudes are way lower than normal, and since there doesn't seem to be any jetstream-related reason for being down at FL300 or FL260, my only guess would be that it's something mechanical. Since they were originalIy filed EWR-HNL via OAK BEBOP, it sounds like whatever might have failed did do after takeoff, and I can think of two potential areas...
If an AC pack is deferred before departure, it usually entails a lower altitude. On a 737, it's FL250 or below, but as I'm not familar with the 764 nor its MEL, maybe the restriction on that aircraft allows flight at a slightly higher altitude. If a pack fails inflight, once can stay higher, but must descend if they can't control the cabin on the remaining AC pack(s).
The other possibility is something failed that was required for flight within RVSM airspace. If one is already within RVSM airspace (most simply stated, FL290 and above) when a required item fails, ATC has the option of letting one stay there (if they can, traffic permitting), or they can make one descend below FL290. If the RVSM-required item failed during the climb past FL290, they may have leveled at FL300 (being an even-numbered westbound altitude) and then asked ATC if they could stay there. If so, maybe CLE Center also could allow, but Chicago Center couldn't, hence the descent to FL260, maybe to stay underneath any "capped" short-haul traffic at FL280/FL270.
No matter what the actual reason for their being at FL260 is (and all of the above is pure speculation on my part, again, not being familiar with the 764 or its MEL), they will burn more fuel that way. If it was an RVSM-related item, it probably made more sense operationally-speaking to get as far west as they could (within the safe fuel supply of the aircraft) and have their MX Control folks start getting a needed part headed to SFO from somewhere to be there when the EWR flight landed, and allow for a relatively quick fix. Maybe they borrowed one from another airline, i.e. AA@ LAX, or UA @SFO, or maybe had the Boeing AOG folks scramble one down from SEA.
It would have made little sense to stop at anyplace closer to EWR, since they'd undoubtedly been well above max landing weight so early in the flight, and either had to dump excess fuel (if CO's 764s are so equipped) or land overweight (which requires MX inspections). Perhaps staying down at FL260 (versus the highest FL280 they could still use and stay underneath the RVSM floor) is to burn more fuel to stay under max landing weight at SFO, and avoid the need for an inspection.
The possibilities are almost endless, but whatever the cause/solution, I'm confident that everyone there are doing whatever they can to safely mitigate the situation and minimize the inconvenience to their Customers.
Blackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11898 times:
I think the airlines have reached the point where it is more economical to land and feed the passengers on the ground than in-flight.
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
If we believe the lat-lons in Flightaware's log, between 4:45 PM EDT and 6:30 PM EDT they covered 843.3 nm on the ground-- average 482 knots if they took the shortest possible route between those points, and correspondingly more if they didn't.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11272 times:
Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 9): I think the airlines have reached the point where it is more economical to land and feed the passengers on the ground than in-flight.
And pay a landing fee at SFO? To FEED the customers? Uh, I don't think so. Sorry, but that comment makes no sense whatsoever.
EXCOASA1982 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11128 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11): Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 9):
I think the airlines have reached the point where it is more economical to land and feed the passengers on the ground than in-flight.
And pay a landing fee at SFO? To FEED the customers? Uh, I don't think so. Sorry, but that comment makes no sense whatsoever.
GentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2077 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10662 times:
I haven't heard anything in the media today concerning CO 15 diversion. The first lady is or was in California. That should not cause an airborne flight to stop. If there were a airspace conflict ATC would divert it away from the air space of a presidential flight. Whether it be on Air Force 1 or another airframe. I believe the first family flies in airspace corridors reserved for the military.
I flew EWR-HNL in 2000. It was about an 11 hour non-stop flight on a DC-10 as I recall.. I originated at DCA. Hopefully CO will disembark the pax. SFO would be a nice mid flight stretch break.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
Catdaddy63 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 269 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10588 times:
According to continental.com, ship #54 operated the EWR-SFO leg and is also operating SFO-HNL. Ground time in SFO was about 1:30. Interestingly it is flying at FL340 on its way over the pacific!
Ssublyme From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 503 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10530 times:
Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 9): I think the airlines have reached the point where it is more economical to land and feed the passengers on the ground than in-flight.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10455 times:
Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 13): The first lady is or was in California. That should not cause an airborne flight to stop. If there were a airspace conflict ATC would divert it away from the air space of a presidential flight.
If there was an actual VIP movement, it would affect many more than a single aircraft, and we'd have probably heard about a larger-scale disruption.
Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 13): Whether it be on Air Force 1 or another airframe. I believe the first family flies in airspace corridors reserved for the military.
The only airspace reserved for the military airports are the airport area themselves plus numerous Restricted Areas/Warning Areas around the country. Military aircraft use the same airspace to get from point-A to point-B as everybody else does...
Quoting Catdaddy63 (Reply 14):
According to continental.com, ship #54 operated the EWR-SFO leg and is also operating SFO-HNL. Ground time in SFO was about 1:30. Interestingly it is flying at FL340 on its way over the pacific!
Sounds like something got fixed, or they otherwise got it handled OK...
A340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1973 posts, RR: 26 Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10018 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 8): If an AC pack is deferred before departure, it usually entails a lower altitude. On a 737, it's FL250 or below, but as I'm not familar with the 764 nor its MEL, maybe the restriction on that aircraft allows flight at a slightly higher altitude
OPNL...for your information, once WN gets them , the B767-400 is restricted to at or below FL350 with the Pack inop MEL.
JSD
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9895 times:
Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 19): OPNL...for your information, once WN gets them , the B767-400 is restricted to at or below FL350 with the Pack inop MEL.
Borism From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8800 times:
good morning/evening/night everyone! apparently they've just landed at HNL 15 minutes ago. great that they solved whatever kept them stuck at FL260 in such a short time. what it might be? I don't think CO had any mx base in SFO, unlike they do in HNL.
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3492 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8204 times:
Quoting Borism (Reply 21): and flight 14 is already in the air heading back to EWR. wow, that was a quick turnaround!
Well, CO has 2 767-400s, one European config (764) and one Air Mike config (767), RON at HNL almost everyday. They then normally rotate the 764 here in HNL to fly CO14. Then the 764 that came in as CO15 under goes maintenance checks in their hangar.
ThePalauan From Guam, joined Oct 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8169 times:
CO on SFO-HNL again? Wow... It's been what, 12 years since they last flew the route? I remember them dropping the route because it was no longer economical for them (and I think by then, they had HNL-EWR nonstop instead of one-stop through SFO on the DC-10). I don't think there's a chance of 'em ever flying that route again unless they suck up UA.
You can take the boy out of the island, but not the island out of the boy!
25 Ha763: Well, both configurations of the CO 767-400s do operate CO and CS flights. All flights to GUM are operated as CS flights and all flights between Hawa
26 HAL: The winds over the Pacific for the past few days were howling. I just returned from working a SEA-HNL-SEA trip and we were looking at 100 knots of win
27 Borism: I would agree if you can answer these questions
28 COEWRNJ: A little off topic, but how does EWR-HNL perform for CO?
29 Wannabe: An awful lot of speculation here. I have flown on board this flight several times, and if memory serves me well, it was posted on the reservations tha
30 Borism: I've flown this flight once. It doesn't mean a thing. Per Flightaware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/COA15/history) it didn't have single divers
31 Ha763: According to an email I got from rickabone, who works in ATC at SFO, this flight diverted due to a malfunctioning/overflowing lav.
32 OPNLguy: That being the case, it sounds like they flew EWR-SFO at FL300 and FL260 to increase their fuel burn so as to avoid an overweight landing at SFO.
33 Fetheroleather: The flight diverted because 4 of the 8 lavs were inop. The 764 has vacuum operated lavs which are all connected under 2 systems A(1L,2L,3L,&3aft) and
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2008, 404 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, 
From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
, the B767-400 is restricted to at or below FL350 with the Pack inop MEL.
From Guam, joined Oct 2006, 264 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}