STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16543 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
Maybe it wasn't reported because it was an ill or unruley passenger which made them divert.
Usualy when an aircraft has to make an unscheduled landing and it doesn't get widely reported it's because of non mechanical issues like an ill or unruley passenger.
Some unruley passenger incidents draw lots of attention,like those sisters on the UAL flight that diverted to Anchorage last week wouldn't have got all the media coverage if the incident wasn't video taped.
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2241 times:
Planes divert more than you think. Sick passenger, dead passenger, unruly passenger (like those two
bitches on the San Francisco to Shanghai flight).
Some of these are unscheduled landings, and not
necessarily emergency landings.
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2103 times:
Nobody said there's anythiing wrong with the 764s. The word conspiracy has been brought by yourself. Do not be childish, OK? Sometimes airplanes have problems. Sometimes, even, to our disgrace, they crash. That's all. But this is not the point: if every type having had problems had been grounded, today this site would not exist, because there would not be any a/c on the air any longer.
By the way: what's the history about the sisters on the flight SFO-SHA?
or, is there any other about this subject?
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2093 times:
Actually, if you read this thread carefully, Turbulence, Hkgspotter1 in his 2nd post says "Problems with the 764? Keeping it low-key?" That statement by Hkg wasn't very bright. Without any information, he's making a mountain out of a molehill. Unfortunately, too many people on airline boards hear of one maintaince problem with a certain kind of aircraft, or a certain kind of aircraft has an accident, and they go nuts wondering "what's wrong with that aircraft". As far as I'm concerened, COAir@IAH was just responding to that when you jumped down his/her throat. Lighten up a little.
Adam84 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1400 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2064 times:
The twin sisters first were arguing, then cussing. They assaulted a few f/a's and the pilot (maybe co-pilot), a few news articles said they were smoking on the plane too but Im not sure about that, the plane then flew back to Anchorage and they were arrested. The plane, crew and all the passengers had to stay in Anchorage for 22 hours because the crew had to rest. They got a nice glacier tour out of it though.
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2054 times:
Sorry, Alpha1, you're right. I skipped that sentence. Anyway, another childish one. But again, one emergency landing on one airplane DOES NOT MEAN a problem with that airplane, and much less, with the whole series of the same type.
My mistake. One of the consequences of maybe reading too quickly. But also a consequence of too many "hot blooded" posts in favor or against something or someone...
If you read other posts of mine, you'll see that I am one of the ones trying to settle arguments for my opinions, or giving reasons for any subject. I do not criticize just for the pleasure of provoking, and I think you can admit that, if you skip Hkgspotter1's post as I did, CoAir@IAH's is not a very wise one. The truth, though, after all, is that, maybe, the worst sentence is the first one.