Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO 48 Diversion Dec 22nd 2009  
User currently offlinejvaidya From India, joined Mar 2010, 3 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

referring to this post .. CO 48 Diverts Back To Newark (by Jetskipper Dec 23 2009 in Civil Aviation)

I was a passenger on this flight and here is what the passengers heard.

The flight was initially delayed a bit while some air conditioning issue was being fixed. Apparently the issue was restricted to the back of the plane which could explain why i didn't feel any issue with he air conditioning.

About 5 hours after we took of i was awaken by the captain making an announcement that we had to turn back since there was some air conditioning issue at the back of the plane and it was freezing cold there. We could not land in Europe which was only a couple of hours away due to a snow storm and that in Newark we would have a new plane and crew waiting and that this was the fastest way to get to India.

A Flight attendant let slip something about a short circuit and hence this was a safety issue.

In any case we landed in EWR and took off in a "new" plane some 7 hours later. And finally landed in BOM some 17-19 hours late. A few anxious moments for me since i was supposed to get married on the 26th. I just came across the above post today and felt as i did on the day of the flight that the real reason could be something stupider. So anyone out there who knows the reason and are willing to share?

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerobo65 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1791 times:

Quoting jvaidya (Thread starter):
A Flight attendant let slip something about a short circuit and hence this was a safety issue.

In any case we landed in EWR and took off in a "new" plane some 7 hours later. And finally landed in BOM some 17-19 hours late. A few anxious moments for me since i was supposed to get married on the 26th. I just came across the above post today and felt as i did on the day of the flight that the real reason could be something stupider. So anyone out there who knows the reason and are willing to share?

I had heard that it involved the heating in the crew rest area for the flight attendants. I am not sure if anyone else has anymore information as to if that is true or not.


User currently offlinejvaidya From India, joined Mar 2010, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Quoting robo65 (Reply 1):

I had heard that it involved the heating in the crew rest area for the flight attendants. I am not sure if anyone else has anymore information as to if that is true or not.

that would certainly fit the crews "selfish and foolish approach" statement from the original poster


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5824 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Quoting jvaidya (Thread starter):
A Flight attendant let slip something about a short circuit and hence this was a safety issue.

Never, EVER believe anything an F/A tells you about mechanicals, unless the first words out of his/her mouth are, "GET OUT OF THE PLANE." In that case, do it. Otherwise, let it fall right out of your other ear.

Quoting jvaidya (Thread starter):
A few anxious moments for me since i was supposed to get married on the 26th.

Congratulations! Coming up on three months!


User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1644 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting jvaidya (Reply 2):
that would certainly fit the crews "selfish and foolish approach" statement from the original poster

So you're saying that the crew doesn't need to get proper rest on such a long flight?



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineadxmatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 951 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting robo65 (Reply 1):
I had heard that it involved the heating in the crew rest area for the flight attendants. I am not sure if anyone else has anymore information as to if that is true or not.

That is correct, The issue dealt with the crew rest bunk

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 4):
So you're saying that the crew doesn't need to get proper rest on such a long flight?

Yes they do.... however if you take the time that they were already airborne until the time they landed in EWR it was only 2 hours less then if they had continued to India.

They talked about stopping in FRA to remove some customers to give the proper number of F/A crew rest seats but the F/A stated they would not waive their contractual duty time and would require crew rest. There were not enough hotel rooms available to the entire load of passengers should the crew actually "walk off".

I was not working when this flight irregularity occured but going by what I heard.


User currently offlinejvaidya From India, joined Mar 2010, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 4):
So you're saying that the crew doesn't need to get proper rest on such a long flight?

no im not suggesting that at all . they could have said as much rather than feed us all the non sense. also don't see why a 10.5 hour flight to nowhere is bearable but a 13 hour flight to the destination would have been too much. do you really think that putting 300 passengers through a 20 hour delay was a better option than not using the crew rests for a couple of hours more. unless there was a serious safety concern which could have been the case if there was truly a short circuit causing the heating. even then dont see how flying back 5 hours is a better option than landing in europe.


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...
787 First Flight - Dec 22, 2009 posted Thu Nov 19 2009 23:37:44 by AeroPiggot
CO 1686 Diversion posted Wed Mar 25 2009 01:29:00 by Hpflyboi
UA958 ORD-LHR On Dec 22nd - Reg? posted Tue Dec 23 2008 10:48:08 by 764
CO Transatlantic Diversion Cost Question posted Fri Nov 2 2007 06:41:43 by Richie72
CO Reapplies For EWR-PVG 2009 Startup posted Tue Jul 17 2007 05:15:53 by Falcon84
CO 777 Diversion Due CLE At 1518 Local posted Tue May 17 2005 21:07:59 by Rampkontroler
CO 28 Diversion posted Wed Aug 4 2004 07:13:23 by Pbb152
SN Joins Star Alliance Today, Dec. 9, 2009 posted Wed Dec 9 2009 00:38:36 by Bralo20
OAG Changes 5/22/2009: CO/DL/FL/NW/VX posted Thu May 21 2009 07:50:42 by Enilria
OAG Changes 4/24/2009: B6/CO/DL posted Fri Apr 24 2009 07:01:13 by Enilria