AA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 366 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8468 times:
Details are extremely spotty, but Delta 126 (N1613B, 763), flying JFK-MAD, returned to JFK this evening after a "suspicious device" was discovered in the lavatory.
There are many conflicting reports, including one that says 3 FAMs were onboard, and have taken a passenger into custody. Others say that the FAM discovered the device.
With regards to the device itself, some have speculated that it could have been just a loose ceiling panel or aircraft part with wires attached, but others specifically identify "a piece of luggage with wires attached."
spiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8311 times:
Hmmm.....could this be a repea if the incident earlier this year where a flight from JFK to DUB diverted because a cell phone was left in the lav? Not joking, seriously wondering if it could.
david21487 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 230 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8255 times:
AA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 366 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8096 times:
It appears that previous reports
Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 1): Hmmm.....could this be a repea if the incident earlier this year where a flight from JFK to DUB diverted because a cell phone was left in the lav? Not joking, seriously wondering if it could.
Ding ding ding. Folks, we have a winner. Alert has been cleared. Bomb squad found no suspicious device.
spiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8040 times:
1. I don't think 45 minutes counts as "shortly after takeoff".
2. I love when a journalist admits that some journalism (whether there own or not) was false.
But getting serious, I'm glad it was nothing and that everybody is OK.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7976 times:
Quoting AA94 (Thread starter): including one that says 3 FAMs were onboard
Wow, 3? I know that this is just one report, but how many FAMs do we have flying on all these flights? Must be expensive...
spiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7954 times:
Also, looking at the flightpath, why didn't they just divert to BOS?
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7922 times:
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7866 times:
spiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7611 times:
They used to fly them to AMS. That's where N185DN was going when it clipped the CRJ900.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 7): I'd say the main reason to return to the flight origin is that if the flight was cancelled, it would be a lot easier on the passengers.
Also BOS was a bit too close. It takes about 100-150nm to conduct a normal descent from FL370 where the plane was flying.
spiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7611 times:
By the way, it's now scheduled to depart at 3am from JFK!
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7070 times:
I forgot to mention last night - according to various threads on these forums - the B767 series aircraft don't have fuel dump capacity, so the extra miles flown toward JFK help get the landing weight lower.
To me it does not make sense to return to JFK. In this type of emergency situation, the standard protocol seems to be to get the plane on the ground as fast as possible. Perhaps BOS was better able to accommodate this. If you think about it, what if there WAS a bomb and it was on a timer set for 45 min. You could return to BOS in 30, JFK in 46 min. Of course the pilots don't know what is on board, but whatever airport can get you on the ground the quickest in this situation makes the most sense.
Technical, medical, and mechanical returns, if possible, should probably head back to airport of origin. That said, I was once on a flight from FRA-DFW on AA with a medical diversion right over LHR. We diverted to GLA instead with the 777. Go figure?
Lots of things play into where and when you divert I guess.
MaddogJT8D From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 350 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6151 times:
catiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2305 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6018 times:
Quoting 777222LR (Reply 12): To me it does not make sense to return to JFK. In this type of emergency situation, the standard protocol seems to be to get the plane on the ground as fast as possible. Perhaps BOS was better able to accommodate this. If you think about it, what if there WAS a bomb and it was on a timer set for 45 min. You could return to BOS in 30, JFK in 46 min. Of course the pilots don't know what is on board, but whatever airport can get you on the ground the quickest in this situation makes the most sense.
Nice way to armchair QB this after the fact. How can you possibly make this statement if you weren't in the information loop as this incident is happening? There are any number of reasons why going back to JFK is the best decision.
Quoting 777222LR (Reply 12): Technical, medical, and mechanical returns, if possible, should probably head back to airport of origin.
You just contradicted yourself. So if a passenger's heart has stopped they shouldn't get the plane on the ground as soon as practical?
Quoting MaddogJT8D (Reply 13): Absolutely incorrect. Man, every time there is an incident with a Delta 767-300ER, somebody says this and is blatantly wrong...
cokepopper From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1110 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3883 times:
I don't know why, but I'm continued to be amazed at those who feel they know best how
to handle the situation than the PIC of the A/C who has much more information
than those sitting behind a computer screen at home or office.
Qantas744er From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1258 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3764 times:
Quoting MaddogJT8D (Reply 13): Absolutely incorrect. Man, every time there is an incident with a Delta 767-300ER, somebody says this and is blatantly wrong...
catiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2305 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3438 times:
Quoting cokepopper (Reply 15): I don't know why, but I'm continued to be amazed at those who feel they know best how
to handle the situation than the PIC of the A/C who has much more information
than those sitting behind a computer screen at home or office.
Sheesh, ain't it the truth. And on top of that, to be so definitive about it.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 366 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
