HPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3701 posts, RR: 8 Posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6309 times:
Was surprised to see an AS 738 land at BIL a few moments ago, apparently declared emergency over Wyoming because of smoke in the cabin. Now at a gate surrounded by airport fire response. Looks like things have been straightened out - where was this bird originally headed?
Sure was shocked to see it land - figure this is the only way I'll see AS mainline here!
Coronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1590 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6230 times:
jporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5413 times:
Wouldn't JAC have been a closer diversion airport? It can handle bigger aircraft than a 738: Air Force Two used to land their when Cheney was VP. Or does BIL just have better fire response? I know that it has a longer runway than JAC, which is probably part of what influenced the crew to go there.
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2377 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5374 times:
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 4): Wouldn't JAC have been a closer diversion airport? It can handle bigger aircraft than a 738: Air Force Two used to land their when Cheney was VP. Or does BIL just have better fire response? I know that it has a longer runway than JAC, which is probably part of what influenced the crew to go there.
Good question. The Boeing Smoke, Fire or Fumes checklist calls for landing at the nearest suitable airport anytime the crew cannot visually identify that the smoke source is out. I don't know exactly where they were, but apparently in the captain's judgement BIL, was the better choice. JAC is at altitude and is a fairly short runway. Maybe the weather was poor; maybe he could get down to BIL just as fast after descending. There are a lot of factors that the captain would take into account. If it were a more serious developing fire, I can guarantee the captain would have landing at a 5,000 general aviation strip if it were closest.
milesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1859 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5289 times:
based on the location of the aircraft when it turned north, it does not appear that JAC was closer, plus there would be head winds turning around 180 degrees and flying west, rather than 90 degrees and flying north. JAC is very close to the Idaho border and south of the track that AS 30 was on. Look at the maps.
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
Quoting milesrich (Reply 6): based on the location of the aircraft when it turned north, it does not appear that JAC was closer, plus there would be head winds turning around 180 degrees and flying west, rather than 90 degrees and flying north
Don't know if it applied here but chances are good that at least one of the flightcrew was former QX. Which would mean familiarity with BIL. It woud be a factor if two airports were close to being a tie.
CZ346 From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 95 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 8): Quoting jporterfi (Reply 4):
Wouldn't JAC have been a closer diversion airport? It can handle bigger aircraft than a 738
QX having a station at BIL -- but not at JAC -- might have made the difference.
I would tend to smirk in favor of this comment. If we're not looking at too much of a difference and the pilot deems it safe, this almost always plays a roll when we make these calls.
HPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3701 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1300 times:
I think more a factor than anything else is that the flight had already passed over JAC and was over halfway across Wyoming. The closest suitable airports were BIL and maybe CPR although I don't know what the facilities at CPR look like.
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2377 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1012 times:
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 8): Quoting jporterfi (Reply 4):
Wouldn't JAC have been a closer diversion airport? It can handle bigger aircraft than a 738
QX having a station at BIL -- but not at JAC -- might have made the difference.
If you smell unidentified smoke, you land on the nearest concrete of sufficient length - period (or you should). In this case it sounds like BIL was the nearest airport anyway. JAC has full facilities for jet airplanes. UA and AA send 757s in there. The difference of minutes in a serious fire event could mean the difference in survival. Look at AC797. Fire flashed through the airplane during evacuation. If they'd landed at SDF it could have had a different outcome.
If this had been a potential catastrophic fire, flying a few extra minutes to a QX station (if that were the case) could have made the difference in survival.
Certainly, landing at a farther on-line should have no bearing in the decision of what airport to land at during a smoke or fire event.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3701 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31228 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
