UA167 from Lisbon to IAD just attempted to divert to DCA. After going around once it landed at DCA just before a line of severe storms ripped through.

Weather is the obvious reason, but has there been an international diversion like this before? Can CBP process these folks or do they have to get to IAD?

AF54 CDG-IAD A380 is now diverting to PHL

United's website is showing a 16:20 PM departure to IAD, so it looks like they landed just to wait for the weather to clear before continuing on.

Quick hitter line with a Tornado Warning to boot for DC including DCA. But already sun coming out. Waiting would seem to be prudent.

Any other instances of international flights diverting to DCA in the past?

A United DC-10 diverted into DCA but I'm not sure if it was an international flight.

It's only a 757 so not too difficult for DCA.

WesYan wrote:

AF54 CDG-IAD A380 is now diverting to PHL

Thank God they didn't try to land the whale in DCA!!!

KFTG wrote:

A United DC-10 diverted into DCA but I'm not sure if it was an international flight.

Gonna go way out on a limb and say you probably didn't see a United DC-10.

Looking at flight aware, it looks like they made an approach into IAD, and were attempting to come back around when they then decided to divert into DCA...

Flydude1063 wrote:

KFTG wrote:

A United DC-10 diverted into DCA but I'm not sure if it was an international flight.

Gonna go way out on a limb and say you probably didn't see a United DC-10.

I don't think that was a reference to today, but to this tale from long ago: viewtopic.php?t=24325

(and no, it was not an international flight)

Can we presume that BWI wasn't an option over DCA? Was BWI under the same storm warnings that IAD was?

Actually, now that I read that (1) it was a 757 and (2) UA167 had already attempted an approach to IAD, I probably answered my own question. But, I guess my question would be if an approach was not possible into IAD, would BWI have been a better divert option at the time, or was BWI experiencing similar weather issues?

WN732 wrote:

It's only a 757 so not too difficult for DCA.

What do you mean "757 so not too difficult". DCA is very easy for 757s. Won't even be breathing hard when it rotates.

I'm not a fan of diverting to DCA at 3:39pm today. A tornado warning was issued for us at 3:45, and the weather was pretty ominous by 3:30. If they couldn't land at IAD, choosing to land where the storm was heading seems like it wasn't all the way thought out. I wonder if it was approaching a fuel emergency instead of waiting 20 minutes for the storm to pass. (It's sunny now!)

PS: I've never seen night at 3:30pm without an eclipse. Wowza!

FYI, UA167 appears to now be in the queue to take off again, headed for IAD.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 7#209f4bc3

D L X wrote:

I'm not a fan of diverting to DCA at 3:39pm today. A tornado warning was issued for us at 3:45, and the weather was pretty ominous by 3:30. If they couldn't land at IAD, choosing to land where the storm was heading seems like it wasn't all the way thought out. I wonder if it was approaching a fuel emergency instead of waiting 20 minutes for the storm to pass. (It's sunny now!)

PS: I've never seen night at 3:30pm without an eclipse. Wowza!

Of course it was thought out... the objective is to get the airplane on the ground. DCA wasn’t the planned alternate but obviously the captain felt it was the best option to get the aircraft on the ground safely.

EC135C wrote:

WN732 wrote:

It's only a 757 so not too difficult for DCA.

What do you mean "757 so not too difficult". DCA is very easy for 757s. Won't even be breathing hard when it rotates.

I think that WN732 is referring to the fact that DCA has limited ramp space for large aircraft. It would be difficult for DCA to accept 777s and other widebodies common on TATL routes, but the LIS route is a 757, so DCA can accomodate them.

Flydude1063 wrote:

KFTG wrote:

A United DC-10 diverted into DCA but I'm not sure if it was an international flight.

Gonna go way out on a limb and say you probably didn't see a United DC-10.

Obviously I wasn't referring to today.
Give me a break.

I'm in Virginia for work right now and a line of storms passed through our area (1.5 hours from DC) and the squall line only looked to be intensifying. We had about a 5 minute Thunderstorm but this was at 1pm. The sun is out right now and it's gorgeous.

A 757 can easily divert to DCA but if the situation at IAD looked severe earlier, I'll bet you they would've gone to BWI instead. DCA was probably because they were so low on fuel coming from LIS.

A few years back, severe storms hit DC which caused a lot of diversions. My friend, who worked for one of the fuelers at RIC, called me and told me we had an AF 777, UA 777, Brussels A330 and a BA 777. The company he worked for refueled all of them. I went out and watched them all depart for IAD. Also, there were several smaller A320/B737 types from UA and others as well. They were parked everywhere.

BWI also had the same line of storms

There's plenty of U.S. airports with Customs facilities that can take a 757, from Bangor on down. It's a dual question of how much notice you get and whether you can beat the storm in. DCA gets passengers into the same metro area, many of whom might accept DCA as close enough.

Storms would have hit BWI around 3:45pm local. That's around when it swept across Interstate 95 in Maryland. I know, I was driving when it hit.
Best part is while it was sitting at DCA there was a Tornado warning for DC.

I'm under the belief that they were bingo fuel on their way into DCA. The line of thunderstorms was fast approaching and over the airport not more than 5 minutes after they landed. If they had enough fuel, surely they would have gone to RIC where they have CBP facilities and extra ramp/gate space.

smokeybandit wrote:

BWI also had the same line of storms

Yep. Here's a radar loop from twitter. There are reports of serious damage in Columbia, MD, not far from BWI: https://twitter.com/Radiant_Weather/sta ... 9542865921

The flight finally landed at DCA at 3:34, from looking at that radar, there was absolutely no time to divert to BWI without flying though that line of storms.

They definitely barely beat the line of storms. I was driving towards Alexandria trying to do the same when I saw a 757 headed East in a place I don't usually see them if they are headed into DCA. Assumed it might be a diversion from IAD. Pretty nasty line moved through shortly after that.

UA had 4 diversions
167 LIS to DCA
804 NRT to CLE
127 DUB to BOS
2342 ORD to PIT

Oops 5. I forgot 546 SAN went to ORF

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Can we presume that BWI wasn't an option over DCA? Was BWI under the same storm warnings that IAD was?

Actually, now that I read that (1) it was a 757 and (2) UA167 had already attempted an approach to IAD, I probably answered my own question. But, I guess my question would be if an approach was not possible into IAD, would BWI have been a better divert option at the time, or was BWI experiencing similar weather issues?

There were ground stops all through the northeast tonight due to that line, and numerous cancels.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Can we presume that BWI wasn't an option over DCA? Was BWI under the same storm warnings that IAD was?

Actually, now that I read that (1) it was a 757 and (2) UA167 had already attempted an approach to IAD, I probably answered my own question. But, I guess my question would be if an approach was not possible into IAD, would BWI have been a better divert option at the time, or was BWI experiencing similar weather issues?

I saw BWI took a Shamrock A330 today, I didn't see if there were any others (I'm sure there were a couple). BWI also got dumped on, though, about 45 minutes after IAD. It probably came down to timing.

D L X wrote:

I'm not a fan of diverting to DCA at 3:39pm today. A tornado warning was issued for us at 3:45, and the weather was pretty ominous by 3:30. If they couldn't land at IAD, choosing to land where the storm was heading seems like it wasn't all the way thought out. I wonder if it was approaching a fuel emergency instead of waiting 20 minutes for the storm to pass. (It's sunny now!)

PS: I've never seen night at 3:30pm without an eclipse. Wowza!

OT, but one if my most irritating days as a CSA was when our inbound aircraft diverted to COS because DEN got hit with storms, only to have those same storms hit COS next. The same 3 pax wouldn't stop asking us the same question and were even berating us. I know your pain brotha...

Scarebus34 wrote:

D L X wrote:

I'm not a fan of diverting to DCA at 3:39pm today. A tornado warning was issued for us at 3:45, and the weather was pretty ominous by 3:30. If they couldn't land at IAD, choosing to land where the storm was heading seems like it wasn't all the way thought out. I wonder if it was approaching a fuel emergency instead of waiting 20 minutes for the storm to pass. (It's sunny now!)

PS: I've never seen night at 3:30pm without an eclipse. Wowza!

Of course it was thought out... the objective is to get the airplane on the ground. DCA wasn’t the planned alternate but obviously the captain felt it was the best option to get the aircraft on the ground safely.

Disagree.

Racing to beat storms is not good. These storms were predicted a day ahead of time. That flight overflew BOS, EWR, and PHL before its attempt at IAD. Those would have been good alternatives, especially EWR. Then it missed at DCA and had to loop over alexandria to quickly try again five minutes later. So that’s two missed approaches ahead of a tornado warning. I am not in love with that at all.

Here’s the ATC feed of the go around and landing at DCA. I apparently was wrong, the tornado warning had issued before the go around.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kdca/ ... -1930Z.mp3

And the radar. Yikes! I’m going to guess that air was a wee bit uncomfortable.

https://www.liveatc.net/.archive/wx_rad ... -radar.png

D L X wrote:

Disagree.

Racing to beat storms is not good. These storms were predicted a day ahead of time. That flight overflew BOS, EWR, and PHL before its attempt at IAD. Those would have been good alternatives, especially EWR. Then it missed at DCA and had to loop over alexandria to quickly try again five minutes later. So that’s two missed approaches ahead of a tornado warning. I am not in love with that at all.

I somewhat agree with you however, who's to know that what they did wasn't the plan? It worked right? Maybe a plan you and I might not like but it's a plan nonetheless. And one more thing, they didn't overfly BOS but I see how it could have been an option.
My opinion is that with IAD and DCA being so close together the weather generally affects both at nearly the same time, combined with the 752 probably being very low on fuel, they might have wanted to be more conservative and err on the side of extra caution in situations like this.

CBP will not let an international diversion disembark before at least 3 hours unless it's a fully CBP staffed airport with scheduled international flights.

A month ago I was diverted to CRP on UA MEX-IAH and CBP agents had us inside the plane for 2 hours.

airbazar wrote:

D L X wrote:

Disagree.

Racing to beat storms is not good. These storms were predicted a day ahead of time. That flight overflew BOS, EWR, and PHL before its attempt at IAD. Those would have been good alternatives, especially EWR. Then it missed at DCA and had to loop over alexandria to quickly try again five minutes later. So that’s two missed approaches ahead of a tornado warning. I am not in love with that at all.

I somewhat agree with you however, who's to know that what they did wasn't the plan? It worked right? Maybe a plan you and I might not like but it's a plan nonetheless.

I just can’t imagine flying into a tornado warned thunderstorm as being acceptable. It “worked” this time, but I don’t think I’m being overly alarmist to point out there are times in fairly recent memory where it ended poorly. (Little Rock and Jamaica come to mind.)

The storms were predicted, but the timing wasn't. The storms came through earlier than the models predicted.

Looks to me like the captain and dispatcher painted themselves into a corner and DCA became the only option. Where I am, DCA is closed to diversions unless the aircraft is in dire emergency, due to enhanced security procedures put in place after 9/11. I'd assume United is the same way, but it got down to the fact that this guy needed concrete and he needed it now. Considering the airplane was only on the ground for 30 minutes, that was a true "gas-n-go", and I am surprised they didn't lose the crew for FAR117, so clearly UAL DCA handled the diversion recovery brilliantly. No customs able to process an international arrival at DCA either, only international flights into DCA are from Canada and those are pre-cleared north of the border.

I'd bet at the time of flight planning (many many many hours earlier) it looked like the weather would develop later than planned landing time, so the flight was probably released with a close in alternate (probably BWI or RIC) and little hold fuel. I'd be curious to hear what kind of fuel he actually landed with at DCA.

EC135C wrote:

WN732 wrote:

It's only a 757 so not too difficult for DCA.

What do you mean "757 so not too difficult". DCA is very easy for 757s. Won't even be breathing hard when it rotates.

That could refer to the landing. The pilot botched the initial approach and had to go around before finally landing. If you are unfamiliar with DCA or haven't done it in a long time that river approach might be tricky, especially in 757 without as much room for error.

capitalflyer wrote:

EC135C wrote:

WN732 wrote:

It's only a 757 so not too difficult for DCA.

What do you mean "757 so not too difficult". DCA is very easy for 757s. Won't even be breathing hard when it rotates.

That could refer to the landing. The pilot botched the initial approach and had to go around before finally landing. If you are unfamiliar with DCA or haven't done it in a long time that river approach might be tricky, especially in 757 without as much room for error.

Both really. Like you mentioned these guys probably haven't flown in there in ages. A TATL 757 by the point it reaches the US is going to be pretty light. At any rate, it's always exciting to see larger A/C at smaller airports such as DCA. Now, a TATL 767 would be an even more exciting story.

D L X wrote:

airbazar wrote:

D L X wrote:

Disagree.

Racing to beat storms is not good. These storms were predicted a day ahead of time. That flight overflew BOS, EWR, and PHL before its attempt at IAD. Those would have been good alternatives, especially EWR. Then it missed at DCA and had to loop over alexandria to quickly try again five minutes later. So that’s two missed approaches ahead of a tornado warning. I am not in love with that at all.

I somewhat agree with you however, who's to know that what they did wasn't the plan? It worked right? Maybe a plan you and I might not like but it's a plan nonetheless.

I just can’t imagine flying into a tornado warned thunderstorm as being acceptable. It “worked” this time, but I don’t think I’m being overly alarmist to point out there are times in fairly recent memory where it ended poorly. (Little Rock and Jamaica come to mind.)

Storms often happen in late spring/summer. But there was no way that they could predict a tornadic storm would affect all 3 DC terminals at nearly the same time. The BWI storm dropped an EF1 tornado in Columbia, MD.

The storm line itself was strong but not severe until it came off the mountains and down onto piedmont in NoVA. The rapid intensification happened probably as the flight was over BOS or NY, so not much time to react.

I agree that UA did well with a bad situation. And the pilots did well to get it on the ground safely and to stay steady after go around with fast approaching severe wx.

"Consumer" weather alerts (severe thunderstorm watch/warning, tornado warning, etc.) are not reported via aviation weather services, so they aren't independently relevant to airmen. However, if the conditions in the vicinity of a given airport are consistent with the type of weather forecast, then there can be a correlation; e.g., strong winds, lightning, hail, and more, all of which have a negative impact on flight ops.

In other words, even if DCA was under a tornado watch/warning, if the critical meteorological factors are within margins, then operations will generally continue. There might not be ground service personnel outside available to receive the airplane, at least right away, but operations aren't contingent on public watches/warnings.

As for the decision to land at DCA, probably not an ideal scenario, but afternoon weather up and down the East Coast has been brutal over the last 10 days or so. I would imagine the crew and company dispatch had extensive discussion over the last half of that TATL crossing and determined that an attempt to continue all the way to IAD was the most prudent course of action under the circumstances. A 757-200 will have no problem landing at DCA, even with a contaminated runway, and getting out for the short hop to IAD after the weather clears is a piece of cake, as well. UA regularly handles 757s (753) at DCA, so parking space, towbars, handling equipment isn't an issue, either.

codc10 wrote:

"Consumer" weather alerts (severe thunderstorm watch/warning, tornado warning, etc.) are not reported via aviation weather services, so they aren't independently relevant to airmen. However, if the conditions in the vicinity of a given airport are consistent with the type of weather forecast, then there can be a correlation; e.g., strong winds, lightning, hail, and more, all of which have a negative impact on flight ops.

In other words, even if DCA was under a tornado watch/warning, if the critical meteorological factors are within margins, then operations will generally continue. There might not be ground service personnel outside available to receive the airplane, at least right away, but operations aren't contingent on public watches/warnings.

As for the decision to land at DCA, probably not an ideal scenario, but afternoon weather up and down the East Coast has been brutal over the last 10 days or so. I would imagine the crew and company dispatch had extensive discussion over the last half of that TATL crossing and determined that an attempt to continue all the way to IAD was the most prudent course of action under the circumstances. A 757-200 will have no problem landing at DCA, even with a contaminated runway, and getting out for the short hop to IAD after the weather clears is a piece of cake, as well. UA regularly handles 757s (753) at DCA, so parking space, towbars, handling equipment isn't an issue, either.

Would a tornado warning necessitate evacuation of the tower? It doesn't appear there was evacuation in this instance per LiveATC recording.

TMccrury wrote:

A few years back, severe storms hit DC which caused a lot of diversions. My friend, who worked for one of the fuelers at RIC, called me and told me we had an AF 777, UA 777, Brussels A330 and a BA 777. The company he worked for refueled all of them. I went out and watched them all depart for IAD. Also, there were several smaller A320/B737 types from UA and others as well. They were parked everywhere.

And why on Earth didn't you or your friend take some pics?

capitalflyer wrote:

UA167 from Lisbon to IAD just attempted to divert to DCA. After going around once it landed at DCA just before a line of severe storms ripped through.
Weather is the obvious reason, but has there been an international diversion like this before? Can CBP process these folks or do they have to get to IAD?

I’m just wondering why wouldn’t “Can CBP process these folks or do they have to get to IAD?”
Isn’t DCA inside USA as well as IAD?

ferminbrif wrote:

capitalflyer wrote:

UA167 from Lisbon to IAD just attempted to divert to DCA. After going around once it landed at DCA just before a line of severe storms ripped through.
Weather is the obvious reason, but has there been an international diversion like this before? Can CBP process these folks or do they have to get to IAD?

I’m just wondering why wouldn’t “Can CBP process these folks or do they have to get to IAD?”
Isn’t DCA inside USA as well as IAD?

Because there are no customs and immigration staff or facilities at DCA

ferminbrif wrote:

capitalflyer wrote:

UA167 from Lisbon to IAD just attempted to divert to DCA. After going around once it landed at DCA just before a line of severe storms ripped through.
Weather is the obvious reason, but has there been an international diversion like this before? Can CBP process these folks or do they have to get to IAD?

I’m just wondering why wouldn’t “Can CBP process these folks or do they have to get to IAD?”
Isn’t DCA inside USA as well as IAD?

DCA is a 'national' airport that can only accept flights from preclearance airports because as the post above said... there are no formal passenger Customs/Border Patrol offices at DCA. If the plan diverted from say... Dublin then they could've offloaded into the general terminal as most of those flights are considered domestic once they leave Ireland.

ojjunior wrote:

TMccrury wrote:

A few years back, severe storms hit DC which caused a lot of diversions. My friend, who worked for one of the fuelers at RIC, called me and told me we had an AF 777, UA 777, Brussels A330 and a BA 777. The company he worked for refueled all of them. I went out and watched them all depart for IAD. Also, there were several smaller A320/B737 types from UA and others as well. They were parked everywhere.

And why on Earth didn't you or your friend take some pics?

It was too dark and the area they were parked in was super dark.

United DC-10 low on fuel reserves had to make a landing at DCA due to IAD & BWI being closed because of severe weather. Passengers got off and aircraft refueled and ferried out. April 1998. It made news headlines as I remember seeing it on NBC 4.

Years later a chance encounter with a passenger on that flight told me there where no stair trucks tall enough to accomidate a DC-10 so everyone had to ride down on maintenance lift trucks. The aircraft was only on the ground a couple hours and had no problem flying out with no passengers or freight.

In the early 1980's Eastern Airlines did a number of test flights in and out of DCA with a wide-body A-300. Such aircraft have no problem with runway length at DCA, it's more an issue with wingspan and ramp space.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/keleivis/4271371847

During Obama Inauguration Delta operated the 767-300 as documented on A-Net.

capitalflyer wrote:

D L X wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I somewhat agree with you however, who's to know that what they did wasn't the plan? It worked right? Maybe a plan you and I might not like but it's a plan nonetheless.

I just can’t imagine flying into a tornado warned thunderstorm as being acceptable. It “worked” this time, but I don’t think I’m being overly alarmist to point out there are times in fairly recent memory where it ended poorly. (Little Rock and Jamaica come to mind.)

Storms often happen in late spring/summer. But there was no way that they could predict a tornadic storm would affect all 3 DC terminals at nearly the same time. The BWI storm dropped an EF1 tornado in Columbia, MD.

The storm line itself was strong but not severe until it came off the mountains and down onto piedmont in NoVA. The rapid intensification happened probably as the flight was over BOS or NY, so not much time to react.

I agree that UA did well with a bad situation. And the pilots did well to get it on the ground safely and to stay steady after go around with fast approaching severe wx.

I live in Arlington and work in DC. The storm knocked out power and toppled trees all over my neighborhood. In DC, nightfall came at 3:15 pm and we had to move away from our exterior offices because a funnel cloud was seen on radar less than a mile away. I’m quite familiar with the development of this storm, and capital weather gang and others had predicted it a day beforehand.

If the storms were developing while they were over BOS, that means they skipped out on opportunities to put her down at BOS, PVD, JFK, ***EWR***, PHL and also PIT and RIC like everyone else did.

I just cannot see how this flight’s three landing attempts in DC during a tornado warning (not a watch) can be excused.