superbizzy73
Topic Author
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:43 am

AC125 Diversion to SEA

Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:46 am

I was at work and noticed a couple of peculiar things happen last night (November 3rd). Traffic was taking off to the north out of KSEA, and I noticed a SW 737 turning and climbing out to the west much earlier than they usually turn. Then, I saw an aircraft (which I later identified as AC125) arriving to KSEA from the north, opposite of the usual traffic. After it arrived, the normal flow of northbound departures started back up again. I saw the AC flight was going from YZZ to YVR. Seems kind of unusual to divert all the way down to KSEA. Seems like they would have anything the flight would need (be it medical, maintenance, etc.) at YVR instead of diverting down south. Anyone possibly know what was going on?
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7798
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:22 am

Its a bit of a foggy night here, looks like they gave YVR a couple of tries before diverting. Doesn't look like any one else had any issues though.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
Tokyo777
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:29 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:23 am

I was wondering about this flight as well. Very strange. Wonder why they wouldn't divert to Victoria or Abbotsford? Seems no other diversions at YVR. And after that, they didn't depart until 13:00 on Monday. Why would they be on the ground for 15 hours if it was just fog when all other arrivals were unaffected? What happened to all of the passengers? Surely not everyone had their passport on them, since this was supposed to be a domestic Canadian flight. The only thing I can think of is something went wrong with the plane and they felt it'd be better to park it in Boeing's backyard and tell them to fix it. Perhaps they bused pax up to YVR and moved the airplane later?
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:42 am

Tokyo777 wrote:
Wonder why they wouldn't divert to Victoria or Abbotsford?


Wanted an airport with the infrastructure to handle a 787? YXX's runway is long enough, but no one sends anything bigger than a 737 there. Especially if they knew that the fog wouldn't burn off until the morning, they would have to get everyone off the aircraft which could have been a hassle at a smaller airport.
A318/19/20/21/21N A332/3 A343/5 A388 B712 B722 B732/3/4/7/8/9/9ER B744/4M B752/3 B762ER/3/3ER/4ER B77E/L/W B788 CRJ2/7/9 Q400 EMB-120 ERJ-135/140/145/145XR/175 DC-10-10 MD-82/83/88/90

Long Live the Tulip, Cactus, and Redwood
 
santi319
Posts: 866
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:24 pm

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:54 am

Im dying to know more about this story...
 
Prost
Posts: 2476
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:46 am

Okay, so it’s YYZ(not YZZ)-YVR, I couldn’t figure out why a 787 would be flying from Trail to Vancouver and diverting to SEA.
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7798
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:51 am

Interestingly, the aircraft didn't depart SEA for YVR until 13:38 this afternoon (Nov4) according to FR24. AM696 was the only other flight that diverted yesterday, they just overflew the airport, didn't even make an approach and went over to YYJ. Just a guess, but I'd assume the customs clearance for the AM flight was a bit more complex than the YYZ flight hence it going to YYJ and the AC flight to SEA.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
ghYHZ
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:51 am

Tokyo777 wrote:
....... What happened to all of the passengers? Surely not everyone had their passport on them, since this was supposed to be a domestic Canadian flight......


On a flight between Halifax and Toronto last year we were in US airspace from the New Brunswick-Maine border to Buffalo due to thunderstorms. They gave Rochester as our alternate to YYZ …..but I still boarded with just my Driver’s License as ID. They weren’t looking for a Passport ‘just in case’ we ended up in the US!

So I imagine with the long standing relationship between the US and Canada agreements are already in place for just such diversions as they could happen to citizens of either country with the number of daily over flights that occur between the two countries. Domestic US passengers on a flight from the mid-west or east coast to Alaska could very easily find themselves in Edmonton so hopefully common sense would prevail!

And going back to the ‘90s…..the Air Canada/Air Nova early morning flight on a Dash-8 from Halifax to Boston stopped in YQI on the way. Yarmouth at the very southern tip of Nova Scotia is known for its morning fog….so when these flights couldn’t land there an intending YHZ-YQI domestic passenger would just be carried over to BOS and dropped off in YQI on the way back later that morning after the fog burned off. This was pre-9-11 and that domestic passenger to YQI didn’t even need a photo ID to board the aircraft let alone a passport.
 
Tokyo777
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:29 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:21 am

ghYHZ wrote:
…..but I still boarded with just my Driver’s License as ID. They weren’t looking for a Passport ‘just in case’ we ended up in the US!

So I imagine with the long standing relationship between the US and Canada agreements are already in place for just such diversions as they could happen to citizens of either country with the number of daily over flights that occur between the two countries. Domestic US passengers on a flight from the mid-west or east coast to Alaska could very easily find themselves in Edmonton so hopefully common sense would prevail!


If pax are all Canadian citizens, this might work. But what about any citizens of other countries? What about those who require a visa for the US?

If it was a wx diversion, then it would seem logical to keep pax on the plane then fly back to the original destination as soon as the wx clears. Then, the pax never enter a different country.

Perhaps there are plans in place to move pax in a "sterile" environment such that the pax never enter the country? For example, in this case, a few buses are used to drive the pax back to YVR and are waved through at the US/Canada border in the sense that those passengers were never in the US?

I'm very curious on this one. I checked twitter expecting at least one passenger ranting about how they "almost died" but couldn't find anything.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:37 am

Tokyo777 wrote:
I was wondering about this flight as well. Very strange. Wonder why they wouldn't divert to Victoria or Abbotsford? Seems no other diversions at YVR. And after that, they didn't depart until 13:00 on Monday. Why would they be on the ground for 15 hours if it was just fog when all other arrivals were unaffected? What happened to all of the passengers? Surely not everyone had their passport on them, since this was supposed to be a domestic Canadian flight. The only thing I can think of is something went wrong with the plane and they felt it'd be better to park it in Boeing's backyard and tell them to fix it. Perhaps they bused pax up to YVR and moved the airplane later?


Alternates are chosen based on weather and operational requirements. YYJ and YXX wouldn’t be great operationally, YYJ weather was ok, not sure about YXX. YVR went from severe clear down to CATIII ops quickly the other night. Aeromexico could only do CATI approach. Maybe AC had the same issue and then ran into crew duty issues once in SEA.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:42 am

ACDC8 wrote:
Interestingly, the aircraft didn't depart SEA for YVR until 13:38 this afternoon (Nov4) according to FR24. AM696 was the only other flight that diverted yesterday, they just overflew the airport, didn't even make an approach and went over to YYJ. Just a guess, but I'd assume the customs clearance for the AM flight was a bit more complex than the YYZ flight hence it going to YYJ and the AC flight to SEA.


AM couldn’t legally do an approach as the weather was well below CATI limits, that’s all they could do. It was CATIII ops by then and 0 vis.
 
ghYHZ
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:45 am

Tokyo777 wrote:
ghYHZ wrote:
…..but I still boarded with just my Driver’s License as ID. They weren’t looking for a Passport ‘just in case’ we ended up in the US!

So I imagine with the long standing relationship between the US and Canada agreements are already in place for just such diversions as they could happen to citizens of either country with the number of daily over flights that occur between the two countries. Domestic US passengers on a flight from the mid-west or east coast to Alaska could very easily find themselves in Edmonton so hopefully common sense would prevail!


If pax are all Canadian citizens, this might work. But what about any citizens of other countries? What about those who require a visa for the US?


As I said there are probably agreements in place for just that circumstance. Passengers didn't arrive on their own free will. Same thing could be said for that US Domestic flight that might find itself in Edmonton on the way to Alaska. Could be passengers requiring a VISA for Canada.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2700
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:47 pm

Looks like there was a lot more to this diversion, Autoland fault and landed near minimum required fuel.

An Air Canada Boeing 787-8, registration C-GHPQ performing flight AC-125 from Toronto,ON to Vancouver,BC (Canada) was on a visual approach to runway 08L when the crew initiated a go around due to low visibility and requested and was granted an ILS CAT 3 approach to runway 08L. On short final to runway 08L the crew received a "NO AUTOLAND" message and went around again, during the go around an "insufficient fuel" advisory was displayed. The crew declared PAN PAN in order to receive a straight in approach to one of Seattle's runways 16 while runways 34 were in use. The aircraft landed safely on Seattle's runway 16L.

The Canadian TSB reported the aircraft landed with 2800kg of fuel remaining, 800 kg above minimum fuel.

The occurrence aircraft continued to Vancouver the following day after about 15 hours on the ground in Seattle.


http://avherald.com/h?article=4cef2cad&opt=0
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:25 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Looks like there was a lot more to this diversion, Autoland fault and landed near minimum required fuel.

An Air Canada Boeing 787-8, registration C-GHPQ performing flight AC-125 from Toronto,ON to Vancouver,BC (Canada) was on a visual approach to runway 08L when the crew initiated a go around due to low visibility and requested and was granted an ILS CAT 3 approach to runway 08L. On short final to runway 08L the crew received a "NO AUTOLAND" message and went around again, during the go around an "insufficient fuel" advisory was displayed. The crew declared PAN PAN in order to receive a straight in approach to one of Seattle's runways 16 while runways 34 were in use. The aircraft landed safely on Seattle's runway 16L.

The Canadian TSB reported the aircraft landed with 2800kg of fuel remaining, 800 kg above minimum fuel.

The occurrence aircraft continued to Vancouver the following day after about 15 hours on the ground in Seattle.


http://avherald.com/h?article=4cef2cad&opt=0


Not really, more often then not you’re going to land with close to min required fuel after a diversion.
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:00 pm

Whiteguy wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Looks like there was a lot more to this diversion, Autoland fault and landed near minimum required fuel.

An Air Canada Boeing 787-8, registration C-GHPQ performing flight AC-125 from Toronto,ON to Vancouver,BC (Canada) was on a visual approach to runway 08L when the crew initiated a go around due to low visibility and requested and was granted an ILS CAT 3 approach to runway 08L. On short final to runway 08L the crew received a "NO AUTOLAND" message and went around again, during the go around an "insufficient fuel" advisory was displayed. The crew declared PAN PAN in order to receive a straight in approach to one of Seattle's runways 16 while runways 34 were in use. The aircraft landed safely on Seattle's runway 16L.

The Canadian TSB reported the aircraft landed with 2800kg of fuel remaining, 800 kg above minimum fuel.

The occurrence aircraft continued to Vancouver the following day after about 15 hours on the ground in Seattle.


http://avherald.com/h?article=4cef2cad&opt=0


Not really, more often then not you’re going to land with close to min required fuel after a diversion.


I'd think that in such a case you wouldn't want to take a chance with an alternate that was too close / not great weather-wise (YYJ), in case weather changes, and there is a further missed approach. Going to SEA sounds like the right call.

Also, the "PAN" call explains the strange landing pattern.

As for the question of a domestic Cdn flight diverting to the US, I'm sure it happens all the time. I was once diverted to Bangor, on a YYZ-YHZ flight. Why can't passengers be kept in a sterile area, they that way they don't need passports, even if they are required to disembark.
 
NYC-air
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 6:59 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:30 pm

Looks like there was an article about this on CBC (albeit focused on Cannabis):
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.5351069

And it notes, "In an emergency situation, current identification technology, including advanced biometrics is sufficient for Canadian travellers to be processed by U.S. border agents."

Surely at an airport like SEA can figure this sort of thing out without too much hullabaloo - especially with AC ready to assist travelers and lots of SEA-YVR flights each day. I would hope/expect that AC got on the phone with US CBP soon after the plane began flying south to SEA, though who knows.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:44 pm

YYZYYT wrote:
Whiteguy wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Looks like there was a lot more to this diversion, Autoland fault and landed near minimum required fuel.



http://avherald.com/h?article=4cef2cad&opt=0


Not really, more often then not you’re going to land with close to min required fuel after a diversion.


I'd think that in such a case you wouldn't want to take a chance with an alternate that was too close / not great weather-wise (YYJ), in case weather changes, and there is a further missed approach. Going to SEA sounds like the right call.

Also, the "PAN" call explains the strange landing pattern.

As for the question of a domestic Cdn flight diverting to the US, I'm sure it happens all the time. I was once diverted to Bangor, on a YYZ-YHZ flight. Why can't passengers be kept in a sterile area, they that way they don't need passports, even if they are required to disembark.


What strange landing pattern?? They flew the arrival and approach for the ILS on 08L, no contact at DH and flew the missed approach. They were then vectored to the south and flew the CATIII ILS but had a “no autoland” message, missed approach then flew directly to their alternate SEA. The “PAN” call was for low fuel and to get the direct routing. The weather changed very quickly that night, we landed just after these guys diverted. We had to do the CATIII and it was zero vis and RVRs well below 1000ft, our alternate was Comox, where the weather was clear. Honestly, the only fog was right at the airport and you didn’t descend into it until about 150 ft.
 
NiMar
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:08 pm

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:33 pm

The strange part was that they landed into the direction everyone else was taking off at SEA... Mow through! Mow through!
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 811
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:48 pm

I don't know why there is even a need to have customs at the USA/Canada border. Europe has a joint security zone including what, a dozen countries? As long as getting into North America is standardized why not do the same as in Europe. I do realize that some Canadians might object (guns etc. coming in from USA) but what a bureaucratic, costly effort the current customs situation is in my opinion at least.
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:55 pm

Whiteguy wrote:

What strange landing pattern?? They flew the arrival and approach for the ILS on 08L, no contact at DH and flew the missed approach. They were then vectored to the south and flew the CATIII ILS but had a “no autoland” message, missed approach then flew directly to their alternate SEA. The “PAN” call was for low fuel and to get the direct routing. The weather changed very quickly that night, we landed just after these guys diverted. We had to do the CATIII and it was zero vis and RVRs well below 1000ft, our alternate was Comox, where the weather was clear. Honestly, the only fog was right at the airport and you didn’t descend into it until about 150 ft.


This:

NiMar wrote:
The strange part was that they landed into the direction everyone else was taking off at SEA... Mow through! Mow through!


And yes, I know Pan was for low fuel, and as I understand is required when the flight crew knows they are going to land with less than minimum onboard.

I'm not criticizing. It looks like the system working properly, everyone did their job, and the incident was a non-issue (except for us here who have nothing better to do).
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

Re: AC125 Diversion to SEA

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:03 pm

Sorry to have missed this one. SEA does get YVR diversions due to fog every now and then. I caught a QF 744 approaching SEA a few years ago during one such episode. An AC 787 would have been a cool catch.
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos