JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

MesaFlyGuy · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:35 am

Tonight at JFK, we have two 767s coming into JFK with issues.

First we have Delta flight 56 from SLC to AMS which is coming into JFK. Most likely a medical emergency, given that it is only scheduled to be on the ground here for about an hour and a half..

Second, only a couple minutes behind it, we have American flight 66 from JFK to BCN which turned aroundabout an hour into the flight and is coming back to Kennedy. It should be noted that the flight initially left over four hours late to begin with, so perhaps the plane itself is having issues?

Either way, it's funny timing to have both planes landing at almost the same time.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL56
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL66

Anyone have any info on whats going on with these flights? Thanks!

coolian2 · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:41 am

Where's UAL76 to complete the set?

dampfnudel · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:46 am

Just heard AA 66 flying over me here in Brooklyn (checked Flightradar24). Anyone know why they returned to JFK?

trnswrld · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:49 am

Reminds me last week at ORD with simultaneous mechanical emergencies. First was a United A319 with a severe vibration that turned back to ORD, then an AA 737 came in right after with cockpit flight display issues.

dampfnudel · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:53 am

Checked Flightradar24 again, AA 66 was close to Nova Scotia when the aircraft turned back. Now, if it was a medical emergency, why not land in Halifax or Boston?

northwestEWR · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:55 am

It looks like DL56 SLC-AMS was a planned diversion for takeoff performance restrictions due to high temps in SLC. Should be a gas and go.

[Edited 2015-07-03 20:55:54]

AR385 · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:58 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 1):
Where's UAL76 to complete the set?

That one will probably head to Goose Bay.

LOWS · Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:36 pm

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 5):
It looks like DL56 SLC-AMS was a planned diversion for takeoff performance restrictions due to high temps in SLC. Should be a gas and go.

Why would they stop in JFK then? Why not BOS or PHL or DTW, somewhere that isn't so busy and congested?

ordpark · Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:46 pm

Perhaps the need for a fuel stop forced the original crew over duty and JFK was chosen because that is where the crew resources are....just thinkin....

redzeppelin · Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:55 pm

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/D...9/history/20150703/2259Z/KSLC/LFPG

The SLC-CDG flight, also a 767 with a similar departure time, flew nonstop to Paris last night. I wonder why DL56 had to stop? The flight track definitely looks like a planned diversion. It left SLC and made a pretty direct flight to JFK.

diverted · Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:07 pm

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 9):
The SLC-CDG flight, also a 767 with a similar departure time, flew nonstop to Paris last night. I wonder why DL56 had to stop? The flight track definitely looks like a planned diversion. It left SLC and made a pretty direct flight to JFK.

So many factors I don't wanna begin to speculate. Could have been that they had higher pax load, more freight, an MEL, different alternate, different track/altitude, or even something as simple as an aircraft with a heavier OEW or lower MTOW(say an older frame operating that particular flight)

kann123air · Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:40 pm

What's up with diverting planes and JFK today? AA 278 diverted to MAN today while flying JFK-EDI. It took all us MAN spotters by surprise this morning to see an AA 752 landing!

Amrit

[Edited 2015-07-04 08:22:29]

MaverickTTT · Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:57 pm

Quoting diverted (Reply 10):
So many factors I don't wanna begin to speculate. Could have been that they had higher pax load, more freight, an MEL, different alternate, different track/altitude, or even something as simple as an aircraft with a heavier OEW or lower MTOW(say an older frame operating that particular flight)

It's kinda amazing the number of dispatch decisions at HDQ take place before a flight departs that people are completely unaware of, eh?

JAAlbert · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:47 pm

So if DL is just stopping at JFK to top off its tanks, does the aircraft pull up to a gate, or is it parked at a remote stand and the fuel truck drives out to it?

phillyramp270 · Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:49 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 13):

Make since to just come into a gate... Fueler has to give the pilots a fuel slip

777ord · Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:14 pm

Main Cabin door has to be open for fueling operations. They could also bring up air stairs.

And, worst case, use a long stick to reach the FD with teh slip lol

canyonblue17 · Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:25 pm

Quoting phillyramp270 (Reply 14):
Make since to just come into a gate... Fueler has to give the pilots a fuel slip

We get international diversions for fuel here at PBI all the time. In fact, had half a dozen yesterday. Most of these aircraft are headed to MIA, but usually can't get in because of thunderstorms during the summer. Many of them refuel without being parked at a gate. When they do refuel away from the gate, several emergency trucks park next to the aircraft just in case. By the way, one of the diversions yesterday was an Eastern Airlines 738 from Havana.

northwestEWR · Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:21 pm

Quoting 777ord (Reply 15):
Main Cabin door has to be open for fueling operations. They could also bring up air stairs.

In this case they parked at a gate. Easier than finding the air stairs and a place to park a 767.

Quoting phillyramp270 (Reply 14):
Make since to just come into a gate... Fueler has to give the pilots a fuel slip

In most cases we're using electronic fuel slips now but the door has to be open anyway.

Quoting MaverickTTT (Reply 12):
It's kinda amazing the number of dispatch decisions at HDQ take place before a flight departs that people are completely unaware of, eh?

People would be amazed.

Quoting diverted (Reply 10):

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 9):
The SLC-CDG flight, also a 767 with a similar departure time, flew nonstop to Paris last night. I wonder why DL56 had to stop? The flight track definitely looks like a planned diversion. It left SLC and made a pretty direct flight to JFK.

So many factors I don't wanna begin to speculate. Could have been that they had higher pax load, more freight, an MEL, different alternate, different track/altitude, or even something as simple as an aircraft with a heavier OEW or lower MTOW(say an older frame operating that particular flight)

It did have an MEL. It was hauling a lot of freight (though that may be normal, I don't know without looking at a past history of the flight). It was SLC in July. It was 99*, that's the definition of hot and high.

birdbrainz · Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:21 pm

Thank goodness none of these are 757s going TATL or we'd immediately digress into the stupid 757 dialog. I'm sure there's a 757 somewhere with either a sick passenger or mechanical issue that will divert. I can just feel one coming though.

MesaFlyGuy · Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Quoting birdbrainz (Reply 18):
Thank goodness none of these are 757s going TATL or we'd immediately digress into the stupid 757 dialog. I'm sure there's a 757 somewhere with either a sick passenger or mechanical issue that will divert. I can just feel one coming though.

I can't help feel that American flight 1089 from BGI to MIA yesterday diverted because of range issues.....

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...9/history/20150703/2305Z/KPBI/KMIA

kann123air · Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:28 pm

Quoting birdbrainz (Reply 18):
I'm sure there's a 757 somewhere with either a sick passenger or mechanical issue that will divert.

JFK-EDI today, AA278 (N191AN, B752) diverted to MAN. Fire trucks drove up to it upon landing and escorted it away from the runway.

spinkid · Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:41 am

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 17):
t did have an MEL. It was hauling a lot of freight (though that may be normal, I don't know without looking at a past history of the flight). It was SLC in July. It was 99*, that's the definition of hot and high.

What does MEL stand for? That's a new one for me.

MSYPI7185 · Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:28 am

MEL - Minimum Equipment List
Since some aircraft systems are so redundant, some items can be inoperative and the aircraft can operate with certain restrictions. Sometimes there are no restrictions as long as the remaining sensors are operative. This does not only apply to sensors, I used that as an example.
An aircraft can operate with an inoperative thirst reverser, but there are weight penalties that must be applied. This could mean less fuel or restricted use to a certain runway. There are many factors to consider and sometimes multiple ways to deal with them. Dispatch, the Flight Crew and sometimes Load Control work together to determine the best way to handle these situations.

This was probably more than you wanted to know, but just in case....

MD

northwestEWR · Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:04 am

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 22):

In the case of this flight, the APU showed as Inop and MEL'd.

MSYPI7185 · Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:18 am

So my guess is, weight penalty due to heat an added weight penalty due to an inoperable APU. it probably would not have made much difference to leave off cargo (Air Freight). So they loaded up the flight as normal with a lighter fuel load since they would have to make a fuel stop anyway due to temps.

Just my guess based one past experience.

MD

MaverickTTT · Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:43 pm

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 23):
In the case of this flight, the APU showed as Inop and MEL'd.

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 24):

So my guess is, weight penalty due to heat an added weight penalty due to an inoperable APU.

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure an inop APU is a no-go item for ETOPS operations. Did they swap airplanes and crews at JFK?

MesaFlyGuy · Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:10 pm

Quoting MaverickTTT (Reply 25):
Hmmm...I'm pretty sure an inop APU is a no-go item for ETOPS operations. Did they swap airplanes and crews at JFK?

For what it's worth (and that may not be much at all), flightaware shows the aircraft as N171DZ (ex Habitat for Humanity aircraft) and it only shows 171 having gone SLC-JFK and then being at JFK until today (7/5/15). It would make sense if the aircraft had a maintenance issue that it would be on the ground for a couple of days while it's fixed. This leads me to believe that they did indeed change planes.

panamair · Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:20 pm

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 26):
This leads me to believe that they did indeed change planes.

Yes, they did switch 763ERs at JFK:

https://www.delta.com/flifo/servlet/DeltaFlifo?airline_code=DL&flight_number=56&flight_date=07/03/2015&request=main

As you can see, the inbound SLC-JFK parked at gate B30, and the continuing JFK-AMS left out of gate B28, right next door.

Eurohub · Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:42 pm

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 22):
An aircraft can operate with an inoperative thirst reverser

Is that a technical term for not having loaded the soda?

MSJYOP28Apilot · Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:05 pm

Quoting MaverickTTT (Reply 25):
Hmmm...I'm pretty sure an inop APU is a no-go item for ETOPS operations. Did they swap airplanes and crews at JFK?

The 767 and 777 can both go ETOPS with an inop APU. The 777 can do ETOPS 180 and the 767 can do 120 ETOPS with an inop APU.

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 24):
So my guess is, weight penalty due to heat an added weight penalty due to an inoperable APU.

For the 767 and most types there is no weight penalty for an inop APU.

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 22):
An aircraft can operate with an inoperative thirst reverser, but there are weight penalties that must be applied.

Unless the accelerate stop distance of the aircraft is based on use of the thrust reversers, there shouldn't be a takeoff weight penalty for inop thrust reverser. Most aircraft don't have a performance takeoff weight restriction for inop thrust reverser. There might be performance landing weight issues based on required landing distance on wet, contaminated and short runways with an inop thrust reversers. Some airports and contaminated runway operations may be outright prohibited depending on the MEL and company policy.

[Edited 2015-07-06 10:08:47]

[Edited 2015-07-06 10:10:29]

JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

RE: JFK: Two Emergencies Landing Back-to-back

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net