AS 3342 (operated by Skywest Airlines) is returning to San Diego after reaching Sacramento- turned back but just overflew the airport (could see it from my house) and is circling.
Very unusual- if there were a mechanical or landing gear issue wouldn't go to an easier airport such as ontario (long runways) or lax? Anybody knows what is going on? Hopefully everyone safe.

obenyehuda wrote:

AS 3342 (operated by Skywest Airlines) is returning to San Diego after reaching Sacramento- turned back but just overflew the airport (could see it from my house) and is circling.
Very unusual- if there were a mechanical or landing gear issue wouldn't go to an easier airport such as ontario (long runways) or lax? Anybody knows what is going on? Hopefully everyone safe.

When able It’s always better to return the passengers to their origin then to some random 3rd airport. You can assume roughly half the passengers may live in San Diego where 0 would live at a third airport.

Just landed....no emergency equipment. taxiing to gate. Still strange- can't Sacramento handle it? Why fly all the way back to San Diego?

Weather diversion.

As stated above, sometimes it's better for passengers and the operation to return to the point of origin instead of diverting to another city.

KSMF 091706Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2200FT FG OVC002 04/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00390033 $
KSMF 091653Z 31006KT 1/8SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC002 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP270 T00330033 $
KSMF 091650Z 31005KT M1/4SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC001 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4
KSMF 091638Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2000FT FG SCT002 SCT006 03/02 A3032 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00330022
KSMF 091553Z 33005KT 1/2SM R17R/2800FT FG SCT002 SCT004 02/02 A3031 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 SLP264 T00220017

Rather low visibility there - at KSMF - for a while:
KSMF 091706Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2200FT FG OVC002 04/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00390033 $
KSMF 091653Z 31006KT 1/8SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC002 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP270 T00330033 $
KSMF 091650Z 31005KT M1/4SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC001 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4
KSMF 091638Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2000FT FG SCT002 SCT006 03/02 A3032 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00330022
KSMF 091553Z 33005KT 1/2SM R17R/2800FT FG SCT002 SCT004 02/02 A3031 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 SLP264 T00220017
KSMF 091545Z COR 34005KT 1/2SM RVR/2800FT FG SCT002 SCT004 03/02 A3031 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 T00280017 RVRNO

AS3342 on ADS-B Exchange
AS3342 on FlightAware
AS3342 on flightradar24

N193SY Embraer 175LR

asqx wrote:

Weather diversion.

As stated above, sometimes it's better for passengers and the operation to return to the point of origin instead of diverting to another city.

KSMF 091706Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2200FT FG OVC002 04/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00390033 $
KSMF 091653Z 31006KT 1/8SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC002 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP270 T00330033 $
KSMF 091650Z 31005KT M1/4SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC001 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4
KSMF 091638Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2000FT FG SCT002 SCT006 03/02 A3032 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00330022
KSMF 091553Z 33005KT 1/2SM R17R/2800FT FG SCT002 SCT004 02/02 A3031 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 SLP264 T00220017

They couldn’t have gone and sat on the ground at OAK until the minimums improved? The proceeded to SMF?

BoeingGuy wrote:

asqx wrote:

Weather diversion.

As stated above, sometimes it's better for passengers and the operation to return to the point of origin instead of diverting to another city.

KSMF 091706Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2200FT FG OVC002 04/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00390033 $
KSMF 091653Z 31006KT 1/8SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC002 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP270 T00330033 $
KSMF 091650Z 31005KT M1/4SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC001 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4
KSMF 091638Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2000FT FG SCT002 SCT006 03/02 A3032 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00330022
KSMF 091553Z 33005KT 1/2SM R17R/2800FT FG SCT002 SCT004 02/02 A3031 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 SLP264 T00220017

They couldn’t have gone and sat on the ground at OAK until the minimums improved? The proceeded to SMF?

In this case, both the out-and-back legs of the trip will cancel, and then the airplane will continue on as originally scheduled. It inconveniences two plane loads of passengers rather than everything else down the line. If the airplane was scheduled to go somewhere else after SMF (such as SEA), then the decision may have been different.

BoeingGuy wrote:

asqx wrote:

Weather diversion.

As stated above, sometimes it's better for passengers and the operation to return to the point of origin instead of diverting to another city.

KSMF 091706Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2200FT FG OVC002 04/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00390033 $
KSMF 091653Z 31006KT 1/8SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC002 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP270 T00330033 $
KSMF 091650Z 31005KT M1/4SM R17R/1400FT FG OVC001 03/03 A3033 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4
KSMF 091638Z 32006KT 1/4SM R17R/2000FT FG SCT002 SCT006 03/02 A3032 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 T00330022
KSMF 091553Z 33005KT 1/2SM R17R/2800FT FG SCT002 SCT004 02/02 A3031 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 SLP264 T00220017

They couldn’t have gone and sat on the ground at OAK until the minimums improved? The proceeded to SMF?

Did they have gate space at OAK? Agents that can handle them? Gas available in a timely manner? These decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. They would have coordinated with their dispatcher who would have worked with the other entities at their system operations. Ultimately they felt the best decision was to return to SAN. That was obviously the best option for any number of reasons, most likely an available gate.

BoeingGuy wrote:

They couldn’t have gone and sat on the ground at OAK until the minimums improved? The proceeded to SMF?

They could have, in fact the original planned alternate was SJC. BUT, doing so would have delayed the rest of the day's flying for the plane and potentially caused crew issues later. MO11 hit the nail on the head, it was to keep the rest of the day's flying on time. Since they had the fuel, going back to SAN got the plane back in time to continue the rest of the day's flying on time (well, until other delays happened but that's another can of worms).