Why would a flight no longer considered airworthy be redirected like this?
$begingroup$
I ran across this tweet covering the saga of Smartwings 1201, a 737 MAX 8 that was apparently redirected from Prague to Ankara after the MAX was grounded by the EU.
(flightaware.com)
It seems like an odd decision to do this. The plane had to divert and apparently spent quite a long time in circling before it was allowed to land in Turkey. Why was it not allowed to land at Prague as scheduled and be grounded there?
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
edited 1 hour ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 15 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4162834
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I ran across this tweet covering the saga of Smartwings 1201, a 737 MAX 8 that was apparently redirected from Prague to Ankara after the MAX was grounded by the EU.
(flightaware.com)
It seems like an odd decision to do this. The plane had to divert and apparently spent quite a long time in circling before it was allowed to land in Turkey. Why was it not allowed to land at Prague as scheduled and be grounded there?
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
edited 1 hour ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 15 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4162834
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
8
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
7 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I ran across this tweet covering the saga of Smartwings 1201, a 737 MAX 8 that was apparently redirected from Prague to Ankara after the MAX was grounded by the EU.
(flightaware.com)
It seems like an odd decision to do this. The plane had to divert and apparently spent quite a long time in circling before it was allowed to land in Turkey. Why was it not allowed to land at Prague as scheduled and be grounded there?
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
edited 1 hour ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 15 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4162834
$endgroup$
I ran across this tweet covering the saga of Smartwings 1201, a 737 MAX 8 that was apparently redirected from Prague to Ankara after the MAX was grounded by the EU.
(flightaware.com)
It seems like an odd decision to do this. The plane had to divert and apparently spent quite a long time in circling before it was allowed to land in Turkey. Why was it not allowed to land at Prague as scheduled and be grounded there?
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
edited 1 hour ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 15 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4162834
edited 1 hour ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 15 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4162834
edited 1 hour ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
edited 1 hour ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
edited 1 hour ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
67.2k7213356
asked 15 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4162834
asked 15 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4162834
asked 15 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4162834
2,4162834
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
8
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
7 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
8
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
13 hours ago
11
11
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
8
8
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
11 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
7 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 7 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 15 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I made a small edit -- they landed in Ankara at about 2320 and then continued to Prague the following afternoon. That must have been a repositioning flight, since passenger operations are forbidden. The directive banning passenger operations specifically allows for a ferry flight of up to three legs to a maintenance base. (I didn't want to edit all of that in, as it changes the meaning quite a bit.)
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight planes.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
answered 11 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
39117
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 15 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61156%2fwhy-would-a-flight-no-longer-considered-airworthy-be-redirected-like-this%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 7 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 15 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I made a small edit -- they landed in Ankara at about 2320 and then continued to Prague the following afternoon. That must have been a repositioning flight, since passenger operations are forbidden. The directive banning passenger operations specifically allows for a ferry flight of up to three legs to a maintenance base. (I didn't want to edit all of that in, as it changes the meaning quite a bit.)
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 7 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 15 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I made a small edit -- they landed in Ankara at about 2320 and then continued to Prague the following afternoon. That must have been a repositioning flight, since passenger operations are forbidden. The directive banning passenger operations specifically allows for a ferry flight of up to three legs to a maintenance base. (I didn't want to edit all of that in, as it changes the meaning quite a bit.)
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 7 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 15 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
$endgroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 7 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 15 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
edited 7 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
edited 7 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
edited 7 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
14.1k139108
answered 15 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
answered 15 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
answered 15 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
21.9k281102
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I made a small edit -- they landed in Ankara at about 2320 and then continued to Prague the following afternoon. That must have been a repositioning flight, since passenger operations are forbidden. The directive banning passenger operations specifically allows for a ferry flight of up to three legs to a maintenance base. (I didn't want to edit all of that in, as it changes the meaning quite a bit.)
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I made a small edit -- they landed in Ankara at about 2320 and then continued to Prague the following afternoon. That must have been a repositioning flight, since passenger operations are forbidden. The directive banning passenger operations specifically allows for a ferry flight of up to three legs to a maintenance base. (I didn't want to edit all of that in, as it changes the meaning quite a bit.)
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I made a small edit -- they landed in Ankara at about 2320 and then continued to Prague the following afternoon. That must have been a repositioning flight, since passenger operations are forbidden. The directive banning passenger operations specifically allows for a ferry flight of up to three legs to a maintenance base. (I didn't want to edit all of that in, as it changes the meaning quite a bit.)
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I made a small edit -- they landed in Ankara at about 2320 and then continued to Prague the following afternoon. That must have been a repositioning flight, since passenger operations are forbidden. The directive banning passenger operations specifically allows for a ferry flight of up to three legs to a maintenance base. (I didn't want to edit all of that in, as it changes the meaning quite a bit.)
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight planes.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
answered 11 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
39117
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight planes.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
answered 11 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
39117
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight planes.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
answered 11 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
39117
$endgroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight planes.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
answered 11 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
39117
edited 11 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
39117
answered 11 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
39117
answered 11 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
39117
39117
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 15 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 15 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 15 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
$endgroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 15 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
answered 15 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
answered 15 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
answered 15 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
4511412
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
14 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
13 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
14 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
13 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
13 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
12 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
11 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61156%2fwhy-would-a-flight-no-longer-considered-airworthy-be-redirected-like-this%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
13 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
11 hours ago
8
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
7 hours ago