Air France Frequence Plus - Air France flight, diverted from BEY to AMM[, has landed at LCA]

Source: LCI (http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/moyen-orient/troubles-au-liban-un-vol-air-france-pour-beyrouth-deroute-7459488.html) (in French)

According to airport sources in BEY, Air France flight management decided to divert a plane flying CDG-BEY to AMM, due to demonstrations blocking the road between the airport and the city.

Source: LCI (http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/moyen-orient/troubles-au-liban-un-vol-air-france-pour-beyrouth-deroute-7459488.html) (in French)

According to airport sources in BEY, Air France flight management decided to divert a plane flying CDG-BEY to AMM, due to demonstrations blocking the road between the airport and the city.

Good grief, BEY and AMM are not quite next door to each other, I really wonder what happened to the passengers and hope they were able to safely reach their destination very quickly!

But AF did not have any evening BEY flights scheduled on Wed:

[KVS Availability Tool 7.0.3/Diamond - Amadeus: Timetable/NL-BCDF] (http://www.KVSTool.com/)
CDG Paris Charles De Gaulle FR [LFPG]
BEY Beirut Rafic Hariri Intl LB [OLBA]
MON 13 Aug 2012 - 20 Aug 2012

Carrier Flight From Depart To Arrive A/C St Frequency | Dur'n | Dep T | Arr T | Effect | Ending | Exceptions
--------- ------ ---- -------- ---- -------- --- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------
AF 566 CDG 09:00 BEY 14:05 77W 0 1234567 04:05 2F - 25 Mar 16 Sep
AF/ME 564 CDG 10:30 BEY 15:45 332 0 1234567 04:15 2F - 25 Mar 16 Sep
AF/ME 568 CDG 13:40 BEY 18:55 332 0 1234567 04:15 2F - 25 Mar 16 Sep
AF 562 CDG 16:30 BEY 21:45 EQV 0 12-4567 04:15 2F - 13 Aug 20 Aug
AF 7662 CDG 09:35 MRS 11:00 319 0 --3--67 08:40 2F 4 27 Jun 02 Sep
-> AF 4390 MRS 14:30 BEY 19:15 320 0 1 -
AF 7672 CDG 08:35 MRS 10:00 320 0 --3--67 09:40 2F 4 27 Jun 02 Sep
-> AF 4390 MRS 14:30 BEY 19:15 320 0 1 -
AF 1148 CDG 07:40 BCN 09:20 320 0 -----6- 10:35 2F 1 21 Jul 01 Sep
-> AF 4335 BCN 11:25 MRS 12:35 319 0 1 3
-> AF 4390 MRS 14:30 BEY 19:15 320 0 1 -
AF 7620 CDG 07:40 BOD 08:55 321 0 --3---- 10:35 2F B 11 Jul 22 Aug
-> AF 7603 BOD 11:40 MRS 12:45 319 0 B 4
-> AF 4390 MRS 14:30 BEY 19:15 320 0 1 -
AF 1240 CDG 07:25 AMS 08:40 EQV 0 --3--67 10:50 2F - 13 Aug 20 Aug
-> AF/## 8281 AMS 09:20 MRS 11:20 E90 0 - 4
-> AF 4390 MRS 14:30 BEY 19:15 320 0 1 -
AF 1126 CDG 07:20 VCE 09:00 319 0 -----6- 10:55 2D - 14 Jul 01 Sep
-> AF 4333 VCE 09:35 MRS 11:00 319 0 - 3
-> AF 4390 MRS 14:30 BEY 19:15 320 0 1 -
AF 7660 CDG 07:20 MRS 08:45 EQV 0 --3--67 10:55 2F 4 13 Aug 20 Aug
-> AF 4390 MRS 14:30 BEY 19:15 320 0 1 -

According to some twitter feeds (Marina Tymen, who was one of our gracious hosts at the CDG DO), AF flight 562, which departed from CDG at 16:49 (Paris time) and is operated with an A330-200 (F-GZCK), has refueled in DAM (closer than AMM) and is now headed to or has landed at LCA.

The aircraft is scheduled to leave LCA for BEY at 2:40 PM and arrive at 3:25 PM (Paris time).

I really wonder what happened to the passengers

Maybe they'll get a credit of 3 status flights ? How lucky ;-)

But AF did not have any evening BEY flights scheduled on Wed:


I guess KVS is wrong, then.

http://i50.tinypic.com/21kdnwh.jpg

Source: LCI (http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/moyen-orient/troubles-au-liban-un-vol-air-france-pour-beyrouth-deroute-7459488.html) (in French)


In English (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE8610SH20120816)

I'd really like to learn more details about what has really happened. What is known for a fact is that last night some protesters blocked the airport road, that the flight therefore didn't want to land in Beirut but wanted to deviate to Amman. Running out of fuel it instead changed plans again and diverted to Damascus instead where I refilled. It later changed plans once more and continued and went to Larnaca.

This raises a number of questions of judgement, for which there might be good reasons but that's why I would like to learn more:

1. What was it in Beirut that was deemed so dangerous by Air France to justify a deviation, whilst *no* other company deviated its flights? Not Lufthansa, not Alitalia, not British Airways/bmi, none of the airlines from the Middle East? Surely some of them are scheduled to land later than Air France, by which time the incident may have been over - but if it was over, why then didn't the plane fly from Damascus to Beirut but to Larnaca? Also, the time Air France decided to deviate its flight is about the time when other flights of above mentioned airlines take off from Europe, yet none of them decided to delay, cancel or deviate their flights? So what was it that made AF decide not to land in Beirut? Who gave the information about blocked airport route: Air France operations in Paris, AF in Beirut, Beirut ATC? Who took part in the assessment of the situation and the decision to deviate?

2. It is one thing not to land in Beirut because it is deemed an insecure place, but then to chose Damascus instead is interesting. Again, what was behind that choice? Was it only on the way to Amman that the crew realised that they didn't have enough fuel and needed to refuel in Damascus? That would say a lot about the crew's (in)ability to properly manage its flight and fuel. If Amman was not certain to be in the plane's range from the start, then why not go to Larnaca straight away?

3. Also, once refuelled in Damascus, why then not continue to Amman but change plans and go to Larnaca instead? Larnaca might objectively be the more suitable deviation airport (eg for visa issues), but then why try Amman first?

4. Having spoken to someone who had a business partner on the flight it *seems* that in Damascus pax and crew were asked to raise money to pay for the fuel. I personally find that completely unbelievable (smells like an urban legend to me), but can someone confirm? Whilst AF no longer serves Damascus, surely there are procedures in place that kick in when the airline must pay for things like fuel or passenger services at deviation airports that are not part of its network. Don't know, Captain has a credit card or Air France has a line with the airport and fuel suppliers? Maybe someone can clarify

4. Having spoken to someone who had a business partner on the flight it *seems* that in Damascus pax and crew were asked to raise money to pay for the fuel. I personally find that completely unbelievable (smells like an urban legend to me), but can someone confirm? Whilst AF no longer serves Damascus, surely there are procedures in place that kick in when the airline must pay for things like fuel or passenger services at deviation airports that are not part of its network. Don't know, Captain has a credit card or Air France has a line with the airport and fuel suppliers? Maybe someone can clarify

Given the situation on the ground in Syria, it really wouldn't surprise me.

Air France probably does not have a procedure in place for a plane arriving at a point it no longer serves. Depending on who the airport operator is, or the fuel supplier, then it is likely/possible that in Damascus these are entities with which Air France has no dealings with at all. (By this I mean that Air France may not do business with these companies at ANY airport, and therefore there is no current contract or relationship between them that could be used to grease the wheels of this unexpected transaction). Or it could just be that they merely wanted payment up front, which the Air France crew were not able to meet.

It does strike one as rather strange that a reputable company that should be good for the money is treated like that. Such stories typically only surface about carriers that are in trouble and where those expected to supply fuel can rightly worry that they would never subsequently see payment.

It could be true! It will be interesting to see if any more details become known. You say "pax and crew were asked to raise payment". Did they? There must be further details from this source of yours.

Source: Le Telegramme (http://www.letelegramme.com/ig/generales/france-monde/monde/liban-le-vol-air-france-deroute-vers-damas-repart-pour-beyrouth-16-08-2012-1808285.php)

(...)
En fait, ce déroutement n'a pas été simple. "La situation s'est dégradée rapidement pendant la phase d'approche à Beyrouth, ce qui a conduit la compagnie à décider d'un déroutement sur Amman, ce qui apparaissait alors comme la meilleure solution", a expliqué le directeur de permanence à Air France, Pierre Caussade.

Damas seule solution pour faire le plein
"Mais le commandement de bord n'a pas pu obtenir du contrôle aérien du secteur l'autorisation d'emprunter une trajectoire directe sur Amman. En fin de compte, avec le carburant restant, le seul aéroport à portée a été Damas", a ajouté un commandant de bord, porte-parole des opérations aériennes de la compagnie.

Bien qu'Air France ne desserve plus l'escale de Damas, l'avion a pu faire le plein en deux heures avant de repartir sur Chypre, avec ses 174 passagers et 11 membres d'équipage.

Source: Le Figaro (www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2012/08/16/97002-20120816FILWWW00410-vol-deroute-air-france-a-paye-le-plein.php)

L'équipage du vol Air France Paris-Beyrouth qui a dû faire escale mercredi à Damas pour se ravitailler en carburant a demandé à ses passagers de quelle somme d'argent ils disposaient pour régler le plein si besoin, a-t-on appris auprès de la compagnie. Mais l'entreprise a finalement réglé elle-même la somme demandée par les autorités aéroportuaires de la capitale syrienne.

Un vol Air France parti mercredi soir de Paris pour Beyrouth, et avec 174 passagers à bord, a dû être dérouté pour raisons de sécurité, et a fait escale à Damas pendant deux heures pour faire le plein de kérosène. "Par mesure de précaution et d'anticipation, l'équipage a procédé au recensement des disponibilités d'avoirs en liquide des passagers pour payer le plein de carburant en liquide", a dit à Reuters une porte-parole d'Air France. "En définitive, Air France a pu s'acquitter elle-même du montant du plein de carburant", a-t-elle ajouté, sans préciser la facture ni le moyen par lequel Air France l'a finalement réglé.

Short and loose translation:
As a precautionary measure, the crew asked what cash passengers had available, if they had to pay for fuel in cash, according to an Air France spokesperson, quoted by Reuters. Ultimately, Air France managed to pay for the fuel. The payment mode and the amount were not specified.

I guess KVS is wrong, then.

Interestingly enough, AF did not enter a diversion into the system. Instead, they removed the CDG-BEY flight from the Timetable (yesterday), and then scheduled a 22+ hour long CDG-DAM flight with 2 stops (today):

[KVS Availability Tool 7.0.3/Diamond - Amadeus: Timetable/NL-BCDF] (http://www.KVSTool.com/)
CDG Paris Charles De Gaulle FR [LFPG]
BEY Beirut Rafic Hariri Intl LB [OLBA]
MON 13 Aug 2012 - 20 Aug 2012

Carrier Flight From Depart To Arrive A/C St Frequency | Dur'n | Dep T | Arr T | Effect | Ending | Exceptions
--------- ------ ---- -------- ---- -------- --- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------
AF 566 CDG 09:00 BEY 14:05 77W 0 1234567 04:05 2F - 25 Mar 16 Sep
AF 562 CDG 16:30 BEY 21:45 EQV 0 12-4567 04:15 2F - 13 Aug 20 Aug
AF 562 CDG 16:34 BEY 16:25 +1 332 2 --3---- 22:51 2F - 15 Aug 15 Aug


[KVS Availability Tool 7.0.3/Diamond - Amadeus Operational Info: AF 562/15 Aug 2012] (http://www.KVSTool.com/)
Planned Flight Info
Segment Departure Arrival Duration
------- --------- --------- --------
CDG-DAM 16:34/Wed 22:00/Wed 04:26
DAM-LCA 00:25/Thu 01:25/Thu 01:00
LCA-BEY 15:40/Thu 16:25/Thu 00:45

Location Time Operational Event
-------- ----- ---------------------------
CDG 16:35 ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE
CDG 16:34 LEFT THE GATE
CDG 16:49 TOOK OFF
DAM 22:00 AIRCRAFT LANDED
DAM 22:12 ARRIVED
LCA 17:01 LEFT THE GATE
LCA 17:05 TOOK OFF
BEY 17:33 ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL
BEY 17:32 AIRCRAFT LANDED
BEY 17:38 ARRIVED

Segment Flight Note
------- ---------------------------------------------
CDG-DAM AIRCRAFT OWNER AIR FRANCE
DAM-LCA AIRCRAFT OWNER AIR FRANCE
LCA-BEY AIRCRAFT OWNER AIR FRANCE
CDG-DAM COCKPIT CREW AIR FRANCE
DAM-LCA COCKPIT CREW AIR FRANCE
LCA-BEY COCKPIT CREW AIR FRANCE
CDG-DAM CABIN CREW AIR FRANCE
DAM-LCA CABIN CREW AIR FRANCE
LCA-BEY CABIN CREW AIR FRANCE
ENTIRE FLT- MEMBER OF SKYTEAM
CDG-DAM DEPARTS TERMINAL 2F
CDG-LCA CLASSES SHOWN JCDIZOWSAYBMUKHLQTENRVXG
CDG-BEY CLASSES SHOWN JCDIZOWSAYBMUKHLQTENRVXG
DAM-BEY CLASSES SHOWN JCDIZOWSAYBMUKHLQTENRVXG
ENTIRE FLT- 7/ DUTY FREE SALES
ENTIRE FLT- 15/ IN-SEAT VIDEO PLAYER/LIBRARY
ENTIRE FLT- ET/ ELECTRONIC TKT CANDIDATE
DEPARTS TERMINAL 2F

Reuters has an article in English: Air France asks passengers for refuel cash at Damascus stop (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/syria-crisis-airfrance-idUSL6E8JGC6I20120816)

As irishguy28 says, it seems airlines may not have procedures in place to pay for fuel in some locations where they do not normally land - especially if relations between the two countries involved are strained. (The article indicates that the captain normally carries a credit card for such emergencies - but in this case, the credit card was not accepted).

There was a similar incident in 2005 (American jet makes emergency landing (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-20/news/0506210021_1_emergency-landing-false-alarm-plane)), when a NWA DC-10 made an emergency landing in THR due to a (false) fire warning - and then struggled to find a way to pay for the fuel they needed (although I don't think they asked the passengers to contribute, on that occasion).

In the NW case, I'm surprised they couldn't have just asked KL (who had regular operations in THR) - but for the current AF case, I'm not sure any SkyTeam partners still serve DAM...

Seems like a flight on one of those near-broke Indian carriers!

Seems like a flight on one of those near-broke Indian carriers!

Seems more like a reflection of the current sorry state of Syria ..., which probably required the use of an "honorable intermediary", who will remain unknown, as well as his commission and "representation" costs, to expedite payment. Of course, paying with the credit card reserved for the captain's use in such emergencies would obviate the need for the mediation of such a helpful agent ...

Given the situation on the ground in Syria, it really wouldn't surprise me.

Air France probably does not have a procedure in place for a plane arriving at a point it no longer serves. Depending on who the airport operator is, or the fuel supplier, then it is likely/possible that in Damascus these are entities with which Air France has no dealings with at all. (By this I mean that Air France may not do business with these companies at ANY airport, and therefore there is no current contract or relationship between them that could be used to grease the wheels of this unexpected transaction). Or it could just be that they merely wanted payment up front, which the Air France crew were not able to meet.

It does strike one as rather strange that a reputable company that should be good for the money is treated like that. Such stories typically only surface about carriers that are in trouble and where those expected to supply fuel can rightly worry that they would never subsequently see payment.

It could be true! It will be interesting to see if any more details become known. You say "pax and crew were asked to raise payment". Did they? There must be further details from this source of yours.
Of course AF must have a procedure for a diversion to a place they don't normally serve. What about diversion airports on ETOPS/Indian Ocean flights? Sure they have a script for that.

I wonder what their filed alternate airport was, regarding the extra onboard fuel.

But AF did not have any evening BEY flights scheduled on Wed:

[/CODE]

Quite common for AF - they tend to retime flights when they are delayed (planned delays). I've had a 1hr delay on BEY-CDG and everything was changed to the new flight time, including on boarding passes, e-ticket and CMT.

Talked to someone on board. Indeed the crew told pax that they might have to pitch in. But it then got resolved and AF paid.

Obviously there are procedures in place for diversions to places which are usually not served. There are many such airports in Russia (on the way to Japan), Greenland, Canada, China, etc. These airports are declared diversion airports go their ability to handle the plane type and to handle passengers (medically, accommodation, etc). They are regularly inspected by the airlines.

Also, what would you think happens in cargo flights? There's no pax that can chip in in case of deviation.

There is another detail that is possibly relevant: the French ambassador to Lebanon was on board. Maybe that led to the decision to divert given the troubles on the ground.

But it still doesn't explain why they didn't divert to Larnaca in the first place but chose Amman which only would have been reached by overflying Israel, something unlikely to be granted by ATC. And it doesn't explain the fuel situation. The flight approached Beirut at the scheduled time so it should have had enough fuel to reach a diversion airport. I cannot imagine that Damascus was the only designated diversion airport. If Amman was a designated diversion, there should have been enough fuel to reach it - unless Air France dispatch committed the gaffe I calculating Amman fuel based on a direct/over Israel route. Otherwise I would strongly assume that Larnaca was a designated diversion and enough fuel should have been in board.

BEY-AMM is about one hour. That could easily be done by using the holdingfuel alone. And then there is still another 45 min holding fuel and gas for the diversion airport and sometimes more for contingiency. Seems strange that there was a fuel issue.
(above is rough estimate based on standard aviation guidelines)

Lets sum this thread up:
Big mystery!

More like big mess.

Apparently the captain was contemplating landing the A332 in the sea. (http://www.lorientlejour.com/category/%C3%80+La+Une/article/773793/Le_rocambolesque_et_dangereux_vol_Paris-Damas-Larnaca-Beyrouth_d%27Air_France.html)

Big :td:.

Talked to someone on board. Indeed the crew told pax that they might have to pitch in. But it then got resolved and AF paid.



But it still doesn't explain why they didn't divert to Larnaca in the first place but chose Amman which only would have been reached by overflying Israel, something unlikely to be granted by ATC. And it doesn't explain the fuel situation. The flight approached Beirut at the scheduled time so it should have had enough fuel to reach a diversion airport. I cannot imagine that Damascus was the only designated diversion airport. If Amman was a designated diversion, there should have been enough fuel to reach it - unless Air France dispatch committed the gaffe I calculating Amman fuel based on a direct/over Israel route. Otherwise I would strongly assume that Larnaca was a designated diversion and enough fuel should have been in board.


Surely there must be an international law that if low fuel is declared, Israel must permit overflight??
Then again,Israel is not exactly good in respecting international laws....

More like big mess.

Apparently the captain was contemplating landing the A332 in the sea. (http://www.lorientlejour.com/category/%C3%80+La+Une/article/773793/Le_rocambolesque_et_dangereux_vol_Paris-Damas-Larnaca-Beyrouth_d%27Air_France.html)

Big :td:.
Hmmm...if you trust journalists, especially in aviation stories...
but big mess, certainly yes.

Obviously there are procedures in place for diversions to places which are usually not served.

Indeed - it seems that the 'normal' procedure is either using an account the airline has at that airport, or if that is not available, using a credit card carried by the captain. However, in this case, the first option was not available, and the second option was either refused or not possible.

"There were some negotiations going on to buy fuel because Air France doesn't fly to Damascus at the moment and so it doesn't have an account" with Damascus airport authorities, he [a passenger] explained.
...
According to an Air France employee who declined to be named, the crew at first offered to pay for the fuel in Damascus with a credit card but the transaction was impossible because of financial sanctions which have been slapped on Syria.

...Syrian authorities refused credit card payment to refuel the aircraft, the French airline said on Thursday

Also, what would you think happens in cargo flights? There's no pax that can chip in in case of deviation.
Cargo is presumably less 'urgent' than pax (it generally doesn't get restless, need to be fed or watered, etc) - which would give more time to sort out some other form of payment (eg: bank transfer).

And it doesn't explain the fuel situation. The flight approached Beirut at the scheduled time so it should have had enough fuel to reach a diversion airport. I cannot imagine that Damascus was the only designated diversion airport.
I think this is actually the more pertinent question. Presumably DAM was not the designated diversion airport (as the captain first tried to go to AMM, and if DAM was designated, presumably there would be fuel payment arrangements in place). However, assuming AMM was the designated diversion airport, it seems strange that there was not enough fuel on board to reach it.

The L'Orient LeJour (http://www.lorientlejour.com/category/%C3%80+La+Une/article/773793/Le_rocambolesque_et_dangereux_vol_Paris-Damas-Larnaca-Beyrouth_d%27Air_France.html) article (mentioned by BA6501) says that due to restrictions on Syrian airspace, the plane had to made a wide diversion, and hence couldn't reach AMM - but was eventually allowed to make an emergency landing in DAM. However, it seems slightly strange that the length of the diversion wasn't known in advance (and/or that TLV or LCA weren't available as options).

Apparently the captain was contemplating landing the A332 in the sea.
Hmmm. I thought it was standard practice (where possible) to start preparing selected passengers to assist the crew in an emergency landing, well before the said landing actually happens. So, this may just have been sensible contingency planning by the captain (so he had the option in case needed) rather than an expected outcome at any point.

Of course AF must have a procedure for a diversion to a place they don't normally serve. What about diversion airports on ETOPS/Indian Ocean flights? Sure they have a script for that.


I'm not talking about diversions, per se. Every flight will have diversion airports listed. IN this case, DAM wasn't originally where they wanted to land, but they were not allowed to land in AMM as originally hoped for. So it is presumable that DAM would never have been listed as a diversion airport on any AF CDG-BEY flights.

But of course, an emergency is an emergency and when a plane needs to land somewhere unplanned, it will generally be allowed. And a flight in trouble will not just attempt to limp on to a more convenient airport, just because they may have such logistical issues after they land. The imperative is to get everyone on the ground safely. All other considerations should be ignored until that goal has been achieved.

But once you're on the ground, you need to think about what happens next. When you find yourself in an airport that was never "on the radar" (so to speak) as being a diversion airport, and an airport which your airline does not serve, then it's not the same situation as landing in an airport with which you already have dealings. Quite obviously, the issue of payment would be uppermost in the suppliers' minds in such an unexpected, unanticipated situation. Quite simply, they can't just bill as normal - because there is no "normal" when dealing with this one-off flight from an airline you don't have any business with.

In any case, based in the information that there are, it seems a doubtful choice not to land in Beirut, a wrong choice not to use Larnaca as the diversion airport from the start, and a botch-up to have the type if fuel situation the flight found itself in.

But again, there may be elements of the story that are missing.

I still have NO IDEA why that flight decided to divert. It's not the first time that the road to/from the airport is blocked. It has happened many times before and I've never heard of any flights diverting because of that. Was this the captain's first time flying to Beirut? And has anyone heard of flights diverting from France because of recent riots in the country?

That road is periodically blocked (but then opened within a few hours) by people protesting everything from electricity cuts to high fuel prices. This most recent road block was to protest against the Lebanese government for not doing much in the case of 11 kidnapped Lebanese citizens in Syria. They've been held captive for the last 3 months and on that particular day, there was news that they were actually killed in some rocket attack on the house they were being kept in. As usual, roads were cleared a few hours after the protests had started.

Whoever took the decision to divert made a very bad call...

PS. I do not support such actions by the way. I just wanted to clarify the situation.

A member of the company told that the crew offered to pay with a credit card, but it could not be used due to international sanctions on the Syrian regime. He did not specify the solution found to pay for kerosene.

Source: Le Nouvel Observateur (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/20120816.AFP5895/vol-air-france-deroute-l-equipage-a-fait-la-quete-pour-le-kerosene-a-damas.html)

"The situation has deteriorated rapidly during the approach phase in Beirut, which led the company to decide on a diversion to Amman which then appeared as the best solution," said the director of Air France permanently, Pierre Caussade.

"But the captain was unable to obtain air traffic control sector's authorization to proceed on a direct path to Amman. Ultimately, with the remaining fuel, the only airport possible was Damascus," added the spokesman for the air operations of the company.

Source: Le Nouvel Observateur (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/20120816.AFP5895/vol-air-france-deroute-l-equipage-a-fait-la-quete-pour-le-kerosene-a-damas.html)

Surely there must be an international law that if low fuel is declared, Israel must permit overflight??
Then again,Israel is not exactly good in respecting international laws....

You are correct and that is why the crew deliberated about landing in Jordan, Lebanon or Syria which are well known liberal democracies with a strong tradition of respecting international law.

They ultimately landed in Syria, where the democratically elected leader Bashar Assad (he is so loved by his people that he received 99% of the vote, that is more than even Obama or Hollande got!). These days Syria is the beacon of human rights and international law. There are some 'troublemakers' but Assad is applying the full love of the Syrian constitution to solve this

1. What was it in Beirut that was deemed so dangerous by Air France to justify a deviation, whilst *no* other company deviated its flights? Not Lufthansa, not Alitalia, not British Airways/bmi, none of the airlines from the Middle East? Surely some of them are scheduled to land later than Air France, by which time the incident may have been over - but if it was over, why then didn't the plane fly from Damascus to Beirut but to Larnaca? Also, the time Air France decided to deviate its flight is about the time when other flights of above mentioned airlines take off from Europe, yet none of them decided to delay, cancel or deviate their flights? So what was it that made AF decide not to land in Beirut? Who gave the information about blocked airport route: Air France operations in Paris, AF in Beirut, Beirut ATC? Who took part in the assessment of the situation and the decision to deviate?

Merely speculation on my part, but when looking at the past three decades, whether it is abductions or more violent acts, I would guess that France is a more prominent target in Lebanon than the Netherlands, Italy, Germany or the UK (note that the U.S. suffered even more grievous losses than France). The perception of risk could therefore be higher for French authorities.

Merely speculation on my part, but when looking at the past three decades, whether it is abductions or more violent acts, I would guess that France is a more prominent target in Lebanon than the Netherlands, Italy, Germany or the UK. The perception of risk could therefore be higher for French authorities.

I agree with the above, and would also that as an event is unfolding, information is often scattered, conflicting, and difficult to interpret. My understanding is that the event was more than a 'demonstration'. It is quite possible that the French had different information than the other airlines (not surprising given France's relationship with Lebanon) which may have encouraged a different choice than the one which the other airlines took. Whether that information was accurate or not, is a different question on which I would not care to speculate.

I read on another forum that AMM and LCA were the designated alternates. LCA was saturated (?), and direct AMM was "not permitted by Israel". Does AFR planning assume the direct route to Amman, even though this may not be / usually is not granted?

Air France probably does not have a procedure in place for a plane arriving at a point it no longer serves. Depending on who the airport operator is, or the fuel supplier, then it is likely/possible that in Damascus these are entities with which Air France has no dealings with at all. (By this I mean that Air France may not do business with these companies at ANY airport, and therefore there is no current contract or relationship between them that could be used to grease the wheels of this unexpected transaction). Or it could just be that they merely wanted payment up front, which the Air France crew were not able to meet.

It does strike one as rather strange that a reputable company that should be good for the money is treated like that. Such stories typically only surface about carriers that are in trouble and where those expected to supply fuel can rightly worry that they would never subsequently see payment.


Why wouldn't TLV be an option where AF does reguarly fly to, has a ground staff and presumably has a fuel supplier that would accept their credit card?

Merely speculation on my part, but when looking at the past three decades, whether it is abductions or more violent acts, I would guess that France is a more prominent target in Lebanon than the Netherlands, Italy, Germany or the UK (note that the U.S. suffered even more grievous losses than France). The perception of risk could therefore be higher for French authorities.

A "target" of what exactly? A road blockade? Protesters close a road because they are unhappy about something the government does or doesn't do, as they are frequently doing in Lebanon. They block cars from reaching their destination by the originally planned route. How does that target any particular nation more or less than another?

And if you are referring to the fact that in the past three decades (actually until 1989, i.e. until a quarter century ago) there have been French hostages in Lebanon, well, there also have been British ones to name just one other country. British Airways/bmi landed happily that evening in Beirut.

Seriously, whoever assessed that situation that evening was either incompetent (and then shouldn't be allowed to take a decision/express a strong opinion which influences the final decision) or he is competent but then got it plain wrong.


You are correct and that is why the crew deliberated about landing in Jordan, Lebanon or Syria which are well known liberal democracies with a strong tradition of respecting international law.

They ultimately landed in Syria, where the democratically elected leader Bashar Assad (he is so loved by his people that he received 99% of the vote, that is more than even Obama or Hollande got!). These days Syria is the beacon of human rights and international law. There are some 'troublemakers' but Assad is applying the full love of the Syrian constitution to solve this

Quite an inappropriate comment. Noone argued that either of the three countries you mention are better or worse in respecting international law than Israel. The argument was that apparently (note the qualification) overflying Israeli airspace on the way to Amman was not possible. In this context, Israel does the same thing as some of its other neighbouring states, which is to not allow planes with destinations in those other countries to overfly its own territory. Syria or Lebanon wouldn't allow an Israeli plane to fly over its territory. So they're all somewhat evil in this particular respect. Your other comments re: the political situation are off topic, but if you're interested in it you might find the amnesty international report 2012 quite revealing. It shows that all of these countries have issues, and numerous experts would not place Israel as the "least worst" of the four.

Obviously Syria is currently a complete madhouse and its ruler a tyran, which is why the decision to land the Air France plane in Damascus raises some questions as to why this supposedly was the only alternative.

-------

The more I learn about this story, the more the Damascus episode can only be justified in one very particular situation.

First, there was a wrong judgement by whoever that Beirut was not safe to land. If someone feared for his security, well stay at the airport a little longer until the road blockade is over. Those people assessing the situation should know that these blockades never last more than a couple of hours.

Still, the crew decided to divert. There were two designated diversions, Larnaca and Amman. Larnaca is closer, especially when taking into account the zig-zagging around Israeli airspace to reach Amman. Still, the crew decided to go to Amman. Tel Aviv isn't an option, Israel wouldn't like to see plenty of Lebanon-bound passengers on its soil. And I have trouble buying the "Larnaca was saturated" argument. It would be plausible if other airports in the region had closed and diverted its flights to LCA or more flights had asked to be diverted to Larnaca. But this wasn't the case, it was only this one Air France flight on its way to Beirut that was looking for a diversion to Larnaca. There is space for one plane on the ground in Larnaca next to scheduled operations there, otherwise it wouldn't have been designated as a diversion airport.

Since Amman was a designated diversion and the plane had not used extra fuel for any other unforeseen things during the flight (evidenced by its expected arrival time 15 mins ahead of schedule in Beirut) it should have enough fuel to reach Amman (and do a couple of other things like wait time etc). This is if Air France dispatch and the captain have properly done their flight planning. They then notice that they don't have enough fuel. Why? What has happened between the moment AF and the captain did their fuel planning and the moment the decision was taken to divert to Amman some five hours later? Usually airspace restrictions are communicated ahead of time in NOTAMs, but this is Syria in a war so it may very well be possible that part of the airspace was actually closed because some military flying was going on (who knows, Assad on another killing spree in Aleppo or elsewhere). But then, that fact would probably be communicated to the crew when it informs of its decision to divert. Apparently not, or it was and the crew believed that they could still make it.

Then they find themselves short of fuel. Would be interesting to know where that happened. Maybe somewhere between Damascus and Amman, maybe somewhere between Beirut and Damascus. In that situation, would it have been possible to revert the prior decision and land in Beirut? Quite possibly so, doing some flight and fuel mathematics. Still, the crew decided it was safer to land in Damascus, in a country in the midst of civil war including fighting close to the airport (real fighting, not a blocked road), rather than in Beirut where one access road to the airport was blocked. Strange judgement. All the more so if one believed in the "French are targets" school of thought, because with France being one of the more vociferous countries/a permanent member of the UN security council pushing for sanctions against Syria there we have a serious "French are targets" situation.

Once they have fueled up - thankfully paid by the airline - they then decide to go to Larnaca. So in a way they confirm that Larnaca is a better choice than Amman (leaving aside that not going to Beirut is still an odd choice). Which brings back the question why they haven't chosen Larnaca right from the start.

So the only thing which "justifies" the outcome of putting the passengers and crew in danger in Syria would be if initially the crew was allowed to fly to Amman on a route for which it had enough fuel, but then events in Syria developed in a way that made a detour necessary, leading to a low fuel situation. If that is the case then it is a combination of two poor judgements (not to land in BEY, not to use LCA as diversion from the start) exacerbated by bad luck (sudden new routing too long for initially planned diversion fuel). Otherwise it's three bad choices: not to land in BEY, not to use LCA as diversion from the start, heading for AMM despite uncertainty about fuel.

A "target" of what exactly? A road blockade? Protesters close a road because they are unhappy about something the government does or doesn't do, as they are frequently doing in Lebanon. They block cars from reaching their destination by the originally planned route. How does that target any particular nation more or less than another?

And if you are referring to the fact that in the past three decades there have been French hostages in Lebanon, well, there also have been British ones to name just one other country. British Airways/bmi landed happily that evening in Beirut.


Well, at the same time as the road blockade, there was a wave of hostage taking, something that France is very sensitive to in Lebanon, and several Gulf states ordered their nationals out of Lebanon. So, the situation as seen from Paris did involve more than the past demonstrations and seemed to be deteriorating rapidly. (Note that after the diversion, the U.S. Embassy warned of increased risks of attacks on its nationals.) Yes, there were other nations targeted by kidnappings, but the U.S. and France were the primary targets, even more so in the murderous barracks bombings. In addition, French soldiers have been primary targets when participating in FINUL/UNIFIL actions, so I fully understand French authorities being more cautious than other countries. In that respect, I would say that being in Damascus was probably safer with respect to state sponsored terrorist attacks than being in Beirut, as nobody but the Syrian regime would be held responsible, whereas any militant faction in Lebanon could be used as a pawn in Beirut.

With respect to this specific case, I would probably question why the flight was not diverted directly to LCA. The answer probably lies, as mentioned by an Air France pilot in charge of flight operations, in the fact that the situation was evolving rapidly, as seen from Paris, while the plane was on approach to BEY. In hindsight, probably a poor decision.

If the story was coming from a James Bond's type novel, it would seem really far fetched. Whoever made the strange decision not to land in Lebanon because of some demonstration near the airport, ended up having the plane land in Damascus and we hear today that fighting is taking place near the airport. And asking business class pax for cash or credit card! The whole decision process seems faulty and unprofessional. It just sounds like a bad novel. But lucky that it all ended well.

And asking business class pax for cash or credit card!

They did ask for cash, but not for credit card. As reported by the New York Times, Syrian authorities refused the payment of the AF captain by credit card, invoking international sanctions.

Whether it was actually the case or whether some local officials wanted the cash both for the fuel and for associated "commissions" is another issue.

Source : The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/rerouted-to-syria-air-france-passengers-asked-to-pass-the-hat.html?_r=1)

(...) And then there is the small matter of European Union sanctions on Syria, which make even buying jet fuel, let alone on credit, a little complicated.

Authorities at the Damascus airport told the crew that they could not accept credit cards because of the sanctions — cash only. So as a precaution, an Air France spokeswoman said, the crew asked the passengers how much money they happened to have in their wallets to help pay for fuel.
(...)


Finally, the AF captain acted in accordance with current legislation - article L6522-4 of the transport code - which empowers him to take loans in order to ensure the safety of passengers.

Source: Le Parisien (http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/air-france-la-collecte-aupres-des-passagers-est-legale-17-08-2012-2128334.php)

Le texte autorise en effet le commandant de bord, «en cas de difficultés dans l'exécution de son mandat», à «emprunter les sommes indispensables» pour effectuer des réparations, «assurer la sécurité des personnes embarquées et la sauvegarde du fret» ou «engager du personnel supplémentaire pour la durée nécessaire à l'achèvement de la mission».

Finally, the AF captain acted in accordance with current legislation - article L6522-4 of the transport code - which empowers him to take loans in order to ensure the safety of passengers.


Do you really think he acted without taking advice from Air France ?

Do you really think he acted without taking advice from Air France ?

Where did I say that?

Where did I say that?

You quoted article L.6522-4, which says that the captain is responsible for the aircraft operation, and should difficulty arise, he should take instruction from the operating company, and if unable to do that, is empowered to negociate loans and hire employees and do all repairs necessary to accomplish this task on behalf of the operating company. In our highly connected world, I am pretty sure it's impossible to be unable to contact the operating company unless you're stranded in a place far more exotic than Damascus.

Edit: oops, you translated the part about that from Le Parisien, you didn't quote le Parisien as a support for your text. Sorry about that.

Edit: oops, you translated the part about that from Le Parisien, you didn't quote le Parisien as a support for your text. Sorry about that.

No problem. I should have made it clearer. :)

I read on another forum that AMM and LCA were the designated alternates. LCA was saturated (?), and direct AMM was "not permitted by Israel". Does AFR planning assume the direct route to Amman, even though this may not be / usually is not granted?

As long as the flight deck hasn't declared an (fuel) emergency, they have no right on a direct routing per se.

But it still doesn't explain why they didn't divert to Larnaca in the first place but chose Amman which only would have been reached by overflying Israel, something unlikely to be granted by ATC.

Hmm? :confused: Why??? Whatever the reason for the ATC decision (if it is indeed what happened, I take what I find in the papers with a serious pinch of salt), it is certainly not the result of a blanket objection of Israel to have AMM-bound planes flying over Israeli airspace. Flights to AMM regularly fly over Israeli airspace, and indeed, there are regular flights between Israel and Jordan (RJ flies TLV-AMM twice daily). The two countries are in peace and there is no restriction that I know of be it in terms of air, land, or sea traffic between the two countries.

My suspicion is that if the direct route to AMM from BEY was disallowed, it is probably not because of any restriction on Israeli airspace but more likely because the route goes over South Lebanon and the Golan heights which are considered dangerous (there are rockets fired towards Israel in that area on a nearly weekly basis). DAM was also the closest airport when they did (under 50 miles while TLV is 130 miles away and LCA 210). As for not flying into TLV, I presume it is because if the plan was to then fly back to BEY if the situation cleared, this could not have been done from TLV because Lebanon does not permit traffic coming from Israel. This being said, as a passenger, I wouldn't have been all that reassured if told I was going to land in DAM under the current situation so I certainly agree LCA would have sounded like a more reassuring choice or an indirect route to AMM following the sea southwards and flying over Israel turning south east from Haifa or east from Tel Aviv.

PS: The 'cash for fuel' story is hilarious in a non-funny way. Still I can't help imagining the email received the next day by the backers: "Dear customer, thank you very much for lending us money for our refuelling in Damas. We can reimburse you your €200 in cash or offer you €300 in travel vouchers or credit 20,000 miles on your flying blue account" :D

As long as the flight deck hasn't declared an (fuel) emergency, they have no right on a direct routing per se.

That's the mystery. It's well-known Israel won't allow landing/overflight without prior clearance unless emergency is declared. Question is: why wouldn't Captain declare emergency and try that route?

Well, at the same time as the road blockade, there was a wave of hostage taking, something that France is very sensitive to in Lebanon, and several Gulf states ordered their nationals out of Lebanon. So, the situation as seen from Paris did involve more than the past demonstrations and seemed to be deteriorating rapidly. (Note that after the diversion, the U.S. Embassy warned of increased risks of attacks on its nationals.) Yes, there were other nations targeted by kidnappings, but the U.S. and France were the primary targets, even more so in the murderous barracks bombings.

You mean the barrack bombings in the 1980s? Now I understand why the Turks are in danger, after all they colonialized the country up until 1918. Unless of course we believe that going back so far in history is irrelevant.


In addition, French soldiers have been primary targets when participating in FINUL/UNIFIL actions, so I fully understand French authorities being more cautious than other countries. In that respect, I would say that being in Damascus was probably safer with respect to state sponsored terrorist attacks than being in Beirut, as nobody but the Syrian regime would be held responsible, whereas any militant faction in Lebanon could be used as a pawn in Beirut.

So the tradeoff is "there is a chance that a road blockade on the way to the airport whose aim is to block traffic actually might threaten people in the airport and might lead to a marginal chance that French nationals might get kidnapped, and then we don't know who the kidnappers are" vs. "we land in the middle of a war zone, in a country which is openly hostile to France, we face much higher dangers for passengers, but at least we know who it was". Also, since the hostage taking has happened, then AF should also stop all subsequent flights, which it didn't.

As it turns out August 15th and the holiday period was a day when only junior decision takers were present at the Quai d'Orsay, and it emerges that communication and assessment of the situation was not optimal.

With respect to this specific case, I would probably question why the flight was not diverted directly to LCA.

That is the one big question. The decision not to land in BEY may be doubtful and with hindsight it is always easier to judge. Fair enough, the decision takers could at most be accused of being overcautious, and if they had gone to somewhere safe the end of the story would have been "a lot of hassle and one day delay for an overcautious decision". Unpleasant, but not more.

However, even without hindsight, chosing AMM over LCA is a wrong decision. LCA is closer, does not involve flying over a war zone, with the possibility of having to land in the war country. A captain should always think about the diversion of the diversion. Even taking the fuel situation out of the equation, imagine there is an ATC failure at AMM or some other reason why the airport has to close, then what? Fly to DAM. At least in that moment the captain should have said "no, it's less dangerous to land in BEY than in DAM and certainly less dangerous to divert to LCA". Because if LCA has to close, there still would be Paphos as another airport big enough to handle that type of plane and incident.

The answer probably lies, as mentioned by an Air France pilot in charge of flight operations, in the fact that the situation was evolving rapidly, as seen from Paris, while the plane was on approach to BEY. In hindsight, probably a poor decision.

The decision not to land in BEY may be explained by "rapidly evolving events seen from Paris", fair enough. But what is it that happens on the ground that makes them decide to choose AMM over LCA? The two are unrelated.

I think the "asking for money to pay for fuel" cannot really be blamed on AF, it is just bad luck that the provisions usually taken did not work in this case. But they shouldn't have found themselves in this situation in the first place.

Thus, as more facts emerge, it becomes a debatable decision not to land in BEY (and overcautious in hindsight, but hindsight is always smarter), an error of judgement not to take LCA as an alternate, and just bad luck following prior debatable/bad decisions, but in isolation nothing that could have been avoided.

Just reading the French press. They're all over the fact that the crew asked passengers to chip in. Interesting. No one seems to mind the fact that they went to Damascus.

I'll have lunch tomorrow with three people who were on that flight. Maybe some more details will emerge.

Just reading the French press. They're all over the fact that the crew asked passengers to chip in. Interesting. No one seems to mind the fact that they went to Damascus.

Well, they were on a flight going to Lebanon, where the French know the likely outcome is death anyway, as people there remember that crusades were started in Clermont, you know, so BEY or DAM... :D


I'll have lunch tomorrow with three people who were on that flight. Maybe some more details will emerge.

More details and perhaps a more truthful account of what happened. In some articles (http://www.slate.fr/lien/60657/paris-beyrouth-damas-air-france), something ludicrous:


Et encore, le choix de Damas était un moindre mal: «Avec l’interdiction de l’espace aérien syrien, explique un passager à L'Orient-Le Jour, il fallait faire un grand détour. Le commandant de bord a constaté qu’il n’avait pas assez de carburant pour traverser toute cette distance. Il a pensé faire un atterrissage forcé en mer.»


Roughly, a passenger said that the captain considered sea landing. I seriously doubt that Israel would have refused to open its airspace toward HFA (74 miles from BEY) in an out-of-fuel situation resulting in this being considered... :rolleyes:

I still believe that the decision to divert and not land in Beirut was a VERY BAD CALL. Take it from someone who is living here in Beirut and knows the situation on the ground. My uncle arrived that same evening. He was "stranded" for a couple of hours at the airport waiting for the roads to be cleared. That was it! Another friend of mine arrived that evening too. He walked towards the "sit in"/blocked road/whatever with his luggage, crossed it and took a cab home. That's what most people end up doing. Inconvenient I know.

Just to give you a brief about what happened or is happening. The "Free Syria" army kidnapped a whole bunch of Lebanese pilgrims on their way back from Iraq (by land obviously via Syria). Why? The "Free Syria" army is mostly Sunni Muslims. The pilgrims; all Shia'a Muslims. Who "supports" the current person "in power" in Syria? Hezbollah. And Hezbollah are Shia'a Muslims. I digress... Anyway...

They have been held captive (or as they are calling it as "guests") for the last 3 months. Earlier this week, another person was kidnapped in Syria (another Shia'a). His family decided to take things into their own hands and kidnapped a whole bunch of Syrians, some of whom are known to be allied with the "Free Syria" army. A Turkish citizen was also taken in the hopes that Turkey would speed up negotiations with those who took all those Lebanese people (since our government is really not capable of doing much right now thanks to all the internal fighting and name-calling that is going on between our esteemed politicians). Very tribal you see. Not saying that I agree with this type of action.

The families of all these kidnapped people have been taking to the streets regularly. When they want attention, they block the airport road. And trust me, that gets them all the attention they need. Again, a couple of hours, and everyone goes back home. People have been resorting to this kind of action for some time now to demonstrate against everything from high fuel prices to chronic electricity shortages.

Again, I am not saying I agree with any of these actions. It certainly doesn't paint a good picture and it really is a shame. I blame our government and all the politicians in this country for their lack of action. Every single one of them is singing from a different sheet of music and the freaking conductor is out for lunch...

"Airplane!" Some of the passengers of Air France Paris-Beirut flight on Wednesday night may have had in mind this crazy American film of 1980. Not that pilot proficiency is in doubt. Far from it. But given the unspeakable misfortune of travelers on that flight, it is legitimate to ask if the captain did not land a another planet ... Thinking also applies equally well to the general management of Air France in Paris ...

Estimating, in the current explosive situation in Syria, that Damascus is safer than Beirut can be explained by the (sad) fact that those who took the decision of diversion in the direction of the Syrian capital are completely disconnected from the realities. Is it possible they are unaware that French leaders continue to condemn loudly - and rightly so - the crimes committed by the Syrian regime? Is it possible they do not know at this point that more than half of the Lebanese are in open conflict for several years with the Damascus regime? Is it possible that the captain did not know that French ambassador in Beirut was on board? Or perhaps those who took the decision to land at Damascus knew that the aircraft in question was a plane from Air "France"! How, therefore, the management of the company can demonstrate it so lightly endangering the safety of not only the ambassador of France, but also numerous Lebanese passengers? Unless the management does not take the trouble to follow the news, or even just listen to the public statements of French leaders - Laurent Fabius in mind - to realize that the regime in Damascus behaves in a bestial manner and acts with no calm when it reaches the hands of anyone who is critical about it.

The statement issued by the company said yesterday, of course, the goal was to land in Amman and thatnthe pilot discovered he did not have enough kerosene and was therefore forced to land in Damascus! Clearly, what management tells us is that there does not exist a gauging system for determining the quantity of kerosene left ... Or that the commander is novice and he could not judge the distance between Beirut and Amman ...

But apart from these considerations, the story does not say why, initially, the plane has not landed in Beirut, as others have done elsewhere, while the protests occurred Wednesday were not more dramatic than other similar incidents that have unfortunately increased in recent times on the way to the airport. Why Lebanese militia are now more dangerous than the war situation and the murderous madness raging in Damascus? And no one has yet explained why the plane was not diverted to Larnaca rather than Amman and Damascus ...

Source: L'Orient Le Jour (in French) (http://www.lorientlejour.com/numero/4994/article/773789/La_bourse_ou_la_vie.html)

I would not agree to blame Air France for its decision not to land at Beirut International Airport, destination of the flight from Paris on Wednesday evening.

We must be humble and honest and acknowledge reality. The reputation of this airport has become very poor, because of the parallel state in which it is now and which flouts every day, through iTs security perimeter, the authority and dignity of what is still called the Lebanese state.

On Wednesday the entire area where the airport is situated suddenly becomes under control of unscrupulous mafias, ready for all the atrocities and crimes.

The world takes knowledge of this situation, and Air France also in the first place. It is the company's duty. It avoids the airport Lebanese themselves love to hate. What is incomprehensible yet it is the misjudgment of Air France about the safety hundred times worse at the airport in Damascus, instead of landing at Larnaca. Then yes, we can say that officials of Air France were on the moon Wednesday evening.

Source: L'Orient Le Jour (in French) (http://www.lorientlejour.com/numero/4994/article/773789/La_bourse_ou_la_vie.html)

Merely speculation on my part, but when looking at the past three decades, whether it is abductions or more violent acts, I would guess that France is a more prominent target in Lebanon than the Netherlands, Italy, Germany or the UK (note that the U.S. suffered even more grievous losses than France). The perception of risk could therefore be higher for French authorities.

Spot on. Not a frequent visitor to Beirut but I would trust French risk assessment of Lebanon more than any other. The fact that the French ambassador was on the flight leads me to believe it received top attention, not some August lackey.

The decision to go to Damascus is however very puzzling to me.

The Air France plane from Paris, which was diverted to Cyprus on Wednesday, via Damascus, finally landed yesterday at the Beirut airport. Families and passengers crying for aberration and denounce the decision of the airline to pass through the Syrian capital in a state of war rather than Beirut where other flights have landed normally.

Rather sinister atmosphere yesterday at the Beirut airport - when it should teeming with life at this time of year - in the wake of protests that blocked the road to the airport. A negative picture that is unfortunately part of the lives of Lebanese for few months now.

At the terminal, a hundred people, including taxi drivers, waiting patiently for the arrival of travelers, friends or family members willing to spend few days in Beirut. In the distance, a young teenager, flowers in hand, paces talking on the phone. "The plane is expected to arrive in half an hour," he said to his companion.

It is 4pm. The young man, Jean, is waiting for his girlfriend, a French woman of 19 who is making her first visit to Lebanon. She was on board the Air France plane from Paris which was diverted to Cyprus on Wednesday night, because of "the rapid deterioration of the security situation in Beirut," as said in a statement of the airline. Some 174 passengers were on board, among whom the ambassador of France Patrice Paoli and eleven crew members.

"I've been here since yesterday (Wednesday)," said Jean, who says that this is the second time he bought some flowers to his girlfriend, the first having withered. "On the board, it was announced that the plane was ahead of schedule, he says. Fifteen minutes before the scheduled landing at 21:45, it was announced that the flight was canceled. "A sense of panic has invaded Jean and all the other families present.

"It was a shock. We did not understand what was happening, says Paul, who is waiting for his brother. We approached the MEA desk which asked us to ask at Air France desk. After an interminable wait, we were told that the plane was diverted to Amman "for security reasons". Back home, my wife told me that his brother was able to call. To tell him that the plane landed in Damascus and the crew asked them to keep the cover closed windows, turn off cell phones and lights. When he could speak again, several hours later, he explained that the crew even asked them to look in their wallets to pay the bill and fuel. For some time, they believed that they were taken hostage. '

For several hours, the families and friends of the passengers were in a total uncertainty of their fate. "In the evening, we called the Crisis centre of the French Foreign Affairs says Simon, who was waiting for his brother. We said: "They are in Damascus. The situation is critical, but we try to do something. "Towards 2am, we were called back to tell us that the plane flew to Larnaca in Cyprus. '

4:25 p.m.. The eyes of the families are again glued to the board. Nothing indicates that the aircraft has arrived yet. "I've been waiting for 1:30pm protested Helen. The aircraft was landing at 12pm. Then we were told it was delayed and will arrive at 4:25pm. Now we are told that there will be at 5:30pm. What happens is really bad: it Was not the right way to treat people. '

Protests rise immediately fromthe group, followed by a slew of questions: "How come the plane landed at Damascus, a banned country on war? " " Why Damascus while Beirut is a few kilometers from the Syrian capital? "" Why has only Air France decided not to land in Beirut when other flights between the European Union and even those Arab countries have well landed at AIB? '

"I think the situation in Lebanon has been exaggerated and wrong choice was made, said Paul. Air France has put the lives of passengers in danger, not to mention the situation in Damascus. Families were shocked by the lack of professionalism of this company. '

A remark shared by the small group gathered at the terminal. "We formed a group of fifty people and have a petition online against Air France said a woman who requested anonymity. First, the company has not deigned to appoint representatives to reassure parents when an emergency unit was set up in New York to assist passengers in the aftermath of the volcanic eruption in Iceland. But perhaps because then it was not Lebanese? Second, has the real risk to choose between Lebanon and Syria, a country on war, has been measured? Third, the MEA has a code share with Air France. So normally and legally MEA is jointly responsible with Air France. MEA told they are aware of anything. They told the parents that the plane was diverted to Amman when in reality it was in Damascus! '


5:39 p.m.. The plane landed. Families can finally breathe. Ten minutes later, the passengers begin to emerge. Relieved, happy to see their relatives and friends, they fail not, however, to denounce "the lack of professionalism of Air France." "We did not get any explanation on why we landed in Damascus and rather than Beiru, laments a passenger. Arrived in Damascus, we were asked to delete videos from our phones, keep them off and lower window panels. '

"What happened is absurd, says Chryssoula. For a while, we thought it was a diversion of the aircraft. Arrived in Damascus, the crew first made an announcement to business class passengers asking for cash to pay the price of fuel. Then the call was extended to all passengers before finally finding an alternative solution. In Larnaca, we stayed on the bus for over an hour before we finally arrived in Nicosia. No explanation was provided to us. Moreover, until the last minute, no representative of Air France came forward to give us any justification or apology! Today (yesterday) we stayed more than two hours in Larnaca. We do not even know what time the plane would take off. '

"Landing in Damascus was frowned upon, says Amine Haddad, MD. The security service of Air France has banned the plane to landin Beirut and was diverted to Amman. But with the ban on Syrian airspace, it had to make a big detour. The captain noted that there was not enough fuel to cross this distance. He thought of making an emergency landing at sea. Furthermore I participated, along with a few passengers, safety procedures provided for this purpose by the members of the crew. Meanwhile, the captain took the courageous decision to launch a "mayday" (call to indicate that the aircraft is in danger, Ed) requesting crash landing in Damascus. Syrian authorities agreed, but demanded a passenger list. Besides military vehicles were on the tarmac. We learned later that the French Foreign affairs intervened to prevent the Syrians to get on the plane, to settle the case for fuel, and ask the Cypriot authorities the permission to land in Larnaca. The takeoff of Damascus took place in total darkness. And Dr. Haddad concluded: "The crew of Air France was remarkable, both affable and closes to maintain calm. But what was impressive is the behavior of passengers. There were no spills or hysterics. '

Source: L'Orient Le Jour (http://www.lorientlejour.com/numero/4994/article/773788/Le_rocambolesque_et_dangereux_vol_Paris-Damas-Larnaca-Beyrouth_d%27Air_France.html)

I find a lot of articles on this topic from L'Orient-Le Jour to be highly debatable. Is it usually a respected publication?

I find a lot of articles on this topic from L'Orient-Le Jour to be highly debatable. Is it usually a respected publication?

I believe it is. But on this specific issue, it tends to take the view that it is ridiculous to see the current situation as anything but normal. BEYFlier has provided an insightful view into the local perspective. Whether it is true can be debated. The fact is that the perception from some countries (the Gulf states who ordered their nationals out of Lebanon, the U.S. who subsequently warned of increased risks to their own nationals and France, of course) may be different.

The United States Embassy in Beirut asked U.S. citizens in Lebanon to increase precautionary measures, citing increased threats against them.

"The U.S. Embassy has received reports of increased threats of attack against American citizens in Lebanon," said a statement, while several Gulf countries this week asked their nationals to leave the country after the removal of dozens of Syrians by Shiites.

Source: Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2012/08/17/97001-20120817FILWWW00399-liban-menaces-pour-les-citoyens-us.php)

The United States have supported the efforts of the Lebanese authorities to maintain calm in the country and stressed that they had not had the same reaction as the Gulf countries. "Our concern in Lebanon is first to prevent the conflict spilling over Syria and Lebanon and to make sure sectarian tensions in Syria do not affect its neighbor", said the spokesman for the State Department Victoria Nuland. "We have the appropriate warnings regarding travel" in Lebanon, she said, "but we have not gone as far as the Saudis."

France has also applied the precautionary principle. Air France flight to Beirut has been diverted to Amman on Wednesday evening to replenish fuel before landing in Cyprus, told AFP a spokesman for the airline . "As a precaution, Air France has diverted the flight to Amman as the security conditions are not good in Beirut," especially on the road to the airport, said the spokesman. Shiite protesters blocked the effect on airport road with burning tires, making access difficult. "Air France did not want to take the risk of leaving blocked its 200 passengers at the airport which has no hotels," the source said.

Source: Le Journal du Dimanche (http://www.lejdd.fr/International/Moyen-Orient/Actualite/La-France-detourne-un-de-ses-avions-en-direction-de-Beyrouth-543874)

Spot on. Not a frequent visitor to Beirut but I would trust French risk assessment of Lebanon more than any other. The fact that the French ambassador was on the flight leads me to believe it received top attention, not some August lackey.

The decision to go to Damascus is however very puzzling to me.

Very frequent visitor to Beirut here, in fact going there today. From that I can tell you

- that the assessment of the situation on the ground is at least questionable. But fair enough, to each his own
- that L'Orient le Jour is a "canard", more emotions and passions about tarnished Lebanese pride than a good understanding of facts in complicated/technical matters, thus what is written there should be discounted by a "emotional multiplier" to take out some of the drama the Lebs like to make of themselves
- that the French influence in Leb has decreased dramatically since the end of Chirac's presidency. Sarko never took a real interest and France's presence and it being a "point of reference" in matters political and economic has decreased significantly
- what happened in the civil war (e.g. targeting of Americans and French, amongst others) is completely irrelevant today. What really played a role are the things described in an earlier post by BEYflyer

The story about the "August lackey" comes directly from someone at the Quai d'Orsay who also gave me the names of people who usually deal with that matter and who were now absent. Not saying that this is the only element, but it contributed.

Whatever the reasons were for not landing in BEY, it is the choice of AMM over LCA and not having enough fuel for a designated alternate/only having enough fuel under circumstances which aren't certain to be happening are the critical questions.

From Le Figaro (sorry, in French only):


Le ministre des Affaires étrangères qualifie de «bêtise» la décision de Air France mercredi de faire poser momentanément l'avion à Damas. L'ambassadeur de France au Liban ainsi que des personnalités libanaises hostiles à Assad se trouvaient dans l'appareil.

Laurent Fabius a jugé «incompréhensible et dangereuse» la décision mercredi soir de la compagnie Air France de poser à Damas un avion reliant Paris à Beyrouth. Le ministre des Affaires étrangères a expliqué au Parisien que parmi les 200 passagers de l'avion se trouvaient l'ambassadeur de France au Liban et diverses personnalités libanaises hostiles au régime de Bachar el-Assad.

«Imaginez un instant que les autorités syriennes aient fouillé l'avion et vérifié les identités. C'était une énorme bêtise». Le ministre compte demander des explications à la compagnie sur le déroulement des faits.

Mercredi, la compagnie Air France avait décidé de dérouter ce vol à destination de Beyrouth vers Chypre. Des manifestants bloquaient en effet la route de l'aéroport de Beyrouth, qui ne possède pas d'hôtels pour accueillir les voyageurs. L'avion a donc poursuivi son chemin par mesure de sécurité, mais a dû se poser à Damas par manque de carburant. L'équipage souhaitait se poser en Jordanie, mais les contrôleurs aériens ne l'ont pas autorisé à changer la route de l'avion.

Ex-post, the situation is totally stupid. AF plane and its pax have been very lucky to "escape" unharmed. it is a totally different situation, but I still remember BA149 pax being taken captive during a stopover in Kuwait (and the ensuing BA bashing).
But even, ex-ante, one cannot help wonder how such a decision process might have taken place. Nothing unexpected happened. The fuel situation was known, the regulation of national airspaces were known; nothing unpredictable happened. Whatever the chain of decision, it sounds very unprofessional.
BTW, AF is currently flying to BEY normally.

Either they are being unfair, but it could be easily discovered and embarassing, or the French foreign ministry was simply not consulted about sending this plane to Damascus (and supposedly, divert the plane from BEY in the first place).

I can't fathom how AF could think the pax would prefer to be sent to Syria, and then get stranded in LCA for the night, incurring a very long delay, instead of being delayed for a few hours at most in the airport in Beyrouth.

I also notice that we're losing our FT vibes here. What is the proper compensation for being endangered and worried about a crash landing in the sea when everything is AF's fault? :D

It is easy to question with the benefit of hindsight, the decision to divert from BEY. However, taking into account the likelihood of confused reports involving 'blockading' the airport, multiple hostage-taking incidents, etc., combined with junior government staff providing advice, I am willing to give AF the benefit of the doubt on this one.

But as others have said, the decision to divert to AMM, given the Syria situation, was a bad decision, which resulted in the diversion to DAM. For this, AF can and should be excoriated.

I'm sure that the choice of AMM over LCA for the diversion was driven by the fact that AF doesn't fly to LCA, while they do serve AMM and therefore have local staff and arrangements in place for catering, refueling, and eventually lodging pax.

But as others have said, the decision to divert to AMM, given the Syria situation, was a bad decision, which resulted in the diversion to DAM. For this, AF can and should be excoriated.

According to Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2012/08/16/97002-20120816FILWWW00408-l-avion-air-france-deroute-a-beyrouth.php) :


"La situation s'est dégradée rapidement pendant la phase d'approche à Beyrouth, ce qui a conduit la compagnie à décider d'un déroutement sur Amman (Jordanie), ce qui apparaissait alors comme la meilleure solution", a expliqué le directeur de permanence à Air France, Pierre Caussade.

"Mais le commandement de bord n'a pas pu obtenir du contrôle aérien du secteur l'autorisation d'emprunter une trajectoire directe sur Amman. En fin de compte, avec le carburant restant le seul aéroport à portée a été Damas", a ajouté un commandant de bord, porte-parole des opérations aériennes de la compagnie.


They decided to land in AMM, didn't get a direct route, and had no other choice than to land in DAM.

BEY-LCA is 129 miles.
BEY-AMM is 148 miles.
BEY-DAM is 66 miles.
BEY-TLV is 130 miles.

I wonder how long they flew trying to get to AMM (and wasting fuel) before realizing DAM was only choice left and how little reserve fuel they load.

Edit :
According to AF (http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/press/diversion-of-flight-af562-on-wednesday-15-august-paris-beirut/), the plane was scheduled to land at 16:49, and landed in Damascus at 21:08 (since they left Damascus after a 2:20 stop). So they travelled for a little over 4 hours before landing in Damascus.

Note that all the recent reports (and AF's statement among others) do not mention which local ATC disallowed the use of a direct trajectory (it could be either Israel or Lebanon, or indeed Syria as all three countries could be flown over in some part depending on where exactly the plane was when it asked for authorisation. What is hard to understand to me is that necessity of flying the most direct route to AMM. Even factoring in the fact that they presumably first went round in circles for a while, any detour would only take a few dozen miles and it seems quite incredible that the flight would not have enough spare fuel to do that. In fact, even the fact that they absolutely needed to refuel in DAM sounds odd to me. I think that an A320 or an A321 have a flight range of about 3000 miles and CDG-BEY is under 2000 so I really wonder if the tank wasn't full in the first place?

I think that an A320 or an A321 have a flight range of about 3000 miles and CDG-BEY is under 2000 so I really wonder if the tank wasn't full in the first place?


My understanding is that they don't fuel planes the way we fuel cars. You put in enough fuel to get where you are going +extra for insurance - you don't just fill the tank up. Fuel is heavy and you burn more fuel carrying extra that you don't need.

After reading yesterdays statement from Air France, it would seem that the AFR "insisted" that they go to Amman instead of Larnaca ("led the Company to decide, together with the Captain [...]"). Perhaps quite some time was spent trying to make that work out.

My understanding is that they don't fuel planes the way we fuel cars. You put in enough fuel to get where you are going +extra for insurance - you don't just fill the tank up. Fuel is heavy and you burn more fuel carrying extra that you don't need.

Exactly

You have to add fuel to carry extra fuel

Fuel weighs and the lighter the a/c the less fuel you consume

Very interesting thread this - as others have pointed out it's easy to be the "Monday morning quaterback" but it does APPEAR that a series of mistakes were made

According to Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2012/08/16/97002-20120816FILWWW00408-l-avion-air-france-deroute-a-beyrouth.php) :



They decided to land in AMM, didn't get a direct route, and had no other choice than to land in DAM.

BEY-LCA is 129 miles.
BEY-AMM is 148 miles.
BEY-DAM is 66 miles.
BEY-TLV is 130 miles.

I wonder how long they flew trying to get to AMM (and wasting fuel) before realizing DAM was only choice left and how little reserve fuel they load.

Edit :
According to AF (http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/press/diversion-of-flight-af562-on-wednesday-15-august-paris-beirut/), the plane was scheduled to land at 16:49, and landed in Damascus at 21:08 (since they left Damascus after a 2:20 stop). So they travelled for a little over 4 hours before landing in Damascus.


The flight departed around 17:49 (BEY time) and was scheduled to land around 21:45 in BEY. Instead, it landed around 22:00 (BEY time) in DAM, according to the AF source quoted:
http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/press/diversion-of-flight-af562-on-wednesday-15-august-paris-beirut/
If there is no error in AF release, that means that the aircraft landed in DAM at approximately the time it was supposed to land in BEY. Hard to believe that they had loaded so little extra fuel that required such emergency refuel in a very risky place. And as Richelieu pointed out, there are numerous alternative airports within 200 miles.

I doubt that we will ever hear the full story. If some sources are correct, the French Ambassador to Lebanon as well as several VIPs (Syrian and others) were onboard. Remember that Fabius, The French Foreign Minister, was visiting Syria's neighbors at the time:
http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Laurent-Fabius-to-visit-Jordan

The flight departed around 17:49 (BEY time) and was scheduled to land around 21:45 in BEY. Instead, it landed around 22:00 (BEY time) in DAM, according to the AF source quoted:
http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/press/diversion-of-flight-af562-on-wednesday-15-august-paris-beirut/
If there is no error in AF release, that means that the aircraft landed in DAM at approximately the time it was supposed to land in BEY. Hard to believe that they had loaded so little extra fuel that required such emergency refuel in a very risky place. And as Richelieu pointed out, there are numerous alternative airports within 200 miles.

I doubt that we will ever hear the full story. If some sources are correct, the French Ambassador to Lebanon as well as several VIPs (Syrian and others) were onboard. Remember that Fabius, The French Foreign Minister, was visiting Syria's neighbors at the time:
http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Laurent-Fabius-to-visit-Jordan

Very interesting. If those timings are correct does seem very very strange that this decision was taken

They decided to land in AMM, didn't get a direct route, and had no other choice than to land in DAM.

BEY-LCA is 129 miles.
BEY-AMM is 148 miles.
BEY-DAM is 66 miles.
BEY-TLV is 130 miles.


These numbers are for a direct line "as the crow flies" but do not at all correspond to the distance the plane has to travel. Whereas BEY-LCA can be flown more or less directly, the route to Damascus goes over the Mediterranean on a Northern heading along the Lebanese and Syrian coast to Latakia, then turning right over Syria proper, South to Damascus, and - if relevant - onto Amman. So Amman and Damascus are much further than Larnaca, and further than the numbers you quote may make believe.

I think that an A320 or an A321 have a flight range of about 3000 miles and CDG-BEY is under 2000 so I really wonder if the tank wasn't full in the first place?

No, the tanks were certainly not full when leaving Paris. The amount of fuel is calculated the following way:

Taxi fuel (=needed to taxi at departure airport)
+ Trip fuel (=needed to reach planned destination, in this case Beirut)
+ Contingency fuel (=what the captain believes could be needed on the trip, for instance for flying some weather-related detours, or for flying at non-optimal altitudes which consumes more fuel)
+ Alternate fuel (=in this case, fuel to reach either AMM or LCA)
+ Final reserve fuel (=enough fuel to fly holding patterns at 1500 ft AGL for 30 minutes). This is a legal minimum which has to be in the tanks when landing. Below that level, MAYDAY has to be declared

The Captain or the airline may decide to put extra fuel for other reasons.

No idea, my reckoning is that for CDG-BEY a B777 would have about 40 tons of fuel at take-off.

What I am trying to figure out is taking the above equation on which portion they have used up the fuel. My hypothesis is that they have spent some time holding over Beirut deciding what to do, thus using up some of the final reserve fuel. So they had enough alternate fuel, but would have reached Amman without the final reserve and therefore decided to land in Damascus. But here's the tricky question: given that they had used a large portion or all of their final reserve fuel above Beirut, they should have realised already during that holding pattern that they could reach Amman only if they received a "shortcut", which they ended up not getting. Since there was uncertainty about getting the shortcut and not getting it meant landing in Damascus, the wiser decision would have been to abandon the Amman idea altogether and to go to Larnaca. But this is only a hypothesis, which cannot be affirmed without knowing how much fuel they had at takeoff, used during the trip, how long they were holding above Beirut, and how much flight time was required to reach Amman.

After reading yesterdays statement from Air France, it would seem that the AFR "insisted" that they go to Amman instead of Larnaca ("led the Company to decide, together with the Captain [...]"). Perhaps quite some time was spent trying to make that work out.

I have a hunch that one concern of Air France's operating center back in Paris was that the crew would not be able to reach its crew hotel which is several kilometers from the airport.

---

Some more details, after having spoken today to some people who were on that flight:


They Captain had made an announcement that they were going to land in Damascus and said that everything was prepared and safe. Most pax stayed calm, with only a few people getting nervous and standing up "we can't go to Damascus, it's too dangerous'. The cabin crew calmed them down
Another announcement explained to pax that there might be a problem to pay for the fuel and the crew was entitled to ask pax for cash, they'd be reimbursed at the next destination. The reason that the money collecting was limited to the first couple of rows was that they had come up with EUR 17'000 very quickly (this flight is full of people who travel with large wades of cash in their pockets, don't ask where it comes from ;-) )
The story with landing in the sea was a little unclear. I thought until today that it was complete bogus. But indeed what had really happened that some passengers in the bulkhead seats (the one I spoke to was sitting in the second Affaires cabin's first row) were asked "to hold back all passengers until the slides were fully deployed". What I did not really get from their explanations was where this happened and why. Was it really in preparation for a landing on water? Or for a possible "crash landing" because of not enough fuel? Did the crew really consider it? The pax couldn't tell
The crew were somewhat nervous, three apparently had to throw up, but were very nice with passengers
In Damascus the window blinds had to be lowered. There were some moments without a lot of information and some pax thought that they were actually held hostage
In Larnaca people were put on buses but without information of where they were heading to. It turned out that they were going to the Hilton in Nicosia, about one hour's drive away from the airport. They arrived at the hotel at 4am. Prior to that they were told that the plane would depart at "11 o'clock Zulu" and to be ready by "8am Zulu for breakfast" - noone knew what Zulu time was, and so people just slept four hours. A lot of confusion, no information and noone from Air France in Cyprus

Thanks San Gottardo for the interesting explanations.

The AF pres release mentions an A330 not an A320 or B777. But it is probably irrelevant.

I am not sure that the "holding pattern over BEY" is likely. II is hard to figure out a holding pattern when the plane arrived in DAM at 22:12, while expected to arrive at 21:45 in BEY.

I understand that a direct route is usually not possible, but there are quite a few airports that were not far even with an indirect route. So the additional fuel must have been minimal and probably wrongly computed as additional fuel (wetherr alternate, contingency or some other) should take into account restricted flying zones. A Dutch pilot who was my golf partner believes that this whole story is unbelievable for a flight that took off rapidly (no taxying delay whatsoever) and was not into any weather or other diversion. Cannot understand why the plane could not fly another 3 or 400 miles.

To stick with my James Bond story (I am currently watching "You only live twice"), maybe they had to unload some Syrian spies :)

Thanks San Gottardo for the interesting explanations.

The AF pres release mentions an A330 not an A320.

I am not sure that the "holding pattern over BEY" is likely. II is hard to figure out a holding pattern when the plane arrived in DAM at 22:12, while expected to arrive at 21:45 in BEY.

To stick with my James Bond story (I am currently watching "You only live twice"), maybe they had to unload some Syrian spies :)

Watching the same movie on "France 4";)

ETA into Beirut was 21h25. So it is possible that around 21h15 they started considering alternatives, and around 21h45 decided to go to AMM. When they didn't get the shortcut they realized that they didn't have enough fuel to actually go there. But still I don't know where all that fuel went.

As said earlier, most elements would have been merely inconvenient (deciding not to land in BEY, asking pax for cash, communicating awkward departure times for leaving Larnaca), but the Captain misjudging his fuel situation and routing options and eventually being forced to land in a civil war country that is openly hostile to France doesn't make him look good.

Watching the same movie on "France 4";)

As said earlier, most elements would have been merely inconvenient (deciding not to land in BEY, asking pax for cash, communicating awkward departure times for leaving Larnaca), but the Captain misjudging his fuel situation and routing options and eventually being forced to land in a civil war country that is openly hostile to France doesn't make him look good.

Same during my holiday. Only watched it six times allready.

if the French ambassador was onboard and Fabius nearby, it is likely that some lbureaucrat at the Foreign Affairs ministry added his pinch of salt making real-time decisions difficult.

Sorry, I think my A320 example was put unclearly. I should have said 'even an A320 has a flight range...'. In short, I wholeheartedly agree with San Gottardo's and bruno's conclusion that there must have been some gross miscalculation of fuel supply. That a plane capable of flying CDG-GIG is forced to land into DAM after a mere CDG-BEY is simply not on. I also DO think that there was an actual risk that once in DAM the plane and passengers might (unlikely but possible) have been in genuine danger.

PS: The fact that AF managed to raise about €17,000 in cash after a couple of rows amazes the guy (me) who typically finds himself with a mere €2 in his pocket! :D I thought only Russian millionaires tended to walk about with handfuls of banknotes in their wallet but it seems that Lebanese millionaires (or perhaps all millionaires ;) ) do too!

These numbers are for a direct line "as the crow flies" but do not at all correspond to the distance the plane has to travel. Whereas BEY-LCA can be flown more or less directly, the route to Damascus goes over the Mediterranean on a Northern heading along the Lebanese and Syrian coast to Latakia, then turning right over Syria proper, South to Damascus, and - if relevant - onto Amman. So Amman and Damascus are much further than Larnaca, and further than the numbers you quote may make believe.

Indeed, but I thought more direct routes could be used when the alternative is crashing the plane (in the sea or on the ground). I was quoting these to illustrate why I disbelieve the "crash landing" theory, even if AF had grossly miscalculated its reserve fuel.


I have a hunch that one concern of Air France's operating center back in Paris was that the crew would not be able to reach its crew hotel which is several kilometers from the airport.
:cool:

The story with landing in the sea was a little unclear. I thought until today that it was complete bogus. But indeed what had really happened that some passengers in the bulkhead seats (the one I spoke to was sitting in the second Affaires cabin's first row) were asked "to hold back all passengers until the slides were fully deployed". What I did not really get from their explanations was where this happened and why. Was it really in preparation for a landing on water? Or for a possible "crash landing" because of not enough fuel? Did the crew really consider it? The pax couldn't tell

Maybe some procedure require proper information to be given to pax near the emergency exit in some case maybe they really considered it... I still think it's unlikely it was considered, unless you can confirm that direct routes aren't allowed and planes must stick to a few choices even if the alternative is having the airplane crash.

Window blinds had to be lowered ... standard procedure? Did they hear the usual announcement "do not fasten your seat belts during refueling"?

Watching the same movie on "France 4";)


http://www.electronlibre.info/IMG/jpg/nielsen.jpg ;)

Window blinds had to be lowered ... standard procedure? Did they hear the usual announcement "do not fasten your seat belts during refueling"?

Standard procedure on aerodromes where the outside temperature is very high (Las Vegas and airports in the Persian Gulf are well-known ones). And apparently also when a plane lands in a possibly hostile place.

Indeed they had that announcement. One of the pax I spoke to mentioned it because he found it "funny they should say that" (he obviously didn't know about that vein standard procedure during refuelling)

Standard procedure on aerodromes where the outside temperature is very high (Las Vegas and airports in the Persian Gulf are well-known ones). And apparently also when a plane lands in a possibly hostile place.

Indeed they had that announcement. One of the pax I spoke to mentioned it because he found it "funny they should say that" (he obviously didn't know about that vein standard procedure during refuelling)

Did any of your contacts indicate whether some military boarded the plane or whether some people disembarked? Airport staff must have gone to talk to the captain, but did anyone "pace" the plane?

Whatever the rules, I still remember that soldiers armed with machine guns used to walk in the plane during Lagos stopovers many years ago. And F pax were worried that their seats be taken by VIPs boarding in Nigeria. No way you ncould argue with a machine gun in your stomach.

Whatever the rules, I still remember that soldiers armed with machine guns used to walk in the plane during Lagos stopovers many years ago. And F pax were worried that their seats be taken by VIPs boarding in Nigeria. No way you ncould argue with a machine gun in your stomach.

Well it seems AF found the solution in a typical AF way : they removed F class from this route :)

Source: Le Nouvel Observateur (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/20120820.AFP6183/le-vol-paris-beyrouth-n-avait-pas-d-autre-choix-que-se-poser-a-damas-dit-air-france.html)

En fait, l'enchaînement des événements n'a pas laissé le choix au commandant de bord, a indiqué la compagnie, rappelant qu'elle était "en contact permanent avec la cellule de crise du ministère des Affaires étrangères tout au long du vol".

Alors que l'A330 d'Air France approchait de Beyrouth, la situation s'est rapidement détériorée. La route de l'aéroport, sur laquelle des milliers d'enlèvements ont eu lieu pendant la guerre civile (1975-1990) était coupée par des hommes en armes.

Air France a donc décidé de dérouter l'appareil sur Amman, en traversant l'espace aérien syrien. Amman est l'aérodrome de dégagement prévu lorsque Beyrouth n'est pas disponible.

La capitale jordanienne est une destination régulière d'Air France, qui y dispose d'une équipe en permanence. En revanche, elle ne dessert pas Larnaca, a souligné le directeur de permanence à Air France, Pierre Caussade.

Mais l'équipage n'a pas obtenu du contrôleur aérien syrien la trajectoire qu'il escomptait. "Le contrôleur lui a même demandé de changer de cap à 270°, au lieu de faire simplement un virage à 90°... L'équipage s'est retrouvé en situation d'urgence, avec assez de carburant pour se poser à Damas. On n'en avait plus assez pour aller à Amman". A ce moment là, il n'en avait pas non plus assez pour rallier Larnaca.

Some additional details from Air France:
as mentioned by Goldorak, choosing AMM over LCA was due to the lack of AF staff at LCA
during the entire crisis, Air France was in permanent contact with the foreign affairs ministry's crisis center
the AF flight was unexpectedly not given the route it expected by Syrian ATC and was forced to make a 270° turn instead of the 90° the flight crew expected. At that time, both LCA and AMM were no longer an option

Source: Le Nouvel Observateur (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/20120820.AFP6183/le-vol-paris-beyrouth-n-avait-pas-d-autre-choix-que-se-poser-a-damas-dit-air-france.html)



Some additional details from Air France:
as mentioned by Goldorak, choosing AMM over LCA was due to the lack of AF staff at LCA
during the entire crisis, Air France was in permanent contact with the foreign affairs ministry's crisis center
the AF flight was unexpectedly not given the route it expected by Syrian ATC and was forced to make a 270° turn instead of the 90° the flight crew expected. At that time, both LCA and AMM were no longer an option

So now, things become a bit clearer. No mention of willing to go through Israeli airspace but through Syrian one which was refused. This makes much more sense to me and I would be really interested to know how much AF paid their Damascus fuel as compared to real price, in other words, whether we are talking of a fair refuelling or of a form of disguised 'ransom'.

I would be really interested to know how much AF paid their Damascus fuel as compared to real price, in other words, whether we are talking of a fair refuelling or of a form of disguised 'ransom'.

I'm sure this was at a very high price, justifying an additional YQ fuel surcharge for the pax of this flight :D

An unexpected bonus for several airport officials, especially the ATC officer on duty, happiness for their families in a country crippled by economic sanctions, and a nice commission for the honorable correspondant who will remain unnamed ...

It looks like the flight crew were, both literally and figuratively, taken for a ride by Syrian ATC. What a cute, effective, damascene way of acquiring business!

Must have been very upsetting if the French Ambassador to Lebanon arrived after the Foreign Affairs Minister. But he visited Damascus which Fabius has not done :)
The bureaucrats in Paris ("cellule de crise") must have gotten quite agitated.

An unexpected bonus for several airport officials, especially the ATC officer on duty, happiness for their families in a country crippled by economic sanctions, and a nice commission for the honorable correspondant who will remain unnamed ...

It looks like the flight crew were, both literally and figuratively, taken for a ride by Syrian ATC. What an effective, damascene way of acquiring business!

:) So it will be 5000 for the fuel, 7000 for the 'taxe anti-delocalisation' and 12000 administrative charge to cover the risk of depression of our immigration agents for denying them the right to check if the passengers have got a valid 'petrol-transit' visa... We accept all major currencies but the fees do not include tips and tolls...

An unexpected bonus for several airport officials, especially the ATC officer on duty, happiness for their families in a country crippled by economic sanctions, and a nice commission for the honorable correspondant who will remain unnamed ...

It looks like the flight crew were, both literally and figuratively, taken for a ride by Syrian ATC. What a cute, effective, damascene way of acquiring business!

I'd like to hear the Syrian version before condemning them outright. Indeed, they apparently refused the most direct route to Amman, but an article in Pros du Tourisme today said the aircraft didn't declare a fuel emergency but avoided the risk of a low fuel situation that by landing in DAM. Is there a way to check that claim?

If it's true, you can't blame Syrian ATC not to grant the most direct route, and it makes the flight situation more understandable (how could they be out of fuel 15-20 minutes after their scheduled landing time in BEY? We're not speaking of Ryan Air here... If they just wanting to refuel before sending a mayday call, I'd understand that better).

An unexpected bonus for several airport officials, especially the ATC officer on duty, happiness for their families in a country crippled by economic sanctions, and a nice commission for the honorable correspondant who will remain unnamed ...

It looks like the flight crew were, both literally and figuratively, taken for a ride by Syrian ATC. What a cute, effective, damascene way of acquiring business!

I'd like to hear the Syrian version before condemning them outright. Indeed, they apparently refused the most direct route to Amman, but an article in Pros du Tourisme today said the aircraft didn't declare a fuel emergency but avoided the risk of a low fuel situation that by landing in DAM. Is there a way to check that claim?

To go by what I pieced together from various forums it seems that indeed the plane did not make an emergency landing in DAM but landed there to avoid being in an emergency situation later on in the flight, which was not to be excluded given the "behaviour" of Syrian ATC up to that point.

If it's true, you can't blame Syrian ATC not to grant the most direct route, and it makes the flight situation more understandable (how could they be out of fuel 15-20 minutes after their scheduled landing time in BEY? We're not speaking of Ryan Air here... If they just wanting to refuel before sending a mayday call, I'd understand that better).

The moment they had declared an emergency they would not have gotten a direct route to Amman, but to the nearest airport - which also happened to be Damascus.

To go by what I pieced together from various forums it seems that indeed the plane did not make an emergency landing in DAM but landed there to avoid being in an emergency situation later on in the flight, which was not to be excluded given the "behaviour" of Syrian ATC up to that point.


OK, various initial reports mentionned mayday but it was in L'Orient Le Jour..., maybe they just collected various "on the spot" reactions.

L'Express publishes another article on this topic, saying questions remains and an official investigation has been started.

(http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/paris-damas-le-deroutant-periple-du-vol-af-562_1153552.html#xtor=AL-447)

Too much emotions to get solid informations, though. Governmental position is still that AF decided on their own not to land in BEY and select Amman instead of Larnaca, while AF is still, AFAIK, saying they were in contact with them.

Car les Syriens vont montrer une rare mauvaise volonté. Changements de cap, virage à 270 degrés... Durant trente minutes, les instructions s'enchaînent, aussi incohérentes les unes que les autres. "Ils sont en train de nous balader", grimace le commandant, les yeux rivés sur l'indicateur de carburant. Car le niveau baisse. Dangereusement.
(...)
Mayday! Mayday!" dit-il dans la radio. Le signal de détresse. Un avion qui lance un tel SOS a la priorité absolue pour se poser. En théorie. Car on ne peut pas dire que ce message émeut les Syriens. "Malgré le Mayday, le contrôle aérien syrien a continué d'être peu coopératif", écrira plus tard le pilote dans son rapport.


Well, the article would seem to confirm that the Air France flight crew was viciously misled for half an hour by Syrian ATC and that, even after an airborne emergency was signalled by a Mayday, Syrian ATC remained woefully uncooperative.

Well, the article would seem to confirm that the Air France flight crew was viciously misled for half an hour by Syrian ATC and that, even after an airborne emergency was signalled by a Mayday, Syrian ATC remained woefully uncooperative.

Yes, we have been reading conflicting articles (and accounts) about the "Mayday" status. I hope the investigation will shed light on what happened. Transmissions are recorded (I guess, they mention it in crash-related investigation) so the investigators won't need to hear the Syrian version to make their mind.

Well, the article would seem to confirm that the Air France flight crew was viciously misled for half an hour by Syrian ATC and that, even after an airborne emergency was signalled by a Mayday, Syrian ATC remained woefully uncooperative.

Indeed. I can't help thinking that we have probably been very very near a disaster. It is only a guess, but I suspect the Syrian ATC almost certainly got in touch with Syrian political authorities and I think that ultimately, the 'ransom' AF had to pay was probably a comparatively very tolerable outcome.

Sorry to say but the article from the Express has numerous factual errors. Obviously written by people with little understanding of route planning and fuel management or not checked by people who do.

Given its "dramatizing" style I am not surprised that the emphasis was put on sensations rather than on complex technical facts.

Sorry to say but the article from the Express has numerous factual errors. Obviously written by people with little understanding of route planning and fuel management or not checked by people who do.

Given its "dramatizing" style I am not surprised that the emphasis was put on sensations rather than on complex technical facts.

I understand that there are complex technical facts and I know nothing about those.
But it is highly surprising that AF decided to fly to AMM knowing that the have no flight authorization over Syria. One needs not be a political expert to know that Syria is in civil war using aircrafts to fight rebels, that France has suspended its diplomatic relations with Syria and keep trying to push Assad away, that the Syrians are highly suspicious of any possible trick (including arm delivery to the other side). Expecting to get clearance to fly over Syria within a few minutes is day dreaming.
Expecting to fly almost-unannounced over Israel and then getting from Israel flight zone to Jordanian air zone semi-announced is equally astounding. All that while there was a safe flight route to LCA!

Expecting Syrian ATC to be business as usual in those war circumstances is totally naive too. It took DAM ATC a few minutes to authorize landing, but France is an enemy of the current regime, fighting is taking place near the airport, and suddenly this AF plane comes out of nowhere, with no approved flight plan, wants to go to AMM and suddenly change their mind cries Mayday (or not) and ask for emergency landing in DAM while BEY is 55 miles away. Must have been a difficult Syrian political decision to let the plane land.
What surprises me is that the Syrian military did not search the plane as they easily could. There must have been a lot of political interaction during the two hours she spent on the ground at DAM. If the plane had been impounded for illegally landing there...
But again, I am just a common man regarding these issues.

I understand that there are complex technical facts and I know nothing about those.
But it is highly surprising that AF decided to fly to AMM knowing that the have no flight authorization over Syria. One needs not be a political expert to know that Syria is in civil war using aircrafts to fight rebels, that France has suspended its diplomatic relations with Syria and keep trying to push Assad away, that the Syrians are highly suspicious of any possible trick (including arm delivery to the other side). Expecting to get clearance to fly over Syria within a few minutes is day dreaming.
Expecting to fly almost-unannounced over Israel and then getting from Israel flight zone to Jordanian air zone semi-announced is equally astounding. All that while there was a safe flight route to LCA!

Expecting Syrian ATC to be business as usual in those war circumstances is totally naive too. It took DAM ATC a few minutes to authorize landing, but France is an enemy of the current regime, fighting is taking place near the airport, and suddenly this AF plane comes out of nowhere, with no approved flight plan, wants to go to AMM and suddenly change their mind cries Mayday (or not) and ask for emergency landing in DAM while BEY is 55 miles away. Must have been a difficult Syrian political decision to let the plane land.
What surprises me is that the Syrian military did not search the plane as they easily could. There must have been a lot of political interaction during the two hours she spent on the ground at DAM. If the plane had been impounded for illegally landing there...
But again, I am just a common man regarding these issues.

Not your logic is flawed, the article's fact based is flawed.

What you write is now more or less accepted that indeed it was an over-reaction by AF not to land in BEY (give that assessment the benefit of hindsight) and an error of judgment to divert to AMM instead of LCA (that was an error at the moment of making the decision, nothing to do with hindsight). AF weighed the convenience of an active station in AMM higher than the possible risk of encountering problems over Syria.

AF planes fly over Syria very often and so do those of other companies from "enemy countries" But usually at an altitude of >30'000ft. (I've been over Syria at least once a week in the past months, on planes registered in France, Germany, the UK, Qatar, the UAE - all countries not exactly friendly to the Syrian regime, although some still officially fly to DAM).

Not your logic is flawed, the article's fact based is flawed.

What you write is now more or less accepted that indeed it was an over-reaction by AF not to land in BEY (give that assessment the benefit of hindsight) and an error of judgment to divert to AMM instead of LCA (that was an error at the moment of making the decision, nothing to do with hindsight).

Agree with those, but would it be fair to add a third point: that AF contingency kerozene was insufficient considering the region the plane was flying through/to?

Agree with those, but would it be fair to add a third point: that AF contingency kerozene was insufficient considering the region the plane was flying through/to?

Agree. I had baked that into my argument of "it was an error to deviate to AMM instead of LCA". What made that error an error was the fact that the fuel planning for that alternate seems not to have been foreseen sufficient fuel for all kinds of zig-zag in that "hot" region of the world.