WN 4519 Diverted to CRP
Jun 25, 2017, 10:56 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,509
WN 4519 Diverted to CRP
A woman 'shouting at herself' at LAX boards WN 4519. Suffers mid air 'episode.'
Southwest Flight To Houston Diverted For 'Disruptive' Passenger
The woman was showing strange behavior at Los Angeles International Airport but was allowed to board the plane.
"It was weird," 29-year-old Terrance Franklin said of the passenger's behavior.
Franklin, who was headed home to Houston from Los Angeles, said the woman had an "episode" about an hour into the flight. At this point, Franklin said the woman tried to open the emergency exit, forcing the plane to land in Corpus Christi.
"It was weird," 29-year-old Terrance Franklin said of the passenger's behavior.
Franklin, who was headed home to Houston from Los Angeles, said the woman had an "episode" about an hour into the flight. At this point, Franklin said the woman tried to open the emergency exit, forcing the plane to land in Corpus Christi.
Southwest Flight To Houston Diverted For 'Disruptive' Passenger
Jun 26, 2017, 2:45 pm
#3
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Delighted to no longer be in Illinois
Programs: SW A List Preferred, Delta Gold, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 703
How would Corpus come into play as a diversion point on a flight path from LAX to Houston? San Antonio makes sense, but Corpus?
Jun 26, 2017, 3:07 pm
#5
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 616
It appears on FR24 as if the incident occured after passing SAT. When you have disturbance like that, you don't want to turn around, but rather proceed forward to the nearest airport. Plus, this way the FBI could settle in and be ready.
Jun 26, 2017, 4:23 pm
#7
Join Date: May 2016
Location: ATL
Programs: DL GM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 1,240
Jun 27, 2017, 9:40 am
#9
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
If a person is acting so erratically you never know it they will become violent or if it is a medical emergency. It seems prudent to land as expeditiously as practical and have the individual evaluated.
Jun 27, 2017, 10:08 am
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,509
What was there to "investigate" that would take 4.5 hours?
It's possible the door was damaged.
Jun 27, 2017, 10:26 am
#11
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
From the article:
My guess is that the feds also needed to clear the plane for explosives, including possibly offloading all the luggage for re-inspection, and some of that time was spent waiting for them to arrive.
Because the incident happened in the air, it is being investigated by the FBI, which did not respond to requests for information. The FBI was on the scene investigating after the plane landed, according to officials at Corpus Christi International Airport.
Jul 2, 2017, 8:08 pm
#12
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: AA EXP.
Posts: 1,325
Jul 5, 2017, 9:16 am
#13
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,028
Most airline flights are not takeoff-limited, but landing weight-limited, which means max landing weight plus the fuel burnoff A to B equals the max weight one can depart A and still arrive at B not to exceed max landing weight. Should the flight change "B" once enroute to someplace that's a lesser distance to "A", less fuel is consumed such that the aircraft now is overweight for landing. It lands anyway, thus the need for the inspection.
In the early days of jet airliners (707, 727, DC-8) all those aircraft has a fuel dump system to deal with such overweight situations, but jet aircraft since don't require one.
Jul 5, 2017, 9:30 am
#14
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 616
In all likelihood, the delay on-deck at CRP was for contract MX to come out and do an overweight landing inspection on the aircraft.
Most airline flights are not takeoff-limited, but landing weight-limited, which means max landing weight plus the fuel burnoff A to B equals the max weight one can depart A and still arrive at B not to exceed max landing weight. Should the flight change "B" once enroute to someplace that's a lesser distance to "A", less fuel is consumed such that the aircraft now is overweight for landing. It lands anyway, thus the need for the inspection.
In the early days of jet airliners (707, 727, DC-8) all those aircraft has a fuel dump system to deal with such overweight situations, but jet aircraft since don't require one.
Most airline flights are not takeoff-limited, but landing weight-limited, which means max landing weight plus the fuel burnoff A to B equals the max weight one can depart A and still arrive at B not to exceed max landing weight. Should the flight change "B" once enroute to someplace that's a lesser distance to "A", less fuel is consumed such that the aircraft now is overweight for landing. It lands anyway, thus the need for the inspection.
In the early days of jet airliners (707, 727, DC-8) all those aircraft has a fuel dump system to deal with such overweight situations, but jet aircraft since don't require one.
Also doesn't the 747 have a dump system?
Jul 6, 2017, 4:30 am
#15
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,028
The 747 does indeed have a fuel jettison (dump) system but the 737 doesn't nor has it ever required one.