Aircraft tracking
Jan 11, 2018, 7:17 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: US/UK - and elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,540
Aircraft tracking
Somewhat unusual track/routing of BA228 (LHR-BWI) and BA229 (BWI-LHR) on 10th January - very, very far north both ways, passing very close to Iceland over Greenland - more typical of west coast tracks. Now, you might retort that it must be the weather, but the BA293/217 and BA292/216 LHR-IAD-LHR were much further south.
Jan 11, 2018, 7:21 am
#2
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Switzerland / Estonia
Programs: AY+ Platinum, BAEC Silver, airbaltic VIP, HH Diamond, Radisson VIP, IHG Diamond Elite
Posts: 6,525
228 is BWI-LHR though and 229 LHR-BWI.
BWI was operated by a B787. Could it be an ETOPS issue due to the engine issues?
BWI was operated by a B787. Could it be an ETOPS issue due to the engine issues?
Last edited by florens; Jan 11, 2018 at 7:27 am
Jan 11, 2018, 7:26 am
#3
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL / GfL
Posts: 3,241
Sounds like a particularily strong jetstream which is not unusual for winter.
JetPlan.com Graphic Weather
JetPlan.com Graphic Weather
Pilot37
Jan 11, 2018, 7:28 am
#4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Switzerland / Estonia
Programs: AY+ Platinum, BAEC Silver, airbaltic VIP, HH Diamond, Radisson VIP, IHG Diamond Elite
Posts: 6,525
Obviously only a BA insider will give us the true reason, but anytime I’ve done that type of outlier routing there has been an issue with the aircraft which has limited its ETOPs certificate to a maximum (below the standard). Given the same type of routing was done on both legs, it is a possible reason - flight fine to go but must be within 60mins of an alternative for example.
Pilot37
Jan 11, 2018, 7:52 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Apart from the type being certificated for ETOPS, each individual aircraft must comply with the requirements or else have to operate to normal limits.
I fell foul of this on my one and only attempt so far to fly LCY-JFK. The previous day, the aircraft developed a fault which mean that it could not operate on an ETOPS basis. So it flew a very much longer route like the one you noticed. On the day of my flight, the same fault existed but in addition headwinds were very strong. If my flight had operated, it would have needed the SNN stop plus one more technical stop for fuel. That made it impracticable, so it was cancelled.
This is why I wondered whether the specific aircraft in question yesterday had a fault that meant that it had to stay within 60 minutes.
I fell foul of this on my one and only attempt so far to fly LCY-JFK. The previous day, the aircraft developed a fault which mean that it could not operate on an ETOPS basis. So it flew a very much longer route like the one you noticed. On the day of my flight, the same fault existed but in addition headwinds were very strong. If my flight had operated, it would have needed the SNN stop plus one more technical stop for fuel. That made it impracticable, so it was cancelled.
This is why I wondered whether the specific aircraft in question yesterday had a fault that meant that it had to stay within 60 minutes.
Jan 11, 2018, 8:12 am
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: US/UK - and elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,540
Aircraft was G-ZBJH has been plying the TATL route for a number of weeks - seems to have had a similar routing on the YYZ (Toronto)-LHR, but other BWI/EWR have been the usual southerly routes.
Jan 11, 2018, 8:17 am
#10
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,881
Jan 11, 2018, 8:29 am
#11
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 71
Only if the crew rest bunks need to be used, in which case the limit is FL350. Oddly, the flight plan to BWI was capped at FL340 but the return was planned at FL390. Only two pilots on a BWI so they wouldn’t have needed the bunks in either direction, but the cabin crew might not have been overly pleased on the way back...
Other aircraft types can be more restrictive, I seem to remember a FL330 restriction from my A320 days - and sadly no bunks to consider
Other aircraft types can be more restrictive, I seem to remember a FL330 restriction from my A320 days - and sadly no bunks to consider
Jan 11, 2018, 8:42 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
The routes appear conventional up to and including LHR-YYZ on 7 Jan. FR24 has a note of her operating BA98 YYZ-LHR on 7 Jan, but there is no substantive track. That accords with the BA Source's note of her having suffered a technical issue at YYZ that day.
Her next recorded flight on FR24 is on 9 Jan, when she (possibly) positioned (the flight number is BA9601) YYZ-LHR using a very northerly track, and that is what she has been flying since.
So if I were a betting man, I would say that the fault dates from 7 Jan or thereabouts.
Jan 11, 2018, 10:40 am
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: US/UK - and elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,540
G-ZBJH is on todays BA229 LHR-BWI on a northerly route - this adds about 1 hour to the journey, although oddly the return (BA228) seems 'normal' - at the moment...
Spoke too soon. BA228 is now due to >2 hours late into lhr... (BA currently claiming its' due to a late departure of incoming flight...)
Spoke too soon. BA228 is now due to >2 hours late into lhr... (BA currently claiming its' due to a late departure of incoming flight...)
Last edited by CKBA; Jan 11, 2018 at 2:07 pm Reason: update...
Jan 12, 2018, 6:58 am
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: US/UK - and elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,540
Does make you wonder how long they can (or should) operate such aircraft in 'restrictive mode' - both BA228 and 229 on 11 Jan was again G-ZBJH, taking an hour longer out and an hour longer return.
Surely if they know that it's a (much) longer flight time they should provision it accordingly?
Surely if they know that it's a (much) longer flight time they should provision it accordingly?
Jan 12, 2018, 8:14 am
#15
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 71
Does make you wonder how long they can (or should) operate such aircraft in 'restrictive mode' - both BA228 and 229 on 11 Jan was again G-ZBJH, taking an hour longer out and an hour longer return.
Surely if they know that it's a (much) longer flight time they should provision it accordingly?
Surely if they know that it's a (much) longer flight time they should provision it accordingly?
I imagine they’re balancing the increased fuel burn with the availability of aircraft downtime, spare parts, engineering workload etc.