BA228 BWI-LHR last night - odd routing and delay?
Apr 13, 2019 | 3:46 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Surrey
Programs: BAEC - Gold
Posts: 939
BA228 BWI-LHR last night - odd routing and delay?
Hello
My wife was on the 2hr ground delayed BA228 (G-ZBJD) on 12 April (landed 13 April). Apparently plane had a technical issue then they flew a longer (looks like non-ETOPS) flight path hence the extra delay due to longer flight time. Only 2 1/2hr overall delay so
only asking out of curiosity.
Does anyone know what was wrong with the aircraft? Seems odd that it was announced maintenance had fixed it then it flew non-ETOPS?
Aircraft didnt fly today (13 April), next due to go to Hyderabad tomorrow, 14 April.
Thanks for any insights,
TFC
My wife was on the 2hr ground delayed BA228 (G-ZBJD) on 12 April (landed 13 April). Apparently plane had a technical issue then they flew a longer (looks like non-ETOPS) flight path hence the extra delay due to longer flight time. Only 2 1/2hr overall delay so
only asking out of curiosity.
Does anyone know what was wrong with the aircraft? Seems odd that it was announced maintenance had fixed it then it flew non-ETOPS?
Aircraft didnt fly today (13 April), next due to go to Hyderabad tomorrow, 14 April.
Thanks for any insights,
TFC
Apr 13, 2019 | 4:33 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,752
The "fix" meant that there was an airworthy aircraft, and everyone got to their destination even if a different routing was required. That seems more "sensible" than "odd".
Apr 13, 2019 | 6:17 pm
#3
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,414
I suspect that if maintenance had not "fixed" the aircraft, it would not have been flying anywhere.
The "fix" meant that there was an airworthy aircraft, and everyone got to their destination even if a different routing was required. That seems more "sensible" than "odd".
The "fix" meant that there was an airworthy aircraft, and everyone got to their destination even if a different routing was required. That seems more "sensible" than "odd".
Apr 13, 2019 | 9:39 pm
#5
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: London
Programs: Gold at BA, Hilton and Radisson.
Posts: 894
Apr 13, 2019 | 11:13 pm
#6
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP ALL Gold
Posts: 4,635
Because im on a long car ride and bored, heres the great circle route (red) overlaid with areas greater than 60 minutes from a diversion airfield (dark blue)
i wonder if there might be some element of winds or similar making the route more northerly also?
Apr 14, 2019 | 12:49 am
#7
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: London
Programs: HH Diamond, BAEC Silver (OWS)
Posts: 218
Probably just a precautionary measure, they wouldnt be allowed to fly a plane in this day and age if there was genuine threat to human life. Love to find out what the issue was / reasoning behind re-routing though.
Apr 14, 2019 | 3:38 am
#8
Join Date: Jan 2017
Programs: HH - Gold, BA - Blue
Posts: 189
From memory (and one of the pilots can correct / enhance my answer as they see fit)
It's not an unairworthy aircraft or someone that would keep the plane grounded, it's likely to me a minor technical issue that means the plane is (temporarily) loses its ETOPS certification. ETOPS certification being needed to take a more direct routing across to the Americas & Canada etc.
It could be something as minor as one of the air conditioning packs not working, the APU is inoperative etc.
More about ETOPS here (Yes I know it's Wikipedia)
It's not an unairworthy aircraft or someone that would keep the plane grounded, it's likely to me a minor technical issue that means the plane is (temporarily) loses its ETOPS certification. ETOPS certification being needed to take a more direct routing across to the Americas & Canada etc.
It could be something as minor as one of the air conditioning packs not working, the APU is inoperative etc.
More about ETOPS here (Yes I know it's Wikipedia)
Apr 14, 2019 | 4:05 am
#10
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,791
Interesting! So they essentially used a route which put the plane in close touch to an airfield in case it had to land.
Probably just a precautionary measure, they wouldnt be allowed to fly a plane in this day and age if there was genuine threat to human life. Love to find out what the issue was / reasoning behind re-routing though.
Apr 16, 2019 | 8:49 am
#11
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 3,250
A couple of months ago on BA228 we waited, and waited... eventually when queing to board the pilot gathered all the pax around to explain tge situation.... yes the plane was fit to fly - otherwise je eouldn't be on it.... (he did not want a recording of it!). Seems like the 788's aten't overly reliable... (oh, the 767's.... :-) ).
Apr 16, 2019 | 11:44 am
#12
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Gold, Hotels.com Gold
Posts: 577
A couple of months ago on BA228 we waited, and waited... eventually when queing to board the pilot gathered all the pax around to explain tge situation.... yes the plane was fit to fly - otherwise je eouldn't be on it.... (he did not want a recording of it!). Seems like the 788's aten't overly reliable... (oh, the 767's.... :-) ).