Mwenenzi

Reschedule to arrive at 11:59.
https://www.aucklandairport.co.nz/fl...ls&query=ua917

Cannot see anything on CHC arrivals departures
https://www.christchurchairport.co.n...nd-departures/

sbiddle

There was a complete ground stop at AKL due to weather. It's logical to divert to your alternate rather than burning fuel circling.

OZZIEKIWI

Try Google !


https://www.google.com/search?q=ua917&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

Thai-Kiwi

Well, not always. The decision to divert or hold depends on a number of factors, although company policies can trump some of these:

- Prior to departure, does the forecast weather at destination require nominating as alternate? This planning element determines fuel reserve to be carried and the range of options subsequently available
- The actual weather at destination prior to arrival (as opposed to what was forecast)
- Adequacy of alternate in terms of passenger handling (if required), refuel and turnaround
- Any issues of crew duty and knock-on impacts
- Any prescriptive company policy

NZbutterfly

mmonster

CHCflyer

Just a gas and go. No one disembarked.

nzkarit

A flight plan will normally have two destination alternatives (for AKL normally CHC and Ohakea). There will also be en route diverts for inflight issues, the pilots will generally know the closest airport at any time, for the "We need to land now situations". They will normally be fuelled for a go around or two, a divert, another go around and still be above minimums.
The weather will dictate with alternatives are picked. Though there is normally a minimum distance built in so local weather shouldn't factor in most cases. For Trans Pacific to NZ the forecast won't help much as things change to much and too fast. I remember eariler in the year when SQ was still doing CBR WLG. The QF, VA & NZ flights all went to AKL or CHC, so having a go other just going screw it and just diverting without having a go. The SQ flight was about half and hour behind and came in fine. Nowcast in NZ generally only affect domestic flights, won't leave until the weather has past, particularly to the regions.
Forecasted weather may mean the company or pilots tanker more fuel so have more time before hitting fuel emergency.
When picking destination alternatives the company will consider ground handling, relief crew, etc hence why CHC is favoured over Ohakea even though Ohakea is closer to to AKL. En route alternatives are big enough handle aircraft and for medical and less time pressing will factor in medical facilities, ground handling, etc. E.g. LIke QF's Dallas flight will stop in BNE for fuel or crew and given times QF can stage the rescue crew to BNE. NZ had a medical on the Houston to AKL flight one time where had to go to LAX and the both crews were going to time out so NZ staged the rescue crew to Nadi on non revenue A320 flight.

Thai-Kiwi

My lunchtime musings.

Given that UA was the only aircraft to have diverted (?) and most others held, it does me wonder about the fuel reserves they were carrying and whether they were required to nominate an alternate or not (there is set meteorological criteria for this). This is a planning decision based on the forecast destination weather at the planned time of arrival and, if an alternate is needed, then the weather forecast there also needs to meet specified criteria. There will be a manufacturer and/or company minimum fuel state to which the fuel reserve is applied.

If an alternate IS required, then turbine aircraft on arrival at the destination needs enough fuel to fly to the alternate airfield and then fly for a further 30 mins at holding speed at 1500' above the airfield.

If an alternate ISN'T required, then turbine aircraft on arrival at the destination needs enough fuel to fly for a further 30 mins at holding speed at 1500' above the airfield.

Simplistically, then, nominating an alternate requires the carriage of additional fuel for the sector destination-alternate (AKL-CHC in this case). Carriers prefer not to have to carry this additional fuel if possible as it either reduces pax/freight load or results in a higher weight and higher fuel burn for the entire flight (in turn requiring a further increment in fuel load). Google "burning fuel to carry fuel".

So, if they didn't need to nominate an alternate during flight planning, but nearing AKL they held concerns about the weather such that they wouldn't be certain of landing within the remaining 30 mins of fuel, then diverting to CHC without holding or attempting an approach makes sense.

CAR Part 91, E, 91.403-91.405 refers.
https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legac...solidation.pdf

dkc192

UA 945 FRA-ORD this morning returned to gate due to MX, arrived ORD almost 3h late, causing UA 895 ORD-HKG to be delayed 2.5h and counting.

cos999

miguel0881

OK, so this is a little late, but I didn't see it posted. I was at EDI on November 24 and noticed a UA plane on the ground departing to IAH. Since UA does not serve IAH from EDI, it must have been a diversion. Anyone know from where and why?

***UPDATE***

Well, to answer my own question, I see that it was UA 21, a 777 from AMS to IAH that diverted to EDI. I wonder why. That is a lot of fuel to dump.

threeoh

Hitting up Google:

"From what I hear from airport ground staff it is a critically serious medical emergency"
"A reason is yet to be confirmed by United Airlines but reports on Twitter suggest a crew member became unwell." https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...m-houston-UA21

"Sick crew member, departing again in about 30 minutes"
"medical emergency" Diverted ? We inform

And then, the only official response from United:

"
Hello, this was due to air traffic control clearance. We appreciate you reaching out. ^LT

...
Air traffic control is in control of global flight operations and give all directions to aircraft in the air and on the ground for flight patterns. This delay was due to flow patterns in the air and was taken for the safety of all passengers in the air. Thank you. ^LT
" -UA on twitter ( )

miguel0881

Thanks, threeoh. I assume the medical diversion explanation is the correct one, although a bit unusual if it was a crew member. Hope they are OK if so. UA's explanation of air traffic control clearance would be even more unusual I would think, and does not really make sense unless CBP or TSA wanted a passenger removed. I was surprised to see the flight listed normally on the EDI flight boards, and it only occurred to me later that UA does not have a EDI-IAH flight.

In any event, if it was an ill crew member they offloaded, how could they depart again so quickly without a replacement? This one is a bit of a mystery.

threeoh

Good question. If it was in fact a crew member, it's possible it was a deadheading crew member or even an off-duty NRSA crew member, not someone working that flight. It's also possible that the EDI-IAH flight has fewer crew requirements due to shorter stage length than AMS-IAH.

I guess it's also possible that they stole an existing crew member from the latest EWR flight to finish the EDI-IAH flight, and then deadheaded someone else in to work the next EWR flight, from EWR, LHR, or FRA.