raehl311

It may not have been "possible".

I know the WiFi will continue to work on taxi at landing, but I think pre-departure it won't turn on until you get to a certain altitude and not sure they're able to override that... and I'd bet once they blocked the plane in (or some other similar check point) the plane switches from landing to pre-departure.

dtc

My biggest wonder about this is how parents with infants/toddlers survived this!

Steve M

I've never heard of specific "polar operations" rules in the sense that they have ETOPS rules. But then again, I'm not a pilot, nor do I work for an airline. One issue that comes to mind is that normal satellite communications that pilots might use for voice or data are not available above a certain latitude (due to geostationary satellites being below the horizon) so that more old-fashioned radio communications are needed, but it's my understanding that those aren't spelled out specifically like the ETOPS rules. Perhaps one of the pilots on here can chime in.

I have flown just this route on just this aircraft type before, in 2001 (when it was pmCO - perhaps even this specific aircraft). I had a lengthy conversation with the captain when he was on break and hanging out in the galley. I asked specifically about ETOPS diversion airports and their ability to handle a 777-load of passengers in a remote location, thinking mostly of those in the Aleutians. He told me that that really wasn't a consideration: in the event that a diversion was required, they put down at the "nearest suitable field" no matter what. He was talking about ETOPS diversions rather than medical, but I think the same thing applies. Uncomfortable passengers on the ground are better than passengers on a broken plane (or a dead passenger) in the sky. In the event of a mechanical diversion that required an aircraft evacuation upon landing, there's probably no "nearest suitable field" that doesn't have some kind of building that could protect a 777-full of passengers from the elements. Of course, such an emergency would waive any kind of customs or immigration regulations regarding passengers leaving the aircraft.

I may have mentioned this before: the captain told me an interesting story about the pmCO 777-200's that fly that route. Going EWR-HKG, they always take off at Maximum Take Off Weight. The route is near the range limit for the aircraft, and the amount of cargo carried is dependent on whatever extra weight they have between the passenger/fuel load and MTOW. They push it to such a degree that they sometimes depart the gate with a fuel load that puts the aircraft over MTOW, with the anticipation that the fuel burn during taxi will reduce it to be at MTOW at take-off. If for some reason they reach the runway quicker than anticipated, they have to sit at the end with the engines spun up but with the brakes locked in order burn off fuel until they reach MTOW, at which point they release the brakes and off they go.

KRSW

Amazing how Alaska Airlines and many smaller airlines have absolutely NO issues flying into smaller airports with similar temperatures. Not to mention that aircraft regularly experience these temperatures at altitude every flight. No magic "winter" versions of rubber seals or door latches in use there.

UA might not, but some other airlines would postpone other flights to get a rescue flight out. I know B6 & DL have spare aircraft AND CREW waiting around for such things at some of their hubs. The flight crews often will nickname this standby shift as an "airport appreciation day." Last month I saw DL dispatch a replacement aircraft after mx delayed a flight. The replacement aircraft departed 3 hours after the original scheduled departure time. I'd say that's pretty darn good .

Time for me to post this again... At the time, UA was having a diversion to Goose Bay about every 2.5 days. Flipping through the past 7 days' worth of flights through YYR, it appears they've improved their record.

MSPeconomist

narvik

Advantage to UA maybe, but who controls WiFi on the plane? Because:

uastarflyer

raehl311

To an extent, the WiFi probably controls itself, and if you reset it and it thinks it's on the ground, no Wifi.

Does it?

I feel like the "Passengers stuck for 16 hours" (on plane that was going to be in the air for 16 hours) may have been alleviated, at least in the short term.

LarryJ

mozilla

Just to put things in perspective here with regards to the "high latitude".

Goose Bay lies at a mere 53.3° N. That's south of Scotland, Northern Germany and all of Scandinavia, including all the capital cities.

LangerhansCellHistiocytosis

canada is treated as domestic on all major us carriers

LarryJ

That's true, and the satellite system is designed, primarily, to work while airborne. The farther north you go the lower the satellite will be on the horizon.

docbert

Exactly the same way they would have survived the original 15+ hour flight?

So you're saying that Alaska has *never* had a plane go MX? I don't doubt they were able to recover better than UA did, but on the other hand they were likely at an airport that was capable of fitting all of the passengers inside of it.

As far as whether the door arming mechanism can be operated at the temperatures at 38,000 feet, that's something I hope to never have to find out...

It's also worth remembering that this wasn't typical weather, even for Goose Bay - Saturday night/Sunday morning was the 2nd coldest temperature in Goose Bay in close to 4 years.

secretalcoholic

Even if the door arming mechanism moves at 38,000 feet, one wouldn't be able to open the door anyways due to the pressure differences.

Jeff767