phkc070408

Since the meal is 99.9% likely to go unserved, they probably use a non-perrishable meal with a long shelf life. Does UA still sell the snack packs (Tapas, Classic, and Select)? These would be perfect.

Also, after making such a diversion, was the original crew even permitted to continue to HKG under HOS? I wouldn't have thought so, but apparently they made an attempt to get off the ground.

restlessinRNO

Yes, I would agree too. Of course there may have been other factors involved, but generally I think YYT would always be preferable to YYR.

CaptainMiles

If the original aircraft had been able to take off, where would it have gone? Did they refuel to be able to reach HKG? Would crew duty times allow them to continue to HKG? Or were they going back to EWR anyway?

Palal

It's usually -50°C outside any time you're at any serious altitude, so no issues with the temp.

I remember once in MSP on NW where they couldn't close 1R because the locks froze. They came and heated it and off we went.

goodeats21

Couple different options. If the diversion was quick, I THINK there is enough slack in crew hours to make it work, but dependent on each circumstance. There is a desk in the Chicago OPS center that tracks these things very closely and makes the rulings.

If there are crew or fuel issues to make the entire trip to HKG not feasible, they typically fly a decent ways to a hub(let), and use the time in flight to get a new plane / crew set up to continue on the journey. (SFO/NRT/HNL?)

Lot depends on where there are usable resources, both crew and frame. Could be back EWR / ORD / IAD, if it makes sense.
Pretty dynamic situation.

ATL10A

Aerial shot of YYR
url=https://flic.kr/p/NAykiR]

jm0933

"Running out of food and water!" after sitting on the ground for 13 hours. On a plane that was stocked for a 16 hour flight. I promise there was enough food and water to keep everybody perfectly healthy and even reasonably fed for that amount of time.

Hopefully the crew was conducting beverage services, providing food, etc. during this time - I'm sure if they were refusing to do so we would have heard about it by now - but the implication in the video that people were fighting for survival is a little bit ridiculous.

Bear96

Do you have a cite to the ETOPS regs for that? They absolutely do not stock an entire extra full hot meal for everyone on board on all ETOPs flights, if that is what you are saying. Just from a practical PoV, there simply isn't enough galley space (WN galleys in particular have no means to store and serve a meal to a full planeload), and having to throw out 300 meals after 99.99% of all ETOPS flights does not make sense.

There are emergency kits stowed in the OH bins that have something like non-perishable protein bars which stay on-board for months at a time before being replaced if they are not used, but that is about it. And even that I don't think is because of an FAA reg but rather is a choice by the airline (but I could be wrong about that).

narvik

As mentioned by others, I don't blame Canadian customs; as I can't imagine anyone on that plane wanting to enter Canada. Nor should they.
What I can't understand is why there isn't a provision/procedure to deplane the passengers to a holding area at the airport.
Done this plenty of times....at PPT or NAN for instance.

Apparently it isn't impossible to have someone deplane, as evidenced by the sick passenger being able to do so.
That was an emergency, so at what point does passengers stuck on a plane become an emergency?

I see no need for Canadian customs even if there was a "deplanement"!

LarryJ

I don't have any specific information about this flight but can comment on how inflight medical diversions are handled.

When we are informed of a medical situation we contact MedLink. The MedLink physicians coordinate the evaluation and care of the patient with the flight attendants or onboard medical volunteers. MedLink advises if a divert is, or is not, recommended and their recommendation is usually followed. They are the industry experts in making these decisions. A situation that does not warrant a divert initially can change and result in a decision to divert being made much later in the flight.

When a divert is indicated, the airline (crew and dispatch) provide MedLink with a list of acceptable alternate airports (from an operational standpoint) and the ETA to each. MedLink compares this information with their database of medical providers at, and near, each airport and they will recommend the option that will be best for the patient. They may choose different airports based on the specific type of care that the patient requires. That may mean flying past closer alternates in order to get to specific medical resources at a more distant city. MedLink coordinates with the medical facilities and EMS responders to arrange for the flight to be met and the patient care after landing.

gmt4

That's not information you'll always find in notams. Among other places, you'd find it in the Canada Flight Supplement published by Nav Canada. Its like the AFD the FAA/DOT publishes here in the US. Its a planning document.

That said, anyone who knows anything about aviation knows that remote Canadian airfields offer little by way of services and amenities, places like Goose are simply flat patches of concrete to safely put a plane down. They can handle a simple medical emergency, offer a little bit of fuel, but that's about it. Heck, I bet the Monday morning quarterbacks on here (literally) would be surprised to know that most remote divert locations worldwide would similarly offer little by way of services.

Why did the Captain choose to go there? Who knows. Likely UA ops told him to go there after some coordination. Gander (CYQX) or St Johns (CYYT) are also viable options that offer far better services and pax accommodation. But, the plan was to get the medical case off the plane, might have been slightly shorter of a distance, and no one knew they'd have an door issue.

Full disclosure: I am a commercial pilot, and I've been to these locations in Canada.

D582

phkc070408

Even if this isn't SOP in the rest of Canada, you would think they would be more prepared for this at YYR, being the point of no return before you're at the mercy of the North Atlantic. This is not the first time an uncomfortable situation was created to a US airline at this location, nor will it be the last. Thinking more about it, the US has more interest in this than Canada does, since it only affects flights in/out of the US. Maybe we should be working to develop a plan.

Given how these situations always turn out (not specific to this situation), I'm surprised that the airlines don't encourage the pilots to consider returning to BGR. From what I understand, while it is a small airport as far as passenger volume and terminal size, it has a runway 11,440 feet long and is prepared to handle almost anything. It's only 700 miles, maybe 75 minutes from YYR. I understand that this is not always an option and in this case, 1. the plane was already beyond YYR, and 2. the fiasco was unexpected.

narvik

Only because no one has had the gumption to set this up. From the pictures I have seen, accommodating 250 persons in a secure area for exactly this type of event should be a fairly easy thing to accomplish....IME.

CaptainMiles

Simple. The airline would be trading operational convenience for the life of the one passenger. When that one passenger dies and the airline gets sued, there goes all the savings gained by diverting to BGR. So the airline pretty much follows the recommendations of MedLink, and then when it gets sued it can defend that it did the best it could and followed medical expert recommendations.