UA 179 (EWR-HKG) 19 Jan 2019 diverted YYR , passengers stuck on board for 13 hours
#76
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 1,393
The ETOPS mandate states that if you're flying over water passed a certain amount of time (is it 120 minutes?) then the flight must be stocked with enough food to allow you to divert if necessary to the backup airport and wait for help to arrive. In the case of EWR->HKG I believe they serve 2 meals in Y, so likely they stocked 3 meals for the flight (in case they have to divert at the end).......
This event proves the vital importance of having that extra meal at hand since they were running out of food before Timmies arrived and I can assure you Timmie is not a meal (unless you consider donuts and bagels to be a meal?!)-James
This event proves the vital importance of having that extra meal at hand since they were running out of food before Timmies arrived and I can assure you Timmie is not a meal (unless you consider donuts and bagels to be a meal?!)-James
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.
#77
Join Date: May 2001
Location: RNO, NV, USA.
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 5,063
I presume this decision was made in coordination with UA Ops. Particularly since this was not an equipment emergency and there was apparently substantial passage of time between when the passenger was stricken and the decision to divert was made.
While it's easy to monday morning quarterback from the comfort of the living room sofa, it does seem this might have been handled a bit smarter.
While it's easy to monday morning quarterback from the comfort of the living room sofa, it does seem this might have been handled a bit smarter.
#78
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
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?
#79
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PEK
Programs: A3*G, UA Gold EY Silver
Posts: 8,958
You can't entirely blame UA on this issue. I doubt the latches on a 777 are designed to withstand -30 degree blasts. Airlines that fly up North typically have specially designed aircraft to deal with these harsh weather conditions. Heck where I was from, when the weather hit -10 it was a near guarantee the power windows would stop working!
-James
-James
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.
#80
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
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.
#82
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Kansas City, MO
Programs: DL Plat, UA Plat
Posts: 150
"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.
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.
#83
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,703
The ETOPS mandate states that if you're flying over water passed a certain amount of time (is it 120 minutes?) then the flight must be stocked with enough food to allow you to divert if necessary to the backup airport and wait for help to arrive. In the case of EWR->HKG I believe they serve 2 meals in Y, so likely they stocked 3 meals for the flight (in case they have to divert at the end) In the case of WN they would likely need to have enough food on board to serve everyone a meal I would think.
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).
#84
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM
Posts: 6,352
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"!
#85
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
When the plane turned around, it was closer and north of YYR than YYT. YYR has a nearby hospital according to Google and I don't think the crew takes into consideration what specialists are available. So YYR seemed smarter because they weren't anticipating a problem with the door.
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.
#86
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP. Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,134
Here are the NOTAMS for Goose Bay, no where does it say limited services...
https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWe...trievalByICAOs
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.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jan 21, 2019 at 1:36 pm Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster(s)
#87
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: *G^2, Bonvoyed, NEXUS
Posts: 3,516
The arrangement you speak of for the CX flight at YVR is something that is a regularly scheduled event, and passengers are kept in a holding area, the terminal is designed for this type of operation, and CBSA has appropriate staffing should the flight not be able to proceed.
I’m not sure if you have been to YYR, but it is a tiny airport with limited commercial services on tiny planes. CBSA facilities are only staffed when there are scheduled services requiring it, and even then they are only processing a couple dozen pax. The airport is simply not set up to handle this kind of thing with no notice and the facilities would barely have enough room to hold a 777 load of people in a secure area.
#88
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 1,393
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.
#89
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM
Posts: 6,352
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.
#90
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
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.
Last edited by CaptainMiles; Jan 21, 2019 at 7:26 am