11/26 UAL975 IAD-SFO Co-Pilot Medical Emergency
Nov 29, 2009, 6:31 pm
#46
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 290 through FL390
Posts: 1,687
What?
I didn't mean anything negative at all. I was just implying that perhaps the continuation of the flight might have been cancelled if the captain was not determined to get to SFO. I don't think the pilot was under any contractual obligation to continue onto SFO.
A lot of effort went into finding a replacement first officer - someone on standby had to come from home to staff the flight. I would think finding a replacement captain might have been even more difficult - if not impossible given the time of day and the fact that it was a holiday. I was thankful we were able to get to SFO, and I have expressed my appreciation to 1K Voice.
I have not questioned the motive for the diversion - the first officer was in bad shape, sprawled out on the floor in the front galley. The purser was in the cockpit as the plane landed. Serious stuff.
I didn't mean anything negative at all. I was just implying that perhaps the continuation of the flight might have been cancelled if the captain was not determined to get to SFO. I don't think the pilot was under any contractual obligation to continue onto SFO.
A lot of effort went into finding a replacement first officer - someone on standby had to come from home to staff the flight. I would think finding a replacement captain might have been even more difficult - if not impossible given the time of day and the fact that it was a holiday. I was thankful we were able to get to SFO, and I have expressed my appreciation to 1K Voice.
I have not questioned the motive for the diversion - the first officer was in bad shape, sprawled out on the floor in the front galley. The purser was in the cockpit as the plane landed. Serious stuff.
Freshairborne
OK, let me explain...
1) There was a medical emergency - that part is clear. Paramedics and ambulance and all.
2) As a result, there was a diversion
3) After that diversion - whilst sitting on the ground - they plane needed a new co-pilot.
At this point they are obviously not airborne, so what can or can not happen whilst airborne isn't relevant.
To me there's two possible explanations, either :
1) The co-pilot was the one sick, and as a result of him being removed from the plane they needed a new co-pilot. OR
2) After the diversion the flight would obviously have had a new "projected block-in time" which could have put the co-pilot over his allowed hours. As a result, they needed to obtain a new co-pilot.
I'm not saying that 2 is correct - just that it's a possibility, no?
1) There was a medical emergency - that part is clear. Paramedics and ambulance and all.
2) As a result, there was a diversion
3) After that diversion - whilst sitting on the ground - they plane needed a new co-pilot.
At this point they are obviously not airborne, so what can or can not happen whilst airborne isn't relevant.
To me there's two possible explanations, either :
1) The co-pilot was the one sick, and as a result of him being removed from the plane they needed a new co-pilot. OR
2) After the diversion the flight would obviously have had a new "projected block-in time" which could have put the co-pilot over his allowed hours. As a result, they needed to obtain a new co-pilot.
I'm not saying that 2 is correct - just that it's a possibility, no?
Freshairborne
Last edited by iluv2fly; Nov 29, 2009 at 6:37 pm Reason: merge
Nov 29, 2009, 6:49 pm
#47
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: RIC
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 3,386
I'd have to say that it's more likely that the flight continued on to SFO because that was it's intended destination, rather than the desires of the captain to get home for Thanksgiving. It's just as likely that the crew would be laying over in SFO as it would be that they were going home.
A few of the cabin crew got off the plane in DEN, and replacement flight attendants on airport standby staffed the DEN-SFO continuation.
I spoke to the captain, who mentioned that he and his wife (seated in F) were eager to get home for Thanksgiving.
Nov 29, 2009, 7:20 pm
#48
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,123
What?
I don't think the pilot was under any contractual obligation to continue onto SFO.
A lot of effort went into finding a replacement first officer - someone on standby had to come from home to staff the flight. I would think finding a replacement captain might have been even more difficult - if not impossible given the time of day and the fact that it was a holiday. I was thankful we were able to get to SFO, and I have expressed my appreciation to 1K Voice.
I don't think the pilot was under any contractual obligation to continue onto SFO.
A lot of effort went into finding a replacement first officer - someone on standby had to come from home to staff the flight. I would think finding a replacement captain might have been even more difficult - if not impossible given the time of day and the fact that it was a holiday. I was thankful we were able to get to SFO, and I have expressed my appreciation to 1K Voice.
Have a good one.
AD
Last edited by aluminumdriver; Nov 29, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Nov 29, 2009, 9:11 pm
#49
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 834
I think we are getting off topic from the orginal post. The bottom line is Hazel2009 posted this information to relate a potential serious medical emergency on her flight and the positive actions taken during this emergency. While she was praising the actions of FC and ground staff at DEN, she still had the compasion for the well being and condition of the Co-Pilot.
Wether or not any part of the FC went illegal or was the reason for this emergency landing should be conducted on a seperate post. I believe this post is for the positive praises of the employee's of UA, who go above and beyond.
Once again I thank Hazel2009 for posting this information. I would also like to thank the Pilots and FA's who contributed to this post and for their dedication to ensure the safety and well being "everyone" on their flights!
Wether or not any part of the FC went illegal or was the reason for this emergency landing should be conducted on a seperate post. I believe this post is for the positive praises of the employee's of UA, who go above and beyond.
Once again I thank Hazel2009 for posting this information. I would also like to thank the Pilots and FA's who contributed to this post and for their dedication to ensure the safety and well being "everyone" on their flights!
Nov 30, 2009, 4:45 am
#50
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
I think we are getting off topic from the orginal post. The bottom line is Hazel2009 posted this information to relate a potential serious medical emergency on her flight and the positive actions taken during this emergency. While she was praising the actions of FC and ground staff at DEN, she still had the compasion for the well being and condition of the Co-Pilot.
Wether or not any part of the FC went illegal or was the reason for this emergency landing should be conducted on a seperate post. I believe this post is for the positive praises of the employee's of UA, who go above and beyond.
Once again I thank Hazel2009 for posting this information. I would also like to thank the Pilots and FA's who contributed to this post and for their dedication to ensure the safety and well being "everyone" on their flights!
Wether or not any part of the FC went illegal or was the reason for this emergency landing should be conducted on a seperate post. I believe this post is for the positive praises of the employee's of UA, who go above and beyond.
Once again I thank Hazel2009 for posting this information. I would also like to thank the Pilots and FA's who contributed to this post and for their dedication to ensure the safety and well being "everyone" on their flights!