Why would a flight no longer considered airworthy be redirected like this?What happens to an airborne plane when its type is grounded by an authority?Why did this commercial flight fly in circles while far from the destination?Why has flight UA106 such a strange predicted flight path?Why did this aircraft fly in this pattern over Southern Italy?Why might this trans-pacific flight not follow a more direct route?Why does a plane fly like this?What's the benefit of this long flight (apart from marketing)?Why would Emirates fly over Iraq, avoiding Iran?Why would FlightAware show this meandering flight path?Why would a flight from North America to Asia sometimes fly over the Atlantic?Why does this flight fly over Bangladesh, and not over Nepal and China?
Does this property of comaximal ideals always holds?
Rejected in the fourth interview round, citing insufficient years of experience
Co-worker team leader wants to inject his friend's awful software into our development. What should I say to our common boss?
DD4T webapp using discovery service gets 'invalid_grant'
What is a function that separates points?
I need to drive a 7/16" nut but am unsure how to use the socket I bought for my screwdriver
Know when to turn notes upside-down(eighth notes, sixteen notes, etc.)
Why do Australian milk farmers need to protest supermarkets' milk price?
My adviser wants to be the first author
Equation Array Exceed Right Margin
Fantasy series where a Vietnam vet is transported to a fantasy land
Good allowance savings plan?
Is it possible to upcast ritual spells?
How many prime numbers are there that can't be written as a sum of two composite numbers?
How to simplify this time periods definition interface?
How do I hide Chekhov's Gun?
What does it mean to make a bootable LiveUSB?
Can anyone tell me why this program fails?
Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?
How to explain that I do not want to visit a country due to personal safety concern?
It's a yearly task, alright
Can hydraulic brake levers get hot when brakes overheat?
Professor being mistaken for a grad student
Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day
Why would a flight no longer considered airworthy be redirected like this?
What happens to an airborne plane when its type is grounded by an authority?Why did this commercial flight fly in circles while far from the destination?Why has flight UA106 such a strange predicted flight path?Why did this aircraft fly in this pattern over Southern Italy?Why might this trans-pacific flight not follow a more direct route?Why does a plane fly like this?What's the benefit of this long flight (apart from marketing)?Why would Emirates fly over Iraq, avoiding Iran?Why would FlightAware show this meandering flight path?Why would a flight from North America to Asia sometimes fly over the Atlantic?Why does this flight fly over Bangladesh, and not over Nepal and China?
$begingroup$
I ran across this tweet covering the saga of Smartwings 1201, a 737 MAX 8 that was apparently redirected from Prague to Ankara after the MAX was grounded by the EU.
(flightaware.com)
It seems like an odd decision to do this. The plane had to divert and apparently spent quite a long time in circling before it was allowed to land in Turkey. Why was it not allowed to land at Prague as scheduled and be grounded there?
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
edited 7 hours ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 21 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4212834
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I ran across this tweet covering the saga of Smartwings 1201, a 737 MAX 8 that was apparently redirected from Prague to Ankara after the MAX was grounded by the EU.
(flightaware.com)
It seems like an odd decision to do this. The plane had to divert and apparently spent quite a long time in circling before it was allowed to land in Turkey. Why was it not allowed to land at Prague as scheduled and be grounded there?
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
edited 7 hours ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 21 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4212834
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
19 hours ago
13
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
17 hours ago
18
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
17 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
13 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
I ran across this tweet covering the saga of Smartwings 1201, a 737 MAX 8 that was apparently redirected from Prague to Ankara after the MAX was grounded by the EU.
(flightaware.com)
It seems like an odd decision to do this. The plane had to divert and apparently spent quite a long time in circling before it was allowed to land in Turkey. Why was it not allowed to land at Prague as scheduled and be grounded there?
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
edited 7 hours ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 21 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4212834
$endgroup$
I ran across this tweet covering the saga of Smartwings 1201, a 737 MAX 8 that was apparently redirected from Prague to Ankara after the MAX was grounded by the EU.
(flightaware.com)
It seems like an odd decision to do this. The plane had to divert and apparently spent quite a long time in circling before it was allowed to land in Turkey. Why was it not allowed to land at Prague as scheduled and be grounded there?
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
easa-regulations flight-path airworthiness
edited 7 hours ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 21 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4212834
edited 7 hours ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
asked 21 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4212834
edited 7 hours ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
edited 7 hours ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
edited 7 hours ago
ymb1
67.2k7213356
67.2k7213356
asked 21 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4212834
asked 21 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4212834
asked 21 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
2,4212834
2,4212834
1
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
19 hours ago
13
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
17 hours ago
18
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
17 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
13 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
19 hours ago
13
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
17 hours ago
18
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
17 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
19 hours ago
13
13
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
17 hours ago
18
18
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
17 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
13 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 13 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 21 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@alephzero The original intent of the Airline was definitely to get to Prague. A different flight of the same airline from southwest was trying to get to Italy, as they seemed to be accepting flights already airborne, but this window closed as well aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61040/… The EASA just refused to accept flights with a valid flightplan mid-air without any notice period.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight plans.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
edited 56 mins ago
a CVn
4,41921850
answered 18 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
42128
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 21 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61156%2fwhy-would-a-flight-no-longer-considered-airworthy-be-redirected-like-this%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 13 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 21 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@alephzero The original intent of the Airline was definitely to get to Prague. A different flight of the same airline from southwest was trying to get to Italy, as they seemed to be accepting flights already airborne, but this window closed as well aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61040/… The EASA just refused to accept flights with a valid flightplan mid-air without any notice period.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 13 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 21 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@alephzero The original intent of the Airline was definitely to get to Prague. A different flight of the same airline from southwest was trying to get to Italy, as they seemed to be accepting flights already airborne, but this window closed as well aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61040/… The EASA just refused to accept flights with a valid flightplan mid-air without any notice period.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 13 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 21 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
$endgroup$
There could be a lot of reasons for this...
- EU closed airspace to 737's MAX 8's on March 12
- They needed to go into a holding pattern until ATC figured out where to put them
- They needed to be in the holding pattern until they could get a landing slot
- They were redirected to an airport that had a maintenance facility that the airline uses
- They redirected to an airport with code-share partners so they could rebook passengers without a major fee
Edit I'm not sure what is going on with FlightRadar24, but it shows that the plane continued to Prague the next day. It looks like they landed in Ankara then continued on to Prague. I'm not sure if the flight to Prague was just a repositioning flight, or if it had passengers.
Edit 2 Turkey subsequently (after this flight) also closed airspace to 737 MAX 8's. The EU closure allows for ferry flights, which are flights without passengers on board. The flight from Ankara to Prague was just a positioning flight so that the aircraft could be serviced when it came time to implement a fix from Boeing.
edited 13 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
answered 21 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
edited 13 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
edited 13 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
edited 13 hours ago
reirab
14.1k139108
14.1k139108
answered 21 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
answered 21 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
answered 21 hours ago
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
21.9k281102
21.9k281102
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@alephzero The original intent of the Airline was definitely to get to Prague. A different flight of the same airline from southwest was trying to get to Italy, as they seemed to be accepting flights already airborne, but this window closed as well aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61040/… The EASA just refused to accept flights with a valid flightplan mid-air without any notice period.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@alephzero The original intent of the Airline was definitely to get to Prague. A different flight of the same airline from southwest was trying to get to Italy, as they seemed to be accepting flights already airborne, but this window closed as well aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61040/… The EASA just refused to accept flights with a valid flightplan mid-air without any notice period.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
20 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
@pipe They may have allowed the flight to land because it didn't have the fuel for a more appropriate diversion. I'm prettty sure the flight out of Ankara was a ferry flight to Prague.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
20 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
@pipe pure speculation but it maybe that the airline was able to eventually negotiate permission to enter Turkish airspace as an exception to the ban.
$endgroup$
– Notts90
20 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess even if a country bans certain planes from their airspace, they surely would allow them to land. If Turkey and neighbouring countries imposed the ban at the same time, the plane theoretically would have nowhere to go.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
20 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@alephzero The original intent of the Airline was definitely to get to Prague. A different flight of the same airline from southwest was trying to get to Italy, as they seemed to be accepting flights already airborne, but this window closed as well aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61040/… The EASA just refused to accept flights with a valid flightplan mid-air without any notice period.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero The original intent of the Airline was definitely to get to Prague. A different flight of the same airline from southwest was trying to get to Italy, as they seemed to be accepting flights already airborne, but this window closed as well aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61040/… The EASA just refused to accept flights with a valid flightplan mid-air without any notice period.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight plans.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
edited 56 mins ago
a CVn
4,41921850
answered 18 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
42128
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight plans.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
edited 56 mins ago
a CVn
4,41921850
answered 18 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
42128
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight plans.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
edited 56 mins ago
a CVn
4,41921850
answered 18 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
42128
$endgroup$
This is just because of the way EASA treated B737 MAX grounding. They just stopped accepting flights with these aircraft into the EU airspace even for already airborne flights with valid flight plans.
For this company two flights were involved. On from Cape Verde ended up in Tunisia and one from Dubai in Ankara. Both of them were originally hoping to get to the EU airspace until the perceived misunderstanding clears - because flights already airborne and with valid flight plans should be allowed to finished their flights, right, that sounds logical ... not to EASA...
So these aircraft had to land outside EU, get to PAX to the hotels, fly other types of airplanes for them and ferry the MAXes empty home to LKPR.
Other airplanes of the same company became stranded out of EU because they were doing flights between two out-of-EU destinations at the time of the ban and had to wait for a day to be allowed to ferry home.
edited 56 mins ago
a CVn
4,41921850
answered 18 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
42128
edited 56 mins ago
a CVn
4,41921850
edited 56 mins ago
a CVn
4,41921850
edited 56 mins ago
a CVn
4,41921850
4,41921850
answered 18 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
42128
answered 18 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
42128
answered 18 hours ago
Vladimir FVladimir F
42128
42128
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
yeah, several flights ended up circling inside EASA airspace before being directed to the nearest airport with facilities to handle them and their passengers.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 21 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 21 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 21 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
$endgroup$
In the case of the EASA directive regarding the B737 MAX: all planes have to be grounded and those in flight weren't allowed to enter European Airspace. Therefore, the plane is trying to figure out where to land.
answered 21 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
answered 21 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
answered 21 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
answered 21 hours ago
AfeAfe
4511412
4511412
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
21 hours ago
$begingroup$
The directive only says "do not operate". No word about landing or entering. It explicitly allows a ferry flight.
$endgroup$
– bogl
21 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Notts90 The directive does not state the urgency. Throwing the pax out of the door mid flight is no solution, and there is no reason why a diverted landing would be safer than the scheduled one. Common sense would strongly suggest to finish ongoing flights.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bogl I like you’re optimism regarding common sense! I think do not operate does imply a sense of urgency though. Without any quantification it, to me it implies immediately (or as as immediately as reasonably possible).
$endgroup$
– Notts90
19 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Notts90 Some B737 Max were admitted to land in EASA area after the directive. See airlinerwatch.com/…. Meanwhile, the Indians were a bit smarter. They indicated a date/time for the ban to become effective. thehindu.com/news/national/… Common sense is not evenly distributed, it seems.
$endgroup$
– bogl
19 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bogl The DXB-PRG flight wasn't yet in European airspace. The two flights that were allowed to land were both already deep in European airspace and might not have had enough fuel to leave. One of them was a flight entirely within European airspace. There was probably no alternative but to allow those flights to land in Europe.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61156%2fwhy-would-a-flight-no-longer-considered-airworthy-be-redirected-like-this%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Notice that most of the flight path is over water. If the worst were to happen and it was to crash, there would be minimum damage to those on the ground. Of course, it would mean a significantly reduced chance of survival for those on board...
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
19 hours ago
13
$begingroup$
@FreeMan Crash? Just because it is Boieng 737MAX it does not mean it should crash every minute! They are not THAT dangerous.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Well it is not a widebody and they were flying for some time already, but you are right, the difference between MLW and ZFW is not that big. Depends on the load. But no news mention it.
$endgroup$
– Vladimir F
17 hours ago
18
$begingroup$
The oddest decision was the decision by the EU not to allow already airborne flights to continue to their destination, I would say.
$endgroup$
– TonyK
17 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@DavidRicherby Fuel dumping isn't normally done unless the aircraft is overweight for landing or there is an emergency where they suspect a fire may ensue upon landing (such as stuck landing gear or something like that.) The reason the 737 has no fuel dumping ability is that its max landing weight isn't much less than its maximum takeoff weight. It would certainly not have been overweight for landing by that point in the flight. More likely, they were trying to figure out where on Earth they should go in light of the EASA decision.
$endgroup$
– reirab
13 hours ago