American Eagle flight diverts to GA Podunk airport

Looks like they flew right over FSM and diverted to Poteau. Wind sheer perhaps? Either way, a 4,000ft GA field would not be a dispatcher's first choice for diverts.
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    904.1 KB · Views: 81
Brad Z said:
Looks like they flew right over FSM and diverted to Poteau. Wind sheer perhaps? Either way, a 4,000ft GA field would not be a dispatcher's first choice for diverts.
Click to expand...

Just looked at the track log and at about 1:01 they get as low as 1000 feet and climb back up to 3000 before landing at RKR. That's after dropping down to 3,000 previously and climbing back up to 11,000. Looks like the crew felt like things were closing in on them and just wanted the plane down on a runway.
 
Brad Z said:
Just looked at the track log and at about 1:01 they get as low as 1000 feet and climb back up to 3000 before landing at RKR. That's after dropping down to 3,000 previously and climbing back up to 11,000. Looks like the crew felt like things were closing in on them and just wanted the plane down on a runway.
Click to expand...

Definitely weird. FlightAware shows it as a formal diversion to KFSM, even with a gate number there. Yet clearly they came down low, apparently approaching runway 25 at FSM, then climbed again and landed at RKR. If it was wind issue, they had runway 19 at FSM which they could have circled to, similar to 18-36 that they landed on at RKR. Maybe a cell was encroaching over FSM? In which case, why get so close and low in the first place? And then why land on a 4000' GA strip?
Lots of questions here...
 
TV reported that a low fuel warning went off. My guess is that the captain wanted the first adequate runway NOW. With weather that unstable, better to be on the ground wishing...... you know the rest.

-Skip
 
Weather was quite exciting too:

SRX-Jun-12-2016-1700Z-radar.png
 
From the FlightAware track looks like they started out playing slalom with the storm cells and then eventually needed to get on the ground real quick... aparently due to low fuel. The commercial airliners, in an effort to cut weight/costs, often take off with just over the required fuel minimums. Looks like that strategy didn't work out so well on this flight.
 
Years ago while I was a student at TSTI in Waco, we had an American jet land on our facility. They had been chasing weather that was above minimums for over two hours and we were the only field above them between OKC and Houston. Had to deboard everyone via a big ladder until someone was able to get the stair truck over in the maintenance hangar started. It took bringing over a jet truck from the other airport and a full tanker from the local fuel distributor to ge them enough fuel to go to DFW. Kinda hard to figure out what to do with over 125 people at 1 am on a nearly deserted college airport with bad weather all around!
 
I wish something like that happened at Shawnee! 6000 ft runway would accommodate them a lot better than that, stronger runway and a concrete pad that could probably handle them.

My question is, according to airnav the weight bearing capacity for that runway is single wheel: 27. Google says the erj145 at the lowest is around 35k pounds. Wondering if it's airline protocol to not pull off the runway and onto the taxiway or ramp at small airports like that to avoid sinking into the asphalt a la Gulfstream:

http://code7700.com/acn_v_pcn.html

Or maybe it couldn't make the turn safely? Interesting to say the least.
 
On the plus side, fuel at KRKR is reasonably priced, with Jet A selling for $3.49.

On the minus side, fuel is sold only at the pump, according to AirNav. I'd like to see them taxi their ERJ-145 to the pump, get out the credit card, enter their N-number, and fill 'er up.
 
Yes, choice of alternates is very interesting indeed, given the number of options around XNA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Arob16 said:
Yes, choice of alternates is very interesting indeed, given the number of options around XNA.
Click to expand...

When you're waaaay low on fuel and weather is closing in around you, and there's a serviceable airport ahead of you, you land. I hope the captain doesn't get too much flack from management for this; my only question for the captain would be whether he should have asked for more fuel when he accepted the aircraft, especially considering the wx at the destination.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rocketflyer84 said:
From the FlightAware track looks like they started out playing slalom with the storm cells and then eventually needed to get on the ground real quick... aparently due to low fuel. The commercial airliners, in an effort to cut weight/costs, often take off with just over the required fuel minimums. Looks like that strategy didn't work out so well on this flight.
Click to expand...

I've landed more times then not at 45 min IFR reserves, roughly 2500-1800lbs. Due to cost and weight very rarely is there more fuel on board. It's so tight on most flights I can only do one lap in a hold before we have to divert. We can request more fuel but unless I'm in an 145XR during the summer, I'll be throwing bags or people off. The XR can hold around 11,000lbs but it will be close, if not over, to MTOW. I bet they exhausted their fuel buffer on the flight to KFSM with the plan to land at FAR limits. With an aborted landing I'd bet they found the next best piece of blacktop and stuck it there.

2500lbs gets you slightly more then 45mins at 1500lbs an hour. At 1500lbs I'm doing roughly 300kts. 1250lbs gives me roughly 250kts. So Alternate needs to be within 250nm to be comfortable.
 
luvflyin said:
How common is that? The airlines operating at bare minimum legal reserves?
Click to expand...
More common now than it used to be. It takes fuel to carry fuel so in this day and age of cost conciousness a closer look is taken at the fuel we carry. Enough to do the mission plus a bit for contingencies but no more. Where I work, the Captain always has the option to add more.

The company has figured out that the fuel savings of this program are enough to justify the occasional diversion.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
More common now than it used to be. It takes fuel to carry fuel so in this day and age of cost conciousness a closer look is taken at the fuel we carry. Enough to do the mission plus a bit for contingencies but no more. Where I work, the Captain always has the option to add more.

The company has figured out that the fuel savings of this program are enough to justify the occasional diversion.
Click to expand...

I've noticed this to be more apparent as you fly heavier planes. For example, in the 414 I've been landing somewhere in the 600-800 lbs lighter range than I took off. That's roughly a 10+% weight reduction. The difference in cruise speed is noticeable when I'm ready to start the descent vs. when I'm first leveling off in cruise, something around 5 KIAS.

Now, a 414's gross weight is probably not even enough to make a 777 take off, but I would assume that it would be even more noticeable in those planes. If nothing else, less weight would allow a higher cruise altitude sooner, etc. I never noticed it in the smaller birds. The 310 would change maybe 2 KIAS from heavy to light, weight just didn't bother it at all.
 
According to airnav the runway length is 4007ft. Is this enough runway for this airplane to get back in the air?
 
jetrep said:
According to airnav the runway length is 4007ft. Is this enough runway for this airplane to get back in the air?
Click to expand...

Without pax, luggage and light on fuel, I doubt they'll have a problem.
 
Long gone.
 
Unusual, sure, but it looks like conservative decision-making given the circumstances; seems the captain knew he was in a pickle and wanted to get his passengers safe as quickly as possible. Wish everybody I flew with had clear priorities like this.
 
I'll have you guys know that Poteau is NOT Podunk!!!

Their claim to fame, by God, is having the highest hill in the World.

A beautiful little town it is. With a gorgeous 1,999' hill.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
More common now than it used to be. It takes fuel to carry fuel so in this day and age of cost conciousness a closer look is taken at the fuel we carry. Enough to do the mission plus a bit for contingencies but no more. Where I work, the Captain always has the option to add more.

The company has figured out that the fuel savings of this program are enough to justify the occasional diversion.
Click to expand...

At the airline I flew at we could add 200# without consulting dispatch. If we wanted more you called and told them, not ask, 'cause they'll sure argue with you about it. I won all my arguments BTW. :D
 
timwinters said:
Their claim to fame, by God, is having the highest hill in the World.

A beautiful little town it is. With a gorgeous 1,999' hill.
Click to expand...

You'd think by now somebody would have put a 13" rock on top of it.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
More common now than it used to be. It takes fuel to carry fuel so in this day and age of cost conciousness a closer look is taken at the fuel we carry. Enough to do the mission plus a bit for contingencies but no more. Where I work, the Captain always has the option to add more.

The company has figured out that the fuel savings of this program are enough to justify the occasional diversion.
Click to expand...

Do Captains who always want more fuel get the evil eye from the company?
 
Yeah... We routinely land the A320/321 with 5000 pounds.
 
I live in Poteau and train at FSM. If I hadn't been on vacation, I would have driven down there and checked it out! (And by the looks of my Facebook feed - half of town did check it out)
 
Does anyone know why they missed the approach at FSM and went to RKR?
 
Bobanna said:
Unusual, sure, but it looks like conservative decision-making given the circumstances; seems the captain knew he was in a pickle and wanted to get his passengers safe as quickly as possible. Wish everybody I flew with had clear priorities like this.
Click to expand...

THIS! :yeahthat:

Read where they couldn't get into their destination airport, went to their alternate and received windshear warnings there, and landed at this airport due to low fuel and thunderstorms all over. Appears to be a good decision to get the plane on the ground.
 
Bobanna said:
Unusual, sure, but it looks like conservative decision-making given the circumstances; seems the captain knew he was in a pickle and wanted to get his passengers safe as quickly as possible. Wish everybody I flew with had clear priorities like this.
Click to expand...

It's not the same situation, starting to run out of gas makes things more urgent. But, ASA261 is a study in what "maybe" could happen when worrying about "how are we going to get the pax home or to their connection" when something is going wrong and the airplane should get out of the air now. At one point In the communications with the company about where to land, the pilot says "we are passing up suitable airports." Whether starting down earlier to a suitable airport would have gotten them down before the jack screw bit the dust, we'll never know.
 
luvflyin said:
It's not the same situation, starting to run out of gas makes things more urgent. But, ASA261 is a study in what "maybe" could happen when worrying about "how are we going to get the pax home or to their connection" when something is going wrong and the airplane should get out of the air now. At one point In the communications with the company about where to land, the pilot says "we are passing up suitable airports." Whether starting down earlier to a suitable airport would have gotten them down before the jack screw bit the dust, we'll never know.
Click to expand...

Not all emergencies should result in an immediate landing, though. For example many a twin pilot has perished trying to LAND RIGHT NOW after an engine failure, rather than going to a better airport and setting up for success rather than failure. Usually it's not required.

In the case of ASA 261, I do think that landing sooner should've been the priority, just want to point out that some emergencies are "Land as soon as possible", some are "lAND RIGHT NOW" and some are "Land at the nearest suitable airport".
 
As annoyed as the passengers were with the crappy coffee at the Poteau FBO, I'm sure they'd all agree landing there was preferable to another wind-sheer induced go around.
 
It's just not possible to know the thought process of the crew. *If they thought they needed to land there*, for whatever reason, and everyone is safe without a bent airplane, that's all that counts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top