United flight diverted to DFW

TangoWhiskey

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name
Display name:
3Green
It's not on the national news web sites yet, but our local stations in DFW are covering a United Flight that was diverted to DFW (just landed at 8:48 CST), Atlanta bound [Edited: enroute from Atlanta to SFO], I think.

Before takeoff, a backback not 'connected' to any passenger was found on board and removed. Enroute, a BlackBerry not 'connected' to any passenger was found. They decided to break any chain and divert, given the date and circumstances. Fighters were sent to escort.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
*sigh*
Click to expand...

They diverted due to "an abundance of caution". The airline feared that the backpack might have contained a device that the Blackberry was intended to remotely detonate.
 
Troy Whistman said:
They diverted due to "an abundance of caution". The airline feared that the backpack might have contained a device that the Blackberry was intended to remotely detonate.
Click to expand...

As I said...
 
I guess it could have been worse - at least they didn't find a bottle of water and a tube of toothpaste not connected with any passenger. To be serious tho, I would think a backpack and a blackberry are not things one would normally not be able to connect up to a passenger - I guess I would be concerned by that as well. However, I would think I would be going thru the backback rather than diverting.
 
gkainz said:
I guess it could have been worse - at least they didn't find a bottle of water and a tube of toothpaste not connected with any passenger. To be serious tho, I would think a backpack and a blackberry are not things one would normally not be able to connect up to a passenger - I guess I would be concerned by that as well. However, I would think I would be going thru the backback rather than diverting.
Click to expand...

The backpack came off the flight prior to departure. You'd think somebody would have already had time to look it over for anything dangerous.

How many people get off a flight and leave a backpack AND a blackberry? I've left a cell phone or camera before, but not all my carry-on!
 
smigaldi said:
I strongly disagree. It has for a very long time been ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If they follow in the steps of the shoe carnival, backpacks and Blackberries will now be banned.

BTW, I knew someone who left his crackberry on airplanes 3 times. Slipped down in the seat pocket, and he wasn't looking for it until he was in the taxi. Oops.

The NY Times opined this weekend that all carryons should be banned, including computers. The only thing allowed should be some reading material.

Sigh.
 
wsuffa said:
If they follow in the steps of the shoe carnival, backpacks and Blackberries will now be banned.

BTW, I knew someone who left his crackberry on airplanes 3 times. Slipped down in the seat pocket, and he wasn't looking for it until he was in the taxi. Oops.

The NY Times opined this weekend that all carryons should be banned, including computers. The only thing allowed should be some reading material.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

Thats why as soon as i heard about this i got so annoyed!! I work at cingular, people loose their phones on planes ALLL the time, i hear about it every other day. Over zealous flight attendants if you ask me. I assume the pilots would have made their decsion to land based on what they were told from the people in the cabin.
 
Darrell111 said:
Over zealous flight attendants if you ask me. I assume the pilots would have made their decsion to land based on what they were told from the people in the cabin.
Click to expand...

Likely scenario:

Ding/Dong - CA to FA "yes"
FA to CA "a pax found a blackberry, not his, in the seat in front of him."
CA to FA " okay, stand by"
CA then consults any ops bulletins applicable, and probably notifies dispatch through ACARS and is told something like - "It's your call Captain, but we think you should land at the nearest suitable airport"
Dong/Ding - FA to CA "hi there"
CA to FA - we will be landing at DFW to unload the black berry, I'll make an announcement to the pax in a minute - we'll be landing in 30 minutes."
FA to CA - "any thing to worry about"
CA to FA - "no, probably not but let's not take any chances"
FA to CA - "sounds good to me, talk to you before landing"

I am a former 121 Captain and I can also see it going the other way with the ground saying "don't worry about it" and the Captain saying "nah, I think I'll land anyway." The only wrong decision the CA can make is not to land. At lest in the current security climate.
 
Darrell111 said:
Thats why as soon as i heard about this i got so annoyed!! I work at cingular, people loose their phones on planes ALLL the time, i hear about it every other day. Over zealous flight attendants if you ask me. I assume the pilots would have made their decsion to land based on what they were told from the people in the cabin.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have made more sense to land in Oklahoma City if getting on the ground was so critical? Or does the descent profile of a jet from the flight levels make this make more sense:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL351/history/20060911/1122Z/KATL/KSFO
 
wsuffa said:
If they follow in the steps of the shoe carnival, backpacks and Blackberries will now be banned.

BTW, I knew someone who left his crackberry on airplanes 3 times. Slipped down in the seat pocket, and he wasn't looking for it until he was in the taxi. Oops.

The NY Times opined this weekend that all carryons should be banned, including computers. The only thing allowed should be some reading material.

Sigh.
Click to expand...


it would make security a breeze but also result in a lot of really ****ed off people. me included.
 
woodstock said:
it would make security a breeze but also result in a lot of really ****ed off people. me included.
Click to expand...
There''s reason that the DHS back pedaled at Mach 1 on the reported laptop ban post the U.K. threat. The airlines must have pushed the "Why don't we just stop flying entirely?" button. They know that would be the last straw for business travelers.

I have other stuff I have to have that will not get out of my sight.
 
Troy Whistman said:
Wouldn't it have made more sense to land in Oklahoma City if getting on the ground was so critical? Or does the descent profile of a jet from the flight levels make this make more sense:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL351/history/20060911/1122Z/KATL/KSFO
Click to expand...

That pic right there just made this whole situation FUNNY! If it was such a threat and so urgent, they wouldn't have gone such a long way to land when they were right by OKC .. ridiculous
 
You know, I'm not 100% sure that was a bad idea landing this time. That is a very strange combo - unclaimed backpack, followed by unclaimed blackberry.

Here's your options:
a) Don't land, plane either blows up or makes it safely to its destination
b) Land. Plane doesn't blow up. Period.

I'd choose option b also.
 
Darrell111 said:
That pic right there just made this whole situation FUNNY! If it was such a threat and so urgent, they wouldn't have gone such a long way to land when they were right by OKC .. ridiculous
Click to expand...

Takes a long time to get down from way up there. I'll bet landing at DFW would not have been any longer than having to descend in a hold at OKC.

I think the flight that landed due to a bottle of water was ridiculous, but in today's climate, had I been the captain in this case, I'd have landed too. :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Takes a long time to get down from way up there. I'll bet landing at DFW would not have been any longer than having to descend in a hold at OKC.

I think the flight that landed due to a bottle of water was ridiculous, but in today's climate, had I been the captain in this case, I'd have landed too. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I doubt it, if it was a TRUE emergency they could have had that puppy down VERy quickly. It was just precautionary
 
sure throw out the airbrakes, flaps, bank over in a hard slip. just make sure your seats and trays are in the upright position, oh yea and have those sic sacs ready!
 
Darrell111 said:
I doubt it, if it was a TRUE emergency they could have had that puppy down VERy quickly. It was just precautionary
Click to expand...

But it was not an emergency, it was a preacautionary and the carrier likely had many more resources at its disposal in DFW than OKC. Resources such as: alternate travel arrangements to cover missed connections in SFO, better MTX facilities if further disassembly of the aircraft was required, perhaps a better fuel contract and better pax handling facilities. Diversions are never simple in an air carrier context and closest is not always best.
 
Arnold said:
But it was not an emergency, it was a preacautionary and the carrier likely had many more resources at its disposal in DFW than OKC. Resources such as: alternate travel arrangements to cover missed connections in SFO, better MTX facilities if further disassembly of the aircraft was required, perhaps a better fuel contract and better pax handling facilities. Diversions are never simple in an air carrier context and closest is not always best.
Click to expand...

And, I'd guess, better passenger screening equipment. Besides, OKC is home to the FAA, and I'd think that they wouldn't particularly care to have a potential 'situation' at an airport loaded with govt workers.
 
Arnold said:
But it was not an emergency, it was a preacautionary and the carrier likely had many more resources at its disposal in DFW than OKC. Resources such as: alternate travel arrangements to cover missed connections in SFO, better MTX facilities if further disassembly of the aircraft was required, perhaps a better fuel contract and better pax handling facilities. Diversions are never simple in an air carrier context and closest is not always best.
Click to expand...

Better bomb squad availability.
 
Darrell111 said:
That pic right there just made this whole situation FUNNY! If it was such a threat and so urgent, they wouldn't have gone such a long way to land when they were right by OKC .. ridiculous
Click to expand...

Not when you consider the altitude and a plane that has a 12:1 or better glide ratio. It's easier to go to DFW and the time to descend will be approximately the same to OKC. What're you gonna do, put it into steep spiral all dirty and subject the passengers to sustained 2gs for thirty thousand feet? Nah, DFW easy run in, time to get sequenced, get the ramp/gate secured. The company has facilities there.... Lottsa stuff says this was the right place as well as the right call. Basically, in todays operating environment, a captain has no real choice in this matter. If it had been the Blackberry alone, ok. Pull the battery if you can on those.
When combined with the backpack though, then you have to consider, "We found 2 things, the second almost half way thru the flight? What else may there be?" No, I think he made the only decision he could rationally chose in his position. He is the one responsible for all the lives aboard, no one else. You just don't take those kind of chances for the sake of convienience or a bit of fuel. You just don't.
 
Last edited:
Troy Whistman said:
Wouldn't it have made more sense to land in Oklahoma City if getting on the ground was so critical? Or does the descent profile of a jet from the flight levels make this make more sense:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL351/history/20060911/1122Z/KATL/KSFO
Click to expand...

Huh, he flew right over my old place in TX, and that means his path also left him with Sheppard AFB about the halfway point if something else came up that required an expedited decent for somewhere with military level crash & explosives equipment and not in an urban center (unless you consider Wichita Falls urban). Nah, he had a good routing, can't just drop out of 30,000' doing steep spirals. It's all good on this one. Proper decission making prevailed.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
You know, I'm not 100% sure that was a bad idea landing this time. That is a very strange combo - unclaimed backpack, followed by unclaimed blackberry.

Here's your options:
a) Don't land, plane either blows up or makes it safely to its destination
b) Land. Plane doesn't blow up. Period.

I'd choose option b also.
Click to expand...

Considering option A isn't viable; yep, B it is.
 
tonycondon said:
sure throw out the airbrakes, flaps, bank over in a hard slip. just make sure your seats and trays are in the upright position, oh yea and have those sic sacs ready!
Click to expand...

No kidding, think about a sustained 2g steep spiral from 30,000':eek: can you sayb:vomit: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit:
 
And another danger piece of electronic hardware bites the dust, we must all thank TSA and it associated agencies for protecting us from the infamous Blackberry.
 
smigaldi said:
I strongly disagree. It has for a very long time been ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What is so rediculous about this? The Atlanta olympics featured a backpack bomb. If they fear a bomb, nobody is just going to "open it", - that just might trigger it. A bomb squad could take awhile arrive, secure and transport the backpack to a safe location where it can be detonated. That's what they do with suspicious packages these days, they don't just open them to see if they "lucked out".

I agree a lot of rediculous things seem to go on, I just don't see where this is one. They seem to be folllowing the book.
 
wsuffa said:
If they follow in the steps of the shoe carnival, backpacks and Blackberries will now be banned.

BTW, I knew someone who left his crackberry on airplanes 3 times. Slipped down in the seat pocket, and he wasn't looking for it until he was in the taxi. Oops.

The NY Times opined this weekend that all carryons should be banned, including computers. The only thing allowed should be some reading material.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

As a travelling consultant I would be ****ED to the point of not travelling via airlines as much as possible.
 
has anyone tried to ship their bags to their destination? I know it's likely to be spendy - but have you tried it?
 
woodstock said:
has anyone tried to ship their bags to their destination? I know it's likely to be spendy - but have you tried it?
Click to expand...

Why would you do that rather than just checking them?
 
woodstock said:
has anyone tried to ship their bags to their destination? I know it's likely to be spendy - but have you tried it?
Click to expand...

The answer is, no, though someone I used to work with shipped his golf clubs until the company put an end to it.

On a practical matter, it is impractical to ship bags when you do a day or less in each city, and it becomes nearly impossible to check them - for the same reason as airline crews don't check them - schedules change, schedules are tight, and checked bags often don't show up. I ended up in Amsterdam one Sunday, with early Monday meetings, and a checked bag didn't show. No more flights from the States on that airline for the day. Not fun to be trying to find an open store on Sunday in a foreign market (fortunately, one of the people I was meeting had friends that owned shops....). That is the last time I've checked a bag willingly.
 
Well im flying to Boston tonight, Everyone pray for me that a backberry or a random unclaimed Goat does not make us sit down in Nashville. I really want to get to the cape, i hear the weather is nice :D :D
 
woodstock said:
has anyone tried to ship their bags to their destination? I know it's likely to be spendy - but have you tried it?
Click to expand...

I do it a lot. Depending on the boat I'm picking up, my "Sea Gear" can be quite heavy when my tool boxes go. UPS does me well.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Why would you do that rather than just checking them?
Click to expand...

Sometimes I need to take 100 kgs or more of "stuff" (tools, gear, rigging, engine parts...) to go get a boat. Cheaper and easier to drop at UPS and it gets delivered right to the dock. If I checked, it would cost a fortune & I have to shlep.
 
SkyHog said:
You know, I'm not 100% sure that was a bad idea landing this time. That is a very strange combo - unclaimed backpack, followed by unclaimed blackberry.

Here's your options:
a) Don't land, plane either blows up or makes it safely to its destination
b) Land. Plane doesn't blow up. Period.

I'd choose option b also.
Click to expand...

b) is no guarantee of anything but expensive inconvenience.

i.e:
c) Land, bomb blows up, either triggered enroute by pressure altitude sensed by commonly available and small piezo devices, in descent or on the ground.
 
 
I figured the wineries would be the ones very affected by the new rules. I inquired into shipping a case of Brunello home from Italy - the wine, and the shipping, came to over 700 bucks. (most of that was the wine but still - 20 bucks a bottle to ship). needless to say I just bought three bottles and carried them on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top