All
← Back to Squawk list
Air France A350 Pilots Denied Clearance by Chicago O’Hare, Flight Returns to Paris
PARIS- An Air France (AF) transatlantic flight to Chicago O’Hare (ORD) was forced to return to Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG) after nearly seven hours in the air. (aviationa2z.com) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Add in the speculation as to why it turned back and you have a story that should never have been printed.
Most of these sites are created specifically for the purpose of serving ads. If you notice the format, each page renders at least six or more in-line advertisements using a structure that forces the reader to scroll past them to reach the next paragraph. The "reporting" is written with as little effort as possible with the main focus being a title or thumbnail that grabs attention. If you are really interested in the story, rather than clicking the link paste the text into ChatGPT or something similar that suppresses the advertisements.
Is this an advertisement for ChatGPT-lol
Don't you love it when these big companies use meaningless jargon like "operational reasons"? It tells their customers precisely nothing and obviates further enquiries. Consider it a raised middle finger from management to you.
That is a Long Air Return, Nealy 1/2 way.. WOW... I would guess it was the result of paperwork, because they were later able to make the flight! In Maintenance, we have always said that a plane is not airworthy until the paperwork weighs more than the Aircraft! (As the old saying would say). Most believe that Fuel, Engines, and Wings make it possible.. However, the paperwork plays an even bigger roll. I have seen more than 1 flight canceled or delayed due to a fault in the paperwork.
Let’s try to piece this together. It was not half way according to the report and the published flight track. By flight time, the turn around happened about two hours into an eight plus hour flight. Looking at the flight track, it seems to be about 950 NM after departure which correlates to about two hours. Two hours out, two hours back. Four hours ona return is not half way (ok a quarter of the way if you want but I don’t think they actually got that far). O’Hare “controllers” had nothing to do with this issue, the flight would have been being handled by Shanwick. The remainder of the article talking about the so called similar incident is so much hooy. ORD is one of the largest airports in the world and handles every conceivable aircraft without restriction. It’s not clear at all what the reason was, it’s also quite possible, especially considering the location of the turn around the there was an inflight malfunction that precluded entry into the oceanic airspace although considering where they were going it should have been possible to continue to destination by a some more northerly route.
The flight departed at 12:49 and turned back at 16:30. That's almost 4 hours or half way through an 8 hour flight.
The article in the first sentence states “ was forced to return to Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG) after nearly seven hours in the air.”. This is factually incorrect. If they had been turned around after seven hours, the total flight would have been 14 hours. Since they had four hours in the air and returned to their departure point, they obviously turned around after two hours which is not quite a quarter of the flight to Chicago.
It says they returned to Paris after 7 hours in the air. The flight departed at 12:49 and turned back at 16:30.
Here's a great example of how poor use of grammar can really confuse/misrepresent a situation. The action described in the article was the flight being "forced to return" and the condition was "after seven hours." Not grammatically correct, as the writer's poor use of the English language implies that the RETURN happened seven hours into the flight, however that's when the flight was COMPLETED. A more grammatically correct (but less dramatic) sentence would have read "An Air France flight landed back in Paris, nearly seven hours after departing from there, after being turned back in-flight..." Alan, Michael Osmers' math is much closer than yours. The flight departed the GATE at 12:49. it did not take OFF (ie, begin the actual flight) until 23 minutes later. Because the flight was outside of ADS-B coverage when it got turned around, we don't know the EXACT point it turned around, but it could be interpolated that the 1630 CEST (1430 UTC) time is correct. So more like about 3:15 into the flight. More than two, but not quite four hours in either.
Sadly, too many people do not pay attention in English class where they can learn proper English. Phrasing of a sentence makes a huge difference in how a point is made. I agree that if the writer had stated that "the plane landed after 7 hours in the air," people would not be arguing this point whatsoever. Those who complain about grammar nazis fail to realize such. Case in point, a part and apart will change the whole meaning of a sentence. I see this stuff all the time. :/
Even if the total flight time was 7 hours (and I do think you're correct in your interpretation), that's *still* a long and newsworthy deviation. I always wonder why flights like the can't deviate to somewhere much closer (Shannon, Dublin, Belfast) to minimize flight time, if there's a safety-of-flight issue. I suppose when you factor in all the resources involved (new crew, mechanics to fix the plane, parts to fix the plane, landing fees internationally, etc.) it probably makes sense to go back to home (air)port.
The plane was barely on the Atlantic tracks when it turned around! Not like the plane was on approach in ORD.
Sensationalism at its finest