Why would a flight no longer considered airworthy be redirected like this?What happens to an airborne plane...
copy and scale one figure (wheel)
Removing files under particular conditions (number of files, file age)
How to advoid Unknown field: MyJSON.number
What does routing an IP address mean?
New brakes for 90s road bike
How to implement a feedback to keep the DC gain at zero for this conceptual passive filter?
Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face?
What is going on with 'gets(stdin)' on the site coderbyte?
Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?
Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?
Strong empirical falsification of quantum mechanics based on vacuum energy density
Does the Location of Line-Dash-Wedge Notations Matter?
What is going wrong in this circuit which supposedly should step down AC to arduino friendly voltage?
Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?
Aragorn's "guise" in the Orthanc Stone
What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)
Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?
Why a symmetric relation is defined: ∀x∀y( xRy⟹yRx) and not ∀x∀y (xRy⟺yRx)?
What does chmod -u do?
Open a doc from terminal, but not by its name
What changes for testers when they are testing in agile environments?
How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?
Non-trope happy ending?
How can "mimic phobia" be cured or prevented?
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?Who decided that the Boeing 737 MAX planes that were airborne when the grounding was issued cannot enter and land in EU air space?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 Mar 15 at 3:57
ymb1
68k7216361
asked Mar 14 at 13:56
MachavityMachavity
2,4562834
$endgroup$
|
show 5 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 Mar 15 at 3:57
ymb1
68k7216361
asked Mar 14 at 13:56
MachavityMachavity
2,4562834
$endgroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:44
19
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:25
27
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 17:45
2
$begingroup$
@FreeMan, India banned the Max with enough notice time to avoid this nonsense.
$endgroup$
– bogl
Mar 14 at 18:30
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 21:45
|
show 5 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 Mar 15 at 3:57
ymb1
68k7216361
asked Mar 14 at 13:56
MachavityMachavity
2,4562834
$endgroup$
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 Mar 15 at 3:57
ymb1
68k7216361
asked Mar 14 at 13:56
MachavityMachavity
2,4562834
edited Mar 15 at 3:57
ymb1
68k7216361
asked Mar 14 at 13:56
MachavityMachavity
2,4562834
edited Mar 15 at 3:57
ymb1
68k7216361
edited Mar 15 at 3:57
ymb1
68k7216361
edited Mar 15 at 3:57
ymb1
68k7216361
68k7216361
asked Mar 14 at 13:56
MachavityMachavity
2,4562834
asked Mar 14 at 13:56
MachavityMachavity
2,4562834
asked Mar 14 at 13:56
MachavityMachavity
2,4562834
2,4562834
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
Mar 14 at 15:44
19
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:25
27
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 17:45
2
$begingroup$
@FreeMan, India banned the Max with enough notice time to avoid this nonsense.
$endgroup$
– bogl
Mar 14 at 18:30
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 21:45
|
show 5 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
Mar 14 at 15:44
19
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:25
27
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 17:45
2
$begingroup$
@FreeMan, India banned the Max with enough notice time to avoid this nonsense.
$endgroup$
– bogl
Mar 14 at 18:30
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 21:45
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
Mar 14 at 15:44
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:44
19
19
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:25
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:25
27
27
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 17:45
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 17:45
2
2
$begingroup$
@FreeMan, India banned the Max with enough notice time to avoid this nonsense.
$endgroup$
– bogl
Mar 14 at 18:30
$begingroup$
@FreeMan, India banned the Max with enough notice time to avoid this nonsense.
$endgroup$
– bogl
Mar 14 at 18:30
5
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 21:45
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 21:45
|
show 5 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 Mar 14 at 21:55
reirab
14.2k139108
answered Mar 14 at 14:00
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
22k281102
$endgroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:32
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:36
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:37
4
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:37
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:18
|
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 Mar 15 at 10:44
a CVn
4,42921850
answered Mar 14 at 17:33
Vladimir FVladimir F
46128
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Mar 15 at 4:41
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 Mar 14 at 14:06
AfeAfe
4991514
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:45
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
Mar 14 at 15:53
4
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 16:10
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
Mar 14 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@bogl you're talking EU bureaucrats here, not logical beings... They closed EASA airspace even for flights already in EASA airspace. E.g. several TUI flights were forced to divert to airports in southern Europe, inside EASA airspace, when caught in the closure while already in EASA airspace on the way to airports further north from departures in Africa and the Middle East.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Mar 15 at 4:43
|
show 7 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 Mar 14 at 21:55
reirab
14.2k139108
answered Mar 14 at 14:00
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
22k281102
$endgroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:32
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:36
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:37
4
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:37
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:18
|
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 Mar 14 at 21:55
reirab
14.2k139108
answered Mar 14 at 14:00
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
22k281102
$endgroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:32
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:36
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:37
4
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:37
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:18
|
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 Mar 14 at 21:55
reirab
14.2k139108
answered Mar 14 at 14:00
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
22k281102
$endgroup$
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 Mar 14 at 21:55
reirab
14.2k139108
answered Mar 14 at 14:00
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
22k281102
edited Mar 14 at 21:55
reirab
14.2k139108
edited Mar 14 at 21:55
reirab
14.2k139108
edited Mar 14 at 21:55
reirab
14.2k139108
14.2k139108
answered Mar 14 at 14:00
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
22k281102
answered Mar 14 at 14:00
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
22k281102
answered Mar 14 at 14:00
Ron BeyerRon Beyer
22k281102
22k281102
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
Mar 14 at 15:32
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:36
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:37
4
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:37
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:18
|
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
Mar 14 at 15:32
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:36
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:37
4
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:37
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:18
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
Mar 14 at 15:32
$begingroup$
I don't get your first entry. If Turkey has closed their airspace, how come they were redirected to land there?
$endgroup$
– pipe
Mar 14 at 15:32
2
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:36
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:36
2
2
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:37
4
4
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:37
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 15:37
3
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:18
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:18
|
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 Mar 15 at 10:44
a CVn
4,42921850
answered Mar 14 at 17:33
Vladimir FVladimir F
46128
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Mar 15 at 4:41
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 Mar 15 at 10:44
a CVn
4,42921850
answered Mar 14 at 17:33
Vladimir FVladimir F
46128
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Mar 15 at 4:41
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 Mar 15 at 10:44
a CVn
4,42921850
answered Mar 14 at 17:33
Vladimir FVladimir F
46128
$endgroup$
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 Mar 15 at 10:44
a CVn
4,42921850
answered Mar 14 at 17:33
Vladimir FVladimir F
46128
edited Mar 15 at 10:44
a CVn
4,42921850
edited Mar 15 at 10:44
a CVn
4,42921850
edited Mar 15 at 10:44
a CVn
4,42921850
4,42921850
answered Mar 14 at 17:33
Vladimir FVladimir F
46128
answered Mar 14 at 17:33
Vladimir FVladimir F
46128
answered Mar 14 at 17:33
Vladimir FVladimir F
46128
46128
$begingroup$
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
Mar 15 at 4:41
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
Mar 15 at 4:41
$begingroup$
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
Mar 15 at 4:41
$begingroup$
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
Mar 15 at 4:41
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 Mar 14 at 14:06
AfeAfe
4991514
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:45
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
Mar 14 at 15:53
4
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 16:10
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
Mar 14 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@bogl you're talking EU bureaucrats here, not logical beings... They closed EASA airspace even for flights already in EASA airspace. E.g. several TUI flights were forced to divert to airports in southern Europe, inside EASA airspace, when caught in the closure while already in EASA airspace on the way to airports further north from departures in Africa and the Middle East.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Mar 15 at 4:43
|
show 7 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 Mar 14 at 14:06
AfeAfe
4991514
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:45
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
Mar 14 at 15:53
4
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 16:10
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
Mar 14 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@bogl you're talking EU bureaucrats here, not logical beings... They closed EASA airspace even for flights already in EASA airspace. E.g. several TUI flights were forced to divert to airports in southern Europe, inside EASA airspace, when caught in the closure while already in EASA airspace on the way to airports further north from departures in Africa and the Middle East.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Mar 15 at 4:43
|
show 7 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 Mar 14 at 14:06
AfeAfe
4991514
$endgroup$
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 Mar 14 at 14:06
AfeAfe
4991514
answered Mar 14 at 14:06
AfeAfe
4991514
answered Mar 14 at 14:06
AfeAfe
4991514
answered Mar 14 at 14:06
AfeAfe
4991514
4991514
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:45
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
Mar 14 at 15:53
4
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 16:10
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
Mar 14 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@bogl you're talking EU bureaucrats here, not logical beings... They closed EASA airspace even for flights already in EASA airspace. E.g. several TUI flights were forced to divert to airports in southern Europe, inside EASA airspace, when caught in the closure while already in EASA airspace on the way to airports further north from departures in Africa and the Middle East.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Mar 15 at 4:43
|
show 7 more comments
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:45
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
Mar 14 at 15:53
4
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 16:10
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
Mar 14 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@bogl you're talking EU bureaucrats here, not logical beings... They closed EASA airspace even for flights already in EASA airspace. E.g. several TUI flights were forced to divert to airports in southern Europe, inside EASA airspace, when caught in the closure while already in EASA airspace on the way to airports further north from departures in Africa and the Middle East.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Mar 15 at 4:43
5
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:45
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
Mar 14 at 15:53
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 15:53
4
4
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 16:10
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 16:10
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
Mar 14 at 17:42
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:42
1
1
$begingroup$
@bogl you're talking EU bureaucrats here, not logical beings... They closed EASA airspace even for flights already in EASA airspace. E.g. several TUI flights were forced to divert to airports in southern Europe, inside EASA airspace, when caught in the closure while already in EASA airspace on the way to airports further north from departures in Africa and the Middle East.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Mar 15 at 4:43
$begingroup$
@bogl you're talking EU bureaucrats here, not logical beings... They closed EASA airspace even for flights already in EASA airspace. E.g. several TUI flights were forced to divert to airports in southern Europe, inside EASA airspace, when caught in the closure while already in EASA airspace on the way to airports further north from departures in Africa and the Middle East.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Mar 15 at 4:43
|
show 7 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
Mar 14 at 15:44
19
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 17:25
27
$begingroup$
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
Mar 14 at 17:45
2
$begingroup$
@FreeMan, India banned the Max with enough notice time to avoid this nonsense.
$endgroup$
– bogl
Mar 14 at 18:30
5
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 14 at 21:45