Passengers on a transatlantic Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) flight yesterday were in for quite an unpleasant ride. Not only did the flight encounter severe turbulence, but after flying for over 10 hours, the plane landed only 340 miles from where it originated.
In this post:
SAS A330 encounters severe turbulence over Atlantic
This incident happened on Thursday, November 14, 2024, and involves SAS flight SK957, scheduled to operate from Stockholm (ARN) to Miami (MIA). The flight was operated by a nine-year-old Airbus A330-300 with the registration code LN-RKS, and had 254 passengers onboard.
This 4,977-mile flight typically spends just under 10 hours in the air. That was also true on yesterday’s flight, except passengers didn’t end up where they were expecting to. So, what happened here?
The plane took off from Stockholm at 1:10PM local time, and started its transatlantic crossing, flying over the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland. However, just over five hours into the flight, while flying over the Labrador Sea between Greenland and Newfoundland, the aircraft encountered severe turbulence.
Pictures and video footage from inside the cabin are wild, with people and service items flying up. The great news is that there were no serious injuries. It’s a good reminder of the importance of always being strapped in while seated.
While I wouldn’t always trust this data to be 100% accurate, Flightradar24 suggests that the jet dropped from 36,000 feet to 27,000 feet in a very short period of time.
SAS A330 then diverts… to Copenhagen?!
Often when there’s severe turbulence, planes will divert to one of the nearest airports, due to injuries, the general cabin condition, etc. This SAS A330 did in fact divert, but not to where you’d expect.
It didn’t fly to one of the nearest major airports. Instead, even though it was approaching North America, the decision was made to fly all the way to Copenhagen, a roughly five hour flight away. What’s pretty shocking is that Copenhagen was further from the aircraft’s position than its destination of Miami.
The plane landed in Copenhagen at 11:15PM, after a flight time of 10hr5min. All passengers received overnight accommodation, and were rebooked on flights to Miami today (November 15).
Why would SAS make the decision to divert to Copenhagen, which is neither the origin or destination, where there’s a total flight time that’s longer than it would’ve been if the plane just continued to Miami? Well, as an SAS spokesperson explains:
“Following such turbulence, standard safety procedures require a thorough inspection of the aircraft. SAS have the best facilities and staff for this level of inspection in Copenhagen/CPH, and we therefore decided to reroute the aircraft here, where both hangar space and qualified technicians were available. Flying the aircraft to MIA would have resulted in it being grounded for an extended period, leading to multiple cancellations.”
This is far from the first time we’ve seen an airline turn a flight around, even though it’s more than halfway to its destination, and there’s no immediate threat. Airlines do value having aircraft back at their biggest bases in situations like this.
Now, I do wonder, could an inspection like this not be carried out by a third party at an outstation? Or did the airline know there was damage to the interior of the jet, and wanted to get it fixed before having it reenter service?
Obviously this is an unenviable situation all around. For passengers, the initial severe turbulence situation was probably terrifying, and then they had to fly for another five hours in a pretty messy cabin, to a destination they didn’t even intend to travel to. Then they had to do the whole thing again the following day.
Bottom line
An SAS A330 bound for Copenhagen encountered severe turbulence during its transatlantic crossing, between Greenland and Newfoundland. Even though the jet was over halfway complete with its journey, the decision was made to return to Copenhagen, which is the carrier’s biggest hub.
In the end, the plane landed in Copenhagen over 10 hours after it first departed Stockholm, and all passengers were rebooked for the following day.
What do you make of this SAS A330 diversion?
Very strange tale. They could have diverted to a closer Airport or go on to Miami. United and SAS have a huge partnership- go to ORD and get maintenance done on the aircraft there. Makes you think there is MORE to the story.
Can't fly back to ARN.
The real reason they diverted to CPH.
Crazy Greta was waiting to tell the pilots How dare you.
After watching a 2 liter ( 4.5 lb ) soda bottle flying up to the ceiling, I imagine the cabin suffered quite a bit of damage. While going to Copenhagen was inconvenient for the passengers, it was the correct action.
The diversion wasn't safety-related, the plane was closer to MIA than to CPH. It doesn't mean it wasn't the correct course of action, but it was about operational convenience for SAS rather than anything else.
The last time something similar happened was probably an ANA 77W flew like 4 hours out of LAX, with John Legend and Chrissy Teigen in F, before they found someone without a valid ticket and flew back to offload that person. This was the headline on Good Morning America that day lol.
Letting someone that shouldn't have boarded board also happened to JAL in Paris once, thankfully they'd just pushed back from the gate.
...The last time something similar happened was probably an ANA 77W flew like 4 hours out of LAX, with John Legend and Chrissy Teigen in F, before they found someone without a valid ticket and flew back to offload that person. This was the headline on Good Morning America that day lol.
Letting someone that shouldn't have boarded board also happened to JAL in Paris once, thankfully they'd just pushed back from the gate.
SAS put their cost before the customer, not to mention the flight crew probably didn't watch the radar religiously enough and flew into clouds they shouldn't have. But that's why their finances have been crap for so many years, a cycle we see all too often.
I read this story and it seems like it was someone who had a UA instead of an ANA ticket.
And it's quite understandable, given the JV and flight times, I have quite literally mistaken my ANA departure gate with the UA one as well, except it's at SFO.
“While I wouldn’t always trust this data to be 100% accurate, Flightradar24 suggests that the jet dropped from 36,000 feet to 27,000 feet in a very short period of time.”
What’s more likely, the plane dropped 9k feet from record-shattering turbulence or the pilots immediately descended to better air? Pretty sure Ian talked about this on the podcast fairly recently regarding a similar incident where the media took FR24 data out of context. Alas, only time will tell…
Are there no aircraft maintenance facilities in Miami!? Or one of the airports closer to where the aircraft was - could have gone to Chicago where SAS has a huge partnership with United (could obtain maintenance support). For shame. Wonder what the ACTUAL reason to turn back was?
Yep, everything's a conspiracy
Yes, or perhaps your testes haven't descnded!?
Maintenance could definitely have been done in Miami. However, as congested as Miami is, I can't imagine how long it would have been to "get on the standby list" for both hangar space and qualified maintenance to perform it.