It’s not uncommon for aircraft to have to divert to their origin airport due to a maintenance issue. While that can be unnerving, I think it pales in comparison to the crew briefing passengers to prepare for a possible water landing…
In this post:
Brand new Spirit Airlines A321neo returns to Montego Bay
This incident happened on Sunday, May 26, 2024, and involves Spirit Airlines flight NK270, scheduled to operate the 540-mile journey from Montego Bay (MBJ) to Fort Lauderdale (FLL). The aircraft used for this flight was a brand new Airbus A321neo with the registration code N781NK, which just joined Spirit’s fleet last month (thank goodness it wasn’t a Boeing, or else some people would no doubt be calling on all Boeing jets to be grounded).
The aircraft took off at 1:24PM, and climbed up to 5,000 feet. However, the aircraft quickly encountered an issue, and had to return to the airport. According to those onboard, the pilots told the passengers to prepare for a water landing. The flight attendants then briefed passengers about how to put on their life jackets.
Fortunately that water ditching wasn’t actually needed, and the aircraft landed back in Montego Bay at 1:46PM, just 22 minutes after it departed. The aircraft was met by emergency services, though there were no injuries. The flight ended up being canceled, and the aircraft is still on the ground in Montego Bay as of the time this story is published.
It’s not entirely clear as of now what the issue was that caused the diversion. Based on looking at flight tracking software, it looks like the plane was able to maintain its altitude, as it leveled off at 5,000 feet, prior to descending, and then leveling off at 3,000 feet.
It’s also not known why the cabin was prepared for a water landing. As far as I know, this isn’t standard for all diversions involving an island departure. So was there an additional risk and actual concern that the plane wouldn’t make it back to the runway, was it a miscommunication, or what?
This reminds me of that Cathay Pacific incident
It seems like in the above case, the water landing preparations were just made out of an abundance of caution, rather than because a water ditching was actually planned. I think it’s safe to say that the thought of an aircraft “landing” in the water would terrify just about anyone.
This concept always reminds me of a 2015 Cathay Pacific Boeing 777-300ER flight from Hong Kong (HKG) to Los Angeles (LAX). The aircraft was over the Bering Sea, when smoke detectors went off. Smoke (or a fire) over water is of course incredibly concerning, given the lack of diversion points.
The plane ended up safely diverting to the remote Eareckson Air Station in the Aleutian Islands (a remote part of Alaska), formerly known as the Shemya Air Force Base.
Given how remote the airport is, plus that it’s a US air base, passengers ended up having to stay onboard the aircraft for an extended period of time, prior to eventually continuing to Anchorage (ANC).
Video footage from inside the cabin gives me goosebumps, since I can’t even imagine how terrifying it is to think that you might have to ditch in the Bering Sea, far from any civilization.
Bottom line
A brand new Spirit Airlines Airbus A321neo had a pretty eventful diversion yesterday, whereby passengers were told to prepare for a water landing. While aircraft divert with some frequency, preparing for a water landing isn’t common. It remains to be seen what exactly happened that caused the pilots to prepare the cabin in this way. Fortunately the plane managed to land back at the airport safely.
What do you make of this Spirit Airlines diversion?
Did Spirit charge extra for this experience?
funny despite serious situation!
I listened to the audio that accompanied a cabin video clip.
Three high chimes + one low chime is the flight deck notifying the cabin crew to "prepare for an emergency".
The reference to Boeing was juvenile.
Not considering the way Boeing is misportrayed I’m hysterical headlines and stories
Not in the least!! Let’s just say the unexpected deaths of whistleblowers does not speak for their willingness to exhibit transparency!
The plane'ś registration is N718NK, article has the digits transposed.
In sept 1998 i awoke in zermatt Switzerland and learned that the swissair flight from usa to zrh had crashed offsure while attemting an emergency landing in canada due to a fire in leectronic equipment.
That was SWR111 JFK GVA not ZRH by the way and I remember it like it was yesterday
We had customers on that flight
I was recently on a Delta domestic flight in first class. My iPhone was connected to Delta wi-fi and Airplane Mode was on, yet I was able to get a phone call from a relative, answer it, and talk at 32000 feet. The steward then said “you can’t talk on phone during flight”.
Is it normal that you can even make a call on your cell in flight? Is it dangerous? I was under the impression that in airplane mode, this could not happen
You must have had WiFi calling enabled and calls can go through without cell service
I was on the CX flight you mentioned. As luck would have it, I had redeemed AA miles for CX first class, back when that was a thing you could actually do. Talk about a flight where first class came in handy. Nothing but professionalism from the crew in what was a truly wild situation.
Wasn't there, but going to surmise that in the face of a potential life threatening ordeal, no one in the crew actually gave a damn about what class you were booked into.
I suspect that what Tyler meant was that what came in handy was having a first class *seat* during the long time spent on the ground, during which passengers were not allowed off the aircraft.
Dang, what a miserable cynical fool with no reading comprehension or common sense understanding.
Eastern Flight 855 in 1983 is another fun near-ditching story.
Always good to be prepared for the worst and to be grateful for the best.
Another AIR BUS problem where is the leadership accountability
I think the announcement was made out of an abundance of caution. The pilot may of been still getting their bearings on the issue and how "bad" things were and made that announcement to FA as a precaution. Spirit is the safest airline in the US for a reason.
"As far as I know, this isn’t standard for all diversions involving an island departure."
When did Ben become a FAA-certified airman?
If there is a potential risk of water landing, you want the passengers to be prepared ahead of time as much as possible, instead of last minute panic.
Give the guy a break. He said "as far as I know," which is hardly a declaration of professionalism. It is so boring when some people refuse, or are unable to, use common sense and "read" context into a given statement. You must be a lawyer.
I actually don’t think of water landings as terrifying as say the Rockies. If I don’t have a runway I want a nice flat open area to come in slow and roll to a stop. Water with the possibility of quick rescue sounds better than the side of a mountain.
Also I’d love to fly in a Seaplane :-).
Except that you can count on one hand the amount of commercial jets that have made a landing on water post-V2 speed, without mass fatalities.
Before Sully, Ethiopian 961 was actually considered one of the "success stories" of a total ditching at sea-- yet still the majority of passengers perished (though not actually from impact).
The primarily-survivable incidents have mostly been overruns by planes that had already successfully made it to a runway.
Indeed would be terrifying to receive that announcement, but better safe than sorry. I hope everyone avoids speculation as to the cause given that we have no information about the incident other than its return to MBJ and the cabin announcement. That includes the CX reference.
Any idea how/when the passengers made it to FLL?
Small note, the Aleutian Islands are not "near" Alaska, they are part of Alaska. Perhaps edit to reference near "mainland" Alaska?
Why not be more familiar with the topic, before suggesting edits? Not all of the Aleutians are part of Alaska.
"Aleutian Islands" includes the Komandorski Islands, but they're part of Russia.
Why not be pragmatic instead of dogmatic? The Commander Islands are what you reference as part of Russia, separate name, a small group of islands, though yes part of the geographic chain. The vast bulk of the Aleutian Islands are so named, and most frequently referenced as part of Alaska. Maybe you also could have noted the US Air Force based where the aircraft landed. Enjoy your seemingly feeble life.
Anyways...back to the Spirit Airlines incident...
funny how you want to dish out corrections to Ben but dont like getting corrected yourself man
I give you credit for a good reply. Clever and arguably accurate.
But please also note the facts that I pointed out, which you don’t seem to factor.
Anyways, have a good eve.
"But please also note the facts that I pointed out"
None of which negate the fact that you got corrected, in the process of attempting to correct someone else, and now appear too butt-hurt to take the L.
Hah, teenage temper tantrums by people that hide behind curtains. That’s what this blog has become…
Stats on ditching are very favorable. Assuming decent weather and proximity to rescue there is no reason to be terrified.
I think 99% of the flying public would disagree about having no reason to be terrified. And what data source are you referencing that commercial aircraft ditching are "very favorable", in outcomes I assume you mean. Sully? Sure, but I think that incident is widely understood to be an exception?
https://www.nanaimoflyingclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/EQUIPPED-TO-SURVIVE-tm-Ditching-Myths-Torpedoed.pdf
General aviation survival rate for ditching is about 90%.
I believe that for commercial aviation with aircraft that are much better designed for a water landing and better survival equipment that a controlled ditching should be survivable for all parties involved.
Your belief does not comport to history.... at all.
Runway overruns aside: commercial jets ditching in water, post V2 takeoff speed, has almost always resulted in not only f@talities-- but mass f@talities. (why does this site block that word?)
...Your belief does not comport to history.... at all.
Runway overruns aside: commercial jets ditching in water, post V2 takeoff speed, has almost always resulted in not only f@talities-- but mass f@talities. (why does this site block that word?)
Sully/USAirways was a VERY rare exception, and that was on a river with a comparatively flat water surface; contrasted to the sea, where it'd be much easier to clip and wing and cartwheel the whole airframe.
This article would argue a different claim as well.
https://fearoflanding.com/demystifying/how-many-successful-ditchings-of-commercial-airliners/
The number is much larger than zero. Perhaps not the 90% as in general aviation, but if the aircraft can be controlled to the water, the weather isn’t terrible (as I stated) and you’re close to land (as I again stated) then ditching is something most people should survive.
Um, you have JL002 and US1549.
What "much larger" number are you referencing?
From the second link I provided…
“ Now, there’s no end of lists on the internet but they all disagree, sometimes even with themselves.
Aviation Safety Network lists 312 occurrences with a result of Emergency, forced landing – Ditching. There’s no way to limit this to only commercial flights but it is certainly immediately obvious that US-based passenger aircraft have been ditching since the 1930s.
Wikipedia’s Water Landing page states in the first paragraph that...
From the second link I provided…
“ Now, there’s no end of lists on the internet but they all disagree, sometimes even with themselves.
Aviation Safety Network lists 312 occurrences with a result of Emergency, forced landing – Ditching. There’s no way to limit this to only commercial flights but it is certainly immediately obvious that US-based passenger aircraft have been ditching since the 1930s.
Wikipedia’s Water Landing page states in the first paragraph that there have been nine intentional commercial airliner ditchings and then goes on to list twenty examples, where Ethiopian 961 is listed both as a planned and as an unplanned water ditching.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia’s Emergency Landing page claimed that there were only eight 8 intentional ditchings, a list which has since been removed.
AirSafe.com Jet airliner Ditching Events, the most commonly cited list, gives only four ditching events but it is clear that they are limiting their list to passenger jet airliner services. I’m not sure why one would be specific about jet airliners; it seems an odd restriction to me.
Skybrary’s article on Ditching: Fixed Wing Aircraft doesn’t give a number but offers four examples.
In an academic paper Review of Transport Aircraft Ditching Accidents, a compilation of all known planned ditching events of passenger transport jet aircraft, six ditching events are named.”
That same link also lists pan am flight 6 in 1956. JAL flight 2 in 1968 mistakenly landed in San Francisco Bay short of the runway. Not an intentional ditching, but does demonstrate that water landings can be done safely.
Even if you go with the conservative numbers it is several more than zero. Given how safe commercial air travel is in general, you’re not going to have 200 commercial ditchings; but it is more than zero, or just two.
Despite all that you wrote, you still don't quite seem to grasp that those lists narrow down to a grand total of 2 commercial jet aircraft splashing down without fatalities.... with the flight numbers given above.
So, once again, where is this "much larger" number you seem to believe exists?
Pan-am flight 6 had no fatalities. A commercial airliner - albeit propeller driven.
In 2021 a cargo 737 was successfully ditched in Honolulu bay, with both pilots surviving. It wouldn’t be a leap to assume nearly all passengers would have survived if a passenger plane.
Guardia Indonesia flight 421 (Boeing 737) ditched with only a single fatality in 2002.
So there is three you didn’t list.
I also said that the...
Pan-am flight 6 had no fatalities. A commercial airliner - albeit propeller driven.
In 2021 a cargo 737 was successfully ditched in Honolulu bay, with both pilots surviving. It wouldn’t be a leap to assume nearly all passengers would have survived if a passenger plane.
Guardia Indonesia flight 421 (Boeing 737) ditched with only a single fatality in 2002.
So there is three you didn’t list.
I also said that the survivability in general aviation was 90%, and that ditching is generally very favorable. I never claimed that zero fatalities was the benchmark for success. Hell I’d be willing to bet that off field landings have more fatalities than ditching does.
Off the coast of Alaska miles from anywhere in the middle of nowhere. Sure Jan.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Sh#t happens sometimes.
Or swim away!