The first flight on 5 Jan departed but then returned to LAX. The second flight actually flew fromfrom LAX to EGE.
Because there was two flights with the same flight number, both are plotted on the map.
When you are refering to a specific flight, please try to use that flight number’s URL (e.g. flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL2292 ). Makes it much easier to hone in on the specific flight.
There appears to be incorrect information on Dami’s posting.
If you look at all three entries on this particular flight, all three entries point to the same track log which appears to be one CONTIGUOUS flight path as there are no breaks in the track log nor are there any differences between the three flights and track log.
Looking at the weather, and the fact the track looks like it was holding at EGE, weather flightaware.com/resources/airpor … DME+RWY+25
The hold looks it was done at the Kremmling VOR before the flight looks like it elected to return to LAX based on flight path on map.
Thank you.
Allen
This one seems simple. . . .they make two approaches - and went missed both times and then went back to LAX.
I checked the approach plate - and it shows that the minimums are 8330feet on the LDA/DME25 into Runway 25 into Eagle County Airport.
SPECI KEGE 060430Z 27007KT 3/4SM +SN BKN008 OVC014 M01/M03 ow
METAR KEGE 060450Z 27007KT 2 1/2SM SN BKN010 OVC015 M02/M04
SPECI KEGE 060510Z 23004KT 3/4SM +SN OVC010 M02/M03 A2974
METAR KEGE 060547Z 08004KT 1/2SM +SN BKN005 OVC010 M03/M03 A2974
Thus, around the times of the approach into KEGE - clouds were defintitely below minimums of 1800ft AGL and 1 mile. The metars above reveal that the weather was really bad Friday night. . . . the weather shows that the ceilings were around 1400 [when 1800 was needed] and visibility was right at the limit. They never broke out of the clouds.
Further, American Airlines may have higher minimums into this airport at night. It CERTAINLY is a Captain only approach.
Simply put - they could not get in and diverted back to LAX.
Good catch, I didn’t see that second approach / miss until I went back to the track log 
which shows both approaches nicely
Now it makes sense why the hold looked so “sloppy”
The three entries in the history were probably as follows if I was to guess.
First line was original flight plan
Second line was after ATC showing arrived, and plane went missed so ATC re-entered them in the system while pilots tried to figure it out their intentions
Third line I would think would be after the pilot stated intentions of returning back to LAX.
All a guess of course.
Allen
so I didn’t have incorrect information in my posting. Just didn’t mention that there was a third (the original) flight.
There was only ONE flight on the January 5th entry. Therefore your entire post** was incorrect.**
3 entries, one was a returned flight tha.
Why the hell do I even bother anymore with you, al? I wish this forum had a option to blank out stuff from people so full of themselves like you.
One take off and one landing = ONE FLIGHT.
Those 3 entires show departure from and arrival at LAX.
The American Airlines page shows the flight arrived at EGE:
Carrier City Date Time Terminal Gate Baggage
Claim Flight Status
Notification
Scheduled Estimated Actual
AMERICAN AIRLINES
Departing
LAX Los Angeles, 01/05/2008 5:35 PM 12:09 PM T4 47A
Arriving
EGE Eagle/ Vail, 01/05/2008 8:45 PM 4:16 PM 4
Passengers never got off that plane Dami at EGE on January 5th unless they parachuted based on the data we are looking at in Flight Aware.
Your post is still incorrect based on the data on Flight Aware and that is what you based your opinion on which was factually wrong.
Allen
stop calling each other names.
Everyone is right, depending on the question asked.
Damiross - there were THREE flights in the system. The first one, which was not completed. The next one, which was completed on 1/6 - the 1/5 flight left at 12.15PST and arrived in Eagle this afternoon - this was the original 1/5 flight that they shoved off 10 hours later. Then, the LAX-LAX flight is the diverted flight. The NORMAL time for this flight is 5.35pm daily - so a 12.15 departure is weird unless you reconcile it with the fact of the divert. So, you are right about what you see in the system.
Allen - damiross simply did not analyze what happened - and he is right insofar as his comments are concerned. You are right insofar ad there was is one take off and one landing.
If you go to American’s home page and enter 2252 for 1/5, which is yesterday, you see the flight left TODAY at 12.15pm. If you then check todays flight - it ALSO left on time. This is all reconcilable without name calling. Take a chill pill and stop drifting my topic.
As a pilot I see the plane go from LAX, make an approach, fail, do it again fail, and then hightail it back to LAX. Must have been pretty low on fuel when it landed. There were lots of divert fields between LAX and EGE -at least the pilot made the smart choice since the plane was needed BACK in LA after the flight [it was a LAX-EGE-LAX evolution - look at AA’s flight sked] so he was probably tankering the fuel in from LAX anyway - so he could land without taking on very expensive fuel in Vail.
Dami was wrong insofar as there was ONE flight, not two with the same flight number. He clearly stated two flights with the same flight number. read his first paragraph…
The way he worded it, two flights implies two seperate planes or on a stretch more then one take off and landing, and neither wasn’t the case.
As I stated earlier, there may have been three seperate flight “plans” (can’t figure a better way to describe it) due to ATC handling as I described above, but there was only one physical flight.
BTW, no where will you see a post of me calling Dami anything.
All I have done since my public apology is to follow up on his post to give the correct information stating he has been incorrect and giving clear concise information on my foundation on why I feel he is incorrect…
Allen
I was wondering why he would divert back to LAX rather than a closer airport. Because it was a round robin flight, that makes the most sense.
I will try my best to not answer al or caflier anymore. As I have said before, if I said they sun rises in the east (which it doesn’t really) then I would have to provide proof.
(The sun doesn’t raise in the east; rather, the earth revolves around its axis and it makes it appear that the sun is rising.)
rising
so noted
A minor point, but for FAR121 and FAR135 operations, only visibility is required to start the approach. If you have the required ability you can fly the approach; if you have the visibility but not the ceiling then you’ll miss the approach.
Not entirely true. Both 121.567 and 135.78 say the same thing which is this:
No person may make an instrument approach at an airport except in accordance with IFR weather minimums and instrument approach procedures set forth in the certificate holder’s operations specifications.
It is the FAA approved company ‘Ops Specs’, not the FAR’s, that dictate the criteria to initiate and conduct an approach. That criteria can and in many cases does vary from operator to operator based on crew qualifications, aircraft equipment, weather reporting resources, etc.
quoting and arguing all the FAR’s might be amusing, but I was simply pointing out that the REPORTED weather was below minimums for the approach. What the weather may be at any given moment in an evolving event like a snowstorm dictates whether, in combination with the company rules, aircraft limitations and other variables, you can legally commence an approach.
That being said, there is NOTHING to lose by commencing an approach and flying it so long as you fly it properly. You go down to the MAP and if you are still in the clouds you go around. I’m sure that American’s ops department would be pretty pissed that a pilot flies a 757 from LAX to EGE and does not even ATTEMPT the approach. The result may be a foregone conclusion, but not trying is an unpardonable sin. There as a chance, however slim, that the flight could have gotten in if the weather broke for even 2 minutes.
I will say that after looking at AA’s flight schedule, my conclusion that this flight was out and back was in error. This was AA’s last flight into EGE for the night. Finally, it make sense that AA brought the airplane back to LAX rather than diverting it to DFW, DEN, or some other intermediate location. The reason is that while under AA’s contract it would have NO liability for hotels, meals or other accomodations for the passengers, it would have liability for the pilots and crew, and an aircraft out of position.
Flyinig the plane and passengers ‘home’ to LAX means the passengers can just go home. The plane is at a major station for AA, making re-integration into the system easier.
However, what happened here is that:
-
The flight returned to LAX.
-
there were TWO flights with the same flight number the next day. The first one was the subject flight, which left at noon. The ‘second’ flight was the regularly scheduled flight that day.
When you divert to either another airport or to an alternate - ATC terminates the old flight plan, and starts a new one - which is why in this case the original LAX-EGE flight plan and the LAX-LAX and EGE-LAX flight plans both exist in the system. I see it with my own aircraft. When I need to divert all of a sudden there is a new flight plan and the old one states ‘diverted.’
My contribution wasn’t intended to hijack erisajd comments. I was simply providing information that is pertinent to the discussion. Anytime a flight misses the schedule it sends a ripple effect on down the line. As stated this was AA’s last flight of the day into EGE and this aircraft would most likely be used for the first flight somewhere the next day. Without that aircraft in place, the next day’s schdule is already affected. Costing ultimately more than the diversion back to LAX. Had the weather conditions not been expected to meet company criteria prior to departure, the flight wouldn’t have left the gate at LAX. So the crew tried the approach under company criteria, it didn’t work, and the result ended up with craps. 