Back to Squawk list
  • 21

Alaska Airlines flight from Juneau makes emergency landing in Vancouver

VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- A U.S. passenger flight has made an emergency landing at Vancouver International Airport. Alaska Airlines Flight 76 was en route from Juneau to Seattle when problems arose with one of the plane's two electrical systems. The Boeing 737-400 touched down in Vancouver shortly before 5 p.m. local time on Sunday. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Cliff Johnson 2
As a USAF pilot for 7 years, a major airline pilot career and the last number of years as a Corporate Pilot flying jets and a total of 27,000 hours with over 50 years experience, I must say that sparkie624s comments come as a complete surprise to me. Read the FAA definition of minimum fuel. A diversion is not in itself an emergency. Only the press calls it such. Prior to 9/11, the FAA would not even ask the pilot why he wanted a new destination. Now they ask for a reason but its just paperwork.
sparkie624 1
Under the definition of "Min Fuel" it in itself is not the part of the emergency, but it is considered an emergency action, even though so minor... In the case I mention, the diversion in the eyes of the company was for maintenance convenience... Easier to change a window at a base with a Hangar vs somewhere in upstate New York in the winter time. Since the Diversion was for a maintenance reason it has to be reported, and the declaring min fuel is a declaration to ATC which has the potential to turn into an emergency if he does not get a priority at his destination. The biggest driver was the Diversion and the fact they would have never diverted to CVG if it had not been a maintenance issue and that made it report-able.
Marc Weston 2
Main Battery dropped to 4v in cruise. Alaska SOP is to land at the nearest airport - which was YVR.
sparkie624 2
That is a very good reason... I am amazed it actually dropped that far... Usually by 10 V there is nothing left to draw off of.. Thanks for the info.
Ken McIntyre 1
Must have lost one of the inverters. Still, I would think that the MEL would be two working and they have three available on board. Maybe lost two of them.
sparkie624 2
A strong possibility, but they have left too much info out to make a good call on what happened.... I sort of put this in the So What category.
btweston -2
Because you put everything in the "so what" category.

You really don't understand the concept of news.
sparkie624 3
From the subject of maintenance, the Aircraft diverted with a maintenance problem.. No one was hurt or killed, A/C was fixed, passengers were able to make it to their destination with minor inconvenience. No One got hurt or died in this incident. This is not news, it was a maintenance issue that required a diversion to another airport and maintenance had to come and fix the plane.... If your electrical system in your car dies, it does not make news, and this is certainly not news either.... I do understand the concept of news, and this is not it.... He lost his main battery which main purpose is backup power in the event that ALL other power dies... It didn't, and he did not lose any systems, crew followed there checklist that lead them to divert either by QRH or Dispatch/Maintenance Instruction. Nothing more, nothing less... Again.. This was not news, it was a minor maintenance problem with an aircraft that required a diversion... They happen every day and are never reported.
themold 1
I think that the term is "precautionary" landing. Was not an emergency.
sparkie624 2
In the terms of aviation any time a plane diverts to an unscheduled landing location due to a maintenance issue it is counted as an emergency even if an emergency was not declared in the eyes of the FAA.

A good example was a pilot that I was working via ACARS advised me that his Captains Windshield Heat was not working, Due to icing he had to choose a lower altitude and therefore declared "Min Fuel", at the same time he was flying directly over CVG which was a maintenance base for us and we had a spare plane ready. The company diverted him to CVG, the crew canceled the "Min Fuel" notice, moved the PAX to the new plane while CVG Did a window change. That counted as a diversion and the fact that he filed Min Fuel was counted as an emergency, even though no emergency was ever declared or really ever existed. With all of that said, they parked the plane on neighboring gates, the crew and everyone worked together, and somehow only arrived to the destination 30 minutes late...

In the eyes of the FAA we still had to treat this as an emergency because they preformed an emergency action... In this case 2 of them.... 1 - Crew Declared Min Fuel, 2 - Crew diverted due to a maintenance issue. At no time was the plane in any danger and both were done as a precaution as the crew could have made it safely. The diversion was for maintenance convience, but it did get the FAA involved.
sparkie624 1
There seems to be a lot of facts missing here... Was the APU working, was it 1/2 the plane went dark... Even the AV Herald is short of information here.
At least this time, it wasn't a mid-air collision with a fish. ;)
sparkie624 2
Yeah.... No kidding.
Cliff Johnson 1
It wasn't an emergency landing. It was an unscheduled landing. No big deal.
Rob Palmer 1
They could have almost coasted into SEATAC. Now the customs and no company maintenance in B.C. Maybe Bellingham can't handle international?


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.