An American Airlines Flight Flew Without The Required Safety Equipment!

icons8-american-airlines-48 This American Airlines to Cancun, Mexico from Dallas, USA without any liferafts onboard! This route would fly over the Gulf Of Mexico, but they didn’t have the safety equipment on board. The the A321 was forced to follow the Mexican coastline.


The route they needed to do!
👇


Image flying an Aircraft without the right safety equipment?


American Airlines is trying to be more environmentally conscious and show their passengers that they care about the environment they are in, but doing this doesn’t make the environment any nice, not having the right equipment on board.icons8-american-airlines-48


Credit

•Icons8
https://simpleflying.com/american-airlines-flies-airbus-a321s-to-cancun-without-life-rafts/


What would of you feel if you were on that plane?
Let me know down below 👇!

15 Likes

At least they didn’t send a non-ETOPS A321 to Hawaii like last time 👀

12 Likes

That would of been real bad.


Captain “We are returning to the airport due to not having the right safely equipment
Everyone: " oh crap let’s pray🙏 "


everyone2

3 Likes

That’s must’ve been an interesting conversation in the flight deck.

1 Like

So reading through the article, it doesnt appear that this was an accident…?

So its more of an AA is deciding to save space, which means they have to fly further? not sure why that’d be the decision.

6 Likes

It’s simply AALogic

1 Like

This is too good, why would they do this???

If i was the pilot i would be so mad

It’s not an accident. Today’s flight, tomorrow’s flight, others in the future. Specifically AA1008 is scheduled on the LUS A321 and sometimes is on the regular LAA A321. The flight plan for today is already projected to stay near the land.

Don’t forget AA is struggling with the MAX cancellations so aircraft are flying everywhere.

1 Like

I know Water landings are VERY rare for commercial airliners, but even over land, if you are flying over a remote area there’s still lakes and rivers to land on in an emergency

Does that make sense?

1 Like

That’s my thought process about this whole thing. Not that its incredibly safer to land on water (sully is an anomaly), you’d think a water landing has a better chance of survival based on not hitting something like cement or hard ground in a crash.

However, at high speeds, water is basically still concrete. So you’d still have to be in control of the aircraft when making the attempt.

2 Likes

Thats so true.

Okay folks. And someone smarter than me can answer this but airliners are allowed a certain amount of distance I think it’s 50 miles away from the nearest shore that they can fly without an over water Saftey equipment. So in reality if this flight which by the looks and I’m not for certain followed the coastline than it was within the 50 miles but if it did it than yes it would have been a violation.

1 Like

Yes, that is why they flew by the coast line, that was the original flight plan, as well as what appears to be the normal flight plan for this aircraft on the route.

This title is so misleading it’s not even close to clickbait. Just cuz they didn’t have the rafts doesn’t mean they can’t fly or didn’t have the required safety equipment. Hence why they stayed close to the shore

That’s hilarious…but also quite concerning…

How? The stayed near land?

1 Like

Personally, I would not care too much if I were on that plane. What are the chances that something would happen?

No the fact that they forgot the safety equipment is concerning…how could they forget something so important

1:5,400,000

1 Like

i suggest looking at my comment. as long as a flight is within a certain amount of miles from shore they dont need over water survival equipment

1 Like