On May 20, two extraordinary incidents occurred on flights operated by a Norwegian airline. A Boeing 737-800 aircraft, operating Norwegian flight 1934 from Oslo to Tirana, declared an emergency while in German airspace, according to AviationSource. Using transponder code 7700, which generally indicates an emergency, the aircraft was diverted to Berlin Brandenburg Airport, where it landed safely. After a little over an hour, the plane continued its flight to Tirana. At the time of writing, the cause and details of the incident remain unknown.
The same aircraft later experienced another emergency on its return flight, 1935, from Tirana to Oslo, as reported by Flightradar24. This time, the flight was diverted to Split Airport due to a crack in the cockpit’s side windshield. Emergency services were placed on standby, and the aircraft landed safely with 131 passengers and six crew members on board. According to media reports, there was no loss of cabin pressure, and no major discomfort or panic among the passengers.
According to Airfleets data, the aircraft involved is an 11.6-year-old Boeing 737-800, registration LN-NIP, which has been part of Norwegian’s fleet since 2022.
It is worth noting that the Boeing 737 windshield consists of three layers. The outer, heated layer prevents fogging and icing. Beneath it is a layer of special acrylic plastic that serves as a structural barrier against stress, while the innermost layer is the thickest, serving as additional protection. Due to this design, cracks in a single layer are not considered immediately hazardous.
The crew of the flight followed standard emergency procedures as outlined in the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH). Among other steps, the procedure requires that after assessing the crack, the captain and first officer fasten their harnesses, deactivate windshield heating, and shut off airflow to the windshield. They were also required to don oxygen masks, communicate with the cabin crew, ensure passengers returned to their seats with seatbelts fastened, and initiate a descent (to a maximum of 14,000 feet or the minimum safe altitude, whichever is higher) to reduce cabin pressure. According to the QRH, landing at the nearest suitable airport is recommended. Based on how the flight executed a safe landing, it can be assumed that the crack was internal and limited to a single layer, as the crew followed the recommended protocol.
Contrary to media reports, the incident was not dramatic, nor was there any panic on board. Given the visible cracks, standard precautionary landing procedures (not an emergency landing, as some media claimed) were followed, diverting to an alternate airport as specified for such events. This minimized the risk to both passengers and the aircraft.
