Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home • Hacker News Board

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#121

Post by SeoxyS » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

turbohedgehog wrote: post #105

SeoxyS wrote: post #94

Two points: 1) Hurricanes are actually harmless to planes. The only part of the flight that includes any danger is landing, due to wind and low visibility. But flying at cruising altitude or even through the storm is fairly harmless, as most winds are horizontal and nothing out of the ordinary for a plane. Keep in mind that the NOAA regularly flies commercial jets (such as a Gulfstream V) into hurricanes. Also keep i…

1) No they're not harmless, updrafts and downdrafts exist https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp

Ok, they're not entirely harmless (e.g. if you fly into an hailing embedded thunderstorm at low altitude). But overflying one at cruising altitude is 100% safe.

E.g. the plane in this story flew through the eyewall of a hurricane at 1,500 feet. A commercial jet flies at a cruising altitude of up to 45,000 feet.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#122

Post by quickthrower2 » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 9:56 PM UTC

rsimmer wrote: post #60

The downside of the internet... suddenly everyone pretends to be an aviation expert.

And no IANAP disclaimers

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#123

Post by throwaway613834 » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 9:59 PM UTC

bharath28 wrote: post #96

throwaway613834 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is, you're saying this was a case of the airline trying to get out as many people as they could, without much regard for the risk and costs. But from what I see, they seemed to have optimized for the risk and the cost extremely well, to the point where it made perfect sense to do what they did, both business wise and humanitarian. Meaning those seem contradictory. (In no way am I playing down what the…

There is such a thing as being heroic & not stupid.

I didn't say otherwise? Are you responding to my actual comment, or something else?

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#124

Post by SAI_Peregrinus » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #67

Tuxer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hurricane isn't a thunderstorm, and has very limited vertical movement in its airflows. The hurricane hunter P3s do it.

> A hurricane isn't a thunderstorm, That's true, but they can (and usually do) contain embedded thunderstorms. > and has very limited vertical movement in its airflows. Except for the embedded thunderstorms. > The hurricane hunter P3s do it. That's true, but they can do it because their destination is the eye of the storm. That allows you to do all your navigation relative to the storm. Commercial airliners are tryin…

Also the hurricane hunter WP3s (and the USAF equivalent WC130s) all have 3-point harnesses (or better) for all seats. That's pretty important for passenger safety in turbulence. Passenger airplane lap belts leave a lot to be desired when dealing with strong turbulence.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#125

Post by zymhan » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:08 PM UTC

thecrazyone wrote: post #109

SeoxyS wrote: post #94

Two points: 1) Hurricanes are actually harmless to planes. The only part of the flight that includes any danger is landing, due to wind and low visibility. But flying at cruising altitude or even through the storm is fairly harmless, as most winds are horizontal and nothing out of the ordinary for a plane. Keep in mind that the NOAA regularly flies commercial jets (such as a Gulfstream V) into hurricanes. Also keep i…

Thanks for the context. The other comments make it feel like this was extremely risky. Like "moving spacecrafts through closing doors". You give it more context

But they give ZERO source for their claims.

It seems like you're looking for a particular point of view here.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#126

Post by zymhan » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:09 PM UTC

SeoxyS wrote: post #94

Two points: 1) Hurricanes are actually harmless to planes. The only part of the flight that includes any danger is landing, due to wind and low visibility. But flying at cruising altitude or even through the storm is fairly harmless, as most winds are horizontal and nothing out of the ordinary for a plane. Keep in mind that the NOAA regularly flies commercial jets (such as a Gulfstream V) into hurricanes. Also keep i…

Do you have any source for your claims?

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#127

Post by hueving » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

Jare wrote: post #103

what_ever wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were 30 people on the flight to San Juan.

Each one of them must be quite a story. Being in San Juan despite the danger must have been very important for most, and they almost were unable to make it.

Airfare was cheap to make it an attractive mileage run.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#128

Post by Chaebixi » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:21 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #107

Jare wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each one of them must be quite a story. Being in San Juan despite the danger must have been very important for most, and they almost were unable to make it.

Perhaps disaster response folks pre-positioning. Red Cross, etc.

Or people rejoining elderly relatives or other dependents...

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#129

Post by digi_owl » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:21 PM UTC

omegant wrote: post #89

Commercial pilot here, currently flying transatlantic routes. I avoided Irma last week while flying to Buenos Aires (it was not this big yet). I have partners in San Juan at this moment, bunkered in the hotel. We see this as a crazy move, very well executed, but too risky for the plane itself (not so much for the crew). Let me explain, the metar and tafors (the airport meteorological reports we use) during the flight…

Now i wonder who in Delta management were willing to put the plane, never mind the crew, on the line for this flight.

It if was totaled by the hurricane it would not have looked good on the company books.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#130

Post by hueving » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:23 PM UTC

bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #104

jacquesm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recorded history.

History already means recorded. Anything before records exist is called prehistoric.

No, "prehistoric" is the time period before written records. If we only started paying attention to hurricanes in the gulf 200 years ago, that doesn't mean 1805 was prehistoric.