Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home • Hacker News Board

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#131

Post by hueving » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

zymhan wrote: post #126

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?

The planes regularly face 300 MPH+ winds in normal flight because of their speed.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#132

Post by digi_owl » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:26 PM UTC

MichaelApproved wrote: post #113

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl302#ec2eb82

Is it possible to show the playback of the flight with weather ?

seems various weather layers are included in the higher tiers of payment packages (the business package in particular).

Not sure if they are also part of recorded flights though.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#133

Post by yardie » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:35 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…

As someone who has lived through some of the strongest hurricanes in recorded history you are wrong on multiple counts. Flying through the storm and the wall eye is dangerous and NOAA has lost planes to it. One of their hardened P3 had equipment and life raft ripped from their anchors [0]. There is definitely lightning and waterspouts during a hurricane. That is not reserved for thunderstorms.

This was a flight to evacuate crew who are stationed in PR. Non-rev refers to crew who are commuting or on holiday. On a typical flight a plane may turn over in a few hours but the crew may remain for 24 hours and leave the following flight. This crew was down route and needed to head back to their operating base.

[0] https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo8.asp

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#134

Post by conanbatt » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:45 PM UTC

En_gr_Student wrote: post #81

I hate the title because it sounds like a failure when in fact it is an excellent thing Delta did.

I agree, the pun has a negative connotation whereas the article is about a feat.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#135

Post by rphlx » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:48 PM UTC

I am surprised this flight was approved and permitted by airline, government, and insurer procedures... the risk/reward looks exceptionally poor, as the storm could amplify a normally-moderate, manageable mechanical failure into a situation that greatly overwhelms the flight crew (and there is definitely precedent for that in the accident record).

There are probably at least some NTSB human factors specialists cringing at this.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#136

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 10:56 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.

You're partly right. However, it's very common, even when people want to draw exactly the distinction you're talking about, that they'll just use "history" to refer to a period for which there are any records. That's a pretty different concept from the period for which there are records of the strength of hurricanes.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#137

Post by imbriaco » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 11:03 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #127

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.

Airfare was cheap to make it an attractive mileage run.

But MQDs.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#138

Post by KeepTalking » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 11:09 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…

One often neglected risk is the risk to the ramp crew from lightning. For a quick turn around in the middle of a storm like this, someone needs to neglect their own personal safety. Many times lighting is less risky to the plane but even before the storms roll in the lighting picks up.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#139

Post by joering2 » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 11:13 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #129

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.

Very good question. Whether Im stockholder or shareholder in this position I want to know why and why is risking hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock not to mention lost lives and PR disaster.

Honestly there is NO reasonable explanation. But wait few days to find out there was some high ranking company member or CEO/C level exec or his/her family stuck over there and thats why they send a plane.

And no - if it wouldnt take off that minute, you are talking about wreck taken off the books.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#140

Post by whack » Thu, Sep 07, 2017, 11:26 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #139

digi_owl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very good question. Whether Im stockholder or shareholder in this position I want to know why and why is risking hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock not to mention lost lives and PR disaster. Honestly there is NO reasonable explanation. But wait few days to find out there was some high ranking company member or CEO/C level exec or his/her family stuck over there and thats why they send a plane. And no…

The optimist in me would like to believe that Delta took this risk, because they considered their humanitarian mission more important that the mechanical integrity of one plane. I would encourage each and every company I own stocks in, to prioritize their goals similarly.