Live data from Hacker News

Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

flightradar24.com

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#171
post #25

Wired's write-up from yesterday has a few more details including some quotes from Delta personnel: https://www.wired.com/story/delta-plane-hurricane-irma

How could neither article mention the name of the pilot? Just the company "Delta".

Because this is marketing.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#172
post #164
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English doesn't generally have gendered nouns, and the few it has are generally going out of use. I'm not aware of captain as being gendered in English.

How do you choose between his or her in this case?

You don't, unless it's to create off topic arguments/trolling.

To answer your question if you know the sex, you say the sex.

If not you use sexless pronouns like "their" and "they" even if they are not 'proper' by old strict standards, basically they are, because language evolves.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#173
There is much to touch on from the comments so far, but I'll try my best to keep it on point. (Note that I didn't say "short" .)

Bona fides: FAA Licenced Aircraft Dispatcher; 11 years industry experience. (Left the industry in 2000) Staff title: Chief Dispatcher

Preface: I'll not attempt to address the many meteorological or airframe engineering aspects of this mission other than to note that Delta staffs its own meteorology department (or did last I was privy to their operations). The capabilities that lend to the carrier are net positive, as should be obvious.

On to some specific questions raised ...

(0) >>>[qume] The captain makes the same call on every flight. The plane and passengers are her responsibility regardless of the situation. Edit - also the call is made continuously. They can back out any time.

Response: Only half true: the pilot-in-command (PIC) along with the aircraft dispatcher share responsibility for the "initiation, operation and termination of the flight." (Yes, I think the regs use 'termination'; that always made me wince.)

So, it's a quorum of two: if either one chooses to terminate (or 'not initiate') a given flight, it cannot be operated. That doesn't mean that a dispatcher who disagrees won't spend some effort presenting evidence for his position (e.g., ten-minute phone calls), but at the end of the day of those two don't agree, the flight cannot operate.

(1) >>> [phkahler] They may or may not have volunteered for the flight, but they do get the final decision to go in or turn back once the airline OKs it.

Response: This statement begs the question: who is "the airline?" The relevant US regulations (CFR 14 Part 121) refer throughout to this entity as the 'certificate holder' -- because an air carrier holds an operator's license -- a business license, of sorts -- granted by 'the administrator,' the regulatory term for the FAA. I'd gamble that since the FAA descended from the CAA that the policy authors thought it wise to anonymise the parties wherever possible in the event of future language changes. Smart move.

So for any given flight, "the airline" would be the dispatcher, who by proxy, exercises the right of 'the certificate holder' to "operate a particular flight over a specific route under specific conditions" (going from memory, mind you).

This authorization is formally granted by way of a legal document prepared by 'the certificate holder' (read: dispatcher) known as the 'dispatch release,' which includes a minimum set of specific information (flight plan, equipment type and number, flight crew, fuel min/max/burn, alternate airports, and so forth) but typically have an abundance of supplementary information to better brief the flight crew of the expected conditions and details of alternatives that are likely to be available if the proposed plan cannot be followed.

Bonus fact: If you ever were waiting after boarding and the crew came over the PA to say they are "waiting on paperwork," most of the time it is a bag/weight count, but some times it's the dispatch release. If you know your flight is going across, or into, some crappy weather, the chances of the latter are greater than average.

(2) >>>[passivepinetree] Does anybody who works in the industry have any idea of what the risk management is like for these types of events?

Response: The airline operations hundreds of flights a day; all have some risk, and all decisions must be made in real-time. In cases of long-running events such as a hurricane, there is likely to be some general tone taken by the carrier at the highest operational levels (chief pilots, chief dispatchers, VP of Operations, etc.). For my carrier, these strategic positions would be discussed in the morning meeting, which was a recurring conference call between all those parties and department supervisors -- kind of like a stand-up, except we were all sitting around a conference table.

Aside from that, as the day wears on the specific handling of a given route, weather event, etc., is handled in real-time by the assigned dispatcher and support team (meteorologists, mechanics, etc.)

Of note: some larger carriers maintain a 'Trouble Desk' staffed by dispatchers who are assigned a lighter workload than the regular line folks. This is a great system (one that my carrier didn't have) because, let me tell you, just one fubar flight can monopolize all your capability and time for quite a while. If/when one of those flights pops off the queue it can wreck your throughput for the remainder of the shift. For my money, the trouble desk is an excellent mitigation tactic capable of keeping the workload in the dispatch office sharded appropriately.

(3) >>>[joemi] Does anyone know more about this type of pre-hurricane flight? Is that a common thing airlines do, to try to squeeze one last flight in? Are there rushes before other types of bad weather?

Response: I only had a handful of duty experiences with hurricane landings that were in our region of operation, but I do have a wealth of experience with other severe weather systems here in the US -- aka, tornado season.

There were many occasions when a strong cold front would be bearing down on cities we served, with solid lines of thunderstorms sweeping through the region. The kinds of weather that serve up severe or extreme turbulence, large hail, and tornadic activity. And there aren't any "holes" to "slip through," either.

Frequently, it would come down to trying to get one more flight in and out of a city. (The pressures of 'completion factor' at an airline are a whole discussion in itself.) In these cases, I'd be measuring the relative velocity of the line versus the distance to the airfield, estimating the time of impact, so to speak, and cross-referencing that against my computed time en route and considering the turn-time at the station, etc., etc.

Assuming you judge that it can be operated safely, and you can provide a suitable alternate plan (and "turn back to base" is certainly a common choice) you have to get on the phone (or radio) and brief the PIC on some or all of the details (all of the details are in the dispatch, but people like to hear a human voice when facing stressful situations; think 911 operators), and if they concur (or accede, in some cases) then, from (1), by the necessary joint agreement, the flight is initiated.

And as you might expect, sometimes the flight got in and out, and sometimes it diverted or came back to base. In either case, occasionally the crew might call or radio back in with reports on the conditions (or vociferous complaints about the ride quality -- hey, it happens).

So then my unqualified answer to this question from joemi is "Yes."

--

Finally I'd like to call out the commenters who made mention of the ground (and other station) crew and their exposure to risk in these "irregular operations"; I'd say they exhibited a measure of aplomb no less than the flight crew, and those employees are too often overlooked as essential parts of the carrier's operations; both day-to-day and in extreme cases such as a hurricane landfall.

HTH, /Acey

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#174
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English doesn't generally have gendered nouns, and the few it has are generally going out of use. I'm not aware of captain as being gendered in English.

I grew up speaking english, including reading a few older books, and I'm not aware of any gendered nouns at all. Which ones are you thinking of?

I was thinking of pairs such as steward/stewardess, actor/actress, and fiancé/fiancée. They're not gendered in the sense of nouns in French or German, but are gender specific.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#175
post #133
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 ev…

Non-rev refers to any non-revenue passengers. You're conflating NRSA (non revenue space available) with non-rev generally. There's also NRPS (non revenue positive space) and "must ride" flyers in that category. This flight was picking up airline personnel, not revenue passengers.

Your having lived through hurricanes on the ground is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about the safety of overflying the hurricane.

At the flight altitudes of a commercial jet none of the effects you mention happen. You need to plan your path carefully for the descent, landing, and takeoff. But at cruising altitude, hurricane winds are not a major safety concern.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#176
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recorded history.

This raises an interesting point. Do you know how long we've been accurately recording cyclones?

The National Hurricane Center has some records [1] going back to 1851 [2]. I'm sure those are based more off eye witness accounts.

[1] http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/#tracks_all

[2] http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tracks/tracks-at-1851.png

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#177
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.

Honestly wondered if Jim Cantore was on that plane.

Heh, great comment. I wrote The Weather Channel a letter (yes, on paper, sent by mail) years ago specifically in appreciation of Jim's demonstrable love of severe weather. He is a guy who clearly loves his work.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#178
post #84

This is the second such instance in the past month. - For a longer discussion on the topic see this thread on airliners.net http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373093 - On August 24 Typhoon Hato hit HongKong hard. All airlines canceled their service in and out of HKIA, except a lone KLM flight from Amsterdam. Similar to the delta flight into San Juan, this flight created a large media storm into the r…

Consider that they were carrying 170 people away from a hurricane that killed, among the millions of people that were on its path, a total (until now) of 11. If that single plane crashed, it would have multiplied by 15 the total death toll of the storm. I'm sure that the risk must have been quite low for the operation to make any sense.

Generally, after a disaster, the death toll is artificially limited to bodies reporters can actually count, before rocketing up as infrastructure comes back online

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly wondered if Jim Cantore was on that plane.

Heh, great comment. I wrote The Weather Channel a letter (yes, on paper, sent by mail) years ago specifically in appreciation of Jim's demonstrable love of severe weather. He is a guy who clearly loves his work.

sïx mönths äġö ï löst mÿ jöb änd äftër thät ï wäs förtünätë ënöüġh tö stümblë üpön ä ġrëät wëbsïtë whïċh lïtërällÿ sävëd më. ï stärtëd wörkïnġ för thëm önlïnë änd ïn ä shört tïmë äftër ï'vë stärtëd ävëräġïnġ 15k ä mönth... thë bëst thïnġ wäs thät ċäüsë ï äm nöt thät ċömpütër sävvÿ äll ï nëëdëd wäs sömë bäsïċ tÿpïnġ skïlls änd ïntërnët äċċëss tö stärt... This is where to start●¦¦¦¦F¦O¦L¦L¦O¦W¦¦M¦E¦¦¦¦¦http://www.todaysfox.com

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As explained by omegant in the post above, lives were not at risk here. The risk was to the aircraft: if it had been delayed on the ground at SJU for any reason, it might not have be able to depart before the storm hit and would likely have suffered severe damage.

Normally I would think that > hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock would refer to the aircraft ... except that's a nearly 1-order-of-magnitude overestimate of it's value (a single $100M, not multiple).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN