Great story.
Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
191–200 of 204 posts
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder, is this a good (and incredibly positive) example of what quality real-time/near-real-time data can do for decision-making? Yes. Obviously.
I guess what I was trying to say was, what planning was done beyond the heroic measures and decisions made by the pilots and supporting infrastructure people? I was curious as to whether this was pure bravery with an informed decision support based on data, or simply pure bravery with a little bit of luck. I am always trying to find positive examples of how data is used for good, to save lives, etc. The more we know…
It's hard to say without knowing more details, like exactly what kind of avionics the plane had. Ironically, the avionics in many commercial aircraft are quite dated. The plane I fly, a Cirrus SR22, has more advanced avionics than many commercial jets. But my guess would be that that the plane was never in any real danger, and the main risk was that it could take longer than planned to turn the plane around on the ground. Then they could be stuck because the storm had moved in and they couldn't take off any more. For example, if they had blown a tire on landing, or developed any kind of engine trouble, they probably would have been screwed (where "screwed" means stuck on the ground in San Juan, not crashed). That's the sort of thing I would have been sweating about if I had been making that flight. Otherwise it was really business as usual -- the extreme end of BAU to be sure, but still BAU. Pilots have to fly around heavy weather all the time.
But yes, this flight would have been absolutely impossible to conduct safely without satellite and weather radar data, as well as good forecast models of the storm's movement.
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about the cost of PR if the plane crashes and your airline looks insanely reckless and guilty of manslaughter?
Even if the plane crashes, a properly planned flight shouldn't look reckless - knowing the risks, but deciding them manageable and the best option for everyone involved doesn't seem too far removed from a normal flight. It's also not just an airline decision - you've got a pilot in control who can make the no-go call at any point, and their training should prevent them from undertaking unnecessary risks.
Your analysis is rational but the discussion is about public relations outcomes, not decision making. The public response to issues like this one is almost always not rational and does not rely on risk management.
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
The plane moves relative to the wind it is in. A 180mph cross wind, head wind, or tail wind only affects its ground speed. I've been on flights from Asia to the US with a 150+ mph tailwind in the jet stream making the ground speed 700mph+. However, from the perspective of the air frame, it's still just traveling at a normal speed relative to the air it's in.
So I'll take that as a "no" that you don't have any citations or professional/academic experience to talk about airframe stress dynamics in a hurricane.
What citations would you like beyond basic reasoning skills? Planes don't fly relative to the ground, they fly relative to the air. Unless the wind is gusting from 0 to 160 (which is not how hurricanes work), there is nothing to be discussed here.
The earth rotates at 1000 MPH and you don't see people wondering if cars can handle that.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34433/how-are-e...
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could neither article mention the name of the pilot? Just the company "Delta".
Because this is marketing.
Probably because the pilot didn't choose to make the flight, the pilot was just doing their job, and their name is irrelevant.
Edit: What I meant by "didn't choose to make the flight" was that the pilot didn't wake up and decide he was going to San Juan that day. He was assigned the flight, and presumably did have the authority to say it would be too dangerous. Maybe not though, I'm not an ATP.
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> flying at cruising altitude or even through the storm is fairly harmless, Yes, so harmless that no one does it. NOAA has to use an extremely reinforced, highly maintained fleet of P3 Orions. You've mentioned repeatedly in your parent posts that hurricanes are harmless to planes when commercial pilots in this forum say they wouldn't do it without excellent weather planning. > You need to plan your path carefully for…
There are plenty of ancillary reasons to avoid overflying hurricanes when possible—such as passenger comfort, to avoid possible turbulence; or if it disables nearby diversion points in case of an issue inflight.
But people here are making wild claims that overflying hurricanes is inherently dangerous and puts lives at risk. That's factually incorrect and is what I came here to correct. You (and others) are making examples about the NOAA's Orions (which are reinforced to fly through, not over hurricanes, flying into the wildest parts on purpose), and or other turboprops which fly 10-20k ft. That's not what we're talking about here… we're talking about commercial jet aircraft which fly at 30-40k ft. Business jets fly even higher, sometimes up to 52,000ft. Just this week, I flew private in a Citation X at 49,000ft.
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends how tall the storm is. Planes engines breathe air, and there is less air the higher you go, so there's a limit to how high you can go; roughly 10km for commerical jets (actually it's a factor of altitude and speed; at high altitude, you need to go at least a certain speed to get enough air into the engines, but if you go too fast the plane breaks apart). I think big storms are about 10km tall.
It's actually less about the engines and more about the wings. As altitude increases, the air becomes thinner. That means that wings stall speed increases. At the same time, as the air becomes thinner, the speed of sound decreases - and breaking the sound barrier will break your plane. As you go higher, the stall speed and the speed of sound converge. The point where they meet is called "coffin corner". It is really…
What would a pilot do in a situation like that?
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#198Commercial 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…
Stupid question: what about flying above the hurricane on the way back ? Possible ?
This is exactly what you'd do in a Concorde, U-2, SR-71, F-15, or F-22. All of these can get to the required FL600, at 60000 feet.
The F-15 and F-22 have an extra bonus. They can climb straight up through the eye. The U-2 could probably manage a spiral climb within the eye.
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
> flying at cruising altitude or even through the storm is fairly harmless, Yes, so harmless that no one does it. NOAA has to use an extremely reinforced, highly maintained fleet of P3 Orions. You've mentioned repeatedly in your parent posts that hurricanes are harmless to planes when commercial pilots in this forum say they wouldn't do it without excellent weather planning. > You need to plan your path carefully for…
There are plenty of ancillary reasons to avoid overflying hurricanes when possible—such as passenger comfort, to avoid possible turbulence; or if it disables nearby diversion points in case of an issue inflight. But people here are making wild claims that overflying hurricanes is inherently dangerous and puts lives at risk. That's factually incorrect and is what I came here to correct. You (and others) are making exa…
Hurricanes reach to 60,000 feet.
Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually less about the engines and more about the wings. As altitude increases, the air becomes thinner. That means that wings stall speed increases. At the same time, as the air becomes thinner, the speed of sound decreases - and breaking the sound barrier will break your plane. As you go higher, the stall speed and the speed of sound converge. The point where they meet is called "coffin corner". It is really…
What would a pilot do in a situation like that?
Descend very gently.