471–480 of 586 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why not? It's a factual report stating that the AAIB has opened an investigation into a potentially dangerous incident. There's not any editorial bias evident. See other extensive comments as to why this is not just a case of "it landed, so what's the problem?".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In safety-critical systems, we distinguish between accidents (actual loss, e.g. lives, equipment, etc.) and hazardous states . The equation is hazardous state + environmental conditions = accident Since we can only control the system, and not its environment, we focus on preventing hazardous states, rather than accidents. If we can keep the system out of all hazardous states, we also avoid accidents. (Trying to preve…
If you haven't done so: please write a book. Aim it towards software professionals in non-regulated industries. I promise to buy 50 to give to all of my software developing colleagues. As for 'N', for turboprops it is 45, for jets it is 30.
(Will now be checking out your blog.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you haven't done so: please write a book. Aim it towards software professionals in non-regulated industries. I promise to buy 50 to give to all of my software developing colleagues. As for 'N', for turboprops it is 45, for jets it is 30.
Seconded! This was an extremely well written and well thought out explanation of this idea. Would love to read more along these lines. (Will now be checking out your blog.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naively as an outsider, this situation seems like everything worked as intended? On a nominally 2h45m flight, they spent an extra 2 hours in the air, presumably doing doing fuel intensive altitude changing maneuvers, and were eventually able to land safely with their reserves almost exhausted. I’m a little confused by what there is to investigate at all. How much fuel should they have landed with?
In safety-critical systems, we distinguish between accidents (actual loss, e.g. lives, equipment, etc.) and hazardous states . The equation is hazardous state + environmental conditions = accident Since we can only control the system, and not its environment, we focus on preventing hazardous states, rather than accidents. If we can keep the system out of all hazardous states, we also avoid accidents. (Trying to preve…
The reason they had less than 30 minutes of fuel was because the environment wasn't on their side. They started out with a normal amount of reserve and then things went quite badly and the reserve was sufficient but only just.
The question then is, how much of an outlier was this? Was this a perfect storm that only happens once in a century and the thing worse than this that would actually have exhausted the reserve only happens once in ten centuries? Or are planes doing this every Tuesday which would imply that something is very wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In safety-critical systems, we distinguish between accidents (actual loss, e.g. lives, equipment, etc.) and hazardous states . The equation is hazardous state + environmental conditions = accident Since we can only control the system, and not its environment, we focus on preventing hazardous states, rather than accidents. If we can keep the system out of all hazardous states, we also avoid accidents. (Trying to preve…
If you haven't done so: please write a book. Aim it towards software professionals in non-regulated industries. I promise to buy 50 to give to all of my software developing colleagues. As for 'N', for turboprops it is 45, for jets it is 30.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naively as an outsider, this situation seems like everything worked as intended? On a nominally 2h45m flight, they spent an extra 2 hours in the air, presumably doing doing fuel intensive altitude changing maneuvers, and were eventually able to land safely with their reserves almost exhausted. I’m a little confused by what there is to investigate at all. How much fuel should they have landed with?
Naively as an outsider, this situation seems like everything worked as intended? I don't remember all of the rules off the top of my head, but if you are ever landing with less than 30 minutes of fuel, something has gone seriously wrong. You are required to take off with sufficient fuel to fly to your destination, hold for a period of time, attempt a landing, fly to your alternate, and land all with 30 minutes remain…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also sounds like they went to an alternate airport they probably shouldn’t have bothered with.
Well, if you know you're pretty low on fuel, you are likely to pick an airport where the weather is good, rather than risking three more missed approaches at a closer one where the weather is probably also bad. Of course, Manchester is also a Ryanair base. There are two Ryanair bases closer to Prestwick (Edinburgh and Newcastle), but maybe the weather was bad there too? If the fuel situation was so dire, questions mi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With 100mph winds I could easily see the 30 min reserve being eaten up by the flight from Edinburgh to Manchester. It's 178 miles! It takes a good 15-20 minutes to cross that distance when flying normally, add ascent & descent time and the landing pattern and you're easily at 24 minutes. Edit: in other comments here, it seems like Edinburgh to Manchester is a 45 minute flight. So yeah, they could easily have been out…
Yeah, although it depends what the alternate was in the flight plan. It may have been Manchester. Although I think its more likely it was Edinburgh, which in the circumstances was too optimistic. Too much concern about the minimal costs of fuel tankering to add a bit more gas? Or saving time by not refuelling? Ive never flown on Ryanair and dont intend to.
Do you have anything other than this single incident to back up your insinuation that they’re less safe than a full service airline?