Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 586 posts

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#561

Post by inoffensivename »

rjh29 wrote: post #492
mmaunder wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Under FAA rules this was a screwup." Not necessarily. And I get that you've caveated yourself with an edit and a reply etc, but lets assume that you're not hedging for the moment. They carried required reserves on departure. Multiple approaches thwarted by extreme unforseen weather. They declared Mayday Fuel, which is mandatory under EASA regulations, when reserve fuel use became unnavoidable. They diverted to the n…

Some commenters are claiming the flight should have never taken off and that the weather situation was entirely predictable. What's your take on that?

Generally, if it's legal to take off, we're going.

(Source: am airline captain)

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#562

Post by abustamam »

xeonmc wrote: post #560
abustamam wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having spent some time with my five year old nieces and nephews, sometimes I wonder if five year olds could run companies better. (note: obviously sarcastic but kids really do have some amazing insights that we forget when trying to chase KPIs or revenue)

See also: various points in the Evil Overlord list[0]. Selected examples: #12: One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation. #60: My five-year-old child advisor will also be asked to decipher any code I am thinking of using. If he breaks the code in under 30 seconds, it will not be used. Note: this also applies to passw…

I'd never seen that list before but it's hilarious!

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#563

Post by jacquesm »

in_cahoots wrote: post #442
jacquesm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I wrote elsewhere in this thread I actually wrote software to estimate the amount of fuel a jet should load to comply with the rules. This was commissioned by the airline and they were scared shitless that they would ever be found to be in breach of the regulations on this aspect. It is one of those red lines that you really do not wish to cross. There are other aspects of flight where you are right but this parti…

As an aviation fan just reading this thread is quite eye-opening in terms of how much risk tolerance the average commenter has vs what is standard in the aviation community and on aviation forums. It's almost like peeking into two different worlds. I wonder if there would be any value in teaching an "engineering when lives are on the line" or "war stories from accident investigations" classes to new engineers. I feel…

It is an endless source of frustration to see poorly engineered software solutions powering critical systems.

> I wonder if there would be any value in teaching an "engineering when lives are on the line" or "war stories from accident investigations" classes to new engineers.

There would be immense value in that. But who is going to pay for it? It's a course that will essentially cause your crew to start producing software at 1/10th the rate they would otherwise do.

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#564

Post by jacquesm »

sgjohnson wrote: post #536
in_cahoots wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aviation fan just reading this thread is quite eye-opening in terms of how much risk tolerance the average commenter has vs what is standard in the aviation community and on aviation forums. It's almost like peeking into two different worlds. I wonder if there would be any value in teaching an "engineering when lives are on the line" or "war stories from accident investigations" classes to new engineers. I feel…

The average commenter here is a software guy. I imagine for the average software guy a Master Caution would be like a minor compile-time warning, i.e. feel free to just disregard it. :)

That would be funny if it wasn't uncomfortably close to the truth.

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#565

Post by jacquesm »

loeg wrote: post #410
huijzer wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd be very wary to get ahead of the investigation and make speculative statements on how this could have happened, the one thing that I know for sure is that it shouldn't have happened, no matter what. Just watch Juan Browne, he usually turns out pretty good in analyzing the mishaps. He didn’t upload anything for Manchester yet but will probably soon: https://youtube.com/@blancolirio

I'm also a Blancolirio subscriber. Juan also doesn't try to get ahead of the investigation, really. It's part of what makes him a valuable voice in the space.

Anybody that does isn't worth listening to.

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#566

Post by jacquesm »

darthwalsh wrote: post #417
XorNot wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This honestly makes me think that we're missing a trick if an option for this sort of circumstance can't be "send a military fuel tanker up to refuel them in air" as a last ditch emergency measure (which IMO you would've triggered in this exact scenario). The argument in favor is simply that we need in air refueling for the military, but justifying all that expenditure is a lot easier if it's dual use technology.

Isn't midair refueling notoriously difficult to get right? The headlines would become "airliner crashes after crew couldn't thread the needle for 45 min"

It's a ridiculous proposition.

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#567

Post by forgotTheLast »

warmwaffles wrote: post #241
dcchambers wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially crazy considering the 737 is not a particularly large commercial aircraft. 40kg/minute is around 12 gallons (47 liters) of fuel per minute. Meanwhile a 777 burns around 42 gallons (160 liters) per minute. A 747 burns 63 gallons (240 liters) per minute - more than a gallon per second!

Is that at cruising altitude?

Yes

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#568

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

gizajob wrote: post #544
normie3000 wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many reasons I won't fly Ryanair I swore off them a decade ago when I realised how adversarial their relationship with their passengers is. Until an accident does happen, I have no doubt they'll trouser a lot of cash.

I fly with them all the time and never have any kind of issue at all. They offer a good deal, ok there’s a couple of obvious dark patterns in their app and way of doing business but they’re hardly unique in that respect. Feels like getting a fast bus between European cities nowadays.

Well that revolver didn't go off the last 5 times I pointed it at my head and pulled the trigger. Surely on the 6th pull we can guarantee the same outcome!

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#569

Post by forgotTheLast »

ro_bit wrote: post #141

> The Boeing 737-800 had just 220kg of fuel left in its tanks when it finally landed, according to a picture of what appears to be a handwritten technical log. Pilots who examined the picture said this would be enough for just five or six minutes of flying. For reference, passenger airlines immediately declare emergency if their planned flight path would put them under 30 minutes of fuel (at least in the US). Landing…

220kg is about 1% of the plane's fuel capacity. They must've had a lot of faith in their fuel probes.

Re: Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left

#570

Post by phyzome »

FinnKuhn wrote: post #350
phyzome wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, when people say "flying has a high carbon footprint", they're not kidding . It's really quite massive. I don't fly any more.

Don't look up the carbon footprint of driving then. That is even higher in comparison to most passenger flights.

Well, I don't drive either, except for a longer distance trip once or twice a year...
Post reply on HN