undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbluGill7mo ago0 comments

Sure, but the flight was a lot longer than planed. How much extra do we need. They declared an emergency, and thus put themselves at the front of the line. They had 6 more minutes to do that touch and go around if that happened, and since they were already in a low fuel emergency they get priority and so there is enough time to do that if they needed. (edit - as others have noted, 6 minutes with high error bars, so they could have only had 30 seconds left which is not enough)

They landed safely, that is what is important. There is great cost to have extra fuel on board, you need enough, but it doesn't look to me like more was needed. Unless an investigation determines that this emergency would happen often on that route - even then it seems like they should have been told to land in France or someplace long before they got to their intended destination to discover landing was impossible.

0 comments

jacquesm7mo ago

> They had 6 more minutes to do that touch and go around if that happened

6 minutes is way out of the comfort zone. They might not have made it in that case.

scrumper7mo ago

Correct, article says they landed with 220kg which is around 6 minutes of average fuel burn over an entire flight - bit less at cruise, a hell of a lot more at takeoff/climb.

So I don't think 220kg is enough to do a go-around in a 737 (well, a go-around would've been initiated with a bit more than 220kg in the tank - they burned some taxing to the gate - but you get my point.) I've read around 2,300kg for takeoff and climb on a normal flight in a 737-8. A go-around is going to use close to that, it's a full power takeoff but a much shorter climb phase up to whatever procedure is set for the airport and then what ATC tells you.

I just flew 172s but even with those little things we were told, your reserve is never to be used.

These people came very, very close to a disaster. Fortunately they had as much luck left as they did fuel.

1 more reply

bluGillOP7mo ago

I agree, well out of comfort zones. However to my reading multiple different things went wrong to get to this point.

jacquesm7mo ago

That could be. We just don't know right now, but your intuition may well be correct, even if there is a single root cause there could very well be multiple contributory causes.

bluGillOP7mo ago

They failed to land at two airports before the third. I can't say if they made the right decisions but that already is two failures.

1 more reply

stahtops7mo ago

How much extra do you need? Enough that a pilot/crew doing their job properly will never run out of fuel and crash.

So yes they will do an "investigation". It's not a criminal investigation. It's to understand the circumstances, the choices, the procedures, and the execution that ended with a plane dangerously close to running out of fuel.

This will determine if there were mistakes made, or the reserve formula needs to be adjusted, or both.

Don't tell me about cost, just stop. Let MAGA-Air accept some plane deaths to have cheap fares.

behringer7mo ago

With 6 minutes left everyone could have died if anything went wrong with the final landing, even a gust of wind could have ended everybody's life.

bluGillOP7mo ago

Could have, but pilots practice no fuel landings all the time (in simulators). If they can get to ground that is "level enough" nobody dies. It is not something you ever want to see in the real world (and in the real world people often do die when it happens), but it isn't automating people die.

isaacdl7mo ago

I don't think that's all that true for airliners. Pilots definitely practice for engine-out scenarios during all levels of training up to the airlines, but the ability of a plane the size of a 737 to safely land on anything but a runway is...limited. And if you're low, slow, and trying to go around, that's not a lot of time to glide to ground that is "level enough".

bluGillOP7mo ago

i didn't mean to imply no runway landings. Landing on grass is questionable. They would practice water landings though

behringer7mo ago

Those landings are practiced from a reasonable altitude.

ktallett7mo ago

Surely the issue is more that they decided to make so many attempts to land local. There should be a max level of attempts.

jacquesm7mo ago

There is a lot of pressure on pilots to land local. But 3 go-arounds happens, not often, but it does.

ktallett7mo ago

Perhaps that decision needs to be removed from the airline and there needs to be an independent decision maker there.

jacquesm7mo ago

Pilots are ultimately responsible for the aircraft, that's pretty much set in stone but if ATC would tell them to divert they would unless there already was an emergency.

kqr7mo ago

There is a max level, and it is three.

ktallett6mo ago

Well clearly that number should depend on distance to next airport and how much fuel is onboard. It isn't sensible to have a set number when other parameters change.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jacquesm7mo ago

> They had 6 more minutes to do that touch and go around if that happened

6 minutes is way out of the comfort zone. They might not have made it in that case.

scrumper7mo ago

Correct, article says they landed with 220kg which is around 6 minutes of average fuel burn over an entire flight - bit less at cruise, a hell of a lot more at takeoff/climb.

I just flew 172s but even with those little things we were told, your reserve is never to be used.

These people came very, very close to a disaster. Fortunately they had as much luck left as they did fuel.

1 more reply

bluGillOP7mo ago

I agree, well out of comfort zones. However to my reading multiple different things went wrong to get to this point.

jacquesm7mo ago

That could be. We just don't know right now, but your intuition may well be correct, even if there is a single root cause there could very well be multiple contributory causes.

bluGillOP7mo ago

They failed to land at two airports before the third. I can't say if they made the right decisions but that already is two failures.

1 more reply

stahtops7mo ago

How much extra do you need? Enough that a pilot/crew doing their job properly will never run out of fuel and crash.

This will determine if there were mistakes made, or the reserve formula needs to be adjusted, or both.

Don't tell me about cost, just stop. Let MAGA-Air accept some plane deaths to have cheap fares.

behringer7mo ago

With 6 minutes left everyone could have died if anything went wrong with the final landing, even a gust of wind could have ended everybody's life.

bluGillOP7mo ago

isaacdl7mo ago

bluGillOP7mo ago

i didn't mean to imply no runway landings. Landing on grass is questionable. They would practice water landings though

behringer7mo ago

Those landings are practiced from a reasonable altitude.

ktallett7mo ago

Surely the issue is more that they decided to make so many attempts to land local. There should be a max level of attempts.

jacquesm7mo ago

There is a lot of pressure on pilots to land local. But 3 go-arounds happens, not often, but it does.

ktallett7mo ago

Perhaps that decision needs to be removed from the airline and there needs to be an independent decision maker there.

jacquesm7mo ago

Pilots are ultimately responsible for the aircraft, that's pretty much set in stone but if ATC would tell them to divert they would unless there already was an emergency.

kqr7mo ago

There is a max level, and it is three.

ktallett6mo ago

Well clearly that number should depend on distance to next airport and how much fuel is onboard. It isn't sensible to have a set number when other parameters change.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse