27 ms·

Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

1107 points by devy 9y ago

sixdimensional 9y ago
Wow, this is really incredible. The flight path out of Puerto Rico is nearly perfectly optimal to avoid the weather. I wonder, is this a good (and incredibly positive) example of what quality real-time/near-real-time data can do for decision-making? Bravo.
- Dowwie 9y ago
  I wouldn't glorify the analytics too much in this case. I'm confident that the management and the pilots made decisions that far exceeded decisions that could be made with data approximations.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Based on what?
  - noxToken 9y ago
    Can't make decisions without data. Sure, management and flight crew deserve the lion's share, but that real-time data is probably critical for those decisions.
    - phkahler 9y ago
      You know those planes have their own weather radar right?
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
    Made decisions based on what? Astrological charts? You need meaningful data to make meaningful decisions. Otherwise you are mistaking luck for expertise.
- lisper 9y ago
  > 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.
  - sixdimensional 9y ago
    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 about how we can use data for good, the more we can try to do good with data...
    - lisper 9y ago
      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.
nxsynonym 9y ago
As easy of a target as airlines are for the usual criticism, this is an heroic feat. I applaud the efforts of everyone involved. I can't image what it must be like to fly into a storm system like that. Nerves of steel.
- antihero 9y ago
  I wonder if the pilots volunteer for the run? It'd be interesting to know the internal culture with regards to it.
  - Tuxer 9y ago
    They did, this was a volunteer crew. Most of the passengers on the return flight weren't passengers in the normal sense of the word, but non-reqs, delta and other airline employees that were working in that airport and wanted to get out of dodge.
    - losteverything 9y ago
      Who was on the arrival flight?
      - imatworkyo 9y ago
        those with the real balls of steel
        explorigin 9y ago
        It'd be really nice if we could leave the reddit vernacular over there.
      - 21 9y ago
        Mostly officials and emergency personal, according to other reports.
  - qume 9y ago
Cshelton 9y ago
Other than a very bumpy ride and lots of nerves, I would think a 737 (and many other commercial jets) would have no problem flying through a hurricane. Landing on the other hand... Anyone with knowledge of this?
- mikeash 9y ago
  I'd think that flying through one would be pretty doable. I don't think the "hurricane hunter" planes are anything special in terms of their ability to withstand turbulence. You may need to avoid the parts with the most severe convection. Airliners don't necessarily fare well in the middle of violent non-hurricane thunderstorms either. Landing and taking off in one, however, would be really bad once the winds pick up.
  - puzzle 9y ago
    It's not the same at all, but yesterday my flight had 150mph head winds (compare to Irma's 185) and you couldn't even notice. I only did because of the news coverage and wanted to compare.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  Guess how we know you're not a pilot...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Flying through a hurricane is not dangerous at all, especially for a massive plane like a 737. Airplanes are incredibly resistant to horizontal winds, which are all a hurricane is. It's vertical winds that are dangerous to fly through, which is what thunderstorms create.
  - lisper 9y ago
    Hurricanes usually have embedded thunderstorms.
otec 9y ago
Why? What's the point of this worthless risk?
pjmlp 9y ago
Oh man, that is really amazing. I guess a mix of heroes and craziness. Congratulation to everyone involved and thankfully everything went alright.
hapless 9y ago
The best part is that the hurricane's tailwind shaved 40-odd minutes off the itinerary.
- deskamess 9y ago
  To me the hurricane tailwind (blowing South) appeared to be against the direction of flight (heading North)... but the flight arrived early so I must not be parsing that right.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - turbohedgehog 9y ago
    the upper level winds are actually a high pressure area and thus flow clockwise, giving it a northerly boost at that level
- rpeden 9y ago
  Most of the early return happened because the ground crew managed a really quick turnaround and so the flight departed Puerto Rico 25-30 mins early.
stepik777 9y ago
Why can't they use some sane colormaps instead of this garbage?
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  You mean the meteorological charts? It is a sane color map? What would you like to see changed or had trouble reading?
  - 21 9y ago
    I think he is talking about the actual false colors being used. I also thought the same thing. The picture seems to use the "Jet" Matlab colormap, which is pretty bad by many accounts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU https://matplotlib.org/users/colormaps.html https://matplotlib.org/users/colormaps.html https://bids.github.io/colormap/ https://bids.github.io/colormap/
joemi 9y ago
That's pretty awesome. 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? And do they increase (or lower?) prices in these cases?
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Other airlines tried the same thing (https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/905433106475311104 https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/905433106475311104) but had to turn back.
passivepinetree 9y ago
Does anybody who works in the industry have any idea of what the risk management is like for these types of events? What are the odds something could go wrong compared to the relative good of squeezing in one last flight's revenue for a while? Is flying in a hurricane actually not that bad and the airport turnaround/takeoff the most dangerous part?
- reaperducer 9y ago
  The blog indicated that it was an evacuation flight. It may have been non-revenue.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Flying through a hurricane sounds dangerous, but it's actually not much different than flying normally and is perfectly safe. Planes are very resistant to horizontal wind, which is all a hurricane is.
  - lberger 9y ago
    Take off and landing are especially dangerous in a hurricane; where wind gusts can exceed a difference of 50 knots.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    Flying into a hurricane involves a lot more than just horizontal wind. There's convection, turbulence, wind shear and heavy precipitation. It is not uncommon for hurricanes to spawn tornadoes. NOAA has been flying aircraft into hurricanes since the 1950s. It is not inordinately dangerous, but it is not just another flight, either. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp
  - wahern 9y ago
    You might be overselling your point with "perfectly safe". Extreme vertical winds are not uncommon in hurricanes. See https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/108766.pdf With some quick Googling, I get the sense that while people cite hurricane hunters, they gloss over important bits, But what does get interesting is flying through the hurricane's rainbands and the eyewall. -- http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/H3.html In particular, rainbands occur all throughout a hurricane. You can't really fly through a hurricane and not fly through these. I'm not an aviator but I grew up in Florida and have experienced several hurricanes. I get your point about hurricanes being mostly horizontal winds and why thunderstorms are much more dangerous. (I appreciate your post because it motivated me to learn more :) But hurricanes are immense, and immensely powerful. The size and energy drive all manner of dangerous phenomena. For example, growing up in Florida we were worried less about the hurricane, per se, than the many tornados they often spawned.
dtparr 9y ago
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 https://www.wired.com/story/delta-plane-hurricane-irma
- noobermin 9y ago
  How could neither article mention the name of the pilot? Just the company "Delta".
  - flycaliguy 9y ago
    Because this is marketing.
    - pc86 9y ago
      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.
ars 9y ago
I'm wondering about the ground crew willing to stay in the airport to help this flight get going - and then having to get to a shelter in the middle of a hurricane.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  While I'm not familiar with SJU, my guess is an airport terminal is likely one of the more sturdy buildings around, and is likely to have some pretty robust structures you can take shelter in. Most commercial buildings are sturdier than the average house, and I'd rather be at an airport than at home in a storm that levels buildings.
  - azernik 9y ago
    And this is not just any old commercial building, but is also probably considered vital infrastructure for emergency planning, and so extra-reinforced.
  - jmcdiesel 9y ago
    I dont think the fear is sheltering... Most of those islands have shelter, its not like hurricanes are a rare event for them. However, its the destruction and risk that it could be WEEKS before help comes if infrastructure is completely destroyed... and an island with limited resources means that the people still on the island will (compared to mainland) very quickly start to realize that they need to eat and acquire things to survive... and survival mode is the worst part of any natural disaster. The damage done by Katrina to New Orleans was horrible, but honestly, the damage done afterwards by the people that lived there (that was done to survive, im not criticizing, morality changes real quick in survival mode) wsa pretty horrible, too. Imagine a small-ish island with not a lot of natural resources and no quick way to get truckloads of supplies en mass... Not saying thats what's going to happen - but thats the kind of outcome people forget when they volunteer to ride out a natural disaster. The actual event is just the prelude to a pretty bad period of time for the area it hit... and the pain you will feel after the hurricane is likely to be much higher than the hurricane itself.
  - a_e_k 9y ago
KeepTalking 9y ago
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 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 risk involved. http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2017/08/24/klm-747-typhoon-hato/ http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2017/08/24/klm-747-ty... While I am not a pilot, I know that such flights involve sophisticated planning (route, fuel, approach), weather prediction as well as diversionary plans if things do not work out. No airline would undertake such a high-risk move without the confidence that they are not putting lives at risk.
- Udik 9y ago
  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.
  - peteretep 9y ago
    Generally, after a disaster, the death toll is artificially limited to bodies reporters can actually count, before rocketing up as infrastructure comes back online
    - mysterypie 9y ago
      That's not what happened during the 9/11 attacks. The death toll was reported as more than 6000. Weeks later it was suddenly adjusted downward to 3000ish and finally settled at 2997. The extreme overestimate was ostensibly due to "double counting", which I find to be a wholly unsatisfactory explanation. With all the info that they collected about each person who was missing -- name, DOB, photos, ID numbers, where they worked in the building or who they were visiting -- how can they possibly double count 3000 people? And you're saying that generally after a disaster it works exactly the opposite way: a low number initially which gets adjusted upwards. Interesting. Almost as if there was a desire to make 9/11 look even worse (as horrible as it was).
thrillgore 9y ago
I'd like to think all the staff were just blasting Death Grips as they flew in.
rsimmer 9y ago
The downside of the internet... suddenly everyone pretends to be an aviation expert.
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  And no IANAP disclaimers
jandrese 9y ago
The only disappointment for me is that they flew a relatively modest 737 down there. If you're going to make a heroic flight like this do it in an A380 or a 747 and load up as many people as you can to get them out of dodge. I guess shuffling a big plane like that at the last minute is probably not feasible since they have their own routes to service. An evac flight could even go full on quick load. No checked bags, one carry-on max, forget assigned seats and just fill the plane from back to front as fast as possible to get out of dodge.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  An A380 or 747 is significantly less nimble than a 737, and would take a lot longer to unload and load back up. The flight in question did a turnaround in 51 minutes, including taxing time, which is extremely quick.
  - sourZ 9y ago
    Haha, Ryanair will beat that turnaround time in normal operations any day
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      Ryanair's been criticized for safety issues over their 25-30 minute turnaround times, which don't count taxiing time.
    - Macha 9y ago
      The above comment is not a snide joke at Ryanair, here's an article citing their turnaround times from the early 2000s: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2962698.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2962698.stm This is still the case.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    It is, but I suspect you can significantly speed up loading if you skip all of the bullshit that makes loading take forever. No people loaded down with multiple huge carryons, no checked luggage, no searching for your assigned seat, no zone loading bullshit, just everybody walks on the plane and sits down in the first available seats they find leaving no empty seats. Everybody lined up at the door ready to go the minute the plane is empty. You could probably have the whole plane loaded before it finished refueling.
simplyluke 9y ago
During the cold war my grandfather flew bombers into the eyes of hurricanes to drop sonar beacons. I'm sure he'd get a kick out of this. The older bombers they flew were all manual controls (as opposed to fly by wire), which meant physical exhaustion from wrestling the plane into the storm was a major factor - so they'd bring extra fuel to be able to circle the eye of the storm for some amount of time to build up the strength to fly back out.
- idlewords 9y ago
  The main wing spar on those bombers also had to be reinforced to support the weight of the crew's giant balls. Respect.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - SoMisanthrope 9y ago
    Who down modded his comment. Get over yourself, snowflake.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
code4tee 9y ago
This is an impressive team effort by Delta--and a great demonstration of the teamwork required between those in the air and on the ground to pull something like this off.
- jordache 9y ago
  why? the hurricane is predictable in its movement and moves at a snail's pace relative to the plane. The pilots I'm sure had radar data inside the cockpit It's not rocket science.
  - idlewords 9y ago
    The plane was fully turned around and refueled in 52 minutes, with a hurricane bearing down on it. Your response doesn't do a lot of justice to an impressive team effort.
    - jordache 9y ago
      the only plane at the airport right? full dedication of available personnel
  - adventured 9y ago
    You must be a professional pilot. Yes, I bet that's it. Plus, flying into and out of hurricanes isn't rocket science (and everybody knows that rocket science is really difficult and dangerous), so, easy stuff.
    - mmirate 9y ago
      > You must be a professional pilot. Yes, I bet that's it. I won't claim one way or the other, but let's presume that this person is a professional pilot. Does that not make their opinion/analysis more valuable, rather than explaining it away?
En_gr_Student 9y ago
I hate the title because it sounds like a failure when in fact it is an excellent thing Delta did.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  I agree, the pun has a negative connotation whereas the article is about a feat.
idlewords 9y ago
I'm curious about who was coming in on this flight, and why? Was it mostly people who wanted to ride out the hurricane with families? First responders?
omegant 9y ago
Commercial 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 in San Juan show that the flight was doable. No crazy winds during landing, and worsening during take of but well within the limits you may find in a local thunderstorm. The predictions allowed them to see the window to fly in and out. If arriving the weather was too bad or you see the hurricane getting too close to the airport,they could have got away without landing. For take off either you have the right conditions (under the legal limits) or you don't. What they risked IMHO is having some kind of technical problem or delay once in San Juan and having to stay there to weather the hurricane. That could mean heavy damage to the airplane while on the airport, even a total loss. That said for me the most amazing of it all, is not the short stay at the ground. While very fast is not uncommon to see them with an experieced team, the slower part is the disembarking and embarking of the passengers, and they surely were all motivated to hurry. The most impressive is how they followed the quite thin alley between the hurricane arms till they were clear of the bad weather. In a situation like that you only see red and magenta in your radar and a narrow black or green zone where you can fly safely. That's surely was the most scary part for them beyond the adrenalin of a fast and potentially dangerous operation. Looks like the typical movie scene of a spaceship passing between closing doors!! Certainly brass balls. Edit: some typos and a "don't" that I left behind and was changing the meaning of a sentence. Sorry written from the cellphone.
- narvind 9y ago
  Not sure if there were really any passengers disembarking in San Juan. I would guess that it was pretty much an empty flight flying in. What a heroic effort! Salute to the entire team!
  - what_ever 9y ago
    There were 30 people on the flight to San Juan.
SeoxyS 9y ago
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 in mind that never in the history of aviation has a plane been brought down by a cyclone. Thunderstorms, on the other hand, are much more dangerous. The main difference is that in a cyclone, air moves horizontally, while in a thunderstorm it moves vertically in bursts, which is much more difficult to navigate. 2) From what I've heard, this was not a commercial flight but a flight mainly aimed at evacuating non-rev airline employees. The main issue with doing this flight for regular passengers would be fear and discomfort due to turbulence. Airline employees on the other hand are used to flying, know that turbulence is harmless, and would rather just get home.
- turbohedgehog 9y ago
  1) No they're not harmless, updrafts and downdrafts exist https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp
  - SeoxyS 9y ago
    Ok, they're not entirely harmless (e.g. if you fly into an hailing embedded thunderstorm at low altitude). But overflying one at cruising altitude is 100% safe. E.g. the plane in this story flew through the eyewall of a hurricane at 1,500 feet. A commercial jet flies at a cruising altitude of up to 45,000 feet.
- thecrazyone 9y ago
  Thanks for the context. The other comments make it feel like this was extremely risky. Like "moving spacecrafts through closing doors". You give it more context
  - zymhan 9y ago
smnscu 9y ago
I guess it cancels this out: https://i.redd.it/s8e8jf5gkhkz.jpg https://i.redd.it/s8e8jf5gkhkz.jpg
rphlx 9y ago
I am surprised this flight was approved and permitted by airline, government, and insurer procedures... the risk/reward looks exceptionally poor, as the storm could amplify a normally-moderate, manageable mechanical failure into a situation that greatly overwhelms the flight crew (and there is definitely precedent for that in the accident record). There are probably at least some NTSB human factors specialists cringing at this.
tylersmith 9y ago
We watched these flights as they we happening and I was on edge just watching. I can't imagine what it'd feel like having been on one.
zoom6628 9y ago
Big balls for whole team to make this work IMO and kudos to Delta management for making it happen.
AceyMan 9y ago
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" <wink>.) 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
snambi 9y ago
Great story.

1107 points by devy 9y ago

Wow, this is really incredible. The flight path out of Puerto Rico is nearly perfectly optimal to avoid the weather. I wonder, is this a good (and incredibly positive) example of what quality real-time/near-real-time data can do for decision-making? Bravo.

Dowwie 9y ago
I wouldn't glorify the analytics too much in this case. I'm confident that the management and the pilots made decisions that far exceeded decisions that could be made with data approximations.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Based on what?
- noxToken 9y ago
  Can't make decisions without data. Sure, management and flight crew deserve the lion's share, but that real-time data is probably critical for those decisions.
  - phkahler 9y ago
    You know those planes have their own weather radar right?
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  Made decisions based on what? Astrological charts? You need meaningful data to make meaningful decisions. Otherwise you are mistaking luck for expertise.
lisper 9y ago
> 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.
- sixdimensional 9y ago
  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 about how we can use data for good, the more we can try to do good with data...
  - lisper 9y ago
    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.

nxsynonym 9y ago

As easy of a target as airlines are for the usual criticism, this is an heroic feat. I applaud the efforts of everyone involved. I can't image what it must be like to fly into a storm system like that. Nerves of steel.

antihero 9y ago
I wonder if the pilots volunteer for the run? It'd be interesting to know the internal culture with regards to it.
- Tuxer 9y ago
  They did, this was a volunteer crew. Most of the passengers on the return flight weren't passengers in the normal sense of the word, but non-reqs, delta and other airline employees that were working in that airport and wanted to get out of dodge.
  - losteverything 9y ago
    Who was on the arrival flight?
    - imatworkyo 9y ago
      those with the real balls of steel
      - explorigin 9y ago
        It'd be really nice if we could leave the reddit vernacular over there.
    - 21 9y ago
      Mostly officials and emergency personal, according to other reports.
- qume 9y ago

Cshelton 9y ago

Other than a very bumpy ride and lots of nerves, I would think a 737 (and many other commercial jets) would have no problem flying through a hurricane. Landing on the other hand... Anyone with knowledge of this?

mikeash 9y ago
I'd think that flying through one would be pretty doable. I don't think the "hurricane hunter" planes are anything special in terms of their ability to withstand turbulence. You may need to avoid the parts with the most severe convection. Airliners don't necessarily fare well in the middle of violent non-hurricane thunderstorms either. Landing and taking off in one, however, would be really bad once the winds pick up.
- puzzle 9y ago
  It's not the same at all, but yesterday my flight had 150mph head winds (compare to Irma's 185) and you couldn't even notice. I only did because of the news coverage and wanted to compare.
reaperducer 9y ago
Guess how we know you're not a pilot...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
lightbyte 9y ago
Flying through a hurricane is not dangerous at all, especially for a massive plane like a 737. Airplanes are incredibly resistant to horizontal winds, which are all a hurricane is. It's vertical winds that are dangerous to fly through, which is what thunderstorms create.
- lisper 9y ago
  Hurricanes usually have embedded thunderstorms.

otec 9y ago

Why? What's the point of this worthless risk?

pjmlp 9y ago

Oh man, that is really amazing. I guess a mix of heroes and craziness. Congratulation to everyone involved and thankfully everything went alright.

hapless 9y ago

The best part is that the hurricane's tailwind shaved 40-odd minutes off the itinerary.

deskamess 9y ago
To me the hurricane tailwind (blowing South) appeared to be against the direction of flight (heading North)... but the flight arrived early so I must not be parsing that right.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- turbohedgehog 9y ago
  the upper level winds are actually a high pressure area and thus flow clockwise, giving it a northerly boost at that level
rpeden 9y ago
Most of the early return happened because the ground crew managed a really quick turnaround and so the flight departed Puerto Rico 25-30 mins early.

stepik777 9y ago

Why can't they use some sane colormaps instead of this garbage?

jimktrains2 9y ago
You mean the meteorological charts? It is a sane color map? What would you like to see changed or had trouble reading?
- 21 9y ago
  I think he is talking about the actual false colors being used. I also thought the same thing. The picture seems to use the "Jet" Matlab colormap, which is pretty bad by many accounts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU https://matplotlib.org/users/colormaps.html https://matplotlib.org/users/colormaps.html https://bids.github.io/colormap/ https://bids.github.io/colormap/

joemi 9y ago

That's pretty awesome. 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? And do they increase (or lower?) prices in these cases?

ceejayoz 9y ago
Other airlines tried the same thing (https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/905433106475311104 https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/905433106475311104) but had to turn back.

passivepinetree 9y ago

Does anybody who works in the industry have any idea of what the risk management is like for these types of events? What are the odds something could go wrong compared to the relative good of squeezing in one last flight's revenue for a while? Is flying in a hurricane actually not that bad and the airport turnaround/takeoff the most dangerous part?

reaperducer 9y ago
The blog indicated that it was an evacuation flight. It may have been non-revenue.
lightbyte 9y ago
Flying through a hurricane sounds dangerous, but it's actually not much different than flying normally and is perfectly safe. Planes are very resistant to horizontal wind, which is all a hurricane is.
- lberger 9y ago
  Take off and landing are especially dangerous in a hurricane; where wind gusts can exceed a difference of 50 knots.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Flying into a hurricane involves a lot more than just horizontal wind. There's convection, turbulence, wind shear and heavy precipitation. It is not uncommon for hurricanes to spawn tornadoes. NOAA has been flying aircraft into hurricanes since the 1950s. It is not inordinately dangerous, but it is not just another flight, either. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp
- wahern 9y ago
  You might be overselling your point with "perfectly safe". Extreme vertical winds are not uncommon in hurricanes. See https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/108766.pdf With some quick Googling, I get the sense that while people cite hurricane hunters, they gloss over important bits, But what does get interesting is flying through the hurricane's rainbands and the eyewall. -- http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/H3.html In particular, rainbands occur all throughout a hurricane. You can't really fly through a hurricane and not fly through these. I'm not an aviator but I grew up in Florida and have experienced several hurricanes. I get your point about hurricanes being mostly horizontal winds and why thunderstorms are much more dangerous. (I appreciate your post because it motivated me to learn more :) But hurricanes are immense, and immensely powerful. The size and energy drive all manner of dangerous phenomena. For example, growing up in Florida we were worried less about the hurricane, per se, than the many tornados they often spawned.

dtparr 9y ago

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 https://www.wired.com/story/delta-plane-hurricane-irma

noobermin 9y ago
How could neither article mention the name of the pilot? Just the company "Delta".
- flycaliguy 9y ago
  Because this is marketing.
  - pc86 9y ago
    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.

ars 9y ago

I'm wondering about the ground crew willing to stay in the airport to help this flight get going - and then having to get to a shelter in the middle of a hurricane.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
While I'm not familiar with SJU, my guess is an airport terminal is likely one of the more sturdy buildings around, and is likely to have some pretty robust structures you can take shelter in. Most commercial buildings are sturdier than the average house, and I'd rather be at an airport than at home in a storm that levels buildings.
- azernik 9y ago
  And this is not just any old commercial building, but is also probably considered vital infrastructure for emergency planning, and so extra-reinforced.
- jmcdiesel 9y ago
  I dont think the fear is sheltering... Most of those islands have shelter, its not like hurricanes are a rare event for them. However, its the destruction and risk that it could be WEEKS before help comes if infrastructure is completely destroyed... and an island with limited resources means that the people still on the island will (compared to mainland) very quickly start to realize that they need to eat and acquire things to survive... and survival mode is the worst part of any natural disaster. The damage done by Katrina to New Orleans was horrible, but honestly, the damage done afterwards by the people that lived there (that was done to survive, im not criticizing, morality changes real quick in survival mode) wsa pretty horrible, too. Imagine a small-ish island with not a lot of natural resources and no quick way to get truckloads of supplies en mass... Not saying thats what's going to happen - but thats the kind of outcome people forget when they volunteer to ride out a natural disaster. The actual event is just the prelude to a pretty bad period of time for the area it hit... and the pain you will feel after the hurricane is likely to be much higher than the hurricane itself.
- a_e_k 9y ago

KeepTalking 9y ago

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 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 risk involved. http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2017/08/24/klm-747-typhoon-hato/ http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2017/08/24/klm-747-ty... While I am not a pilot, I know that such flights involve sophisticated planning (route, fuel, approach), weather prediction as well as diversionary plans if things do not work out. No airline would undertake such a high-risk move without the confidence that they are not putting lives at risk.

Udik 9y ago
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.
- peteretep 9y ago
  Generally, after a disaster, the death toll is artificially limited to bodies reporters can actually count, before rocketing up as infrastructure comes back online
  - mysterypie 9y ago
    That's not what happened during the 9/11 attacks. The death toll was reported as more than 6000. Weeks later it was suddenly adjusted downward to 3000ish and finally settled at 2997. The extreme overestimate was ostensibly due to "double counting", which I find to be a wholly unsatisfactory explanation. With all the info that they collected about each person who was missing -- name, DOB, photos, ID numbers, where they worked in the building or who they were visiting -- how can they possibly double count 3000 people? And you're saying that generally after a disaster it works exactly the opposite way: a low number initially which gets adjusted upwards. Interesting. Almost as if there was a desire to make 9/11 look even worse (as horrible as it was).

thrillgore 9y ago

I'd like to think all the staff were just blasting Death Grips as they flew in.

rsimmer 9y ago

The downside of the internet... suddenly everyone pretends to be an aviation expert.

quickthrower2 9y ago
And no IANAP disclaimers

jandrese 9y ago

The only disappointment for me is that they flew a relatively modest 737 down there. If you're going to make a heroic flight like this do it in an A380 or a 747 and load up as many people as you can to get them out of dodge. I guess shuffling a big plane like that at the last minute is probably not feasible since they have their own routes to service. An evac flight could even go full on quick load. No checked bags, one carry-on max, forget assigned seats and just fill the plane from back to front as fast as possible to get out of dodge.

ceejayoz 9y ago
An A380 or 747 is significantly less nimble than a 737, and would take a lot longer to unload and load back up. The flight in question did a turnaround in 51 minutes, including taxing time, which is extremely quick.
- sourZ 9y ago
  Haha, Ryanair will beat that turnaround time in normal operations any day
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    Ryanair's been criticized for safety issues over their 25-30 minute turnaround times, which don't count taxiing time.
  - Macha 9y ago
    The above comment is not a snide joke at Ryanair, here's an article citing their turnaround times from the early 2000s: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2962698.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2962698.stm This is still the case.
- jandrese 9y ago
  It is, but I suspect you can significantly speed up loading if you skip all of the bullshit that makes loading take forever. No people loaded down with multiple huge carryons, no checked luggage, no searching for your assigned seat, no zone loading bullshit, just everybody walks on the plane and sits down in the first available seats they find leaving no empty seats. Everybody lined up at the door ready to go the minute the plane is empty. You could probably have the whole plane loaded before it finished refueling.

simplyluke 9y ago

During the cold war my grandfather flew bombers into the eyes of hurricanes to drop sonar beacons. I'm sure he'd get a kick out of this. The older bombers they flew were all manual controls (as opposed to fly by wire), which meant physical exhaustion from wrestling the plane into the storm was a major factor - so they'd bring extra fuel to be able to circle the eye of the storm for some amount of time to build up the strength to fly back out.

idlewords 9y ago
The main wing spar on those bombers also had to be reinforced to support the weight of the crew's giant balls. Respect.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- SoMisanthrope 9y ago
  Who down modded his comment. Get over yourself, snowflake.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

code4tee 9y ago

This is an impressive team effort by Delta--and a great demonstration of the teamwork required between those in the air and on the ground to pull something like this off.

jordache 9y ago
why? the hurricane is predictable in its movement and moves at a snail's pace relative to the plane. The pilots I'm sure had radar data inside the cockpit It's not rocket science.
- idlewords 9y ago
  The plane was fully turned around and refueled in 52 minutes, with a hurricane bearing down on it. Your response doesn't do a lot of justice to an impressive team effort.
  - jordache 9y ago
    the only plane at the airport right? full dedication of available personnel
- adventured 9y ago
  You must be a professional pilot. Yes, I bet that's it. Plus, flying into and out of hurricanes isn't rocket science (and everybody knows that rocket science is really difficult and dangerous), so, easy stuff.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    > You must be a professional pilot. Yes, I bet that's it. I won't claim one way or the other, but let's presume that this person is a professional pilot. Does that not make their opinion/analysis more valuable, rather than explaining it away?

En_gr_Student 9y ago

I hate the title because it sounds like a failure when in fact it is an excellent thing Delta did.

conanbatt 9y ago
I agree, the pun has a negative connotation whereas the article is about a feat.

idlewords 9y ago

I'm curious about who was coming in on this flight, and why? Was it mostly people who wanted to ride out the hurricane with families? First responders?

omegant 9y ago

Commercial 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 in San Juan show that the flight was doable. No crazy winds during landing, and worsening during take of but well within the limits you may find in a local thunderstorm. The predictions allowed them to see the window to fly in and out. If arriving the weather was too bad or you see the hurricane getting too close to the airport,they could have got away without landing. For take off either you have the right conditions (under the legal limits) or you don't. What they risked IMHO is having some kind of technical problem or delay once in San Juan and having to stay there to weather the hurricane. That could mean heavy damage to the airplane while on the airport, even a total loss. That said for me the most amazing of it all, is not the short stay at the ground. While very fast is not uncommon to see them with an experieced team, the slower part is the disembarking and embarking of the passengers, and they surely were all motivated to hurry. The most impressive is how they followed the quite thin alley between the hurricane arms till they were clear of the bad weather. In a situation like that you only see red and magenta in your radar and a narrow black or green zone where you can fly safely. That's surely was the most scary part for them beyond the adrenalin of a fast and potentially dangerous operation. Looks like the typical movie scene of a spaceship passing between closing doors!! Certainly brass balls. Edit: some typos and a "don't" that I left behind and was changing the meaning of a sentence. Sorry written from the cellphone.

narvind 9y ago
Not sure if there were really any passengers disembarking in San Juan. I would guess that it was pretty much an empty flight flying in. What a heroic effort! Salute to the entire team!
- what_ever 9y ago
  There were 30 people on the flight to San Juan.

SeoxyS 9y ago

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 in mind that never in the history of aviation has a plane been brought down by a cyclone. Thunderstorms, on the other hand, are much more dangerous. The main difference is that in a cyclone, air moves horizontally, while in a thunderstorm it moves vertically in bursts, which is much more difficult to navigate. 2) From what I've heard, this was not a commercial flight but a flight mainly aimed at evacuating non-rev airline employees. The main issue with doing this flight for regular passengers would be fear and discomfort due to turbulence. Airline employees on the other hand are used to flying, know that turbulence is harmless, and would rather just get home.

turbohedgehog 9y ago
1) No they're not harmless, updrafts and downdrafts exist https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp
- SeoxyS 9y ago
  Ok, they're not entirely harmless (e.g. if you fly into an hailing embedded thunderstorm at low altitude). But overflying one at cruising altitude is 100% safe. E.g. the plane in this story flew through the eyewall of a hurricane at 1,500 feet. A commercial jet flies at a cruising altitude of up to 45,000 feet.
thecrazyone 9y ago
Thanks for the context. The other comments make it feel like this was extremely risky. Like "moving spacecrafts through closing doors". You give it more context
- zymhan 9y ago

smnscu 9y ago

I guess it cancels this out: https://i.redd.it/s8e8jf5gkhkz.jpg https://i.redd.it/s8e8jf5gkhkz.jpg

rphlx 9y ago

I am surprised this flight was approved and permitted by airline, government, and insurer procedures... the risk/reward looks exceptionally poor, as the storm could amplify a normally-moderate, manageable mechanical failure into a situation that greatly overwhelms the flight crew (and there is definitely precedent for that in the accident record). There are probably at least some NTSB human factors specialists cringing at this.

tylersmith 9y ago

We watched these flights as they we happening and I was on edge just watching. I can't imagine what it'd feel like having been on one.

zoom6628 9y ago

Big balls for whole team to make this work IMO and kudos to Delta management for making it happen.

AceyMan 9y ago

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" <wink>.) 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

snambi 9y ago

Great story.