7 ms·

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

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.
euyyn 9y ago
Does ethics play a decision here too? As in "let's try our best to get these people out of here". Or is the risk actually the opposite, and it would be safer for them to stay in Puerto Rico?
treyfitty 9y ago
I'm usually cynical in these situations, but I don't think it was about revenue. Quick decision making by even the most incompetent executive would have prompted the following response: "Let's see... 50% chance of incremental $200*150=$30K (idk the price nor the capacity, so just entertain me) in revenue. Let's bump that with the expected loss/lawsuits if this fails = ... Who cares? It's in the millions. Just don't do it." I think this is one of those cases where the airline took it upon themselves to really try to help as many people get out as they could.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  But the way you imagine it makes it sound like a complete coincidence that they happened to time it so perfectly well so as to use the gap of calm air effectively... whereas that surely seems pretty well-calculated.
  - treyfitty 9y ago
    I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. My comment makes no suggestion of any coincidences, nor mention any timing to use calm air effectively. Yes, timing calm air effectively requires calculation. I'm at a loss when deciphering how that relates to what I'm saying.
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      What I'm saying is, you're saying this was a case of the airline trying to get out as many people as they could, without much regard for the risk and costs. But from what I see, they seemed to have optimized for the risk and the cost extremely well, to the point where it made perfect sense to do what they did, both business wise and humanitarian. Meaning those seem contradictory. (In no way am I playing down what they did though. I'm only commenting on your analysis.)
      - DigitalJack 9y ago
        I'm sure they did their best to calculate it as precise as they can. Other airlines tried and failed. They had to turn back or were stuck on the island. So the realized risk is fuel and cost of a grounded plane.
ihsw2 9y ago
Hurricanes are relatively slow-moving, relatively predictable, and have relatively consistent wind speeds/directions. Obviously it would be quite bad to fly into a hurricane's rain bands (the weather outside of the "corridor" that the DL431 flight moved through). The real feat here is the real-time and reliable coordination between all interested parties -- as mentioned in the article, the meteorologists, dispatchers, pilots, cabin crew, and ground crew. Everybody involved had a distinct sense that the window of opportunity was narrow and it should be quite clear that they acted with a high degree of professionalism and skill. As for the life-threatening danger: it's risky, that's for sure, and I would by no means calls this a small feat, but there is no intense wind shear like those found in tornadoes, thunder storms, microbursts, or other such things.
- DigitalJack 9y ago
  So you are saying thunderstorms contain more intense wind shear than a hurricane...I don't think I believe that.
  - bonkabonka 9y ago
    I am reminded of this story I bumped into on Reddit some time ago. Granted it's a small plane but still: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/10fcqm/whats_the_most_nerveracking_thing_thats_ever/c6d74gv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/10fcqm/whats_the_mo...
  - jokamoto 9y ago
    No, he's saying that the wind shear they had to contend with in the calmer corridor between rain bands was less intense than that found in a thunderstorm.
  - chrisbolt 9y ago
    This video explains it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7CQaDEKbBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7CQaDEKbBU

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.

euyyn 9y ago

Does ethics play a decision here too? As in "let's try our best to get these people out of here". Or is the risk actually the opposite, and it would be safer for them to stay in Puerto Rico?

treyfitty 9y ago

I'm usually cynical in these situations, but I don't think it was about revenue. Quick decision making by even the most incompetent executive would have prompted the following response: "Let's see... 50% chance of incremental $200*150=$30K (idk the price nor the capacity, so just entertain me) in revenue. Let's bump that with the expected loss/lawsuits if this fails = ... Who cares? It's in the millions. Just don't do it." I think this is one of those cases where the airline took it upon themselves to really try to help as many people get out as they could.

throwaway613834 9y ago
But the way you imagine it makes it sound like a complete coincidence that they happened to time it so perfectly well so as to use the gap of calm air effectively... whereas that surely seems pretty well-calculated.
- treyfitty 9y ago
  I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. My comment makes no suggestion of any coincidences, nor mention any timing to use calm air effectively. Yes, timing calm air effectively requires calculation. I'm at a loss when deciphering how that relates to what I'm saying.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    What I'm saying is, you're saying this was a case of the airline trying to get out as many people as they could, without much regard for the risk and costs. But from what I see, they seemed to have optimized for the risk and the cost extremely well, to the point where it made perfect sense to do what they did, both business wise and humanitarian. Meaning those seem contradictory. (In no way am I playing down what they did though. I'm only commenting on your analysis.)
    - DigitalJack 9y ago
      I'm sure they did their best to calculate it as precise as they can. Other airlines tried and failed. They had to turn back or were stuck on the island. So the realized risk is fuel and cost of a grounded plane.

ihsw2 9y ago

Hurricanes are relatively slow-moving, relatively predictable, and have relatively consistent wind speeds/directions. Obviously it would be quite bad to fly into a hurricane's rain bands (the weather outside of the "corridor" that the DL431 flight moved through). The real feat here is the real-time and reliable coordination between all interested parties -- as mentioned in the article, the meteorologists, dispatchers, pilots, cabin crew, and ground crew. Everybody involved had a distinct sense that the window of opportunity was narrow and it should be quite clear that they acted with a high degree of professionalism and skill. As for the life-threatening danger: it's risky, that's for sure, and I would by no means calls this a small feat, but there is no intense wind shear like those found in tornadoes, thunder storms, microbursts, or other such things.

DigitalJack 9y ago
So you are saying thunderstorms contain more intense wind shear than a hurricane...I don't think I believe that.
- bonkabonka 9y ago
  I am reminded of this story I bumped into on Reddit some time ago. Granted it's a small plane but still: https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/10fcqm/whats_the_most_nerveracking_thing_thats_ever/c6d74gv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/10fcqm/whats_the_mo...
- jokamoto 9y ago
  No, he's saying that the wind shear they had to contend with in the calmer corridor between rain bands was less intense than that found in a thunderstorm.
- chrisbolt 9y ago
  This video explains it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7CQaDEKbBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7CQaDEKbBU