5 ms·

I love it! Pretty funny story as no one was hurt and there was no material damage. This is also a great example of why your code will inevitably end up with a b

I love it! Pretty funny story as no one was hurt and there was no material damage. This is also a great example of why your code will inevitably end up with a bunch of if-else blocks if it is popular and used for a long enough time XD. I would like to see how this is coded into Delta's flight logistics software.

Ekaros 4y ago
Also if the plane gets retired, does that clause stay there?
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  If it's anything like other codebases I've seen, yes.
- addaon 4y ago
  Yes. Registration numbers can be reused. Even if Delta retires the plane, they are forbidden from flying a future plane with that registration to Accra (barring a presumedly easy appeal), so the code must stay.
  - manquer 4y ago
    That seems the opposite of the intended effect. If the buyer is able to buy that plane change the registration (lease it back to Delta even ! )and fly the same plane to Accura. Changing Tail numbers are fairly rare in the industry, given the overhead required, the typical reason it happens when for Tax reasons registration is moved to another country ( numbers have a country prefix), but it is possible .
    - gpm 4y ago
      Authorities aren't computers blindly evaluating code. If Delta tried to sell and then lease the plane I'm pretty sure that the authorities would not just catch on, but find a way to substantially penalize Delta to discourage anyone from trying such a stunt again. Meanwhile it's substantially less work from Delta's point of view to not do that (even before considering the regulators response), so it's not something that's really worth worrying about. It's reasonable for regulators to assume that people aren't going to intentionally fuck with them, when the incentive to fuck with them is practically non-existent...
      - manquer 4y ago
        Sure regulators and authorities are not evaluating regulations like that, but the entity being subject to that regulation frequently challenge such interpretations of regulations and win in court all the time. While the spirit of a law or regulation is important in evaluating a case[1], even the smallest of technicalities are fought over in lawsuits and can determine the outcome of a dispute like this. There are many examples like the famous case that was determined by the Oxford comma to all the cases that decide what EPA, OSHA, CDC, or SEC can and cannot do decided by technicality or literal interpretation So it would be kind of important to have that kind of loophole removed. [1] Texualist proponents and federalist society judges have a strong opinion (when it comes to constitution) that add to my point on that but that is different can of worms I don't want to use as basis of an argument
- cjrp 4y ago
  Would have been better to ban the plane’s manufacturer serial number.
- themadturk 4y ago
  Presumably the same registration number wouldn't be necessarily re-used for a 767, and the ban is on the 767 with that registration, not on a hypothetical 777 with the same registration.
tpmx 4y ago
> I would like to see how this is coded into Delta's flight logistics software. By cancelling the service to Accra, probably.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  I don't know what level of misunderstanding it takes to think this. Misunderstanding the airline industry, or the country, or how airports operate, or what really.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    I think there's a certain contingent that reacts to any regulation with "fine, then I'll take my ball and go home". Country has safety requirements, they deny any service to that country as retribution. The real world has more shades of grey. Delta can probably put a note in their scheduling system to make sure the airliner in question doesn't go to that country. They also know how much money they lose if they take their ball and go home, and probably wouldn't even be flying the route if it was completely unprofitable. (There are probably partners that rely on the service, and maintaining a good relationship with business partners is important too in a less financially-obvious way.)
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      I mean I'm Ghanaian and DL156 is the only non-stop flight from the US to Ghana, and only one of two to the entire region afaik (the other being EWR to LOS) Just going based on how long it's run, the prices myself and family have paid for tickets relative to destinations a similar distance away, observed usage of capacity on each flight, and the fact it has literally no competition, they wouldn't up and cancel it short of some sort of safety threat to their staff or business. Definitely not because a problem airliner gets noted.
  - diputsmonro 4y ago
kzrdude 4y ago
another if-else block? I'm thinking another database table of banned plane-route combinations, if they don't already have it.
- diputsmonro 4y ago
  Ideally, sure, but the article makes it seems like a rare ocurrence. And if their plane maintenance is any indication, I'm not sure their application architecture would be following such best practices.
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    This specific thing is a rare occurrence, but “only certain special variant planes can land at this weird airport” (for instance, LCY requires a specific 318 variant) is more common; I’d assume their software can handle all sorts of weird rules.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    And if their plane maintenance is any indication Delta runs one of the premier maintenance outfits (Delta TechOps) globally. About a quarter of their TechOps business is for outside airlines. So sure if that's any indication their application architecture is probably pretty decent (it's not). This was an ETOPS flight, yeah? Those come with higher standards for crew training, maintenance, and minimum equipment per the FAA. I wouldn't worry until/unless the FAA starts making noise about revoking Delta's ETOPS certification (which would hurt their ability to fly a bunch of routes and their ability to perform maintenance for e.g. Hawaiian).
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Seems reasonable that they have some sort of rules engine that tracks this type of thing. A country banning a particular aircraft might be rare but differing environmental and noise laws around the world probably means there are quite a few restrictions on which aircraft can go to which destinations beyond the major reasons like runway size and gate facilities.
bowmessage 4y ago
> no one was hurt Check out https://youtu.be/7PQTMx7TZ9A https://youtu.be/7PQTMx7TZ9A, quite a few folks went through some emotional trauma over this one, unfortunately.
- serf 4y ago
  I get that it was traumatic, but I don't think we should begin comparing the trauma and distress of a bad plane ride for someone with a fear of flying to the trauma and distress of a plane crash. by 'hurt' the earlier parent was pretty obviously (at least for me) referring to the chance at an outright failure and crash resulting in injury or loss of life. not that a bad experience and the resulting psychological trauma doesn't constitute 'hurt'; but it's a kind of hurt that one stands a chance to recover from .
- assttoasstmgr 4y ago
- smabie 4y ago
  Emotional trauma because your plane has to turn around? Give me a break

Ekaros 4y ago

Also if the plane gets retired, does that clause stay there?

TremendousJudge 4y ago
If it's anything like other codebases I've seen, yes.
addaon 4y ago
Yes. Registration numbers can be reused. Even if Delta retires the plane, they are forbidden from flying a future plane with that registration to Accra (barring a presumedly easy appeal), so the code must stay.
- manquer 4y ago
  That seems the opposite of the intended effect. If the buyer is able to buy that plane change the registration (lease it back to Delta even ! )and fly the same plane to Accura. Changing Tail numbers are fairly rare in the industry, given the overhead required, the typical reason it happens when for Tax reasons registration is moved to another country ( numbers have a country prefix), but it is possible .
  - gpm 4y ago
    Authorities aren't computers blindly evaluating code. If Delta tried to sell and then lease the plane I'm pretty sure that the authorities would not just catch on, but find a way to substantially penalize Delta to discourage anyone from trying such a stunt again. Meanwhile it's substantially less work from Delta's point of view to not do that (even before considering the regulators response), so it's not something that's really worth worrying about. It's reasonable for regulators to assume that people aren't going to intentionally fuck with them, when the incentive to fuck with them is practically non-existent...
    - manquer 4y ago
      Sure regulators and authorities are not evaluating regulations like that, but the entity being subject to that regulation frequently challenge such interpretations of regulations and win in court all the time. While the spirit of a law or regulation is important in evaluating a case[1], even the smallest of technicalities are fought over in lawsuits and can determine the outcome of a dispute like this. There are many examples like the famous case that was determined by the Oxford comma to all the cases that decide what EPA, OSHA, CDC, or SEC can and cannot do decided by technicality or literal interpretation So it would be kind of important to have that kind of loophole removed. [1] Texualist proponents and federalist society judges have a strong opinion (when it comes to constitution) that add to my point on that but that is different can of worms I don't want to use as basis of an argument
cjrp 4y ago
Would have been better to ban the plane’s manufacturer serial number.
themadturk 4y ago
Presumably the same registration number wouldn't be necessarily re-used for a 767, and the ban is on the 767 with that registration, not on a hypothetical 777 with the same registration.

tpmx 4y ago

> I would like to see how this is coded into Delta's flight logistics software. By cancelling the service to Accra, probably.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BoorishBears 4y ago
I don't know what level of misunderstanding it takes to think this. Misunderstanding the airline industry, or the country, or how airports operate, or what really.
- jrockway 4y ago
  I think there's a certain contingent that reacts to any regulation with "fine, then I'll take my ball and go home". Country has safety requirements, they deny any service to that country as retribution. The real world has more shades of grey. Delta can probably put a note in their scheduling system to make sure the airliner in question doesn't go to that country. They also know how much money they lose if they take their ball and go home, and probably wouldn't even be flying the route if it was completely unprofitable. (There are probably partners that rely on the service, and maintaining a good relationship with business partners is important too in a less financially-obvious way.)
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    I mean I'm Ghanaian and DL156 is the only non-stop flight from the US to Ghana, and only one of two to the entire region afaik (the other being EWR to LOS) Just going based on how long it's run, the prices myself and family have paid for tickets relative to destinations a similar distance away, observed usage of capacity on each flight, and the fact it has literally no competition, they wouldn't up and cancel it short of some sort of safety threat to their staff or business. Definitely not because a problem airliner gets noted.
- diputsmonro 4y ago

kzrdude 4y ago

another if-else block? I'm thinking another database table of banned plane-route combinations, if they don't already have it.

diputsmonro 4y ago
Ideally, sure, but the article makes it seems like a rare ocurrence. And if their plane maintenance is any indication, I'm not sure their application architecture would be following such best practices.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  This specific thing is a rare occurrence, but “only certain special variant planes can land at this weird airport” (for instance, LCY requires a specific 318 variant) is more common; I’d assume their software can handle all sorts of weird rules.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  And if their plane maintenance is any indication Delta runs one of the premier maintenance outfits (Delta TechOps) globally. About a quarter of their TechOps business is for outside airlines. So sure if that's any indication their application architecture is probably pretty decent (it's not). This was an ETOPS flight, yeah? Those come with higher standards for crew training, maintenance, and minimum equipment per the FAA. I wouldn't worry until/unless the FAA starts making noise about revoking Delta's ETOPS certification (which would hurt their ability to fly a bunch of routes and their ability to perform maintenance for e.g. Hawaiian).
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Seems reasonable that they have some sort of rules engine that tracks this type of thing. A country banning a particular aircraft might be rare but differing environmental and noise laws around the world probably means there are quite a few restrictions on which aircraft can go to which destinations beyond the major reasons like runway size and gate facilities.

bowmessage 4y ago

> no one was hurt Check out https://youtu.be/7PQTMx7TZ9A https://youtu.be/7PQTMx7TZ9A, quite a few folks went through some emotional trauma over this one, unfortunately.

serf 4y ago
I get that it was traumatic, but I don't think we should begin comparing the trauma and distress of a bad plane ride for someone with a fear of flying to the trauma and distress of a plane crash. by 'hurt' the earlier parent was pretty obviously (at least for me) referring to the chance at an outright failure and crash resulting in injury or loss of life. not that a bad experience and the resulting psychological trauma doesn't constitute 'hurt'; but it's a kind of hurt that one stands a chance to recover from .
assttoasstmgr 4y ago
smabie 4y ago
Emotional trauma because your plane has to turn around? Give me a break