Hacker News Reader

That notification you got about the "20 minutes worth of fuel left" meant before they were forced to divert to the alternate.

There are numerous FAA requirements about this depending on if you are IFR/VFR, the airport, the expected weather, etc. but the bottom line is sufficient fuel to:

1) Fly to your intended destination.

2) Fly from the destination to the alternate (if required).

3) Fly for an additional 45 minutes at normal cruise speed (minimum).

What the pilot was saying was that they had 20 more minutes until they had to go to Pittsburgh. If it took 45 minutes instead of 20, it was because the computer calculated that was exactly how much more time they could hold.

There was no gliding on your flight. It may have felt that way during a descent at flight idle.

The flight may have been scary to the passengers, and people may not have wanted to get back on, but I'm sure it was quite routine to the people up front.

Source: US certified commercial pilot, Aero. Sci. degree. Certified ATC.

> That notification you got about the "20 minutes worth of fuel left" meant before they were forced to divert to the alternate.

I believe you but this is yet another reason why it was inappropriate for the pilot to mention this to passengers. Nearly everyone around me was visibly distressed as we "idled" to Pittsburgh.

> The flight may have been scary to the passengers, and people may not have wanted to get back on, but I'm sure it was quite routine to the people up front.

Maybe for the pilot/copilot but the flight attendants' facial expressions when I got off the plane did not suggest to me that this was routine.

Flight attendant likely does not know the minimum fuel requirements for IFR flight either, and was likely thinking the same thing the passengers were.

The flight attendants know that the pilot is not going to intentionally let the plane run out of fuel and will land before that happens, even if means declaring an emergency and diverting to any available airfield.

i'm sure they'd like to think that, but exactly that has happened in the past. Avianca Flight 52.

At some point you kind of need to assume the pilots aren’t suicidal nor are they complete idiots, and it would be ridiculous for them to simply circle around aimlessly until they run out of fuel. Being motivated for survival, they are going to fly to the nearest appropriate airport well in advance of an actual emergency situation.

Further consider that other than this story—where the aircraft ran out of fuel due to a wildly unlucky confluence of technical and human failures—you have never heard of a passenger jet running out of fuel midair. Through decades of storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and every other natural disaster imaginable, we have found a way to get planes onto the ground with fuel to spare.

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-words-not-spoken-the...

That accident sparked a huge change in radio verbiage though, it was a total miscommunication..

It was totally avoidable had the crew been able to convey the message to ATC that they had zero fuel left.

> The last US fatal accident was 14 years ago ... which just goes to show how incredibly safe this all is.

This isn’t quite true, there was that poor woman sucked out of the Southwest flight in 2018. But your broader point is 100% correct.

Please tell me someone intentionally opened the door. I had not previously thought getting blown out of a plane was a likely possibility.

An engine failed mid-flight, the casing failed to contain the fan blades as they are designed to do, and one went through a passenger window.

Again, Swiss cheese model. This is some Final Destination shit, not something anyone not an aircraft designer should spend time worrying about.

The engine shredded itself midflight and blew a hole in the fuselage next to her seat. The other passengers held her and prevented her from being completely sucked out but she still died from her injuries.

Also someone on the ground crew on New Year’s Eve pulled into the engine, though they apparently disregarded multiple warnings about clearance distance from the engine even after nearly getting knocked over by exhaust. I’m not sure how that sort of thing (disregarding multiple warnings & a near miss) can be prevented:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/25/alabama-airp...

Wasn’t that one ruled a suicide?

That was a different one, in Texas more recently. I have to wonder if the person was influenced in their choice of method by the relatively recent news of another dying the same way. In the end that of things, the method, probably doesn’t matter much.

988

Dialing that, at least in the US, will get help to anyone who needs it

n/m

> but unless you're qualifying what you said to mean something more specific

You're correct. I've edited.

That flight certainly did not do any unpowered gliding. With their "20 minutes left" line, the pilot likely meant "20 minutes until we hit our reserve fuel", at which point they would be forced to declare a fuel emergency and land at whatever airport is available.

If so, the pilot would have done better to keep his mouth shut. Why the hell would someone say that to a bunch of passengers who are presumably totally untrained in aviation?

Because it makes no sense to assume that the pilots, at least one of whom presumably prefers to continue living, would just circle around to the point where the engines quit?

The pilots are in the same plane as you. They aren’t going to just let the plane run out of fuel because some person on the ground says “sorry, can’t land at this airport yet, hang out for awhile”.

If there was a real emergency they’d be putting the plane down on the nearest runway-shaped surface no matter what.

Further, I’d wager the pilot said something along the lines of “we have twenty minutes of fuel before we need to consider diverting to [alternate airport]” or something to that effect.

Absence of information is almost always way more scary (and sometimes leads to panic) than the presence of even a little of some.

Maybe pilot wanted to say what there is still enough time for them to keep waiting, but in that situation didn't though how that phrase would sound for the passengers.

I find it hard to believe this story really happened the way you are presenting it. "We glided until we landed" makes it sound like the plane ran out of fuel - did it really? It would be hard to hide such an incident. Your strong language ("lied", "illegal", "absolutely inappropriate" further down) makes me think there is more nuance to this.

Edit: "with all lights off" - turning off the lights for a landing is regular procedure, nothing unusual.

Your intuition is correct. The story as told by the parent is likely just due to a misunderstanding (or just lack of knowledge) of 1) the pilot's words over the PA and 2) standard procedures used in commercial air travel.

Especially in emergencies. Lights are turned off so passenger eyes can get used to the dim light and see the exit lights (which are not bright) better.

... and if it's dark outside, their eyes are adjusted to see in the darkness once they've evacuated outside the plane too.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36854536

> turning off the lights for a landing is regular procedure, nothing unusual.

The lights were off for about an hour as we glided toward Pittsburgh.

> Your strong language

My assessment is that I was told my luggage would continue on to DC without me if I didn't board in an attempt to get the plane leaving as soon as possible after refueling. I didn't care enough to get back on, and learned the following day that they had actually removed my luggage before departure.

Your place is not gonna glide unpowered for an hour.

Exactly, the record is 19 minutes (Air Transat 236).

In situations like this, it helps to remember that there is no disjoint between you and the pilots. They are in the same exact situation as you: if the fuel runs out, they crash the same as you. They're not willfully going to put their (and your) lives in danger. They want to get home safely to their families the same as you do.

Dispatch and route planning (and the fuel that goes into the planning) is really intense and takes into account hundreds of factors including stuff like how much fuel do I need if I can't land at my nominated backup airport and have to go to a secondary backup airport.

Domestically, checked baggage can fly even if you don't. It depends on the situation.

> They want to get home safely to their families the same as you do.

Except when they don't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34506004

When anything well-operated deviates from the norm, people are going to question / panic, and rightly so.

> Domestically, checked baggage can fly even if you don't. It depends on the situation.

I could be wrong about it being illegal, I was just repeating what an (other) airline employee told me. But they did take my luggage off the plane after telling me that they weren't going to.

It's weird to me that they unloaded anything in the hold for what should have been a refuel-and-go. Unless they're expecting you to be held on the ground for 3+ hours, they typically don't even bother getting the pax out much less the bags.

But there's always https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

Just to be clear, when you say you "glided" are you saying that you ran out of fuel? Because if it did actually run out of fuel there should be a report about it somewhere and I'm really interested in finding it or why it somehow doesn't exist. If they ran *low* on fuel, that is something else entirely.

EDIT: Looks like everyone else jumped on this at the same time. lol.

There's no possible way the story is true as relayed by the parent. If the flight was indeed forced into a situation where there was an unpowered glide into landing, that airframe and crew would both be grounded for some time, not turned around and put back out for the continuance of the flight.

I have no way of knowing whether or not the plane ran out of fuel. I'm assuming they kept some fuel, e.g. in case they didn't stick the landing on the first attempt.

There is, as others pointed out if a plane runs out of fuel there are reports, hearings, investigations. Nothing goes that wrong in modern commercial aviation, pretty much anywhere in the world, without being seriously looked in.

JFC, yes you do.

The plane did not run out of fuel. If the plane had run out of fuel, the flight crew would have prepared you for a potential crash landing. There would be no question whatsoever. It would have made national news. The plane and crew would have been grounded pending investigation by the airline and the NTSB, and not gone on to resume its journey shortly thereafter. Hell, everything else aside, it would have sat dead on the runway, unable to taxi, while passengers disembarked on the inflatable slides.

Your plane had plenty of fuel. It followed established procedure where they waited for as long as they could, diverted when the fuel situation warranted a change of plans, and landed at the alternate airport with more than enough fuel for at least one go-around and likely two.

> while passengers disembarked on the inflatable slides.

This bit isn't right. They would have brought a tug out to the runway and towed the aircraft to a remote stand, then used a staircase.

The slides are only used if there's imminent danger of fire. People often get injured using them.

In principle this is true. In practice, without the engines on you don’t have hydraulics which means no anti-skid and the pilots have to stomp on the brakes. This means overheated brakes and popped tires, almost certainly starting small fires that will warrant the slides.

Every incident has to go into the carrier's safety reporting system which is then followed up by the FAA and/or NTSB. Even stuff as simple as a flight attendant feeling fatigued after not getting enough rest goes into the SRS.

I don't think the public has access to the SRS but the FAA and NTSB do.

What happens if you don't go into the 2nd flight? I wouldn't, personally, as someone who are not fan of flying. Is Pittsburgh far enough from Washington to not take a bus?

> What happens if you don't go into the 2nd flight?

They took my luggage off the plane and United agreed to put me on the next flight to my final destination for free even though tickets were $750 that day.

If you can find the specific flight in a log online somewhere, you might be able to find the pilot and bring some sort of legal action... if you're lucky, a lawyer might send a letter for the lolz if they offer you a settlement.

there is no proof that anything the crew said over the PA was literally true. They should be honest about their plans ("we should me at the destination shortly" or "we're diverting to XYZ now") but the particulars of fuel management and the regulations are not digestible to the layperson.

Hell, I had to unpack them & explain them to the pilots every once in a while. (They'd often form some interpretation that worked out "best" ... for them personally).

It was absolutely inappropriate for the pilot to talk about fuel levels over PA.

Any idea why he didn't land in Columbus?

In situations where there many diversions, sometimes secondary airports either get too busy to accept additional A/C or run out of space or crews to deal with them.

Sure, that makes sense. Does that likely mean there were other flights with even less fuel that had to land ahead of this plane, or how do they triage that situation? It seems like a failure to triage properly if one plane has to glide, but maybe I'm naive about how close all of the other planes are to gliding.

No planes had to glide.

Planes diverted to Columbus until they couldn’t accept any more diversions, at which point the rest diverted elsewhere. If any planes had a genuine fuel emergency where Columbus was the only option, other planes with more fuel would have been rediverted elsewhere.

My guess is there were too many other more urgent flights landing there at the time.

vids?