Falcon 9 Rocket Launch Scrubbed After Delta Air Flies into Restricted Airspace | Hacker News Reader

Falcon 9 Rocket Launch Scrubbed After Delta Air Flies into Restricted Airspace

paddleyourownkanoo.com

48 pointsfenced_load48 comments

> Delta: "The Delta crew on flight 480 continues to follow ATC instruction along its journey from Los Angeles (LAX) to Honolulu (HNL). The flight is en route to HNL with no issue.”

Apparently ATC (Air Traffic Control) was unaware of the TRF (Temporary Flight Restriction) around Vandenburg for launches. Perhaps this will prompt an improvement in communication and cooperation in future.

I wonder if ATC gets a number to call.

It's should not be ATC's responsibility to call anyone with random checks for NOTAMs to issue. If you want a NOTAM, you call ATC.

At least, that's the only way it makes any kind of logical sense.

Grandparent was a joke, when airplane pilots make a mistake. ATC gives them a number to call.

Please don't post about things you don't know anything about. The internet is muddled enough as it is.

Um, akshually, I do know about this. I've launched balloons to 100,000', and part of the proper procedure for doing this is to notify ATC. Depending on the type of balloon and equipment, you might have to contact them multiple times during the course of the balloon's flight. At a minimum, it is at launch and once you have it on the ground again. I had to notify when our balloon was above controlled air space on ascent, and then again when it was descending and ETA on re-entering controlled air space. We were near an air force base, and ATC relayed our reports to them as well

Okay, but we're talking about flying airplanes. Literally everyone who has ever even remotely looked into flying airplanes in America will know that ATC asking you to copy down a number means "you messed up big time and are going to get lectured, chewed out, or worse".

I guess you haven't been much in comment sections under ATC recordings channels, like VASAaviation and such

it's relatively common to see events where pilots mess up (to a dangerous degree), so ATC says "I have a number for you to call"

basic pattern recognition transforms it into a meme catchphrase for the fans for anyone who messes up

Lmao

The ATC was very much aware of the launch in progress[0]. The ATC made a mistake by instructing DL480 to fly a more northern route than the aircrew originally filed.

[0]: https://youtu.be/4RMhf0YELrA

BTW, it's written Vandenberg, not Vandenburg as in the article.

The Dutch influence goes far!

Perhaps, but `burg` and `berg` have two different meanings in German as well, so perhaps that is where the noise comes from.

Some of the noise is also there in German, cf https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergfried (the English page has the same name, but does not mention Burgfried). Just an example, could be very well unrelated.

The comments from the VASAviation video [0] seem to indicate that it wasn’t the DL but instead the WN plane that caused the scrub. The DL was routed north of the zone and the WN was routed south of the zone. The launch path is southerly, so it seems like the WN was the more likely offender, but I guess we won’t know specifically until we hear from the RSO.

[0] https://youtu.be/4RMhf0YELrA

There's still a lot of disagreement as to the details of this event https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1881114751998279729

This is slightly poetic after the flights diverted due to the Starship debris the other day.

Also remind me never to fly Delta.

If this is what you’re choosing as criteria for never flying Delta I’m going to suggest you never fly out of LAX. Commercial airliners are directed by ATC along defined routes or given headings and altitudes by the ATC.

Delta seems to have done nothing wrong, they were following incorrect instructions from air traffic control.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, but as a pilot (even a commercial pilot about to be instructed by ATC) are you not still expected to look up conditions in the area of your flight? I would expect NOTAMs to be a part of that check of the conditions. If you know of the restrictions and ATC instructs you into that area, a quick confirm request about the NOTAM conflict does not seem out of place.

Yes & no, definitely more no for practical reasons. Let me explain;

ATC are ultimately expected to know about restrictions and keep traffic away from them.

NOTAM's are a notorious pain point for nearly all pilots. Modern EFB's make that easier, but in the 121 world - the ops folks handle your routing and plan for that stuff - as a pilot you "trust but verify", and most skim through the all the things (routing, fuels, weather, pax/cargo, notams, SIDS/STARS etc) to make sure that the flight is doable, it's doable safely, and it's "legal".

What you're expecting is a pilot to have a read a NOTAM, memorised all the latitude / longitude co-ordinates that are in the NOTAM for the "grid" that's off limits, and the associated altitudes, know exactly where that is in relation to where they are, and then be able to ask ATC about it a few hours into their flight, when the instruction could be as benign as "Delta 100, turn right heading 040".

Chances are the original routing for the flight kept them safely out of the TFR, but the ATC instruction for whatever sent them through it, even briefly. That instruction could've been for any number of reasons, from weather to traffic, to sequencing to even sidestepping a different restriction of some kind.

Here's a NOTAM for a Starship launch (I don't know if it was for this one specifically, I don't want to use my limited brain cells right now):

  B0995/24 NOTAMN MMFR/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/ MMFR 2411181300 2411262300 18-22 25 26 1300-1500 2100-2300, 23 24 1300-1400 2100-2300 DANGEROUS AREA FOR LAUNCHING OF ROCKET STARSHIP SUPER HEAVY ORBITAL TEST FLIGHT 6 LATERAL LIMIT AREA FORMED BY THE UNION OF THE FLW POINTS: 25 52 0.00N 097 11 0.00W 25 18 0.00N 096 30 0.00W 24 39 0.00N 093 13 0.00W 24 10 0.00N 090 17 0.00W 24 57 0.00N 089 36 0.00W 24 27 0.00N 085 58 0.00W 24 09 0.00N 084 11 0.00W 23 39 0.00N 081 10 0.00W 23 07 0.00N 078 45 0.00W 23 35 0.00N 078 36 0.00W 24 19 0.00N 082 13 0.00W 24 50 0.00N 084 33 0.00W 25 20 0.00N 087 20 0.00W 26 47 0.00N 092 60 0.00W 26 38 0.00N 095 39 0.00W 26 27 0.00N 096 32 0.00W 26 10 0.00N 097 11 0.00W 26 00 0.00N 097 14 0.00W 25 52 0.00N 097 11 0.00W MMFR SFC UNL

To underscore your point, the original flight plan almost certainly did not transit that region. So the pilot likely wouldn’t have even been aware that there’s a TFR somewhere vaguely adjacent to their intended path.

ATC issues minor deviations all the time and for a plethora of reasons as you mentioned. And those instructions are expected to be followed promptly, not “after I’ve spent a half hour re-reviewing hundreds of possible NOTAMs along the new course”.

> Here's a NOTAM for a Starship launch (I don't know if it was for this one specifically, I don't want to use my limited brain cells right now):

2411 sticks out from the datestamp, so no, not this one unless the news article is 2 months late.

There is usually a difference between 'did nothing wrong' and primary responsibility.

In this case, DAL neither did anything wrong nor bears any responsibility.

They were being controlled by ATC, ATC told them where to fly. ATC erred.

If ATC put them straight into a Mountain, would it be correct to dutifully fly into it, or would that be an error on the pilot side?

My understanding is that Pilots are also required to review NOTAMs. There are tons of systems and operations with redundancy built in. An error in the primary does not negate an error in the backup. In fact, it is often the only way you learn of errors with the backup.

ATC instruction can be countermanded in the event of gross error or emergency.

That said, ATC instructions are to be followed promptly in the absence of such factors. You don’t get to wait and check hundreds of possible minor and irrelevant NOTAMs to find the before following through on their instruction, on the off chance they’ve completely screwed the pooch and are sending you through a TFR.

Sure, of course if ATC tells them to land on a runway that is clearly occupied they have a responsibility to notice this and override.

In this case, they were directed into an area that was not occupied by an authority that controls the region's airspace. They could have asked ATC about it but ATC has control over the airspace.

From the article, Delta pilots were following air traffic control directions.

Delta is like the single decent airline in the US.

According to the article, they were flying the route as directed by air traffic control.

As a pilot, I can tell you that when you're being controlled, the controller takes responsibility for your navigation. This had nothing to do with Delta specifically. Any other pilot flying under the same conditions would have done the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com