Under FAA rules this was a screwup. [edit: see my own reply] (However, the rules are subtle, so they can be partially forgiven.) However, I'm not only a dispatcher but also a philosophy BA, so I've found a good way to explain it.
Your reserve fuel (the "extra" fuel over what the actual flight burn) can of course be used (hello, that's what it's there for) but—and here's the rub—you can never plan on using it.
That is to say, in this case, when they missed their first or second approach, they CANNOT say, "We'll use our reserve fuel and make another go at it" because that would be intentionally planning to burn your reserve.
You may only dip into your reserve when you have no other choice. In this case, when the only fuel they had left was reserve, they are obligated by law to proceed to the alternate airport, which clearly they did not do [correction: they did do the proper thing; see my 2nd reply below]. No bueno.
[this is a slight simplification (minor details omitted for brevity) but the kernel of the issue is properly described]
Update: OK, if *Edinburgh* was their alternate and they missed there and were then forced to bugout for Manchester, that's then an example of when reserve is OK to be burned. (The 'slight simplification' I omitted was unpacking how the alternate fuel plays into the process, but here, that was a key part of the series of events.) That's what I get for not reading TFA first :-/
Not really, you should have enough fuel to make it to multiple alternatives or make emergency landing somewhere else. You should never burn that last 45 mins unless you want to make the news and file a lot of paperwork.
The regs are quite specific on if and when we need an alternate, which is weather dependent, and what your fuel requirements are. And we don't really have the idea of "multiple alternatives", but I guess it's implied by the additional reserve - what us Americans call a reserve or the Europeans call "final reserve". In case you're curious, we use the TAF (termimal area forecast) to determine if we need an alternate, and use a 1,2,3 rule which is 1 hour before and 1 hour after arrival time we need ceilings of at least 2000 ft and 3 statute miles of horizontal visibility.
Er.. and maybe crash and kill yourself, all your passengers and crew and people on the ground.
[flagged]
I'm curious why you did that? It's not a very complicated sequence. The whole point of engaging in a discussion here is to think about the issues raised and offer a point of view while incorporating other perspectives into yours. You've spent your money to bypass the whole intent of this site; akin to you being hungry then sending someone else to a restaurant for you so you can later read their review of the food.
EDIT and you of most of the commenters here, with your industry background, are better placed to offer an opinion!
> It's not a very complicated sequence.
For me, it was. I have trouble forming a mental model of itineraries so I’m grateful for the summary.
Why? I saw no upside to reading a layman's media source and teasing out the sequence, which is all I wanted to know. I read NTSB reports for pleasure and my favorite YT creator is Blancolirio. There's an infintesimal chance that the story had any juicy details I cared about. Also, it was work hours and I really didn't have any more time to devote to topic. I was in a rush to get my take out there, since I am a legitimate SME.
I think you missed the point.
Presenting information in different ways is useful (and the method of display can offer informational insights itself). And for different users it might help parse larger connections. And by using the LLM to summarize just that one facet of the problem (itinerary and sequence) and sharing it here, they’ve contributed in a meaningful way. It may not have warranted a response. But it added to overall understanding of the problem space to help facilitate discussion. And they did well enough by citing that the info came from an LLM. They didn’t bypass the intent of the site. They added to it and fell right in line with that intent.
Okay that's fair.
I had no issue with the contribution itself, the route summary is helpful.
> And they did well enough by citing that the info came from an LLM.
In terms of acknowledging AI contribution, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Here it's sidetracked a discussion; but transparency is better than otherwise I suppose. Perhaps it just boils down to taste - and I don't like it.
Anyway, you made me think!
You also made me think. I think the problem lies in the nature of “threaded” discussions. The information was useful, but it wasn’t necessarily a “reply” to any particular comment. But, the design here leaves no other choice when adding it. It maybe doesn’t make sense as a top-level comment either. It’s almost like we need to have…side comments? Asides? Like a place to just drop in relevant tidbits and informational helpers rather than a true “comment”. Maybe it’s as simple as having a means to turn off replies to signify that a contribution was an “relevant aside”.
But yes, in a perfectly meta way, I think we’ve both thought more about the nature and design of web comments and information and the implications of LLM-assisted chat ‘augmentation’. (All those AI summaries forced upon us in every site is probably the worse implementation of this!)
With all due respect, you are the one that sidetracked the discussion, not the person that acknowledged AI
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Even though I’ve read the entire article, I found it very difficult to mentally visualize and ended up not noticing that there were three destination airports involved.
[flagged]
[flagged]
"Under FAA rules this was a screwup."
Not necessarily. And I get that you've caveated yourself with an edit and a reply etc, but lets assume that you're not hedging for the moment.
They carried required reserves on departure. Multiple approaches thwarted by extreme unforseen weather. They declared Mayday Fuel, which is mandatory under EASA regulations, when reserve fuel use became unnavoidable. They diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Landing with 220kg is close, but within bounds of a declared fuel emergency.
Crew decision to declare Mayday and divert was proper airmanship, not negligence.
Yes, reserve fuel may not be planned for. But it may be used. It's there for a reason. Your accusation doesn't account for dynamic evolving weather and realtime decision making.
I'm an instrument rated pilot and an advanced ground instructor under FAA and I fly IMC in bad weather as single pilot IFR around the pacific northwest and colorado.
This is the right answer.
Was this good/bad? Idk Room for improvement? Maybe? Clearer direction with the benefit of hindsight? Maybe. but the majority of the sentiment in the responses is coming from people not type rated in a 737.
Where's Nathan Fielder when you need him?
Some commenters are claiming the flight should have never taken off and that the weather situation was entirely predictable. What's your take on that?
Generally, if it's legal to take off, we're going.
(Source: am airline captain)
> That is to say, in this case, when they missed their first or second approach, they CANNOT say, "We'll use our reserve fuel and make another go at it" because that would be intentionally planning to burn your reserve.
Is that what happened? That's not in the article, what's the source?
And other comments here are saying the third attempt was in Edinburgh, so they were already trying to land anywhere possible by the third attempt.
At what point are you saying they chose to plan on using reserves when they still had any option for landing without reserves?
OP didn’t have the full picture. They’ve offered appropriate edits/updates
> you can never plan on using it
In off-roading, we have a similar rule with 4 wheel drive. You don't use it to go in, you use it to get out.
in what way do FAA rules apply to operators doing a European to UK flight in an airline that doesn't operate in the US?
Similar philosophies but with differences. e.g. FAA reserve requirements is destination + alternate + 45 mins reserve. EASA is destination + alternate + final reserve which is 30 mins holding for jets and 45 mins for pistons IIRC. But in both cases it's that idea of a destination, an alternatite, and additional. And then there's the requirements around whether you need an alternate, etc.
See my comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45541096 [I am expert in CFR 14 Part 121, so I made reference to the regulations I'm qualified to directly speak on.]
I was wondering that too. I've taken it to mean "if this situation had happened in the Americas..." as the most generous interpretation I can make.
If you're into your reserves you should declare an emergency immediately to get priority in air traffic sequencing and control.
Pilots may be organizationally disincentivized when making this decision.
It's required when using your reserve under EASA to declare Mayday Fuel.
> Under FAA rules this was a screwup
An oversight I'm sure they can fix ;-)
FAA as a yardstick? Hm