
Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home - devy
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/delta-goes-big-then-goes-home/
======
omegant
Commercial pilot here, currently flying transatlantic routes. I avoided Irma
last week while flying to Buenos Aires (it was not this big yet). I have
partners in San Juan at this moment, bunkered in the hotel. We see this as a
crazy move, very well executed, but too risky for the plane itself (not so
much for the crew).

Let me explain, the metar and tafors (the airport meteorological reports we
use) during the flight in San Juan show that the flight was doable. No crazy
winds during landing, and worsening during take of but well within the limits
you may find in a local thunderstorm. The predictions allowed them to see the
window to fly in and out. If arriving the weather was too bad or you see the
hurricane getting too close to the airport,they could have got away without
landing. For take off either you have the right conditions (under the legal
limits) or you don't.

What they risked IMHO is having some kind of technical problem or delay once
in San Juan and having to stay there to weather the hurricane. That could mean
heavy damage to the airplane while on the airport, even a total loss.

That said for me the most amazing of it all, is not the short stay at the
ground. While very fast is not uncommon to see them with an experieced team,
the slower part is the disembarking and embarking of the passengers, and they
surely were all motivated to hurry.

The most impressive is how they followed the quite thin alley between the
hurricane arms till they were clear of the bad weather. In a situation like
that you only see red and magenta in your radar and a narrow black or green
zone where you can fly safely. That's surely was the most scary part for them
beyond the adrenalin of a fast and potentially dangerous operation.

Looks like the typical movie scene of a spaceship passing between closing
doors!! Certainly brass balls.

Edit: some typos and a "don't" that I left behind and was changing the meaning
of a sentence. Sorry written from the cellphone.

~~~
collinmanderson
Amazing. Anyone have a video of the flight path with radar?

~~~
CoffeeDregs
[https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl302#ec2eb82](https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl302#ec2eb82)

~~~
MichaelApproved
Is it possible to show the playback of the flight _with weather_?

~~~
digi_owl
seems various weather layers are included in the higher tiers of payment
packages (the business package in particular).

Not sure if they are also part of recorded flights though.

------
simplyluke
During the cold war my grandfather flew bombers into the eyes of hurricanes to
drop sonar beacons. I'm sure he'd get a kick out of this.

The older bombers they flew were all manual controls (as opposed to fly by
wire), which meant physical exhaustion from wrestling the plane into the storm
was a major factor - so they'd bring extra fuel to be able to circle the eye
of the storm for some amount of time to build up the strength to fly back out.

------
KeepTalking
This is the second such instance in the past month. \- For a longer discussion
on the topic see this thread on airliners.net
[http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373093](http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373093)

\- On August 24 Typhoon Hato hit HongKong hard. All airlines canceled their
service in and out of HKIA, except a lone KLM flight from Amsterdam. Similar
to the delta flight into San Juan, this flight created a large media storm
into the risk involved.
[http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2017/08/24/klm-747-ty...](http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2017/08/24/klm-747-typhoon-
hato/)

While I am not a pilot, I know that such flights involve sophisticated
planning (route, fuel, approach), weather prediction as well as diversionary
plans if things do not work out. No airline would undertake such a high-risk
move without the confidence that they are not putting lives at risk.

~~~
Udik
Consider that they were carrying 170 people away from a hurricane that killed,
among the millions of people that were on its path, a total (until now) of 11.
If that single plane crashed, it would have multiplied by 15 the total death
toll of the storm. I'm sure that the risk must have been quite low for the
operation to make any sense.

~~~
peteretep
Generally, after a disaster, the death toll is artificially limited to bodies
reporters can actually count, before rocketing up as infrastructure comes back
online

~~~
mysterypie
That's not what happened during the 9/11 attacks. The death toll was reported
as more than 6000. Weeks later it was suddenly adjusted downward to 3000ish
and finally settled at 2997.

The extreme overestimate was ostensibly due to "double counting", which I find
to be a wholly unsatisfactory explanation. With all the info that they
collected about each person who was missing -- name, DOB, photos, ID numbers,
where they worked in the building or who they were visiting -- how can they
possibly double count 3000 people?

And you're saying that generally after a disaster it works exactly the
opposite way: a low number initially which gets adjusted upwards. Interesting.
Almost as if there was a desire to make 9/11 look even worse (as horrible as
it was).

------
dtparr
Wired's write-up from yesterday has a few more details including some quotes
from Delta personnel: [https://www.wired.com/story/delta-plane-hurricane-
irma](https://www.wired.com/story/delta-plane-hurricane-irma)

~~~
noobermin
How could neither article mention the name of the pilot? Just the company
"Delta".

~~~
flycaliguy
Because this is marketing.

~~~
pc86
Probably because the pilot didn't choose to make the flight, the pilot was
just doing their job, and their name is irrelevant.

Edit: What I meant by "didn't choose to make the flight" was that the pilot
didn't wake up and decide he was going to San Juan that day. He was assigned
the flight, and presumably _did_ have the authority to say it would be too
dangerous. Maybe not though, I'm not an ATP.

------
nxsynonym
As easy of a target as airlines are for the usual criticism, this is an heroic
feat. I applaud the efforts of everyone involved.

I can't image what it must be like to fly into a storm system like that.
Nerves of steel.

~~~
antihero
I wonder if the pilots volunteer for the run? It'd be interesting to know the
internal culture with regards to it.

~~~
qume
The captain makes the same call on every flight. The plane and passangers are
her responsibility regardless of the situation.

Edit - also the call is made continuously. They can back out any time.

~~~
minz
Why do you put "her responsibility", instead of "his responsibility", as
captain's grammatical gender is masculine?

~~~
grzm
English doesn't generally have gendered nouns, and the few it has are
generally going out of use. I'm not aware of captain as being gendered in
English.

~~~
minz
How do you choose between his or her in this case?

~~~
grzm
This is more involved than I care to get into here. Here's a Wikipedia article
which discusses it:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
person_pronoun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun)

Why create an account to make your initial comment? It doesn't seem very
substantial or on-topic. The two reasons I can think of aren't very
charitable, which is why I'm asking, assuming that it's neither of those.

~~~
schrodinger
My charitable explanation is that it's a non native speaker of English
genuinely asking the question to learn.

------
SeoxyS
Two points:

1) Hurricanes are actually harmless to planes. The only part of the flight
that includes any danger is landing, due to wind and low visibility. But
flying at cruising altitude or even through the storm is fairly harmless, as
most winds are horizontal and nothing out of the ordinary for a plane. Keep in
mind that the NOAA regularly flies commercial jets (such as a Gulfstream V)
into hurricanes. Also keep in mind that never in the history of aviation has a
plane been brought down by a cyclone. Thunderstorms, on the other hand, are
much more dangerous. The main difference is that in a cyclone, air moves
horizontally, while in a thunderstorm it moves vertically in bursts, which is
much more difficult to navigate.

2) From what I've heard, this was not a commercial flight but a flight mainly
aimed at evacuating non-rev airline employees. The main issue with doing this
flight for regular passengers would be fear and discomfort due to turbulence.
Airline employees on the other hand are used to flying, know that turbulence
is harmless, and would rather just get home.

~~~
yardie
As someone who has lived through some of the strongest hurricanes in recorded
history you are wrong on multiple counts. Flying through the storm and the
wall eye is dangerous and NOAA has lost planes to it. One of their hardened P3
had equipment and life raft ripped from their anchors [0]. There is definitely
lightning and waterspouts during a hurricane. That is not reserved for
thunderstorms.

This was a flight to evacuate crew who are stationed in PR. Non-rev refers to
crew who are commuting or on holiday. On a typical flight a plane may turn
over in a few hours but the crew may remain for 24 hours and leave the
following flight. This crew was down route and needed to head back to their
operating base.

[0]
[https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo8.asp](https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo8.asp)

~~~
SeoxyS
Non-rev refers to any non-revenue passengers. You're conflating NRSA (non
revenue space available) with non-rev generally. There's also NRPS (non
revenue positive space) and "must ride" flyers in that category. This flight
was picking up airline personnel, not revenue passengers.

Your having lived through hurricanes on the ground is entirely irrelevant to a
discussion about the safety of overflying the hurricane.

At the flight altitudes of a commercial jet none of the effects you mention
happen. You need to plan your path carefully for the descent, landing, and
takeoff. But at cruising altitude, hurricane winds are not a major safety
concern.

~~~
yardie
> flying at cruising altitude or even through the storm is fairly harmless,

Yes, so harmless that no one does it. NOAA has to use an extremely reinforced,
highly maintained fleet of P3 Orions. You've mentioned repeatedly in your
parent posts that hurricanes are harmless to planes when commercial pilots in
this forum say they wouldn't do it without excellent weather planning.

> You need to plan your path carefully for the descent, landing, and takeoff.
> But at cruising altitude, hurricane winds are not a major safety concern.

Planes have all sorts of cruising envelopes. Gulfstreams are in the 40k feet.
Commercial jets cruise at 25-35K foot band. And commercial turboprops
(commuter shuttles) are in the 10-20k foot band. While the first 2 won't feel
the gale force winds they can experience the updrafts as turbulence.
Commercial jets fly in the lower stratum of the stratosphere. There is still
weather phenomena at the height, just much less than the troposphere.

Finally, the captain will avoid a hurricane even if it doesn't really affect
them. They may need to decend to a lower attitude for an engine flameout, for
example. And why deal with the added complication of emergency landing during
a hurricane.

~~~
SeoxyS
There are plenty of ancillary reasons to avoid overflying hurricanes when
possible—such as passenger comfort, to avoid possible turbulence; or if it
disables nearby diversion points in case of an issue inflight.

But people here are making wild claims that overflying hurricanes is
inherently dangerous and puts lives at risk. That's factually incorrect and is
what I came here to correct. You (and others) are making examples about the
NOAA's Orions (which are reinforced to fly _through_ , not _over_ hurricanes,
flying into the wildest parts on purpose), and or other turboprops which fly
10-20k ft. That's not what we're talking about here… we're talking about
commercial jet aircraft which fly at 30-40k ft. Business jets fly even higher,
sometimes up to 52,000ft. Just this week, I flew private in a Citation X at
49,000ft.

~~~
blorsh
Hurricanes reach to 60,000 feet.

------
passivepinetree
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?

~~~
treyfitty
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.

~~~
mistercow
For reference, the cost of a 737-900ER is about $100M. The value of the PR
that comes from a heroic evacuation is hard to measure.

~~~
forapurpose
How about the cost of PR if the plane crashes and your airline looks insanely
reckless and guilty of manslaughter?

~~~
stordoff
Even if the plane crashes, a properly planned flight shouldn't look reckless -
knowing the risks, but deciding them manageable and the best option for
everyone involved doesn't seem too far removed from a normal flight.

It's also not just an airline decision - you've got a pilot in control who can
make the no-go call at any point, and their training should prevent them from
undertaking unnecessary risks.

~~~
forapurpose
Your analysis is rational but the discussion is about public relations
outcomes, not decision making. The public response to issues like this one is
almost always not rational and does not rely on risk management.

------
sixdimensional
Wow, this is really incredible. The flight path out of Puerto Rico is nearly
perfectly optimal to avoid the weather.

I wonder, is this a good (and incredibly positive) example of what quality
real-time/near-real-time data can do for decision-making?

Bravo.

~~~
Dowwie
I wouldn't glorify the analytics too much in this case. I'm confident that the
management and the pilots made decisions that far exceeded decisions that
could be made with data approximations.

~~~
noxToken
Can't make decisions without data. Sure, management and flight crew deserve
the lion's share, but that real-time data is probably critical for those
decisions.

~~~
phkahler
You know those planes have their own weather radar right?

------
En_gr_Student
I hate the title because it sounds like a failure when in fact it is an
excellent thing Delta did.

~~~
conanbatt
I agree, the pun has a negative connotation whereas the article is about a
feat.

------
ars
I'm wondering about the ground crew willing to stay in the airport to help
this flight get going - and then having to get to a shelter in the middle of a
hurricane.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
While I'm not familiar with SJU, my guess is an airport terminal is likely one
of the more sturdy buildings around, and is likely to have some pretty robust
structures you can take shelter in. Most commercial buildings are sturdier
than the average house, and I'd rather be at an airport than at home in a
storm that levels buildings.

~~~
a_e_k
I used to live about 20 minutes drive away from SJU (my parents still do) and
travelled through it frequently for college breaks. SJU is much like any other
largish international airport in the U.S.

Many of the houses and buildings there are sturdier than you'd think. My
parents house is at the end of a row of six or so that share walls. So they
buffer each other's flanks during a hurricane. Their windows don't have glass.
Instead it's screens covered by storm shutters with iron bars over those.
Also, the houses are constructed of thick reinforced concrete rather than the
picturesque wood, siding, and shingles that you might be thinking of. It's
actually rather bunker like. Hurricanes can hit several times per year and
those houses are built to take the punishment.

(Got word from my parents last night that the power was out and their street
is filled with windblown debris that they and their neighbors will be cleaning
up today, but otherwise they came through fine.)

------
rsimmer
The downside of the internet... suddenly everyone pretends to be an aviation
expert.

~~~
quickthrower2
And no IANAP disclaimers

------
rphlx
I am surprised this flight was approved and permitted by airline, government,
and insurer procedures... the risk/reward looks exceptionally poor, as the
storm could amplify a normally-moderate, manageable mechanical failure into a
situation that greatly overwhelms the flight crew (and there is definitely
precedent for that in the accident record).

There are probably at least some NTSB human factors specialists cringing at
this.

------
Cshelton
Other than a very bumpy ride and lots of nerves, I would think a 737 (and many
other commercial jets) would have no problem flying through a hurricane.
Landing on the other hand...

Anyone with knowledge of this?

~~~
lisper
Private pilot with 20 yrs experience here...

To say that a 737 would have "no problem" would be overly optimistic. A 737,
like all commercial airliners, is pretty tough, but there are plenty of things
in a hurricane that could bring one down. There's hail, up-and-downdrafts that
far exceed the capability of the aircraft to overcome them, and turbulence
severe enough to flip the plane inverted. The least likely event is turbulence
severe enough to structurally damage the plane, though even that is possible,
and hail could _definitely_ damage the plane, especially the engines, to the
point where it would no longer be airworthy. You might make it, but you'd be
rolling some pretty serious dice.

Landing in a hurricane would be impossible. You can handle being kicked around
in the air because there's nothing to hit. But near the ground you need
reasonably stable air in order to make a controlled landing. Anything more
than around 50 knots is pretty much a show-stopper for any civilian aircraft,
and even much slower winds than that can present significant challenges if
they're gusty or not aligned with the runway.

~~~
Tuxer
A hurricane isn't a thunderstorm, and has very limited vertical movement in
its airflows. The hurricane hunter P3s do it.

~~~
lisper
> A hurricane isn't a thunderstorm,

That's true, but they can (and usually do) contain embedded thunderstorms.

> and has very limited vertical movement in its airflows.

Except for the embedded thunderstorms.

> The hurricane hunter P3s do it.

That's true, but they can do it because their destination is the eye of the
storm. That allows you to do all your navigation relative to the storm.

Commercial airliners are trying to reach a destination _on the ground_ , i.e.
a target that is moving relative to the hurricane. Trying to navigate with
this additional constraint is a whole different ballgame.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
Also the hurricane hunter WP3s (and the USAF equivalent WC130s) all have
3-point harnesses (or better) for all seats. That's pretty important for
passenger safety in turbulence. Passenger airplane lap belts leave a lot to be
desired when dealing with strong turbulence.

------
hapless
The best part is that the hurricane's tailwind shaved 40-odd minutes off the
itinerary.

~~~
deskamess
To me the hurricane tailwind (blowing South) appeared to be against the
direction of flight (heading North)... but the flight arrived early so I must
not be parsing that right.

~~~
turbohedgehog
the upper level winds are actually a high pressure area and thus flow
clockwise, giving it a northerly boost at that level

------
idlewords
I'm curious about who was coming in on this flight, and why? Was it mostly
people who wanted to ride out the hurricane with families? First responders?

------
joemi
That's pretty awesome. Does anyone know more about this type of pre-hurricane
flight? Is that a common thing airlines do, to try to squeeze one last flight
in? Are there rushes before other types of bad weather? And do they increase
(or lower?) prices in these cases?

~~~
ceejayoz
Other airlines tried the same thing
([https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/905433106475311104](https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/905433106475311104))
but had to turn back.

------
code4tee
This is an impressive team effort by Delta--and a great demonstration of the
teamwork required between those in the air and on the ground to pull something
like this off.

~~~
jordache
why? the hurricane is predictable in its movement and moves at a snail's pace
relative to the plane. The pilots I'm sure had radar data inside the cockpit

It's not rocket science.

~~~
idlewords
The plane was fully turned around and refueled in 52 minutes, with a hurricane
bearing down on it. Your response doesn't do a lot of justice to an impressive
team effort.

~~~
jordache
the only plane at the airport right? full dedication of available personnel

------
AceyMan
There is much to touch on from the comments so far, but I'll try my best to
keep it on point. (Note that I didn't say "short" <wink>.)

Bona fides: FAA Licenced Aircraft Dispatcher; 11 years industry experience.
(Left the industry in 2000) Staff title: Chief Dispatcher

Preface: I'll not attempt to address the many meteorological or airframe
engineering aspects of this mission other than to note that Delta staffs its
own meteorology department (or did last I was privy to their operations). The
capabilities that lend to the carrier are net positive, as should be obvious.

On to some specific questions raised ...

(0) >>>[qume] The captain makes the same call on every flight. The plane and
passengers are her responsibility regardless of the situation. Edit - also the
call is made continuously. They can back out any time.

Response: Only half true: the pilot-in-command (PIC) along with the aircraft
dispatcher share responsibility for the "initiation, operation and termination
of the flight." (Yes, I think the regs use 'termination'; that always made me
wince.)

So, it's a quorum of two: if either one chooses to terminate (or 'not
initiate') a given flight, it cannot be operated. That doesn't mean that a
dispatcher who disagrees won't spend some effort presenting evidence for his
position (e.g., ten-minute phone calls), but at the end of the day of those
two don't agree, the flight cannot operate.

(1) >>> [phkahler] They may or may not have volunteered for the flight, but
they do get the final decision to go in or turn back once the airline OKs it.

Response: This statement begs the question: who is "the airline?" The relevant
US regulations (CFR 14 Part 121) refer throughout to this entity as the
'certificate holder' \-- because an air carrier holds an operator's license --
a business license, of sorts -- granted by 'the administrator,' the regulatory
term for the FAA. I'd gamble that since the FAA descended from the CAA that
the policy authors thought it wise to anonymise the parties wherever possible
in the event of future language changes. Smart move.

So for any given flight, "the airline" would be the dispatcher, who by proxy,
exercises the right of 'the certificate holder' to "operate a particular
flight over a specific route under specific conditions" (going from memory,
mind you).

This authorization is formally granted by way of a legal document prepared by
'the certificate holder' (read: dispatcher) known as the 'dispatch release,'
which includes a minimum set of specific information (flight plan, equipment
type and number, flight crew, fuel min/max/burn, alternate airports, and so
forth) but typically have an abundance of supplementary information to better
brief the flight crew of the expected conditions and details of alternatives
that are likely to be available if the proposed plan cannot be followed.

Bonus fact: If you ever were waiting after boarding and the crew came over the
PA to say they are "waiting on paperwork," most of the time it is a bag/weight
count, but some times it's the dispatch release. If you know your flight is
going across, or into, some crappy weather, the chances of the latter are
greater than average.

(2) >>>[passivepinetree] Does anybody who works in the industry have any idea
of what the risk management is like for these types of events?

Response: The airline operations hundreds of flights a day; all have some
risk, and all decisions must be made in real-time. In cases of long-running
events such as a hurricane, there is likely to be some general tone taken by
the carrier at the highest operational levels (chief pilots, chief
dispatchers, VP of Operations, etc.). For my carrier, these strategic
positions would be discussed in the morning meeting, which was a recurring
conference call between all those parties and department supervisors -- kind
of like a stand-up, except we were all sitting around a conference table.

Aside from that, as the day wears on the specific handling of a given route,
weather event, etc., is handled in real-time by the assigned dispatcher and
support team (meteorologists, mechanics, etc.)

Of note: some larger carriers maintain a 'Trouble Desk' staffed by dispatchers
who are assigned a lighter workload than the regular line folks. This is a
great system (one that my carrier didn't have) because, let me tell you, _just
one_ fubar flight can monopolize all your capability and time for quite a
while. If/when one of those flights pops off the queue it can wreck your
throughput for the remainder of the shift. For my money, the trouble desk is
an excellent mitigation tactic capable of keeping the workload in the dispatch
office sharded appropriately.

(3) >>>[joemi] Does anyone know more about this type of pre-hurricane flight?
Is that a common thing airlines do, to try to squeeze one last flight in? Are
there rushes before other types of bad weather?

Response: I only had a handful of duty experiences with hurricane landings
that were in our region of operation, but I do have a wealth of experience
with other severe weather systems here in the US -- aka, tornado season.

There were many occasions when a strong cold front would be bearing down on
cities we served, with solid lines of thunderstorms sweeping through the
region. The kinds of weather that serve up severe or extreme turbulence, large
hail, and tornadic activity. And there aren't any "holes" to "slip through,"
either.

Frequently, it would come down to trying to get one more flight in and out of
a city. (The pressures of 'completion factor' at an airline are a whole
discussion in itself.) In these cases, I'd be measuring the relative velocity
of the line versus the distance to the airfield, estimating the time of
impact, so to speak, and cross-referencing that against my computed time en
route and considering the turn-time at the station, etc., etc.

Assuming you judge that it can be operated safely, and you can provide a
suitable alternate plan (and "turn back to base" is certainly a common choice)
you have to get on the phone (or radio) and brief the PIC on some or all of
the details (all of the details are in the dispatch, but people like to hear a
human voice when facing stressful situations; think 911 operators), and if
they concur (or accede, in some cases) then, from (1), by the necessary joint
agreement, the flight is initiated.

And as you might expect, sometimes the flight got in and out, and sometimes it
diverted or came back to base. In either case, occasionally the crew might
call or radio back in with reports on the conditions (or vociferous complaints
about the ride quality -- hey, it happens).

So then my unqualified answer to this question from joemi is "Yes."

\--

Finally I'd like to call out the commenters who made mention of the ground
(and other station) crew and their exposure to risk in these "irregular
operations"; I'd say they exhibited a measure of aplomb no less than the
flight crew, and those employees are too often overlooked as essential parts
of the carrier's operations; both day-to-day and in extreme cases such as a
hurricane landfall.

HTH, /Acey

------
thrillgore
I'd like to think all the staff were just blasting Death Grips as they flew
in.

------
tylersmith
We watched these flights as they we happening and I was on edge just watching.
I can't imagine what it'd feel like having been on one.

------
pjmlp
Oh man, that is really amazing.

I guess a mix of heroes and craziness.

Congratulation to everyone involved and thankfully everything went alright.

------
zoom6628
Big balls for whole team to make this work IMO and kudos to Delta management
for making it happen.

------
snambi
Great story.

------
smnscu
I guess it cancels this out:
[https://i.redd.it/s8e8jf5gkhkz.jpg](https://i.redd.it/s8e8jf5gkhkz.jpg)

------
jandrese
The only disappointment for me is that they flew a relatively modest 737 down
there. If you're going to make a heroic flight like this do it in an A380 or a
747 and load up as many people as you can to get them out of dodge. I guess
shuffling a big plane like that at the last minute is probably not feasible
since they have their own routes to service.

An evac flight could even go full on quick load. No checked bags, one carry-on
max, forget assigned seats and just fill the plane from back to front as fast
as possible to get out of dodge.

~~~
ceejayoz
An A380 or 747 is significantly less nimble than a 737, and would take a lot
longer to unload and load back up. The flight in question did a turnaround in
51 minutes, including taxing time, which is _extremely_ quick.

~~~
sourZ
Haha, Ryanair will beat that turnaround time in normal operations any day

~~~
Macha
The above comment is not a snide joke at Ryanair, here's an article citing
their turnaround times from the early 2000s:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2962698.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2962698.stm)

This is still the case.

------
stepik777
Why can't they use some sane colormaps instead of this garbage?

~~~
jimktrains2
You mean the meteorological charts? It is a sane color map? What would you
like to see changed or had trouble reading?

~~~
21
I think he is talking about the actual false colors being used. I also thought
the same thing.

The picture seems to use the "Jet" Matlab colormap, which is pretty bad by
many accounts:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU)

[https://matplotlib.org/users/colormaps.html](https://matplotlib.org/users/colormaps.html)

[https://bids.github.io/colormap/](https://bids.github.io/colormap/)

