Comment by AceyMan 4 days ago
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 :-/
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.
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!
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.
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.