Comment by scrumper

Comment by scrumper 4 days ago

Correct, article says they landed with 220kg which is around 6 minutes of average fuel burn over an entire flight - bit less at cruise, a hell of a lot more at takeoff/climb.

So I don't think 220kg is enough to do a go-around in a 737 (well, a go-around would've been initiated with a bit more than 220kg in the tank - they burned some taxing to the gate - but you get my point.) I've read around 2,300kg for takeoff and climb on a normal flight in a 737-8. A go-around is going to use close to that, it's a full power takeoff but a much shorter climb phase up to whatever procedure is set for the airport and then what ATC tells you.

I just flew 172s but even with those little things we were told, your reserve is never to be used.

These people came very, very close to a disaster. Fortunately they had as much luck left as they did fuel.

whycome 4 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 9 replies

throwup238 4 days ago

That’s about as useful as opening a fortune cookie and reading it off as an answer.
Straight from the horse’s mouth: https://web.archive.org/web/20230630013840/http://www.boeing...
In the first table they list 2307-2374 kg of fuel for takeoff and climb.

Reply View | 1 reply
- whycome 3 days ago
  
  You’re talking to the wrong horse though.
  Isn’t a 737-8 the max 8 variant? It uses newer dual CFM LEAP-1B engines. How does it compare? I can’t really find the data. The spec you’re referring to is for the older 737-800.
  Another fortune cookie:
  https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/wp-content/uploads/aircraf...
  It suggests an overall savings of ~14% over the 737-800 but doesn’t look at specific takeoff/climb comparison.
  I wasn’t posting the LLM output as a source of truth. I was just using it to question the uncited value. And I still really don’t know the answer. If you’ve got another data source I’d love to get it.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
umanwizard 4 days ago

Why do people keep insisting on pasting LLM output to HN when every time it happens, it gets downvoted to oblivion? The community clearly doesn't want it. If we wanted to know a computer program's opinion about something, we could ask it ourselves.

Reply View | 3 replies
- whycome 3 days ago
  
  I was using it to question that exact stated fuel consumption number without a citation. For hard data (like fuel consumption) getting a value from an LLM isn’t absurd.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  distances 3 days ago
  
  If not absurd, it's very poor form. You should never use LLM as input for a discussion, nobody wants to hear that. Use it to search for authoritative sources.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  umanwizard 3 days ago
  
  It’s fine if you post an actual citation that you might have found through the LLM. Just posting AI slop is worse than useless, though, and also unpleasantly dystopian.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
lawlessone 4 days ago

ok, how do we verify that?

Reply View | 2 replies
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4 days ago
  
  Maybe he should ask Claude next.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- whycome 3 days ago
  
  That’s the point? I wasn’t suggesting it was correct. Just that the value is wildly different from their own non-cited number. The next stage was to get a citation from an actual datasheet. Their reasoning was nothing beyond “I’ve read”
  
  Reply View | 0 replies