Hell, I had to unpack them & explain them to the pilots every once in a while. (They'd often form some interpretation that worked out "best" ... for them personally).
The pilots are in the same plane as you. They aren’t going to just let the plane run out of fuel because some person on the ground says “sorry, can’t land at this airport yet, hang out for awhile”.
If there was a real emergency they’d be putting the plane down on the nearest runway-shaped surface no matter what.
Further, I’d wager the pilot said something along the lines of “we have twenty minutes of fuel before we need to consider diverting to [alternate airport]” or something to that effect.
Maybe pilot wanted to say what there is still enough time for them to keep waiting, but in that situation didn't though how that phrase would sound for the passengers.
Edit: "with all lights off" - turning off the lights for a landing is regular procedure, nothing unusual.
> turning off the lights for a landing is regular procedure, nothing unusual.
The lights were off for about an hour as we glided toward Pittsburgh.
> Your strong language
My assessment is that I was told my luggage would continue on to DC without me if I didn't board in an attempt to get the plane leaving as soon as possible after refueling. I didn't care enough to get back on, and learned the following day that they had actually removed my luggage before departure.
EDIT: Looks like everyone else jumped on this at the same time. lol.
I don't think the public has access to the SRS but the FAA and NTSB do.
The plane did not run out of fuel. If the plane had run out of fuel, the flight crew would have prepared you for a potential crash landing. There would be no question whatsoever. It would have made national news. The plane and crew would have been grounded pending investigation by the airline and the NTSB, and not gone on to resume its journey shortly thereafter. Hell, everything else aside, it would have sat dead on the runway, unable to taxi, while passengers disembarked on the inflatable slides.
Your plane had plenty of fuel, it followed established procedure where they waited for as long as they could, diverted when the fuel situation warranted a change of plans, and landed at the alternate airport with more than enough fuel for at least one go-around and likely two.
This bit isn't right. They would have brought a tug out to the runway and towed the aircraft to a remote stand, then used a staircase.
The slides are only used if there's imminent danger of fire. People often get injured using them.
They took my luggage off the plane and United agreed to put me on the next flight to my final destination for free even though tickets were $750 that day.
Dispatch and route planning (and the fuel that goes into the planning) is really intense and takes into account hundreds of factors including stuff like how much fuel do I need if I can't land at my nominated backup airport and have to go to a secondary backup airport.
Domestically, checked baggage can fly even if you don't. It depends on the situation.
Except when they don't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34506004
When anything well-operated deviates from the norm, people are going to question / panic, and rightly so.
I could be wrong about it being illegal, I was just repeating what an (other) airline employee told me. But they did take my luggage off the plane after telling me that they weren't going to.
But there's always https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo
There are numerous FAA requirements about this depending on if you are IFR/VFR, the airport, the expected weather, etc. but the bottom line is sufficient fuel to:
1) Fly to your intended destination.
2) Fly from the destination to the alternate (if required).
3) Fly for an additional 45 minutes at normal cruise speed (minimum).
What the pilot was saying was that they had 20 more minutes until they had to go to Pittsburgh. If it took 45 minutes instead of 20, it was because the computer calculated that was exactly how much more time they could hold.
The last US fatal accident was 14 years ago ... which just goes to show how incredibly safe this all is.
There was no gliding on your flight. It may have felt that way during a descent at flight idle.
The flight may have been scary to the passengers, and people may not have wanted to get back on, but I'm sure it was quite routine to the people up front.
Source: US certified commercial pilot, Aero. Sci. degree. Certified ATC.
I believe you but this is yet another reason why it was inappropriate for the pilot to mention this to passengers. Nearly everyone around me was visibly distressed as we "idled" to Pittsburgh.
> The flight may have been scary to the passengers, and people may not have wanted to get back on, but I'm sure it was quite routine to the people up front.
Maybe for the pilot/copilot but the flight attendants' facial expressions when I got off the plane did not suggest this was routine to me.
Further consider that other than this story—where the aircraft ran out of fuel due to a wildly unlucky confluence of technical and human failures—you have never heard of a passenger jet running out of fuel midair. Through decades of storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and every other natural disaster imaginable, we have found a way to get planes onto the ground with fuel to spare.
It was totally avoidable had the crew been able to convey the message to ATC that they had zero fuel left.
This isn’t quite true, there was that poor woman sucked out of the Southwest flight in 2018. But your broader point is 100% correct.
Again, Swiss cheese model. This is some Final Destination shit, not something anyone not an aircraft designer should spend time worrying about.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/25/alabama-airp...
988
Dialing that, at least in the US, will get help to anyone who needs it
The only thing I found about it online is a couple of tweets from other passengers of the same flight.