What’s going on here? (JetBlue flight)

WillFly4Food said:
I’ve no idea what the winds aloft were, but it seems like they could’ve been offered more than 8700, or 9000, or whatever.
Click to expand...
Under part 121, the crew would have to be on oxygen above 10,000' cabin altitude. Eastbound, the highest non-O2 altitude would be 9,000' which is certainly what they were flying.

The 6xxx flight number suggests it was a ferry flight.

Sluggo63 said:
What’s the difference to the passengers between flying unpressurized at 8,000 feet or at FL390 with the cabin pressurized to 8,000 feet?
Click to expand...
With passengers, limiting the ROC/ROD to 500fpm would be problematic. With just the crew, they'd probably still try to keep it to not much more than 1,000fpm.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Houston to New York at 9000 instead of the flight levels? Yeah, right. Hardly a difference.
Click to expand...

Nice misquote. :rolleyes:

I’ve flown several transport category jets with pressurization inop below 10k. While it was a higher fuel burn, it wasn’t astronomical as some here tend to believe.
 
N1120A said:
With passengers? Let's be practical here.
Click to expand...
What's the issue? I've flown pax 3.5 hours with one pack and it was not big deal. Instead of 36,000 we flew at 29,000. Nothing unpractical about it.
 
It’s clearly a ferry flight without passengers based on the flight number and lack of gate information. In addition that aircraft probably would not have the range with a payload to make that flight nonstop below 10,000 feet. There are probably about 30 different maintenance issues that could require the flight to stay below 10,000.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I try to avoid using absolute statements on the internet. There are always exceptions.

Wait...is that an absolute statement? :sosp:
Click to expand...
The contention that I’m arguing against is that the flight number absolutely indicates a no-passenger ferry flight.
 
FYI, airlines will a lot of times use a certain format for ferry flights, charter flights, etc. Apparently uses JBU uses 62xx for ferry flights. But you probably won’t believe that because you know better, so whatever.
 
Groundpounder said:
FYI, airlines will a lot of times use a certain format for ferry flights, charter flights, etc. Apparently uses JBU uses 62xx for ferry flights. But you probably won’t believe that because you know better, so whatever.
Click to expand...
No, I won’t believe it because “apparently” isn’t proof that 62xx isn’t the format for charter flights or other non-normal operations.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, I won’t believe it because “apparently” isn’t proof that 62xx isn’t the format for charter flights or other non-normal operations.
Click to expand...

If I told you about rolling flight numbers out of LGA it would blow your mind!
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why couldn’t it be a passenger flight that uses a non-normal flight number so that they only have to change the flight plan once rather than twice?
Click to expand...

I realize I am talking to a brick wall here, but airlines don't do that. They don't randomize flight numbers for an individual flight. Causes too many other issues with passengers, luggage, dispatching, etc. Way easier to change a flight plan with ATC. But you won't give up because you want it to be a passenger flight even though common sense says otherwise.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I realize I am talking to a brick wall here, but airlines don't do that. They don't randomize flight numbers for an individual flight. Causes too many other issues with passengers, luggage, dispatching, etc. Way easier to change a flight plan with ATC. But you won't give up because you want it to be a passenger flight even though common sense says otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t want it to be a passenger flight.
 
Pretty sure passengers don't much value the difference between lightly loaded and heavily loaded wings while they are yacking up their lunch. Re: DC-3 flying in the 30's for reference.
 
George Mohr said:
Pretty sure passengers don't much value the difference between lightly loaded and heavily loaded wings while they are yacking up their lunch. Re: DC-3 flying in the 30's for reference.
Click to expand...
You can follow the link, take my word for it, or read up on aerodynamics; the higher the wing loading the less responsive the airplane is to gusts and turbulence. cf. gust response, ride quality.

Nauga,
and the W/S dental plan
 
Look I totally get that, I'm pretty good at this aero stuff :) And I'm also quite certain that flying at 8500ft on average will SUCK compared to gliding along in the flight levels. If you are arguing against that, you're just plain wrong. Sorry!
 
George Mohr said:
Look I totally get that, I'm pretty good at this aero stuff :) And I'm also quite certain that flying at 8500ft on average will SUCK compared to gliding along in the flight levels. If you are arguing against that, you're just plain wrong. Sorry!
Click to expand...

I dunno......I once took a B727 out of KDEN eastbound to KCVG at 9,000 (pressurization deferred). It was a fun scenic route. ;)
 
George Mohr said:
Look I totally get that, I'm pretty good at this aero stuff :) And I'm also quite certain that flying at 8500ft on average will SUCK compared to gliding along in the flight levels. If you are arguing against that, you're just plain wrong. Sorry!
Click to expand...
Contrary to popular belief, (apparently) it isn’t always smooth in the flight levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top