What’s going on here? (JetBlue flight)

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,527
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
I was out at the airport this evening and I hear a jet overhead. I look up and see an airliner flying at a relatively low altitude. My first thought was that it had just taken off from CHA a few minutes prior, but when I pulled up FlightAware to check it, I saw that it was a JetBlue E190 flying from IAH to JFK. Here’s the screen shot I took just as it was flying over.

2C693F3C-DCFC-440C-9B46-BD37D24ED9AB.jpeg

You can see it was at 8,700ft and 328mph, which appeared to be accurate as I saw it from the ground.

Just a few minutes ago I checked the updated progress out and it’s still at 8,700ft on its way to JFK.

C4FDB53E-B7E2-4ACC-91EC-CB9884D0B9E6.jpeg

Any idea why it’s flying so low?
 
Was there a COVID-related ATC zero at Washington Center? If so, they may have been handling traffic in that area in approach control airspace.
 
N1120A said:
Was there a COVID-related ATC zero at Washington Center? If so, they may have been handling traffic in that area in approach control airspace.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I’m a long ways from Washington Center, but according to the track log, its top altitude the whole flight thus far was 8,800ft.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Don’t see why not.
Click to expand...

Put passengers on an plane with no pressure? With potential weather and the rest? Plus, given the weight and additional fuel burn, good luck with the range. They don't want the liability.
 
N1120A said:
Put passengers on an plane with no pressure? With potential weather and the rest? Plus, given the weight and additional fuel burn, good luck with the range. They don't want the liability.
Click to expand...

Pressurization can be deferred as per the MEL.
 
That airplane arrived 3 days ago with a regular flight number. My guess now is they are ferrying back due to broken pressurization.
 
N1120A said:
Maybe MEL'd for a ferry flight, as this flight number clearly is.

With passengers? And their insurance allows that?
Click to expand...
N1120A said:
Put passengers on an plane with no pressure? With potential weather and the rest? Plus, given the weight and additional fuel burn, good luck with the range. They don't want the liability.
Click to expand...
obviously they have the fuel and the range. If there was “potential weather” that would preclude the flight, they probably wouldn’t do it. But what’s the difference between flying with an 8000 ft cabin pressurized vs an 8000 ft cabin unpressurized? (Other than reduced risk of depressurization)

I’ve never heard of an insurance policy restricting FAA-approved MEL operations.

how do you know the flight number designates a ferry flight?
 
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.
 
I’m actually a bit surprised as well that they’d let it fly a revenue passenger flight without pressurization (if that’s the case here), but what do I know? :dunno:
 
RyanB said:
I’m actually a bit surprised as well that they’d let it fly a revenue passenger flight without pressurization (if that’s the case here), but what do I know? :dunno:
Click to expand...
No reason to not get income for the flight.
 
N1120A said:
How about looking up that flight number and seeing when it was last used. I'll give you a hint - not recently.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean it’s designated for a no-passenger ferry flight.

more than likely it was used so they only had to change the flight plan parameters once rather than twice, which is what they’d have had to do with the normal flight number.
 
Last edited:
N1120A said:
How about looking up that flight number and seeing when it was last used. I'll give you a hint - not recently.
Click to expand...
Good catch, I didn’t notice that. In that case, I’d wager it’s a ferry / repositioning flight. Probably for maintenance at their JFK base.
 
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...
MEL operating procedures That I’ve used for unpressurized flight normally specify a 10,000 ft max altitude.
 
N1120A said:
On a nearly 5 hour flight, with passengers?
Click to expand...

2-3hr flight, with passengers. Not common, but it's been done.

You know the AC works, right? Which leads to the next question, rhetorically asked, below:

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...

Nothing.. well other than trying to take it easy on the climb and descent.
 
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...

Above 10k ft the masks will probably automatically deploy.

Back in the day there were 121 flights on unpressurized aircraft. That day wasn’t all that long ago - Beech 99s and Shorts Sherpas were passenger haulers.
 
I was once on a scheduled flight from SYR to DCA (USAir I think) and we wound up flying at light plane altitudes (around 6-8k if I recall) because the system was completely saturated at normal altitudes. Must have cost a fortune in fuel. The view was great, must have been weird to see an airliner cruising that low from the ground. They flew a similar route to what often took when I was commuting to GAI. I thought it was funny they were slummin' with the little guys.
 
@N1120A

I have flown passengers on jets with the pressurization deferred more than a few times. Longest leg I can distinctly remember was Dallas to Philladelphia. That said the flight discussed here is longish. I wouldn’t be willing to bet either way in revenue vs. repo flight.

What actually did suck was flying the crj-200 with one pack inop in the summer. That was something that happened often and required a lot of coordination between crew, base ops, dispatch and MX to get done without undue passenger harm. That little bugger was a hot box.
 
Last edited:
chemgeek said:
I was once on a scheduled flight from SYR to DCA (USAir I think) and we wound up flying at light plane altitudes (around 6-8k if I recall) because the system was completely saturated at normal altitudes. Must have cost a fortune in fuel. The view was great, must have been weird to see an airliner cruising that low from the ground. They flew a similar route to what often took when I was commuting to GAI. I thought it was funny they were slummin' with the little guys.
Click to expand...
That is also not terribly uncommon, especially in the NE corridor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top