Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

JQ reaches new heights, just not today.

Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

JQ reaches new heights, just not today.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 25th Apr 2024, 09:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 307
Received 19 Likes on 9 Posts
JQ reaches new heights, just not today.

JQ operating a 321 today VH-VWX MEL-SYD-MEL at FL270 up and FL280 back while all other jet traffic is sitting happy between FL340 and FL390 either way. Flights also delayed due "Engineering". Problems with pressurisation?
Pearly White is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2024, 09:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 2,471
Received 318 Likes on 118 Posts
Yeah they just decided to go without it.

What a stupid effing question and who really gives a toss

By the way, they can fly at whatever level they want. Maybe they wanted to go faster.
morno is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 25th Apr 2024, 09:59
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Received 106 Likes on 24 Posts
Went up and back twice today in a 73. Was a ****house ride at times above 280/290. In other news….. engagement
A320 Flyer is online now  
Old 25th Apr 2024, 14:31
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 620
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Pearly White
JQ operating a 321 today VH-VWX MEL-SYD-MEL at FL270 up and FL280 back while all other jet traffic is sitting happy between FL340 and FL390 either way. Flights also delayed due "Engineering". Problems with pressurisation?

Maybe they legally dispatched with a Pack or a Bleed under the MEL and were required to follow an Ops procedure?!

Nothing to report - move on please

(You can fly all the way to Europe or the US with a pack U/S under the MEL - even at FL310)
AQIS Boigu is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2024, 04:39
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: FLXXX
Posts: 168
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
They probably flew well below REC MAX and OPT due to fear of coffin corner which is a topic of debate at JQ on the NEO. Airbus says it’s ok but fear culture has set in.
AviatoR21 is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2024, 04:50
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,059
Received 730 Likes on 197 Posts
There are a number of reasons why one would choose to fly in the high 20’s in a jet. None of them really warrant discussion other than out of curiosity. The crew had reasons, safety wasn’t compromised, move on.

P.S. FL280 and below are non-RVSM levels.
gordonfvckingramsay is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 26th Apr 2024, 06:02
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 119
Received 14 Likes on 2 Posts
A fair question and an opportunity for those with the systems knowledge to share the possible reasons with an interested party. Nothing top secret - things happen in aviation and there are ways to get the pax where they want to go with minimal reduction in safety and ultimately the pilot gets paid.
Went ADL- PER at 240 one day - made up an hour on 390 plan, onward service SIN back on schedule. Had an early beer and no one asked any questions.
PW1830 is offline  
The following 7 users liked this post by PW1830:
Old 26th Apr 2024, 08:09
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NSW
Posts: 267
Received 180 Likes on 58 Posts
Well, you can fly Sydney to Melbourne pretty quickly at F240 and Mach .79 .. So I've heard.
cLeArIcE is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 27th Apr 2024, 00:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 286
Received 127 Likes on 36 Posts
Originally Posted by AviatoR21
They probably flew well below REC MAX and OPT due to fear of coffin corner which is a topic of debate at JQ on the NEO. Airbus says it’s ok but fear culture has set in.
huh? I regularly fly the NEO near REC MAX. Its fine.
das Uber Soldat is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2024, 01:44
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 496
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by AviatoR21
They probably flew well below REC MAX and OPT due to fear of coffin corner which is a topic of debate at JQ on the NEO. Airbus says it’s ok but fear culture has set in.
Too many drivers believe Vls is the bottom of coffin corner. Next time you go flying have a look where Alpha Prot is, a long way below Vls when compared to the CEO family.

Though by definition, below 15000, green dot is calculated exactly the same as the CEO family (however limited to 250 kts below 10000’ from memory), the upper level calculation differs. However theoretically Vls still maintains 1.28 VS, the picture on the PFD is fundamentally different.

I believe this is due to the redesigned wing root. Allows higher flight with the more powerful engines while not limiting the aircraft aerodynamically. You run out of thrust before you run out of wing.

Last edited by Bula; 27th Apr 2024 at 02:07.
Bula is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 27th Apr 2024, 06:10
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: FLXXX
Posts: 168
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
I’m just commenting on what I read from your tech department that they are encouraging you guys to fly at OPT and not fear. No fuel savings from the NEO flying 2-4000’ below OPT.
AviatoR21 is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2024, 09:52
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 496
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by AviatoR21
I’m just commenting on what I read from your tech department that they are encouraging you guys to fly at OPT and not fear. No fuel savings from the NEO flying 2-4000’ below OPT.
A321 NEO 94t ISA OPT FL320 CI = 10

FL320 = 6.15 kg/nm
FL300 = 6.188 kg/nm
FL280 = 6.294 kg/nm

Just because it’s less than 100kg, doesn’t mean there isn’t a fuel saving.

Then you select Mach. Say 0.79

FL320 = 6.275 kg/nm
FL300 = 6.33 kg/nm
FL280 = 6.53 kg/nm
Bula is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 27th Apr 2024, 11:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 579
Received 314 Likes on 110 Posts
You’ll need to save that 100kg for when you rock up to your bay and have to wait 10 minutes for a marshaller and then another 100kg because no-one bothered to plug in ground power.
aussieflyboy is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 28th Apr 2024, 01:22
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,439
Received 219 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by Bula
A321 NEO 94t ISA OPT FL320 CI = 10

FL320 = 6.15 kg/nm
FL300 = 6.188 kg/nm
FL280 = 6.294 kg/nm

Just because it’s less than 100kg, doesn’t mean there isn’t a fuel saving.

Then you select Mach. Say 0.79

FL320 = 6.275 kg/nm
FL300 = 6.33 kg/nm
FL280 = 6.53 kg/nm

Yea, but you get there quicker :-)
Ollie Onion is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 28th Apr 2024, 02:07
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 276
Received 39 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by cLeArIcE
Well, you can fly Sydney to Melbourne pretty quickly at F240 and Mach .79 .. So I've heard.
And some new frequencies to talk to as well. I’ve been handed over to CBR approach on one SYD MEL flight 😁
Colonel_Klink is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2024, 04:11
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,887
Likes: 0
Received 247 Likes on 107 Posts
No fuel savings from the NEO flying 2-4000’ below OPT.
​​​​​​​ A321 NEO 94t ISA OPT FL320 CI = 10

FL320 = 6.15 kg/nm
FL300 = 6.188 kg/nm
FL280 = 6.294 kg/nm
​​​​​​​Scratching head.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2024, 06:26
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,559
Received 76 Likes on 44 Posts
Originally Posted by Iccy
Scratching head.
​​​​​​​Why? Bugs? It's kgs/mile, not miles per gallon.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2024, 07:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,439
Received 219 Likes on 75 Posts
So over 1000nm if will cost you 144kg to go 4,000’ lower? Who cares, I wasted that today waiting for ground power with the engines running and no APU. Not to mention the 400kg I wasted at the holding point in Sydney a couple of months ago waiting to be released due to a noise movement quota for departures.
Ollie Onion is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by Ollie Onion:
Old 28th Apr 2024, 09:12
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,887
Likes: 0
Received 247 Likes on 107 Posts
Why? Bugs? It's kgs/mile, not miles per gallon.
Because he/she/they seem to have proved the point.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2024, 10:22
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,294
Received 169 Likes on 86 Posts
Well if you’re going to lose it at the holding point or parking bay, why not make up for it in flight? It all counts!
Capt Fathom is online now  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.