Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

NetJets 2000EX

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Flying Illini said:
To say that they did it? It's a psychological thing, going non-stop to the pax is faster than making a stop...even if it isn't true.

I didn't even know an Ultra could go M77. ahahha

If they would have bumped it up to 82 they probably would have saved 15 minutes in the air. The increased fuel burn would have required a stop, probably an hour in Gander or BGR. So they would have burned more fuel, increased the total travel time and put additional cycles on the aircraft. You guys should be happy. It's efficient and not wasting company money, unless of course you count a 9.3 hour ferry as a waste of money. The flights were "test" flights though. I can't think of the proper terminology right now. Proving flights maybe??

If was the crews choice to go non-stop, I haven't met a pilot with-out an ego that needs stroking. hahaha
 
Fracster said:
They have been at NJA for all these years for a reason...something in their background wouldnt let them get another job.

Sad, but true. Often it's something the company that put in their file and often it's a bunch of BS. I know... A bizzare way to get loyalty. Like the scabs we have here who would probably support ASAP if they weren't already blacklisted. They have no where else to go!
 
FracCapt said:
I'm not defending the crew that flew the trip....nor do I have ANY experience with the 2000.....but do they really need an alternate if the weather is good for landing at CMH, with multiple airports within 20NM that they could put a 2000 down at? I would hope that, if they were landing that light, they checked the weather along the way over the Northeast, and planned a landing short of CMH if weather and/or airport conditions dictated.

Under Part 91, you are correct. Only need VFR and 30 minutes fuel to land. I don't know what NJA's ops say however. I used the 100NM divert as that was a readily available number in the manual.
 
2000flyer said:
Under Part 91, you are correct. Only need VFR and 30 minutes fuel to land. I don't know what NJA's ops say however. I used the 100NM divert as that was a readily available number in the manual.

Flight operated under IFR. Right?
 
Jeppesen said:
The flights were "test" flights though. I can't think of the proper terminology right now. Proving flights maybe??

Proving runs...They are proving the aircraft can do what the manufacturer says it can do.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top