EVA Air at Schipol

[PNGDash]

Could this be right!?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/Pixtor/EVAAiratSchipol_zps03afd1fc.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Pixtor/media/EVAAiratSchipol_zps03afd1fc.jpg.html)

EVA Air Boeing 747-45EM taking off from runway 36L at Amsterdam-
Schiphol, Netherlands ..

The distance to the fence was 145 meters (475ft).

[TDK mk2]

What's the issue? The picture is clearly taken with a long lens. If the information that this aircraft was departing from 36L is correct this photo can only have been taken on Ijweg, which is interrupted by the runway approximately at the runway's midpoint. See the satellite photo link below.

Flash Earth - Zoom into satellite and aerial imagery of the Earth in Flash (http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=52.347906&lon=4.713606&z=13.9&r=0&src=msl)

By the way, this photo was first published in 2008.

[charliemouse]

Check... It's just foreshortening - almost certainly the photographer chose that lense and that location. Also the fence is at quite an acute angle and a fair way away at the end of the runway.

Nice pic tho :-)

[DOVES]

What's the trick?
People and their machines would have been thrown away from jet blast in a while.

What would have happened if there had been an engine failure shortly before V1?

And if the engine failure had happened shortly after V1?

And what about the 15% of the runway that was supposed to remain?

Fly Safe
DOVE

[DaveReidUK]

Can we all play ?

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2008/10/ba-schiphol.jpg

[Hotel Tango]

Doves, are you serious???

[KBPsen]

The distance to the fence was 145 meters (475ft). That sounds about right. The omitted but perhaps relevant detail is that the fence(s) is located on the side of the runway not at the end.

If you want sensationalism how about the fact that the aircraft was less than 40 meters from the grass.

[Hotel Tango]

That spot on the East side of the Ijweg still exists but since that photo was taken parking is no longer permited anywhere along that road, much to the chagrin of visiting photographers. It's actually better in the morning when the Sun is behind and also very good for landings on 18R. The spot on the West side of the runway is now a designated spectators area with a large free car park. Take note LHR and LGW!

[flydive1]

What's the trick?
People and their machines would have been thrown away from jet blast in a while.

The T/O path is about parallel to the fence and people location, no problem with the blast.

What would have happened if there had been an engine failure shortly before V1?

No problem, still about half runway available.

And if the engine failure had happened shortly after V1?

No problem clear path in front of the aircraft, no obstacles.

And what about the 15% of the runway that was supposed to remain?

50% runway remaining, quite a bit more than the 15% you enquire about.

[DOVES]

@ Hotel Tango
Never been so serious
@flydive1
Thank you so much.
Last time I have been in Amsterdam was more than sixteen years ago.
I'm gonna check the map again .
Fly Safe
DOVE

[Hotel Tango]

Doves, oh OK, sorry. You posted such complete nonsense that I really thought you were joking. You only had to look at the link 2 posts above yours to get at least some of your facts right.

[Sober Lark]

At least for the BA flight they increased security. Note how the potential terrorist with the child is receiving a security pat down search. The baby's bottle has been tasted and the gentleman putting his shoes back on at the fence has had liquids confiscated. Note how those with fast track security simply drive past with the odd one being selected for a random search of the boot. Every picture tells a story.

[OntimeexceptACARS]

Can we move this to JB please? Or a bucket?

[Carbon Bootprint]

Can we move this to JB please? Or a bucket? Please don't insult the JBers, they're a sensitive bunch. :}

Anyway, Spotter's Corner would seem more relevant.

[DIBO]

The picture was certainly taken from the Spotter's Corner, and we all watched it from the Spotter's Balcony, and that's where this topic belongs.
Nice picture of the big beast, though! And that's about all that needs to be said :bored:

[Akali Dal]

You guys missed the intent, namely to imply that possibly the pilots were Chinese and they did not know how to fly. All else is just chicken ****.

[Sober Lark]

No the point is it is about the lack of airport security. What is the point of screening passengers if public can get that close to an aircraft. Wouldn't take much to take it down.

[flydive1]

http://media2.hickorees.com/image/SlingShot_L1.jpg

[BOAC]

to imply that possibly the pilots were Chinese - what? BA Airbus pilots are Chinese- struth!:eek: BALPA, where are you?

[Hotel Tango]

No the point is it is about the lack of airport security. What is the point of screening passengers if public can get that close to an aircraft. Wouldn't take much to take it down.

Perhaps, but that goes for most airports. Rest assured that LHR is no safer than AMS as far as that is concerned. As one who knows these AMS spots well, I can tell you that there's cctv supported by multiple and continous security patrols both inside and outside the airport perimeter. Furthermore, the high number of spectators frequenting these spots is in sorts an added security net.

[DaveReidUK]

What is the point of screening passengers if public can get that close to an aircraft.If being able to get within 500' of an aircraft represents a security risk, then that would imply banning the public from being anywhere under the last mile of the final approach to any airport. :ugh:

[RAT 5]

Reminds me of the occasional Roger Bacon photo entitled "how low can you go?" Good place to dry off on a rainy day. Sitting there at night might be sensational.

[Sober Lark]

Dave, I wouldn't go that far. I'm just saying in comparison to the much publicised and high profile security initiatives taking place in the terminal building, the perimeter fence seems to be quite neglected.

[Hotel Tango]

I'm just saying in comparison to the much publicised and high profile security initiatives taking place in the terminal building, the perimeter fence seems to be quite neglected.

And, I've already said, no it's not.

Good place to dry off on a rainy day.

And how do you work that one out then?

[Bobbsy]

Again, the long lens probably makes the security look much worse than it is. Measured on Google Earth, the distance from where the cars are parked to the edge of the runway is about 180 metres. Even from the fence, it's about 160 metres.

Also, the fence, judged by the height of the cars, is about 10 feet tall and topped with coils of barbed wire. Where it seems to disappear, it actually just dips into a trench (maybe a canal?).

As has been pointed out, if being 500 feet or 150 metres from a plane is a huge security risk, much of west London would need to be shut down.

[White Knight]

No the point is it is about the lack of airport security. What is the point of screening passengers if public can get that close to an aircraft. Wouldn't take much to take it down.


Pratt............

This whole PC security thing is complete bollocks.....

[Sober Lark]

I've read your reply HT. Didn't the criminal character of access through a fence at Brussels recently clearly demonstrate a weakness?

General John Handy stated the use or threatened use MANPAD at airports is the greatest threat we have ever been faced with and I'd imagine you don't have to take down an aircraft at close range these days. Just damage ground infrastructure and you have the desired political and psychological effect.

[Hotel Tango]

Fully agree on that score Sober Lark. My argument is against those who think that the photo indicates a security risk. AMS is no less secure than any other airport no matter how close spectators are from the active runway. I can't see any intelligent terrorists setting up their missile in front of security cameras, security patrols and a crowd of spectators when they can easily do their thing a mile or so away, hidden among trees, away from any prying eyes.

[Capetonian]

I can't see any intelligent terrorists setting up their missile in front of security cameras, security patrols

That's a bit naive isn't it? Before 9/11, it might have been said that an intelligent terrorist wouldn't be on the 'plane they crashed. If they are fanatics, and most of them are, they will go kamikaze. They only need to whip it out a few seconds before the a/c goes over, or have it set up inside a van and not immediately visible.

[Hotel Tango]

I grant you that too Capetonian. My point is that whatever (good) argument one comes up with it still doesn't make AMS less secure than, for instance, LHR, which has no official spectators facilities.

[DaveReidUK]

LHR, which has no official spectators facilitiesNot quite true.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGavzG1fh6QgYLzxr9RKYoany0ZoIpZSb5KZHqRZ4 XWbFqjL3ZcQ

[Hotel Tango]

:) you're having a larf :}

[DaveReidUK]

Well yes, the "grandstand" at LHR can justifiably be described as laughable. I visit the building behind it for meetings from time to time and it's rare to see anyone actually using it - I'm told that it's next to useless for photography.

Having said that, as you pointed out in an earlier post, there are spots at Heathrow, and indeed many other UK airports, where the perimeter fence is closer to the runways/taxiways than that Schiphol location, and I've never seen it suggested that they pose a security risk.

[RAT 5]

At AMS, under the last 150' of approach onto rw27, there is a McDonalds and spectators car-park. There is no resident police presence. I suppose they take the risk that the ingredients will not spark any mad-cap behaviour. They have reduced the fat & salt, I believe.

[Hotel Tango]

There is no resident police presence

:confused: Don't quite know what you mean by "resident" police presence, but there's certainly plenty of patrols, again both in and outside the fence. Maybe you were too busy watching the aeroplanes to notice them. You often see police cars in the car park and one of the cops popping out to get the burgers. :)