So WestJet almost puts one of their 737 in the water while landing at St-Maarten...
Real or not it's just a matter of time before there's an accident here, the number of
approaches significantly below a normal glidepath in order for a few idiots to 'show off'
makes it inevitable.
approaches significantly below a normal glidepath in order for a few idiots to 'show off'
makes it inevitable.
(apologies, mods, for the size of the image, which shows each of the two approaches, from roughly 2500' Mode C at the extreme left)
If there's more than 50-75' difference in the heights at any given point along the respective approaches, then that's not supported by the data.
Rider: I'm not implying anything about the accuracy of FR24, merely pointing out what appears to me to be poor/misleading interpretation of the FR24 info.
All you can do with the data is compare the values for the two approaches (see above).
I'd be very careful trying to infer any height from a picture.
Many years ago I took some air to air shots of our aircraft. With the telephoto lens foreshortening perspective and the light it looked like the aircraft was skimming the surface. we actually thought twice about publishing the image to avoid awkward regulators questions.
Many years ago I took some air to air shots of our aircraft. With the telephoto lens foreshortening perspective and the light it looked like the aircraft was skimming the surface. we actually thought twice about publishing the image to avoid awkward regulators questions.
No, it doesn't
As for
Yours is the poor/misleading interpretation
pilotmike
Have another look at the article.There is a second picture of the same 737 aircraft with a caption which says the picture is of the second approach.It's the 3rd picture from the top.
Have another look at the article.There is a second picture of the same 737 aircraft with a caption which says the picture is of the second approach.It's the 3rd picture from the top.
Yellow line (rh pic) crosses extended centerline at 0.33 nm, both yellow lines follow the line of sight of the telelens.
I'm pretty sure about that, based on 2 landmarks that match both on telelens & on sat picture.
I guess the picture was taken from the Sonesta Maho Beach resort, from around 8-10th floor.
I leave it to the brighter spirits to draw any conclusions (or not if they are really bright).
I'm pretty sure about that, based on 2 landmarks that match both on telelens & on sat picture.
I guess the picture was taken from the Sonesta Maho Beach resort, from around 8-10th floor.
I leave it to the brighter spirits to draw any conclusions (or not if they are really bright).
.jpg)
The blue diamonds represent the first approach and the magenta squares the second one. Clearly an unquantified offset (based on the unknown QNH) needs to be applied to the two sets of data, otherwise both aircraft are in the sea short of the runway.
Yes, the first approach was lower than the second one by around 150' at about a mile from the threshold (so I stand corrected on my earlier 50-75' estimate), but the claim that the first approach was "nothing like 3.15° from 3000ft" is nonsense.
Yes, the first approach was lower than the second one by around 150' at about a mile from the threshold
but the claim that the first approach was "nothing like 3.15°" is nonsense.
)
That YouTube video helpfully includes the TCNM METAR at the end.
A QNH of 1019 would indicate that actual heights AMSL will have been approximately 150' greater than the Mode C values.
A QNH of 1019 would indicate that actual heights AMSL will have been approximately 150' greater than the Mode C values.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. The YouTube video shows, toward the end, a couple of stills and offers them as "proof" that the sky was about to fall in etc. The snag with this is the aircraft was further out when showing the second approach. Just look at the comparative sizes of the aircraft in the 2 stills. The second shot (missed approach) was taken when the aircraft was closer to the camera.
Those approach plates might not be the ones WestJet was using, they are from 2003
In any case, good enough to prove a point.
Why people insist on using unverified data from a flighttracking website and present it as the gospel is beyond me.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mordor
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps there was some windshear involved? Othewise it's quite hard to explain why the plane descended so low while supposedly being visual with the RWY. But then again, so was the Asiana 777 in SFO...
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so they were a tad low (for reasons unknown to us). They did the right thing and went around for another go. They were never close to crashing. Just a lot of hype by people looking for a story to pep up a boring day. I have spent time watching approaches at SXM and seen Cessna C208 Caravans of FDX just as low....and continue to land.
Thread Starter
@ Hotel Tango...
Won't argue with you about the missed approach part, they did the right thing but they were more than "a tad low" IMHO... The question we are asking is why?
There is nothing wrong in trying to find out why they got in that position where the aircraft was in an unstable condition at such a low altitude and I hope TC gets involved to get to the bottom of this.
Won't argue with you about the missed approach part, they did the right thing but they were more than "a tad low" IMHO... The question we are asking is why?
There is nothing wrong in trying to find out why they got in that position where the aircraft was in an unstable condition at such a low altitude and I hope TC gets involved to get to the bottom of this.