So WestJet almost puts one of their 737 in the water while landing at St-Maarten...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Christine Negroni got her WestJet SXM article picked up by Forbes' website with a different edit of the first low approach photo and a book plug at the end:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi.../#6a14d8c75492
The EXIF data says that the picture was taken with a Canon EOS 6D camera, a lot of folks would call this a 'prosumer' model.
And the EXIF data says the photo was edited in, gulp, Photoshop 6.
Actually this in itself is nothing sinister, Christine Garner probably used Photoshop mainly to apply the eponymous watermark.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi.../#6a14d8c75492
The EXIF data says that the picture was taken with a Canon EOS 6D camera, a lot of folks would call this a 'prosumer' model.
And the EXIF data says the photo was edited in, gulp, Photoshop 6.
Actually this in itself is nothing sinister, Christine Garner probably used Photoshop mainly to apply the eponymous watermark.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fly into TNCM so shoot me down if I am out of line.
But it's not a short runway (2300ish) for a medium jet.
I imagine the visual manoeuvre on departure would make an engine out climb more than usually emotional, but why is there such approach carnage? Or has it just been blown out of proportion by the utubers.
But it's not a short runway (2300ish) for a medium jet.
I imagine the visual manoeuvre on departure would make an engine out climb more than usually emotional, but why is there such approach carnage? Or has it just been blown out of proportion by the utubers.
That's about our standard operating height... 
First attempt, whether they were too high or too low, proper response of the crew, right? Second attempt, no signs of sweat.
With the knowledge they have now, will they wait out the weather in the future? Raise their own minima?
Not knowing whether windshear is involved here, are there companies that have specific SOPs when windshear can be expected? (e.g. Higher approach speed, raising the minima).
First attempt, whether they were too high or too low, proper response of the crew, right? Second attempt, no signs of sweat.
With the knowledge they have now, will they wait out the weather in the future? Raise their own minima?
Not knowing whether windshear is involved here, are there companies that have specific SOPs when windshear can be expected? (e.g. Higher approach speed, raising the minima).
If the photo is true, with the a/c appearing below the horizon, then the actual height of the a/c must be below the height from which the photo was taken, and that looks to be only a couple of hundred feet at most.
SB
SB
Last edited by Seabreeze; 13th Mar 2017 at 07:01. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do not have any substantiated reason to believe the photo was falsified. It fits with both videos from Mahobeachcam and the Sunset Bar and corresponds to adsb tracking as well.
The altitude must be seriously lower than 100 ft leaving a trail of backwash behind.
JACDEC suggested a height of 15-20 meters at the moment when the photo was taken. LINK
The altitude must be seriously lower than 100 ft leaving a trail of backwash behind.
JACDEC suggested a height of 15-20 meters at the moment when the photo was taken. LINK
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Over the Pacific mostly
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This particular airport in my opinion is an accident waiting to happen and it has nothing to do with the rwy nor the terrain at the end....., afterall, there are thousands of airports with those specs around the world and you don't see people going bellow their 3' VPA into the touchdown zone. 34R/16L in Narita is about the same and you see operations everyday with 777's on down without seeing these spectacles of trying to touch the top of the fence with the mains.
I believe that it has to do with the beach and the next youtube video showing your plane being within reach of the girls at the baech......., for show! That's all, there is simply no operational reason as to why the aming point seems to be the start of the displaced threshold markings.
I believe that it has to do with the beach and the next youtube video showing your plane being within reach of the girls at the baech......., for show! That's all, there is simply no operational reason as to why the aming point seems to be the start of the displaced threshold markings.
Administrator
Rather than blame the pilots I prefer to give them a “great save”.
The point being made by some of the aviators in this discussion is the criticality of precision flying in close/stable approach, etc. With souls on board, it's a worthy standard to aspire to ... and "do the right thing" and wave off when one misses the mark.
If the witness named Trevor is to be believed:
American Flight 2219, a Boeing 737 from Miami had just landed before Westjet and reported to the Tower that they only picked up the field at the last minute (I presume that meant before they decided to go around). The Westjet approach was next and lets be clear, ATC did not advise them to go around, it was the pilots decision. ATC did comment that the decision to go around was very late – Westjet did not respond – ATC advised them to climb to 4000 feet and hold at Ivaci – the airport was then closed to arrivals and departures. About 20 minutes into the hold, Westjet was informed that the visibility on approach had improved from 11/2 miles to 2 miles and asked if he wanted the approach. He declined, indicated he had plenty of fuel to hold and would wait for further improvement. KLM Flight 729 then arrived, an Airbus A330 and was told to enter the hold. He indicated he did not have sufficient fuel to hold and wanted to try the approach – ATC complied with his wish and he landed safely – he reported that he picked up the field at 3 miles. Westjet then decided to make the second approach and it was flawless.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First attempt, whether they were too high or too low, proper response of the crew, right? Second attempt, no signs of sweat.
This being a Professional Pilots forum I'm interested in what they did differently such that there was a different outcome. How had they made the 1st approach; VNAV or V/S? Why are there no Alt/DME checks below 1600'? (shown on the offered charts post #17). Was the 1st approach a 'dive & drive' and they went below MDA? Was the 2nd approach a CDA? What is Westjet's SOP for such a profile?
I am curious about the chart profile. 3 degrees = 320'/nm. You start at 4.8nm from THR.
Charted FPL is 2.98 and is reflected in the G/S at 140kts being just <750fpm. So that jives. It then shows the 'M' at 1.9nm from THR and a MDA or 486' AGL starting from a TOD 1586' at 4.8nm.
Using 3 degrees (a little steeper) you would be 1536' AGL at 4.8nm. The chart is 1586'? At 1.9nm on a CDA 3 degrees you'd like to be 608' AGL; the chart shows 'M' as 486'AGL. Thus on a CDA 3 degrees you'd hit 486' AGL after the 'M' at 1.5nm to THR. Indeed, the 2.98 dotted line appears to cross below the MDA level at 'M'.
So is this a dive & drive NPA? Descend at 1000fpm to 500QNH and level until flying into PAPI's?
The required VIS 3500m, is just enough to give threshold in sight at 1.9nm which coincides with 'M'. There are no approach lights, so 'the beach' is not good enough.
I would suspect an A330 flies a CDA. I've never been there, but is the GA flown passing 2nm DME or at 500' QNH. My point being that on a CDA 500' QNH is not at 2DME, but later. At 2nm DME you'll still be above MDA. On a Dive & Drive the GA will be 2nm from level flight.
This being a Professional Pilots forum I'm interested in what they did differently such that there was a different outcome. How had they made the 1st approach; VNAV or V/S? Why are there no Alt/DME checks below 1600'? (shown on the offered charts post #17). Was the 1st approach a 'dive & drive' and they went below MDA? Was the 2nd approach a CDA? What is Westjet's SOP for such a profile?
I am curious about the chart profile. 3 degrees = 320'/nm. You start at 4.8nm from THR.
Charted FPL is 2.98 and is reflected in the G/S at 140kts being just <750fpm. So that jives. It then shows the 'M' at 1.9nm from THR and a MDA or 486' AGL starting from a TOD 1586' at 4.8nm.
Using 3 degrees (a little steeper) you would be 1536' AGL at 4.8nm. The chart is 1586'? At 1.9nm on a CDA 3 degrees you'd like to be 608' AGL; the chart shows 'M' as 486'AGL. Thus on a CDA 3 degrees you'd hit 486' AGL after the 'M' at 1.5nm to THR. Indeed, the 2.98 dotted line appears to cross below the MDA level at 'M'.
So is this a dive & drive NPA? Descend at 1000fpm to 500QNH and level until flying into PAPI's?
The required VIS 3500m, is just enough to give threshold in sight at 1.9nm which coincides with 'M'. There are no approach lights, so 'the beach' is not good enough.
I would suspect an A330 flies a CDA. I've never been there, but is the GA flown passing 2nm DME or at 500' QNH. My point being that on a CDA 500' QNH is not at 2DME, but later. At 2nm DME you'll still be above MDA. On a Dive & Drive the GA will be 2nm from level flight.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dominican: I'll remain polite and simply say that I totally disagree with you! In respect of this particular occurrence (I don't even want to describe it as an "incident") I think the last thing on the crews' minds in the prevailing wx conditions was any desire to try and impress the few braving it on the beach. I again emphasize that no one here is aware of the facts. They found themselves a little too low and executed a G/A. To suggest that professional airline crews would engage in deliberately low approaches in the interest of making the YT videos Top Ten is, in my opinion, not worthy of serious consideration.
Last edited by Hotel Tango; 13th Mar 2017 at 14:14.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,756
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Christine Negroni got her WestJet SXM article picked up by Forbes' website with a different edit of the first low approach photo and a book plug at the end:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi.../#6a14d8c75492
The EXIF data says that the picture was taken with a Canon EOS 6D camera, a lot of folks would call this a 'prosumer' model.
And the EXIF data says the photo was edited in, gulp, Photoshop 6.
Actually this in itself is nothing sinister, Christine Garner probably used Photoshop mainly to apply the eponymous watermark.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi.../#6a14d8c75492
The EXIF data says that the picture was taken with a Canon EOS 6D camera, a lot of folks would call this a 'prosumer' model.
And the EXIF data says the photo was edited in, gulp, Photoshop 6.
Actually this in itself is nothing sinister, Christine Garner probably used Photoshop mainly to apply the eponymous watermark.
Photoshop is used to tweak the image and crop etc, also to convert the image if shooting in RAW. Though six is an old version, then again back to the horses for courses and if it is doing the job, why change.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EXIF data says that the picture was taken with a Canon EOS 6D camera, a lot of folks would call this a 'prosumer' model.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Canon 6D will put copyright info into the EXIF file but won't put it on the image with the fancy font.
The lens Christine Garner used is certainly pro quality.
My initial caution over accepting the original photos as unquestionable evidence of a near disaster came largely from the poor image quality of the pictures as first published by Christine Negroni. Also, the assertion that they were taken by a professional photographer well known in the aviation community didn't quite seem to pan out from a quick look around online.
Christine N. says the original pictures were re-edited in Picasa for her blog, that certainly explains the image quality issue to my satisfaction. And, even if you do a minimal edit with a great original file, sometimes the blog software will butcher the picture with compression and other artifacts when it is published online.
Christine G. does some great photography but, like me, I don't believe she earns a living as a professional photographer.
Anyway, the photo of the low approach posted in the Forbes online article appears to be a minimally edited jpeg. It is razor sharp, and I think she probably quickly zoomed out to get the shoreline elements for context when she saw what was happening.
My initial caution over accepting the original photos as unquestionable evidence of a near disaster came largely from the poor image quality of the pictures as first published by Christine Negroni. Also, the assertion that they were taken by a professional photographer well known in the aviation community didn't quite seem to pan out from a quick look around online.
Christine N. says the original pictures were re-edited in Picasa for her blog, that certainly explains the image quality issue to my satisfaction. And, even if you do a minimal edit with a great original file, sometimes the blog software will butcher the picture with compression and other artifacts when it is published online.
Christine G. does some great photography but, like me, I don't believe she earns a living as a professional photographer.
Anyway, the photo of the low approach posted in the Forbes online article appears to be a minimally edited jpeg. It is razor sharp, and I think she probably quickly zoomed out to get the shoreline elements for context when she saw what was happening.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Last edited by Airbubba; 13th Mar 2017 at 16:38.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albeit in a medium helo; I have arrived at DH, had the runway environment visual, elected to land and then had the vis subsequently deteriorate in drifting fog. I realize I don't have to tell most folks here that there is no guarantee that the quality of what you can see at DH will continue to the threshold. Perhaps that is the case here.
I "grew up" in a flying community where the older pilots used bad weather and maintenance days to drink coffee and talk about tight spots they got into and out of thus allowing us sprogs to learn from their near-fatal mistakes. I suspect that their candour and professional courage prevented a lot of accidents, the number of which sadly cannot be quantified.
It would appear that we won't have the opportunity to learn from this incident in the same manner which is a pity, as most CFIT lessons are tempered by speculation and can't benefit from a first hand perspective from the cockpit.
I "grew up" in a flying community where the older pilots used bad weather and maintenance days to drink coffee and talk about tight spots they got into and out of thus allowing us sprogs to learn from their near-fatal mistakes. I suspect that their candour and professional courage prevented a lot of accidents, the number of which sadly cannot be quantified.
It would appear that we won't have the opportunity to learn from this incident in the same manner which is a pity, as most CFIT lessons are tempered by speculation and can't benefit from a first hand perspective from the cockpit.