Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

So WestJet almost puts one of their 737 in the water while landing at St-Maarten...

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

So WestJet almost puts one of their 737 in the water while landing at St-Maarten...

Reply

Old 10th Mar 2017, 18:17
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 734
So WestJet almost puts one of their 737 in the water while landing at St-Maarten...

WestJet is trying to deny the aircraft ever came close to the water. Well I don't believe them and I will take this photographers word on this. Hope Transport Canada investigates this one.




More on this story here...

WestJet Denies Close Call Caught on Camera at St. Maarten
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 18:57
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bird Land
Posts: 579
referenced recent landing disasters, the 2013 crash of a Lion Air 737 in Bali, Indonesia in which investigators say the plane was below the minimum descent altitude when it hit the water half mile short of the runway. No one was killed.
Obviously!
Council Van is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 18:57
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Middle East
Posts: 260
If this is a real photo, how do you explain where the disturbance on the surface of the water starts with respect to where the thrust is coming out of the engines? Sure looks like Photoshop in action.
ATCO1962 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 19:01
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 508
Maybe it is the downwash from the wing and flap profile. If true and not photoshopped.
fox niner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 19:06
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,187
Well, the photos are unconvincing to me. Maybe the larger versions of the files have more detail. I find it odd that the picture of the second approach doesn't seem to have any of the shoreline elements of the first picture. Is the yellow buoy the same or is it another one further from the runway? There are several buoys in that area as I recall. Were both pictures taken from the same vantage point? That doesn't look like a 'jet blast trail in the water' to me in this compressed online image. But then, I've never flown a 737.

“According to the information I have been given there was nothing unusual about the first approach,” said Lauren Stewart, a spokeswoman for the Calgary-based carrier. Citing FlightAware logs, Stewart said the plane was never lower than 500 feet before the go-around. But professional pilots confirm Garner’s observation that the plane was much closer to the water and I have been told that FlightAware does not have coverage to the ground at SXM.
Maybe FlightAware doesn't cover down to the runway at SXM but FR24 does:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...ws2652#caa236c

Looks like they were holding for something, weather over the field perhaps?
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 19:13
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 734
The aircraft's nose is pretty high, so perhaps the power had already been added and they were just starting their missed approach.

Why would a pro photographer lie about her pictures? She is apparently known in the aviation world for her pictures.

One thing is for sure depending on the type of approach they were conducting (either a plain VOR 09 or VOR/DME 09) the MDA is abut 600' AGL or 960' AGL and the MAP is about at 2 nm from the runway threshold so if this picture is legit then they are way below MDA and way too far out.

One of the passengers said they came out of a rain shower and were very, very low, close to the water when the power came on and an aggressive pull up maneuver was initiated.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 19:14
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,150
The second approach 45 minutes later came in much higher and for the passengers and crew of WestJet Flight 2652, the flight had a happy ending.
The FR24 data shows no discernable difference between the profiles for the first and second approach.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 19:16
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 699
Nice find...
Looks low long enough to make image real
Look closely a the duration at end of flight when descending after holding, prolonged flight at approach speed at low level
Skyjob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 19:30
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,187
Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4 View Post
Why would a pro photographer lie about her pictures? She is apparently known in the aviation world for her pictures.
What evidence do you have that she's a pro photographer? Can you find any of her work published professionally by anyone other than her buddy Christine Negroni?

Not saying that her work isn't nice, but as Christine Negroni describes her:

Yep, we’ve come a long way and so has global aviation. Christine Garner, a plane spotter/aviation enthusiast (is that redundant?) living in St. Maarten was reminded of that recently. She was having a normal afternoon at Maho Beach right off the west end of runway 10 at Princess Juliana International Airport, when a four engine airliner appeared in the distance. Not anticipating either the KLM Boeing 747 that arrives three times a week or the Air France A340, she picked up her camera and started snapping as it approached.
Airplane Images that Inspire Flights of Fancy

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
The FR24 data shows no discernable difference between the profiles for the first and second approach.
Surely you're not trying to ruin a good airline hit piece with actual data.
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 19:32
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,150
Originally Posted by Skyjob View Post
Look closely a the duration at end of flight when descending after holding, prolonged flight at approach speed at low level
Really?

The final 3000' of descent was made at an angle of 3.15°.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 22:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,380
It wouldn't be difficult to pull up the flight data monitoring system and find out what really happened.
Metro man is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 22:25
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 14,047
The trouble with telephoto lenses is they compress distance making objects appear closer to each other than they actually are.
NutLoose is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 22:27
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 47
Posts: 0
Two observations regarding the photo differences between first and second approaches. The aircraft position relatively to horizon and the differences in horizon visibility. It's pretty clear to me that 45 minutes between the go around and the second attempt was for "what the hell just happened" debriefing and for a better VFR approach, with 0 margin of error.
_Phoenix is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 23:57
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,187
One of the things that makes me a little skeptical is the lousy image quality of the photo in the first post on this thread. It looks like something taken with a cellphone that my teen niece would post on Facebook. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't look like the work of a professional photographer to me.

However, Christine Negroni responds to a claim of image manipulation with the information that she did a Picasa edit on the photos to make a montage for publication on her blog. From the comment section of the WestJet post:

Anthony says:

March 10, 2017 at 4:07 pm

It’s photoshopped. As a Graphic Designer, I have taken the opportunity to test the “Missed Approach” image in comparison to the “Good Approach” image and found many inconsistencies and artifacts which comes from a manipulated image.

Reply

Christine Negroni says:

March 10, 2017 at 4:53 pm

Anthony, Christine Garner is a professional aviation photographer with whom I have worked in the past for the prestigious Air & Space magazine. She is a woman of integrity and both of us take our professional responsibilities seriously. The image presented in the post is the image she shot and is NOT photoshopped. The final image with the caption, missed approach and good approach is a montage produced by me from her original images in the Picasa photo program. If there are “inconsistencies and artifacts” or something that suggests manipulation it must be related to putting two photos in one composite image. Christine Negroni
I've certainly had the experience of posting an online album of sharp edited photos of a family event only to have someone mix them with blurry, grainy cellphone pictures and have them downsampled to 20K thumbnails by Instagram and then resized back to original size with hideous results.

Again, about the only other published photography from Christine Garner that I can find online is in this article:

Under the Big Jets | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine

From Christine G.'s online albums, it looks to me like she probably edits in Lightroom but I haven't found anything to confirm this.

Her son vouches for her integrity:

Bill Garner says:

March 10, 2017 at 5:47 pm

If you knew my mother (the photographer) you’d know that the image has not been photoshopped. It just isn’t in her character to fabricate something like this. Has anyone considered that they may have hit an air pocket and dropped suddenly?
There is a comment from another poster who says he also witnessed the event:

Trevor says:

March 10, 2017 at 4:44 pm

Allow me to address some of you experts – this photo was not photoshopped – I was in St Maarten and also witnessed the whole incident. I have been coming here annually for 16 years to photograph the aircraft and have never witnessed an aircraft so low. Rather than blame the pilots I prefer to give them a “great save”. The reason it took 45 minutes for the go around was that ATC closed the airport after the first Westjet approach. I was listening on my scanner
It does look like the airport was indeed closed for a while, INC 522 (Dominican Wings) and KLM 729 went into holding as well. KLM landed just before WJA 2652 and INC apparently diverted somewhere else.
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Mar 2017, 00:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 73
Posts: 328
@Airbubba
Were both pictures taken from the same vantage point?
I should think clearly not. The first photograph was taken from a high angle, looking down on the sea, so the horizon is towards the top of the picture. The second photograph seems to be taken from a significantly lower angle. Of course, level of horizon is controlled by camera angle, but if you tilt the camera from a low angle, you get a lot of foreground.

I couldn't begin to work out the aircraft height in these two photographs, but they're certainly not directly comparable.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Mar 2017, 01:03
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,255
Originally Posted by Dave Reid
The FR24 data shows no discernable difference between the profiles for the first and second approach.
First approach 1200fpm at 300ft, bottoming out at 0ft, second approach "almost normal"... no discernible difference there, obviously...

Originally Posted by Dave Reid
The final 3000' of descent was made at an angle of 3.15°.
If you're implying that it was an all smooth and dandy 3.15° approach, FR24 tells a completely different story.

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.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Mar 2017, 01:05
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,108
I've been there several times in the last month.

Approach plates are here:

http://www.eddk.info/Download/PDF/TNCM.pdf

SID's and STAR's are here:

https://yinlei.org/x-plane10/jep/TNCM.pdf

Lowest MDA with DME is 500

B2N2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Mar 2017, 01:08
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,255
Thanks B2N2. Interesting.

When are the approach designers of the world going to pull their fingers out and put Altitude/Distance profiles on their charts?!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Mar 2017, 02:32
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,108
3 degree descent angle equals 700fpm at 140kts.
Possibly had it in VS mode with the Missed Approach altitude set after passing the FAF.
That's how we did it as the company I worked for was not approved for VNAV use in their Opspecs.
B2N2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Mar 2017, 03:26
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,187
Originally Posted by B2N2 View Post
I've been there several times in the last month.

Approach plates are here:
Those approach plates might not be the ones WestJet was using, they are from 2003. Then again, maybe they were.
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service