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. |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 9702391)
If you're implying that it was an all smooth and dandy 3.15° approach, FR24 tells a completely different story.
(apologies, mods, for the size of the image, which shows each of the two approaches, from roughly 2500' Mode C at the extreme left) http://www.avgen.com/WS2652.jpg 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. |
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. |
1 Attachment(s)
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). |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 9702559)
Drag the aeroplane symbol along and you'll see that that approach was nothing like 3.15° from 3000ft as you stated in your earlier post
http://www.avgen.com/WS2652(2).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. |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 9702671)
Are you even aware of the significance of a difference of 150ft at 1nm final??
|
1 Attachment(s)
Elaborating at bit further on DaveReidUK's hard work (without the author's permission :O)
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yNhAYKM-7LQ&feature=youtu.be
I guess at SXM there's always more than one camera 👍🏻 |
@ Climb360...
Well that takes care of that... So much for those that accused the photographer of manipulating her picture... Yes I'd say that was a close call! |
Speechless.
Someone's in trouble. |
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. |
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.
|
To me it looks like he is within a half wing span (~ 113') from the water, so about 60 feet?
|
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. |
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...
|
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.
|
@ 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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.