Bloggs:

It's up to the country. If they publish such info on the AIP source, then Jeppesen will chart it.

Hotel Tango:

In the U.S., it would be a violation of FAR 91.175 (c)(1):

Air Bubba:

The chart preceding your post was effective July 2, 2009. In any case it's not current. The VOR IAP was recently revised and a GNSS approach was added last month. I'll post them when I get a chance.

No they're not if they were cleared for the visual approach which is not charted hence an MDA or DH would not be applicable.

Maho webcam view (video)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...78&app=desktop

Did they go-around because the truck didn't appear to be stopping?

Well I hope not... They were way too low and I think they were already in the "Go Around" mode regardless of the truck approaching from the south.

B2N2:

A visual in that weather? In that case, in the U.S., they would be required to use the VGSI, which is 3 degrees for Runway 10.

In any case, here are the two current approach charts.

Yep, that newfangled ADS-B stuff will never be accepted by polite society. ;)

It appears that the data was pretty good in this case. :ok:

If they did the published miss, looks like they took the 180 degree track on the VOR-Z Rwy 10 rather than direct ONBED on the RNAV (GNSS) Rwy 10 approach, according to unverified data from a flight tracking website :).

Trevor from the comment section in Christine N.'s blog adds this:

Airbubba:

Perhaps they elected the VOR Z because of the 200-foot lower MDA. (Confusing, ain't it?)

WestJets is an RNP AR intensive carrier, and perhaps usually does other vertically-guided IAPs when they aren't approaching one of their RNP AR airports.

Perhaps, a first glance at the charts when the weather is "going south" in paradise would be to go for the VOR Z.

Takeaways:

- make sure to apply skepticism to your own thinking, and other skeptics.

- expect pilots to know as much about Photoshop as photographers know about flying.

;)

I'm more concerned with "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"

At a guess he may not have had enough left to hold over SXM and later divert to his alternate with contingency?

Video of both approaches taken from the beach, posted on YT yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNhAYKM-7LQ

Confirms that the originally posted photo was not doctored, they were indeed a tad too low for comfort...

On a slightly different note I hope to God this isn't going to start a habit of beginning threads with the word "So" like the meaningless, idiotic habit that's been infesting spoken language recently.

With those videos my hunch is the Canadian aviation authorities will get involved.

Why?

All it says is that they arrived with not enough fuel to hold and divert and have 30 minutes remaining. Nothing wrong with that, it just makes you take a decision earlier on.
IF he went around, or still had to enter the hold, he would have to divert immediately.

The pictures are deceiving. They were no longer in a position to land "normally" so they executed a go around.
A plane spotters wet dream.

Having watched the video of the two approaches viewed from the same point, the first one does appear to be seriously low, four reds on the PAPI (if they can even see it). The airport video doesn’t look so pretty, either.

One does wonder what the view out of the front window was like for the last 30s or so... :eek:

Thie pictures may be, but the videos taken from the beach (= threshold elevation) show a very clear picture. From the shadow under the aircraft one may have a fairly accurate height estimate on the first approach, they were at an altitude less than a full wingspan when the go-around was commenced, about 75-80 feet. On the second approach they were roughly at two wingspans (~200 feet), about right for 0.5nm before threshold.

Folks can say what they want about the photos and videos, but the DFDR doesn't lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNhAYKM-7LQ

Judge for yourself

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. :eek:

Actually this in itself is nothing sinister, Christine Garner probably used Photoshop mainly to apply the eponymous watermark.

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.

2300 metres is plenty long enough for a 737. We regularly operated from 1600 metres.

not sure what runway length has to do with being that low on final?

That's about our standard operating height... :8

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).

The standard of the last 4 posts would seem to suggest it's time to close the thread now!

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

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
http://www.jacdec.de/WP/wp-content/u...wAppr_MAP1.png

Well, at least they went around off the low approach.

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.

Further up thread, someone (apparently a non aviator) suggested:
I'd downgrade somewhat that to "wave off a bad approach is what we are supposed to do."

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:
I have a few thoughts on what may have happened on the initial approach, but for the moment will put them in a holding pattern, awaiting improved visibility. ;)

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.

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.

The camera will put copyright info with the image, the 6D is the smallest lightest full frame camera and the lines between "prosumer"are blurred these days, it is horses for courses and you vary the models you use to what you want to get out of it functions wise, the important thing is simply the glass, no matter what your camera is or does, shooting through third rate glass always will result in a third rate image.
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.

You'll pay up to a grand and a half for a 6D body alone and the glass that is also shown in the EXIF data (EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM) will easily set you back another grand and a half, so that's £3000 worth of "pro-sumer" gear right there without counting any of the other bits and pieces she would have undoubtedly had with her...

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.

Actually, the 'B' runway at NRT is now lengthened since the farmer has gone somewhere else. But it indeed used to be 7152 feet long with widebodies landing on it. Now, about those brake fans... ;)

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.