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

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)

- - So WestJet almost puts one of their 737 in the water while landing at St-Maarten... (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/592054-so-westjet-almost-puts-one-their-737-water-while-landing-st-maarten.html)

Bloggs:

Quote:

When are the approach designers of the world going to pull their fingers out and put Altitude/Distance profiles on their charts?!

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

Hotel Tango:

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

(c)Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless -

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

Air Bubba:

Quote:

Those approach plates might not be the ones WestJet was using, they are from 2003.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

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:

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B2N2 (Post 9702816)

Why people insist on using unverified data from a flighttracking website and present it as the gospel is beyond me.

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aterpster (Post 9702902)

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

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 :).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airbubba (Post 9702363)

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.

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

Quote:

Trevor says:

March 11, 2017 at 6:42 am

Let me clear up a few things – I was in SXM listening to ATC all afternoon. 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. As an aside, Insel Air was also in the hold, a Dominican Wings A320, and he decided to divert to Guadeloupe

Airbubba:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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"

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by cappt

The pictures are deceiving

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.