Which video are you looking at? The video from the beach and the photo match up nicely while the one from the airport shows rain and wind. Conclusion? There was a squall over the airport that shows in the webcam video but the approach itself was clear.

I've got to assume you've never operated in the tropics.

A single tropical Cu - (not Cb, Cu; your basic 5000 x 5000-ft puffball) - can drop a dense rain shaft that is less than a mile thick, yet totally impenetrable to vision. And with 20-kt constant trade winds, can move on 5 miles in 15 minutes.

Living and working in San Juan, just over yonder from TNCM, it was almost a daily afternoon event to go from severe clear and sunny, to the middle of a downpour that cut viz to tens of meters, and back to bright and sunny again, in a period of 10 minutes, as one single cloud decided to cut loose. With rain so heavy that within 15 seconds you might just as well have jumped in the sea - soaked to the nether regions of the underwear. And flooded gutters and streets - localized to a 4-block area.

Not that you can't get longer or wider-spread storms as well. But in the tropics, there is nothing at all abnormal about the visual difference between those two approaches - not only on the same day, or 45 minutes apart, but even just 15 minutes apart.

During my one-and-only flight to St. Martin, we experienced exactly the circumstances described by pattern_is_full. A 30 minute hold waiting for a rain shower to move away from the approach, followed by straight forward approach and landing in VMC and a disembarkation onto a hot and steamy apron.

_._._._, "non event", certainly not.
All events are important; their significance depends on what individuals are willing to learn.

The first approach could have been an unusual deviation within normal operations, towards the accepted boundary of procedural approach systems and/or human performance.
We should remind ourselves that NPAs still involve significant risk which although often masked by precision-like systems, still depend on human monitoring and recovery. Thus a GA is 'normal', an approved response to a deviation. Celebrate, and learn from the success of human intervention.

Alternatively there was an unexpected or undetected external disturbance, where crews are again expected to compensate for deviation or error; the crew did, well done.
What we must learn is how the crew performed to achieve this success, or at least how they managed to do their best in the perceived situation.

We could understand how the situation developed, hopefully to identify similar occasions and avoid the circumstances. Of greater importance, we need to understand how the crew recovered the situation, because this behaviour could help in similar misjudged situations and a range of other 'normal' situations which require detection and recovery from operational variability.

Flying is not a narrow band, straight line operation. It is necessary for operational / human deviations in order to achieve objectives, - safety and economics. The skill in flying involves how we manage those deviations, our awareness, adaptability, and knowledge of safe boundaries; what we should learn from this event could help improve these aspects.
If the industry can achieve more successes ( recovery / adaptation ) in normal variable operation, then there should be fewer occasions where the outcome is less than we expect.

May I ask why so many "experts" are spending their energy to "prove" (or not) they were below MDA when it's very clear the aircraft pictured is in visual flight? Hint: it is normal and necessary to descend below MDA in 100% of landings!

No! No and More NO!!!
 

No! WestJet did NOT "Almost put one in the Water." The 'event' was a very ordinary Go Around, photographed from an unusual angle. No more and No Less. Please do not believe everything that some fools post on the internet. The more dramatic the story, the less likely it is to be true. Think first and perhaps believe later. We, of all populations, are expected to know better. (Hey... At least this one hit the wire. have lost two others today, including one cited in a PM that will now make no sense, even of it did before. Cannot recover, so there is nothing to edit. Not my day and perhaps I should go back to my book.) Thanks for your note, PJ2.
and... As others have noted as well, that is already a long and very low approach. If you've ever seen a few from ground level, they really do look horrible, especially as flown by VLA (Very Large Aircraft.) While possible, I'm not aware of any modern jet having taken a swim while on approach there, they just LOOK bad at times. Further, our colleague, Jet Jockey A4, can be a bit dramatic at times. It happens. NFZ

Yes it is, but not that far out from the threshold.

The airplane was low - below a 3deg descent path, period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN3Fd0x0FoQ

Why it was low will be determined by the airline's and the local regulator's investigations.

Yes, I certainly concur with that part of your post and have taken the advice.

I suspect that may not read the way you intended it to.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yNhAYK...ature=youtu.be

The B737 is clearly at threshold height when no threshold is even thinking of possibly considering entering the picture. To suggest that this was somehow "normal" is just ridiculous.

Only if you get it wrong, as the instrument approach gradient is 3degs as is the PAPI from the charts I’ve seen.
I have to agree. Also, we only see the 737 after it has started a GA and is on an upward path... :eek:

What a load of :mad: have been written on this thread, mostly authored by those who have little or no tropical flying experience, or by those who received a" PFO "letter from West Jet. The crew did it right, get a life!

Please explain how.

clunckdriver;

Some thoughts on reading thread contributions.

It is long past time to take this profession back from "internet experts".

Regarding what is written on these threads, there remain a few professional pilots here who haven't given up on discussions and who can separate some of the nonsense written by those who don't do the work from those who know their stuff.

Unless a newbie shows authentic curiosity and genuine interest, the rest just gets ignored, and, where particularly painfully-wrong, the poster ends up in the "ignore" bin. There is too little time to correct disingenuous queries.

The remaining dialogue is still very good for two reasons:

1) It is good for those who are starting out and who need to read and hear from those who have done it for a while, and,

2) It is good for those who have done it for years to disagree on all aspects of the profession and industry, and to support such disagreements with facts and references from professional sources, partly so that those just starting out don't get the idea that they know it all off the bat, especially when they see those who have done it for decades disagreeing both courteously and professionally. The strongest ego is quiet and sure of itself while being mindful of its weaknesses; the loudest ones are incertain.

The sign of someone who knows aviation and is a professional airman (man or woman), is being up-to-date with a thorough knowledge of their SOPs and as much as they can get about their airplane from the FCOM. The other sign is someone who reads the accident reports and reads some of the flight safety conference proceedings, just like other professions do.

How to disagree is as important as asking the right questions.

+1

PJ2, my respects good man. That is the basis and objective of this forum.

Clunckdriver, certainly there was something abnormal about that event, and I'd surely like to know what happened so I can be on the look out. You cannot learn all the lessons by yourself, goes the saying.

If anyone says 30 minutes is not enough to go from apocalyptic downpour to sunny skies, certainly they don't have experience flying in the Caribbean and should take a second or two before posting, so they don't look rubbish to those who do have such experience.

Now, where were we?

One would assume ATC would have been looking out of the window, perhaps with binoculars; they could have some input, but perhaps Prune is not on their radar. What is certain is that some guys in Westjet know about this. One would hope a safety report was filed and thus the safety foundation, one of which is based in Canada, will be able to publish a meaningful & educational report for the rest of us to learn from.

Visual flight or not, the aircraft should not be flown below the PAPI though should it? Sure, we've all done it. Legally speaking though, it makes an interesting case. If only lawyers could see colours other than black and white... Obviously, there are some airports where the 'till a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing' applies more than others, following the glide/PAPI's at these airports in certain types can lead to an underwear change at the other end, but the book says they are legal.

Just last week I was in TNCM, following an RNAV arrival. ATC were certainly calling us at every waypoint confirming altitudes then fully established - I wonder if this were the case prior to this incident. The controller certainly had her work cut out, she was pretty busy with both ends of the runway in use.

Passenger view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN3Fd0x0FoQ

A possible/likely scenario?
 

At first sight this resembles many other events, a lot of which have been catastrophic.

In that case, likely contributory factors could include

* The crew did not expect and prepare for a “minimums” approach, because the weather was reported basically “good” prior to top of descent. The weather is reported at ToD is 05018KT 9999 FEW014 BKN035 24/21 Q1018 A3008 NOSIG - that it doesn't sound like a very demanding approach if you're coming from winter in Canada to a Caribbean holiday resort, does it?

* Then, though there are now obviously some big showers around, a lot of the approach might be only marginally IMC anyway. Approaching MDA which is 2.5 miles out from the runway, the sea surface may well have been easily seen, so the pilots assume the runway would soon also become visible.

* With less favourable conditions now becoming very evident, there may also be a strong desire to get on the ground, rather than wait and possible divert with all the attendant disruption.

* So maybe both pilots just stayed head up looking for the runway. They're over an almost featureless water surface that's is merging into cloud and rain with no clear horizon.

* With the autopilot disconnected, that precipitation close to the runway decreases visibility, and maybe leads to an illusion of pitching up. In any case the descent rate increases without the pilots realising it, as both are focused on trying to see the runway and neither is concentrating on the instruments.

*Then something - radio altimeter callouts? peripheral vision? triggers the realisation that the surface is actually very much closer than it should be

* triggering low altitude go-around.

Optimistic/inadequate planning + deteriorating weather + minimal visual cues + plan continuation bias + absence of uninterrupted instrument monitoring to touchdown = a predictable nasty fright, but luckily, this time it's not as bad as LionAir in Bali or many others.

I think Slast has hit the nail on the head. The wobbly FlightRadar record of the first approach supports that. The second approach was much more polished.

Finally a CADORS for this incident was entered on March 27th (yesterday).

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b7...psxmzvqhgb.jpg

Worth noting that the "Further Action Required: No" is Transport Canada's categorisation of the event.

The Canadian TSB, on the other hand, opened an investigation on 17th March, categorising the event as a Class 3 - defined as:

"Individual occurrences that do not meet the criteria of Class 2 occurrences may be investigated when
1. there is significant public expectation that the TSB should independently make findings as to cause(s) and contributing factors; or
2. there is potential for better understanding the latent unsafe conditions contributing to a significant safety issue; or
3, a government representative so requests (pursuant to Section 14(2) of the CTAISB Act); or the Board must do so to meet its obligations or commitments."

JJA4, so since TC also says on its CADORS main page "The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is the official source of aviation accident and incident data in Canada" does this mean that TSB is going to look into it any further or not? Which of them decides?

Well I hope we get some additional investigation and info at a later date from the TSB.

The latest video from onboard the aircraft while on the first approach is a bit perplexing.

Yes they can...

The TSB is independent of Transport Canada and may indeed continue to investigate the incident.

However, if they do continue to investigate and produce a report of the incident, the TSB will only be able to suggest/recommend that certain measure are taken to avoid another such event...

They have no authority to penalise the crew or the company for their actions (assuming something was wrong) because only TC can do that and since TC is already on the record that "no further action is required", nothing is going to come out of this.

Are you saying that TSB Safety Recommendations directed at Transport Canada are routinely ignored ?

Perhaps "ignored" is too absolute a term, how about "considered, but not acted upon by regulatory change....". 'Doesn't mean TC is not thinking about how to make things better....

Well, no I'm not saying that but I'm sure not all recommendations directed at TC from the TSB are implemented.

In this case (and I'm speculating here) because I don't have all the facts, it seems this crew was caught off guard by deteriorating weather and continued an approach below the minimum with the results we have seen.

So what can the TSB do about it? I suspect nothing. What can they write in a report that would change anything since rules are already in place to cover minimums?

I'm not even sure by the time the TSB got word of this incident that the DFDR was available to them with data from the incident.

It would be up to TC to say that the crew "busted minimums" and handout whatever penalties for such an infraction which would likely be a little slap on the wrist.

If TC is not going to get involved (which seems to be the case), then it would be up to the chief pilot of the company to take action, again I'm afraid it's just another slap on the wrist.

Interesting situation.... I guess what's happened here is that no-one in either authority was concerned (or even aware) until the publicity started. TC then jumped in and took a quick look, decided "nothing to see here, move along". Then the TSB says "hey maybe there is".

If it turned out that for a silly example the aircraft had a runaway nose down pitch trim that the crew heroically overcame and didn't think worth mentioning (prob: 10-6) then I guess that TC would have to reconsider their "no further action" judgement! Re other more likely causes - it will be interesting to follow this little story.

What clunckdriver said.

This thread must represent the apogee of the trainspotters here.
Never seen so much :mad:
Classic was the muppet who put a nine year old jepp plate up.
Flight simmers
FYI current same plate is dated 27/1/17, then only real pilots would have these........

I corrected "the muppet" in my post #48.

Well, looking at the video from the bar near the end of the runway, that was pretty damn low. Not only can you see the wake, you see the pressure wave in front of the wings, so they were in ground effect.

http://i63.tinypic.com/5u3p2.jpg

Looking at a relative comparison from the video from the shore, the red line is the wingspan 112' (34m) and the green line is the distance from wheel to the water surface. The comparative lines show at this point, just as the aircraft begins GA, (and still a distance offshore) appears to show about 52' (16m) above the water surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXCJPHRErZ8

Should be about 50' (15m) at threshold.....

Best to review the actual video to see the water surface, etc used for the comparison.

In regards to the procedure designers adding the decent profile, that is of course, how the procedure is designed, what is charted is up to the State and the particular criteria it has decided to use.

From a previous post in this thread, this needs to reference the threshold, not beginning of pavement. TCH here is 50 feet.

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

EDIT: BTW, looking at the Frozen ac, they used about 1925 lbs of paint for that.....pretty good hit on the MLW! For Canada, that is like 7 pax w/cheese....

Waving hands to the champion:
new video
It's ridiculous the instrument approach system of this famous western international airport.

Yes, it's an interesting situation. Just at DH/MDA, finally get a visual, call out a visual, and then the weather shuts the view of the runway.

What do the airline's SOPs, FARs, legal, TSB, TC, FAA, NTSB, boeing procedures, airbus procedures, etc.... say about this ??

Pretty sure that almost ALL of them require a GO AROUND if visual clues are lost below DA/DH... (seriously, you had to ask?)

You have to figure that this thread has gone about as far as possible and has been beaten to death by supposition...Let it go folks, there's nothing more to look at...move along.

Why is there discussion that the crew lost visual with the runway?

There is video from the far end of the runway that shows the airplane visible on the first approach. If we can see them...

Sure they got low, maybe the precipitation gave some illusions, maybe they were distracted. Not great and not the usual of course. But there is no indication they couldn't see the (presumably well lit) runway.

@ YRP...

Again look at the latest video (in post 193 above) and tell me that's a normal approach? Tell me you really think that being that low (50-75' AGL) that far back from the runway threshold is normal?

Yes they executed a missed approach, the only sensible thing to do in their situation and saved the day in the process. The question is why did they get into that position in the first place...

Again looking at the latest video, pay attention to the "Go Around" and you will notice that the aircraft goes into the clouds at perhaps 200 to 300 feet AGL.

What if there was a cloud base like the one on the GO Around on the approach?

Wouldn't that indicate that they pushed the limits?

The last two videos, one by pax, the other head on from beach show precip.

• Possible refraction
• Possible downdraft with precip
• Well below CAVOK, but within limits
• Height perception above​ water surface difficult, especially in prevailing viz

~= a lined up Emmenthaler

Did the EGPWS pipe up? If not, why not?

... they can see us." Not necessarily so at all.

@YRP
Lights? It's only the box and the papi. No approach lights there.

You really can't say that because we see them, they saw us. The place is a big sum of multiple visual illusions.
Difficult depth perception, approach over water, threshold on the beach, displaced threshold, short runway, no approach or centerline lights, no horizon because of the hills behind it, runway at an angle on the coast and high MDA after which LNAV and vertical profile go a different way (which can be a distraction at the least or a short moment of vertigo if you don't expect it). And that's in good weather.
The airport is a lot of fun but needs a good preparation and briefing.