“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.
“I’ll put money on the fact that jet was at 50 feet,” a 737 captain who flies the same aircraft for another U.S. airline told me. “To be that low and not over the runway is downright dangerous.” he said. A captain at an international airline with 20,000 flight hours, who also saw the photo concurred. “It’s quite apparent that aircraft is within half a wingspan of the water. You can tell by the jet blast trail in the water, the yellow buoy in the water, and the white little building on the cliff. ”
FlyingMonkey wrote:This is "fake news." Unstable approaches happen all the time and this crew recognized it and initiated a missed approach. End of story.
I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic...
If serious, imagine how this would have worked out at an airport that doesn't have an approach over the ocean. Say one with big pine trees.
FlyingMonkey wrote:This is "fake news." Unstable approaches happen all the time and this crew recognized it and initiated a missed approach. End of story.
I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic...
If serious, imagine how this would have worked out at an airport that doesn't have an approach over the ocean. Say one with big pine trees.
Your extrapolating this scenario and comparing it to a hypothetical one that didn't happen!
Stick to what happened with this incident and the circumstances surrounding it, not hypothetical ones!
FlyingMonkey wrote:This is "fake news." Unstable approaches happen all the time and this crew recognized it and initiated a missed approach. End of story.
Do you think it's normal to discover an unstable approach at 50ft? I'm pretty sure Westjet has an SOP saying all approaches have to be stablized by 1000ft.
FlyingMonkey wrote:Your extrapolating this scenario and comparing it to a hypothetical one that didn't happen!
Stick to what happened with this incident and the circumstances surrounding it, not hypothetical ones!
**You're
Okay, we'll stick with this situation. I don't know what the DH is for that approach, but I'm highly suspicious that it isn't so low you can see the aircraft's wake on the water. What is the flight crew supposed to do if they hit DH and things aren't working out? Hint: The answer isn't "Let's go a little lower, there's nothing to hit." When things like that become a habit you get silly accidents like Gulfstreams going off the end of runways with control locks installed.
My best guestimation from Google earth puts them 500m back from the numbers. How high should they have been at this point of the approach?
Maybe not “fake news”, but typically irresponsible and sensationalist reporting with little but comparison of a bunch of photos with little context, all taken at different angles and zoom levels, together with a passenger window view expert opinion of “much too close to the water” and “violent acceleration”. All that's missing is the "I was fearing for my life, taking last selfies and grabbing all my carry on from the overhead bin to take with me in the emergency evacuation that I was sure to come!" statement.
FlyingMonkey wrote:This is "fake news." Unstable approaches happen all the time and this crew recognized it and initiated a missed approach. End of story.
Do you think it's normal to discover an unstable approach at 50ft? I'm pretty sure Westjet has an SOP saying all approaches have to be stablized by 1000ft.[/quote
No, it's not normal. But it is also not an unusual or a rare occurrence. And it's hardly newsworthy!
It's likely they were stable by 1000' ft. Or 500 ft if they were in VMC. Maybe they ran into performance decreasing wind shear? Or were disoriented by the rain showers they apparently went through on approach and misjudged how high they were relative to the field. Whatever the cause, they carried out a GA and succesfully/safely landed.
FlyingMonkey wrote:Your extrapolating this scenario and comparing it to a hypothetical one that didn't happen!
Stick to what happened with this incident and the circumstances surrounding it, not hypothetical ones!
**You're
Okay, we'll stick with this situation. I don't know what the DH is for that approach, but I'm highly suspicious that it isn't so low you can see the aircraft's wake on the water. What is the flight crew supposed to do if they hit DH and things aren't working out? Hint: The answer isn't "Let's go a little lower, there's nothing to hit." When things like that become a habit you get silly accidents like Gulfstreams going off the end of runways with control locks installed.
Your making assumptions now that they weren't stable by the DH and decided to continue anyway. How do you know that? If you are stable by your DH are you suddenly home free? Can you not think of scenarios which can lead to you inadvertanly going below slope on approach? How do you know they didn't follow SOP's? You don't.
FlyingMonkey wrote:
Do you think it's normal to discover an unstable approach at 50ft? I'm pretty sure Westjet has an SOP saying all approaches have to be stablized by 1000ft.[/quote
No, it's not normal. But it is also not an unusual or a rare occurrence. And it's hardly newsworthy!
It's likely they were stable by 1000' ft. Or 500 ft if they were in VMC. Maybe they ran into performance decreasing wind shear? Or were disoriented by the rain showers they apparently went through on approach and misjudged how high they were relative to the field. Whatever the cause, they carried out a GA and succesfully/safely landed.
They did carry out a successful go-around, I'll give you that.
However, I don't know which company you work for, but pretty sure there are no Canadian company's SOP where it is allowed to be at 50' over anything but runway. So yes it is pretty unusual and indeed not common.
The only facts so far are that the crew went around, and landed safely on the 2nd try. If they were indeed below slope/MDA, the company will learn whatever lessons can be learned and pass them along.
“I’ll put money on the fact that jet was at 50 feet,” a 737 captain who flies the same aircraft for another U.S. airline told me. “To be that low and not over the runway is downright dangerous.” he said. A captain at an international airline with 20,000 flight hours, who also saw the photo concurred. “It’s quite apparent that aircraft is within half a wingspan of the water. You can tell by the jet blast trail in the water, the yellow buoy in the water, and the white little building on the cliff. ”
Does he know the size of the buoy, the size of the building or its height above the water? How come the apparent jet blast appears to start pretty much right below the aircraft?
Crappy, unverified photo of an instant in time, with unqualified analysis and a bit of hyperbole thrown in. No other information to back it up, other than that a Westjet flight did a go around on the day the photo was supposedly taken. Good enough for me... I'm never flying Westjet again!
50 feet or not that deck angle is a bit alarming. That airplane looks almost out of energy. This plus Montego Bay makes me wonder if Canadian pilots struggle in warmer climates due the substantial decrease in performance from what they are used to.