Runway overrun caught on tape.

[RFN]

Invertago - you're so awesome, you're my hero!

[Tim]

What happened is pretty evident. What's not known is why. In any event, there's a few people on here setting themselves up for a big helping of crow if they do something stupid.

+1

you'd think with some of these comments, nobody ever made a mistake

[ng78]

Life's a beach!

[flying4dollars]

What happened is pretty evident. What's not known is why. In any event, there's a few people on here setting themselves up for a big helping of crow if they do something stupid.

+1

you'd think with some of these comments, nobody ever made a mistake

Yes...but probably not that big of a mistake...

2/3's down the runway and still no go around? This isn't a case of "oops I left the auto-ignition on" or "oops I left the pumps on when they should have been off" etc. Which human factors category does this event fall under? "Nah I can still make it"

Hmm.

[cyxe]

LOL, what's the asshole doing with a camera on top of the obstacle short final? Must be the same guy who was shooting Top Gun vids with a model airplanes vs. Qantas jets on approaches in Aus.

You haven't seen pics of this airport before? It's pretty famous for that approach. There is a road with normal vehicle traffic right were he is standing with the camera.

[Cat Driver]

+1

you'd think with some of these comments, nobody ever made a mistake

Where do we separate making a mistake from not recognizing when something is way beyond doable?

[Strega]

Auxbat,

Have you ever flown an Aztec? Im guessing not.

I have around 1200hrs in Aztecs, all on wheels, and I from what I have seen in the Vid, this is 100% pilot error. With full flaps, fill fine pitch props, and idle power, an approach "down hill" is no issue for a qualified pilot.

Here is my constructive bit,, make getting a pilots license much more difficult, in order to keep morons like this away, and the best and brightest people in the cockpit.

[Cat Driver]

The Aztec is one of the easiest light twins to fly ever built.

It is Pipers answer to a twin engine Super Cub.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am going to burn a copy of this to a CD and I am going to keep it for PDM training. It brings up lots of universal airmanship issues and I think it would be especially usefull for CPL students.

[Big Pistons Forever]

disregard I am coming in stupid.....

[hairdo]

Auxbat,

Have you ever flown an Aztec? Im guessing not.

I have around 1200hrs in Aztecs, all on wheels, and I from what I have seen in the Vid, this is 100% pilot error. With full flaps, fill fine pitch props, and idle power, an approach "down hill" is no issue for a qualified pilot.

Here is my constructive bit,, make getting a pilots license much more difficult, in order to keep morons like this away, and the best and brightest people in the cockpit.

You know what, you are most likely right that this was pilot error. But, you don't know the full circumstances surrounding the situation (maybe the guy was very fatigued, which could have caused the poor reaction to the situation) nor were you flying the aircraft. Have you flown into St.Barth's? I know that I haven't, so I'm not going to point fingers, even though I was saying overshoot (out of reflex) by the time he past the half-way point.

And the best and the brightest still make mistakes, maybe not this catastrophic, but they still make them.

[Rockie]

What happened is pretty evident. What's not known is why. In any event, there's a few people on here setting themselves up for a big helping of crow if they do something stupid.

+1

you'd think with some of these comments, nobody ever made a mistake

Yes...but probably not that big of a mistake...

2/3's down the runway and still no go around? This isn't a case of "oops I left the auto-ignition on" or "oops I left the pumps on when they should have been off" etc. Which human factors category does this event fall under? "Nah I can still make it"

Hmm.

Even small mistakes are capable of growing really big in a very short period of time. My point was all these superior pilots who are convinced they will never do what this guy did are either naive or arrogant. The thing that will keep you out of trouble throughout your career is the realization that it can happen to you very easily.

This looks like a challenging place to fly into. No one here knows the experience level of the person in this incident, or if there were any extenuating circumstances behind it. Calling this guy a moron without knowing anything about him or the incident beyond this video is drivel.

[StudentPilot]

I'm curious what the slope is at St.Barth's, and how much wind is blowing when they use the downslope approach. I'd be a lot more comfortable approaching over the water and landing uphill with a tailwind than an (steep?) approach near the ground, especially with a road. Does anyone know if they've ever had cars struck by planes there?

[iflyforpie]

I'm curious what the slope is at St.Barth's, and how much wind is blowing when they use the downslope approach. I'd be a lot more comfortable approaching over the water and landing uphill with a tailwind than an (steep?) approach near the ground, especially with a road. Does anyone know if they've ever had cars struck by planes there?

Looking at the video there was a pretty weak 45 degree head/crosswind from the right. I take that as a tail wind for simple convenience even without the slope considerations.

The rule of thumb I was taught is 1% downslope adds 10% to landing distance. This landing definitely should have been the other way. The upslope would have erased the slight tailwind and then some.

[Just another canuck]

I've never landed there, but I've landed at much, much worse... taking a downhill landing just seems stupid to me, even with a stiff, stiff tail wind going the other way. Yes, we all make mistakes, but fatigued or not, that was pretty f'n stupid.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It looks like the guy flew a straight in approach. Since there is a big hill at the end I am guessing the runway is actually invisible untill short final, therfore I think it would be easy to inadvertantly arrive high and fast. Like I said earlier a situation rich in teaching opportunites.

[nortont]

Majority of the time winds at SBX are out of the east. The way Aztec landed is east.

You need a special checkout to fly into Barths from the authorities there otherwise it's of limits. A friend of mine works at Winair and needs to get a checkout done from time to time to fly into Barths with passengers.

[cyxe]

It looks like the guy flew a straight in approach. Since there is a big hill at the end I am guessing the runway is actually invisible untill short final, therfore I think it would be easy to inadvertantly arrive high and fast. Like I said earlier a situation rich in teaching opportunites.

I'm sure everyone's found vids like this already but here's one anyways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RREPUdo- ... re=related

[Just another canuck]

I think they all come in that way just say they come in that way... it's obvious landing on the opposite runway is safer, tailwind or not. Plus, why wouldn't you land the other way... no backtrack.

[square]

taking a downhill landing just seems stupid to me, even with a stiff, stiff tail wind

Taking a 'stiff, stiff' tailwind can get you in deep s--- on landing.. Assuming a 15 kt wind with a 90 kt approach, it'd take double the distance to land one way than the other on a flat runway. v^2.

[Just another canuck]

Assuming a 15 kt wind with a 90 kt approach, it'd take double the distance to land one way than the other on a flat runway. v^2.

Does that look like a flat runway to you? And who's doing 90 knot approaches there???

[hairdo]

I think they all come in that way just say they come in that way... it's obvious landing on the opposite runway is safer, tailwind or not. Plus, why wouldn't you land the other way... no backtrack.

Safer until you are in an aircraft that can't stop on the remaining runway. I understand that landing on 28, overshoots are prohibited. So, screw it up on the approach to 28, doesn't matter, you're landing anyway, overrun or no. Screw up on the approach to 10, and you can (and as we saw, should) overshoot and try again. I think that's reason enough to land on an approach and landing surface that is downhill... so long as the winds are of decent strength.

[Just another canuck]

Safer until you are in an aircraft that can't stop on the remaining runway. I understand that landing on 28, overshoots are prohibited. So, screw it up on the approach to 28, doesn't matter, you're landing anyway, overrun or no. Screw up on the approach to 10, and you can (and as we saw, should) overshoot and try again. I think that's reason enough to land on an approach and landing surface that is downhill... so long as the winds are of decent strength.

Having landed on many runways where overshoots are not only prohibited, but impossible, I am a firm believer in get it right the first time... hit your spot. Greasy landings are never necessary. If you're floating, raise your flaps and put it down. Landing 28 at this airport, you should be able to hit the numbers every time.

I can't believe anyone would want to land downhill... it's stupid, IMHO. A ten percent slope will more than compensate for a 10 knot tailwind... hairdo, how many sloped runways have you landed on BTW? Just curious...

[hairdo]

Safer until you are in an aircraft that can't stop on the remaining runway. I understand that landing on 28, overshoots are prohibited. So, screw it up on the approach to 28, doesn't matter, you're landing anyway, overrun or no. Screw up on the approach to 10, and you can (and as we saw, should) overshoot and try again. I think that's reason enough to land on an approach and landing surface that is downhill... so long as the winds are of decent strength.

Having landed on many runways where overshoots are not only prohibited, but impossible, I am a firm believer in get it right the first time... hit your spot. Greasy landings are never necessary. If you're floating, raise your flaps and put it down. Landing 28 at this airport, you should be able to hit the numbers every time.

I can't believe anyone would want to land downhill... it's stupid, IMHO. A ten percent slope will more than compensate for a 10 knot tailwind... hairdo, how many sloped runways have you landed on BTW? Just curious...

I have landed at sloped runways, probably not as many as you have, but enough to know that, yes landing downslope is risky and can be stupid if you don't consider all of the factors. I agree that landing upslope is quite frequently better than down. You might note that I said; "I think that's reason enough to land on an approach and landing surface that is downhill... so long as the winds are of decent strength." However, to land with a very stiff tailwind can be just as stupid. It depends on how much of a slope the runway has and how strong the winds are. If the benefit of the upslope is overridden by the benefit of a headwind, then landing upslope is now stupid.

[square]

Assuming a 15 kt wind with a 90 kt approach, it'd take double the distance to land one way than the other on a flat runway. v^2.

Does that look like a flat runway to you? And who's doing 90 knot approaches there???

It's an example bucko. Though I just read the Aztec approaches short field at 70 knots, so that would make it 2.4 times longer landing roll with a tailwind than headwind.