Johnboy Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Not much to glean from the article but interesting pic of the go-around and some serious wake on the water... I guess the angle the shot is taken from and my firm belief that everything is suspect (see Photoshop™) http://christinenegroni.com/westjet-denies-close-call-caught-camera-st-maarten/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Another unsolvable mystery ...words against words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I along with many others here I have been into SXM numerous times in both Boeing & Airbus equipment. A busy island airport usually overloaded with aircraft on the ground and approach. Other than a slight runway slope/elevation change at the touchdown point on 09, I've never heard of anyone having issues with this approach. The photo shows the WS 737 to be lower than the normal flight path. Did they have some kind of VNAV problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critter Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just from memory (so take it for what it's worth), the MAP is a few miles back from the runway and VNAV is useless as the aircraft reverts to a lower level of automation. This does catch some by surprise, but it's a non-issue if you plan for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpy Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 This is a "real" picture of the initial go-around. Atltitude would be where I would expect and much higher than the photoshopped photo. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6WrQZfXEAExXtL?format=jpg&name=large Another angle.... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6VxSfgUYAA5p1A?format=jpg&name=large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st27 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just a little sight seeing folks...nothing to get concerned over...next topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, Jumpy said: This is a "real" picture of the initial go-around. Atltitude would be where I would expect and much higher than the photoshopped photo. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6WrQZfXEAExXtL?format=jpg&name=large Another angle.... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6VxSfgUYAA5p1A?format=jpg&name=large With respect....you have stated that the photo in the first thread was photo shopped, and if it has been........, where is the proof. The initial article had a passenger concerned about the height above water before the go around. The photos you have posted, (via links), have been taken nowhere near where the original photos were taken I think you may be trying to defend the undefendable and as I stated in this thread......"words against words", and there is no actual proof of the aircrafts altitude ((unless there is some DFR data hidden somewhere) or the guys that were flying the machine dispute the article/photo and the passengers comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outside Looking In Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I'm sure its just a coincidence but this looks like the same aircraft from a different thread that had to circle and return to YYC twice in 2 days a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toga Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Look like a normal go around to me. The lowest altitude I see is about 500 feet, very conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 22 minutes ago, toga said: Look like a normal go around to me. The lowest altitude I see is about 500 feet, very conservative. If you are referring to the photo in the original article, your perception of 500 feet ASL is certainly different from mine.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpy Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 44 minutes ago, Kip Powick said: With respect....you have stated that the photo in the first thread was photo shopped, and if it has been........, where is the proof. The initial article had a passenger concerned about the height above water before the go around. The photos you have posted, (via links), have been taken nowhere near where the original photos were taken I think you may be trying to defend the undefendable and as I stated in this thread......"words against words", and there is no actual proof of the aircrafts altitude ((unless there is some DFR data hidden somewhere) or the guys that were flying the machine dispute the article/photo and the passengers comments. I would say two photos showing height at a particular location which coincide with publicly available flight data beat a suspect photo showing wake on the water and a passenger's account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gumbi Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Telephoto compression 7 hours ago, Johnboy said: Not much to glean from the article but interesting pic of the go-around and some serious wake on the water... I guess the angle the shot is taken from and my firm belief that everything is suspect (see Photoshop™) http://christinenegroni.com/westjet-denies-close-call-caught-camera-st-maarten/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 I would suggest that those that have not, go to the original post and then read ALL the comments below the article, including those from some folks that are adamant that there was no Photoshop, plus a fellow who has watched approaches to the island for many years and the photographers NOK and her resume.. Interesting discussion with many WJers defending their airline....... that nothing was amiss.(I know many of the names) Will the discussion ever end with a consensus of opinion ?...I highly doubt it. I am outta here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 41 minutes ago, Kip Powick said: I would suggest that those that have not, go to the original post and then read ALL the comments below the article, including those from some folks that are adamant that there was no Photoshop, plus a fellow who has watched approaches to the island for many years and the photographers NOK and her resume.. Interesting discussion with many WJers defending their airline....... that nothing was amiss.(I know many of the names) Will the discussion ever end with a consensus of opinion ?...I highly doubt it. I am outta here Reminds me a lot re former Wardair folks defending their airline. The Airline that PWA Corp purchased which then allowed AC to buy Canadian Airlines. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Where is the evidence of photo shopping? The travel writer has all photos labeled/stamped with her name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Malcolm said: Reminds me a lot re former Wardair folks defending their airline. The Airline that PWA Corp purchased which then allowed AC to buy Canadian Airlines. Go figure. Well I said I was "outta here" but............. Malcolm......Your statement has nothing to do with the question the initial post sublimely posed and that is.......was the WJ aircraft flying too low on the approach? Those that are defending their company, WJ in this instance, bares absolutely no similarity to the purchase/merger of the airlines you named and their defense/opposition to the "forthcoming" acquisitions. The chatter here is about a "possible" tilt of operational flight safety during an approach....and since I have no proven data/facts to make a definitive judgement on the entire issue, I leave my personal opinion out.. Nice weekend all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airband Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Battle of the Flight Watch's? flightradar24 indicates 0' just before GA initiated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Airband said: Battle of the Flight Watch's? flightradar24 indicates 0' just before GA initiated Zero feet might be too late. WS has RNAV approach approval for many southern destinations such as SXM. I'm sure this was flown using the same method but it appears vertical path control was an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 How many feet above, or below, sea level is the runway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 12 hours ago, toga said: Look like a normal go around to me. The lowest altitude I see is about 500 feet, very conservative. Don't know what happened on this particular flight but I do know 100% that flightaware is not a reliable source of detailed information. I know this because I have compared it to flights I did personally and the info displayed on the website was not correct. They capture the track, distances, speed, etc at something like a 1 minute intervals and their software will average the data or interpolate. It will show stuff like cruising altitude correctly but when the state of the aircraft is changing all you get are snapshots which are not that detailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 4 hours ago, moeman said: How many feet above, or below, sea level is the runway? 13'ASL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livin' Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Looks pretty real to me. I would guess around 50’ or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gumbi Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Seems like the article and pic posted in the OP were true after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 12 hours ago, Kip Powick said: Well I said I was "outta here" but............. Malcolm......Your statement has nothing to do with the question the initial post sublimely posed and that is.......was the WJ aircraft flying too low on the approach? Those that are defending their company, WJ in this instance, bares absolutely no similarity to the purchase/merger of the airlines you named and their defense/opposition to the "forthcoming" acquisitions. The chatter here is about a "possible" tilt of operational flight safety during an approach....and since I have no proven data/facts to make a definitive judgement on the entire issue, I leave my personal opinion out.. Nice weekend all Kip: my point was intended to compare how both groups (WestJet and former Wardair) because of their unbridled loyalty had/have somewhat of a blind eye when it came / comes to their airlines deficiencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.