Westjet Near Water Impact in Sint Maarten

BenTheGreat97 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:02 pm

So I came across this article multiple times with pictures today while browsing, and I didn't see any thread on the subject yet.

Westjet denies that the incident happened, people have said the picture is photoshopped, everyone has a different opinion.

All I've been able to find is the one article here http://christinenegroni.com/westjet-den ... t-maarten/ and a PPRuNe forum post, but it seems to be only speculation on the legitimacy of the photo.

Anyone have more info or thoughts?

yyztpa · Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:22 pm

BenTheGreat97 wrote:
So I came across this article multiple times with pictures today while browsing, and I didn't see any thread on the subject yet.

Westjet denies that the incident happened, people have said the picture is photoshopped, everyone has a different opinion.

All I've been able to find is the one article here http://christinenegroni.com/westjet-den ... t-maarten/ and a PPRuNe forum post, but it seems to be only speculation on the legitimacy of the photo.

Anyone have more info or thoughts?

Based on this track, there appear to have been issues with conditions that day. Also appears to show low altitude on both approaches.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 52#caa236c

FlyUSAir · Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:31 pm

yyztpa wrote:
BenTheGreat97 wrote:
So I came across this article multiple times with pictures today while browsing, and I didn't see any thread on the subject yet.

Westjet denies that the incident happened, people have said the picture is photoshopped, everyone has a different opinion.

All I've been able to find is the one article here http://christinenegroni.com/westjet-den ... t-maarten/ and a PPRuNe forum post, but it seems to be only speculation on the legitimacy of the photo.

Anyone have more info or thoughts?

Based on this track, there appear to have been issues with conditions that day. Also appears to show low altitude on both approaches.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 52#caa236c

No expert on this, but I also watched the flight from a day earlier and the one before that on a 737-700 and another 737-800 and they did not encounter the same low altitude at the same points as this particular flight. Did seem the photos might be unaltered.

jumbojet · Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:46 pm

anyone that has been to SXM and has spotted from the Sonesta, which is where that picture was taken from, knows that at that point over the water, the plane is roughly 7 to 10 seconds from the beach. Plus, that pic was undoubtedly taken from a room at the Sonesta on a high floor. I personally don't think the WestJet plane is that low. The angle of the picture and the height at which it was taken plus the lack of decent lighting make it seem lower than what it is but definitely not near impact.

32andBelow · Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:48 pm

jumbojet wrote:
anyone that has been to SXM and has spotted from the Sonesta, which is where that picture was taken from, knows that at that point over the water, the plane is roughly 7 to 10 seconds from the beach. Plus, that pic was undoubtedly taken from a room at the Sonesta on a high floor. I personally don't think the WestJet plane is that low. The angle of the picture and the height at which it was taken plus the lack of decent lighting make it seem lower than what it is but definitely not near impact.

Optical lenses also are really poor at showing depth.

BenTheGreat97 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:55 pm

jumbojet wrote:
anyone that has been to SXM and has spotted from the Sonesta, which is where that picture was taken from, knows that at that point over the water, the plane is roughly 7 to 10 seconds from the beach. Plus, that pic was undoubtedly taken from a room at the Sonesta on a high floor. I personally don't think the WestJet plane is that low. The angle of the picture and the height at which it was taken plus the lack of decent lighting make it seem lower than what it is but definitely not near impact.

I have been to SXM twice, and I'm actually going there again tomorrow. From where the plane is in the picture [[assuming it's real]], it has at least another 1,000 feet to go before it gets to the beach. It is very very low in the picture, combined with that significant nose-up attitude. It looks like it's around 100 feet above the water, if you compare the body to water distance with the wingspan.

I have not personally spotted from the Sonesta (where this photog was), but I've been on top of the other hotel (this view: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bright ... !1e1?hl=en)

So I know what a proper height is supposed to be. Maybe Westjet is denying the incident publicly, but privately, they're reviewing the tapes and having a good talking to with the pilots (again assuming it's real).

cumulushumilis · Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:02 pm

32andBelow wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
anyone that has been to SXM and has spotted from the Sonesta, which is where that picture was taken from, knows that at that point over the water, the plane is roughly 7 to 10 seconds from the beach. Plus, that pic was undoubtedly taken from a room at the Sonesta on a high floor. I personally don't think the WestJet plane is that low. The angle of the picture and the height at which it was taken plus the lack of decent lighting make it seem lower than what it is but definitely not near impact.

Optical lenses also are really poor at showing depth.

After looking at it again it appears to me the depth on the photos is misleading. I am wondering if some of the darkness that you see in the water is reflection and shadow and not a "rooster tail". Not that a 737 can make much of a rooster tail

ikolkyo · Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:11 pm

Looking at the photo again, I think it's definitely low. Looking at the pitch it seems the crew agreed and aborted that landing.

trnswrld · Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:51 pm

Tough call. If that picture is unedited, then yeah it seems like it was a close one and likely about a wingspan length height or less above the water. Looks like I see jet blast in the water behind the plane.

smokeybandit · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:19 am

The flight circled around for 45 minutes on the go around.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 52#caa236c

PlanesNTrains · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:21 am

Reading the comments from multiple people who know the photographer, including the person who wrote the article, it wouldn't appear it's a made up, photo shopped event. Obviously something wasn't right as they did a go-around, the airport was briefly closed (according to a comment), and it was witnessed by at least one other person who commented in the thread. That doesn't tell us what happened, but it certainly sounds like it did happen.

dfwjim1 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:35 am

If this incident did happen why did SXM have to close after a missed approach?

LightningZ71 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:44 am

What if there was some concern about the landing aids? Where they making a low visibility approach using the ILS and discovered that they were much lower than expected? Was the circling an effort to wait for improved visibility conditions for a visual approach as they no longer trusted the ILS?

This is just speculation. I don't know much about that airport at all.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:47 am

dfwjim1 wrote:
If this incident did happen why did SXM have to close after a missed approach?

Perhaps they encountered wind sheer? No idea.

aerolimani · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:56 am

Not weighing in. Just posting a better version of the image.

buzzard302 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:02 am

Certainly looks very close. I don't think it's photoshopped. All the average observer may speculate is that the approach was upset and the pilots executed a go around. Photographer caught a brief glimpse in a moment, it looks like the plane had already began to ascend with high power. Can't conclude there was pilot error based on the photo alone.

whywhyzee · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:14 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
What if there was some concern about the landing aids? Where they making a low visibility approach using the ILS and discovered that they were much lower than expected? Was the circling an effort to wait for improved visibility conditions for a visual approach as they no longer trusted the ILS?

This is just speculation. I don't know much about that airport at all.

SXM doesn't have a full ILS, the best approach on offer is a LOC with no vertical guidance. At this point in the approach, they would have been visual, well below the 620' minimums. Looks to me like an approach destabilized, perhaps by negative performance shear that resulted in a go around. These things happen all the time, they just don't always look this dramatic.

flymco753 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:14 am

As scary as this is and as tragic as it would've been if it dipped, since it's the Elsa plane all I can picture is Olaf in this situation saying "this is the best day of my life, and quite possibly my last."

fanofjets · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:30 am

Was there wind shear? Is it possible that wind shear could have pushed the aircraft that low and that the pilots are trying to pull up? In other words, I am wondering whether the incident depicts an incident caused by weather conditions rather than pilot error. As far as judging the altitude of the aircraft, in a picture zoomed in so much (hence the graininess of the photo), depth of field is much reduced, making it very difficult to judge distances. The aircraft is clearly too low, but by how much it is difficult to know. The answer lies with the flight data recorder.

A388 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:55 am

That aircraft indeed came in too low looking at that picture. I've been there for about one and a half week and stayed at that same hotel. I understood the weather was really bad that day with too low a visibility due to heavy rain. There was also a KLM A330 and Dominican Wings A320 holding to land that time.

A388

joffie · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:23 am

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/WJA ... /CYYZ/TNCM

Interesting indeed!

Whiteguy · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:59 am

joffie wrote:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/WJA2652/history/20170307/1515Z/CYYZ/TNCM

Interesting indeed!

Looking at the track and lat and longs on both approaches, altitudes are almost indenticle....and now lower than 500 ft...

pikachu · Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:29 am

Best approach available appears to be a VOR/DME, not a LOC as stated above.
Look at the picture. Low vis would not seem to be a contributing factor.

jimbo737 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:17 am

Does the term EGPWS ring a bell?

If there was an incident, the FDM would have recorded it and provide exact data for review.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:14 am

Whiteguy wrote:
joffie wrote:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/WJA2652/history/20170307/1515Z/CYYZ/TNCM

Interesting indeed!

Looking at the track and lat and longs on both approaches, altitudes are almost indenticle....and now lower than 500 ft...

I'm not 100% sure if you meant to type "now" vs "not" or "no" but it was pointed out that Flightaware doesn't go lower than 500' at SXM.

Passedv1 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:25 am

Rapidly changing altimeter causing airplane to have wrong setting? Combined with the weird angle who knows. I bet they had already started the missed when this picture was taken. They clearly had view of the terrain. For the article to call this an "incident" is probably overblown. Looking at Google maps it looks like the plane was 1/2 mile at the most from touchdown. 1/2 mile is 150' on a normal descent. .05 off on the altimeter (50')...maybe a little exagerated closeness to the water from the lens/angle maybe a little bit of a downdraft and it looks like the pilots are crazy.

My other issue with the article is how they criticize the pilots for being below the minimum descent altitude...that's irrelevant. You only need to stay above the MDA until you can see the runway...clearly they can.

Every flight, every airline, every day passes through 50' AGL (i doubt it's that low) twice. This might have been a mistake/issue of some kind but to say the airplane/people were seconds from disaster is a bunch of BS.

flyingbird · Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:20 am

Speed and Altitude graph on https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 52#caa236c shows 0 feet altitude from the ADS-B transponder during go around.

ADS-B data is sent in 25 feet intervals so 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 feet and so on are possible values. 0 indicates it was either very very low or bad calibration of altitude meter.

BenTheGreat97 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:42 pm

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... uPTdKwWo78

The Maho Beach Webcam website had posted their video of the incident, and it's very obvious now that it was NOT a fake. You can clearly see the plane's lights extremely low before it starts climbing to overshoot.

ryan78 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:02 pm

BenTheGreat97 wrote:
The Maho Beach Webcam website had posted their video of the incident, and it's very obvious now that it was NOT a fake. You can clearly see the plane's lights extremely low before it starts climbing to overshoot.

That gives a great comparison between the height on the first and second approaches. Maybe weather came into play or maybe they just misjudged their descent on the first attempt. Operations as usual, saw they were too low, initiated a go around, landed on the second attempt. Not much to see here.

YVRing · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:43 pm

Here is a video from the beach of the first attempt, the successful landing and a side by side of the two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNhAYKM-7LQ

bakersdozen · Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:46 pm

Unverified comment from someone:

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

Passedv1 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:16 pm

The new video make it clearly less bad then originally reported by the picture. The difference in height between the two videos is maybe 50'. The airplane is in positive control the whole time. The airplane got out of position to nake a normal landing...they went around. This is not a huge deal.

longhauler · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:19 pm

pikachu wrote:
Best approach available appears to be a VOR/DME, not a LOC as stated above.
Look at the picture. Low vis would not seem to be a contributing factor.

They were likely doing an RNAV (GNSS) RWY10 approach.
Minima are 688' AGL and 3.2 km.

jimbo737 wrote:
Does the term EGPWS ring a bell?

One would have to get out the CVR, but my guess is that when that low to the ground, in a landing configuration and that close to the runway during a non-precision approach, the EGPWS system likely was not activated, as it would assume landing. It is not like an ILS where a "too-low, glide slope" would be triggered.

In my opinion, the "why" he ended up where he was is best left up to an internal investigation, but when we saw where he was he did the correct thing .... he didn't try to salvage an unstabilized approach and went around.

Dutchy · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:24 pm

Why took the 45minutes to execute a go around? Seems a bit long.

longhauler · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:35 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Why took the 45minutes to execute a go around? Seems a bit long.

It would appear they were holding waiting for weather to improve. As were several aircraft.

Dutchy · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:47 pm

longhauler wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Why took the 45minutes to execute a go around? Seems a bit long.

It would appear they were holding waiting for weather to improve. As were several aircraft.

Ah, ok.

Q · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:48 pm

I bet all passengers are nail biting when landing. LOL!

Q

wingnuts · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:51 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Why took the 45minutes to execute a go around? Seems a bit long.

Because the Airport stopped arrivals just after the missed approach, due to visibility issues... they and everyone else were then put in a hold for 20+ min, then tracked back in.

Seeing the weather and knowing the Carib, I would bet a sudden or rapid barometric pressure fluctuation occurred, thus they were off. Good job on the crew to recognize this and go missed. They were VMC and had the runway. There was no loss of control here and it was stable.

Great video, no doubt will be in the top 10 for SXM for years to come.

Maverick623 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:11 pm

Remember, it takes several seconds for engines to spool up to TOGA and to arrest a descent. They had already started the go-around process by the time the picture was taken. They were low, for sure, but it wasn't anything the flight crew should be severely questioned on.

Also remember the Swiss cheese model of accidents. While some of the holes lined up, several others didn't. And the holes that did line up, were not the pilots. It's definitely a good lesson and we can learn from it, but it shouldn't be so sensationalized.

raylee67 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:28 pm

yyztpa wrote:
BenTheGreat97 wrote:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 52#caa236c

According to the track, it was reported at "0 ft" when it was still over the sea in its first landing attempt. I understand Flightradar tracking is not accurate to the feet, but it has to be lower than 500 ft to have Flightradar reporting "0".

b747400erf · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:45 pm

Flightradar is a community supported site, receivers are located all over the planet. One receiver could be blocked by a building so at a certain point in flight the aircraft could have lost a signal for a second and the receiver reported that as 0 feet. It jumped back up quickly from 0 feet right after. I do not think people should read much into these readings.

767333ER · Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:12 pm

longhauler wrote:
pikachu wrote:
Best approach available appears to be a VOR/DME, not a LOC as stated above.
Look at the picture. Low vis would not seem to be a contributing factor.

They were likely doing an RNAV (GNSS) RWY10 approach.
Minima are 688' AGL and 3.2 km.

jimbo737 wrote:
Does the term EGPWS ring a bell?

One would have to get out the CVR, but my guess is that when that low to the ground, in a landing configuration and that close to the runway during a non-precision approach, the EGPWS system likely was not activated, as it would assume landing. It is not like an ILS where a "too-low, glide slope" would be triggered.

In my opinion, the "why" he ended up where he was is best left up to an internal investigation, but when we saw where he was he did the correct thing .... he didn't try to salvage an unstabilized approach and went around.

Exactly, there is no part of the video showing or picture showing the events leading up to that and we weren't in the cockpit to know exactly how the plane got there, but they did what they were supposed to do keeping saftey first and foremost.

The funny thing is this caused a big arguement on a Facebook group I am on beucause one guy started out by saying that they were just showboating and at he thought that was fine for them to be doing that. Of course it hit the fan from there. Meanwhile I was trying to say we're dangerously low, we don't know how they got there, but they did what they were supposed to to uphold the mentality of safety first and went around. Funny how such a little, yet somewhat scary if you were in board, could cause such arguements, but I guess that's just how some people are.

flyingbird · Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:09 pm

b747400erf wrote:
Flightradar is a community supported site, receivers are located all over the planet. One receiver could be blocked by a building so at a certain point in flight the aircraft could have lost a signal for a second and the receiver reported that as 0 feet. It jumped back up quickly from 0 feet right after. I do not think people should read much into these readings.

Please don't post if you don't know how FR24 works. If nothing is reported, nothing is shown/saved. If 0 is shown/saved, 0 was transmitted by the transponder.

SPREE34 · Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:03 am

flyingbird wrote:
Please don't post if you don't know how FR24 works. If nothing is reported, nothing is shown/saved. If 0 is shown/saved, 0 was transmitted by the transponder.

Transponders do not report "Altitude". They report a pressure. That pressure is only part of the equation in calculating and actual altitude displayed in an ATC system. FR24 is not a real ATC system, lacking too many parts to go into here. Any altitude data derived from FR24 should be considered suspect, as it is lacking calibrated local pressure, and other computations.

airnorth · Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:28 am

I know this is not the topic of the thread, but as a FR host I thought I would add the link for how FR24 works.
https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works

trnswrld · Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:30 am

Passedv1 wrote:
The new video make it clearly less bad then originally reported by the picture. The difference in height between the two videos is maybe 50'. The airplane is in positive control the whole time. The airplane got out of position to nake a normal landing...they went around. This is not a huge deal.

Man, you are absolutely committed to thinking this was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Seeing that picture, and now the videos, that plane was without a doubt extremely low at one point. At the lowest point it clearly looks to be wingspan length or less height above the water. Had the same thing happened at any other airport not near water it would have hit the ground or some obstacle. The pilots did what they had to do and saved the plane, but to see jet blast and wake disturbance in the water that far out is hardly normal.

PlanesNTrains · Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:46 am

If there was land there instead of water, it'd probably seem a bit more dramatic. The water makes it harder to get a sense of height or scale.

redzeppelin · Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:04 am

Speaking of Westjet, I did a double take today when I saw a WS 737 on final approach at SLC. Turns out that WS1402 to PHX diverted into SLC.
Edit: Must have been mechanical? It looks like they sent another aircraft to SLC as WS8977. WS1402 continued to PHX after a six hour delay.

Passedv1 · Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:47 am

trnswrld wrote:
Passedv1 wrote:
The new video make it clearly less bad then originally reported by the picture. The difference in height between the two videos is maybe 50'. The airplane is in positive control the whole time. The airplane got out of position to nake a normal landing...they went around. This is not a huge deal.

Man, you are absolutely committed to thinking this was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Seeing that picture, and now the videos, that plane was without a doubt extremely low at one point. At the lowest point it clearly looks to be wingspan length or less height above the water. Had the same thing happened at any other airport not near water it would have hit the ground or some obstacle. The pilots did what they had to do and saved the plane, but to see jet blast and wake disturbance in the water that far out is hardly normal.

I didn't say it was nothing "out of the ordinary"... I said it could have been windshear, it could have been a mis-set altimeter...also, they could of drifted low when trying to stay out of the overcast which is very common.. What I am saying is that they were NOT "seconds from disaster" as a few on here and definetly the media are trying to make it out to be.

flyingbird · Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:00 am

SPREE34 wrote:
flyingbird wrote:
Please don't post if you don't know how FR24 works. If nothing is reported, nothing is shown/saved. If 0 is shown/saved, 0 was transmitted by the transponder.

Transponders do not report "Altitude". They report a pressure. That pressure is only part of the equation in calculating and actual altitude displayed in an ATC system. FR24 is not a real ATC system, lacking too many parts to go into here. Any altitude data derived from FR24 should be considered suspect, as it is lacking calibrated local pressure, and other computations.

Not much correct here. FR24 is not a real ATC system and most ATC's don't use ADS-B, they use "real" radars. Altitude is sent out as ADS-B signal from the transponder and not the pressure. Data doesn't come from FR24, it comes from the transponder.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net