Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5716157/

Topic: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: 727LOVER
Posted 2013-03-16 11:37:26 and read 22428 times.

Well, this entire video is fasinating, but go up to the 28:00 mark and watch this KLM 744 landing


Then pause the video @ 28:38


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO_mJbJn-04


THAT IS CRAZY!!!!!!  Wow!
Can someone be sucked into an engine?


I wonder if its this one:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Starnes
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JAR Photography

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: jetmatt777
Posted 2013-03-16 11:42:54 and read 22371 times.

No someone would not get sucked into an engine. The engines are still 40-60 feet above ground level, which is well outside the engine intake zones. Also, at this point, they are probably at idle or just above idle, further reducing any danger of ingestion. I'd be more worried about the landing gear.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: JU068
Posted 2013-03-16 11:45:03 and read 22347 times.

Well at 04:17 they refer to the plane as the 737...

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-03-16 11:58:42 and read 22229 times.

Quoting jetmatt777 (Reply 1):
Also, at this point, they are probably at idle or just above idle, further reducing any danger of ingestion. I'd be more worried about the landing gear.

Just a week ago I was landing at VIE on an Austrian flight. Just seconds before touchdown the engine spooled up... i really thought we were going around... but we landed, and it even seemed a bit hard.

My point is, engines could be very much active at that point, and it sure seems risky.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-03-16 12:15:28 and read 22044 times.

Interesting video but shoddy journalism: see here

Quoting JU068 (Reply 2):
Well at 04:17 they refer to the plane as the 737...

  

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-03-16 12:15:45 and read 22044 times.

Am I the only that cant watch this video? Says something about copyright.   

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: CrimsonNL
Posted 2013-03-16 12:28:44 and read 21902 times.

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
Can someone be sucked into an engine?

From an older thread on this website, user VC-10 posted the following; "At idle power the inlet area danger area of a CF6-80 extends to 7 Ft (2.1 Mtrs) ahead of the inlet, while at TO power the distance is 18 Ft (5.5 Mtrs) and an additional 9 Ft (2.7 Mtrs) aft of the inlet lip."

I don't know how low she goes, but from what I could judge its still more then 3 meters. The engines won't be running at take-off power, so I do not believe the suction power will be sufficient to lift a human (say an 80kg weighing example) 2-3 meters in to the air and into the engine.

Martijn

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-03-16 12:30:26 and read 21875 times.

Quoting JU068 (Reply 2):
Well at 04:17 they refer to the plane as the 737...

At 34:48 they claim US1549 was departing LGA for SEA...

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-03-16 12:34:03 and read 21828 times.

Quoting JU068 (Reply 2):
Well at 04:17 they refer to the plane as the 737...

Yeah. And that's when I made up my mind about this video. Around 13:15, they show a story about a TNT 737 using an A320 model.

Gah.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: breiz
Posted 2013-03-16 12:46:49 and read 21742 times.

May I comment that a landing has to be low if you want to touch the ground  .
You most probably meant that the touch-down was as early as possible, short final.
Considering the length of this particular runway, that's a good thing.
That silly tourists are getting sand-blasted despite the warnings, that is their problem.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-03-16 12:50:21 and read 21698 times.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 5):
Am I the only that cant watch this video? Says something about copyright.

Nope - same here in the UK unfortunately. I suspect I may have seen it before though.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-03-16 13:11:44 and read 21506 times.

In the video theyy talk about fliight 263H, the bird strike at MAN. They say that, since the aircraft only has one engine, it could pull to one side a "literally" turn the plane over. Is that true? I thought aircraft were supposed to be able to fly on one engine?

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: rgreenftm
Posted 2013-03-16 14:21:43 and read 21159 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 7):
At 34:48 they claim US1549 was departing LGA for SEA...

Technically correct - it was LGA-CLT-SEA all on the same flight number, IIRC.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: Type-Rated
Posted 2013-03-16 14:32:55 and read 21050 times.

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 11):
In the video theyy talk about fliight 263H, the bird strike at MAN. They say that, since the aircraft only has one engine, it could pull to one side a "literally" turn the plane over. Is that true? I thought aircraft were supposed to be able to fly on one engine?

If a twin engine plane loses an engine the plane will turn into the dead engine because the engine is now producing drag instead of thrust. The wing will actually drop on you. You use opposite rudder as quickly as you can to counteract this effect. If you aren't quick enough the plane could roll way over into the dead engine and it will set up a wing over wing type of spin until the wing structure fails. Fortunately, this rarely happens.

[Edited 2013-03-16 14:33:56]

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-03-16 14:50:55 and read 20902 times.

Quoting rgreenftm (Reply 12):
Technically correct - it was LGA-CLT-SEA all on the same flight number, IIRC.

It's true, but that flight was departing for CLT. It's quite irrelevant where was heading next...

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: kazim786
Posted 2013-03-16 16:45:58 and read 18971 times.

I can't watch the video either. Says that its copyrighted material from Channel 5 -_-

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: bristolflyer
Posted 2013-03-16 17:22:22 and read 18248 times.

Seems you could easily hit the plane with a frisbee/football it's that low. What do you think an airline would do if that happened?

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: Type-Rated
Posted 2013-03-16 18:01:25 and read 17678 times.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 16):
Seems you could easily hit the plane with a frisbee/football it's that low. What do you think an airline would do if that happened?

I think a Frisbee or a Football hit it would probably either bounce off the aircraft or make a small dent in the skin at worst. Now, if it got sucked into one of the engines, that would be a another story.

As for who would be the party looking for the person who threw the offending item, that would be up to the airport security team, not the airline.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: ozark1
Posted 2013-03-16 18:26:45 and read 17241 times.

For those of you unable to watch, count yourselves lucky. A nauseatingly sensationalistic, overly dramatized piece of film.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: aviateur
Posted 2013-03-16 18:38:44 and read 17073 times.

From a pilot's perspective, there is nothing unusual about the landings at SXM. The glide angle to the runway is roughly the same as it is at any other airport.

What's different is that the BEACH is so close to the runway. This has nothing to do with flying, and everything to do with the beach itself.


PS

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: 26point2
Posted 2013-03-16 19:06:32 and read 16706 times.

Quoting breiz (Reply 9):
You most probably meant that the touch-down was as early as possible, short final.
Considering the length of this particular runway, that's a good thing.

No it isn't. KLM landed before the usable portion of the runway. At 7000' SXM's runway is plenty long.

Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 17):
I think a Frisbee or a Football hit it would probably either bounce off the aircraft or make a small dent in the skin at worst.

No it wouldn't leave a dent. Perhaps a football thrown very hard against your C-152 would leave a dent but airliners are made of strong stuff.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-03-16 21:01:07 and read 15308 times.

Sadly the link turned out dead in my country on copyright grounds. Not so grand

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-03-17 01:19:19 and read 13142 times.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 19):
From a pilot's perspective, there is nothing unusual about the landings at SXM. The glide angle to the runway is roughly the same as it is at any other airport.

What's different is that the BEACH is so close to the runway. This has nothing to do with flying, and everything to do with the beach itself.

To be honest I think some pilots go below the glide path on this runway knowing that there will be pictures taken. Some pictures taken here indicate that the planes were dangerously low. I think the planes are supposed to be 50 ft above threshold. It looks many are below that. I know many are visual approaches but too low is still dangerous considering there cound be sudden wind changes etc.

It is bad if some pilots do not use their best judgement when using this approach. But after all they are human  

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: epten
Posted 2013-03-17 02:54:21 and read 12013 times.

No danger of people being sucked into a *flying* aircraft. The aircraft moves way faster than the velocity of a person beginning to be sucked into the engines. The person would barely move by the time the aircraft is already far ahead.

In other words, there's not enough time for people to be sucked into the engines, even if they were at full power. People have inertia.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: flyingalex
Posted 2013-03-17 03:07:21 and read 11859 times.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 3):
Just a week ago I was landing at VIE on an Austrian flight. Just seconds before touchdown the engine spooled up... i really thought we were going around... but we landed, and it even seemed a bit hard.

My point is, engines could be very much active at that point, and it sure seems risky.

Were you on an Airbus? If so, it was probably the Ground Speed Mini function of the Autothrust reacting to shifting winds or gusts on final.

Engines should not be on idle on final, in fact you don't pull them to idle until you are practically on the ground. The reason for this is that it takes a while (6 - 8 seconds) for a jet engine to spool up from idle to TOGA thrust. If you have to go around from a low altitude, those 6 - 8 seconds could be deadly. Therefore, airliners approach with a certain amount of thrust set on the engines, to reduce the time needed for the engines to deliver full thrust when commanded.

That said, you would still be too far away from the danger zone. For the engines to be hanging low enough to suck in someone off the beach, the landing gear would be in the sand, especially given the pitch up attitude on final and the fact that wings flex upward when the aircraft is still airborne.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: bristolflyer
Posted 2013-03-17 03:48:19 and read 11642 times.

To add to those people saying 'it wouldn't happen' I would imagine that before a person would get sucked in to an engine you would see other stuff getting sucked in - like loose sand, hats, deck chairs etc. You don't see any f that happening further adding to the evidence that people are not vulnerable.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: DIJKKIJK
Posted 2013-03-17 06:38:14 and read 9395 times.

That pilot at 27:30, Adele Roberts, is a real hottie 

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: ScottishDavie
Posted 2013-03-17 09:31:20 and read 6819 times.

Quoting ely747 (Reply 21):
Sadly the link turned out dead in my country on copyright grounds. Not so grand

I wouldn't worry. I vaguely remember seeing the programme when it was broadcast on Channel 5 in the UK and thinking it was just another re-hash of well known material blighted by the usual level of journalistic ignorance which aviation seems to attract. YouTube has any number of videos of KLM 747s landing at St Maarten if you really want to see them.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: piedmont727
Posted 2013-03-17 11:17:28 and read 4951 times.

id be more worried about the landing gear then engines

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-03-17 11:54:35 and read 4362 times.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 24):
Were you on an Airbus? If so, it was probably the Ground Speed Mini function of the Autothrust reacting to shifting winds or gusts on final.

It was indeed an Airbus, thanks for the information - didn't know about it.

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 24):
That said, you would still be too far away from the danger zone. For the engines to be hanging low enough to suck in someone off the beach

Everybody is fixed on sucking in. What about blowing away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...er_detailpage&v=MLB0qadBPwU#t=139s

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-03-18 08:06:53 and read 3429 times.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 22):
To be honest I think some pilots go below the glide path on this runway knowing that there will be pictures taken.

Yep. I've been to SXM. Every day the FedEx (one of the cargo carriers, at least) Cessna Caravan buzzes the beach. I saw it twice, and there are photos posted of it. The guys obviously do it on purpose for show.

However, that's a small prop plane. I don't think 747 captains intentionally buzz the beach.

That KLM 747 Classic photo is old news. It's been posted and discussed in A.net several times over there years.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: Sassiciai
Posted 2013-03-18 09:13:14 and read 3210 times.

Unfortunately, I live in an area where this video is available to watch!

OK, some of the flight video is good, but the "journalism" is just so "OTT dramatic"

If you cant get it, please believe me, you're not missing much. If you can get it, switch your speakers OFF before watching!

And yes, "extremely low landing" - LOL!

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: JRowson
Posted 2013-03-19 04:37:40 and read 2470 times.

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
I wonder if its this one:

It is indeed the same video from the day I took that photo. I would have loved to have been on the beach that day to witness it down there. We knew it was going to be an interesting landing as he was on short finals he was much lower than usual coming across Maho bay.

Topic: RE: Extremely Low Landing @ SXM
Username: JBirdAV8r
Posted 2013-03-19 09:11:48 and read 2104 times.

Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 13):
If a twin engine plane loses an engine the plane will turn into the dead engine because the engine is now producing drag instead of thrust. The wing will actually drop on you. You use opposite rudder as quickly as you can to counteract this effect. If you aren't quick enough the plane could roll way over into the dead engine and it will set up a wing over wing type of spin until the wing structure fails. Fortunately, this rarely happens.

That's not really what happens, except for the first sentence (and generally the second).

It all comes down to airspeed. There's a minimum controllable airspeed in twins, which is basically the minimum airspeed the airplane can be flying where the control surfaces will have enough authority to counteract the asymmetric thrust condition. You can let the airplane roll way into the dead engine, and as long as you're above the minimum control airspeed, you can roll back out of it. Let the airplane get too slow, though, and it's going to continue rolling into that dead engine--and you're going to set yourself up for a nasty spin which you're probably not going to have enough altitude to recover.

My explanation is easily visualized in this clip of a Queen Air with a sick engine doing a VMC roll into the ground. The pilot allowed the aircraft to get too slow. It was flying fine with the engine producing little thrust--until the airplane got too slow. WARNING: graphic depiction of aircraft crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTQwkKameLg

And it's depicted even better here, with this radio controlled aircraft crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBDLP4onEuY

Airliners take off at rotation speed, Vr. One of the conditions of Vr is that it must always be greater than Vmc, minimum controllable airspeed. On an engine failure during takeoff, airspeed is maintained at V2, takeoff safety speed, which is higher still.

Edit to add: Spins are generally low-stress maneuvers on the airframe. I'd be much more worried about running out of altitude to recover than I would about structural failure. Now if you make it a steep spiral instead, that's a different ball game.

[Edited 2013-03-19 09:13:22]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/