jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21447 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.
s5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21305 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.
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.
breiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1808 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20818 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.
mesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 707 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20582 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?
Type-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4343 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (2 months 4 days ago) and read 20126 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]
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
Type-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4343 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 16754 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.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16149 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
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 665 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15782 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.
Navigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1031 posts, RR: 16 Reply 22, posted (2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12218 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
epten From Macedonia, joined Sep 2007, 139 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 11089 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.
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 992 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (2 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10935 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.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
bristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10717 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.
ScottishDavie From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2011, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5894 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.
s5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3437 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
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2289 posts, RR: 7 Reply 30, posted (2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2503 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.
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.
James Rowson. Canonite and lover of all things L. JAR Photography.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 33, posted (2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1180 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.
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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5717 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Aug 2009, 2579 posts, 
From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4946 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1402 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1614 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2320 posts, 
From France, joined Mar 2005, 1808 posts, 
. 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6276 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Apr 2011, 38 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2135 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Jan 2013, 74 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1031 posts, 
From Macedonia, joined Sep 2007, 139 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 992 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2011, 149 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
