I have been to St. Marteen and have enjoyed the plane spotting there. I have seen departures over the beach. But never like this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzRUR9Tq12k

Any thoughts??

Positive rate of climb, gear up, looks good.

The guy says "Worth losing my hat over." He was having the time of his life.

So . . . what's the question?

Certainly not a standard takeoff profile. Wonder who that was?

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 3): Certainly not a standard takeoff profile.

Agree, totally non std, he didn't have 35ft at the departure end of the runway.

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 3): Wonder who that was?

I think I may have read "Insel" on the side of the fuselage during the slo-mo.

Kind of reminds me of a recent flight on SWA where the FA told everyone to fasten their seats tightly as the Captain told her he was going to try something new  Funny joke maybe there was something to it.

Kind of reminds me of this departure that I saw at SXM last Saturday:

When I was at SXM there was a FedEx or DHL (one of the cargo companies) propjet that came in everyday incredibly low. I'm sure he was intentionally hot dogging it. Looks like this MD-80 pilot was doing the same. It's all part of the fun of SXM.

Hello all,

I had a feeling it was this airport before watching the footage. My question: How high was that camera mounted? At .12 of the video there is a car passing the center of the runway and you see the shadows of the car and two cameras on tripods. The one camera seemed pretty high.
Thankfully in the many years there hasn't been an incident there....

Yes, the camera seems to be mounted but definately a low departure. Check out the water action! They buzzed the beach.

Quoting kraz911 (Reply 8): The one camera seemed pretty high.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9): Yes, the camera seems to be mounted but definately a low departure

From the looks of it, I'd say that the camera was somewhere around 9 or 10 feet high.

I live it when posters on here armchair pilot. Get the popcorn...   

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 3): Certainly not a standard takeoff profile. Wonder who that was?

If you pause the video at 1:11, you catch the reg under the wing. A quick Google search confirms it's PJ-MDF, a 25-year-old MD-83 flying for Insel Air.

CO764  

Quoting trent772 (Reply 4): Agree, totally non std, he didn't have 35ft at the departure end of the runway.

You sure about that? GoPros and phones are pretty wide-angle.

He even could have loaded another bottle of champagne  

Quoting bobdino (Reply 13): You sure about that? GoPros and phones are pretty wide-angle.

You can see him dramatically increase his climb angle once he's out over the water.

There is a fair bit of optical illusion....

Quoting harim (Reply 16): There is a fair bit of optical illusion....

Yes, there certainly is, but I think we can all agree that the departure in question was
AWESOME........!

If the altimeter isn't increasing, the gear shouldn't be going up. Done completely for show.

I bet he had better clearance over the fence than some of the incoming jets coming the other way do  

Quoting trent772 (Reply 4): Quoting BravoOne (Reply 3):Certainly not a standard takeoff profile. Agree, totally non std, he didn't have 35ft at the departure end of the runway.

How high was he? How did you measure?

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 10): From the looks of it, I'd say that the camera was somewhere around 9 or 10 feet high.

Seems reasonable. How high is the fence?

Quoting catiii (Reply 11): I live it when posters on here armchair pilot.

Indeed.  

Quoting bobdino (Reply 13): Quoting trent772 (Reply 4): Agree, totally non std, he didn't have 35ft at the departure end of the runway. You sure about that? GoPros and phones are pretty wide-angle.

Quoting harim (Reply 16): There is a fair bit of optical illusion....

I had the same thoughts exactly; see above.

Quoting BA777 (Reply 18): If the altimeter isn't increasing, the gear shouldn't be going up. Done completely for show.

You made two assertions here, first that that the aircraft didn't have a positive rate of climb, which is demonstrably false, and that it was done completely for show, which I would like to know how you came by this information.

Please use this link to view the original upload by the author:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JshAn1PqOPI

The video linked by the OP is a re-post by another party, apparently using it as click-bait for their channel.

Quoting harim (Reply 16): There is a fair bit of optical illusion

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 17): Yes, there certainly is

Deliberate, you mean? How did he do it? What did he do?

If not deliberate, then what's the illusion? How would it look different without the illusion?

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 20): Seems reasonable. How high is the fence?

Roughly, 10ft to the top of the barbed wire.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 20): You made two assertions here, first that that the aircraft didn't have a positive rate of climb, which is demonstrably false, and that it was done completely for show, which I would like to know how you came by this information.

I know we are playing "defend the pilot" here, but yes he had a positive rate of climb and there is no reason for a passenger jet to clear the fence by that little for any reason other than for show, or mechanical failure, if your modern jet cannot clear the boundary fence by a good deal more than that, then you need to look at the performance of your aircraft.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 20): How high was he? How did you measure?

I didn't measure, we'd need many more datails in order to get an accurate measurement so I guessed, go ahead and pause the video at 00:28, then take your guess as to the planes height.

You are a pilot, what's your opinion on this particular departure?

The lens on the go pro was set at a very short focal length as verified by the fish eye distortion seen in the early views of the fence. Photogrammetry would have to take that into consideration in any attempt to measure the altitude at the end of the runway. The runway is only 7546 feet and the MD-80 has never been mistaken for a VSTOL aircraft. Nobody here can state how heavy the airplane was, the temperature or any other factor affecting the takeoff. To accuse the pilot of hotdogging the takeoff borders on the verge of slander unless you begin you remark with "In my opinion..." As we know opinions are like a certain body part, everybody is entitled to one.

Blame it on the camera lens all you want, that plane is LOW! just because we can't provide actual data from those aircraft or actual heights doesn't automatically mean you are right and there is no pilot induced hot dogging going on. Why are some guys here so quick to defend pilots they don't know? They are guys in control of incredible machines and they know people are watching, we are all human, of course some pilots are gonna show off a bit. Why deny it?
My question to you guys that say these arrivals and departures are normal until proven abnormal, why do you feel it so important to keep telling yourself that it's normal? What connection do you have to some random pilots flying in and out of SXM that you insist what we see in these videos is normal? Who cares really. If they are hot dogging it or not why does it matter to you that you must defend them? "In my opinion" those planes are abnormally low and its very obvious in the videos. Oh and did I mention I love it!!!

[Edited 2015-10-25 17:10:02]

Quoting trent772 (Reply 24): pause the video at 00:28

Pause it earlier than that, and compare the plane's height to its wingspan.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 20): ... that the aircraft didn't have a positive rate of climb, which is demonstrably false

Since it's not on the ground, you mean? That's the demonstration?

The guy is already folding up the landing gear before he passes over the fence, so it's intentional. The videographer is standing like a dufus on the guardrail so his body and camera are above the fenceline. You can see him and his buddy in the shadow.

And I love the little avgeek comments you can hear, like, "He didn't line up on the centerline." Oh, Heavens!!

This whole thread is clickbait, just like the stupid all-caps headline on the youtube video. I'm sorry I clicked on it.

Has anyone seen the A340 takeoff over the beach?

Don't think I've ever even heard of it doing so.

Without going too deep into the technical details, I say that this bird is in fact at 35ft (or higher) crossing the fence.

We estimate the camera to be about 9-10 feet above the ground (camera is above the fence, fence assumed to be about 6 feet high) I estimate airplane at about 10 feet above camera. (Given the severe fisheye display, airplane has to be higher than 10 feet above the camera) -- this based on that unless you have a wide lens, if the airplane 10 feet directly above you, there is no way you're going to see both wingtips)

as such... my undereducated conclusion: yeah, it seems like a low departure, but I believe that he does have his 35ft fence clearing height... as such, cool departure to see, but fully within safe (and legal) operating parameters.

Definitely cool to see
 

It seems like this airport is a magnet for Pilots who want to put on an air show.



Almost without exception these very low departure and arrivals are unnecessary and just plain dumb.
they do not adhere to standard noise abatement procedure or performance profiles that are mandated
wherever you are operating.


One of these days there's going to be an accident at St Maarten directly because of this.


Its just a matter of time.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31): they do not adhere to standard noise abatement procedure

There's a noise abatement ordinance at SXM? Not to say there's not--I don't know--but it's first I've heard of it.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31): Almost without exception these very low departure and arrivals are unnecessary and just plain dumb.

And you've come to that determination using what parameters exactly?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31): they do not adhere to standard noise abatement procedure or performance profiles that are mandated wherever you are operating

What are the specific noise abatement procedures, or performance mandates, that are not in compliance here? List them.

Apparently Insel Air pilots are famous for doing those kind of departures and approaches. I just pray that they never get to close to the ground..

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 33): And you've come to that determination using what parameters exactly?

His years of experience as an ATP pilot, maybe?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31): One of these days there's going to be an accident at St Maarten directly because of this. Its just a matter of time.

Completely agree. And when it does, there will be lots of international hand-wringing and all the cool stuff that happens there when operating within the norms will be changed. In short, the hot dogs will, as usual, screw it up for everyone else.

The safety culture at the "local" airlines is apparently-nonexistent. I can imagine what would have happened if, say, a TWA crew was videoed doing anything like this, even "back in the day". There would be folks standing tall before the Man in the Chief Pilot's office within 24 hours of the incident. It's not surprising that people think about doing stuff like this, but it's a severly-deficient safety culture when pilots ignore the fact that they have 100 currently-living people sitting behind them who have no interest in trading-away altitude and safety just to give their pilots a rush or some photographers a thrill.

Look, aircraft are SUPPOSED to be flown in a safe, boring fashion when carrying passengers. Transport pilots have enough excitement from the unplanned things that happen to them on a regular basis. If the asswipes flying the aircraft in the video want excitement, let them take up an exciting activity on their own time and dime.

One great compliment that an airline pilot can hear after a check ride is that the check pilot "would let my family fly on your aircraft." Nobody is going to pay these dimwits that compliment.

And just to put a finer point on it, anyone posting here who thinks that what happens in this video is either acceptable or cool plainly isn't an ATP, and, unless that attitude changes, is never going to be one, at least at a US carrier.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 36): And just to put a finer point on it, anyone posting here who thinks that what happens in this video is either acceptable or cool plainly isn't an ATP, and, unless that attitude changes, is never going to be one, at least at a US carrier.

The sad thing is that there are airline pilots who think this is cool. They guys doing this daily at SXM (Insel, Copa, etc.) are exactly that, airline pilots. But I would never argue that all airline pilots are smart people and/or can control their ego.


If I would be spotting at SXM, I would love to see this departure, despite it being quite a risky take-off, so perhaps I am the wrong person to judge the pilots for their stunt...

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 35): His years of experience as an ATP pilot, maybe?

Eh, subjective. Anyway, about that second request, that isn't so subject to, well, subjectivity....

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 36): Nobody is going to pay these dimwits that compliment.

...you mean other than the pax who do just that every day, right?

Awesome takeoff. 

Looks like Postman Pat passed by in his car if you look at the shadows near the bottom of the video. :P

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 38): ...you mean other than the pax who do just that every day, right?

Nice snarky answer. But sadly this is a serious issue. I meant no check pilot, or no person with an actual professional understanding of the implications of the conduct.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 38): Eh, subjective.

Okay, Flamebait. I'm tuning you out now.

If you don't understand what the conduct reflects about what's happening in that cockpit, and what's wrong with what's happening in that cockpit, it's not worth discussing.

[Edited 2015-10-26 02:07:26]

By the looks of it, rotation started around 0:20 and was up off the ground about 0:23/0:24 and cleared the fence with gear well on its way into the belly at 0:28. My guess is he stayed low to provide for a show or to gain airspeed or ????, but with being off the runway 4-5 seconds before clearing the fence I am guessing the airspeed thought would be out of the question.

Makes me giddy to see this as an AvGeek, but.........

Pohakuloa

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 36):

Blah blah blah, this stuff poses no real danger to anyone. These guys are professionals and know what they are doing. I would be much more worried of US regional carriers that pay their pilots too little.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31): One of these days there's going to be an accident at St Maarten directly because of this.

Most likely there won't.

Hey, he was taking off into the setting sun and didn't see the fence.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 36): And just to put a finer point on it, anyone posting here who thinks that what happens in this video is either acceptable or cool plainly isn't an ATP

OK, being an ATP with 13,000 hours and almost 30 years of flying experience I'll take the opposing view. I don't think the pilots of this plane did anything particularly unsafe or risky, at least not so much as to induce the venomous attacks I've read above.

There is no denying that the pilots did this style of takeoff "just for fun", and whether or not you think that was wrong is a matter for your own opinion. But let's not confuse your disgust at the pilot's motivation with deficiencies in safety.

For one thing, this type of aircraft routinely performs and "Improved Climb" or "Increased V2 Climb" when runway length and obstructions near to the airport are not a factor, which is clearly the case for this over-water takeoff. This maneuver requires longer takeoff roll and flatter initial climb to achieve the increased V2 for the second segment.

In any event even if he was not flying an improved-climb profile but merely making a flat departure to build up speed for the later segment of the climb "just for fun", this does not mean he's out of his mind. The aircraft, being in a high state of kinetic energy would have much better directional control in the engine failure case, owing to increased rudder effectiveness. He will have a large store of available energy and options for climb and control at the higher speeds.

Furthermore, the aircraft's best angle of climb speed is somewhat higher than V2, with V2 being the minimum speed where the regulatory requirements are met. Therefore this pilot electing to fly at a speed greater than V2, could make the case that he was in fact using the resources available (Long runway with obstruction free first-segment) to improve safety with this technique.

Now, I am not saying the pilots elected to do this method for that reason, or for operational requirement, and I do believe that they just did it for fun, but the fact that there is such a method of takeoff well known and trained, is just an example that sometimes you can choose a "more enjoyable" way of operating the aircraft with equivalent levels of safety at the end of the day. Pilots often elect to make visual departures in scenic areas, such as Cape Town (where you can fly around Table Mountain on the "Scenic One" departure) purely for the enjoyment of the opportunity. Flying such profiles can be done with equivalent safety in mind, so why not do it?

Just because the pilot operated in a different way than you expected is not a reason to draw out the safety-card and throw such accusations around without a thorough understanding of the trade-offs involved in such decision making. Just because you do not agree with a pilot's motivations is not adequate reason to accuse him of compromising safety, at least in the venomous degree as seen here in this thread.

Regards,

I love this website, you can read about a Qatari 77W taking off from an intersection on accident and hitting approach lights that could have been a tragic loss of life being "barely an incident and not news worthy" but then read a topic like this and hear from all the experts that this was inches away from disaster! And then chuckle at other topics where people explain how the media are just fear-mongering and always get aviation reporting wrong.

I tend to agree with Max Q. This looks more like a "Show-OFF" than a "Take-OFF". That MD should have been way higher than that when it crossed the fence. I mean, if a 744 going to AMS can take -off, climb away, there is no reason why this aircraft had to pass "10 feet" above the fence.

Quoting Vio (Reply 46): I mean, if a 744 going to AMS can take -off, climb away, there is no reason why this aircraft had to pass "10 feet" above the fence.

The KL 744 flight doesn't go straight to AMS as the runway is not long enough, it operates a triangle route between AMS - SXM - CUR - AMS using the flight number KL785. So in most cases its pretty light load for the 744 when it takes off from SXM with only 1 or 2 hours worth of fuel.

Quoting wannabe (Thread starter): I have been to St. Marteen and have enjoyed the plane spotting there.

Actually, I think you meant St. Maarten, note the two a´s and only one e.

(It is my name, therefore I note that many people have a problem with that)

It is well known that landings and departures there are sometimes "interesting" and there is not a real big margin of error I presume.

Quoting aeropix (Reply 44): But let's not confuse your disgust at the pilot's motivation with deficiencies in safety.

Your chief pilot would find this appropriate? Your chief pilot would find routinely flying like this to be appropriate?

Was the FL410 Club at Pinnacle appropriate? Was it safe? Were you embarassed or enthusiastic reading the CVR of that accident? Do you think the changes made after that accident were an overreaction and the pilots there didn't merit a venomous attack?

I am not saying that one takeoff like this is highly-perilous to the passengers of that particular flight. I am saying that when people do crap like this as a matter of course, it reflects a deficient safety culture and will, in the end, lead to tears.

[Edited 2015-10-26 08:03:10]