If you look at the google map for the airport you can't get the wheels of that plane onto the chevrons. It would be impossible. They likely followed the yellow taxi line, onto the displaced threshold marks (legal for takeoff) which put the tail over the chevrons.

 

Look at the map - http://maps.google.c...ved=0CA8Q_AUoAg

 

No way you could get the wheels onto the chevrons behind the yellow taxi line.

 

I can't believe there are 3 pages of people arguing about this. Fortunately she wasn't in the lawsuit happy US where some lawyer would be on her in minutes for her share. I am sure that in St. Maarten she will be told she is stupid and sent home. Minus a few teeth.

 

If you look at the video again, at 06 seconds into it, you can clearly see the nosewheel travel over the outermost chevron. Yes, it is supposed to be impossible to go there, that is why it was such a blatant violation that they did go there. It took them a lot of work and deliberateness and the crossing of some pretty solid yellow taxiway edgelines to put that plane where it was supposed to be impossible to go.

If you look at the google map for the airport you can't get the wheels of that plane onto the chevrons. It would be impossible. They likely followed the yellow taxi line, onto the displaced threshold marks (legal for takeoff) which put the tail over the chevrons.

 

Look at the map - http://maps.google.c...ved=0CA8Q_AUoAg

 

No way you could get the wheels onto the chevrons behind the yellow taxi line.

 

I can't believe there are 3 pages of people arguing about this. Fortunately she wasn't in the lawsuit happy US where some lawyer would be on her in minutes for her share. I am sure that in St. Maarten she will be told she is stupid and sent home. Minus a few teeth.

 

If it can't be done why have I seen it been done multiple times with my own eyes while I was there?

Really? You saw wheels behind the solid yellow line? On an airliner?

 

That must have been interesting.

Really? You saw wheels behind the solid yellow line? On an airliner?

 

That must have been interesting.

 

Yep multiple times. They never did the crazy static takeoffs like the JBU crew did though so no one got blasted like them.

Really? You saw wheels behind the solid yellow line? On an airliner?

 

That must have been interesting.

 

Just have a look at where the APU is....It doesn't take 'Rocket Pliances' to figure it out :LMAO:

Here is a picture I took of where the aircraft should be.

 

 

I stand corrected.

 

Except the part about her being stupid. And missing teeth.

I stand corrected.

 

Except the part about her being stupid. And missing teeth.

 

 

Cheers Mate :drinks:

If I put up a sign saying risk of death or serious injury if you do X, and the reason for that is clear. Then you do do X and you end up injured your case against me is flimsy to say the least.

 

I wish it could be that easy. But common sense does not rule in a court of law. Lawbooks do.

 

Do you remember that story of the woman that puts her cat in the microwave to dry it up, the cat dies, the woman sues and wins because the manual does not state that you should not put live animals in a microwave oven. As any sensible human being, the initial impulse is to say "get lost, dumb creature, who is stupid enough to put a can in an oven". Ok, but come to think about it, there is no law to punish anyone for being stupid. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, stupidity is not a crime. Nor an offense, nor a felony. However, failing to provide proper documentation for any piece of equipment, possibly resulting in injury or death IS a felony.

Simply put, in "electrical appliance manufacturer with an oversized faith in humanity" vs. "dumbest person in the world", the latter wins.

 

Now, in the case of that girl, she got injured not because she held to a fence in an ill-chosen spot, not because she ignored the signs, but because she got pushed back by engine wash, and that happened because that airplane was too close, and that happened because... At least, that is a claim she could make and that would probably hold in court.

Again, no text of law says that you should fine a girl for holding on to a fence while a plane is taking-off, however, intentionnally conducting actions that can put other people in a dangerous, potentialy life-threatening situation, is punished by the law, I think it is called reckless endangerement but I am no specialist.

They are certainly on those chevrons, the APU is actually not very far from the fence - twenty feet at most - the chevron area is 160 feet in length, the A320 is 103 feet long, so even if it is twenty feet from the fence, it's still nearly forty feet from the official start of the runway, and at best only in the displaced threshold area of the chevrons 98 feet from the start of the tarmac. Here it is knocked up in Photoshop, the scale is accurate...

 

 

Al

They were a bit too close for safety... Did the pilots have any sense? seems not!

 

Why taxi onto the active and get as close as you can to the fence, advance throttles with parking brake set, then wait there for about 5-10 seconds before commencing roll. Surely the pilots new the dangers from what they did?

 

I think they were "in the moment" a bit too much!

I think they were "in the moment" a bit too much!

 

Exactly. You can tell the way the FO was waving out the window. I wish I had that much time to go through the before takeoff checklist!

Now, in the case of that girl, she got injured not because she held to a fence in an ill-chosen spot, not because she ignored the signs, but because she got pushed back by engine wash, and that happened because that airplane was too close, and that happened because... At least, that is a claim she could make and that would probably hold in court.

 

Don't know about Dutch law, which I guess applies in St Maarten, but if it's anything like British law, then no she probably wouldn't. The rule here is that no harm is done to a willing person (or volenti non fit injuria, to use the Latin beloved of our lawyers). If you consent to a risk and that leads to your injury, then you have no case. It wouldn't take much to argue from all the warning signs and so on that that is exactly what she did. There's a similar recent-ish case here (Tomlinson vs Congleton) in which the plaintiff injured himself diving into a lake which had prominent "no swimming" signs ; there's an older one (Morris vs Murray) involving a plaintiff who got into a light aircraft with a pilot he knew to be drunk, and which crashed shortly after takeoff. In both cases the plaintiff consented to an obvious risk, and neither the shallowness of the lake (in Tomlinson) nor the actions of the pilot (in Morris) made any difference. Both cases were lost.

 

So in this case, whether the crew were negligent in positioning the aircraft for takeoff is a different matter, and not one that would advance the girl's case much if it were heard here. It's clear from the signs that there is a risk of jet blast, presumably even from a departing aircraft that started from the threshold.

Even more interesting is that per definition the yellow chevrons indicate that this is a:

 

Pre-threshold area of runway fit for use as a stopway by aircraft landing in the opposite direction but not fit for normal movement of aircraft

"Do you remember that story of the woman that puts her cat in the microwave to dry it up, the cat dies, the woman sues and wins because the manual does not state that you should not put live animals in a microwave oven."

 

Do you have a reputable source for that? Because it has a strong aroma of 'urban myth'.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend