They we not 'offroading', the front wheel of that A320 was less than 50 feet from the yellow line at the official start of the runway even whilst it was still lining up, which in fact puts it in the displaced threshold area; that chevron area itself is only 160 feet long with the displaced threshold at 98 feet. With the A320 being over 100 feet long, the main gear wasn't that far away from the official start of the usable runway either.

 

The chevron area is designed to take the weight of a 747 according to the aerodrome booklet, since the displaced threshold is 98 feet (to allow for the fence), not 160 feet, thus actually in the chevron area and in any case, the PCN for that runway, including the chevron area and the taxiway shoulders, is 50/F/B/X/U, thus it is very strong as you would expect from something which regularly had 747s slamming down onto it. There is no miracle invisible barrier at 98 feet from the end of the tarmac which suddenly has no FOD risk, the area itself is regularly checked for that, since crap can be blown inland off the beach. Using a bit of that additional available tarmac which the aerodrome booklet confirms is capable of taking your aircraft's weight and tire pressure footprint is therefore not 'making up your own procedure'.

 

Hanging onto a fence whilst twin CFM 56 engines go to TOGA 100 feet in front of you however, is indeed making up your own procedure, although you have to admit that she did reach V1 in a very short distance, nevertheless, her calculations for clearance of a fifty foot obstruction appear to have been a bit optimistic. :LMAO:

 

Al

They we not 'offroading', the front wheel of that A320 was less than 50 feet from the yellow line at the official start of the runway even whilst it was still lining up, which in fact puts it in the displaced threshold area; that chevron area itself is only 160 feet long with the displaced threshold at 98 feet. With the A320 being over 100 feet long, the main gear wasn't that far away from the official start of the usable runway either.

 

The chevron area is designed to take the weight of a 747 according to the aerodrome booklet, since the displaced threshold is 98 feet (to allow for the fence), not 160 feet, thus actually in the chevron area and in any case, the PCN for that runway, including the chevron area and the taxiway shoulders, is 50/F/B/X/U, thus it is very strong as you would expect from something which regularly had 747s slamming down onto it. There is no miracle invisible barrier at 98 feet from the end of the tarmac which suddenly has no FOD risk, the area itself is regularly checked for that, since crap can be blown inland off the beach. Using a bit of that additional available tarmac which the aerodrome booklet confirms is capable of taking your aircraft's weight and tire pressure footprint is therefore not 'making up your own procedure'.

 

Hanging onto a fence whilst twin CFM 56 engines go to TOGA 100 feet in front of you however, is indeed making up your own procedure, although you have to admit that she did reach V1 in a very short distance, nevertheless, her calculations for clearance of a fifty foot obstruction appear to have been a bit optimistic. :LMAO:

 

Al

 

No. If you look at the layout of that airport, you cannot taxi into the overrun area without crossing the yellow lines demarcating the edge of the taxiway. You can google map it yourself. It doesn't matter how many feet the nosewheel was from the line marking the end of the runway if it is on the wrong side of that line, 1 inch is as significant as 100 feet. Whatever weight it is designed to take is irrelevant. You don't know what it is and it is not published for our cockpit use - because that area is not for use. It could take half our weight or be strong enough for an A380, but we will never know since it is not part of the info that goes in our charts. There is no overrun area that can be taxied onto without being considered off roading. It is not a taxiway, it is not a runway, and it is not part of the parking ramp. There is no situation in which an aircraft should have been where they were at without having an emergency.

 

Again, the only reason an aircraft can legitimately make use of the overrun area is during an emergency. I cannot see what the emergency situation was for them being in the overrun. I will bet you money that those guys are going to be doing a carpet dance. By doing what they did, by taxiing the plane off the runway to begin the takeoff run, they just opened Jetblue up for a lawsuit from that girl that got hurt. Their defense that the girl shouldn't have been where she was because of all the signs and common sense can be countered with the argument that the jet should not have been where it was either for the same exact reasons. Now it's a wash. And just to add some more insult to the injuries, it's all captured on video and broadcasted on network TV, that the FO had his window open and was gesturing to the crowds as the plane was lining up in the overrun. Sterile cockpit? Come on, they're just having fun. It's only fun until somebody has their head gashed open. I would not want to be those two pilots right now.

You don't know what it is and it is not published for our cockpit use - because that area is not for use

 

 

Erm, yes I do, and it is far from irrelevant, it is part of the aerodrome data, which is the info you have in your flight bag when flying to and from there. The info is available on aerodrome charts, in the aerodrome booklet, and probably on the website for the airfield too I should imagine. That data most certainly is published for cockpit use, it is so that people using the airfield can make use of it and is why all the tarmac on airfields where aircraft movements are made, has a PCN rating, and why non load-bearing areas are marked by a double yellow line, not a single one. Look in any aerodrome booklet and you will see that is the case.

 

Al

Erm, yes I do, and it is far from irrelevant, it is part of the aerodrome data, which is the info you have in your flight bag when flying to and from there. The info is available on aerodrome charts, in the aerodrome booklet, and probably on the website for the airfield too I should imagine. That data most certainly is published for cockpit use, it is so that people using the airfield can make use of it and is why all the tarmac on airfields where aircraft movements are made, has a PCN rating, and why non load-bearing areas are marked by a double yellow line, not a single one. Look in any aerodrome booklet and you will see that is the case.

 

Al

 

Jeppeson does not publish the load bearing capabilities of the overrun area. And that's what we use. And it is quite irrelevant because you're not supposed to be there anyways. But I give you the point. Because I am sure it is somewhere on the internet, perhaps the AFD, and maybe even in the planning documents at an office in the airport. Our dispatchers probably have that info filed away somewhere too since I'm sure there's some consideration of it when determining whether an airport is appropriate for dispatch. It's just not in my flight kit. If there is something we need to know about the the load bearing, wingspan, etc. capabilites of any certain portion of an airport which we are allowed to deliberately operate on, there will be notes in the -9 or -7 pages of my issued Jepps that will tell me not to take my 53,000 pound plane to that particular spot. But I give you the point that that information is findable. It's just not part of the info that I am supposed to use.

 

But back to the main point. There is no way, unless you are using it as part of your landing overrun mishap, for you to legitimately and deliberately take your airplane into an overrun area. If you do have a way, please explain. I'm sure those guys will want to use it.

What I'm essentially saying here, is that I don't disagree with their decision to grab a few more feet of tarmac for the take off roll by making a wider turn if they were indeed aware of the PCN rating of that area, and I'm sure most pilots will agree that there is certainly wisdom in having a bit more tarmac in front of you if you know it can be done with no problem, for all I know, they may have asked ATC for permission to do so. If it were me, I'd have backed that sucker up as well LOL, but as you say, whether that notion is enough to back those up who were at the front end of the A320 in question if they find themselves in an office with the line chief, is another matter entirely.

 

I'm not sure how much mileage there would be in someone trying to pursue an injury claim when a simple photograph of the many warning signs posted at the beach would likely be enough to dismiss any sort of case to answer, but even so, it would not surprise me to know that the crew had at least got some sort of talking to telling them to be mindful of the issue simply for form's sake, although one would hope that this is all they've had to endure courtesy of the whims of a very silly young lady, who at the end of the day, has only herself to blame, since she'd have probably gone &@($* over elbow if the jet had been another 300 feet away.

 

Al

Ah, it seems that I posted in the other thread...

Was just about to point that out LOL See, even her internet fame is spreading on this forum!

 

Al

Couple of other things not been mentioned yet....

 

She was outside of the fence line therefore technically not on airport property......not sure about the airports liability on that beach, or the flight crews responsibility for that beach but I would think they have no jurisdiction over it. As I mentioned above the warning signs are posted at various locations.

 

Also this is Saint Maarten so they would have different laws. Probably not the type of place where personal lawsuits would hold up in a court of law in this situation. Every country is different and some (like New Zealand) really don't allow for personal lawsuits like the USA does (We have a Government Accident Compensation Plan instead http://www.acc.co.nz/, that covers residents and tourists). The USA is one of the few countries in the world where people sue people over personal injury, she probably doesn't have a case in Saint Maarten.

 

 

P.S. Christopher, it was probably removed because it was not posted in the Flight Sim Video Forum:

http://forum.avsim.net/forum/322-flight-sim-video-forum/

Worth noting here too, is that apparently officials at TNCM are considering increasing security in that area as a result of the incident and the popularity of the video on Youtube, which is of course not great PR for the airport. Latest reports - according to The Daily Herald - which is the main newspaper for that region, are that the two people (i.e. the girl and the bloke with her initially) were not seriously injured, but that is definitely a case of more luck than judgement, since they do actually get blown across a road that often has cars going along it, so it is lucky that they were not also hit by a car as well.

 

Al

Does grabbing a few more feet of tarmac for the takeoff roll justify exiting the runway to use a portion of tarmac that not part of the runway and not for normal use? They had enough runway with what was marked as runway. Otherwise, they would not have been allowed to perform a takeoff. If there is even a hint any terrain is at issue, I guarantee you there will be a SDP in their Jepps for that runway. The special would have given them a procedure to comply with should an engine fail on takeoff. The terrain would never be an issue because the SDP will direct them to navigate safely around the terrain. That's what we do in the airline world. Missing the terrain by a hair and needing every inch of tarmac for takeoff as you see in your mind's eye is just not something that is part of the airline world. Our margins of safety are a lot bigger than that.

 

Who knows, maybe they did get an ok and a chuckle from the tower guy before taxiing into the overrun. But who cares? It's caught on video, and I'm sure somebody with an FAA badge has already seen it. The tower guy said it was ok is no defense at all for blatantly violating rules of the road and markings on the pavement. What emergency were you using your emergency authority to deviate from the regs and the pavement markings will be the cynical next question. The tower guy will probably get disciplined as well if he "approved" their request for taxiing into the overrun. Again, the question will be what was the emergency to cause you to instruct them into the overrun. The only reason they were there in the pad is to blast the people. Don't kid yourself with the mountain. That mountain is not a factor. We have ways around those things.

 

The last thing that they would be in trouble with the FAA for would be injuring the girl, although that should be the first thing that should be on their minds. What they will be in FAA trouble for is deliberately taxiing an aircraft into an overrun area. If the plane was properly positioned on the runway, and that girl still got blasted into the wall like that, I'm right with everybody in saying she'll get norhing. But now since there is a case for wrongdoing on the pilot's part and resulting injury, with everything caught on video, I am willing to bet JetBlue will pay that girl a sum of money soon.

The terrain is a big issue at TNCM for departures off that runway, SIDs from that runway are marked variously with the following: 'Operators will maneuver visually over lower terrain' 'Mountain 2.8 miles ahead of the runway' 'Turn right as soon as practicable' 'Minimum visibility for this SID is 2.8 miles' 'Minimum ceiling for this SID is 1,200 feet'.

 

I'm well aware that departures are not a seat of the pants thing, but they don't print that stuff on departure plates for a laugh, terrain clearance there is clearly quite a significant consideration when going off that runway.

 

Al

Right. So it's the turn that keeps you away from the mountain there. Not the starting your takeoff from the unauthorized portion of pavement.

Was just there on holiday and when the four engine birds come out the police block the road. This girl and her boyfriend are just plane stupid.....they have a SLEW of warning signs there.

 

I shot this to the left of the runway.

 

 

It is an amazing place for spotting for sure. Not to mention the beach.........

 

You can click HERE to see some of the shots I took at TNCM and TFFJ.

Right. So it's the turn that keeps you away from the mountain there. Not the starting your takeoff from the unauthorized portion of pavement.

 

Absolutely, but that turn will be higher above that mountain terrain if you got off the deck 50 feet earlier, that's all I'm saying.

 

Al

And that justifies such an ostensibly blatant violation of the procedures?