But that is just it with a vacation isn't it. I could choose to vacation in Hawaii where I know it has good infrastructure, I can drink the tap water without diarea, and if a shark bit my leg when surfing a very good chance the local hospital could save my leg.

 

 

I don't know it feels pretty third world here haha. The beaches are nice though!

I don't know it feels pretty third world here haha. The beaches are nice though!

 

I like Hawaii....It is Pacific Island so the houses are simple like we have in New Zealand. When you live on a Pacific Island you don't need much more then a few walls as the outside world is more important to you then the indoors.

 

North America is cold so people like to build dens in their basement with home theaters as they spend most of the winter inside. Different Culture on the mainland. Materialism is less important to me living on a Pacific Island as I would rather get lost up in the backhills on my mountain bike. The only one advantage New Zealand has over Hawaii is we can ski on our mountains. NZ is one of those places you can ski in the morning and surf in the afternoon. Other then that Hawaii and New Zealand have a lot of similarities.

 

Cheers

I don't know it feels pretty third world here haha

 

 

Some of these so called "Third World" countries have a great deal more panache than our so called "First world" societies!!

At the moment it's a fatality waiting to happen. All it needs is for someone to be knocked unconscious and then blown into the water, or have a limb broken and be unable to swim, particularly a child. Any half decent lawyer will then have the pilots up for manslaughter and the airport authority up for corporate manslaughter and possibly the airline as well. And then that beach will be shut for good.

 

It's an interesting point re bungee jumping and taking responsibility for your own actions. I can't believe that being able to be blasted by jet exhaust is a genuine pull to that island and that not having it will have any adverse affect on the economy there as a whole (maybe a couple of bars by the beach perhaps). At least with bungee jumping you knowingly sign your life away and any operator worth their salt wouldn't let someone drunk out of their mind do a jump. Those in the UK and Europe may be aware but you guys further afield may not have heard of a little place in the Eifel Mountains in Germany called Nürburg. Surrounding the little village is the old Grand Prix racetrack, the Nürburgring Nordschleife (it's a long lap at 12.93 miles). Bizarrely this is open to the public on some days, in the form of a one-way toll road. And that's it - you turn up in your road car, pay your 26€ and you are let out onto one of the most dangerous Grand Prix circuits in the world to do as you like - no mandatory helmet, cage, racesuit, extinguisher etc etc needed. You are free to drive it as fast as you like (no speed limits) and so you get people pootling around in their everyday shopping cars mixing it with Porsche 911 GT3-RSs and superbikes on 'hot' laps. Oh and the odd coach as well. People crash and kill themselves (particularly bikers) at an alarming rate. It's pretty normal for the circuit to be closed 2/3/4 times on a public open day to deal with accidents. It is hugely surprising it is still allowed given that Germany is very health and safety oriented. But again, you go on there at your own risk...

The problem with the above is common sense. Allegedly it is dangerous to cross a busy road. So most people one assumes not only look left and right but also keep their eyes open. If I were not to do any of that and subsequently got hit by a vehicle it would be quite difficult to bring a claim against the driver if the above were proven. If I ignore a sign saying do not climb Danger of Death 25kv electricity then again I take on the personal resposibility thus absolving any authority of risk. It's like saying " I have read you notice. I don't care and I'm going to do it anyway!"

If the weather is very hot and I'm at max auw then I'm legitimately going to use all the rwy available to me. If some silly &@($* wants to get blown away by my jetblast then its his/her lookout. It's not exactly an unknown risk at St. Maarten is it??

vololiberista

If the weather is very hot and I'm at max auw then I'm legitimately going to use all the rwy available to me. If some silly &@($* wants to get blown away by my jetblast then its his/her lookout. It's not exactly an unknown risk at St. Maarten is it??

vololiberista

 

The problem is that it is not legitimate to use that portion of the runway. That portion of the runway is typically blocked off with raised light stanchions marking the end of the runway. You cannot get there without destroying runway lights. Even if it is hot and you are heavy, your takeoff performance data does not include the length of the overrun in its calculations. So if your weight is legal for that runway according to the performance data, there is no need for the overrun.

 

Now if some silly &@($* got blown away while you were in the overrun, wouldn't that open you as the pilot up for liability as well since you were in violation of regulations when you blew that silly &@($* away? Why put yourself in that position? How do you legitimately do something illegal?

 

You used to be a commercial pilot, you should know that you cannot legitimately use an overrun in that manner.

If I ask permission to use full rwy length then I can!

What one also needs to consider is how many take-offs a day are there? How many start from the fence? How many actual injuries are there? etc

What we see is one or two videos on youtube. The people on that beach are well aware of the risk whether an a/c takes off too close to the fence or not. I quite agree that in other countries and certainly in Europe the public would not be allowed anywhere near a jet blast area. If a number of serious injuries or fatalities arise then probably the airport authorities and or the municipality would have to act. The onus really is on the local authorities to protect the tourists not on the flightcrews to limit their take off thrust.

If the silly &@($* is outside the airfield boundary just who is responsible?

I'm quite certain that some crews take liberties and so far they have got away with it. Probably they wouldn't here in Europe nor as I said would the public be allowed such close proximity to the aircraft.

vololiberista

If I ask permission to use full rwy length then I can!

 

vololiberista

 

The overrun is not part of full runway length.

Curacao, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Saba, Bonaire, etc. etc. are ruled by the Netherlands, previously the Netherlands Antilles until Aruba left in the 80's and the rest followed.

 

Not quite. Until 2010 Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles and the Netherlands itself were independent countries within the Kingdom of The Netherlands (kinda like how Australia and Canada still have the Queen of England as their head of state, but are otherwise independent of the UK). In 2010 Bonaire and Curacao became independent (though still to the best of my knowledge within the Kingdom of the Netherlands), while Saba, Sint Maarten, and Sint Eustacius became 'special municipalities' within The Netherlands proper. So since 2010 Sint Maarten is in fact in the Netherlands, at least legally speaking, no matter what geography might suggest :P .

 

I quite agree that in other countries and certainly in Europe the public would not be allowed anywhere near a jet blast area.

...

I'm quite certain that some crews take liberties and so far they have got away with it. Probably they wouldn't here in Europe nor as I said would the public be allowed such close proximity to the aircraft.

vololiberista

 

As noted above Sint Maarten is in fact in Europe, at least legally speaking.

As noted above Sint Maarten is in fact in Europe, at least legally speaking.

Technically speaking yes. But being a colony/ex colony they always end up doing their own thing!!

Obviously they adhere to ICAO regulations otherwise the airlines would not be happy to fly there.

Declared distances: TORA:7546 TODA:7743 ASDA:7546 LDA:7447 TORA:7447 TODA:7644 ASDA:7447 LDA:7447

As it pertains to fixed-wing aircraft, TODA is the total distance from the brake release to reference zero at the screen. The takeoff distance can be more than the total runway length available in extreme cases; the available takeoff distance may be equal to the runway length, the length of a clearway, and that of the stopways.

 

We don't know the conversations made with the tower if a full length take-off was requested or not. Also there are no videos of any a/c exceeding the load limit of the stopway.

vololiberista

Technically speaking yes. But being a colony/ex colony they always end up doing their own thing!!

Obviously they adhere to ICAO regulations otherwise the airlines would not be happy to fly there.

Declared distances: TORA:7546 TODA:7743 ASDA:7546 LDA:7447 TORA:7447 TODA:7644 ASDA:7447 LDA:7447

As it pertains to fixed-wing aircraft, TODA is the total distance from the brake release to reference zero at the screen. The takeoff distance can be more than the total runway length available in extreme cases; the available takeoff distance may be equal to the runway length, the length of a clearway, and that of the stopways.

 

We don't know the conversations made with the tower if a full length take-off was requested or not. Also there are no videos of any a/c exceeding the load limit of the stopway.

vololiberista

 

Let me try and say it again. The stopway at that end is not part of the useable runway in the 07 direction. Asking for "full length" still does not allow use of that area. There is no way to taxi into that area without crossing uncrossable solid lines or destroying light stanchions. The extra lengths you see between the TODA and TORA are for the stopways at the far end. That is, the stopway at the far end of runway 07 gives you the extra distance of TODA for performance calculation. Just as the stopway they taxied into only gives the extra TODA for runway 25 departures.

 

There is no legal way to taxi into that area. It is not part of any kind of "full length" conversation with tower.

 

We don't know the conversations made with the tower if a full length take-off was requested or not. Also there are no videos of any a/c exceeding the load limit of the stopway.

vololiberista

 

So if I ask tower if I can bomb the beach with high explosives and they say yes, that means I can bomb the beach and not be in trouble?

So if I ask tower if I can bomb the beach with high explosives and they say yes, that means I can bomb the beach and not be in trouble?

 

Who knows what if any complicity may exist in the tower. Do they check that every a/c stays only on the main surface or not? Do they file a complaint if they see it? I have only seen two videos discussed where the stopway has been used. Unless a complaint is filed accompanied with clear evidence nothing will or can be done. Even so a visiting VC10 for example not lined up all or part on the stopway could and would cause injuries to someone standing too close to the fence. Whose fault is it then? 80 metres isn't going to make any difference at all at full power!

vololiberista

As noted above Sint Maarten is in fact in Europe, at least legally speaking.

 

The EU has the same amount of power over Saint Maarten as the Queen of England has power over Canada.......Pretty much none.

Who knows what if any complicity may exist in the tower. Do they check that every a/c stays only on the main surface or not? Do they file a complaint if they see it? I have only seen two videos discussed where the stopway has been used. Unless a complaint is filed accompanied with clear evidence nothing will or can be done. Even so a visiting VC10 for example not lined up all or part on the stopway could and would cause injuries to someone standing too close to the fence. Whose fault is it then? 80 metres isn't going to make any difference at all at full power!

vololiberista

 

Whether the tower allowed, notices, or cares, there is still no reason for a plane to taxi into that area.