Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

A little below G/S

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Yes. If you search you'll find even more cool pics from SXM. Shortish runway right across the street from the beach.
 
I have flown into St Maarten a few times in various aircraft and I can tell you that if I was going in there in a 747, that is right about where I would want to be when I come accross the threshold. What you dont see in that photo is how SHORT that runway really is and the mountain off the departure end.

Here are some VIDEOS of 747 landings on that same runway..

http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=765
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=289
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=211
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=208
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=2710
 
Last edited:
canyonblue737 said:
there are numerous pictures on airliners.net of heavies landing before the displaced threshold there. not good.
Well, it beats landing long and parking in a gas station...
 
Interestingly, it may be permissible to land before a displaced threshold where this picture was taken. I know that in Canada, it depends on the underlying reason for the displaced threshold. If it's just for obstacle clearance and marked with white arrows, you can land (but need to be sensible). If marked with X's or yellow chevrons, then no. I challenged the person I was flying with one day for landing before the displaced threshold (in Canada) and he insisted it was fine (!) which made me look it up. I'm not sure about the yellow markings and the specific reg's for the place in this pic. I just wanted to bring up the idea that it may not be breaking a specific reg.

It does seem like showing off or trying to see how close to the people on the beach you can get.
 
Last edited:
Air France 747 actually took the fence out back in the early 90's. Tire marks are still there just inside the fence. I would have loved to see that one.
 
RP 04 said:
Well, it beats landing long and parking in a gas station...
Dude, we're hitting gas stations! [just kidding :nuts: ]
 
How long is the runway? It seems like departing there heavy weight would be a major problem if you have to land like that to get it stopped in time.
 
XR650R said:
WOW! Is that like 100 worse than a 609 ride???

FYI - The 609 ride was renamed the 709 ride many years ago.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the tiltrotor's designation as a 609? It sure would sound odd to tell everyone you were taking a 609 ride when you were getting your tiltrotor rating.
 
peter185 said:
How long is the runway? It seems like departing there heavy weight would be a major problem if you have to land like that to get it stopped in time.

the Runway is 7070 ft. Water on the other end and mountains across the bay too. Its not THAT short, but some pucker factor. Its mostly for show.....why.....because we can!!! First IOE Flight on the ATR was to there...never forget it!!!!
 
Aerosurfer said:
the Runway is 7070 ft. Water on the other end and mountains across the bay too. Its not THAT short, but some pucker factor. Its mostly for show.....why.....because we can!!! First IOE Flight on the ATR was to there...never forget it!!!!

7000 feet in an ATR is pucker factor?
 
floatflyer99 said:
Interestingly, it may be permissible to land before a displaced threshold where this picture was taken. I know that in Canada, it depends on the underlying reason for the displaced threshold. If it's just for obstacle clearance and marked with white arrows, you can land

Interesting. I always thought the threshold (displaced or otherwise) is the first point authorized for landing. Do you have a source for the "Canadian" rules??

I do know the white arrows are o.k. for takeoff or rollout, depending on the need for a jet blast free zone.
 
Aerosurfer said:
the Runway is 7070 ft. Water on the other end and mountains across the bay too. Its not THAT short, but some pucker factor. Its mostly for show.....why.....because we can!!! First IOE Flight on the ATR was to there...never forget it!!!!

7070 ft is not much for a 747. I would think they get real weight restricted getting out of there.
 
I just did a takeoff performance calculation with our OPS software for this airport. It actually was better than I thought it would be. On a 20C day with calm winds and 29.92 inches, it showed a max t/o weight of 701,000 lbs with a Q-powered 747-200. This was with runway 27.
 
embpic1 said:
I just did a takeoff performance calculation with our OPS software for this airport. It actually was better than I thought it would be. On a 20C day with calm winds and 29.92 inches, it showed a max t/o weight of 701,000 lbs with a Q-powered 747-200. This was with runway 27.

Well add about 10 degrees onto that and you have a normal temperature and due to the tradewinds, 363.9999999999 days of the year there are winds out of the east, so RWY27 is out of the question. I never saw anything but an occasional islander takeoff westbound, and that just causethey were to lazy to taxi acroos the airport and they get off the ground in about 16 feet (remember Caribbean rules....do what works easiest)

Not sure about the weight restriction, but I would hear those guys getting cleared to Amsterdam and Paris all the time

Spinn555 said:
7000 feet in an ATR is pucker factor?

After Old tortola, Nevis and Canouan.....SXM was downright eternal
 
Aerosurfer said:
Well add about 10 degrees onto that and you have a normal temperature and due to the tradewinds, 363.9999999999 days of the year there are winds out of the east, so RWY27 is out of the question.
[FONT=&quot]Ok. I tried it with a 30C day with a 5kt headwind on runway 9. It came up with 696,000. Still not too bad considering 833,000 is max structural t/o wt[/FONT]
 
AKAAB said:
FYI - The 609 ride was renamed the 709 ride many years ago.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the tiltrotor's designation as a 609? It sure would sound odd to tell everyone you were taking a 609 ride when you were getting your tiltrotor rating.
Ohhhh... SMACK!

I love a good b*tch smack when someone's being sarcastic and doesn't realize they're being stupid. :D
 
Airtran717 said:
I have flown into St Maarten a few times in various aircraft and I can tell you that if I was going in there in a 747, that is right about where I would want to be when I come accross the threshold. What you dont see in that photo is how SHORT that runway really is and the mountain off the departure end.

Here are some VIDEOS of 747 landings on that same runway..

http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=765
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=289
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=211
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=208
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=2710
Clip 208 has a real opening sequence to Hawaii 5-0 feel to it, very cool man.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom