Yeah I get that they’re showing off, like I say, there’s no excuse for it.
Saba is a cool, freaky island visible on a clear day from St Martin. My first time in St Martin the first two days were slightly overcast. The view of the Caribbean from our balcony was amazing! On the third day I went out on the balcony and Saba had suddenly appeared!!! It was so strange. The day before you just saw sea and it looked perfectly clear, then suddenly an island appeared!
Vive la France, no?
ETA: 
It is possible that either (or both) (A) the camera is not at ground level, and/or (B) this particular approach is below normal. Even at at slope of 3°, the plane would normally be at 30m at this location. Perhaps he was a few meters low.
When I did a bit of research, I could find no artificial method of vertical orientation. The approach plates do not show a glide-slope nor could I find a VASI at that airport.
Cracked covered this back in 2008
So did we, back in 2005. Though I could have sworn we just had a thread about this last month, too.
Sweet. I did not know that thread existed!
Gotta wonder if that isn’t a legitimate engine ingestion risk… :eek:
What Mangetout said in post 34.
Again, I was asking about that particular photograph, not that planes in general come in really low to land at that airport.
Yes of course s/he was low, unless it is some kind of optical illusion, but the approaches into St Maarten that make YouTube and the plane spotter forums are particularly low approaches, the everyday on-slope approaches, while still impressive, are nothing like the few like this one.
As per this plate, it has a PAPI and the google maps images show a PAPI each side of the touchdown markers. More importantly it is trivial work out a distance/altitude profile that will put you on a 3º profile (Jepp plates for Australian ports have this printed on them already), so even if the PAPIs hadn’t been installed or were u/s you should still be able to follow a 3º slope to the touchdown zone.
IMO, wind direction, current aircraft weight on landing, forecast winds for departure and time of day for departure would make a difference to me on how by the book of published plates I acted and the fact of finial safety being square on me as to what kind of landing & take off profile I actually used on a day to day basis.
Does this airport require a official check out like the one in Alaska, have aircraft that are not allowed to land?
Did not the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Cong need a sign off before a pilot could be PIC to land there?
If that’s runway 10, where are the other 9 runways? 
Runways are numbered by the heading of the runway.
San Diego the runway is number 27. This is due west for 270 degrees.
For airports with two parallel runways they get numbers like 25L and 25R as seen in LAX
I’d say the reason they put the rocks down is to literally keep the beach from blowing away.
Not related to that but if you watch the videos most of the planes actually pull up slightly at about the same point to arrest their decent.
to be more precise, they are numbered by the MAGNETIC heading and not geographic heading. So any magnetic variations are taken into consideration. When the magnetic variations change (and they do) they renumber the runways. I got caught with an old map once at an airport and was momentarily confused by the landing instructions.
Dunno. Security can’t be that high - there are people standing/swimming there. That’s a lower level of security than I have seen at the very end of most other commercial airport runways.
I can’t, short of a LAWS rocket. Nothing else is simple, and also guaranteed to bring the plane down.
Say you threw something into the engines. All of them. The plane is 50 feet from the runway. The plane could glide in from there, but the engines wouldn’t fully fail until it was already on the ground anyway. Same with catapulting a big rock into the cockpit. Chances are you couldn’t even hit it (you’d get one chance) and even if you hit the pilot in the head, there’s another guy there. Maybe the conked pilot would move the controls suddenly. Might make a hard landing.
Laser pointer? Possibly. Depends on how the pilot reacts. If he jerked his hands in reaction, yeah, that might be a mess. He probably wouldn’t though.
Yes, final approach is very critical time, but by the time you could hit it, the plane is on the ground.
Well, doing some VERY basic and crude guesswork:
Quotes above mention that the runway is short, so presumably planes are trying to touch their wheels as soon as they are allowed to. In the google aerial view there are markings that seem to suggest they don’t want you touching down on the first 100 feet or so after the fence (seems sensible).
Actually, that fence looks over 6 feet high. If you are descending at 3 degrees, that’s a 5.24% grade, so you’d need to touch down more than 100 feet in to clear the fence.
It is very hard to get distances in the photo, and honestly I’m no kind of expert at that. It looks to me like, if the fence is around 50 feet from the edge of the water (which I get from the aerial view), then the rear wheels are roughly 150 feet from the fence.
Descending at 3 degrees, the plane will drop a bit under 8 feet in that distance.
The current level of the plane’s wheels appears to be about 20 feet above the heads of folks at the top of the beach.
So what I see in the photo looks consistent with a plane that will pass over the fence 16-20 feet off the ground and then touch down 300 feet beyond the fence.
Yeah, that plane is super low, but that is what that airport is famous for.
Then again, do a video search for St. Bart’s or Culebra… Tiny strips abutted against hills so you essentially are flying a few feet off the ground down the face of the hill on final, especially at St. Bart’s where you also first buzz a traffic circle.
I’d still take them over Saba, at least if I overrun I’m merely in three feet of water.
Don’t really need a guarantee. I’m sure most folks who want to fubar a plane will be happy with a high likelihood of success.
And depending on your goal, 100% destruction isn’t particularly needed either. If you kill a double-digit number of passengers, that suits most terrorists’ agenda.
I’m sure any reasonably bright person could figure out a way to use stuff he could buy at Walmart to make a landing lots more difficult if he’s allowed to get with 100 feet of the plane as it lands, and as others have noted I have no desire to see this thread become a think-tank for mayhem so I’ll keep my ideas to myself.