This thread’s grounded itself on a well-charted Pprune shoal. On one side those who would see any expression of individualism, anything slightly beneath the nanny state bar, as suicidal and likely to take half humanity with it, versus those who see a flyby with the combination of verve,finesse, experience, intimacy with the machinery as an excellent way to promote the corporate image. Perhaps even to consolidate a good working relationship with some key people at the factory, not the management but the people who’ll remember and do the little special things you need on the next aircraft.
Why not assume to begin with that the flyby was approved by ATC, that there was a thorough briefing that began on the ground well before the flight – speed, flap setting, how low to go, what if and all the rest - and that everyone on board was informed beforehand that a flyby was to be performed? Why not, for that matter, give the man the benefit of the doubt and assume that he checked with the tower for bird activity beforehand?
Would it be too generous to assume that the flyby might even have been rehearsed in the sim before the event itself?
I for one find it difficult to imagine a seasoned captain doing it any other way, much less tearing around and doing an impromptu, unrehearsed, unauthorised farewell buzz of his own back. With the brass on board? Get real.
As a footnote, my background is shipping, slower in knots but not dissimilar in the cross-section of individualists, perfectionists, corporate politicians and blind post-facto opinionists. The personal reading is that whatever went wrong happened in the in-house politics afterwards. To me, at least, the whole episode reflects poorly on Cathay Pacific leadership.