Video footage of TAP A310 in extreme low flying turn at airshow

[Selfloading]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5942533742308491751&q=airshow+portugal+a310&total=30&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 I have seen two professional pilots die at airshows one a military flyer at the time of his death, the other a former red arrow and at the time he died a 737 pilot, I have no doubt that both these men were excellent airmen but nevertheless made mistakes that ended in disaster, nobody should take the slightest risk just for the entertainment of others, I go to a lot of airshows and would rather see a less spectacular flying display knowing that it increases the safety margin for the pilots than ever witnesses anyone else lose their life.

[AdamLT]

does anyone know if the pilots were reprimanded in anyway?? or is this normal exercise for TAP pilots??

[captjns]

I think the majority of us enjoy the arial ballet display of aircraft dancing in sky. However there are those twisted individuals who pitch up hoping to capture a disaster on their camcorder.

[Flying Signman]

Well, having seen both the turn and the even lower straight pass, I'm just glad I was not in the Crowd or the owner of one of those planes along the flightline!

The aircraft could have easily been 50 feet higher to create sufficient impact with those watching.

This was clearly a D A N G E R O U S.. D I S P L A Y... and no one will convince me otherwise.

[ACMS]

ok I'll tone it down a little for those of faint hearts


The man is a DOPE.


He is supposed to be the best TAP have got, he rehearses it in the sim multiple times and then.....................STUFFS UP.

That is one lucky SOB.

[Chimbu chuckles]

He didn't make 'one mistake'...that would be the case if he 'ooopsed' the turn and then called off the rest of the display while the nerves stopped jangling...but he went on to complete a low level turn right around the field and then at least a couple of less than well considered low passes...one with lots of wing waggling that turned into a dutch roll demo and one that was WAY to Low and WAY too close to everyone/everything.

He was demonstrating himself...not the aeroplane...and from what I saw on that tape his raw flying skills are not up to much...or are his defenders suggesting the dutch rolling and slipping low turn were deliberate?

I think there is plenty of evidence over the decades that the very LAST pilot that should be picked by an airline for a display is the Fleet CP. The main reason why they shouldn't be picked is because, unlike a line pilot, they tend to feel a little invulnerable...who will dress down the boss if he pushes it a bit?

I would be willing to bet there is not a line pilot on the planet who thinks they would get away with that display and keep their job.

[flash8]

>I think there is plenty of evidence over the decades that the very LAST pilot that >should be picked by an airline for a display is the Fleet CP. The main reason why >hey shouldn't be picked is because, unlike a line pilot, they tend to feel a little >invulnerable...who will dress down the boss if he pushes it a bit?

As we saw in 1977... classic case, and often to be repeated (although not with such disastrous results thankfully)

>I would be willing to bet there is not a line pilot on the planet who thinks they >would get away with that display and keep their job.

I think a lot of us would assume we wouldn't have got away with it.... it was after all a non-existent margin.

[3Ten]

He didn't make 'one mistake'...that would be the case if he 'ooopsed' the turn and then called off the rest of the display while the nerves stopped jangling...but he went on to complete a low level turn right around the field and then at least a couple of less than well considered low passes...one with lots of wing waggling that turned into a dutch roll demo and one that was WAY to Low and WAY too close to everyone/everything.

He was demonstrating himself...not the aeroplane...and from what I saw on that tape his raw flying skills are not up to much...or are his defenders suggesting the dutch rolling and slipping low turn were deliberate?

I think there is plenty of evidence over the decades that the very LAST pilot that should be picked by an airline for a display is the Fleet CP. The main reason why they shouldn't be picked is because, unlike a line pilot, they tend to feel a little invulnerable...who will dress down the boss if he pushes it a bit?

I would be willing to bet there is not a line pilot on the planet who thinks they would get away with that display and keep their job.


You're mostly right Chimbu chuckles, in my opinion. But that's not the reason for my reply. It's just to call for the atention of the "top guns" that come around here, that it is possible to express one's opinion in an assertive manner, judging the man's actions not is motivation or character.

That's a fair comment, there are others alike here. This shows knowledge of how things work in aviation.

I don't think there will be anything much interesting on this subject till we get to know the consequences of this event.

[fox niner]

For those of you who think that it is allright to fly dangerously low at airshows, go and read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Holland

It's about colonel Bud Holland, USAF. He was the best B52 pilot they had, and flew at all airshows. Until......:ooh:

[Techman]

The point was made some time ago! What's with this constant repetition?

At some point the fascination with kicking a man when he is down must surely subside?

[Yossarian]

At every airshow I have participated in, there has been a comprehensive briefing for all pilots which has included many things, including the minimum altitude for the display. I have no idea what the limits were at this show. If it was lower than 200 feet we had to have a special clearance. Maybe he had it. If not, bad show!

Airshows are about pushing the limits beyond what is normal. I do not know what the limits were, so will not pass judgement. Do you know?

[Captain104]

IMHO these videos are shocking. No, I'm not a spotter, just a simple former Navy fighter pilot (some 2000 Hrs on Starfighter 104G), than FO, SFO,CPT on Boing 737,727,747 and in between Airbus 310-200/300, A 300-600ER. Watching some of the videos, perspective high or low, right or left, slope up or down, my blood is freezing.
May be, I lost the kick for the chicken game?
Those fellows of TAP I know, who I met in LIS,OPO or SIM in FRA were responsible professionals and exceptional nice characters.
We should be grateful, that this dangerous mistake did not end in a disastrous fireball.
I’m sure that this Captain will remember his action for the rest of his life. If he upgrades to A340, good luck for his remaining career.

Regards

[GearDown&Locked]

Chimbu chuckles wrote:
I think there is plenty of evidence over the decades that the very LAST pilot that should be picked by an airline for a display is the Fleet CP. The main reason why they shouldn't be picked is because, unlike a line pilot, they tend to feel a little invulnerable...who will dress down the boss if he pushes it a bit?


I tend to agree with you on that one. Another pilot would have been extra careful not to exceed himself nor the safety margins if he wanted to keep his job.

I believe that everyone at TAP was happy with the idea that the A310 fleets CP should have the honors of its type farewel. Was this the original mistake? I don't know, but this pilot will never forget what happened that's for sure, as I'm sure other pilots will use this for their own gain.

IMHO no one will dare to volunteer for another airshow anytime soon in these parts. So hurray for safety, which means anoraks will have to travel elsewhere.

GD&L

[Mr A Tis]

Question.
Is it not possible that the display plan had a huge margin of error inbuilt into the programme? As it turned out, this "margin" was called for, thus, because of this built in safety net, the display was "safe". ? Therefore the plan was responsible & demonstrates the saftey margins were appropriate.
Just another view, but would be nice to hear from the pilot, given the controversy.

[brain fade]

I think 'Captain 104' has it about right.

So the guy did something a bit wonky. Haven't you?

He got away with it. Haven't you? (and me)

Did he learn? like all of us?

What are we? Pricks who slag off our fellow pilots as if they were nothing to us?

Why not ground all a/c and make the accident statistics perfect!

Sheesh!:suspect:

[barit1]

I can think of only one mitigating factor, I'm not sure we've considered:

What is the terrain like over his exit path? If the runway is on a plateau, with a gully running off at an angle to the centerline, then perhaps he had more clearance than is evident in the videos. Mind you this is my SPECULATION - but if true, maybe this was better planned than we think.

Not that I approve, but then I've also seen some low-down Spit flybys that make me cringe. :=

[Gipsy Queen]

It's too far to backtrack in this long thread to find the author of "unnecessarily risky and doesn't have a prudent margin for error" so I apologise for the lack of attribution but I think this a fair summary of what in my view was damn poor airmanship. If he was the Chief Pilot, he should be taking tea and biscuits with himself.

It has been mentioned that one of the "permitting" factors was the ideal weather. Did whoever said this see the videos? Quite a bit of thermal activity suggested by the cloud development to be seen there, don't you think?

Regardless of the terrain, trigonometrics or any other attendant consideration, the fact that so many have responded to the poll in a manner critical of the seemingly reckless behaviour of the PF suggests that any public relations benefits flowing from the TAP/Airbus display were negated by the actions of the display pilot. This demonstration might have had the ghouls and thrill-seekers on their toes but it did nothing to instill public confidence in this particular carrier nor the professionalism of those to whom it entrusts the safety of its aircraft and PAX.

GQ.

[White Knight]

What you forget here Barit1 is that the Spit was designed to be thrown around, the 310 IS NOT:ugh:

[merlinxx]

A strimmer that nearly can do edging as well?

[rodthesod]

White Knight

I agree with regard to the Airbus.

However, the Spitfire was designed as a fighter aeroplane, not a lawnmower. I had tremendous respect for Ray Hanna, but he put his prop in the grass too many times leaving NO room for error. As someone else has suggested, what's the point of a display if a person in the second row of the crowd can't see it?

Regards,
rts

[andybangers]

Professional pilots who have ticked no.
I hope that was a typo. I for one do not want to see another fire ball cartwheeling down a runway.:=
Goodbye

[flyer7]

:ok:i think the manouver must be investigated by TAP saftey departement

[doubleu-anker]

Is the "Captain" a current and qualified airshow pilot? I think not.


Is the "Captain" an experienced and current agricultural pilot? I doubt it as even an experienced and current ag pilot would not even do something so stupid and so lack in discipline. It is just not worth it.


Another question. Why risk the lives of the F/O and anyone else on board and an expensive aircraft, by attempting to show everybody that he thinks, he is a good pilot. He may be a good manipulator of controls but the guy has just proved he has nothing between the ears. This sort of act is very often indicative of inexperience. This would normally be a hanging offence in any company, including ag operators.


My advise to him is this. If you want to extend the size of your penis, then do it somewhere else. Sex shops I believe, sell apparatus to do this without risk to life, limb and machinery.

I put my money on the guy being ex-military.:=

[Chuck Ellsworth]

For whatever it is worth, I hold an Airdisplay Authority for flying in airshows in Europe, we have a strictly regulated floor of 200 feet above the display area.

Not only does that floor give us safety for manouvering it also allows the spectators to actually see us.

[keel beam]

I love to see the big jets thrown around the sky at airshows, but this one was too low. I know you cannot accurately give the altitude of the flypast (I would guess 50 to 80 feet) or wing tip clearance off the ground in the turn (about 12 feet?) but this was irresponsible flying in my opinion (as a non pilot).
He got away with it this time.

[GearDown&Locked]

What is the terrain like over his exit path? If the runway is on a plateau, with a gully running off at an angle to the centerline, then perhaps he had more clearance than is evident in the videos. Mind you this is my SPECULATION - but if true, maybe this was better planned than we think.


Barit1, yes that is correct. This runway is located in a large flat area (large means almost 100 miles all around) and they had a bit more clearance at the wingtips considering the centerline height.

[colossus]

If this was sanctioned by TAP and the Portuguese aviation regulator then I have no problems with the pilot's actions as he was unable to show his considerable skill whilst staying within the rules.

However I think we can take it as read that the pilot would be able to do anything remotely like it in UK airspace which has very comprehensive rules about airshow safety (CAP403). This effectively goes back to a serious crash at Farnborough in the 1950's and is revised frequently in the light of findings from other incidents both in the UK and else-ware.

I think the Portuguese ought perhaps to revisit flying display regulations and consider bringing them in line with best European practise, however at the end of the day it's not for me to say.

To sum it up "considerable piloting skills demonstrated with the applicable rules".

The rules are highly questionable and open to discussion, the pilots actions are not.

[relax.jet]

This would have been just nice low pass, if it was Sukhoi 31. I don’t believe this man knew how low the wingtip would be.
It is just happiness that nothing happened.
At the end of the day, it was nice low pass but he risked too much. :=
Happy landings

[brit bus driver]

Have I displayed the A310 - yes.

Have I had a role in authorising public displays - yes.

Do I consider this footage to be of a reckless display of over exuberance - yes.

Or did he really just not realise just how reckless this was?

[doubleu-anker]

"Or did he really just not realise just how reckless this was?"

Good piont that. If he was chosen by TAP for the added responsibility of displaying an aircraft in public, then he must have been a senior pilot and high up the food chain. If he did not know how far his wing was from the ground, then this incident is even more disturbing.

[Loose rivets]

Is there a good estimate and reasonable consensus of the height of the wingtip at its lowest point? I think there is little doubt that we are seeing it from behind a rise.

Casting aside the legal issues for the moment, he was probably perfectly capable of repeating this-- time and time again without incident, but the wisdom, or lack of, is really the issue. As he turns, I see rooftops in the distance say, 30degrees to the left, pretty much where a damaged aircraft might wallow to.

I don't think for one moment that a wingtip scrape would cause a total loss near the point of impact, but an ensuing systems disturbance might, just might, see him heading towards the housing with a difficult to control airplane.

I think that in the ‘old days', he would have been considered an ace, but in the modern world, he seems to be a maverick. I wonder if there is any middle ground.

[nano404]

I can assure you that I would've been the first one there selling underwear after everyone shat themselves.

[Final 3 Greens]

Another video clip, from a different angle

Perhaps this might help display pilots and others to estimate height above the ground etc.

As a PPL, I am following the debate with interest, but not contributing due lack of knowledge/skills/experience.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk&mode=related&search=

[Techman]

15 pages of the same arguments and links to the same videos. Is it really necessary to continuously add nothing new?

It's time to close the poll and let this thread slide past page 1.

[jpsingh]

Airshows are meant to be exciting and the guys obviously practice the manouvres before they perform .Sometimes things go wrong like the TU 144 crash in the Paris Airshow...all a part of the Air show/display. With regular commercial flights its a different ball game all together...
:D:ok:

[View From The Ground]

Hadn't seen this You Tube link before....no we have the low flyby to comment on as well as the turn!!!....Not as my name indicates a professional pilot.....but I think the song 'Things that make you go Hmmmmm!' could apply to this display

[KATLPAX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpfTZ6AKVms
This one is new to me, long...I am surprised at how low and visually slow he remained after that slow bank once he goes for altitude during the turn (second pass in the clip).....wow...but keep watching...wow

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Display flying is about making the routine appear spectacular, the safe appear risky... It's about staying within limits, yet impressing nonetheless.

Anyone can throw a large aircraft about the sky and take risks. Often, it'll be the last thing they do.

Agreed, the impossibly low calibre of a great deal of the comment here is another nail in the lid of the Pprune coffin.



Could someone direct me to a place where professional pilots may carry on discussions using the marvelous resource that is the www, please?

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Kit, I'm not sure I understand your position on this display.
Are you approving of the display and feel it was professional or do you dissapprove?

Another issue that is interesting is would being referred to as " Big Balls " make for a more professional pilot?

If nothing else this display sure received a lot of comment.

[lomapaseo]

Display flying is about making the routine appear spectacular, the safe appear risky... It's about staying within limits, yet impressing nonetheless.

Anyone can throw a large aircraft about the sky and take risks. Often, it'll be the last thing they do.

Agreed, the impossibly low calibre of a great deal of the comment here is another nail in the lid of the Pprune coffin.

Most of the posts are "Pub" talk... mine's bigger etc.

It goes on ad infinitum on the web because most of the punches don't land on somebody's chin. There is just no way to resolve these kind of issues on the web. Suffice it that that the value you get is the News & Rumors, forget about the discussion if it has only opinion in it.

Hell we could of just abreviated the discussion, left the poll and locked the thread

[jetpilotataltitude]

Both captain and first officer should be suspended pending an investigation by the board of TAP and the regulating authority!

Quite simply he (they) were lucky to get away with what they did!:=

[anartificialhorizon]

Could someone direct me to a place where professional pilots may carry on discussions using the marvelous resource that is the www, please?



Flight deck ? ( in the cruise of course)

Hotel Bar?

Minibus to/from Crew Reporting?

It's a DISCUSSION forum !!!!!!:ugh:

It comprises of generally fact, fiction and rumours............:ugh:

What else do you expect? Put more than 2 people in a room to discuss a topic and guess what, you will get 2 or more points of view......:)

[helldog]

The poll says. Was the pilot acting dangerously, I belive not. Was he doing something dangerous then yes. Just as in the same way that a stunt man jumps a motorbike over 20 exploding cars. People have been paying for centuries to watch others do dangerous things, its called entertainment.

[fox niner]

Good point Helldog. I agree.
However, if your motorcyclist somehow messes up, he will end up in the pile of exploding cars by himself. There is no danger to the public.
If Mr. Hotshot messes up, he will cartwheel through the fields/spectators, towards the houses in the background. And this at 150 knots!

If you do the math, you will find out that 100 tons of A310 airplane doing 150 knots equals a lot more destructive energy than an F16 (15 tons) doing 300 knots. (at 10 feet at an airshow) And THAT is why this was so irresponsible.
....Besides being more manouvreable in an F16 at 300 knots.
....Besides the fireball that would result from around 15000kg of fuel in the A310
....Besides....

[Groucho]

Having done a bit of that sort of thing (not in a 310) I feel reasonably qualified to post.

It is impossible to vote on this poll - the fly-pasts appear to be skillfully executed and judged, I would assume the Captain has some previous low-level experience from the steadiness of the passes.

No, it does not seem DANGEROUS

Whether it was reckless depends very much on what he was briefed and approved to do. I would assume if there was a drastic breach of 'authorisation' that the matter has been sorted by now inside TAP.

I'd like to talk to the co-pilot......................:)

[Prangster]

Suspect he was carry out a crash practice. Its the only thing that makes sense! Unlike his airmanship

[xsbank]

Intentionally operating a transport-category aircraft in any manner that contravenes sops or the POH (etc.) is grounds for instant dismissal (when I am God) and if there are collections of gormless people who have paid to watch, that actually makes it worse.

There is no part of the normal operation of that a/c that condones that type of flying, ergo bingo, moronic.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

xsbank.

As an example of how easy it is to missjudge where your wing tips are in relation to the ground when turning that close to the ground in a large jet may I relate an example.

A few years ago I was at the Airbus factory and was getting sim training from one of the Airbus test pilots.

We were having a little contest to see who could do the fastest circuit in the A320.....we had been getting quicker and quicker with each circuit until the test pilot dragged a wing in a turn and it was all over....the sim is spectacular when you drag a wing...f..... near stopped my heart when it crashed.

Chuck.

[Tim Dawson]

Air shows aren't "normal" operations for aircraft.

[bubbers44]

Just got back from the Reno Air Races. Looks like a lot of the great flying we saw there. Performing at air shows is different and the performer is the one who decides how low he feels safe, not the observer.

[kiwi chick]

the performer is the one who decides how low he feels safe, not the observer

Um sorry but I see one thing wrong with this statement.

Anyone else?!!!!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[bubbers44]

kiwi, if you are talking about the race planes, yes three were busted for low flying this year, I am talking about the aerobatic and exhibition pilots like the guy dragging his wingtip doing his routine. He does the same thing every year and pulls it off every time. All the race planes have very strict rules on minimum altitudes and boundaries to not be disqualified.

[kiwi chick]

Um, no I wasn't, sorry.

Think I'd much prefer to be a nearby observer when tiny race plane noses in rather than an airbus.

If you know what I mean.

[bubbers44]

One race plane crashed right in front of the stands this year. It happened to be the jet race so left a quarter mile of fire with the main part right in front of us where it hit at about 500 mph. It was parallel to the runway on the far side so was no threat to the croud. The Airbus seemed to be following a similar path when it turned away from the croud. I have no reason to defend that pilot for his altitude but think he did not endanger the people on the ground watching his flyby. Seems like time to put this thread to rest.

[lomapaseo]

Quote:
the performer is the one who decides how low he feels safe, not the observer


Um sorry but I see one thing wrong with this statement.

Anyone else?!!!!!

No... ?? is there a mispelling or a period missing?

[sleeper]

How many pilots in history augered in because they "felt" safe?

There is a big difference between feeling safe and actually being safe.

[keepin it in trim]

minimum altitudes for maneouvres are usually stipulated, they are not merely at the discretion of the handling pilot. Not making a "gate" height or speed in a display usually requires you not to continue with the planned maneouvre.

I have not watched the video and have no knowledge of the gates or minimums they were working to, I therefore do not feel qualified to offer an opinion on whether this was safe or not.

I did however fly as a display crew member, displaying a large aircraft, for 2 seasons many years ago. It was very enjoyable, but also demanding and pretty unforgiving. During those 2 seasons there were a number of fatal accidents, not making the "gate" was a factor in at least 2 that I recall.

[barit1]

There is a big difference between feeling safe and actually being safe.

Once again I point out there is no hard line between "SAFE" vs "UNSAFE". It's all a matter of degree, and one must always make tradeoffs between safety vs getting the job done.

[sleeper]

"and one must always make tradeoffs between safety vs getting the job done."

If you mean military ops in wartime, then yes by all means.
In civilian display flying there can be no trade off. Or do you mean that the job cannot be done above, say 100, feet?

[barit1]

Of course not. 100 feet is safer than 50 feet. 500 feet is safer still.

And at what altitude did the TU-144 break up? Was that a "SAFE" altitude?

[Julian Hensey]

Technical question from a non driver here...

What alarms and warnings would be screaming at you doing this in the cockpit and could you override them?

and secondly I thought the Airbus had a max degree bank angle that no pilot could override - yet in this latest video it seems it is much exceeded on the fast run and left turn part of the video

just me being technical....

[Carnage Matey!]

"TOO LOW GEAR"
"TOO LOW FLAPS"
"BANK ANGLE"

You override them by switching off the GPWS.

The A310 isn't a FBW aircraft and doesn't have (AFAIK) a maximum bank angle. The FBW aircraft gave max bank angles of 60 degrees, far more than was achieved in this display.

[Avitor]

I am not a pilot but, damn it, the port wing of this aeroplane is not a plough. I voted appropriately, that the manoeuvre was dangerous. :sad:

[HotDog]

Better stick to tractors mate, he obviously didn't do the job properly.:E

[dragon521]

reg warnings

during the slow flyby with gear/flaps down there will be no warnings in the flt deck, because airplane is properly configured, me thinks

[3Ten]

this is why i don't fly with portugals best

i'm portuguese and i'm not very proud of what these cowboys do in the airspace! i've personally been involved in some seriously weird situations with this top company!!!


Please be specific, because this surely sounds like personal stuff, maybe you have something personal against this company and are just seeking revenge. Just a feeling...

[GSXR1K]

" this is why i don't fly with portugals best
i'm portuguese and i'm not very proud of what these cowboys do in the airspace! i've personally been involved in some seriously weird situations with this top company!!!"


Given the excellent safety record of TAP, i would say that you, sir, are an idiot.

3Ten, i thought something along the lines of your last post too...

[3Ten]

putting personal situations a side with TAP.


Well, I thought so...

[WAIF-er]

apologies in advance, having only started reading the post today and getting bored with all the irrelevant responses, I might have missed this one....

...what about all those light aircraft parked very close to the runway edge! vortex wake and all, its a wonder some of those werent flipped.

Im all for entertaining the crowd, but I dont see the point of flying so low and close to the spectators. Is it really worth the risk. We have standards in the UK which some would argue make airshows boring compared to the "good ol days", but rather that than running the risk of a complete disaster.

would an extra 50-100ft have made the display so less entertaining? I doubt it.

[seafuryfan]

From another forum...

Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX
A bit over the top dont you think , He is only flying an A310 like a Spitfire would but because its much bigger plane you dont think its right and its wrong I say good on them Why is it an insult to all competent display pilots.? I dont think they could do that in a A310 or the pilot could do what they do in Spitfire's or other warbirds plus it only looks like 4 flybys and thats it.

Did Virgin do something like this when they got there A340-600 at the Farnborough Airshow?



There are so many reasons for condemning this type of flying:

Unauthorised, dangerous manoeuvres such as this leave virtually no margin for error. One cannot judge ground-to-wingtip clearance from the cockpit of a large, banking airliner. The nose-up attitude of the aircraft and lack of sideways visibility available to the pilot is obvious. To think this aircraft was safe because it was not flying over the crowd is a lame excuse. Any number of people could have been killed or seriously injured.

The airliner routines seen at Farnborough are different, in that these PRACTISED, CALCULATED displays are conducted at a safe height, with escape options in the event of a system malfunction. The pilots are well versed with the slow speed capabilities of their machines because it is part of their day job during flight test.

It's incredible that after all the accidents of past years, pilots such as this still think they are infallible.

[3Ten]

seafuryfan

One can judge the wingtip clearence from the cockpit, that's probably why he didn't hit the ground, but one can easily be mistaken...

I realy thing he had a bad performance, to do that manouver he should have pulled before he rolled, and then bleed off some energy during the roll, that's the beautiful and safe way to do it. But he had no excess of energy, rolled first and was hanging on the engines during the turn. It wasn't beautiful, and it was dangerous, and I don't believe it went as trained in the sim. It's a pitty, he is capable of a better display, I don't know what got into him.

Since this is a site for rumors:

The acft was called in by maintenance for a rudder inspection, as result of the dutch roll in another of the low passes, as it as suffered abrupt rudder deflections. This story still has a lot to be told...

[el #]

There's another bit of footage where the a/c is seen yawing noticeably.
This can have to do with the need for rudder inspection as mentioned above.
In your opinion, even this manouver was unsafe or not to perform ?

[pira]

It is clear that there was no safety margin in the maneuver, specially for an airline pilot that normally operates within the company's SOP.
But if you want to see a really fly by, check the last guy on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJGVXpunZ_4

:}
Pira

[Avitor]

Gulp!! :eek:

[HotDog]

It is clear that there was no safety margin in the maneuver, specially for an airline pilot that normally operates within the company's SOP.
Pira, how can you make a statement like that? For all you know, that pilot could have been flying that lowest fast jet in your Utube video.:confused:

[3Ten]

I'd like to think that that manouver was unintentional and clumsy. Flying uncoordinated near the ground poses risks in every airplane, but those risks are unacceptable in a high momentum aircraft.

[Barkly1992]

Looked like a normal approach - followed by missed approach with just a slight turn executed just a bit early.

A what about camera angle? emm.

[HotDog]

This is getting a bit boring. I wonder how this thread would have developed if instead of the original title of "near disaster", it would have been named "great flying display by A320 at airshow"? Lemmings?

[mig500]

Only to say that Portuguese pilots are the BEST!!!

[moggiee]

The thing that struck me was the lines of aeroplanes alongside the runway - one slip to the right for anyone departing from that runway and you have a 40 aeroplane pile up!

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk

[fox niner]

It was safe!

Only to say that Portuguese pilots are the BEST!!!

Phew! Thank god. What a relief....I was rrrreallllly waiting for someone to tell me that.:hmm:
Never mind the fact that you have posted only ONCE in your entire life! You must be an expert.

(On topic)

There must be someone able to tell what the rules were at this airshow.
How low were airplanes allowed to go?

Come on, Portugese aviators, some of you guys were there at Evora. What were the rules? Tell us, because this information blackout is harming the Portugese aviation community.

[Question_Answer]

Hmmm, that really does look way too low. Is there any WIGE (Wing In Ground Effect) "helping" to keep this manouevre margainally less lunatic than it looks. Not that WIGE is going to help much if he over reacts with the controls!

[HotDog]

Plowing up the tarmac with the wing tip, taking out 40 light aircraft with a slip to the right, etc. How many more hypothetic IFs are forth coming? IF frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass!

[BraceBrace]

Think Chuck said it all.
The maneuver itself is not dangerous if you know what you're doing. But the pilots are pushing the limits and it takes less and less "unexpected" to cause a crash. And next time some other pilot will try better... that's the danger.
It's more difficult to say "stop" when reaching the limits, then to continue to prove something can be done on that tiny edge. The first type of guys are pilots, the latter are cowboys. These pilots are cowboys cause they like to proove they can work on the edge. Why turn so low?
We're all pilots, I'm sure 90% of us would be able to fly like this. Unfortunately some would like to show it to the public to...

[Danny]

The poll is now closed. In summary, out of 2,291 professional pilots who expressed an opinion, 81.4% believed that the pilot was acting dangerously and 18.6% didn't.

Out of the remaining 1,335 people who had an opinion, 76.7% thought the pilot was acting dangerously and 23.3% didn't.

Besides the vigourous debate going on, the poll shows that overall, most people believed that the pilot was acting dangerously. Whilst not a scientific poll, it does give an idea as to how the majority of people felt watching the display.

No doubt TAP hierarchy and shareholders will be making their views felt within the company. Hopefully, lessons will be learnt and the pedants on the thread can feel satisfied that they aired their views. :bored:

[JanetFlight]

In summary, out of 2,291 professional pilots who expressed an opinion, 81.4% believed that the pilot was acting dangerously and 18.6% didn't.

Sorry but with MY ALL KIND RESPECT I CANNOT AGREE NOR UNDERSTAND a single piece of what you wrote....!!!!!:=:=:confused::confused::confused:
How can you be so sure that among those 2291 Professional Pilots they are indeed Professional pilots and not any single Aviation Amateur, a Typical Net Foruns Surfer or any also other kind of Simulator "Crazy" Kid, behind the common mask of Internet/PC Chair...!!????:confused:
For sure at least 2290 were Prof. Pilots, cause one of them its my Lovely 12 Years Old Niece who joined this Board stating in her profile that she is a 744 Captain...:)
But we are positively sure that all the others are not lying....aren't we..??:cool:
Kisses to Everyone here...:ok:

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

From a statistical point of view, there's very little difference between the self-described "Professional Pilots" - 81.4%/18.6% - and the "non pilots" - 76.7%/23.3% - which would tend to suggest that even if a significant number of the self-described professionals are not, they would not greatly skew the results.

For example, suppose that of the 1931 "professionals", half are really not. Based on the "honest" non-professionals, that 1931/2=965 people should have split 0.767/0.233, or 740 "unsafe" and 225 "safe". Eliminating those from the sample on that basis gives:

"real professionals": 831 "unsafe" and 135 "safe" - a 86%/14% split.

In fact, as you can see, the more "fake professionals" you assume, the worse the resulting opinions of professionals ends up being....

[Postman Plod]

Besides, does it really matter if they are pretend pilots like your niece, or real ones? 75-80% of the people who voted in the poll think its dangerous, whether they are pilots or burger flppers. The stats have spoken.

[JanetFlight]

My Friends....I still respect all your critics and points of view as long as they are not offensive, wich fortunately its not the case....:)
But what i cannot tolerate at all its the fact that i got banned without using any bad or offensive words at all, and all who called this Crew such Offensive words as CRIMINAL, CLOWN or IDIOT are still here, AFAIK...:sad:
And No, Mike, im not Married..:O

[el #]

On the matter of poll votes coming from Pilots or pretending trolls: perhaps one useful improvement to pprune, that would also set the tone of many threads, is to reflect tis status under nickname after one is verified (don't ask me how).

Can I beg to ask again: is also the tailswagging considered dangerous ?

[cessnapete]

Janspeed,
I f you read the CAA report on this incident the BA crew were deemed to have carried out a safe operation. A B744 on three engines loses no systems, and is still Cat111C for landing. Flys a bit lower and slower, and as long as route has no implications if another engine shut down ,then no problem. The only reason the a/c diverted to Manchester was finger trouble on the crews part with fuel crossfeeding, leading them to believe they had unusable fuel. They in fact had ample fuel for Lhr.
A B744 on three engines has more redundancy than a fully serviceable Twin!!

[Flintstone]

Would that be the grassy knoll just below the wingtip in the videos? ;)

I'm pretty sure this thread has run out of steam until/if the results of any internal TAP investigation are published and/or someone can enlighten us as to the minimums allocated by INAC for the day in question but can I just make a request for anyone thinking of posting a video?

FFS please, please, please make sure it's not one of those from the preceding pages that we've seen half a dozen times (each) already. If you can't be arsed to read the whole thread before posting "OMG!! OMG!! LOOK AT THIS!!!:eek:" then do us all a favour and don't bother.

[rudekid]

Is it just my eyes, or do the various videos seem to show that the A310 rolls off some of his initial angle of bank during the turn, whilst maintaining (or even increasing) the pitch attitude?

This would suggest to me that internally they thought they'd overcooked the initial roll input.

As a military pilot and QFI, I've always taught and been taught that roll off the bank and keep the pitch was the most efficient and quickest way to avoid the ground. Just out of interest, I've a fair amount of time flying large aircraft (about 310 size) at low level and unless I was going over a big (1000') ridge, I'd always pitch before roll. I'd never initiate a turn with less than 100' on the rad alt and my ball park figure was 250' was the min for 45 degrees. Not saying this was right or wrong, but just some figures for those who would crucify from their MS FlightSim experience!

Is this a dangerous manoevre? Probably yes, as I suspect they overcooked it.

Did they get it wrong? Yes, IMHO.

Are the crew/airline/country reckless and negligent (although I appreciate they've already been hung by this 'professional' forum)? It's a bit difficult to tell for definite isn't it?

There but for the grace of God...

[The Flying Pram]

For my first post I'm not sure if this thread is the best place to start, but here goes. I've always enjoyed seeing large aircraft doing things they normally don't - it is more interesting than fast jets traveling fast! However when said aircraft is this low then it's time to call a halt. I am quite sure that just an extra 100ft of altitude would have meant this thread never reached 348 posts, regardless of how the PIC handled the turn (or not). I believe the laws of aerodynamics apply to airliners in much the same way as to my 365kg microlight: stalling speed increases in a turn. As the A310 had gear and a fair amount of flap down in the pictures and video, I assume it wouldn't (couldn't?) have been flying particularly quickly, and a sudden wind gust (as noted by many posters observing the clouds) could have easily reduced the wing tip clearance to zero. For this reason alone the turning pass was far more risky than any of the low level "clean & fast" passes referred to. I also agree with the comments regarding the proximity to parked aircraft and the effects of wake vortices, something I have to constantly watch for. Before I get shot down in flames I'm not perfect, and like most pilots have got it wrong on occasion, but doing something like this in full view of thousands of camera wielding spectators is pretty dumb.

[LGW Vulture]

The Guest Speaker due to appear at next week's UK Aviation Club lunch is none other than Mr. Fernando Pinto, TAP's CEO.

Now, shall I ask a question or two in front of a very distinguished audience?? :E

[FIRESYSOK]

Go ahead and ask. You all should know the Latin culture by now.

[yowdude]

dont know about you folks , but that was lousy flying even for an airshow.

[3Ten]

The Guest Speaker due to appear at next week's UK Aviation Club lunch is none other than Mr. Fernando Pinto, TAP's CEO.

Now, shall I ask a question or two in front of a very distinguished audience?? :E


That's a brilliant idea, and I sugest that after that, you come here and let us know how he managed to make you look like an idiot. Or do you think that Fernando Pinto will be intimmidated by your questions? If so, I believe you'll be the next one to be appointed as CEO of a national airline.

Good luck

[GearDown&Locked]

ah don't even bother 3ten... :ugh:

[JFA]

"Calculating from the FDR & all available video images, what was closest distance the port wing tip came to the ground?""What was the minimum authorised height/speed?"(I doubt it was the 3m - 5m as shown by the port wing tip)"What INAC approval, if any, was given to this event - & if so, what were the approved criteria for display?""What actions did you instigate when the publicity of the fly-past was brought to your attention?""If the pre-briefed/authorised manoeuvres/heights were breached, what action has been taken against the crew?"


These sample questions are a very good way to show how the "professionals" of this forum know about aviation in general. Do you even know what legislation applies to this situation?

Only the perverted minds of evil keypunchers can continue to pounder the display. It was too good for you to understand, get over it already.

People should stay with subjects they can handle, like computers and the Internet. Google does not give you all the answers, maybe a path, from time to time.

[lederhosen]

Answering Mike Jenvey's reasonable questions with another question hardly moves the debate forward.

The similarities at least in terms of potential ground contact, due to overestimating the capabilities of your aircraft remind me strongly of the tragic A320 crash at Habsheim. Senior pilots wanting to give an impressive airshow display, they almost went out with the kind of bang they were not intending! Fortunately they got away with it.

Fair enough to defend your colleagues or maybe even yourself, I personally am concerned by what the replies from apparent TAP insiders suggest about company culture and attitudes towards safety.

It can be difficult to spot the difference between sixteen year old spotters and real pilots. But whoever is posting some of this macho stuff is doing TAP no favours.

[fendant]

My take-away: TAP = T ake A nother P lane:sad:

Frank

[3Ten]

Mike Jenvey wrote:

Bom dia, 3Ten. I guess that with your profile, you probably (certainly?) know/knew the pilots concerned.......? :hmm:


Yes, you're right. Don't really know where you're pointing at, since, if you also read my previous posts, you could see that I strongly disaprove 2 of the maneuvers performed that day.

I also know Fernando Pinto, and additionally, I know the proper places to take care of things.

lederhosen wrote:

Fair enough to defend your colleagues or maybe even yourself, I personally am concerned by what the replies from apparent TAP insiders suggest about company culture and attitudes towards safety.


The problem with this forums is that, if someone comes here to the last pages without reading from the begining, may grab a totally wrong idea based on this inconsequent statements.

I'm not TAP, I don't aprove the display, I voted "YES, dangerous", and I don't see many insiders here. But I'm a professional, unlike many here.

We even see a swiss guy here saying "take another plane". Did it strike you that it's very easy to interpret a swiss motivation against TAP?

[lederhosen]

3ten you imply that many people may not have read previous posts, which suggests it is you making assumptions. The vast majority of ppruners, including by your own admission yourself, think this was poor flying.

I am having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make. Previous posts have named the pilots and their roles at TAP. You say you know them and Mr Pinto.

You go on to say that the trouble with Pprune is that people may get the wrong idea ´based on this inconsequent statements´(sic). This implies that my points were not logical and indeed incorrect.

I can't believe you have not seen the video of Capt. Asseline's low pass and crash at the Habsheim airshow on the 26 June 1988. I do not think further commentary on that sad episode is necessary.

If our chief pilot did something like this which reflected badly on the company he would be in pretty deep water. I fail to see a lack of logic in pointing out that this episode reflects badly on TAP.

We can all resort to name calling. Let us just stick to the facts.

However as an airline captain and long time pprune lurker I can reveal that it was JFA's timeless prose which finally drove me to contribute an opinion. "Perverted minds of evil keypunchers can continue to pounder the display" really is a classic even by pprune standards.

[3Ten]

lederhosen, we seem to agree in general terms. My point is mainly to refresh information, and leave clearly stated that I don't aprove what happened, and I'm not an insider. This facts have been challanged in the last posts.

No organization is exempted of having one of it's members performing against it's culture. Lack of safety is not a recurrent issue with TAP or portuguese airlines, but this topic has become a insulting ground. We even have here considerations about Latin culture.

Gi'me a break

[lederhosen]

I am glad we seem to be in agreement, at least mostly, and am happy to give your intentions the benefit of the doubt, if that is what you meant by "Gi'me a break".

By the way just for the sake of clarity, "company culture" is a general term used to describe attitudes and behaviours within an organisation and has no automatic connotations of racial stereotyping. I am pretty sure you were not suggesting my post was denigrating Latin culture, but just wanted to be sure any non english native speakers were not confused.

What I think is important to understand is that when respected senior pilots provide a poor example there is a danger that others may follow. TAP in my opinion has always had an excellent reputation for safety and I would suggest a robust statement by the company, if it has not already done so, could only help matters.

[3Ten]

What I think is important to understand is that when respected senior pilots provide a poor example there is a danger that others may follow. TAP in my opinion has always had an excellent reputation for safety and I would suggest a robust statement by the company, if it has not already done so, could only help matters.

I fully agree with this, although I hope there is enough silent criticism inside the company to prevent followers, but I believe the company position must become explicit.

Latin culture issues had nothing to do with your post, it was a previous one, and "Gi'me a break" is really oriented to uncivillized posts, not yours.