Cathay pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt'

[Old Fella]

The saddest thing in all this saga is that some people from the sacked pilot's own company have been quick to stick the knife between his ribs with personal attacks, not only on his doing of his management job, but also his personal life.

Those guilty of these sort of comments have probably been admonished by the Chief Pilot at some time, likely with just cause. Seems the "Tall Poppy" syndrome lives on within CX.

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb today

Fired Pilot's Boss In Cockpit During Fly-By
As we reported last week, Ian Wilkinson, a senior Cathay Pacific captain, was fired three weeks after he did a high-speed, low-level pass over a Seattle-area airport in a new Boeing 777 he was delivering from the factory. It wasn’t the stunt that got him fired, it was the fact that he didn’t have permission to perform the fly-by, something the airline occasionally allows for airshows. But a story in Sunday’s Asian World News, reprinted by The Earth Times, raises the question of just how much authority Wilkinson needed, since the chairman of the airline, Christopher Pratt, was in a cockpit jumpseat for the whole performance. The airline confirmed that fact but said Pratt, who runs one of the biggest airlines in Asia, couldn’t be expected to know that the stunt wasn’t “authorized,” "The chairman is not an aviator and he was fully aware that the captain was in full command of the flight," an unidentified spokeswoman said. "There was no request or suggestion from anyone in Cathay Pacific for the fly-by to take place. The decision was entirely that of the captain in command." The spokeswoman also denied that Wilkinson’s firing had more to do with the publicity surrounding the stunt, which was featured on YouTube, than company protocol. “The YouTube video only confirmed what was already becoming known. The internal investigation was well underway prior to the video appearing online,” she claimed. However, an unidentified source reportedly told a German magazine that it was felt the incident “makes our airline look like a bunch of cowboys.” Wilkinson was paid three months’ severance and keeps his company pension. He has not been available for comment. His maid reportedly told the newspaper he’s on holiday in Thailand.

[jetopa]

I do not quite understand what all this is about. The maneuver they were flying would certainly not qualify as aerobatic and flying close to the ground in a transport category aircraft is not at all unusual - at an airport, that is.

And: real 'Top Gun' aviators will probably just raise an eyebrow or so, when watching this video.

The only thing I can see is reckless operation acc. to FARs, if it turns out that the pilots did not state their intentions prior to this fly-by and received the appropriate clearance.

I can see the point though why the management is nervous. Showing off sometimes results in unnecessary and silly screw-ups - like the one in the A320 in France in the 80s, which most of us will remember...

[edgit]

It seems many of you are so quick to judge and in such a hurry to see the complete end of any freedom/discretion we may still posses in this thankless job. Small wonder we're left with an industry in such a state.
Have any of you judging this have actually ever flown a heavy/large jet low level or in a flypast ?,
we should be far more concerned with the airline's treatment of the crew.
Really guys what have we become!

[Dream Land]

a fly past .....so what !! Not too many will disagree with you, however to do this type of pass requires a person to obtain permission from the FAA, a flight department manager should realize this.

[akerosid]

Boeing has delivered the 700th 777 ... to Cathay Pacific.

http://www.jetphotos.net/news/index.php?blog=1&title=boeing-delivers-700th-777-aircraft&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Wonder if they did anything special to mark the occasion ... dare I say, a flypast?

[broadreach]

Not sure how far I'm digressing from the rights or wrongs of the fly-by but, having read some of apalling posts on the Fragrant Harbour thread, the issue of anonymity kept hitting me over the head: regardless of how anonymous someone might think he/she is, how could they possibly wish the plagues expressed therein on a colleague?

Whatever the reason, by coincidence the NY Times has a blog going on the issue of email anonimity... in blogs, and whether that led to the suicide of Paul Tilley, a DDB (advertising agency) executive in Chicago, a few days ago. Did the personal attacks contribute to his decision etc and should anonymity be abolished etc. Most of the respondents in the blog linked to below seem to think not (unsure whether the link works for non-subscribers; if not try googling "Paul Tilley").

Anonymity is a question occasionally raised in Pprune. And the CP Seattle fly-by fallout's created a fair amount of pro- and con- discussion but nowhere near the anonymous vitriol expressed in FH.

And I thought my old company had its politics! Yikes.

The link is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/business/media/03blog.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=suicide&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Somehow I doubt whether Captain Wilkinson is entertaining similar thoughts from a beach somewhere in Thailand. I rather like to imagine him designing, in his own mind, Christmas cards for some of the the anonymous FH posters. Or, perhaps, cards for 1st April.

[alternatelaw]

Back when Dan's went on the last day, B1-11, we all did fly bye byes at LGW and BOH if traffic permitted.
Some very low very fast at idle and very very noisy on the pull up.
Difference?Guess we were already fired. and no flydras or videos to record them ,Shame.
Ian, Etihad are looking for Engrish speaking pirates.
Great video.
Good luck!
Alt

[BigginHillBoy]

From my standpoint its just a sad story. An innocent flyby, well excecuted and cool manouver. Dangerous? Well, you can say yes but so is getting out of bed each morning. My thougts go out to the pilots. You meant well, you did a cool thing - SAFELY - everybody had some fun then you got fired. Shame.

[Buzzerd]

Canned Cathay Pacific Pilot Had High-Level Company In Cockpit

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dd26f951-f403-4e32-a320-f1c0403c30d3&

[rubberman1974]

"Tower this is Cathay. Requesting Fly-by". "Negative Cathay the pattern is full". "It's time to bust the tower goose"

All jokes aside.....

It seems ironic this cowboy has been part of the interview process for Cathay pilots only very recently...... prattling on about the airline's professionalism, and high standards of discipline, and the need for a potential pilot to have a clean and polished career. Suffice to say many a good pilot has missed out on a career with Cathay based on this hypocrites double standards! Most pilots grow out of "beat-ups" when they graduate from cessna 152's...

[broadreach]

The "anonymity" post wasn't meant as bait; perhaps it's just mention of the word that brings out the anthropofagy.

[Milt]

Gasp Gasp this is becoming unbelievable!

We now have many airline pilots admitting that they are unsafe in flying their aircraft straight and low level along an empty runway. The last one is even calling what used to be a "low pass" a "beat up".

Forgotten are the tactics used in WW2 when newly trained pilots were often expected to survive by getting down in the weeds or leave a surface disturbance over water as they passed by. Unsafe at thse extreme low levels - yes - but better than being shot at from behind or below. Where do we now draw the line?

Can we have a few opinions on what is now considered by the least skilful airline pilots to be a minimum safe vertical clearance for a runway low pass?

Would a tower fly by to achieve a gear condition sighting be beyond your skill levels?

The minimising of hands on flying training has reached the serious stage.

[411A]

500 agl is reasonable and prudent, for those that still have the 'cowboy' instinct.
Most pros have passed this stage a long time ago.
Perhaps the CX guy was a late bloomer?:}:rolleyes:

[rmiller774]

I can't believe he has been "fired" forever. He is too valuable. After six months of the company looking tough, he will be back.

[rubberman1974]

One obvious difference from WWII mate..... He aint got anyone shootin' at him, his gear didn't have any problems.... he just wanted to inflate his ego with a show off amateuristic and poorly executed stunt!

[Old Fella]

"He just wanted to inflate his ego, show off amateuristic and poorly executed stunt"

Come on Rubberman1974. Just how thoroughly have you looked at what took place? Hardly a high speed run with partial flap and leading edge devices extended. Certainly was a "tad" low, but totally controlled event, smoothly executed.

How do you think you would have gone executing the same low level pass?

[Chris Scott]

Quotes from rubberman1974:

"he just wanted to inflate his ego with a show off amateuristic and poorly executed stunt!"
[Unquote]

Scrutiny of the photos suggests quite the reverse. As for inflating his ego, I bet it inflated the morale of many of the unsung workers at the Boeing factory.

"ironic this cowboy has been part of the interview process for Cathay pilots only very recently...... prattling on about the airline's professionalism, and high standards of discipline, and the need for a potential pilot to have a clean and polished career."
[Unquote]

So now we know the real reason for your diatribes? They seem to be saying more about you than Captain Wilkinson. Having been turned down at selection interviews myself (no, not Cathay), I reflect that it is impossible for any professional to reach the top of his or her career (I didn't) without putting noses out of joint on the way.

Whatever the merits (or otherwise) of these traditional fly-bys, I agree with broadreach, who has no axe to grind.

[BigginHillBoy]

Milt said it

"The minimising of hands on flying training has reached the serious stage".

I agree with all my heart.

[rubberman1974]

Come on guys.... It wasn't me who tried a pointless stunt! How can it be a reflection of me! Everything I pointed out was factual. Like it or not this guy flew a dangerous and unnecessary stunt. Smells like some forum members here are of the Cathay "Long shirt brigade"?

[M.Mouse]

Certainly was a "tad" low, but totally controlled event, smoothly executed.

WHich was fortunate.

You are missing the point though. Certainly in the UK no display pilot that I am aware of is authorised to fly that sort of manoeuvre at that height.

The potential for disaster, and I mean disaster, is very high. It was not his aeroplane, the passengers had no choice and he was not a display pilot.

His punishment might be debateable but the foolishness of the stunt is not.

[Old Fella]

M.Mouse, I have not missed the point. I agree that the fly-by was lower than most would expect, allegedly unauthorised. My response to Rubberman1974 was more to question his comments regarding the "inflated ego" and "amateuristic and poorly executed stunt" flown by the, now former, B777 Fleet Captain.

It seems to me that many of the comments made in condemnation of Capt Wilkinson have been made without any first-hand knowledge of the reason for the "fly-by" or with whose authority.

Your comment that there was potential for "real disaster" in the conduct of a "foolish stunt" by a pilot whom you declare to not be a "display pilot" is probably also made without any knowledge of the circumstances or the history of the pilot. The primary mistake made by the pilot was to have made the "fly-by" with the gear retracted. If he had extended the gear the event would most likely have gone without comment, not unlike a missed approach made at airports all over the globe on a daily basis.

[Nigd3]

Can I ask a few, maybe uninformed questions?

1 - As chief pilot of an airline, Capt IW should be aware of company SOPs with regards this type of thing? Correct
2 - He should also be aware that by breaking company SOPs that he could be up for disciplinary action, however harsh?
3 - Is it wise to take an airliner so low with gear up, that has recently suffered a crash due to loss of thrust on approach, especially whilst the investigation is still ongoing?

Personally I dont think the punishment fits the crime, however he was foolish to something like that, without authorisation and with his big bosses on board. I cant believe a CEO would have any idea if it was authorised or not but I can believe he would be pretty p1ssed when he found out it wasnt.

[HotDog]

Old Fella,
If he had extended the gear the event would most likely have gone without comment, not unlike a missed approach made at airports all over the globe on a daily basis.

As usual, when a thread exceeds more than a few pages, posters can not be bothered to read any but the last few inputs. So just to put it back into perspective, note the following.

Capt. Ian Wilkinson was the 777 chief pilot, Cathay CEO was sitting in the jumpseat, enjoying an entirely safe flyby manouver that has been practiced by Cathay and other airlines taking delivery of new aircraft from Boeing's Paine field on many occasions. It appears that the previous delivery flight of a 777-300ER, flown by the deputy chief pilot of the CX 777 fleet, carried out a similar gear up fly past previously.

CX Director of Flight operations, praised Ian Wilkinson's flypast and included a picture of it on his weekly report in Crews News.

Some people say Wilkinson was sacked, not because of the flypast but because he did not have CX approval to do so.

Presuming he had sought approval from the DFO, his immediate superior, the answer no doubt would have been; you are the 777 Fleet Captain, if you think it's safe, carry on. Any other pilot's request for a flypast approval would have ended up on Wilkinson's desk before DFO approval was issued or rejected. The present DFO, by the way, is not pilot qualified.

Not having the gear down had nothing to do with Wilkinson's dismissal. What got him the sack was the youtube video which, with the best of intentions shoved this matter into public domain and unfortunately generated a lot of negative comments, most of them from uninformed and unqualified commentators which placed the company between a rock and a hard place.:sad:

[gofer]

If - as suggested by the press - Pratt & Gibbs were both in the cockpit at the time - then they are as much to "blame" as IW - unless they both told him not to do a low level flyby. Have they been SUSPENDED or fired - NO - so it is a two standard company (something we all who remember the 49'ers already knew).

3 months suspension without pay - I could have understood, Fired - hypocritters of the first water....:ugh:

[Nigd3]

Come on Gofer

An exec in the jump seat being as culpable as the PIC who is also the chief 777 pilot. I cannot believe that you seriously think that :suspect:

[GHOTI]

Thanks for the photo! It's now my Mac's desktop background!!!

[Brian Abraham]

He aint got anyone shootin' at him

You joking, right? Reckon a lot of posters here are manning 40mm quad Bofors

[Old Fella]

The Rev HOT DOG.

If you care to read all of my posts you will note that I have defended Capt Wilkinson in each of them. Personally I do not believe that the "fly-by" was, at any stage, an unsafe situation.

Capt Wilkinson certainly seems to have been the victim of "perceived" bad press/comment. Some of the comments aimed at him have seemingly been made by disgruntled members of Cathay and many have been made by people with little or no knowledge of operating an aircraft. Worst of all the comments are those which attack Capt Wilkinson on a personal level, both in relation to his position within Cathay and his family life.

I am now retired, have no axe to grind, and enjoy an occasional flight as a Private Pilot. It is to be hoped that Capt Wilkinson comes out of all this furore in better shape than some of his so called "friends" within Cathay.

[HotDog]

Old Fellow, I am aware of your attitude in the defence of Ian Wilkinson and don't question it in any way. The only disagreement I voiced was with your statement that all would have been well, had he made the fly-past with gear down. The only difference in my humble opinion it would have made, was to spoil a beautiful picture.:ok: Cheers, HD.

[Old Fella]

Thanks HD. Seems essentially we are on the same team. As for the comment of Mavrik1, it seems you may have been rejected by CPA at some time.

[Fork Handles]

All this "not a dispaly pilot " etc etc is a load of tosh. It was a fly by not an aerobatic dispaly. Yes there was risk, but not as much as the pr1ck who let his junior fo nearly wipe out an airbus in germany.
It is usualy rattled out by the ex raf fast jet boys so far up their own and the CAA backsides they think they have the monopoly on being competant.
He broke the company rules thats it. He doesnt need to have singlehandedly sunk the belgrano or built his own spitfire to achieve that.:E

[tunalic2]

Disciplined maybe if not all boxes ticked

Sacked definitely not

Its a sad world

T2

[vrlsktry]

I am unsure of Mr. Wilkinson's exact age, but if he wants to continue flying after having seen this side of aviation, I am sure he'll have no issues finding a new job.

There's a great demand for experienced captains in many parts of the world, and I am sure as long as he says in the interview that he's learnt his lesson, I see no reason why any airline would not hire him. He sounds quite senior and should be in cockpit sooner rather than later (should he so want).

An isolated flyby (likely with vocal permission from management) does not mean the pilot is reckless during sceduled flights operations as well. I wish him luck, as a passenger I'd have no qualms flying with him as captain.

I also feel that although CX reaction sounds harsh, they are fundamentally doing the right thing. Airlines need to take a very uncompromising stand in any such incident because this sends a message to all pilots in the organization. Given how much effort and expense is employed in making sure that no incidents take place, any step out of the ordinary or mundane needs to be addressed in an uncompromising manner to protect the company in future.

I do not hold the other people in the cockpit responsible, they weren't in command. And I am sure they have all learnt their lessons too.

[CaptainFillosan]

Some have and some haven't seen the point of this fly-by. It might be summed up in one word - tradition! A thank you to all the workers to let them see the results of their endeavours. It's been done for years and years. If that is not tradition what is?

The management of CX, whoever they are, are foolish to give themselves the privilege of an OTT re-action. It is time, if indeed they have the balls, to say to IW 'OK, we got it wrong, now we know what was really meant by it.'

But have they the balls? I rather doubt it somehow. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[handflying]

at least one post out of 15 pages that mentions environmental effect....apparently 106$ a baril isn't enough yet...but who cares!!!
its not the topic...i can entertain myself flying visuals trying to save 2-300kg on every approach but some apparently don't think that way...

[Cam32]

It's not a stunt if the gear is down. added (Hotdog) :ok:

I think this guy's career with Cathay is over now. The lawyers will make sure of it. If not in a lower capacity. I have no objection to what he did. But of course the agreement prior with Cathay (not the dude he was drinking with last night) would have saved his a$@e.

Good luck to him. Lots of jobs for experienced people out there.

Congrats on one of the best videos on the net. :D
(ok hamburgh has taken your limelight now)

[NOR116,20]

I also feel that although CX reaction sounds harsh, they are fundamentally doing the right thing. Airlines need to take a very uncompromising stand in any such incident because this sends a message to all pilots in the organization. Given how much effort and expense is employed in making sure that no incidents take place, any step out of the ordinary or mundane needs to be addressed in an uncompromising manner to protect the company in future.


Fundamentally doing the right thing?
If CX management came to the conclusion that he had broken the rules not obtaining prior permission for the fly-by they could have dealt with it in a different manner e.g. suspending him from fleet chief position or imposing another similar penalty giving a clear message to CX pilots for the future.
But sacking a high senior pilot like him was nothing but satisfying press and public, and that’s cheap! And for sure it is no means to strengthen corporate identity of employees.

[parabellum]

It wasn't the press or public CX had to please, it was the Hong Kong CAD, if CX had taken lesser action it would have been seen by the CAD as giving them the finger after their intervention.

I doubt there will be any lawyers involved either. I have been told by an employee that in CX, if you are sacked, they are only obliged to pay you that part of the provident fund that you paid in but if you agree to go quietly then you get the lot.

[ACMS]

1/ CX 3337 requested a flyby, it was approved by the Tower.
2/ CX 3337 flew lower than the "normal" flyby at Everett and the Tower controllers had a poo in their pants and filed a complaint.
3/ The FAA complained to Boeing.
4/ Boeing complained to Cathay.

...................Corporate Safety Dept investigation.

IW sacked.

Now we wait for the appeal process.

[Gipsy Queen]

"The primary mistake made by the pilot was to have made the "fly-by" with the gear retracted. If he had extended the gear the event would most likely have gone without comment, not unlike a missed approach made at airports all over the globe on a daily basis."

The validity of this point, made by others too, escapes me.

Regardless of the safe/unsafe aspects of this case, how is the novelty/excitement attending taking delivery of a new aircraft to be conveyed/displayed in demonstration of just another missed approach recovery? Other than preventing an inadvertent pod scrape, what's the gear going to do in these circumstances? Norralot of excitement in watching the thing lumbering past at Vmca+5 I wouldn't have thought.:rolleyes:

[ACMS]

no i guess not.

But if he'd done a normal approach at flap 30 followed by a nice GENTLE go-around ( slow rotation to climb att ) down the runway at 60 feet or so followed by a steepish climb cleaning up it would have achieved 2 things:

1/ a flyby of sorts, quite low and loud. nice

2/ within Company SOP's, not triggering any FDAP and not requiring approval.

So i can see this point as valid.

[Gipsy Queen]

Quite so, ACMS, but this sort of thing is regularly observed from Spotters' Corner and, frankly, is no big deal.

We're not talking Concord here. The V-bombers were wonderful at this type of display but with respect, I think it would be awfully tame done by a Triple Seven. Where's the joy? The excitement?

Perhaps I'm just too old. I saw Capt. Wilkinson's manoeuvre performed by the Comet after a record-breaking trip to Australia in, I think, 1953. Even if Pprune had been about then, nobody would have posted (at least, not negatively) as it was seen by everyone as an act of celebration at a time when we still had some accomplishments to celebrate. No Milt, we don't need any hands on stuff anymore. Time has passed us by.

Time for my Horlicks . .:ouch:

[gsora]

He was showing off with pax aboard, got what he deserved.:ugh:

[Bronx]

gsora He was showing off with pax aboard, got what he deserved, should be permanently grounded. :ugh: Permanently grounded?
So says a guy who was a mil techie on Shackletons 30 years ago, then got a motorglider ticket and a couple of months ago didn't understand ETOPS. :ugh:

[forget]

Priceless :p

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

Yes, but isn't GSORA entitled (and just as qualified?) to an opinion just as much as a New York Police Heli puke is?

[Randver]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FwcCiQS_F3A

[punkalouver]

Why would they? He had permission.

[Dream Land]

Why would they? He had permissionA low approach is conducted at 500 FT AGL, a half arsed BUZZ job is what they got. :ugh:

[Rotor n Wings]

I suppose he Thought Get m Low and Get m Slow

[FAStoat]

Having done these in the past at the Manufactures Airfield,to the cheers and kind regards from ATC,I was asked to do a Low App/Goaround on a Farepaying Flight to a Northern Maintenance base.It was o'crack sparrow,and only the LMC guys were on the Pan with their respective charges.I abstained ,thinking it would be nice,BUT!!!!!!Discretion is the better part of valour.I did ask the current Demonstration Captain,what he would have done;he told me in words of one syllable that I would be hauled before the Beak,if I had transgressed the rules.Remember,Chaps,there are hundreds of First Officers out there wanting your job!!It would be a Bean Counters dream to replace a Senior Expensive Captain with a New less expensive one,promotion for a First Officer,and the list of Pilots would actually see movement up the ladder.I dont think anyone would miss the offender,if it came down to it.With the CAA Spanish Inquisition looking on,all" Dots and Crosses" must be sorted beforehand,because not even Chief Pilots or Fleet Managers are fireproof,if the odd dagger is out to get you.:bored:

[Brian Abraham]

hundreds of First Officers out there wanting your job

Was a regular feature of our place of work where co-pilots kept the chief pilot fully informed of anything and everything captains did. The reverse never happened as far as I'm aware.

[FAStoat]

Mores the pity,but that is the way it is!!When Lightnings went in 88,it bacame a forgotten piece of releasing steam.Anyone who saw a standard arrival or departure from them or an 892 "Toom",would know what it is to see a nice flyby with a certain amount of flair.The oldies at Kemble are reserved for that now,I think.Handlers are not encouraged any more,so the thought of low passes brings management into cold sweats.I dont know what the youngster think about it today,but the Fun police have removed enjoyment from most aspects of poling in this PCWorld,so RIP.

[broadreach]

Wonders of tv. I've just seen, live, a Qantas 747 doing a low pass over the starting line at the Melbourne GP. Was it safe or unsafe?

a) he was over 500' agl
b) he had gear down and loads of flap
c) he was wagging his wings

I use "he" not having been able to see the sex of the pf.

Somehow I suspect gear down didn't make much difference and 500 ft if that's what it was, was just another aircraft passing overhead; why waste the fuel?

Interested to know what people think would have been a safe but "wow" agl.

[BigginHillBoy]

Lets not forget to have some fun every now and then. Thats my policy.:ok:

[Desertia]

Watch out for the Bahrain Grand Prix, they do low flybys there as well.

Very impressive (scarily so!).

[SLF3]

If he did it empty, or everyone on board knew what was intended, no problem.

If he did it unannounced with a load of passengers who had not signed up for it- irresponsible.

[Bucket]

We can bat this story back and forth ad infinitum and the correct answer (if such a thing exists) will elude us all. A manoeuvre such as this can be done safely and correctly. The PR aspect has value and merit however we live in a world of increased and often unwarranted concerns over our own health and safety.


Our existences are becoming increasingly sterile and joyless. :(

So...we find solace and thrills in other avenues of life and the smile and euphoria that this feast of aeronautical celebration brings is removed from us and a collective guilt and slap on the wrist is inflicted upon those who dare imbue a little colour to an otherwise bland day.


Get it right and you reap the rewards, get it wrong and you'll pay with you life. I've seen or heard of too many of these incidencies going pear shaped with fatal consequences. Many of them were wreckless and foolhardy and just plane stupid.

I don't think this one falls into those categories but at best was unwise not because the execution lacked any intrinsic skill or forethought per se but more perhaps because it was presumptuous. Permission should have been sought from the correct authorities and management. It is hard to see that it would have been denied.

It is a set piece manouvre and can be done in a straight forward manner.

Tex Johnson got away with something a little more daring and the rest is history. God Bless Him...

;)

[Bucket]

Whilst agreeing with the spirit of the post above, the bird strike risk assessment thesis is no more valid than the same risk assessment had the aircraft been in the landing config.

Are we assuming the worst case and having BOTH engines stuffed to the gills with our feathered brethren? Same as on a climb out from missed approach surely. Almost impossible to gauge the odds on that one happening.

Better not to do these activities at all then if the worst should happen our wives and girlfriends, family and friends can all attend the subsequent funerals with a greater sense of peace knowing that some geek with a clipboard did his H&S risk assessment.

Where's my Hi Viz?

:rolleyes:

PS. Just noticed the post that I was responding to has vanished. Where for art thou?

:confused: