Cathay pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt'

[zumBeispiel]

If true, this must be up there with the 707 barrel roll - something in the Seattle drinking water supply, perhaps?

Boeing pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt'

February 24, 2008 - 2:29PM


An expatriate pilot with Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific Airways has reportedly been fired for performing a Top Gun-style stunt in which he swooped metres over a runway in a new Boeing passenger jet.

Ian Wilkinson was piloting the Boeing 777-300ER on its maiden flight from the manufacturer's plant in Everett, Washington, when he turned around after take-off and swooped around 10 metres over the runway, the South China Sunday Morning Post reported.

Cathay Pacific chairman Chris Pratt was among the VIP passengers on board the plane when Wilkinson did his unauthorised fly-by of the Boeing factory on January 30, the newspaper said today.

Wilkinson was sacked over the incident at a disciplinary hearing last week, while a second, unidentified pilot, believed to be the co-pilot, has been suspended from training duties for six months, according to the Post.
Videos and photographs of the swoop have been posted on the internet and pilots' gossip forums, with some praising the stunt but others describing it as dangerous and poorly executed.

A Cathay Pacific spokeswoman told the newspaper that Wilkinson insisted the fly-by was "not dangerous" but said he had been sacked for not seeking approval for the manoeuvre.

The airline had a well-established approval process for such manoeuvres and had conducted them in the past at air shows but only "with proper approval in place", she said.
DPA

(from www.theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au))

[Arfur Dent]

Fly past was perfectly safe and described by the Cathay DFO as 'spectacular' in his weekly newsletter to the crews. He attached photos of the flyby which looked very spectacular indeed.
As soon as the rumours of the pass being unauthorised started, however, a rapid 'distancing' stance was adopted ending up with a complete 180 by said DFO who put out a notice to crews saying that the pilot had been terminated etc etc.
Leadership in the modern age eh?
Hard luck Ian - now you know how the 49ers felt!!:ok: At least you were afforded the benefit of a Discipline and Grievance procedure - they weren't.

[Basil]

All being discussed in Fragrant Harbour forum.

[ZAGORFLY]

The video is gone,
Recently happens that anything embarrassing is going to be censored in U-tube. Is the case of the disastrous RTO test of the A340-600 by Airbus and now the low pass of the CX 777 in SEA. However for those who missed the show nobody can says that it wasn't a safely done maneuver. However it appear also from this photo that she had and AOA quite pronounced since her tail under fuselage was almost parallel to the ground.

looking than the last picture something is dramatically missing: the landing gear.

[Optimus-Prime]

Another picture.

http://i29.tinypic.com/2gy1xg4.jpg

[fox niner]

Well, that CX flyby surely looks safer than the flyby done in Evora, Portugal last summer, during an airshow.;)
Remember? TAP Airbus 300 doing a flyby with its tip in the grass. And that pilot didn't get fired!

[llondel]

What's that, about 40ft off the tarmac?

[FE Hoppy]

"Too low Gear, Too low Gear"

:-)

Nothing wrong with the manoeuvrer. Should have got clearance first though I guess.

[machone]

"No it must have been an indication problem" we can confirm that the gear is up and locked. have a good trip.


Is that not what low fly by's are for????

[A310GUY]

The problem with the unplanned flyby is just that. It was unplanned. It appears to have gone well but.....how many circuit breakers were pulled to avoid GPWS warnings? Did he get them all or was there distractions during the flyby. Did the airline insurance allow for airshow manoeuvers? Probably not. Did the Company Ops manual allow for unauthorized airshow stunts? Probably not. Did he ask the passengers in the back if they wanted to be part of his flyby? Don't think so. Was he going to try a banking peel off turn like the Air Portugal pilot did on the famous A310 stunt? Maybe or maybe not....we will never know because it wasn't planned. When you fly for an airline you are not flying for a flying club. These are expensive machines, being flown at high costs as part of a serious business plan. There is no room for individual impulsive expression. It sometimes ends in disaster. Fly the aircraft according to your flight plan and deal with unplanned events using the training provided and the experience in your background. When you do unplanned things you are asking for it.

[gdiphil]

Have airlines management gone completely stupid? I am a mere fare paying passenger, so I suppose I pay management their wages. Here they have fantastic photos to use in publicity, their profile is raised, great flying making all us boys wishing we had become pilots instead of boring lawyers or accountants etc, and a fantastic colour scheme being shown off to remind me that perhaps I should book CX next time I go to Oz from London. I would love to have been sitting in the jump seat, one to bore everyone about for decades to come. Really this world has lost its sense of fun and being thrilled. On second thoughts maybe CX won't get my business.

[EXEZY]

I highly doubt it was unplanned!

[Bronx]

Agree with what most posters have said so far, but it won't be long before the rules are rules, he broke the rules he deserve what he got blah blah posters come along.

B.

[hetfield]

Agree with what most posters have said so far, but it won't be long before the rules are rules, he broke the rules he deserve what he got blah blah posters come along.

Not to forget the disadvantageous enviromental effect.

[gone till november]

Does anyone have the ATC.

He may have cleared it with tower but not with CX or airfield ops (generally an analy retentive bunch of jobsworths). Would like to hear that as it may clear up some aspects of this nice fly past.

A10 warthog

No 777's have winglets as the wing is a nice peice if design and doesn't need them.

[swordsman]

One can only assume that the guy is an ex display pilot and that he has had the necessary training for this exercise like the military guys get day in day out.If not then perhaps life would be easier and safer if he let one of the experts.Incidentially the spectacular barrell roll in a 707 by one of the Boeing test pilots was later attempted by a line pilot with catastrophic results.

[Cater]

Yes I agree this is LOW but its a superb picture Well done who ever took the picture

[armchairpilot94116]

I think he should have gotten a warning and have that warning posted to deter future unplanned flybys. But let the pilots be pilots and let them have pride and joy in flying. He shouldnt have been fired.


777-300ER doesnt have winglets . Doesnt need them apparently. Is it even available for the 777 series yet?

[captplaystation]

Funny how a go-around from 50ft on a CatIII approach isn't considered dangerous and yet this is.
Like everything else in life the fun police assert their authority.
Shame that a company like CX with such a high ex RAF content can't deal with this in a professional "aviation-orientated" manner rather than behaving like the jobsworths that run every aspect of our modern nanny-state lives.

[Kerosene Kraut]

It is not that unheard of to do farewell flybyes at Paine Field gear up down to ground effect. I certainly remember some different ones with quads. It's not aerobatic and should be perfectly safe and acceptable on a ferry flight without paying pax.

I have heard this one only became an issue because the CAA of Hong Kong hadn't been asked beforehand. As it had become known in public there was no other way out of it anymore.


PS: And here's a new german operator of the 777F looking for 200 experienced pilots. Might be a place for the sad skipper. www.aerologic.aero

[Che Guevara]

Nice flyby...good to know that there are still some real pilots out there!
Sorry he lost his job though...

Oh, Mr. 310guy...sounds like you need to get out more.

[Arfur Dent]

Any chance that the appeal process will reduce the "punishment" to something more appropriate (like - "get authorised next time")?

[Bronx]

Co-pilot Ray Middleton, who is understood to have been unaware the fly-by was unauthorized, was suspended from training duties for six months.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/BronxNYC/CX777_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/BronxNYC/CX777_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/BronxNYC/CX777_3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/BronxNYC/CX777_4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/BronxNYC/CX777_5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/BronxNYC/CX777_7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/BronxNYC/CX777_9.jpg



Photographer Liem Bahneman


B.

[daelight]

Am sure this pilot will gain employment again, or is he 'blacklisted' for x amount of time. Could someone in the know of these things please comment >>

I see it as making mountains over molehills. I would love to know who these people are on the 'boards' _> all saints I'm sure ;)

[darrylj]

CX should be damn grateful what a superb pilot they had :rolleyes:!.
nice shots!.

thanks.

[LGS6753]

I bet he got permission, but from the wrong person!:}

[pasoundman]

Wilkinson was their Chief Pilot according to a post at ..
http://blog.seattle-deliveries.com/2008/01/cathay-777-b-kpf-delivery.html


This post from 'anonymous' may give some insight into his sacking ...

"I am a CX pilot and can tell you all right now that myself and none of the other CX pilots are sorry to see Wilko go. He was a total prick and anyone would think he owned CX the way he used to carry on.

We have been trying to find a reason to get rid of him for a long time and the youtube video was too good an opportunity to pass up...."

[BuzzBox]

"I am a CX pilot and can tell you all right now that myself and none of the other CX pilots are sorry to see Wilko go. He was a total prick and anyone would think he owned CX the way he used to carry on.

Absolutely not true. Sure, there are some that don't like him, but on the whole he was very well respected as the 777 Chief Pilot. Under his stewardship, the 777 fleet probably had the highest morale and has certainly had some of the best results (training, FDAP etc) of any CX fleet. That's not to say he hasn't had to make some unpopular decisions in his time and no doubt collected a few 'enemies' along the way - I'd be surprised if there's any manager anywhere that hasn't.

[411A]

Pilots are employed by the company to fly the aeroplane in the normal manner.
Low fly-by's are generally not in the modus operandi, so ask first, then perform, least you find grief from the head shed.

He was a silly fool, similar to Pablo.
OTOH, purchase the aeroplane, do as you like, ATC permitting, of course.

[BuzzBox]

N1 Vibes:

I'm sure there are lots of reasons why morale on the 777 has been pretty good during the man's time as chief pilot, not all of them directly attributable to him. The point I was trying to make is that the comments quoted by pasoundman are simply not true. Ian was quite highly respected by most people.

[HotDog]

A310Guy,

The problem with the unplanned flyby is just that. It was unplanned.

How do you know it was unplanned? Unplanned is a go around from a hundred feet or less, aborted landing in which I have been involved a few times on revenue flights like countless others have been.

[Arfur Dent]

This sacking will be entirely about the regulating authority (CAD) demanding a satisfactory explanation and CX Senior managers running for cover so as not to be implicated. I mean VERY Senior Managers.
Why not authorise it retrospectively (it was well executed and allegedly nobody complained)? Why not turn the world wide interest into a CX PR bonanza in the same way that a certain Mr Branson would have done?
As usual, when asked to think quickly and 'out of the box', CX Management reverts to type and selects the 'self preservation' mode.
Is this leadership?? Didn't the same people think IW was one of their best pilots just last week? Does time in the Company (20+ years) mean nothing? Why decide on the ultimate punishment?
So may questions and so few answers.
And all about a perfectly well flown non-event!:D

[mr Q]

Daily Mail Version
Top British pilot fired for performing 320mph 'fly-by' just 28ft off the ground - in a passenger jet
by SIMON PARRY - More by this author »

Last updated at 07:38am on 25th February 2008

Comments

Hurtling along at 320mph, the passenger jet was just 28ft above the runway - with its landing gear raised.

However, this was no emergency, but a stunt by one of Britain's most senior pilots.


Captain Ian Wilkinson performed the astonishing "fly-by" manoeuvre to entertain VIP passengers on the maiden flight of the 230-ton Boeing 777-300ER.

Scroll down for more...



Daredevil stunt: Captain Ian Wilkinson flew the passenger jet at 320mph, just 28ft above the runway - with the landing gear raised


The stunt was whooped and cheered by spectators at Boeing headquarters in Seattle, Washington, and the pilot was given a champagne toast after landing in Hong Kong.


But 55-year-old Captain Wilkinson was fired from his £250,000-a-year job with the Cathay Pacific airline after footage of the incident was posted on websites including YouTube.


An airline insider said: "He is a very senior captain nearing the end of a highly-distinguished career but he seems to have thrown it all away for a moment of madness."


Captain Wilkinson, who has lived in Hong Kong for 15 years, was the chief pilot for Cathay Pacific's Boeing 777 fleet and in charge of a team of hundreds. Among his 30 passengers on the fateful flight was the airline's British chairman, Chris Pratt, CBE.


After taking off from the Boeing plant, the captain wheeled the huge £100million jet around and swooped over the runway with undercarriage raised.

Scroll down for more...



The celebration of the maiden flight in Hong Kong: Captain Wilkinson is second right, his co-pilot third from right and chairman Pratt back, centre


He was congratulated on arrival at Cathay Pacific's Hong Kong HQ and even pictured in the airline newsletter raising a glass with executives in celebration of the maiden flight.


After film appeared on the internet, Captain Wilkinson was suspended ahead of a disciplinary hearing last week when he was dismissed.


His British co-pilot Ray Middleton, 47, who is understood to have taken instructions from Captain Wilkinson and to have been unaware that the fly-by was unauthorised, was suspended from training duties for six months.


Captain Wilkinson did not return calls for comment yesterday. He is understood to be considering an appeal against his dismissal.


A spokesman for Cathay Pacific said that the fly-by had been approved by air traffic controllers in Seattle after a call from the pilot but not by the airline, which was the reason Captain Wilkinson had been sacked.

Another senior pilot with the airline said: "Wilkinson was very much one of the elite in Cathay Pacific and would have been very chummy with the airline executives he was flying that day.


"If no one else had found out about it, the incident would probably have gone no further. But once it began circulating on the internet and Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department got wind of it, that was the end of him.


"Maiden flights are treated as a bit of a jolly for executives with lots of champagne flowing and these fly-bys used to be done for a wheeze in the old days.


"But they are dangerous because however good the pilot thinks he is, he isn't trained for it and the planes aren't designed for it.


"Wilkinson was showing off, and most of the pilots might be sympathetic but they feel he got what he deserved when he was sacked."

DAILY MAIL and more photos
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=518448&in_page_id=1811

[TyroPicard]

The good old Daily Mail has unwittingly spotted the real reason for his dismissal - 320 mph with slats anf flaps extended!
TP

[RoyHudd]

Firstly, it was not his jet to play with! Further to that fact, I imagine accusations concerning liability, safety, the Habsheim accident, and CX airline regulations were levelled at the offending crew. But.....

I feel it is a very sad world we now live in, where acts of individuality are punished so severely. Cathay lose my business whenever I have a travel choice.

[anotherthing]

It's not his jet and it seems he was not authorised to do the manoeuvre.

I assume the people on here who are bleating about how life has changed have never been involved in the authorisation process required before manoeuvres such as this are carried out?
For others to liken it to a Go Around is taking the p:mad::mad:s. The Go Around is there to get you out of the poo. When are some pilots going to learn that just because they have a licence, it does not mean they are God?

Sacking may have been a little OTT, but it is the companies train set.

Would you guys who are bemoaning Cathay be happy to give someone the keys to your new Jag/Aston and then watch them tear it up around a racetrack?

[Milt]

Looks pretty Ho Hum to me. He had plenty of ground clearance. There was nothing unsafe about this manoeuvre. If anything the rotate on take off may have been close to limits.

Suppose B777 pilots will now have to all drop them in from above this height for every landing or face suspension!! One just has to get closer to the ground to land the things.

Does that tidy things up Hotdog?

[HotDog]

anotherthing, what a pathetic reply, I have flown with Ian Wilkinson for many years. A better and safer operator would be hard to find these days. There was nothing unsafe or unusual about this manouver. I find your comments difficult to believe for an F111 test pilot, as you claim to be.:suspect:

[Flap 5]

A go around is made with the gear down. You only raise the gear when you have a positive rate of climb. This was done at very low altitude with the gear up and passengers on board.

Worse it was done with his boss on board. How tactless is that? He may or may not be impressed - but why take the risk?

This was unauthorised. The captain made a bad decision. It would not be the first time that management (of any company) has sacked someone for doing something questionable when management could be questioned subsequentally if they did not sack him.

[ZAGORFLY]

a go around in cat III is not dangerous because you have the gear down..

[HotDog]

Flap5, will you allow me to repeat my previous post? How do you know it was not authorised.:confused:

[Flap 5]

Frankly Hotdog whether it was actually authorised or not is not really the point. The captain takes ulitmate responsibilty. Management are always going to cover themselves. They are unlikely to admit to it being authorised and therefore if they don't admit to it then it wasn't, unless the captain has it in writing.

With the public having just seen a 777 crashing in the undershoot at Heathrow it was very tactless to do a low pass which would be photographed. With the Heathrow accident it would also be very likely that management would deny any authorisation having been granted, especially after the video was posted on youtube (now removed - probably because of public perception after the Heathrow accident).

[skippyscage]

Unfortunately the words "flying" and "fun" do not go together anymore in our continued nanny like existence.

A perfectly safe maneuver by an experienced pilot.

What a shame. :ugh:

[hetfield]

in our continued nanny like existence.

Now some call it "Professionalism".

:ugh:

[HEisLEGEND]

thousands around the world study hard to become professionals,thousands every day follow all rules to mantain aviation safe and clean..it was spectacular no doubt but do we want this attitude being praised in order to achieve the near perfection that our daily ops around the world strive for?imo..

[Brian Abraham]

One report doing the rounds.

His first officer on the flight Ray Middleton (who got suspended for six months) said the company officials toasted the flight with Wilkinson later and he believes nothing would have come of the whole thing if the video hadn't made it to YouTube. Airline officials said low fly-bys are allowed, but only if the crew asks first, which apparently didn't happen in this case.

[anotherthing]

HotDog

Re your post (#40)


anotherthing, what a pathetic reply, I have flown with Ian Wilkinson for many years. A better and safer operator would be hard to find these days. There was nothing unsafe or unusual about this manouver. I find your comments difficult to believe for an F111 test pilot, as you claim to be.

Best get your eyes or your typing skills tested... Since when have I ever claimed to be a pilot, let alone an F111 pilot, let alone a test pilot?

If you are going to try to rebutt a comment, at least get your facts correct. :mad:

The fact you have 'flown with Ian Wilkinson and that he is a great pilot' means little if, as seems here his ability to make decisions IAW SOPs is suspect.

What was pathetic about my post? The fact that I thought it remiss for someone to do what the wish without the proper permission/authorisation of the owner of said piece of multi million dollar hardware?
Or the fact that I thought that the aforementioned owners had a right to admonish someone who did the above?

Help me here please, I am struggling to understand.

[FlexibleResponse]

I have had the pleasure of training many of CX's Captains.

There is not one Captain that I have had experience with in CX that couldn't have conducted this flyby without the most reasonable margins of safety. If he wasn't able to accomplish that, you can rest most assuredly that he would not be in a Command position in CX.

The actual manoeuvre of flying down a runway straight and level at 10, 20, 30 or 50 feet doesn't take some sort of aerobatic guru. But it does take an experienced Captain to safely assess, determine safety margins and execute such a manoeuvre with the foresight and skill required.

If any of the many twerps commenting on this thread had any idea of the exceptional skills required to operate an airliner with 400 pax safely in typhoon conditions and in other extremely difficult situations confronting CX pilots on a daily basis, they would bow their heads and walk away with their tails between their legs. A freakin' flyby is a complete doddle in comparison.

Don't go thinking that I have some bias towards this particular Captain. The more experienced ppruners will know from my many previous posts that I am most assuredly not a CX management sycophant.

Not approved? Get real! Capt IW was the Chief Pilot of the 777 Fleet! You want a higher level of approval? Try the Director of Flight Operations? What would be the point?

The Director of Flight Operations was trained as a Zoologist and has absolutely zero background in the actual flying part of Flight Operations...So I guess he gets to pick up the salary and someone else picks up the responsibility? But, all with HK CAD Approval of the person holding the position of DFO of course...

[airsound]

Does anyone know where the figure of 28ft (above the runway) came from? I have made some careful measurements on the pictures where the aircraft is above the runway, and I can't make the height any less than 47ft.

I used the fuselage length of 242ft 4ins as a comparison, and I measured to the lowest part of the aircraft. That is where the bottom of the fuselage starts to slope up, round about the same frame as the furthest aft window.

airsound

[saddest aviator]

What I have observed with a good number of these posts is that a fair number of fellow professionals consider that this was a dangerous manouver Everyday pilots of all skill levels are required to use those skills to extricate themselves and the paying public from far more hazardous situations. Get real people, this was a relatively easy flypast no aeros no danger, just once again someone in an office thinking that this was an opportunity to once again have a go at an overpaid underworked prima donna pilot

[repulo]

We are operating 40 something 737 NG in Europe, all of those have been picked up within the last ten years. The only one that didn´t do a fly by at arrival were the ones where wx was bad.
I don´t get the problem at all, if the fleet boss wants to come around once more, who the hell is having a problem with that? Maybe the real problem is lying somewhere totally different, more in the company culture region..

Decide yourself.

:cool:

[Eyes only]

repulo,

The difference with "on arrival" and "on departure" is the fuel load, the 777 could very well have been above the MLW at the time.

How many of those were conducted with passengers onboard ?

How many of those pilots pulled circuit breakers in the cockpit so they could go lower ?

It was poor judgment from a pilot that spends more time flying a desk than an aircraft.

FlexibleResponse,

You would know the manuals as good as anyone, any person would need to get permission from the GMO/DFO, even the 777 CP.

[RoyHudd]

Anotherthing, kindly stop writing about things of which you clearly know so little. As you wrote, you are not a pilot. Your reference to authorisation makes no sense to me , and I DO understand what authorisation means in the field of professional aviation. It does not mean regulation, just as a clue.

[corsair]

Hands up everyone, who has made a lowish pass like that? Even in a liddle puddle jumper!

Thought so. Now be good boys and go and hand in your licences. :=

I'm firing up the shredder now for mine!

Thank goodness for safety conscious management like they have at Cathay.

I'll bet if he had thought it was about to end his career. It would have been a lot lower than that:eek:

[jackharr]

I just wonder why somebody gets so uppity and says IN VERY BIG LETTERS:

"Please do not hotlink my images! URL's were created for a reason..."

I have been running websites for some ten years now and have not the slightest problem if someone links directly to one of my images. It seems an eminently sensible thing to do as it avoids the user wasting a lot of time going through garbage on the way to get to the important bit that really matters.

This "don't hotlink" business before and the wittering on about bandwidth, etc, crops up occasionally. It always strikes me a case of self-importance.

Jack Harrison

[sandbank]

Maybe this is a new cold weather altitude limitation for the 777?

[737 Checker]

I think all he was trying to do was a FT check of the GPWS prior to flying back to home base. :ok:

[powerstall]

.... or maybe he was doing an in-flight test since some 777's are encountering problems in regards to engine cut-outs.... and since he's in Boeing-Paine Field already, if any problems do occur he could ask for a refund....:ok:

[Selcalweb.co.uk]

"I just wonder why somebody gets so uppity and says IN VERY BIG LETTERS:

"Please do not hotlink my images! URL's were created for a reason..."

I have been running websites for some ten years now and have not the slightest problem if someone links directly to one of my images. It seems an eminently sensible thing to do as it avoids the user wasting a lot of time going through garbage on the way to get to the important bit that really matters.

This "don't hotlink" business before and the wittering on about bandwidth, etc, crops up occasionally. It always strikes me a case of self-importance.

Jack Harrison"

Please feel free to hotlink my images when you start paying for the bandwidth. :rolleyes: Due to you and others hotlinking the images instead of using the URL link for the thread, I used up a whole months worth of bandwidth in one day.

Please send me the URLs to a whole pile of your images and I'll gladly hotlink them on heavy traffic sites all over the web and we'll see how long it before you change your "I've not the slightest problem with people hotlinking my images" statement.

:rolleyes:

Rob

[Pugilistic Animus]

well, having read some of the comments by a poster called " the management"
in the FH forum I'm not surprised at all by this this fella obviously hates pilots---and if he's really " the management" well :yuk:

and what a about a twr flyby to confirm the ldg is down in an emergency---he had lots of 'zoom' and plenty of space so????

[anotherthing]

Roy Hudd

are you really a sanctimonious t:mad::mad:t, or is that just the persona you display on this forum?


Anotherthing, kindly stop writing about things of which you clearly know so little. As you wrote, you are not a pilot. Your reference to authorisation makes no sense to me , and I DO understand what authorisation means in the field of professional aviation. It does not mean regulation, just as a clue.


What makes you think I know so little about it? FYI I do understand what authorisation means - although not a pilot and never have been one, I have in a previous profession flown for the military. Pilots are not the only ones that fly.

I had to sign for aircraft that I and my pilot took out, and also countersign the authorisation sheets for the sorties. Also, as a secondary duty I had a lot do do with the organisation of airshows that were put on at some of the bases I served at... I think you will find that authorisation is a very big part of this process - no doubt you already know - it just may surprise you that other people understand these things as well.

As it happens, in this instance we are not talking about the authorisation with reference to competency or display lines or anything else - we are talking about what the employer expects from its employees.

So thanks for the clue, but it's not needed... why don't you climb back into your Ivory Tower, you can show your face again when you have the balls and the humility to realise that authorisation and company SOPs are not solely the domain of someone who has pilots wings.

Whether I agree or disagree that the fun has been taken out of so many things in life has bugger all relevance to this, the pilot signs out the aircraft and in doing so agrees to operate it IAW company SOPS.

If the safety of the aircraft is in danger (or believed to be), then the pilot has every right to do what he or she wishes to regain the safe operation... that's what the training and pay is for.

If the pilot decides to do something outside of company SOPs, just for the hell of it, then that company is within its rights to discipline him or her.

Whether the punishment fits the 'crime' is another argument altogether - I personally would say he has been harshly done by, especially given his experience and seniority, but that is by the by.

[kamelthorn]

Fantastic photo

[Earl]

Good Job Cathay pilots.
Great Pictures.

[Dream Land]

:D Great photos and beautiful aircraft, but I do believe he broke several FAR's by making this pass, hope the FAA doesn't see this. :E

[eight16kreug]

Mergers, outsourcing, castrated ALPAS, fully configured one zero miles out, big brother FOMS, it is a whole new world. Call it professionalism or nanny like, flying is no longer fun. I can't blame Capt IW for letting go the urge.

But just like getting commat to join the mile high club, we have to pay the consequenses.

Great photos. :D

[Pugilistic Animus]

Dreamland,
it was reported that the tower gave permission,...I don't count this as aerobatic or risky---and I know the FARs and rules for air shows/ aerobatics/ formation flying---landing gear inspections happen at times---and when they are asking for a such a check---they probably don't want to land immediately!

---also anyone ever see some of the Circling minima published :eek:
in a circling approach the aircraft is in a much more vulnerable configuration.

any 30hr student should be able to do a clean flyby---and any 2000hr+
line pilot should be able to do so in a jet

and I think D.P. Davies could have pulled it off too:}

[cfwake]

Have to say, I'm not overly qualified to comment still being about 3 weeks from my very own CPL, but I'd be interested to see CX's criteria for performing fly-bys, perhaps this captain thought he was well qualified to perform such a stunt (not a big fan of that word) being the chief pilot of the fleet, thus, I would have suspected, the person who would usually provide authorisation of such displays anyway?

Anyone care to shed light on who their company demands authorisation from for such flying?

Then again, if it was defined in SOPs that he needed further approval, he did rather leave himself open to a fairly hard clamp down...still, one hell of a way to go, you have to say!

[Huck]

With a 777 type and management experience, I'd be surprised if he's still unemployed by now.....

[drflight]

If such low level fly pasts are common, as several have mentioned, then why was permission not automatically sought beforehand to execute such a manoeuvre if the conditions were right, especially departing Paine field?

Surely the executives at Boeing, Cathay Pacific and possibly the Hong Kong CAA must have realised that such a manoeuvre would sooner or later have ended up in the public domain? There is bound to be someone with a camera, possibly a Boeing worker taking a picture of the aircraft he/she worked on; an aviation spotter located nearby with a long lens; or official press photographers from the local media or Boeing’s own public relations department.

Had all this been thought out beforehand this flypast could have been passed off as an officially approved; Cathay Pacific could have made excellent use of some spectacular pictures; and Jo Public would have been none the wiser.

As it is, being an aviation ‘incident’, it has made world headlines and, generally speaking, negative ones at that. Of course those within the industry, particularly the pilots, can argue the pros and cons of the safety aspect. However, it should never be forgotten, generally speaking, Jo Public still regards flying with some degree of apprehension and in many ways it is still, somewhat illogically, perceived as being more dangerous than other forms of transport.

I write this in the context of having been closely involved in a Fear of Flying Course for thirteen years and continuing to deal with nervous passengers. It always saddens me that, with the exception of some specialist journalists in trade magazines, most aviation incidents, major or minor, get badly written up in the daily broadsheets and tabloid papers by ill informed reporters and usually with lurid headlines which only serve to make the already nervous even more nervous than they are.

[greywings]

Well done, Ian. Sorry you got caught out by weak senior management who have previously turned a blind eye to the many low fly-by's done by CX on departure from Boeing.

(Involved in two of them myself).

I enjoyed being part of your recruitment, initial, then, command training, and know you for a sensible, competent aviator.

Good luck with your next career move.

Yours aye,

Greywings

[Mr Lexx]

I do not profess to know the rules, but I think Cathay have missed a trick here. Those pictures (especially the pic on page 1) are marketing gold and could have been used to enhance the image of the company.

Just my take on it.

[rogerg]

However safe or however experienced, the pilot was a t--t. The world has moved on, he is not Douglas Bader

[Localiser]

he is not Douglas Bader

Who incidentally (as you probably know) managed to write off an aeroplane and lose his legs whilst showing off and performing an unauthorised, unrehearsed and unplanned fly-by (with an added barrel roll for good effect!).

I just hope that this wasn't verbally authorised for example and then the Captain concerned is now being made a scape-goat. Otherwise, serves him right. As somebody has already pointed out.... "safety, safety, safety". I don't think such stupidly low fly-by's quite fall into this remit.

[IcePack]

I see Pprune has joined the nanny state.
Glad I,m at the end of my career.
Streuth guys/gals we used to do low passes to scare the dogs of the rwys, nobody crashed.:rolleyes: He was the boss for peets sake!

[virgo]

I have imposed a social rule...................if you want to come to the party, booze-cruise, BBQ, boat-trip, picnic or whatever - you've GOT to leave your photo-phone and digital camera behind.

Everyone else sits around saying the social life downroute isn't like it used to be.

Mine is !

[jshg]

For God's sake, he is (was) the 777 Fleet Manager, with umpteen hours on this and similar types, who probably practised this many times in the simulator. The official Boeing pictures are superb, the fly-by was clearly fully in control.
This was a day or so after the LHR 777 crash, and I happen to know for a fact that he was expressing his confidence in the 777 to Boeing.
There are airliner fly-bys at air displays - this was another one. His mistake was that he didn't give himself written permission beforehand.

[Dan Air 87]

CX management should hang their heads in shame at their over reaction to this piece of excellent flying. It was quite safe and was good publicity for their airline. Instead CX have shot themselves in the leg, foot whatever. When will this stupidity end?

[Akali Dal]

To all those apologists and hero worshippers of IW, are all the pax onboard aware of his intention of doing such a flypast. Did they agree to participate in it? Had there been a mishap ( don't tell me a great pilot in CX like him can execute such a flypast without mishap, you say...what about the A320 and A330 prangs years ago? ) what will be the insurance cover be like since it was not authorised by the company and HKCAD? Had any of the pax updated their wills prior to this flypast?

Innocent people onboard and on the ground should not be at risk to satisfy the whims of an overrated skygod on an ego trip to impress his bosses or others ever willing to watch such cheap thrills. If you like stunts, go to an airshow!

In my experience, fleet managers and chief pilots make the most dangerous captains. They think they can get away with everything and think that hopping onto the sim and practising endlessly, they are immuned to murphy's law.

IMHO, the punishment was overboard but that DOES NOT to excuse his stupidity and ego trip.

[Milt]

Seems that the fly-by departure is routine for a new delivery and encouraged by Boeing flight crews and the Boeing community.

Come on Boeing - have your ATC call it "our standard departure".

How does Airbus farewell a new one?

And are the rest of you Cathay pilots whimps? Don't stand for that type of treatment to one of your respected seniors.

[Wally Walters]

I'm with you HOTDOG flew with Ian a lot in the good old days great guy,should have had that tattoo from "Billy twothumbs" in S'pore Ian, all the best.

[MAN777]

Call that Low ?

Now this is low !

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b8fe10151

[Just wondering]

Just wondering..... at the time of the fly past did cathay own all of the aircraft. Somebody once told me that the final airframe and engine purchases are completed after departure in International waters.

[chippy63]

Also just wondering- what flight specs or limitations do the insurers put on non-scheduled operations? I'm simply asking, not commenting, so I don't want anyone trying to detonate me , thanks.

[Basic T]

Here is a small video of the fly-by... ( looks more like created with multiple photos in a row though....)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7hpVH1IAQM&eurl=http://www.airwork.nl/bulletinboard/showthread.php?p=141288

[pasoundman]

Akali Dal
" what about the A320 and A330 prangs years ago? "

Indeed, WHAT A330 prangs ?

Are you referring to a (single) certain incident involving an A320 ?

[Ali Sadikin]

pasoundman...your tone suggest indignation and intolerance that an Asian like Akali dare bring up the Airbus prangs to light again. And ONLY a SINGLE A320 prang?

If my memory serves me right, there was a 1998 A320 prang at Basel Mulhouse and another at Habsheim. There was also a A330 crash by the Airbus test flight. In UK you should know better!!!!!!!

[Dream Land]

Dreamland,
it was reported that the tower gave permissionI'm afraid getting permission by the tower has nothing to do with breaking FAR's, if he exceeded a speed limit or operated the low approach below 500 AGL, he could face certificate action. Most professional pilots understand this.

[taufupok]

Ali and Akali; it's hard to win argument over here. You don't have the numbers who care to do the right thing.

As far as I remember, there was one A320 prang during airshow flypast at Habsheim in 1988 and an A330 prang during a test flight just after an engine cut after takeoff. The other A320 prang was at Strasborg but it wasn't a flypast.

[RobertK]

I'm afraid getting permission by the tower has nothing to do with breaking FAR's, if he exceeded a speed limit or operated the low approach below 500 AGL, he could face certificate action. Most professional pilots understand this.
Not a pilot, just curious and a bit confused about your post. :)

1 - Never read anywhere that he exceeded a speed limit?
2 - Also, never heard of a low approach limit of 500ft AGL, unless something else is on the runway (German rules, I guess they are same or similar elsewhere). Where did you take that figure from?

Regards,

Robert

[Pugilistic Animus]

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.



OK, Dreamland --- I concede, perhaps para(c) but I would argue that within airport boundaries over the runway with ATC authorization are not a place you'd expect a Vessel and that area
IS pretty sparsely populated:}

I do now wonder what the Administrator thinks?:ooh:



PA

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Dreamland:
I'm afraid getting permission by the tower has nothing to do with breaking FAR's, if he exceeded a speed limit or operated the low approach below 500 AGL, he could face certificate action. Most professional pilots understand this.
[Unquote]

Haven't been follwing this thread till tonight, and have no opinion (yet) on whether the pilot should have been sacked. But what Dreamland says in relation to approach below 500ft being illegal makes no sense. How could base training ever be conducted if, even with ATC permission, aircraft were forbidden from practising low approaches and go-arounds? Cannot comment on FARs with passengers on board - is that what you are getting at?

Quote from Ali Sadikin:
If my memory serves me right, there was a 1998 A320 prang at Basel Mulhouse and another at Habsheim. There was also a A330 crash by the Airbus test flight. In UK you should know better!!!!!!!
[Unquote]

Wrong. There was only one silly stunt leading to an accident on an A320. The aircraft took off from Basel-Mulhouse on a scheduled passenger flight. There was an airshow going on at nearby-Habsheim (a small airstrip, too small for A320). The captain decided to do a low-slow fly-by, ran out of energy, and pancaked into a forest.

The A330 accident was on a training flight at Toulouse-Blagnac, exploring the effects of an engine failure during an auto-coupled go-around. This is the sort of manoeuvre that pilots have to practise, unfortunately. The training captain was also an Airbus test pilot, and a very careful operator. Irrelevant to this topic.

[Hand Solo]

If my memory serves me right, there was a 1998 A320 prang at Basel Mulhouse and another at Habsheim. There was also a A330 crash by the Airbus test flight. In UK you should know better!!!!!!!

What 1998 Basel crash was this? Are you sure you're not confusing it with the 1988 crash at Habsheim which departed from Basel?

[SpeedyG]

Sorry chaps but going back in time, the 707 rolled by Tex was the original, if you are interested take a look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ546BEps-M:ok:

[StanSayz]

As a pilot at completely the other end of the aviation spectrum to "Air God" IW...can I ask as a PPL holder currently undertaking my CPL studies...

Is he, and more to the point, this kind of flying, a good role model for someone like me???

Im off now...back to dream of the day that I may reach the upper echelons of this "nanny state industry" when I too can view the rules, regulations and LAWS as merely suggestions.:ugh:

[Pugilistic Animus]

StanSayz,

I can't answer such a personal question for you, but enjoy the learning process,and don't let anyone scare you, if you want to play bit get the instruction and have fun----
----- allowing yourself some occasional enjoyment..actually prevents untoward temptations in this sterile world called modern aviation---and ---

PULL!..PULL..PULL!
PA


but, don't break the law your government can clip your wings


"What's Legal isn't always Safe whats Safe isn't always Legal" :uhoh:

[innuendo]

The 'Gimli glider" was recently flown to the desert for retirement.
This is from the departure from YUL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MHy6yy3Z00

There are also some very nice still shots from the flypast.

On board for the flight were the Captain and F/O from the original event into Gimli.

From comments posted by the Captain of the flight it seems that AC were quite forthcoming with help on some of the aspects of the trip.
From the sound of things with this Cathay incident it seems a shame that the event was not subject to a bit more communication with those who are now calling the shots.

[tophelios]

I'm not a moderator, and not directly concerned... but I was yesterday flying in Singapore and in the local Newspaper, there is a full page, with pictures of this event, but , more tricky, some replies from this thread were added on the article and make the journalist talk about the safety and the way the pilots consider their job....because some of them appreciate that kind of low pass...
A lot of people, not directly concerned in the "flying things", seems to know Pprune...then I think we have to be careful when writting on it, just to keep this forum as interesting as it is, as free as it is...

[RJ Kanary]

Speedy G............thanks for digging up the Tex rolling the 707 clip. :)

[Ali Sadikin]

Apologies guys, looks like memory did not serve me well! It was a A320 flight from Mulhouse with a flypast at Habsheim in 1988. I mistook the Strasborg accident to be a flypast; likewise there was one in Bangalore, again a revenue flight. In the A330 prang it was not a flypast but the lesson here is that despite all the preparation, there is a big chance of a screw up. So an unplanned flypast ( albeit IW must have planned it in his head or in the sim...now who had authorised his use of the sim for such a stunt? Another unauthorised event? ) without the necessary forethought on how it could have affected others could have unforseen results. The A320 prang in Habsheim was a testosterone driven ego trip, so was this recent CX one albeit it ended with high fives and champagne.

[Brian Abraham]

The 330 accident was a test flight (by Airbus test pilot) as part of the certification process and the co-pilot was not rated in the aircraft.

[B A Lert]

....but I was yesterday flying in Singapore and in the local Newspaper, there is a full page, with pictures of this event, but , more tricky, some replies from this thread were added on the article and make the journalist talk about the safety....

I guess the Singaporeans were happy to be writing about a Cathay incident to help avert attention from Singapore Airlines who have their own share of issues these last few days. And they say that there is a free, open and transparent media in Singapore..............:mad::mad:

[Dream Land]

1 - Never read anywhere that he exceeded a speed limit?
2 - Also, never heard of a low approach limit of 500ft AGL What about the mention of the Top British pilot fired for performing 320mph etc., etc?

2. Already addressed by Pugilistic Animus

[repariit]

KPAE, the home of The Boeing Company and ATS, a major independent airliner overhaul facility has a long history of such flights.

It is interesting that others have referred to this low pass as a Top Gun stunt. Top Gun's air-to-air photography was done using a Lear Jet with top and bottom mounted servo driven cameras to get the "gee whiz" dog fight pictures in that film. It was also used to get some of the air-to-air shots used in common airline TV advertising.

I have participated in a number of such ground shots at KPAE and one done from the Lear Jet. This Lear flight was to film a Boeing airliner take off, landing, and cruise series of video shots for TV advertising. It called for the airliner to be on KPAE 16R’s take off position while the Lear approached the field from the north. The Lear called for the airliner’s throttle up and brake release as it lined up just west of 16R with its speed slow enough to track the airliner’s take off roll through lift off and climb out.

The landing sequence was a bit more interesting. The airliner did a short final approach to 34L with the Lear, tracked in formation through the turn, and descent through touchdown. The Lear was over a taxiway and climbed out to get back in the pattern for its landing. All of this was very precisely preplanned, and to my knowledge met with the airline’s ops requirements. It did require that both pilots had formation flying skills that are not practiced in normal airline flying.

There are two types of pilots that I have encountered over twenty-five years of this process. The airline “line” pilots that fly passenger loaded airplanes every day are highly skilled and very comfortable with the routine flight procedures, but had some trouble with the typical post maintenance test flights that deviated from the normal routines. Many airlines use specific crews for doing post maintenance test flights that are better trained for such activities. Ferry flights and test flights are conducted under rules, but different rules from revenue passenger flights.

It is unfortunate that the subject flight caused concern. It appears that it ran afoul of CP’s internal procedures.

[aviate1138]

repariit said in part.....

"The Lear was over a taxiway and climbed out to get back in the pattern for its landing. All of this was very precisely preplanned, and to my knowledge met with the airline’s ops requirements. It did require that both pilots had formation flying skills that are not practiced in normal airline flying."

Aviate opines.....

The Lear pilot would have been Clay Lacy. A legend. If I had the tinyiest fraction of his capabilities I would be a so much better pilot than I am now. Dammit! :rolleyes:

[WTF...?]

Alright ladies & gents, step right up, here is 'the' video you are looking for. Seems a local Seattle news station got a copy & used to report the incident.
Yee Ha!!
www.king5.com/video/featured-index.html?nvid=221537

[Bronx]

StanSayz

Maybe it's a bit early for sarcastic comments about "Air God".
Just a few months ago you were talking about getting a PPL,
and not long before that you were asking if there'd be a problem becoming a commercial pilot
with your criminal record for DUI.

And you got a 20 month ban
instead of the usual 12 months they give in England when drivers are over the limit but not too much over.
Must have been kinda high reading DUI.


:rolleyes:

[Tediek]

Good morning,

question, the co-pilot has been punished by 6months no training duties. What does this mean?

[Flightsimman]

Fly the aircraft according to your flight plan and deal with unplanned events using the training provided and the experience in your background. When you do unplanned things you are asking for it.
============================================================
How freaking boring would it be to do that especially for such a momentous occasion?

The aircraft had just been delivered and looks absolutely awesome!

What about the Boeing "Test Pilot" that inverted that 720 ?

The problem with aviation these days is that it's full of too many old farts without a sense of humor.

I am sure that had he gained approval from his company all would be "sweet"

:ok:

[Harbour Dweller]

Tediek,

question, the co-pilot has been punished by 6months no training duties. What does this mean?

The pilot carrying out the FO duties was a senior CX Training Captain. He has been suspended from training duties for 6 months.

For this time he will continue to operate as a Line Captain.

[corsair]

No training duties means no extra pay which he would have received for said duties, I imagine.

Looking at the video, I can't help wondering if perhaps he was a bit lower than he intended? Unless you judge it just right the momentum will drag you down a bit. We'll never know I suppose.

What I find interesting is the opposing responses from pilots on this thread. Either he was an irresponsible rule breaker who got what he deserved or it was a bit naughty but not really that dangerous and he was shafted by the corporate wimps in Cathay.

[Bronx]

Flightsimman
The problem with aviation these days is that it's full of too many old farts without a sense of humor.

They're not all old.

[ray cosmic]

I for one, am truly appalled by the punishment of said crew.
This was not a "stunt". it was a straight and level fly by on a non revenue flight over a field also used to this kind of flying. No preparation also doesn't cut it, since this Captain was not new to the phenomenon of both fly-by's and delivery flights.
I think it is really saddening to see one person who did something he has been doing times before- and probably gave most of his life to a company to end up in that function anyway- being kicked off the cliff like this.
If now nobody sticks up for him it means either:
- Cathay pilots are a bunch of egoistic sons of b!tches, or
- The 49ers method was so bloody effective nobody even dares to speak up.

Whichever it might be, it is a sign of the times I suppose. Airline flying has become more boring than anything imaginable, and airline (middle) managers are getting way to powerful.

[vapilot2004]

It has been widely reported that Mr. Wilkinson was asked to do a flyby before departing for Hong Kong and was also given permission by the tower. Now they want to quibble over some minor speed/altitude variations? :p


Post flight champagne toast:

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9747/mvc053lg1.jpg


The real story here is about money and a short-sighted, conservative board. Meanwhile, the Cathay marketing gurus original intentions vis-a-vis the dragon paint scheme was nicely kicked up a notch or two by Wilkinson.


I'll bet Sir Dickie would not have allowed his board to fire the man.

[moosp]

Harbour Dweller, as you well know there are very many CX Training Captains who would give their left nut to get six months of line flying instead of the continual training rosters.

Where do I sign up for the next delivery flight to act as the co-pilot?

[rubik101]

Picture now sits on my laptop as the wallpaper; much better than most of my recent choices.
Can JB stand another stupid thread on what you have as your wallpaper pic?

[Bronx]

What happened to the great British press?
They just love distorting aviation stories.
The so-called quality big names are just as bad as the tacky tabloids.

The Daily Telegraph website is claiming Capt Ian Wilkinson decided to "buzz" the control tower shortly after take-off and swooped the 230-ton Boeing 777-300 ....... Hurtling through the air .......
The Times online also claims he buzzed the tower.
"Top Gun Stunt" :rolleyes:
It was a flyby!!!


The Daily Telegraph also claims Passengers, including Cathay Pacific's chairman Chris Pratt, were said to be "stunned into silence"
Is that so? :confused:
I don't know if this is true but according to another site I've read, Cathay Pacific chairman Chris Pratt is in the middle of the back row in this picture - raising his glass in the Post Flight Champagne Toast!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/02/25/wplane1.jpg

Apparently Cathay Pacific published the picture in their house magazine before all this crap happened.


Shame on Cathay Pacific.
They admit the flyby wasn't dangerous but the pilot still got fired.
Maybe somebody with a grudge saw an opportunity to settle an old score.

[Old Fella]

Capt Wilkinson may have shown poor judgement in conducting an unauthorised low level flypast at Everett, however it seems he really has been made a "scapegoat" in the most extreme manner. Although his actions may have been ill-considered they hardly set any sort of precedent.
As long as aircraft have been flown pilots have "beaten up" airfields. Demotion would seem a more appropriate penalty.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Dream Land:
What about the mention of the Top British pilot fired for performing 320mph etc., etc?


Having conceded, perhaps (?), that the "not within 500 ft of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure" rule does not apply to operational airfields, Dream Land continues to imply that the American speed limit of 250 kts IAS below 10,000 ft has been exceeded.

Indeed, the King5 TV reporter [U]clearly states (see link, above) that the airplane was being flown at over 300 mph. And we all know about the accuracy of media reporting, don't we?

[Thinks: yesterday evening, British ITV News was still describing an A320 as a "Boeing Triple-Seven" in relation to the Greenpeace protest at LHR that morning, informing us that the protesters had trespassed on "the runway" (sic).]

So let's look at the speed evidence.
1) 300 mph is 260 kts.
2) The aeroplane has slats/flaps extended (see excellent photo, #6 above), probably at the take-off setting.
3) Looking at the same photo, the pitch attitude is plainly over 5 degrees. [Nearer 8 degrees, I'd guess.]

However brilliant a flyer the captain is, Newtonian Physics would prevent him from maintaining level flight at that attitude - and particularly in that configuration - at over 260 kts IAS. So how fast was it? My guess is a figure well below 200 kts.

QED?

[AdrianShaftsworthy]

Ere, Moosp. U ex '360' by any chance?

[ZAGORFLY]

"The pilot carrying out the FO duties was a senior CX Training Captain. He has been suspended from training duties for 6 months.

For this time he will continue to operate as a Line Captain."

CX can't afford to ground pilots. too many F/Os apparently went to fly some where else.

[Tediek]

Firing the fleet captain, is this done to keep CX out of the heat because they might investigated? I find this all a bit odd. When you are a fleet captain with a good reputation, you well know what is allowed and what isn't. Firing the guy because the info was on internet seems odd, then why didn't they fire him upon arrival?

[Airbubba]

The Lear pilot would have been Clay Lacy. A legend. If I had the tinyiest fraction of his capabilities I would be a so much better pilot than I am now. Dammit!

Clay Lacy's legacy as an airline pilot is somewhat clouded by the fact that he crossed the picket line during the 1985 United Airlines strike. He also "discovered" a new birth certificate when he was approaching age 60 and flew for a couple more years as a 74 captain.

I've taken a Boeing out of PAE before but I was honestly more worried about local traffic from numerous airports in the area than looking good for a photo op.

These runway passes were traditional in years past on delivery and retirement flights but lately they seem to generate a lot of trouble for everyone. It's just not the good old days anymore I suppose.

"Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full..."

[C172s]

nicely flown. i would do the same thing given the chance. :cool:It is unfortunate that the insurers and bean counters are now controlling the skies. This job aint what it used to be.

[737 Checker]

One B777 $279,000,000 :ok:

One fired Capt $325,000:{

Having your Company aircraft on the front page of the Seattle Times, 700,000+ hits on on YouTube and mentioned in almost every publication online and in print:

PRICELESS!

[sky9]

Non revenue flight;
Private airfield;
Surely the chief pilot authorised himself.

Hong Kong CAA; get a life.
Cathay management; stand up for your pilots, I hardly think that the publicity did Cathay or aviation in general any damage. Just tell the CAA that the CHIEF Pilot authorised himself.

Fly pasts like that bring a joy to aviation, for gods sake we get that close to the ground twice a flight.

[Dream Land]

Non revenue flight;
Private airfield;
Surely the chief pilot authorised himself.

Hong Kong CAA; get a life.
Cathay management; stand up for your pilots, I hardly think that the publicity did Cathay or aviation in general any damage. Just tell the CAA that the CHIEF Pilot authorised himself.Your winding us up right, I hope you don't actually operate in the states, you need a waiver to do that stuff. :ugh:

[forget]

I’ve been watching this whole thing from kick-off with mounting disbelief. I’m now sure that I’ve wandered into a parallel universe where a completely safe and slow speed fly-by, a bit of harmless fun handled by the Chief Pilot on a new aircraft pick-up, has resulted in him being fired. An airline where this sort of thing happens has BIG internal problems which will become very much external ----- one day. :suspect:

How do I get back to planet Earth. It’s bloody sickening here. :mad:

Your winding us up right, I hope you don't actually operate in the states, you need a waiver to do that stuff.

Dreamland, What 'stuff'?

[Say Again, Over!]

What I find most disturbing from the armchair theoretical pilots is that they seem tho think that:

- Had it been pre-approved;

- Had the folks in the back revised their will;

THEN, the very same fly-by would have been SO MUCH safer! :yuk:

Nothing bothers me more than someone who thinks not having permission is equal to "unsafe". Nothing scares me more than someone who thinks having permission is equal to "safe".

I guess the passengers will never be truly safe until they finally remove the pilots from the airplanes. Then the rules will never get broken... right? :ugh:

Felix

[Bronx]

Dream Land
sky9 --I hope you don't actually operate in the states

sky9 is a retired airline pilot, and I got a whole lot more time for his take on this than yours.

[Aunty Ice]

Nice bit of flying but remember all the other aces who rolled and flew low with their aircraft did not have the internet to contend with. If you don't want to become a one day media celebrity with no job a little caution would be advised.
Pilots have been fair game for years so why set yourself up as a target in this high tech age of rolling news desperate for stories.
Been flying for 40 years and "Aviate don't Deviate" seems to be the best advice around.

AA

[JP4]

Should I sit as pax one day in a plane in emergency, I would pray that the captain would be a capable one, and not only a "push button".
Good luck in your new life Captain.

[JanetFlight]

Curious but with this thread im just having a strange feeling of Deja-Vu..:rolleyes:
And BTW....as someone wisely said before here, I'll bet if he had thought it was about to end his career, it would have been a lot lower than that..;)

Cheers Captain...Great Display:D

[David Horn]

Clay Lacy's legacy as an airline pilot is somewhat clouded by the fact that he crossed the picket line during the 1985 United Airlines strike.

Hey Airbubba,

While respecting that much of this discussion is way above me, surely a decision to cross a picket line is a purely personal one and shouldn't be held against him? I could understand this if it was a strike regarding a safety-related issue, but in this case, presumably he strongly disagreed with the position taken by the union and chose to ignore it.

I imagine it would take a lot of soul-searching before any decision to cross a picket line could be made. Whether that decision is right or wrong is a completely different matter and can only be judged retrospectively.

As I said, I have no experience in union matters but is it still the case that a decision made decades ago can still be held against someone?

Cheers,

Dave.

[M.Mouse]

A friend of mine was an ace pilot and his performance in anything with wings was a joy to behold.

He's dead now. Killed doing an fast flypast. He misjudged it and killed himself and his passenger.

Ace pilot though and impressed everybody with his superior skill and ability to do things to impress people.

Great idea low flypasts, especially in an airliner with unsuspecting passengers. I bet the pilot is very skilled too. He certainly impressed people judging from the adulation expressed here. I am sure he never makes errors of judgement either, just like my friend didn't....well he only made one error.

[jonnymac]

I saw a clip of an SU27 at very low level who posted that and where has it gone I wanted to have another look and cant find it !!! HELP:*

[45989]

Well, the one and only PeterOwens??????????

[5150]

His ego's writing cheques his body can't cash.

Do Cathay still fly rubber dog ***** out of HKG?

If so, there's probably a job going for him there. . .

[Molokai]

Say again, over....rewriting of wills and increase in insurance coverage will not make the flight any safer but if Mr Murphy catches up with Mr Ego Ace, then it will save families of victims lots of grief.

[PBL]

Ah, new aircraft, senior management pilot, low flyby, inappropriate company paperwork if any, unsuspecting passengers................ what reminds me of Habsheim 1988?

Insurance companies have better memories than I. I imagine that after Habsheim the clauses for insurance coverage of "display" manoeuvres might have changed somewhat.

It may well have been that the manoeuvre so lovingly recorded was uninsured. There may well have been a clause in the insurance policy saying what happens in that case. It is very unlikely to be a rebate.

Pilot vs. management is a simplistic take. In today's world, those with an influential stake in company behavior are far more than the employees alone. The management might well have had its hands tied or risk an explosion in expense.

PBL

[patrickal]

I am not a pilot, but I have been a manager at for years. I do not understand the mentality to sac your lead person over something like this. He was obviously skilled enough to do this. If you have to discipline him, do so. But to publicly fire the guy makes no sense......unless there was prior history or he asked permission and it was denied, and he did it anyway. But from an overall safety perspective, I did not see that flyby as any more dangerous than most. I am more afraid of the message it sends to the rest of the troops and the morale issues it could cause.

If you want to see an unsafe flyby, the third aircraft in this flight seems to fit the bill. The only thing he doesn't do is close the gate as he leaves. And I bet he is out there somewhere flying passengers or freight right now.

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

Patrick

[SpaceNeedle]

Any entreprising pax or persons in the flight path may want to initiate a class action suit on CX and FAA for " endangering " their lives if this flypast had indeed not been cleared through al the necessary hoops?

CX management's reaction is truly overboard and bordering on the ridiculous. A less severe punishment like a downgrade to line captain should suffice.

[peterperfect]

Lets face it, what ever you do with a jet or helicopter in public these days there's going to be a phonecamera/video/or digitalcybereasel around pointing right at you and chance is it will be on youtube before you land.

So best make sure whatever we do, whether risky or not risky, is within OMs, SOPs, AFM and approved by a 'grown up' in writing if considered abnormal. Thats the modern world: shame but true.

By the way; if thats a Top Gun Stunt, my names Tom and I'll be going home tonight in Kelly McGillis's Porche convertable to do some after hours extra ACM lessons !
pp

[Flying Lawyer]

Some might think formally reprimanding the Captain would not only have sufficed but been a much better approach, together with an appropriate warning to other pilots only to do a flyby with prior authorisation - so as to avoid stirring up doom-mongers, armchair experts and melodramatic journos.
Although, in this instance, some may think Cathay management have done that themselves by their own inept handling of the incident. (I couldn't possibly comment.)

PBL
If the insurers expressed any concerns, they could be informed the above steps had been taken. That, in my experience, usually suffices if insurers have any concerns about repetition.
Explosion in insurance expense?
When no harm was done, so no claim made?
Insurers don't risk losing major clients that easily.


White Waltham - about 30 years ago
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/VC10_ww71.jpg



FL

[exeng]

Fantastic image - it would seem those days are long gone because of the reasons stated in your post.

I never had anything to do with the VC10 apart from some odd bits as an engineering apprentice - what a cracking looking aircraft it is though; especially in that photo.

In respect of the 'offence' committed - although any such flying should only be carried out with the full approval of the management (he obviously was one of the team) to my mind the punishment was innapropriate.

I see that the Cathay Chairman Pratt was on board - a surname that may inspire the rest of the management team.


Regards
Exeng

[Flying Lawyer]

exeng

You may be right, but I think it's sad if those days are gone.

Cathay have said the flyby wasn't dangerous.
Some might think it would have been wiser if they'd left it at that.

[Brian Abraham]

One has to wonder why the change in attitude of the management. Toasting with champers one minute and then this. Talk about kicking an own goal, they could not have got more coverage of the incident (not that I would call it that) if they tried.

[Absolutely Fabulous]

toasting with champers was for the arrival of the latest B777ER in special livery and NOT for the fly past

but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.......

[mohdawang]

This incident has made it to CNN. Wow, the free publicity! This guy deserves the employee of the month award!

[N1 Vibes]

Brian,

according to somebody else who was on the flight, when Mr Pratt came back from the flight deck after this manouever, he was heard to say he felt the pass was very low. Imagine if he was actually standing, his viewpoint during the pass would have just been concrete, trees, trees, trees... I am neither attacking or defending here - just passing on some facts.

Brgd's

N1 Vibes

[Dream Land]

sky9 is a retired airline pilot, and I got a whole lot more time for his take on this than yours by BronxUnfortunately CX management disagrees with you, a harmless low pass that is unfortunately frowned on by the FAA.

[411A]

Other than at scheduled air shows, where these maneuvers are well thought out and detailed beforehand, I have never understood the propensity of some pilots wanting to make low passes over the airfield/runway, just for the heck of it.
Poor judgement, it would seem to me.
Imagine if a flock of birds just happened to cross the runway at about the same altitude as when the low fly-past was accomplished...CX sure would look foolish with an expensive new 777 all rolled up just off the end of the runway.
Yes, the same thing could happen at takeoff, but that is entirely different, in my view.

The concerned Commander certainly left his brain out to lunch with this stunt...and that is precisely what it was, a stunt.

Deserve to be sacked?
Darn right, in spades.

[Baccara Bar]

Any Pilot who holds a Management position in CX is simply a cocksucker to the management above them. If you do not play that game you will not survive in the management role. CX is no different than Politics.

[mohdawang]

411A
I fully agree with your sentiments; deserved to be sacked? I think not; maybe relieved of position as Fleet Mgr/Chief Pilot and downgraded to line Captain but certainly not fired from the company.

[TheGuru]

Anyone want some comedy?? Go to youtube and read some of the "couch-pilots" opinions on this 'incident'

TheGuru

[Bronx]

411A Deserve to be sacked?
Darn right, in spades.

As far as I can recall, in every thread about a pilot who got fired you always say he deserved to be.

Sorry in advance if I missed one where you said a less severe punishment would have been fairer, but I can't remember it.


B.

[betterave]

jonnymac,

Here are some shots from the SU-30 display in Zhangjiajie, China on 19 Mar 06 and the link to the news story.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27UB/1032835/M/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27UB/1027487/M/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27UB/1025605/M/

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200603/19/eng20060319_251783.html

David Horn,

surely a decision to cross a picket line is a purely personal one and shouldn't be held against him?

Since other pilots have decided to strike in a labor dispute to maintain fair wages and working conditions, anyone crossing the picket line clearly demonstrated a selfish desire to benefit himself/herself. FYI, the "undesirable to jumpseat list", AKA Scab list include pilots dated back to the Century Airline strike of 1932! ALPA has a long memory...

Cheers,

[vapilot2004]

Should Wilkinson have been fired, sanctioned, reprimanded, offered early retirement or perhaps at a later date given a handsome bonus for his (unintended?) marketing brilliance?


However brilliant a flyer the captain is, Newtonian Physics would prevent him from maintaining level flight at that attitude - and particularly in that configuration - at over 260 kts IAS. So how fast was it? My guess is a figure well below 200 kts.

Thank you for that, C. Scott. The video also suggests this was no 200+ flyby. Watching the approach does give you an odd feeling - no doubt due to the lack of dangling feet on the big green dragonjet.

Ever been close enough to a newsworthy event to know the particulars ? I have and nearly every time there were factual errors in the published story. In some cases, an agenda could be made out from under a poorly crafted veneer of integrity - not that this is the case here.

[Bobbsy]

This is getting ridiculous. Channel 7 here in Australia just ran the video of the flypast on their network news this evening. They appeared to have the actual video (though they ran it in slow motion) rather than the assembly of stills that was posted in here.

Rather than join the chorus of speculation, personally I'd love to learn the details of what permissions he did and did not have. I find it hard to believe that an experienced captain would decide to imitate Tom Cruise unless he thought his actions were authorised. The presence of the CEO (and the friendly atmosphere during the post-flight champagne) would certainly indicate that nobody realised at the time that rules were being broken.

As usual, I wonder if we'll ever have the full facts.

Bobbsy

[Milt]

As an experienced flying instructor and examiner of airmen I'm rapidly losing confidence in present airline pilots.

Any right seater who admits that he/she would be unsafe doing a low fly by along an unobstructed runway surely needs more hands on experience and could hardly be trusted to do a landing or a balked approach.

The manoeuvre comes close to being a small segment of every approach and landing.

Any left seater who admits to a low fly by being unsafe under the circumstances please nominate your airline so that I can avoid same.

[TyroPicard]

Milt
As an experienced flying instructor and examiner of airmen I'm rapidly losing confidence in present airline pilots.

Gosh I thought you were a humble military test pilot... perhaps you should seek alternative employment as your instructing/examining skills are not producing pilots with the right abilities.
The manoeuvre comes close to being a small segment of every approach and landing.
Rubbish. It is untrained and unpracticed, at sigificantly different performance, with far greater scope for error.


TP

[sky9]

You don't need a video to ascertain that the speed was low, the flaps are clearly extended on all the photographs, my gut reaction is that the speed was closer to 180 kts maximum.

[forget]

It is untrained and unpracticed, at sigificantly different performance, with far greater scope for error.

I'm 100% with Milt on this. Would you really need to 'train and practice' beyond the routine for what is essentially a late go-around. :hmm:

[Teal]

It is unfortunate that the insurers and bean counters are now controlling the skies.C172s: maximising the returns to - and wealth of - shareholders is what airlines are all about. Not much else matters despite motherhood statements to the contrary.:bored:

[gunit]

might already be posted, but Air Canada has done the same thing, whats the big deal

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0eMFGkF8csk&feature=related

[sky9]

Your winding us up right, I hope you don't actually operate in the states, you need a waiver to do that stuff.

Just confirm that Seattle is still in the USA? How many low flypasts happen on delivery flights? or should I say did before the killjoys intervened. Get a life.

[Milt]

TyroPicard

You are the first to express your need for more hands on training. I guess you do it all with the buttons and knobs and simulators these days. It's not your fault and I am not trying to put you down.

I guess I have contributed to the decline of flying skills by believing that I had a reasonable grasp of the skill of the least capable operators and then went on to ensure that aircraft I had a hand in releasing for general use could be adequately handled within a defined flight envelope. I don't know how to jack up the lower limits of the flight envelopes. They still have to be landed.

What airline please.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Dream Land [Today/04:13]:
Unfortunately CX management disagrees with you, a harmless low pass that is unfortunately frowned on by the FAA.
[Unquote]

Dream Land, you have presented no credible evidence to back up your assertion. You have previously tried to support it on the basis of:
1) the "not less than 500 ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure" rule;
2) the speed limit (not more than 250 kts IAS below 10,000ft) rule.

If you care to take a look back at posts over the last 2 days, you will find that both your points have been demolished. For whatever reason, you have not had the decency to retract them.

If you have any EVIDENCE that the FAA frowns on these delivery fly-by manoeuvres, kindly share it with us.

Put up, or shut up. :)


Quote from exeng [Feb26/23:23]:
I never had anything to do with the VC10 apart from some odd bits as an engineering apprentice - what a cracking looking aircraft it is though; especially in that photo.
[Unquote]

Yes (and thanks, Flying Lawyer). Whatever the commercial deficiences of the old "Ten", versus the agricultural "Seven-oh" (which some of us, who flew both, called the "broom cupboard"), she was a lovely sight from any angle, as BOAC's publicity machine (in earlier days) knew only too well.

She was the last all-British long-haul airliner, as well as the last long-hauler to have tail-mounted engines. They don't make them like that (for very good reasons) any more... :sad:

[411A]

As an experienced flying instructor and examiner of airmen I'm rapidly losing confidence in present airline pilots.

Any right seater who admits that he/she would be unsafe doing a low fly by along an unobstructed runway surely needs more hands on experience and could hardly be trusted to do a landing or a balked approach.

The manoeuvre comes close to being a small segment of every approach and landing.



Hmmm, as an 'experienced' examiner of airman, Milt, surely you realise (or, more likely...not) that when one intends to land, the landing gear is confirmed extended.

Show-off's get canned, plain and simple.:ok:

[forget]

when one intends to land, the landing gear is confirmed extended.

Is this the thread about an intentional low fly-by? :confused:

[richatom]

I'm 100% with Milt on this. Would you really need to 'train and practice' beyond the routine for what is essentially a late go-around.


How does that even remotely resemble "a late go-around"?

In a late go-around, power would be TOGA, pitch positive, flaps partially retracted, gear retracted only when vario-positive. You would also be protected in any subsequent N-1 go around stages of the departure.

There he is flying straight and level at very low altitude, partially in ground effect, with what looks like landing flaps, a low power setting, and gear retracted (and presumably with all sorts of cockpit alarms clanging). And what was his protection in case of N-1 when he eventually did decide to apply TOGA?

Presumably the pilots did plan and rehearse this manouevre beforehand, consider the alarms that would be triggered, and also evaluate N-1 scenarios. Presumably they also briefed ATC, the passengers and discussed it with management etc. If it was all carefully planned, risks assessed etc then it is ok IMO. But if he just did it on the spur of the moment then it was certainly reckless.

Certainly I would not be too happy as a passenger if I had not been specifically briefed about what was going on...

[Milt]

411A

Yours invites a reponse.

All I am saying is that the fly by was ABSOLUTELY safe in the hands
of the pilot in command whose attested skill has been adequately confirmed and that there is now my gnawing concern that there may be airline captains confessing to their inability to safely fly a repeat. These are the ones I don't want to fly with as their hands on skills are inadequate.

Whether regulations were violated or the pilot was not cleared to do his fly by is surely a seperate consideration.

[captjns]

Low flybys are not prohibited maneuvers in the US, as long as permission is granted, when required. It’s also probably a good idea the PIC has permission from the higher ups… especially when they are onboard the aircraft too.

Are they fun??? You bet they are. But you need to know the meteorology, geographical and wildlife layout of the airport you are going to perform such maneuvers. Imagine one bird being sucked into one of those mighty motors? The insurance would cover such a loss since the aircraft was being operated out of its normal criteria.

[Dream Land]

Put up, or shut up. Strong words indeed, maybe your not paying too much attention, both FAR's have already been stated. I don't pretend to bring any evidence to the table, if you read previous posts you could understand why the speed stated, if correct would be a clear violation, and disagree with posters that feel this is a perfectly legal maneuver without proper authorization. Do you think they would sack the guy if it was legal, I think not. :ugh:

[Chris Scott]

Dream Land, your position re. APPLICABLE flight rules is becoming so ludicrous that I'm wondering if you are deliberately winding us up? Otherwise, your claim to inhabit "Planet Earth" is as unsupportable as your argument.

As you say, "both FARs have already been stated". If you had taken my advice and looked back at yours and others' posts over the last couple of days, you would – barring word-blindness – see what I am getting at. As you apparently find doing your homework tiresome, here are some quotes I am cutting and pasting – just for your benefit.

1) "Having conceded, perhaps (?), that the "not within 500 ft of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure" rule does not apply to operational airfields, Dream Land ....."

2) "Dream Land continues to imply that the American speed limit of 250 kts IAS below 10,000 ft has been exceeded.

"So let's look at the speed evidence.
1) 300 mph is 260 kts.
2) The aeroplane has slats/flaps extended (see excellent photo, #6 above), probably at the take-off setting.
3) Looking at the same photo, the pitch attitude is plainly over 5 degrees. [Nearer 8 degrees, I'd guess.]

"However brilliant a flyer the captain is, Newtonian Physics would prevent him from maintaining level flight at that attitude - and particularly in that configuration - at over 260 kts IAS. So how fast was it? My guess is a figure well below 200 kts."


You should stop banging your head on that wall... seems to be affecting the brain.

[Capt.KAOS]

Other than at scheduled air shows, where these maneuvers are well thought out and detailed beforehand, I have never understood the propensity of some pilots wanting to make low passes over the airfield/runway, just for the heck of it.
Poor judgement, it would seem to me.
Imagine if a flock of birds just happened to cross the runway at about the same altitude as when the low fly-past was accomplished...CX sure would look foolish with an expensive new 777 all rolled up just off the end of the runway.
Yes, the same thing could happen at takeoff, but that is entirely different, in my view.

The concerned Commander certainly left his brain out to lunch with this stunt...and that is precisely what it was, a stunt.

Deserve to be sacked?
Darn right, in spades.Good to see that there are still pilots around whose responses are less testosterone filled as most of the others in this thread.

I guess Mr.Wilkinson did not pay for the aircraft nor for the other bills, so he simply has to follow the company rules.

[Taildragger67]

Richatom,

Certainly I would not be too happy as a passenger if I had not been specifically briefed about what was going on...

I suggest that most punters would probably not know enough to be concerned, figuring that it would just 'be like a landing' and would actually think that it'd be fun to be part of something they could then boast about.

ATEOTD:
1. safety - I suspect the PIC and F/O did not have a collective death-wish and have a history of being competent as pilots generally and in handling B777 equipment in particular. Hence as a punter I would consider myself in as safe a set of hands as I'm likely to find.

2. procedures - there must be a set of procedures somewhere - either within the company or within the regulator of either the state of registration or where the impugned flight occurred - and if it runs counter to any of these, then there is an issue. If the company does not have procedures for non-standard flights (including any type of display), then it should. Procedures are in place (at least in part) to ensure, as far as possible, safety of passengers, crew and equipment.

3. employment - if the pilots' employment contracts contain sanctions for busting procedures (company, regulatory, or both), then they should be sanctioned accordingly. If not, then not.

I agree with an earlier poster that we are probably not hearing the full story here. If we are, then there is a breakdown in my 3 steps and the pilots have cause for grievance (not that anything a mere pilot may think carries much weight at CX towers... :hmm:)

Assuming we don't know the full story, then opinions here about the safety (or lack of) of the fly-by, or the fairness (or lack of) of the treatment of the pilots, are just that.

[Dream Land]

rule does not apply to operational airfields, Dream Land ....."
Ah, that's where I have it wrong, thank you for pointing that out. :ugh:

[Kerosene Kraut]

Why would everybody do it with ATC-clearance in public if it is so dangerous?
Because it is not.

[L-38]

Yesterdays televised news reporting (most local stations in the Los Angeles metropolis area, if not the nation) of the sacked Cathay Pacific pilot B-777 flyby, was so horribly miss represented as to throw shame on the media profession.

This story, publicly broadcast to millions, was ripe with over sensationalized and ignorant statements such as " a horribly dangerous stunt" and "of over 300 mph". News footage was then accompanied by video of the slow, high pitched lazy flyby - a media embarrassing contradiction!

[richatom]

I suggest that most punters would probably not know enough to be concerned, figuring that it would just 'be like a landing' and would actually think that it'd be fun to be part of something they could then boast about.

I suggest that most people here who are pilots, if sitting in the back, would be very concerned to see/feel/hear that the aircraft was on short finals, with full flaps, but without the gear down. I presume the crew did brief the pax, but certainly not clever to subject them to that sort of wind up without a warning.

As I said earlier, a low-pass like that with pax on board could be deemed ok if carefully planned and rehearsed, cleared with ATC, management and insurance, and pax had been briefed beforehand.

But if it was a spur of the moment act of bravado by the captain to show of his undoubted handling skills then it was reckless and stupid and shows very poor airmanship. If they had crashed, then they would justifiably have been prosecuted in the courts.

Flying airlines is not the place to show off your ability to manually control an aircraft in unusual configurations - which is anyway just a small aspect of airmanship. Fly a CAP-10 if you want to do that.

[NOR116,20]

Quote:
"This story, publicly broadcast to millions, was ripe with over sensationalized and ignorant statements such as " a horribly dangerous stunt" and "of over 300 mph". News footage was then accompanied by video of the slow, high pitched lazy flyby - a media embarrassing contradiction!"

Yeah, our fabulous media!
For their involvement Ian Wilkinson was sacked rather than for acting dangerously. Typically for the modern manager generation is that they are all wimps when media are involved.
And for what – for a dumb public which is getting distracted by the next sensation anyway.
Shame that there are some “colleagues” whose first idea is to cite SOPs and other books. May they always be successful in hiding behind some books!

NOR

[NoJoke]

'with full flaps and without gear down' OK rich, I admire your aviation insights. The pilot must have been blind and deaf also. Go away please.

[Ndicho Moja]

After seeing the video on the front of Flight International's web site, duty of care and reckless endangerment come to mind. Jail terms and loss of licence are a few other thoughts. Did the Captain seek consent from his passengers? What was the Captain thinking?

[CaptainFillosan]

How is it that everyone seems to know why Captain Wilkinson was sacked? Was he really? Was there not something else perhaps. Was it that the MD got cold feet?

What he did was a flyby - that's it. It wasn't dangerous. He will have assessed it and used his considerable expertise and skill to provide a company presence in another acquisition. The height is guesswork and the speed also. But I would be happy to assert that neither was excessive. It looked to me to be just about right. It happens time and time again. I have done it and I know many others who have.

And while you are vilifying him. Ask yourself this. Think of ALL the times you have seen 'his' flyby in displays and demonstrations at all the airshows all around the world! IMHO he was proud of his company's new aeroplane and demonstrated it very well.

[411A]

After seeing the video on the front of Flight International's web site, duty of care and reckless endangerment come to mind. Jail terms and loss of licence are a few other thoughts. Did the Captain seek consent from his passengers? What was the Captain thinking?
Jail might be a tad, extreme, but this flight might be indicative of the attitude of many CX pilots.

Hope not.

Brain out to lunch would be appropriate.
Sacking...yep, as a lesson to others.

Want to demonstrate low fly-by's?
Buy you own aeroplane, not use a public transport aeroplane, that belongs to someone else.

I repeat, he was a silly fool.

[florida flamingo]

CaptainFillosan,

I completely agree with you. If you sack a skilled pilot for this then all pilots who do a go around during a CAT III approach at 20 ft should also be diciplined because it is done with Passengers on board! The size of "management brains" are inversely proportional to the price of Aircraft today.

[equal]

everyone take a deep breath and relax. we can`t boast and say he was right or wrong without knowing the entire proceedings leading up to the day. did he get approval from 'someone'? 'someone' didn`t have approval from someone else? he conducted a fly by because he wanted to? we need some more FACTS.

[Stoic]

Buy you own aeroplane, not use a public transport aeroplane, that belongs to someone else.But the CEO was in on the fly-by!

Hey 411A, what is your take on doing a formation fly-past with a visiting head-of-state on board and 6 fighters of the host nation formating on us - 3 on each wing-tip? It looked spectacular from our flight-deck and on the TV news that evening, especially as all 7 aeroplanes had the same Vickers wing-form!

Regards to all

Stoic

[PBL]

If the insurers expressed any concerns, they could be informed the above steps had been taken. That, in my experience, usually suffices .........
Explosion in insurance expense?
When no harm was done, so no claim made?
Insurers don't risk losing major clients that easily.


I dunno - insurance contracts come up for renewal every once in a while, and as far as I can tell, every possible happenstance is adduced on the one side as a reason for increasing the premium, and every safety measure (and record) on the other side as a reason for reducing it. Reality does not necessarily have a lot to do with the outcome.

The outcome has a fair amount to do with the specific negotiators involved and their skills. But when one side says "we're safe as houses", and the other "you can't even get your chief pilot to stick to your procedures", I think it's fairly clear in what direction the money-weathercock is tending.

Concerning the priceless fly-by pic, I did notice your colleague's aim was poor. Do tell - did you chicken out at the last minute? :)

PBL

[richatom]

completely agree with you. If you sack a skilled pilot for this then all pilots who do a go around during a CAT III approach at 20 ft should also be diciplined because it is done with Passengers on board! The size of "management brains" are inversely proportional to the price of Aircraft today.

You can't compare the low pass to a CatIII go around.

Going around on CatIII both pilots have rehearsed it over and over again in the sim, configuration changes and protection on the climb out are all exactly known, both pilots know exaclty what the other is about to do at all stages of the process. If you do have misfortune to have a critical equipment failure on the go around and you do have the misfortune to crash, you are not in any way criminially negligent because you have followed the procedures which have been carefully considered and designed.

Not sure this was the case for the low pass here. Did they practise the low pass in the sim first? Did the FO even know the captain was about to do it? How did they work out their N-1 protection on climb out? If they did have the misfortune to have critical equipment failure, or they had engine failure on applying TOGA at the end of the low pass and were outside of protection envelope on climbout, then they would be criminially negligent because they hadn't followed the procedures. No different from the Indonesian pilot (justifiably much maligned on this forum) who made his approach too fast, crashed off the end of the runway and killed half his passengers.

[richatom]

NoJoke


OK rich, I admire your aviation insights. The pilot must have been blind and deaf also. Go away please.


Huh? Care to explain? Do you think I'm suggesting the pilot didn't know he had the gear up? If so read my post more carefully.

[Flying Lawyer]

Ndicho Moja After seeing the video ..... duty of care and reckless endangerment come to mind. Jail terms and loss of licence are a few other thoughts.Interesting.
None of those things came to my mind when I watched the video.
Having reviewed my initial thoughts, they still don't.
Wishing I'd be on the flight did, and still does. :)

411A ...... this flight might be indicative of the attitude of many CX pilots. Perhaps you're right. The attitude and quality of their pilots must be a major factor in Cathay's long-established excellent safety record.


richatom they would be criminally negligent because they hadn't followed the procedures:rolleyes:


FL

[TyroPicard]

Milt

You are the first to express your need for more hands on training. I guess you do it all with the buttons and knobs and simulators these days. It's not your fault and I am not trying to put you down.
You certainly are - I did not express a need for more hands on training, I said that for airline pilots low passes are untrained and unpracticed.

I've done faster and lower passes in a previous fast-jet life, which was followed by thirty years with five UK airlines. I would never consider doing one that low in an airliner - but it can be fun in a simulator, because it satisfies that particular part of my pilot's brain. And therein lies the problem - we like to do it because it's fun. It can lead to disaster - and I'm sure it will again one day.
In general, low-flying is prohibited (I mean low, not 500'agl) because it is not as safe as medium or high-level flying.
Can you show us footage of a test pilot at Farnborough Airshow flying that low in an airliner? If that pass had been performed at said airshow the pilot would not have been given the opportunity to repeat it. Why? Safety that's why.

All I am saying is that the fly by was ABSOLUTELY safe in the hands of the pilot in command whose attested skill has been adequately confirmed and that there is now my gnawing concern that there may be airline captains confessing to their inability to safely fly a repeat. These are the ones I don't want to fly with as their hands on skills are inadequate.
"Absolutely safe?" Please tell me you are joking. The list of display pilots whose attested skill had been adequately confirmed up to the day of their death grows longer every year.

Airline flying is not about being macho in an aircraft - it's about hauling your ass around the world as safely as possible, safer than the laws of the land, safer than your company Ops Manual. The history of aviation is littered with the bones of pilots who thought they could hack it - and the pubs and golf courses should be full of old pilots enjoying a glorious retirement. And their passengers.
As a wise USMC aviator once said to me - if you're in a low-flying contest, always aim to come second.

Incidentally, another "senior Cathay Pacific pilot" is reported in the Guardian thus.. (and I am sure there are others that disagree with him)..

"Maiden flights are treated as a bit of a jolly for executives with lots of champagne flowing and these fly-bys used to be done for a wheeze in the old days. But they are dangerous, because however good the pilot thinks he is, he isn't trained for it and the planes aren't designed for it.

"Wilkinson was showing off, and most of the pilots might be sympathetic but they feel he got what he deserved when he was sacked."

TP

[slip and turn]

Now I have seen the video I really don't get it - what is the purpose of such a flyby? Seriously, I do not understand it.





[Edited]

That's a whole topic all by itself.
Ask a pilot to explain to you, or feel free to ask pilots in another forum, but not in this thread and not in this forum.

[Marsh Outlaws]

Well said TyroPicard! BTW, that CX B777 bound for VHHH was fully laden with fuel ...should a prang occur, folks living several miles down the runway end might have been incinerated in a huge fireball. Do not think that only the immediate airport environ is exposed; a stricken big jet can limp off only to plonk down somewhere else onto densely populated areas. In the A320 Habsheim disaster, there wasn't that much fuel and thankfully the undercarriage scraping through the trees brought it down earlier into the forest. The fireball was large!

[Bronx]

Hey Marsh Outlaw

You forgot the kids in the kindergarten that narrowly escaped death.

:)

[PBL]

Bronx,

You forgot the kids in the kindergarten that narrowly escaped death.

Reactions to other posts aside, do you have a view on the wisdom or not of performing such a manoeuvre in the given situation?

PBL

[fr8tmastr]

Come on people, this was not a "dangerous stunt" They just flew down the runway. If just flying an aircraft in basically a straight and level configuration, is an air show, many of us need some serious raises.

To me the only question is, did he have permission or not from the controlling agency and or the brass from the company. Judging by the initial reaction from the company I would say that was not the issue. At least until all the crying about the "stunt" started.

[M.Mouse]

TyroPicard makes some cogent points but one that sticks out and is so true:

In general, low-flying is prohibited (I mean low, not 500'agl) because it is not as safe as medium or high-level flying.
Can you show us footage of a test pilot at Farnborough Airshow flying that low in an airliner? If that pass had been performed at said airshow the pilot would not have been given the opportunity to repeat it.

I do know that in the UK height limits are placed upon a pilot's display authorisation and I doubt any would be allowed to fly that low in that type of aircraft at an airshow and empty of passengers.

I am fortunate to count as friends and work colleagues numerous TPs and several pilots with display experience both civil and military. All with whom I have spoken are unanimous about the 'display' and the circumstances in which it was flown (i.e. with passengers) - it was misguided at best and inviting disaster at worst.

[Bronx]

PBL do you have a view on the wisdom or not of performing such a manoeuvre in the given situation?
I do.
I gave it way back in post #14 and again by inference in #113.
In case I wasn't clear enough --

Sporty but safe.
A big fuss about nothing.

The airline should have said nothing to the press or maybe at most issued a simple statement saying the maneuver was safely executed by a very experienced pilot. That way the vultures from the press move on to their next 'shock expose' and it would have blown over like these things always do.
Firing him was a disgrace. Management pilots are rarely popular so I guess some CX line pilots are happy to see him fired but that don't make it fair.

And there are always folks who'd love to do something themselves who either ain't got the skill or ain't had the opportunity and just love it when some guy who does get's in trouble.

Some around here sound like they're swell pilots - as long as everything goes according to the book.
I'd feel a whole lot safer flying with a guy like that in a sudden emergency than some posters on this thread who sound like they'd still be checking what the Company Ops Manual says when it's too late. :rolleyes:

[parabellum]

PBL - The London aviation insurance market is over capacity and any of the dozens of underwriters that write CX and wanted to come off the CX risk would be replaced by a queue of underwriters trying to get on the risk. CX is triple A business and very sought after. There has been no actuarial change so no need to even consider an increase in the premium.

[Bartholomew]

Bronx,

Couldn't have put it better myself... I've taught pre-solo PPL pilots to fly down the runway at 60', 30' 10'..... height perception is an early gain... FOR VISUAL PILOTS!

This is the 777 CP... I'm sure he knew what height he was at, his RA would've told him so, if his FO hadn't (I'm pretty sure he was at the time). Plus... HOW long had he flown this type for? Enough, I think, for them to make him CP?

This is what pilots do people... you all drive cars, we all drive planes! You do yours, we'll do ours. Yes, agreed, management took offense because he didn't ask them first (or so they say), but he wasn't trying to kill people in the process!

Did anyone pull the CVR tapes yet.. are there any stereo-typical rantings being uttered (usually heard at this altitude?) No? Then I guess it was all just good fun then?

Yes, FAR's, blah blah blah's, it happens at this airfield EVERYDAY.... it's not like every CX flight will start and end with a "fly-past", is it?

Get over it, a professional pilot doing a nice-looking fly-past. Case closed.

Kill the media, kill the management's opinion.... a gross over-reaction to a safe piece of flying. If there is a single (flying) person reading this who hasn't done it... ever... better you be the next Pope! :cool:

[pasoundman]

Ali Sadikin
If my memory serves me right, there was a 1998 A320 prang at Basel Mulhouse and another at Habsheim.

It's the same place ! It has both French and German names for it.

There was also a A330 crash by the Airbus test flight.

And the relevance of that to this incident is what exactly ? Many airplanes have crashed over the years.

[Flying Lawyer]

PBL

I was about to respond to your post 194, but Parabellum has already done so. He's right; I have nothing to add.

Re the VC10 flyby pic:
I didn't take it. Wish I had, or been standing next to the photographer.
Here's another favourite (again, not my picture), coincidentally flown by a pilot who went on to fly for Cathay after leaving the RAF.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/boacphotos/untitled-1.jpg

Granted it's mil, and he was an exceptional pilot, trained and current in such flying, but there were still some 'experts' and prophets of doom who forecast he'd die one day.
He did eventually, of natural causes aged 77.



Bartholomew If there is a single (flying) person reading this who hasn't done it... ever I suspect, from reading some posts, that there might be a few who never have and never even wanted to - in any aircraft.


FL

[pasoundman]

Ali Sadikin
Apologies guys, looks like memory did not serve me well! It was a A320 flight from Mulhouse with a flypast at Habsheim in 1988.

No. Still wrong.

The aircraft in question took off from Basel-Mulhouse (LFSB) for a display at Mulhouse-Habsheim (LFGB).

The other incidents you mention were not flypasts.

[mohdawang]

Flypast, flyover, overfly, buzzing...whatever, he did it and pranged it.

A330 test flt; well I guess he is trying to show that even with all the exhaustive preparations associated by a highly qualified test pilot and crew something unintended still cropped up.

[Bartholomew]

FL....

I suspect, from reading some posts, that there might be a few who never have and never even wanted to - in any aircraft.
Are you trying to make a point? If so. I missed it (subtle as it was, so supposed to be, perhaps?).

PS What was the point? If you want proof.. you aren't going to get it. Real pilots wouldn't ask, and real pilots wouldn't give. It's a funny game... they stick to themselves.. (selfish buggers).. I guess you'll just have to take their word for it?)

PPS I really like that photo... which site is it on? If you were there, can we please have date, time, location, type, pilot, car type, variation, weather, authorisation... just so we can get "post-authorisation" for said pilot.... just in case someone wants to sue him for over-flight rights and In-Case-He-Crashed rights? A postal code would work????????????

How silly has this become?






I really like that photo... which site is it on? Here: Link (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2240852)
Lots more, same pilot, various aircraft.
If you haven't already seen it, the video in post 40 of that thread is worth watching.

[Bartholomew]

The guy did nothing wrong!

If his management thinks he did, they must sort it out between themselves.

Sorry... He broke THEIR rules...........

as they chose to read them after the "event". (after seeing it on the Net!!)

But why after the pictures, the champagne, the revelry?

If he was the Shrek of the CX world... why the photos of him delivering the a/c? Why banish him to the Underword?

This stinks of Fine Young Cannibals "They Drive Me Crazy"...

Okay, not the same lyrics, but close enough, and the emotions are very close. What are these guys up to? "How to entice new pilots 101"

Nah, you need to better than that dudes!

[Rananim]

The fly-by is an approved maneuver and was performed in textbook fashion.If he didnt get ATC clearance,he should have.He doesnt need clearance from the CEO.On board the aircraft he outranks the CEO.

The CEO really missed his opportunity on this one.After the flight,he should have fired him(just to let him know whos boss on the ground) and then immediately re-hired him with a raise(to show he has a GSOH).

[broadreach]

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.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Just to be complete:8


The speed limit in any airport airspace Class B[and transition corridors therein],C or D=200KIAS or 230MPH

not sure if he busted speed or not?---- as to all journos all aircraft are moving at 500mph:}

[HKJunkie]

Quote from broadreach:
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.
Unquote.
Actually that appears (from Fragrant harbour) to be exactly what happend! No sim, no brief, just ego perhaps

[SmileAirlines]

It's not the 1st time CX did a low fly pass upon delivery of a B777

http://blog.seattle-deliveries.com/2007/10/cathay-777-b-kpc-delivery.html

But how come the captain who flew B-KPC didn't get fired?

JA

[broadreach]

If that's really the case, HKJunkie, the assumptions I've suggested above can be crossed out one by one and the captain can eventually be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt etc. What's difficult to stomach is the hasty assumption of guilt here, on Pprune. With apologies for not having read up on Fragrant Harbour before posting. :ouch:

[Harbour Dweller]

It's not the 1st time CX did a low fly pass upon delivery of a B777

But how come the captain who flew B-KPC didn't get fired?

The Captain of KPC was the B777 Deputy CP.

There are rumours floating around CX that the fallout from the Flyby may not be over yet...

[Brian Abraham]

What ever arguments you want to make for or against the fly past, one thing you can't argue about is CX's PR department, top class. They sure made sure the word got out, as with the celebrity mantra, any publicity is good publicity, or so they say.

There are rumours floating around CX that the fallout from the Flyby may not be over yet...

Pratt get Pratted?

[mr Q]

The story made CNN International this morning (Hong Kong time)
The (female) anchor used the word "moronic" in respect of the conduct which resulted in the dismissal and a top gun caption below a still of the aircraft .
The comment reminded me how banal these anchors are and for the first time I had to agree with that segment of posters who refer to JOURNOS and their "scoops" in less than flattering terms.
Was the 777 in a special livery??
If so will CX repaint lest it attract a certain fame or infamy ??

[Earl]

Quote Mr Q:
The story made CNN International this morning (Hong Kong time)
The (female) anchor used the word "moronic" in respect of the conduct which resulted in the dismissal and a top gun caption below a still of the aircraft

Earl:
These reporters are sinking to the lower levels everyday.
Would love to see this Captain grant CNN an interview and put them in there place.
One thing to report what he did may have been wrong, but this was a really bad choice of words and about as unprofessional as you can get.

Google: Moronic,
mo·ron (môrn, mr-)
1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
mo·ronic (m-rnk, mô-) adj.

[Firestorm]

Did he set QNH when he should have set QNE (or the other way around depending on conditions on the day...)? It would have been a weak defence though. Still, no one can take away the fact that he was the man that done it :E I know he shouldn't have and all that, but you can't help but feel a bit jealous that he did it, and I didn't...

[saffron]

Just been informed by one of the 49'ers (49 pilots sacked by management thugs some years ago for no reason other than to intimidate the pilot workforce) that the Captain sacked for the 777 flyby (lowest height 28ft being reported) was one of the management thugs,what comes around goes around,how sweet it is!

[SMOC]

Don't think it's been mentioned but the RAD ALT is calibrated for the gear being DOWN so all this 28ft stuff is wrong. (ie when the RAD ALT reads '00' the wheels touch) from the belly should be at least 50ft, but lets not let the truth get in the way of a good fly-by!

[Colditz Castle]

Chief pilot, private flight, safe = why all the fuss????

[Greek God]

The amount of drivel spouted here is almost beyond belief and pretty much at the level of our journalistic bretheren.
Broadreach has it in a nutshell at posts 215 & 219 well done Sir.
But then why spoil a good slanging match - :rolleyes:same old names same old opinions

[GlueBall]

If Wilkinson were smarter he would have undertaken this sort of stunt on his last rostered flight before retirement. :ooh:

[777fly]

The post acceptance factory fly-by was always a 'thank you' to the people who built the aircraft and gave them,and the accepting airline, a chance to see and take pride in the end product in its natural environment.. and to say goodbye.
Shame that this Captain didn't just fly an approach to a 50ft go-round with an early turn away. It would have been just as impessive and not a word would have been said. SOP's would have been followed, too. Then again, SLF may have felt something happening, unlike this flyby ...........

[Pugilistic Animus]

C'mon Ladies and Gentlemen---what is the real problem?

1. He was 'evil management' at CX so pilots are glad too see him sacked-regardless of the reason?:cool:

2. everyone else thinks this stunt is reckless, BECAUSE A PILOT WAS SACKED-for it and FOX news agrees? :(

3. Some folk really consider that maneuver aerobatic, Good Ol' Tex was just called to the Carpet and things were handled in a gentlemanly fashion---unheard of today...


BTW here's how it's done http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wx_ui2qWgqI

[Rolling-Thunderbird]

There's an actual video of the flyby here

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1204000744




and

http://www.king5.com/video/featured-index.html?nvid=221537

[Larry in TN]

14 CFR 91.119 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14feb20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/14cfr91.119.htm) is quite clear. "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:" There is no exemption for low-passes or for in the vicinity of an airport, that's why a waiver from 91.119 is required for air shows. It would be very difficult to convince a law judge that the low pass was necessary for takeoff or landing when the gear was retracted, flaps not configured for landing and speed (possibly) well in excess of approach speeds.

In this case, (scroll down to March 25, 2004) (http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Archives/2004_03_01_index.shtml) the violation of 91.119 was upheld because the judge found that there was no intention to land so the "except when necessary for landing" exemption did not apply.

Some years ago a transport aircraft crew was violated on a training flight during which they shot practice approaches to an airfield that was too small for them to actually land their airplane. Since a landing was not possible, the FAA ruled that the "except when necessary for takeoff or landing" exemption did not apply and that they would have had to maintain the applicable minimum altitudes per 91.119.

ATC can not waive the requirements of 91.119. It is not ATC's job to determine if the appropriate waivers have been obtained. Their approval is based only on local traffic.

In incident 1 on this page (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKE/is_12_45/ai_72684401) the pilot's maneuvers were approved by ATC who mistakenly believed that the aircraft was covered by the existing waiver--he was not and was violated.

The speed limit over PAE would be 200kts, not 250kts. Don't know how fast he was actually flying but he would have needed another waiver if he was to exceed 200 KIAS.

None of this is to say that the low pass was unsafe but it was most certainly a violation of at least one regulation.

[Chris Scott]

Thanks, Larry in TN,

Interesting. Am confident they were below 200 kts. So what about all those other PAE fly-bys over the years? Is this going to put a stop to the practice?

[pilotbear]

Oh dear, what a shame that something harmless that is a bit of entertainment always drags the self righteous wan*ers onto their keyboards. The same old ones as well. Never broken the speed limit, never driven after a glass of wine, never sworn in church, etc...
Go back to beating your wives and children or whatever else you do to lower your obviously high blood pressure:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Great job, Great Pictures....:ok::ok::ok::ok:

[mupepe]

this "error" maybe defined as a consequence in which that crew made a decision to increase risk unnecessarily with extreme manoeuvres on approach.
This error had that day no outcome consequence of the completion of the flight but learned before that crew errors were implicated in quite numbers of accidents especially in approaches and landings phases.
Trusting the crew was well aware of the conduct of such manoeuvre, CX management had differrent point of view and probably took action in the light of operational decision error for the risk taken.:suspect:

[NOR116,20]

After landing there was a celebration first with some managers. Only when the press was involved the fly-by became an issue.
As soon as things are about political correctness all the teachers come out to tell the cowboys what real “professionalism” is about.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Larry in TN, you are correct, but still let him pay his fine and say Lamentations to the Administrator:\ have as it's said have some 'tea and biscuits' and call it a day---a sacking of the CP seems harsh...also they can get him on 91.13 if they wish...but he's not an FAA ATP soooo?

to be pedantic and I know I'm putting my foot in my mouth but
re speeds see para (d)

a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).
(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.:}

[Larry in TN]

So what about all those other PAE fly-bys over the years?

It can be done legally with either a properly obtained waiver from the FAA or by doing a normal approach followed by a normal go-around.

[Larry in TN]

but still let him pay his fine and say Lamentations to the Administrator have as it's said have some 'tea and biscuits' and call it a day---a sacking of the CP seems harsh

I agree.


also they can get him on 91.13 if they wish...but he's not an FAA ATP soooo?

I don't understand your point. If I'm flying in Europe I'm not immune from European regulations because my ATP is from the FAA, am I?


(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

I think you'd have a hard time convincing the FAA that the maneuver could not have been performed with flaps. If you're trying to say that it was an approach/go-around to avoid busting 91.119 then you don't have any case for not configuring and slowing down. Of course, if you're getting the waiver for the altitude you might as well get it for the airspeed as well.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Larry in TN

--- I've conceded multiple times to the illegality of this action:{
and the appropriate approval process should've been followed....

I'm grateful, for the conservatism and self checking done in the pilot community in order to enhance safety---perhaps the event even went a little beyond some 'beaurocratic handwaving excercises' concerning briefings etc...but, as you know we are all naughty immature little children who must be watched by the Administrator:E

So, my posting of 91.117, was a bit a foot stomping display on my behalf...

---as was my reference to 91.13 [to non-US pilots reckless and careless operation] and non-FAA ATPL was also a little off the cuff sarcasm---as is the statement that follows---but yes we SHOULD INDEED adhere to the regulations of the region in which we operate---


Irony---that under our FAR 91.111 two captains on delivery flights with non-fare paying pax can conspire to fly in formation as long as:
91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.



I must reiterate so as not to betray the conservatism I like to demonstrate regarding safety---

"What's Safe Isn't Always Legal and What's legal is Always Safe"---but There's Plenty of Safe/Legal Fun out there for All:ok:

PA

[stickyb]

And it seems to happen elsewhere (at least the flyby)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=624_1200342909

[747-436]

And the United flyby at Frankfurt seemed to be a normal revenue flight!!!

[Phil Space]

There might be a few more heads to roll yet:=
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=523870&in_page_id=1770
Full story in the UK Mail On Sunday.

Christopher Pratt CBE, chairman of Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific, and Cathay Pacific's director of engineering Christopher Gibbs were both in jump seats behind the captain.

Two first officers were also standing unharnessed inside the flight deck as Wilkinson circled after take-off to descend with landing gear raised to fly 28ft above the Boeing plane-maker's Seattle airport, the airline has admitted.

Neither Mr Pratt nor Mr Gibbs, who is also British, complained about the pilot's manoeuvre. It was questioned only when Cathay Pacific officials saw pictures of the stunt five days later.

[armchairpilot94116]

Looks like more oxen for the sacrificial altar ?

[ampan]

The poor unfortunate F/O has also been suspended.

Worse still, the CRV tape will have gone around its loop many times since.

[ACMS]

The guy in the RHS was a senior Check/training Capt acting as PM.

I think It's time we put all this crap to bed......... don't you?

[NOR116,20]

ACMS,

I think CX should put their backing culture to bed.

[mr Q]

Now that the episode has become famous/infamous.... what is the likelihood of the regulatory authorities ( HK or US depending on jurisdiction) taking criminal proceedings or regulatory action against CX or individuals (or both) on safety endangerment violations notwithstanding that it was not a revenue flight???

[mark sicknote]

Good.

Glad this thread has shifted direction. There is absolutely no doubt that this minor event/departure posed no danger whatsoever to anyone involved.

CX management are a shower of complete c:mad:s. The proud history of this establishment is being eroded by management on a daily basis.

How many CX management staff even know who "Marco Polo" was?

They are getting my card back. I'll be using Kenyan, Ethiopian, Thai, Emirates, Philippines, etc from now on.

:mad: these :mad:s

Sorry about the rant...

Best,


Sicknote:ok:

[Chris Scott]

Quote from the link to the UK "Mail on Sunday" article:
Wilkinson, who was sacked with three months' pay, did not return calls or text messages yesterday.


For the sake of argument, let's assume this is a more accurate statement than their contention that the fly-by was conducted at "320 mph" (the headline says "350") - plainly unsupportable if you analyse the photos and video.

So why would a distinguished long-term senior employee, who has [U]already been dismissed in a fashion which is at least controversial, find himself unwilling to comment on any of the criticisms which have been levelled PUBLICLY at him? Misinformed allegations in the media, some bordering on the hysterical, are bad enough - but we have got used to them. Smears from aviation professionals - including the hypocritical - are another matter.

Is there any possibility that weasel management has issued a threat, based on the security of his pension arrangements?

[Bronx]

So why would a distinguished long-term senior employee, who has already been dismissed in a fashion which is at least controversial, find himself unwilling to comment on any of the criticisms ......

Maybe he's got the good sense not to talk to journalists about the incident in case they distort anything he says or take it out of context for the sake of their shock horror crap, or appealing against being fired or thinking about legal action against Cathay.

Or maybe he's got the good sense not to talk to journalists, period.
He'd be stupid to talk to any journalist but an idiot if he spoke to one who's already written crap like "swooped over a runway", "daredevil stunt", "shocked investigators" and called him a "maverick".

Was the "junior manager" in the article really the mail clerk or do Cathay really employ folk that stupid as managers?
Unless he don't exist and the journalist made it up. Wouldn't be the first time they done that.

[411A]

Maybe he's got the good sense not to talk to journalists about the incident in case they distort anything he says or take it out of context for the sake of their shock horror crap, or appealing against being fired or thinking about legal action against Cathay.



Legal action against CX?...:rolleyes:gimmie a break.
This a**hole you can bet was not ordered to do the low flypast, so he will truly find himself up the perverbial creek without a paddle.

Just where he belongs...show-off in the AirForce, not in the AirLine.

[Brian Abraham]

Is there any possibility that weasel management has issued a threat, based on the security of his pension arrangements?

Sadly, has been done in other places, and from the impression I get reading of CX management, highly likely. If I were a betting man I'd even put money on it.

[Bronx]

411A

It was just one reason the guy might not be talking to the press. I got no idea if he's talking to his lawyers and I don't know enough about all the facts to have any opinion on if he could win but just because an employee does something wrong don't necessary mean the employer is entitled to fire him. If they go OTT when less punishment would fit the 'crime' the fired employee can get compensation. Don't know if that's how it works in Hong Kong, maybe it's different there.
I know you see everything in black and white, usually black where other pilots are concerned, but not everyone does.


B.