CX 777 Flyby CP sacked
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Mostly in a hotel
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk of not knowing the facts
All for flight safety, but WHAT A CROCK SH!T. From someone who has performed air show displays, at low level, what EXACTLY pray tell was the risk involved in this straight and level fly past?
For arguments sake, what if the intended height of the fly-by was 100' or 50'. For somebody who has performed air show displays, at low level, undershooting the intended height of your fly-by by roughly 70% or 35% is a bit of safety issue wouldn't you say.
If we are arguing if it was safe or not, lets wait for the report, so we know what happened.
For somebody who has done airshow fly-bys, pls tell me, wasn't the norm that anything below the minimum height for the airshow, had to be in connection with your take-off, low-approach, Touch-n-go, or you went to have a talk with the air-show director.
Cider30
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard another rumor today, that IW appeal was going to name other 777 pilots who had also done flyby's to prove that everyone does it.
If this is true, then not only is he an idiot for doing the flyby but he is also spineless. For those who are sticking up for this former star chamber leader, you may want to re-think.
For those guys who have done flyby's out of the boeing factory, i hope that no one has any evidence of your flyby's.
If this is true, then not only is he an idiot for doing the flyby but he is also spineless. For those who are sticking up for this former star chamber leader, you may want to re-think.
For those guys who have done flyby's out of the boeing factory, i hope that no one has any evidence of your flyby's.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is their seniority number? If it is to MY advantage, I may have to do some internet searching.
If it were managers, well let’s collect some money and pay the bloke who has the video. Someone must have it.
We will then post it on You Tube and sit back and watch him hang. We can send it to the FAA, HKCAD and the Swire Pratt. That would be money well spent.
Please leave your payment at the Aviator’s Bar aka Slashers in Tung Chung care of “Sink the Cathay Managers Club”.
Or is that too mean?
If it were managers, well let’s collect some money and pay the bloke who has the video. Someone must have it.
We will then post it on You Tube and sit back and watch him hang. We can send it to the FAA, HKCAD and the Swire Pratt. That would be money well spent.
Please leave your payment at the Aviator’s Bar aka Slashers in Tung Chung care of “Sink the Cathay Managers Club”.
Or is that too mean?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IW appeal was going to name other 777 pilots who had also done flyby's to prove that everyone does it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: VHHH
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The threat of naming others would not be made during the hearing but unofficially in order to negotiate for as juicy an exit package as possible.
I don't believe the company will have him back in whatever capacity so IW's strategy would be to extract $$$.
I don't believe the company will have him back in whatever capacity so IW's strategy would be to extract $$$.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: mars (Celebrating 20 years on PPRUNE)
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
I have just read the entire thread and can't believe the variety of comments from a group of professional drivers. (hint!) We all have embarked on this passion for the simple reason that we LOVE THE THRILL. If CPA had never spent so much time and $ having the said video removed from the WWW then many in the world would be none the wiser. Can't help but think that there was a bigger agender here. (not an employee either) Not sure how much the CP was loved or hated but have a listen to yourselves people. If he was close to the end then it was probably pre-meditated and the consequences thought about. Agreed that even a fleet specialist (TRE/TRI or whatever) was unlikely to disagree with the CP but hey lets think about it.
Put yourself in his/her situation. On the CP theme then well good on him. We can all be safe in our positions and carry out all the SOP's and the like's but this situation was not necessarily a 'line flight' situation. If any of you naysayers can't seperate a standard line flight from a more unusual delivery/test/verification etc etc flight then you have lost the collective plot. When all CPA drivers are quizzed then they may collectively agree that it may not have been the best call but hey, it looked SH*T hot then good. People must remember some of the fundamental reasons why they got involved in this business.
Even if the CP has been sacked he will not be without legend and a job. Check the job pages ATM. There was nothing unsafe about the manouvre (from an aeronautical design engineer), and if they wanted the story suppressed then they should have a new PR outfit.
All these comments about birdstrike and the like well, HELLO, what do several million aircraft on this planet do every time , every minute, of every day and night risk when they are taking off or landing?
Cathay at the end of the day (if they had clever spin doctors ) could have turned this into a clever marketing piece and then I and all and sundry wouldn't be sitting here arguing about whether it was a smart or dumb idea.
The whole idea about the Cathay image falls to pieces for several reasons, namely: anyone who is aware of the history and good record of the airline will not hesitate to buy a ticket now, then , or any time in the future, the public actually are impressed by such actions that they think, "gee those pilots know their stuff", no-one in this part of the world even heard anything in mainline news about the event (nothing to do with CPA) because there are far more important news events happening, this whole thread is not read or known to exist by 99.9999% of the worlds population (specifically ticket buying punters) .
This whole beat up about a beat up is exactly that. A BEAT UP. All who are professional about their flying jobs either in the Fragrant Harbour or anywhere else on the globe have to appreciate that when you go to work you do the righty, when you have an opportunity to have a bit of fun then you take advantage of it. Ask yourselves , when have YOU done something that's not quite (maybe) within the SOP's or acceptable standards and you've just gone - to hell with it because no-one will either know or SEE? Anyone who thinks that they aare in neither category is kidding themselves!
Adios amigos
Put yourself in his/her situation. On the CP theme then well good on him. We can all be safe in our positions and carry out all the SOP's and the like's but this situation was not necessarily a 'line flight' situation. If any of you naysayers can't seperate a standard line flight from a more unusual delivery/test/verification etc etc flight then you have lost the collective plot. When all CPA drivers are quizzed then they may collectively agree that it may not have been the best call but hey, it looked SH*T hot then good. People must remember some of the fundamental reasons why they got involved in this business.
Even if the CP has been sacked he will not be without legend and a job. Check the job pages ATM. There was nothing unsafe about the manouvre (from an aeronautical design engineer), and if they wanted the story suppressed then they should have a new PR outfit.
All these comments about birdstrike and the like well, HELLO, what do several million aircraft on this planet do every time , every minute, of every day and night risk when they are taking off or landing?
Cathay at the end of the day (if they had clever spin doctors ) could have turned this into a clever marketing piece and then I and all and sundry wouldn't be sitting here arguing about whether it was a smart or dumb idea.
The whole idea about the Cathay image falls to pieces for several reasons, namely: anyone who is aware of the history and good record of the airline will not hesitate to buy a ticket now, then , or any time in the future, the public actually are impressed by such actions that they think, "gee those pilots know their stuff", no-one in this part of the world even heard anything in mainline news about the event (nothing to do with CPA) because there are far more important news events happening, this whole thread is not read or known to exist by 99.9999% of the worlds population (specifically ticket buying punters) .
This whole beat up about a beat up is exactly that. A BEAT UP. All who are professional about their flying jobs either in the Fragrant Harbour or anywhere else on the globe have to appreciate that when you go to work you do the righty, when you have an opportunity to have a bit of fun then you take advantage of it. Ask yourselves , when have YOU done something that's not quite (maybe) within the SOP's or acceptable standards and you've just gone - to hell with it because no-one will either know or SEE? Anyone who thinks that they aare in neither category is kidding themselves!
Adios amigos
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CP will take his (confidential) settlement payout and retire to the Cotswalds. The employment case will never see the light of day.
Cathay will then be able to emphasise how strict it is on safety matters, and the CP will have to bite his tongue - cos he took the money.
The F/O will be quietly reinstated.
But don't anyone tell me that there's nothing wrong with putting 20 feet between the tarmac and a full load of jet fuel (unless the gear's down, which it wasn't.)
Cathay will then be able to emphasise how strict it is on safety matters, and the CP will have to bite his tongue - cos he took the money.
The F/O will be quietly reinstated.
But don't anyone tell me that there's nothing wrong with putting 20 feet between the tarmac and a full load of jet fuel (unless the gear's down, which it wasn't.)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 feet / 40 feet. No real diff.
In my country, we have a saying: "A man who has shagged a hundred sheep is a sheepshagger. And a man who has shagged one sheep is also sheepshagger." (We in NZ are not known for our literary skills.)
In my country, we have a saying: "A man who has shagged a hundred sheep is a sheepshagger. And a man who has shagged one sheep is also sheepshagger." (We in NZ are not known for our literary skills.)
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I suppose it's ok as long as you get the pretty ones first but I do get your drift. One thing I can tell you (straight from the horse's, not sheep's, mouth) is that I have flown with Ian and had he flown the traditional delivery departure flight-past in front of all the Boeing crew resposible for the build of the airplane, at 20feet, clean, 80knots above V2, I would still have full confidence in flying with him. It has been done before by many airlines taking delivery of a new aircraft, I have been involved in one myself. Pity this hype has destroyed a long standing tradition.
Last edited by HotDog; 28th Mar 2008 at 12:03. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, (former) CP - what goes around, comes around. Maybe you will find people have sympathy for your situation, but I think few will have sympathy for you personally. Your involvement in the star chamber will live in the memories of at least 50 pilots. I see some other office boys also involved are leaving CX soon. Drinks with them and the DFO? I think not.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Maybe he was fired for breaking FAA regulations. Read the last paragraph of a monthly column by an expert on FAA regulations......
AOPA Pilot Magazine April 2008 Volume 51 / Number 4
Pilot Counsel: What is a 'congested area'?
By John S. Yodice
A A A John S. Yodice pilots his Cessna 310 in the Washington, D.C., area.
FAR 91.119 tells pilots the minimum altitudes at which they may legally operate their aircraft. We reviewed this regulation in this column in December 1997 (and on AOPA Online) as part of our continuing review of the FARs for pilots and aircraft owners. What brings it up now is a decision of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) interpreting and applying the term congested area. This is a legal term that has bedeviled pilots because it is not defined in the regulations, and in practice, is subject to varying interpretations and applied to varying geographical areas. Its meaning has to be gleaned from FAA enforcement cases as interpreted by NTSB.
To put the interpretation in context, we need to look at the structure of the regulation. The main body of the regulation prescribes minimum altitudes depending on the nature of the geographical area over which an aircraft is operated, one of which is a “congested area.” However, regardless of the geographical area, there is an overriding minimum that applies “anywhere,” and, there is an exception that applies to takeoffs and landings. Let’s review these two before we get to the main body of the regulation. The “anywhere” minimum is not a numerical altitude. Rather, this minimum requires a pilot to fly high enough so that “if a power unit fails” the pilot would be able to make an emergency landing without creating an “undue hazard” to any person or any property on the surface. The exception says that the minimum safe altitudes of the regulation do not apply “when necessary for takeoff or landing.”
The geographical areas where minimum altitudes are specified are: congested areas, populated areas (my term), and open water and sparsely populated areas. The regulation says that “over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over an open air assembly of persons, [a pilot must operate the aircraft at least] 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.” The regulation specifies minimum altitudes for “other than congested areas.” Over a populated area that is not congested, a pilot must fly at least at “an altitude of 500 feet above the surface.” This minimum is measured vertically, as distinguished from the next minimum we will talk about, which can be measured on the slant. Over a sparsely populated area, or over open water, an aircraft may be operated down to the surface, so long as it is not operated any “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.”
Now, to our case. This NTSB decision involved a Gulfstream II multiengine jet operating in the vicinity of a beach and an airfield in Hawaii. The Gulfstream made two low passes off the shore of the beach, and one low pass down the runway of the airfield. These passes were part of pre-arranged filming for the marketing purposes of a production company. Two witnesses described the passes near the beach to be at an altitude they estimated to be at or below 100 feet above the water surface, and within several hundred feet laterally of surfers in the water and people on the beach. A retired FAA air traffic controller who was on duty in the airfield tower said that the Gulfstream approached the runway with gear and flaps retracted, leveled off at approximately 100 feet above the runway surface, and proceeded to make a low pass. The pilot’s explanations were not accepted. He explained that he was 1,000 feet above the water and saw no persons or objects in the water. With respect to the low passes over the airfield runway, he said that he had contacted the airport manager, and the person who answered the number listed under “Restrictions” in his AC-U-KWIK reference guide; that person expressed no objections to his intended pass down the runway.
Our concern here is not with the merits of the case and the dispute about the altitudes that were flown (the pilot wound up with a 150-day suspension of his ATP), but with two FAA and NTSB interpretations gleaned from the case.
Is a beach a congested area? Buried in its wordy decision, the board perfunctorily held that the persons on the beach made it a congested area as an “open air assembly of persons.” It did so without providing any guidance as to how many persons and how closely assembled the persons need to be to constitute a congested area. But clearly the board and the FAA gave notice that a pass below a thousand feet over open water near a beach is problematic.
Is an airport a congested area? The board, perhaps without thinking much about it, did so hold—assuming there are persons in the vicinity. Based on the testimony of an FAA inspector, the board found that the pass down the runway endangered the “individuals in the vicinity of the airport” and therefore implicitly held that the airfield was a congested area. The board seemed to accept that a pass down the runway would be excused if it were “necessary for takeoff or landing,” but the board cited one of its earlier decisions holding that the “landing exceptions do not apply where no landing is intended or possible due to the aircraft configuration.” The board also seemed to suggest that such a pass would be excused if it were with the permission of the FAA. The permission of airport authorities apparently is not enough.
AOPA Pilot Magazine April 2008 Volume 51 / Number 4
Pilot Counsel: What is a 'congested area'?
By John S. Yodice
A A A John S. Yodice pilots his Cessna 310 in the Washington, D.C., area.
FAR 91.119 tells pilots the minimum altitudes at which they may legally operate their aircraft. We reviewed this regulation in this column in December 1997 (and on AOPA Online) as part of our continuing review of the FARs for pilots and aircraft owners. What brings it up now is a decision of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) interpreting and applying the term congested area. This is a legal term that has bedeviled pilots because it is not defined in the regulations, and in practice, is subject to varying interpretations and applied to varying geographical areas. Its meaning has to be gleaned from FAA enforcement cases as interpreted by NTSB.
To put the interpretation in context, we need to look at the structure of the regulation. The main body of the regulation prescribes minimum altitudes depending on the nature of the geographical area over which an aircraft is operated, one of which is a “congested area.” However, regardless of the geographical area, there is an overriding minimum that applies “anywhere,” and, there is an exception that applies to takeoffs and landings. Let’s review these two before we get to the main body of the regulation. The “anywhere” minimum is not a numerical altitude. Rather, this minimum requires a pilot to fly high enough so that “if a power unit fails” the pilot would be able to make an emergency landing without creating an “undue hazard” to any person or any property on the surface. The exception says that the minimum safe altitudes of the regulation do not apply “when necessary for takeoff or landing.”
The geographical areas where minimum altitudes are specified are: congested areas, populated areas (my term), and open water and sparsely populated areas. The regulation says that “over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over an open air assembly of persons, [a pilot must operate the aircraft at least] 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.” The regulation specifies minimum altitudes for “other than congested areas.” Over a populated area that is not congested, a pilot must fly at least at “an altitude of 500 feet above the surface.” This minimum is measured vertically, as distinguished from the next minimum we will talk about, which can be measured on the slant. Over a sparsely populated area, or over open water, an aircraft may be operated down to the surface, so long as it is not operated any “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.”
Now, to our case. This NTSB decision involved a Gulfstream II multiengine jet operating in the vicinity of a beach and an airfield in Hawaii. The Gulfstream made two low passes off the shore of the beach, and one low pass down the runway of the airfield. These passes were part of pre-arranged filming for the marketing purposes of a production company. Two witnesses described the passes near the beach to be at an altitude they estimated to be at or below 100 feet above the water surface, and within several hundred feet laterally of surfers in the water and people on the beach. A retired FAA air traffic controller who was on duty in the airfield tower said that the Gulfstream approached the runway with gear and flaps retracted, leveled off at approximately 100 feet above the runway surface, and proceeded to make a low pass. The pilot’s explanations were not accepted. He explained that he was 1,000 feet above the water and saw no persons or objects in the water. With respect to the low passes over the airfield runway, he said that he had contacted the airport manager, and the person who answered the number listed under “Restrictions” in his AC-U-KWIK reference guide; that person expressed no objections to his intended pass down the runway.
Our concern here is not with the merits of the case and the dispute about the altitudes that were flown (the pilot wound up with a 150-day suspension of his ATP), but with two FAA and NTSB interpretations gleaned from the case.
Is a beach a congested area? Buried in its wordy decision, the board perfunctorily held that the persons on the beach made it a congested area as an “open air assembly of persons.” It did so without providing any guidance as to how many persons and how closely assembled the persons need to be to constitute a congested area. But clearly the board and the FAA gave notice that a pass below a thousand feet over open water near a beach is problematic.
Is an airport a congested area? The board, perhaps without thinking much about it, did so hold—assuming there are persons in the vicinity. Based on the testimony of an FAA inspector, the board found that the pass down the runway endangered the “individuals in the vicinity of the airport” and therefore implicitly held that the airfield was a congested area. The board seemed to accept that a pass down the runway would be excused if it were “necessary for takeoff or landing,” but the board cited one of its earlier decisions holding that the “landing exceptions do not apply where no landing is intended or possible due to the aircraft configuration.” The board also seemed to suggest that such a pass would be excused if it were with the permission of the FAA. The permission of airport authorities apparently is not enough.
