Suspend?
 

Quote: "but why suspend RM in the right seat"?

Latest we heard from CX 3/F was that both have been taken off flying pending "hearings".
The right seat guy has not been given his marching orders etc, etc.

Fenswicksgirl, What "lows" of the French fleet? Their CP is highly respected too.

Overall cx flyer has it right

"Do as I say, not as I do". Is'nt that the CX way? The hypocrisy has people justifiably incensed, probably more than the flyby per se.

CX 777 fLYBY CP sacked
 

Is it true that the CX 777 Chief Pilot has been sacked? What about the other pilot :confused:

The title of your thread is deliberately misleading, sensationalist and inflammatory. If it's conjecture, then phrase it that way. Grrr.

Sacked for what?

How Low Would be Too Low?
 

The threads above contain very interesting and polarized views.
For those that thought it was OK perhaps you should ask yourself how much lower would have been too low?
How accurately can you fly, straight and level 25ft +/- 5 ft, 10ft how much?
What are the flight control laws doing exactly at 24ft? ie direct law, flare law, ground law,thrust management modes. (PS not being exactly sure is unlikely to impress a board of enquiry).
Would you have wanted your wife, child or girl friend on board?
If you still think this was a good idea perhaps you should have a think about your own attitude to risk management.

After watching the video, and assuming the flypast was unbriefed and not fully conveyed to the other flight crew, I'm with the 'that was pretty poor' crowd.

It's funny how different the Cathay safety culture is from the RAAF.....in the recent past, Cathay captains have lost their command for inadvertent errors, yet this seemingly unbriefed and deliberate example of poor airmanship is 'unpunished' by the Cathay system.

In the RAAF, the reverse occurs....the inadvertent errors are generally debriefed, disseminated, and lessons are learnt with no resulting 'discipline', and the (very rare) deliberate breaking of rules is met with loss of category etc.

I guess it's a 'generational' thing, but I believe Cathay still has a way to go before they'll approach a true 'just' safety culture.

is this related to a flyby in seattle??

Moderator - Is this thread not worth a delete?

D+G
 

D+G meeting was yesterday....any news?????

Suggest that monster330 and tyro330 (see other KPF thread) are one and the same person.

Suggest also that this person has a large wooden paddle and is not afraid to use it.

Moderator - tend to agree with prev comment.....

What does PPRUNE stand for??????????

Lighten up!!

How dumb!! There's cx for you, a whole a lot of barking about SOPs to the point of circus atmosphere 'anality' and then a parallel atmosphere of circus atmosphere 'anything goes' whenever it suits whoever at the moment. The basic meaning of standardization is lost here. The basic reason why SOPs are important is lost here. They treat it as if it's just for show around here, keeping up appearances and not much more. It starts with a highly non-standard and very inefficient training product (which they know about and are trying to fix thankfully) and it goes surprisingly far.

No I don't think the flyby was that dangerous, and making a low approach or low pass is perfectly fine as long as you have tower's approval as far as the FAA is concerned. Ref. AIM 4-3-12

The most often spoken words before accidents are "WATCH THIS" which is obviously spoken loudly just before putting on shows like this. In an airline operation environment putting on a show is a very stupid thing and it destroys years of effort put into SOPs which are the corner stone of each airline's safety record.

I'm well aware of the absolute ignorance that exists among my colleagues (Industry wide) about aviation accident causes. Not too many learn from others' mistakes by reading official accident reports. Each organization plays the crucial role in achieving, establishing and maintaining a high level of safety... it cannot be left to each individual to set their own, that's been proven to be disasterous for the airlines and military just the same.

There's nothing wrong with pushing the envelope, but it has to be done in an organised manner with prior planning and appropriate training. A line pilot or one who has made it to management level gets no training or knowledge at any point of his/her career which would qualify him/her as a test pilot.

The whole system depends on leading by examples or making examples of people.

Oxymoron comes to mind.:ok:

You must be new or firmly inserted training wannabe.:=

Of course the F/O is to blame; he/she should not have allowed the 777 Chief Pilot to do this. He/She should be lashed.:}:E I suppose his/her upgrade is in jeopardy. :ugh:I am sure the F/O will suffer some sort of consequences, it’s the CX way.:{

A CX Captain will not take the fall if he can blame it on the First Officer, CP included. It’s the CX way.:D:sad:

CP Should be Sacked
 

OK, change the title of the thread to 777 CP Should be Sacked!

In my opinion that was dangerous.

If fully briefed and practised in the sim with failure seniaros considered, this flypast can be conducted in a very safe manner. I would say a three-engine ferry would have much lower margins of safety.

Pilots suspended?

If the CEO of CX was onboard, why doesn't he take the can for failing to prevent the Captain from making the pass? Where does the buck stop on this one?

What about the long-long list of previous delivery flight flypasts? Are they going to suspend all those pilots as well?

I disagree
 

No, he shouldn't be sacked. They (CX) have brainwashed you, haven't they....

He should be help accountable to the FAA/CAD Regs for his stunt, punished appropriately.

His past performance should be taking into account. I am not saying it wasn't sporty, but this whole 'lets $#*@ sack him' is getting a little old...

Honestly...

If he had clearance from the tower, the FAA could care less. There isn't anything illegal about the flyby.

FlexibleResponse,

Quite obviously, the buck stops with the Captain of the aircraft (as always). A Swire business man could be talked into believing anything was safe, as he has no relevant experience, training or judgment to refer to.

I don't believe the issue is whether the flypast was safe or not....although one could argue that the reported speed was considerable less than ideal, and also noting that the chance of birdstrike increases exponentially with decreased altitude. I believe the issue is more one of airmanship example, adherence to SOP and corporate image.

But let's face it...the flypast video is impressive!

lmh

Does somebody have a link to the flyby that works????