View Poll Results: Was the pilot of this display acting dangerously?
I AM a professional pilot and I believe YES
1,571
46.22%
I AM a professional pilot and I believe NO
360
10.59%
I AM NOT a professional pilot and I believe YES
1,024
30.13%
I Am NOT a professional pilot and I believe NO
311
9.15%
I have no opinion
133
3.91%
Voters: 3399. This poll is closed
Video footage of TAP A310 in extreme low flying turn at airshow
How can you comment something that you don't know? 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex-military pilot with large aircraft display experience, I have to write in to say how strongly I feel about this. So much blood has been spilt over the years because of low level manoevres in both large and small aircraft: crashes as a result of flying that has been unbriefed and unauthorised, or when pilots have deliberately and knowingly broken the rules or display orders, or when pilots have not been competent to fly their machines outside the normal envelope. One of the worst I recall, when I lost a friend, was the Argosy at El Afraq; it was flown straight into a small water tower during an unauthorised beatup with total loss of life, and started to set people thinking about post war "cowboy" mentality that result in normally sane and competent pilots indulging in reckless flying. Then, a few years later, as the support crew to a maritime exercise in NZ, we were in the back of the Nimrod all flying down to Wellington, when, on take off from Whenupai, the pilot, very experienced and senior, without warning or briefing, racked it round in a low level turn over the flight line, a turn that the Navigator Radar calculated by trigonometry left the starboard wingtip about 5 feet off the ground. Near mutiny in the back of the a/c, and all the pilot could say afterwards was that he was "showing the flag", but could not answer how he could possibly judge how close his wing was to the gound in such a low level pulling and rolling turn, and what damage could be done to a large a/c by "rolling G". I've been in a few scrapes in my 42 years of flying, but I have rarely been so angry at the thought of being put at so much risk by a stupid stunt such as this. Low level manoevring is one of the many weapons in the military pilots' arsenal, but, as a manager, I was continually worried about what the junior pilots were up to when away from base, dedicated and very competent young people, whom in wartime we expect to roar around with "their hair on fire", but in peacetime, though training for war, are expected to obey all the rules or else!.
Now, I say all this has a direct relevance to Display Flying. Air Shows used to be primarily military affairs to show off military power, indulge in national pride and entice foreign arms buyers, amongst other things. In later years, more and more civilain a/c joined the show, mainly as a shop window for prospective buyers, but by and large, the slower, the faster, the tighter, the lower, all the better to show off the product and thrill the crowd. But the loss of life in accidents has been unacceptable, and now the rules and regulations governing participating a/c are very, very stringent. We were told at every briefing that the rules are there for the crowd's and our protection, rules that basically lay down the area in which to fly, observance of the "crowd line", and minimum manoevring height, usually 300 ft, sometimes 500 ft.
Generally, yes, display flying, even in a large a/c is very exciting, you're chosen because you can fly well, you're specially trained and thoroughly briefed, and ordered never ever to go outside the profile, or else, again. But there is a small element of risk, because you're flying outside the normal envelope, but the orders and briefings are supposed take care of this. I've mentioned in a previous post the old display adage, "The better it looks to the crowd outside, the worst it probably is inside the cockpit!" I can vouch for this, having been on one display, pushed towards the crowd line by a 25 knot crosswind and tailwind in a low level turn, and my copilot informing me about the angle of bank and low airspeed in no uncertain terms!
Specifically, therefore, having looked at all the video and read the posts, its my opinion that this pilot was totally out of order and wrong to do what he did. He may be the best pilot in the world, (I've flown with a very few who have naturally "good hands"), he may have been briefed and authorised for this show, but not, certainly not, to execute this low level turn clearly well below the display height in a manoevre that broke the law and put the crowd, his crew and himself at risk, just to show off; that's my opinion anyway.
Now, I say all this has a direct relevance to Display Flying. Air Shows used to be primarily military affairs to show off military power, indulge in national pride and entice foreign arms buyers, amongst other things. In later years, more and more civilain a/c joined the show, mainly as a shop window for prospective buyers, but by and large, the slower, the faster, the tighter, the lower, all the better to show off the product and thrill the crowd. But the loss of life in accidents has been unacceptable, and now the rules and regulations governing participating a/c are very, very stringent. We were told at every briefing that the rules are there for the crowd's and our protection, rules that basically lay down the area in which to fly, observance of the "crowd line", and minimum manoevring height, usually 300 ft, sometimes 500 ft.
Generally, yes, display flying, even in a large a/c is very exciting, you're chosen because you can fly well, you're specially trained and thoroughly briefed, and ordered never ever to go outside the profile, or else, again. But there is a small element of risk, because you're flying outside the normal envelope, but the orders and briefings are supposed take care of this. I've mentioned in a previous post the old display adage, "The better it looks to the crowd outside, the worst it probably is inside the cockpit!" I can vouch for this, having been on one display, pushed towards the crowd line by a 25 knot crosswind and tailwind in a low level turn, and my copilot informing me about the angle of bank and low airspeed in no uncertain terms!
Specifically, therefore, having looked at all the video and read the posts, its my opinion that this pilot was totally out of order and wrong to do what he did. He may be the best pilot in the world, (I've flown with a very few who have naturally "good hands"), he may have been briefed and authorised for this show, but not, certainly not, to execute this low level turn clearly well below the display height in a manoevre that broke the law and put the crowd, his crew and himself at risk, just to show off; that's my opinion anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very, very sensibly put Captain, ... said Captain 
Question is, how on earth can 20% of the self declared professional pilots responding to this straw poll be thinking and voting otherwise??
Either
(a) they are not professional pilots at all, or
(b) they are being mischievously not sensible, or
(c) there is a very serious problem in aviation today.
My regards to Croydon ...
Question is, how on earth can 20% of the self declared professional pilots responding to this straw poll be thinking and voting otherwise??
Either
(a) they are not professional pilots at all, or
(b) they are being mischievously not sensible, or
(c) there is a very serious problem in aviation today.
My regards to Croydon ...
Last edited by slip and turn; 19th Sep 2007 at 11:59. Reason: To add (b) because I do not want to be left with having to conclude (c)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere between Europe and Africa
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krueger - what do I say to those videos? Well the Spitfire was very impressive!
All that is beside the point though as neither of those videos are airshows. The Tornado one looks like a few mil boys doing a beat up of the airfield, there are no crowds of public spectators and I doubt they went to the authorities to get approval for that flypast.
The Spitfire would have had approval to do it legitimately, and having flown with someone who is frequently involved in this kind of historical flying for TV they have had to have gone to the UK authorities with full details of the procedure and had it specifically approved. Again, it was a private flypast, not a public airshow. Would they have been permitted to perform the same manouvre in an airliner in front of thousands of spectators? Not a chance.
Well, the A310 didn't have any vector toward the crowd, unlike the spit.
The Red Bull air race didn't slip through the net either, especially as this years one was in the heart of Londons Docklands, under the approach path to London City airport, beneath the approach path for LHR and watched by 50,000 people. I was there, the aircraft were never on a trajectory that would have taken them into the crowd and despite what you like to imply there is a world of difference between flying an Extra 300 and an Airbus 300. The Extra can safely execute a 20ft banking flypast with margins for error. The Airbus can't, and will make a much bigger hole when it goes wrong.
And for slip and turn, are you a professional pilot?
No! I thought so...
Check Six Krueger...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was impressive because it was evocative - the sight and sound of a legendary aircraft. It was not impressive because it was low. Sorry but I'd rather look at a Spitfire than an A310, just liked I'd rather look at an Aston Martin than a Ford Focus.
The problem is not being in an airshow, the problem is doing daft stunts to show off. The Tornado flypast was pretty risky too, athough I'd imagine those pilots were rather more practiced at low level stuff. I'm not sure what your logic is but you seem to think that if you post lots of vids of people doing similar daft stuff it makes it less daft. No it doesn't, and yes, there is a difference between an unsanctioned dangerous procedure (bad flying) and an officially sanctioned one (worse).
How do I know the Spit would have had his flypast sanctioned? Because if the pilot ever wanted to display the aircraft again he'd better have got it approved or it's the end of his displaying days. I don't use the logic of it being a private flypast rather than an airshow, I use the logic of a small aircraft being far more recoverable than an airliner and much easier to handle at low level. I can judge ground height from a C152 much better than I can from a 747 yet the 747 has a digital rad alt readout. If the Spit hits a bird at that height (less likely due to it's smaller crossection) it might dent the prop but the aircraft could probably be belly landed if need be. If the A310 hits a bird it goes down the number one engine which quits, the aircraft yaws and rolls left suddenly before the pilots react and in goes the wingtip.
Your point about the Red Bull air race in Oporto simply reinforces that the view that there are no sensible air display restrictions in Portugal to protect the public.
To avoid this thread going round in circles please try to understand that displaying a small jet/prop aircraft at low level and displaying a lumbering medium/heavy airliner at that level are not comparable and you won't convince anyone that they are.
The problem is not being in an airshow, the problem is doing daft stunts to show off. The Tornado flypast was pretty risky too, athough I'd imagine those pilots were rather more practiced at low level stuff. I'm not sure what your logic is but you seem to think that if you post lots of vids of people doing similar daft stuff it makes it less daft. No it doesn't, and yes, there is a difference between an unsanctioned dangerous procedure (bad flying) and an officially sanctioned one (worse).
How do I know the Spit would have had his flypast sanctioned? Because if the pilot ever wanted to display the aircraft again he'd better have got it approved or it's the end of his displaying days. I don't use the logic of it being a private flypast rather than an airshow, I use the logic of a small aircraft being far more recoverable than an airliner and much easier to handle at low level. I can judge ground height from a C152 much better than I can from a 747 yet the 747 has a digital rad alt readout. If the Spit hits a bird at that height (less likely due to it's smaller crossection) it might dent the prop but the aircraft could probably be belly landed if need be. If the A310 hits a bird it goes down the number one engine which quits, the aircraft yaws and rolls left suddenly before the pilots react and in goes the wingtip.
Your point about the Red Bull air race in Oporto simply reinforces that the view that there are no sensible air display restrictions in Portugal to protect the public.
To avoid this thread going round in circles please try to understand that displaying a small jet/prop aircraft at low level and displaying a lumbering medium/heavy airliner at that level are not comparable and you won't convince anyone that they are.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krueger it may come as a shock to you, but I don't need to be a pro to know that this manoeuvre turned out to be dangerous.
What do you need to be to argue the opposite ?
Nojwod was wrong to compare this guy with Bob Hoover, but I thought he did describe the second type of pilot quite aptly:
Personally I have always found the original equipment to be adequate and the fly remains buttoned in public...
What do you need to be to argue the opposite ?
Nojwod was wrong to compare this guy with Bob Hoover, but I thought he did describe the second type of pilot quite aptly:
...those for whom flying becomes an extension of their own selves and actually 'fly'.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: the sky
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criticise an airshow maneuver basing the comments on an internet video distorted by prospective and telephoto lenses without any clue about flight parameters, airport layout and altimetry, training and qualifications of the crew, performances of the aircraft involved doesn't look very professional to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck......
There are plenty of videos available from all different angles and it looks too low from all of them.
For Kruegers benefit, here's a video I found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJG_YEnaWBs
You'll observe the pylon is much the same height as the A310s flyby, yet it took only a seconds distraction to hit the ground. The recovery manuouvre involved a pull up in excess of 8G, but that option was available and utilised. What sort of G could the A310 get away with if they misjudged this and had ground contact? How rapidly could the flight path be changed once they'd realised things were going wrong?
There are plenty of videos available from all different angles and it looks too low from all of them.
For Kruegers benefit, here's a video I found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJG_YEnaWBs
You'll observe the pylon is much the same height as the A310s flyby, yet it took only a seconds distraction to hit the ground. The recovery manuouvre involved a pull up in excess of 8G, but that option was available and utilised. What sort of G could the A310 get away with if they misjudged this and had ground contact? How rapidly could the flight path be changed once they'd realised things were going wrong?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Down under
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD...bull**** reply if I ever saw one but reading other comments I have to say your in good company.
If a respected airline like TAP want's to show off one of their aircraft then that's fine. If that show off involves low flying a.k.a. low pass than also fine. Now if I were CEO of TAP I'd pretty well make sure that this sort of flying with the TAP-logo would be done in a orderly fashion. Why? Well 'cause:
1. The maneuver would very likely be filmed (and it was!)
2. The film would very likely be judged by everyone (it is!)
3. If the maneuver only has the appearance of unprofessional conduct it would attribute to only one thing…BAD PR!
In my opinion as an ex-military pilot with a lot of low flying experience this show of the TAP A310 was unsafe…no two words about it. Distortion of the video and/or photos…my ass!
How about accountability entering the equation? I believe this to be one of the good virtues a good pilot should have.
Oh…I voted for #1
Regards and lets keep it safe
If a respected airline like TAP want's to show off one of their aircraft then that's fine. If that show off involves low flying a.k.a. low pass than also fine. Now if I were CEO of TAP I'd pretty well make sure that this sort of flying with the TAP-logo would be done in a orderly fashion. Why? Well 'cause:
1. The maneuver would very likely be filmed (and it was!)
2. The film would very likely be judged by everyone (it is!)
3. If the maneuver only has the appearance of unprofessional conduct it would attribute to only one thing…BAD PR!
In my opinion as an ex-military pilot with a lot of low flying experience this show of the TAP A310 was unsafe…no two words about it. Distortion of the video and/or photos…my ass!
How about accountability entering the equation? I believe this to be one of the good virtues a good pilot should have.
Oh…I voted for #1
Regards and lets keep it safe
Last edited by Ebow; 19th Sep 2007 at 14:17.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere between Europe and Africa
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo, your Red Bull video is not in Portugal and yet, you have a vector towards the public. So, I don't think it's only in Portugal that the rules are bent for Red Bull, wouldn't you say?
You're the only one saying that the spit low pass wasn't impressive, it sure gave the presentator a new haircut (even him wasn't impressed by the sound or the looks of the spit but by it's proximity). And are you sure the CAA was told that it was going to be done just like it was done? Who are you trying to fool?
If the spit had to do a belly landing, the presentator would have no legs at least. The A310 was climbing, has two engines and no public in front of it.
Didn't you ever pratice a reverser unlock at lift off (which is much worse than a birdstrike)? Did you always crash?
So you don't convince the others either. Although I agree with you on prefering to watch spits and Aston Martins than A310 and Ford Focus.
For slip and turn, what I have and you don't is, knowledge of the place, the aircraft, the training they did for it, and in a few days FDR results.
Your knowledge comes from watching YouTube...
For taperlok, grow up and get a life...
Since I'm getting tired of reading all the winning about, I'm off...
Have a good one, Krueger...
You're the only one saying that the spit low pass wasn't impressive, it sure gave the presentator a new haircut (even him wasn't impressed by the sound or the looks of the spit but by it's proximity). And are you sure the CAA was told that it was going to be done just like it was done? Who are you trying to fool?
If the spit had to do a belly landing, the presentator would have no legs at least. The A310 was climbing, has two engines and no public in front of it.
Didn't you ever pratice a reverser unlock at lift off (which is much worse than a birdstrike)? Did you always crash?
So you don't convince the others either. Although I agree with you on prefering to watch spits and Aston Martins than A310 and Ford Focus.
For slip and turn, what I have and you don't is, knowledge of the place, the aircraft, the training they did for it, and in a few days FDR results.
Your knowledge comes from watching YouTube...
For taperlok, grow up and get a life...
Since I'm getting tired of reading all the winning about, I'm off...
Have a good one, Krueger...
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your point about the Red Bull air race in Oporto simply reinforces that the view that there are no sensible air display restrictions in Portugal to protect the public.
If I drive 6 hrs down the road to Germany, I can do this quite legally. (Thank God for the Germans he says!)
The perception of risk is obviously relative, but who is right and who is wrong?
And who are you to criticize the Portugese DCA just because your opinion is the wing-tip came a little closer to the ground than you'd be comfortable with, or than is allowed in the UK?
Lots of testosterone (or is it oestrogen?) around (good 'ole ex-mil guys!) at the moment and very few facts....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krueger - the Red Bull video I linked was shot in Monument Valley. I've double checked it and I don't see any vector towards a crowd, plus the video is shot from a professional TV camera which clearly has some zoom on it at the collision point. Are you really suggesting the aircraft could lose control and fly up and onwards to the cameras location?
I don't know if the Spit flew the profile he intended to fly. Even if he did maybe it was unwise, but two wrongs don't make a right and the fact that somebody did it in a single seat aircraft doesn't make it OK to do it in an airliner. Just because the A310 has two engines doesn't mean they can't mess it up. My aircraft has four engines and I've still managed to trigger a bank angle warning in the sim when I've got it wrong. The A310 did a long level flypast. Lose the number one engine as they start that turn and it's goodnight. Perhaps the TAP guys will be lucky never get it wrong or make a mistake.
Anyway I think I'll follow your lead an bow out from this debate as well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't know if the Spit flew the profile he intended to fly. Even if he did maybe it was unwise, but two wrongs don't make a right and the fact that somebody did it in a single seat aircraft doesn't make it OK to do it in an airliner. Just because the A310 has two engines doesn't mean they can't mess it up. My aircraft has four engines and I've still managed to trigger a bank angle warning in the sim when I've got it wrong. The A310 did a long level flypast. Lose the number one engine as they start that turn and it's goodnight. Perhaps the TAP guys will be lucky never get it wrong or make a mistake.
Anyway I think I'll follow your lead an bow out from this debate as well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The There is insufficient information available to make an informed opinion option seems to be missing from the poll.
It's a shame it has to be reduced to condemn, condone or ehh based on nothing but a few poor quality videos and some stills.
It's a shame it has to be reduced to condemn, condone or ehh based on nothing but a few poor quality videos and some stills.
ATC
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Age: 55
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reason because we're discussing this exibition is because someone tought it was unsafe. That was the first title for the topic not only on this forum but also on other foruns.
I can, still, add some items to this discussion (even thinking they will not change the general impression) ...
I was there and had the opportunity to see the exhibition live. It was impressive and the photos and videos don't make justice to what we saw and felt. The A310-300 made 6 (?) flyby in different configurations and in all respected the (lateral) distance to the public. He (and all pilots) were told no to pass right of runway centerline ... and he didn't.
The one thing the pilots didn't took in consideration was the terrain, the fact that the runway is elevated from the apron point of view. The fact that the majority of public, being on the right side of the runway, didn't realise that on the other side there was also a slope down ...
Was the wingtip close to the ground more than it should ? Perhaps ... Was all the manouvre planned ? Yes, planned, studied and practised ... Was the terrain efect on public accounted for ? No !
I do regret this ever happened. The negative efect caused by this polemic is certainly greater than the positive one caused by having the A310 participating on Portugal Air Show.
But I do not question the pilots capability to handle the plane during allm the exhibition and I will continue to fly not only TAP Portugal as this A310 with this pilots until the retirement of the plane.
Notes
1. The pilots will continue to fly TAP, moving to A330/340 after the phase out of the A310.
2. Not all the videos or photos shown on this topic are related to the flyby where the turn was made.
I can, still, add some items to this discussion (even thinking they will not change the general impression) ...
I was there and had the opportunity to see the exhibition live. It was impressive and the photos and videos don't make justice to what we saw and felt. The A310-300 made 6 (?) flyby in different configurations and in all respected the (lateral) distance to the public. He (and all pilots) were told no to pass right of runway centerline ... and he didn't.
The one thing the pilots didn't took in consideration was the terrain, the fact that the runway is elevated from the apron point of view. The fact that the majority of public, being on the right side of the runway, didn't realise that on the other side there was also a slope down ...
Was the wingtip close to the ground more than it should ? Perhaps ... Was all the manouvre planned ? Yes, planned, studied and practised ... Was the terrain efect on public accounted for ? No !
I do regret this ever happened. The negative efect caused by this polemic is certainly greater than the positive one caused by having the A310 participating on Portugal Air Show.
But I do not question the pilots capability to handle the plane during allm the exhibition and I will continue to fly not only TAP Portugal as this A310 with this pilots until the retirement of the plane.
Notes
1. The pilots will continue to fly TAP, moving to A330/340 after the phase out of the A310.
2. Not all the videos or photos shown on this topic are related to the flyby where the turn was made.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without a doubt, this was a really "cool" bit of flying undertaken by probably a very competent pilot, but that's not the point. There are 2 points here.
Firstly, the name is "Pprune" which stands for Professional Pilots' Rumour Network, a website founded by Danny Fyne, to whom we should all be continually grateful, for the dissemination of knowledge and information for and by professional pilots, and many others in aviation, as the proliferation of Forums has shown. Not only that, however, but the notion is based I believe, on the 2nd World War cartoon character of Pilot Officer Prune, through whose portrayal of bumbling exploits, their "Airships" tried to instill in RAF pilots the notion that Flight Safety saves lives.
Secondly, Pprune is not a Court of Law; what it is is a place where many of us who have knowledge and many years experience in flying can lend our point of view to burning subjects of the day. Not only that, we can judge, and we can do that because we are deemed "experts" in our field. We may be rubbish mothers or fathers, or crap drivers on the M25 in rush hour, or completely louse up cooking an ordinary lasagne, but as "experts" in aviation, our opinion like other experts in medical, engineering - whatever - can be used in a court by the Rules of Evidence. And the "expert" opinion amongst many of us judging this pilot's flying this manoevre, cool, thrilling, daredevil or whatever, was wrong, wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong, and a very bad example to others who think they, having witnessed it, can have a slice of it in their own back yards. As I said, that's my opinion, but I feel very strongly about it. Two books I gave my students to read; one was of course "Handling the Big Jets". The other was Ernest K. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter". In this book, the Preface is preceded by by a Dedication to some 400 named Transport Pilots who lost their lives in the early days of flying, some of whom succumbed because of the same mentality exhibited by this airshow pilot, who was overconfident enough to think he could get away with it. Many of us have got away with it, but many others haven't. The worth of "Pprune" is that, besides being a unique medium for us to air our views, we can all contribute to the ultimate aim of Flying Safely.
(Said enough, retiring now to sofa for post Iftar Ramadan beverage).
Firstly, the name is "Pprune" which stands for Professional Pilots' Rumour Network, a website founded by Danny Fyne, to whom we should all be continually grateful, for the dissemination of knowledge and information for and by professional pilots, and many others in aviation, as the proliferation of Forums has shown. Not only that, however, but the notion is based I believe, on the 2nd World War cartoon character of Pilot Officer Prune, through whose portrayal of bumbling exploits, their "Airships" tried to instill in RAF pilots the notion that Flight Safety saves lives.
Secondly, Pprune is not a Court of Law; what it is is a place where many of us who have knowledge and many years experience in flying can lend our point of view to burning subjects of the day. Not only that, we can judge, and we can do that because we are deemed "experts" in our field. We may be rubbish mothers or fathers, or crap drivers on the M25 in rush hour, or completely louse up cooking an ordinary lasagne, but as "experts" in aviation, our opinion like other experts in medical, engineering - whatever - can be used in a court by the Rules of Evidence. And the "expert" opinion amongst many of us judging this pilot's flying this manoevre, cool, thrilling, daredevil or whatever, was wrong, wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong, and a very bad example to others who think they, having witnessed it, can have a slice of it in their own back yards. As I said, that's my opinion, but I feel very strongly about it. Two books I gave my students to read; one was of course "Handling the Big Jets". The other was Ernest K. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter". In this book, the Preface is preceded by by a Dedication to some 400 named Transport Pilots who lost their lives in the early days of flying, some of whom succumbed because of the same mentality exhibited by this airshow pilot, who was overconfident enough to think he could get away with it. Many of us have got away with it, but many others haven't. The worth of "Pprune" is that, besides being a unique medium for us to air our views, we can all contribute to the ultimate aim of Flying Safely.
(Said enough, retiring now to sofa for post Iftar Ramadan beverage).
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame, really is, when we're seing xenophobic comments on this thread being allowed to stay and good professionals being banned just because they were expressing their opinion. I know this is Danny's train set but respect shouldn't be excluded.
I can imagine if this happened at farnborough with a BA plane most people here (if not the same ones present here) would start the classic "journo alert" mantra.
So, knowing what the consequences I'm facing, please allow me to express my own personal opinion. This was intended to display the awsome capabilities of a soon to be retired airliner, not a display of TAP regular airline operations. If the majority here think that it was closer to the edge then yes I believe it was, as ANY airshow display is irrespectively of the plane doing the exhibition. Should we ban airshows worlwide altogether just to be on the PC side of the equation?
What I don't agree with most of you is the fact that a lot of you are extrapolating normal airline operation standards from one single airshow display, giving the notion to the thread readers that Portuguese professional pilots are all macho stuntmen when carrying pax on board, doing all kinds of aerobatics just because it's fun.
Saying that Portuguese pilots are unsafe and the PAX should "Take Another Plane" is an insult. If you're a professional and experienced pilot, you already know who's unsafe up there and what are those callsigns you should be looking for (and avoiding!): the really dangerous everyday situations like busting levels, missing calls, flying well above speed limits, flying poorly maintained planes, etc... I'm sure TAP isn't one of them. You just have to read R&N everyday to have a vague idea of what I'm trying to say here.
As I've seen here stated on some previous posts, true professionals know the difference between wreckless and display attitudes, so I believe that the all this Portuguese bashing either comes from journos looking for blood, or non-professionals.
GD&L
I can imagine if this happened at farnborough with a BA plane most people here (if not the same ones present here) would start the classic "journo alert" mantra.
So, knowing what the consequences I'm facing, please allow me to express my own personal opinion. This was intended to display the awsome capabilities of a soon to be retired airliner, not a display of TAP regular airline operations. If the majority here think that it was closer to the edge then yes I believe it was, as ANY airshow display is irrespectively of the plane doing the exhibition. Should we ban airshows worlwide altogether just to be on the PC side of the equation?
What I don't agree with most of you is the fact that a lot of you are extrapolating normal airline operation standards from one single airshow display, giving the notion to the thread readers that Portuguese professional pilots are all macho stuntmen when carrying pax on board, doing all kinds of aerobatics just because it's fun.
Saying that Portuguese pilots are unsafe and the PAX should "Take Another Plane" is an insult. If you're a professional and experienced pilot, you already know who's unsafe up there and what are those callsigns you should be looking for (and avoiding!): the really dangerous everyday situations like busting levels, missing calls, flying well above speed limits, flying poorly maintained planes, etc... I'm sure TAP isn't one of them. You just have to read R&N everyday to have a vague idea of what I'm trying to say here.
As I've seen here stated on some previous posts, true professionals know the difference between wreckless and display attitudes, so I believe that the all this Portuguese bashing either comes from journos looking for blood, or non-professionals.
GD&L
GearDown&Locked:
I presume that your use of the word wreckless was a Freudian slip for reckless?
I don't know enough of the incident (for I was not there and refuse to base an opinion on amateur videos) to make proper comment but one thing that has struck me is the number of politically-correct, humourless, holier-than-thou, never-done-anything-exciting in their lives and generally po-faced contributors that are pontificating on this thread.
I am grateful that I have retired. Sharing a flightdeck with some of you out there must be a very, very boring experience.
I presume that your use of the word wreckless was a Freudian slip for reckless?
I don't know enough of the incident (for I was not there and refuse to base an opinion on amateur videos) to make proper comment but one thing that has struck me is the number of politically-correct, humourless, holier-than-thou, never-done-anything-exciting in their lives and generally po-faced contributors that are pontificating on this thread.
I am grateful that I have retired. Sharing a flightdeck with some of you out there must be a very, very boring experience.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know what circuit-breakers were pulled to stop the numerous EGPWS warnings that otherwise would have been deafening.
Normal approach.