Cathay pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt'
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is untrained and unpracticed, at sigificantly different performance, with far greater scope for error.
It is unfortunate that the insurers and bean counters are now controlling the skies.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
might already be posted, but Air Canada has done the same thing, whats the big deal
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0eMFGkF8csk&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0eMFGkF8csk&feature=related
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your winding us up right, I hope you don't actually operate in the states, you need a waiver to do that stuff.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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...
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...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
Show-off's get canned, plain and simple.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
Last edited by richatom; 27th Feb 2008 at 11:44.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put up, or shut up.
FARs – Height and Speed
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.
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.
Stercus Accidit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I guess Mr.Wilkinson did not pay for the aircraft nor for the other bills, so he simply has to follow the company rules.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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...)
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.
Certainly I would not be too happy as a passenger if I had not been specifically briefed about what was going on...
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...
)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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: KLAX
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.