Cathay pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt'
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
richatom
'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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Here There Yonder
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: baggage hold
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoah 411a
Buy you own aeroplane, not use a public transport aeroplane, that belongs to someone else.
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
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
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.
Explosion in insurance expense?
When no harm was done, so no claim made?
Insurers don't risk losing major clients that easily.
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
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoJoke
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.
OK rich, I admire your aviation insights. The pilot must have been blind and deaf also. Go away please.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ndicho Moja
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
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
FL
After seeing the video ..... duty of care and reckless endangerment come to mind. Jail terms and loss of licence are a few other thoughts.
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.
richatom
they would be criminally negligent because they hadn't followed the procedures
FL
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milt
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.
"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
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'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.
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
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
[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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tasmania
Age: 67
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronx,
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
Originally Posted by Bronx
You forgot the kids in the kindergarten that narrowly escaped death.
PBL
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: PA USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Controversial, moi?
TyroPicard makes some cogent points but one that sticks out and is so true:
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.
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.
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 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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL
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.
do you have a view on the wisdom or not of performing such a manoeuvre in the given situation?
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.