Cathay pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt'
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think it's been mentioned but the RAD ALT is calibrated for the gear being DOWN so all this 28ft stuff is wrong. (ie when the RAD ALT reads '00' the wheels touch) from the belly should be at least 50ft, but lets not let the truth get in the way of a good fly-by!
Mmmmm PPruuune!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The amount of drivel spouted here is almost beyond belief and pretty much at the level of our journalistic bretheren.
Broadreach has it in a nutshell at posts 215 & 219 well done Sir.
But then why spoil a good slanging match -
same old names same old opinions
Broadreach has it in a nutshell at posts 215 & 219 well done Sir.
But then why spoil a good slanging match -
same old names same old opinions
The post acceptance factory fly-by was always a 'thank you' to the people who built the aircraft and gave them,and the accepting airline, a chance to see and take pride in the end product in its natural environment.. and to say goodbye.
Shame that this Captain didn't just fly an approach to a 50ft go-round with an early turn away. It would have been just as impessive and not a word would have been said. SOP's would have been followed, too. Then again, SLF may have felt something happening, unlike this flyby ...........
Shame that this Captain didn't just fly an approach to a 50ft go-round with an early turn away. It would have been just as impessive and not a word would have been said. SOP's would have been followed, too. Then again, SLF may have felt something happening, unlike this flyby ...........
Watch how it's really done!
C'mon Ladies and Gentlemen---what is the real problem?
1. He was 'evil management' at CX so pilots are glad too see him sacked-regardless of the reason?
2. everyone else thinks this stunt is reckless, BECAUSE A PILOT WAS SACKED-for it and FOX news agrees?
3. Some folk really consider that maneuver aerobatic, Good Ol' Tex was just called to the Carpet and things were handled in a gentlemanly fashion---unheard of today...
BTW here's how it's done http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wx_ui2qWgqI
1. He was 'evil management' at CX so pilots are glad too see him sacked-regardless of the reason?
2. everyone else thinks this stunt is reckless, BECAUSE A PILOT WAS SACKED-for it and FOX news agrees?
3. Some folk really consider that maneuver aerobatic, Good Ol' Tex was just called to the Carpet and things were handled in a gentlemanly fashion---unheard of today...
BTW here's how it's done http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wx_ui2qWgqI
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's an actual video of the flyby here
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1204000744
and
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-...ml?nvid=221537
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1204000744
and
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-...ml?nvid=221537
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 CFR 91.119 is quite clear. "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:" There is no exemption for low-passes or for in the vicinity of an airport, that's why a waiver from 91.119 is required for air shows. It would be very difficult to convince a law judge that the low pass was necessary for takeoff or landing when the gear was retracted, flaps not configured for landing and speed (possibly) well in excess of approach speeds.
In this case, (scroll down to March 25, 2004) the violation of 91.119 was upheld because the judge found that there was no intention to land so the "except when necessary for landing" exemption did not apply.
Some years ago a transport aircraft crew was violated on a training flight during which they shot practice approaches to an airfield that was too small for them to actually land their airplane. Since a landing was not possible, the FAA ruled that the "except when necessary for takeoff or landing" exemption did not apply and that they would have had to maintain the applicable minimum altitudes per 91.119.
ATC can not waive the requirements of 91.119. It is not ATC's job to determine if the appropriate waivers have been obtained. Their approval is based only on local traffic.
In incident 1 on this page the pilot's maneuvers were approved by ATC who mistakenly believed that the aircraft was covered by the existing waiver--he was not and was violated.
The speed limit over PAE would be 200kts, not 250kts. Don't know how fast he was actually flying but he would have needed another waiver if he was to exceed 200 KIAS.
None of this is to say that the low pass was unsafe but it was most certainly a violation of at least one regulation.
In this case, (scroll down to March 25, 2004) the violation of 91.119 was upheld because the judge found that there was no intention to land so the "except when necessary for landing" exemption did not apply.
Some years ago a transport aircraft crew was violated on a training flight during which they shot practice approaches to an airfield that was too small for them to actually land their airplane. Since a landing was not possible, the FAA ruled that the "except when necessary for takeoff or landing" exemption did not apply and that they would have had to maintain the applicable minimum altitudes per 91.119.
ATC can not waive the requirements of 91.119. It is not ATC's job to determine if the appropriate waivers have been obtained. Their approval is based only on local traffic.
In incident 1 on this page the pilot's maneuvers were approved by ATC who mistakenly believed that the aircraft was covered by the existing waiver--he was not and was violated.
The speed limit over PAE would be 200kts, not 250kts. Don't know how fast he was actually flying but he would have needed another waiver if he was to exceed 200 KIAS.
None of this is to say that the low pass was unsafe but it was most certainly a violation of at least one regulation.
Thanks, Larry in TN,
Interesting. Am confident they were below 200 kts. So what about all those other PAE fly-bys over the years? Is this going to put a stop to the practice?
Interesting. Am confident they were below 200 kts. So what about all those other PAE fly-bys over the years? Is this going to put a stop to the practice?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, what a shame that something harmless that is a bit of entertainment always drags the self righteous wan*ers onto their keyboards. The same old ones as well. Never broken the speed limit, never driven after a glass of wine, never sworn in church, etc...
Go back to beating your wives and children or whatever else you do to lower your obviously high blood pressure
Great job, Great Pictures....
Go back to beating your wives and children or whatever else you do to lower your obviously high blood pressure
Great job, Great Pictures....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: at home!
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
error?/risk?
this "error" maybe defined as a consequence in which that crew made a decision to increase risk unnecessarily with extreme manoeuvres on approach.
This error had that day no outcome consequence of the completion of the flight but learned before that crew errors were implicated in quite numbers of accidents especially in approaches and landings phases.
Trusting the crew was well aware of the conduct of such manoeuvre, CX management had differrent point of view and probably took action in the light of operational decision error for the risk taken.
This error had that day no outcome consequence of the completion of the flight but learned before that crew errors were implicated in quite numbers of accidents especially in approaches and landings phases.
Trusting the crew was well aware of the conduct of such manoeuvre, CX management had differrent point of view and probably took action in the light of operational decision error for the risk taken.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After landing there was a celebration first with some managers. Only when the press was involved the fly-by became an issue.
As soon as things are about political correctness all the teachers come out to tell the cowboys what real “professionalism” is about.
As soon as things are about political correctness all the teachers come out to tell the cowboys what real “professionalism” is about.
Larry in TN, you are correct, but still let him pay his fine and say Lamentations to the Administrator
have as it's said have some 'tea and biscuits' and call it a day---a sacking of the CP seems harsh...also they can get him on 91.13 if they wish...but he's not an FAA ATP soooo?
to be pedantic and I know I'm putting my foot in my mouth but
re speeds see para (d)
a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).
(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
have as it's said have some 'tea and biscuits' and call it a day---a sacking of the CP seems harsh...also they can get him on 91.13 if they wish...but he's not an FAA ATP soooo?to be pedantic and I know I'm putting my foot in my mouth but
re speeds see para (d)
a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).
(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what about all those other PAE fly-bys over the years?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but still let him pay his fine and say Lamentations to the Administrator have as it's said have some 'tea and biscuits' and call it a day---a sacking of the CP seems harsh
also they can get him on 91.13 if they wish...but he's not an FAA ATP soooo?
(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
Larry in TN
--- I've conceded multiple times to the illegality of this action
and the appropriate approval process should've been followed....
I'm grateful, for the conservatism and self checking done in the pilot community in order to enhance safety---perhaps the event even went a little beyond some 'beaurocratic handwaving excercises' concerning briefings etc...but, as you know we are all naughty immature little children who must be watched by the Administrator
So, my posting of 91.117, was a bit a foot stomping display on my behalf...
---as was my reference to 91.13 [to non-US pilots reckless and careless operation] and non-FAA ATPL was also a little off the cuff sarcasm---as is the statement that follows---but yes we SHOULD INDEED adhere to the regulations of the region in which we operate---
Irony---that under our FAR 91.111 two captains on delivery flights with non-fare paying pax can conspire to fly in formation as long as:
91.111 Operating near other aircraft.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.
I must reiterate so as not to betray the conservatism I like to demonstrate regarding safety---
"What's Safe Isn't Always Legal and What's legal is Always Safe"---but There's Plenty of Safe/Legal Fun out there for All
PA
--- I've conceded multiple times to the illegality of this action
and the appropriate approval process should've been followed....
I'm grateful, for the conservatism and self checking done in the pilot community in order to enhance safety---perhaps the event even went a little beyond some 'beaurocratic handwaving excercises' concerning briefings etc...but, as you know we are all naughty immature little children who must be watched by the Administrator
So, my posting of 91.117, was a bit a foot stomping display on my behalf...
---as was my reference to 91.13 [to non-US pilots reckless and careless operation] and non-FAA ATPL was also a little off the cuff sarcasm---as is the statement that follows---but yes we SHOULD INDEED adhere to the regulations of the region in which we operate---
Irony---that under our FAR 91.111 two captains on delivery flights with non-fare paying pax can conspire to fly in formation as long as:
91.111 Operating near other aircraft.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.
I must reiterate so as not to betray the conservatism I like to demonstrate regarding safety---
"What's Safe Isn't Always Legal and What's legal is Always Safe"---but There's Plenty of Safe/Legal Fun out there for All
PA
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There might be a few more heads to roll yet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Full story in the UK Mail On Sunday.
Christopher Pratt CBE, chairman of Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific, and Cathay Pacific's director of engineering Christopher Gibbs were both in jump seats behind the captain.
Two first officers were also standing unharnessed inside the flight deck as Wilkinson circled after take-off to descend with landing gear raised to fly 28ft above the Boeing plane-maker's Seattle airport, the airline has admitted.
Neither Mr Pratt nor Mr Gibbs, who is also British, complained about the pilot's manoeuvre. It was questioned only when Cathay Pacific officials saw pictures of the stunt five days later.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Full story in the UK Mail On Sunday.
Christopher Pratt CBE, chairman of Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific, and Cathay Pacific's director of engineering Christopher Gibbs were both in jump seats behind the captain.
Two first officers were also standing unharnessed inside the flight deck as Wilkinson circled after take-off to descend with landing gear raised to fly 28ft above the Boeing plane-maker's Seattle airport, the airline has admitted.
Neither Mr Pratt nor Mr Gibbs, who is also British, complained about the pilot's manoeuvre. It was questioned only when Cathay Pacific officials saw pictures of the stunt five days later.