what an idiot!

So you have access to the QAR? Who told you he threw a swift left at 50 feet? They didn't crash did they? So all went as planned.:rolleyes:

Did you miss the video evidence? 50 feet? 100 feet? It's still a low turn, but hey, it's OK cos they didn't crash. I don't really believe you subscribe to the "They got away with it so it must be OK" school of thought but your posts are beginning to suggest otherwise.

Hand Solo, mate; they didn't crash because they didn't plan to do so and they knew exactly what they were doing. It is very difficult to judge height above ground on photographic evidence, depends a lot on what lens was used to video the scene. They certainly were not at 50 feet, otherwise they would have dug the left wing in for sure. The title of "TAP A310 near disaster" must have been cloned from the Daily Mirror, surely?

Nobody plans to crash but it keeps on happening! A lot of people who knew exactly what they were doing are pushing up the daisies because something they didn't expect to happen happened and they hadn't left themselves an out. The 'disaster' tag in this instance is over the top because they did get away with it, but the manouvre looks unnecessarily risky and doesn't leave a prudent margin for error. It wouldn't have taken very much for for there to have been a very different outcome which is why air displays are so stringently regulated in the UK. Perhaps Portugal has never suffered an airshow disaster, but a lot of nations have learned the hard way that experts who knew what they were doing and we're well practiced don't always get it right.

Looking at Luis Goncalves piccy posted by SR71 , we see an approximate bank angle of 30 degrees.

sine(30) x (wingspan A310=144)/2 = 36'

Estimating 25' for the tree (it looks a bit dessicated out there), we get about 50' of terrain clearance with no allowance for trees or gravel piles:uhoh:

The static ports being in the nose, we can guesstimate the altimeter reading 50+36+14 to be about 100'
If the RA compensates for bank it would read about 20' lower than the barometric altimeter.

To calculate a minimum value RA before beginning bank, I'd suggest adding 36' to surveyed maximum obstacle height (looks like 25') + 100' for the wife, kids, stockholders and insurers which would come to about 160' RA or 175' baro.

Still 9% stiffer upper lips and tally ho...

Hotdog, "It is very difficult to judge height above ground on photographic evidence".

True indeed. But is it any easier from the flight deck? Did the pilot have a better reality available to him than that big fat video-grab I'm looking at from an earlier poster?

Doesn't every CFT incident start with the premise "It's OK, I knew what I was doing"?

In motorcycling terms (more than one motorcycle fan in here, i´ve noticed :ok:), when Valentino Rossi left all-conquering Honda for the inferior Yamaha, respected Eurosport commentator (and former multi GP winner) Randy Mamola told him, after testing the Yamaha, "you´re f*ck*d", because he judged the machine by what he could do with it.
Of course Rossi went on to become MotoGP world champion first time out on that inferior Yamaha, and offered Honda the biggest humble pie ever baked in the process.

The point? Not everyone has the same level of skill.
To some pilots landing a C152 in a 8 knot crosswind is bordering on lunacy...

They were practicing for attack on a forest fire? :}

Some 25 years ago I remember being at the Farnborough airshow as an aircraft (Buffalo I think) was coming into land at a very steep angle. I will never forget the commentator saying that "believe it or not ladies and gentlemen this aircraft is going to land".

A few seconds later the 'professional' pilot smacked his aircraft on the runway as the u/c collapsed and it all went 'crunch' resulting in the rest of the display being abandoned!!

Fortunately he walked away but clearly he made a big mistake and despite what some people here think, what may seem safe and sensible to them is not that at all.

As I walked back through the car park I saw one of the props embedded in the front of a car - now that could have been really nasty with some innocent victims paying the price of someone else's actions - it is not beyond the relms of doubt that such a thing could have happened here and I for one would wish such people didn't do such things.

Come on!! I can cut the margins finer because I'm more skillful than capt x,y,z... only a crazy man would go down that route.

Who was it said a superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgment to avoid a situation which might require the use of his superior skill?

I heard nobody about the fact that they already made a pass before this one discribed. So they knew that there was probably no (gusty)wind, perfect conditions and I really think that birds are being kept away during a show. On one of the pics you can clearly see that they've past the spectators and on another that terrain is going down (which you hardly can see on the video). They've done it in the sim (most probably more then ones...) and know the field. It looks spectaculair and that's why they were there for.
John

Some extreme x-wind landings, the Tex Johnson 707 roll and Bob Hoover shows how to get a wing down low. I bet its Coke in that glass ;)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5fc_1189993936

Musics nice also :cool:

The answer is YES, MrSoft. It is practice, skill and exact readout of height above terrain from the radio altimeter.

..because gusty winds don't come and go do they? And birds? We could put a sign up saying "Please stay away" but we'd better hope that any that were hoping to transit the area can read. Or saw the last bird scaring activity and decided to stay away.:ugh:

We used to find it tremendous fun to practice visual circuits at Geneva in the simulator. At 50 feet. It was dead easy. Just because you can practice something in the simulator doesn't mean it's safe or sensible to do it in a real aircraft.

The simple fact is that a straight and level flypast at 200ft from an airliner would probably be exciting enough for the crowd of spectators. There is no need to throw it around like a fighter. In the UK the display auth minimum height for military jets is, I believe, normally 50ft. So what was this fella's authed minimum?

There is no way that the wingtip was 50ft AGL! Closer to 5-10ft by my conservative estimate. Add to that the fact that the wingtips cannot be seen from the cockpit, and I suggest that it was more by luck than judgement that these cowboys got away with it. You do not need to take risks to do a good display. Leave throwing it around at low level to the Pitts Specials etc.

In my opinion a good pilot keeps a safe margin in hand, (comprising his authorised legal minima + a little bit for his flying accuracy + some for unexpected events + a smidgen for the wife and kids). To leave no margin at all is cocky bad attitude at best and recklessly bad airmanship at worst, and either way, is asking for trouble.

I have 1 more word for you.
MARGIN
he didn't have any, none, zip and nada.
Look, I've been a certified Aviation nut since I was born and just love a good display as much or not more than the next guy but jesus H christ..........in all my 30 years as a professional Pilot I have never witnessed such a callous disregard for safety.
If he had cartwheeled in it would have taken a huge slab of their company reputation and profit with him. Not to mention god knows how many innocent bystanders at the show who expect a certain level of PROFESSIONALISM from the Pilot's at the show.
If you want to see large transport category aircraft perform these RISKY maneuvers then do it on Microsoft Flight Sim.

Whether he's a crazy fool or a god of the skies, if something went awry, he'd have taken plenty of other souls out in a fireball. Here's a view of his gear-up flypast


http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=zXGTfS...elated&search=

Straight over the crowd. Nice. I guess they really don't have any airshow regulations in Portugal.