Cathay pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt'
 

If true, this must be up there with the 707 barrel roll - something in the Seattle drinking water supply, perhaps?

Boeing pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt'

February 24, 2008 - 2:29PM


An expatriate pilot with Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific Airways has reportedly been fired for performing a Top Gun-style stunt in which he swooped metres over a runway in a new Boeing passenger jet.

Ian Wilkinson was piloting the Boeing 777-300ER on its maiden flight from the manufacturer's plant in Everett, Washington, when he turned around after take-off and swooped around 10 metres over the runway, the South China Sunday Morning Post reported.

Cathay Pacific chairman Chris Pratt was among the VIP passengers on board the plane when Wilkinson did his unauthorised fly-by of the Boeing factory on January 30, the newspaper said today.

Wilkinson was sacked over the incident at a disciplinary hearing last week, while a second, unidentified pilot, believed to be the co-pilot, has been suspended from training duties for six months, according to the Post.
Videos and photographs of the swoop have been posted on the internet and pilots' gossip forums, with some praising the stunt but others describing it as dangerous and poorly executed.

A Cathay Pacific spokeswoman told the newspaper that Wilkinson insisted the fly-by was "not dangerous" but said he had been sacked for not seeking approval for the manoeuvre.

The airline had a well-established approval process for such manoeuvres and had conducted them in the past at air shows but only "with proper approval in place", she said.
DPA

(from www.theage.com.au)

Fly past was perfectly safe and described by the Cathay DFO as 'spectacular' in his weekly newsletter to the crews. He attached photos of the flyby which looked very spectacular indeed.
As soon as the rumours of the pass being unauthorised started, however, a rapid 'distancing' stance was adopted ending up with a complete 180 by said DFO who put out a notice to crews saying that the pilot had been terminated etc etc.
Leadership in the modern age eh?
Hard luck Ian - now you know how the 49ers felt!!:ok: At least you were afforded the benefit of a Discipline and Grievance procedure - they weren't.

All being discussed in Fragrant Harbour forum.

exagerate reaction
 

The video is gone,
Recently happens that anything embarrassing is going to be censored in U-tube. Is the case of the disastrous RTO test of the A340-600 by Airbus and now the low pass of the CX 777 in SEA. However for those who missed the show nobody can says that it wasn't a safely done maneuver. However it appear also from this photo that she had and AOA quite pronounced since her tail under fuselage was almost parallel to the ground.

looking than the last picture something is dramatically missing: the landing gear.

Another picture.

http://i29.tinypic.com/2gy1xg4.jpg

Well, that CX flyby surely looks safer than the flyby done in Evora, Portugal last summer, during an airshow.;)
Remember? TAP Airbus 300 doing a flyby with its tip in the grass. And that pilot didn't get fired!

What's that, about 40ft off the tarmac?

"Too low Gear, Too low Gear"

:-)

Nothing wrong with the manoeuvrer. Should have got clearance first though I guess.

"No it must have been an indication problem" we can confirm that the gear is up and locked. have a good trip.


Is that not what low fly by's are for????

The problem with the unplanned flyby is just that. It was unplanned. It appears to have gone well but.....how many circuit breakers were pulled to avoid GPWS warnings? Did he get them all or was there distractions during the flyby. Did the airline insurance allow for airshow manoeuvers? Probably not. Did the Company Ops manual allow for unauthorized airshow stunts? Probably not. Did he ask the passengers in the back if they wanted to be part of his flyby? Don't think so. Was he going to try a banking peel off turn like the Air Portugal pilot did on the famous A310 stunt? Maybe or maybe not....we will never know because it wasn't planned. When you fly for an airline you are not flying for a flying club. These are expensive machines, being flown at high costs as part of a serious business plan. There is no room for individual impulsive expression. It sometimes ends in disaster. Fly the aircraft according to your flight plan and deal with unplanned events using the training provided and the experience in your background. When you do unplanned things you are asking for it.

Have airlines management gone completely stupid? I am a mere fare paying passenger, so I suppose I pay management their wages. Here they have fantastic photos to use in publicity, their profile is raised, great flying making all us boys wishing we had become pilots instead of boring lawyers or accountants etc, and a fantastic colour scheme being shown off to remind me that perhaps I should book CX next time I go to Oz from London. I would love to have been sitting in the jump seat, one to bore everyone about for decades to come. Really this world has lost its sense of fun and being thrilled. On second thoughts maybe CX won't get my business.

I highly doubt it was unplanned!

Agree with what most posters have said so far, but it won't be long before the rules are rules, he broke the rules he deserve what he got blah blah posters come along.

B.

Not to forget the disadvantageous enviromental effect.

Does anyone have the ATC.

He may have cleared it with tower but not with CX or airfield ops (generally an analy retentive bunch of jobsworths). Would like to hear that as it may clear up some aspects of this nice fly past.

A10 warthog

No 777's have winglets as the wing is a nice peice if design and doesn't need them.

One can only assume that the guy is an ex display pilot and that he has had the necessary training for this exercise like the military guys get day in day out.If not then perhaps life would be easier and safer if he let one of the experts.Incidentially the spectacular barrell roll in a 707 by one of the Boeing test pilots was later attempted by a line pilot with catastrophic results.

Low
 

Yes I agree this is LOW but its a superb picture Well done who ever took the picture

I think he should have gotten a warning and have that warning posted to deter future unplanned flybys. But let the pilots be pilots and let them have pride and joy in flying. He shouldnt have been fired.


777-300ER doesnt have winglets . Doesnt need them apparently. Is it even available for the 777 series yet?

Funny how a go-around from 50ft on a CatIII approach isn't considered dangerous and yet this is.
Like everything else in life the fun police assert their authority.
Shame that a company like CX with such a high ex RAF content can't deal with this in a professional "aviation-orientated" manner rather than behaving like the jobsworths that run every aspect of our modern nanny-state lives.

It is not that unheard of to do farewell flybyes at Paine Field gear up down to ground effect. I certainly remember some different ones with quads. It's not aerobatic and should be perfectly safe and acceptable on a ferry flight without paying pax.

I have heard this one only became an issue because the CAA of Hong Kong hadn't been asked beforehand. As it had become known in public there was no other way out of it anymore.


PS: And here's a new german operator of the 777F looking for 200 experienced pilots. Might be a place for the sad skipper. www.aerologic.aero

Nice flyby...good to know that there are still some real pilots out there!
Sorry he lost his job though...

Oh, Mr. 310guy...sounds like you need to get out more.

Any chance that the appeal process will reduce the "punishment" to something more appropriate (like - "get authorised next time")?

Co-pilot Ray Middleton, who is understood to have been unaware the fly-by was unauthorized, was suspended from training duties for six months.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...YC/CX777_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...YC/CX777_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...YC/CX777_3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...YC/CX777_4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...YC/CX777_5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...YC/CX777_7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...YC/CX777_9.jpg



Photographer Liem Bahneman


B.

Am sure this pilot will gain employment again, or is he 'blacklisted' for x amount of time. Could someone in the know of these things please comment >>

I see it as making mountains over molehills. I would love to know who these people are on the 'boards' _> all saints I'm sure ;)

CX should be damn grateful what a superb pilot they had :rolleyes:!.
nice shots!.

thanks.

I bet he got permission, but from the wrong person!:}

Wilkinson was their Chief Pilot according to a post at ..
http://blog.seattle-deliveries.com/2...-delivery.html


This post from 'anonymous' may give some insight into his sacking ...

"I am a CX pilot and can tell you all right now that myself and none of the other CX pilots are sorry to see Wilko go. He was a total prick and anyone would think he owned CX the way he used to carry on.

We have been trying to find a reason to get rid of him for a long time and the youtube video was too good an opportunity to pass up...."

Absolutely not true. Sure, there are some that don't like him, but on the whole he was very well respected as the 777 Chief Pilot. Under his stewardship, the 777 fleet probably had the highest morale and has certainly had some of the best results (training, FDAP etc) of any CX fleet. That's not to say he hasn't had to make some unpopular decisions in his time and no doubt collected a few 'enemies' along the way - I'd be surprised if there's any manager anywhere that hasn't.

Pilots are employed by the company to fly the aeroplane in the normal manner.
Low fly-by's are generally not in the modus operandi, so ask first, then perform, least you find grief from the head shed.

He was a silly fool, similar to Pablo.
OTOH, purchase the aeroplane, do as you like, ATC permitting, of course.

N1 Vibes:

I'm sure there are lots of reasons why morale on the 777 has been pretty good during the man's time as chief pilot, not all of them directly attributable to him. The point I was trying to make is that the comments quoted by pasoundman are simply not true. Ian was quite highly respected by most people.

A310Guy,

How do you know it was unplanned? Unplanned is a go around from a hundred feet or less, aborted landing in which I have been involved a few times on revenue flights like countless others have been.

This sacking will be entirely about the regulating authority (CAD) demanding a satisfactory explanation and CX Senior managers running for cover so as not to be implicated. I mean VERY Senior Managers.
Why not authorise it retrospectively (it was well executed and allegedly nobody complained)? Why not turn the world wide interest into a CX PR bonanza in the same way that a certain Mr Branson would have done?
As usual, when asked to think quickly and 'out of the box', CX Management reverts to type and selects the 'self preservation' mode.
Is this leadership?? Didn't the same people think IW was one of their best pilots just last week? Does time in the Company (20+ years) mean nothing? Why decide on the ultimate punishment?
So may questions and so few answers.
And all about a perfectly well flown non-event!:D

Daily Mail Version
Top British pilot fired for performing 320mph 'fly-by' just 28ft off the ground - in a passenger jet
by SIMON PARRY - More by this author »

Last updated at 07:38am on 25th February 2008

Comments

Hurtling along at 320mph, the passenger jet was just 28ft above the runway - with its landing gear raised.

However, this was no emergency, but a stunt by one of Britain's most senior pilots.


Captain Ian Wilkinson performed the astonishing "fly-by" manoeuvre to entertain VIP passengers on the maiden flight of the 230-ton Boeing 777-300ER.

Scroll down for more...



Daredevil stunt: Captain Ian Wilkinson flew the passenger jet at 320mph, just 28ft above the runway - with the landing gear raised


The stunt was whooped and cheered by spectators at Boeing headquarters in Seattle, Washington, and the pilot was given a champagne toast after landing in Hong Kong.


But 55-year-old Captain Wilkinson was fired from his £250,000-a-year job with the Cathay Pacific airline after footage of the incident was posted on websites including YouTube.


An airline insider said: "He is a very senior captain nearing the end of a highly-distinguished career but he seems to have thrown it all away for a moment of madness."


Captain Wilkinson, who has lived in Hong Kong for 15 years, was the chief pilot for Cathay Pacific's Boeing 777 fleet and in charge of a team of hundreds. Among his 30 passengers on the fateful flight was the airline's British chairman, Chris Pratt, CBE.


After taking off from the Boeing plant, the captain wheeled the huge £100million jet around and swooped over the runway with undercarriage raised.

Scroll down for more...



The celebration of the maiden flight in Hong Kong: Captain Wilkinson is second right, his co-pilot third from right and chairman Pratt back, centre


He was congratulated on arrival at Cathay Pacific's Hong Kong HQ and even pictured in the airline newsletter raising a glass with executives in celebration of the maiden flight.


After film appeared on the internet, Captain Wilkinson was suspended ahead of a disciplinary hearing last week when he was dismissed.


His British co-pilot Ray Middleton, 47, who is understood to have taken instructions from Captain Wilkinson and to have been unaware that the fly-by was unauthorised, was suspended from training duties for six months.


Captain Wilkinson did not return calls for comment yesterday. He is understood to be considering an appeal against his dismissal.


A spokesman for Cathay Pacific said that the fly-by had been approved by air traffic controllers in Seattle after a call from the pilot but not by the airline, which was the reason Captain Wilkinson had been sacked.

Another senior pilot with the airline said: "Wilkinson was very much one of the elite in Cathay Pacific and would have been very chummy with the airline executives he was flying that day.


"If no one else had found out about it, the incident would probably have gone no further. But once it began circulating on the internet and Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department got wind of it, that was the end of 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."

DAILY MAIL and more photos
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

The good old Daily Mail has unwittingly spotted the real reason for his dismissal - 320 mph with slats anf flaps extended!
TP

Firstly, it was not his jet to play with! Further to that fact, I imagine accusations concerning liability, safety, the Habsheim accident, and CX airline regulations were levelled at the offending crew. But.....

I feel it is a very sad world we now live in, where acts of individuality are punished so severely. Cathay lose my business whenever I have a travel choice.

It's not his jet and it seems he was not authorised to do the manoeuvre.

I assume the people on here who are bleating about how life has changed have never been involved in the authorisation process required before manoeuvres such as this are carried out?
For others to liken it to a Go Around is taking the p:mad::mad:s. The Go Around is there to get you out of the poo. When are some pilots going to learn that just because they have a licence, it does not mean they are God?

Sacking may have been a little OTT, but it is the companies train set.

Would you guys who are bemoaning Cathay be happy to give someone the keys to your new Jag/Aston and then watch them tear it up around a racetrack?

Looks pretty Ho Hum to me. He had plenty of ground clearance. There was nothing unsafe about this manoeuvre. If anything the rotate on take off may have been close to limits.

Suppose B777 pilots will now have to all drop them in from above this height for every landing or face suspension!! One just has to get closer to the ground to land the things.

Does that tidy things up Hotdog?

anotherthing, what a pathetic reply, I have flown with Ian Wilkinson for many years. A better and safer operator would be hard to find these days. There was nothing unsafe or unusual about this manouver. I find your comments difficult to believe for an F111 test pilot, as you claim to be.:suspect:

A go around is made with the gear down. You only raise the gear when you have a positive rate of climb. This was done at very low altitude with the gear up and passengers on board.

Worse it was done with his boss on board. How tactless is that? He may or may not be impressed - but why take the risk?

This was unauthorised. The captain made a bad decision. It would not be the first time that management (of any company) has sacked someone for doing something questionable when management could be questioned subsequentally if they did not sack him.

a go around in cat III is not dangerous because you have the gear down..