Life is unfair , But there is I think a big difference between bringing a 757 so low only to impress a crowd , possibly by a crew that spent the last 15 years or so only making ILS approaches and/or connecting AP when passing 1000ft on the climb., and a South African bush pilot doing visuals since 40 years trying to avoid being possibly shot at.

At the risk of sounding critical.... I did wonder why the pilot wouldn’t climb say another 100 feet to give himself a greater margin of safety. I’m sure we could all do a 360 @ 100 feet, or maybe even 75, but why erode your margins? If SAMS are such a threat, I would have thought RPG’s that are more plentiful would be a greater threat?
*caveat* I have never operated in a war zone ,and so am asking the questions for information purposes.

The lower one is over the sea the closer one is to birds.

nice one, beardy.
----
For information purposes :) did they arrive for the first approach flat at 100 feet, ekranoplan style?

FWIW, solen from a post above

If I remember correctly Capt. Sullenberger's Airbus flew through that flock of geese at around 3000ft... That guy here was obviously perfectly able to fly at 100ft, so why climb to where the Canada Geese will bring him down ;)

That would be interesting, Canada Geese at Mogadishu. Other birds (migratory and non-migratory), including Pelicans, are available.

So very true and how sad/worrying is that?

Within three decades I predict we'll be in the same postion on our roads I suspect.

The future isn't bright, it's automated...

HUD monkey!

Ahhhh DTs fly past...surprised we haven't seen the Cathay delivery flight. Poor old IW got the chop for that. And oddly enough the pushback for all these "manoeuvres" came from ex military pilots who lamented the fact that " those pilots had not been trained" where as they had....

Now if those guys had been weaving through the hills of Scotland, I would say they had a point . But a fly past!

At least DT didn't have any of the company's directors onboard at the time.

Capt Steyl in action in 2013
 

The bike ride in the end is far more unsafe than the 360 at 100ft :E

15 years ago, or thereabouts, I was occupying the jumpseat on an A300 freighter going into Baghdad which, at that time, was a rather unpleasant area to be overflying in a civilian aircraft. If I remember correctly, the approach was made from 10.000 ft fully configured, then dive for the numbers. As we started the descent the flaps had not come all the way out yet which, despite having the engines in idle, resulted in the airspeed creeping upwards. As we crossed the piano keys the skipper called for a go-around an took controls. I was expecting an "up we go, position for another approach from 10K feet" scenario, but that didn't happen. Oh no. We tracked the runway at around 100 foot and, nearing the end, entered a steep left-hand bank going behind (and below the cab of) the tower, to track the opposite runway. Aunt Betty was moaning loudly (bank angle, pull up, too low - terrain; the whole nine yards) and, from the vantage point of a raised jump seat behind the skipper, it felt like the ground couldn't have been more than an uncomfortably low number of meters away from the wingtip. We reached the end of the parallel runway and did another 180 to the left, still at 100ft. Touched down and taxied to the ramp for unloading.

Sometimes situation dictate embracing techniques and procedures that are about as far removed from a 10 mile ILS descent as you can imagine. But if that's all you've done in your professional life, it makes perfectly sense why some are baulking at the idea. At the end of the day it's down to skills and training. If you operate in an environment where maximum use of automatics is SOP, then this would be akin to suicide. But if you operate at an airline which gives you all the room you want to take tactical decisions which suits the environment, then you're quite comfortable switching off A/P, A/T and FD at 10.000 ft on a sunny day flying into a not too busy airport. Sadly, a large and growing number of airline have all but banned manual flying above 500ft AGL.

RPG's are unguided - plentiful but unguided. Low probability of a hit - not designed for the task. SAM's on the other hand, have a much greater range, and are guided (usually heat seeking), they are a far more deadly threat.

There was a quick woop woop. Might have been my limit. But that was cool.

I think part of that was , the DC-9-32s I flew, we also learned to glance at the fast/slow "doughnut" or AOA display. At least I did; say short final into LGA for 31..Same later when I transitioned to the B-767, another enjoyable aircraft to hand fly.

Actually the Airbus, a light 319 in particular will handle quite nicely. Autopilot off, Flight Directors off, Speed push..One night, into ORD, for 10L I think, Aeroflot landed ahead of us, and stopped on the runway. Tower quickly said (at about 300 AGL) "A..#### can you accept a sidestep to 9R?" I said sure."Cleared to land.09R." 3 items above, bank left, bank right line up on new runway. F/O looked a bit surprised, and I didn't have time to brief it.

When that airplane and that skipper were a lot younger this would not have raised an eyebrow anywhere in the industry. He flies like that because he flies like that. There was a time when we all did. Because we had to. Bush flying will always be there to some degree, but it has ceased to be the training ground it once was for airline pilots, and modern navigation and approach aids have all but eliminated the need for stick and ruddering a big airplane close to the ground without a runway under it. Those days, and those hard won skills are never coming back because there is so little need for night circling approaches, offsets and timed two seventys hardly anyone knows what they are anymore. The game has changed, and very much for the better in my opinion. Those in the front seats today don’t need to kick the thing around. They need to outsmart it.