Indeed and he certainly broke his employer SOP , and will get tea without biscuits for that , but since apparently someone called the police ( at least that is what the article posted here says) , if the aircrraft did made a low pass above a runway , for them ,( and for ATC) , no rule was broken .

As to a mountain at the end of the runway , well there are 2 crossing runways there , the east- west one is open on both sides and seen the FR 24 track above , I would say they likely used 30 which is absolutely fine . (and before you ask, yes I,'ve landed there myself ,nice place, just a bit windy )

Looking at Google maps this was not over the runway but over the town/harbour. The photo/video still in post 8 was made from 63°25'57.5"N 20°16'03.5"W looking to the north.

Icelandair actually reported him to the police. I’m not sure on what basis but all things considered it’s probably some form of willfully endangering flight safety, which is most probably a criminal offense, even in rugged Iceland! If this was an unplanned, unsanctioned and unsupported one man action, then it falls well within the police’s jurisdiction, wouldn’t you say?

There is no room for a low pass in EASA regulation. Since the aircraft was below 1000ft over congested area and within horisontal proximity of ground, national and/or EU laws/regulations have been broken.

The only chance to go below minimum altitudes is if a landing is intended. In this case a landing was not intended. and most certainly the aircraft was not being flown under IFR rules.

"(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:

(1) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;"

In addition to this the Captain was outside of company SOP´s, endangering lives and company reputation.

Where are the limits?
 

A long time ago, I was called in from reserve duty to fly a visual Alpine flight in an MD-80 with a cabin full of shareholders getting a company jolly.

What a blast - and yet - I reluctantly called back and said they should get a Capt who also flew in the military to do it. I know how to fly visually, know how to navigate and know how to give a good PA but had not been trained in which valleys had dead ends and where there was turning space etc. Let an expert do it.

Last week, as pax I was flown home from Mallorca on a wonderful blue sunny day. I felt that we were descending a bit early near Marseille and then the Capt came on and said he had obtained min avbl Flt Level so we could get a good view of the Alps. I think he also got some route re-clearances because we had super views of Mt Blanc, Junfrau Joch, Aletsch glacier and the Matterhorn etc. according to which side you were sitting.

As the guy knew the geography, he was able to give a good commentary. It was a very good piece of customer relations and the folks loved it.

Even though I was still a bit jealous after all these years, I enjoyed it - but I think I made the right decision.

Given that it was a flight with destination keflavik, it had no reason to make a gear up low approach over an aspalt/gravel runway of only 1200 meters that was not its destination. Dangerous? No! Illegal? Probably, flying below 200 feet with no intention to land, and certainly against company rules.

And don't forget the F/O, he is legally as much responsible as the retiring captain.

He did not fly over the runway 🙄

Define dangerous . . .
I guess one would get a much higer risk score on a risk assessment flying this low instead of the normal 15k ish ft they should have had.

Involving 200+ passengers . . .

Than it is certainly illegal and not smart.

Keflavik Approach, Practice Pan, ICE521, simulated engine failure. Conducting a practice diversion to Vestmannaeyjar, will report climbing away.

In the config the aircraft appears to be in and the speed it was doing, I’d have thought they'd have been getting “TOO LOW, TERRAIN” from the GPWS unless they'd overridden it or pulled the aural warning breakers. At best distracting, at worst if they forgot to re-enable the systems they'd lose protection.

I had look at the video again and it’s one thing to do that over a runway or inside the perimeter of an airfield but quite another over built up areas. If you did that in the UK the CAA would be taking you to court and it might involve a custodial sentence. Even the RAF aren’t allowed below 250’AGL outside of a few dedicated tactical areas.

Low-pass was nowhere near any runway.... totally irresponsible


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8bcbae83bf.jpg

In his defence, he says he says he can't be held responsible, as he was totally pissed at the time!

I viewed my last flight as a final chance to fly my first perfect sector. I failed again, but at least everyone had a safe flight again!

lol at most it was illegal, but not irresponsible. The captain obviously knew the place very well. Should the pilot receive a fine, I guess his colleagues will help him fund it.

No metar and no FR24 link, this place is slipping

ADSB looks like it went over BIVM RW30 at around 15:21z

As seen on the pictures/video the aircraft is north of the airfield with a westerly heading. A landing was never intended and therefore minimum altitudes apply (1000ft above congested areas according to EASA).

In my last company (household name lo-co) even the (highly commendable) lowest flight level action related above for sightseeing would have given most of our (imho vastly over-indoctrinated/doctrinaire) FOs conniptions - over the fuel consumption!

But we are in an exceptionally highly regulated industry and while this Icelandic event is in some ways understandable it falls lamentably short of what is expected and required of our conduct.

Even 40 yrs ago in UK at least such low flight over a town would without question have resulted in robust and vigorous legal action from the CAA.

After Ramstein and Mt Erebus we know how visual manoeuvres outside our normal ops can go horribly wrong which is one good reason they're not acceptable.

Was it safe? Yes, almost certainly.
Was it dangerous? Almost certainly not.
Was it illegal. Yes, without doubt.
A criminal offence? As reported, without doubt.
Was it unprofessional? Unquestionably, massively so.
Would it have worried/concerned/frightened pax who were aware of it? Highly likely. (see 'unprofessional')
Would I, as a colleague, chip in to pay the miscreant's fine? Hell NO! My God! What a suggestion!
Would should any of us, as Professionals, have any sympathy, any at all, for the Captain? I bloodywell hope not.
For the FO? Depends if he was coerced to take part but no respect for his weakness if he aquiesced, it was his duty to have prevented it. Unless this was done despite his strenuous objections he's for the chop too, and rightly so.

Stand to attention! Off cap! For what we are about to recieve may the Lord make us truly thankful.
Catch book.
Accept the High and Noble Order of the Boot.
Slink home to retirement in disgrace and ready the cheque-book for a very heavy hit.

"Iceland" and "congested area" are two diametrically opposite words...

I think we stop our outrage. Somebody wanted to do something memorable on his very last commercial flight and probably misjudged what should be done, but nobody got hurt. Some years ago I was a passenger on a private charter Boeing 757-300 and we performed a low pass over Toulouse's runway 32L "just for fun" with an open cockpit door, so we could all hear the EGPWS/RAAS callouts and everybody loved it! Yes, it was overhead an official runway, free of obstacles blablabla. More professional, coordinated with ATC. But essentially it was the same thing and instead of getting annoyed or offended, our pilots got the praise that they deserved.

People have implied on this thread that, for some reasons, the pension of the Captain is under threat. That is not how pensions work in Iceland - the pension scheme will be separate from the employer. The pilot may face a fine if successfully prosecuted (jail time is comparatively rare in Iceland), but the magnitude is unlikely to be material in the context of the size of the pension pot.

The person who could potentially be the biggest loser is the FO, depending on how the company / the police / etc. view the incident. There is the potential for substantial loss of future earnings if this goes the wrong way.

How did he explain all this to his passengers? If I were on a flight where the pilot said “I am going to take you all on a low level pass over a town” I would not be at all happy. I would be even less happy if he didn’t tell us what he was doing!