Boeing pilot 'sacked for Top Gun stunt

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

Viewed 27/02/08 at 18:00 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/24/1203788133311.html)

This is a video of the incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7hpVH1IAQM

I dont even know what to say about this.

It's not against any laws so what is it that she did that was so wrong? Just because no one told her "not" to do it doesn't mean she can't.

she? I thought it was a guy?

and if she had fucked it up slightly and crashed?

Sure his boss (who was on board) would have been REALLY pissed not to mention all the people whos houses would have been destroyed. Thats if they wernt killed

Cathay is the airline. Ian is the pilot. A friend of mine at Boeing told me about it and sent this article:

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."

(Parry (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=518448&in_page_id=1811))

Sad that it's a matter of bureaucracy. Probably the coolest thing to happen at Paine Field in a while.
____________________

Notes:

Parry, Simon. "Top British pilot fired for performing 320mph 'fly-by' just 28 feet from the ground - in a jumbo full of VIPs". Daily Mail. February 25, 2008. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=518448&in_page_id=1811

I bet he'll land a job as a stunt pilot. If he can do that on a 777, he can do a lot of things with a small plane.

tiassa did you read the last 2 lines of your quote?

Who cares who aproved it, infact the person who aproved it deserves to lose there jobs to. We arnt just talking about taking the executives car for a fast lap around the track where they only life at risk is the drivers. He put the lives of everyone in that plane at risk as well as the lives of everyone near bye

There is no place for idiots like this whatever the "old boys club" might think

Imagin if this artical was about the plane crashing, what would your opinion be then?

I didn't know flyby's were against the rules.. ?

he was flying at 500k/hr at less than 10m off the ground (with the landing gear up, not sure if this bit is a good or bad thing)

You think thats safe?

That was really cool. However, that was extremely risky doing that with a multi million dollar aircraft, over a populated area.
The Air Force does shit like that with B-52s, and B-1Bs all the time...in sparsely populated areas.
In fact, here's a vid of a few them flying lower than the Cathay Pacific pilot. It starts out with a French Air Force KC-135r (which is a flying gas tank). The bottom of his engine nacelles couldn't have been more than 20-25 feet (7-8m) off the ground. Take special note of the 5th or 6th airliner (a Portugal airlines Airbus A310); it was definitely lower than the Cathay Pacific plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmDlbYVR9fM

Who cares who aproved it, infact the person who aproved it deserves to lose there jobs to.

Air traffic control approved it. That counts for something. Theoretically they knew who they were talking to. Theoretically they knew how many hours he had.

What would I think if he crashed? "Well, that's the last time Traffic Control approves a buzz."

And like the other senior pilot said: if no one else had known, there would have been nothing said. For some reason, though, the company felt they needed to fire the guy on bureaucratic grounds because someone posted it to YouTube.

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."

(Parry (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=518448&in_page_id=1811))

That last quote puts me in mind of a Belle & Sebastian song. Not quite the same, but still:

The others were shocked at this shameless disgrace
At the end of an honoured career.
He paused in the silence to pull down his tie,
And observe the melee.

("Take Your Carriage Clock and Shove It")

What? We're an aviation town, Asguard. We're used to seeing big planes at low altitude. They take off and land at Boeing Field right next to the freeway.

My Floyd moment came at the Roger Waters show in 2000 at the Gorge Amphitheatre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gorge_Amphitheatre). Click the link and look at the picture with the stage. For the In the Flesh tour, the word was that for outdoor shows, you needed to be there on time. Nobody would say why, they just said make sure you're there before the show starts. And, seriously, we couldn't have imagined why. I mean, there are always small planes passing at 500-1000 feet. At least one or two. So we didn't think a damn thing about it when we saw the lights down the river. And then Rog emerged and did an MC Atmos bit, "The band is almost ready ...." Everyone cheered and laughed. A moment later, the band walked out and began acting like they were tuning their instruments. Suddenly, a freaking camouflage-painted 727 leaps up from behind the stage and buzzes the crowd at about 150 feet; the pilot punched the throttle as he went over, creating an enormous burst of sound that was the first note to "In the Flesh". People screamed. People went freaking nuts. It was the goddamn coolest thing ever. Absolutely freakin' ever. It was insane. The blowback? Neighbors complained about the noise and some frightened livestock. The rumor was that they told Rog to not come back to the Gorge. For Dark Side of the Moon, he played Key Arena in Seattle. Fine. No fly-by, but, hell, no four-hour drive, either.

And you know, if the plane had blown an engine and spit parts all over the place and crashed in the parking lot, it would have sucked. But it still would have been the coolest goddamn thing ever. The guy standing next to me just fell over and started convulsing. While a friend of mine who had seen such things before attended to him, I asked his mate, What the hell did you give him? "Nothing, man. Like, he's our driver."

Sometimes, man, you just do things. Air Traffic Control said it was cool. Everyone on the 777 thought it was cool. Everyone on the ground thought it was cool. Cathay Pacific thought it was cool until the video was on the internet and praise wasn't universal.

So maybe he should have stuck his head into the cabin before take-off to ask his boss for permission. It sucks as it is. But that's how it goes.

He'll probably land on his feet. Maybe he'll get a book deal.

Air traffic control approved it. That counts for something. Theoretically they knew who they were talking to. Theoretically they knew how many hours he had.
I'm going to have to agree with you here. If ATC approved it, then certainly someone else besides the pilot knew it was going to happen. If you take a look at the vid I posted above, you'd know that low fly bys aren't uncommon.

And like the other senior pilot said: if no one else had known, there would have been nothing said. For some reason, though, the company felt they needed to fire the guy on bureaucratic grounds because someone posted it to YouTube.
Exactly.

Was the 777 full of regular passengers, or did it have special passengers or something?

Tiassa maybe it was a cool stunt until you think about how many "cool stunts" end in disasters

Wow air trafic control aproved it?
They should be fired, infact every one up the chain of comand on both the airline and the air trafic control who aproved of or was involved in this or any other incidents of the same kind

If the plane had crashed into a shopping center or apartment block 100's could have died. Being an experianced pilot only makes this worse.

Do you think speeding drivers should be let off unless they happen to crash?
What about drunk drivers?
Street racers?
What about an engernear who doesnt bother to do the required safty inspections?

This is WORSE than a street racer because of the potentual for disaster

Just because it HASNT caused an acident doesnt mean that it should be ok

So maybe the guy was crusifide by a beurocrat
Oh well, he deserved it, as does the co-pilot (unless he protested), and everyone else involved

The millatry may do this, but even THEY have to obey civilan safty rules when in civilan airspace.

Its the job of the goverment to a) assess the risk to everyone invovled of certian actions and b) act to limit the danger to people invovled in actions

This especially goes for transport like air transport because the risks have such a high risk of large scale morbitity and mortailty if something goes wrong

he was flying at 500k/hr at less than 10m off the ground (with the landing gear up, not sure if this bit is a good or bad thing)

You think thats safe?


He clearly managed it without injuring anyone, so yes, it was safe.

The only thing in question is your unqualified perception of safety.

Tiassa maybe it was a cool stunt until you think about how many "cool stunts" end in disasters

Wow air trafic control aproved it?
They should be fired, infact every one up the chain of comand on both the airline and the air trafic control who aproved of or was involved in this or any other incidents of the same kind

If the plane had crashed into a shopping center or apartment block 100's could have died. Being an experianced pilot only makes this worse.

Do you think speeding drivers should be let off unless they happen to crash?
What about drunk drivers?
Street racers?
What about an engernear who doesnt bother to do the required safty inspections?

This is WORSE than a street racer because of the potentual for disaster

Just because it HASNT caused an acident doesnt mean that it should be ok

So maybe the guy was crusifide by a beurocrat
Oh well, he deserved it, as does the co-pilot (unless he protested), and everyone else involved

The millatry may do this, but even THEY have to obey civilan safty rules when in civilan airspace.

Its the job of the goverment to a) assess the risk to everyone invovled of certian actions and b) act to limit the danger to people invovled in actions

This especially goes for transport like air transport because the risks have such a high risk of large scale morbitity and mortailty if something goes wrong
Watch the video that I posted (which you obviously didn't). They have planes as big as the CP 777 doing fly bys over crowds at air shows. Those planes also got approval. Maybe it's just me, but airliners flying low like that around crowds of people is a much bigger risk than what the CP pilot did. Watch the video I posted before you make any more assumptions please.

He clearly managed it without injuring anyone, so yes, it was safe.
Wow everyone was okay and no damage was done, that doesn't make it necesairly safe.
When you pay good money for a ticket you wan't to go from A to B with as little risk possible.
If you want to do stunts Youbuy a ticket on a stuntplane

Was the 777 full of regular passengers, or did it have special passengers or something?

It was a maiden flight. Among the passengers was the guy's boss. Who toasted him after landing in Hong Kong.

• • •


Wow air trafic control aproved it?
They should be fired, infact every one up the chain of comand on both the airline and the air trafic control who aproved of or was involved in this or any other incidents of the same kind

Like I said, we're an aviation town. We're accustomed to maiden flights and all sorts of hijinks.

Have you ever been buzzed by an F/A-18 Hornet at 100 feet? I have. It's ... it's ... I can't quite describe it. It's soul-rattling. And I love it. Literally, one-hundred feet above my head. A coincidence, really, that we found that place to watch the show, because one jet does a high-speed pass at low altitude, and it comes right down the fucking street. A few feet to either side depending on the wind, but the first time I experienced it, he came right smack over the middle of the street.

(As a side note ... in a war, if you hear them, you're dead. It's insane.)

Literally, we're used to it, Asguard.

Do you think speeding drivers should be let off unless they happen to crash?

Automobile drivers are not subject to the same stringent training airline pilots are expected to endure.

What about drunk drivers?

Different issue.

Street racers?

The day they play chicken or some-such with Triple-Sevens over Seattle, I'll answer that question.

Just because it HASNT caused an acident doesnt mean that it should be ok

Maybe in Australia, but this is the United States of America. We have long reserved our right to be complete morons about things. And on the moron scale for shit we do, Asguard, this doesn't rank very high.

I'm waiting for someone to try to roll a 777. I don't know if it's technically possible with that plane, but if it is, someone will eventually try. And even though the pilot will probably lose his job and his license for succeeding, the people at Boeing will throw a goddamn party. And we'll all be raising a glass with them.

We do not reserve the right to crash a plane for being drunk at the controls (happened). We do not reserve the right to crash a plane for being poorly-assembled (happened). But we do reserve the right to crash a plane for other really stupid reasons. Like buzzing the tower, or the Gorge Amphitheater. At least until it happens. That, sir, is the American way.

Tiassa: "I'm waiting for someone to try to roll a 777. I don't know if it's technically possible with that plane, but if it is, someone will eventually try."

A barrel roll (http://www.iac.org/begin/figures.html#Barrel%20Rolls) is easy in any airplane if you know how. Properly done, it doesn't put any great stress on plane or pilot. But witnessed by the wrong people in the wrong aircraft/airspace context today, a witch-trial is likely to ensue.

There was nothing reckless about the "fly-by". It was definitely not a 500-knot low pass. The airspeed was most likely exactly 250 knots. Heavy jets are not certified for higher speeds at low altitudes for a host of reasons including controllability and birdstrike risks. Look at the attitude of the aircraft in the video. Like a boat travelling slowly through the water, the nose is high, because the vessel is plowing along relatively slowly.

The pass was flown as cleared by ATC, officially as a go-around- a maneuver that occasionally is imperative for flight safety. On this particular flight, the primary reason for the maneuver was recreational, which should be no crime.

Although our culture is becoming less and less permissive of it, joie-de-vivre is a worthy reason and purpose in aviation. I deal with this increasingly-common public and official attitude of officiousness, jealousy and schadenfreude often, and I've been severely under the gun for it on several occasions.

The pilot will not entirely "land on his feet", because this isn't over. The FAA is full of wolves who will now attack his judgement as an aviator, and attempt to slander him as a reckless person, and stigmatize him with a regulatory violation and suspension of his certificate under CFR 14 91.13 and other subjective regulations like it:
Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation: No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

I've personally been through the experience twice. All professional pilots know that our culture in the USA is changing. It is increasingly becoming persecution-inducing to do things with an aircraft -even maneuvers completely within operational limitations- that are done, or may be publicly perceived being done to "show off". There is a tremendous difference between impulsive, ego-driven showing-off, and the professional, safe demonstration/sharing of the joy of flight. The official attitude in the USA is increasingly expressing a sentiment that pilots contemplating any maneuvers not necessary for training, or not necessary for traveling from "A" to "B" must seek a lot of not-fun, hard-to-get regulatory waivers. In other words, we must bow and scrape to higher authorities who are increasingly interpreting the rules to mean nothing may be done by a serious pilot in a serious airplane for the sheer fun of it, unless under the direct supervision and restriction of authorities.

Somebody mentioned Pink Floyd in this context, and there are strong parallels with some of the social commentary in works like The Wall. Aviation authorities wield powers over pilots that are very unlike the powers cops and courts hold over groundlings. If you don't fly for a living, it's hard to understand. There is no institutional tradition of due process, or trial by one's peers. Reputations can be and are ruined every day, when an aviator is targeted as having stepped over an imaginary line between the sterility of utilitarian purpose, into unforgiveable passionate behavior. In other words, showing feelings. Good morning, Worm your honor.
The crown will plainly show
The prisoner who now stands before you
Was caught red-handed showing feelings
Showing feelings of an almost human nature;
This will not do.

While the ongoing mutations of our culture increasingly punish aviator passion, passionate inquisition of trespassers against the curb-your-enthusiasm culture is highly encouraged in official circles. If you want to get promoted in the FAA, just go out and wreck some pilots' reputations- find some members of the press and public who harbor ignorances, jealousies and fears about aviation to exaggerate claims, and hurt the errant aviators in every way you can, beginning with attacks on their character and judgement. I've been through it, and it isn't merely unpleasant. It hurts the soul: You little shit you're in it now,
I hope they throw away the key...The evidence before the court is
Incontrovertable, there's no need for
The jury to retire.
In all my years of judging
I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penalty of law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the urge to defecate!

"Hey Judge! Shit on him!"

Since, my friend, you have revealed your
Deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before
Your peers.

I've had my flying licenses suspended before, not for doing anything reasonably construable as presenting any greater danger than flying obediently from "A" to "B". I've had my wings clipped for showing feelings. "Feelings of a most human nature". More unforgiveably, showing "feelings of a transcendental nature". This will not do, before the sick judgement of a feverish society.

I try not to think about it too much. When this weather breaks, I'll climb way up a quiet blue corner of the sky, flex my wings, and smile at the whole jealous world tumbling around me. Then I'll swoop down in a screaming low pass over our little private airstrip, in honor of my brother aviator, formally of Cathay Pacific. Then I'll swoop back skyward, and execute a big, fat barrel roll just for you, T.

Tiassa if you all want to die go ahead, if you take one Australian with you there will be blood on the streets.

As for my experiance with millatry aircraft i have been to an airshow, my father inlaw is in the airforce and i know the restrictions that planes flying out of the airforce base around the corner. They can only do stupid stunts in the middle of the dessert, if they do them over the city they will be fired and could be procicuted as well. These are AIRFORCE pilots, if anyone can pull it off its an airforce pilot in a hornate (designed to do stupid stunts). 2 of the roulett pilots were killed in a midair colision, these are the BEST pilots in the airforce, in the aplotute best planes and something went wrong. Civilan pilots i would contest are in no way trained to the same degree and the planes are DEFINITLY not designed for those kind of stunts

Sorry i dont know if i intended to write anymore because i got distracted by a PM:p

one thing to add how do you think an ambo or police officer would be treated if they put there lights on and broke the speed rules without going to an emergency?

They would be crusifide and rightly so

Recently a race car driver was charged and lost his licence for speeding on suburben streets again rightfully so

Asguard: "Civilan pilots i would contest are in no way trained to the same degree and the planes are DEFINITLY not designed for those kind of stunts"

I have far more aerobatics hours already, than most military pilots get in a full career. It is a myth that military pilots hold incomparable aviator skills.

"if anyone can pull it off its an airforce pilot in a hornate (designed to do stupid stunts)"

The F-18 is not the only flying machine designed for "stupid stunts". I'm privileged to fly a wide variety of agile, sturdy birdies.

The angle of approach was definitely far safer than what I saw at an airshow near here a few years back, where one of the airforce jets attempted something similar over the sea, unfortunately the angle was steeper and the jet didn't pull up in time so the pilot took a swimming lesson.

what like a 747?

Oh big fuckin deal. That was nothing.

whatever, i happen to belive that if you want to fuck around you do it in a method that doesnt put lives at risk. Im oviously the minority so i will drop the subject

Tiassa if you all want to die go ahead, if you take one Australian with you there will be blood on the streets.

As for my experiance with millatry aircraft i have been to an airshow, my father inlaw is in the airforce and i know the restrictions that planes flying out of the airforce base around the corner.

I lived on an airforce base, first, home to several squadrons of Vulcan bombers, who used to perform low passes like this, and then the central flying school, home of the 'Red Arrows', who performed far more intricate manouvers, and over crowds at displays.


They can only do stupid stunts in the middle of the dessert,

Do you mean desert :roflmao:

if they do them over the city they will be fired and could be procicuted as well.

Do you mean prosecuted? or perhaps covered in ham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosciutto) :roflmao:

These are AIRFORCE pilots, if anyone can pull it off its an airforce pilot in a hornate (designed to do stupid stunts).

Do you mean Hornet ? :roflmao:


in the aplotute best planes and something went wrong.

Do you mean absolute ? roflmao


Civilan pilots i would contest are in no way trained to the same degree

Many commercial pilots are retired military pilots.

and the planes are DEFINITLY not designed for those kind of stunts

BULLSHIT. Air liners are designed to land. What is the difference between the final approach and landing, and low flying? Oh, nothing, it's not a stunt!

Stryder: "The angle of approach was definitely far safer than what I saw at an airshow near here a few years back, where one of the airforce jets attempted something similar over the sea, unfortunately the angle was steeper and the jet didn't pull up in time so the pilot took a swimming lesson."

That's called gooning a downline: It's the classic way to fuck up spectacularly- starts with an unrecoverable velocity-vector toward the ground (which happens when a maneuver is not set up properly) and it usually includes an accelerated stall shortly before an obliterating high-energy impact with the surface.

It was a maiden flight. Among the passengers was the guy's boss. Who toasted him after landing in Hong Kong.
I would have toasted the pilot too. I would have loved to have been on that plane when he did that.


Have you ever been buzzed by an F/A-18 Hornet at 100 feet? I have. It's ... it's ... I can't quite describe it. It's soul-rattling. And I love it. Literally, one-hundred feet above my head. A coincidence, really, that we found that place to watch the show, because one jet does a high-speed pass at low altitude, and it comes right down the fucking street. A few feet to either side depending on the wind, but the first time I experienced it, he came right smack over the middle of the street.
The Thunderbirds (F-16s) buzzed the crowd at an airshow I went to a few years ago. One of them buzzed by at a hundred feet or so doing .9 mach, then went straight up as soon as he passed. We didn't hear it until he was already vertical. But it was thunderous.
I've also been in buildings that were buzzed by C-130s doing military approaches and landings. Those are stupid loud too.


Maybe in Australia, but this is the United States of America. We have long reserved our right to be complete morons about things. And on the moron scale for shit we do, Asguard, this doesn't rank very high.
I bet Americans have more Darwin Awards than any other nationality. Hahaha!

I'm waiting for someone to try to roll a 777. I don't know if it's technically possible with that plane, but if it is, someone will eventually try. And even though the pilot will probably lose his job and his license for succeeding, the people at Boeing will throw a goddamn party. And we'll all be raising a glass with them.
It's only a matter of time. Tex Johnson did it with a 707 on its first flight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE

nietschefan: "Oh big fuckin deal. [The low pass in Seattle] was nothing."

That's right- It was nothing dangerous, but under the circumstances it unforgiveably exceeded society's unwritten pilot fun-quotient. If the pilot-flying on that pass is not boiled alive, then the growing superstitious and ignorant public fears about pilot impulsivity will not be appeased.

mikenostic: "I would have loved to have been on that plane when he did that."

Me too. I'd gladly ride in back, raising a glass to every low pass we could get away with. There's transportation, and then there's flying. Triple-sevens can fly, too- any flying machine can do more than just transport people. Further, I believe that flying machines, like true aviators and true aviation enthusiasts have a certain shared soul, that instantly recognizes, understands, and revels in a celebration of flight.

Asguard: "Civilan pilots i would contest are in no way trained to the same degree and the planes are DEFINITLY not designed for those kind of stunts"

I have far more aerobatics hours already, than most military pilots get in a full career. It is a myth that military pilots hold incomparable aviator skills.
Wrong. Try performing your aerobatic skills while still managing the avionics(which I'm sure are far more advanced than a Citabria or Pitts) and weapons systems(which a Citabria or Pitts doesn't have) at the same time. And if you're a Navy or USMC pilot, launch from or especially try to land on a storm tossed carrier.
So yes, they are more or less incomparable.

I bet Americans have more Darwin Awards than any other nationality.

I wouldn't be surprised if we did. I mean, it was tragic when a kid tied a blanket around his neck and jumped out a window trying to be Superman when I was about seven years old. But as we grew up, well, my brother and I had a thing for pro wrestling for a while, but we were pretty good at it. It never occurred to us to actually beat the hell out of each other. And then one day some news magazine is down in the Bible belt, and sure enough there were teenagers braining each other with folding chairs. And that was before the whole Fight Club rage.

mikenostic: "Try performing your aerobatic skills while still managing the avionics(which I'm sure are far more advanced than a Citabria or Pitts) and weapons systems(which a Citabria or Pitts doesn't have) at the same time."

That's like declaring that only a warrior can sharpen a knife to a razor edge. Modern jets are computer-flown at pilot suggestion, so that pointing them around the sky takes minimal pilot attention, and game-boy level stick-and-rudder skill. Of course there are times in tactical flying, and when coming aboard a carrier when workload is very high. There are dimensions of advanced civilian flight training that are equally demanding. Any pilot can become task-saturated in intense training, and any pilot can improve his or her prioritizing skills. I've provided transition training to active military fighter pilots into civilian aerobatic airplanes, who required remedial stick-and-rudder training to get them up to acceptable proficiency in fundamentals of flight-control manipulation, such as control coordination and stall avoidance. Computers do all that for the modern fighter pilot. Does this mean I could hop in an F-18 and handle it as well as a pilot trained to fly it? Of course not. Would the flying (not avionics) tasks be overwhelming for me, or for your average civilian pilot? Absolutely not. At great expense, military aircraft are made easy to fly. Adapting to going fast, while interpreting and operating avionics and weapons is their special challenge, and at the military cutting-ege, tactical flying is becoming a ground-based remote-operation task. The era of fighter pilots riding their steeds like knights into battle is drawing to a close.

There are many different worlds in aviation, and it's not uncommon for certain specialties to claim superiority in flying skills- but it's a lie. Civilian pilots who are sufficiently motivated can challenge themselves with flight training that is just as intense, and there are many civilian pilots who can and do hone their aviating skills just as sharply as their military counterparts.

reminds me of a quote i live by.....

risk takers don't live very long...but the cautious never live at all.

pretty dangerous stunt to be pulling with other people's lives tho.....not sure if i agree with that part.

sly1: "pretty dangerous stunt to be pulling with other people's lives tho"

It was not a dangerous stunt. If you are riding in an airliner on an approach to land, and something gets in the way on the runway before you, you'll hopefully experience a similar, safe, and routine go-around procedure.

Hmmm. The sun's coming out... Know what's even more fun for me than chatting about flying? Bye!

mikenostic: "Try performing your aerobatic skills while still managing the avionics(which I'm sure are far more advanced than a Citabria or Pitts) and weapons systems(which a Citabria or Pitts doesn't have) at the same time."

That's like declaring that only a warrior can sharpen a knife to a razor edge.

Modern jets are computer-flown at pilot suggestion, so that pointing them around the sky takes minimal pilot attention, and game-boy level stick-and-rudder skill. Of course there are times in tactical flying, and when coming aboard a carrier when workload is very high.
...
Adapting to going fast, while interpreting and operating avionics and weapons is their special challenge, and at the military cutting-ege, tactical flying is becoming a ground-based remote-operation task. The era of fighter pilots riding their steeds like knights into battle is drawing to a close.

Those aircraft are computer aided because their design and manueverability make them extremely unstable, and almost impossible to fly 100% manually.
And none of that computer aided flying applies to A-10 pilots. Have you ever had to transition an A-10 pilot to civilian aerobatics? I bet not. They don't fly by wire and they don't have computer aided flight. And their straight wing config makes them one of the sharpest banking/turning aircraft in the arsenal.

There are many different worlds in aviation, and it's not uncommon for certain specialties to claim superiority in flying skills- but it's a lie. Civilian pilots who are sufficiently motivated can challenge themselves with flight training that is just as intense, and there are many civilian pilots who can and do hone their aviating skills just as sharply as their military counterparts.
While I don't disagree, there will always be the military element of flying that most civilians will never see.
Have you ever seen the video of the Naval pilot that landed a C-130 on and launched (w/o JATO mind you) from an aircraft carrier? What non-military pilot has ever attempted something like that?
And while we're on C-130s, let's take the Spectre gunship for example. It makes its deadly barrage by essentially doing 'turns around a point'. Those are one of the most basic manuevers. I've done it in a Cessna 152 before. Any civilian pilot can do that. But not many of them do it with 105mm howitzers, 40mm Bofors cannons and 20mm gatling guns firing out of the side, or taking fire from the ground.

I'm not trying to say that military pilots are better than civilian pilots. They just have more responsibilites than just flying the plane, unlike most civilian pilots do.

Harumph! Last night's snowfall is still lying thick on the runway. My next celebration of flight will have to be postponed- I could have put the skis on the Champ and taken her out, but I'm really just feeling very lazy, the house is warm, and I'm sick of winter.

"none of that computer aided flying applies to A-10 pilots. Have you ever had to transition an A-10 pilot to civilian aerobatics? I bet not. They don't fly by wire and they don't have computer aided flight. And their straight wing config makes them one of the sharpest banking/turning aircraft in the arsenal."

Absolutely true. I used to work with former A-10 pilot- we were both instructors at a flight school. We spoke the same language, and we both learned a lot. True aviators are always learning more, no matter what, or with whom they fly.

"Have you ever seen the video of the Naval pilot that landed a C-130 on and launched (w/o JATO mind you) from an aircraft carrier? What non-military pilot has ever attempted something like that?"

No- I'll search that out. And don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Naval Aviators. That's what I most wanted to be as a lad. Intense as it is, it really isn't superhuman to fly alpha and the meatball, crash into the deck, and slam in the power.

"I'm not trying to say that military pilots are better than civilian pilots. They just have more responsibilites than just flying the plane, unlike most civilian pilots do."

I think we see eye-to-I. When I think of essential flying skills, it's really just the ability to wear an airplane- like a transcendant, liberating, graceful extension of one's own mind-body. With enough visceral consciousness of the machine, an aviator is no less instinctively resistant (and yes, no less vulnerable) to accident than in his/her naked form. In our flesh-bodies, it doesn't decrease the risk of injury to always shuffle along in a practical way, never dancing. A little (or a lot of) flourish now and then (or regularly) develops higher abilities- I would even venture to say a higher consciousness.

I'm hesitant to trust the abilities of a pilot who continuously concentrates on adherence to every social, procedural, and regulatory stipulation. I don't like working or playing with people who compulsively repress their joy as if it's something detestable. Aviators who revel with unashamed gusto in their flying (while always respecting the essential limitations of the machines they wear) are far more capable, and always cope much better with the unexpected. Even more importantly, exuberant aviators regularly experience a physical liberation and joy that completely defies description. That's why I fly.

Oh come on! The guy was showing off with million dollar equipment. He deserved to be fired. Isn't reckless endangerment against the law?

Oh come on! The guy was showing off with million dollar equipment. He deserved to be fired. Isn't reckless endangerment against the law?
Orly, watch the video that I posted on the first page of this thread, then get back to us.
And by your logic the ATC should be canned too, because they were the ones that approved that.
Besides, the maneuver that he did was nothing more than a glorified high speed 'go-around' with the gear up. He was over the runway. I'm sure he also used the FAA designated approach vectors, and was adhering to the standard Terminal Control Area 250knot speed limit.
Hype, correct me if I'm wrong there.

Nothing to correct. Orleander's just expressing a common, ignorant, and I think subconsciously-jealous response about an aspect of flying so many people just don't understand:

"Hey! He did that just for fun! :mad: SHOWOFF!"

That flyby was an act of reasonable and safe fun. Present authorities, like all who harbor inhibitions about flying for joy, will never agree.

Yeah well I can have approval of my boss to ride the floor waxer, but that doesn't mean I can't be fired for doing such a dumb ass thing.
And yes, the ATC should get in trouble as well, but they don't work for the airline. No, it may not be fair, but isn't there a saying about that?

orleander: "ATC should get in trouble as well"

Don't be so quick to judge. Join the free human race- Have a little unauthorized fun sometime- Get on that floor-waxer and ride it like a cowgirl. Don't be such a drone.

This drone has children to feed. And considering the economy in MI, I don't risk my job for unauthorized fun.

This drone has children to feed. And considering the economy in MI, I don't risk my job for unauthorized fun.
Where was the danger, Orly?
He was in exactly the same airspace as planes that approach for landing, and where they take off. He was no more of a risk than if a plane takes off and loses an engine.* Or if a plane coming in for a landing crashes short of the runway.

*A multi engine plane losing an engine on takeoff can be catastrophic if the pilot doesn't react almost instantly.

I don't think we know the whole story by a video. For all we know he had done it before and had been warned. Or they have a policy against it in the handbook and he did it anyways.
Do you think he was surprised he got into trouble? Don't airlines have unions?

I don't think we know the whole story by a video. For all we know he had done it before and had been warned. Or they have a policy against it in the handbook and he did it anyways.
Do you think he was surprised he got into trouble? Don't airlines have unions?

Not the OP's video. The one that I posted; the one that has five different airliner jets from five different airlines doing fly bys, lower than the plane in the OP video. Two of those airliners did it in front of an air show crowd. Now which do you think was more dangerous?

So if those guys didn't get fired by their airline company then he shouldn't be fired by his company??
I don't think anyone's life was in danger, but I do think all of them were showing off in million dollar equipment. All of them should have gotten in trouble and how do we know they didn't?
And if his airline has a union and he still got fired, he seriously broke his company's rules.

Here's a better angle on the flyby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Nobodies actually asked why the camera was filming the manoeuvre either. You could suggest "entrapment".

Nobodies actually asked why the camera was filming the manoeuvre either. You could suggest "entrapment".
I think the question would be 'who filmed it?' Because people are always out somewhere with a video camera, filming all sorts of shit; youtube is living proof of that. If they weren't, I don't think sites like Youtube, or shows like AFV would exist.

Stryder: "Nobodies actually asked why the camera was filming the manoeuvre either. You could suggest "entrapment"."

Pilots are at an extreme legal disadvantage, once we're singled out in an incident like this. Entrapment, along with all sorts of dirty tricks that a civil court would reject, can and do routinely stick in aviation enforcement actions.

If you think you'd like a taste of today's aviation enforcement culture, browse around this website (http://www.faajustice.com/).

Just slightly OT but still aviation based, this video has some of the most impressive landing footage I've ever seen. It's of a 747 and a 777 practicing cross wind landings somewhere in South America that is known for its nasty winds. These jumbo jets are almost sideways when they land. :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ7RjEWYVyY

This thread really needs a photo of Capt. Ian Wilkinson's flagrant act of public aviation:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/02/25/2004200751.jpg

:eek:
Oh, the Horror!


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/1CathayPacifiDM2502_468x260.jpg
Captain Wilkinson (circled on the right) with some of his traumatized passengers and crew after the maiden trip.
Circled at center are First Officer Ray Middleton and Cathay Pacific Chairman Chris Pratt.

This thread really needs a photo of Capt. Ian Wilkinson's flagrant act of public aviation:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/02/25/2004200751.jpg

:eek:
Oh, the Horror!

It's amazing how in no way, that that airplane merely looks like a plane taking off that retracted its gear early.

/sarcasm

"It's amazing how in no way, that that airplane merely looks like a plane taking off that retracted its gear early."

I know- isn't it scary?

"some of the most impressive landing footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ7RjEWYVyY) I've ever seen."

Impressive equipment- the airplanes (especially tires) do the hard work in those situations, not the pilots- they're just tracking to the runway, leaving the natural crab-angle in during the roundout- no harder than walking slightly sideways. The design does the rest. But with the potential for tire blow-out, it's considerably more hazardous than the fly-by above.

Crabbed touchdowns are a necessity with low-slung engines. When forced to accept an extreme crosswind, tires are a lot cheaper to write off than engines. That video clip has got to make tire salesmen smile.

"It's amazing how in no way, that that airplane merely looks like a plane taking off that retracted its gear early."

I know- isn't it scary?

"some of the most impressive landing footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ7RjEWYVyY) I've ever seen."

Impressive equipment- the airplanes (especially tires) do the hard work in those situations, not the pilots- they're just tracking to the runway, leaving the natural crab-angle in during the roundout- no harder than walking slightly sideways. The design does the rest. But with the potential for tire blow-out, it's considerably more hazardous than the fly-by above.

Crabbed touchdowns are a necessity with low-slung engines. When forced to accept an extreme crosswind, tires are a lot cheaper to write off than engines. That video clip has got to make tire salesmen smile.
Plus, the wings are a lot longer than most smaller G.A. aircraft. They don't allow for much banking if you wanted to do a cross-control, cross wind landing.

I'm sure you know this but the B-52's undercarriage can rotate to align with the runway, up to 30 degrees during crab landings. I saw that on an episode of Wings on the Discovery Channel. They said that the undercarriage's ability to do that remained classified for a long time.

Nobodies actually asked why the camera was filming the manoeuvre either. You could suggest "entrapment".

It was a maiden flight. Of course people are going to be filming it.

• • •

I heard back from a friend at Boeing. Nobody seems particularly distressed by the maneuver. My friend suggests the firing is about PR, which some of us have already said in this discussion. Interestingly, as an engineer, he noted, "We've been more interested in the speed he flew at, how the wings bent, whether or not the slats were down, etc.... typical geeky curiosity and inspection."

1. But the police chase cars for minor violations all the time putting other peoples life and property in danger.

2. I would rather fly with Ian so that if there is an emergency, he would know what to do like belly landing if the landing gear got stuck.

3. This shows, he is a good pilot. How many pilots get to practice such manuevers and get ready for emergencies.

4. It was not a commecial flight...

1. But the police chase cars for minor violations all the time putting other peoples life and property in danger.

2. I would rather fly with Ian so that if there is an emergency, he would know what to do like belly landing if the landing gear got stuck.

3. This shows, he is a good pilot. How many pilots get to practice such manuevers and get ready for emergencies.

4. It was not a commecial flight...

Yup

Basically someone riding in the back in and in an expensive SUIT...shit his pants. So fire the guy.

He clearly managed it without injuring anyone, so yes, it was safe.

All of the jumps that Evil Knievel did without hurting himself were SAFE.

Those were he got hurt were unsafe...

I thereby command you to change your name to one without the word "logic" in it!! :)

Basically someone riding in the back in and in an expensive SUIT...shit his pants. So fire the guy.

Not even that. The folks in the back loved it. Someone at the home office decided to pass a loaf in his trousers after the video made the internet.

I am terrified of flying. It's a phobia. I do it because I have to, but I hate it.

Many years ago, I went on a holiday to the country of my birth. After an 18+ hour flight (delays and what not), we approached the island and the pilot comes on and advises the passengers that there was a heavy something or other wind caused by a cyclone a fair way out to sea, thanked us for the flight, blah blah blah and told us to put our seatbelts on... Now, here I am, sitting there having bitten off all of my nails, thinking about gnawing on the armrest out of sheer terror, trying to find the safety sheet about what to do if a plane crashes, etc. The landing gear goes clunk and starts to go down, the plane is shaking somewhat and in the darkness, I look out the window and see the lights of the airport. *Sigh of relief*.. Then, as I look out again, I can see the tower and the airport terminal going by at what appeared to be eye level and the plane still hadn't touched down.. I am thinking to myself that the runway does end in the sea (get me the hell off this plane!!!).. and then with a very heavy sound and feeling, the plane pitches up takes off again. The pilot had performed a similar fly by as the CP pilot because the winds were so strong that he did not feel it would be safe to land. My family who had come to greet me were shocked and thought there was something severely wrong. My Grandfather later told me it was one of the most amazing sites he'd ever seen... seeing a huge plane with all lights blazing virtually hang off the runway like that without touching down and then lift right back up.. I'll put it this way, by the time we landed I was as white as a sheet and so terrified that when I stepped off the plane, instead of saying goodbye to the stewardess, I could only manage a 'gaaraaggghh' sound. Not my finest moment... I hate flying but everyone else on the plane thought it was 'cool'.. But hey, at least my grandfather had a thrill about it all.

Looking at what that CP pilot did.. all I can say is whoa... flashbacks.. shaking.. but still.. whoa! There was about as much danger of that plane crashing doing that buzz then there would have been for a plane coming in to land or taking off. The pilot was most probably fired because it was shown on youtube. Shame really.

Great post, Bells.

It takes real guts to talk about phobias like that, and even more to get aboard an aeroplane with them- more guts than "Top Gun" fighter-pilots need to do their thing. With that kind of courage, you really should consider taking a flying lesson (http://www.lilydaleairport.com.au/) (!). Your aviophobia is obviously not intellectual in origin, because you write rationally about the subject.

It's instead a common psycho-physiological response that a lot of people struggle with unnecessarily. You should know that many people have rapidly overcome aviophobia by becoming acclimated all around an aircraft, even at the controls, under the guidance of a qualified and sympathetic flight instructor, explaining everything every step of the way. A hands-on lesson or two may be the very best investment in air travel you can ever make. You may be very pleasantly surprised at the thrill and satisfaction of rapidly conquering something that now seems difficult to overcome. I've personally helped aviophobes become aviophiles, and it's a great experience for everyone involved.

Consider beginning your discovery by contacting a nearby flight school (http://www.aeroclub.com.au/queryao-70.html), and explaining to them that you want a very short powered-airplane introductory lesson, with an instructor who is experienced with helping people overcome aviophobia. I highly recommend you get into a glider (http://www.gfa.org.au/clubs/) for a similar lesson as soon as possible after that. Your subconsious brain really can be convinced to accept the sights, sensations, and sounds of flying calmly. Then you can soar away free and easy in your future travels.

Great post, Bells.

It takes real guts to talk about phobias like that, and even more to get aboard an aeroplane with them- more guts than "Top Gun" fighter-pilots need to do their thing. With that kind of courage, you really should consider taking a flying lesson (http://www.lilydaleairport.com.au/) (!). Your aviophobia is obviously not intellectual in origin, because you write rationally about the subject.

It's instead a common psycho-physiological response that a lot of people struggle with unnecessarily. You should know that many people have rapidly overcome aviophobia by becoming acclimated all around an aircraft, even at the controls, under the guidance of a qualified and sympathetic flight instructor, explaining everything every step of the way. A hands-on lesson or two may be the very best investment in air travel you can ever make. You may be very pleasantly surprised at the thrill and satisfaction of rapidly conquering something that now seems difficult to overcome. I've personally helped aviophobes become aviophiles, and it's a great experience for everyone involved.

Consider beginning your discovery by contacting a nearby flight school (http://www.aeroclub.com.au/queryao-70.html), and explaining to them that you want a very short powered-airplane introductory lesson, with an instructor who is experienced with helping people overcome aviophobia. I highly recommend you get into a glider (http://www.gfa.org.au/clubs/) for a similar lesson as soon as possible after that. Your subconsious brain really can be convinced to accept the sights, sensations, and sounds of flying calmly. Then you can soar away free and easy in your future travels.

Flying lessons?

No.

My husband tried. I think he is tired of having my fingernails dig into his arms each time we have had to fly. As I said, I am terrified each time I get on a plane and have been known to down a few alcoholic beverages to allow me to pass out while on a plane. But I get by. I stress and feel like I am about to blow a vein half the time, but I get by. I joke about it because that is all there is for me to do about it. I don't let it not allow me to travel when I have to. It's kind of embarrassing really, but that's life. Most people are afraid of one thing or another. Mine is ermmm flying, heights and maggots.

The flying lessons did not pan out. He gave me a few lessons for my birthday while we were dating several years ago. Lets just say I was a blithering and blabbering idiot by the time we got to the airport and incoherent (bad ugly crying and babbling) by the time I met the instructor. Even he agreed I was not in a fit state to get into a light plane... I mean honestly.. I hate flying in huge planes as it is.. putting me in a light plane.. bad bad move.. I suspect my fear stems from my fear of heights and because I grew up seeing both my parents afraid of flying. So I hide it in front of my children. Works ok for now.:)

I'll say this though, I would prefer to be on a plane with a pilot who can do that fly by then one who could not.

bells have you ever talked to anyone about it?

I hate to sugest this but diazampram maybe better for you than a bottle of scotch before you take off

bells have you ever talked to anyone about it?

I hate to sugest this but diazampram maybe better for you than a bottle of scotch before you take off

Nope. And no, I'd rather not take drugs for it. And I a few drinks on the plane. Not before.:) Although the most I have ever drunk during a flight (4 glasses of vodka) was when on a flight back from Bali and we were advised "all onboard electronic entertainment had to be kept off due to a short in the system".. I can assure you, I was not the only one downing alcohol on that flight after that message was announced over the PA system. When that plane landed and we disembarked, I nearly fell to the ground and kissed it like the pope used to... lol..

It's just something I don't like to do and I do what is needed to get through it. I am not the only person afraid of flying. If it ever gets to the point where I find myself unable to go to an airport, get on a plane or flee in terror when I see a plane in the air, then I'll go and see a professional about it. My mother in law is also the same. She downs some tranquilisers and then passes out each time she gets on a plane..:).. As I said, you get by.

I'll put it this way. I can get on a plane. I am for now, ok with it. Been like this forever. Haven't gotten worse so it's no problem.

Back to topic..

Anyone think if that pilot will be able to get a job with another airline after this? I understand he was close to retirement..

Certain dental procedures I can not handle. I found that out even after the doctor gave me the potent Halcyon. I was hyper and my blood pressure was high. So, the procedure was aborted. As soon as I got home, I just fell asleep on the couch.

Bells: "Flying lessons?

No...

Anyone think if that pilot will be able to get a job with another airline after this? I understand he was close to retirement.."

Well I tried, Bells- cheers to your husband for doing the same. There really is a natural cure available if you ever decide to channel your considerable courage and rationality into it. Back on topic, with your question about career consequences:

Captain Wilkinson most likely be battling an FAA legal attack for the near future. If the authorities take the most aggressive course of action for misguided political reasons, they'll issue an "emergency" suspension of his certificates. The system presumes a pilot is guilty (of being unfit) until proven innocent. Assuming they don't pull his tickets, airlines are not generally structured for lateral moves by senior (in stature) Captains like Wilkinson. Top slots typically are allotted by company seniority over many years of faithful service, and in those cases bumping the line is not well received. If Captain Wilkinson escaped US Govt and CAA sanction, or if he sits out a suspension, not much will have changed regarding his prospects. He's already achieved the pinnacle of his airline career, and there is no lateral or upward move to be had.

On this (partially) airline-pilot board (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=314272), you can get a sense of how this kind of fun is received among the ranks today: A mixture of derision and admiration, with a general consensus that it's a career finale. It doesn't mean he's done flying, just that he's most probably all done as an international airline Chief Pilot. A generation before, this would have all been kept in the family. A generation before that, company, press, and public would have all reveled in the traditional, practically obligatory new-aircraft delivery fly-by. This is just a sign of the times: Exuberance is being beaten down by a creeping, busy-body Orwellian paranoia that deeply hates it.

Flyin' into thu really frigging dangerous zone
Flyin' tooooo - thu really frigging dangerous zone

No barrel roll, though. What a sissy.

"Flyin' into thu really frigging dangerous zone
Flyin' tooooo - thu really frigging dangerous zone"

Oooo- thanks, Geoff. I've gotta remember to sing that into the intercom (with passengers in back fit for the occasion). Not my skydivers, though- They ain't skeered of nuthin!

"No barrel roll, though. What a sissy."

:D I suspect he was operating on the time-honored assumption that nobody was going to raise a fuss. Low passes on delivery flights have been something of a tradition up until now. But if he really was deliberately ending his career skylarking- he should have done a barrel roll too, and really made them shit their pants.

"Flyin' into thu really frigging dangerous zone
Flyin' tooooo - thu really frigging dangerous zone"

Oooo- thanks, Geoff. I've gotta remember to sing that into the intercom (with passengers in back fit for the occasion).

I will never fly in a plane with you.

"No barrel roll, though. What a sissy."

:D I suspect he was operating on the time-honored assumption that nobody was going to raise a fuss. Low passes on delivery flights have been something of a tradition up until now. But if he really was deliberately ending his career skylarking- he should have done a barrel roll too, and really made them shit their pants.

An approaching fireball will do that.

All of the jumps that Evil Knievel did without hurting himself were SAFE.

Those were he got hurt were unsafe...

I thereby command you to change your name to one without the word "logic" in it!! :)

Hey , Mr Logic. I said the pilot managed to pull off the manover without hurting anyone.

Did Evel Knievel ever hurt anyone (ie, a third party) ?

Oh. no, so you are reaching, somewhat. Anyway, the pilots on this thread say the manouver is safe, and as I have seen Vulcan bombers performing touch and go landings, and flybys, I agree.

The only debate here is the perception of risk by the uneducated.

Captain Wilkinson most likely be battling an FAA legal attack for the near future.

I don't understand how the FAA is a problem this time. The maneuver was approved by Air Traffic Control. Cathay Pacific's hissy-fit is that he didn't run it by his boss (among the passengers), the home office, or the lawyers, and then, that the footage made it public.

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.

(Parry (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=518448&in_page_id=1811))

• • •

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.

(The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/24/1203788133311.html))

Have you ever been buzzed by an F/A-18 Hornet at 100 feet? I have. It's ... it's ... I can't quite describe it. It's soul-rattling. And I love it. Literally, one-hundred feet above my head. A coincidence, really, that we found that place to watch the show, because one jet does a high-speed pass at low altitude, and it comes right down the fucking street. A few feet to either side depending on the wind, but the first time I experienced it, he came right smack over the middle of the street.

(As a side note ... in a war, if you hear them, you're dead. It's insane.)

Literally, we're used to it, Asguard.




The day they play chicken or some-such with Triple-Sevens over Seattle, I'll answer that question.


Maybe in Australia, but this is the United States of America. We have long reserved our right to be complete morons about things. And on the moron scale for shit we do, Asguard, this doesn't rank very high.

I'm waiting for someone to try to roll a 777. I don't know if it's technically possible with that plane, but if it is, someone will eventually try. And even though the pilot will probably lose his job and his license for succeeding, the people at Boeing will throw a goddamn party. And we'll all be raising a glass with them.


You're right, on the moron scale of things this isn't high.

I've seen F-111 at airshows, and I would love to see a A380 do a low flyby. Hauling buses around could be boring at times.

Come one Asgaurd, where's the larrikin in ya ?

Great post, Bells.

It takes real guts to talk about phobias like that, and even more to get aboard an aeroplane with them- more guts than "Top Gun" fighter-pilots need to do their thing. With that kind of courage, you really should consider taking a flying lesson (http://www.lilydaleairport.com.au/) (!). Your aviophobia is obviously not intellectual in origin, because you write rationally about the subject.


Consider beginning your discovery by contacting a nearby flight school (http://www.aeroclub.com.au/queryao-70.html), and explaining to them that you want a very short powered-airplane introductory lesson, with an instructor who is experienced with helping people overcome aviophobia. I highly recommend you get into a glider (http://www.gfa.org.au/clubs/) for a similar lesson as soon as possible after that. Your subconsious brain really can be convinced to accept the sights, sensations, and sounds of flying calmly. Then you can soar away free and easy in your future travels.


It does. In the modern day, flying is the quickest way to get around. From what I can tell, bells seems to have no problem flying when it's an abosolute necessity. Having never been afraid of flying, I can't really say I know what it's like. But If it's anything like my other phobias(Arachno and Claustro) Desensitization helps.

Although,I'd go powered then gliding. Helps having an engine around if you're afraid of falling.

"I'd go powered then gliding. Helps having an engine around if you're afraid of falling."

The only reason that I don't recommend sailplanes first, is the logistics/economics of aerotow. There are considerations about immediately returning to land at will, that can increase anxiety in the first part of the flight. Other than that- the quiet, calm, and grace of soaring flight does convince the primitive/subconscious brain even more effectively than engine-driven flight, to accept the sights and sensations of flying as non-threatening.

De-sensitization works. I overcame a strong, Mel-Brooks-like High Anxiety response about jumping out of airplanes in just a few skydives. At first, looking out the open door before exit triggered all those physiological fight-or-flight (flight as in escape) responses. Like Bells, didn't have a complete shit-fit, but close. Now, I can go out the door just like a happy kid goes down a playground slide, making funny noises and faces. Woohoo! Desensitization, through clear, step-by-step training with the student in control of the situation at all times really does make all the difference.

Bells already exercised the most essential component of such a process: veto power. If she ever sets out to conquer her anxiety response to flying again, complete control of the situation -including the prerogative to end the session at any point- is paramount. Helping folks through this, I've shared in some very short flights as part of the process- some involving less than 1 foot of altitude, and mere seconds of flight duration. Little crow-hops, followed by shutdown, dismount, and a little walk & talk are a great way to start. That's why I prefer powered airplane over gliders for the early part of flight training for experience-response conquerers.

When doing glider aerotows, pulling the tow release handle always releases the tension for everyone but the the towplane pilot- they're prone to becoming annoyed, if occupants of a particular glider keep pulling the tow release at various points on every damn takeoff. I think it builds character for the tow pilot too- helps them to overcome anxieties. But I don't like my student in the glider picking up on the tow pilot's noticeable "negativity". This stuff should go one customer at a time.

One other point, more on topic: A very effective exercise in this context, when a long runway is available, is the low flying. A low pass down the runway in a slow-flying airplane is very much like riding in a car with excellent suspension. In my area, we have a former bomber base nearby with a 12,000' runway- perfect for such acclimating flights. It's also my cure for students who develop landing anxiety- we just fly low for a few minutes, and they cure themselves every time. With a trainer and a little headwind, one low pass can last for a nice, relaxing, 3-minute low-altitude "drive".

Tex Johnston
barrel rolls the prototype 707 at a demonstration show, and the
engineer snaps a photo looking outside and showing the wing and an
engine pod upside down.

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/707%20Roll.mpg


http://video.aol.com/video-detail/707-roll/2376378800

Tex Johnston
barrel rolls the prototype 707 at a demonstration show, and the
engineer snaps a photo looking outside and showing the wing and an
engine pod upside down.

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/707%20Roll.mpg


http://video.aol.com/video-detail/707-roll/2376378800

Buffalo,

You're about 48 posts too late with that info. I posted that in post #28 on page 2.

I will never fly in a plane with you.
Shit. I'd jump at the chance to go flying with Hype in his Pitts(an aerobatic biplane).

Hype, your Pitts does have two seats doesn't it?

Buffalo Roam: "Tex Johnston..."

What the fuck was he thinking? :thumbsup: ( I think I know)

mikenostic: "I'd jump at the chance to flying with Hype in his Pitts(an aerobatic biplane).

Hype, your Pitts does have two seats doesn't it?"

The planes have changed- the most recent biplane in my own stable was a Starduster Too, but it has moved on. I'm still refurbishing my own Citabria. But I cultivate access to lots of fun planes to fly. Come on up and see me- you'll have to settle for a ride in a Tiger Moth, or Citabria at present.

Buffalo Roam: "Tex Johnston..."

What the fuck was he thinking? :thumbsup: ( I think I know)

mikenostic: "I'd jump at the chance to flying with Hype in his Pitts(an aerobatic biplane).

Hype, your Pitts does have two seats doesn't it?"

The planes have changed- the most recent biplane in my own stable was a Starduster Too, but it has moved on. I'm still refurbishing my own Citabria. But I cultivate access to lots of fun planes to fly. Come on up and see me- you'll have to settle for a ride in a Tiger Moth, or Citabria at present.
D'OH! Could've sworn in your PM that you said you had a Pitts. My bad.
Does your Citabria have tandem seats? What area of the country are you located in?

LOOK MA NO HOOK!

A C-130 on the deck of the USS Forrestal (CVA-59)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/C130-Forrestal.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/c130/carrier_01.jpg

http://www.navybuddies.com/cvn/herc3.jpg

And the take off is on the angle deck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj-Z9ZCwQ1Q

wow
what a awesome thread
youtube rules too

i must investigate the physiology of flying or perhaps just being above ground.
the resultant emotions, the awe, reverence, other mystical babble, seem suspect
it should not be the case. gotta be chemical

Gustav: "i must investigate the physiology of flying or perhaps just being above ground."

http://i27.tinypic.com/5afeoz.jpg

`What?' cried the Rat, open-mouthed: `Never been in a--you never--well I--what have you been doing, then?'

`Is it so nice as all that?' asked the Mole shyly, though he was quite prepared to believe it as he leant back in his seat and surveyed the cushions, the [controls], the [fabric skin], and all the fascinating fittings, and felt the [biplane] sway lightly under him.

`Nice? It's the ONLY thing,' said the [sky-rat] solemnly, as he leant forward for [the ignition]. `Believe me, my young friend, there is NOTHING-[PUFF-pufff]-absolute nothing-[ENGINE SOUNDS]-half so much worth doing as simply messing about in [biplanes]. Simply messing,' he [shouted] dreamily: `messing--about--in--[biplanes]; messing----'

`Look ahead, Rat!'

(with apologies to Kenneth Grahame (http://www.online-literature.com/grahame/windwillows/) and Eileen Fitzpatrick Berry) (http://www.childscapes.com/bookpages/twitw_1.html)

LOOK MA NO HOOK!

A C-130 on the deck of the USS Forrestal (CVA-59)

And the take off is on the angle deck.


...AND NO JATO EITHER!!
That never ceases to amaze me.
The pilot also was awarded a Navy Cross for that.

as a paying passenger, i make demands on those that can determine whether i live or die

*stay single
*no fornication
*eat mre
*water only
*no tv
*go to the gym
*sleep regular hrs
*whatnot

bah
nix that

hibernate>pilot>hibernate>pilot>hibernate>pilot>hibernate>pilot>.........

/selfish like that

i was struck by the asian suits and the anglo grunts in the cathay pacific pic.
it seems to be the norm
colonial vestiges or do the chinese not go aviation school?

"colonial vestiges?"

In some organizations, it takes a very long time to get to the top. The world's changed a lot since those High & Mighty were just wealthy white kids. At least another generation will have to turn over, and many miles will be flown, before we get beyond the colonialism hangover. Have another drink.

"as a paying passenger, i make demands on those that can determine whether i live or die"

Eat your peanuts. You have no idea who's behind the cockpit door. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZlE7CylX8&feature=related)Uh-this is your Captain again. You know, I've got a funny feeling I've seen this all before. Why? Cause I'm a caveman. Why? Cause I've got eyes in the back of my head. Why?

Here's some discussion of a recent pass last Sunday, that was much riskier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=316096), due to a poor choice of runway for conditions (49 knot gusts nearly direct x-wind). Second try, they used their heads, and selected a runway more aligned with the gale.

All is forgiven, because the crew was obviously not in violation of society's new unwritten Cardinal Aviator Sin: They were certainly not enjoying themselves.

Video :eek: (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddb_1204404185)

Here's some discussion of a recent pass last Sunday, that was much riskier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=316096), due to a poor choice of runway for conditions (49 knot gusts nearly direct x-wind). Second try, they used their heads, and selected a runway more aligned with the gale.

All is forgiven, because the crew was obviously not in violation of society's new unwritten Cardinal Aviator Sin: They were certainly not enjoying themselves.

Video :eek: (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddb_1204404185)

I saw that on the news this morning.

Bleh.. :bawl:

One would have expected to use their heads on their first attempts. That's just nasty. I can safely say I would have probably peed my pants, had I been on that plane.

*Note to self.. buy adults nappies next time I have to get into a flying tin can*

Bells: "I can safely say I would have probably peed my pants, had I been on that plane."

Me too, had I been riding in the back. :eek:

It is a comple moment of madness.