Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cathay 777 Pilot Sacked For Flyby At PAE?  
User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3958 posts, RR: 18
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 50482 times:

Hello all,

Does anyone know if there's any truth in the story that the delivery pilots of B-KPF on 30 Jan 2008 were sacked for some reason because of the low flyby they did at PAE before heading off to Hong Kong? I received several anonymous messages and emails about it calling for the pics (by Tim Dauber & Liem Bahneman) to be removed from my blog but I can't see what the fuss is about as Cathay always do a low flyby after departure on their delivery flights and then a wing rock, so what's so different about this one and why were the pilots (allegedly) sacked?

Anyone know what the craic is with this or is it all a fuss over nothing?  confused 

R

113 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 50524 times:

There's a very interesting thread on Pprune about it but when I last looked it didn't come to much of a conclusion with some saying that he was dismissed and some saying not.

The jist of it was that the Chief Pilot of the B777 fleet did the flyby as evidenced and the CEO of the airline was in the cockpit who thought it was fun (which it was).

But then something happenned and he was disciplined and/or sacked for it as it wasn't allowed for whatever reason.

Some say it was an overreaction, some say he deserved it (if true).

DIsclaimer: information in post may not be correct. Consult relevant Pprune thread



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 50592 times:

Disciplinary action was taken against the captain (the 777 chief pilot) and the copilot of that flight. I don't want to go into it too much on a public forum as this is still open to a grievance procedure.

The complaint from what I understand come from the HK version of the FAA, HKCAD. Specific approval need to be obtained for such things from them, and the applicant needs to abide by any conditions stated on the approval.

At worst, the HKCAD could suspend the airline license that CX operates under, it is a very serious matter.

If you have specific questions, PM me.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 50397 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
it is a very serious matter

But looked impressive!



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31417 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 50441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I worked across from PAE through last December and I used to watch a number of delivery flights.

EK's pilots would circle the factory in a wide arc and then do a "low and slow" (though never that low) fly-by over the factory as a thank you.

KL's would do a steep climb with a "wing wag" as they departed to the south.

9W, if leaving to the north, would stay low and do a wing-dip over the factory.

I also saw an AF 77W waggle the wings a teeny bit over the threshold on a southbound approach as there were a lot of people on the Museum of Future Flight hill watching them land from a familiarization run.

I would have loved to have seen that CX run.  bigthumbsup   checkeredflag   drool 


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5219 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 50254 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
The complaint from what I understand come from the HK version of the FAA, HKCAD

Sounds like HKCAD is being run from from Peking. CX must be an anthema to the Chinese government.


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3958 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 50245 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
The complaint from what I understand come from the HK version of the FAA, HKCAD. Specific approval need to be obtained for such things from them, and the applicant needs to abide by any conditions stated on the approval.

At worst, the HKCAD could suspend the airline license that CX operates under, it is a very serious matter.

HKCAD need to calm down and take some chill pills then. So specific approval is needed by the HKCAD to do a low pass at a US airfield? WTF? What's it got to do with them? I'm sure that if such things were deemed dangerous then the FAA would have had something to say about it. CX has been doing this at PAE for donkey's years.

If the CX CEO was in the cockpit at the time and thought it was fun (as indicated by Singapore_Air's post) then why has he sacked the pilots? Surely he isn't hanging them out to dry just to save face with the HKCAD?  sarcastic 

R


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 50217 times:



Quoting RobK (Reply 6):



Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
If you have specific questions, PM me.

I have said all I am going to say in public.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 49798 times:

Quoting RobK (Reply 6):
So specific approval is needed by the HKCAD to do a low pass at a US airfield? WTF?

The aircraft has a Hong Kong registration meaning it has to operate in compliance with relevant Hong Kong laws.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 5):
Sounds like HKCAD is being run from from Peking.

It is not.

From the various forums and pictures still on the internet, the aircraft allegedly performed a fly past with a transpacific fuel load, gears up, and a plane load of VIPs onboard at 28ft minimum altitude. The act was commented on the forums as "sporty".

More on "that rumour site" under Fragrant Harbour.

[Edited 2008-02-23 09:18:31]


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 49617 times:



Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 8):
Quoting RobK (Reply 6):
So specific approval is needed by the HKCAD to do a low pass at a US airfield? WTF?

The aircraft has a Hong Kong registration meaning it has to operate in compliance with relevant Hong Kong laws.

Correct. If a UA aircraft did something over Hong Kong that was illegal under FAA rules, they would be subject to FAA sanctions.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 49554 times:



Quoting RobK (Reply 6):
HKCAD need to calm down and take some chill pills then. So specific approval is needed by the HKCAD to do a low pass at a US airfield? WTF? What's it got to do with them?

You should perhaps try your own advice. CX is a Hong Kong airline and if specific approval is needed for certain things, then it is required, end of story as that authority is what CX operates under. It has thus everything to do with them!


User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 47476 times:

This is BS. If the CEO was in the cockpit he should take responsibility and let them go as they were following his orders. Must suck for the pilots. But worse comes to worse they will find other jobs if they are let go.

Kinghunter



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 47258 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 11):
If the CEO was in the cockpit he should take responsibility

On the flightdeck "Pilot in Command" trumps "CEO" every time. Pilot takes responsibility.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 47110 times:



Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 11):
This is BS. If the CEO was in the cockpit he should take responsibility and let them go as they were following his orders.

The captain is in command of the airplane, not the CEO. While the CEO might be superior to the captain in terms of company rules, on board of an airplane the captain must adhere to the law, even if it is against the wishes of the CEO. This includes dismissing a request from the CEO to do a flyby if it is prohibited by legislation.

This is the case in Germany, but I think that the legal framework is similiar in Hong Kong.


User currently offlineSevenair From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 1728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 46774 times:

I think it would be unfair to bring action against the pilot. For all we know, he could have been asked by the CEO to do it, and although the Captain is the commander of the aircraft, it is a situation where you may find it difficult to say 'no'. Afterall, this colourscheme is a special edition, perhaps the CEO asked for him to show it off.

At the end of the day, I've seen much more 'questionable' flybys, the most recent one involving an A310. This was not even that close looking at the photographs.

Even if it were brought in to question by the Autority, would not not be at the airline's discretion to discipline their staff?


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3958 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 46337 times:



Quoting Sevenair (Reply 14):
Even if it were brought in to question by the Autority, would not not be at the airline's discretion to discipline their staff?

I've since heard that the plane had passengers on it and HKCAD inspectors on it who had not approved the flyby. The argument put forward was that what if the plane had hit a flock of birds?  confused 

Still doesn't alter the fact that this is not something new. All the 777 deliveries in the past have down a flyby after departing and been carrying 14 hours of fuel and could've hit a flock of birds and presumably without HKCAD approval as well, but those pilots weren't sacked so what's all the fuss about with this one?  sarcastic 

R


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 45967 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Sevenair (Reply 14):
I think it would be unfair to bring action against the pilot. For all we know, he could have been asked by the CEO to do it, and although the Captain is the commander of the aircraft, it is a situation where you may find it difficult to say 'no'.

Look at it this way: if the pilot in command pisses off the CEO he might lose his job. If the pilot in command pisses off the regulating authority he may lose his license and his ability to earn a living.. No brainer in my opinion - you abide by the law first, then meet the wishes of the company.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineSandroZRH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 45689 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 12):
On the flightdeck "Pilot in Command" trumps "CEO" every time. Pilot takes responsibility.

Precisely. That's basic air law.


User currently offlineB-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 45239 times:

We don't even know that the CEO asked the pilot to do anything. He could have done it off his own intiative to show off, whatever. The CEO may simply have been along for the ride.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8766 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 44782 times:

That is incredibly low and as a non-pilot, I have to say it looks unsafe. To me it looks scary.

Plus come on, it is a $200 million plus airplane. I almost agree that the pilot should be fired. It looks like stunt flying of the high risk type. I mean my god, they are only 50 feet off the ground in a 200 foot airplane. Zero margin for mis-haps, just zero. They should have been 4 times higher, at minimum.


User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 44126 times:



Quoting B-HXB (Reply 18):
I mean my god, they are only 50 feet off the ground in a 200 foot airplane

77W is 242 feet. It can't be as unsafe as it looks. The pilots are accustomed to flying 50 feet over the runway. It certainly makes a nice picture of that beautiful CX special livery.


User currently offlineN787ZZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 43578 times:

The story has been confirmed by The South China Morning Post (subscription required).

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP...0a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&s=News


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3958 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 43045 times:

22 more pics of the departure and flyby now added, pics thanks to and copyright Liem Bahneman.

R


User currently offlineJourdan747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 42912 times:

Anyone have a link to the video of it?

User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2304 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 42751 times:



Quoting RobK (Reply 6):
If the CX CEO was in the cockpit at the time and thought it was fun (as indicated by Singapore_Air's post) then why has he sacked the pilots?

The CEO's job is to run the company, not fly the airplanes. The CEO probably knows evertyhing there is to know about the contract signed for the purchase of the airplane, but he is not required to know all rules about how to fly the airplane. That is the pilot's job.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 16):
Look at it this way: if the pilot in command pisses off the CEO he might lose his job.

Firstly, we don't know whether the CEO requested this fly-by at all.

Secondly, even if he did, the captain's job should've been to explain to him what kind of risky business this is. I'm quite sure that the CEO would've accepted the captain's explanation that a fly-by at 50 feet is potentially dangerous and may cause the airline to lose the operating license.

Thirdly, even if the CEO would still have insisted, I suspect that the CEO would've lost his job, not the captain. If the captain and co-pilot would've reported the incident to the CX board, and possibly even backed it up with a print-out of the voice from the black box, I'm quite sure that the CEO would've been in deep water. The CEO doesn't own the airline, he's just running it for the owners.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
25 Carfield : Yes, according to local paper, Apple Daily, the pilot has been fired because it goes against CX's safety manual, and he has not received the approval
26 A388 : I find it harsh to fire the chief pilot because of this low fly-by, even if it apparently is against the HKCAD. I can imagine disciplinary actions to
27 Virgin747 : It could have been a setup from another incident that this person has had with upper management. I know in some unionized places, management would pro
28 Crownvic : Similar to the AA 777 fly-by over Spuce Creek Florida many years ago when the retiring captain had permission on a delivery flight to divert the 777 f
29 AR385 : A few years ago, we owned a Rockwell Sabreliner 40A. My father was a very impatient man. But he was not stupid. Whenever the pilot told him we could
30 Ikramerica : Yes, I think it seems very low as well, as a layman. Considering the unknowns in this world, taking a passenger plane to under 30 feet without gear d
31 Post contains links and images RobK : So, armchair CEOs and pilots, is this equally low flyby by a brand new UPS 747 also "dangerous" and the crew be fired then? http://uk.youtube.com/watc
32 KingAir200 : Unfortunate for the captain, but if you are going to do these kinds of things, it is best to know the governmental regulations regarding what you are
33 Sevenair : Well I salute your father - but unfortunately, not all CEOs have his desirable traits. And I'm sure he has avoided many dangerous situations because
34 Ikramerica : It looks dangerous, yes. It's all purely hot dogging by pilots who are paid a lot of money to be professional. And if you think I'm being dramatic, t
35 JFK69 : Just curious to know if you caught the LY delivery a few months back,.....did they do anything?
36 CX flyboy : I believe it was the chairman and not the CEO who was in the flightdeck. The manuals have a bit about flybys and nowhere does it say approval is requi
37 Flighty : Agreed. The UPS looks stable and in control on the video. Very pretty also. The CX 777 is just too low. Almost certainly the lowest 773 gear-up flyby
38 A380US : Let alone what happened but why?
39 Zeke : Vol 2 pt 2 says what the crew has to do, and Vol 1 has the AOC (with the general and special conditions) and says what management has to do with resp
40 BoeingFever777 : Who said he should be fired? Also the 5X is doing a flyby at their HUB airport SDF most likely with UPS brass watching as N570UP was there first new
41 Post contains links Zeke : Another newspaper article on the topic : "A Cathay Pacific spokeswoman told the newspaper that Wilkinson insisted the fly-by was "not dangerous" but s
42 Cpd : It might seem harsh, but rules are there for a reason, not just for bureaucracy - and this fly by looked far too low. In the event something went wron
43 Checksixx : I love how all sorts here are now making policy for this airline...the exec shouldn't have been in the cockpit, the CEO has no business concerning the
44 Ebs757 : What a bad situation... I do think firing is a bit far but hopefully this pilot finds himself a new job and practices some better judgment Now that re
45 F9Animal : I can't believe they would fire the crew for this! He was the PIC, meaning, he was in full control of the aircraft. It would be a different story if h
46 SIA JUBILEE : That's why I don't like and wouldn't fly on CPA although I'm living in HK. The management is so stupid. Heard some years ago that the management notic
47 Awthompson : I would be interested to know the nationality of the Captain who was fired, I would guess that he was NOT Chinese.
48 Trex8 : I seriously doubt the HK authorities or CX management when it comes to issues like this care a hoot whether the person is local Chinese, expat gweilo
49 Singapore_Air : If you look at the South China Morning Post article you can deduce what nationality he could have been with a little reading up on CX history.
50 Awthompson : Quoting Awthompson (Reply 47): I would be interested to know the nationality of the Captain who was fired, I would guess that he was NOT Chinese. If y
51 Awthompson : Further to my recent comment, I note now that CPA have issued a notice to all their pilots reminding them of company policy on fly-bys. Can someone sa
52 Theginge : I don;t think he should have been fired, just ticked off for doing an 'Unauthorised' fly by. Nice pictures as well. I don't think there was anything u
53 Zeke : Too hard to say, management pilots are on individual contracts.
54 Flighty : Well, they say every takeoff should withstand an engine loss. ETOPS flying should withstand engine loss. Could this flyby survive an engine loss?
55 Post contains images RobK : An anonymous comment has been added to the blog post suggesting that this was a stitch up by other CX pilots as "Wilko" (presumably the sacked pilot?)
56 Post contains links NYC777 : Well it's all over the news now that the Capitain was a British national and he is indeed fired for the unapproved fly by: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
57 Sh0rtybr0wn : 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 m
58 Singapore_Air : Hmm, this made it to the Hate (Daily) Mail?! Interesting picture.
59 Post contains links Bkkair : Some interesting facts summarized from this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv..._article_id=518448&in_page_id=1811 It looks like the You T
60 Analog : Ummm... takeoff and landing? An engine out during level flight is probably a lot safer than takeoff or landing. Okay, it's about the extra risk, but
61 SuseJ772 : Yes. I would think flying at 320 mph, level flight, would have a better time surviving an engine loss than an airplane at V2 that still hadn't left t
62 Post contains links RobK : I wonder if the delivery pilots of B-KPC had received approval from the HKCAD and Cathay Pacific for their flyby at PAE ? What's good for one....... R
63 Analog : So who authorized the speed above 250kts, or was there a 28 knot tailwind (or do I misunderstand the rules)?
64 LTBEWR : Based on the articles, the pilot didn't seem to got the proper and required approval from the airline's management to do this maneuver. If he did a 28
65 HZ747300 : Actually, the posts towards the bottom are quite humorous. I like the one that claims to be from the pilot himself, now that's classic comedy!
66 ADent : A very low flyby is kinda stupid and should be punished if not fully approved. A very low flyby with passengers on board (and full fuel) is downright
67 Ikramerica : That was my point. Not that flybys are unsafe in theory, but that a flyby lower than the plane is tall is just stupid with a $250M airplane, and adds
68 Bongodog1964 : One thought, if the plane was only 28 feet above the runway, surely, it wouldn't need to bank very far, to touch a wingtip on the runway ? If the pilo
69 RJ111 : It was a bit too low. Unfortunate for the pilot as he probably thought he was in control, should have been more responsible though really.
70 Post contains links Signol : Here's the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7hpVH1IAQM Very short though. signol
71 Cyvr : Bad move on the part of Cathay and their PR department. You would think Cathay would keep something like this under wraps because I'm sure some people
72 Dragon6172 : If my math is correct (been a while since I used the Pythagorean Theorem), would need about 15 degrees angle of bank to touch the wing tip at 28 feet
73 RJ111 : Good points. I saw someone reading the article in the Mail today on the train in and overread it myself. The pilot got fairly laid into and it gave t
74 Post contains links Scbriml : There's no doubt it is very low. http://www.seattle-deliveries.com/a/0108/bkpf_300108paelb18t.jpg http://www.seattle-deliveries.com/a/0108/bkpf_300108
75 RobK : They are stills. Liem actually says somewhere that it was the best attempt at a video he could do using the stills he took. R
76 Sandyb123 : Ouch, this has now been picked up by the BBC news also! Sandyb123
77 Bennett123 : I think that many people have not read the link attached to the opening comments. If sounds as if he, (rightly or wrongly) had enemies at CX. It could
78 Teme82 : Hey as far as I know the ATC approved the flyby. But that was against company policy without clearance? Anyway what is the BIG deal in this. The maneu
79 Post contains links United777 : This story has made itself in the Seattle local news. I'm not able to watch the video right now (at my job) in the news story but it might be of the f
80 RobK : Please see reply 75. R
81 ScarletHarlot : Sometimes I wish I could just quit my job and go hang out at PAE all day, every day. Seeing a fly by like this would make it all worthwhile. That must
82 AirNZ : So, would it be fair to say that you somewhat jumped the gun by telling HKCAD to 'calm down and take chill pills' before you actually had the facts o
83 CX flyboy : Does hitting a flock of birds on a flyby seem different to hitting a flock of birds after V1?
84 Stratosphere : UMM that seems to be signifcantly more money then our US pilot counterparts even in the chief pilot position. The only US pilots that would make more
85 BO__einG : I think that flyby was pretty low as many of you guys say. Its sweet none the less to appeal to plane nuts like us to see a triple 7-300 in HongKong c
86 Bongodog1964 : Yes, as hitting a flock of birds after V1 is beyond the pilots control, but hitting a flock of birds on a flyby is within the pilots control; as it w
87 Post contains links Zeke : FAA now investigating http://www.king5.com/video/featured-index.html?nvid=221537&she=1
88 CX flyboy : So is grounding the aircraft to begin with. No birdstrikes then unless they fly into the plane. I am not defending the flyby...just saying that if th
89 Post contains links Kaitak : Cathay's latest 777, 'KPG, made its first flight yesterday ... probably safe to say they won't be doing the flypast on delivery: http://pics.seattle-d
90 Awthompson : Very well said!
91 Revelation : Interesting question from a UK poster
92 Clickhappy : That information is wrong. B-KPG made it's first flight on 2-18.
93 Bongodog1964 : I'm not a pilot, nor an expert on turbofan engines, but I'm fairly sure they need time to spool up to produce max power. In order to descend to 28 fe
94 Dragon6172 : Im guessing he did not do his fly by near stall speed, so if he lost an engine at that altitude, he would just have to trade airspeed for some altitu
95 Post contains links BigMac : Flightblogger (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/) now has a real video of the fly by. Awesome, but pretty scary at the same time.
96 Starlionblue : No need for engines to be at low power to stay level at low altitude. You are misunderstanding the relationship between power, speed, altitude and ai
97 AAN777AN : IMO that video makes it look far worse than the photos do.
98 Post contains images 787seattle : Well, I saw the Seattle Times article this morning with a large picture on the front page. It seems sort of harsh to fire them, but it shows some logi
99 Grozzy : Just my 2 cents: Just saw the pictures on tv, and that plane was def. too low. No margin of error. Also, if it were an airbus, would the computer have
100 Starlionblue : Based on what? What makes you think that on Airbi the computer can take over and try to land? No aircraft behaves that way.
101 Post contains images David L : ... assuming it has some engine power. Even then, it's gravity that decides it's "landing", not the aircraft.
102 Post contains images Cloudyapple : Who would have thought this turned out to be his farewell party.
103 Birdbrainz : I agree. My dad flew for flight test for UA years ago. I showed him the pic, and he said that while he was at United the company was very strict abou
104 YULWinterSkies : Since you are from Hong-Kong, how exactly is a Hong-Kong reg different from a Chinese one? They now both start with B-, so I imagine both Chinese and
105 Post contains links Zeke : Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, it has its own government, and its own CAD, own laws, taxation arrangements, currency etc. htt
106 Cloudyapple : Even though the rego's of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan all start with B, each fleet is managed by a separate authority. Mainland Chine
107 Bongodog1964 : If the engines were at high power at low altitude, the potential problems would be even worse, as the descent would be quicker, and the low level pas
108 Viscount724 : I disagree. Personally I think he deserves to be fired for a stunt like that. You don't take unnecessary chances with a $250 million aircraft especia
109 Post contains images RobK : Are you for real? R
110 Viscount724 : With the widespread news reports referring to a senior captain not obtaining the required authorization for that very low flypast with passengers abo
111 RobK : Imho you're being a complete drama-queen. R
112 Post contains images Dragon6172 : High power and high speed would be better at low altitude. High power because it will take less time for the engines to spool to full power in case o
113 Starlionblue : Dragons6172 explains well why this is not quite true.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pilot Sacked For Letting Footballer In Cockpit posted Mon Oct 8 2007 12:20:46 by NEMA
Pilot Arrested For Rape At ATL Concourse C? posted Wed Aug 3 2005 05:23:52 by 767Lover
The Last Cathay B773 At PAE - What's The Problem? posted Fri Jun 9 2006 15:12:26 by RobK
1st Boeing 777 Built Flying For Cathay Pacific posted Wed Feb 28 2001 21:30:27 by N907CL
Any Possible Expansion For DL At LAX? posted Sat Feb 9 2008 11:45:37 by DL777LAX
Raw Deal For Employees At AA? posted Fri Feb 1 2008 11:39:53 by SRT75
The Future For G4 At FAT posted Mon Jan 14 2008 17:08:24 by WhatUsaid
Eastern 727 Nose At PAE? posted Wed Jan 2 2008 07:15:53 by CodyKDiamond
BBJ VP-BIZ/N746BA Still At PAE? posted Sun Dec 9 2007 06:05:00 by RobK
Pilot Convicted For Criminal Negligence posted Fri Nov 2 2007 12:29:42 by YYZYYT