Hello A.net,

I'm sure most people have see the infamous video of a Cargolux 748 doing the infamous wing wave on its delivery flight, knife edge, barely a few feet off the ground! Even more amazing is how the pilot recovered from the stall without crashing the damn plane! But the question I have is how exactly how did he recover? I haven't read a real explanation for this anywhere, and I am intrigued by how on earth this guy did it! Any thoughts on why or how it went down beside the usual "He must've spilled coffee on his lap!" stuff. This seriously must've been one of the closest incidents for a real stall, especially for an aircraft of this size, and that close to the ground! Just a few knots lower, and this guy would be the prime example on a rookie presentation of why pretending to be Maverick while flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit is a bad idea. All contributations appreciated, thank you.

https://youtu.be/bnBr3enzW1I

I'm not quite sure why you keep pointing to a stall. There is no indication the airfoil ever reached its critical angle of attack and stopped producing lift.

I don't see a stall, I see a very large aircraft making an extreme bank angle at a low speed. May look like a stall just because of how big the 747 is and you're not used to seeing a plane moving that slow.

Maybe the pilot wasn't an incompetent idiot and he knew what that bird could do and operated it within it's performance envelope?

Camera angles make all the difference. We see the 787 and A350 look like it's doing a 90 degree vertical climb at the major air shows while if you were looking at the artificial horizon in the cockpit (or standing directly perpendicular to it on the ground) you would see that it is at a much more "reasonable" angle of attack.

Makes a lot more sense to me than risking a nine-figure airframe on a "stunt" just to impress a few dozen factory workers taking a break on the flight line and the tower staff.

The video is a bit deceptive because of the angle -- after the first half of the wave, the plane is headed almost directly away from the camera, so it looks like the plane almost stops moving. I see no reason to think there was a stall here. A real stall at this attitude and energy level would be hard to recover.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Hello A.net,

But the question I have is how exactly how did he recover?

https://youtu.be/bnBr3enzW1I

If I were to ask you "Why didn't you just ask the pilot flying directly, before you got off the plane?"

You would answer, along the lines of "How could I? I was never on the aircraft to begin with!".

So how do you know the wing stalled...surely you spoke to the wing directly?

No stall. I think camera angle and the size of the 747 create a bit of an illusion in that sense. An empty 747 can certainly have more than enough thrust to leap off the ground with energy to spare. A stall in a 747 would be very apparent, swept wings and stalls are bad news; while it's an extreme example, think National Afghanistan crash for a visual of what a stall does to 74.

Stitch wrote:

Maybe the pilot wasn't an incompetent idiot and he knew what that bird could do and operated it within it's performance envelope?

True, but maybe also he was an idiot pushing a very expensive piece of equipment to the edges of its performance envelope for no particularly good reason.

Just sayin'...

Assuming he was empty and had ~200k lbs of gas for a flight to Luxembourg, he weighed 670k or 700k lbs, tops.

Let's compare that 747 to an F-35...

That 747:
Thrust/Weight: 0.4
Wing Loading: 117 lbs/sqft

F-35 at MTOW:
Thrust/Weight: 0.6
Wing Loading: 152 lbs/sqft

So, basically, that 747 would probably outmaneuver an F-35

Think I would agree with the replies re stall. Can`t seem to detect one, but I would imagine the pendulum effect probably
caught the pilot out somewhat ( guess he`d never admit to a mistake ) making the right banking going a little further than
he anticipated. Never seen it before.....scary stuff. Thanks for sharing!

Revelation wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Maybe the pilot wasn't an incompetent idiot and he knew what that bird could do and operated it within it's performance envelope?

True, but maybe also he was an idiot pushing a very expensive piece of equipment to the edges of its performance envelope for no particularly good reason.

Just sayin'...

He was just having a bit of fun, nothing wrong with that. I'm not so convinced that 747 was brought anywhere near the end of its performance envelope anyway.

So what is the stall speed of a 747-8 at 700,000 lb with flaps set for takeoff? What is rotation speed at that weight?

He banked 30 deg left at an unusually low altitude, then banked 40 deg right at a not-quite-so-low altitude. Why is anyone talking about a stall, considering what his speed must have been? Pitch angle is nothing out of the ordinary.

It's topics like this that make people leave these forums.....

The aircraft didn't stall and from what it looks like, the flight crew operated the aircraft well inside the aircrafts certified envelop. The camera angle is a bit deceiving, sure its a low speed manoeuvre but not as extreme as the video would make you think.

Not taking any side here, but one thing everyone here is missing: a stall has nothing to do with speed. It is only dependant on the angle of attack. And that again is not only dependant on the pitch. Good examppe for that is AF447. In the deep stall, their pitch was fairly normal, but the angle of attack was around 40 degrees at some point if I am not mistaking. A big influence is also the position if zhe ailerons which, to make it simple, also increases the angle of attack of that particular portion of the wing significantly. And then don't forget the roll spoilers which do their part in disturbing the airflow over the wing. I am not saying he stalled at some point, but I am fairly positive at least one part of either the wings at some point reached a very critical angle of attack.
The 747, just like all other airplanes, requires an airflow over the wing to fly. A fighter can fly vertically with basically just its thrust as lift, but the 747, no matter what the lift to weight ratio, cannot unless you put it almost vertically, especially not that close to the ground.
So even though I am not saying he stalled, I am more with the thread starter KTPAFlyer here that he might habe been a little overconfident on his flying there!

flyinTLow

Heck, strong crosswinds have probably caused bigger wing waves than this deliberate act!

flyinTLow wrote:

Not taking any side here, but one thing everyone here is missing: a stall has nothing to do with speed. It is only dependant on the angle of attack. And that again is not only dependant on the pitch.

That really isn't very accurate. An aerodynamic stall has everything to do with the speed of the lift surfaces through the air surrounding them. Speed = lift. Agree that pitch is part of the picture, but only if the pitch angle is so extreme that the forward momentum (provided by engines) is unable to maintain speed. So it comes back to relevant airspeed (lift).

Sandyb123

flyinTLow wrote:

Not taking any side here, but one thing everyone here is missing: a stall has nothing to do with speed. It is only dependant on the angle of attack. And that again is not only dependant on the pitch. Good examppe for that is AF447. In the deep stall, their pitch was fairly normal, but the angle of attack was around 40 degrees at some point if I am not mistaking. A big influence is also the position if zhe ailerons which, to make it simple, also increases the angle of attack of that particular portion of the wing significantly. And then don't forget the roll spoilers which do their part in disturbing the airflow over the wing. I am not saying he stalled at some point, but I am fairly positive at least one part of either the wings at some point reached a very critical angle of attack.
The 747, just like all other airplanes, requires an airflow over the wing to fly. A fighter can fly vertically with basically just its thrust as lift, but the 747, no matter what the lift to weight ratio, cannot unless you put it almost vertically, especially not that close to the ground.
So even though I am not saying he stalled, I am more with the thread starter KTPAFlyer here that he might habe been a little overconfident on his flying there!

flyinTLow

It is overstating it to say a stall has "nothing to do with speed." It is true that you can stall a wing at any speed by exceeding a critical AoA, but the factors that cause you to exceed that AoA are variable and speed is one variable.

What the point here is that you cannot tell from the video what the angle of attack was. You simply cannot. Neither can you judge speed or perspective. So, to try to determine if you had a stall, you would need to look at the behavior (motion) of the aircraft. If a wing had stalled to any meaningful level, he/she would not have recovered. He/she would have gone wing over and down. If both wings had stalled, he/she would have settled.

I see nothing in the behavior of the a/c that indicated a stall. What I see is a rather exuberant roll to the right. I would not be surprised if the right bank exceeded what was intended - either because the aircraft was MORE responsive to right roll input than he expected, or LESS responsive to left roll input.

I do suspect the pilot got a talkin' to - and maybe had to clean out their pants..... cause I'm guessing that was a bit more than he/she wanted.

As many others pointed, there's no stall recovery because there's no stall on that video. The ascendent path never was interrupted.

sandyb123 wrote:

flyinTLow wrote:

Not taking any side here, but one thing everyone here is missing: a stall has nothing to do with speed. It is only dependant on the angle of attack. And that again is not only dependant on the pitch.

That really isn't very accurate. An aerodynamic stall has everything to do with the speed of the lift surfaces through the air surrounding them. Speed = lift. Agree that pitch is part of the picture, but only if the pitch angle is so extreme that the forward momentum (provided by engines) is unable to maintain speed. So it comes back to relevant airspeed (lift).

Sandyb123

No, that is wrong unfortunatly.

A stall is, simplifird for subsonic flight and for the sake of this discussion, only dependant on the load factor and the angle of attack!
In a 1g flightpath, a stall is only dependant on the angle of attack. The angle of attack is the angle between the relative airflow and the, pardon my simplification, wing chord.
What many people misunderstand: when you move the wing through the air faster, it can change the relative airflow and that then reduces the angle
of attack. But that is not what we are talking here!
Take AF447 for example. Their airspeed, taking not only into account their forward airspeed but also their vertical airspeed, was traveling at a fairly high speed. But since the aircraft was falling like a rock, the vector of the relative airstream to the wingchord came from below, together with a wing chord set to maybe 5 degrees nose up, lead to a very high angle of attack.
When you lower slats, you decrease the angle of the wing chord and with that you decrease the angle of attack. That is why slats are really important for takeoff. Lowering the flaps will do the opposite. As does using ailerons. Anyone flying an approach to stall in a small prop aircraft knows that coming close
to a stall, ailerons will "revearse" as the lead to one wing stalling first or more than the other.
Also, because many pilots only experience a stall in small aircraft: They always learn to lower the nose and add thrust. Lowering the nose will decrease the angle of attack, but also adding thrust as now the propeller causes an airflow across the wings, and now the relative airflow is less dependant on the actuall movement of the aircraft and with
that the wing through the sky.

Now coming back to what you said before: Lift is very much dependant on the airspeed:

Lift = Coefficient of Lift x 1/2 x density x v^2 x wing area.

The coefficient of lift is dependant on many factors, one of the most prominent there is the angle of attack.

Hope this semi-precise explanation helps with the understanding.

It's a delivery flight: the airplane is at a super low weight. That's why the entire thing feels riskier than it really is.

Yet, if I were the cargolux CEO (or insurer), I would not be too pleased with my pilot and make sure he only waves in a very low key fashion going forward.

rcair1 wrote:

you cannot tell from the video what the angle of attack was

Can't tell accurate to a degree, you mean. But we can see the aircraft is pointed... probably less than 20 deg above horizontal, and its climb angle is likely to be... what, 5 deg? So is a 15-deg angle of attack dangerous?

sandyb123 wrote:

flyinTLow wrote:

Not taking any side here, but one thing everyone here is missing: a stall has nothing to do with speed. It is only dependant on the angle of attack. And that again is not only dependant on the pitch.

That really isn't very accurate. An aerodynamic stall has everything to do with the speed of the lift surfaces through the air surrounding them. Speed = lift. Agree that pitch is part of the picture, but only if the pitch angle is so extreme that the forward momentum (provided by engines) is unable to maintain speed. So it comes back to relevant airspeed (lift).

Sandyb123

You are not correct either. Lift does not equal = Speed. Speed is one of the few variables of generation of lift along with the surface area of the wing, AOA, Density of the air and Coefficient of lift. There is even an equation that provides a good picture of how these variables affect lift.

Lift = 1/2 * Cl * A * V^2 *P

Cl = Coefficient of Lift
This covers a lot of complex variables that such as the AOA.
A= Surface area of the wing
A larger surface area gives the airflow traveling over the wing an increased area to remain attached to.
V^2= Velocity square
This creates more air flow to travel over the wing
P = Air Density
This is a factor that depends on the atmosphere conditions in which the aircraft is in. Higher density = more air flow for the wing, lower density = less air flow for the wing.

When a aircraft is flying at a slower airspeed, a pilot will need to increase the Coefficient of Lift (usually done by increasing the AOA) to compensate for the lower velocity which the aircraft is traveling. Which brings me to my next point.

Another thing you are wrong about is what an Aerodynamic Stall really is. Aerodynamic Stall has everything to do with AOA and nothing to do with speed. An aerodynamic stall is a condition which the aircraft exceeds its critical angle of attack. The critical angle of attack is the point where the airfoils no longer have the ability to generate lift. What ends up happening is the air flow over the airfoil separates and remains separated. Aerodynamic stall has nothing to do with speed again because it can occur at any airspeed. In some conditions, a aircraft's stall speed can increase when it is experiencing a higher load factor (usually in steep turns).

It amuses me that we're discussing/arguing angle of attack based on a shaky telephoto video from the other end of the runway. It wasn't stalled, and you cannot in any way determine the angle of attack from this video.

As for the maneuver itself, it's no different to the B787 Farnborough touch and go. Full maneuver capability at V2+15 (on the Boeing I fly anyway), not an issue. I'd agree it's silly if not approved (and stupid if not briefed) but that's about it.

Wasn't the Captain of a Cathay Pacific, B777-300ER on her delivery flight, sacked after performing, a low level, high speed, flypast of the Tower/Runway after departure from Paine Field? IIRC there was no briefing, or clearance by the Tower, a totally spontaneous/stupid act. I think the flyby was caught on camera as well.

CaptainKramer wrote:

Wasn't the Captain of a Cathay Pacific, B777-300ER on her delivery flight, sacked after performing, a low level, high speed, flypast of the Tower/Runway after departure from Paine Field? IIRC there was no briefing, or clearance by the Tower, a totally spontaneous/stupid act. I think the flyby was caught on camera as well.

The story is a bit more complex than that. But yes, he was sacked after performing a flyby. Cameras are everywhere these days....

rcair1 wrote:

It is overstating it to say a stall has "nothing to do with speed."

Not really. Stall is dependent on AoA. AoA, in turn, can be dependent on many other factors, like speed, pitch angle, thrust setting, clean or dirty wing, etc.

sandyb123 wrote:

Agree that pitch is part of the picture, but only if the pitch angle is so extreme that the forward momentum (provided by engines) is unable to maintain speed.

Pitch angle is not angle of attack.

timz wrote:

Can't tell accurate to a degree, you mean. But we can see the aircraft is pointed... probably less than 20 deg above horizontal, and its climb angle is likely to be... what, 5 deg?

Maybe. Gotta factor in the incidence angle of the wing as well, downdrafts/updrafts, whatever else. Also, banking the aircraft affects the AoA on each wing.

CaptainKramer wrote:

Wasn't the Captain of a Cathay Pacific, B777-300ER on her delivery flight, sacked after performing, a low level, high speed, flypast of the Tower/Runway after departure from Paine Field? IIRC there was no briefing, or clearance by the Tower, a totally spontaneous/stupid act. I think the flyby was caught on camera as well.

I have a photo taken from the cockpit as he flew by but alas attaching photos isn't as easy as it used to be.

It was not a totally spontaneous/stupid act, it wasn't the first time a Cathay Pacific delivery flight had done that and they weren't the only operator to do that at KPAE. I'm sure his copilot knew what was going on and so did the tower -- so it was "briefed". If somebody hadn't taken a video/photo and screamed "unsafe" it would not have been an issue. And it wasn't "unsafe" -- it was just illegal per the FAR's.

United Airlines made two low passes in the VFR pattern with their last 757 at KBFI on their way home but since that was "BC" (before cameras) nobody cared -- and you never see a commercial airliner in the VFR pattern at KBFI.

The 747 driver just got a little carried away but was no where near losing the airplane.

Florianopolis wrote:

Assuming he was empty and had ~200k lbs of gas for a flight to Luxembourg, he weighed 670k or 700k lbs, tops.

Let's compare that 747 to an F-35...

That 747:
Thrust/Weight: 0.4
Wing Loading: 117 lbs/sqft

F-35 at MTOW:
Thrust/Weight: 0.6
Wing Loading: 152 lbs/sqft

So, basically, that 747 would probably outmaneuver an F-35

He wasn't even full of gas. If I remember correct the flight went to Seattle to load up cargo before departing for Luxembourg.

What he did was reckless, irresponsible and unsafe, if I was his supervisor I would seriously consider ending his employment.

That's the thing I love about Airliners.net, everyone is an expert!

Not having flown the 747-8, I am not an expert. However, I have over 23,000 hours of which over 10,000 are in the 747 (SP to 400), I do feel I am somewhat qualified to jump in.

1) The PIC was not (sic) reckless, irresponsible and unsafe. How can one possibly make a statement such as that? That is just idiotic! There were no excessive bank angles used, no excessive pitch angles used. The aircraft was not even close to MTOW. It was nothing more than a wing wave. Get over it.

2) The aircraft did not stalll, as the OP states. It was no where near a stall. He was not, as the OP writes, a "few knots" away from a stall. There is plenty of buffer just between V2+10 and the stick shaker activation, let alone initial buffet. So again, Get over it!!

3) Again, he did not push the aircraft to "the edges of its performance envelope " as another learned poster writes. It wasn't even close to it. Again, Get over it.

Finally, I will admit it was certainly a bit "energetic" but it wasn't unsafe or dangerous or eyewatering. It was merely someone showing off, nothing more, nothing less. Was it a smart move, probably not. Will it end his career, I doubt it. It probably did earn him a one to one chat with the Chief Pilot. Again, get over it.

But please do keep all the "expert" opinions rolling in. That's about the only thing left that is worthwhile in the "new and improved" Airliners.net!!

mmo wrote:

That's the thing I love about Airliners.net, everyone is an expert!

Not having flown the 747-8, I am not an expert. However, I have over 23,000 hours of which over 10,000 are in the 747 (SP to 400), I do feel I am somewhat qualified to jump in.

1) The PIC was not (sic) reckless, irresponsible and unsafe. How can one possibly make a statement such as that? That is just idiotic! There were no excessive bank angles used, no excessive pitch angles used. The aircraft was not even close to MTOW. It was nothing more than a wing wave. Get over it.

2) The aircraft did not stalll, as the OP states. It was no where near a stall. He was not, as the OP writes, a "few knots" away from a stall. There is plenty of buffer just between V2+10 and the stick shaker activation, let alone initial buffet. So again, Get over it!!

3) Again, he did not push the aircraft to "the edges of its performance envelope " as another learned poster writes. It wasn't even close to it. Again, Get over it.

Finally, I will admit it was certainly a bit "energetic" but it wasn't unsafe or dangerous or eyewatering. It was merely someone showing off, nothing more, nothing less. Was it a smart move, probably not. Will it end his career, I doubt it. It probably did earn him a one to one chat with the Chief Pilot. Again, get over it.

But please do keep all the "expert" opinions rolling in. That's about the only thing left that is worthwhile in the "new and improved" Airliners.net!!

A certain member who posted just before you does have a history of arm-chair firing everybody he deemed not up to his standard.

Well said mmo.

If you want to restore a tiny bit of faith in this forum, just read a few of the expert YouTube comments on the OPs vid.

itisi wrote:

It's topics like this that make people leave these forums.....

mmo wrote:

But please do keep all the "expert" opinions rolling in. That's about the only thing left that is worthwhile in the "new and improved" Airliners.net!!

OzzyPirate wrote:

Well said mmo.

If you want to restore a tiny bit of faith in this forum, just read a few of the expert YouTube comments on the OPs vid.

The real pros.

There used to be (years ago) an Aerolineas Argentinas 747 classic captain on here, seemed to be an older gentleman, that posted the most informative, interesting things I've ever seen online in regards to commercial aviation and the 747. Chased away by the shenanigans. I don't know the specifics, but I miss his posts. Hope life has gone well for him.

itisi wrote:

It's topics like this that make people leave these forums.....

While the original poster may be uninformed, I don't think it is a bad topic. Hopefully the original poster is coming away with some added knowledge.

Accidentally wrote:

There used to be (years ago) an Aerolineas Argentinas 747 classic captain on here, seemed to be an older gentleman, that posted the most informative, interesting things I've ever seen online in regards to commercial aviation and the 747. Chased away by the shenanigans. I don't know the specifics, but I miss his posts. Hope life has gone well for him.

Not exactly. If memory serves, he ended up leaving because he took a new position that wouldn't have jived with posting here.

FrmrKSEngr wrote:

itisi wrote:

It's topics like this that make people leave these forums.....

While the original poster may be uninformed, I don't think it is a bad topic. Hopefully the original poster is coming away with some added knowledge.

It is, indeed, not a bad topic. Posts like Itisi's are why people stop asking questions.

mmo wrote:

That's the thing I love about Airliners.net, everyone is an expert!

Not having flown the 747-8, I am not an expert. However, I have over 23,000 hours of which over 10,000 are in the 747 (SP to 400), I do feel I am somewhat qualified to jump in.

1) The PIC was not (sic) reckless, irresponsible and unsafe. How can one possibly make a statement such as that? That is just idiotic! There were no excessive bank angles used, no excessive pitch angles used. The aircraft was not even close to MTOW. It was nothing more than a wing wave. Get over it.

2) The aircraft did not stalll, as the OP states. It was no where near a stall. He was not, as the OP writes, a "few knots" away from a stall. There is plenty of buffer just between V2+10 and the stick shaker activation, let alone initial buffet. So again, Get over it!!

3) Again, he did not push the aircraft to "the edges of its performance envelope " as another learned poster writes. It wasn't even close to it. Again, Get over it.

Finally, I will admit it was certainly a bit "energetic" but it wasn't unsafe or dangerous or eyewatering. It was merely someone showing off, nothing more, nothing less. Was it a smart move, probably not. Will it end his career, I doubt it. It probably did earn him a one to one chat with the Chief Pilot. Again, get over it.

But please do keep all the "expert" opinions rolling in. That's about the only thing left that is worthwhile in the "new and improved" Airliners.net!!

An interesting and surprising opinion from you.



Let me put forward just one scenario you seem to have discounted in your unusual defense of this Pilot, how do you think his 'airshow'
would have turned out if he had lost power in an outboard engine while in that bank so close to the ground ?


This is just one possibility to consider, jet transport planning is not about 'throwing caution to the wind' throwing out all the built in safety factors just to show off, it's designed to provide safeguards in case something goes wrong, not to protect you from your own stupidity and recklessness.



He was reckless and irresponsible , as his supervisor I would not trust him again, i'd be surprised if he hasn't done this sort of thing before, a previous poster pointed out the comparison to the B52 Commander that wouldn't listen to anyone about his increasingly reckless maneuvers close to the ground, no one did anything and he killed his whole crew.



We've had a few cowboy Pilots try this sort of thing at my airline, they are no longer with us.
If nothing else gives you pause remind yourself that Cathay Pacific, an airline of the highest standard terminated a senior Captain
for a (by comparison) fairly sedate low pass.

Max Q wrote:

An interesting and surprising opinion from you.



Let me put forward just one scenario you seem to have discounted in your unusual defense of this Pilot, how do you think his 'airshow'
would have turned out if he had lost power in an outboard engine while in that bank so close to the ground ?


This is just one possibility to consider, jet transport planning is not about 'throwing caution to the wind' throwing out all the built in safety factors just to show off, it's designed to provide safeguards in case something goes wrong, not to protect you from your own stupidity and recklessness.



He was reckless and irresponsible , as his supervisor I would not trust him again, i'd be surprised if he hasn't done this sort of thing before, a previous poster pointed out the comparison to the B52 Commander that wouldn't listen to anyone about his increasingly reckless maneuvers close to the ground, no one did anything and he killed his whole crew.



We've had a few cowboy Pilots try this sort of thing at my airline, they are no longer with us.
If nothing else gives you pause remind yourself that Cathay Pacific, an airline of the highest standard terminated a senior Captain
for a (by comparison) fairly sedate low pass.

1 Why is it a "surprising" opinion coming from me?

2 And what would happen if there was an outboard engine failure? Is the aircraft going to suddenly cartwheel down from the sky? No! The PF will apply the correct rudder, and since the AOA is higher than it would be in cruise, the rudder will be much more effective. But, let's look at your logic. You are departing LHR 09 L/r with a fully loaded 748, you have a turn at 400' to the right. What would happen then? Or you you cancel the flight because you might have an engine failure? To me your question is nothing more than fear mongering at it's finest!!

3 I agree with your comments about safety. However, please explain where his actions are reckless and stupid? I would say your comments about safeguards is completely wrong. I would argue virtually every caution, warning, note and every FAR is the result of an action some pilot undertook that did not work out as he thought it would! But that is not what the topic is about.

4 I will not touch the B-52 issue as your comments demonstrate you know very little of the subject.

5 The pilot you are referring to did the 300 KIAS flyby at 28 feet! He was the 777 Flight Training Manager and he should have gotten the sack after that. Are you trying to put the wing wave in the same category as the flyby? If you are, you might want to brush up on your rules. The flyby violated all sorts of rules such as airspeed violations. However, he was terminated because the passengers in the cabin did not know about the flyby and they were quite upset at the maneuver.

I am glad you are not his supervisor! Given the performance available of the aircraft,, there was nothing wrong with what he did. Aviation is about risk management. That ability comes from experience and I am sure he had much more experience in the 747 family and the 748 than you do. So, I trust his judgment and opinion much more than I do yours! Again, I just love this forum!!!

Max Q wrote:

What he did was reckless, irresponsible and unsafe, if I was his supervisor I would seriously consider ending his employment.

Yeah I really disagree. That was not much AOB at all. He waved bye within the limits of the airplane. This cannot be compared to the 1994 B-52 airshow crash.

Max Q wrote:

The key word here is 'normal' your comparison is not valid because this idiot started his turn when barely clear of the ground and he initiated the turn aggressively, you can clearly see the spoilers come up rapidly on the down going wing. This is NOT the same as a turn initiated at 400' when you are safely clear of the ground, he was not clear, an engine failure at that point would be challenging, he had basically thrown all his performance margins out the door.

Assuming just ferry fuel aboard, he was probably in the neighborhood of 200,000kg below MTOW. I would think that would significantly improve the performance on three engines.

Stitch wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The key word here is 'normal' your comparison is not valid because this idiot started his turn when barely clear of the ground and he initiated the turn aggressively, you can clearly see the spoilers come up rapidly on the down going wing. This is NOT the same as a turn initiated at 400' when you are safely clear of the ground, he was not clear, an engine failure at that point would be challenging, he had basically thrown all his performance margins out the door.

Assuming just ferry fuel aboard, he was probably in the neighborhood of 200,000kg below MTOW. I would think that would significantly improve the performance on three engines.

But that's not the most critical issue here, if you have an engine failure at 400' or above you are well clear of the ground , even if you don't apply corrective rudder immediately you have the altitude to sort things out, apply rudder, keep the wings level climb to a safe altitude and start the appropriate checklist(s)


The secondary effect of yaw is roll, if this Pilot had suffered a #1 engine failure with the left wingtip that close to the ground it's quite possible induced roll would have him into the ground before he could stabilize the aircraft.


Reckless, irresponsible, cowboy behavior, Airline Pilots are held to a higher standard than this, or should be, if you admire this sort of display you'd be better off (and safer) going to an airshow.

AFAIK the plane never stalled.

pvjin wrote:

He was just having a bit of fun, nothing wrong with that.

He would not be the first pilot losing his job over this kind of stunts. Reminds me of that CX 777 low pass fly-over.

Any talk about stall is in this case bizarre. Have a look at the tail, how high it is above the runway when the main wheels lift off. He is well above minimum Vr speed for his likely very light TOW.

He is just waving good-bye. We can easily watch the aileron movements including spoiler assist. First full left, then full right, and finally back to level wings.

Should he lose an engine during this, then he will keep up speed with a little down elevator, and keep his track with the rudder. That's what they are for.

If there is a pilot, who feels the slightest uncomfortable copying this on a sunny summer day, then I would really hate to be a passenger on his plane when he has to land in gusting sidewind, in the dark, in rain, fog, snow, wind shear, and God knows what other nasty stuff. That's what the pilots are paid for every day until the day they retire.

If I was the boss of this pilot.....

Without the extra drag from the spoilers he would have reached cruising altitude one or two seconds faster. That would have saved some fuel. Something like fuel worth two or three dollars. I would subtract two dollars and fifty cent from his wage. Then the company would be economically off the hook.

prebennorholm wrote:

If there is a pilot, who feels the slightest uncomfortable copying this on a sunny summer day, then I would really hate to be a passenger on his plane when he has to land in gusting sidewind, in the dark, in rain, fog, snow, wind shear, and God knows what other nasty stuff. That's what the pilots are paid for every day until the day they retire.

This is a good point. I've been on more than one flight into Denver - both Stapelton and DIA where we 'waggled' that much just before touchdown. I think that is a more risky time than during takeoff.

Max Q wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The key word here is 'normal' your comparison is not valid because this idiot started his turn when barely clear of the ground and he initiated the turn aggressively, you can clearly see the spoilers come up rapidly on the down going wing. This is NOT the same as a turn initiated at 400' when you are safely clear of the ground, he was not clear, an engine failure at that point would be challenging, he had basically thrown all his performance margins out the door.

Assuming just ferry fuel aboard, he was probably in the neighborhood of 200,000kg below MTOW. I would think that would significantly improve the performance on three engines.

But that's not the most critical issue here, if you have an engine failure at 400' or above you are well clear of the ground , even if you don't apply corrective rudder immediately you have the altitude to sort things out, apply rudder, keep the wings level climb to a safe altitude and start the appropriate checklist(s)


The secondary effect of yaw is roll, if this Pilot had suffered a #1 engine failure with the left wingtip that close to the ground it's quite possible induced roll would have him into the ground before he could stabilize the aircraft.


Reckless, irresponsible, cowboy behavior, Airline Pilots are held to a higher standard than this, or should be, if you admire this sort of display you'd be better off (and safer) going to an airshow.

Sorry, this was a very benign event. You are overthinking things by 10 miles. There was nothing "Scary" or unsafe about this maneuver in this situation.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=768989

Post 12. Max Q: what's changed your view?

(FYI I didn't search for this specifically, I just like reading back the older tech-ops threads as many are "pre-nasty" a.net: good information sharing and posts written with respect for other users and colleagues in the industry).

On the B748 in question only carrying enough fuel for delivery flight or first sector. I can't remember where I heard this, may have been in a Documentary, but doesn't Boeing provide the Airline with a full tank of gas for "Free" for the delivery flight, which would make the B748 aircraft in question a lot heavier, but still within take off limits, minus Cargo and Pax. Still presumably, reducing margins in an engine out, bird ingest scenario while wing waving at take off.

CaptainKramer wrote:

On the B748 in question only carrying enough fuel for delivery flight or first sector. I can't remember where I heard this, may have been in a Documentary, but doesn't Boeing provide the Airline with a full tank of gas for "Free" for the delivery flight, which would make the B748 aircraft in question a lot heavier, but still within take off limits, minus Cargo and Pax. Still presumably, reducing margins in an engine out, bird ingest scenario while wing waving at take off.

I have heard they do so, as well, but it's probably more an anachronism. I expect Boeing credits them a full tank and then loads them up with what they need for the specific delivery flight. Otherwise it would be a bit wasteful to tank all that fuel because it would make the plane heavier than it needed to be which would in turn increase the trip fuel burn.

Also, I believe many of these freighters go direct into revenue service - flying from PAE to SEA to load-up on cargo and then on to their destination. So I would expect they load just enough fuel to make the hop to SEA (or wherever) and then load up with the trip fuel (plus contingency) for that trip at SEA and paying the Port (or whomever the fuel supplier is).

chimborazo wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=768989

Post 12. Max Q: what's changed your view?

(FYI I didn't search for this specifically, I just like reading back the older tech-ops threads as many are "pre-nasty" a.net: good information sharing and posts written with respect for other users and colleagues in the industry).

There's a blast from the past CB, but the answer is nothing, you'll notice in that old video of the 727 he didn't bank nearly as much as
this idiot in the 747, he was also well clear of the ground before he did this 'wing wave'


Not really that professional either but nothing remotely close to what this cowboy did in the 747.


Believe me I miss the old days of A.Net as well, its quite sad what has happened to this site.



Best wishes.