Too Low?

[expat]

At the end of the day, RULES IS RULES. Cathy policy is not without authorisation. The pilot should have.

1. Known better in the first place. How often have we seen in aviation head pilots ending up as a smoking whole in the ground, big example,  Lt. Col. Holland. Saying that it is normal when picking up new aircraft does not releave you from company rules.
2. Realised that in this day and age of digital cameras etc, that a good low level pass would end up on the internet and subject to full view of all.

Matt

[Xyn_Air]

Adding to the rules are rules thought, and in response to the thought about this being a seasoned pilot doing something "normal", a good question would be:

Where do you draw the line?

Perhaps many of you are familiar with the B-52 crash where an experienced and seasoned pilot continued to flaunt and violate the rules until it eventually got him and his crew killed after he pushed his plane too far one too many times.  Would another incident like that be necessary before we stop and say, "Oh, yeah, this guy should have been following the rules."?

In addition, there is a time and place for such maneuvers - it's called an airshow.  If this pilot was keen on doing these maneuvers, he could have applied himself towards moving his career in that direction.  Also, it does seem like there was a process in place for him to request permission for special maneuvers, and he failed to use that process.

But, to reiterate, where do you draw the line?  In regards to aviation safety, the line should be and must be drawn sooner, not later.  If we do not adhere to such safety guides and do not hold others to those standards of safety, there will be - not may be, but will be - further preventable tragedy and loss of life when someone puts themselves and their aircraft outside the operational envelop because they were allowed to bend and break rules one too many times.

Always with the hope that everyone returns safely to the ground,
Darrin

EDIT:
To have allowed this to occur without serious repercussion would have also been a serious slap in the face to all the countless pilots who do follow the rules and get themselves, their crew, their passengers, and their planes safely to their destinations.  By their level head, restraint, and ability to fly skillfully and safely, they deserve their jobs and our appreciation.

EDIT 2:
Tenerife.  Aeroflot Flight 593.  Just a couple of incidents where bending or breaking rules lead to unnecessary and preventable tragedy.  Food for thought.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

The B-52 pilot was different story. He was doing things with the plane that it was never ever meant to do, and every one complained about it, but because he was old school Koren/Nam pilot, all the Generals that flew beside him though he was a damn good pilot and wish the younger pilots would get with the program. And thankfully his younger Co pilot made a command decision to fly with the least amount crew possible, to minimize the amount of people that would have to suffer because he knew that he would kill a crew one day and would rather have had it happen to him then any one else(which it did, sorry to say).

This was nothing like that, if you go to www.youtube.com and look up low levels or low flying you will see a tone of nice videos, that were by far lower, and way more dangereist (Italian KC-135)and yet no boddy made as big deal about those then they are about some one flying a 777 75-100ft off the run way on it's way to its new home. We sit/work/watch the airport and have heard the radio traffic, you need to get permission from the Tower to make a pass, and you have to tell your intentions and if you don't it becomes airspace intrusion, and the cops are called ASAP, and if you refuse to land at the nearest runway as directed, they send planes up after you, because are longer adhering to rules and regs and could be a danger.  

[Xyn_Air]

The B-52 pilot was different story. He was doing things with the plane that it was never ever meant to do, and every one complained about it, but because he was old school Koren/Nam pilot, all the Generals that flew beside him though he was a darn good pilot and wish the younger pilots would get with the program. And thankfully his younger Co pilot made a command decision to fly with the least amount crew possible, to minimize the amount of people that would have to suffer because he knew that he would kill a crew one day and would rather have had it happen to him then any one else(which it did, sorry to say).

This was nothing like that, if you go to www.youtube.com and look up low levels or low flying you will see a tone of nice videos, that were by far lower, and way more dangereist (Italian KC-135)and yet no boddy made as big deal about those then they are about some one flying a 777 75-100ft off the run way on it's way to its new home. We sit/work/watch the airport and have heard the radio traffic, you need to get permission from the Tower to make a pass, and you have to tell your intentions and if you don't it becomes airspace intrusion, and the cops are called ASAP, and if you refuse to land at the nearest runway as directed, they send planes up after you, because are longer adhering to rules and regs and could be a danger.  

I have seen videos of both incidents, but that is rather moot to the point I am making.  My point was not that the final incident involving the B-52 was the same as this fly-be incident, but that the B-52 incident came at the end of a long line of rules violations - some violations which still involved the aircraft flying within performance specifications.

Also, to say that other maneuvers have been performed with a greater degree of risk or difficulty is, again, not addressing the point being made.  The issue is not the specific degree of danger or safety of a specific maneuver, but the context of safety rules and violations.  There are many dangerous maneuvers performed at air shows, for example, but within the context of a specific set of rules.  There can also be flights that are "safe" in the immediate context of aircraft performance, and yet still violate safety regulations (such as an incursion) and thus create a dangerous situation.

I would extend that it is OK to disagree with the rules and regulations that exist.  But, the place to debate those rules and regulations is on the ground, not up in the air as you go along.

And so I ask again, where is the line drawn?  Early on, before the aircraft is pushed beyond its limits, or after?  If you do not draw the line at some point and force pilots to comply with safety rules and regulations - even ones that fall within an aircraft's performance envelop, you will have no excuse when a pilot does take things too far and causes a tragedy.

Feeling stubborn but civil,
Darrin

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

......We sit/work/watch the airport and have heard the radio traffic, you need to get permission from the Tower to make a pass, and you have to tell your intentions and if you don't it becomes airspace intrusion, and the cops are called ASAP, and if you refuse to land at the nearest runway as directed, they send planes up after you, because are longer adhering to rules and regs and could be a danger......  

In the last part I mention the rules and what would happen if broken, it's not like he just decided to come back around and do it and no one said any thing, he had to have permission from the tower to come back and make a pass is what I was getting at. And on approach you have to say your intentions, and they will approve or disapprove. And with what every one saying that the Boss was their and wanted it done, he then had to ask for permission from the tower to come back around, because no tower is just going to let you fly around aimlessly doing what you want, so he must have had permission to do what he did, and some people over reacted for no reason. It's not like it was a regular flight full to the brim with non-employees, on a normal flight and the pilot just decided to do it at LAX. Then I can see him leaving the plane in police escort as soon as he got to the gate and never flying agine.  

The bottom line is if he asked and they said "NO", and he did it any way, then he should be fired.
But if he asked, and they said yes, then there is no harm done.

The next step the will happen is Airports doing what the D.O.D. did and buy up all the land around Area 51, only around all the places you can takes pictures of the planes real good, and make it so you can't really see much of any thing. This will solve people taking pics of things and posting them on the net and turning something harmless into a public out cry.

[C]

......We sit/work/watch the airport and have heard the radio traffic, you need to get permission from the Tower to make a pass, and you have to tell your intentions and if you don't it becomes airspace intrusion, and the cops are called ASAP, and if you refuse to land at the nearest runway as directed, they send planes up after you, because are longer adhering to rules and regs and could be a danger......  

In the last part I mention the rules and what would happen if broken, it's not like he just decided to come back around and do it and no one said any thing, he had to have permission from the tower to come back and make a pass is what I was getting at. And on approach you have to say your intentions, and they will approve or disapprove. And with what every one saying that the Boss was their and wanted it done, he then had to ask for permission from the tower to come back around, because no tower is just going to let you fly around aimlessly doing what you want, so he must have had permission to do what he did, and some people over reacted for no reason. It's not like it was a regular flight full to the brim with non-employees, on a normal flight and the pilot just decided to do it at LAX. Then I can see him leaving the plane in police escort as soon as he got to the gate and never flying agine.  

The bottom line is if he asked and they said "NO", and he did it any way, then he should be fired.
But if he asked, and they said yes, then there is no harm done.

The next step the will happen is Airports doing what the D.O.D. did and buy up all the land around Area 51, only around all the places you can takes pictures of the planes real good, and make it so you can't really see much of any thing. This will solve people taking pics of things and posting them on the net and turning something harmless into a public out cry.

Having clearance to do it from ATC is utterly irrellevant. The point is he didn't have authorisation to do it from the owner and operator of the aircraft.

Air Traffic will often let you do whatever you ask them to let you do - they don't necessarily know whether you can do it legally, they'll just assume...

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Didn't they say the Boss, or some body import was their and wanted it done? If so, then their is the permission on that side, and from what I hear every day at work, you have to have a reason to do a low fly by. The ATC knows that a 777 is no jet at an air show, and gave them permission to do it after the Boss asked for it to be done.

If their is an important part being left out in the story, this may need to be brought to light. I know if my Boss showed up and said he wanted a low pass for what every reason they were clear it with the ATC and then do it.

And i'm not trying to be rude or piss any one off, but if Bosses ask for something and it is withen reason, they usually get it.

[expat]

Didn't they say the Boss, or some body import was their and wanted it done? If so, then their is the permission on that side, and from what I hear every day at work, you have to have a reason to do a low fly by. The ATC knows that a 777 is no jet at an air show, and gave them permission to do it after the Boss asked for it to be done.

If their is an important part being left out in the story, this may need to be brought to light. I know if my Boss showed up and said he wanted a low pass for what every reason they were clear it with the ATC and then do it.

And i'm not trying to be rude or piss any one off, but if Bosses ask for something and it is withen reason, they usually get it.

If you are the boss of a "normal" firm then yes you are probably right, but this was not a normal firm. An airline has laid down procedures for a reason and it is not acceptable for the boss to demand/ask/request such things. The pilot may feel that regardless he cannot say no due to pressure and through this put the aircraft in danger. In this case, it was not the boss (CEO), but the chairman. If all things are fair, and so often they are not, he should also be facing the music over this. However, company rules are company rules, authorisation is authorisation. He did not have it and as is such in life, the guy at the bottom is the one who carries the can.

Matt

[Chris_F]

Air Traffic will often let you do whatever you ask them to let you do - they don't necessarily know whether you can do it legally, they'll just assume...

Bull!  I saw this movie called Top Gun where the pilot asked to do a fly-by on two separate occasions and on both occasions he was told "negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full".  So ATC will not let you do a fly-by.  Hollywood wouldn't lie to us, would they?

[C]

Air Traffic will often let you do whatever you ask them to let you do - they don't necessarily know whether you can do it legally, they'll just assume...

Bull!  I saw this movie called Top Gun where the pilot asked to do a fly-by on two separate occasions and on both occasions he was told "negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full".  So ATC will not let you do a fly-by.  Hollywood wouldn't lie to us, would they?

T** G** - The bain of every aviation professional's life!

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

If you are the boss of a "normal" firm then yes you are probably right, but this was not a normal firm. An airline has laid down procedures for a reason and it is not acceptable for the boss to demand/ask/request such things. The pilot may feel that regardless he cannot say no due to pressure and through this put the aircraft in danger. In this case, it was not the boss (CEO), but the chairman. If all things are fair, and so often they are not, he should also be facing the music over this. However, company rules are company rules, authorisation is authorisation. He did not have it and as is such in life, the guy at the bottom is the one who carries the can.

Matt

I don't know what part of the article I was reading but I missed the part you were talking about and went back and reread it,..... I see what you mean know. I did not realize the Chairmen said yes but they did not ask the company.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Slotback]

Erm... The B-52 crash was caused by the B-52s tendancy to roll on its back combined with its lack of Ailerons (Only Spoilerons), combined with the captain 'pushing it'. If you have a look on youtube, you can see the same plane, at airshows, doing exactly the same thing. What does this have to do with the 777? Nothing.

The 777 has no weird handling tendancies, nor does it have a tendancy to nose dive when flying straight and level, however low that may be. Most CX pilots are sad this happened.

He was only fired after it surfaced on youtube.

I do agree that it was a rather stupid act; but unsafe.... hardly.

[expat]

Erm... The B-52 crash was caused by the B-52s tendancy to roll on its back combined with its lack of Ailerons (Only Spoilerons), combined with the captain 'pushing it'. If you have a look on youtube, you can see the same plane, at airshows, doing exactly the same thing. What does this have to do with the 777? Nothing.

The 777 has no weird handling tendancies, nor does it have a tendancy to nose dive when flying straight and level, however low that may be. Most CX pilots are sad this happened.

He was only fired after it surfaced on youtube.

I do agree that it was a rather stupid act; but unsafe.... hardly.

The B52 example was just an example of a pilot who though he was above what was required. This in not about being safe or unsafe, it is about the ability to follow rules and he did not. For that he paid the price.

Matt

[Hagar]

Technically he broke the rules but I suspect it is an old tradition for pilots collecting new aircraft from the factory to do a fly-by in salute to the workers who built the aircraft. I wonder how many actually get permission from the owners to do it?

[Xyn_Air]

Erm... The B-52 crash was caused by the B-52s tendancy to roll on its back combined with its lack of Ailerons (Only Spoilerons), combined with the captain 'pushing it'. If you have a look on youtube, you can see the same plane, at airshows, doing exactly the same thing. What does this have to do with the 777? Nothing.

The 777 has no weird handling tendancies, nor does it have a tendancy to nose dive when flying straight and level, however low that may be. Most CX pilots are sad this happened.

He was only fired after it surfaced on youtube.

I do agree that it was a rather stupid act; but unsafe.... hardly.

I am not sure if you read all of my posts above or not, but I think you may be confusing a comparison of safety procedure violations with a comparison of specific maneuvers.

I am not, not, NOT comparing specific maneuvers.  I am making a point about safety procedure violations (or procedural violations in general), and asking, again, the question, "Where do you draw the line?"

The B-52 crash was tragically bad flying executed by a pilot exercising poor judgment on a routine basis.  This pilot had repeatedly violated regulations and procedures and had been allowed to do so over a number of years with barely the proverbial slap on the wrist.  IN the end, allowing this pilot to continue in his erroneous ways cost him his life and the lives of his crew.

Now, we have the pilot of a commercial aircraft performing a maneuver outside of the norm without permission to do so and without need to do so (i.e. he was not reacting to some unpreventable incident which required him to deviate from his flight plan).  Does the company draw the line here and say, "We have rules, you broke them, good bye."?  Or, does the company wait for a more egregious violation, one that is perhaps truly dangerous or even one with tragic consequences before they step up and enforce the rules?  Where do you draw the line?  Before or after something tragic and preventable occurs?

Before you retort, take a moment to consider: I am not saying that the specific maneuver was, considering the laws of aviation physics, beyond the performance rating of the aircraft involved.  I am not saying that the specific maneuver was fraught with terrible peril.  In fact, I don't care whether he was doing a low-level fly-by, a barrel-roll, or trying to land on the ATC tower.  What I do care about is a that someone chose to consciously violate their company's rules about flying, and that demonstrates an unacceptable attitude for a commercial pilot.  It is also terribly disrespectful, if he were to get away with it, to all the numbers of good pilots who do conscientiously follow the rules and regulations to their best of their ability.

Now, as someone else mentioned, if this is an incident where a high-ranking member of the company leadership told the pilot to perform this specific maneuver, then I do not believe he should lose his job.  I do think a bit of a penalty should be imposed (maybe akin to the co-pilot's penalty) and the board member, or whomever, who was ordering the pilot to violate company policy regarding flights and flight safety should be penalized heavily and punitively.  It is not the sort of act that should go without mention or serious correction.  If you begin moving the line, someday you will eventually move it too far.

As a final note, I seemed to be feeling rather stubborn and disagreeable lately.  I just want everyone here to know that, even when I disagree with you, I hold you all in high regard and value your camaraderie and companionship more than I have ever probably adequately expressed.  Please, do not let the vehemence of my opinion be taken for a personal dislike.

Still stubborn (because I just know I am right),
Darrin


EDIT:
Couldn't this all have been avoided if the pilot just had asked for permission as is stated he should do in the company rules?

EDIT 2:
If this was previously accepted behavior by the company, then I think the pilot will have a great case to have his job back.  I wouldn't have a problem with that, because it demonstrates only an adherence by the pilot to acceptable behavior, not a conscious decision to cause transgress.  His termination could simply be, as someone else has already mentioned, a public relations reaction by the company in response to normal but procedurally incorrect actions being publicly caught on film.  In that case, shame on the company for enforcing rules arbitrarily or even capriciously.

EDIT 3:
See, see!  I am willing to entertain other possibilities and points of view!