Wow, that was fun... well, maybe not

"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."

Oh my Gawd the 777 isn't designed to be flown with the gear up?
 
Nor at 320mph. Makes for some loooooooong transpacific flights.
 
I liked this one...

You sure that's just 28'. It looks a lot more than that. I thought aerodynamics and the downward force of air from the wings meant that you can't get these planes lower than 100'.
Click to expand...
I guess we're all going to be stuck up in the air and unable to land. :confused:
 
What a shame we can't sack our Prime Minister for the far larger lapses of judgement he makes every day!

- Phil Bailey, Shrewsbury



haha
 
Everskyward said:
I liked this one...

I guess we're all going to be stuck up in the air and unable to land. :confused:
Click to expand...

Of course! Because planes are designed for emergency landings when you run out of fuel, aren't they? ;)

This is ridiculous...
 
Oh, my. But even better were the two hotlinks from that article - one to an article about a plane crash in someone's garden (Cessna), and the second to a security breach at Heathrow where Greenpeace activists mounted a plane....
 
"But they (fly-bys)are dangerous because however good the pilot thinks he is, he isn't trained for it and the planes aren't designed for it". So, if the pilot and the aircraft aren't (respectively) trained for it or designed for it, how do they land? Must have incredibly tall landing gear."


hahahaha
 
The only thing that concerned me about the maneuver was the 320 mph part.
 
The pilot isn't supposed to be a pilot but a cattle truck driver. As Dr. Bruce would say: sigh! Bob
 
Bob Bement said:
The pilot isn't supposed to be a pilot but a cattle truck driver. As Dr. Bruce would say: sigh! Bob
Click to expand...

Given the way we're treated these days by TSA and the Airlines, I'd use the word "sheep" in place of "cattle".
 
I think if the tower authorized the fly by, it should be fine with the airline. But, I'd think that speed is a tad fast given the usual limit below 10,000 feet as well as within Class B. Even if that was authorized by the approach controllers, it seems irresponsible.

Just my peon opinion.
 
Greebo said:
The only thing that concerned me about the maneuver was the 320 mph part.
Click to expand...
Looking at the photos, I agree with this bloke!

To Jeff, Norfolk, looking at the angle of incidence I doubt that the jet was flying at 320 mph - or are you saying the Tower did not approve?

I have done similar low approaches, but not in a large commercial jet.

- Anon, Great Britain
 
bsdunek said:
Looking at the photos, I agree with this bloke!

To Jeff, Norfolk, looking at the angle of incidence I doubt that the jet was flying at 320 mph - or are you saying the Tower did not approve?

I have done similar low approaches, but not in a large commercial jet.

- Anon, Great Britain
Click to expand...
Sure did not look like 320 to me either. Maybe 320 kph, what ya think Jesse? :D
 
smigaldi said:
Sure did not look like 320 to me either. Maybe 320 kph, what ya think Jesse? :D
Click to expand...
If that was actually 320 KPH, then it would be under the speed limits.

I hadn't thought of the British press taking advantage of the conversion along with a slight error to sensationalize the story. The American press would do it if they could.
 
The Brits use MPH, or at least they did the last time I rented a car there. This is despite their conversion to the metric system. I don't know if that changed since then however.
 
Re: GA has no monopoly on stupid pilot tricks

Why is a low approach over a runway, with the permission of ATC a stupid pilot trick?

Ever gone missed on an practice approach?
 
Re: GA has no monopoly on stupid pilot tricks

That article is different than the previous. Without permission of who?

British 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.
Click to expand...
Fox Article Originating from Hong Kong:
A Cathay Pacific Airways pilot was fired after he swooped down and buzzed a Seattle-area airfield without permission while taking delivery of a Boeing 777-300ER passenger jet, the airline said Wednesday.
Click to expand...
Note, one has the pilot names while the other states they are not being released.

Okay, back to The Onion for some reliable news!
 
After watching the video, the only thing that seemed unsafe about that was the low level over the ground that he was. That altitude would be fine in a 172, but I would think a 777 should have more of a buffer. If they were to hit a downdraft it would take a bit more time and distance to get that thing to climb again. But, I could be wrong.
 
Geeze, I'd consider that a high risk only if winds were strong or gusting. It was more dangerous for light planes sitting near the path and not tied down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top