Cathay pilot sacked for Paine Field fly-by

[Verbal]

Where is the fun anymore?

Cathay Pacific sends pilot packing over Top Gun swoop
South China Morning Post 02/24/2008
Author: Barclay Crawford
(c) Copyright 2008 South China Morning Post Publishers. All Rights Reserved.

Flying a brand new Boeing 777-300ER on her maiden voyage from Boeing's Everett, Washington, plant to Hong Kong was obviously not enough of a thrill for Captain Ian Wilkinson.

So shortly after takeoff he turned the sixth purchase of the airline's new fleet around and swooped back to the ground to make a Top Gun-style, low-level fly-by of the Boeing factory.

But while the manoeuvre on January 30, only metres from the runway, might have wowed onlookers, senior Cathay Pacific figures - including chairman Christopher Pratt - aboard the flight were far from impressed.

It cost Captain Wilkinson his job. An airline spokeswoman confirmed the sacking yesterday and a six-month suspension from training duties for another, unidentified, pilot at a disciplinary hearing last week.

The hearing found the two in breach of company guidelines, which prohibit fly-bys without the required clearance.

Both have appealed against the decisions.

The plane was unmistakable: it had "Asia's World City" written in large letters on the body, which was also painted with the airline's trademark green logo and a dragon.

Since the fly-by, video and photographs have appeared on the internet of the flight, with other pilots and plane-spotters posting their opinions of Captain Wilkinson's daredevil stunt.

Most praised the quality of the fly-by, but there were critics.

One commented: "I love a good fly-by, like the rest of us {hellip} but I can't say I think that one was too clever. A bit low and slow.

"Glad they didn't have an engine failure then."

One pilot told the Sunday Morning Post that the pilot must have had a rush of blood to have taken the plane to only 10 metres or less above the runway.

"Everyone's seen the pictures, and to me, it does look a bit dangerous," he said.

The spokeswoman said an internal investigation, including the collection of flight data and interviews with the crew involved, was under way.

Cathay Pacific had told the Civil Aviation Department to expect a report once the investigation was finished.

The airline had a well-established approval process for fly-bys and a number had been conducted in the past as display flights at air shows with proper approval in place, the spokeswoman said.

"The pilot in command of the flight was satisfied that the fly-by was not dangerous," she said.

"He was disciplined for not seeking or obtaining company approval for the manoeuvre."

Following the incident, Cathay Pacific has issued a notice to all cockpit crew reminding them of the company's policy on fly-bys.

Captain Wilkinson declined to comment last night.

[Dummy Pilot]

"Gutsiest move I ever saw, Mav!"

[reubee]

photos here http://blog.seattle-deliveries.com/2008 ... ivery.html

[Digger]

He only did it so the guys from JP net could get some good shots. It's Kilroy's fault.

[Dmmoore]

The action seems a little harsh!
If you want to give the guy a month off or something, fine but firing!

[el]

The action seems a little harsh!
If you want to give the guy a month off or something, fine but firing!

If you do something against the rules where do you draw the line?

It may sound harsh but if CX has in it's rules that no low-level fly-bys without permission of the company are allowed than I would expect them to bear the consequences if they choose to ignore them. It doesn't state in the article but I believe it was Cathays 777 chief pilot which would make matters even worse. It wasn't particularly clever to do that with the CEO of Cathay Pacific on board either.

[FrankM]

I couldn't judge if it was dangerous or not. But I think there is a difference if you make a little mistake unintentionally or if you intentionally break existing rules. I mean, this is exactly the type of person I'd rather not have sitting up front while I'm on board.

[AndyToop]

It wasn't particularly clever to do that with the CEO of Cathay Pacific on board either.

I have a sneaky suspicion that that was exactly why it was done. I read [think bbc, but can't remember now] that the pilot was quite pally with the execs and that the only reason anything is happening at all is because it got out on the internet.

[FrankM]

I have a sneaky suspicion that that was exactly why it was done. I read [think bbc, but can't remember now] that the pilot was quite pally with the execs and that the only reason anything is happening at all is because it got out on the internet.

That would certainly make things look a little bit different. However, an experienced pilot should know that for any kind of damage it's will be him eating the sh*t ...

[ZeroAltitude]

If he'd known he'd be sacked anyway, he might as well have added a victory roll to the fly-past. Would have looked really sharp.

[AndyToop]

If he'd known he'd be sacked anyway, he might as well have added a victory roll to the fly-past. Would have looked really sharp.

How do you know he didn't - the low flyby was just to get the spotters running to you tube so he could pull some real stunts without onlookers

[3WE]

LOOKED like no big deal.

Then again, if you pull a few too many g's on the execs and they mis-judge how hard to push up on their champaign glasses and have Ted-Stryker drinking problems- that's not good.

And, most companies (aviation or not) have some big no-no's. And the slightest playing with a zillion dollar 777 without blessings and approvals might be a big no no.

Seeing how fast you can get to FL410 sure brings some criticism, so no doubt a low pass that has nothing to do with normal airline flights might be frowned upon.

[Procede]

Seeing how fast you can get to FL410 sure brings some criticism, so no doubt a low pass that has nothing to do with normal airline flights might be frowned upon.

Speeding to FL410 has a lot more room for error than a low level pass, provided that the pilots aren't complete morons and manage to stall the aircraft and lock the the engine cores.

[Dmmoore]

I find Cathay's action's extreme and counter productive.
At most airlines, the CEO and the Chief Pilot are authorized to approve a low pass during a ferry flight.
A low pass is not unduly dangerous to the aircraft accomplishing the stunt. Some caution is required but I have rarely seen an aircraft damaged by such an event. Yes, you can find aircraft that were damaged while making a low pass but please make sure it's a transport category aircraft.
IMHO this is much ado about nothing. If the the flight complied with FAR and FAA rules but broke a company rule, you get a hand slap.
If you broke FAA or regulatory rules, you get time off.
If you damaged the aircraft or injured anyone while accomplishing the stunt, you get fired.
You tell your line pilots that the stunt was accomplished by the Chief Pilot during a non revenue flight and such events are not appropriate for any revenue flight. In all cases stunts such as this must be approved by the Chief Pilot.

[David Hilditch]

Personally, as I said on another forum, I think insurance was a factor here. I suspect that the maneuvre was not covered, or not fully covered, or had not been fully cleared in advance, by the insurance arrangements. Habsheim springs to mind as well in this context.

[el]

At most airlines, the CEO and the Chief Pilot are authorized to approve a low pass during a ferry flight.

From what I have gathered the CEO, although he was on board, did not know about the low pass in advance.