A330 Almost Hovering

[deicer]

Don't you wish you could play like this?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d16_1320894540&p=1

[J.O.]

Cathay must pay better than I thought, 'cause there's not enough money in the world that would convince me to do that, especially on TV.

[Moon The Loon]

Cathay must pay better than I thought, 'cause there's not enough money in the world that would convince me to do that, especially on TV.

No kidding! One feathered bird would be all it would take to have the Big Bird fall out of the sky. I wonder if anyone other than essential crew were carried onboard at the time...

[Timothy]

How close were they to a stall?

[DEFCON]

This looks like an airshow F-18 tail-walking / high AOA flight demonstration?

[Don Hudson]

Except for the outcomes, does this remind anyone else of Air France Captain Aseline's A320 airshow at Habsheim?

One wonders what the motivation behind this "airshow" was. Dramatic though it is, illustrating a straightforward aerodynamic fact that it is airspeed, not groundspeed that keeps an airplane aloft, (often confused by many including a few pilots; - one wants to be careful regarding the rate one turns downwind after such a demonstration...), it's entirely unnecessary risk-taking with expensive resources, is it not?

Nor is this the first time. I seem to recall a B777 low, (really low) high speed pass also flown by Cathay Pacific. Is this kind of stuff tolerated within that air carrier? Like the B777 flypast, there were a lot of people and cameras around so it was clearly planned.

Timothy, regarding "how close was the airplane to the stall?", that's a great question to ask for a number of reasons, some of them related to Aseline's fatal accident at Habsheim.

The A330, like the A320, cannot be stalled in Normal Law. It CAN be stalled in anything other than Normal Law as AF447 illustrated. This would/should be common knowledge for Airbus pilots. The stall protection law uses AoA and when the AoA approaches the calculated stall AoA, the stall protection law applies nose-down pitch and commands TOGA thrust if the airplane's altitude is greater than 100ft AGL. The airplane can be flown like this with full back-stick, and in fact that is the standard escape manoeuvre for EGPWS warnings. Because there is no stall, there is no stall warning presented to the crew in Normal Law.

Clearly, with such a pitch attitude and with TOGA thrust, the airplane would climb and in this case very rapidly at the weights the Habsheim demonstration took place at. Aseline commented the climb-away would "spoil" the demonstration so he disconnected the autothrust permanently by pressing the instinctive disconnect buttons on the thrust levers for longer than 45 seconds. The captain intended to fly the aircraft at/above 100', (thus the reason for the A/T disconnect), but the Habsheim airfield was 90'-wide, 3000'-long grass strip and the optical illusion of the tiny strip caused Aseline to fly lower...at about 30' RA instead of 100'. The descend was fast and the thrust remained at IDLE for the entire fly-by until they both realized that the trees ahead were higher than they were. TOGA was selected too late, the standard spool-up time of 6 to 8 seconds applied and just as they were spooling-up the engines swallowed massive amounts of branches/leaves etc and aircraft descended into the trees.

For these reasons, I expect that the autothrust on the Cathay A330 would also have to have been permanently disconnected or otherwise disabled in some other non-normal way so as not to "spoil" the demonstration, (I still can't figure out what they were demonstrating, other than the obvious).

Timothy, I hope this provides a bit of background understanding of this wonderful airplane and specifically the area of the stall.

Yeah, it was fun to watch, probably a lot of fun to fly and just maybe this all sounds like a big wet blanket, but how many times have we made the joke about someone in an airplane saying, "Hey, watch this..."?

Don

[Don Hudson]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the manoeuvre, but aerodynamically, it was a non-event.

[boestar]

I remember someone telling me a story one time of an ( I believe) Twin Otter approaching YWG. When YWG kept asking them for their heading and speed the pilot finally asked why they kept asking. The aircraft was actually tracking backwards on the radar. I am not sure it that true as the pilot must have noticed.

I have actually seen a Super cub take off, fly backwards and land in the same spot on a windy day.

[Don Hudson]

I remember someone telling me a story one time of an ( I believe) Twin Otter approaching YWG. When YWG kept asking them for their heading and speed the pilot finally asked why they kept asking. The aircraft was actually tracking backwards on the radar. I am not sure it that true as the pilot must have noticed.

I have actually seen a Super cub take off, fly backwards and land in the same spot on a windy day.

Sometimes it's okay if the runway is 200' long and 9000' wide,

[Mitch Cronin]

Sometimes it's okay if the runway is 200' long and 9000' wide,

I once landed a 172 in Rouyn Quebec in a gusty 30 kt crosswind that made that the case. (x'cept it was prolly more like 5000 ft wide). ...Was hard on those little brakes, but damn that was short!

I guess I should add that I was lined up for the runway at first... until we were on the ground that is.... the little bird just turned sharp right as if to obey Queen Nature and that runway was suddenly a whole lot shorter.

[J.O.]

It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools for his mistakes.

[Don Hudson]

It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools for his mistakes.

Well, the runway should also be installed correctly...obviously it was in the wrong direction, eh?

[J.O.]

Well, the runway should also be installed correctly...obviously it was in the wrong direction, eh?

You mean there are airport developers out there who actually consider prevailing winds in their design plans? Who knew?

[Mitch Cronin]

It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools for his mistakes.

Hey! You know the rules.... Walk away from it and it was a good one, taxi away with nothing broken and it was a great one.

What mistakes?

[J.O.]

Hence the winky face.

[hollywud]

this was just a simple low speed flypast.

I'm not so sure I would call this a low speed flypast. It really appears to be a demonstration of low speed flight a.k.a 'slow flight' at low altitude - a little different I believe. Cathay does seem to have a penchant for taking delivery flight tests to new levels.

[Don Hudson]

. . . .

Cathay does seem to have a penchant for taking delivery flight tests to new levels.

It appears so, doesn't it? I wonder what the corporate cultural aspects of this are?

I don't want to put too fine a point on it. I just want to ask some questions which necessarily arise when a decision is made by someone to conduct this kind of flight.

Most will remember the Cathay B777 high-speed, low-altitude fly-past at Paine Field. The Seattle Post Intelligencer ran a story at the time that the captain was 'dismissed' and the F/O was suspended from training duties for six months. I don't know what the outcomes were as the story has gone silent but a question comes up: If the captain was fired for a high-speed low pass because it wasn't authorized, (and further, no one either on board or in ATC knew that it was going to occur), then from whom did the authority at Cathay to conduct this low-speed pass come, and why? If one event, (B777 delivery flight out of PAE), is a firing offence and another (this one) is 'authorized', what is the signal being sent to crews? If neither type of flight is tolerated and a firing was the outcome, what does this say about crew/cockpit discipline when clearly it was done again?

Delivery test flights, like ferry flights, by their nature are higher-risk operations, the first because of the nature of the operation and the need for specially-trained, experienced test pilots, (in practise, rarely available within airline ops departments), and the last because SOPs tend to be done a little more loosely and the circumstances, (getting the airplane placed), can put pressure on to rush the SOPs. An FAA SAFO mentions this in terms of examining FOQA data for outlying events on ferry flights.

Normally, a low-speed or alpha-prot test, would be done at FL100 and higher. That was one of the many findings in the A320 LOC delivery test-flight accident off Perpignan, France. The story is worth a read for the lessons it offers, (at great expense).

Rich, I think you're right about this being an aerodynamic non-event. In fact, with the Airbus protections working as designed, it is a non-event, by definition, but as we know that isn't the issue in the decision to conduct such a flight. And believe me, I'm not some pinched old guy sitting here in distant judgement - I know the temptations, and the fun... It's just that the industry has changed over the years regarding the risk-reward of such flights (non-official airshow flights), in part as a result of the fatal accidents which occured under such circumstances in combination with the notion still retained by some pilots that such accidents happen to 'others'.

Don

[J.O.]

If I remember correctly from PPRuNe discussions at the time, the B777 low pass wasn't completely "unauthorized". It had been discussed with the head of flight operations and he had given permission. The problem came when the video hit the airwaves and management in HK got wind of it. They were embarrassed and the captain paid the price. I'm not sure if this is in fact true, just passing on what was reported.

[hollywud]

J.O.

That is pretty much how I heard it too - and that coming directly from CX 777 captains I know.

[Don Hudson]

J.O.

That is pretty much how I heard it too - and that coming directly from CX 777 captains I know.

Thanks J.O., hollywud, that helps sort out one inconsistency I think. However, "authorizing" it just takes the same questions upstream a bit...

When it all works out, it isn't news. It's just that thinking has changed where operations known to be higher-risk, are more closely examined for risk/benefit. By definition and expectation, test flights aren't supposed to be 'dramatic'!

Anyway, point made, both were pretty to watch...

[Kip Powick]

I'm not so sure I would call this a low speed flypast. It really appears to be a demonstration of low speed flight a.k.a 'slow flight' at low altitude - a little different I believe. ............................

Let's see.....

The aircraft flys at a low speed

The aircraft flys at a low altitude

The aircraft flys past.

To me that is a low speed, low altitude fly past...yes - no-yes - no ???

[Kip Powick]

Why the confusion Richard? Perhaps that is what you meant, but that is not how I interpreted it. As you well know there is a difference between 'slow flight',and say, flying an aircraft into a 50 knot headwind (for example) at 170 KIAS. A to most lay people an A330 flying at 120 kts ground speed would appear as a fairly low speed flypast. There is a demonstrable difference to flight safety between these two techniques wouldn't you agree?

Not sure if I'm supposed to answer this...you quoted me but addressed your remarks to "RICHard Pulman

Anyhow, most spectators would not know the difference between a 100kt fly past and a 150kt fly past. In this case the thing that would catch their eye would be the attitude of the aircraft and I think most spectators would say "G-o-l-l-y..that sure was a low and slow fly past". As far as flight safety is concerned, the "dirty" low speed fly past is, in my opinion, a damned sight safer than attempting to turn ones big "clean" airplane into a helo....but trust me when I say the layman would probably not know the difference, especially the flight safety aspects.

Now a story.

Many years ago when real pilots were flying real airplanes, even in training, an elderly lady came to RCAF station Penhold to complain about a Harvard "buzzing very low over her farm" and she wanted the culprit punished.

The Station CO turned her over to the Wing Commander of the flying training school. He listened to her story, noticed she was extremely agitated and advised her that the lowest a Harvard could legally go was 300feet AGL on their low level routes, and at times a student might get lost and may wander off course and perhaps over her farm but should not have been lower than 300 feet.

She was adamant the airplane was lower than 300 feet... He proposed a fly past so that she could see the difference between an aircraft at 300 feet and one that was lower...she told him she would have no problem with that and agreed to watch. The plan was to fly two Harvards over the tarmac, one after another, and she was to advise the Wing Commander which one was lower than 300 feet.

The Wing Commander got two Instructors and advised them what they were to do, one was to fly by at 300 feet and one was to fly by at 150 feet, both at max speed.....he continued briefing both the pilots as they walked out to their respective Harvards.

The planes took off and the Wing Commander and the lady waited...........the first aircraft came around the corner of the hanger and flew down the tarmac at 150 feet.............the second aircraft followed in about 30 seconds and flew the same line at 300 feet.

The Wing Commander waited until both aircraft were on the ground, called the pilots over and then asked the little old lady, " Which aircraft flew down the tarmac at what you consider lower than 300 feet, ma'am??"

She did not hesitate....."The last airplane", she said.."it was just like the one that went over our farm". The Wing Commander turned to the"offending" pilot and asked what his altitude was, "300 feet exactly sir", he then turned to the other pilot, (first flight at 150 feet), and asked his altitude on the fly past "Exactly 150 feet sir".

"But-but", the lady said, "I'm sure the last airplane that flew was just like the one over our farm , all the noise and how fast it was going...maybe I was wrong...I thought the one over the farm was as about the same in height as the last airplane."

She made a bit of an apology for all the trouble and left the flight line on the arm of a young Flying Officer and returned to her car.

Pretty much the end of the story except you may wonder how that stunt was pulled off....confusing that poor lady so no pilot got "dumped upon".

The Wing Commander was a pretty good ole' boy, he was firm, fair, and friendly and stood up for his pilots.......

You see, there was a bit more briefing from the Wing Commander as the two Instructor pilots walked out to their aircraft......

The first aircraft fly by was at max speed and 300 feet........with the prop pitch lever pushed to FULL FINE.......and you all know how noisy that would be

The second aircraft that flew by at 150 feet was at max speed ...with the prop lever pulled to MAX COARSE.......and you all know how much less noise that would be.

Oh yes, the guy who actually did buzz the farm got a severe talking to but nothing official, and the whole incident never went further that the Wing Commander.

Yes, the good ole days!!!!

:Grin-Nod: ..

[hollywud]

Why the confusion Richard? Perhaps that is what you meant, but that is not how I interpreted it. As you well know there is a difference between 'slow flight',and say, flying an aircraft into a 50 knot headwind (for example) at 170 KIAS. A to most lay people an A330 flying at 120 kts ground speed would appear as a fairly low speed flypast. There is a demonstrable difference to flight safety between these two techniques wouldn't you agree?

[hollywud]

Not sure if I'm supposed to answer this...you quoted me but addressed your remarks to "RICHard Pulman

Sorry Kip I didn't mean to quote you. Please see my edit.

Anyhow, most spectators would not know the difference between a 100kt fly past and a 150kt fly past. In this case the thing that would catch their eye would be the attitude of the aircraft and I think most spectators would say "G-o-l-l-y..that sure was a low and slow fly past". As far as flight safety is concerned, the "dirty" low speed fly past is, in my opinion, a damned sight safer than attempting to turn ones big "clean" airplane into a helo....but trust me when I say the layman would probably not know the difference, especially the flight safety aspects.

Absolutely agree. I hope that was what I was saying in my previous post, but again apologies if my point was misunderstood. The boys flying the 330 could have gotten the "G-o-l-l-y..that sure was a low and slow fly past" as your rightly said without the need for such theatrics.

By the way, great story!

[Don Hudson]

Hey Don,

I'm not sure where this video was taken; however, from the surroundings and the fact that the aircraft returned to land, I think it is reasonable to assume that this flight was part of an official airshow rather than an impromptu display. As we witness every year, you can never eliminate all the risks involved with airshows, but every one I ever participated in as an air-display pilot had strict rules in an effort to minimize risk. Daily briefings & de-briefings were conducted to ensure the rules were understood & complied with, and every display had to be pre-approved by the airshow directors. Deviations and/or violations were not tolerated. Bust a minimum altitude and you got a severe reprimand. Do it again, or bust a show-line and you got sent home.

Is there a need to put an A330 on display? Probably not. But as you saw in the video, it can look pretty cool! And that's why people go to airshows isn't it?

BTW, I have never thought of you as a "pinched old guy". Indeed, I'm guessing that if I was tasked to perform an air display with an A320/330/340 that you and J.O. would be fighting each other for the chance to come along. And I would gladly fly with either of you, anytime.

All well said, Rich - it IS aviation, after all!

"Indeed, I'm guessing that if I was tasked to perform an air display with an A320/330/340 that you and J.O. would be fighting each other for the chance to come along."

In a heartbeat!, (is that a promise?)

Cheers,

Don