5 hours ago, Woozie said:

Because the maneuver is currently being investigated by the German Aviation Authority LBA. Suspending the crew is standard procedure in case of such investigations. However, i dont really understand why the FA's got suspended as well and not just the cockpit crew. 

 

 

This is in place no matter what the Mirror and the Sun could be saying!.

Cheers, Ed

 

20 minutes ago, ms2 said:

With this least flight of Air Berlin, parts of pilot's freedom are coming out too... After this day, no more atc will agree a sentimental demonstration.

Why? Because hysteria must prevail? 

In what way were the passengers or plane endangered? Did the pilots perform a manoeuvre beyond their skill set? Did their actions push the plane beyond its limitations? Were they not authorised to execute the manoeuvre? Did it break a law? What is the actual issue here that demands this action be censured and prevented in future?

What actually underpins people’s objections to this? It’s not a safety issue. So what are we supposed to be upset about, that somebody did something that didn’t look right to me?

i remember the send off Concorde got on its last flight into London, those fighter jets had to have cost the taxpayer a few fair pounds. I remember what Global Supply Systems had planned for their last flight out of Stansted. Are those rocking wings good for the cargo, is the pilot flying drunk? Should all of these personal affiliations be prevented because someone who isn’t too clued up about what’s going on demanded that their feelings be accommodated?

Sometimes people can benefit from hearing, deal with it. Even if they work for the Mirror.

6 minutes ago, ClearedtoLand said:

Why? Because hysteria must prevail? 

 

Autorities make it prevail often... Look to the recent lawbook 

17 minutes ago, ms2 said:

Autorities make it prevail often... Look to the recent lawbook 

Yeah, no. When it comes to proper reasoning, I consult logic books, if our politicians followed that example, our law books might not have been the incredible collection of fallacies that they are. Law does not equate to right. Or sound reasoning. 

This is a German issue as they have their own Aviation Laws, I get the feeling authorities there might be skittish following Germanwings Flight 9525, the authorities may not like things going outside of a plan very much anymore. They have a process to follow and I hope these guys just end up with a Top Gun style telling off 

 

German peoples are for discipline a lot... genetical issue :-)

but, but ... here the atc have according the low pass then I think the pilots shall be mentionned for fault but never punished about, because the full responsability in this moment was in the hands of... ATC.

The pilots do what they have asking. For us playing in sim or AG pilots... It is common but for authorities... Huuummmm.

13 hours ago, Chock said:

since the wages were cack

I guess you're resident in the Northern parts of the UK? We also use the word "Cack" in Dublin too. (for those not familiar with the word it means "poo" or "c**p").

17 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Hmmmmmmm.......

Bit of a reaction against the Sun, while I was sleeping, so I guess a bit of background is in order.

The original headline for this post (that appeared on my newsfeed last night) was from the UK Mirror, which had that headline along with a small and not very informative article.

After I posted, I went looking for more info, and found a much better article by the Sun, so I went back, and changed the article and the link, and in retrospect, maybe should have changed the thread title if it was possible, to the milder headline from the Sun article, which was:

Here is the mirror article which sparked my thread title: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/passengers-scream-terror-pilot-performs-11362861

I'd just like to say that my rant was in no way directed at you. It was purely at the newspaper, their history and what they stand for. I understand that people not from the UK or Ireland wouldn't be aware of the shameful stories they have printed in the past, and the lives of many innocent families they have caused endless grief to. 

They got suspended and investigated to have a good reason to fire them. Lufthansa essentially bought (the attractive business parts and planes of) AirBerlin, but due to thoughtful action in advance, to avoid common law for a company takeover and taking care of the employees, the major part of the former AirBerlin staff will lose their jobs (or can apply for worse paid jobs at Lufthansa daughter company Eurowings). And this way, they can quite easily get rid of this A330 crew...

Ah the sun... and ah misleading YouTube titles.

No one screams in terror. The lady filming is clearly stating "he is doing a fly-by... he's waving".

 

20 hours ago, ClearedtoLand said:

What actually underpins people’s objections to this? It’s not a safety issue. So what are we supposed to be upset about, that somebody did something that didn’t look right to me?

Without wishing to sound like a party pooper -- because generally speaking it is considered bad form to bring unwitting passengers along for an air display, particularly post-AF296. Further, air displays (and air display pilots) are, quite rightly, subject to a rigorous approval process.

Was the manoeuvre in question properly planned? Are the crew qualified to display the aircraft? The turn was very low and took them directly over the built-up area of the airfield -- such a manoeuvre would not be permitted in a properly organised air display where the aircraft is required avoid overflying the crowd line, for instance. Is there a minimum height for turns specified in the relevant ops manual and did the turn in question conform? What if an engine had failed? Unlikely, perhaps, but this is considered in every other area of the operation. Are a crew at the end of a 10-hour overnight flight from Miami in an optimal physical condition to perform a low-level air display? Etc etc etc.

It may turn out that the whole thing was pre-planned and approved by Air Berlin flight operations and the German CAA, with all the appropriate pieces of paper in place. If not, however, it's all very well when it works out but if something had gone wrong we'd all be asking why in the name of all that is holy a crew should choose to fly an impromptu air display at the end of a long overnight flight with a couple of hundred unwitting passengers on board. And rightly so.

18 hours ago, ms2 said:

here the atc have according the low pass then I think the pilots shall be mentionned for fault but never punished about, because the full responsability in this moment was in the hands of... ATC.

The pilots do what they have asking.

Not quite how it works.

The PIC is in command. Everything that happens to the aeroplane is his (or her) responsibility, whatever ATC may request, and if the PIC considers an ATC instruction inappropriate, unsafe, illegal or not in accordance with the airline operations manual he is not only entitled to decline it, it is incumbent upon him to decline it.

In short, "they told me to do it" is not an acceptable excuse.

5 minutes ago, skelsey said:

In short, "they told me to do it" is not an acceptable excuse.

I agree, the error of the pilot in this case is the overflying of airports passengers installations not the turn around. And the atc don't according this.

Pilot in command... All is said with three words.

3 hours ago, skelsey said:

 

Without wishing to sound like a party pooper -- because generally speaking it is considered bad form to bring unwitting passengers along for an air display, particularly post-AF296. Further, air displays (and air display pilots) are, quite rightly, subject to a rigorous approval process.

Simon, if you are pooping on anyone’s party, it’s not mine. The questions you posed all serve to find an answer to whether this manoeuvre should have been performed or not. It all indicates one thing, at the time of the Mirror and the Sun publishing their stories, there wasn’t enough information publicly available to justify headlines such as passengers screaming in terror and this won’t fly. Headlines which preempt an answer to questions they didn’t ask, so why the headlines? Obviously not to inform anyone reading those articles, how can they inform anyone if they themselves know nothing of the background?

Now, it may well turn out that the pilot was reckless and violated regulations and broke the law and should be sacked, but that determination was not made at the time of publication, hence my statement about hysteria having to prevail. The articles served no purpose other than to get people who don’t know anything about the circumstances to forget that they know nothing about the circumstances and rush to judgment. Now, regardless of where one stands on the issue of what the pilots did, rushing to judgment armed with nothing other than ignorance and anger looking for a cause, is never going to lead one to the right conclusion unless through sheer blind luck.

My own background has led me to greatly value a sage piece of advice, Thus I counsel you, my friends, be wary of those in whom the impulse to punish is strong.

10 hours ago, skelsey said:

The turn was very low and took them directly over the built-up area of the airfield -- such a manoeuvre would not be permitted in a properly organised air display where the aircraft is required avoid overflying the crowd line, for instance.

This.  My understanding of airshow protocol is that in a display, all turns need to be executed away from the flightline and the crowd.  That doesn't seem to have happened here.  There's at least some reason to ask questions.