French Pilot "Showing Off" to Child

[allardjd 1,853]

Passenger jet makes terrifying 10,000ft climb to dodge another plane because pilot was 'showing off' to a child

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

I'm sure a 10,000 ft. climb from 33,000 ft. would take several minutes and that particular aspect of the story is very likely inaccurate.

They ought to charge extra for a thrilling ride like that.

John

[hurricanemk1c 195]

I don't know, it may be true, the only way to climb 10,000 ft quickly is to dive, go way overspeed and pull up sharply :yes:

And yes, they should pay extra for that!!!!

Kieran

[mutley 4,495]

I agree John, a bit sensationalist "suddenly climbing 10,000ft" perhaps the A320 can climb that fast, look at the picture they put with the story ..

It may have had A380 engines :rofl

Cheers

[MartinW 0]

Unbelievable that a professional pilot would do something as stupid as that. Wasn't it a French pilot and crew that did the striptease in the cockpit?

As for 10,000 feet, with the stick pulled right back, and at a low altitude and light weight [he was about to land] I could envisage 5000 to 6000 feet per minute. The flight envelope protection would have allowed the aircraft to pitch up to the limit allowed and engaged full power. So it would have taken two minutes to climb 10,000 feet. Why would he have to climb that high to avoid one aircraft though.

More like he climbed TO 10,000 feet.

I didn't notice it say he was at 33,000 feet.

The alarm in the cockpit was probably the TCAS.

They should sack him, he endangered the aircraft.

[allardjd 1,853]

The article has been edited. They've changed the picture of the AC, replacing the A380 image (in Air France colors) they originally had and also added another photo. I'm sure the original text said thay were cruising at 33,000.

I doubt they could get anything like 5000 fpm at 33,000 feet.

As for sacking him, it's France. They'll probably cut his wine ration, his union will protest and the company will cave in and promote him to instructor pilot instead.

John

[mutley 4,495]

As for sacking him, it's France. They'll probably cut his wine ration, his union will protest and the company will cave in and promote him to instructor pilot instead.

I can see my time with you in Florida John was not wasted! :rofl

[Martyn 9]

Phillip II/Pedro Menendez would be proud of you John! :yes:

[allardjd 1,853]

Phillip II/Pedro Menendez would be proud of you John!

...as would, I suspect, Lord Nelson.

You take me too seriously, Martyn - I poke fun at nearly everyone, and sometimes they poke back. It's all in fun.

John

[Martyn 9]

You take me too seriously, Martyn

I, too, was simply poking fun :yes:

[MartinW 0]

I doubt they could get anything like 5000 fpm at 33,000 feet.

Where does it say anything about 33,000 feet? After the boy left the cockpit the pilot said he was coming in to land, that wouldn't be the case if he was at 33,000 in the cruise.

Within a couple of minutes of the kid leaving the cockpit, the pilot said he was coming in to land.

At low altitude in Alpha Floor the bus will climb at 5000 feet per minute, especially with enough energy from perhaps a 250 knot airspeed.

I doubt the kid in the cockpit was factor in the near miss, there was a co-pilot after all. Even if the kid was at the controls the co-pilot would have been in front of the instruments with the TCAS in full view. Just a coincidence that the child had just left the cockpit.

We need more details I think.

[MartinW 0]

Just noticed in a different article that it was 33,000 feet.

Actually none of this makes any sense.

Within a minute there was the first swerve. It swerved to the left and then it corrected. Within a couple of minutes of the kid leaving the cockpit, the pilot switched the seatbelt sign on and said he was coming into land.

So within a couple of minutes at 33,000 feet he was suddenly coming in to land. Doesn't make sense to me.

So much for the accuracy of witnesses accounts.

Could the banking manoeuvres have been due to the proximity of the other aircraft, perhaps guidance from ATC and nothing to do with showing off?

[Martyn 9]

Sounds like two completely seperate issues here:

-Kid being allowed into a cockpit during the flight (very stupid)

-TCAS alert (nothing particularly special about that)

I doubt the two were related. As Martin points out nothing really adds up. The media seem to be hyping it up and witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, the comments regarding banking and a 10,000ft climb sound like a pile of crud. A climb of 10,000ft just wouldn't be needed to avoid a possible collision. Typical media :yes:

[allardjd 1,853]

I'm kind of surprised the article didn't use the term, "nose dive". The media loves that one and can usually be depended upon to weave it into most any aviation article.

Another media cliche is, "...shots rang out...", though they are not usually inventive enough to manage to work that into aviation articles. :yes:

John

[dgor 0]

10,000 ft. climb from 33,000 ft

Sorry Daily Mail, but the ceiling altitude for a loaded A320 is 39,100ft. Oops! :wink: And 10,000ft is a bit much for traffic avoidance in anyone's book. Martin might be right, possibly just coincidence.

[hello_basil 0]

Perhaps he was climbing TO 10,000ft...

I didn't realise ATC was so lax too, "you're going to hit a plane" - ahahaha yes, pardon my french but "no sh** sherlock"

As per everyone else's theories, the Daily Mail still thrives on churning out utter tosh!

:doh

Cheers, Theo.