The FAA says it’s aware of a viral video making the rounds showing an ex-Delta Air Lines Boeing 777 in Qatar Airways Cargo livery doing an extremely low pass at a Horseshoe Bay Resort Jet Center Airport in Texas. The video shows the right wing of the plane likely less than 10 feet from the runway after a high-speed run on the deck at the airport that ended with a turning climb.
“The FAA is looking into the matter,” the FAA said in its statement to Aero Xplorer. It’s doubtful that maneuver would have been approved under any circumstances, particularly with people on the runway, one of whom was casually shooting video of the maneuver with his phone. There also appears to be a helicopter flying in loose formation above and to the right of the plane.
The aircraft was in Texas for conversion from passenger to freight configuration, and Mammoth Freighters, the company doing the conversion, washed its hands of the incident. “Mammoth is not the owner of the aircraft and Mammoth was not in control of the aircraft at the time of the maneuver,” the company said in a statement released as views of the video climbed into the hundreds of thousands. “The current owner (which is not Qatar Airways) was in control of the aircraft at the time of the maneuver.” It also said Qatar Airlines had nothing to do with the maneuver. Here’s the full statement from Mammoth. The plane is owned by Jetran LLC, which buys airliners for air cargo conversion and sale to carriers. It’s based at the airport where the video was shot. Jetran has not commented on the incident but will undoubtedly get to tell its side of the story to the FAA.
Late breaking news: Its been confirmed the pilot was Wee To Lo.
Nothing burger. Rather benign pull and bank, I’ve seen better.
Yeah, it didn’t even blow over that guy’s water bottle. Plenty of room. Of course, if they had banked to port, he might’ve had a different perception …
Not a particularly dangerous maneuver with a competent crew. Aerial applicators do this all day, every day, and lower. They do this in an environment not free of obstacles, unlike a runway surface.
I do have to question the judgement of the crew and management of Jetran LLC, if indeed they are the operator.. Doing anything non-standard with an airplane covered in your customer’s logo in front of the public is a violation of trust. Nearly every man. woman and child now has a smartphone capable of video filming in their pocket now. It will certainly result in certificate action against the crew and possibly the operator.
Certificate action? The low pass was well planned and coordinated with the photographer(s) making a “marketing video”, proven within the capabilities of the crew and aircraft, so…? Bad taste being in Qatar livery, yes; but otherwise, what’s the issue?
No issue with me (I’m an old crop-duster).
If it was a random event, the feds won’t be happy. They recently violated a YouTube pilot for evaluating a landing area and not landing, probably under the catch-all of FAR 91.13. Not everything the FAA does makes sense.
I don’t have a problem with this. Unfortunately with the proliferation of phone cameras it’s just not worth it to me to do something that could be interpreted as a regulation violation by the FAA.
Well that settles it then! Glad to hear from a 172 owner who has no problem with a 777 doing low pass with one wingtip within 10 feet of the ground.
I am not the FAA. But it makes sense to me that if you make a low pass to inspect the landing area for safety and do not then land, you need to have a really good reason why you didn’t land. Otherwise, it sounds like you are doing an airshow without a waiver….
Two different situations.
The pilot evaluating a landing area (not an established runway) was flying a Kit Fox equipped for off-airport operations and decided that it was not suitable after the evaluation. This is legitimate and not uncommon with off-airport operation. It reflected good judgement. Apparently the FAA inspector involved failed to recognize this fact. I believe the inspector’s concern was that he was within 500′ of some neighbors during the inspection pass. Interestingly, if he had actually landed and wrecked the airplane, he would have been legal on that count. I’m sure you have landed on runways many times with people within 500′ of the runway.
The low pass from the B-777 can not be passed off as a runway evaluation. It is an established runway of known condition and with CTAF available. In any event, the runway is not wide enough for the B-777 to turn around on and the runway pavement would not support the airplane’s weight.
On a different subject, the break at the end of the run was particularly lame. If the pilot”s objective was to demonstrate the performance of the 777, he or she failed miserably, even if they did restrict the airspeed to 200 knots on that pass. it would have been finished with a bit more class if the pull up concluded in a chandelle.
Did he have an actual reason for the abort? If not, that sounds like a buzz job.
You can try to re-imagine 119 as much as you want.
Buzz jobs are legal, as long as you have a waiver.
I did my best to explain a facet of flying that you are clearly not familiar with. I failed, but will try once more.
There are flying operations which require a surface inspection prior to a landing attempt. Sometimes at an established runway at a charted airport and sometimes off-airport.
Examples are pretty much anytime when landing a seaplane whether or not at an established seaplane base. Checking for wave height and period, obstructions under the water surface, floating debris, and boat traffic are among the many reasons for this. Ski equipped airplanes often have similar requirements. In both cases, surface conditions are subject to change in a short period of time.
Bush flying, and now recreational back country flying, often require a pass over an off-airport landing area prior to landing. Even if a pilot has landed at that location before, a landing area is often marginal enough that wind conditions affect a landing decision. Only a close inspection will reveal the location of brush, rocks, ruts, and potholes. These can change and if they haven’t there is still a need to refresh the memory before landing and to sense if conditions feel right to ensure a safe landing.
Another reason for a runway check is arriving at an uncontrolled airport on a day when the destination is snow covered. A wise pilot has already tried to contact someone on the ground there to check if the runway has been cleared and on braking action. Even this has been successful, wind could easily have drifted snow across a runway to a depth and angle that causes loss of directional control in the interim .
These are just a few examples but none of them qualify, as you describe them, as “buzz jobs”.
I am not imagining anything when I look at FAR 119 and see that the first words in it read “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing…..”. In the above situations, an inspection of the landing area was necessary for landing. Apparently, you and a particularly uninformed FAA inspector disagree with this premise.
You are ignoring the simple logic of 119. Either you intend to land or you don’t. I understand there are many, many good reasons you might choose to change your mind. And, yes I am familiar with many, in theory and practice.
But if the reason to not land is really no reason, or a fake reason, you are doing a buzz job. Which is what this certificate holder was doing.
You have missed my point.
I am not defending the crew of the 777 in this incident. That was made clear in a previous post.
I was instead referring to situations in which a runway inspection is both legitimate and a good practice, There is intent to land, providing the inspection indicates it is safe to do so.
Not all low passes over a runway are, to use your term, “buzz jobs”.
Low pass followed by landing, okay.
Low pass followed by not landing but with a definite legit reason (deer, deadheads, gopher holes, what-have-you), okay.
Low pass followed by not landing and no explanation available to offer the administrator (or minions), buzz job.
Now we’re on the same page.
Wow, you know, it just occurred to me, that must be why they clear you for the “”Low Approach.”
It’s up to the flight crew to request the option. To my knowledge, no controller has ever been busted for flying the cab too low. Not yet anyway….
Hold on. Let’s assume this operation is subject to 91.119c, which seems likely and any other arrangement would be more restrictive.
“Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface”
The exceptions listed do not apply in this case, it seems from the video.
That is a clear violation, unless they have a waiver, LOA or something.
What? It was over the runway at an uncontrolled airport, which by definition should allow an aircraft to descent to 0′ AGL.
Nope. Airports are not “other than congested areas.” At least not if there are any people around. If one is completely vacant, which I understand is not that unusual in some places, that is different. But in the article, the airport in question is very far from vacant.
Saw the video yesterday. I immediately dismissed it as being “AI”.
AI is getting so good that you can’t tell what is real and what isn’t. True reality can be dismissed as “AI”, and AI can be mistaken (and prosecuted?) as “real”.
Good golly…this was apparently a scheduled event, with an audience on the ramp you can hear, and an airborne, umm, “safety chase” aircraft visible high to the right? Probably getting an aerial video shot. Not the most brilliant display of airmanship.
That sounds like the crew had ample opportunity to get a waiver. Did they?
With that wing length, only a couple of degrees bank moves that wing tip a long way.
“Span”
ok.
There is a possible difference between what the person you corrected said and what you interpreted? A wingtip-to-wingtip measurement is called “wingspan”; however an individual wing measurement is length – as in saying the distance from the wing root to the wing tip is 7 million (joke) feet long.
Gopher hole check run.
I don’t think that would fly in this case. Hard surface, airport attended, etc.
Deer? Isn’t it a controlled field? Controllers should be able to handle that. Buzz job, without a waiver.
Has anyone confirmed that the video is not in fact another deep-fake? Not that I would expect the FAA to figure it out.
I wonder if an ADS-B track goes with it..? Banking that low is probably the craziest part, although apparently flying into that helicopter’s path is not far behind. I do agree that this could also be AI-generated.
According to the boss, a track does confirm the location and flight, however I have a hard time believing that enforceable certificate action is a good use of taxpayers money.
If this was a marketing/ PR plot, Qatar could have a point in arguing damage to reputation upon seing their brand-name associated with perceivably “dangerous” flying.
In the end being hit by a purposely low flying aircraft beats being hit by debris sent flying by a fully loaded airliner unaware of its altitude.
😆
If its real, it was some smooth flying too close to people who knew that this was happening.
Regardless of whether you choose to parse part 91 in such a way as to somehow excuse this, it is not an example of the safety culture that we ought to be promoting.
You wanna perform at an airshow? Great. Get a waiver. Otherwise follow the rules the rest of us are held to.
Did the two Honks who unhinged a lightpole and sent it into a delivery truck have a waiver or display exceptional airmanship and safety culture beyond reproach?
Wonder what kind of ATC communications took place prior to this flight taking off and performing a low level fly-by.
Fair question. Though, in the case of an aircraft on approach to an _intended_ landing, however badly it might be botched, 91.119 contains this humongous and very practical exception, right in the very first sentence:
“Except when necessary for takeoff or landing…”
But if one has no intention of landing….
I basically agree with what you are saying – but that would also mean that a low pass is illegal in nearly every circumstances, even if cleared by ATC.
Not sure about nearly every circumstance, but this article does not resemble any of the explicit 119 or practical exceptions mentioned above.
It was a buzz job, pure and simple.
A letter discussing 14 CFR 91.13 is likely to be in the crew mail.