First of all, here’s a clip of a 747 doing a "low and over" in Portugal. Not quite "acrobatic" as the original YouTube post suggests (though the climbing turn at the end might break through 60 degrees of bank …), but certainly right down in the weeds, as they say:
Next up is an airplane, a Tiger Moth, as it happens, that ended up stuck in some trees after an engine failure on takeoff. The pilot (according to the story he’s one year older than the airplane) looks to have done everything right – landing straight ahead, even though "straight ahead" was full of trees. It worked – the pilot and the passenger came through unscathed, and the airplane suffered only minor injuries. Click the pic for the whole story, including the local news broadcast.
Coincidental Floss 
Above you wrote "…Not quite "acrobatic" as the original YouTube post suggests (though the
climbing turn at the end might break through 60 degrees of bank …)." Now, I don\’t know the aviation regulations in Portugal, but in the U.S. many pilots are confused about the definition of "aerobatics." When I ask for a definition, 9 out of 10 pilots say something like "a maneuver that involves a bank of more than 60 degrees or pitch more than +/-30 degrees."Those numbers are in the rule that requires occupants of an aircraft to wear parachutes, qualified by several conditions, which I won\’t go into here. You can read them at FAR 91.307: Parachutes and parachuting.The only definition of "aerobatics" in Part 91 of the FARs is in 91.303, which, among other things, notes that: "For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s
attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary
for normal flight."No mention of specific bank or pitch angles, leaving plenty of room for an FAA inspector to invoke the rest of the rule, which prohibits "aerobatics" below 1,500 ft AGL, over open-air assemblies of persons, in certain types of airspace, etc.