-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your stance on AI?
Two Airlink Embraer 190s perform dangerously low flyover at Cape Town’s DHL Stadium
- Thread starter sefeddt
- Start date
Gordon_R
Honorary Master
The difference is that in a taxi crash the most you can kill is about 15 people. Crashing an aircraft into a packed stadium is like 9/11 level casualties...
RedViking
Nord of the South
Fair enough. But then ban airplanes flying over stadiums as well as fuel and gas trucks on the roads.
But it has nothing to do with the event or the planes as there was no indication that they were going to crash or near crashing and clearly professional and well in control.
This is just moaners who wants to moan. Freaking old farts. (Generally speaking)
SauRoNZA
Honorary Master
Good lord that person needs to calibrate the colour of their TV.
Gordon_R
Honorary Master
Formation flying adds multiple levels of complexity, and takes years of training. The pilots may be qualified to do this, but spectators should have informed consent before being exposed to risks. It's all fun and games, until bad things happen. Motor racing and airshows have learned this the hard way...
Edit: Reports from NZ press are a bit skeptical:
'Madness': rugby fans stunned by low jet flyovers in Cape Town
The moment lit up social media, where reactions were divided.
Last edited:
Grant
Honorary Master
I was talking to a friend this evening - who lives on High Level Rd, pretty much opposite the stadium, but about 1km away.
"Storm in a tea cup" he declared.
He was watching the plane's initially circling Robben Island, wondering what was going on.
When they came in towards and over the stadium, they were well clear - not the "dangerous" claptrap coming out of, as it always does - facebook & twitter.
Two things he pointed out were the roof level of the stadium - an arc of sorts.
The other was human vision vs camera with a single eye.
As he correctly pointed out, "look thru things with one eye, and all looks different - a complete loss of perspective and depth, coupled with difficulty in judging distance.
That aside, there would have been very significant flight planning with a whole lot of authorities, given only police and military aircraft have authority to fly over city areas.
Storm in a teacup.
Seems some have forgotten about the massive, heavy & cumbersome Boeing 747 over Ellis Park.
"Storm in a tea cup" he declared.
He was watching the plane's initially circling Robben Island, wondering what was going on.
When they came in towards and over the stadium, they were well clear - not the "dangerous" claptrap coming out of, as it always does - facebook & twitter.
Two things he pointed out were the roof level of the stadium - an arc of sorts.
The other was human vision vs camera with a single eye.
As he correctly pointed out, "look thru things with one eye, and all looks different - a complete loss of perspective and depth, coupled with difficulty in judging distance.
That aside, there would have been very significant flight planning with a whole lot of authorities, given only police and military aircraft have authority to fly over city areas.
Storm in a teacup.
Seems some have forgotten about the massive, heavy & cumbersome Boeing 747 over Ellis Park.
ArmatageShanks
Honorary Master
From this angle its very clear that the first jet was holding the same altitude long before the flyover, thus the height above the stadium was planned an in controlled.
Also, ADSB Data from Flightradar24 shows him holding a steady low altitude above sea lever from far out and passing over the stadium at the same altitude.
(Yes 75ft BALT@ QNH 1016 is only 23m above sea level which cant be because the stadium itself is 50m tall, never mind that's not the point)
What I see is a spectacular display flight that was amazing to see, massive props to Airlink and the Pilots.
Gordon_R
Honorary Master
Footage from Signal Hill shows how low they were, along with shocked reaction from bystanders:
Grant
Honorary Master
Again, perspective.
Looking down from signal hill is like looking down at your feet.
Gordon_R
Honorary Master
There were multiple videos posted from various angles, not just static photos. The one aircraft flew through the smoke plume from the pyrotechnics. That one was definitely too low IMO, the other was borderline OK.
Did you actually watch any of them, or are you just quoting your 'expert' friend?
BTW, the 1995 RWC flypast was pre 9/11. Safety standards and public perceptions have changed since 1995.
Edit: Also weather conditions are very different when flying from sea to land, and near hills and mountains.
Edit: It's not just social media that are commenting:
/https%3A%2F%2Fvms-network-images-prod.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com%2F2026%2F08%2F792496%2Fpickerimage.jpg)
Low-flying aircraft shock rugby fans | Nine.com.au
A flyover before the All Blacks’ Test against the Springboks has left fans shocked at how close the planes came to the stadium.
Last edited:
RedViking
Nord of the South
I had the same discussion with the optometrist the other day. We both agreed I needed some glasses.
RedViking
Nord of the South
I mean it's meant to be spectacular. But in general trucks and planes should be kept far away from full stadiums sounds like a good idea to me.There were multiple videos posted from various angles, not just static photos. The one aircraft flew through the smoke plume from the pyrotechnics. That one was definitely too low IMO, the other was borderline OK.
Did you actually watch any of them, or are you just quoting your 'expert' friend?
BTW, the 1995 RWC flypast was pre 9/11. Safety standards and public perceptions have changed since 1995.
Edit: Also weather conditions are very different when flying from sea to land, and near hills and mountains.
Edit: It's not just social media that are commenting:
Low-flying aircraft shock rugby fans | Nine.com.au
A flyover before the All Blacks’ Test against the Springboks has left fans shocked at how close the planes came to the stadium.www.nine.com.au
wingnut771
Honorary Master
Those people should watch the footage filmed on the actual roof and then go away.
wingnut771
Honorary Master
Tldr but you summed it up before I stopped reading.
wingnut771
Honorary Master
They had to go low to make it look big like a Boeing while cheating out at the same time. Out of curiosity, what is the minimum clearance in aviation?
wingnut771
Honorary Master
Without inflicting pain on myself watching reactions from those people of today who are offended about everything and (coming soon) a crime to offend someone.
itareanlnotani
Executive Member
From the flight forums they were at lowest 10 meters+- above the stadium, which should be correct, when you see the 2nd plane flying *through* the pyrotechnics/smoke.
Sounds a bit too low, given I'm not allowed to fly a drone within 50 meters
wingnut771
Honorary Master
Imho there is fokkal difference between 10m and 50m if there is a problem. All this event tells me is that we are too poor as a host country to use real size planes, maybe it’s because they are embarrassed that airline is the new saa.
Is there any info on the pilots flying? Just want to check something. I also wonder how many alarms the plane had that they had to ignore during this display?
Im no plane expert so don’t have a clue if these flybys were done with modern fool proof avionics or are they like the old days when we were real men doing camel trophy and stuff before computers killed us because they said no Will Robinson like the Boeing max “software glitch”.
itareanlnotani
Executive Member
The appropriate quote off twatter is -
The aircraft are not air display rated, the pilots were likely not display rated. The stunt was not rehearsed. The aircraft were less than 15 meters above the packed stadium and flew into fireworks. Who approved this stunt?
Doesn't answer your questions, but sums up the whole thing.