Two Airlink Embraer 190s perform dangerously low flyover at Cape Town’s DHL Stadium

Via Reddit -

Flight Radar 24 showed 50ft, but that has to be pressure corrected from 1013hPa.

QNH for Cape Town airport was 1018 hPa. If QNH is higher, the aircraft is higher. The vertical correction is (5x 32ft) higher = 160ft above the displayed altitude (50ft), so the aircraft was at 210ft AMSL.

The base of the DHL Stadium is 13ft AMSL. The DHL Stadium website says it is 50m high (164ft). That means the highest point is 164+13ft (177ft) AMSL. An aircraft height of 210ft gives a clearance of 33ft.

ADSB and Mode S reports height in 25ft blocks. The next 25ft is reported when the aircraft is 13ft above the previous 25ft block.

So 33ft, but somewhere between 21ft and 46ft.

-

Seems to gel with the it was slightly under the alleged 200ft approved limit from SACAA.

Will be interesting to see the official report at some point.
 
itareanlnotani said:
Via Reddit -

Flight Radar 24 showed 50ft, but that has to be pressure corrected from 1013hPa.

QNH for Cape Town airport was 1018 hPa. If QNH is higher, the aircraft is higher. The vertical correction is (5x 32ft) higher = 160ft above the displayed altitude (50ft), so the aircraft was at 210ft AMSL.

The base of the DHL Stadium is 13ft AMSL. The DHL Stadium website says it is 50m high (164ft). That means the highest point is 164+13ft (177ft) AMSL. An aircraft height of 210ft gives a clearance of 33ft.

ADSB and Mode S reports height in 25ft blocks. The next 25ft is reported when the aircraft is 13ft above the previous 25ft block.

So 33ft, but somewhere between 21ft and 46ft.

-

Seems to gel with the it was slightly under the alleged 200ft approved limit from SACAA.

Will be interesting to see the official report at some point.
Click to expand...
Lol you literally calculate 210ft and then contradict yourself by saying it was less than 200.

How are you guys this incompetent?

The highest point on the stadium is irrelevant. These are relatively small planes and they crossed in the center which is lower.
 
rietrot said:
Lol you literally calculate 210ft and then contradict yourself by saying it was less than 200.

How are you guys this incompetent?

The highest point on the stadium is irrelevant. These are relatively small planes and they crossed in the center which is lower.
Click to expand...
I'll use the shitty AI response for you -

Because Mode S transponders report altitude in 25-foot increments, the uncorrected 50-foot reading represents a true pressure window of 37.5 to 62.5 feet. Applying the QNH offset and stadium height to those boundaries confirms your absolute limits:
  • Minimum Possible Clearance: 21 feet (if the aircraft was at the bottom of the reporting block).
  • Maximum Possible Clearance: 46 feet (if the aircraft was at the top of the reporting block).
This technical refinement proves the flyover was even lower and tighter than the initial uncorrected media reports suggested.


177+21 =198 as a possible lowest point.

198 < 200, and that 200ft still has to be both verified, and clarified - was that from ground level, or above stadium height.


For now this is all conjecture, till we see the SACAA Part 91/111 details.
 
Last edited:
itareanlnotani said:
I'll use the shitty AI response for you -

Because Mode S transponders report altitude in 25-foot increments, the uncorrected 50-foot reading represents a true pressure window of 37.5 to 62.5 feet. Applying the QNH offset and stadium height to those boundaries confirms your absolute limits:
  • Minimum Possible Clearance: 21 feet (if the aircraft was at the bottom of the reporting block).
  • Maximum Possible Clearance: 46 feet (if the aircraft was at the top of the reporting block).
This technical refinement proves the flyover was even lower and tighter than the initial uncorrected media reports suggested.


177+21 =198 as a possible lowest point.

198 < 200, and that 200ft still has to be 1. both verified, and clarified - was that from ground level, or above stadium height.


For now this is all conjecture, till we see the SACAA Part 91/111 details.
Click to expand...
Yes. Just continue making a fool of yourself.

The posible lowest point, which is unlikely is just 2 ft less than the approved altitude. Just more confirmation that they flew at the approved altitude.

Your initial 210 ft is probably correct.

The BOLD just shows you should not be participating in this conversation. As you know nothing.

Yes the twitter videos at an angle looks scary. Lol. You can stop crying now it is over.
 
rietrot said:
Yes. Just continue making a fool of yourself.

The posible lowest point, which is unlikely is just 2 ft less than the approved altitude. Just more confirmation that they flew at the approved altitude.

Your initial 210 ft is probably correct.

The BOLD just shows you should not be participating in this conversation. As you know nothing.

Yes the twitter videos at an angle looks scary. Lol. You can stop crying now it is over.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about:
Yes. Just continue making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...
 
rietrot said:
Do you at least know what altitude is?
And that it isn't measured from some random rooftop.
Click to expand...

Did you just wake up and discover this thread? I have been posting on every page in this thread, about altitude, ADSB, FlightRadar24, etc.

The key point is that barometric altitude is only guaranteed accurate to +/- 50 feet, and that radar altimeters cannot be used over cluttered built up areas. Whatever altitude Airlink say they were flying at is only an approximation, and cannot be considered safe given the margins. The fact that one aircraft flew through a pyrotechnic smoke plume, indicates a lack of planning, judgement, or worse.
 
Cray said:
Go and search a list of airshow disasters, things are usually safe and legal until an accident happens.
Click to expand...
They were not putting these aircraft anywhere near their design capabilities, which is usually the problem with airshows.

Think about the precision that commercial airline pilots fly aircraft at when they have to land.

12M which is the clearance that everyone is complaining about, is less than the height of the aircraft.

They wouldn't have done it (or been allowed to do it) if there were gusty winds, bad visibility etc.
 
Gordon_R said:
Did you just wake up and discover this thread? I have been posting on every page in this thread, about altitude, ADSB, FlightRadar24, etc.

The key point is that barometric altitude is only guaranteed accurate to +/- 50 feet, and that radar altimeters cannot be used over cluttered built up areas. Whatever altitude Airlink say they were flying at is only an approximation, and cannot be considered safe given the margins. The fact that one aircraft flew through a pyrotechnic smoke plume, indicates a lack of planning, judgement, or worse.
Click to expand...

Or it indicates excellence in planning, judgement, preparation and execution.
 
Last edited:
purple face said:
I think this has to have been a mistake and everywhere I look people are talking about it

If it was planned to fly that low and something went wrong who would be blamed? It's stupid and what if there was gale force winds at the time?
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous hypothetical. Gale force winds don't suddenly appear with no warning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X