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

Jean Claude Vaaldamme said:
This is the dumbest thing I read on this thread.

There is a reason the speed limit is 120km/h and not 200km/h. Yes I can drive 200km/h and probably nothing will happen. But if a tyre burst or something run in front of me, I am probably dead and might kill others. Your time to react is so much shorter and near impossible. 120km/h I may still save it.
In Urban areas its 60km/h because there are even more danger/risk with people and kids walking, riding bicycles etc.

There is a reason pilots don't fly over crowds at air shows. We have air shows all over the world and rarely something goes wrong. But they are taking bigger risks than normal and thus have to keep clear of crowds if something may happen.

So yes, flying that low increases the risk substantially if something goes wrong. Recovery chances is very low. And we not talking one or two in a car and maybe a few other in another car that may die. We talking tens of thousands that can die.
Click to expand...

Nope. This is officially the dumbest thing I have read in this thread.


Speed limits exist because roads are physically engineered with specific safety margins in mind. Look at the German Autobahn it is unrestricted, yet it is statistically one of the safest highway networks in the world. Because the infrastructure is built to support those speeds. Cars are thoroughly designed, tested, and rated to handle high velocities.

Standard speed limits are set for the lowest common denominator on the road the average family sedan under average conditions. It's a tool for collective risk management, not a metric of what a car can mechanically achieve.

The US imposed a nationwide 55 mph maximum speed limit in 1974, largely as an energy-conservation measure during the oil crisis. It wasn't a case of dropping speed limits. Some states subsequently raised their limits, and the federal mandate was eventually repealed in 1995.

60 km/h is absolutely not a speed at which a pedestrian can reasonably be described as safe. Collision severity rises exponentially with impact speed, and the probability of fatal or severe injury becomes dramatically higher than at 30 km/h


Your aviation example is just as daft. Planes fly over crowds all the time. What they don't do directly over crowds is high-G aerobatic maneuvers.


The Airlink flight didn't involve high-G stunts. The aircraft maintained a straight approach path that was established kilometers out, and they only initiated their turn after clearing the stadium.

I’ll let you in on a little secret.

A meticulous flight plan had to be submitted to ATNS and the SACAA for strict legal approval, detailing exact altitudes and speeds. The flight was planned precisely for those altitudes. Because there were two aircraft involved, they had to fly in a staggered formation specifically so the second jet wouldn't get caught in the dangerous wake turbulence of the first. That is basic fluid dynamics.

If they had flown at a significantly higher altitude, the staggered height differential would have pushed the trailing aircraft completely out of alignment for the presentation, these flights are planned weeks in advance, heavily simulated.

This is much ado about nothing......
 
RedViking said:
A lot more level headed than you. You have a couple of screws loose and lots of p(l)ot holes. Either way I appreciate both perspectives.

@Gordon_R will do well in a country that is highly regulated such as Canada, New Zealand or Australia etc.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I don't want to live in a nanny state. I am not calling for zero risk, only that many on this thread (and elsewhere) underestimate the consequences of risk taking. Just because nothing bad happened this time, doesn't mean it was safe. A flyover 200ft above the roof of the stadium (rather than 200ft above sea level) would have been just as spectacular, and much less risky. The internet thrives on polarisation, while those in the middle are ignored.
 
Jean Claude Vaaldamme said:
You fail to understand the basic principle.
Nobody said 120km/h is safe. Its about reducing risk/consequences/fatalities.

A countries economy must function and risk are involved. Highway speeds are calculated in that regards, big trucks are 100km/h, same for vehicles transporting people. Higher risk, lower speed.
It was not made law just by thumb sucking, its from decades of experience and data. And we know there have been many rumours of even lowering those speeds.

The data from the amount of stadium flyovers is a needle in a haystack. A country's economy is not depended on it. Its just a marketing stunt from a small company or a bit of entertainment. Whether it legal or not does not matter. Why risk tens of thousands of lives for that? We not living in the 1950's anymore. We are smarted and more civilized.
I bet if governments get actuaries involved in these things, it will be banned quickly.
Click to expand...
There have been many dozens of stadium flyovers in south Africa since the OG in 95. There's an abundance of data to go by. This whole thing really is just exposing all the Karen's around
 
Jean Claude Vaaldamme said:
You fail to understand the basic principle.
Nobody said 120km/h is safe. Its about reducing risk/consequences/fatalities.
Click to expand...
No. I got it. You cannot reduce risk to zero.

A higher fly over would be less cool and there's still a significant risk that if the airplane experience a bird strike, have multiple engine failure and gets swept up in a gale force wind that it takes out a few residential buildings and hundreds of people die. It is just not worth it to risk so many lifes for something lame.

If you are going to do it you need maximum coolness so these guys could have gone lower.
 
Speedster said:
Why be mediocre at everything?
Click to expand...
Because as good as pilots are, sometimes things can be mis-judged and the consequences of getting it wrong would result in the deaths of thousands of people?

What exactly is achieved by going over the stadium with 30m clearance rather than 80m, apart from a dick measuring content that puts thousands of speactators at risk of death if something goes wrong? No one else does stadium fly overs as close as SA has done in the past, we are already the best at it, why push it to such extremes?
 
rietrot said:
No. I got it. You cannot reduce risk to zero.

A higher fly over would be less cool and there's still a significant risk that if the airplane experience a bird strike, have multiple engine failure and gets swept up in a gale force wind that it takes out a few residential buildings and hundreds of people die. It is just not worth it to risk so many lifes for something lame.

If you are going to do it you need maximum coolness so these guys could have gone lower.
Click to expand...
Good boy!

Exactly what I say. Never zero risk, but reduced.
 
RedViking said:
Let's say you step out the front door and slip on a banana peel and hit your head against the concrete edge....

Oh wait, no one will notice. Nevermind.
Click to expand...
there are endless scenarios where thing could have gone pear shaped in an instant.
lets say there was a visiting diplomatic delegation coming on a trade mission from a parallel universe - and thought it would be safe to land inside the stadium - only to be hit by a low flying brazilian !!
 
Cray said:
Okay, maybe marginly less, still would have been a magnificent spectacle without the massive risk to thousands of people.
Click to expand...
Cmon. They didn't dive at the stadium.
Yesterday you had more reasonable post, today you are leaning more Karen.
 
rietrot said:
Cmon. They didn't dive at the stadium.
Yesterday you had more reasonable post, today you are leaning more Karen.
Click to expand...
I never said they did, not saying the should stop these fly overs, just that they should leave a larger margin for error in case something goes wrong.
 
Cray said:
Because as good as pilots are, sometimes things can be mis-judged and the consequences of getting it wrong would result in the deaths of thousands of people?

What exactly is achieved by going over the stadium with 30m clearance rather than 80m, apart from a dick measuring content that puts thousands of speactators at risk of death if something goes wrong? No one else does stadium fly overs as close as SA has done in the past, we are already the best at it, why push it to such extremes?
Click to expand...
Like if what goes wrong?

That extra 50m in hight might make you feel more comfortable, but you completely sucked it out thin air.

It doesn't change the risk by much. If something really goes wrong the plane will still end up in the stadium or in a building behind the stadium.
 
Cray said:
I never said they did, not saying the should stop these fly overs, just that they should leave a larger margin for error in case something goes wrong.
Click to expand...
One thing to remember when you argue with a certain type. It does not matter whether is politics, economy, life or whatever.
According to them there is no middle ground. Everything is to the extreme on both sided of the fence.
 
rietrot said:
No. I got it. You cannot reduce risk to zero.

A higher fly over would be less cool and there's still a significant risk that if the airplane experience a bird strike, have multiple engine failure and gets swept up in a gale force wind that it takes out a few residential buildings and hundreds of people die. It is just not worth it to risk so many lifes for something lame.

If you are going to do it you need maximum coolness so these guys could have gone lower.
Click to expand...

ugh, a plane doesn't simply fall out of the sky because they hit a bird, nor a gale force wind. It is a 50 ton plane moving at 277Km would glide through it like butter. Engine failure beatch please, these aircraft were designed to function with one engine in the event of failure.

Their approach path was SEVERAL KMs long and they would have am abort plan in place as well.

I will let you in on another little secrecy I was an APRON controller for close to 10 years, at JHB airport, bird strikes are common, generally speaking pending how far down the runway the plane is, when they are hit pending how far down the in take off sequence they are or landing sequence, they would still take off or land regardless, and then declare the strike turn around and land, or taxi as normal.

You seem to have this hollywood impression, that a plane immediately spirals out of control, it doesn't it has the forward and kinetic energy of a 50 ton bulldozer moving forward, short of a concrete wall 10 meters thick you ain't stopping for nothing.

It requires absolutely catastrophic failure like the engine falls off or the tail wing decides to come detached and even then it has enough energy to move forward several 100 meters.

Additionally they flew with the wind direction or against the wind direction, so a cross wind wasn't even a thing.

FYI they can up to date weather information, little know fact larger commercial airports have their own weather centers, they get up to date ATIS as well.

I have dealt with several phases of declared emergencies from phase 1 to 3. Air france belly flop, bird strikes, cabin smoke, burst tires, you name it, I likely encountered it.
 
Ideally we need to see what SACAA actually approved for the Part 11 exemption.

As I've said before - I suspect that the approval was for 200ft above stadium, not 200ft above ground level. We need to see plans for what was approved. Even if SACAA approved 200ft from ground level, the planes likely dipped below the 200ft above ground, as I've noted previously.


A formal enquiry will probably resolve it, if SACAA deems it necessary.
 
This was all planned and approved, apparently. Three senior engineers in each cockpit. Practiced. It's not like they were flying biplanes or something. Can't believe the grannies with their wet panties on this thread.
This was probably safer than a Jhb-Cpt flight piloted by a 30%er.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X