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

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.
Good post. You missed the sarcasm.
I was making fun of some of the hypothetical scenarios other people suggested can go wrong.

But did you consider what if the pilots/equipment just completely miss calculated the altitude and flew directly into the stadium? This seems to be the main concern of most Karens but nobody are just willing to say it. You need 80m clearance so that you can be 30m off safety is kinda what they are hinting at.
 
Last edited:
Like if what goes wrong?
Not everyhing in aviation is precision, those are big passenger jets and they don't respond super quickly to pilot inputs. the idea is to give some leeway if the pilot (however unlikely) makes a mistake and mis-judges the height of his approach.


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.
If you are flying towards a fixed, umoving solid object, surely it's better to have more clearance rather then less? Sure, if there is an engine failure it won't make much difference but if the pilot makes a mistake and the plane drifts too low (for whatever reason). The extra bit of altitude could make all the differece between a near miss and hitting the stadium. Altitude is always good in aviation as it gives you time to react and correct. Reducing your margin for error to such a small amount seems needlessly reckless,
 
I can promise you a burst front tyre at 120km/h on a busy highway is not safe. Especially if you leave town and there's no longer a barrier in the middle. Good luck if you lose control and go into oncoming traffic.

I would not want to experience that at really any speed above 40km/h.

Your argument is very contradictory.
You cannot claim the government approved speed limit is safe, but the government approved altitude for this event is unsafe.

If 120km/h is safe because the government said so, then 200 ft is also safe because the government said so.

These pilots and Airlink followed the rules. These pilots did not push the aircraft to its limit or do flips like in a airshow.
Main argument is that they left no safety cushion in case something wennt wrong.
 
Last edited:
Hence why I asked for pics of the pilots. Just want to confirm if this is another example of “dei” in action in the race to the bottom.

Im still stuck on why flyby wasn’t with our national airline (whats left of it), at least we know those airbus planes are stupid proof as was proven during the vanity covid vaccine flight where they almost crashed after taking off on the return leg, thank **** the computer said yes.

That looks like the same size. Is that an SAA plane back when we still had a semblance of national pride.

I ask again, why use tiny vomit comets instead of full size national pride size Boeing (old one back when Boeing had their priorities straight before buying out ****ed failing Mac Douglas and then (prob the first and only time in human history when companies amalgamate, the amalgamated got amalgamated by the amalgamatee, then proceeded to adopt all the failed policies that ****ed over md in the first place. Who was running Boeing back then that allowed this “criminal leglegance” in the first place replacing Boeing management with md kunts.

Reinforces my affirmative action deployees theory. No pilot there in their job on pure merit would do something like this. Reminds me of that time recently where some airports company sensor plane crashed in the mountains for no reason.

I'm only on page 4 of this thread now. Maybe you must just fck off back to Orania with your apartheid tendencies. So far everyone, while opinions are way different, are relatively sensible and on topic, except you, you're just waffling political nonsense the whole time.

Whether the pilots were black or white doesn't matter, they did a great job, maybe lower than planned but if they planned on having a safety margin and for some reason lost it they still did a great job.
 
Main argument is that they left no safety cusion in case something goes wrong.
That's an emotional argument from people that don't really know what they are talking about.

20m more of clearance does minimal for safety.
 
I'm only on page 4 of this thread now. Maybe you must just fck off back to Orania with your apartheid tendencies. So far everyone, while opinions are way different, are relatively sensible and on topic, except you, you're just waffling political nonsense the whole time.

Whether the pilots were black or white doesn't matter, they did a great job, maybe lower than planned but if they planned on having a safety margin and for some reason lost it they still did a great job.
The "refugee" program is open.
 
That's an emotional argument from people that don't really know what they are talking about.

20m more of clearance does minimal for safety.
It's a sensible argument based on data and science. It was a relatively clear day with no predicted weather events for that time but sometimes one just have to err on the side of caution.
 
I think what is being lost in this discussion is that perhaps there was no intention to go that low. The trailing aircraft seemed at a far more sensible height. I doubt Airlink would ever admit to one of their pilots misjudging their approach but maybe this is exactly what happened.

Perhaps they both intented to be at a certain height but the lead aircraaft mis-judged it slightly and was lower than intended. That margin is what allowed them to complete the meanouvre successfully, they had room to spare so any mis-judgement didn't result in catastrophe

If they do a another flyover at FNB, it will be very interesting to see if they go that low again.
 
It's a sensible argument based on data and science. It was a relatively clear day with no predicted weather events for that time but sometimes one just have to err on the side of caution.
To err on the side of caution is purely emotional.

Data and science probably says these planes can pass over safely with 1m of clearance.
Giving the human pilots 10m is already to err on the side of caution.
Adding in more space so that some Karen complaining on the internet can feel comfortable is not based on data or science.

100% feelings.
 
I think what is being lost in this discussion is that perhaps there was no intention to go that low. The trailing aircraft seemed at a far more sensible height. I doubt Airlink would ever admit to one of their pilots misjudging their approach but maybe this is exactly what happened.

Perhaps they both intented to be at a certain height but the lead aircraaft mis-judged it slightly and was lower than intended. That margin is what allowed them to complete the meanouvre successfully, they had room to spare so any mis-judgement didn't result in catastrophe

If they do a another flyover at FNB, it will be very interesting to see if they go that low again.
That is a significant (and incorrect) assumption you are making. The three most senior captains at Airlink were in the lead plane. They executed exactly what was planned, the way it was planned.
 
To err on the side of caution is purely emotional.

Data and science probably says these planes can pass over safely with 1m of clearance.
When they plan these activities, they do some sort of risk assessment where data is collected, worked out into possible scenarios to see how it pans out. Then safety margins are added according regulations and industry standards. Emotions play no part in tge decision.

No one disagree with how spectacular it looked to people like me but question is; was it worth the risk to 50k+ people in and outside the venue? Personally, I thoroughly loved it.
Giving the human pilots 10m is already to err on the side of caution.
Adding in more space so that some Karen complaining on the internet can feel comfortable is not based on data or science.

100% feelings.
Based on what? How long do the engines take to spool up in case something goes wrong? During that time, by how much would the plane have sunk?
 
That is a significant (and incorrect) assumption you are making. The three most senior captains at Airlink were in the lead plane. They executed exactly what was planned, the way it was planned.
Can you share the planning and flight documents that confirm that, or are you just taking Airlink's word for that?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X