Was the Airlink flyover too low?

Was the Airlink flyover too low?

  • No, it was awesome

    Votes: 75 46.3%

  • So long as it's within safety standards, I'm okay with it

    Votes: 49 30.2%

  • I think it's better to err on the side of caution

    Votes: 20 12.3%

  • Yes, it was reckless

    Votes: 18 11.1%
  • Total voters
    162
Athos said:
All these nanny states complaining about the height. This is Africa we do what we want here. It was perfect. I hope they do it again this week when I am in attendance.
Click to expand...
same, and yet these same nanny states operate a B-52 over a Nascar oval while Donald Trump circles the track in the beast.
 
Grubscrew said:
Afrika is nie vir sussies nie...
Click to expand...

...maar dit is vir idjits

plane-crash-airplane-crash-gif-giphy.gif
 
More importantly, who the hell paid for it? Hopefully not tax payers's money I hope. For the rest, I don't care. They can crash into the sea if they want.
 
As awesome as it was it is best to err on the side of caution and go a bit higher next time. Think of the length of the aircraft and the fact that it was going 250kph. One sneeze and 1mm negative input and bye bye 25 000 people.

Then there is weather... downdrafts and windsheer. It's best not to push it.

This time around it seems like the pilots were within approved parameters so no one should get fired but next time chill a bit.

I am sure the #2 plane pilot kakked bricks when he went through the pyrotechnics.
 
I get the excitement, we take what we can get with safety culture, but in this case it did feel like a few more metres would not have hurt. Plane #2 looked more comfortable. Who thought it was a good idea to get closer than that? It doesn't fill me with confidence if it really was SACAA approved. You can't take off with an inoperative pitot tube, but getting within 50ft of a roof in a residential area is fine? I think I need to understand the logic.

Also not sure why the flight path was chosen that way and not out to sea. They'd struggle to avoid populated areas if they lost power from that energy state. I assume these professionals would have planned an honourable nosedive into the park rather than attempt a glide under any loss of thrust scenario.

But maybe the biggest error was Airlink thinking, as a company in an industry obsessed with safety, that they could play at being Red Bull and not get blowback.
 
Last edited:
We should have a "jump across the calabash" tournament for all taxis. Winner gets a 20 piece bucket.


No mash included.
 
Jean Claude Vaaldamme said:
Its pretty simple
Either your brain works like:
Gayton McKenzie "We have the most bestest Pilots in the world(like Trump) we know what we are doing.

Or your brain work like. It is unnecessary risk for little reward.

Make your pick.
Click to expand...
I'm firmly of the side of the safety 3rd mindset. If you always do safety 1st nothing worthwhile ever happens.

But in this instance the risk/benefit analysis is not good.

On the upside: Some people go 'whooo!' and wave their arms.

On the downside: Tens of thousands die in a jet fuel fireball inside the stadium, and another 10 000 as the wreckage plows into the surrounding neighbourhood.

Another 100 feet and 50 knots would have been better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X