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

rietrot said:
Why?

The ground proximity warning system's, job is to make the pilot aware they might fly into a mountain.

In this circumstance they were completely aware of the danger and didn't need an annoying alarm to remind them constantly about what they are attempting to do.

It also switches off during landing and takeoff.
Click to expand...

This speaks to what I am trying to convey -

2015 Hageland Aviation Services Cessna 208B accident. The NTSB found that the aircraft's TAWS alerts were likely inhibited for most or all of the flight. The operator had a practice of routinely inhibiting the alerts because of nuisance warnings at the low altitudes at which its aircraft operated. The aircraft subsequently entered deteriorating visibility and struck terrain. The NTSB specifically identified the routine use of the terrain-inhibit switch as a contributing factor.
Click to expand...

Tara Air Flight 197 - Nepalese airline that operates in mountainous terrain. It became common practice for pilots to inhibit TAWS because crews familiar with mountainous routes were used to the constant ''nuisance'' warnings. The investigation determined that there would have been at least 3 clear warnings that may have averted the crash.
Click to expand...

So, being able to inhibit it comes with risks, even when pilots and operators feel confident. The NTSB specifically made recommendations on future use of the TAWS inhibit function, and two stand out, specifically as a safeguard against crew complacency and casualness around the use of the TAWS inhibit. -

  • Work with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 certificate holders that operate under visual flight rules in mountainous terrain at altitudes below the required terrain clearance of the aircraft’s required terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) class to (1) ensure that management and pilots are aware of the risks associated with distraction (from continuous nuisance alerts) and complacency (brought about by routine use of the terrain inhibit feature); (2) develop plans for mitigating those risks and minimizing nuisance alerts; and (3) develop procedures that specifically address when pilots should test, inhibit, and uninhibit the TAWS alerts, considering the operator’s typical operations and the TAWS manufacturer’s guidance. (A-18-14)
  • Modify the terrain awareness and warning system requirements in Technical Standard Order C151 such that, once the alerts are manually inhibited, they do not remain inhibited indefinitely if the pilot does not uninhibit them. (A-18-15)
Click to expand...

ANC17MA001.aspx

www.ntsb.gov www.ntsb.gov
 
Cius said:
Hmm. Was an impressive maneuver but you can't deny if anything went wrong that low there would be very little time for recovery. The whole scenario with the "miracle on the Hudson" shows very well what happens when things go bad at low altitudes. At that height bird strike could be more likely and one stutter of those engines and a plane could have hit the stadium and the packed crowd. Guess what I am saying is I liked the stunt, but I also can't deny the risk involved.

Another example that is somewhat similar to this was the costa concordia. Regular dangerous maneuver on an experienced but very distracted captain (women on board the deck he was showing off to) and people died and big disaster unfolded all in the name of spectacle. Bad idea and safety standards were ignored.

Safety standards exist for reasons regardless of how experienced you are. The safety experts should decide the standard and the pilots stick to it. End of story for me.
Click to expand...

I am curious what exactly would go wrong. It is entirely speculation. You are basing the entire argument on “what if”. What if tomorrow I win the lotto?

The FAA recorded around 319,000 wildlife strikes between 1990 and 2024. The vast majority involve birds. Globally, from 1988 to October 2024, wildlife strikes were attributed to 499 fatalities and 361 destroyed aircraft across civil and military aviation. It is also worth noting that only around 3.7% of reported wildlife strikes caused aircraft damage in 2024.

So yes, a bird strike is a hazard. But a bird strike isn't automatically a catastrophic event. Unless you encounter an emo up there, the most damage you're likely to encounter is emotional damage from seeing a pigeon's arse going through the windscreen at 277 km/h.

And there is another important point with this particular aircraft. It isn't a traditional mechanically linked flight-control system. The controls are electronically commanded and the aircraft responds extremely quickly to pilot inputs. That's a significant part of why the aircraft is so responsive and controllable. In fact, the control system is capable of much more aggressive manoeuvring than what was demonstrated here, although obviously that doesn't mean every manoeuvre is operationally permissible.

And this particular aircraft is exceptionally responsive. It can change direction extremely quickly, so saying ‘there was very little time for recovery’ purely because of the altitude oversimplifies the situation. Recovery time isn't just about altitude, it's about the aircraft's energy state and control response.


If you want to talk about risky

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X