Airlink ultra-low-altitude stadium flyover stunt under official review

Is there a sniff of SAA sponsored propaganda here? Why do they refer to Airlink as a low cost airline in the opening paragraph?

Last I check airlink was a regional airline that offered full service flights?
 
Zellephant said:
Is there a sniff of SAA sponsored propaganda here? Why do they refer to Airlink as a low cost airline in the opening paragraph?

Last I check airlink was a regional airline that offered full service flights?
Click to expand...
Airlink and SAA parted company a few years ago. I doubt that SAA was a sponsor. IMO Airlink is a good airline.
 
Cumulus said:
Airlink and SAA parted company a few years ago. I doubt that SAA was a sponsor. IMO Airlink is a good airline.
Click to expand...
Im well aware. Im thinking some of the negative press on this is SAA propoganda - and labelling airlink, which is a full service regional airline, as a low cost carrier in the opening paragraph smacks of an agenda
 
It was planned at 12m according to Schalk Burger who saw the flight plan as part of the commentary team.
 
Sensorei said:
The plane's altitude was around 65m over the stadium. There's no "unexpected turbulence" besides extreme weather conditions that are going to cause an altitude loss of 12m (the closest it got to the stadium) in a plane like Airlink's E190.

At cruising altitude different story because the air is much thinner.
Click to expand...

We have photos and we have ADSB data showing the clearance. While more detailed data is needed, the consensus is that they were +-200ft from ground level, which is 60m from ground level.

To repaste from another post of mine -

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.
This puts it under the purported 200ft approval from SACAA.


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.


A formal enquiry will probably resolve it, if SACAA deems it necessary.
 
itareanlnotani said:
We have photos and we have ADSB data showing the clearance. While more detailed data is needed, the consensus is that they were +-200ft from ground level, which is 60m from ground level.

To repaste from another post of mine -

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.
This puts it under the purported 200ft approval from SACAA.


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.


A formal enquiry will probably resolve it, if SACAA deems it necessary.
Click to expand...
Who is this we you speak of, and why do they need to see the plans?

Also, in what world are flight plans ever approved for anything other than altitude above mean sea level?

Have you ever heard of a pilot announce how many feet you are above ground when flying? No. The approval will have been for a given flight level, which is a measure related to mean sea level.
 
DarkStarMonday said:
We need to let go of this …

Everyone, please 🙏🏻 It was a very windy day mmmkay.
Click to expand...

Actually it was not windy, and relatively calm by Cape Town standards. A cold-front passed over around midday, which would have caused significant issues. By 5pm conditions had improved, and the sun was out. This may have emboldened them to go for the absolute minimums...
 
RaptorSA said:
In an ideal world there'd be a f**ing Hadeda that takes off from the stadium roof, gets sucked into an engine, the plane would take a nose-dive and take out an entire pavilion filled with Afriforum members (they went to the wrong stadium event 'cause the followed the long knives)... the country would then declare open war against the Hadeda and allow me to take them out with whatever object I can use as a weapon each time I walk outside and soil my panties when one screams at 150 decibels while taking off.
Click to expand...

You people are messed up.
 
And here I am under the KSIA flight path, with pretty much regular flights in on approach going over me, close enough that I can see the rivets in the skin of the aircraft, the windows with blinds open or closed, almost close enough to hand the pilot a drink, and pretty much every aircraft is coming in at flight idle, dumping velocity for lift. I am 30km from the runway, and if one of them had an issue there would be lithobraking events in Durban north, Umhlanga ridge or Phoenix, as they all fall in that approach corridor, and the aircraft might not have enough control authority (and it is explicitly stated in the QR memory check list not to attempt a turn when losing an engine) to actually be able to not lithobrake, but go swimming in a bad fashion.
 
This was completely unsafe. To everyone who thinks "wow that was cool" - yeah you're right it was impressive, but lots of things are impressive, it doesn't mean they're sensible. In aviation, airshows now have stricter rules such as you can't fly over the crowd. Why? Well Google is your friend here - people died at airshows because something "spectacular" went wrong. And if you want to listen to some actual pilots talking about this I suggest
. But I know, nothing will change your mind and I'm a stuck in the mud and SA is cool and hold my beer and all that...
 
Planned seperation was 12m according to Schalk Burger who was part of the commentator team and saw the planning.

 
So to reiterate what the trained pilots said, this was unsafe. So I don’t think we are looking at what a rugby analyst says as this was nothing to do with rugby but rather aviation. But once again I seem to be getting the same response. Oh well…
 
Kosmik said:
www.facebook.com

1.7M views · 54K reactions | Get ready Ellis Park ✈️ We’ve got something unprecedented planned to commemorate today’s historic Test Match between the Springboks and All Blacks. Keep your eye on the sky 👀 Airlink is a proud Official Partner of Rug

Get ready Ellis Park ✈️ We’ve got something unprecedented planned to commemorate today’s historic Test Match between the Springboks and All Blacks. Keep your eye on the sky 👀 Airlink is a proud...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
Click to expand...
That's more than a week old?
 
hammell said:
So to reiterate what the trained pilots said, this was unsafe. So I don’t think we are looking at what a rugby analyst says as this was nothing to do with rugby but rather aviation. But once again I seem to be getting the same response. Oh well…
Click to expand...
And what about an the trained pilots who said it was safe. Are we just ignoring them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X