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

Ok, I had to come back to, as a self qualified aviation MyBB, expert, they flew to low:

1. Either they had a higher altitude target, and their sensor were slightly out, in which case, the margin of error did its job.

Or

2. They just winged it, and no one died. In which case our Aviation Authority messed up.
 
rh1 said:
Ok, I had to come back to, as a self qualified aviation MyBB, expert, they flew to low:

1. Either they had a higher altitude target, and their sensor were slightly out, in which case, the margin of error did its job.

Or

2. They just winged it, and no one died. In which case our Aviation Authority messed up.
Click to expand...

It's a larger stake version of the typical thing we often see:

Almost every day I see, taxis going through red lights. Almost always there is no collision. Winged it but made it. No harm done.

Bergies at robots. Some in wheelchairs, even on high speed roads and cops don't care. A major hazard to themselves and road users. Most of the time, no harm done. No collisions.

Here, no harm done. Maybe winged, regardless pretty risky and with little benefit. Either we win the rugby or we don't.
 

Yes, great airmanship and awesome record. The margins were very thin though. Add a few feet and there probably wouldn't have been as much questioning and attention. As for the weather for the JHB flyover this weekend: yeah... it's horrible so far. I wouldn't be taking any chances. Deleting a few hundred/thousand people would be very awkward at this time of year. Good luck for the game.
 
rh1 said:
Ok, I had to come back to, as a self qualified aviation MyBB, expert, they flew to low:

1. Either they had a higher altitude target, and their sensor were slightly out, in which case, the margin of error did its job.

Or

2. They just winged it, and no one died. In which case our Aviation Authority messed up.
Click to expand...
1000122403.gif
 
HAL 9000 said:
SACAA statement update details from Juan Browne (YT blancolirio channel)...

Click to expand...

Juan is a master at digging out publicly available information, and presenting it in a dry and understated way. How many people in the SA media have actually read the SACAA regulations?

Seems like a giant loophole not to specify the minimum altitude. FlightRadar24 calculated 200ft, so everyone assumes that was legal. If there was no limit, it can be both legal and dangerous at the same time. This is what several of us have said along, Normalization of Deviance.

The last few seconds of the video, showing the flypast from roof level, are telling:
Cameraman: Crazeeee!
Juan: Yep!
 
Gordon_R said:
Juan is a master at digging out publicly available information, and presenting it in a dry and understated way. How many people in the SA media have actually read the SACAA regulations?

Seems like a giant loophole not to specify the minimum altitude. FlightRadar24 calculated 200ft, so everyone assumes that was legal. If there was no limit, it can be both legal and dangerous at the same time. This is what several of us have said along, Normalization of Deviance.

The last few seconds of the video, showing the flypast from roof level, are telling:
Cameraman: Crazeeee!
Juan: Yep!
Click to expand...

Aviation did not get to be safe by taking chances and being extreme. It became safe through following boring, super-safe, high safety margin/redundancy protocols in a predictable, routine way.

And I still see people say oh but South Africa has had few crashes. But being good at routine, normal condition flights does not make you an aerobatics expert.
 
Just saw Safair landing within 1000ft of Joburg Day! Very low!

Can I get 8 Couch pilots, 12 Karens and 6 Basement YouTube aviation experts to please complain it’s unacceptable.
 
HAL 9000 said:
SACAA statement update details from Juan Browne (YT blancolirio channel)...

Click to expand...
He initially referenced AIC 19-2 of 2001 for operations at flypasts and demonstration flights. One of the things stated in this document is "Multiple engine aircraft, capable of maintaining height with one engine inoperative and being able to climb back to a circuit height, may descend to 300 FT AHO on the run-in. Multi engine aircraft not capable of sustained level flight with one engine inoperative shall be restricted to a minimum height of 500 FT AHO".

The second document referenced was AIC 19.1 of 2011. This passes the responsibility from the SACAA over to the Recreation Aviation Administration of South Africa (RAASA). The RAASA was shut down in 2019, with authority transferring back to the CAA. With this document not being updated hopefully nothing got left on the floor.
 
vigras rojara said:
The aviation experts have morphed into cartographers today, and are agonising over woke maps.
Click to expand...

Aviation includes training in meteorology and navigation. The actual flying bit is only part of the syllabus. You realise that it is possible to know more than one thing at a time...

For the record: My late father was a navigator for the RAF during WW2. Our house had plenty of maps when I was growing up. Edit: And an aircraft altimeter, as well as a wall barometer.
 
Gordon_R said:
Aviation includes training in meteorology and navigation. The actual flying bit is only part of the syllabus. You realise that it is possible to know more than one thing at a time...

For the record: My late father was a navigator for the RAF during WW2. Out house had plenty of maps when I was growing up.
Click to expand...

You raise a valid point there, of course.

Had it been yesterday, I could have used the numerous experts we had in the application of the jury system - specifically around medical issues - in certain US states, instead!
 
Gordon_R said:
Aviation includes training in meteorology and navigation. The actual flying bit is only part of the syllabus. You realise that it is possible to know more than one thing at a time...

For the record: My late father was a navigator for the RAF during WW2. Our house had plenty of maps when I was growing up. Edit: And an aircraft altimeter, as well as a wall barometer.
Click to expand...
Which is fine, if you have an opinion, because you have knowledge.

Its the people who's only experience with a map is opening Waze who are gonna be plastered all over social media with an opinion on the UN's decision that is going to be irritating :)
 
neoprema said:
Which is fine, if you have an opinion, because you have knowledge.

Its the people who's only experience with a map is opening Waze who are gonna be plastered all over social media with an opinion on the UN's decision that is going to be irritating :)
Click to expand...
Of all opinions shared here, which one is invalid from safety perspective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X