Q&A with aviation expert Guy Leitch on Cape Town Stadium flyover

Share current article via Email Share current article via Facebook Share current article via Twitter Share current article via LinkedIn FlySafair is a well-run airline with a high standard of pilots but they're treating them as if they're expendable, says Guy Leitch, publisher and editor of SA Flyer magazine. Should the South African Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) have allowed it? No. In fact, I'm extremely sceptical that they ever did allow it. They say they've launched compliance verifications to determine if the pilots adhered to the approved flight plan. Do you suspect they went lower than approved? Oh, absolutely. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the CAA would have approved anything less than 250 feet. I'm accepting that a height of 50 feet is pretty much what they were at, and they should never have been that low. Does a 50-foot clearance leave enough of a safety margin in the event of anything unexpected? It gives you a vastly reduced safety margin. What would have happened if there'd been a bird strike? I don't think anything. I don't think there was any significant risk. The fact is it's absolutely routine for an aircraft to descend through 50 feet every time it lands. Not directly over 56,000 people, surely? Absolutely not. And that's what makes the difference in this instance, because the risk factor is multiplied by the 56,000 people whose lives were effectively risked by this ultra-low flyover. Are stunts at air shows allowed to be performed above spectators? The answer is no. And this was a stunt, wasn't it? Absolutely. This was a stunt that was allowed to get out of control. Or exceed the boundaries of reasonableness and approval. The CAA says they're reviewing the flight data and all relevant information regarding the planning, preparation and execution of the flyover. Shouldn't they have done this before granting permission? I think they approved a flyover at 250 feet, and the pilots — in a moment of yeeha! — bust those limits. The excuse is that they may have been conflating height and altitude. That's no excuse for professionals, surely? A hundred percent, there's no excuse here. Airlink has got mud all over their face on this one. They say the flight was highly regulated. The flight was highly regulated, but I don't believe they necessarily flew within the regulations. The flight was not flown within approved limits. How can you say that? I've never seen an airshow flyover approved for less than 250 feet. Copious visual evidence, partially supported by data from Flightradar24, makes it patently obvious that they were well below the 250-foot limit. Are you relieved that Airlink didn't apply for a third flyover, supposedly because of the weather? I'm sceptical about that. I think the pilots exceeded the limits of reasonableness and, probably, approval, and the whole subject is way too hot a potato right now for Airlink. Airlink is claiming you can't conclude that the height was 50 feet because the data from Flightradar24, etc., is inaccurate. I accept that, but it's quite evident that they were well below 250 feet. And if it feels too low, it is too low. If it doesn't feel right, it's not right. Ultimately, common sense should prevail? Correct. The word you're looking for is airmanship. Airmanship is doing it right. Airmanship is being responsible. Airmanship is taking all factors into consideration. It's not getting carried away in the heat of the moment.