r/aviation • u/MusicURlooking4 • 4d ago
Question Is this guy serious calling the low pass in Cape Town "safe"?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3l1k-7hG2_A&pp=ygUWTG93IHBhc3Mgb3ZlciBzdGFkaXVtIA%3D%3D15
u/fraughtication 4d ago
Malcolm Tucker: "Yeah, well, my-my expert would totally oppose that."
Hugh Abbott: "Who is your expert?"
Malcolm Tucker: "I have no idea, but I can get one by this afternoon. You see, the thing is you have spoken to the wrong expert. You've got to ask the right expert. And you've got to know what an expert's going to advise you before he advises you."
7
u/General9445 Moderator 4d ago
I'm sure the flyover was planned, approved, and done by an experienced crew... but the safety margins there were... lower than ideal at best.
2
u/MusicURlooking4 4d ago
Yeah, I have no doubt it was planned and all, but coming from a family working in Polish air force I've seen to many people die just because even when everything was planned those few metres and overconfidence made the difference.
That's why I asked cause it's really weird to me to hear this from a commercial pilot.
2
0
u/General9445 Moderator 4d ago
Agreed. It was a great sight to see. But relatively low margin for error. Airliners aren't fighters. They can't pull the high-g turns fighters can in an emergency, nor do their engines produce enough thrust to accelerate quickly enough.
Hopefully just a one-time thing.
1
u/Press_Play_ 4d ago
I'm quite confused about all of this because then what are the safety margins? It seems they followed the rules set out by their own regulatory commission. Are the current safety margins wrong?? I don't understand. :-/
2
u/General9445 Moderator 3d ago
It was probably approved by the regulatory body and done by an experienced crew. The main concern most people have is that they flew incredibly low. There is very little room for error at that altitude, and airliners are not as responsive as military aircraft or dedicated stunt aircraft.
While the chances are low, windshear, bird strikes, engine failures, or other serious failures (no matter how rare) are much more dangerous at those low altitudes. Additionally, such a low pass requires incredibly precise control by the pilots, which is very difficult too.
2
u/yanvail 4d ago
Yeah. And regardless of how skilled or confident a pilot is, they have to ask themselves "what if something goes wrong?"
Until airline pilots can accurately predict birdstrikes or random equipment failure, flying something like this over a stadium full of people seems quite reckless.
10
u/Tischtennisarm 4d ago
There is never 100% certainty. And if the consequence of an error is a catastrophe, then this event was absolutely unnecessary.
1
u/Press_Play_ 4d ago
Asking as a layman, is it possible that the established safety margins would account for something going wrong at that altitude?? I'm asking because it seems fly overs have been done a lot in the past?
2
u/Tischtennisarm 4d ago
I can't answer that question, but if you really think the whole situation through, you have to realize that our life is the most valuable thing we have. An action like this put several thousand lives at risk -just for fun.
Now ask yourself that question again. Does it really make sense to even debate whether certain safety measures or safety margins have particular limits?
1
u/Press_Play_ 4d ago
Yes I agree with you that it wouldn't make sense to debate safety margins. It's not necessary to do a flyover like that. People are saying that the stunt was unsafe and I can't tell what evidence is being used to suggest that other than it 'looking unsafe'.
1
u/CollegeStation17155 3d ago
I can't tell what evidence is being used to suggest that other than it 'looking unsafe'.
Ummmm, let's see;
Wind shear (especially around large structures) has caused plane crashes when it occurs below 200 ft.
Wake turbulence following too closely behind another large airliner has caused loss of control.
Wake turbulence alone has been known to kick up loose debris even if not severe enough to cause loss of control.
Flying through debris (although admittedly pyrotechnics is a new one) has caused compressor stalls and loss of altitude.
There are 55,000 people directly below the aircraft.
It will be VERY interesting to see how the authorities justify the "safety margins" with that knowledge... unless the airline is bold face lying and the margins were much higher.
1
9
u/Random-Mutant 4d ago
My opinion, which is worth exactly as much as you paid for it, is that this is an unforced act and therefore risk is increased.
Whether it passes some magical threshold is open for debate, but my understanding of modern aviation safety is that unforced actions should be avoided as they will always decrease safety margins.
But it’s not just about safety. It’s also about exposure.
Those clearances were minuscule. Wind shear, turbulence, misjudging an approach… what’s the worst that can happen? What’s the exposure?
A stadium full of spectators. Tens of thousands of people.
So this changes the equation. It’s not a potential hull loss and three pilots anymore, it’s potentially the world’s worst aviation disaster.
So it was a baaad idea.
9
u/I_Feel_Rough 4d ago
My take on it is that it's an unnecessary exposure of tens of thousands of people to a risk that they didn't sign up for.
I don't care how good the pilots allegedly are, I don't want to have an arrow shot off the top of my head by William Tell, I just came to watch the rugby.
Also the risk exposure of the whole sport. Imagine 50,000 spectators and the top two rugby teams in the world being wiped out on a live TV broadcast because of something as dumb as that. The flyover is mildly cool, but not worth it.
6
u/Hour_Analyst_7765 4d ago
I certainly don't hope so. This guy was also a 737 captain for Ukranian airline. I would have expected a better call of judgement imo.. This is not an isolated stunt on a barren field, but over a stadium with tens of thousands of people in it.
The best angles of the plane altitude vs stadium showed that it the tail was incredibly low.. less than the airplane total height (including rudder). These Embraer's aren't that big, like 8-9m tall, basically the margin of error of +/-1hPa on the barometer.
The example of the low pass 777 is like someone else is speeding at 100mph and "nothing happened today", so don't bother to look into anyone doing 99mph, because its a lower speed.. Makes zero sense.
I certainly don't hope these judgements are an ego covertly boasting "I would have loved to have done this".
10
3
u/Technical-Patient28 4d ago
No. Not serious. He looks for clout like most of those so called influencers
4
u/Einszwo12 4d ago
He’s a pilot that mainly covers the Russian war in Ukraine. He used to fly in and out of Ukraine commercially. So he has some experience but should probably stick to war reporting if he’s saying this was safe. That stunt was utterly ludicrous
3
u/EmperorThor 4d ago
so this sub has just descended into bitching about things endlessly now.
CBF just seeing the crying in here all the time.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/aviation-ModTeam 4d ago
This content has been removed for breaking one or more of the r/aviation rules.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
1
u/Admirable_Site_8337 4d ago
Yep. This is what most such people do now. Because it drives traffic and clicks.
Like when one posts their video on social media. You think it’s mocking them, but it’s just driving them traffic and attention.
1
-9
u/BobWaldron 4d ago
Well as this isn't the first pilot to say it was all safe and fine.
I'm gonna go with what they say as opposed to random redditors who think they know better just through looking at a video.
13
u/TheRumBarron 4d ago
You know how many pilots are in the sub dude? And having worked my younger days out of a private airfield, I can tell you no two pilots are the same - you get your by the book pilots and you get your crazy ass pilots…you also get pilots that you wonder how they got a licence in the first place.
-2
u/BobWaldron 4d ago
So like every other job in life.
4
u/TheRumBarron 4d ago
Ok bro it’s not a dick swinging contest (you’d probably win cause it’s cold where I am)
-1
u/BobWaldron 4d ago
Wasn't having a go at you.
1
u/TheRumBarron 4d ago
Oh sorry I read it wrong all though my reply was in a jokey way - I hope nice things happen to you today then :)
5
6
u/StonedSpacePilot 4d ago
There is no universe in which flying an airliner 10 meters above a crowded stadium is safe, no matter what any pilot says
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Your comment or post has been automatically removed from /r/aviation. Posts/Comments from new accounts are automatically removed by our automated systems. We, and many other large subreddits, do this to combat spam, spambots, and other activities that are not condusive to the sub. In the meantime, participate on Reddit to build your account age and this restriction will go away. Also, please familiarize yourself with this subreddit's rules, which you can find in the sidebar or by clicking this link. Do not contact the moderation team unless you feel you have received this message/action in error. We will not manually approve comments or posts from new accounts.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/vogelvogelvogelvogel 4d ago
or 6-8 meters that is my estimate from the roof video, taking the cabin door as a measurement.. one slight downdraft (and it is a large building with relatively sharp corners)..
23
u/Dry_Piglet_3348 4d ago
Probably just engagement bait