How Low Is Too Low? Airlink Flypast at Cape Town DHL Stadium.
On Saturday the 29th of August 2026, South Africa’s Springboks faced off against New Zealand’s All Blacks in the second test of the four-match “Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry” series. The match opening at Cape Town’s DHL Stadium drew international attention last week. Let’s skip to the chase: South Africa won 33-26.
But that’s not what made the headlines. Shortly before kickoff, two Airlink aircraft made a formation flypast over the stadium filled with an audience of somewhere between 56,000 and 62,000 fans. A black Embraer E195 (ZS-YDE) represented the All Blacks and a green Embraer E190 (ZS-YAE) represented the Springboks. Each aircraft had three captains on board: commander, co-pilot and safety/technical officer. The two aircraft departed Cape Town International and held over Robben Island before starting the flypast.
This YouTube video by CPT Aviation is excellent footage of the flypast; skip forward to 02:59 to see the low pass over the stadium. I recommend sound on to hear the person in the background lost for words.
In the video, you can see the lead aircraft passing extremely low over the roof with the trailing aircraft appearing to fly through the coloured smoke of the pyrotechnics.
We’ve seen issues like this before, notably the foreshortening effect visible in This must be the photograph of the year.
But the flyby shown in the video doesn’t seem to suffer from significant perspective issues.
Final comment on this from me today (phew you say). The pitch up of the lead aircraft and the climb and breakaway by the second coincides exactly with the firing of the pyrotechnics in front of them. Were they flying lower than they meant to be? 1/2 pic.twitter.com/M8CQPinHNr
— Greg Bagwell (@gregbagwell) August 31, 2026
Flightradar24 used the ADS-B altitude data and local pressure to estimate the aircraft’s actual height.
Lowest ADS-B altitude (standard pressure above mean sea level): 50 ft.
Altitude corrected for QNH (1019 hPa): 205-210 feet AMSL.
DHL Stadium elevation: near sea level
DHL Stadium height: 164 ft.
Clearance over stadium: 41-46 ft.
This is a little bit misleading, however, because the margin for error is very large. Radio altitude, which the pilots would have been using, offers a direct measurement from the belly of the aeroplane to the roof, much more exact than ADS-B altitudes. The local pressure (1019 hectopascals) is rounded to a whole number, where one hectopascal is equivalent to 27 feet near sea level. That’s a significant deviation relative to the claimed 41-foot clearance. They used an approximate stadium height of 164 feet; however, DHL Stadium does not have a flat roof, which means the clearance over the stadium varies over the crown, the edge and any of the higher fixtures. FlightRadar24 explicitly flags that this is not an official measurement but I would argue that even claiming a clearance of 41-46 feet is overly confident. Mainstream media are now citing that figure with no caveats.
However, the FlightRadar24 data clearly confirms that the two Embraers were uncomfortably close to the stadium for the flypast.
South African Civil Aviation Regulation 91.06.32 ordinarily prohibits flight over a congested area or an open-air assembly below 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 2,000-foot radius. However, as is common for events such as this, it is possible to get an exception from the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA). Cape Town News reports that lower operations require specific approval (bolding from the original):
But Regulation 91.06.32 contains an explicit exception. The minimum does not apply in the same way where low flight is necessary for take-off or landing, or where prior written approval of the Director has been obtained. That exception is critical when analysing planned displays, demonstration flights and specially authorised flypasts.
Airlink released a statement the day after the event to state that this is exactly what happened: the flight over the stadium received prior approval and complied with it.
Statement on the flyby at Cape Town DHL Stadium:
_30 August 2026, Cape Town -_ Airlink notes the concerns expressed in various social media and online forums regarding yesterday’s formation flyby over Cape Town’s DHL Stadium.
The flight demanded careful planning and rehearsal, as it required navigating at low altitude, at around 150 knots. The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) and Air Traffic Navigation Services provided valuable guidance, approval and support to ensure a safe flyby.
The two aircraft were flown by highly-experienced crew, with each comprised of three senior captains operating in the roles of commander, co-pilot and safety/technical officer.
The data recorded by both aircraft’s digital flight data recorders (black boxes) indicate that the flights were performed within the SACAA’s approved and rehearsed safety altitude and speed limits for the flypast.
Airlink, on its own initiative, has volunteered these data sets to the SACAA so it can independently review and verify that the flypast was in accordance with the flight authorisation.
While Airlink appreciates the interest and concern, it will refrain from making any further comments while the SACAA reviews the flight data.
In other words: the flypast took place as planned and as authorised. Airlink have passed the flight data to the South African CAA to confirm.
This did not calm the masses but it did highlight a very specific question: what did the South African CAA actually approve?
As of this week, SACAA have confirmed only that three flypast applications had been submitted. The first took place on the 22nd of August at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and was uneventful. The second was the Cape Town event, which was approved as a Special Air Event after a simulator practice flight and briefing.
SACAA Statement on the Airlink Flypast at the DHL Cape Town Stadium
Following various discussions in the media relating to the events of the past weekend, the SACAA initiated compliance verifications, engaged the operator, obtained the Flight Data Recording downloads as well as other additional requirements.
The Regulator has begun its analysis process and has requested additional information from the operator to reach an informed position.
The full report will be shared with the operator once their assessment has been completed. The SACAA statement also reports that on Tuesday the 1st of September, Airlink withdrew its application for the third flypast, which was planned for Saturday’s match.
Airlink followed up with another statement on the same day which underscores that the South African CAA have not opened an investigation but only a review.
Unlike public flight tracking mobile apps that rely on rudimentary satellite positioning information, the DFDRs on modern commercial jetliners are sophisticated devices able to trace over a thousand parameters and data points to present a precise and complex picture – measured in milliseconds – of every control input, power settings, altitude, horizontal and vertical speed, pitch attitude, acceleration and the visual flight path along with numerous other readings.
Due to the complexity, the number of parameters and other factors to be examined, it is unrealistic to expect immediate feedback and recommendations from the SACAA.
The third approved flyby was planned for the third test match at FNB Stadium in Johannesburg, which Airlink confirm has been cancelled, citing weather issues. It is uncommon to cancel based on weather four days in advance of an event, and the cancellation is largely presumed to be a direct result of the media attention to the flyby at Cape Town. As of writing, the local TAF is showing light wind and broken cloud with a 30% chance of light thunderstorms.
South Africa has a longstanding tradition of stadium flypasts, most famously in 1995 before the Rugby World Cup final, when SAA Captain Laurie Kay flew Boeing 747 ZS-SAN “Lebombo” over Ellis Park Stadium.
Laurie Kay: The man, the legend:
“GOOD LUCK BOKKE” was stencilled on the underside of the Boeing 747, the fly-past was a very closely guarded secret and the whole world was caught by surprise as the aircraft came low over the stadium and powered up as it climbed out, the stadium shook as an unforgettable moment in history was created.
I could not find any case of an enforcement action in South Africa from a stadium flypast.
There’s a further angle to this case. Assuming that the SACAA approved this flyby, the next question will be whether that approval was considered and correct. And now we have the SACAA investigating the SACAA, a clear conflict of interest. The SACAA are already under fire regarding a Cessna Citation crash in January 2020. This was the SACAA’s calibration aircraft and three SACAA employees were killed in the crash. The Ethiopian AAIB, who carried out an independent investigation, reported that SACAA had violated several of its own regulations in relation to maintenance and equipment on the plane.
The Citizen published an update on this case yesterday: Creecy seeks fresh inquest into fatal 2020 private jet crash near George
The Ethiopian investigation found that the crew lost control of ZS-CAR after entering an unusual attitude in cloud-obscured mountainous terrain, but also identified regulatory failures within SACAA’s Flight Inspection Unit, where Captain Tolo was employed.
It found that a required annual flight data recorder (FDR) inspection had not been conducted, rendering the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness invalid, that its FDR did not record nine mandatory parameters and that there was no record of a required inspection before the aircraft returned to service six days before the crash following an engine-related serious incident.
The manuscript was drafted by whistle-blower and now dismissed SACAA airworthiness inspector and former accident investigator Jeremiah Visser, following his own examination of the ZS-CAR crash.
But the important news is that the Springboks and All Blacks are now tied, ready for the third match of the series, which will take place tomorrow in Johannesburg.
As always, I love the context you’ve dug up!
My personal opinion is that you accept 50 ft obstacle clearance when you come in over the runway fence to land (when you don’t hit a streetlight on the approach, anyway), so the question is whether the approach to the stadium could be flown with the same precision as a landing: it was straight, level, and over water except for the last 400m or so. Your clip shows the aircraft starting to climb as soon as they were past the stadium, suggesting they could have climbed away at any time.
Here’s a 2023 video of the fleet captain of Safair, explaining the preparations they do for the same type of stadium overflights; I assume Airlink work to the same standard:
https://youtu.be/h1lntb0h0-4
And here’s leaked footage from aboard the aircraft:
https://youtu.be/vFzDNsA4l-Q
Are you suggesting that if this flypast was flown with the same precision as an approach to land it was ok?
I don’t think that’s a good analogy. A fence will break away (unless it’s at that Korean airport); a stadium won’t. An approach path has radio beams and PAPI (or at least VASI) to give the aircraft a continuous indicator of the right path, instead of being suddenly there like a stadium. Perhaps most important is that the fence is a fence, keeping people out of the approach area (if you’re not on that ?Caribbean? beach); there might have been 60,000 people in that stadium for pieces to fall on if a plane was a little low.
The stadium wasn’t “suddenly there”. Its location remains fixed, the overflight was trained beforehand, and if you don’t go under a certain minimum altitude, you cannot hit it.
(Whereas an approach is set up with the purpose of making you hit the ground, even under unfavorable weather conditions or with a defective aircraft.)
My point was, however, that we do accept small obstacle clearances in situations where the flight path is well known beforehand, the pilots know precision is required, and they have trained for it sufficiently.
We’re all hoping SACAA will shed more light on what exactly their overflight approvals entailed.
This discusses the flights themselves — the approvals/rehearsals/execution. It will be interesting to see what (if anything) comes out about the approval process, e.g. whether anyone thought about a bird strike (a possibility raised by commenters in the post you link to).
But who was in charge of the fireworks? Was flying through a smoke(?) discharge approved, or did somebody touch off the display a tad early? The plume itself would only have obscured the cockpit windows for a small fraction of a second, but it would have been very distracting; also, did whatever was in the plume stick to the windows or blow clear?