Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
Interested in the views of our pilots about the promotional flyover ahead of the South Africa vs New Zealand rugby union test overnight.
Dumb. Extremely dumb.
FR24 showed the lowest barometric altitude of 50feet and 124 knots.
If I was going to be flying something like that, I wouldn't want to be as slow as that. How is #2 supposed to make adjustments? As mentioned already, the 50' from FR24 won't be corrected, nor will it be a radar altitude. Nevertheless, that does look like roughly the clearance he has from the stadium.
Where is the margin for error?
Que.
 
Elevate your business spending to first-class rewards! Sign up today with code AFF10 and process over $10,000 in business expenses within your first 30 days to unlock 10,000 Bonus PayRewards Points.
Join 30,000+ savvy business owners who:

✅ Pay suppliers who don’t accept Amex
✅ Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
✅ Earn & transfer PayRewards Points to 10+ airline & hotel partners

Start earning today!
- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

OMaaT notes the RSA regulation, that their authorities apparently waived.

Civil Aviation Regulation 91.06.32(1)(a) states that “an aircraft may not be flown over congested areas or an obvious open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle, within a radius of 2,000 feet from the aircraft.”
 
Back in my military days, when doing a flight that was lower than allowed by the normal rules, the authorisation for the flight would always specify a minimum altitude. So, for a strike mission, it might say something like 200’ over land, and 50’ over water. So, in being allowed to go lower than normal, I would expect any regulator to impose some limits. Madness otherwise.
 
Things can and do go wrong at any time and potentially play havoc with employees' social lives, but yesterday, QF7 was delayed by more than eight hours in its SYD departure, so a replacement flight deck and cabin crew would have presumably been requisitioned.

In these circumstances if a rostered flight deck crew have made their way to the airport and signed on at say 1100 for what they hoped would be a 1200 departure, when this doesn't happen due to say post-1100 hours discovered urgent maintenance required, is the time spent signed on at the airport regarded as part of their maximum monthly/annual flying hours, or is it just 'bad luck' and they have to go home, being paid for these duty hours or otherwise remunerated according to their workplace agreement but no more?
 
Last edited:

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top