Authored by Paul Cartwright and Jakop Mphofu.
A stadium flypast is lawful only if it has prior written approval from the Director of Civil Aviation and the flight complies with that approval. A visual impression of low altitude does not, by itself, establish a breach.
The Cape Town Stadium Flypast: What Happened
According to available information, on 29 August 2026, two Embraer jets made a formation pass over DHL Stadium in Cape Town before a rugby match attended by more than 56 000 people. Flightradar24 estimated that the aircraft cleared the stadium roof by 41–46 feet. That estimate was not an official measurement. The operator said the flight was planned and rehearsed, conducted at about 150 knots, and supported by SACAA and Air Traffic Navigation Services. Each aircraft carried three senior captains. The operator has provided the flight-recorder data to SACAA for independent verification.
Part 91’s Default Minimum-Height Rule
Regulation 91.06.32 of the Civil Aviation (CAR) begins with a qualification: “except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except with prior written approval of the Director.” For a stadium flypast, that prior written approval is required. Paragraph (1)(a) prohibits flight over a congested area or an open-air assembly of persons below 1 000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 2 000-foot radius. A stadium crowd falls within that rule. Paragraph (1)(b) sets a 500-foot minimum above ground or water elsewhere, unless the flight can be made without hazard or nuisance. On the known facts, paragraph (1)(a) is the governing provision.
CAA Approval Is Specific to the Event
SACAA Aeronautical Information Circular 19.2 describes the approval process for flypast and demonstration flights. An operator must apply for approval for the particular event and venue, obtain local-authority and Central Airspace Management Unit clearance, and submit a plan addressing holding areas, run-in directions and emergency landing areas. The circular states that qualifying multi-engine aircraft may be authorised to descend to 300 feet above the highest obstacle on the run-in. The approval is event-specific and individual.
Apparent Height Is Not the Legal Test
The key question is not whether the flypast looked low. It is whether the Director of the SACAA gave prior written approval and whether the flight remained within its conditions. Planning, rehearsal, speed, crew experience and operational support may support safety, but they do not replace authorisation. Nor do they excuse non-compliance with approval conditions. A visual estimate from video or flight-tracking data does not establish unlawfulness without reliable evidence of the authorised and actual flight profiles.
For clients assessing a stadium flypast, Part 91 sets the default minimum heights. Prior written approval may permit a lower, event-specific flight profile, but legality depends on compliance with that approval rather than on visual impressions. As at the publication of this blog, the specific approval letter, authorised flight profile and SACAA’s final verification of the flight-recorder data were not publicly available; no final conclusion on compliance should therefore be drawn.
The What if?
For those wondering what might happen had there been any accident or injuries caused by the aircraft, Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act imposes strict liability on the owners of the aircraft in question. One need only prove ownership and the amount of damages suffered to establish legal liability against the registered owner of the aircraft and to succeed in a claim.
Insurance issues may arise regarding the normal use of the aircraft as opposed to abnormal hazards, but this would not affect the liability of the aircraft owners who remain responsible.