Cape Town: South African Airways has come under sharp criticism after Flight SA313 came perilously close to a fuel emergency during last week’s violent Cape storm, despite clear and timely severe weather warnings issued by the South African Weather Service (SAWS).

The airline’s decision to proceed with the Johannesburg to Cape Town flight on 11 May 2026, rather than cancelling or delaying operations in the face of an Orange Level 8 warning for disruptive heavy rainfall, gale-force winds, and dangerous conditions, raises serious questions about operational judgment and passenger safety.

SAWS had placed large parts of the Western Cape, including the City of Cape Town and surrounding Winelands areas, under high-level alerts for damaging winds, storm surges, and flooding risks from 10–12 May. These warnings were widely publicised and should have prompted airlines to reassess schedules, particularly for flights into Cape Town International Airport, where north-westerly gales and mountain wave turbulence are notorious hazards.

Instead, SAA Flight SA313, an Airbus A320, pressed ahead with minimal fuel planning based on Cape Town as the destination and George as the nominated alternate. Upon arrival, the crew encountered extreme conditions: winds gusting up to 53 knots, heavy rain, low visibility, and severe turbulence. Multiple missed approaches occurred that morning. The flight received a windshear alert from its Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) and abandoned its initial ILS approach to Runway 01.

According to detailed insider accounts shared on X by Gina (@ginnydmm), a pilot with 7,000 hours Airbus flying experience, the aircraft diverted first toward George — only to find conditions there equally untenable. It continued to Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth), landing safely on Runway 08 with critically low fuel — reportedly around 340–420 kg remaining, equivalent to roughly five minutes of flight time at full power.

“Any gnarly, wizened airline pilot looking at the forecast conditions in Cape Town last Monday would be carrying a whole lot more fuel than that,” Gina stated. She emphasised that passengers on SA313 were on the edge: their aircraft had “sufficient fuel for another, say 5 minutes of flight if the crew had needed to select full power to climb away from the ground. There was very simply no option but to land the aircraft.”

A second SAA flight, SA327, also encountered serious issues, reportedly ‘activating Alpha Floor protection before degrading through Alternate Law to Direct Law amid the turbulence.’

The South African Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and SAA have launched investigations. Aviation experts have questioned the airline’s fuel policy, decision-making, and whether sufficient margins were built in despite the known forecasts. SAA has maintained that safety was never compromised and that all flights were affected by the weather that day.

For Cape Town readers, the incident underscores the urgent need for the proposed Cape Winelands Airport near Durbanville. A secondary facility would provide a vital, closer alternate during the Mother City’s frequent winter storms, potentially allowing safer fuel planning and reducing reliance on distant diversions like Gqeberha.

This episode demands accountability. When the national weather service issues Orange Level 8 warnings signalling major disruptions, airlines — especially the national carrier — have a duty to err on the side of caution. Proceeding with business as usual in the face of such forecasts was reckless. Heads should roll for any lapses in risk assessment that placed passengers, crew, and the aircraft in such a precarious position.

As investigations unfold, this near-miss must drive meaningful change — both in SAA’s operational culture and in delivering better aviation infrastructure for the Western Cape.