FAA Revokes Pilot Certs. After Red Bull Stunt

An article I read this morning said one of the pilots had requested FAA approval for the stunt, but was denied. He failed to tell other team members about the denial and went ahead with the stunt anyway.

Dumb.

EDIT -
From rk911's link:

In a statement shared on Instagram last month, Aikens said that he made the “personal decision to move forward with [the] plane swap” despite the FAA not granting the exemption he was seeking from the rule that pilots must be at the tiller of the plane with safety belts fastened.

“I regret not sharing this information with my team and those who supported me,” he added.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Stan Cooper said:
An article I read this morning said one of the pilots had requested FAA approval for the stunt, but was denied. He failed to tell other team members about the denial and went ahead with the stunt anyway.

Dumb.
Click to expand...
More appropriately, the other pilot in command did not verify that the grant of exemption had been issued by the FAA and confirm that he could comply with the conditions and limitations of the non-existent exemption.
 
"The FAA originally denied Red Bull’s request for an exemption because it could not show the stunt was not a safety risk."

Serious question: how is that different than for other stunts, like wing walkers, etc.?
 
PPC1052 said:
"The FAA originally denied Red Bull’s request for an exemption because it could not show the stunt was not a safety risk."

Serious question: how is that different than for other stunts, like wing walkers, etc.?
Click to expand...
I don't think the pilots are doing the wing walking are they?
 
Salty said:
I don't think the pilots are doing the wing walking are they?
Click to expand...
No, but they do perform the low aerobatic maneuvers.

And to be clear, I am no expert. So, I don't mean to suggest the risks are the same. I am genuinely asking how they are different.
 
PPC1052 said:
"The FAA originally denied Red Bull’s request for an exemption because it could not show the stunt was not a safety risk."

Serious question: how is that different than for other stunts, like wing walkers, etc.?
Click to expand...
There were no pilots in the aircraft?o_O
 
PPC1052 said:
"The FAA originally denied Red Bull’s request for an exemption because it could not show the stunt was not a safety risk."

Serious question: how is that different than for other stunts, like wing walkers, etc.?
Click to expand...
There's a specific regulation against not having a pilot at a control station. There isn't a specific regulation against someone standing on your wing.
 
By the way, that would be a much more interesting stunt. Rather than abandoning the aircraft, wing walk it and get back in. This jumping out and back in just isn't that interesting to me.

It would still violate the FAR however.
 
Brad Z said:
There's a specific regulation against not having a pilot at a control station. There isn't a specific regulation against someone standing on your wing.
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't really address the issue at all. There are regulations against flying low aerobatics, but they issue waivers for certain pilots. The pilots in this case applied for a waiver, but were denied. Why the waiver in one instance and not the other.
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, that doesn't really address the issue at all. There are regulations against flying low aerobatics, but they issue waivers for certain pilots. The pilots in this case applied for a waiver, but were denied. Why the waiver in one instance and not the other.
Click to expand...
You seriously don't see a difference in safety between a controlled, proven aerobatic routine and abandoning the aircraft? They don't just give anybody that asks a waiver for aerobatics either, and people get violated for doing it without the waiver.
 
Salty said:
You seriously don't see a difference in safety between a controlled, proven aerobatic routine and abandoning the aircraft? They don't just give anybody that asks a waiver for aerobatics either, and people get violated for doing it without the waiver.
Click to expand...

Not really. There have been several fatal accidents involving aerobatics, even involving those with SAC cards. There have been accident involving injuries to spectators at air shows and air races. Here, the pilots both had parachutes. As long as the stunt is performed out in the desert away from people, the risks to others and the pilots would seem to be fairly limited.
 
PPC1052 said:
Not really. There have been several fatal accidents involving aerobatics, even involving those with SAC cards. There have been accident involving injuries to spectators at air shows and air races. Here, the pilots both had parachutes. As long as the stunt is performed out in the desert away from people, the risks to others and the pilots would seem to be fairly limited.
Click to expand...
67% of the aircraft I'm aware of that have been abandoned have resulted in an accident. Aerobatics do not have nearly such a bad record.
 
Salty said:
You seriously don't see a difference in safety between a controlled, proven aerobatic routine and abandoning the aircraft?
Click to expand...
I think one could argue that the potential to harm spectators or uninvolved personnel is a lot higher at an airshow at an airport that is in or adjacent to populated areas is a lot higher than the potential harm from a couple 172s out over the desert.
 
Salty said:
67% of the aircraft I'm aware of that have been abandoned have resulted in an accident.
Click to expand...

I would quibble with your numbers in that at least one that you are counting was not an "accident."
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, that doesn't really address the issue at all. There are regulations against flying low aerobatics, but they issue waivers for certain pilots. The pilots in this case applied for a waiver, but were denied. Why the waiver in one instance and not the other.
Click to expand...
They didn't apply for a waiver. They applied for an exemption. The regulation in question was not was waivable.
 
PPC1052 said:
I would quibble with your numbers in that at least one that you are counting was not an "accident."
Click to expand...
They were both accidents according to the FAA definition.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I think one could argue that the potential to harm spectators or uninvolved personnel is a lot higher at an airshow at an airport that is in or adjacent to populated areas is a lot higher than the potential harm from a couple 172s out over the desert.
Click to expand...
I'd disagree with you there. If you don't control the area, you have no idea what the safety factor is. No TFR, the people on the ground or air had no choice to opt out. Going to an air show, you have a choice.
 
Brad Z said:
They didn't apply for a waiver. They applied for an exemption. The regulation in question was not was waivable.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. I didn't read closely enough.
 
PPC1052 said:
"The FAA originally denied Red Bull’s request for an exemption because it could not show the stunt was not a safety risk."

Serious question: how is that different than for other stunts, like wing walkers, etc.?
Click to expand...
The others are able to show that it’s not a safety risk to the satisfaction of FAA.
 
Brad Z said:
They didn't apply for a waiver. They applied for an exemption. The regulation in question was not was waivable.
Click to expand...

I don't know that anyone really knows what was in their exemption request, and exactly what the FAA may have needed for it. I would like to think the exemption may have been possible, but maybe not as quickly as Red Bull wanted with all the hype they were building about the stunt.

Or as type, maybe not in the US. This event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experiment) comes to mind. I'd guess the reason they went to Mexico is because the FAA just said no.

But then again NASA and the FAA have done crash test studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration), but I'm sure the rules are different when THEY are doing it.

I suppose there was merit in their test demonstrations for an actual purpose, versus a sheer publicity stunt for selling energy drinks. There wasn't much scientific knowledge being gained by the Red Bull stunt, other than raising the bar for the adrenaline junkies.
 
PPC1052 said:
That logic doesn't really apply when they let kids come who are not capable of accepting that risk.
Click to expand...
Airshows and pilots operating in waivered airspace are required to take specific precautions to minimize the risk to spectators. That's one of the primary concerns in those situtations. You don't need a SAC card or a low-altitude waiver to go do low-level acro in a desolate area of the desert away from all people.
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, that doesn't really address the issue at all. There are regulations against flying low aerobatics, but they issue waivers for certain pilots. The pilots in this case applied for a waiver, but were denied. Why the waiver in one instance and not the other.
Click to expand...
Ever hear of safety?
 
midwestpa24 said:
I suppose there was merit in their test demonstrations for an actual purpose, versus a sheer publicity stunt for selling energy drinks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should have argued that they were working on a tactic to save pilots that become incapacitated and need a pilot on board. Maybe a plan to help in situations like Payne Stewart and friends perished in ...
 
I can't understand what they were thinking. That really was poking the bear.

I would imagine that the FAA asserts jurisdiction over US licensed pilots even if the transgressions occurred outside the US. They could not have flown to Mexico and escaped scrutiny. Suppose they applied for exemption/waiver in Mexico and it was granted, and the stunt performed in that country?
 
LesGawlik said:
I can't understand what they were thinking.
Click to expand...

They thought everything would go perfectly, the fame and glory would be worth a spanking. It was a cost/benefit decision.

The safety aspect aside, it still might be a lucrative decision, who knows?
 
The agency has also proposed a $4,932 fine for Aikins for the violation of three regulations—14 CFR 91.105(a) regarding required flight crew members remaining at their stations, 91.113(b) regarding the duty of the pilot to see and avoid other aircraft and 91.13 regarding not operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner.

Oh no, not a $5K fine. :rolleyes:
 
They wanted to do something really outside the box and obviously against any number of regs. They asked the FAA for permission to do it anyway. The FAA told them no. They did it anyway. The FAA has pulled their pilot certs and will levy fines. All exactly as I would expect to happen, and as it should be. Why would anyone expect a different outcome? This guy had to know he wasn't going to get away with it, and everyone losing their certificates was worth the payday.

People do stupid things for money.
 
LesGawlik said:
I can't understand what they were thinking. That really was poking the bear.

I would imagine that the FAA asserts jurisdiction over US licensed pilots even if the transgressions occurred outside the US. They could not have flown to Mexico and escaped scrutiny. Suppose they applied for exemption/waiver in Mexico and it was granted, and the stunt performed in that country?
Click to expand...
The FARs don't apply outside the US, so if Mexico gave them permission to do it in Mexico, and they did it in Mexico, there's be nothing for the FAA to get involved in.

They forgot that, "It's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission," doesn't work if you already asked permission and got denied.
 
I think their criteria for "lots and lots", yours, and mine probably differ substantially.
 
I think the biggest issue is they were not patient enough to work through the Bureaucracy to do it Legally.
I bet if they had bugged enough people for long enough in the FAA and had agreed to stipulations by the FAA they could have received the exemptions and/or waivers needed to do so.

Also mentioned they could have probably moved the stunt outside of the USA, but that would have cost more money and time.

example of it working...
http://www.soarkansas.org/soar/Stories.aspx?s=31
"I was told by a FAA man many years ago that you can do anything if you go about it right."

Brian
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
I don't know that anyone really knows what was in their exemption request, and exactly what the FAA may have needed for it. I would like to think the exemption may have been possible, but maybe not as quickly as Red Bull wanted with all the hype they were building about the stunt.
Click to expand...
Their petition was public record.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0315-0001

I’ll let y’all decide if the denial was justifiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top