Red Bull Pilots to Swap Planes in Midair

How does Red Bull stunt end?

  • Both planes and pilots survive unscathed

    Votes: 36 40.0%

  • One plane or pilot impacts obstacle at speed

    Votes: 22 24.4%

  • Multiple casualties and/or damage to both planes

    Votes: 6 6.7%

  • Nothing happens after this

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Temporary suspension by FAA of two pilots

    Votes: 2 2.2%

  • Revocation by FAA of two pilots

    Votes: 19 21.1%

  • All Red Bull personnel with certificates have them revoked

    Votes: 5 5.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    90
Racerx said:
Does Sponsorship like this really work? Does anyone hear want to go out and buy a red bull? Why not just give away product?
Click to expand...
It must. I can't believe people are buying it because it tastes good. The one time I tried the stuff I didn't get any "boost" from it either. I'm always amazed by the collection of beautiful hardware they have amassed peddling what seems to primarily be a vodka mixer.
 
Jim K said:
It must. I can't believe people are buying it because it tastes good. The one time I tried the stuff I didn't get any "boost" from it either. I'm always amazed by the collection of beautiful hardware they have amassed peddling what seems to primarily be a vodka mixer.
Click to expand...
I drink one every morning. I like the taste. I'm not going to buy more because of a stupid stunt. I won't buy any less either.
 
Jim K said:
It must. I can't believe people are buying it because it tastes good. The one time I tried the stuff I didn't get any "boost" from it either. I'm always amazed by the collection of beautiful hardware they have amassed peddling what seems to primarily be a vodka mixer.
Click to expand...
That's why Dietrich Mateschitz is a genius. He took a little known asian drink and peddled it on beaches and parties. Grew it into a world-wide business. In the beginning, it was alot of blood and sweat equity. Now he sponsors extreme sports which really helps out the athletes. Means little to us but means alot to the athletes.
 
I cringe when the non-aviation media use the pejorative term "stunt" in connection with legitimate aero sports. But in this instance it fits. No redeeming social value and another black eye for G.A.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ull-plane-swap-stunt-resulted-crash-rcna25795

BTW, they weren't supposed to be doing this:
"The FAA will investigate Sunday evening’s attempted Red Bull Plane Swap in Arizona," the statement said. "The agency on Friday denied the organizer’s request for an exemption from Federal regulations that cover the safe operation of an aircraft."
Edit: I see this posted elsewhere, but it's easier to find here, and there doesn't appear to be a Delete button.
Click to expand...
I'll move and merge it but leave the redirect over in Aviation Mishaps for a couple weeks. Maybe by then this will belong in another subforum. I'm guessing Lessons Learned but wouldn't be surprised by the Classifieds or even Cool Places to Fly. :)
 
Jim K said:
It must. I can't believe people are buying it because it tastes good. The one time I tried the stuff I didn't get any "boost" from it either. I'm always amazed by the collection of beautiful hardware they have amassed peddling what seems to primarily be a vodka mixer.
Click to expand...
 
FRKeU_HVIAIc413
 
Bill said:
FRKeU_HVIAIc413
Click to expand...

Looks like the horizontal stab ripped off from the chute deployment in a nose dive.

I don't understand the point of even trying to deploy a chute in these circumstances. You will be deploying it outside of the envelope it was designed to work in, and even if it deploys properly, you're just adding drift into the uncertain for where the crash will happen.

I have zero sympathy for these clowns or the crew that set this up. Hope they get all they have coming for this.
 
I don't get the hate. I think it was a cool and interesting thing to try. It wasn't some Trevor Jacob style cowboy effort, it was a project run by a very experienced and knowledgeable team. All the safety measures were in place, and worked.

There's an awful lot of "I personally don't like this, therefore nobody else should be allowed to do it" in this thread.
 
Katamarino said:
I don't get the hate. I think it was a cool and interesting thing to try. It wasn't some Trevor Jacob style cowboy effort, it was a project run by a very experienced and knowledgeable team. All the safety measures were in place, and worked.

There's an awful lot of "I personally don't like this, therefore nobody else should be allowed to do it" in this thread.
Click to expand...
They directly violated multiple regs. And not stupid, pointless regs either. Regs like "The pilot should be in the pilots seat" regs.
 
How did the BRS chute deploy? Did the rocket fire after impact with the ground?
 
Salty said:
They directly violated multiple regs. And not stupid, pointless regs either. Regs like "The pilot should be in the pilots seat" regs.
Click to expand...

Oh no, a bunch of small-minded FAA bureaucrats felt the same as some of our posters here and wouldn't give a waiver. Not something I can find myself getting worked up about, to be honest.
 
Katamarino said:
I don't get the hate. I think it was a cool and interesting thing to try. It wasn't some Trevor Jacob style cowboy effort, it was a project run by a very experienced and knowledgeable team. All the safety measures were in place, and worked.

There's an awful lot of "I personally don't like this, therefore nobody else should be allowed to do it" in this thread.
Click to expand...

The team apparently was not as experienced and knowledgeable as they thought they were. They could have used safety pilots in each of the 182s which may have resulted in the FAA approving the waiver but may have left Red Bull losing ‘face’ after selling a different concept.

The stupidity was continuing with the project after regulatory approval was denied. Stupid should hurt, and in this case an untrained observer, given the knowledge that regulatory approval was denied, should then know they can’t do something. And if they do it, they should be aware there will be consequences.

Unlike Trevor Jacob, there should also be enough common sense to know this was a commercial operation and therefore would be held to a higher standard especially given Red Bull Sports’ long history operating in the aviation segment, whether it be their fleet or the Red Bull Air Race series they literally created.
 
Katamarino said:
Oh no, a bunch of small-minded FAA bureaucrats felt the same as some of our posters here and wouldn't give a waiver. Not something I can find myself getting worked up about, to be honest.
Click to expand...
We disagree on this one. I think it's a good thing that the FAA wants someone controlling planes in the air. There was no TFR. There were two planes out there flying without pilots in them.

My assumption when this came up initially is that they would be operating like an airshow. That there would be a TFR, FAA oversight into safety procedures, etc. I could have been flying through there when it happened. You may "trust" that they had safety procedures in place to keep me safe, but if they are going to ignore regulations as fundamental as 91.105, why would I assume that?

So no, I do not see any difference between this and what Jacobs did. This is even worse because there were two planes out of control, and they weren't as remote as he was.
 
It's not easy to make an airplane go straight down like an arrow, something I imagine will come up again at the conclusion of the overseas airline crash. Hopefully redbull or the FAA stops another attempt. I'm no skydiver but I think most would agree this stunt isn't all that challenging from their perspective. More of an engineering challenge to control the airplane.
 
Salty said:
We disagree on this one. I think it's a good thing that the FAA wants someone controlling planes in the air. There was no TFR. There were two planes out there flying without pilots in them.

My assumption when this came up initially is that they would be operating like an airshow. That there would be a TFR, FAA oversight into safety procedures, etc. I could have been flying through there when it happened. You may "trust" that they had safety procedures in place to keep me safe, but if they are going to ignore regulations as fundamental as 91.105, why would I assume that?

So no, I do not see any difference between this and what Jacobs did. This is even worse because there were two planes out of control, and they weren't as remote as he was.
Click to expand...
The biggest difference is Jacobs was stupid enough to believe people would think his situation was a real emergency and thought he'd get away with it. The FAA specifically told the Red Bull pilots it was not approved and they did it anyway and broadcast it! Either way, suspensions for life for all three of them would be justified.
 
luvflyin said:
So whadda all y’all think is going to happen to Red Bull stock today?
Click to expand...

No such thing as Red Bull stock. It’s a private company.

That said, it’s publicity and their business will go up, albeit slightly. Non-pilots don’t care if they didn’t have a permit or of it was only a partial success.
 
Yeah, I don't see how they decided to move forward with this after the denial. Even if it had gone perfectly they'd be looking at repercussions.

Seems like the airbrake may have been too strong and pitched it over too much sending it out of control? Or maybe the rigged autopilot didn't work as expected.
 
I also wonder about the consequences for whoever made the modification to the autopilots and the airframes. Even if they did reregister these planes as experimental/exhibition, are there some requirements for modifications to be signed off by and A&P or IA? The addition of the drag brake basically makes the plane unairworthy by design. Or does exhibition category let you do whatever you want to an airframe/engine/avionics?
 
Jeff Oslick said:
are there some requirements for modifications to be signed off by and A&P or IA?
Click to expand...
Jeff Oslick said:
does exhibition category let you do whatever you want to an airframe/engine/avionics?
Click to expand...
FYI: it had a special AWC under Experimental Exhibition. Any modifications and their subsequent acceptance would have been dealt with during the AWC application period and its associated Operating Limitations sheet. Whether an APIA played any role would have been noted at the same time or listed in the Ops Limits.
 
ateamer said:
No such thing as Red Bull stock. It’s a private company.

That said, it’s publicity and their business will go up, albeit slightly. Non-pilots don’t care if they didn’t have a permit or of it was only a partial success.
Click to expand...
I think there’s probably a lot of folk who will get off on that they told the Man, f you, we’re doin’ it anyway.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I also wonder about the consequences for whoever made the modification to the autopilots and the airframes. Even if they did reregister these planes as experimental/exhibition, are there some requirements for modifications to be signed off by and A&P or IA? The addition of the drag brake basically makes the plane unairworthy by design. Or does exhibition category let you do whatever you want to an airframe/engine/avionics?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Paulo Iscold knows what he's doing when it comes to doing this stuff properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top