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
I wonder if the pilots even knew the waiver was denied. Granted it's ultimately them holding the bag, but do airshow pilots really make sure everything is in order when they show up or just take the organizers word for it
 
Katamarino said:
I'm pretty sure that Paulo Iscold knows what he's doing when it comes to doing this stuff properly.
Click to expand...

Well, the outcome for one 182 seems to indicate that may be a presumption not in evidence yet.

This just looks bad all around. This reads that they invested too heavily in a schedule that relied on the FAA approving on time, or be damned they were going to go ahead with it anyway, rather than try to negotiate requirements with the FAA.
 
When you bail out, does that count as flight time?

And, lol
 
Racerx said:
I wonder if the pilots even knew the waiver was denied. Granted it's ultimately them holding the bag, but do airshow pilots really make sure everything is in order when they show up or just take the organizers word for it
Click to expand...

Something, something, pilot-in-command. See 91.103, Preflight Action. "All information concerning that flight."
 
Two idiots, they defied the FAA order,

Blancolirio channel Juan all over it,


They did the stunt for $$$ anyway
 
With FAA denial they should have done it where (forgetting costs obviously)?

Ocean or Gulf of Mexico is adiz iirc
So, Cuba? Venezuela? Africa? Who else would say yes?
 
My feelings are a bit mixed.

Like @Salty , I assumed this was being done with appropriate approvals, a TFR, etc. The Red Bull folks have certainly organized enough air events to know what's required and the timelines for getting everything in order. Doing this in the face of a denial was extremely stupid and the pilots as well as the Red Bull company deserve whatever gets thrown at them.

OTOH,...

I'm glad Red Bull is doing stuff like this. POA members often bemoan the state of general aviation and wish there was greater interest. To most of the public, airplanes are airliners that you use for business trips or to visit grandma, and all other planes are for the military. At least Red Bull is putting fun and exciting aviation in front of the public. I'm glad to see that, even if they did perform a rectal-cranial inversion on this one.
 
Randomskylane said:
With FAA denial they should have done it where (forgetting costs obviously)?

Ocean or Gulf of Mexico is adiz iirc
So, Cuba? Venezuela? Africa? Who else would say yes?
Click to expand...
I'm certain there are places they could have secured $$$ permission.
 
eman1200 said:
I don't doubt you (ok maybe I do) but is this really true? I'm asking because I really don't follow any red bull stuff but I know it's mostly "extreme sports", which people are doing on their own with or without red bull. but I guess it gets more attractive to do when there's $ponsorship. so is there a history of deaths/accidents and if so, is it the extreme sport causing it or red bull? and yeah, of course they want the views.
Click to expand...

The only Red Bull stuff I’m interested is their Formula One Race Team. They finished 1 2 in Sunday’s Grand Prix in Italy. Max Verstappen (Current World Champion) Won and Teammate Sergio Perez was Second. All the other Red Bull stuff is so much Horse Hockey except maybe the Helo Acro.

Cheers
 
"plane was damaged".

Interesting way of saying "destroyed to almost beyond recognition as an airplane".
 
Randomskylane said:
Ocean or Gulf of Mexico is adiz iirc
Click to expand...
They could have done it offshore in the GOM or other similar offshore areas so long as they were 12 miles offshore or even better 24 miles out as that is considered international waters and outside any US enforcement. SpaceX drops their capsules around 30 miles out for the same reason.
Half Fast said:
bemoan the state of general aviation and wish there was greater interest
Click to expand...
Half Fast said:
At least Red Bull is putting fun and exciting aviation in front of the public
Click to expand...
Doubtful it will cause any increased interest in GA. The Red Bull helicopters didn't increase the helicopter side so why would these guys do any different? Besides the only reason most non-aviation people watch this is to see if they wreck a plane just as they watch the other 100s of people on Tik Tok or youtube wreck brand new trucks, shoot 50 glass balls with a .50 cal., and other stupid sheet. The only greater interest people are looking for are more videos blowing stuff up vs wanting to get into GA.
 
Racerx said:
I wonder if the pilots even knew the waiver was denied. Granted it's ultimately them holding the bag, but do airshow pilots really make sure everything is in order when they show up or just take the organizers word for it
Click to expand...

The letter seems to be directed to the pilot himself, stating that the pilot filed the petition. I would hope he saw the denial letter, but that is a question I had as well.
 
Hmmmm.......

The letter is dated Friday, 4/22. I wonder if it went to Aikens' PO box in Shelton, WA. Is it possible he had not received the letter prior to the stunt? I doubt the FAA sent a letter to Arizona.

Not that such would relieve him, since he obviously knew he did not yet have permission.
 
Half Fast said:
Hmmmm.......

The letter is dated Friday, 4/22. I wonder if it went to Aikens' PO box in Shelton, WA. Is it possible he had not received the letter prior to the stunt? I doubt the FAA sent a letter to Arizona.

Not that such would relieve him, since he obviously knew he did not yet have permission.
Click to expand...

No matter, a prudent person would wait to see if permission was granted before executing the stunt. Unless of course your sponsors have you by the boys.
 
Bill said:
No matter, a prudent person would wait to see if permission was granted before executing the stunt. Unless of course your sponsors have you by the boys.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It's not a "no news is good news" sort of thing. He needed a positive confirmation.

Total cluster....
 
It's bad for GA. It doesn't further or advance safety.

And now the FAA has a "trend" of pilots jumping out of planes they need to respond to. I've worked with enough regulators to know that this will hurt all of us.
 
Spring Ford said:
It was a good landing, the pilot walked away.
Click to expand...
In this case he walked away after landing a different airplane. Does he get dual landing credit? Only person in history to log a takeoff, crash and successful landing on the same flight I think.
 
Just before they jumped, one of the said “cowl flaps?” And the other one said “yeah, probably should”. Seems like it was an on the fly decision and maybe not a previously tested configuration. Could it have been something as simple as that by opening the cowl flaps deflected the airflow over the speed brake enough to cause it to pitch over too far?
 
Dave Theisen said:
Just before they jumped, one of the said “cowl flaps?” And the other one said “yeah, probably should”. Seems like it was an on the fly decision and maybe not a previously tested configuration. Could it have been something as simple as that by opening the cowl flaps deflected the airflow over the speed brake enough to cause it to pitch over too far?
Click to expand...
Yes. Good catch.
 
Last edited:
Dave Theisen said:
Just before they jumped, one of the said “cowl flaps?” And the other one said “yeah, probably should”. Seems like it was an on the fly decision and maybe not a previously tested configuration. Could it have been something as simple as that by opening the cowl flaps deflected the airflow over the speed brake enough to cause it to pitch over too far?
Click to expand...
There was also talk after about the ballast they used. It sounds like during the tests they used a safety pilot that stayed in the planes. For the actual event I gathered that they replaced the safety pilot weight with extra fuel and may have raised the CG which isn’t a factor in level flight but during the dive portion could have been a factor.

To me it looked like both planes got a little squirrelly compared to the test attempt they showed during the lead up.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Just before they jumped, one of the said “cowl flaps?” And the other one said “yeah, probably should”. Seems like it was an on the fly decision and maybe not a previously tested configuration. Could it have been something as simple as that by opening the cowl flaps deflected the airflow over the speed brake enough to cause it to pitch over too far?
Click to expand...

Yes, I heard that too and wondered "are they saying it because one of them missed that on the checklist, or are they doing something new that they didn't do in testing?"

Having been involved with numerous test missions for the USAF and NASA, I found their approach to standardization, checklist use and even "test cards" very underwhelming. I'm sure they did a lot of practice and testing beforehand, but it just didn't seem that well scripted once they got in the airplane.
 
In fairness, barnstorming was big in the dawn of US civil aviation. It's credited in some circles with the bona fide launch of the US civil aviation sector outright, with equal credit given to the proliferation of military surplus acro capable planes for civilian purchase/access.

Things like airplane transfers inflight were among the stunts, and this is 1920s we're talking about. So it seems the old is new again. In a way, this modern attempt is rather lipstick on a pig. Many of the regulatory bodies of today stem from pushback from the barnstorming days, and some fencing/monopolizing of revenue operations (airlines in particular.. and the whole 134.5 and PPL pro-rata things we still go round and round about today). So it would stand to reason these social media sloots would run afoul with the very agencies created to counter the former's equivalents in 1920s.
 
bflynn said:
I predict they'll get a full revocation and at least a year suspension
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of the FAA doing both?

I’ve never even heard of a year-long suspension…seems like they’d just revoke if it was that egregious.
 
Last edited:
Yes, cowl flaps use in a 182 does noticeably change the pitch tendencies of the plane. This is a significant configuration change that they should not have ignored, if they did.
 
hindsight2020 said:
In fairness, barnstorming was big in the dawn of US civil aviation. It's credited in some circles with the bona fide launch of the US civil aviation sector outright, with equal credit given to the proliferation of military surplus acro capable planes for civilian purchase/access.

Things like airplane transfers inflight were among the stunts, and this is 1920s we're talking about. So it seems the old is new again. In a way, this modern attempt is rather lipstick on a pig. Many of the regulatory bodies of today stem from pushback from the barnstorming days, and some fencing/monopolizing of revenue operations (airlines in particular.. and the whole 134.5 and PPL pro-rata things we still go round and round about today). So it would stand to reason these social media sloots would run afoul with the very agencies created to counter the former's equivalents in 1920s.
Click to expand...
They don’t prohibit inflight transfers today (although the most recent I know of is probably 10 years ago, but it was pretty regular before that.)
 
Arm3 said:
There was also talk after about the ballast they used. It sounds like during the tests they used a safety pilot that stayed in the planes. For the actual event I gathered that they replaced the safety pilot weight with extra fuel and may have raised the CG which isn’t a factor in level flight but during the dive portion could have been a factor.

To me it looked like both planes got a little squirrelly compared to the test attempt they showed during the lead up.
Click to expand...

that one dude was hefty, and if I remember correctly his plane is the one that spun.

i probably would have suggested using seat ballast to replicate the missing safety pilots.

standing by for memes…
 
texasclouds said:
that one dude was hefty, and if I remember correctly his plane is the one that spun.

i probably would have suggested using seat ballast to replicate the missing safety pilots.

standing by for memes…
Click to expand...
He just got sucked out before he could get it trimmed properly.

(in case anyone missed the reference…)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top