FAA Revokes Pilot Certs. After Red Bull Stunt

brcase said:
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
Click to expand...

Something tells me that happened a long time ago, in a different world than we live in today. Today everyone is much more risk adverse, especially in the bureaucratic FAA. Its much easier to say no and not stick your neck out for the what ifs.

If only we could turn back time...
 
Salty said:
With only that document to go on, no way in hell could anyone possibly expect a government agent to agree to it.
Click to expand...
Yep, that was their petition for what would have been a precedent setting exemption.
 
I'm thinking they should have been revoked even if they didn't crash a plane.
 
I think they would have pulled their certs anyway, too, but this way it makes it pretty clear that the FAA is the smart guy in the room. And generally speaking, that's tough. I mean, not only did they destroy a perfectly good airplane, they also demonstrated less smarts than a government agency. Maybe they'll file an insurance claim on the aircraft and try to make it a hat trick?
 
Lowflynjack said:
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:
Click to expand...
Yeah, kind of pales in comparison to the cost of a 182 lawn dart.
 
Lindberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really relevant to this thread, but the FAR limiting aerobatics to min. 1,500' AGL still does apply in the middle of the desert. People also misunderstand airshow "waivers". Having an aerobatic "waiver" does not mean you are personally exempt from the min. altitude FAR. It means the FAA has delegated airshow pilot qualifications to the ICAS which issues a "statement of aerobatic competency" (SAC card) for various altitudes. The airshow organizer obtains a waivered box at the airshow site in which airshow pilots are allowed to fly. The FAR waivers are for the airshow box not personally for the pilot. When an airshow is over and the box is closed, having a SAC card means nothing.
 
Daleandee said:
You win the internet for that astute observation. It would really hurt my feelings if someone said that about me! :rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

I think it's the American version of "strong like bull, smart like tractor", except tractors are generally smarter than government agencies.
 
Albany Tom said:
I think it's the American version of "strong like bull, smart like tractor", except tractors are generally smarter than government agencies.
Click to expand...

I've heard that as, "smart like a rock, quick as a tree!"

I need to stop ... this is sounding political! o_O
 
I wonder if they could have brought in two jump qualified pilots from overseas with no intention of flying in the US in the next year (other than this stunt) and given them a solo sign off? :stirpot:
 
RoscoeT said:
It means the FAA has delegated airshow pilot qualifications to the ICAS which issues a "statement of aerobatic competency" (SAC card) for various altitudes.
Click to expand...

Everything you said is right on (particularly as you describe the requirement for both the SAC card and the waivered airspace), except technically the FAA issues the SAC cards, not ICAS. It is true that the FAA delegated the evaluation to ICAS and EAA Warbirds under FAA Order 8900.1 (5-1546. et. seq.), but the FAA issues the SAC cards based on the RIO (ICAS or EAA Warbirds) recommendations which are sent to the FSDO. https://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch9,Sec1

Yes, this is incredibly pedantic and in no way is intended to suggest lack of competency on your part or any great expertise on my part. I wouldn't know this but for the fact that I was involved in litigation directly on point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top