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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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. 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.
Kathryn's report has the exemption denial letter, dated April 22: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/04/cessna-182g-skylane-n3694u-accident.html
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
