VPN ads are kind of predatory. People don't really understand what they are used for and they don't make you safer just having one. I understand the channel needs a sponsor I'd rather see a raid shadow legends ad over a vpn
Petter, you should have added a link to the 727 crash in the Mexican desert! It took me _wayyy_ too long to find out you'd actually already made a video about it ;) czcams.com/video/qFA3vHWhj6Q/video.html
Such a great point ..."There are some businesses where it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission but the aviation business is not that business". Beautifully stated and right on the money! To just ignore WRITTEN instructions from the FAA is simply shocking to me. No, these guys certainly aren't Trevor Jacob stupid...but they definitely made a stupid decision to so publicly defy the FAA. I agree. This will not end well for either one of them.
Today the FAA revoked all of the FAA licenses held by both pilots, including Aikins' drone license and Farrington's parachute rigger license. They really aren't fooling around anymore.
@@hermitoldguy6312 Agreed. Even just a Federal misdemeanor with a fine and probation would ensure they're ineligible to get their licenses back. The problem as it stands is that they can spend 1 year buttering up somebody at the FAA and then simply get their ticket back, no muss no fuss. It's happened before to celebrities and millionaires. Would never happen for you or I.
I don't understand... In terrestrial sports, I can do whatever crazy dangerous stuff I want on my own closed track and nobody can say anything about it, but these two pilots should be PROSECUTED for operating in wide open airspace doing a stunt...? Is there just a cultural difference between me and people in the aviation community? That seems astoundingly heavy handed. They already lost their licenses, why does more need to be done? Surely there's some work involved to get them back...
@@DingleFlop And you answered your own question. Airspace is not a closed track. The fact they even attempted mere months after Trevor Jacob had his licence revoked for faking a plane crash for publicity shows where their heads were. They ignored written rules and did it anyways despite being told not to do it.
@@DingleFlop In addition to the very real risk they posed to other aircraft (an Embry Riddle plane crossed under their jump area like 30 seconds before their jump, unknown to them), they also made it an issue of basic obedience to authority. The FAA officially told them no, ON PAPER, and they did it anyway - either the office has meaning or they should just pack up and abolish it and let anybody do whatever they want.
Absolutely, the entire point of the saying "it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" is that it is ALWAYS the worst option to be refused permission and then do it anyway!
I'm a trucker and I use that mentality when picking gates for example. "Oh I can't have this gate? Sorry, but I have only this one pallet, can I just quickly roll it off before I leave? Thanks!". Works great in that context. If I were to ask for permission I would spend maybe 5-10 min more at the stops. Doesn't take many stops to be an hour late in that case.
@@kekke2000 That is still BS. If the persons who are responsible for your schedule and route don't take permissions into account so that you have to resort in crime to be on time, they should be fired and possibly convicted in court. Doesn't matter if that person is you or some higher up if you're working for a company. What's more, there is no excuses for you to follow those orders to commit a crime.
@@anteshell US truckers get paid per delivery, not per hour. There's no one scheduling their rides except themselves (and federal law mandating certain rest periods etc). Murican Capitalism, so much win.... :')
@@MrNicoJac So kekke just admitted of being petty criminal completely by his own volition. There's not much integrity or giving consideration for work ethics in what he's doing. That kind of attitude is not much different than for example a shop cashier sometimes pocketing small change or stealing something from work.
@@anteshell He never admitted to anything. It's not a _crime_ to take a slightly different spot than what was planned or agreed to. Only governments can create criminal laws, not warehouses, ya doofus XD Also, if a high-priority load _was_ about to arrive and he _did_ have to move, I'm sure they'd tell him that, this time, they cannot make any exceptions. So stop reading your own conclusions into things, and stop overreacting.
It’s been noted in other comments, but bears repeating. This was not in remote and unused airspace. Many locals have commented, here and on other channels, of it’s popularity as a training , parachuting, and general aviation activity center. Logically, spectators did show up: there was no practical way to control that. Buildings, homes were not so far away. The lack of safety pilots was strictly for the sensationalism affect.
Yeah, this is where they lost my sympathy. They could have easily done this somewhere in the middle of the desert, miles and miles away from the nearest building, somewhere that would have been extremely inconvenient for any spectators to travel to -- but they chose not to.
@@michaelhart7569 That was another thing that surprised me about the story. This was clearly something they didn't practice beforehand. There was no prior experiment showing that this would work out.
For example, busses (School bus, city bus, greyhound bus) , Ambulance / medical transport. Among other things. But yeah, this definitely calls for revoking their commercial operator credentials. The Trevor thing was a private (stupid) pilot. These two are commercial operators, they have a responsibility to hold their profession to a high standard, and to safely operate their vehicles. I see this as if I drove busses for a living, then took my car and drove like I was in GTA. There definitely is a higher standard for commercial vehicle operators of any kind, and these two guys blew it.
Pretty sure their private pilots licenses too. I wonder about Luke's aviation business as well. Looks like he put the whole basket at risk. Andy as well. On a minor note; I think the USPA ( US Parachute Assn.) should revoke their certificates too.
The airspace around Eloy is one of the busiest airspaces in the world with gliders, skydivers and even jets coming in and out of Tucson and phoenix sky harbour. But most importantly its where a LOT of student flying takes place too, i learnt to fly right there in the heart of it and the thing about student solos is that they still haven't reached that level of familiarity with the area or the confidence to make timely accurate position reports for avoiding conflicting traffic. The fact that the FAA denied them permission for this stunt means that there probably wasn't even a TFR or a notam in effect when they pulled this off. That's just beyond reckless for two experienced pilots such as these two and of Redbull
Yep, exactly. Back in 2007-2008 I was a student pilot, and later a time building PPL, that used that NW-SE running training corridor between Tucson and Phoenix. My home airfield was Ryan, roughly 40 miles from Sawtooth, where these 2 took off from. If I was still flying in that area, I'd be pretty PO'd if I had been forced to divert because Red Bull was performing something of such unnecessarily high risk in the area.
@@kaasmeester5903 Probably similar to NOTAM for rocket launches. A brief description saying there is a stunt happening, and stating that no other aircraft may operate in the area.
I am once again impressed by the extreme quality of another Mentour Now video. The clarity, the thoroughness, the objectivity, the insight, and the unmatched production quality. It's the gold standard of educational aviation content, nevermind that it is even free to watch. Thank you again, and congratulations to the sponsors for choosing the very best platform for their promotions.
I took my son on some college tours the week after this happened. At one of the schools we were in an auditorium with an admissions officer talking about the school and bragging it up. He mentioned this stunt and that it was their Aviation Engineering department that worked with the pilots to design and test the plane's systems and modify the planes for the stunt. I leaned over to my wife and son and whispered, "I guess he didn't see the news. Not only didn't it work, they crashed!" I don't know how many people in the audience knew, but no one said anything.
@@freesk8 They designed a suicidal autopilot mode. And it failed. What is cool? They designed an automated parachute system that also failed while there already exist parachutes on commercial planes that are fully functional. Not cool either. What did the aviation community gather from this? Absolutely nothing apart from giving some extra fuel to people who think pilots are nuts. It was not half a success. It was half good luck. And the other half a complete wreck. They pretended they had safety in mind and that they would prevent anyone from coming to site to spectate. A simple google search shows several press articles from the few days before that advertise the stunt. They didn't prevent people from coming to the dangerous area, they did the exact opposite.
@@christianbarnay2499 I guess what I am really concerned about is the scope and power of the government. The FAA represents the government, and should be limited by the Constitution. Should government have the power to decide what is too risky for us? If we grant them that power, then they might decide that single-engine planes are too risky. When self-driving cars get really good, which they will, there will be calls to outlaw human driving on faster highways. Is it the proper function of the government to protect the safety image of any industry, including the aircraft industry? I say, no. Their job is to protect our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. They are not to protect us from ourselves. They are not to prohibit us from doing things THEY think are too risky, or that might make idiots in the public think that flying airplanes is too risky. I think the pilots and engineers harmed no one else, and I think they had a right to risk their own lives. I think the FAA has made a lot of limited-govenrment types in the US think they have too much power, and ought to be reined-in. I think they risked, rather than preserved their own power when they prohibited this stunt. And spectators also have a right to risk their own lives.
@@freesk8 100% agree. The stipulation of this stunt being in the public interest is nonsensical. How is *any* flight in the public interest? It’s only in the interest of those utilizing the flight. The stipulation should have been are there any safety concerns for the public? If yes, address those concerns. If no, grant them the exemption and let them do what they want with their own property.
@@freesk8 so you don't think the government should be allowed to set speed limits or licence drivers or make a rule that you can't drive drunk or that pilots need to be licensed?
Well said Petter "Every Aviation Rule is written in blood." is an absolute truth and those that willfully break those rules really laugh in the face of all those that have perished.
Another interesting point is that Luke is a regional director at USPA (parachute association). They are responsible for skydiving training, safety, and also keeping the FAA out of skydiving as much as possible. He is one of the people who can ground a skydiver, revoke licenses and ratings, and otherwise punish people for breaking the rules and laws. Many have a problem with someone who represents a group that focuses on safety/rules/and FAA interactions to do something after the feds declined the request.
@mipmipmipmipmip skydivers very much want to keep the feds out of skydiving, and uspa has done a great job of that. His position is elected, not hired. I belive the board can kick him out, or he can resign.
@@hoopslaa5235 He's not lying. 20K is a lot of jumps but people who are "full time" skydivers can easily make over 1000 jumps per year. When I worked in the sport, I could easily do a dozen jumps a day on the weekends, and as a part time skydiver had several years of making more than 400 jumps just on the weekends.
I think your interpretation is spot on, the term tombstone technology, was created for situations like this and you were right the rules and regulations are written in blood. As trivial as a rule may seem there’s a huge amount of experience engineering and thought put into each and every one. Strong work mentor pilot you set a great example for future aviators
They should have arranged a multi-part mini-documentary BTS series detailing the different math, physics, mechanics, and programming necessary to pull off the stunt, to be released across platforms. This would have shown an actual commitment to promoting STEM.
I'm literally shaking my head. You're 100% correct - they had the explanation for promoting STEM right at their fingertips and- *sighs* -they yeeted it out the window...
But they really had 'no' interest in STEM, that was just a scam reason. This was 2 very entitled guys acting like boys, saying "But I wanna!" I hope they lose their licenses for 20 years. Charges and massive fines against them and RedBull should absolutely happen.
Reminds me of The History Guy told when on a training flight, something went very wrong with the plane, forcing the pilot to eject. After this, the plane apparently resumed perfectly normal flight, though now pilotless. Over the radio someone said “you better get back in!” The aircraft later softly landed in a field somewhere after fuel exhaustion and was recovered.
Iirc it was called the cornfield Bomber? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber They should have hid a Pilot. Or at least remote controlled it. As suggested. If air brake failed. It could have coasted a long ways from 14k feet.
100% agree with you. To have the request actually denied and then say 'What the heck? do it anyway..." must be dealt with in the most severe way. The FAA has no choice but to sanction them in a way so as to deter any future attempts to flout the 'authority' of the regulator. As a wise fighter pilot once said..(paraphrasing)..."The rules exist for your safety and that of your team..." 😄
@@joker927Rules are for everyone. To ensure nobody gets killed because someone wants to do a stunt... Yes it's their planes and their butts out in the desert but it could just as easily been the douchecanoe with the lawn chair and weather balloons. So ask if you want to do things like this. **Douche Canoe (n) An individual who insists on causing the rest of the earth as much pain as possible. Alternatively: Any conveyance used by such an entity.
@@joker927 the FAA is like it says in the video ‘written by blood’. That means pretty much every security, safety etc. rules had been made due to an accident and such. These safety regulations were made from the ‘blood’ of prior pilots.
I respectfully disagree. I am totally for some organisation publicly stating that "This pilot, and that airline, is following our recommendations, and is in our professional judgement safe to travel with". It should then be up to you and me to decide if we want to book a trip with that pilot or that airline, but I do not want a government organisation, that can use the state's monopoly on violence to force compliance, to tell me which pilot/airline I can give my business. The owners of the land where the stunt is to take place might have some reason to protest due to the risk of damage to property, visitors, etc, but that is between the pilots and the land owners. The government should have no say in that.
This event is even more inappropriate when you realize one of the skydivers is a regional director for the United States Parachuting Association. He definitely knew better and has brought the sport into disrepute as a result of his actions.
Bloody hell. I actually wonder if someone lied to them that permission was given.... It seems so unlikely that they would knowingly breach the faa code like this.
@@Tsamokie its reasonable and fair that they lose their license in this situation. He may also need to stand down from the regional directorship in parachuting.
I also believe that if they just kept asking or trying to shift the reason to do the stunt they would've gotten the permission. Or at least they could've settled for a middle ground and have a pilot on the plane that won't touch the controls unless something fails. It has two seats after all.
They did do that in their testing. Petter mentions it at 3:17 that they successfully pulled it off with safety pilots. That wasn't exciting enough for them, apparently.
I firmly believe if they had moved to an undisclosed unpopulated location and been willing to discuss safety measures they would have gotten the approval. They actually tried saying that the public safety concern should be set aside because they had business commitments to do the event that day. Realistically, I know they were unable to reach the intended 14,000 foot starting point they wanted. I'm thinking with density altitude concerns any delay or relocation would mean waiting until at least fall.
@@fluuufffffy1514 Let's hope they drop in on you, then. Having an aircraft land on you from 14000' isn't going to make your day, it'll end them permanently. The idea is to keep anything flying under control, and they didn't, predictably. They were lucky: it could have been blown in any direction several miles, particularly in a dead-leaf spin like that.
Absolutely agree with you. The alternative of having a safety pilot inside (which they did in the earlier test) still depends on finding two pilots crazy enough to stay heading straight down in an aircraft modded so far out of its flight envelope that basically all bets are off. Ejecting from a developed inverted spin might have been more dangerous and difficult than the intended stunt.
The argument of, "We promised a lot of people," is specious, at best. They would have been better off floating the stunt as a possibility, pending regulatory approval. They made promises and felt they couldn't back out. It boils down to a case of get-there-itis. Never make a promise you can't keep.
Exactly! Instead they ended up technically going through with it, but not achieving what they set out to do and pissing off FAA. Now they’ve put their licenses and jobs at risk; FAA will not ever agree to let them try this again, and maybe no other country either.
The solution was so simple. Add a safety pilot into each plane. They could even have a marketing which would emphasize safety. Something in lines "You can do amazing stunts without being reckless". Bam strong and positive message not only to aviation enthusiasts but all extreme sports in general.
@@baumkuchen6543 But that would make sense so, of course, we couldn't do that. It really would have simplified things, though. The FAA would have been happy, the viewers could still have watched an exciting stunt, and Red Bull would have been seen as a responsible corporate sponsor. Unless, of course, Red Bull's target audience is the "hold my beer" crowd...
🤔 ... actually, it is such a dumb reason, that it MAY ahve been true. After all, if you make up sometime, you can come up with something much better. Going to Mexico and give them a nice bribe, would have worked.
used to be commercial pilot license holders. theres one very dangerous factor to this stunt that i dont think iver heard anyone talking about. when the pilot that successfully boarded the other aircraft was approaching it, he hit some turbulence and veered dangerously close to the propeller. sure it was only windmilling, but had he contacted it the results still wouldve been shall we say, messy.
Why they call them Stunt Men.. As they know the risk and make accounts for it.. As this stunt has been done before. Only with a pilot still in it. As the guy jump from one plane to the next. He had the same issue. So shut the hell up. As being a Stuntman is dangerous profession. And they get paid to take those risk..Have a nice day..
Thanks for the detailed walk-through of this incident! Am not a pilot but I love learning about aviation from your channels and I honestly find this whole thing so strange. I mean - these are pilots who are aware of the rules/procedures for flying in the United States. They're obviously aware of the role of the FAA in setting/enforcing those rules and standards since they reached out to the regulator for permission to perform the stunt.....So it is so strange - why did these guys do this after the FAA rejected their application??...I mean seriously - what did they think was going to happen? Why take such a risk for basically a meaningless stunt when it could result in the loss of their licenses? I just find it really bizarre that a licensed pilot would do this! ....I mean do these guys honestly think it's likely that the FAA is just going to shrug and ignore such a violation of the rules? If that is what they thought, I think they're going to be in for an unpleasant surprise (especially in these recent times when the regulator has found itself under greater scrutiny...which I think might make it all the more likely that examples will be made of rule breakers).....
@@stellviahohenheim They are professional parachutists. They weren't in any unusual danger. But for sufficient money, I'd be willing to risk losing a pilot's license.
The stunt was purely a money grab. As for getting people interested in aviation, if that kind of sensationalism gets people interested in flying, they probably aren't the kind of people we want piloting an aircraft. And yes, Red Bull bears some responsibility and should have some consequence.
A somewhat famous female skydiver is still planning on jumping out of one plane to land inside of another using her parachute. I haven't kept up with whether she did it or is still planning it but the potential dangers don't seem to cross any of these performers minds.
@@NightMotorcyclist some would argue that for any sky diving activity. But we recognize that some have a different risk tolerance and that not everyone fantasizes about growing old enough to sit in your own poo drooling
Their decision to go ahead with the stunt baffles me. It seems like they made promises to investors and broadcasters before securing permission and panicked when they didn't get a yes the first time. All they had to do was agree to using safety pilots and make a genuine attempt at explaining why the stunt would be beneficial to aviation and STEM fields. If that fails, just ask for permission in another country as you stated, Petter
I 100% agree with you Petter, this is one of the best videos on this incident. Between you an Juan Brown, I get all the information, news, and sense I need. All the best matey!
This doesn’t make sense. If they knew they should pursue an exemption, they should also have planned a contingency for what to do if such an exemption was not granted. They seemed to consider everything else, but it never occurred to them FAA might say no? Or that it would take quite a few tries to obtain the final OK? Why would they risk their license when all they had to do was work it out with the sponsor that they would need a proposed timeframe if accepted and a second timeframe if not accepted? Like a rain date, basically. I think seeking approval and then going through with it anyway after being denied shows their reasons were purely personal and a flagrant disregard and respect for the rules that everyone else must follow. Their behavior shows FAA their whole STEM argument was just an excuse.
If their whole argument really only was that it is done for STEM, then who would even grant this? Sounds as if they were extremely full of themselves and never considered the possibility of being rejected. Who starts planning and testing something like that before sending in the application to be allowed to even do it? That screams of arrogance and thinking that the rules don't apply to them and are just a formality, where putting "STEM" on it is enough. Although I doubt that they even would ever get the permission. Scientifically there is 0 difference betweeen having a backup pilot in there or not. It would be the exact same stunt and proof of whatever concept the wanted to show off.
@@denidale4701 I agree with most of that, but not the planning and testing before applying bit. That actually is in their favor, because they can show on the application that they have already worked out how to make this work. I wonder why they didn't try the Mexican authorities, like the other case did…
Seriously, STEM is literally the most (redacted, cow poo) thing that the education world has going on right now. It's a buzzword, and that's it. We have always had science, math, etc, in schools, but this is just a way for schools to seem fancy and justify buying a bunch of fancy stuff that nobody will ever use. Most "STEM" programs don't even really focus on STEM in my opinion. Engineering is part creativity and part math. If you give me the solution, then I'm not having to be creative, or learn math. If I actually have to design the thing, then I have to do math, and be creative. That's STEM. Not "Ooh, go 3d print something b/c the school wants to look fancy"... Sincerely, A recent High School grad who saw this stuff first hand...
@@mahadevparmekar2565 Would it really have benefitted travelers? At best, the rich would take the 'best' seats, but the airlines would still fill the other seats. That's assuming anybody would even care, since the chance of a crash is so low that it's not worth planning for.
@@jursamaj Well, depends... Maybe they had a theoretical model to determine the 'safest seats' of a given design in a given situation and wanted to see how close to reality this model was. From there on, they could fix and patch the model to be as close to reality as possible and now use that model to make every seat as safe as resonably possible for the most likely situations. ...Tho, I dont know the specifics of this 'crashland a Boeing to observe seat-safety'-Test, this is just me guessing.
Great video. I missed the Trevor Jabob reference but looked him up. He just ditched his plane in the middle of nowhere. Could've hit hikers or campers. Crazy!
I knew, the moment they had their teaser video released, that the chances of that going wrong were astronomically high. I figured we’d be talking about one of the pilots in past tense, however, so I am happy they both made it.
As a former gliding instructor I am appalled at the reckless irresponsibility of Red Bull, the pilots and the media/sponsors. MrC's information below adds another dimension that makes his stunt particularly damaging. I love to see the boundaries pushed, but this was just cynical profiteering.
They just should have stuck with the secondary pilot, who would secure the plane if shit goes south. If all good, they don't interfere with controls and it's still very impressive stunt. But ofc ego was to big to go with that - now it's time to pay for that.
@@mofayer Thing is, there WERE others in the area, and the "daredevils" were not interested in putting in more safety measures to make sure there wouldn't be.
@@mofayer I’m a very limited government person but in this case have to disagree. The FAA definitely needed to step in and say NO ! Air safety is one thing this country get right most of the time.
I watched the shoreham air in the uk a few years ago and not flown since that day. Then my daughter starts college for cabin crew. I’ve said a few times how Peter has reassured me via his videos. I don’t think I’d be able to watch another stunt show again but 2 years ago I couldn’t contemplate watching a video like this 👏🏻👏🏻
You forgot to complete your point on them having "Commercial" license I think. Or I missed it, but you had me thinking it might play a role in how it is handled by the FAA. Like always, great video!
Indeed. I surmised it in another comment like this: Trevor Jacobs was akin to a 4yr old who reaches out and touches the hot stove for the first time. These pilots were functional adults who turned the stove on and pressed their hands to the hotplate.
@@ConstantlyDamaged Yea, that is a good analogy when it comes to their interactions with the FAA. When it comes to the actual act performed in the plane, Trevor Jacobs most likely caused property damage to something that wasn't his (the public/private land his plane crashed into). I'm not sure if the Red Bull act caused anything like that?
Since when does a stunt need to further the interests of Aviation. It's a stunt, if the necessary precautions are made why does anybody apart from the Sponsors need to Profit from that? The fact that it went wrong and their safety precautions where proven to work actually speaks for them in my opinion.
but their safety precautions didn't work, resulting in the complete destruction of an aircraft despite having claimed their safety systems would prevent that?
@@NathanaelKeller By not following the FAA's decision there was no way for them to take the necessary precautions to pull it off safely, no restrictions were in place on the aerospace during the stunt. The safety precautions did not work, the plane crashed which was not supposed to be possible. The fact the stunt failed as successfully as it did is nothing more than sheer luck.
Surely these guys should have waited for permission before announcing to the media that it was all go. Seems like the pressure to please media/sponsors clouded their judgement (which was otherwise very solid).
And did they *really* ever advertise the stunt as "we will not accept safety pilot even if FAA would require it"? I think that part was just their marketing department speaking and unfortunately they decided to follow that idea over FAA decision.
As a skydiver I think this kicks ass! In terms of going rogue on the FAA............they are in trouble!!!!!!!!!! Was Redbull 100% behind this one? I have seen a few Redbull stunts and they have always been on point with the legality of their activities.
I was thinking the same thing. Until this, I haven't seen Red Bull stunt that goes against the official regulation. I wouldn't been surprised to find that these two soon to be ex-pilots decided to do the stunt without FAA approval without the Red Bull legal team having any idea about the situation.
The pair asked and were refused. Just going ahead without permission, is tantamount to saying, they didn’t care about the governing regs. that govern the airspace they operate in; and also a declaration, that they consider themselves above-beyond governing, in particular the concerns of best practice as dictated by the FAA. If the licences are not rescinded, that would set a potentially dangerous presedence, that could encourage others, to do whatever they want within governed airspace. Knowing or at least thinking, there would be little backlash or concern.
Crazy that they and Red Bull went ahead with it! Generally I think that If you can give the securities that you can deal with the mess and have controls in place for all the risks, you should be allowed to do almost anything no matter if regulators understand why you want to do it. I like that you made it clear that you are not against stunts per se.
@@pR1mal. I wouldn't call losing your pilot licence, probably permanently, a "slap on the wrist." (While he's permitted to apply for a new license after a year, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't take his history into account in the new application.)
I wonder if Red Bull even knew the FAA rejected the final plan. With that many dollars and pressure riding on this, I could see how the pilots flat out lied to Red Bull about the permission, just to go through with it.
@@pR1mal. Trevor really screwed up, and he failed to do a lot of things right post-wreck. Also, him lying about it being an accident... Not good for aviation. But at the same time, he took steps to keep it reasonably safe. He apparently limited the onboard fuel, to reduce fire risk, he did it over an unpopulated area, and he went out and cleaned up the mess quickly, to reduce potential for environmental damage. So he did some things right(ish), but a lot wrong. It's probably a toss up as to whether he will get his license back. (I'm all for forgiveness, but the way he handled this is pretty bad from what I've seen)
@@pR1mal. Well, I've never applied for an FAA license myself, but all the comments I've seen from FAA license holders seem to say that he's unlikely ever to get a license again without demonstrating a major turnaround and making a strong case about why something like this could never happen again. Perhaps you can share with us the evidence that leads you to believe that the FAA is so casual with granting pilots' licenses?
Thanks for sponsoring the video Nord VPN. I happened to skip the ad segment, however I have already heard of you relentlessly, and already own and lifetime subscription to another VPN. Again, thank you for your sponsorship.
Here's my theory on why it spun out of control: for any flying object, or any object affected by aerodynamics, it will gravitate towards having its center of mass in front of its center of drag. Think of a game of darts: everyone has tried throwing it at funny angles, but no matter what you do, as long as it has the flights attached, it will flip to fly pointy end first. Planes are designed to be passively stable, and the horizontal and vertical stabilizer are a big part of this. Because they have such a long leverage to the center of mass of the plane, they will always work. This is where the Red Bull giant airbrake comes in, you can even see it in the diagram they sketch: it's in front of the center of mass. This would shift the center of drag forwards to the point where it's either in front of the center of mass, or the leverage is so short that any slight disturbance would put the plane into a flatspin, which is exactly what happened.
Yeah, you can see how one jumper pushes off too hard and his plane is slightly tilted to the left, which causes it to turn, which in turn gets cancelled by the huge air brake, before it goes into the inverted flat spin.
I wonder why they opted to install a huge heavey air brake like that. I would think a properly sized small drogue chute attached to the tail and trailing 10-15 meters behind the tail of the cessna would be a much more stable way to slow it down in a dive. Once the pilot regains control it could easily be jettisoned. But I suppose having a small chute trailing the cessna in a dive wouldn't look as cool.
It'd look cooler than having a stupid looking barn door like contraption flapping about, that unless configured absolutely perfectly would, as it did in one aircraft, create instability. A drogue chute would also not need a fancy additional 'auto pilot' either.
They actually addressed this at one point. I believe the reasoning was largely around ease of training and practice, with a brake that can simply be raised and lowered without needing to be repacked, reattached, etc.
@@Tekwyzard Uhh, yes it would. Even _more_ so in fact, since a huge air brake below the plane's CG would produce a nose-down moment, while a chute on the tail would not. A chute on the tail would not stop the plane from trying to level off at all.
I'm entirely okay with the stunt. There's no reason to have a safety pilot. The failure mode is what happened, couldn't get in the plane and it crashes into the ground in a controlled environment. What's not okay is just doing the stunt after getting denied by the FAA. They easily could have had an alternate location set up in Mexico if the FAA denied the waver which is something red bull has done for aviation stunts in the past.
@@tradingmedic In aviation it is extremely important to follow rules and regulations. If you start disregarding those rules, people will be harmed at some point, especially if the pilots function as idols. Undermining rules written to protect lives will lead to desaster at some point.
@@tradingmedic They have sent a specific message to all the click thirsty youtubers out there. Hopefully FAA will modify that message appropriately. Plus if I only endanger myself... I can do anything I want?
@@tradingmedic They were doing this stunt in public airspace. It's no different from asking a permission to record a car crash in your local city for a movie, not getting the permission and doing the crash anyway. If you cannot get permission for the location you want, modify the experiment or switch location. Or do it on private property (in the US, I guess that would be some military reserved airspace restricted from public).
I enjoy how you drew that picture, but in no way is it comparable. Tell me more about the people they put in danger. Every day they take little portions of freedom away, eventually controlling every aspect of every action you could take. The government will label kids as insurgents so the optics of killing them doesn't look soo bad, but they damn well will not let 2 experienced pilots perform an isolated stunt that left 0 injuries... The sheep goes "bahahahaha"
I'm with you Petter. Stunt pilots have been a thing for decades at airshows (anyone remember the Stampe?) and IMO if you want educate people about aircraft and STEM, that's how you do it - young people see the aerobatics and can then come and ask as many questions as they like at the static display. These latter "stunts" (Red Bull swap and Trevor Jacob) have resulted in the (unnecessary) loss of aircraft: how long until someone dies? As you say, "every (aviation) rule is written in blood". [edit] I want to add that, yes pilots have lost their lives while flying stunts at airshows, but an airshow is a controlled environment - crash tenders, ambulances are all at hand. The more of these unnecessary and stupid stunts occur out in the wilds, the worse and sillier it gets. /edit
I actually think this is worse than the Trevor Jacobs situation. In both cases you have an intentional violation of regulations, but while this stunt seems much more well thought out from a safety perspective, the fact is that they put their meticulous planning in front of experts and those experts told them that it wouldn't be safe, and they decided to do it anyway. Where Trevor Jacobs at least can say that they did not adequately judge the risks associated with their stunt - these folks have nothing.
@Joe Cooter - Red Bull and the pilots admitted the stunt was risky and went to great lengths to mitigate that risk. The FAA just wasn't convinced that the benefit (financial renumeration to Red Bull and the Pilots) justified the risk.
@@wickedcabinboy Red Bull or the pilots didn't want to mitigate the risk or they would have just used safety pilot in both planes, like they did during the practice. The fact that FAA explicitly said no for removing the safety pilot should have been pretty clear clue that they are taking non-acceptable risks with the stunt design.
@@MikkoRantalainen - I have to admit you have a point. Leaving the plane without a pilot is pretty risky, as subsequent events dramatically demonstrated. The FAA was of course vindicated.
they didnt get denied based on the "safety" perspective they got denied because the FAA didnt see any benefit in doing it.. those are two very different things.. as we can see with the outcome even whenit didnt goto plan no one was in serious risk, just because a government regulator doesnt see the benefit in something should we not allow it under any circumstances? if we take that notion to every aspect of life whats left that we are allowed to do or have
@@AndrewBrowner Law usually works by having everything allowed except explicitly mentioned special cases. Do you think that FAA works different way and only specifically allows some things but all undefined cases are considered disallowed?
A well thought out description of my initial feelings on this stunt. This is a good example why I'm a new subscriber. Even though I'm not really in aviation. Just an enthusiast.
For me at least, all the respect and lessons and such for all the safety work they did evaporates when they ignore the FAA saying 'no'. The frames safety in terms of not best practices, but convenience... that things are only worth doing right when they are cool or have bragging rights, but as soon as they get 'lame', you drop them.
No, the FAA had no valid reason to reject it. They were just being nitpicky about rules that have exactly 0% relevancy to this situation and were only a danger to Red Bulls loose pocketchange in one boardmembers pocket (the planes crashing). FAA just wanted to be a nuisance to goad some bribes from Redbull to expedite the process.
Wow. They must really have been under a huge amount of pressure from Redbull to go ahead with this stunt, they aren't amateurs and must have known exactly what was at stake and been prepared to lose their licences over it 😳
Yeah, it's crazy. Even if it had worked flawlessly, it seems like a suspension of their certificates would be the absolute minimum that would be expected with a revocation very likely (both the Part 135 cert and their CPLs.)
The stunt itself is not that problematic. It's the fact they ignored the FAA denying them clearance. Their prep work is pretty impressive it did seem really thorough, but doing it in intentional violation was stupid, especially using sponsors as their excuse. I'm sure they could have pulled it off in another country or made other arrangements given more time. Sounds like they boxed themselves into a corner with contractual obligations they couldn't guarantee they could meet.
Why is ignoring the FAA the problem here? Whose interest is the FAA serving by denying this request? If they keep denying people *trying* to play their game, eventually people are going to stop asking permission entirely. Redbull did their homework. Have a decent track record on keeping bystanders, and performers, safe. And the FAA, what do they do? "Lol nope, get bent." Fuck the FAA. It's getting too big for the purpose it serves.
@@connorcampbell5274 because they are claiming to set an example for inspiring aviators. You don't do that by encouraging them to bust regulations because of the rule of cool.
@@TheSpacecraftX Redbull isn't encouraging it, the FAA is doing that themselves. If you're going to deny someone putting in the work to make a stunt as safe as reasonably possible, all you're telling them is that you, as a regulating body, cannot be reasonably dealt with. And what do you do with unreasonable, people? You ignore them. The FAA could have played ball with them. Worked shit out. But instead they disapprove it because it's "not safe". No shit, it wouldn't be a god damn stunt if it were fucking safe.
obviously not thorough enough since they crashed a plane. obviously not thorough enough since a plane flew through that airspace at some point. they deserve everything their getting and more. hey it's cool if you wanna kill yourself. just do it privately so no one knows. this is no different than getting drunk and going for a ride in a semi. these 2 idiots thinking they accounted for everything and high on their egos decided they were going to do this regardless of the denial. what if that plane hit someone on the ground? what if they collided with a passenger plane? I'll bet all these libertarians wouldn't be saying that stupid shit if something like that happened. There's a reason the FAA has such a good track record and the rules were written in the blood of other pilots and accidents.
To be fair (or rather to clarify) apparently Red bull essentially delegated the organisation of this stunt and trusted the people doing this stunt to sort out all of the permissions etc. compared with taking responsibility for all of it themselves (I'm told they're normally meticulous) so Red bull themselves may not have known about the FAA situation. All in all the FAA concerns seem to valid and whether they were or not if you apply for FAA permission and they don't give it you should address the concerns rather than just doing it anyway. The main difference between them and TJ though is that they weren't atempting to deceive from the start. Agree with what you said, feel sorry for them to an extent but they knew what they were doing...
As you say they usually are meticulous. And since they already had serious safety issues with past aerial events (namely the 3 year interruption of the Red Bull Air Race championship after a series of serious incidents including a crash on land), you would think if there is a domain were RB would be particularly cautious and handle all the paperwork themselves to avoid any kind of issue it would be an aerial stunt.
@mipmipmipmipmip I didn't say they are meticulous. I said they have all reasons to be meticulous since they already have had issues in the domain. So if they still let people do stupid things with their financial support, they are even more responsible then if they handled it themselves since they already know the consequences.
@mipmipmipmipmip We agree on the reality of their (lack of) care for safety. As you noted I was quoting the initial post in which the full sentence was "(I'm told they're normally meticulous)". And I added some context related to their previous encounters with regulating authorities. It was a way to emphasize the fact that despite having already faced sanctions for similarly dangerous behaviour they keep on with the bad habit.
Ignoring the FAA was the wrong thing to do without a doubt. BUT I really don't understand why the FAA denied their request in the first place with the reason of ``not in the public interest`` I call BS on that. 1. I'm sure there was a lot of hype and public interest to see this stunt happen (as with all red bull events). Also to promote the sport of skydiving and aviation in general is a good reason. 2. they took extraordinary safety measures to ensure no one gets hurt (and no one did) what they should have done in my opinion is ask people to write to the FAA and show that there is public interest in this eventually with enough pressure they would have gotten the green light to do this.
The FAA question that didn't get an adequate answer was: what is the benefit of doing this _without_ a safety pilot in each airplane versus doing it with a safety pilot in each airplane.
@@Dennis-vh8tz from my understanding from the video the original question was why at all do this. Though I agree that the stunt would have the same "WoW" effect with safety pilots in each aircraft and would have probably saved the machine.
@@k8p4life restricting airspace is not as simple restricting roads. The airspace was pretty close to Phoenix airspace which full of airliner. If they close it down they not only have to close the airspace that being used for the stunt. If Phoenix closed than no one be able to fly, doesn't matter who it is
Red Bull has been known to pull non-stop Stupidity just like Monster Energy but of course the public and the models that are hired at these events think it's badass to do these kinds of stunts and then when things go south they dump the responsibility on other people.
@@Confucius_Says... It gets dangerous for people around them sadly. A few years ago a Monster Energy model on an off-road race track was doing promos and photoshoots next to Baja 400 cars prepping to start the race. The area she was in was off limits to spectators and the models had to be very careful where they walked or stood. Well she thought she would get a better pose for a photog by moving back getting really close to a car whose driver wasn't aware that she was practically standing right next to his tread. He took off and she fell face forward fracturing her skull. Not only is she getting $100K from GoFundMe, the driver and the event organizers are facing criminal charges due to supposed lack of safety measures. Driver didn't even know she pull that stupidity.
RedBull has much blood on its hand with stunts that killed performers. One example is the guy who jumped from a tall building in a parachute. The latter didn't open and the guy sadly had a speedy meeting with the concrete parking lot.
Great video! I love the way you bring the facts to the viewers in such a neutral way and explain things from an unbiased perspective and "educate" people on both sides of the fence. 💚💚💚
I think Red Bull has done so much to increase interest in aviation. Think of the crowds at the Air Race and all the people who followed Stratos. They put in a huge amount of effort (and money) into making something crazy as safe as possible and doing it by the book. I’m so shocked and disappointed that they performed this against the instructions of the FAA. That is so irresponsible and wrong. The only defence would be if Red Bull weren’t told by the pilots that the permission had been rejected. I think they’ve just made it way less likely that their future events will be allowed to happen and rightly so. That being said, this isn’t nearly on the same level as Trevor Jacobs. Unlike him, they had done everything to minimise the risk to others. They also weren’t suggesting that jumping out of the plane is actually the safest thing to do!
While true, it could also be argued that these guys (and Red Bull itself) should have known better. Trevor Jacobs, like a lot of people, made a stupid decision possibly ignorant of many of the rules of aviation he was breaking. This stunt was performed by people who knew *_exactly_* what rules they were breaking and why breaking them is bad, after being told that the stunt was not allowed. Put simply, Trevor Jacobs was akin to a 4yr old who reaches out and touches the hot stove for the first time. These pilots were functional adults who turned the stove on and pressed their hands to the hotplate.
@@miskatonic6210 There's a saying among sparkies (electricians) regarding this: There are old sparkies and there are bold sparkies, but there are no old bold sparkies. I imagine this applies just as well to flying as it does to handling high voltage. The rules these guys knew they were breaking and broke were paid for with blood. No one wants the price increased.
At some point the kinds of people who do such stunts say, "I have taken all the precautions I need to do this safely and you are infringing on my freedom by preventing from doing something that does not endanger anyone but me."
In terms of aviation engineering, none of this was done by any sort of a “book”. It was an undercapitalized project that required lots of expensive control systems engineering and flight testing that just wasn’t done. Whatever cut-down autopilot they used was not going to be enough, and anyone dealing with flight controls professionally would have told them that. And that was just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
They stated afterwards that the issue with the aircraft that lost control could have been caused by not getting the cg exactly correct. All of the test flights included a safety pilot. They tried to compensate for the lack of the safety pilot by adjusting the weight and cg of the plane. There was no way for them to test this configuration except for performing the stunt itself. Evidently they got the mass adjustment correct for one plane but not the other.
That's pretty silly - you'd think they'd just put a dummy in the plane to match the already-tested mass distribution and reduce the number of variables.
@@henryptung certainly not disagreeing with you, however, they removed the second seat as well. Presumably this was done to provide additional room to make it easier for the stunt pilots to exit and reenter the aircraft.
Great work as usual :), I did a video on the same subject 4 days ago on my aviation channel, it is just in Arabic, from a different perspective. Some of the videos has English translation though. And I am a big fan of your work
Everything you'd said up until the point where you said they just defied the FAA ruling had me confused as to what was the big deal. Clearly they'd done their homework on making the stunt viable and made it public that if you want to try something that crazy, you need to get *ALL* of your ducks in a row in terms of setting it up, have parachutes on the pilots just in case, etc. Nobody watching this is going to mistake it for being safe what's the issue? "The FAA denied their request and they did it anyway" Oh....well shit. Nevermind then.
Honestly the FAA had no business rejecting it in the first place, overstepping their authority. With the way things were set up, I wouldn't be asking the FAA anything. I'd be telling them what's gonna happen.
Clearly they had not done their homework, because a very likely outcome had happened. Even an absurdly superficial risk analysis would have figured this outcome to be likely. They were praying for things to go right. That’s not engineering, it’s just wishful thinking. The likely cost to pull this off safely had an extra zero beyond what their budget was. This was a production more reminiscent of tight budget circus and movie stunts, or carnival rides.
@@absurdengineering Buddy, every stunt has a fairly high likelihood of it going wrong, that's *why* it's a stunt and not just a neat demonstration like those aeronautics squadrons do. What they did do is design things such that in the scenario where one of the planes became unrecoverable, the only thing that got hurt was a plane and a patch of ground. Maybe a plant or two, probably some bugs. The pilot had a parachute and knew how to get to a safe place to use it (ie: not under the plane that was falling toward him), there were no spectators gawping on the ground just waiting to be hit. That's the kind of thing that responsible stunt designers do....they just have to *also* make a deal with the regulators and so on. If you want to see truly irresponsible stuff, check out the video Paper Skies did entitled "How One Crash killed thousands of French Soldiers in WWI" which details a crash in 1911 at the start of an air race that killed France's Minister of War (because he was on the ground watching in a spot where planes that fucked up a takeoff would land...exactly not where to stand on a runway.) (This had a number of consequences for WWI, the simplest of which was that he was the biggest proponent of changing France's army uniform from a brilliant, easy to see blue to a drab grey. He died, the uniform didn't get change, and the French walked into a war where stealth was critical wearing flashy 19th century uniforms. Given the meat grinder WWI was, most of those soldiers probably would have died anyway, but it did mean they were at a significant disadvantage in terms of not being seen and thus not being shot.)
@@JelMain It would have been illegal but they could have gotten FAA permission for that. Instead of doing anything that FAA would have considered safe, they decided to execute the stunt without adequate safety. I think revoking their licenses would be a suitable decision. That obviously wouldn't prevent them from flying planes anyway, as they've already demonstrated but at least they could no longer pretend to be following the rules.
I fully agree with your statement when someone deliberately breaks the rules (going against FAA directive) and performing the stunt anyway is reckless.
Both pilots should lose their licences IMMEDIATELY. Why, very simple, the governing body the FAA said NO, not without a safety pilot in each aircraft. They took it upon themselves to disobey a FAA directive. Now, here's the problem, if these two are going to be allowed to keep flying then the next person/pair to get a stupid bird brained idea like this, if the other two get a "smack on the wrist for disobeying the directive" then anyone else doing the same is going to think "well it doesn't really matter what the FAA think, they won't do much about it anyway". NO, NO, NO, I firmly believe the FAA cannot be seen to be weak in this situation, It could, open the flood gates to God knows what.
Sadist P0S. Did you graduate high school, ESL? The only thing 'getting permission' would have done, is allow them to make an insurance claim. On top of that, they would be paying higher insurance rates now, due to making a claim. You can't hold a man liable for destroying his own property, IT'S HIS PROPERTY to do with as he pleases. AND the STEM field made out like bandits, showing just how STUPID people can really be, to the unpredictability of man ability to FU. MP was on the nose, just get the hell out of FAA jurisdiction. The problem was $$$, as they don't receive such a high standard of financial protection. IF the stunt team tried to make an insurance claim AFTER being denied, this becomes full fledged fraud, A CRIMINAL LIABILITY. Gov agencies are nothing more than fraud syndicates. As Bachelor of Art degree holders, they must all resort to sophistry to have a 'successful' career. Gov agents are intellectually weak, by default, and for them to be held unaccountable is a crime in and of itself.
@@beachbum77979 Doesn't need any more rules written in anything. All the exsisting rules are there for the safety of the aircraft, the pilots, the cabin crew, and the likes of you and me
Yeah, i feel kinda bad for the guy that had to bail, because the other guy messed up his jump and plane, but that guy could still land the plane that the parachute guy left for him, got screwed twice in one jump, and almost got killed doing so, but yeah, that is exactly why the FAA said no to this.
Firstly, I wanted to say that I thought that that this was reckless. However, as a devotee of motorcycle road racing, for example the TT Races on the Isle of Man. I'm in no position to judge.
One big difference - the TT is sanctioned and thus legal. This stunt was emphatically neither of those. I'm all for risking what you want - like the venerable TT you mentioned (and damn boy howdy, there's some impressive riders and spectacular accidents) - but if the governing body decreed that it couldn't continue in its current form, you know it would be either adapted until it met the required standards for acceptance, or cancelled. In this case, it's not the stunt that's the problem, but that they deliberately went against the FAA (after acknowledging by applying for permission that the FAA has the authority) - that's the real problem.
If they run TT Races on the Isle of Man on public roads after getting denial for the request to close the roads or otherwise make it safe for public (or close the airspace for this specific stunt), would you think it would be fine that they continued without the permission anyway?
@@aussiebloke609 The issue is why is one sanctioned but the other is not? There are 2 separate issues to this. 1 is why the FAA didn't give permission. The other is why they went against the FAA.
@@jeffreyblack666 While it would be interesting to know, the "why" for the FAA isn't really important at this juncture - the fact that they acknowledged that the FAA had authority (by asking permission in the first place), then went against their ruling...that's the important part as far as governing bodies are concerned. Even if the FAA did it purely on a whim, it's still valid as a refusal of permission. If there was a problem with that ruling, they job was to protest or appeal and see if they can get the ruling changed, not to go ahead and ignore the governing body because they didn't get the answer they want. I suspect that the FAA's reasoning is at least partially because this dangerous aeronautic stunt wasn't in the best interests of aviation in general. Compare that to the TT, where the implied danger of motorcycle racing is an inherent part of the sport. But even then, if someone attempted to make the TT more dangerous as a stunt, say, by attempting to swap bikes while barrelling down the straight - they would also be refused. So it's about what level of danger is acceptable to the respective governing body...and no more.
i think this is one of those times when the FAA need to give them the max punishment they legally can as to set an example of them, if they dont i believe it will set a very bad and dangerous precident.
I actually find many Red Bull marketing stunts pretty good. However, when marketing department wants something and official regulator (FAA) doesn't give the required permission, the marketing department MUST switch to another plan.
That is why they are fun and people like to watch them. Lindbergh flight across the Atlantic was extremely risky. I forget the precise estimations but the Apollo program was extremely likely to blow up. As long as they aren't within reason putting anyone else in danger things like this should be able to be done. Humans get bored and this kind of stuff is inspiring precisely because its dangerous and ridiculous.
I belive than not been so close in time to the TJ "thing" they could potentially get the permission after all its REDBULL... Great video never the less, very up to the point
Filing for an exemption to any authority is a long and tedious process. It is almost certain they made their first attempts and got their first rejections way before TJ even thought of his own stunt. It is clearly said that they filled multiple times trying to come up with some plausible excuse that might fool the FAA into believing this was not just another stupid publicity stunt with no positive outcome to the air community.
Great video. I think the FAA should pull their license. They knowing broke the rules and that should have major consequences. They can be consultants for Red Bull if Red Bull has a use for two former pilots.
I'm wondering if we're not seeing more of these "ignore the FAA orders" cases since the max scandal. "If FAA is so accommodating with Boeing, why should we bother as pilots?"
Because with all regulatory bodies the regulations pile up to the point nothing is permitted. Like crashing that large passenger plane. If they can prove that they can clean up after the incident, and there's really no environmental impact, what gives? Why not let them? Who gives a shit if they find nothing interesting? Same reason Space X said fuck it on SN8 and ignored the FAA. Their regulations are not serving anyone's interests. Of fucking course they know a prototype rocket landing vertically is dangerous and very likely to fail. They're clearly playing your game by asking for permission. The least they could do is work with them; instead they're dragging their feet, and digging their heels in because of "safety". Fuck safety. It's obviously unsafe. The danger is well understood by everyone involved.
Amazing !! you drove the point home beautifully. So many lives have been lost unfortunately which is why the FAA has put safety rules in place.. only to be blatantly disregarded by a few.
My letter to the FAA about this would have been Dear FAA, we want to do this for the following reasons: 1. It would be really cool Aside from that, I believe people should be allowed to do dangerous stunts for money, if they're not endangering others.
@3:30, Well that's easy to figure out, as soon as the pilot jumped, he reduced the planes mass by 250-300 pounds. The aerobrake is now pushing against the wrong center of gravity and pushes the plane past its center of gravity causing it to go inverted.
I understand the FAA's ruling on this, but I do have to wonder whether this could have ended up as a fatal accident if they agreed to put a safety pilot in the planes. What I mean is, had the same thing happened to the accident aircraft while another pilot was at the controls, would that pilot have been able to recover from the inverted flat-spin with all of those modifications to the airframe? In a way, I think this could have been worse if that happened and the pilot was unable to recover, since even the parachute was insufficient from preventing a very high-G impact with the ground that severely crushed the airframe. Even if the safety pilot was able to quickly retract the large speed-brake under the fuselage, would he be able to recover from that kind of a spin? Perhaps. But it seems even more dangerous than what actually happened.
@@JelMain Just like Alan Turing, who broke the law by being gay? Should he also just suffer the consequences? Blind adherence to the law without questioning or thinking is just as dumb as complete disregard for the law.
Love your take on this. Perfect. A cool stunt. If they'd bothered to respond with good ideas instead of, "We have promised sponsors...", they might have obtained permission. And then there's Mexico...
I’m wondering how they performed the paperwork for the speed brake and autopilot mods.. move the aircraft to experimental category? I don’t think there’s an STC for the speed brake mod yet! Lol
I love your channel, but I have to say that this stunt was awesome - even if it didn't work out. Yes, they could have waited for approval or moved it to Mexico. I'm a pilot, and overall I have great respect for the FAA, but some times I wished they could just say "That's cool - okay" with all the appropriate safety measures in place - even if there was no "public good".
they did raise intrest in aviation and showed one thing clearly that no matter how well the calculations are there is always something that can go wrong
This was going along greay, they had a plan, they were taking precautions, and then they did the stupidity of doing it against specific instructions not to. I don't know what they were thinking. Even if the stunt had gone well they probably would have been suspended
Head over to nordvpn.com/mentournow for an exclusive deal.
I think you should change your sponsor as it was not too long ago that they got hacked.
VPN ads are kind of predatory. People don't really understand what they are used for and they don't make you safer just having one. I understand the channel needs a sponsor I'd rather see a raid shadow legends ad over a vpn
VPN’s are very valuable, and Nord is the best
@@IanJames56 ha but ok
Petter, you should have added a link to the 727 crash in the Mexican desert!
It took me _wayyy_ too long to find out you'd actually already made a video about it ;)
czcams.com/video/qFA3vHWhj6Q/video.html
Such a great point ..."There are some businesses where it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission but the aviation business is not that business". Beautifully stated and right on the money! To just ignore WRITTEN instructions from the FAA is simply shocking to me. No, these guys certainly aren't Trevor Jacob stupid...but they definitely made a stupid decision to so publicly defy the FAA. I agree. This will not end well for either one of them.
TJ at least thought he was fine legally... These punks knew they were breaking the law...
@@Argosh Jacobs plain knew he was braking the law.
Didn't Elon Musk also do the exact same thing?
@@unvergebeneid Elon musk crashed rockets. But unplanned, and on the purpose of improving.
@@chargehanger but he also asked the FAA for permission, was denied it, and _then_ went on to start (and crash) the rocket.
Today the FAA revoked all of the FAA licenses held by both pilots, including Aikins' drone license and Farrington's parachute rigger license.
They really aren't fooling around anymore.
They should be prosecuted.
@@hermitoldguy6312 Agreed. Even just a Federal misdemeanor with a fine and probation would ensure they're ineligible to get their licenses back.
The problem as it stands is that they can spend 1 year buttering up somebody at the FAA and then simply get their ticket back, no muss no fuss. It's happened before to celebrities and millionaires. Would never happen for you or I.
I don't understand...
In terrestrial sports, I can do whatever crazy dangerous stuff I want on my own closed track and nobody can say anything about it, but these two pilots should be PROSECUTED for operating in wide open airspace doing a stunt...?
Is there just a cultural difference between me and people in the aviation community? That seems astoundingly heavy handed. They already lost their licenses, why does more need to be done? Surely there's some work involved to get them back...
@@DingleFlop And you answered your own question. Airspace is not a closed track. The fact they even attempted mere months after Trevor Jacob had his licence revoked for faking a plane crash for publicity shows where their heads were. They ignored written rules and did it anyways despite being told not to do it.
@@DingleFlop In addition to the very real risk they posed to other aircraft (an Embry Riddle plane crossed under their jump area like 30 seconds before their jump, unknown to them), they also made it an issue of basic obedience to authority.
The FAA officially told them no, ON PAPER, and they did it anyway - either the office has meaning or they should just pack up and abolish it and let anybody do whatever they want.
Absolutely, the entire point of the saying "it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" is that it is ALWAYS the worst option to be refused permission and then do it anyway!
I'm a trucker and I use that mentality when picking gates for example. "Oh I can't have this gate? Sorry, but I have only this one pallet, can I just quickly roll it off before I leave? Thanks!". Works great in that context. If I were to ask for permission I would spend maybe 5-10 min more at the stops. Doesn't take many stops to be an hour late in that case.
@@kekke2000 That is still BS. If the persons who are responsible for your schedule and route don't take permissions into account so that you have to resort in crime to be on time, they should be fired and possibly convicted in court. Doesn't matter if that person is you or some higher up if you're working for a company. What's more, there is no excuses for you to follow those orders to commit a crime.
@@anteshell
US truckers get paid per delivery, not per hour. There's no one scheduling their rides except themselves (and federal law mandating certain rest periods etc).
Murican Capitalism, so much win.... :')
@@MrNicoJac So kekke just admitted of being petty criminal completely by his own volition. There's not much integrity or giving consideration for work ethics in what he's doing. That kind of attitude is not much different than for example a shop cashier sometimes pocketing small change or stealing something from work.
@@anteshell
He never admitted to anything.
It's not a _crime_ to take a slightly different spot than what was planned or agreed to.
Only governments can create criminal laws, not warehouses, ya doofus XD
Also, if a high-priority load _was_ about to arrive and he _did_ have to move, I'm sure they'd tell him that, this time, they cannot make any exceptions.
So stop reading your own conclusions into things, and stop overreacting.
It’s been noted in other comments, but bears repeating. This was not in remote and unused airspace. Many locals have commented, here and on other channels, of it’s popularity as a training , parachuting, and general aviation activity center. Logically, spectators did show up: there was no practical way to control that. Buildings, homes were not so far away. The lack of safety pilots was strictly for the sensationalism affect.
Yeah, this is where they lost my sympathy. They could have easily done this somewhere in the middle of the desert, miles and miles away from the nearest building, somewhere that would have been extremely inconvenient for any spectators to travel to -- but they chose not to.
@@wloffblizz Me too. I had assumed that it was in a remote location. And what "practice" runs did they actually perform, I wonder?
> The lack of safety pilots was strictly for the sensationalism affect.
Well, that is a given, as they had already done it, with pilots in the planes.
@@michaelhart7569 That was another thing that surprised me about the story. This was clearly something they didn't practice beforehand. There was no prior experiment showing that this would work out.
@@BrianHartman The did practice it. With other pilots sitting.
As a commercial motor vehicle operator, I see this as an instant "Your commercial operator credentials are hereby revoked" moment.
You could just say “truck driver”
@@louissanderson719 As a truck driver, there are plenty of commercial motor vehicles that are not trucks
For example, busses (School bus, city bus, greyhound bus)
, Ambulance / medical transport.
Among other things.
But yeah, this definitely calls for revoking their commercial operator credentials. The Trevor thing was a private (stupid) pilot. These two are commercial operators, they have a responsibility to hold their profession to a high standard, and to safely operate their vehicles.
I see this as if I drove busses for a living, then took my car and drove like I was in GTA. There definitely is a higher standard for commercial vehicle operators of any kind, and these two guys blew it.
@@macattack123mattc3 My thoughts exactly.
Pretty sure their private pilots licenses too. I wonder about Luke's aviation business as well. Looks like he put the whole basket at risk. Andy as well. On a minor note; I think the USPA ( US Parachute Assn.) should revoke their certificates too.
The airspace around Eloy is one of the busiest airspaces in the world with gliders, skydivers and even jets coming in and out of Tucson and phoenix sky harbour. But most importantly its where a LOT of student flying takes place too, i learnt to fly right there in the heart of it and the thing about student solos is that they still haven't reached that level of familiarity with the area or the confidence to make timely accurate position reports for avoiding conflicting traffic.
The fact that the FAA denied them permission for this stunt means that there probably wasn't even a TFR or a notam in effect when they pulled this off. That's just beyond reckless for two experienced pilots such as these two and of Redbull
That would be icing on the cake for sure! Just having lookouts with aircraft that are literally out of control in such an airspace...
Yep, exactly. Back in 2007-2008 I was a student pilot, and later a time building PPL, that used that NW-SE running training corridor between Tucson and Phoenix. My home airfield was Ryan, roughly 40 miles from Sawtooth, where these 2 took off from. If I was still flying in that area, I'd be pretty PO'd if I had been forced to divert because Red Bull was performing something of such unnecessarily high risk in the area.
Good point. How would the NOTAM for this stunt actually read, I wonder?
@@kaasmeester5903 Probably similar to NOTAM for rocket launches. A brief description saying there is a stunt happening, and stating that no other aircraft may operate in the area.
"The airspace around Eloy is one of the busiest airspaces in the world'' . I have told you a million times before not to exaggerate.
I am once again impressed by the extreme quality of another Mentour Now video. The clarity, the thoroughness, the objectivity, the insight, and the unmatched production quality. It's the gold standard of educational aviation content, nevermind that it is even free to watch. Thank you again, and congratulations to the sponsors for choosing the very best platform for their promotions.
Except.. this is not Mentour Pilot, it is Mentour Now! 😂
Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected. Though the distinction is not very relevant for my comment.
I took my son on some college tours the week after this happened. At one of the schools we were in an auditorium with an admissions officer talking about the school and bragging it up. He mentioned this stunt and that it was their Aviation Engineering department that worked with the pilots to design and test the plane's systems and modify the planes for the stunt. I leaned over to my wife and son and whispered, "I guess he didn't see the news. Not only didn't it work, they crashed!" I don't know how many people in the audience knew, but no one said anything.
I still think what the engineers and pilots did was cool, even though it only half succeeded. I think the FAA screwed up in not allowing the stunt.
@@freesk8 They designed a suicidal autopilot mode. And it failed. What is cool? They designed an automated parachute system that also failed while there already exist parachutes on commercial planes that are fully functional. Not cool either. What did the aviation community gather from this? Absolutely nothing apart from giving some extra fuel to people who think pilots are nuts.
It was not half a success. It was half good luck. And the other half a complete wreck.
They pretended they had safety in mind and that they would prevent anyone from coming to site to spectate. A simple google search shows several press articles from the few days before that advertise the stunt. They didn't prevent people from coming to the dangerous area, they did the exact opposite.
@@christianbarnay2499 I guess what I am really concerned about is the scope and power of the government. The FAA represents the government, and should be limited by the Constitution. Should government have the power to decide what is too risky for us? If we grant them that power, then they might decide that single-engine planes are too risky. When self-driving cars get really good, which they will, there will be calls to outlaw human driving on faster highways. Is it the proper function of the government to protect the safety image of any industry, including the aircraft industry? I say, no. Their job is to protect our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. They are not to protect us from ourselves. They are not to prohibit us from doing things THEY think are too risky, or that might make idiots in the public think that flying airplanes is too risky. I think the pilots and engineers harmed no one else, and I think they had a right to risk their own lives. I think the FAA has made a lot of limited-govenrment types in the US think they have too much power, and ought to be reined-in. I think they risked, rather than preserved their own power when they prohibited this stunt. And spectators also have a right to risk their own lives.
@@freesk8 100% agree. The stipulation of this stunt being in the public interest is nonsensical. How is *any* flight in the public interest? It’s only in the interest of those utilizing the flight.
The stipulation should have been are there any safety concerns for the public? If yes, address those concerns. If no, grant them the exemption and let them do what they want with their own property.
@@freesk8 so you don't think the government should be allowed to set speed limits or licence drivers or make a rule that you can't drive drunk or that pilots need to be licensed?
Well said Petter "Every Aviation Rule is written in blood." is an absolute truth and those that willfully break those rules really laugh in the face of all those that have perished.
What's petter
@@behindthen0thing525 the pilot's name
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 what pilot
@@behindthen0thing525 Mentour Pilot
@@koharaisevo3666 yeah but what's petter?
"The rules are written in blood" at first sounds like an exaggeration, but when you think about it, it is literal. Well done.
Another interesting point is that Luke is a regional director at USPA (parachute association). They are responsible for skydiving training, safety, and also keeping the FAA out of skydiving as much as possible. He is one of the people who can ground a skydiver, revoke licenses and ratings, and otherwise punish people for breaking the rules and laws. Many have a problem with someone who represents a group that focuses on safety/rules/and FAA interactions to do something after the feds declined the request.
@mipmipmipmipmip skydivers very much want to keep the feds out of skydiving, and uspa has done a great job of that. His position is elected, not hired. I belive the board can kick him out, or he can resign.
20,000 Jumps? That’s 27yrs even 2 a day EVERY DAY FOR 27yrs!! Someone’s lying!
@@hoopslaa5235 He's not lying. 20K is a lot of jumps but people who are "full time" skydivers can easily make over 1000 jumps per year. When I worked in the sport, I could easily do a dozen jumps a day on the weekends, and as a part time skydiver had several years of making more than 400 jumps just on the weekends.
I think your interpretation is spot on, the term tombstone technology, was created for situations like this and you were right the rules and regulations are written in blood. As trivial as a rule may seem there’s a huge amount of experience engineering and thought put into each and every one. Strong work mentor pilot you set a great example for future aviators
They should have arranged a multi-part mini-documentary BTS series detailing the different math, physics, mechanics, and programming necessary to pull off the stunt, to be released across platforms. This would have shown an actual commitment to promoting STEM.
I'm literally shaking my head. You're 100% correct - they had the explanation for promoting STEM right at their fingertips and- *sighs* -they yeeted it out the window...
But they really had 'no' interest in STEM, that was just a scam reason. This was 2 very entitled guys acting like boys, saying "But I wanna!" I hope they lose their licenses for 20 years. Charges and massive fines against them and RedBull should absolutely happen.
Reminds me of The History Guy told when on a training flight, something went very wrong with the plane, forcing the pilot to eject. After this, the plane apparently resumed perfectly normal flight, though now pilotless. Over the radio someone said “you better get back in!” The aircraft later softly landed in a field somewhere after fuel exhaustion and was recovered.
Iirc it was called the cornfield Bomber? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber They should have hid a Pilot. Or at least remote controlled it. As suggested. If air brake failed. It could have coasted a long ways from 14k feet.
Was that not the German jet bomber that crashed into a garden pilot, nope that one was on the Mark Felton channel. Sorry.
@@dennis2376 nah, this was the cornfield bomber as mentioned above.
czcams.com/video/kpvli-g1WnA/video.html
@@larrythompson8630 Yep, that was it. Pretty fascinating incident.
I just love this!
The FAA denied their request yet they still attempted the stunt...
That makes you look pretty untrustworthy off you do that.
@@animula6908I wouldn't really trust someone who junped out of an airplane without a pilot inside for views and money anyways
100% agree with you. To have the request actually denied and then say 'What the heck? do it anyway..." must be dealt with in the most severe way. The FAA has no choice but to sanction them in a way so as to deter any future attempts to flout the 'authority' of the regulator.
As a wise fighter pilot once said..(paraphrasing)..."The rules exist for your safety and that of your team..." 😄
Is that a quote from somewhere? I feel like it should be, but I can't remember...
@@macattack123mattc3 pretty sure it’s top gun
@@Thomas5937 It is - it's the scene where Maverick goes below the 10,000 feet hard deck in direct contravention of orders.
There is a reason FAA permission is needed for stunts like this. The fact that they ignored the FAAs denial is really surprising.
Exactly they should have at least see about getting another country's permission or do it out of any country's airspace out over the ocean someplace.
What is that reason?
@@joker927Rules are for everyone.
To ensure nobody gets killed because someone wants to do a stunt...
Yes it's their planes and their butts out in the desert but it could just as easily been the douchecanoe with the lawn chair and weather balloons. So ask if you want to do things like this.
**Douche Canoe (n) An individual who insists on causing the rest of the earth as much pain as possible.
Alternatively: Any conveyance used by such an entity.
@@joker927 the FAA is like it says in the video ‘written by blood’. That means pretty much every security, safety etc. rules had been made due to an accident and such. These safety regulations were made from the ‘blood’ of prior pilots.
I respectfully disagree. I am totally for some organisation publicly stating that "This pilot, and that airline, is following our recommendations, and is in our professional judgement safe to travel with". It should then be up to you and me to decide if we want to book a trip with that pilot or that airline, but I do not want a government organisation, that can use the state's monopoly on violence to force compliance, to tell me which pilot/airline I can give my business.
The owners of the land where the stunt is to take place might have some reason to protest due to the risk of damage to property, visitors, etc, but that is between the pilots and the land owners. The government should have no say in that.
This event is even more inappropriate when you realize one of the skydivers is a regional director for the United States Parachuting Association.
He definitely knew better and has brought the sport into disrepute as a result of his actions.
Bloody hell. I actually wonder if someone lied to them that permission was given.... It seems so unlikely that they would knowingly breach the faa code like this.
@@andysPARK They knew damn well. Dollars made their decision
They'll lose their commercial license.
@@Tsamokie I guess they’ll just fly anyway? 🤷♂️
@@Tsamokie its reasonable and fair that they lose their license in this situation. He may also need to stand down from the regional directorship in parachuting.
I also believe that if they just kept asking or trying to shift the reason to do the stunt they would've gotten the permission. Or at least they could've settled for a middle ground and have a pilot on the plane that won't touch the controls unless something fails. It has two seats after all.
Yeah, I really can't understand how having a safety pilot there makes the stunt any less impressive or interesting
They did do that in their testing. Petter mentions it at 3:17 that they successfully pulled it off with safety pilots. That wasn't exciting enough for them, apparently.
I firmly believe if they had moved to an undisclosed unpopulated location and been willing to discuss safety measures they would have gotten the approval.
They actually tried saying that the public safety concern should be set aside because they had business commitments to do the event that day.
Realistically, I know they were unable to reach the intended 14,000 foot starting point they wanted. I'm thinking with density altitude concerns any delay or relocation would mean waiting until at least fall.
@@fluuufffffy1514 Let's hope they drop in on you, then. Having an aircraft land on you from 14000' isn't going to make your day, it'll end them permanently. The idea is to keep anything flying under control, and they didn't, predictably. They were lucky: it could have been blown in any direction several miles, particularly in a dead-leaf spin like that.
Or just have shopped around for a country that would give them permission.
Absolutely agree with you.
The alternative of having a safety pilot inside (which they did in the earlier test) still depends on finding two pilots crazy enough to stay heading straight down in an aircraft modded so far out of its flight envelope that basically all bets are off. Ejecting from a developed inverted spin might have been more dangerous and difficult than the intended stunt.
The argument of, "We promised a lot of people," is specious, at best. They would have been better off floating the stunt as a possibility, pending regulatory approval. They made promises and felt they couldn't back out. It boils down to a case of get-there-itis. Never make a promise you can't keep.
Exactly! Instead they ended up technically going through with it, but not achieving what they set out to do and pissing off FAA. Now they’ve put their licenses and jobs at risk; FAA will not ever agree to let them try this again, and maybe no other country either.
The solution was so simple. Add a safety pilot into each plane. They could even have a marketing which would emphasize safety. Something in lines "You can do amazing stunts without being reckless". Bam strong and positive message not only to aviation enthusiasts but all extreme sports in general.
@@baumkuchen6543 But that would make sense so, of course, we couldn't do that.
It really would have simplified things, though. The FAA would have been happy, the viewers could still have watched an exciting stunt, and Red Bull would have been seen as a responsible corporate sponsor.
Unless, of course, Red Bull's target audience is the "hold my beer" crowd...
🤔 ... actually, it is such a dumb reason, that it MAY ahve been true. After all, if you make up sometime, you can come up with something much better.
Going to Mexico and give them a nice bribe, would have worked.
@@johnopalko5223 Red Bull gives you wiiiiiiiiiiiiiings... - or maybe not...
used to be commercial pilot license holders.
theres one very dangerous factor to this stunt that i dont think iver heard anyone talking about. when the pilot that successfully boarded the other aircraft was approaching it, he hit some turbulence and veered dangerously close to the propeller. sure it was only windmilling, but had he contacted it the results still wouldve been shall we say, messy.
Why they call them Stunt Men.. As they know the risk and make accounts for it.. As this stunt has been done before. Only with a pilot still in it. As the guy jump from one plane to the next. He had the same issue.
So shut the hell up. As being a Stuntman is dangerous profession. And they get paid to take those risk..Have a nice day..
I kind of miss your old format. You sitting on the couch with your dogs. A video for old-time sake in that setting
I’ll see what I can do
@@MentourNow thank you for replying that means alot to me
Thanks for the detailed walk-through of this incident! Am not a pilot but I love learning about aviation from your channels and I honestly find this whole thing so strange. I mean - these are pilots who are aware of the rules/procedures for flying in the United States. They're obviously aware of the role of the FAA in setting/enforcing those rules and standards since they reached out to the regulator for permission to perform the stunt.....So it is so strange - why did these guys do this after the FAA rejected their application??...I mean seriously - what did they think was going to happen? Why take such a risk for basically a meaningless stunt when it could result in the loss of their licenses? I just find it really bizarre that a licensed pilot would do this! ....I mean do these guys honestly think it's likely that the FAA is just going to shrug and ignore such a violation of the rules? If that is what they thought, I think they're going to be in for an unpleasant surprise (especially in these recent times when the regulator has found itself under greater scrutiny...which I think might make it all the more likely that examples will be made of rule breakers).....
I imagine the decision came down to dollar signs.
Yep money is more important than their life.
@@stellviahohenheim They are professional parachutists. They weren't in any unusual danger. But for sufficient money, I'd be willing to risk losing a pilot's license.
The FAA's decision was also about money. It was about the regulators keeping control, and thus their jobs and their authority.
@@freesk8 That claim makes no sense at all. Granting an exemption wouldn't have reduced FAA's authority, or gotten congress to reduce their budget.
The stunt was purely a money grab. As for getting people interested in aviation, if that kind of sensationalism gets people interested in flying, they probably aren't the kind of people we want piloting an aircraft. And yes, Red Bull bears some responsibility and should have some consequence.
Inventing the airplane was a money grab too. Sometimes new concepts come from money too.
@@robertgary3561 Some folk can miss the point of the argument sometimes too.
A somewhat famous female skydiver is still planning on jumping out of one plane to land inside of another using her parachute. I haven't kept up with whether she did it or is still planning it but the potential dangers don't seem to cross any of these performers minds.
@@NightMotorcyclist it’s been done before.
@@NightMotorcyclist some would argue that for any sky diving activity. But we recognize that some have a different risk tolerance and that not everyone fantasizes about growing old enough to sit in your own poo drooling
Their decision to go ahead with the stunt baffles me. It seems like they made promises to investors and broadcasters before securing permission and panicked when they didn't get a yes the first time.
All they had to do was agree to using safety pilots and make a genuine attempt at explaining why the stunt would be beneficial to aviation and STEM fields. If that fails, just ask for permission in another country as you stated, Petter
I 100% agree with you Petter, this is one of the best videos on this incident. Between you an Juan Brown, I get all the information, news, and sense I need. All the best matey!
Yeah, a big problem was that this posed a risk to people other than themselves. Both of their pilot certificates were revoked by the FAA yesterday.
This doesn’t make sense. If they knew they should pursue an exemption, they should also have planned a contingency for what to do if such an exemption was not granted. They seemed to consider everything else, but it never occurred to them FAA might say no? Or that it would take quite a few tries to obtain the final OK? Why would they risk their license when all they had to do was work it out with the sponsor that they would need a proposed timeframe if accepted and a second timeframe if not accepted? Like a rain date, basically. I think seeking approval and then going through with it anyway after being denied shows their reasons were purely personal and a flagrant disregard and respect for the rules that everyone else must follow. Their behavior shows FAA their whole STEM argument was just an excuse.
If their whole argument really only was that it is done for STEM, then who would even grant this? Sounds as if they were extremely full of themselves and never considered the possibility of being rejected. Who starts planning and testing something like that before sending in the application to be allowed to even do it? That screams of arrogance and thinking that the rules don't apply to them and are just a formality, where putting "STEM" on it is enough. Although I doubt that they even would ever get the permission. Scientifically there is 0 difference betweeen having a backup pilot in there or not. It would be the exact same stunt and proof of whatever concept the wanted to show off.
@@denidale4701 I agree with most of that, but not the planning and testing before applying bit. That actually is in their favor, because they can show on the application that they have already worked out how to make this work.
I wonder why they didn't try the Mexican authorities, like the other case did…
Seriously, STEM is literally the most (redacted, cow poo) thing that the education world has going on right now. It's a buzzword, and that's it. We have always had science, math, etc, in schools, but this is just a way for schools to seem fancy and justify buying a bunch of fancy stuff that nobody will ever use.
Most "STEM" programs don't even really focus on STEM in my opinion. Engineering is part creativity and part math. If you give me the solution, then I'm not having to be creative, or learn math.
If I actually have to design the thing, then I have to do math, and be creative. That's STEM. Not "Ooh, go 3d print something b/c the school wants to look fancy"...
Sincerely,
A recent High School grad who saw this stuff first hand...
@@mahadevparmekar2565 Would it really have benefitted travelers? At best, the rich would take the 'best' seats, but the airlines would still fill the other seats. That's assuming anybody would even care, since the chance of a crash is so low that it's not worth planning for.
@@jursamaj Well, depends... Maybe they had a theoretical model to determine the 'safest seats' of a given design in a given situation and wanted to see how close to reality this model was. From there on, they could fix and patch the model to be as close to reality as possible and now use that model to make every seat as safe as resonably possible for the most likely situations.
...Tho, I dont know the specifics of this 'crashland a Boeing to observe seat-safety'-Test, this is just me guessing.
Great video. I missed the Trevor Jabob reference but looked him up. He just ditched his plane in the middle of nowhere. Could've hit hikers or campers. Crazy!
I'm a retired railroad engineer and most of our safety rules were also written in blood.
No way 😱
Amen
I knew, the moment they had their teaser video released, that the chances of that going wrong were astronomically high. I figured we’d be talking about one of the pilots in past tense, however, so I am happy they both made it.
As Blancolirio said: "Please resubmit for further disapproval."
As a former gliding instructor I am appalled at the reckless irresponsibility of Red Bull, the pilots and the media/sponsors. MrC's information below adds another dimension that makes his stunt particularly damaging. I love to see the boundaries pushed, but this was just cynical profiteering.
Spot on with your last comment...aside they crashed one of my dream planes...👍
They should have done it in Mexico too.
It's good to see you around, long time subscriber here ^-^
They just should have stuck with the secondary pilot, who would secure the plane if shit goes south. If all good, they don't interfere with controls and it's still very impressive stunt. But ofc ego was to big to go with that - now it's time to pay for that.
Nah, let daredevils do stunts and risk their lives as long as no one else is in the area, FAA is too controlling. To much gov over reach.
@@mofayer Thing is, there WERE others in the area, and the "daredevils" were not interested in putting in more safety measures to make sure there wouldn't be.
@@wloffblizz I couldn't find anything to back that up. And the point of this vid was that they are at fault for breaking the law.
@@mofayer I’m a very limited government person but in this case have to disagree. The FAA definitely needed to step in and say NO ! Air safety is one thing this country get right most of the time.
@@ARUSApacecarHAMPTON if you're limited gov, you haven't been paying attention, FAA is extremely bloated and is doing more harm than good nowadays.
I watched the shoreham air in the uk a few years ago and not flown since that day. Then my daughter starts college for cabin crew. I’ve said a few times how Peter has reassured me via his videos. I don’t think I’d be able to watch another stunt show again but 2 years ago I couldn’t contemplate watching a video like this 👏🏻👏🏻
You forgot to complete your point on them having "Commercial" license I think. Or I missed it, but you had me thinking it might play a role in how it is handled by the FAA.
Like always, great video!
Indeed. I surmised it in another comment like this:
Trevor Jacobs was akin to a 4yr old who reaches out and touches the hot stove for the first time. These pilots were functional adults who turned the stove on and pressed their hands to the hotplate.
@@ConstantlyDamaged Yea, that is a good analogy when it comes to their interactions with the FAA. When it comes to the actual act performed in the plane, Trevor Jacobs most likely caused property damage to something that wasn't his (the public/private land his plane crashed into). I'm not sure if the Red Bull act caused anything like that?
Since when does a stunt need to further the interests of Aviation. It's a stunt, if the necessary precautions are made why does anybody apart from the Sponsors need to Profit from that?
The fact that it went wrong and their safety precautions where proven to work actually speaks for them in my opinion.
but their safety precautions didn't work, resulting in the complete destruction of an aircraft despite having claimed their safety systems would prevent that?
@@Dorsidwarf who got hurt?
@@NathanaelKeller By not following the FAA's decision there was no way for them to take the necessary precautions to pull it off safely, no restrictions were in place on the aerospace during the stunt. The safety precautions did not work, the plane crashed which was not supposed to be possible. The fact the stunt failed as successfully as it did is nothing more than sheer luck.
Surely these guys should have waited for permission before announcing to the media that it was all go. Seems like the pressure to please media/sponsors clouded their judgement (which was otherwise very solid).
I'm sure it was $$$$ that "clouded their judgement"
And did they *really* ever advertise the stunt as "we will not accept safety pilot even if FAA would require it"? I think that part was just their marketing department speaking and unfortunately they decided to follow that idea over FAA decision.
As a skydiver I think this kicks ass! In terms of going rogue on the FAA............they are in trouble!!!!!!!!!!
Was Redbull 100% behind this one? I have seen a few Redbull stunts and they have always been on point with the legality of their activities.
I was thinking the same thing. Until this, I haven't seen Red Bull stunt that goes against the official regulation.
I wouldn't been surprised to find that these two soon to be ex-pilots decided to do the stunt without FAA approval without the Red Bull legal team having any idea about the situation.
The internet keeps telling people they can do anything they want and even encourages unacceptable behaviours done for attention.
The pair asked and were refused. Just going ahead without permission, is tantamount to saying, they didn’t care about the governing regs. that govern the airspace they operate in; and also a declaration, that they consider themselves above-beyond governing, in particular the concerns of best practice as dictated by the FAA.
If the licences are not rescinded, that would set a potentially dangerous presedence, that could encourage others, to do whatever they want within governed airspace. Knowing or at least thinking, there would be little backlash or concern.
Crazy that they and Red Bull went ahead with it! Generally I think that If you can give the securities that you can deal with the mess and have controls in place for all the risks, you should be allowed to do almost anything no matter if regulators understand why you want to do it. I like that you made it clear that you are not against stunts per se.
@@pR1mal. I wouldn't call losing your pilot licence, probably permanently, a "slap on the wrist." (While he's permitted to apply for a new license after a year, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't take his history into account in the new application.)
I wonder if Red Bull even knew the FAA rejected the final plan.
With that many dollars and pressure riding on this, I could see how the pilots flat out lied to Red Bull about the permission, just to go through with it.
@@pR1mal. Trevor really screwed up, and he failed to do a lot of things right post-wreck. Also, him lying about it being an accident... Not good for aviation.
But at the same time, he took steps to keep it reasonably safe. He apparently limited the onboard fuel, to reduce fire risk, he did it over an unpopulated area, and he went out and cleaned up the mess quickly, to reduce potential for environmental damage.
So he did some things right(ish), but a lot wrong. It's probably a toss up as to whether he will get his license back. (I'm all for forgiveness, but the way he handled this is pretty bad from what I've seen)
@@pR1mal. Well, I've never applied for an FAA license myself, but all the comments I've seen from FAA license holders seem to say that he's unlikely ever to get a license again without demonstrating a major turnaround and making a strong case about why something like this could never happen again.
Perhaps you can share with us the evidence that leads you to believe that the FAA is so casual with granting pilots' licenses?
@@macattack123mattc3 "Cleaned up the mess" to cover up his criminal acts, you mean. Which IIRC is _also_ a crime, namely interfering in a crash site.
Thanks for sponsoring the video Nord VPN. I happened to skip the ad segment, however I have already heard of you relentlessly, and already own and lifetime subscription to another VPN. Again, thank you for your sponsorship.
Here's my theory on why it spun out of control: for any flying object, or any object affected by aerodynamics, it will gravitate towards having its center of mass in front of its center of drag. Think of a game of darts: everyone has tried throwing it at funny angles, but no matter what you do, as long as it has the flights attached, it will flip to fly pointy end first. Planes are designed to be passively stable, and the horizontal and vertical stabilizer are a big part of this. Because they have such a long leverage to the center of mass of the plane, they will always work. This is where the Red Bull giant airbrake comes in, you can even see it in the diagram they sketch: it's in front of the center of mass. This would shift the center of drag forwards to the point where it's either in front of the center of mass, or the leverage is so short that any slight disturbance would put the plane into a flatspin, which is exactly what happened.
Yeah, you can see how one jumper pushes off too hard and his plane is slightly tilted to the left, which causes it to turn, which in turn gets cancelled by the huge air brake, before it goes into the inverted flat spin.
@@Games_and_Music It’s like fuc-I mean, making love in zero gravity, right?
I wonder why they opted to install a huge heavey air brake like that. I would think a properly sized small drogue chute attached to the tail and trailing 10-15 meters behind the tail of the cessna would be a much more stable way to slow it down in a dive. Once the pilot regains control it could easily be jettisoned. But I suppose having a small chute trailing the cessna in a dive wouldn't look as cool.
It'd look cooler than having a stupid looking barn door like contraption flapping about, that unless configured absolutely perfectly would, as it did in one aircraft, create instability. A drogue chute would also not need a fancy additional 'auto pilot' either.
They actually addressed this at one point. I believe the reasoning was largely around ease of training and practice, with a brake that can simply be raised and lowered without needing to be repacked, reattached, etc.
@@Tekwyzard Uhh, yes it would. Even _more_ so in fact, since a huge air brake below the plane's CG would produce a nose-down moment, while a chute on the tail would not. A chute on the tail would not stop the plane from trying to level off at all.
I agree, this stunt was epically ridiculous. Like, is it so hard to have a safety pilot?
It's not "exciting" enough if there is a safety pilot. Fewer clicks = fewer dollar signs. It was pure greed.
To make it more exciting, maybe the safety pilots could have been super models wearing bikinis?... Problem solved.
I'm entirely okay with the stunt. There's no reason to have a safety pilot. The failure mode is what happened, couldn't get in the plane and it crashes into the ground in a controlled environment.
What's not okay is just doing the stunt after getting denied by the FAA. They easily could have had an alternate location set up in Mexico if the FAA denied the waver which is something red bull has done for aviation stunts in the past.
Because they already did that "let's have people jump from one flying piloted aircraft into another flying, piloted aircraft"-stunt.
Or why not even rig a remote control set up in a separate chase plane
"Great reach has great responsibility"- Capt. Petter. I love that quote.
Amazing content as always, Petter! I was quite annoyed at this myself. Because of the denial by the FAA. Very irresponsible!
How? Who were they putting in danger other than themselves?
@@tradingmedic In aviation it is extremely important to follow rules and regulations. If you start disregarding those rules, people will be harmed at some point, especially if the pilots function as idols. Undermining rules written to protect lives will lead to desaster at some point.
@@tradingmedic They have sent a specific message to all the click thirsty youtubers out there. Hopefully FAA will modify that message appropriately.
Plus if I only endanger myself... I can do anything I want?
@@tradingmedic They were doing this stunt in public airspace. It's no different from asking a permission to record a car crash in your local city for a movie, not getting the permission and doing the crash anyway. If you cannot get permission for the location you want, modify the experiment or switch location. Or do it on private property (in the US, I guess that would be some military reserved airspace restricted from public).
I enjoy how you drew that picture, but in no way is it comparable. Tell me more about the people they put in danger. Every day they take little portions of freedom away, eventually controlling every aspect of every action you could take.
The government will label kids as insurgents so the optics of killing them doesn't look soo bad, but they damn well will not let 2 experienced pilots perform an isolated stunt that left 0 injuries...
The sheep goes "bahahahaha"
I'm with you Petter. Stunt pilots have been a thing for decades at airshows (anyone remember the Stampe?) and IMO if you want educate people about aircraft and STEM, that's how you do it - young people see the aerobatics and can then come and ask as many questions as they like at the static display. These latter "stunts" (Red Bull swap and Trevor Jacob) have resulted in the (unnecessary) loss of aircraft: how long until someone dies? As you say, "every (aviation) rule is written in blood".
[edit] I want to add that, yes pilots have lost their lives while flying stunts at airshows, but an airshow is a controlled environment - crash tenders, ambulances are all at hand. The more of these unnecessary and stupid stunts occur out in the wilds, the worse and sillier it gets. /edit
I actually think this is worse than the Trevor Jacobs situation. In both cases you have an intentional violation of regulations, but while this stunt seems much more well thought out from a safety perspective, the fact is that they put their meticulous planning in front of experts and those experts told them that it wouldn't be safe, and they decided to do it anyway. Where Trevor Jacobs at least can say that they did not adequately judge the risks associated with their stunt - these folks have nothing.
@Joe Cooter - Red Bull and the pilots admitted the stunt was risky and went to great lengths to mitigate that risk. The FAA just wasn't convinced that the benefit (financial renumeration to Red Bull and the Pilots) justified the risk.
@@wickedcabinboy Red Bull or the pilots didn't want to mitigate the risk or they would have just used safety pilot in both planes, like they did during the practice. The fact that FAA explicitly said no for removing the safety pilot should have been pretty clear clue that they are taking non-acceptable risks with the stunt design.
@@MikkoRantalainen - I have to admit you have a point. Leaving the plane without a pilot is pretty risky, as subsequent events dramatically demonstrated. The FAA was of course vindicated.
they didnt get denied based on the "safety" perspective they got denied because the FAA didnt see any benefit in doing it.. those are two very different things.. as we can see with the outcome even whenit didnt goto plan no one was in serious risk, just because a government regulator doesnt see the benefit in something should we not allow it under any circumstances? if we take that notion to every aspect of life whats left that we are allowed to do or have
@@AndrewBrowner Law usually works by having everything allowed except explicitly mentioned special cases. Do you think that FAA works different way and only specifically allows some things but all undefined cases are considered disallowed?
A well thought out description of my initial feelings on this stunt.
This is a good example why I'm a new subscriber. Even though I'm not really in aviation. Just an enthusiast.
For me at least, all the respect and lessons and such for all the safety work they did evaporates when they ignore the FAA saying 'no'. The frames safety in terms of not best practices, but convenience... that things are only worth doing right when they are cool or have bragging rights, but as soon as they get 'lame', you drop them.
Exactly, they were looking at safety as a barrier. Not a good example.
I agree!
No, the FAA had no valid reason to reject it. They were just being nitpicky about rules that have exactly 0% relevancy to this situation and were only a danger to Red Bulls loose pocketchange in one boardmembers pocket (the planes crashing).
FAA just wanted to be a nuisance to goad some bribes from Redbull to expedite the process.
@@BillyBoze The irony of you saying that when one of the planes literally crashed in an uncontrollable freefall not too far from bystanders.
Rather than STEM education, think of the benefits this stunt will have in encouraging young people to study Aviation Law. 😉
Wow. They must really have been under a huge amount of pressure from Redbull to go ahead with this stunt, they aren't amateurs and must have known exactly what was at stake and been prepared to lose their licences over it 😳
$$$$$$
Not only license, but their business, their livelihood and their life style.
It is just not worth it.
@@jefferysterner exactly
lotsa moolah
Yeah, it's crazy. Even if it had worked flawlessly, it seems like a suspension of their certificates would be the absolute minimum that would be expected with a revocation very likely (both the Part 135 cert and their CPLs.)
The stunt itself is not that problematic. It's the fact they ignored the FAA denying them clearance.
Their prep work is pretty impressive it did seem really thorough, but doing it in intentional violation was stupid, especially using sponsors as their excuse. I'm sure they could have pulled it off in another country or made other arrangements given more time. Sounds like they boxed themselves into a corner with contractual obligations they couldn't guarantee they could meet.
Agreed
Why is ignoring the FAA the problem here? Whose interest is the FAA serving by denying this request? If they keep denying people *trying* to play their game, eventually people are going to stop asking permission entirely. Redbull did their homework. Have a decent track record on keeping bystanders, and performers, safe. And the FAA, what do they do? "Lol nope, get bent."
Fuck the FAA. It's getting too big for the purpose it serves.
@@connorcampbell5274 because they are claiming to set an example for inspiring aviators. You don't do that by encouraging them to bust regulations because of the rule of cool.
@@TheSpacecraftX Redbull isn't encouraging it, the FAA is doing that themselves. If you're going to deny someone putting in the work to make a stunt as safe as reasonably possible, all you're telling them is that you, as a regulating body, cannot be reasonably dealt with. And what do you do with unreasonable, people? You ignore them.
The FAA could have played ball with them. Worked shit out. But instead they disapprove it because it's "not safe". No shit, it wouldn't be a god damn stunt if it were fucking safe.
obviously not thorough enough since they crashed a plane. obviously not thorough enough since a plane flew through that airspace at some point. they deserve everything their getting and more. hey it's cool if you wanna kill yourself. just do it privately so no one knows. this is no different than getting drunk and going for a ride in a semi. these 2 idiots thinking they accounted for everything and high on their egos decided they were going to do this regardless of the denial. what if that plane hit someone on the ground? what if they collided with a passenger plane? I'll bet all these libertarians wouldn't be saying that stupid shit if something like that happened. There's a reason the FAA has such a good track record and the rules were written in the blood of other pilots and accidents.
Seems so fitting for Red Bull. It gives you wings for a few minutes and then you crash like a brick!
So... Why didn't they go down to Mexico to do this?
Good question
They would rather lose their licenses than be kidnapped and murdered?
"These rules are written in blood" is a powerful line and most people forget that this is true for several different kinds of things and regulations
To be fair (or rather to clarify) apparently Red bull essentially delegated the organisation of this stunt and trusted the people doing this stunt to sort out all of the permissions etc. compared with taking responsibility for all of it themselves (I'm told they're normally meticulous) so Red bull themselves may not have known about the FAA situation. All in all the FAA concerns seem to valid and whether they were or not if you apply for FAA permission and they don't give it you should address the concerns rather than just doing it anyway. The main difference between them and TJ though is that they weren't atempting to deceive from the start. Agree with what you said, feel sorry for them to an extent but they knew what they were doing...
Yep.
Sounds like they intentionally tried to excert their responsibility onto someone else.
As you say they usually are meticulous. And since they already had serious safety issues with past aerial events (namely the 3 year interruption of the Red Bull Air Race championship after a series of serious incidents including a crash on land), you would think if there is a domain were RB would be particularly cautious and handle all the paperwork themselves to avoid any kind of issue it would be an aerial stunt.
@mipmipmipmipmip I didn't say they are meticulous. I said they have all reasons to be meticulous since they already have had issues in the domain. So if they still let people do stupid things with their financial support, they are even more responsible then if they handled it themselves since they already know the consequences.
@mipmipmipmipmip We agree on the reality of their (lack of) care for safety. As you noted I was quoting the initial post in which the full sentence was "(I'm told they're normally meticulous)". And I added some context related to their previous encounters with regulating authorities. It was a way to emphasize the fact that despite having already faced sanctions for similarly dangerous behaviour they keep on with the bad habit.
Ignoring the FAA was the wrong thing to do without a doubt. BUT I really don't understand why the FAA denied their request in the first place with the reason of ``not in the public interest`` I call BS on that.
1. I'm sure there was a lot of hype and public interest to see this stunt happen (as with all red bull events). Also to promote the sport of skydiving and aviation in general is a good reason.
2. they took extraordinary safety measures to ensure no one gets hurt (and no one did)
what they should have done in my opinion is ask people to write to the FAA and show that there is public interest in this eventually with enough pressure they would have gotten the green light to do this.
The FAA question that didn't get an adequate answer was: what is the benefit of doing this _without_ a safety pilot in each airplane versus doing it with a safety pilot in each airplane.
The airspace that RB used for the stunt also a busy one, used for pilot trainings, gliding and stuffs
@@sonusmeister2325 I don't know where that event took place but I'm sure they would have posted a NOTAM that temporarily restricted the area
@@Dennis-vh8tz from my understanding from the video the original question was why at all do this. Though I agree that the stunt would have the same "WoW" effect with safety pilots in each aircraft and would have probably saved the machine.
@@k8p4life restricting airspace is not as simple restricting roads. The airspace was pretty close to Phoenix airspace which full of airliner. If they close it down they not only have to close the airspace that being used for the stunt. If Phoenix closed than no one be able to fly, doesn't matter who it is
Red Bull has been known to pull non-stop Stupidity just like Monster Energy but of course the public and the models that are hired at these events think it's badass to do these kinds of stunts and then when things go south they dump the responsibility on other people.
Yes‼️And it's called Red Bullshit‼️Pointless publicity stunts all to flog an " energy drink"....
@@Confucius_Says... It gets dangerous for people around them sadly. A few years ago a Monster Energy model on an off-road race track was doing promos and photoshoots next to Baja 400 cars prepping to start the race. The area she was in was off limits to spectators and the models had to be very careful where they walked or stood. Well she thought she would get a better pose for a photog by moving back getting really close to a car whose driver wasn't aware that she was practically standing right next to his tread. He took off and she fell face forward fracturing her skull. Not only is she getting $100K from GoFundMe, the driver and the event organizers are facing criminal charges due to supposed lack of safety measures. Driver didn't even know she pull that stupidity.
RedBull has much blood on its hand with stunts that killed performers. One example is the guy who jumped from a tall building in a parachute. The latter didn't open and the guy sadly had a speedy meeting with the concrete parking lot.
@@qbasic16 He's a base jumper. He'd have done that with red bulls help or not
Great video! I love the way you bring the facts to the viewers in such a neutral way and explain things from an unbiased perspective and "educate" people on both sides of the fence. 💚💚💚
I think Red Bull has done so much to increase interest in aviation. Think of the crowds at the Air Race and all the people who followed Stratos. They put in a huge amount of effort (and money) into making something crazy as safe as possible and doing it by the book. I’m so shocked and disappointed that they performed this against the instructions of the FAA. That is so irresponsible and wrong. The only defence would be if Red Bull weren’t told by the pilots that the permission had been rejected. I think they’ve just made it way less likely that their future events will be allowed to happen and rightly so. That being said, this isn’t nearly on the same level as Trevor Jacobs. Unlike him, they had done everything to minimise the risk to others. They also weren’t suggesting that jumping out of the plane is actually the safest thing to do!
While true, it could also be argued that these guys (and Red Bull itself) should have known better. Trevor Jacobs, like a lot of people, made a stupid decision possibly ignorant of many of the rules of aviation he was breaking. This stunt was performed by people who knew *_exactly_* what rules they were breaking and why breaking them is bad, after being told that the stunt was not allowed.
Put simply, Trevor Jacobs was akin to a 4yr old who reaches out and touches the hot stove for the first time. These pilots were functional adults who turned the stove on and pressed their hands to the hotplate.
Red Bull did a lot to make people think pilots are daredevils. That's not the interest in aviation the business wants.
@@miskatonic6210 There's a saying among sparkies (electricians) regarding this:
There are old sparkies and there are bold sparkies, but there are no old bold sparkies.
I imagine this applies just as well to flying as it does to handling high voltage.
The rules these guys knew they were breaking and broke were paid for with blood. No one wants the price increased.
At some point the kinds of people who do such stunts say, "I have taken all the precautions I need to do this safely and you are infringing on my freedom by preventing from doing something that does not endanger anyone but me."
In terms of aviation engineering, none of this was done by any sort of a “book”. It was an undercapitalized project that required lots of expensive control systems engineering and flight testing that just wasn’t done. Whatever cut-down autopilot they used was not going to be enough, and anyone dealing with flight controls professionally would have told them that. And that was just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
They stated afterwards that the issue with the aircraft that lost control could have been caused by not getting the cg exactly correct. All of the test flights included a safety pilot. They tried to compensate for the lack of the safety pilot by adjusting the weight and cg of the plane. There was no way for them to test this configuration except for performing the stunt itself. Evidently they got the mass adjustment correct for one plane but not the other.
That's pretty silly - you'd think they'd just put a dummy in the plane to match the already-tested mass distribution and reduce the number of variables.
@@henryptung certainly not disagreeing with you, however, they removed the second seat as well. Presumably this was done to provide additional room to make it easier for the stunt pilots to exit and reenter the aircraft.
Great work as usual :), I did a video on the same subject 4 days ago on my aviation channel, it is just in Arabic, from a different perspective. Some of the videos has English translation though.
And I am a big fan of your work
I saw it coming a few sentences ahead, and I was STILL shocked that they did this against FAA permitting! WTF...
Very interesting and informative, as always! Please update us if you hear of any FAA response to this event.
@OneWorldAwakening - You can bet that several content providers will report on the FAA findings.
Everything you'd said up until the point where you said they just defied the FAA ruling had me confused as to what was the big deal. Clearly they'd done their homework on making the stunt viable and made it public that if you want to try something that crazy, you need to get *ALL* of your ducks in a row in terms of setting it up, have parachutes on the pilots just in case, etc. Nobody watching this is going to mistake it for being safe what's the issue?
"The FAA denied their request and they did it anyway"
Oh....well shit. Nevermind then.
Honestly the FAA had no business rejecting it in the first place, overstepping their authority. With the way things were set up, I wouldn't be asking the FAA anything. I'd be telling them what's gonna happen.
Clearly they had not done their homework, because a very likely outcome had happened. Even an absurdly superficial risk analysis would have figured this outcome to be likely. They were praying for things to go right. That’s not engineering, it’s just wishful thinking. The likely cost to pull this off safely had an extra zero beyond what their budget was. This was a production more reminiscent of tight budget circus and movie stunts, or carnival rides.
@@absurdengineering Buddy, every stunt has a fairly high likelihood of it going wrong, that's *why* it's a stunt and not just a neat demonstration like those aeronautics squadrons do.
What they did do is design things such that in the scenario where one of the planes became unrecoverable, the only thing that got hurt was a plane and a patch of ground. Maybe a plant or two, probably some bugs. The pilot had a parachute and knew how to get to a safe place to use it (ie: not under the plane that was falling toward him), there were no spectators gawping on the ground just waiting to be hit.
That's the kind of thing that responsible stunt designers do....they just have to *also* make a deal with the regulators and so on.
If you want to see truly irresponsible stuff, check out the video Paper Skies did entitled "How One Crash killed thousands of French Soldiers in WWI" which details a crash in 1911 at the start of an air race that killed France's Minister of War (because he was on the ground watching in a spot where planes that fucked up a takeoff would land...exactly not where to stand on a runway.)
(This had a number of consequences for WWI, the simplest of which was that he was the biggest proponent of changing France's army uniform from a brilliant, easy to see blue to a drab grey. He died, the uniform didn't get change, and the French walked into a war where stealth was critical wearing flashy 19th century uniforms. Given the meat grinder WWI was, most of those soldiers probably would have died anyway, but it did mean they were at a significant disadvantage in terms of not being seen and thus not being shot.)
@@BillyBoze You have to remember that they wanted to do this stunt in public airspace. That's when you absolutely need permission from FAA.
Remote control would have been ideal backup, anything goes wrong and it becomes a UAV (drone).
Still illegal.
@@JelMain It would have been illegal but they could have gotten FAA permission for that. Instead of doing anything that FAA would have considered safe, they decided to execute the stunt without adequate safety. I think revoking their licenses would be a suitable decision. That obviously wouldn't prevent them from flying planes anyway, as they've already demonstrated but at least they could no longer pretend to be following the rules.
@@JelMain Would have had a better chance of getting an exemption.
I fully agree with your statement when someone deliberately breaks the rules (going against FAA directive) and performing the stunt anyway is reckless.
Both pilots should lose their licences IMMEDIATELY. Why, very simple, the governing body the FAA said NO, not without a safety pilot in each aircraft. They took it upon themselves to disobey a FAA directive. Now, here's the problem, if these two are going to be allowed to keep flying then the next person/pair to get a stupid bird brained idea like this, if the other two get a "smack on the wrist for disobeying the directive" then anyone else doing the same is going to think "well it doesn't really matter what the FAA think, they won't do much about it anyway". NO, NO, NO, I firmly believe the FAA cannot be seen to be weak in this situation, It could, open the flood gates to God knows what.
Open the flood gates to more rules, written in blood...
Much like the insipid attitude taken by the courts regarding the insurrectionists !
Sadist P0S. Did you graduate high school, ESL?
The only thing 'getting permission' would have done, is allow them to make an insurance claim. On top of that, they would be paying higher insurance rates now, due to making a claim.
You can't hold a man liable for destroying his own property, IT'S HIS PROPERTY to do with as he pleases.
AND the STEM field made out like bandits, showing just how STUPID people can really be, to the unpredictability of man ability to FU. MP was on the nose, just get the hell out of FAA jurisdiction. The problem was $$$, as they don't receive such a high standard of financial protection.
IF the stunt team tried to make an insurance claim AFTER being denied, this becomes full fledged fraud, A CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
Gov agencies are nothing more than fraud syndicates. As Bachelor of Art degree holders, they must all resort to sophistry to have a 'successful' career. Gov agents are intellectually weak, by default, and for them to be held unaccountable is a crime in and of itself.
Absolute right.
@@beachbum77979 Doesn't need any more rules written in anything. All the exsisting rules are there for the safety of the aircraft, the pilots, the cabin crew, and the likes of you and me
"so they just went ahead and did it anyways, against the specific instruction of the FAA"
Brilliant.
If Brilliant had been sponsor of this episode, that would have been perfect spot for the ad.
This is so frustrating. They could of had a really cool and safe stunt if they had followed rules. It's just amazing nobody got hurt.
Yeah, i feel kinda bad for the guy that had to bail, because the other guy messed up his jump and plane, but that guy could still land the plane that the parachute guy left for him, got screwed twice in one jump, and almost got killed doing so, but yeah, that is exactly why the FAA said no to this.
I could listen to you forever. You're just so knowledgeable.
Firstly, I wanted to say that I thought that that this was reckless.
However, as a devotee of motorcycle road racing, for example the TT Races on the Isle of Man. I'm in no position to judge.
One big difference - the TT is sanctioned and thus legal. This stunt was emphatically neither of those. I'm all for risking what you want - like the venerable TT you mentioned (and damn boy howdy, there's some impressive riders and spectacular accidents) - but if the governing body decreed that it couldn't continue in its current form, you know it would be either adapted until it met the required standards for acceptance, or cancelled. In this case, it's not the stunt that's the problem, but that they deliberately went against the FAA (after acknowledging by applying for permission that the FAA has the authority) - that's the real problem.
If they run TT Races on the Isle of Man on public roads after getting denial for the request to close the roads or otherwise make it safe for public (or close the airspace for this specific stunt), would you think it would be fine that they continued without the permission anyway?
U actually raced isle of man?
@@aussiebloke609 The issue is why is one sanctioned but the other is not?
There are 2 separate issues to this.
1 is why the FAA didn't give permission.
The other is why they went against the FAA.
@@jeffreyblack666 While it would be interesting to know, the "why" for the FAA isn't really important at this juncture - the fact that they acknowledged that the FAA had authority (by asking permission in the first place), then went against their ruling...that's the important part as far as governing bodies are concerned. Even if the FAA did it purely on a whim, it's still valid as a refusal of permission. If there was a problem with that ruling, they job was to protest or appeal and see if they can get the ruling changed, not to go ahead and ignore the governing body because they didn't get the answer they want. I suspect that the FAA's reasoning is at least partially because this dangerous aeronautic stunt wasn't in the best interests of aviation in general. Compare that to the TT, where the implied danger of motorcycle racing is an inherent part of the sport. But even then, if someone attempted to make the TT more dangerous as a stunt, say, by attempting to swap bikes while barrelling down the straight - they would also be refused. So it's about what level of danger is acceptable to the respective governing body...and no more.
You made the point very eloquently, that I’ve been trying to make to my friends who are also into aviation that have no problem with what redbull did.
i think this is one of those times when the FAA need to give them the max punishment they legally can as to set an example of them, if they dont i believe it will set a very bad and dangerous precident.
Excellent video, Petter. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. . . Thanks for an excellent presentation! 👍✈✈👍
Honestly I find RedBull marketing even more repulsive than their product.
Idk. Their product is pretty daggum terrible in its own right
I actually find many Red Bull marketing stunts pretty good. However, when marketing department wants something and official regulator (FAA) doesn't give the required permission, the marketing department MUST switch to another plan.
I agree. This is way over the line.
Unsafe.
Dangerous.
Unnecessary.
Red Bull obviously has too much money and too little sense.
Aviation stunts scare the hell out of me
That is why they are fun and people like to watch them. Lindbergh flight across the Atlantic was extremely risky. I forget the precise estimations but the Apollo program was extremely likely to blow up. As long as they aren't within reason putting anyone else in danger things like this should be able to be done. Humans get bored and this kind of stuff is inspiring precisely because its dangerous and ridiculous.
I am a Cessna 182 owner. To see this really hurt.
I belive than not been so close in time to the TJ "thing" they could potentially get the permission after all its REDBULL... Great video never the less, very up to the point
meaning that safetywise Redbull will and didnt leave any thing in "luck"..
Filing for an exemption to any authority is a long and tedious process. It is almost certain they made their first attempts and got their first rejections way before TJ even thought of his own stunt. It is clearly said that they filled multiple times trying to come up with some plausible excuse that might fool the FAA into believing this was not just another stupid publicity stunt with no positive outcome to the air community.
Just found this second channel. Instantly hooked!
Great video. I think the FAA should pull their license. They knowing broke the rules
and that should have major consequences. They can be consultants for Red Bull
if Red Bull has a use for two former pilots.
I'm wondering if we're not seeing more of these "ignore the FAA orders" cases since the max scandal. "If FAA is so accommodating with Boeing, why should we bother as pilots?"
Because with all regulatory bodies the regulations pile up to the point nothing is permitted. Like crashing that large passenger plane. If they can prove that they can clean up after the incident, and there's really no environmental impact, what gives? Why not let them? Who gives a shit if they find nothing interesting?
Same reason Space X said fuck it on SN8 and ignored the FAA. Their regulations are not serving anyone's interests. Of fucking course they know a prototype rocket landing vertically is dangerous and very likely to fail. They're clearly playing your game by asking for permission. The least they could do is work with them; instead they're dragging their feet, and digging their heels in because of "safety". Fuck safety. It's obviously unsafe. The danger is well understood by everyone involved.
Amazing !! you drove the point home beautifully. So many lives have been lost unfortunately which is why the FAA has put safety rules in place.. only to be blatantly disregarded by a few.
My letter to the FAA about this would have been
Dear FAA, we want to do this for the following reasons:
1. It would be really cool
Aside from that, I believe people should be allowed to do dangerous stunts for money, if they're not endangering others.
@3:30, Well that's easy to figure out, as soon as the pilot jumped, he reduced the planes mass by 250-300 pounds. The aerobrake is now pushing against the wrong center of gravity and pushes the plane past its center of gravity causing it to go inverted.
Very much to the point at the end Captain. Well done.
I understand the FAA's ruling on this, but I do have to wonder whether this could have ended up as a fatal accident if they agreed to put a safety pilot in the planes. What I mean is, had the same thing happened to the accident aircraft while another pilot was at the controls, would that pilot have been able to recover from the inverted flat-spin with all of those modifications to the airframe? In a way, I think this could have been worse if that happened and the pilot was unable to recover, since even the parachute was insufficient from preventing a very high-G impact with the ground that severely crushed the airframe. Even if the safety pilot was able to quickly retract the large speed-brake under the fuselage, would he be able to recover from that kind of a spin? Perhaps. But it seems even more dangerous than what actually happened.
Well I assume the safety pilot would have a parachute to use in such a case as well
These hypotheses are BS. Face reality. They broke the law, now they suffer the consequences. End of story.
@@JelMain Just like Alan Turing, who broke the law by being gay? Should he also just suffer the consequences?
Blind adherence to the law without questioning or thinking is just as dumb as complete disregard for the law.
Love your take on this. Perfect. A cool stunt. If they'd bothered to respond with good ideas instead of, "We have promised sponsors...", they might have obtained permission. And then there's Mexico...
I’m wondering how they performed the paperwork for the speed brake and autopilot mods.. move the aircraft to experimental category? I don’t think there’s an STC for the speed brake mod yet! Lol
These companies have special privileges than the normal person
The "Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy" of the air.
What a stunt.😂
I love your channel, but I have to say that this stunt was awesome - even if it didn't work out. Yes, they could have waited for approval or moved it to Mexico. I'm a pilot, and overall I have great respect for the FAA, but some times I wished they could just say "That's cool - okay" with all the appropriate safety measures in place - even if there was no "public good".
Maybe as a couple people pointed out here, consider it was done in a busy airspace with no closures or advisories in effect.
they did raise intrest in aviation and showed one thing clearly that no matter how well the calculations are there is always something that can go wrong
This was going along greay, they had a plan, they were taking precautions, and then they did the stupidity of doing it against specific instructions not to. I don't know what they were thinking. Even if the stunt had gone well they probably would have been suspended