Agreed ch3. Paul has one of the best driest senses of humour I've ever heard. And it's not just entertaining. He always has a message but doesn't let that get in the way of a great joke.
"The pilot left the premises." Sounds like something Steven Wright would say. Do you ever get the feeling you're paying too much for a can of Red Bull?
I agree, but the taste is so good to me I buy them as treats for myself. I Don’t like ice cream or candy that much, so I think I can justify the overpriced drink once in a while lol.
The very first thing I thought of when I found out the stunt team disregarded the FAA’s failure to approve an exception to policy, is why the hell didn’t they just conduct the stunt in a country that had more relaxed laws and welcomed the revenue? You can stream a live feed from almost anywhere in the world at this point. Now these guys have brought a magnifying glass to anyone else trying to push the limits of aviation, even if they’re conducting their operations in a much safer manner.
@@speedomars Or maybe some unelected FAA bureaucrat shouldn't have the authority to willy nilly approve or deny something that has no material impact on public safety?
@@airops423 If you are a certificated pilot then you will protect that achievement by understanding why the FAA exists and what your relationship is to that agency and what the rules are so you do not violate them. If you are not a pilot...then your opinion is uniformed and your comments have no weight.
@@speedomars I'm not calling for the abolishment of the FAA, nor advocating violating their rules. Just offering a critique regarding the reach of the FAA's rules and bureaucratic decision making.
Best take yet, unsurprisingly. One man's "irredeemably" dangerous stunt is another's' idea of a fun afternoon, and that's a concept I feel ought to be protected to some degree, as long as all appropriate precautions are taken for those not involved. In light of that I'm tempted to be a bit miffed at the FAA for denying the waiver. However, as someone who doesn't particularly wish to see the FAA more involved in skydiving, I'm tempted to be more than a bit miffed with Luke and Andy for going through with it. I can't really imagine it would have killed them to postpone it, then refile the waiver on different grounds and/or just find another location. Rubbing it in the FAA's face, so to speak, is just not a good look for skydiving or the uspa (given Luke Aikens position within it).
Concur in the extreme! The average citizen doesn't understand why anyone would even get into a small plane, much less do so on a regular basis. The Red Bull public relations team should be thoroughly and completely removed from their jobs, as all they really did was loudly proclaim that they don't care what the law says. Irresponsible to the max.
True, to be sure. The faa is now as power happy as every other fed bureau these days... And they always take the easy way out, look to the line of sight rc world for another example... the better part of a century with out any issues flying toy airplanes, and now the community has to register? Because of idiot uav quad guys that aren't a part of traditional rc? Instead of busting the @$$holz who were the real problem... The problem is the faa not our free falling brethren. The faa was out of line, it was a stunt with all of the safety concerns addressed, not your every day ppl taking an xc or that Trevor bozo... The regs shouldn't apply... Guess the feds want to promote the idea that this isn't the land of the brave anymore....
Their foolish and selfish ego trips will cost us all in the future. It is bad enough that our Air Shows are so regulated now, but these losers are going to bring added stress to us all now. They deserve to never fly again for the blatant disregard for the denial of the permit. Anarchy does not belong in GA
Farley, why do you use the word irredeemably ? That is usually in a moral context and that is not the case here. No uninvolved persons were endangered here. Nonetheless; I do wholeheartedly agree that causing conflict with the FAA is bad idea and potentially detrimental to the general Skydiving community. After all the facts are known and examined; it may be that USPA should censure these guys.
@@terrysullivan1992 it's a reference to the fact that, IIRC, the faa stated in their rejection that the stunt had "no redeeming value" to justify a waiver.. My point is that a statement like that is always going to be highly subjective, and I think as a society we should respect peoples' right to make their own risk/reward calculations, as long as the risk is limited to those who knowingly and willingly accept it.
Watching and listening to your videos over time has increased my awareness about what’s happening in the “general aviation” industry. I appreciate your knowledge and the calm way you present information. Your a very pleasant and very useful source of news happening in general aviation. Thank you.
I watched this live, then went to ForeFlight to find the TFR. I was super confused when I couldn't find one. Then the next day, I learned they had been denied, and it all made sense. Trevor Jacob must be thanking Red Bull for doing this, taking some of he heat off of him.
The FAA has enough heat for Trevor, Red Bull, and anyone else trying to pull off a stunt without a waiver. Having been at an airline in the crosshairs of FAA's focus on an alternate means of compliance AD issue. It was not pretty. FAA were all over us like a swarm of killer bees, and not one of them had a clear answer as to what was an acceptable compliance. Frickin' nightmare.
No room in General Aviation for anarchy, or anarchists. Pull the licenses, and ground the aircraft- Fine the hell out of redbull, and scrutinize THEM, not the rest of General Aviation enthusiasts. I own three aircraft, two of which are open cockpit, and lack their corporate sponsorship, so shit is expensive enough.
Paul, I always love your dry, humorous takes on contemporary topics like this. Great job here and I entirely agree. It was a great spectacle of engineering, skill and daredevil. It’s a shame they never got the FAA clearance though.
@@Morpheen999 - That might have been their plan but it doesn't work that way. They asked for permission and it was denied. Then they did it anyway, effectively thumbing their nose at the FAA. Forgiveness is much, much less likely to be forthcoming. Most kids learn this lesson first hand from their parents. I suspect neither of these two pilots will be legally flying an aircraft for a while.
So the FAA said no and these guys did it anyway?? I hate government red tape and oversight just as much if not more than the next guy...but this was dumb. They kinda deserve whatever comes their way. There is a whole world out there that isn't under FAA jurisdiction. Think McFly.
Reasoned, rational, well stated. When you want to encourage a new generation of pilots to enter the industry, you don't want an environment where they see through all their social media feeds at those impressionable ages that rules don't matter.
I like your take here. I think it’s possible to both disagree that FAA should have denied the waiver, and think that the Red Bull team should not have gone through with it after the denial. That said, what was Red Bulls end game here? Let’s say the stunt had worked perfectly. Presumably they would have broadcast on Hulu that they flouted the FAA’s ruling and would have been in trouble anyway. There was no scenario where this works out for Red Bull with no legal trouble.
The Mexican authorities let Discovery channel intentionally crash a 727 some years ago, after they were denied permission to do it in the USA. Edit: Just got to @7:45 where he mentions that stunt.
One issue there might be that, for the purposes of the stunt, the two 182s were certificated as Experimental. And it appears that Mexico is no longer allowing US experimental aircraft across the border.
Watched several videos about this "stunt" - You touched on a point the others did not. Red Bull should have pulled the plug on this one - until cleared. Pilots are definitely to blame - but "Corporate" should NOT have let this occur - Especially having this denied, in writing, by the FAA.....
I wholely agree with you!!! They had too much money invested already with Hulu ext..I'm sure, but why not do it in another country. Canada, Mexico ext....... You could do it in the Mexican desert and the "Government" would care less. To defy the FAA like this is a real big no no. They're going to have to fly ultralights from now on, or nothing. I sure would'nt want to give up my ticket for something like this! No way.
If people gave up on pushing the envelope every time a governing body said it "wasn't acceptable" very few records would be broken.. The guy behind the desk at the FAA Denying the request form.. has never even jumped out of a plane.. let alone having any comprehension of what it means to be an extreme sports athlete
@@Morpheen999 Very good point - and certainly no offense taken. You are beyond correct - that said, these guys will probably lose their Pilots Licenses.....
Agreed with this take. They did about 95% of things right - they planned things carefully and took every precaution to ensure that they weren't risking anybody except for themselves. When things did indeed go wrong, nobody got hurt, and as far as I'm aware there wasn't any sort of close call. BUT..... the FAA still said no. You can argue, like Paul did, that they maybe should have said yes. And perhaps the FAA should consider entertainment as a legitimate public interest. But they still said no. If my neighbor isn't using his garden hose, I ask to use it, and he says no, I can't just go and use it just because he should have said yes and because using it wouldn't harm anybody. No means no.
You have only proven that the FAA didn't do their job properly. That is the correct interpretation of the facts you laid out. Your analogy of the hose is false. This case has nothing to do with use of someone else's property. If they wouldn't have gone forward with their stunt because of that FAA negligence and dereliction of duty, then the FAA would've also arguably been liable for the damages they caused by hindering those people from doing their jobs and engaging in their ventures. Not only that, but the FAA has also influenced others too through the message they've sent to others: that they are actively blocking people and companies from pursuing ventures. In addition the FAA has no right whatsoever to make judgements on which ventures are worthy of pursuing and which ones are not. Their role is only to ensure safety. I think it's clear that the people at FAA responsible for this dereliction of duty, damages to society and ruining of the FAA's reputation should be fired and possibly even held accountable.
@@pistonburner6448 first off, his analogy is just that…an analogy. Also, where you’re wrong is in suggesting the FAA has an obligation to approve a stunt to which Redbull failed to bring forth a substantially solid argument to convince, or compel, this stunt to be authorized. They only gave FAA 30 days, which frankly in and of itself is ridiculous and clearly a oversight since that’s essentially the 9th hour I’m relation to how long this stunt has been planned. FAA owns the skies in relation to licensure. Much like every state owns the drivers license authorizations. Driving, or flying. In this case, is a privilege and not a “right”. There’s an agreement when you get your license that you will abide by particular rules and regulations. If you violate said rules, the governing body has the right to revoke the licensure. If you don’t like the garden house analogy….then here you go- if you get a DUI you can lose your license and driving privileges. If you break the rules egregiously enough, your driving privilege may be revoked. The FAA is the regulatory agency to which you must comply to set rules, or face consequences. You may not like the rules, or the oversight regulatory agency, but make no mistake about it…they have no legal obligation to allow exemption to rules if they deem it unnecessary. Taking proper legal action against them is your right, but dismissing their authority is never going to leave you the victor in any situation. This is not a moral (right/wrong) argument, this is a legal argument. And you’re never going to win in disregarding their ruling.
@@dc4334 Your garden hose analogy, just like your DUI analogy is false. The FAA does not own the skies, it is an agency tasked by us, the citizens to manage our use of the skies. They have NO mandate to limit our entrepreneurial or even recreational use of the skies on any other basis than safety. With driving it's easier since contrary to what you say car drivers' licensing is not a requirement outside public roads, so anyone can do stunts or pretty much what they want in an area they have the rights to use and can enclose from public traffic. As far as I know that is exactly what these guys were trying to get approved simply because the FAA has such strangely wide jurisdiction: they simply wanted the waiver to acknowledge that they were doing it in their own area outside public being affected, and that they were operating outside normal public flight licensing requirements. You are also wrong about disregarding rules, laws, rulings: even government agencies constantly break laws, rules, etc. based on their calculations of what is in their best interests in the end or based on what a final ruling would be after all considerations are finally taken into account. For example US border laws are knowingly and willfully broken in a planned, systematic manner every day by the current White House administration and the agencies involved which they control. And not just a few laws, but they are breaking incredibly many laws. There are very many other laws too which are repeatedly, publicly broken by government agencies, attorney generals, prosecutors, judges, etc.
@@pistonburner6448 dude, you clearly are anti-government (which is fine) but ours living in fantasy land to think air travel cannot be regulated. It is, and you can only fly an aircraft if you are licensed by the FAA, who is the regulatory agency. Be angry, hate the government…but you’re in la la land.
@@pistonburner6448 also, the pilots in question do not own the skies. They’re literally in an aerial highway monitored by the feds. It is not “their area”, they crashed a plane onto public land. Government agencies do break plenty of rules, can disagree there. But that’s reality…the rules don’t apply to them often times because who else can enforce the rules on them. But that doesn’t mean people can do whatever they want. Let’s be real.
The made a petition, and were denied, then did it anyway. Red Bull should be smacked with a heavy fine and Luke Aikins and Andy Farrington should have their pilot certificates revoked, full stop. I disagreed with the FAA denial, but letting them get away with this shit is just as bad as the Trevor Jacobs stunt.
I don't know about just as bad as the Trevor Jacobs hoax. They willfully violated the regulations like him sure. But they didn't make a fake documentary claiming it to be some example of what you should do.
Great comments! I did not agree with the FAA denied for "Public Interest" stand, what is the "Public" Interest of a quick flight just for the fun of it. But it was denied! Reapply or go somewhere that will allow it.
Paul you hit the nail so perfectly on the head with this commentary. Right on and agree with you 100%! Bad look all around by Redbull, et al. And, dare they whine when the fines are issued...!
What a coincidence. I just so happened to search for stuff about the plane stunt and your video was there. Excellent video, I love your demeanor and humor. Thank you sir
Paul, I'm reiterating nearly every comment on here, but you are incredibly good at what you do. Not only do you bring fair and balanced discourse to aviation, but in doing so you bring honesty and moderation to the online world as a whole. I almost never comment on anything. I have been a working "professional" skydiver for 7 years, and on a different aviation youtube page I follow I felt it appropriate to try and temper some of the vitriol in the comment section by providing a bit of perspective. To say the least that was met with a torrent of anger from a host of salty pilots and even a few inexperienced skydivers. Anyhow, then I see your video, and as always you put it down right on the centerline. Thanks for what you do, and I found myself feeling the same way watching the plane swap. Damn I'd love to get a shot at it myself! Blue skies.
I think a large part of the "reckless" argument was a question of definition of "empty desert"... my understanding is that there was property within some proximity of where the crash happened, and, spectators did(possibly arguable: were encouraged to) gather in the "desert" to see it.... this was done over a public area not over uninhabited wilderness or ocean (where the tests took place)
Well done, very well done. Great presentation and I appreciate your take. As a private pilot looking to increase general aviation interest in the general public, ditching empty airplanes anywhere for the sake of a stunt is just bad PR.
Ended up costing both pilots all their FAA certs. They threw the book at them statutorily, but I have a feeling the millions they were paid will soothe the pain. Red Bull went totally unpunished and "looks forward to working with them in the future".
A very well written article I wholly agree with. General Aviation should not be allowed to be degraded to such a low level. Thanks for the FARs to protect GA from being destroyed by such hooligans.
Sure, it might be exciting to watch, just like the base jumpers who skydived into a circling airplane, but leaving two aircraft pilotless while swapping driver seats, is one of those "hold my beer and watch this" events. With Darwin and Murphy fighting over the outcome, regardless of whether or not they have the blessing of the FAA.
It just sets a lousy precedent - I don't like the rule or law so I'm just not going to obey it. Done with the attitude that if I get more thumbs up than you I win. That ain't how it works.
I completely agree that entertainment should be a valid reason for a waiver. Clearly this stunt shouldn't be done above Manhattan, but over deserted desert, what's the problem?
Paul's demeanor, delivery, and dry humor here is wonderful! Yeah, these guys figured out a truly crazy airplane/skydive stunt---almost pulled it off---but the sheriff had already said "N0 WAY!" so you bad boys are going down. A lot of wisdom in his thoughts.
I love that T-shirt. One factor not mentioned is that while they may have taken precautions to protect those on the ground, it's not clear what if anything was done to protect the airspace. Obviously there was no TFR, so how could they be sure that somebody else wasn't flying through there minding their own business?
@@HybridVW And did they communicate to ATC that there was a drop in progress? And whether or not they did, there's a material difference between a skydiver and an un-piloted aircraft diving from the sky.
@@MikeKobb I can't imagine they didn't, and in this case, given the trajectory was identical, and the damage done in a collision would be very similar, as both a pilot and skydiver I really think the only "material difference" is that an airplane is much easier to see.
I think if Red Bull had been willing to move the location to an undisclosed unpopulated area that was only known to the FAA and those directly involved in the event, they might have been able to successfully argue that the event would not create an unnecessary risk to the public. Compromise on the event details would have been a much better argument than saying an aircraft isn't an aircraft when you turn the motor off. It might even be better than saying you have business commitments so the FAA needs to allow you to exit 2 different aircraft at altitude and try to swap aircraft, and regain control to land nearby. How exactly does the fact there are business commitments you agreed to convince the FAA that there is no risk to the public? I thought the answer gave the impression that safety wasn't something anyone thought to consider.
Possibly. But the denial letter seems to suggest it was more of a "no redeeming value" rejection. I can imagine Red Bull would have got the impression that even if they did the stunt in the remotest location possible on US soil that the FAA would have still rejected them. In which case it's really about communication, and the FAA working with those who want to bend the rules legally, telling them their requirements, and not just rejecting them in the hope they'll give up, go away and stop bothering them (an unfortunate feature of many government regulators around the world).
@@Croz89 yeah. "No redeeming value" sounds a lot less like safety concerns and a lot more like the FAA just fundamentally doesn't understand the concept of fun.
@@1574me Imagine the FAA clerk processing that waiver request. "None of this makes any sense. The planning is methodical and safety aspects are well considered, that rules out insanity. What could a rational person value so highly to be worth taking such ridiculous risks? "It has to be this 'fun' thing that I keep hearing about. I don't really understand it but as near as I can figure it's really important to some people. Makes them act crazy and do things that are completely illogical. It's fortunate that I'm not susceptible to this 'fun'."
I didn't watch it so someone correct me if I'm wrong. With the whole "no redeeming value" bit I think Paul hit it on the head with Myth Busters. Why not air a 30-minute segment with a countdown timer where they explain the science behind it? Then once it was either successful or not they can use the live footage to show what happened right and wrong. Similar to commentators drawing on football plays to give a more in depth analysis. Granted ya know, 20/20 and all that but that would have brought in the spectacle and could have given it redeeming value. Hell, even if they were still denied, trying to make it more educational could have helped them out with the fallout they will now face.
@@Jthornwe I mean, I guess they could have done that? But I think Paul's real point is that spectacle (and I would argue - fun) IS a redeeming value in and of itself, and the FAA's inability to acknowledge that fact is a bit silly.
I was very disappointed to find out that Luke Aikins, of all people, proceeded to do this without approval. I'm sad to say that I hope the FAA throw the book at him just like they did with Trevor Jacob. There should be no favoritism towards pilots that disregard the safety of themselves or others.
Eh there is a large difference between a well planned stunt with lots of safety people and a cordoned of safe area and a random guy lying about an engine failure. Chief among them is that fact that no one was in any danger here except the participants. The FAA denied the waiver but that doesn’t make the action inherently a rule violation. That will be something that like Paul said, the courts will sort out.
@@jakesnussbuster3565 you could make that argument for any of the number of fully autonomous thing that fly. Yet we all except that those things can be safe enough
Hitting the prop, getting tangled in the wing, or otherwise spinning to the desert floor with the plane on live TV would turn the spectacle into another stupid shot in the foot for GA. Better take the action to prevent it than clean up the mess.
Excellent video, Paul. I am going to be interested in seeing what the FAA does to them. I mean, look what they did to Martha Lunken, and she probably really did have a bad transponder, and didn't turn it off, as the FAA says, but she shouldn't have flown under the bridge anyway. No damage to anything in her case, except her ego, but here you have a totaled airplane.
When I first heard of this attempt I wondered if they had taken weight and balance into account and its effect on the performance of the aircraft without the pilots weight in the pilot’s seat. Obviously all testing would have taken place with a pilot at the controls. The simple solution would be to add equivalent pilot weight to the seat on the day of the event so that after the pilot exits, the aircraft would perform as demonstrated during the tests.
reminds me of Second City TV ...that blowd up real good. must admit your slant on all things recreational flying or civilian flying is humorusly spot on.
Despite all the prep and things done, if the FAA said no then in fairness it might get handled much like the Trevor Jacobs case. (Not supposed to depart the control of what was known to be a working and controllable airplane.) These kind of things have consequences if rules are enforced by the book.
I agree that the early days of aviation was all about barnstorming and such and am ok with conducting stunts in controlled environments and such. But they did deliberately ignore the FAA on this. I feel like they could have made a far more convincing and less pathetic argument for getting their waiver. Had they simply admitted teh stunt required the plane to be unoccupied, or agreed to have backup pilots in each aircraft, this wouldn't be an issue.
You can see it in the photo of the crashed plane. From what I've read, it deployed correctly, but became tangled due to the violent spin of the aircraft. As a result, it couldn't slow the fall enough to prevent the aircraft from being totaled.
Went for a flight yesterday and saw a NOTAM that skydivers were exiting their plane on the edge of Class B airspace, right near a major metro area. First though was, "the FAA doesn't have an issue with that?" My next thought was, "cool." Live and let live, so long as you don't blow up other people's stuff. Paul's take is 100% spot-on.
I don't think I can say how much I appreciate your silence on the Trevor Jacob video when it first came out. Every Tom, Dick and Harry with a camera thought it was a great idea to upload their thoughts to youtube, their click-bait titles about as original as the stunt itself.
Paul Bertorelli: Aviation's Paul Harvey. You're the aerodynamics professor, check ride inspector, and instructor pilot I wish I had. Thanks for all your educational and entertaining videos........ Good Day!
I was all about this stunt and then I found out that these guys requested permission to do this stunt, and the FAA denied their request. They did it anyway. I'm disappointed that they did it like this. It's not easier to ask for forgiveness. It was a cool idea and stunt... they almost pulled it off. The air brake was cool!
It's my understanding from talking online to friends that live in the area that people do live out there. It's not densely populated, but there are homes in the area. Plus there were supposedly a lot of people out in the desert trying to get a glimpse of the action without having to shell out money to Hulu and make the NBC fat cats even fatter. So there was definitely an increased safety concern. Dangerous? Yes. Reckless? Absolutely. Personally, as a private pilot, I've thought this was a dumb idea from the get-go. To defy the FAA and do it when the exemption was denied made it even dumber. Both pilots did the same thing as Trevor Jacob. They left their aircraft. The FAA set a precedent when they pulled Trevor's ticket back in January (actually they set it with Martha Lunken when they pulled hers for flying under a bridge). I think they should do the same here, to both pilots.
I agree that being denied a waiver should have told the Red Bull team to pull back, get a better argument, and try again - not just do the stunt anyway. I hope the ALJ that gets this case gives them a 'what for?', for trying it. It's good that no one was killed, but a perfectly good airplane was destroyed, even with a ballistic recovery chute. No stunt is worth a life.
great video! i sincerely regret not finding your channel earlier. While i am not an aviator (yet), i do skydive quite a bit and, thus, cannot shut up about it. So, with that out of the way, I 100% agree with your sentiment; I LOVE red bull and their stunt for the obvious entertainment of what would be possible if i actually wouldnt suck at aerial sports and for the absolutely awesome folks involved. The plane used for the wingsuiting into a plane stunt was rented from a certain spanish/catalonian DZ near barcelona where they practiced beforehand as well. The man i learned skydiving from accidentally got booked onto one of such training flights, probably due to a hungover manifest, and subsequently gave several RedBull lawyers and managers a heart attack & got pleaded at to delete his gopro and sign an NDA :D But, nevertheless, i have to agree that this blatant level of blatant disobedience is just bad for the sport and aviation. The same guys already got into bad trouble for their no-parachute jumps, i dont remember exactly how, but i think i remember they already had trouble getting a TSO exemption for practice jumping a no-TSO BASE rig up to the task of pulling low to train the guided approach and brace position and that continued into the actual attempt. Take this with a grain of salt tho, this is information i got from other folks in the sport years ago. But, going back to my actual point, this all leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, even though i love the actual stunts. Its the same problem haunting BASE jumping, legal spots are rare and, well, its a kick to do urban stuff or other illegal spots and we are talking about human lemmings after all. But the result in the long run is a horrible public image, causing the general public to be impervious to sharing or at least understanding and tolerating our enthusiasm for our (admittedly plenty dangerous and niche by design) passion, resulting in a 0% chance of more legal opportunities like bridge day or Moab and draconian laws turning petty shit into felonies like in New York. And thats just bad for avia- uh *BASE jumping*
Other than the crowds of campers in the desert who showed up to watch the spectacle for free, yea, I guess there was no risk to people on the ground... except predicting the impact point of an out of control aircraft at 12000 ft altitude might be a little tough, and some of those campers, or their estates, might have been getting free Red Bull for life.
Two pilot license revocations are on the way! Loved your idea to just move it to Mexico…over cartel territory! As a pilot who has remained legal for 47 years, great coverage again, Paul!
In the 7000 hours I was a pilot, I’ve learned a thing or two. I think these guys need to read Johnathan Livingston Seagull. (Or listen to it on youtube) There are many “pilots” making comments. You sir are one of the few aviators out there. An aviator would never bash on another flyer for doing something outside of the box. Even that Jacobs guy. It’s not for us to judge, in fact the FAA is far from what they are supposed to be. I had more freedom flying back country in China (even though I ended up in jail for it). When the FAA started with the objective of promoting aviation. They were all for flying inverted under bridges. Martha Lunkin didn’t endanger anyone. These guys are real aviators. While pilots sit around and argue about their which log book entry is right I was out in a cub learning to really fly it. 7000 hours later 1500 of which was single pilot IFR and flying Zeniths in China later I’m on Facebook with some weekend warrior 172 driving lawyer telling me I’m reckless.
I’m sitting at the kitchen table, enjoying this video surgically disassembling the aeronautical decision making of two soon to be former pilots on my iPad, and in walks my wife from across the room. “Airplane guy!” she exclaimed, after hearing a few words. Paul’s excellent videos have become such a fixture in our household that his smooth, vaguely southern delivery has become literally synonymous with airplanes in my wife’s mind, and she’s married to a pilot….
Red Bull should get a congressman to question the FAA to expand upon the denial of this stunt. Who in the FAA determines if this is public interest or not? Curious if recent FAA scrutiny on 737 MAX is causing the department to be gun shy on exemptions.
Great take, as usual. I was concerned about where you were going until you tied it back to Trevor Jacob's and the appearance of a double standard if the FAA doesn't drop the hammer on Red Bull. Agree, Red Bull's attempt was well thought out, rehearsed, and planned, but they shouldn't have attempted without FAA's approval
@@arthurbrumagem3844 Considering the high risk/low probability of success, 50% success isn't a "complete failure," IMO. But that's probably why the FAA didn't approve this since the FAA is about low-moderate risks/high success probabilities. But your point is still valid!
I was wondering the same. The FAA specifically cited the requestors failure to address how they would handle 91.113 see and avoid requirements while out of the aircraft and I immediately thought there has to be somemway for a remote PIC to have handled that (probably also several additional waivers or COAs).
I genuinely think I could listen to Paul talk about virtually anything and be entertained.
Agreed ch3. Paul has one of the best driest senses of humour I've ever heard. And it's not just entertaining. He always has a message but doesn't let that get in the way of a great joke.
He is the only guy to warrant 5 stripes on his shoulder boards!
I’d love to hear him describe breakfast cereals!
Sort of the Morgan Freeman of the aviation world
420 Likes. Coincidence Paul?!
"The pilot left the premises."
Sounds like something Steven Wright would say.
Do you ever get the feeling you're paying too much for a can of Red Bull?
Ya, the one can I bought back around 1997 when I realized that the flavor is antifreeze with a sulfuric acid enhancement.
Fun fact: Red Bull does not produce anything themselves, they are a pure marketing company.
Cheers from Austria 🙂
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 I thought the flavor was more like Theraflu.
I agree, but the taste is so good to me I buy them as treats for myself. I Don’t like ice cream or candy that much, so I think I can justify the overpriced drink once in a while lol.
LOL! Perfect!
FAA: So, what part of "No" didn't you understand?
The very first thing I thought of when I found out the stunt team disregarded the FAA’s failure to approve an exception to policy, is why the hell didn’t they just conduct the stunt in a country that had more relaxed laws and welcomed the revenue? You can stream a live feed from almost anywhere in the world at this point. Now these guys have brought a magnifying glass to anyone else trying to push the limits of aviation, even if they’re conducting their operations in a much safer manner.
"the FAA’s failure to approve" you have it backward. THEY failed to GET approval. Remember, flying is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
@@speedomars Or maybe some unelected FAA bureaucrat shouldn't have the authority to willy nilly approve or deny something that has no material impact on public safety?
@@airops423 If you are a certificated pilot then you will protect that achievement by understanding why the FAA exists and what your relationship is to that agency and what the rules are so you do not violate them. If you are not a pilot...then your opinion is uniformed and your comments have no weight.
@@speedomars well said
@@speedomars I'm not calling for the abolishment of the FAA, nor advocating violating their rules. Just offering a critique regarding the reach of the FAA's rules and bureaucratic decision making.
Best take yet, unsurprisingly. One man's "irredeemably" dangerous stunt is another's' idea of a fun afternoon, and that's a concept I feel ought to be protected to some degree, as long as all appropriate precautions are taken for those not involved. In light of that I'm tempted to be a bit miffed at the FAA for denying the waiver. However, as someone who doesn't particularly wish to see the FAA more involved in skydiving, I'm tempted to be more than a bit miffed with Luke and Andy for going through with it. I can't really imagine it would have killed them to postpone it, then refile the waiver on different grounds and/or just find another location. Rubbing it in the FAA's face, so to speak, is just not a good look for skydiving or the uspa (given Luke Aikens position within it).
Concur in the extreme! The average citizen doesn't understand why anyone would even get into a small plane, much less do so on a regular basis. The Red Bull public relations team should be thoroughly and completely removed from their jobs, as all they really did was loudly proclaim that they don't care what the law says. Irresponsible to the max.
True, to be sure. The faa is now as power happy as every other fed bureau these days... And they always take the easy way out, look to the line of sight rc world for another example... the better part of a century with out any issues flying toy airplanes, and now the community has to register? Because of idiot uav quad guys that aren't a part of traditional rc? Instead of busting the @$$holz who were the real problem... The problem is the faa not our free falling brethren. The faa was out of line, it was a stunt with all of the safety concerns addressed, not your every day ppl taking an xc or that Trevor bozo... The regs shouldn't apply... Guess the feds want to promote the idea that this isn't the land of the brave anymore....
Their foolish and selfish ego trips will cost us all in the future. It is bad enough that our Air Shows are so regulated now, but these losers are going to bring added stress to us all now. They deserve to never fly again for the blatant disregard for the denial of the permit. Anarchy does not belong in GA
Farley, why do you use the word irredeemably ? That is usually in a moral context and that is not the case here. No uninvolved persons were endangered here. Nonetheless; I do wholeheartedly agree that causing conflict with the FAA is bad idea and potentially detrimental to the general Skydiving community. After all the facts are known and examined; it may be that USPA should censure these guys.
@@terrysullivan1992 it's a reference to the fact that, IIRC, the faa stated in their rejection that the stunt had "no redeeming value" to justify a waiver.. My point is that a statement like that is always going to be highly subjective, and I think as a society we should respect peoples' right to make their own risk/reward calculations, as long as the risk is limited to those who knowingly and willingly accept it.
Watching and listening to your videos over time has increased my awareness about what’s happening in the “general aviation” industry. I appreciate your knowledge and the calm way you present information. Your a very pleasant and very useful source of news happening in general aviation. Thank you.
I watched this live, then went to ForeFlight to find the TFR. I was super confused when I couldn't find one. Then the next day, I learned they had been denied, and it all made sense. Trevor Jacob must be thanking Red Bull for doing this, taking some of he heat off of him.
The FAA has enough heat for Trevor, Red Bull, and anyone else trying to pull off a stunt without a waiver. Having been at an airline in the crosshairs of FAA's focus on an alternate means of compliance AD issue. It was not pretty. FAA were all over us like a swarm of killer bees, and not one of them had a clear answer as to what was an acceptable compliance. Frickin' nightmare.
No room in General Aviation for anarchy, or anarchists. Pull the licenses, and ground the aircraft- Fine the hell out of redbull, and scrutinize THEM, not the rest of General Aviation enthusiasts. I own three aircraft, two of which are open cockpit, and lack their corporate sponsorship, so shit is expensive enough.
@@email4664 Well, that aircraft is grounded, permanently. That's for sure.
@E Mail you are so right, enough with those clowns and adrenaline junkies that don’t impress anyone. 100 takes for that rubbish.
Paul, I always love your dry, humorous takes on contemporary topics like this. Great job here and I entirely agree. It was a great spectacle of engineering, skill and daredevil. It’s a shame they never got the FAA clearance though.
Great spectacle of engineering? Apparently the engineering was not that good.
Not just didn't get clearance it was positively denied
@@matthewspry4217 That exactly why they went ahead.. Forgiveness in place of permission
@@bidlymovies987 don’t confuse user operator error with sound engineering. Easy mistake to make
@@Morpheen999 - That might have been their plan but it doesn't work that way. They asked for permission and it was denied. Then they did it anyway, effectively thumbing their nose at the FAA. Forgiveness is much, much less likely to be forthcoming. Most kids learn this lesson first hand from their parents.
I suspect neither of these two pilots will be legally flying an aircraft for a while.
So the FAA said no and these guys did it anyway?? I hate government red tape and oversight just as much if not more than the next guy...but this was dumb. They kinda deserve whatever comes their way.
There is a whole world out there that isn't under FAA jurisdiction. Think McFly.
Reasoned, rational, well stated. When you want to encourage a new generation of pilots to enter the industry, you don't want an environment where they see through all their social media feeds at those impressionable ages that rules don't matter.
The autopilot should be striped of his license if he made it.
And THANK YOU for making me have visions of "Auto" in "Airplane". This stunt would have been immediately hilarious with a blow up autopilot. lol
@@earthwindflier Someone would have made a blowup doll reference.
@@earthwindflier Otto
@@markhamstra1083 Thanks for the correction! Zero idea how I dropped the ball on that one. Lol
😂😂😂
I like your take here. I think it’s possible to both disagree that FAA should have denied the waiver, and think that the Red Bull team should not have gone through with it after the denial.
That said, what was Red Bulls end game here? Let’s say the stunt had worked perfectly. Presumably they would have broadcast on Hulu that they flouted the FAA’s ruling and would have been in trouble anyway. There was no scenario where this works out for Red Bull with no legal trouble.
Exactly. What are the chances Red Bull gets another waiver for a stunt? Pretty slim chance if you ask me.
@@dougrobinson8602 what are the chances they even bother to ask? pretty slim chance if you ask me.
As a fellow sky diver and jump pilot I couldn’t agree more. The sport has done a great job with minimal FAA intrusion. Let’s try to behave
A thoughtful and balanced view: like Paul I just don’t understand why they didn’t relocate to Mexico 🤷♂️
It might just be that Mexico would not have been any more receptive to the idea.
@@Raptorman0909 I’ll bet they would.
I’d rather do that, than lose my ticket over this stupid nonsense.
The Mexican authorities let Discovery channel intentionally crash a 727 some years ago, after they were denied permission to do it in the USA.
Edit: Just got to @7:45 where he mentions that stunt.
One issue there might be that, for the purposes of the stunt, the two 182s were certificated as Experimental. And it appears that Mexico is no longer allowing US experimental aircraft across the border.
@@hpaircraft2187 -- Ahh, that makes sense....
Watched several videos about this "stunt" - You touched on a point the others did not. Red Bull should have pulled the plug on this one - until cleared. Pilots are definitely to blame - but "Corporate" should NOT have let this occur - Especially having this denied, in writing, by the FAA.....
I wholely agree with you!!! They had too much money invested already with Hulu ext..I'm sure, but why not do it in another country. Canada, Mexico ext....... You could do it in the Mexican desert and the "Government" would care less. To defy the FAA like this is a real big no no. They're going to have to fly ultralights from now on, or nothing. I sure would'nt want to give up my ticket for something like this! No way.
If people gave up on pushing the envelope every time a governing body said it "wasn't acceptable" very few records would be broken..
The guy behind the desk at the FAA Denying the request form.. has never even jumped out of a plane.. let alone having any comprehension of what it means to be an extreme sports athlete
@@Morpheen999 Very good point - and certainly no offense taken. You are beyond correct - that said, these guys will probably lose their Pilots Licenses.....
@@Morpheen999 So what record were the trying to break? This does not seem to fall into the category of advancing aviation in any way I can see.
@@giacomofenoglietto6687 I never said anything about advancing avation... Extreme sports pushes the envelope of whats physically possible
"The pilot left the premises" , another classic and hilarious quip from PB :)
Agreed with this take. They did about 95% of things right - they planned things carefully and took every precaution to ensure that they weren't risking anybody except for themselves. When things did indeed go wrong, nobody got hurt, and as far as I'm aware there wasn't any sort of close call.
BUT..... the FAA still said no. You can argue, like Paul did, that they maybe should have said yes. And perhaps the FAA should consider entertainment as a legitimate public interest. But they still said no. If my neighbor isn't using his garden hose, I ask to use it, and he says no, I can't just go and use it just because he should have said yes and because using it wouldn't harm anybody. No means no.
You have only proven that the FAA didn't do their job properly. That is the correct interpretation of the facts you laid out.
Your analogy of the hose is false. This case has nothing to do with use of someone else's property.
If they wouldn't have gone forward with their stunt because of that FAA negligence and dereliction of duty, then the FAA would've also arguably been liable for the damages they caused by hindering those people from doing their jobs and engaging in their ventures. Not only that, but the FAA has also influenced others too through the message they've sent to others: that they are actively blocking people and companies from pursuing ventures. In addition the FAA has no right whatsoever to make judgements on which ventures are worthy of pursuing and which ones are not. Their role is only to ensure safety.
I think it's clear that the people at FAA responsible for this dereliction of duty, damages to society and ruining of the FAA's reputation should be fired and possibly even held accountable.
@@pistonburner6448 first off, his analogy is just that…an analogy. Also, where you’re wrong is in suggesting the FAA has an obligation to approve a stunt to which Redbull failed to bring forth a substantially solid argument to convince, or compel, this stunt to be authorized. They only gave FAA 30 days, which frankly in and of itself is ridiculous and clearly a oversight since that’s essentially the 9th hour I’m relation to how long this stunt has been planned. FAA owns the skies in relation to licensure. Much like every state owns the drivers license authorizations. Driving, or flying. In this case, is a privilege and not a “right”. There’s an agreement when you get your license that you will abide by particular rules and regulations. If you violate said rules, the governing body has the right to revoke the licensure. If you don’t like the garden house analogy….then here you go- if you get a DUI you can lose your license and driving privileges. If you break the rules egregiously enough, your driving privilege may be revoked. The FAA is the regulatory agency to which you must comply to set rules, or face consequences. You may not like the rules, or the oversight regulatory agency, but make no mistake about it…they have no legal obligation to allow exemption to rules if they deem it unnecessary. Taking proper legal action against them is your right, but dismissing their authority is never going to leave you the victor in any situation. This is not a moral (right/wrong) argument, this is a legal argument. And you’re never going to win in disregarding their ruling.
@@dc4334 Your garden hose analogy, just like your DUI analogy is false.
The FAA does not own the skies, it is an agency tasked by us, the citizens to manage our use of the skies. They have NO mandate to limit our entrepreneurial or even recreational use of the skies on any other basis than safety.
With driving it's easier since contrary to what you say car drivers' licensing is not a requirement outside public roads, so anyone can do stunts or pretty much what they want in an area they have the rights to use and can enclose from public traffic. As far as I know that is exactly what these guys were trying to get approved simply because the FAA has such strangely wide jurisdiction: they simply wanted the waiver to acknowledge that they were doing it in their own area outside public being affected, and that they were operating outside normal public flight licensing requirements.
You are also wrong about disregarding rules, laws, rulings: even government agencies constantly break laws, rules, etc. based on their calculations of what is in their best interests in the end or based on what a final ruling would be after all considerations are finally taken into account. For example US border laws are knowingly and willfully broken in a planned, systematic manner every day by the current White House administration and the agencies involved which they control. And not just a few laws, but they are breaking incredibly many laws. There are very many other laws too which are repeatedly, publicly broken by government agencies, attorney generals, prosecutors, judges, etc.
@@pistonburner6448 dude, you clearly are anti-government (which is fine) but ours living in fantasy land to think air travel cannot be regulated. It is, and you can only fly an aircraft if you are licensed by the FAA, who is the regulatory agency. Be angry, hate the government…but you’re in la la land.
@@pistonburner6448 also, the pilots in question do not own the skies. They’re literally in an aerial highway monitored by the feds. It is not “their area”, they crashed a plane onto public land. Government agencies do break plenty of rules, can disagree there. But that’s reality…the rules don’t apply to them often times because who else can enforce the rules on them. But that doesn’t mean people can do whatever they want. Let’s be real.
The made a petition, and were denied, then did it anyway. Red Bull should be smacked with a heavy fine and Luke Aikins and Andy Farrington should have their pilot certificates revoked, full stop. I disagreed with the FAA denial, but letting them get away with this shit is just as bad as the Trevor Jacobs stunt.
And, ...AND? They Filmed it and someone quickly RELEASED it...
...Hell, even Nixon only audio taped his crimes.
I don't know about just as bad as the Trevor Jacobs hoax.
They willfully violated the regulations like him sure. But they didn't make a fake documentary claiming it to be some example of what you should do.
I have to wonder if Trevor Jacobs hadn't crashed his plane on purpose, would the FAA said yes to this carefully planned stunt ?
@@station240 The answer is No.
Stop using the Internet for questions in the Comments section.
Use the Internet for RESEARCH.
@@arcanondrum6543 Shut up.
As always, Paul Bertorelli is the best. Even if I stopped watching all other flying videos, I would keep watching him. Thanks Paul.
Great comments! I did not agree with the FAA denied for "Public Interest" stand, what is the "Public" Interest of a quick flight just for the fun of it. But it was denied! Reapply or go somewhere that will allow it.
Since they ignored the regs, they should never fly again, and redbull should be fined into a hole
Paul you hit the nail so perfectly on the head with this commentary. Right on and agree with you 100%! Bad look all around by Redbull, et al. And, dare they whine when the fines are issued...!
I can always turn to Paul and AVweb for a mix of wisdom and humor. This one did not disappoint!
What a coincidence. I just so happened to search for stuff about the plane stunt and your video was there. Excellent video, I love your demeanor and humor. Thank you sir
Nice review of this event, Paul. As a skydiver and pilot, I agree with your conclusions.
Best review of this stunt, love the way you explain things
One man's ordeal is another man's adventure, the difference is attitude. Thanks for your take on this Paul.
All fun and games until "willful disregard"... I see revocation as the only resolution. Too bad, poor judgement on both corporate and the two pilots.
Paul, I'm reiterating nearly every comment on here, but you are incredibly good at what you do. Not only do you bring fair and balanced discourse to aviation, but in doing so you bring honesty and moderation to the online world as a whole. I almost never comment on anything. I have been a working "professional" skydiver for 7 years, and on a different aviation youtube page I follow I felt it appropriate to try and temper some of the vitriol in the comment section by providing a bit of perspective. To say the least that was met with a torrent of anger from a host of salty pilots and even a few inexperienced skydivers. Anyhow, then I see your video, and as always you put it down right on the centerline. Thanks for what you do, and I found myself feeling the same way watching the plane swap. Damn I'd love to get a shot at it myself! Blue skies.
Thanks, Rocco, for those nice words. I really appreciate it.
Paul you are a national treasure. Keep up the good work.
Is it just me or has there been an increase of people jumping out of airplanes which are then left to their own fate
I think a large part of the "reckless" argument was a question of definition of "empty desert"... my understanding is that there was property within some proximity of where the crash happened, and, spectators did(possibly arguable: were encouraged to) gather in the "desert" to see it.... this was done over a public area not over uninhabited wilderness or ocean (where the tests took place)
Well done, very well done. Great presentation and I appreciate your take. As a private pilot looking to increase general aviation interest in the general public, ditching empty airplanes anywhere for the sake of a stunt is just bad PR.
Ended up costing both pilots all their FAA certs. They threw the book at them statutorily, but I have a feeling the millions they were paid will soothe the pain. Red Bull went totally unpunished and "looks forward to working with them in the future".
A very well written article I wholly agree with. General Aviation should not be allowed to be degraded to such a low level. Thanks for the FARs to protect GA from being destroyed by such hooligans.
Sure, it might be exciting to watch, just like the base jumpers who skydived into a circling airplane, but leaving two aircraft pilotless while swapping driver seats, is one of those "hold my beer and watch this" events. With Darwin and Murphy fighting over the outcome, regardless of whether or not they have the blessing of the FAA.
I find many of ‘Red Bull’ stunts to be reckless, if not downright dangerous....massive fines should fix it.
Exactly
It just sets a lousy precedent - I don't like the rule or law so I'm just not going to obey it. Done with the attitude that if I get more thumbs up than you I win. That ain't how it works.
You did a great job Paul! Do more, we love to listen to you explain these crazy things.
I completely agree that entertainment should be a valid reason for a waiver. Clearly this stunt shouldn't be done above Manhattan, but over deserted desert, what's the problem?
Eloy, Picacho and I-10 are not deserted desert.
Paul's demeanor, delivery, and dry humor here is wonderful! Yeah, these guys figured out a truly crazy airplane/skydive stunt---almost pulled it off---but the sheriff had already said "N0 WAY!" so you bad boys are going down. A lot of wisdom in his thoughts.
I love that T-shirt. One factor not mentioned is that while they may have taken precautions to protect those on the ground, it's not clear what if anything was done to protect the airspace. Obviously there was no TFR, so how could they be sure that somebody else wasn't flying through there minding their own business?
The airport is marked on the sectional as a drop zone.
@@HybridVW And did they communicate to ATC that there was a drop in progress? And whether or not they did, there's a material difference between a skydiver and an un-piloted aircraft diving from the sky.
@@MikeKobb I can't imagine they didn't, and in this case, given the trajectory was identical, and the damage done in a collision would be very similar, as both a pilot and skydiver I really think the only "material difference" is that an airplane is much easier to see.
@@1574me I can't imagine that they didn't, either, but reporting I've seen says that they did not alert ATC at all.
@@MikeKobb interesting... I didn't see that in anything I read.
Great discussion. Thanks for doing this one, Paul.
I think if Red Bull had been willing to move the location to an undisclosed unpopulated area that was only known to the FAA and those directly involved in the event, they might have been able to successfully argue that the event would not create an unnecessary risk to the public.
Compromise on the event details would have been a much better argument than saying an aircraft isn't an aircraft when you turn the motor off. It might even be better than saying you have business commitments so the FAA needs to allow you to exit 2 different aircraft at altitude and try to swap aircraft, and regain control to land nearby.
How exactly does the fact there are business commitments you agreed to convince the FAA that there is no risk to the public? I thought the answer gave the impression that safety wasn't something anyone thought to consider.
Possibly. But the denial letter seems to suggest it was more of a "no redeeming value" rejection. I can imagine Red Bull would have got the impression that even if they did the stunt in the remotest location possible on US soil that the FAA would have still rejected them. In which case it's really about communication, and the FAA working with those who want to bend the rules legally, telling them their requirements, and not just rejecting them in the hope they'll give up, go away and stop bothering them (an unfortunate feature of many government regulators around the world).
@@Croz89 yeah. "No redeeming value" sounds a lot less like safety concerns and a lot more like the FAA just fundamentally doesn't understand the concept of fun.
@@1574me Imagine the FAA clerk processing that waiver request.
"None of this makes any sense. The planning is methodical and safety aspects are well considered, that rules out insanity. What could a rational person value so highly to be worth taking such ridiculous risks?
"It has to be this 'fun' thing that I keep hearing about. I don't really understand it but as near as I can figure it's really important to some people. Makes them act crazy and do things that are completely illogical. It's fortunate that I'm not susceptible to this 'fun'."
I didn't watch it so someone correct me if I'm wrong. With the whole "no redeeming value" bit I think Paul hit it on the head with Myth Busters. Why not air a 30-minute segment with a countdown timer where they explain the science behind it? Then once it was either successful or not they can use the live footage to show what happened right and wrong. Similar to commentators drawing on football plays to give a more in depth analysis. Granted ya know, 20/20 and all that but that would have brought in the spectacle and could have given it redeeming value. Hell, even if they were still denied, trying to make it more educational could have helped them out with the fallout they will now face.
@@Jthornwe I mean, I guess they could have done that? But I think Paul's real point is that spectacle (and I would argue - fun) IS a redeeming value in and of itself, and the FAA's inability to acknowledge that fact is a bit silly.
Lets not forget that the FAA grounded Bob Hoover- "the most insurable pilot" of his time.
Totally different situation! He also went and flew elsewhere after that, which is what these guys should have done,
That young FAA guy should have been fired 😂
Haven’t seen Paul lately. Love his dry humor and explanations.
I was very disappointed to find out that Luke Aikins, of all people, proceeded to do this without approval. I'm sad to say that I hope the FAA throw the book at him just like they did with Trevor Jacob. There should be no favoritism towards pilots that disregard the safety of themselves or others.
Eh there is a large difference between a well planned stunt with lots of safety people and a cordoned of safe area and a random guy lying about an engine failure.
Chief among them is that fact that no one was in any danger here except the participants.
The FAA denied the waiver but that doesn’t make the action inherently a rule violation. That will be something that like Paul said, the courts will sort out.
Oh, They are. They both will loose their tickets!!!
Ah yes. Needing gov approval for everything. Welcome to 2022 🥴
@@Mrcaffinebean can't do see and avoid when no one is in the plane
@@jakesnussbuster3565 you could make that argument for any of the number of fully autonomous thing that fly. Yet we all except that those things can be safe enough
Paul, we're lucky to have you. You're no Dan Gryder and that is genuinely a compliment.
Excellent and thoroughly fair and sensible commentary from start to finish. Thanks
Hitting the prop, getting tangled in the wing, or otherwise spinning to the desert floor with the plane on live TV would turn the spectacle into another stupid shot in the foot for GA. Better take the action to prevent it than clean up the mess.
The one thing the egoists and selfish anarchist pilot supporters neglect to consider. Well put Carmelo
Calm, reasoned, and knowledgeable.
This is quality content.
Literally here just for you Paul~ Already know what time it is when Paul has a video!
Excellent video, Paul. I am going to be interested in seeing what the FAA does to them. I mean, look what they did to Martha Lunken, and she probably really did have a bad transponder, and didn't turn it off, as the FAA says, but she shouldn't have flown under the bridge anyway. No damage to anything in her case, except her ego, but here you have a totaled airplane.
Love the delivery, and the common sense analysis...
Your opinions are always fully baked. Please keep them coming.
I strongly endorse your choice to not give that accused intentional plane crasher any attention.
"Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned."
- Milton Friedman
When I first heard of this attempt I wondered if they had taken weight and balance into account and its effect on the performance of the aircraft without the pilots weight in the pilot’s seat. Obviously all testing would have taken place with a pilot at the controls. The simple solution would be to add equivalent pilot weight to the seat on the day of the event so that after the pilot exits, the aircraft would perform as demonstrated during the tests.
reminds me of Second City TV ...that blowd up real good. must admit your slant on all things recreational flying or civilian flying is humorusly spot on.
I always appreciate your humor Paul.
I didn't do a Trevor Jacob video either so there is at least two of us ;)
Despite all the prep and things done, if the FAA said no then in fairness it might get handled much like the Trevor Jacobs case. (Not supposed to depart the control of what was known to be a working and controllable airplane.) These kind of things have consequences if rules are enforced by the book.
I agree that the early days of aviation was all about barnstorming and such and am ok with conducting stunts in controlled environments and such. But they did deliberately ignore the FAA on this. I feel like they could have made a far more convincing and less pathetic argument for getting their waiver. Had they simply admitted teh stunt required the plane to be unoccupied, or agreed to have backup pilots in each aircraft, this wouldn't be an issue.
The problem is that "because it's awesome" is the kind of justification bureaucracies are allergic to.
@@caconym358 No, seeing as many permits are approved, this was just plain dumb
Thanks for the video Paul! Saw the result today but didn’t know the background!
Thanks. This was the first time that I have viewed your channel.
Who needs Red Bull?
Not me.
Red who?????
@@scotabot7826 Definitely not Red Green (I hope you're familiar). ❤️💚
I read somewhere the plane had a “parachute system.” I assumed that meant BRS but I guess not… or it failed to deploy 🤷♂️ Thanks for your take Paul!
twisted lines caused by a sipraling object would be very detrimental to the successful deployment of a parachute.
You can see it in the photo of the crashed plane. From what I've read, it deployed correctly, but became tangled due to the violent spin of the aircraft. As a result, it couldn't slow the fall enough to prevent the aircraft from being totaled.
Great video. You cut right through the noise and communicated clearly in a way dummies like me can understand.
thanks Paul. i really enjoy it when you take the time to make a video.
I don’t know how to say this. But I have never been so bored and entertained at the same time.
International lawn darts championship 2022. Jacob's one, Red Bull one.
Loved your take with a little humor sprinkled about!
Excellent presentation. I wondered if you'd get around to the 91 CFRs
Gotta love Paul’s dry commentary. See you in 90 days!
Went for a flight yesterday and saw a NOTAM that skydivers were exiting their plane on the edge of Class B airspace, right near a major metro area. First though was, "the FAA doesn't have an issue with that?" My next thought was, "cool."
Live and let live, so long as you don't blow up other people's stuff. Paul's take is 100% spot-on.
I don't think I can say how much I appreciate your silence on the Trevor Jacob video when it first came out. Every Tom, Dick and Harry with a camera thought it was a great idea to upload their thoughts to youtube, their click-bait titles about as original as the stunt itself.
Dan Gryder said this was a brilliant idea and good gamble.
Paul Bertorelli: Aviation's Paul Harvey. You're the aerodynamics professor, check ride inspector, and instructor pilot I wish I had. Thanks for all your educational and entertaining videos........ Good Day!
I was all about this stunt and then I found out that these guys requested permission to do this stunt, and the FAA denied their request. They did it anyway. I'm disappointed that they did it like this. It's not easier to ask for forgiveness. It was a cool idea and stunt... they almost pulled it off. The air brake was cool!
It's my understanding from talking online to friends that live in the area that people do live out there. It's not densely populated, but there are homes in the area. Plus there were supposedly a lot of people out in the desert trying to get a glimpse of the action without having to shell out money to Hulu and make the NBC fat cats even fatter. So there was definitely an increased safety concern. Dangerous? Yes. Reckless? Absolutely. Personally, as a private pilot, I've thought this was a dumb idea from the get-go. To defy the FAA and do it when the exemption was denied made it even dumber. Both pilots did the same thing as Trevor Jacob. They left their aircraft. The FAA set a precedent when they pulled Trevor's ticket back in January (actually they set it with Martha Lunken when they pulled hers for flying under a bridge). I think they should do the same here, to both pilots.
@@Sloptit Fighter pilot? No. Private pilot? Yes.
So much common sense in your commentary...enough to make the FAA plug their ears and close their eyes tight!
I don't know the producer of the video but he put a smile on my face 👏👏😉😉
I have been watching Paul Bertorelli for something like 13 years now. He hasn't aged a bit. How does he do it?
To the man who always knows the right things to say... 1:34 Caught you smiling Paul and it was pretty cool!
Very well summed up. In mt oppinion from the videos l have seen you always have a very balanced view on what you present.
I agree that being denied a waiver should have told the Red Bull team to pull back, get a better argument, and try again - not just do the stunt anyway. I hope the ALJ that gets this case gives them a 'what for?', for trying it. It's good that no one was killed, but a perfectly good airplane was destroyed, even with a ballistic recovery chute. No stunt is worth a life.
Thank you. T
That was really cool learning the ins and outs of that stunt.
great video! i sincerely regret not finding your channel earlier. While i am not an aviator (yet), i do skydive quite a bit and, thus, cannot shut up about it. So, with that out of the way, I 100% agree with your sentiment; I LOVE red bull and their stunt for the obvious entertainment of what would be possible if i actually wouldnt suck at aerial sports and for the absolutely awesome folks involved. The plane used for the wingsuiting into a plane stunt was rented from a certain spanish/catalonian DZ near barcelona where they practiced beforehand as well. The man i learned skydiving from accidentally got booked onto one of such training flights, probably due to a hungover manifest, and subsequently gave several RedBull lawyers and managers a heart attack & got pleaded at to delete his gopro and sign an NDA :D But, nevertheless, i have to agree that this blatant level of blatant disobedience is just bad for the sport and aviation. The same guys already got into bad trouble for their no-parachute jumps, i dont remember exactly how, but i think i remember they already had trouble getting a TSO exemption for practice jumping a no-TSO BASE rig up to the task of pulling low to train the guided approach and brace position and that continued into the actual attempt. Take this with a grain of salt tho, this is information i got from other folks in the sport years ago. But, going back to my actual point, this all leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, even though i love the actual stunts. Its the same problem haunting BASE jumping, legal spots are rare and, well, its a kick to do urban stuff or other illegal spots and we are talking about human lemmings after all. But the result in the long run is a horrible public image, causing the general public to be impervious to sharing or at least understanding and tolerating our enthusiasm for our (admittedly plenty dangerous and niche by design) passion, resulting in a 0% chance of more legal opportunities like bridge day or Moab and draconian laws turning petty shit into felonies like in New York. And thats just bad for avia- uh *BASE jumping*
Other than the crowds of campers in the desert who showed up to watch the spectacle for free, yea, I guess there was no risk to people on the ground... except predicting the impact point of an out of control aircraft at 12000 ft altitude might be a little tough, and some of those campers, or their estates, might have been getting free Red Bull for life.
Two pilot license revocations are on the way! Loved your idea to just move it to Mexico…over cartel territory! As a pilot who has remained legal for 47 years, great coverage again, Paul!
"Galactically stupid" is a gem. Cheers.
In the 7000 hours I was a pilot, I’ve learned a thing or two. I think these guys need to read Johnathan Livingston Seagull. (Or listen to it on youtube) There are many “pilots” making comments. You sir are one of the few aviators out there. An aviator would never bash on another flyer for doing something outside of the box. Even that Jacobs guy. It’s not for us to judge, in fact the FAA is far from what they are supposed to be. I had more freedom flying back country in China (even though I ended up in jail for it). When the FAA started with the objective of promoting aviation. They were all for flying inverted under bridges. Martha Lunkin didn’t endanger anyone. These guys are real aviators. While pilots sit around and argue about their which log book entry is right I was out in a cub learning to really fly it. 7000 hours later 1500 of which was single pilot IFR and flying Zeniths in China later I’m on Facebook with some weekend warrior 172 driving lawyer telling me I’m reckless.
stupid is as stupid does that goes for trevor and redbull fines and pilot certificates are lost.
We've come a long way from Carlin's 7 words you can't say on TV, but I gotta say I got a chuckle watching Paul say "yeah, we're gonna blow shit up".
I agree with keeping skydiving how it currently is. One thing here to take into account is the monetary contract that pressured them to go through.
I’m sitting at the kitchen table, enjoying this video surgically disassembling the aeronautical decision making of two soon to be former pilots on my iPad, and in walks my wife from across the room. “Airplane guy!” she exclaimed, after hearing a few words. Paul’s excellent videos have become such a fixture in our household that his smooth, vaguely southern delivery has become literally synonymous with airplanes in my wife’s mind, and she’s married to a pilot….
Kind words, thanks.🙂
Excellent video. Your t-shirt is even better! I want one.
dude...man... bro that shirt hits the fan with comedy! love it.
Red Bull should get a congressman to question the FAA to expand upon the denial of this stunt. Who in the FAA determines if this is public interest or not? Curious if recent FAA scrutiny on 737 MAX is causing the department to be gun shy on exemptions.
As always, Paul is spot on! Fun is fun. Breaking FARs is breaking FARs.
Great take, as usual. I was concerned about where you were going until you tied it back to Trevor Jacob's and the appearance of a double standard if the FAA doesn't drop the hammer on Red Bull.
Agree, Red Bull's attempt was well thought out, rehearsed, and planned, but they shouldn't have attempted without FAA's approval
Well it failed after all that planning. As they say “ the best laid plans of men “ ( or something close to that 😂)
@@arthurbrumagem3844 Considering the high risk/low probability of success, 50% success isn't a "complete failure," IMO. But that's probably why the FAA didn't approve this since the FAA is about low-moderate risks/high success probabilities.
But your point is still valid!
@@adroper62 👍
I wonder how differently this would've gone had RedBull installed remote piloting systems in case of unforeseen circumstances, as happened.
I was wondering the same. The FAA specifically cited the requestors failure to address how they would handle 91.113 see and avoid requirements while out of the aircraft and I immediately thought there has to be somemway for a remote PIC to have handled that (probably also several additional waivers or COAs).
Thank you for the information Paul.