SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    FAA revokes licenses of pilots in failed Red Bull plane swap
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
FAA revokes licenses of pilots in failed Red Bull plane swap Login/Join 
Member
posted
(The Hill) – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Thursday that it has revoked the licenses of the two pilots involved in the unauthorized Red Bull plane swap stunt that took place in April in Arizona.

The pilots tried to swap planes while descending. One pilot landed without injuries after being forced to jump and parachute to the ground when one of the Cessna planes spun out of control.

The other pilot regained control of the second aircraft and landed, the agency told The Hill last month.



The FAA confirmed to The Hill that “the attempted stunt resulted in the crash of one of the two single-engine Cessna 182 aircraft. The lead pilot requested an exemption for the stunt from the FAA, which the agency denied.”

Red Bull pilots Luke Aikins and Andy Farrington, who had FAA commercial pilot certificates and have conducted more than 20,000 skydives, attempted the stunt during an event called the “Plane Swap,” which was sponsored by the energy drink company and streamed on Hulu.

Both Aikins and Farrington must surrender their pilot certificates immediately, the FAA said.

In a statement shared on Instagram last month, Aikens said that he made the “personal decision to move forward with [the] plane swap” despite the FAA not granting the exemption he was seeking from the rule that pilots must be at the tiller of the plane with safety belts fastened.

“I regret not sharing this information with my team and those who supported me,” he added.



The FAA said it has also proposed a $4,932 fine against Aikins for abandoning his pilot’s seat and operating an aircraft in a reckless manner.

The FAA originally denied Red Bull’s request for an exemption because it could not show the stunt was not a safety risk.

link: https://wgntv.com/news/faa-rev...red-bull-plane-swap/
 
Posts: 12769 | Location: Stuck at home | Registered: January 02, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
This is a rarity: appropriate action by a Federal agency.
 
Posts: 98041 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Staring back
from the abyss
Picture of Gustofer
posted Hide Post
Good.


________________________________________________________
Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! - I hope you will make a good use of it. - if you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it. - John Adams
 
Posts: 17531 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Crusty old
curmudgeon
Picture of Jimbo54
posted Hide Post
Play stupid games........

Jim


________________________

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll have to be a horrible warning" -Catherine Aird
 
Posts: 9582 | Location: The right side of Washington State | Registered: September 14, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of reloader-1
posted Hide Post
There are hundreds of stunts performed in the course of a year around the world, at air shows, movie sets, etc.

These guys were idiots for going ahead without FAA approval, if they absolutely had to do the stunt then do it over Mexico etc.

I’m not criticizing the stunt itself, we’ve been doing aerial things that don’t make logical sense since barnstorming, but the decision to proceed without the FAA.
 
Posts: 2087 | Location: S. FL | Registered: October 26, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Captain Morgan
posted Hide Post
So how did they come up that fine of $4932?



Let all Men know thee, but no man know thee thoroughly: Men freely ford that see the shallows.
Benjamin Franklin
 
Posts: 3646 | Location: Sparta, NJ USA | Registered: August 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Morgan:
So how did they come up that fine of $4932?


FAA regulations state: "A general civil penalty of not more than $37,377 (or $1,644 for individuals or small businesses) applies to violations of statutory provisions and rules or orders issued under those provisions"

Maximum fine for an individual is $1644 per violation, and 4932 is 3*1644. So it appears they're likely fining him for violations of three different rules.

Based on what's stated in the news report, probably something like:
1) Operating the airplane recklessly
2) Failing to remain in the pilot's seat, and
3) Failing to have his seat belt fastened while the fasten seat belt sign was on
 
Posts: 28994 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of erj_pilot
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jimbo54:
Play stupid games........

Jim
.......and they rang the "stoooopid bell". Got what they deserved, ESPECIALLY when the FAA forbade them to do the stunt.



"If you’re a leader, you lead the way. Not just on the easy ones; you take the tough ones too…” – MAJ Richard D. Winters (1918-2011), E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil... Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isaiah 5:20,24
 
Posts: 8915 | Location: NW Houston | Registered: April 04, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
Maybe, once again, I'm looking at this through the wrong lens. Who cares if two nitwits want to try and kill themselves doing something stupid? So long as this occurred away from the public where only the two pilots were involved, whatever. I just can't get too excited about something this absurd.


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 33323 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
How did Evel Knievel ever keep his driver’s license? This is just more stupid government over reach. You shouldn’t need the governments permission to do stupid shit with your own property if you are not risking hurting others or their property.

Was there any chance here that anyone else could have been injured? Were they doing this stunt in a populated area?

This stunt and its results has nothing to do with their ability to safely operate a plane under normal circumstances. The FAA is just pissed that they were ignored.


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
They were dumb enough to do it over the US.

If you know the FAA wouldn't sign-off on it...go elsewhere.
 
Posts: 12528 | Location: Wine Country | Registered: September 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Well if you don’t understand I don’t know what to tell you. Flying airplanes is dangerous. Once you jump out a plane it is an unmanned missile. It could fly for miles. It could hit anything. They have a license to do what they do. Now they don’t. Everyone is safer by this decision. There is never going to be a time when a stunt occurs where no one is in the airplane. For a very good reason.

They aren’t in jail. They just can’t fly. It was a good decision.
 
Posts: 4959 | Registered: June 18, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
hello darkness
my old friend
Picture of gw3971
posted Hide Post
FAA approved of this.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...drive-CAR-plane.html



Not really much of a difference between the two stunts and the results. My question is if the stunt had worked out what would the FAA have done without the crash?
 
Posts: 7363 | Location: West Jordan, Utah | Registered: June 19, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gw3971:

Not really much of a difference between the two stunts and the results.


There would seem to be a huge difference between the two stunts.


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country

Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else.
~Andrew Klavan
 
Posts: 27973 | Location: Elv. 7,000 feet, Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Funny Man
Picture of TXJIM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by pedropcola:
Well if you don’t understand I don’t know what to tell you. Flying airplanes is dangerous. Once you jump out a plane it is an unmanned missile. It could fly for miles. It could hit anything. They have a license to do what they do. Now they don’t. Everyone is safer by this decision. There is never going to be a time when a stunt occurs where no one is in the airplane. For a very good reason.

They aren’t in jail. They just can’t fly. It was a good decision.



Yes, anyone who sees it differently than you is incapable of understanding Roll Eyes Typical of you, you must be the smartest man alive…..


______________________________
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”
― John Wayne
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: June 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
hello darkness
my old friend
Picture of gw3971
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
quote:
Originally posted by gw3971:

Not really much of a difference between the two stunts and the results.


There would seem to be a huge difference between the two stunts.

You are correct with the attempt. But one was guaranteed to smash into the ground and that was approved by the FAA. The other had a chance for success and two planes equipped with recovery parachutes in case it didn't and that wasn't approved. Typical government mentality. It was a cool stunt. Hope they try again.
 
Posts: 7363 | Location: West Jordan, Utah | Registered: June 19, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gw3971:

You are correct with the attempt. But one was guaranteed to smash into the ground and that was approved by the FAA. The other had a chance for success and two planes equipped with recovery parachutes in case it didn't and that wasn't approved. Typical government mentality. It was a cool stunt. Hope they try again.


The difference wasn't success or not. The difference was in one case the aircraft was always being controlled by a pilot, and in the other case the plane was not.


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country

Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else.
~Andrew Klavan
 
Posts: 27973 | Location: Elv. 7,000 feet, Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Official Space Nerd
Picture of Hound Dog
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
quote:
Originally posted by gw3971:

Not really much of a difference between the two stunts and the results.


There would seem to be a huge difference between the two stunts.


Yeah, I doubt that car (or whatever it was) would continue flying on its own to who-knows-where to crash into somebody's home or a grade school playground. . . Once it dropped from the aircraft, it was essentially an un-guided bomb (hence the need to get FAA approval - it is typically illegal to drop items from an aircraft). I assume they had to show that there was no possible way the vehicle would be able to reach any inhabited area after it was released from the drop point. And the 'passengers' all had parachutes. Pretty vanilla 'stunt,' actually.

In this case, the aircraft were flying without a pilot. Who knows where they could have come down? WAY different than a derelict car following a ballistic trajectory.

Those (ex-) pilots were idiots to do something like this.



Fear God and Dread Nought
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
 
Posts: 21513 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
hello darkness
my old friend
Picture of gw3971
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hound Dog:
quote:
Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
quote:
Originally posted by gw3971:

Not really much of a difference between the two stunts and the results.


There would seem to be a huge difference between the two stunts.




Yeah, I doubt that car (or whatever it was) would continue flying on its own to who-knows-where to crash into somebody's home or a grade school playground. . . Once it dropped from the aircraft, it was essentially an un-guided bomb (hence the need to get FAA approval - it is typically illegal to drop items from an aircraft). I assume they had to show that there was no possible way the vehicle would be able to reach any inhabited area after it was released from the drop point. And the 'passengers' all had parachutes. Pretty vanilla 'stunt,' actually.

In this case, the aircraft were flying without a pilot. Who knows where they could have come down? WAY different than a derelict car following a ballistic trajectory.

Those (ex-) pilots were idiots to do something like this.


Well paid and interesting idiots... I'm sure they weren't surprised by this outcome.
 
Posts: 7363 | Location: West Jordan, Utah | Registered: June 19, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
hello darkness
my old friend
Picture of gw3971
posted Hide Post
quote:
Yeah, I doubt that car (or whatever it was) would continue flying on its own to who-knows-where to crash into somebody's home or a grade school playground. . . Once it dropped from the aircraft, it was essentially an un-guided bomb (hence the need to get FAA approval - it is typically illegal to drop items from an aircraft). I assume they had to show that there was no possible way the vehicle would be able to reach any inhabited area after it was released from the drop point. And the 'passengers' all had parachutes. Pretty vanilla 'stunt,' actually.


Both planes had parachutes as well that could be activated at anytime from ground controllers. The plane wasn't going anywhere. If the stunt worked it would have been fun and if it didn't it was exactly the same thing as dropping the car over the middle of nowhere Arizona.
 
Posts: 7363 | Location: West Jordan, Utah | Registered: June 19, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    FAA revokes licenses of pilots in failed Red Bull plane swap

© SIGforum 2022