quote:

dropping the car over the middle of nowhere Arizona

^^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds interesting. Who is sponsoring this?? What kind of car??

I dropped cement bombs off a B-17 in the field outside Stockton, California...

The difference isn’t the type of stunt or whether it was successful, none of that matters.

The head pilot applied for a waiver from the applicable FARs for the stunt and the FAA denied it. They did the stunt anyway. Had the FAA approved the waiver there would have been no administrative action just because the plane crashed.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:

Both planes had parachutes as well that could be activated at anytime from ground controllers. The plane wasn't going anywhere.

Reminds me of the joke about the announcement shortly after takeoff: "Welcome aboard SkyWay Airlines first pilotless flight. Every detail for your safety and comfort is completely controlled by our state of the art computers. Human error has been completely eliminated. Absolutely nothing can go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong. Go wrong."

Don’t be a dick. “ Yes, anyone who sees it differently than you is incapable of understanding Roll Eyes Typical of you, you must be the smartest man alive….”

It doesn’t take the smartest man alive to understand that dropping something from the back of a plane that will fall in a 100% predictable manner is a completely different issue than having a powered aircraft flying on its own without a pilot. Clearly you aren’t a pilot and have zero understanding of aerodynamics and the potential for failure. Failure in any direction dozens of miles from the starting point. That’s what powered flight gets you.

On another thread somebody pointed out airplane threads end badly. Yes they do. Stupid comments tend to get that result. If you can’t see how this stunt could have gone horribly wrong resulting in the death of innocents you certainly aren’t the smartest man in your own living room. Sheesh.

If you think it’s govt over reach then just say that no one should be required to have a license for anything. That as long as you feel it’s safe you can attempt anything. Hey, it’s just a dangerous stunt with potentially deadly results nobody should be able to be the adult in the room and say no. The adult in the room said no and they did it anyway with catastrophic results. Turns out the FAA was right after all. You sound like a millennial.

Let's see all those booing the FAA ruling, defend sovereign citizens "traveling" and, all the shit shows they provide.

They asked, and we're denied.
They fucked around and found out.

And now the FAA is smashing the window and creating joinder with their pilot's license.

And a happy dog gets a new squeaky toy.

Is the waiver request that was submitted - and denied - available online anywhere? I'd be interested in reading it, as it should go into detail as to how they planned to do this "safely."

I know where the UAS Part 107 approved waivers are, just wondering if other waiver requests are posted online.

quote:

The other had a chance for success and two planes equipped with recovery parachutes in case it didn't

And if the parachutes deployed, where would the planes eventually land? Hence, part of the problem.

Red Bull giveth wings, FAA taketh away.

Too bad for them Red Bull doesn’t give you brains.

quote:

Originally posted by two-two-niner-romeo:
Red Bull giveth wings, FAA taketh away.

That is a great line. lol

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
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?

6 guys, and a hot, Girl with big tits, pretty much explains this stunt.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Don’t be a dick. “ Yes, anyone who sees it differently than you is incapable of understanding Roll Eyes Typical of you, you must be the smartest man alive….”

It doesn’t take the smartest man alive to understand that dropping something from the back of a plane that will fall in a 100% predictable manner is a completely different issue than having a powered aircraft flying on its own without a pilot. Clearly you aren’t a pilot and have zero understanding of aerodynamics and the potential for failure. Failure in any direction dozens of miles from the starting point. That’s what powered flight gets you.

On another thread somebody pointed out airplane threads end badly. Yes they do. Stupid comments tend to get that result. If you can’t see how this stunt could have gone horribly wrong resulting in the death of innocents you certainly aren’t the smartest man in your own living room. Sheesh.

If you think it’s govt over reach then just say that no one should be required to have a license for anything. That as long as you feel it’s safe you can attempt anything. Hey, it’s just a dangerous stunt with potentially deadly results nobody should be able to be the adult in the room and say no. The adult in the room said no and they did it anyway with catastrophic results. Turns out the FAA was right after all. You sound like a millennial.

I’m not the person you were responding to, and I think they were stupid to do it without FAA approval, but it’s worth pointing out that the “pilot swap” attempt took place with both planes in straight-down nose dives at a relatively low speed using an airbrake and insufficient throttle for level flight.

It’s not the same as dropping a dead weight, no, but from a purely technical standpoint, the stunt could absolutely be set up so that either plane crashing anywhere it would put anyone but the pilots at risk would be effectively zero.

I’m mostly in the camp of “if the only ones they can hurt are themselves, who cares?”

In this specific instance, I don’t know whether they were that careful with setup or not, and even if they were, I could see the FAA taking the position that it still shouldn’t be allowed because it might encourage copycats who wouldn’t be as careful. Either way, the FAA gets to decide and gets to impose consequences for noncompliance.

Also, it’s not clear to me whether Aikins’ statement of “I regret not sharing [the FAA denial] with my team and those who supported me” includes the other pilot. If so, that was a MONUMENTAL dick move.

I do think that “catastrophic results” is an exaggeration.

“Catastrophic results” would be serious injury or death of participants or especially uninvolved bystanders. “Catastrophic results” were absolutely a possibility, but in the end, they crashed an empty plane into an empty desert, which was a planned-for possible outcome, and everyone walked away.

Well yea I guess if we all have the ability to foresee the outcome there wouldn’t be much risk in anything. Catastrophic outcome. I stand by that. Unpiloted aircraft where a parachutist attempts to enter it in a skydive has all kinds of potential to end catastrophically.

Let me make this bet. The FAA will never approve a stunt over the US that has a plane flying without a pilot as part of the stunt. Never. That’s not a plane. It’s a missile.

Bottom line they applied for permission. They got turned down, rightfully so in most people’s opinion, and they did it anyway. If there is a more surefire to lose your ticket I’m not sure what it would be. Those two guys can’t be surprised at the outcome. If your dad says no but you take the car anyway then enjoy the consequences and just be glad everybody lived.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:

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.

The parachute didn't work either. Along with the homemade autopilot that was supposed to keep the plane tracking straight down. And the jury-rigged speed brake. They were not quite in the middle of nowhere, more like just outside a small town. They could have done it over the ocean.

That’s a pretty good point. That parachute idea didn’t work out so well. Maybe the “overreaching” FAA got this one right after all. (I am no fan of the FAA but they didn’t get this one wrong).

As an aside, "The Cornfield Bomber" is a very interesting story. You can google it to read it, and there are videos on Youtube.

In a nutshell, the F106 got into a flat spin. The pilot, unable to recover, ejected. The change in aerodynamics and drag self corrected the flat spin. The plane flew on for miles and miles and finally gently glided onto a snow field, engine still running. It was recovered, repaired (there was very little damage) and put back in service.

The point is, a plane may not behave as expected. It may not auger in quickly. Strange things can happen.


This is so cool, the actual pilot narrates this story, and that's the actual plane you see

:
,

Seems like a dumb stunt. I'm not sure how you both get out and swap planes without risk of someone going through a prop.

They were working out of my home 'drome, driving my AI (airplane mechanic) nuts with all the noise they made. They flew over the ranch several times on their way offshore to practice whatever they were doing.

The biggest stupidity though was going ahead after being told no. That's just begging to get hammered. I don't see how the FAA can avoid hammering someone who does that. Going back, negotiating, figuring out what modifications it would take to get approval, sure that'd be reasonable, but asking and driving ahead after being told no is just stupid.