Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Relentless pull-downs and mid-flight plane swapping

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Relentless pull-downs and mid-flight plane swapping

    Now this is rodeo-style cowboy airmanship. What could go wrong:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/16/s...cmd/index.html

  • #2
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Now this is rodeo-style cowboy airmanship.
    Maybe. But not improvisation

    Originally posted by Article's title
    decades in the making
    Cirque du Soleil rodeo.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

      Maybe. But not improvisation



      Cirque du Soleil rodeo.
      I'd appreciate some Gabriellian calculations regarding the margins here, specifically the time available in a (somehow) controlled dive speed not exceeding the 172's vne of around 160kts from the 172's ceiling of around 15,000ft to a point where a safe recovery is still possible without exceeding structural limits. I'm spitballing around one minute from dive onset to recovery onset...

      For these calculations, I propose we introduce ∆rb (Redbull factor).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Evan View Post

        I'd appreciate some Gabriellian calculations regarding the margins here, specifically the time available in a (somehow) controlled dive speed not exceeding the 172's vne of around 160kts from the 172's ceiling of around 15,000ft to a point where a safe recovery is still possible without exceeding structural limits. I'm spitballing around one minute from dive onset to recovery onset...

        For these calculations, I propose we introduce ∆rb (Redbull factor).
        It better be much less than 160kts. 160kts is more than Vne for the wingsuit. And it better be less than vertical too. Trajectory control with a wingsuit is much more difficult when diving vertical because you steer and control vertical speed playing with lift. Vertical dive = no lift.

        Also, you bet they are going to practice a lot of times with a 2nd safety pilot in each plane who will not touch the controls unless it becomes necessary, in which case the test was a fail.

        Finally, there is evidently a plan B if things go wrong. If by X altitude the guy is not already in the plane, steer away, open parachute and let the plane crash.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Gabe: You missed something obvious…radio controlled BRS on the airplanes.

          I also find the approach troublesome…if you miss the wing strut I can see flailing limbs passing near a propellerator.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

            It better be much less than 160kts. 160kts is more than Vne for the wingsuit. And it better be less than vertical too. Trajectory control with a wingsuit is much more difficult when diving vertical because you steer and control vertical speed playing with lift. Vertical dive = no lift.

            Also, you bet they are going to practice a lot of times with a 2nd safety pilot in each plane who will not touch the controls unless it becomes necessary, in which case the test was a fail.

            Finally, there is evidently a plan B if things go wrong. If by X altitude the guy is not already in the plane, steer away, open parachute and let the plane crash.
            Are there wingsuits involved? I assumed this was just freefall with some manuevering technique. A skydiver in parallel to the ground falls at about 105kts, while in a head down, streamlined position can achieve up to about 180kts (before factoring in ∆rb). I'm also wondering how much that ten dollar speed brake can slow the airplane in an unpowered dive. The videos appear to show both airplanes in a vertical dive. (German Stukas had dive speeds above 250kts in 60-90 deg angles with those large dive brakes deployed and throttle closed).

            Comment


            • #7
              Why aren't passenger flights followed by a similar but empty airplane so people can jump to it in case things go wrong?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Not_Karl View Post
                Why aren't passenger flights followed by a similar but empty airplane so people can jump to it in case things go wrong?
                Exactly. And why can’t I be on that empty plane in the first place?

                Comment


                • #9
                  According to headlines:

                  One pilot "flew" between the planes, got in, took control, yada yada yada.

                  However, his first aeroplanie was spinning (not necessarily talking about stall spin) and the other pilot was not able to get on board.

                  The plane had a radio-controlled BRS so it didn't drill a smoking hole. However, the media say's it's location and condition is unknown. The second pilot popped his chute and landed.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    According to headlines:

                    One pilot "flew" between the planes, got in, took control, yada yada yada.

                    However, his first aeroplanie was spinning (not necessarily talking about stall spin) and the other pilot was not able to get on board.

                    The plane had a radio-controlled BRS so it didn't drill a smoking hole. However, the media say's it's location and condition is unknown. The second pilot popped his chute and landed.
                    I don't understand. Both pilots perceived, "I got this".

                    But one didn't.

                    Unprecedented.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post

                      I don't understand. Both pilots perceived, "I got this".

                      But one didn't.

                      Unprecedented.
                      ...for the lack of a bungee strap or a little more trimming.

                      I am impressed, because it seems that it can be done.

                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                        ...for the lack of a bungee strap or a little more trimming.

                        I am impressed, because it seems that it can be done.
                        The FAA is not amused. They have launched an investigation. We should wait for the final report, but I can't help speculating that the crash was caused by the pilot having left the airplane.

                        There may have been contributing factors, such as inadequate RedBull levels or a Home Depot speed brake failure.

                        Originally posted by NY Times
                        The F.A.A. said that it had denied a request for an exemption from federal regulations that cover the safe operation of an aircraft. In the request, Mr. Aikins sought the exemption because “during the swap, both aircraft will be unoccupied.”
                        Aha, a shrewd bit of legal technical maneuvering not out of step with the times...

                        In a reply, dated April 22 and signed by Robert C. Carty, the deputy executive director for flight standards service at the F.A.A., the agency said that granting an exemption “would not be in the public interest”...
                        And a ruling placing common sense and the public safety over shrewd legal maneuvering, quite out of step with the times.

                        Robert C. (Rico) Carty is, in fact, a former US Air A320 captain.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Of course I don't condone them doing the stunt knowing that the FAA had denied them permission to do so. But the excuse of the FAA to prohibit is is laughable. The FAA should have requested assurance that measures would be taken to avoid damage to life or property, and that's it. If they want to execute a stupid (but interesting) stunt in a way that they don't compromise the safety of others, let them.

                          The FAA said it is not "in the public interest", but with that criteria a lot of things that involve risk and could be qualified as "entertaining" should be prohibited. Like Red Bull races. Or F1 races for the matter. The FAA is not there to pursue public interest but public safety. So as long as the public safety is not compromised, I think it should be allowed.

                          Of course, you cans ay that they set a wrong example and that that impacts public safety. Then, so do Red Bull races, NASCAR races, aerobatic performances, etc...

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            Of course, you cans ay that they set a wrong example and that that impacts public safety. Then, so do Red Bull races, NASCAR races, aerobatic performances, etc...
                            I think you would be right if RedBull races and NASCAR involved pilots and drivers leaping out of their machines at high speed and leaving Newton and the whims of fate in control. But I don’t think that would fly either.

                            If anyone wants to try this in restricted airspace over a vast expanse of restricted private land, where no one on the ground can get hurt, and they provide their own fire brigade, ambulances, body bags and pre-dug graves, I think it might be reasonable.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              I think you would be right if RedBull races and NASCAR involved pilots and drivers leaping out of their machines at high speed and leaving Newton and the whims of fate in control. But I don’t think that would fly either.
                              Newton and the whims of fate are at control of vehicles with operators securely strapped in when said operators loose control of their vehicles. Accidents killing non-operators in races and aviation performances are not precisely unheard of.

                              If anyone wants to try this in restricted airspace over a vast expanse of restricted private land, where no one on the ground can get hurt, and they provide their own fire brigade, ambulances, body bags and pre-dug graves, I think it might be reasonable.
                              That's the mentality. Instead of denying it because it is not in public interest, authorize it on condition that they prove that public interest will not be compromised.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X