Relentless pull-downs and mid-flight plane swapping

[Evan]

...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.

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.

[3WE]

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.

[Evan]

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.

[3WE]

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.

[Evan]

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?

[Not_Karl]

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

[Evan]

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).

[3WE]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.

[Evan]

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).

[Gabriel]

Now this is rodeo-style cowboy airmanship.

Maybe. But not improvisation

decades in the making

Cirque du Soleil rodeo.

[Evan]

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

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/16/sport/red-bull-plane-swap-skydiving-luke-andy-aikins-spt-intl-cmd/index.html