Relentless pull-downs and mid-flight plane swapping

[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

[Gabriel]

Now this is rodeo-style cowboy airmanship.

Maybe. But not improvisation

decades in the making

Cirque du Soleil rodeo.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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).

[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]

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?

[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]

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]

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]

...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.

[Gabriel]

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...

[Evan]

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.

[Gabriel]

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.