8 8
Erroll

Luke Aikins planning new stunt.

Recommended Posts

Nice flying Luke.

Andy must be bummed he didn't get a shot.

Since others took this thread off track with chatter about careers and titles, I'll ask if they should have used Teslas "self-flying" SW?

LOL.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Authorities investigating

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has now launched an investigation into the stunt, which it says never received the green light to go ahead.

The agency said in a statement it had not approved Red Bull’s request on Friday for a safety exemption.

In a denial letter, FAA argued the attempt “would not be in the public interest and cannot find that the proposed operation would not adversely affect safety”.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Video attached, looks like a delayed parachute deloyment:

- time interval between AAD fire (smoke visible from parachute rocket launch) and parachute appearing.

- parachute seems to be reefed (like on space rocket).

So, the Cypres might have fired at 750 feet, but it was not enough for this kind of parachute, IMO.

Edited by skydiverek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The doctor (commonly called a dentist) is the one who comes in after the cleaning and looks in your mouth to check  your teeth. The person who cleans them is a dental hygienist, and is not a doctor. Or an engineer. 


not all the time.  last time i had a cleaning the doc did it.  shortage of help. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a good look for the BRS system, but it's not really their fault. It was a nose dive that clearly must have been slowed down somewhat by the very short canopy ride. They are mounted in such a way that deploying one will put a reasonably intact aircraft into a level configuration for a firm but survivable contact with a reasonably level piece of the planet. With that huge airbrake deployed it was never going to level out. I'm not even sure what the point of even having it was. But there probably were scenarios during the testing and training phase where it may have saved lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Not a good look for the BRS system, but it's not really their fault. It was a nose dive that clearly must have been slowed down somewhat by the very short canopy ride. They are mounted in such a way that deploying one will put a reasonably intact aircraft into a level configuration for a firm but survivable contact with a reasonably level piece of the planet. With that huge airbrake deployed it was never going to level out. I'm not even sure what the point of even having it was. But there probably were scenarios during the testing and training phase where it may have saved lives. 

I was wondering what sort of attitude the airplane is supposed to be in for the BRS to work properly. 
I did a quick search, but didn't find much.

How reliable is it when the airplane is in a steep dive?
How long (how much altitude) will it take to deploy from that speed?

It's been mentioned that there was a CYPRES that activated it.
Is that true? 
An Airtec CYPRES used on a BRS?
I'd need to see some confirmation on that (not that it wasn't, I just am skeptical).

I know the 'standard' BRS is manually activated. I don't see any automatic options, but I wouldn't be surprised if these guys rigged something up (the airplane was supposed to be empty for a time, so that makes sense).

I find it interesting that the FAA supposedly refused to grant an exemption to the rules for this, but they went and did it anyway.
This sort of takes away any "I didn't know it was against the rules" defense.

Given that they put a lot of effort (successfully) into making sure nobody got hurt, they saved themselves a fair amount of grief, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some significant fines and potentially ratings suspensions/revocations for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I was wondering what sort of attitude the airplane is supposed to be in for the BRS to work properly. 
I did a quick search, but didn't find much.

How reliable is it when the airplane is in a steep dive?
How long (how much altitude) will it take to deploy from that speed?

It's been mentioned that there was a CYPRES that activated it.
Is that true? 
An Airtec CYPRES used on a BRS?
I'd need to see some confirmation on that (not that it wasn't, I just am skeptical).

I know the 'standard' BRS is manually activated. I don't see any automatic options, but I wouldn't be surprised if these guys rigged something up (the airplane was supposed to be empty for a time, so that makes sense).

I find it interesting that the FAA supposedly refused to grant an exemption to the rules for this, but they went and did it anyway.
This sort of takes away any "I didn't know it was against the rules" defense.

Given that they put a lot of effort (successfully) into making sure nobody got hurt, they saved themselves a fair amount of grief, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some significant fines and potentially ratings suspensions/revocations for this.

Hi Joe,

My local News at 4, just had a teaser [ that old 'more at 5 PM' thingy ] that showed one person getting into an airplane.  About one second of video of catching & getting into the plane.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

How reliable is it when the airplane is in a steep dive?
How long (how much altitude) will it take to deploy from that speed?
 

Oh they are supposed to work in any attitude, using the rocket deployment, pulling the canopy out. Still a chance of the bridle getting caught up in something, but a good 'angle of fire' should minimize that. It's more about airspeed limits for the deployment.

Seemed like a good idea to reduce the crash speed in case "an airplane got away". But it was a bit more of a snivel than there was time for with that activation altitude, however they rigged up an AAD to the pull system.

Edit: Probably designed to snivel a bit  with its slider, to keep the loads down during higher speed deployments. Not easy to build a parachute that is light weight and can work with the kinetic energy of a regular sized Cessna or Cirrus etc.

I don't think there's a hard standard on how fast aircraft recovery parachutes are supposed to open under different conditions. One is expected to not pull them too low, whatever that is.

Some FAQs for the BRS for Cessnas, if that's the system that was used: https://brsaerospace.com/questions/

I think the FAA is pretty dumb, they just don't seem to cater their system to 'fun' things like jumping BASE rigs from ultralights, or stunts like this. Even when public safety is taken care of. (Unlike the dumbass Trevor Jacob.)  That being said, it really isn't a good idea to blow off the FAA either.

 

Edited by pchapman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pchapman said:

I think the FAA is pretty dumb, they just don't seem to cater their system to 'fun' things like jumping BASE rigs from ultralights, or stunts like this.

Yeah, dumb. Sometimes the "fun" stuff is a little on the dumb side. If the FAA goes says "go ahead, have some fun, we'll just waive the FARS for you 'cuz Red Bull needs the event" and then someone on the ground gets hurt it would go over for them like a demo into Washington DC! If you want a playground with no rules there is a country not far south of AZ you could use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

It's been mentioned that there was a CYPRES that activated it.
Is that true? 
An Airtec CYPRES used on a BRS?
I'd need to see some confirmation on that (not that it wasn't, I just am skeptical).

 

 

Yes, it was CYPRES:

obraz.png.286c89ddef0f70e10aacb73261736648.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm convinced. 

And impressed.

I'd be interested in knowing how it was set up.

The BRS has a rocket assist parachute launch, not a spring loaded pilot chute. The "B" is for 'Ballistic'.

So there's no closing loop to cut, but a rocket to ignite. 

Probably not a hard thing to do, just take the impulse that ignites the cutter and use it to ignite the rocket. 
But I'm still curious about the details.

And I would say, given the picture in post #56, that this doesn't count as a 'save'.
The CYPRES may well have functioned as designed and intended (Airtec makes a big deal that that's something that has always happened), but that plane wasn't 'saved'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spezticle said:

Got a video that’s a bit higher res and closer to the crash site. No, I didn’t record it. It was just sent to me.

FullSizeRender.MOV 4.43 MB · 6 downloads

That looks like way too late of a deployment altitude, it almost make you wonder why they bothered with the use of the BRS at all.

I really wonder if that was the intended altitude, or if it was supposed to deploy higher but was impacted by the flat spin.

Non pilot, non stunt coordinator, but why wouldn't you set the deployment of the BRS at a more reasonable hard deck? Human hard deck is say 3.5k, giving time to clear the plane, and then the BRS hard deck is 2k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2022 at 3:35 PM, chuckakers said:

Wow, you're a real bucket of sunshine today. I've actually seen some of the training jumps and they make it look easy.

The planning included the FAA, so I'm sure they have a specific location with wide margins for a possible empty-plane crash, much the way the "car skydivers" get specific location permission from the feds to let cars smash into the turf.

Yes, this stunt has an element of danger. So does your next skydive.

OK Chuck, you still support this knowing about the FAA warning/refusal to let this happen, BUT it still did??? 

Make no mistake, this is about a current board member basically saying FUCK YOU to the FAA. That really doesn't bode well with me. It shouldn't bode well with ANYONE holding a current license to jump. Poor form from someone in a "leadership" position. Both parties should step down from any and all USPA titles...THIS dumb shit jeopardizes the entire world we know and love. BAD PR, PERIOD. 

This coming from an extreme "fun jumper". If I had my entire livelihood at stake, I'd want to see heads roll. 

       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

 

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Yeah, dumb. Sometimes the "fun" stuff is a little on the dumb side. If the FAA goes says "go ahead, have some fun, we'll just waive the FARS for you 'cuz Red Bull needs the event" and then someone on the ground gets hurt it would go over for them like a demo into Washington DC! If you want a playground with no rules there is a country not far south of AZ you could use.

No, I am in favour of public safety. But I'll argue the FARs and the waivers to them are dumb. One can legitimately argue about the FAA ruling in this case, but in general I argue the FAA has rules that are ridiculously restrictive to 'fun' stuff that is allowed, not just in more anarchic countries, but also well regulated ones like in Europe (eg BASE rig jumps from paragliders). Or allow make allowance for differences in rules from other countries where the risk to public safety is small. (eg, visiting foreign skydivers using their own riggers unless gear is TSOd, or lack of similar allowance for visiting glider & aerobatic pilots. I won't go on with more examples.)

The FAA's argument about needing the backup pilots in case of airspace intrusion is pretty silly -- how about all those skydivers in freefall and aerobatic pilots in the middle of a routine, who aren't likely to notice someone who hasn't read their NOTAMs who is getting close to 'their' airspace? Then the FAA might as well decree that all jumps should be tandems so one person can keep a lookout.

Still Red Bull isn't blameless either.

One wonders if they started the process soon enough, since they were faced with a last minute denial, instead of being able to revise procedures and ask again a month later. And they claimed that the stunt had some extra validity because it could be inspirational to STEM kids or whatever.   The FAA's denial, as seen embedded in the AvWeb article (once again, https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/plane-swap-stunt-fails-no-injuries-repoted/   ) did note that the FAA would have allowed it to happen if they had backup pilots just in case.

Who could either then demonstrate their inverted spin recovery skills, or add to the skydivers in the air....

Edited by pchapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the FAA question is kind of like balancing your checkbook (remember those?). If it doesn't balance, it's by definition wrong. Yeah, the rules might be onerous, but the time to fix them is before. I'm assuming the pilots in this case were aware that their licenses might be forfeit. 

And I'm quite sure that Red Bull has the resources to execute the stunt somewhere where the rules either more accepting or malleable. Publicizing how much income was generated by doing this stunt would be one way of applying pressure. Reminding them of the communication snafu at the Capitol would be another to make it clear the FAA is not perfect. 

Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, pchapman said:

One wonders if they started the process soon enough, since they were faced with a last minute denial, instead of being able to revise procedures and ask again a month later.

I think the error was in asking for permission in advance. We all know it is far easier to get forgiveness afterward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

8 8