8 8
Erroll

Luke Aikins planning new stunt.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

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

Except that this wasn't there first rodeo... When you have a track record of using the right steps in the past, and giving a fuck.

Share this post


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

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

Hi Ken,

Re:  I think the error was . . . 

Not long after Rod Pack made the first chuteless jump, 1 Jan 65, the pilot was fined $10,000.  A LOT of money in those days.  The article in SKYDIVER magazine that had the photos of the jump & the info on the pilot's fine, also said that they should have merely done it south of the border.  No fines & no problems.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, that would have IMO been the smart thing to do once the FAA gave them the thumbs down.

But, that is all Monday Morning Quarterbacking; and we are all good at that.

It will be interesting to see why one of them did not make any attempt to get near the aircraft that eventually crashed.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, timski said:

Except that this wasn't there first rodeo... When you have a track record of using the right steps in the past, and giving a fuck.

How do you know the FAA didn’t get this wrong? This is the same FAA that just allowed skydiving from a plane  over the US Capital without telling anyone.  There could have been mixed or miss communication.  Have you heard  Red Bull, or Luke’s side of the story? 
amazing that skydivers, of all people,  could be so dumb to just assume what they read in the paper is true.  

Edited by Millstone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

It will be interesting to see why one of them did not make any attempt to get near the aircraft that eventually crashed.

Did you miss the video? (The one posted in this thread was a little awkward to watch at least on some devices. Plenty of stuff out on youtube, some all chopped up and edited as part of commentary or newscast videos, but this one is a decent dump of what Red Bull seems to have released:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFj2hQVQKc)

The plane was in an inverted spin. I think it just pitched over slightly too fast, for whatever reason, and with its pitching momentum went past "zero lift". I haven't re-watched videos closely, but it seems they exited the airplanes very quickly to not waste altitude, say at 60 degrees nose down. It wasn't as if they got into a nice sustained vertical dive and then said, "all good, prepare to exit, now!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Millstone said:

How do you know the FAA didn’t get this wrong? This is the same FAA that just allowed a plane to fly over the Capital without telling anyone.  There could have been mixed or miss communication.  Have you heard  Red Bull, or Luke’s side of the story? 
amazing that skydivers could be so dumb to just assume what they read in the paper is true.  

Hey, of course we are interested in new facts and info when they appear.

If you have further info from interviews by Luke or whomever, please share instead of wasting time on snark.

Note that some of the comments (like mine) were based on an aviation news company's presentation of the original FAA .pdf letter that denied permission for the flights.

Share this post


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

Hey, of course we are interested in new facts and info when they appear.

If you have further info from interviews by Luke or whomever, please share instead of wasting time on snark.

Note that some of the comments (like mine) were based on an aviation news company's presentation of the original FAA .pdf letter that denied permission for the flights.

So, unless I have first hand knowledge, you’re suggesting we all take as fact whatever we read in the news? That’s ridiculous. 
In most incidents the  facts never come out. So  I guess you believe that 90% of all skydiving fatalities are  because “the parachute never opened”?

Share this post


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

Did you miss the video? (The one posted in this thread was a little awkward to watch at least on some devices. Plenty of stuff out on youtube, some all chopped up and edited as part of commentary or newscast videos, but this one is a decent dump of what Red Bull seems to have released:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFj2hQVQKc)

The plane was in an inverted spin. I think it just pitched over slightly too fast, for whatever reason, and with its pitching momentum went past "zero lift". I haven't re-watched videos closely, but it seems they exited the airplanes very quickly to not waste altitude, say at 60 degrees nose down. It wasn't as if they got into a nice sustained vertical dive and then said, "all good, prepare to exit, now!"

 

Hi Peter,

Re:  Did you miss the video?

I have watched a few of them.  My question was more to the individuals involved rather than the spectating public.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

 

It will be interesting to see why one of them did not make any attempt to get near the aircraft that eventually crashed.

Jerry Baumchen

 

I would surmise that Andy didn't want to die while attempting to fly into an airplane that what was mostly in an inverted flat spin.

Good decision on his part IMO.

This Probable Cause podcast seems to have been authored by a guy that understands both piloting aircraft and parachutes.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Is8lJ-LBU

 

short story, he agrees that likely cause of uncontrollable flight was due to pitch setting prior to exit.

 

That suggestion of, "getting into a nice sustained vertical dive and then said, "all good, prepare to exit, now!" may have prevented the incident.

 

Be well.

 

Craig F

Edited by kleggo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A longer video, 11 min, not as crisp, shows a bit more of the dive where the one plane starts to spin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiygfKgI0I

Andy abandons the attempt pretty quickly. As soon as the plane spins, it decelerates rapidly "up away" from the jumpers.  Andy, still head down and far away, doesn't even try to follow.  Bit hard to tell where everyone is when the camera is filming from an angle, zoomed in from far away, but that's what I got out of it.

We can hash out all the possible causes, talking about trim settings, C of Gs, differences without having the safety pilot present, maybe rushing the pushover, maybe rushing the exit and all that.   But in the end it is one of those examples where all the practice they did, wasn't enough when the cameras were rolling for the big event. The real thing just wasn't carried out exactly as it had been in practice.

(Looked like Andy was using a pretty high performance parachute (Schumann platform, removable slider). Huh.  Who am I to talk, he has a million jumps, he can make his own choices, and choose a compact rig he is familiar with. When I was doing stupid parachute stuff, though, where I might end up low, I tended to go with something super reliable and docile...)

Share this post


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

A longer video, 11 min, not as crisp, shows a bit more of the dive where the one plane starts to spin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiygfKgI0I

Andy abandons the attempt pretty quickly. As soon as the plane spins, it decelerates rapidly "up away" from the jumpers.  Andy, still head down and far away, doesn't even try to follow.  Bit hard to tell where everyone is when the camera is filming from an angle, zoomed in from far away, but that's what I got out of it.

We can hash out all the possible causes, talking about trim settings, C of Gs, differences without having the safety pilot present, maybe rushing the pushover, maybe rushing the exit and all that.   But in the end it is one of those examples where all the practice they did, wasn't enough when the cameras were rolling for the big event. The real thing just wasn't carried out exactly as it had been in practice.

(Looked like Andy was using a pretty high performance parachute (Schumann platform, removable slider). Huh.  Who am I to talk, he has a million jumps, he can make his own choices, and choose a compact rig he is familiar with. When I was doing stupid parachute stuff, though, where I might end up low, I tended to go with something super reliable and docile...)

Hi Peter,

With more videos to see, it is fairly easy to understand why Andy abandoned his effort.  At about 4:50 - 5:20 in your video link, you can see the Infinity logos on the rig.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

Disclaimer:  I do not know the FAR's when it comes to airplanes & flying.

If you own an airplane & you decide you no longer want it.  So you buy a SawzAll & cut it up; is that OK?  If so, then if you own an airplane & intentionally crash it out in the desert, where no one is around, why is that not OK?

Just a thought for discussion.

BTW when the pilot who flew Rod Pack back in 1965 was fined $10,000, the fine was paid by LOOK magazine or LIFE magazine, whichever had the exclusive on the photos.  I think his license suspension was for 30 days.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

if you own an airplane & intentionally crash it out in the desert, where no one is around, why is that not OK?

Sounds like the FAA would want to know if you intended on remaining as PIC all the way to the desert floor. If so that would be totally copacetic as long as your next of kin files the right accident reports. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 3/17/2022 at 2:09 PM, chuckakers said:

My snark alarm is ringing.

Sounds like you think Luke is foolish or naive to the dangers involved in his stunts. He is not, and he accepts the dangers as a tradeoff in his chosen career. Luke is a meticulous engineer, does everything by the letter of the law, and never cuts corners.

We all have our own acceptable levels of risk. Yours is apparently somewhere short of Luke's.

It’s all about risk analysis. Luke knew the consequences of ignoring the FAA denial and figured a fine and suspension will cost less than cancelling the live event.

Edited by BMAC615

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for Chuck Akers and any other USPA BOD member here.

What happens if a USPA member submits paperwork for a high profile Super Bowl demo and the COA is denied by the FSDO, but the member still does the high profile jump on the world’s stage?

 

Does the USPA suspend that members ratings and membership?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grimmie said:

A question for Chuck Akers and any other USPA BOD member here.

What happens if a USPA member submits paperwork for a high profile Super Bowl demo and the COA is denied by the FSDO, but the member still does the high profile jump on the world’s stage?

 

Does the USPA suspend that members ratings and membership?

Hi Rich,

It probably depends on whether or not that person is a member of the BOD.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, grimmie said:

A question for Chuck Akers and any other USPA BOD member here.

What happens if a USPA member submits paperwork for a high profile Super Bowl demo and the COA is denied by the FSDO, but the member still does the high profile jump on the world’s stage?

 

Does the USPA suspend that members ratings and membership?

 

According to a post elsewhere, USPA just gave Trevor Jacob a tandem rating.

 

 

Edited by dudeman17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2022 at 12:39 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Rich,

It probably depends on whether or not that person is a member of the BOD.

Jerry Baumchen

I'm thinking this matter has already been taken up by the USPA Broom and Rug Committee for eventual referral to the BOD Member Hall of Fame Committee. Hard on Luke, sure, but if you're Mike or Sherrie life's bright, shining light just got a little softer. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying to Yoink (who started another thread but Wendy locked it and directed people to post here):

The guy in the video is Paul Bertorelli, a main contributor at the AvWeb aviation news site. Who is also an active skydiver. So he'll understand flying & skydiving stuff better than your average youtube commenter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2022 at 10:37 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

If you own an airplane & you decide you no longer want it.  So you buy a SawzAll & cut it up; is that OK?  If so, then if you own an airplane & intentionally crash it out in the desert, where no one is around, why is that not OK?

Because if you just get out and let it fly away, it could crash into the desert, or into that shopping mall 10 miles away.   The FAA requires any aircraft to be able to make "an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface" which is, really, a pretty reasonable rule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm thinking this matter has already been taken up by the USPA Broom and Rug Committee for eventual referral to the BOD Member Hall of Fame Committee. Hard on Luke, sure, but if you're Mike or Sherrie life's bright, shining light just got a little softer. 

Now come on.  At some point both incidents will make it to the Museum Committee and they will look at the issues long and hard before they decide whether to put them in the museum or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
16 hours ago, pchapman said:

Replying to Yoink (who started another thread but Wendy locked it and directed people to post here):

The guy in the video is Paul Bertorelli, a main contributor at the AvWeb aviation news site. Who is also an active skydiver. So he'll understand flying & skydiving stuff better than your average youtube commenter.

Thanks Paul. He's got a great personality and obviously carries knowledge from both skydiving and GA, and that comes across brilliantly. 

 

I have no beef with Luke. In fact I don't even really know who he is. But I do have an issue with something @chuckakers said early on. Luke might be a meticulous engineer, and may well follow the letter of the law as Chuck states, but what's been proven here is that this project team, who Luke is the face of, followed the law right up to the point where they disagreed with it, and then broke the law anyway. 

 

For me, personally, that's an unforgivable level of arrogance.

 

Whether you agree with the FAA rules in general, or this particular ruling in specific, abiding by a set process and then deliberately breaking it when it doesn't go your way shows a lot about the character of the people involved. 

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yoink said:

 

 

I have no beef with Luke. In fact I don't even really know who he is. But I do have an issue with something @chuckakers said early on. Luke might be a meticulous engineer, and may well follow the letter of the law as Chuck states, but what's been proven here is that this project team, who Luke is the face of, followed the law right up to the point where they disagreed with it, and then broke the law anyway. 

 

For me, personally, that's an unforgivable level of arrogance.

 

Whether you agree with the FAA rules in general, or this particular ruling in specific, abiding by a set process and then deliberately breaking it when it doesn't go your way shows a lot about the character of the people involved. 

^This. Big time.

Luke has done enough 'Hollywood stuff' that he knows what needs to happen, what needs to be approved, the people who approve this sort of thing, all that.

He's done it before.
Why he chose this one to simply 'go for it' after approval was denied is something I find appalling.

Did he not start the approval process early enough to have 'wiggle room' for appeals if it was denied?
Did he just expect the approval to be rubber stamped because of who he is and what he's done in the past?

Was the 'investment' (both money and time) in the stunt so high that breaking the rules was considered worth it?

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Because if you just get out and let it fly away, it could crash into the desert, or into that shopping mall 10 miles away.   The FAA requires any aircraft to be able to make "an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface" which is, really, a pretty reasonable rule.

The thing about it is there was virtually zero chance of the plane 'flying away'.
It was in a vertical dive over uninhabited desert.
It had a BRS for the 'emergency landing'. It didn't quite work properly, but it did work. Not sure if they had 'remote activation' capability, but I can see that being implemented without too much trouble.
The risk to 'persons or property on the surface' (I agree that it's a good rule) was VERY low.

I can see a good argument for getting the FAA to change their minds on this.
Don't know if that could or would have happened, but I don't see it as impossible.

  • Like 1

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