Entering an aircraft in flight

[widgeon]

https://www.wionews.com/photos/for-the-first-time-in-aviation-history-a-pilot-will-take-off-in-one-plane-and-land-in-another-470258#skydive-in-tandem-470248

[Jan Olieslagers]

Excuse me for considering this R_d B_ll Sh_t.

[India Four Two]

How is this permitted by the FAA?

[EXDAC]

Why the fuss? Nothing to see here. It, or the hard part of it, was done a long time ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9PxJU3eIcA&ab_channel=oalhegelan

[TheOddOne]

A little bit of trimming required at the end, for the changed c of g, presumably...

TOO

[what next]

Why the fuss? Nothing to see here. It, or the hard part of it, was done a long time ago.

There is one tiny litte difference however: In this video, the pilots remained in their aircraft, only skydivers floated from one to the other. Now it will be the pilots themselves who abandon their planes and skydive to the other one.

[Pilot DAR]

I'll be a naysayer on this. In my personal opinion, this kind of stunt just makes our professional industry look either bad, or or desperately seeking attention. We pilots fly aircraft, why can we just not be content doing that well? Sadly, in recent times, if I see Red Bull painted on an aircraft, I simply look away, 'cause it's probably about to be flown silly for no worthwhile reason.

[421dog]

Anyone who’s had the dubious pleasure of flying a 182 (which aircrafts major maintenance outlay related to the 8track player hotwired under the instrument panel) full of idiots who are paying to jump out of the plane, (and who are paying you to pull the power, shock-cool the heck out of the engine, and try to beat them to the ground from 13,500’ so that they can do it again) would not be surprised by this. I suspect these guys identify as jumpers, not pilots.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should ......

[treadigraph]

Well that went well... partly.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/plane-swap-stunt-fails-no-injuries-repoted/

[Jhieminga]

How is this permitted by the FAA?
Based on the article on AvWeb, I'd say it is not...;)
There is a full video available on the Red Bull site (linked from the AvWeb article) and I've watched parts of it. I guess they were limited in time as they immediately exited the aircraft after pushing over into the dive. The blue Cessna did not stabilise into a steady dive and went into an inverted flat spin. The other half of the stunt worked out and based on the chatter, the blue plane ended up under a BRS chute. No doubt they will try again at some point, if the FAA can be convinced to let them.

[9 lives]

Hopefully the FAA will treat this dumb stunt as they did to other recent dumb stunt where the pilot faked an engine failure in his Taylorcraft, and abandoned it to crash while he video's the event. He was very appropriately charged, and so should these two glory seekers. As for Red Bull and aviation discpline.... well... less the "Red", the name says it!

[Jan Olieslagers]

Now on ASN too: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/277638

[wrench1]

Hopefully the FAA will treat this dumb stunt as they did to other recent dumb stunt where the pilot faked an engine failure in his Taylorcraft, and abandoned it to crash while he video's the event. He was very appropriately charged, and so should these two glory seekers. As for Red Bull and aviation discpline.... well... less the "Red", the name says it!
Given the a bull pilot did try to get an FAA exemption for this "stunt" and was denied, I believe there is some discussion going on about enforcement action. At least the bs boys tried to get permission unlike the taylorcraft kid who bs'd his "flight" and is now crying for legal fund money after his certificates were revoked. Regardless, any person who willfully destroys a perfectly good aircraft should be keelhauled in flight without the benefit of a parachute. ;)

[silverelise]

Now on ASN too: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/277638

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1518x1760/redbulloccurrence_bfadee98f9198c9b892df2791a7c5d18d4adee93.p ng

Occupants: 1 ? That's not strictly true is it :)

[Dave Gittins]

What a stupid, dangerous waste of money ? what's a serviceable 182 worth £50 K ? Don't think the insurers will pay up.

[9 lives]

No, insurers certainly won't pay, it was deliberate! The problem is the Red Bull will pay. They are totally wasting money on dumb stunts, so I guess that their products are too expensive - I'll never buy them!

[Jhieminga]

Already mentioned above that the waiver was not issued, but here's a summary of the related issues (video): https://www.avweb.com/multimedia/votw/plane-swap-gone-half-bad-faa-not-amused/

[Saab Dastard]

I guess that their products are too expensive - I'll never buy them!
I've never even drunk the stuff, and I see no reason to start, sponsoring stupid stunts like this.

[wrench1]

Don't think the insurers will pay up.
No, insurers certainly won't pay, it was deliberate!
FYI: the aircraft had a Special AWC under Experimental-Exhibition. There are a few US insurance underwriters that write policies for these type aircraft as this category is commonly used for unique aircraft, warbirds, etc. Now whether RB bought a policy I cannot confirm except that from strictly a liability standpoint vs hull-loss they would be stupid not too.

[Waltzer]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1110x1449/92dd9a90_8c01_4a0d_a2eb_aa92012743d6_dee8ca771f21a904e6b5963 8166f270cbdba277a.jpeg

[flyinkiwi]

The problem is the Red Bull will pay
Red Bull is supposed to give you wings, or so they say... ;)

[Jan Olieslagers]

@Waltzer: thanks, that leaves not 1/256th of an inch of margin for doubt.

[Jhieminga]

The rest of the FAA correspondence is in this AvWeb article: https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/faa-regs/faa-revokes-pilot-certificates-for-red-bull-plane-swap-stunt/
There are three letters with a couple more pages each specifying the FAA's take on the stunt and the measures that result from it.

[Fl1ingfrog]

whether RB bought a policy I cannot confirm except that from strictly a liability standpoint vs hull-loss they would be stupid not too.

There is not an insurer anywhere in the world that will cover anyone breaking the law. The stunt itself was impressive without the stupidity of not having a safety/lookout pilot in each aeroplane who could take control, if required, and land the aircraft safely without any danger to anyone.

[wrench1]

There is not an insurer anywhere in the world that will cover anyone breaking the law.
It depends on how the insurance policy is written at least in the US. Some policies have regulatory requirements but most policies don't. For example, there have been a number of flight incidents which resulted in damage where the pilot had an expired medical, aircraft out of annual inspection, etc. which made the flight illegal. The insurance company paid the claim because they had to. Now whether these owners will be able to obtain a renewal for the next policy cycle is doubtful. So if red bull had an experimental exhibition policy on both 182s for the proposed flight and an insurance company wrote the policy they would pay the claim.

[Fl1ingfrog]

It depends on how the insurance policy is written at least in the US.

Not in a million years will an insurance company not protect themselves whoever and wherever they are. There are cases where the cost of litigation exceeds the claim and so the insurer is pragmatic and choses the cheapest option, particularly when there will be little likelihood of recovering their costs. There will therefore be examples of relatively small claims succeeding but don't rely on it.

[Pilot DAR]

So if red bull had an experimental exhibition policy on both 182s for the proposed flight and an insurance company wrote the policy they would pay the claim.

I have a different perspective: The pilot planned to (and did) deliberately abandon the airplane in flight for zero safety reason. I'm sure that there are words somewhere in the policy that state a requirement to maintain control of an airworthy airplane. If the pilot could argue that [somehow] the airplane became completely unflyable, and abandoning it was the only safe thing to do, they'd pay. But this wasn't that!

[Jhieminga]

Well.... one of the aircraft got out of control, went into a spin and crashed after the pilot exited the aircraft. It's just the sequence of these events that's in the wrong order.

[wrench1]

I'm sure that there are words somewhere in the policy that state a requirement to maintain control of an airworthy airplane. !
Keep in mind the insurance policies are written against the aircraft and not the pilot. Each underwriter has their own requirements but a number of the policies out there in the US do not itemize how the aircraft is maintained or operated except for certain specific conditions like pilot complex time, etc. if applicable. Given both redbull aircraft were operated under an Experimental Exhibition AWC with approved Operations Limitations, if they had misrepresented themselves to the insurance provider (provided they had a policy) as to what they were going to attempt, then that would be insurance fraud which comes with a much stiffer penalty than an FAA 1 year certificate revocation and $5000 fine.

Half the aircraft accidents/incidents in the US involve some sort of operator error or rule violation but those insurance policies still pay out after such events regardless of the pilot's actions. It's the law. For example, recently a provider denied a damage claim due to the pilot lacked the "proper qualifications." However, that denial was overturned in court and required the provider to pay. The cause of the accident... he ran out of fuel. The only people the insurance providers can blame is themselves. But then again the same industry that writes policies to cover weekend warriors who fly into the ground on a regular basis is the same industry who continues to write multi-million dollar policies for high rise condos that get wiped out by hurricanes every 10 years or so on the GOM.

[Pilot DAR]

For the few non aviation insurance claims I have been involved with, the entry point to discussion of a payout seemed to have been: Did the damage result from deliberate action, or accidental action? Pilot runs out of fuel, not bright, but arguably accidental. Pilot deliberately (and evidently preplanned) abandons the plane for no reason associate with the pilot's safety = deliberate action resulting in a loss. Though I doubt we will hear, were there to be an insurance payout on the airplane, I would be fascinated to hear the basis for finding it to be an insurable loss. To me, this is akin to bailing out of your car the moment before it went off a cliff you deliberately pointed it toward. The crash at the bottom and destruction of the car was not accidental.

[Fl1ingfrog]

a number of the policies out there in the US do not itemize how the aircraft is maintained or operated

Of course they don't. An insurer is an expert in risk but not in the specific operation nor the maintenance of an aeroplane. The national aviation bodies do that and they provide the expertise and rules that the insurer relies on. It is simple to say the insurer will always require that the flight is conducted fully in accordance with the law and regulation. There are circumstances requiring aircraft type training and supervision that history has shown will reduce the insurers risk before the PIC will be given cover.

There will always be the exceptional circumstances that require specific permissions and oversite. The FAA in this instance have a protocol in place to deal with such applications. An application for the stunt was made to the FAA but was rejected. No underwriter will ever consider insuring a flight that is to be intentionally conducted illegally.

[wrench1]

Though I doubt we will hear, were there to be an insurance payout on the airplane, I would be fascinated to hear the basis for finding it to be an insurable loss.
Look at it this way, in order for red bull to get insurance on those aircraft under an Experimental Exhibition Airworthiness Certficate (key part) they would be required to present the AWC with approved Operating Limitations along with a copy of their approved flight itinerary to the insurance provider before the intended flight. If the insurance provider issued an EE policy at that time based on the submitted documents then any subsequent claim would be required to be paid. If red bull lied about their intended flight then the next news item we hear will be red bull indicted for insurance fraud. Its how the system works. 100s of aircraft fly under EE policies for some very unique flights with no issues. IMHO, I bet red bull has a very unique self-insurance program that covers all their stunts in all avenues of transportation.

[wrench1]

An insurer is an expert in risk but not in the specific operation nor the maintenance of an aeroplane. The national aviation bodies do that and they provide the expertise and rules that the insurer relies on.
FYI: insurance providers in the US do not consult with the FAA with any regularity on how to write their policies. These providers employ experienced pilots and mechanics on staff for that purpose or retain 3rd party consultants to provide the necessary aviation expertise. It might be different where you fly but that is not how things work here.

An application for the stunt was made to the FAA but was rejected. No underwriter will ever consider insuring a flight that is to be intentionally conducted illegally.
There was no application made for the stunt as no application was required for the stunt flight. One pilot requested an exemption to Part 91.105 which requires a crewmember to be at their station during flight. Since he would be leaving his required station during the flight he would have violated 91.105. The FAA denied that specific exemption request and not the flight. His original exemption request, additional submission docs, and the FAA replies are all a matter of public record if you care to read them. And as I mentioned above the insurance provider would have known about all the details prior to that flight as well IF they issued a policy. Simple.

[Pilot DAR]

requested an exemption to Part 91.105 which requires a crewmember to be at their station during flight. Since he would be leaving his required station during the flight he would have violated 91.105. The FAA denied that specific exemption request and not the flight.

Agreed. The FAA did not object to the flight, but they refused permission to violate a regulation during that flight. If the pilots had gone flying, remained at their station during the entire flight, the insurance would have been in force, and had there been an accident, the insurance would be required to pay. But it is obvious that when the pilots took off, they intended to; a) leave their required crewmember stations, and b) knowingly violate a regulation for which an exemption was not granted. Were I the insurer, I'd walk away from any claim on that basis - the pilots did not follow through on their commitment to operate the airplane safely, and it was deliberate.