Entering an aircraft in flight
 

https://www.wionews.com/photos/for-t...-tandem-470248

Excuse me for considering this R_d B_ll Sh_t.

How is this permitted by the FAA?

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

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

TOO

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.

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.

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.

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

Well that went well... partly.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/...uries-repoted/

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.

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!

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

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. ;)

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....18d4adee93.png

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

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

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!

Already mentioned above that the waiver was not issued, but here's a summary of the related issues (video): https://www.avweb.com/multimedia/vot...aa-not-amused/

I've never even drunk the stuff, and I see no reason to start, sponsoring stupid stunts like this.

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.