[HN Gopher] FAA revokes licenses of pilots in failed Red Bull pl...
___________________________________________________________________
FAA revokes licenses of pilots in failed Red Bull plane swap
Author : Stratoscope
Score : 24 points
Date : 2022-05-12 19:22 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thehill.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehill.com)
| breakingcups wrote:
| "According to the FAA, it said it had denied Red Bull's request
| for an exemption from an FAA review in the case because it could
| not show the stunt was not a safety risk."
| gregoryl wrote:
| The level of rigor in making planes (even light aircraft) safe
| vs. "we tried this a few times, should be fine" are very far
| apart. Hard to fault them.
| mwint wrote:
| Maybe the FAA should find a 99.9% empty (100 mi)^2 square in the
| middle of Nevada or something, and designate it "do whatever you
| want, can't hurt anything anyway".
| dharmab wrote:
| They did, but you've got the join the Air Force to use it.
|
| https://www.nellis.af.mil/Units/NTTR/
| Someone1234 wrote:
| They very likely would have got suspended even if this succeeded.
|
| - The lead pilot requested an exemption for the stunt from the
| FAA, which the agency denied.
|
| - The lead pilot made a "personal decision to move forward with
| [the] plane swap."
|
| - "I regret not sharing this information with my team and those
| who supported me."
|
| - The FAA are also proposing a $4,932 fine.
|
| There's no two sides to this one, you cannot do a highly
| dangerous stunt without the relevant authorities signing off on
| the plan (or more specifically ignoring them when they tell you
| "no"), and then expect no consequences. They're just lucky the
| consequences are only likely to be civil in nature (i.e.
| suspensions and fines).
| [deleted]
| kazinator wrote:
| You need an atomic_swap(), which at no point allows a situation
| to be observed whereby a pilot is not in a pilot's seat.
| cookingmyserver wrote:
| This (the crash, not the revocations) _might_ be the worst, most
| embarrassing outcome for the FAA. Had the stunt gone completely
| right they could have just put the hammer down on the pilots and
| said "it could have gone wrong and people could have got hurt!".
| But we got to see what happened when things went wrong. We saw,
| even in failure, no one got hurt, and it doesn't seem like anyone
| was close to getting hurt. Is this luck or were the pilots right
| the entire time, planning for failure and ensuring no one would
| be harmed even if they failed? Still doesn't excuse them for
| going forward despite the exemption being rejected, but a
| successful failure raises doubt as to the FAA's ability to
| evaluate risk, which only compounds the current Trent Palmer
| situation.
| Dayshine wrote:
| They crashed a plane! Which means they had completely lost
| control! What was stopping the plane from randomly pitching up
| and flying off towards people?
|
| This seems to prove the opposite, that it was a dangerous stunt
| that the faa were right to deny and very luckily nobody was
| hurt
| cookingmyserver wrote:
| I am going to assume you made the comment from position of
| ignorance on how they executed the stunt. They used a very
| very large airbrake to slow the aircraft down after pitching
| down into a near vertical dive and letting prop windmill. The
| risk of the plane flying away was negligible.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-12 23:02 UTC)