Back to Squawk list
  • 43

FAA suspends licenses of two pilots involved in failed Red Bull stunt

The Federal Aviation Administration revoked the licenses of two pilots for their "careless" and "reckless" conduct during a failed midair stunt last month in Arizona, officials said this week. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Ed Kostiuk 12
Best news this week.
Maybe I’m a little conservative, but why couldn’t they have “safety pilots” in each plane.? The actual stunt would be the same. Bloated egos lose again.
sparkie624 10
It would have added too much of a Safety factor to it... They wanted to be on the Edge and show the world that they knew what they were doing, but the world showed them otherwise!
Fewer people to risk having licenses revoked. ;)
That's how they practiced it up to the actual event. And from my understanding, it was the fact they demonstrated through multiple flights it could be done successfully with a safety pilot in each plane that led to the FAA denying their exemption. But that would have removed the "cool factor" from the stunt.
That was supposed to be a practice event by my understanding.
tlfys1 13
To bad the FAA can't do something to Red Bull for sponsoring this and the Drop Zone that allowed it to take place too.
That could be yet to come.... It was their planes that were used, and I doubt that they were listed as being stolen.
linbb -7
So you checked the N numbers and they are either leased to them or owned by them? Probably not.
They may have been leased. Being leased, it would still be classified as thiers. Airlines own very few planes, but they refer to it as their planes! Leased or not. You never see United say "Welcome abord our leased plane that we just got from Joes Leasing Company"!
There is a good chance that the planes were not owned by or leased to Red Bull, and that they merely had Red Bull signage on them due to sponsorship agreements with the pilots. That’s a very common situation in extreme sports.
Very good point... I did not think of that. I had assumed it would have been owned or leased by them for Insurance Purposes and libility issues. I can also imagine that RedBulls insurance premiums are due to rise!
If Red Bull didn't own the planes they would have had to indemnify the owners and cover any damages or losses.

I'm sure the overall cost of the project (salaries, equipment, site rental, planning, training etc.) significantly exceeds the value of the planes anyway. That's probably why they pushed ahead even after the FAA denied them -- they had so much invested and no marketable results to show for.
Red Bull Air Racing own/lease neither of those aircraft. Red Bull merely sponsored the events and the teams. It is up to each team to have qualified, non dumb a** pilots and get proper clearances.
These 2 should have their licence's ripped up and tossed forever.
They did have their licenses take away from them forever!
Revoked and torn up are 2 different things. Revoked can re-earn them down the road (been there seen it happen many many times) but torn up and chance
Love it. lol
Maybe. What if they sponsored it with the understanding the pilots were going to work with the FAA to get an exemption and follow the rules? From what I hear, the main pilot organizer made the call to go forward and didn't tell anyone the FAA had denied the exemption.
I would image that would be a strong point. Even if RedBull knew, they would deny it and it would be Pilots word against Red Bull.
royalbfh 4
Red Bull did violate the FARs these two cocky knuckle head pilots did. While I agree that Red Bull played a part as a sponsor the pilots chose to blatantly disregard the denial letter and without hesitation purposely and willfully violate the FARs. They destroyed a perfectly fine aircraft in the process and if it was insured will add to the ripple effect throughout the insurance underwriters. I personally think they should have their licenses revoked for this,
Yeah. Two fewer knuckleheads in the air.
What a fast decision to said stunt. It took them longer to revoke the other YouTuber's license. Hopefully, others thinking of similar stunts will think twice about putting their licenses on the line by risking putting others and property in danger.
They asked the FAA for permission and they said no, so the FAA was already on notice
The Trevor Jacob stunt required a bit of an investigation (though to most it was pretty obvious what had happened), whereas the Red Bull stunt was clear from the beginning -- it was deliberate, not sanctioned, and all the evidence was readily available.
Yes, but they still acted very quickly by comparison to the norm.
I bet the Next Red Bull Pilots will think twice before trying a similar stunt!
What other YouTuber's license?
Trevor Jacob Youtuber who crashed his own plane just to get YouTube Views!
Suspended? Or revoked? Those are two different things.
What part are you calling Crazy, the Stunt or the FAA?
Of cource you cant change planes in the air without a backup, its NOT a James Bond movie!
What about Red Bull, they "caused the operation" they are also "careless and reckless. Should be a huge fine there also.
Red Bull did not cause the operation. Red Bull is a sponsor much like Shell is a sponsor of F1. Shell doesn't cause any accidents or on track kerfluffle, nor does Red Bull. What these idiots did was on their shoulders, not Red Bull's. If the FAA says no to a pilots request, it is NO, not "let me talk to the sponsor.
They definitely disserved it.
But on the flip side FAA should just help them secure necessary safety margins.
Why does the FAA need to help people with possibly deadly stunts?
They did help them secure safety margins...they said NO. That NO was enough of a safety margin but dumb and even dumber thought they knew better.
They didn’t secure the airspace with a TFR. They didnt do ANYTHING to help secure a safe event.
How do you know they didn't TFR the area on the day dumb and dumber were suppose to do the stunt? All those 2 had to do was move it back or ahead a day.
There's that and the fact you really think the FAA wants to TFR an area, of who knows what size?? There are many airports in the area, namely PHX
Exactly. The FAA should have created a TFR after they received notice. They should cooperate with operators to facilitate safety. This should be their primary concern. Not stifling the promotion of aviation to the public.
Greg77FA -2
Pretty harsh. The stunt may have been dangerous to the pilots, but they did it over sparse land with plans in place and no impact to others.
A gift for Understatement.... Was very Dangerous and they Blantantly ignored the FAA as they were already told not to do it.... No punishment is too harse, Time to set an example to the next idiot to try stunts like that,,, There are people out that that will say they did it, I think I will try,,, I mean real,,, It had to be very harsh to set and example and precident.
Not harsh enough!! Even doing a lame ass stunt (with no backup at all) over unpopulated space can impact others. Who is to say people were not below watching, or that 1 of the planes could have flown further on (yes it's only theory it could happen..but it could happen) and crashed into a more populated area.
Are you saying that doing risky things in aircraft should be allowed by the FAA if it's done over unpopulated areas and if the pilots are the only people at risk?
In a libertarian’s view, yes. This is exactly correct. Victimless crimes are just that. Our choice to pursue happiness as long as it doesn’t interfere with another’s safety/sovereignty should be steadfastly maintained. These opportunities are what our forefathers sacrificed for.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Physically, yes. I'd love to see them get caught flying and ripped new ask.. wholes.
(Bowdlerised for the sensitive)
(look it up)
they cannot fly as Pilot In command... they can only fly with a Certified Flight Instructor. Your statement made no since. For them to continue flying would be equivalent or worse than driving a car without a drivers license. They may be able to still fly, but they will not be able to do so legal and if they get caught, there will be repercussions! Your statement alone is off in left field, and BTW, please watch your language! Some younger eyes maybe watching, and others don't want to see it.
I know a few pilots that fly without certificates, instruments without ratings, or without medicals. If you aren’t beholden to an insurance company (some dont care and maintain a policy just for financing, they know it won’t payout if there’s an incident). You can do whatever you want. It is a free country…

You are naive if you don’t think it’s happening everyday. The FAA has no law enforcement capability. They can only revoke certificates they have issued.
After their names have been plastered all over and the stupidity level they showed, no they cannot "still fly just fine"
someone blab


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..