Redbull at it again

[Adam the Akrodude]

The other thing that shits me about this is Red Bull referring to it as a "world-first feat of aerobatics". This has nothing to do with aerobatics. It's formation flying through a hangar. The only link to aerobatics is that it was done in aerobatic aeroplanes - that's it!

http://www.redbull.com/uk/en/motorsports/stories/1331729694340/red-bull-barnstorming-extended-cut-video

[Adam the Akrodude]

Do we all remember how Col Paye met his unfortunate end ?

I don't think we can lump Col Pay's tragic death into this discussion. To me his death was nothing to do with "barnstorming" antics, but a tragic event when he was experimenting with a ski concept for air tankers. He was hugely passionate about aerial fire bombing and was developing a ski concept so that fixed wing aircraft could fill their water tank without having to return to the airfield - scoop up water in effect. He died testing his experimental concept, which to me is way different from dying from some stupid flying antic. Hindsight is 20:20. Perhaps there should have been other checks and balances in place prior to that fateful last flight? Aviation history is full of these sorts of events - seems to be the way aviation has progressed, sadly from the ultimate sacrifice of a brave few. Had it worked, he could have added a valuable tool in aerial fire fighting in this country and elsewhere.

[hrtpaul]

Adam I think you need to chill out mate. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean everyone else should as well. FFS mate everyone is allowed an opinion. So you know people that have died doing stupid shit. That's unfortunate but shit happens and that's life. I know people that have died in cars racing. So, I guess going by your logic, we'd better stop motorsport because someone might get hurt or might copy them and screw up. Keep dreamin mate. There always has and always will be people that take risks. It's human nature whether you like it or not. If Wilbur and Orville hadn't have had a crack at flying someone else would have. You go on about all the great test pilots and pioneers in aviation but if they didn't take a risk and have a go at something new then we might not be where we are today aviation wise. Yeah a pigeon could have flown from nowhere. A meteorite could have also crashed from space too. So what. That's the nature of the business of risk taking. If you not prepared to take a certain risk, DON'T. It's pretty simple really. But just because you won't doesn't mean other people can't. I think you'll find that people a lot smarter than you and I worked out all the details and risks, including all your aerodynamic concerns, before carrying out this stunt. Now I'd better go and figure out how I'm going to travel to TSV next. Don't wanna take the risk of flying, driving or sailing. Man even walking is risky

[Tony P]

Lol and hear hear Paul!
If a kid was to think about doing a copy in his RV (which I thought stood for Retirement Vehicle) then he shouldn't be a pilot in the first place. Old bold etc etc. But on the other hand, no risk, no reward. As Paul says, there is a risk in everyday life.
Not sure if this was posted but an interesting read:
http://www.redbull.com/uk/en/motorsport ... ng-science
If it was that risky, they wouldn't do it. If you can't hold altitude within a few feet and direction after 17 years you should give the game away. Gee I wish I had the skill to do what they do.

[Adam the Akrodude]

Paul, I'm more than happy for everyone to have their own opinion on this - just expressing mine is all. For that I was told I am both naïve and condescending - alrighty then!

I'm not talking about the risk side of this at all - that's not my point.

What individuals do is of little concern to me, so long as others are not hurt in the process - it's a relatively free world. I do think about the consequences of these sorts of stunts though. I've seen what happens when those of lower experience try to emulate the achievements of others with greater experience and better skill sets - usually with not a happy ending. OK, perhaps I'm a little touchy on this subject. It is a amazing bit of footage, but I was expressing my concerns as to the potential consequences of these sorts of stunts. Total bullshit by Red Bull to refer to it as a "world-first feat of aerobatics". Shits me because this stunt is now passed off as the same sort of thing that occurs as the WAC's. Sorry - epic fail Red Bull.

For the record, I'm not naïve in relation to this topic. If I've come across as condescending, well I apologise to those who feel this way wholeheartedly! Just expressing my opinion. If people think I'm F.O.S, no problemo!

[Tony P]

Time to check our concentration levels:
http://focus.redbull.com/

[tor lives]

I think Nic has nailed it. Lumping the red bull stunt with all the other incidents is outright demeaning. There was no wind, no wild control inputs. Just straight and level happily sitting in ground effect. The civil aviation authority was also overseeing the events. Good on them.

And all went swimmingly......THIS TIME
TOR

[tor lives]

OK folks.....couple of things to consider here.
Firstly......I agree with Adam on every count. For years I have been in the business of risk mitigation in aviation, and it is my considered opinion that this bullshit publicity stunt by Red Bull was completely unnecessary and just plain stupid. Anything could have gone wrong with no margin for error. Now we can sit here and say that all the risk assessments were done with all the checks and balances put in place but, as Adam has pointed out, that means sweet F..k all if a pigeon or two had decided to wreck the party. There is also the phenomenon of "group think " coming into play here..... Despite the obvious risk and danger with this stunt and stunts like it, "we all have convinced ourself that this is safe, so therefore it must be". Do you know how many aircrews and passengers have died because of this mind-set in aviation. Let's fly two planes in close formation through a hanger, or a bunch of Harvards just above the surface of a lake with their wheels just touching the water What the hell are these people thinking???? These sorts of unnecessary and fool-hardy acts present an unacceptable and unjustifiable level of risk for no apparent gain or benefit.
Finally, to call an experienced competition aerobatic pilot such as Adam "condescending" because he objects to this sort of unsafe and unnecessary bull shit stunt, is in itself the height of condescension, and disrespectful and dismissive ignorance. I think that if anyone on this thread is qualified to offer a critical and objective pilot perspective analysis of the stunt, it's Adam.....who else here has flown competition aerobatics?????
Anyway guys, that's my take on it.
TOR

[hrtpaul]

I too am in the business of risk minimisation in a HUGE way and understand the concept intimately. Yes, you're right that anything could have gone wrong. That bloody pigeon or the previously mentioned mysterious meteorite could've stuffed things up in a big way. But it didn't. You're correct, the next time they might no be so lucky. Any number of things could have gone wrong just like in everything in life. In every line of work there are risks involved that can be mitigated to the best of our abilities. Most things these days need risk assessments etc done but you know what, shit will still happen. And there's not a thing you can do about it. EVER. Group think? Hmmmm not from this black duck. I myself wouldn't take the risk of doing what these dudes did. But then that's my perogative. I know my limits and what I can and can't do. Much like these guys. Obviously they are far more talented and experienced than anyone here and they thought it was within their limits. Like I said in the previous post, it's unfortunate that people have been killed doing stupid shit. But once again that's life and it will continue to happen forever. Personally I don't think it was overly safe but then I'm not in a league of these blokes. Life is risky. If you don't like it stock up on cotton wool cos you'll need it.

[tor lives]

I think the key words here are "necessary risk". In my view this risk was simply not necessary. Apart from publicity, what was the net gain/benefit from this act of aviation?????.
Many extremely experienced and capable aviators have died because of "unnecessary risk". Case in point: the RAAF 707 crash. Was it necessary to idle back # 1 and 2 to demonstrate VMCA.....absolutely not!!. Was it necessary to make the sequence even more risky by switching off rudder boost, (a really dumb thing to do in a 707 at any time), and doing so with minimal recovery altitude....absolutely not!!. Was the PIC the most appropriate driver to be doing these things....well yes, after all, at the time, he was the Training Flight Commander and senior QFI for the aircraft-type. Did that save their arses in this wholly unnecessary, and stupid risk-taking on that fateful day..... a resounding NO!!!!!!
In aviation, calculated risk needs to be in direct proportion to the net gain/benefit off-set. That wasn't the case with this bullshit Red Bull stunt. Flying two aircraft through a friggen hanger......that was simply not a necessary risk!!!!, regardless of justification or rationale.
One final point, I am not accusing anyone on this thread of "Group Think".....it is the the organisiers and instigators of this busllshit stunt I am accusing of "Group Think"...just thought I should make that point clear.
TOR
PS: How cool would it be to fly an A380 under the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and what great publicity it would create, because "it's never been done before". Could it be done???.....yes, but I somehow think that this would be considered and deemed an unnecessary risk, even with extremely experienced pilots, extensive and intricate planing, and an absolutely controlled environment overseen by the regulator......just something to think about perhaps .