Agreed. That’s what Discovery Channel did.
It’s on thing to argue that FAA should have granted a permit to do the stunt. I think they should have!
But that’s different than saying it’s OK to do the stunt anyway even after the FAA said no.
I also disagree, but only because your a utterly wrong with the “no danger to anyone” line.
“ Rejected! Airplane falling on the head of farmer out walking his fields is harmful to others.”
Tell me about it!
‘Conservative’ Doug: “Defund the police!”
Who but an outrageously high dollar corporation would already have a live stream HULU show scheduled without even getting the permission first. “Cart before the horse”. It may have taken some time but I believe they could have done it correctly and through the proper channels. But “Red Bull” has “ball$” and money so up your FAA.
Tickets yanked. Good for FAA. Intolerable stupidity. They should also go after Red Bull too.
Wrecking a nice C182. smh.
A regular flight not stunt, single pilot not familiar with the airplane apparently became incapacitated, perhaps by medical event.
So?
That’s the meme of neo-Marxists not Conservatives.
Was it remote enough that gliding airplane would stay over unpopulated area?
Red Bull has no brains.
But hey! its product is hype.
Riiight!
What’s the difference to the farmer on the ground, if this was a “regular” flight or a “stunt”?
Answer 'Robert O’s feeble attempt at rebuttal o me:
- Cessna didn’t hit anyone.
- Cessna flight was doing something useful.
Cause of the Cessna jet crash was pilot not proficient with the airplane and/or flew with high risk medical conditions. IOW poor judgement by pilot but we assume he was on a worthwhile trip.
OTOH, mebbe the Cessna piston fool could claim he was doing research - which failed.
Seems some right-wing commenters are just lashing out like the misguide Canadian trucker’s convoy which hurt freedom by initiating force against innocents, giving cover to terrorist wannabes, and giving a shallow pandering politician an excuse to copy his daddy and restrict freedom without necessity.
(In the convoy blocking border crossing in southern AB were armed persons intending to kill police.
PM ‘jefe’ Trudeau Jr. invoked an Emergencies act then lied that police wanted it, just like his father invoked an earlier act against a small bunch of tinpot terrorists. Marxists all.)
Yup that’s their game.
And US government research agencies did with an airliner to test crash, because of bureaucracy in US.
But later another test crash was done in the US.
There’s enough problem with fool pilots on useful missions.
USMC MV-22 crashed in Norway because pilot went too low with excessive bank angles, in maneuvers not in the training plan.
A retail body-worn video camera was found in the wreckage.
How would it have glided any significant distance? A speed brake was installed (and tested) so that the plane would dive pretty much straight down…and that’s approximately what happened.
“ – Cessna didn’t hit anyone.
– Cessna flight was doing something useful.”
Which “Cessna” are you referring to?
Hard to tell because neither cessna hit anyone. Usefulness here, is subjective; the end result was the same for both aircraft, both left smoking holes.
Which of these aircraft were of a greater concern for the farmer on the ground?
I would submit, that one flight was more proactive and had at least a modicum of a plan in place for the safety of those on the ground.
Which flight should we be more concerned with? The one with so-called “potential” loss of life or, the one that actually caused the loss of a life? I say “so-called” potential here because every flight has the potential for harm. The unique measurement here, is that we know which flight caused the most harm.
Throughout History …. Conservatives have ALWAYS been on the wrong side of History.