David ‘Heavy D’ Sparks, the influencer of Discovery Channel’s Diesel Brothers fame, has been catching a lot of heat lately. He recently spent two nights in jail over allegedly unpaid legal fees in a case that a non-profit organization has against him. Now, Heavy D is in trouble again, and for a reason that has nothing to do with his other legal drama. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the legality of the flights Heavy D made in his Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk two years ago. But there’s a twist: I was a passenger on one of those flights.
A little over two years ago, my contact at the company that does public relations for Polaris Industries reached out to me with an incredible opportunity. I was among a handful of journalists invited to take part in Polaris Camp RZR, the California Imperial Sand Dunes desert celebration that’s centered on high-octane thrills. It was out there where I got absolutely nuts in a Polaris RZR Turbo R and a Polaris RZR Pro R alongside racing legend Tanner Foust. That year, the event took place on October 27 and 28.
The gathering that I attended, which was a little press event contained within the greater public party of Camp RZR, was already insane and the stuff of dreams. But then, it got better. That Saturday morning, the 28th, the Polaris crew got us up bright and early to race through the dunes to watch sunrise. Then, back at camp, we were told that we had just been invited to take a ride in a real Black Hawk helicopter. I’m pretty sure my Polaris rep wasn’t even done talking when I said yes. Mind you, I was at this event to experience a bunch of side-by-sides. A helicopter ride was never part of the deal. But as an aviation enthusiast, there was no way I could say no.
The Flight
The Polaris rep never gave further details about the helicopter other than the fact that it was a Black Hawk. There were a couple of helicopters buzzing around that day, and I assumed that they were just taking photos and videos of the hot side-by-side action. So, when Polaris said that our little group of journalists and influencers could ride in a Black Hawk, I thought of it as little more than a surprise treat from Polaris to pump up the action for us.
The flight itself was awesome. If you’ve been a reader of The Autopian for long enough, you know that my heart belongs to fixed-wing aircraft. But a Black Hawk? Oh, that’s crazy fun. Here’s what I wrote in 2023 about the flight:
Prior to this day, my most memorable helicopter ride was a helicopter tour of Chicago. I don’t even remember what model of helicopter it was, but it was a cute little guy. This chopper was a 1981 Sikorsky UH-60A and its large rotors were powered by a pair of GE T700-GE-701D turboshaft engines making 1,994 SHP each. Apparently, this helicopter is owned by YouTuber HeavyDSparks.
The pilots at the controls touched down and we boarded the helicopter with the engines hot. It felt like we were in a movie from the dramatic rotor wash to ducking under as we hopped in and strapped ourselves to the seats. The journalists at the event expected this to be a gentle tour around Glamis, but that’s not what we got.
The skilled pilots made this chopper do some impressive stunts. We got what felt like was just feet above the sands and the pilots performed dives so fast that air rushing into the cabin tried to rip my clothes off. The helicopter was flying so fast with the doors open that I couldn’t even muster a “holy shit” before the next maneuver. In addition to the stunts, we flew lower than the tops of the dunes. At times, there were side-by-sides on the ground sitting way higher than we were flying. I knew Black Hawks were versatile helicopters, but I had no idea these things were so agile. I began to wonder if we were going to do a barrel roll or something like a Red Bull stunt chopper.
The chopper ride was also a fantastic way to show the scale of Camp RZR and the Glamis dunes. Even when the helicopter flew higher, the dunes went straight to the horizon. If you squinted, you might have even seen side-by-sides off in the distance, too. The Black Hawk ride lasted about 15 minutes, and in the end, my heart didn’t stop rushing. The energy flowed through me so much that I felt like I wanted to jump out of a plane and go skydiving or perhaps take flight in one of the RZRs on site. How do you top a near-vertical dive in a military chopper? Someone’s going to have to get me behind the controls of a Boeing 747 or something.
I did not know the helicopter was owned by Heavy D until I got home, got curious, and entered the helicopter’s registration number into the FAA Registry N-Number Inquiry tool.
This was sort of weird. This helicopter was owned by a famous YouTuber, and not a single person at Polaris or otherwise told us who owned or operated the helicopter. Admittedly, I do not watch Heavy D’s content. Nor have I ever seen a single episode of Diesel Brothers. So, I don’t really know what the guy looks like outside of the occasional topshot from a news article.
But, honestly, I didn’t even care because that Black Hawk ride was off-the-charts fun. It was so fun that it was one of the focuses of the article that I wrote about Camp RZR.
The FAA Looks Into The Flights
A whole two years passed. That’s a long time in auto journalism, especially if you’re like me and you average something like 4,000 words a day. The memory of the helicopter ride and that weekend as a whole was getting more distant by the day.
Then something happened that brought that memory back to the front of my mind. I was contacted by an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector yesterday. That investigator told me that he was conducting an inquiry into the flights Heavy D’s helicopter flew that weekend. Someone sent the investigator my article, and he contacted me to get my recollection of what happened that weekend. I was, after all, a passenger on one of the flights.
I told him pretty much what you’ve read here. I was a journalist invited to Camp RZR by Polaris, and my Polaris rep was quite hyped to tell us that we could fly in a Black Hawk. The flight was awesome, and none of us were told how Polaris somehow scored the opportunity, or who was even running the chopper. I didn’t even think it was Heavy D behind the controls. At least, not as I recalled my memory of the flight.
But I was curious. Everything seemed kosher to me. Why was the FAA interested in these flights?
The investigator told me that the scope of the investigation is unclear at this time. Basically, the FAA is just trying to get the facts to determine what will happen next.
Why The FAA Cares
The reason why the FAA cares about what happened in Glamis appears to have something to do with the fact that Heavy D’s helicopter, which was a military surplus Black Hawk, is under an Experimental certificate. As the investigator told me, whenever the military sells off its helicopters, they get a special airworthiness certificate that’s different than the certificate that the civilian version of the same helicopter would get. In this case, the civilian version of a Black Hawk is the Sikorsky S-70.
As the investigator told me, while a military surplus chopper is dirt cheap compared to a civilian version, the special airworthiness certificate attached to it comes with a plethora of limitations in the name of safety. With a regular certificate in an S-70, the investigator told me, you can use your helicopter to fly passengers, you can use it for hire, or anything else that you’d want to do with a normal aircraft.
However, since Heavy D’s Black Hawk has an Experimental certificate, the investigator said, the situation changes dramatically. For one, the investigator told me, the chopper is not supposed to be carrying passengers at all. So, the fact that this helicopter spent the day constantly picking up people and buzzing them around the grounds is a problem in the eyes of the FAA investigator. The other big question the investigator has is whether someone paid for the helicopter to fly people around. If so, that’s a problem.
Another problem is how the helicopter was flying. Since Heavy D’s helicopter has an Experimental certificate, the investigator said, it’s not allowed to fly low over a densely populated area. What does that mean? Per the FAA investigator, the presence of more than four vehicles counts as a densely populated area. Camp RZR had hundreds of vehicles and even more people.
This is made only worse, per the investigator, by the fact that the helicopter was performing high-speed, very low-flying passes over crowds of people and vehicles. So, at least as of yesterday, the investigator saw at least three issues to look into.
Update: I will also note that the investigator did not specify any specific regulations that they believed were broken. That said, a relevant regulation could be 14 CFR § 91.319 – Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations, which reads a little differently than what the investigator told me:
(a) Except as provided in § 91.326, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate—
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire in operations that:
(i) Require an air carrier or commercial operator certificate issued under part 119 of this chapter;
(ii) Are listed in § 119.1(e) of this chapter;
(iii) Require management specifications for a fractional ownership program issued in accordance with subpart K of this part; or
(iv) Are conducted under part 129, 133, or 137 of this chapter.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it is shown that—
(1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and
(2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features.
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in air commerce.
(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall—
(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the aircraft;
(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator; and
(3) Notify air traffic control of the experimental nature of the aircraft when utilizing air traffic services.
Also potentially relevant is 14 CFR § 91.119, which says:
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
What Could Happen
So, what goes on behind the scenes here? Well, the FAA’s investigation is in its very early fact-finding stages. The investigator is just trying to find out who was seated up front and who was flying the helicopter, what days the helicopter was flying, whether the pilots were paid to be there, and the type of flying done at the dunes.
Once the investigator is done gathering the facts, this information will be presented to the FAA. From there, the pilots might get a talking to about what they can and cannot do with a Black Hawk on an Experimental certificate. Depending on how the investigation goes, the FAA may take further action, including the suspension or revocation of the pilots’ certificates. If the FAA finds out that this was more than just pilots flying, and that Heavy D’s business was involved and was using the Black Hawk for commercial purposes, civil penalties may also be assessed against the business.
One thing to keep in mind here is that, even if the FAA does take the licenses of the pilots, they will be allowed to go through the process to potentially get back their license in only a year. The FAA is built around a safety culture. The idea is to make pilots and flying safer, not punish pilots for mistakes that can be rectified.
Based on what I could find through the FAA’s databases and Heavy D’s YouTube channel, Heavy D purchased the helicopter, registration N801WT, in the summer of 2022. The helicopter, which was manufactured in 1981, then embarked on an extensive renovation process that involved new paint, inspections, and more. The Black Hawk has also been modified to carry personal watercraft.
The big question right now is who was flying the helicopter and who was seated at the controls. At first, I didn’t think it was Heavy D. However, after reviewing my own photos and footage, I think he probably was in the right seat of the helicopter.
This Helicopter Flies Around A Lot
To be fair, it’s not like Heavy D ever made these flights a secret. There are endless videos of him flying this helicopter around Glamis, often with passengers on board. Here’s a video from a flight from only a few weeks ago during Camp RZR 2025:
Here’s an Instagram Reel of Heavy D allegedly flying his helicopter at Glamis only a few weeks ago:
View this post on Instagram
Here’s a YouTube video from Sparks Motors, showing the helicopter being piloted at Camp RZR 2023, the event that I was at:
These are just a fraction of the videos. Click here to view a post on Facebook from someone else who got to take a flight in Heavy D’s helicopter in 2023.
It’s pretty clear from the near infinite videos online that Heavy D’s chopper has been flying these Glamis flights for multiple years now. I get why, too. I would be lying if I said the guy’s helicopter wasn’t wildly fun. I was only vaguely aware of Heavy D before–modding diesels or their emissions systems is not at all my thing–but the flight was fun enough that I’ve told other avgeeks, “I rode in a Black Hawk once.”
Granted, it doesn’t really matter how much fun any passenger had, because we’re not the ones Heavy D’s crew needs to be concerned with. That’s the FAA. Normally, I would not even report on a story like this, but I found it fascinating since I was a passenger on one of these flights.
Why Heavy D Has Been In The News
This might become yet another challenge for Heavy D. If you haven’t been following his other legal battle involving alleged tampering with diesel emissions equipment, I’ll let our friends at The Drive bring you up to speed. From an article published on October 7, 2025:
Dave Sparks—also known as “Heavy D,” one half of the internet-famous Diesel Brothers—was arrested Tuesday morning in Utah. Bloomberg Law wrote late last week that a warrant had been issued for Sparks’ arrest, as a federal judge found him in contempt of multiple court orders following a Clean Air Act lawsuit. This includes paying $844,000 in fees. Now, Sparks has been booked in Salt Lake City Jail, as first reported by TMZ and confirmed by The Drive.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby ruled in March 2020 that Sparks and three others must pay the substantial amount for tampering with diesel truck emissions systems. While Sparks and the other defendants uploaded videos of diesel pickups blowing black smoke to YouTube, racking up millions of views, those clips weren’t the only examples of tampering pointed out by the plaintiffs. Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment purchased a truck from Sparks Motors and had its exhaust emissions tested at a lab in Denver, Colorado. The results allegedly showed that the truck emitted 21 times more particulate matter than if it were equipped with an operational diesel particulate filter, or DPF.
While the news drew negative attention to Sparks and his companies back then, he has since built an even larger following online. His YouTube channel has 4.47 million subscribers, and his Instagram follower count is slightly below 3.9 million. Sparks famously bought Ye’s Ripsaw EV2 luxury tank in 2022, followed by several other high-profile purchases like a Blackhawk military helicopter. Collaborations with other YouTube personalities like WhistlinDiesel and Matt’s Off-Road Recovery have kept Sparks in the diesel truck community spotlight.
Unfortunately, for all of the coolness that his jetski-hauling helicopter is, all of the above is a lot less cool. Heavy D spent two nights in jail, and the civil litigation between him and the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment continues.
As for what Heavy D’s helicopter has been up to, it’s still too early to say. The FAA is collecting facts right now and will act based on the data that it gets. I have reached out to Polaris and Sparks Motors for comment, and will update this story when I hear back.
Topshot: Author/Autopian
The word “EXPERIMENTAL” is written right there on the side of the thing. You were duly informed.
While in college, I was in ROTC. We had to do a night navigation exercise, and the cadre commander coordinated with one of the Air National Guard units. Rode a Blackhawk at night while they were doing nap of the earth insertion exercises. Thirty years later, I still remember riding in that bird, with the windows open and seeing the floor of the draws in the Oquirrh mountains less than 50 feet away and then 2 seconds later looking at the stars when the helicopter swung to the other side. Then a quick drop off in Camp Williams at the south end of Salt Lake Valley, doing our exercises, then a much more leisurely ride back to their base about 2 AM.
I don’t like any large truck/diesel ‘influencer’, but man the FAA just seems like the fun police. I get you don’t want an ACTUAL experimental/home built flying machine shuttling passengers, okay, I get it… but this is a legit helicopter. Just pointless red tape and fines and rules meanwhile we have a pedophile/trafficker in the whitehouse….
I imagine the rules are in place because some people who are also pilots maybe don’t have the full training to use these birds. Maintenance, training etc, are all pretty important, and while it sounds like Sparks has done good by his, I imagine there is precedence for those who didn’t.
Personal rule about helicopters that I got from a friend who rode in them professionally for many years: no boondoggle flights, transportation purposes only, and then only when it’s the only viable means of transport
I must admit, the Blackhawk is waay cool and I would jump at the opportunity for a ride.
But because this guy has been a big name in the rolling coal scene, my sympathy meter is pretty close to zero.
The ‘D’ is for ‘Dumbass.’
As much as I like to admit that I’d be one of the first to hop onboard that chopper if someone would have invited me there on the spot, without caring much about reading upon the EULA or whatever I should have read, I do understand that IF the chopper had crashed with me onboard that it would have been a kinda large can of worms for the organizers of the event regarding liability and such…
TL;DR; they might maybe have gotten a real commercial company doing the flights, normally paid and insured and what not, to cover themselves in case of issues.
I’ve done simple events, indoor, with NOTHING even close to this type of stuff and the liabilities and insurance and what not were already astronomical.
Imagine what you’d hoops you’d have to jump through if you’d say to an insurance company “yeah we have this army surplus helicopter operated by a youtuber and they’re going to fly dozens of people over the desert at low altitude and yeah what’s the quote on that exactly?”…
I can imagine AT LEAST you should have had to sign some waiver before getting on that chopper.
Amazingly, I signed no paperwork or anything. The only record of me even having taken the flight was the 68 photos and three videos that I took.
It almost seems like they simultaneously were trying to aim for some sort of “no it wasn’t commercial” by making the whole thing super casual while simultaneously taking on TONS of potentially liability without proper…well…proper anything. Like, this was a disaster waiting to happen and nobody knew.
Glad nother went wrong. Hope the outcome won’t be too harsh for the organizers and pilots.
I’ve owned a number of single seat and a two seat gliders designated Experimental that was flown under Special Airworthiness Certificates. Each one came with a written set of Operating Limitations provide by the FAA which placed restrictions on when, where, and how I could fly that specific glider. Carrying an additional “crew” member in the two seater was permissible, but no compensation (monetary or otherwise) could be received for doing so, even indirectly. Obviously, I’d cheat by accepting dinner from friends, but if I’d ever put out a big sign offering rides for $100, they likely would have come after me for a number of violations, as someone would rat on me (I knew someone that happened to).
Which is the point here, you post publicly visible videos about your piloting exploits, you better make sure they are all legal. In particular, if Heavy D was pilot in command, does he have a commercial rotorcraft license? Did the other pilot? What do the operating limitations say? The maximum takeoff weight of an S-70 is well over 12500 lbs, which often changes pilot certification requirements. Is it restricted to two pilot operation? What ratings/waivers are the pilot(s) required to have (like an FAA Letters of Authorization) and did they have them? What about the specific limitations on the number and types of “crew” members carried? Must they all be designated “essential” flight crew members? Was the flight carried out in a designated operating area and was the FAA notified in writing if needed (I had to do that at times)? Were all required maintenance operations carried out at the appropriate times?
This is all about making sure that unqualified joy riding pilots don’t go around killing plane loads of unsuspecting people. Or, those on the ground like, say, an ice cream parlor full of kids when your surplus F-86 has an engine failure on takeoff, which happened.
Sacramento Farrell’s.
The only Heavy D I recognize is Heavy D and The Boyz.
Thanks, now that song will be playing in my head all day
Seriously. I see that name recently and I’m like “wait… how did he get arrested? Isn’t he dead? Why is he white all of a sudden?”
So I deal with experimental flights pretty regularly. Some of what the FAA investigator told you is correct, and some is not. Also they didn’t mention some other issues that seem pertinent- did they seem inexperienced?
The relevant FAR covering experimental operations for both fixed wing and rotary aircraft is 14 CFR § 91.319.
As you will note upon reading it, it does not prohibit the carrying of passengers, it just sets additional requirements to do so. One relevant question is were you informed that the aircraft did not meet federal regulations? Every flight under an experimental ticket requires such notification, and if you didn’t get one that is definitely a problem.
Next, the claim of “the presence of more than four vehicles counts as a densely populated area” is not written down in any FAR or AC I know of, and frankly reeks of made-up bull-hokum. While the FAA leaves the exact definition vague, the most common guidance is that the yellow areas in FAA-approved aeronautical charts count as “densely populated.” A quick look at the California chart shows Imperial Sand Dunes is definitely not in the yellow. More relevant is the FAR 14 CFR § 91.119 which prohibits flying within 500 feet of people or structures in unpopulated areas, but does include an exemption provided they are still obeying other specifically prescribed altitudes for helicopters (no idea what that would have been in that location on that day), and very often helicopters fly below 100 feet as a matter of normal business so I’m not really sure there’s much to this one.
There’s definitely something to look into, but this inspector also told you some things that are just flat out wrong, and they should have known that.
Finally, regarding the emission lawsuit- Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment is not a credible environmentalist group, they are lawsuit trolls who exploit a quirk of Utah law to file ridiculous claims that happen to wrack up massive legal bills that the defendant must now pay 100% of if they are found liable for even $1. If you actually read the case, the environmental damages are something absolutely minuscule like $5 grand, and that $850k number is entirely legal fees for some asshole lawyer in Wyoming who needs a fifth mansion. I would consider myself an environmentalist, and these shitbirds give us a bad name.
“Next, the claim of “the presence of more than four vehicles counts as a densely populated area” is not written down in any FAR or AC I know of, and frankly reeks of made-up bull-hokum”
Yeah when I read that, I also thought that statement sounded like bullshit. But I didn’t comment on that as I know nothing about flying aircraft or the regulations that surround it.
The investigator mentioned that he had quite a lot of experience in this field, and several thousand rotorcraft hours. But you have a valid concern. I sent an update, and the post should now show 14 CFR § 91.319 and 14 CFR § 91.119.
It’s also worth noting that the investigator is not the final word here. The investigator sends in the evidence and the FAA interprets it and proceeds accordingly.
Curious. We have helicopter pilots operating under 100 feet every day, and the FSDO is both aware and has no issue with it. This is true all across the country as long as you are not over a built-up area, so I’m not sure how to square those with an experienced rotorcraft pilot, along with the clear error regarding passengers on an experimental aircraft. Interesting to see what develops, thanks for the reply!
I wonder if maybe what he was saying was some sort of rule of thumb for “merits digging deeper” rather an actual reg? Like…maybe I’m giving too much benefit of the doubt, but if he’s that experienced it’d be weird to be so completely off-base. But if it were some internal thing, like “more than 4 vehicles may be considered dense so flag it always and let the FAA decide” that might make sense? In other words, the threshold for “investigator, say something” is different than the literal written guideline, which is admittedly less specific. That’s just me speculating though.
I think the FAA has some beef with youtubers, another plane-owning youtuber (don’t remember the name) got his license suspended for making an inspection pass and deciding not to land at an off-airport property in Alaska, which after reading through the relevant laws I could find (not a lawyer, just literate in technical writing) is legal. Governmental agencies love to try to make up laws that don’t exist.
Up next on the channel, we found five ways to make wine in the toilet. Tune in tomorrow for the six best things you can purchase with cigarettes.
“Tune in tomorrow for the six best things you can purchase with cigarettes.”
That’s for the adult content PPV channel.
Shocker that we found more laws that he thinks he doesn’t have to follow.
“you mean knowingly making illegal modifications to emissions equipment is illegal??”
Stupid fucking “lol fuck everyone else im the only person not a NPC” empathyless, selfish, entitled assholes. Emissions equipment, especially diesel, exists for a reason.
If I seem a little extra riled up it’s because I have a coworker that has very much adopted this attitude towards everything (so much so I’ve started hiding tools I normally left out, because I’d come back and find them dirty and he’d say “oh yeah that’s probably power steering fluid haha”). Selfish people have always existed, but now they’re platformed, and being an egotistical misanthrope is a counter-culture in itself, where your satisfaction is measured by how many people you can hurt or step on and how little you can care while you do it.
I remember having a bit of that attitude as a teenager, especially around mods and legality. I think some of it was always hearing from boomer relatives how emissions equipment ruined performance. You’re supposed to grow out of these things.
I only know of Heavy D from his collaboration with Matt’s Off-Road Recovery. He seemed like a nice enough guy in those videos but government is gonna govern.
“government is gonna govern”
As well it should. I’m sure plenty of people found Epstein a nice enough guy too.
That’s a case of where government repeatedly did not govern and is still resisting its responsibility to govern.
Because “I’m not only the president, but I’m also a client!”
I shouldn’t laugh at that, but I did.
I saw a couple episodes of his show on Discovery(?)
I’m like how can he get away this these mods and still be in business, let alone Discovery(?) making a show about it.
This. They were basically begging to be investigated. Plus, it seems like Environmental fines tend to be just big enough to scare a little guy, but not big enough to be meaningful roadblocks for those with deep pockets.
For heavy industry, 95% of compliance is voluntary risk reduction. My job sometimes involves making sure the math is right.
I’m not big fan of Government, but the stipulations seem clear here, and they were apparently all ignored. You can not agree with all sorts of stuff, just move past it and do something else. But if you agree under contract/license whatever and sign your name to it, you gotta do it Mr. Heavy D. Hard to fault them for looking into this.
Yes, obviously the regulations are at least somewhat BS and likely intended to protect Sikorsky from cheap used helicopters cutting into new S70 sales, but they are regulations, they apply to everyone and appear to be quite clearly publicized, so you don’t get to just unilaterally declare yourself a special snowflake that they don’t apply to and choose to ignore them
Except the FAA inspector is just wrong on some of their assertions.. 14 CFR § 91.319 does not prohibit flying with passengers on experimental aircraft, and 14 CFR § 91.119 neither defines a populated area the way they said it does nor prohibit helicopters from operating at low altitudes.
I won’t pretend to know the in’s and outs on something like this. Interested to see how it develops!
It does sound like it prohibits passengers who have not been informed it’s an experimental aircraft. Given Mercedes’ account it sounds like she was not given the proper pre-flight info, or possibly any pre-flight into besides “wanna ride in a black hawk?” Without knowing verbatim the discussion with the investigator, it’s possible the “no passengers” comment was made because it was already clear that the “informed” bit never happened.
Or this particular inspector is overzealous or dumb.
Maybe he can borrow the Killdozer to express his frustrations /s
If I went on a flight like this I would be thinking
1. This is absurdly fun
2. There is no fucking way that the FAA would be ok with this
3.Can I go again?
Would it be okay if it was private air space? Is that even a thing? I’m totally ignorant on this, be easy now.
Totally OK in international waters.
4.Hey, I didn’t have to parachute out of this one!
I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t have something to do with the DCA regional jet Belvoir Blackhawk crash. They are probably looking at all aircraft of a similar type.
That mid-air had nothing to do with the aircraft and everything to do with mil-civ airspace problems and not following the correct procedures (i.e. visual separation means you *actually* are visually tracking and maintaining separation)
You got your reply in before mine by 30 seconds lol
Hi, UH-60L pilot here. No, I can guarantee these are not related. The DCA incident has to do with things like crew coordination, air route management, and UH-60M altimeter settings.
This incident is somebody flying illegally in several different ways.
I actually think it might have been look at due to the Huntington Beach helicopter crash back on October 11th, 2025. Flying close to people caused injuries on the ground. https://youtu.be/ChJEKMUEFYk?si=isW-h8G_bJK6zkKC
Fuck these Camo Junkie dipshits. So sick of hearing about them trying to act tacticool with military gear but too cowardly to actually join the military.
I’ve often thought the same about the Hummers. “Want to drive a REAL HMMWV? Call 1-800-USA-ARMY”
I’d encourage anyone with an interest in helicopters to watch the Heavy D videos where he has the Black Hawk restored. Really interesting stuff. The company that restored it had ludicrous attention to detail. So it may have an experimental cert, but it’s done right. Same company restored Cleetus McFarland’s helicopter, too, and it’s well documented on his channel.
Oh yeah, the helicopter itself was awesome, no doubt. That’s part of why I Googled the tail number when I got home from the trip. I had to know who the heck owned such a cool ride.
Here’s a company that helped out:
https://thoroughbredaviationmaintenance.com/black-hawk-project/
I understand the 500ft min altitude doesn’t apply to helicopters, but even permits cant excuse getting too close to people. FAA doesn’t like killing people by crashing/landing on them.
So thats where I think the faa is going. The videos of flying over occupied cars low likely caught thier attention.
The military never flew at altitude near my house, but they avoided all the houses unless they were flying at max speed. Local guy with a helicopter avoided houses too. He flew below tree top level too.
That is the vibe that I got from my conversation with the investigator. There were times that we got low and fast directly over the crowd, and it seems the FAA isn’t fond of that.
Hi, UH-60L and Army pilot here.
Low-altitude restrictions *do* still apply to helicopters under various conditions. (1000ft AGL in built up areas, 500 in non-built up)
“Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA…” (underlined emphasis my own)
The flight described sounds like hazard to persons and property. I also wonder if the pilots exceed the 60 bank angle/30 degrees pitch angle limitations – if so, that’s a different violation (potentially, I’m less smart on aerobatic regulations.
But also, this kind of hot-rodding *especially* with passengers is just begging for trouble. At those speeds and those low altitudes, there’s very little margin of error. At all times, a helicopter is riding the edge of risk – flying is just managing that risk.
The UH-60L is a fantastic aircraft. I love it. But man, they were doing a lot of dumb just to look cool.
“There are old pilots, there are bold pilots; there are no old bold pilots.” – old helicopter pilot axiom.
See: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFRe4c59b5f5506932/section-91.119
I agree with you about hot-rodding with passengers being stupid and dangerous, but unless the FAA explicitly had altitude restrictions in place that day, then the altitude limit of 500 feet would not apply. Our FSDO is very much fine with our choppers operating under 100 feet every day, as is the case across the country.
“I understand the 500ft min altitude doesn’t apply to helicopters, but even permits cant excuse getting too close to people. FAA doesn’t like killing people by crashing/landing on them.”
The husband of a work buddy of mine used to fly Sea Stallions in Iraq. He told us stories of flying at 150 mph so close to the ground they had to pull up for camels.
Is Iraq still under FAA authority? Also, I would assume in a war zone FAA can just Eff off. The only flights I experienced on my own were some “sweet jumps” on my bike.
The stories were from the first Iraq war so I’m pretty sure the FAA wasn’t an issue. And that was far from the craziest story I’ve been told involving helicopters and war zones.
So I think anyone whose interested in getting paid to do really crazy ass shit with a military helicopter should have a chat with their local recruiter. But before you fly make sure somebody remembers to put the damn dust filters on!
TIL he exists. And he’s famous for flying a helicopter and helping DudeBros with rolling coal? K.
This guy has made his living off of wantonly violating federal emissions regulations and being a shining example of the absolute worst of American hyper-individualism. This anti-social “I do what I want because this is America” attitude does nothing to further society. Deleting Diesel trucks is illegal, and in my opinion immoral, but all of these “tuners” love to cherry pick examples like Military equipment being uncatalyzed as a way to justify their poor behavior. The types that love to post things along the lines of FAFO to others they dislike, but refuse to accept responsibility when its their turns to find out.
They play the victim when the law cracks down on them despite systemic, deliberate actions that show they know what they are doing. Not that I have much faith in anyone in this current administration, but I hope the FAA cracks down on him to the fullest extent that the law and facts of the matter allow.
Yep, and their selfish and entitled actions have created negative consequences for the entire aftermarket and performance parts industry.
I’m sure that if the FAA manages to secure a conviction at any point in the next (sigh) three long years, he’ll manage to secure himself a pardon.
Nobody will be going to jail over this. The pilots could receive a reprimand on their flying records, which can include having their licenses revoked. However, as I noted, they’ll be allowed to apply for their licenses again in a year.
To put that into perspective, remember Trevor Jacobs, the guy who was ruled to have crashed a plane on purpose just for the clicks? He lost his license and then got it back a year later.
If it were found that the heli’s appearance at Glamis was for hire, then the company that ran the flights can receive a civil penalty (fine).
“remember Trevor Jacobs, the guy who was ruled to have crashed a plane on purpose just for the clicks?”
Yes. Yes I do.
“He lost his license and then got it back a year later.”
He got the licence back in Dec 2023 and a month later was incarcerated for 6 months. Considering the crimes he got off damn easy.
I’m with you there. He probably made so much money from the stunt that he still came out on top.
I’m surprised there weren’t heavy fines leved in addition to jail.
I wanted to post a joke about you hating America but I can’t as I agree too strongly to even make a joke about it.
Yeah these guys are as about cool as a tire fire
I shoulda kept scrolling, you got here long before I did. I do at least feel less like the one taking crazy pills to know that other people feel the same, sane ways.
At one point half of his channel was about recovering (at government request) his own equipment that he’d gotten stuck and left for years and the other half was him pulling trashed cars out of canyons acting like it was disgusting that people would dump them there.
From my understanding, you are allowed to carry passengers in an experimental aircraft, but they cannot be paying customers. Sounds like you got a free ride, so that sounds relatively kosher.
Flying above a crowded area is a big gray area too. It’s the dunes, not NYC for heaven’s sake. If they consider “4” vehicles a crowded area, then why does the Oshkosh air show exist?
The biggest deciding factor is whether his flying will be considered acrobatic, which I would argue “no”.
I wish the FAA would focus on more important matters, like congested helicopter corridors near commercial flight paths, pilot mental heath, etc.
Don’t ask too many question about Oshkosh… there’s no way anyone would allow those antics to start today. But in this case, there’s no single experimental cert so this certification might have the restriction.
Other than my personal feeling that *anything* in a rotorcraft is acrobatic… agreed this isn’t. It sounds very much like a standard patrol my wife described she was invited on at PSAB.
And yeah, this seems less important, but agencies can do more than one thing at a time… at least while anyone still works for them.
Same for “Sun and Fun” in Florida.
“From my understanding, you are allowed to carry passengers in an experimental aircraft, but they cannot be paying customers.”
“Commercial use” doesn’t simply ask whether the passengers paid. If Polaris paid him to be there and give “free” rides, that’s still commercial use. Whatever the costs of operating this heli are, I bet they’re not cheap, so I somehow doubt that Sparks did it just for funsies.
I might not be the sharpest knife in the kitchen, but if I’m doing something that might be questionably legal, I’m not putting it on social media.
IDK… he seems tight with Polaris and has all the moneys. I’d be willing to bet that he potentially did the flights free, but that’s for the FAA to determine.
His entire business is dependent on his doing questionably legal (and in many cases blatantly illegal) things and putting it on social media.
FAA regs for a 20,000# ex-military rotary wing experimental aircraft are not the same as for a 1,200# experimental fixed wing aircraft.
Er, they are, actually. Specifically 14 CFR § 91.319 covers operating restrictions of fixed wing and rotary experimental aircraft.
Looks like the air carrier over 6000# carrying capacity of the aircraft may require a direct authorization for the operation.
I make no claim to be the final authority. Any opinion holds the value of what you paid for it.
Yeah, I wrote a longer response downthread, but this entire thing seems like a fishing expedition by the FAA investigator. Some of the things they said to Mercedes are just not true, enough that I’m doubting the rest of their claims as well.
This guy appears to have multiple legal issues against him. He simply thinks he can do as he pleases in a society of laws and rules.
Are we still “a society of laws and rules” I worry sometimes.
There appears to only be laws and rules for the half of society that doesn’t have a bilateral majority. We live in a society of “laws and rules for thee but not for me”
Depends on who your friends are.
It is if you’re poor.
Such a wild paradox – flying a helicopter made for a group of citizens that swore an oath to defend the United States through heavy laws and rules by a person who doesn’t care about laws.
Well, exactly what that group of citizens swore to uphold is a pretty contentious topic in itself at the moment. Just ask Mark Kelly.
MAGA rules. I expect the next update on this will be about layoffs at the FAA and a pardon for him.
Jan. 6th 2021…
In case anyone has forgotten that shit show.
Encouraged by one of the worst law breakers in recent history.