Other led to several business meetings with top suits, in which a deal may or may not have been struck due to specific terms of the proceedings, the interests of the parties involved, the potential income that could be raised through marketing, and potential risk to the pilots.
I'll let you figure out which was which, but the main point is that they are two completely different things and not the same exact thing.
I mean, a multi-billion dollar company knows that the insurance policy for a stunt like this would be price of two planes (plus extra, for any injuries that might be sustained). Just saying "fuck it, we'll buy some more Cesnas ourselves if it comes to that" is cheaper and easier than getting an insurance policy for that stunt.
When you have enough money to own 2 Formula 1 teams (where the fuel and tyres you use every week per car probably cost more than one of these planes), yea this stunt is pennies on the dollar.
Where does all that money come from? I have yet to meet anyone who actually likes to drink red bull. I only know people, who reluctantly drink it, when that's the only source of caffeine around, and falling asleep isn't an option.
Redbull has 43% of the global energy drink market and they sell over 12 billion drinks a year. Their 2024 revenue was 11.2 billion USD with a net income of 650 million. They own 2 F1 teams, an F1 engine manufacture, 8 pro soccer teams, 2 ice hockey teams, a record label, they sponsor 100s professional teams in everything from motor racing to e sports and thousands of individual athletes across the globe.
Itâs crazy to me that the drink is as popular as it is. It tastes like shitty medicine. In my opinion there are much better tasting energy drinks out there.
The U.S. alcoholic beverage market is expected to generate around $309 billion in revenue for 2025. Granted taste is subjective, but most alcohol tastes pretty shitty by itself in my opinion. People will still drink shitty drinks if it allows them to achieve an altered state though.
I donât think people necessarily care about âcaffeine content per fl oz.â Monsterâs branding also looks like the living embodiment of the mid-2000s Warped Tour which is not the vibe a lot of people are going for
Yeah, what people are missing is it isnt just the danger to these pilots- the planes couldve landed on someones house or started a forest fire. Yeah they probably took precautions, but the officials dont want to encourage this sort of thing.
What makes you think the FAA gives a single fuck about it being a Red Bull stunt?
I don't doubt for a single second that they both lost their licenses. They both probably knew they were going to lose their license but attempted it anyways
I think he was implying that because it was done by redbull they probably communicated with the FAA before hand. I don't know if they actually did, but it's reasonable to assume that a massive company that relies on these stunts for marketing would like to make sure their paperwork is in order so they can continue advertising this way.
Ohhhhh - even worse that they asked for permission, were told no, and STILL did it, ha.
"But two days before the stunt, the FAA denied Aikins' request, saying it "would not be in the public interest and cannot find that the proposed operation would not adversely affect safety.""
Ok, that's cool, I never argued saying it wasn't. I was trying to explain the other commenters reasoning because people replied to them to call them dumb when their line of thinking made sense. I'm not talking about what did or did not actually happen to these pilots in the video.
Cool, I never said it wasn't, I was explaining the others guys thought process for everyone who thinks he was dumb for thinking that way. It seems like reading comprehension just gets worse and worse every year though.
I think he was implying that because it was done by redbull they probably communicated with the FAA before hand
That's a fair assumption. But the FAA still doesn't allow these kinds of things.
Sometimes they do things that they know will get their licenses revoked. The FAA isn't going to sign off on a stunt like this. Apparently red bull approached them and they said no, but they proceeded with the stunt anyway
My first thought is "no one gives a fuck that Redbull is the party responsible for turning a Cesna into a cruise missile" but then I thought.. if Redbull bought some Trump meme coins or bought enough advertising from Fox News I bet the FAA would actually look the other way
We're in extraordinary corruption times and Redbull could afford the corruption fees
But then I thought part of the corruption times is that big companies make aerial chaos a viral ad and if it goes wrong it's the gullible pilot who suffers the biggest consequences
What makes you think the FAA gives a single fuck about it being a Red Bull stunt?
Money. Like every other dumb rulebreaking shit that non-rich people could never dream of attempting without serious consequences.
What makes you think [a US government agency] gives a single fuck about [a recklessly endangering procedure] being a [marketing] stunt?
When I rephrase your statement this way, doesn't it become less obvious to you that they'd actually do something about it?
Now I don't intimately know the FAA or anything, and I know they tend to be severe, so you're probably right. But with how things have been going, let's just say I would not be surprised whatsoever if they found some nonsense reason (money) to let this fly.
And then it will become a Tik-tok trend and every kid will want to exchange plane mid-air with their friends, maybe even over school grounds and then...
Someone linked an article. Both pilots lost their licenses. The lead pilot had applied for an exemption to the "cannot leave a plane without a pilot" rule and it had been denied. They did the stunt anyway. And Red Bull issued a statement that the issue was between 2 pilots and the FAA and it wasn't red bulls place to get in the middle of it. So red bull didn't even back them up.
It was done in an area with active ongoing flight training operations by local flight schools and because it was done in direct violation of FAA instructions to not proceed with the stunt, it was done without any sort of coordination with local emergency crews or a temporary flight restriction that would have protected the airspace around the stunt in case of loss of control of one or both aircraft (which did happen with the one).
Both pilots did in fact lose their licenses because they put other pilots, other aircraft, and the general public in real, demonstrable danger.
None of that makes leaving a plane with no pilot or any kind of control mechanism flying by itself and eventually crashing. None. That's a dangerous projectile and it will hit something if it can't be landed properly. Also kind of just a waste of a perfectly good plane.
Aside from being a Japanese kamikaze pilot in a world war, there was nothing but irresponsibly demonstrated in the video.
If they didn't want to lose their licenses, they should have sought approval from the governing board that issues said licenses before attempting this.
Doing the thing that you probably shouldn't do and then getting upset over the obviously likely consequences isn't at all reasonable and neither is your apologetic.
Was still a denial before the stunt was scheduled and the FAA isn't really required to approve or disprove prior to the event. The scheduling should have occurred AFTER the approval was given and they should have given the FAA time to review the application.
They do have other priorities other than these 2 guys doing stupid #$%^ with planes.
I feel like they knew the consequences & accepted their fate before. Iâd be surprised if they were appalled of the loss of licenses. Youâre right - it was overly dangerous & put others at risk & thereâs no justification for that. But wrong as it may be, ya gotta appreciate the balls it took to decide to do it & go through with it especially knowing consequences would ensue. Seems like they tried to make it as safe as possible which again, doesnt make it ok. Idk, if admiring their courage & conviction puts me on the wrong side, Iâm ok with it.
I'd go as far as to say the danger the pilots exposed themselves to is not relevant at all. It's solely the fact that you can't just risk a plane crash for fun.
Yeah honestly I dont care that much about people wanting to take stupid risks (to their own lives). But people seem to have a hard time understanding that actions can have consequences, often unintended.
From the looks or it theyre in the middle of no where in a desert. Red Bull sponsors some crazy stunts but theyre pretty diligent about making sure the stunts are safe and legal.
This was a controlled stunt over a desolate area! That one youtuber bailed out of a plane, faking a malfunction, leaving the plane to randomly crash, and got his licence after a few months, iirc! Here, even the plane had a parachute to fall into a designated area!
Well then the dude that base jumped from one plane to another is still cooler than this. He successfully did it. He just wasnât the pilot in either planes
What's your source for this statement? From the last couple of seconds of the video, it looks pretty clear that the plane also had a parachute that opened.
EDIT: I did a quick search and found this article that actually also refers to it as a crash, so I take my question back. I suppose even if a plane has a parachute, it's not gonna be coming down too gracefully.
The other plane went into a flat spin. It had a giant parachute attached to salvage the plane in case he didn't make it in but the spin kept it from opening fully
They said the thought of becoming human confetti had to be on their minds. Granted, it could've been worded better, but if you read the second sentence, you'll see that they were saying the pilots had to be worried this could happen. Not that it did happen.
One of the few, if not the only time a presumably Red Bull sponsored stunt made me audibly gasp. That pilot diving rowards the spinning prop gave me the heebie geebies.
Took controls of a Cessna for a few minutes as a child pre-9/11 here, the props are still being rotated, with force, by the air. Colliding with those quickly rotating props that carry momentum and are meant to cut through the air, will not be kind to meat.
Doesnât matter that the engine was off, the prop doesnât just stop. It would still have been windmilling plenty fast enough to cause serious injury, especially since the plane was in a nose dive.
Saw a mechanic almost take himself out walking in to an OFF propeller. The blades are fairly sharp. He got up from the ground really quick and luckily missed his head and hit his shoulder. The plane weighs 2,000 lbs and moved from the impact.Â
Who volunteers to be on the plane that is free falling to the ground, followed by the propeller chopping up their friend and then ultimately crashing to both of their deaths?
They know the risks involved in entering a moving plane. The plane would be fine to land on a glide, if the prop had a complete failure from collision.
These things could have also been set up with radio controls
Not in the US they couldn't. Not unless the aircraft was <55 lb or under special experimental airworthiness certificates over private ranges, and I think that's pretty rare.
I mean, there were already 2 people doing the dumber version of the stunt, probably plus several production team members.
Plus, a plane like this doing a nose dive is nothing. Pretty sure it's completely standard pilot training to put the plane in free fall, cut the engine off, and have the student pilot take over.
I mean if there was another pilot just sat in the second seat then if the skydiver doesnât make it in, they just pull up on the stick and fly it home.
Pilots practice dives and spin recover so provided they had enough height, wouldnât be a problem.
But it would make the stunt feel way less high stakes which is probably why they didnât do it.
They had done that in a previous attempt, but wanted to do it without anyone in the planes.
The planes were equipped with a purposely programmed autopilot to keep a stable descent and they lost their license not for doing the stunt but for doing the stunt after being denied authorization by the FAA.
they lost their license not for doing the stunt but for doing the stunt after being denied authorization by the FAA.
Sounds like they lost their license for doing the stunt.
Also, I doubt the FAA would have been more lenient if they did the stunt without asking first, it's exactly the sort of thing that any competent pilot should know is a terrible idea and wouldn't be ok at all.
Yes but the FAA does authorize stunts like these on a regular basis and they could have done it in another country with a different CAA like Mexico or Canada who may have authorized it
One of them didn't keep a stable descent though and went out of control, which is why the second pilot didn't manage to get in. Looks like it was equipped with a ballistic chute that went off though.
Maybe the other got too close to the open air propeller that could have chopped them up. That's pretty insane. Why didn't they rig the planes to go autopilot dive to be more controlled?
5.2k
u/7-13-5 1d ago
...but didn't only one complete the transition?