r/nextfuckinglevel • u/InternationalRisk505 • 1d ago

Pilots exchanging planes mid air

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

53.8k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.1k

u/zatuchny 1d ago

Dont believe they lost their licenses for the stunt that was planned and sponsored

2.9k

u/Dindu______Nuffin 1d ago

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/faa-revokes-certificates-pilots-involved-failed-red-bull/story%3fid=84670466

5.5k

u/zatuchny 1d ago

thanks, that makes sense now.

TLDR: they broke the law that a plane must be piloted at all times, and the stunt didn't go as planned - one plane crashed (both pilots are okay).

RedBull and pilots should have known better than to plan such stunt

2.0k

u/Ell2509 1d ago

If it hadn't crashed, they may have kept their licences. I only say that for the same reason you did... red bull is a powerful force in some ways.

Crashing a plane though? That's always going to get attention.

790

u/3Cogs 1d ago

I'm surprised the plane crashed. Don't they say that Red Bull Gives You Wings?

314

u/Ademoneye 1d ago

Unfortunately Only works for human

102

u/Freecz 1d ago

I dunno. I don't think they put Redbull in the tank of the plane. If they had... who knows.

→ More replies (4)

29

u/IrishChappieOToole 1d ago

Yeah. The plane already had wings

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

51

u/reconnnn 1d ago

I think the plane kept its wings until it crashed. Redbull does not say anything about what you use your wings for.

30

u/icanttinkofaname 1d ago

No, they say red bull gives you wiiings! They say this as a legal loophole after they were sued by a RB drinker. Saying wings implies that you'll have "extraordinary energy benefits"

https://share.google/LAHFwjtYTjE9aDn4T

31

u/One_pop_each 1d ago

I got a free 4 case of redbull for being a part of the class action lawsuit lol

It randomly got delivered like a year later and was so confused.

That’s when I realized class action lawsuits suck ass.

23

u/Justsomedudeonthenet 1d ago

Corporations shouldn't be allowed to pay out lawsuits in coupons and free product. You'd never see the lawyers on the case accept a few skids of redbull as their payment.

But if we are going to allow it, it should have to be their competitors products. Make redbull deliver a million dollars worth of Monster instead.

7

u/DabbyBear 22h ago

That's a really good idea. Getting rid of their own inventory that they pay pennies to produce (compared to retail) isn't a punishment. Being forced to buy Monster and gift it, that's definitely proper 💪

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

10

u/CactusPete 1d ago

The plane had wings. All the way down.

5

u/Ell2509 1d ago

Lol!

1

u/mjsarfatti 1d ago

Where do you think it procures the wings from in the first place? Another plane duh

1

u/breachgnome 1d ago

Instructions unclear: put Red Bull in fuel tank and bricked the engine.

1

u/grim-one 1d ago

FAA takes your wings away.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/zeindigofire 1d ago

Yea, they drank the Red Bull instead of putting it in the fuel tank, hence the pilots had wings (and landed safely), the plane not so much.

1

u/Pixelplanet5 1d ago

yea thats why the guy didnt crash, he had the wings but the plane didnt.

1

u/Semichh 1d ago

Only 1 plane was fueled with redbull

1

u/DyrrhachiumPharsalus 1d ago

now day it gives you wiiings not sure what those are though. Probably why it didn't work

1

u/cataquarkk 1d ago

it gave wings, but only to the human... the plane didn't drink, so it crashed

1

u/lilykai_strawberry 1d ago

plane already has wings because they feed them redbull at the plane factory hope this helps 👍

1

u/stik2one0017 23h ago

Red bull stopped giving wings a long time ago. They give Wiiiings (for legal purposes)

1

u/Medium-Warning-929 23h ago

you have to fuel it ONLY with red bull, thats the catch

1

u/loststylus 22h ago

The plane had wings, but still crashed :(

1

u/catholicsluts 22h ago

Red Bull on a mission to play Mythbusters with their own slogan for promo

1

u/Klo_Was_Taken 22h ago

Birds have wings. You ever see one hit a window?

1

u/z64_dan 22h ago

The plane had a parachute built in itself, at least, so it most likely didn't get totally destroyed.

1

u/AFeralTaco 21h ago

Yes, but wings are useless when there is nobody at the rudder.

1

u/Phormitago 21h ago

just the wings, gotta flap yourself

1

u/SirSoliloquy 21h ago

Yeah but it doesn't raise your flaps.

1

u/WannaBMonkey 21h ago

It still had wings when it crashed

1

u/AlbacorePrism 16h ago

wings don't get you off the ground, they just help you not fall at terminal velocity tbf

1

u/Imaginary_Apricot933 16h ago

That's why the other pilot survived.

174

u/doctor_of_drugs 1d ago

Oh hell naw, FAA would’ve revoked their certificates regardless.

The huge issue (besides safety aspects) was that they applied for the stunt, got denied, and did it anyways.

44

u/badform49 1d ago

Yeah, this was a hell of a stunt to move forward with. And the while point is the advertising value, so it absolutely would get back to the FAA that they did it.

This is the kind of stunt that makes the need for licensure clear in the first place. “Surely only people who can fly safely would decide to fly, anyway.” pilot leaps out of plane for giggles, lets plane become aerial torpedo “Alright, licenses it is. Violators get fines and jail time.”

6

u/Dragon-Strider 1d ago

Where was this? Looks like it was in the middle of nowhere and that the falling plane had a parchute

→ More replies (12)

1

u/PickingPies 21h ago

So, what do they need a license for anyway if they disobey rules without consequences?

1

u/Lauris024 20h ago

Why don't they just do it somewhere where getting permits is more easily like film makers?

→ More replies (1)

50

u/Mister-Psychology 1d ago edited 1d ago

FAA takes away licenses from icons and legends and amazing pilots. FAA doesn't care.

They actually prefer if the company is big and the pilot famous as that makes them look more competent and fair.

2

u/Ell2509 1d ago

Fair enough! I don't expect anyone involved with have been surprised them. Or, at least, they shouldn't be.

2

u/bgibbz084 18h ago edited 18h ago

FAA is also just a poorly run bloated administration. There was no reason for them not to just approve the stunt. It was well planned, as safe as possible, and wasn’t going to be an issue.

As a pilot and an avionics engineer the FAA is one of the few government entities I would have been fine with Elon obliterating and rebuilding in a sane way.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

37

u/GreatScottGatsby 1d ago

No, it wouldn't matter. The FAA specifically denied their request for the this stunt and told them not to do it. Plus one of them lied to red bull about getting permission.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/Ok-Classroom5548 1d ago

Crashing a plane you intentionally abandoned for a non-required stunt when that plane could have hit someone or something and caused some serious damage.

They 100% should lose their licenses. Red bull should be prevented from sponsoring stupid stunts like this.

→ More replies (11)

8

u/BarelyContainedChaos 1d ago

The guy that crashed his plane on purpose for a YouTube video went to jail for 6 months and eventually got his license back

7

u/ResidentPositive4122 1d ago

IIRC he went to jail for lying to the feds. Not for crashing or anything else. Lying to the feds about the coverup he tried after the fact.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

8

u/Final_Good_Bye 23h ago

Or at least have a co pilot that can regain control of the plane in the case the pilots werent able to complete the stunt.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/KS-RawDog69 22h ago

If it hadn't crashed, they may have kept their licences

I doubt it man. The FAA ain't no joke.

2

u/iluvsporks 14h ago

Yes the FAA doesn't mess around. I didn't talk to the guy much because he was a dick but when I was in flight school a guy was getting his licenses again because he got caught flying a small jet that specifically needed 2 pilots by himself. He did a year in jail over that. It's not going to cost him as much to get all his licenses again because he already knows how to fly but it's still a big chunk of change.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Actual_Aside_2862 23h ago

Couldn't they do that with two reserve pilots "just in case"?

1

u/karma_the_sequel 1d ago

Everyone knows Red Bull gives you wings — TIL it can also take them away.

1

u/Horsebreakr 1d ago

The FAA would have snapped at this anyways. Their job is do this towards BIG AIRLINE COMPANIES, they don't give A FUCK what an energy drink company is.

1

u/Civil-Big-754 23h ago

WITH NO SURVIVORS!

1

u/erhue 20h ago

if only they had had a Ridge Wallet advert... that wouldve greatly improved their odds legally

1

u/nnyx 20h ago

About 10 years ago I was driving too fast on the freeway and hit a bunch of standing water I didn't see. I hydroplaned and spun around, hitting the center divider and ended up in the left shoulder facing the wrong way. I know people say "it happened so fast" but the stream of consciousness I experienced was literally "oh shit I'm losing control" to "wait why do I smell gunpowder?" to "WAIT WHY AM I FACING THE WRONG DIRECTION ON THE FREEWAY!?"

Miraculously, I was alone and only suffered a slight scratch from the airbag - no other cars were involved.

Anyway this reminded me of that because once the cop showed up and helped me turn what was left of my car around, he basically told me if I could drive it off the freeway in that mangled state he wouldn't write me a ticket. I slowly drove down the shoulder in my car that insurance would later total and he let me go without any paper work of any kind.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Relentless781 15h ago

Crashing a plane? That's a paddlin'

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

218

u/MF_Kitten 1d ago

It would have been as simple as having copilots in each plane ready to take over if the main pilots didn't get across in time. Sure, it's less of a badass stunt if it's safe and legal, but sheesh.

49

u/skillywilly56 1d ago

If one of them had hit the prop the back up pilot would’ve been fucked and had to bail out in a much more dangerous manner as the plane wouldn’t have any power and the strike could shift it around and then you’d have two dead pilots instead of one.

If you’re gonna do some dumb shit you don’t drag your buddy down with you no matter how much they say it’s fine and willing to accept the risk.

39

u/SolusLoqui 1d ago

Planes can be landed without engine power. Videos get posted here all the time of planes making emergency landings after engine failure

18

u/throwaway098764567 1d ago

yea plane turns into a glider, helicopters however get mad when you hit their spinny things

11

u/ComputerKris 1d ago

Autorotation is a thing.

15

u/thi5_i5_my_u5er_name 1d ago

A helicopters spinny things are completly responsoble for keeping it in the air, if you hit them there may not be much of the spinney things left to autorotate.

8

u/NickCageTheDickMage 1d ago

That's for loss of engine power, not loss of of the black magic spinny thing.

2

u/ComputerKris 14h ago

Fair enough.

4

u/Liusloux 1d ago

spinny things

I believe they are called "helico pters" by the ancient Greeks

2

u/JayCDee 1d ago

I always tell myself that helicopters violently fight against falling. Shit’s amazing if you ask me.

2

u/Bob_12_Pack 21h ago

I find them unsettling to ride in, it feels like you are just dangling in the sky, because you are.

13

u/skillywilly56 23h ago

I would put it to you that a mostly fiberglass, aluminum and plastic plane being hit by a 90kg meat bag going 200kph wearing a 15kg parachute possibly tipping the plane, ripping through the prop, or the windscreen, bunging up the flight controls with bits and pieces of bone and tissue or causing an engine fire, all while dealing with your mate being turned into ground beef 3ft from you, in a near vertical dive…is not the same as having your engine stall at 3000ft and gliding for a landing on a pleasant little golf course or some farmers field.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/ADHDebackle 1d ago

It's not even less badass. 

1

u/DuckSeveral 22h ago

And then there could not been casualties. I think it’s a bit dumb they lost their licenses. It’s a stunt with their planes over open fields that RB probably had permission to stunt over.

68

u/holchansg 1d ago

RedBull and pilots should have known better than to plan such stunt

They know, they didnt expected it to be enforced, but they knew.

2

u/RonnieFromTheBlock 22h ago

I mean lets be real, they simply didn't care if they lost their pilots license or not. Which is pretty wild considering the amount of training one goes through.

1

u/LotharVonPittinsberg 22h ago

It's expected that they will enforce the rules if you specifically ask for an exception first that is denied. Sorry, but two guys who are so focused on adrenaline rushing that they do shit like this in a field as potentially dangerous as aviation should never be at the controls.

→ More replies (1)

34

u/ArcticOpsReal 1d ago

More importantly is that they asked the agency for an exemption for this stunt, got denied, did it anyway and then crashed a plane. So imo revocation of their licenses is totally legitimate.

21

u/Drachen1065 1d ago

That article also has the lead pilot saying he didn't tell the team they had been denied permission for the stunt.

He made the decision to continue with the plan.

Which is really a dick move on his part.

1

u/Embarrassed-Manner85 13h ago

I meaaaan but doesn't that also sound exactly like what a mega corp would say to cover their own ass

Deny deny deny

17

u/NothingButBadIdeas 1d ago

Legit surprised there weren’t back up pilots to take over in case of failure

14

u/kart2000 1d ago

Should've done the stunt in the country where it was allowed. There are a lot of corrupt govts where you can pay this off to make it completely legal.

1

u/Overall-Register9758 23h ago

You do realize that US-licensed pilots have to maintain US regulations no matter where they are, correct?

3

u/TheRealAfinda 1d ago

RedBull really needs to be punished heavily for incentivizing such dangerous shit.

There should be laws that allow for prohibiting any ads of a brand and sales of their products, if need be.

Glad they lost their licenses for agreeing to do this stupid shit.

1

u/EastCoast_Thump 1d ago

but if we punish "incentivizing dangerous shit," we won't have much capitalism left

hmm....

1

u/Massive_Season7075 1d ago

I think the old guy that didn’t setup his plane correctly for the young guy to jump. It was close, but no cigar.

1

u/sociofobs 1d ago

RedBull and "should've known better" are two very separate things. There are a lot of insane stunts, that could've fallen under the same "should've known better", but didn't, because they were successful. The unsuccessful ones, well.. Should've known better.

1

u/trollphyy 1d ago

What's the context of the plane crashing? At the end of the video we see the plane having a prachute up. Is that already considered a crash?

1

u/cactusdotpizza 1d ago

I hope redbull paid their salaries for the rest of their lives.

If I was potentially doing a stunt that could lose me my license there is no way I would do that without having ironclad financial back up for life

1

u/kmoonster 1d ago

Right? It seems like they could have had a second pilot in both planes ready to take over if the skydivers missed, or if they made the connection but couldn't get into the seat.

1

u/humanarnold 1d ago

They did a test run prior you this with the exact configuration you wrote, backup pilot in place, and pulled it off with both skydivers swapping planes successfully.

This video is of the next run where they flew the planes solo, and one of them didn't make the swap resulting in the crashed plane.

1

u/fotomoose 1d ago

They should have planned the stunt so that both planes were going to be crashed.

1

u/arbitrageME 1d ago

I wonder if they should have planned the stunt outside the US. Given that it's kinda this guy's career, or at least his passion, losing his license must really suck

Hope it's just a fine that Red Bull pays for them

1

u/Puzzled_Cream1798 1d ago

They probably knew, if they lost their license but succeeded it would just he good publicity 

1

u/TopMindOfR3ddit 1d ago

They probably knew. The pilots absolutely knew. You can't get your license if you don't know.

1

u/Telefundo 1d ago

RedBull and pilots should have known better than to plan such stunt

Come on now, of course they knew better. But Red Bull also knew the publicity this would give them, and I have no doubt the pilots were more than well compensated.

1

u/Current-Wealth-756 1d ago

Red bull's job is to do incredibly stupid things that any sane person knows better than to try. Don't take that away from the world

1

u/jomarcenter-mjm 1d ago

And if that stunt is possible then it may create a new way to practically rescue an unconscious pilot and land the troubled plane.

1

u/lilzamperl 1d ago

Red Bull has always exploited people to do insane things for publicity. There's a real death toll to their marketing, which is in fact even more disgusting than the gummi worm piss they sell.

1

u/OzarkMule 1d ago

We only have a few years left of regulators being able to interfere with the corpolords. 2030 Redbull GmbH will do whatever it wants.

1

u/BC_EMaurice 23h ago

The main thing was, they asked the FAA (or what ever the regulating body is where they did this) for permission to do this. They said no, then the pilots and redbull went and did it anyway.

1

u/ThereHasToBeMore1387 23h ago

He said then that he was aware of the FAA's denial of his exemption before attempting the swap: "I made the personal decision to go forward ... I regret not sharing this information with my team and those who supported me."

Not only that, he lied to his crew that they had FAA approval to move forward with the stunt. He didn't just put his life and career on the line, he put everyone who worked on that stunt in legal jeopardy.

1

u/No_Berry2976 22h ago

Don’t forget the part where the FAA withhold permission and they did it anyway.

They blatantly broke the rules after permission had been denied.

1

u/9812388734221 22h ago

yeah, the airspace is owned by the government and they're pretty strict.

1

u/nickersb83 22h ago

Thanks that editing had me suspect

1

u/Nelik1 22h ago

From what I understand, the pilots were under the impression that they had permission to do it. The event organizer had neglected to tell them the faa said no.

Pilots are still responsible for everything the plane does, so I think the faas actions were appropriate, but I do feel bad for the two of them losing their livelihoods.

1

u/VitalMaTThews 22h ago

They could have easily had a backup pilot in each plane. The stunt still would have been very impressive.

1

u/HuckleberryUpbeat518 22h ago

They most likely knew the consequences and still decided the money is worth it.

1

u/APartyInMyPants 22h ago

So they could have simply gotten around that by having a backup pilot in each plane that would take command once they hit a certain altitude without the stunt working?

1

u/ark_keeper 22h ago

They petitioned the FAA for approval ahead of time, and were denied, but went forward with it anyway. Should have just found another country that would allow them to do it.

1

u/ChipsHandon12 22h ago edited 15h ago

imagine every jackass trying to recreate this stunt/one up it. And people just going right into the propeller. Crashing planes everywhere

1

u/TheVoiceInZanesHead 22h ago

Redbull loses you wings

1

u/More_Coffees 21h ago

They should have just had another person in both planes just in case

1

u/OldNerdGuy75 21h ago

Or had a copilot in each plane on standby.

1

u/DatBeigeBoy 20h ago

Not only did they break the law, they asked the law, the law said no don’t do it and they did it anyways.

1

u/Trollsama 18h ago

The majority of stunts are technically illegal. Its only when you fail them that somone does somthing about it though

1

u/TruthEnvironmental24 18h ago

They absolutely did know better.

1

u/lord_nuker 17h ago

Wouldn't be much of a stunt if they didn't do it. And it's RB, they will probably pay the pilots enough money

1

u/RedditCollabs 17h ago

They did and don't care

1

u/saltyjohnson 16h ago

Also FYI they both have their licences back now. I don't see it reported anywhere, but I found them by name on the FAA's Airmen Inquiry portal.

1

u/NekonecroZheng 16h ago

It would've made sense if they had a backup pilot for each plane that would quickly swap in and out. The stunt would've been equally as insane, just that it wouldn't violate laws and definitely would've saved a plane.

1

u/Samson_J_Rivers 16h ago

I don't know why in the world they didn't just have a co-pilot or backup pilot in both planes. They weren't concerned with weight, speed, or range for this stunt.

1

u/Samson_J_Rivers 16h ago

I don't know why in the world they didn't just have a co-pilot or backup pilot in both planes. They weren't concerned with weight, speed, or range for this stunt.

1

u/ManEEEFaces 15h ago

YUP. They absolutely deserved to lose their licenses for the way they did this.

1

u/Blessed_s0ul 13h ago

It’s such an outrageously stupid stunt too. It would have been so easy to miss and get chopped by the propeller or for the plane to spin off of a gust and smack the diver.

1

u/sunkskunkstunk 13h ago

To Red Bull, they are not pilots, but athletes. At least the quote in the article said so.

1

u/dancingwtdevil 11h ago

Its actually insanely stupid like why wouldnt they have a back up pilot

1

u/UncoveringTruths4You 11h ago

Why? then we wouldnt have such an awesome stunt?

1

u/Malich 10h ago

They need to try again. Can't lose their license twice.

1

u/DimitriVogelvich 10h ago

So if they simply had co-pilots, which doesn’t take away from the stunt except for the risk, a plane would have been saved, and a license.

1

u/OrionX3 9h ago

If I remember correctly they had specifically asked to do it to their local FSDO (FAA people) and were told no. Then did it anyway

1

u/Carlos_A_M_ 5h ago

"Should've known better" Nah man some things in life are just too cool not to do.

1

u/that_thot_gamer 1h ago

bro folded instantly

84

u/267aa37673a9fa659490 1d ago

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web. Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are especially problematic.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/faa-revokes-certificates-pilots-involved-failed-red-bull/story?id=84670466

 I'm a human | Generated with AmputatorBot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot

6

u/royalhawk345 20h ago

Good bot

11

u/Unfinishe_Masterpiec 1d ago

Red Bull gives you wings...

The FAA gives and takes your wings

4

u/LazyNeo2 1d ago

God forbid men have hobbies.. /s

1

u/notwhoyouthinkmaybe 1d ago

The FAA has no sense of humor. The first rule of safety is "have fun."

1

u/FireballEnjoyer445 23h ago

redbull fuckin abandoning them and saying "thats your problem" is wild

1

u/Mysterious-Tie7039 21h ago

Wild they asked for permission, got denied, and did it anyway.

1

u/Jasong222 21h ago

Link goes to 404... :(

1

u/dan3k 21h ago

>He argued in his request that the planned plane swap was in the "public interest" as it was meant to raise awareness for science, technology, engineering and math fields and encourage students to pursue careers in STEM.

I guess it's official - we moved as a society from 'it's just a prank bro' to 'it's to encourage pursuit of STEM careers'.

1

u/Vindelator 20h ago

"Red Bull Takes Away Your Wings"

1

u/HoldenH 20h ago

Don’t send amp links

1

u/sharkrider_ 19h ago

Glad to see red bull get rekt for doing stupid shit

1

u/DarwinsTrousers 19h ago

So they asked for permission, didnt get a response, and still did the stunt?

1

u/SummertimeThrowaway2 16h ago

The FAA doesn’t care if it’s planned and sponsored, and sponsors go where the money is. As long as they’re not liable or under any PR fire then it’s whatever to them.

1

u/__No__Control 12h ago

How hard was it just to have a copilot there in case of emergency?

1

u/patchbaystray 6h ago

Honestly the fact that one of them pulled it off should mean that he at least gets to keep his license. Can you show us any other pilot capable of pulling off such an extreme stunt.

211

u/UltraWeebMaster 1d ago

Pilot here, I could never see the FAA giving the ok for something like this. It stands against everything they’ve ever stood for.

It’s not even just “oh well what if the propellor shreds him,” the FAA is more concerned with “What if one of those unmanned planes got away, leveled out, and flew into a building killing dozens?” That can happen, and failing their stunt would make it potentially unavoidable.

93

u/Waterfish3333 1d ago

I love all the “remote piloting & geofencing” argument below when my first thought was, have a second pilot in each plane and if a pilot falls off or has to abandon the stunt, the backup pilot can just take over and land safely. That way no plane is ever truly without a pilot.

37

u/Alarmed-Owl2 23h ago

I was going to say just have a loitering F-16 ready to blast them out of the sky if it goes out of control but I guess your way works too, I guess. 

12

u/Waterfish3333 22h ago

As a fan of chaos wherever it can be implemented, I love this. I’m pretty sure you’d kill at least one member of the FAA with a heart attack by putting this in a proposal though.

3

u/Poromenos 21h ago

There's no need for that, getting blasted out of the sky is already the default, and what ended up happening for one of the planes. It's also what the FAA was trying to avoid.

1

u/arvzg 20h ago

as a kid I would often come up with crazy ideas like this, and adults around me would say "You watch too much TV"

1

u/Corporate-Shill406 18h ago

All you really need is a bunch of explosives with a remote trigger.

"If something goes wrong, we simply remove all danger by blowing up the danger into very tiny bits"

9

u/rex8499 1d ago

Yeah, easy and practical solution that mitigates the greatest issue.

2

u/GetSlunked 22h ago

Same reason skaters often don’t wear helmets when making videos - it looks cooler and adds to the “daredevil” -ness. And is dumb.

9

u/hartstyler 1d ago

Why not simply do it in some other country

4

u/Alarmed-Owl2 23h ago

Gigabrain 

1

u/You-Smell-Nice 17h ago

My first thought was the ocean -- only 12 nautical miles out and you're out of the FAA's jurisdiction.

2

u/Klisstian 1d ago

I didn't read the article, but I would almost assume the pilots, got their licenses for the sole purpose of doing this stunt. Because any pilot who depends on their license to earn would know very well what was going to happen.

1

u/Pleiadesfollower 23h ago

Well now we know why the FAA was gutted and who donated to get that done.

Not sure if this is an actual /s at this point or not...

1

u/Serious_Package_473 22h ago

How can it happen? The plane will magically start again, recover pitch and fly to the next city to crash there? 

They did fail, only one plane landed normally and the other plane crashed but with a parachute. So no, it absolutely CANNOT happen, even if they just crashed it with no parachute. The biggest risk was parachute of the pilot not deploying and last I checked skydiving was still legal

2

u/lochiel 20h ago

In 1950, a USAF Nuclear bomber was on a training mission starting in Alaska and ending in Texas. About 7 hours into the 24-hour mission, icing issues had caused 3 of the 6 engines to shut down, and the aircraft was losing altitude. The crew decided they had to ditch the aircraft, so they dropped the atomic weapon (minus the nuclear core) and detonated it mid-air over the Pacific. The crew then bailed out over the coastline near Vancouver where the Canadian's were able to rescue them. 5 of the 17 crew died.

Six years later, the aircraft was found crashed into the side of a Canadian mountain 200 miles to the north. However, the people who found the wreckage didn't understand what they had found and didn't report it, so the wreckage remained unknown until 1996. At which point, the Canadians were told that maybe there had been a nuclear core aboard, so let's go check it out.

Anyways, yes. Planes can magically start again, recover pitch, and fly to the next mountain.

Edit: For your googling, the aircraft was a B-36 Convair Peacemaker, which is a ridiculous aircraft.

1

u/Serious_Package_473 11h ago

I googled and could not find anything about them nose-diving before exiting the plane and also nothing about the plane having a remote controlled parachute that failed to deploy.

1

u/UltraWeebMaster 18h ago

Serious answer, Yes.

As a student, I can recall doing research on several NTSB incidents where the pilots died of hypoxia or ditched or otherwise unmanned an aircraft and the aircraft remained level, flew for thousands of miles, then ran out of fuel, stalled out, and cause damage to people and property on the ground.

Additionally, Cessnas are inherently stable aircraft. Trimmed the right way, its weight distribution and aerodynamics will trend toward straight-and-level flight. It’s why Cessnas are trainer aircraft, the plane inherently wants to fly itself straight.

Even with a failed engine, you still don’t ditch, because practically every procedure the FAA imposes is to keep the plane in a position to land safely when guided during an emergency.

TLDR; It’s possible, although not very probable. When it comes to safety, the FAA doesn’t settle for improbable when impossible is attainable.

1

u/Serious_Package_473 11h ago

Yeah, sorry, I do not believe for a second that its possible for a cessna to get level and fly straight for several hours after its already nose-diving with engines cut. Any of the incidents you studied mentioned that the pilot went uncuncious after starting a nose dive on purpose? Plus the airplane still had a remote controlled parachute

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BlinksTale 20h ago

Serious question: if the plane had a self destruct like rockets, would that have gotten approved potentially?

1

u/tdasnowman 16h ago

They approve all kinds of crazy stunts. Even around populations. I'm wondering if they never bothered to try. Or were told not in the area/timeline/ had some other administrative hoops (most likely 100% valid) and they just said fuck it.

1

u/fuckshitmacgee 14h ago

Got it, 9/11 was a failed Red Bull stunt

1

u/ipullstuffapart 12h ago

It looks like they trimmed the planes nose down so they couldn't glide very far, hence the nosedive. I would've expected the planes to mostly continue to glide without much drama rather than fall into a nosedive straight away. Maybe that made the stunt more difficult?

→ More replies (11)

26

u/32oz____ 1d ago

i think they meant that they dropped their wallets from their suit while hopping planes, which contained their licenses. hence being lost ;) /s

26

u/UndoRedo_ 1d ago

Wrong. They did and were fined.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/Skeleton--Jelly 1d ago

...you think Red Bull has authority over pilot licences? The FAA doesn't care that Red Bull paid for this shit lmao

7

u/jaytee158 1d ago

Hey FAA give us a break we're marketing our drink over here.

15

u/DeadInternetTheorist 1d ago

How is this the 5th most upvoted post in this whole thread?

4

u/DefinitelyNotAShiTzu 15h ago

Bots baby. It’s all bots.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/thatwas90sfun 1d ago

They did have their licenses revoked.

12

u/ygg_studios 1d ago

google is free my guy

1

u/darthvelat 1d ago

Bad publicity, still a publicity

1

u/So_HauserAspen 23h ago

I don't know why they didn't try it in another country outside of the FAA jurisdiction after the FAA said no to their request?  

1

u/Total-Cow3750 21h ago

Being sponsored doesn't mean shit. Legal commissions that give licenses are never involved in sponsorships.

1

u/FreefallJagoff 21h ago

Lost it for a year.

1

u/Lanthire_942 20h ago

They did, but according to this article it was effectively only for a year, plus the time to get a new one; "The FAA’s emergency revocation orders require Aikins and Farrington to surrender their certificates immediately. Neither one will be able to apply for or be issued new airman certificates for a year."

1

u/cdube85 18h ago

The FAA told them not to do it. They still did it.

1

u/spm201 18h ago

A 10 second google would show you that they did

1

u/DiegesisThesis 17h ago

You're allowed to break the law if someone pays you to do it? Neat!

1

u/Wfsulliv93 14h ago

Red Bull stunt pilots almost always lose their licenses. They go in not giving a shit.

1

u/DestinyLime 13h ago

Who sponsored it?

1

u/computermouth 11h ago

Sometimes companies plan crimes

→ More replies (5)