The easiest way to write off (total) your aircraft
Not sure it is the easiest, but there’s a good way:
Those two C182 had BRS STC? I guess you could recover some stuff
and the result…
The chute landed safely 
Who knows, maybe he tried a RedBull stunt, but failed, just as RedBull did 
The FAA wasn’t too pleased about that stunt either. The largest difference seems to be that the RedBull stunt was positively illegal.
LeSving wrote:
the RedBull stunt was positively illegal
Yep, and here’s AVWeb Paul Bertorelli’s take at it, once more brilliant analysis. Plane Swap Gone Half Bad; FAA Not Amused:
The largest difference seems to be that the RedBull stunt was positively illegal.
If they actually succeed, we would not hear lot of these arguments (as always with reckless operation under FAR91.13), the fact that they crashed now means the case belongs to NTSB/FAA even if no one was hurt, I am sure they will get away from FAR91.13 as they had a relatively good track record of testing and the pilots “are professional” stunt guys with “good history”
I tend to agree with AVWeb on what is going to backfire on them: “not following the process to bypass the requirement to have someone on-board”, the FAA will hit hard on this: there is no way they would let it go and set precedent, especially, as Redbull crash was after Trevor stunt…also, there will be no room for leeway during NTSB/FAA audit, even missing docs about operation testings & results will surely send someone to the gutter
Ibra wrote:
If they actually succeed, we would not hear lot of these arguments (as always with reckless operation under FAR91.13), the fact that they crashed now means the case belongs to NTSB/FAA even if no one was hurt, I am sure they will get away from FAR91.13 as they had a relatively good track record of testing and the pilots “are professional” stunt guys with “good history”
I think that FAR 91.3, and FAR 91.105 were violated by their actions, as each pilot planned to, and did leave a required crewmember station in flight, and did not assure control of the airplane was maintained. And yes, FAR 91.13, because a needlessly abandoned airplane was destroyed.
In addition to those obvious violations, these two irresponsible people do an immense disservice to those of us who appreciate airplanes, and the privilege to fly safely. When I think of all the people who would be so delighted to fly at all, why to these fools have to waste airplanes dangerously for a Youtube moment? I have zero compassion for them in the FAA enforcement they will soon face! And I similarly agree with the punishment enforced against the Taylorcraft wasting guy. None of them should ever have a pilot privilege again.
They are parachutistes: they throw sofas with couch with TV attached to them or even jump without parachutes, none of that did fall under FAA/NTSB scope even when human meat smashes the ground
An aircraft crashing without pilot is different story but I am sure they will get away from FAR91.13, although it depends on what they have prepared to mitigate all the risks, especially for third party, getting away from FAR91.105 and their refused waiver, no way, the FAA has to take action, otherwise we will see a YT video every month !
Ibra wrote:
getting away from FAR91.105 and their refused waiver, no way, the FAA has to take action, otherwise we will see a YT video every month !
Absolutely!
I hope that somehow, Red Bull begins to get a bad name for being associated with this type of nonsense!
