In 2012, a team of television studios crashed a Boeing 727 in Mexico (to film footage) because US authorities would not permit the test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...
So I'm guessing that outside of very specific scenarios, you would have a hard time getting permission to deliberately crash a plane anywhere in the US.
I’ve wanted to know ever since I saw the same clip in a few films, including Airplane 2
> the F.A.A. said he had violated federal aviation regulations and operated his single-engine plane in a “careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”
the FAA did say he wore a parachute (unusual), opened the door before the engine quit, didn't follow procedure to attempt to restart the engine, and intentionally climbed out of the plane to film it rather than attempting to land it.
It is much more precise to just forbid "endangering people/property" than it is to try to enumerate every action that could be dangerous and then adding exceptions.
For instance: https://youtu.be/zuynxwQMad4
I am saying that the problem is that he was careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
I am suggesting that a controlled crash where someone was not careless or reckless would probably not be a problem. Say for instance, in a controlled crash test by a manufacturer.
I assume there's some permitting regime, and of course you'd need to find a place to do it, but probably nothing too onerous by the standard of being able to buy a whole airplane specifically to wreck it.
edit: I was close! It's a Boeing 720, a short-range variant of the 707. https://youtu.be/Jpc32JQXT_0
There probably isn't a specific permit or process for two primary reasons.
Firstly, crashing a plane intentionally is a rare thing and (until now, apparently) isn't the kind of thing the riff raff do so there's no reason to throw up barriers to keep the riff raff out nor enough volume requests to warrant a an institutional process for dishing out said denials.
Second, it is naive to expect a government agency to stick their neck out and accept some degree of liability for something like this (which is what approving a comprehensive plan would do). It's not like there's highly developed industry standards for plane crashing they can rely on.
The closest you'll get to a "permit" is probably the FAA knowing your intentions in advance and not objecting.
If you're something like a movie studio, you bring in the experts that help you plan a stunt to be done safely. Insured. Plan, plan plan. Also probably get permits, have fire fighters on standby, etc. Basically the exact opposite of "careless or reckless".
Here's a description of one such series of tests, and some video:
Somewhere there’s a form that allows you to crash a plane legally, I’d bet. Probably be a much longer form for a commercial plane though
It has been done. I'm pretty sure Howard Hughes wasn't cited for crashing his plane while filming Hell's Angels.
Maybe he should have been, though. Even though he survived the crash and it was an accident, four people died doing the stunts for that movie.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_role_...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Transcontinental_%26_West...
(Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_role_...)
Yep. And, they do. Usually it's in a controlled environment. Just like you don't see automakers crash testing on the highways ;).
Here's an example of what it looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbFMogBNUa0
> “During this flight, you opened the left side pilot door before you claimed the engine had failed,” the F.A.A. wrote.
When you're in the air alone, there is no one to rely on but yourself, and failure to exercise proper judgment can kill people on the ground. So the FAA has broad leeway to determine that you don't have the right mindset for a private pilot's license.
I hate calling things like this a privilege. It's licensed and regulated for the safety and benefit of the people who fly and live underneath airspace (all of us).
There are too many things involving the government that have turned into privileges where it takes knowing someone or being able to afford access to obtain action.
- Having the money to afford the training for the pilots license
- Having the time to complete the training and stay current
- Having no health issues that may deny you a medical
It is pretty out of reach for most people with out the time / funds for it.
I do get what you're saying, but there are people using "privilege not a right" literally to mean that someone gets to decide whether the person is worthy beyond some standard criteria.
We’ll likely see amendments codifying those unwritten rules into existing legislation soon enough.
And I doubt this is the final action. FAA can't criminally prosecute but they can refer to the DOJ.
NTSB might still investigate and determine the plane has nothing noticeably wrong however.
Of course, without the intent of posting the video, that plane doesn’t crash, so the NTSB doesn’t come looking then either.
But in the end, evidence may show that you are not being truthful. For example, if the evidence demonstrates that you premeditated your actions, then nobody is going to believe that it was a split second mistake.
In this case, it clearly wasn't (crashing on public lands with risk of starting a wildfire and polluting them), but if you wanted to crash a plane for a scene in a movie, could you do so? Maybe crashing on private property in a predetermined location with appropriate fire department support and prior notification to air traffic control about your intentions?
Can manufacturers perform genuine crashes (from controlled flight) on private property for safety tests, the way car manufacturers perform tests with crash test dummies?