That would, at best, get you a 709 ride (reexamination by the FAA to see if you really do qualify to hold your pilot certificate) or mandatory re-training. There is no universe in which the FAA would hear that and just say, "lol, totes, we get it man, planes are hard." Responding appropriately to an engine failure is a required skill for even the most basic pilot certificate and if you can't do it, you have no business flying an airplane.

Having had the forethought to wear a parachute and the steady nerves to use a selfie stick on the way down, among other things mentioned in the article, would complicate this defense.

Also:

> “During this flight, you opened the left side pilot door before you claimed the engine had failed,” the F.A.A. wrote.

A private pilot's license is a privilege, and being somewhat resistant to panic is one of the prerequisites of that privilege.

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.

> A private pilot's license is a privilege

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.

It is a privilege though; just based on:

- 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.

Having the fortune of health/time/money is a privilege. Getting the license after meeting the requirements should automatically follow and not be at the whims of privilege.

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.

Yup I see the distinction and I agree with you. It also means that you will loose that right for breaking any rules / regulations of that license; but the gray area I guess is the unwritten rules governing safety alongside written ones.

We’ll likely see amendments codifying those unwritten rules into existing legislation soon enough.

The FAA are not going to come down on you hard if you panic, but if you're dumb enough to make it clear that you're faking that panic for youtube views, they're going to throw every single book possible at you.

And I doubt this is the final action. FAA can't criminally prosecute but they can refer to the DOJ.

This would actually probably fly just fine … if he hadn’t posted the video with evidence against himself.

NTSB might still investigate and determine the plane has nothing noticeably wrong however.

The NTSB doesn’t even travel to every GA fatal accident, let alone one reported as an old T-craft engine failure with no injuries (assuming the case where he didn’t post the video).

Of course, without the intent of posting the video, that plane doesn’t crash, so the NTSB doesn’t come looking then either.

You can say whatever you want, and many people who break the law do exactly that.

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.

Yes, but there's a lot of evidence that this was pre planned.