Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Fake Plane Crash YouTuber Admits He Broke Federal Law" video.

@RustyorBroken Right, so long as there is nobody at the stick, the only time the FAA will ever allow that is if there's a real problem with the plane that prevents it from being landed. Simply having an engine cut out isn't automatically justification for bailing out because planes can potentially fly a fair distance even without an engine running and it's better to have the plane in good condition when the feds come in and investigate why the failure happened. Planes can often times be safely landed even without an engine, but for obvious reasons it is risky and best only done if you have a legitimate problem with the engine that wasn't identified prior to take off.
5
@MikinessAnalog Yep, the only time I've ever been in a small cessna, my dad was having an introductory flight lesson and none of us were wearing parachutes. It was a small plane that wasn't flying high enough to have room for inexperienced parachutists and need very little room to land if need be. As long as the wings and flaps operated, there was relatively little risk of even wanting to bail out. I'm sure the risk of not pulling the cord in time and trying to clear the plane would have been more than trying to land the thing without engine power.
3
@ulbuilder I'm curious if any flight school would be wiling to accept him. Yes, money talks, but I wouldn't imagine that an instructor would want to teach somebody that previously had a license and lost it due to intentionally crashing the plane.
2
@TheGuruStud Just crashing it on your property (Admittedly that would be hard without autopilot) would probably only break environmental protection laws if any apply. That being said, he's likely to get sued if the contract for the advert didn't involve staging a fake crash and it could be either civil or criminal fraud if he didn't disclose that. If he did disclose it, then likely the company would also be liable for some of it.
1
@christopherg2347 Crashing into or near a populated area because of gross negligence is a pretty big deal whereas crashing in the middle of nowhere has much less impact on other people. If the plane had somehow managed to hit an occupied building and killed somebody on the ground, it would be manslaughter. Plus, if it just destroyed something on the ground, but didn't hurt or kill anybody, it would likely be a destruction of property related crime the same as if you run over somebody's mailbox while driving recklessly.
1