Roush Suvives Another Plane Crash

Re: Roush Survives Another Plane Crash

Bandit_Driver said:
91.13 No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another and a 709 ride for starters.
Click to expand...
Not even close. 91.13 would be if he were intentionally "buzzing" or purposely aiming at a crowd. Losing control and snagging a wing/stalling is not "careless and reckless," it will read "pilot failed to maintain control of his aircraft during landing/go around." He didn't purposely endanger anyone, he was trying to avoid endangering someone....he just lost SA and it got away.

Another observation: It must have been REALLY slow to only slide 150-200ft and largely intact.
 
Re: Roush Survives Another Plane Crash

NJA_Capt said:
Not even close. 91.13 would be if he were intentionally "buzzing" or purposely aiming at a crowd. Losing control and snagging a wing/stalling is not "careless and reckless," it will read "pilot failed to maintain control of his aircraft during landing/go around." He didn't purposely endanger anyone, he was trying to avoid endangering someone....he just lost SA and it got away.

Another observation: It must have been REALLY slow to only slide 150-200ft and largely intact.
Click to expand...

I like you definition but the FAA has never defined careless and reckless... We'll have to wait and see
 
Re: Roush Survives Another Plane Crash

NJA_Capt said:
Not even close. 91.13 would be if he were intentionally "buzzing" or purposely aiming at a crowd. Losing control and snagging a wing/stalling is not "careless and reckless," it will read "pilot failed to maintain control of his aircraft during landing/go around." He didn't purposely endanger anyone, he was trying to avoid endangering someone....he just lost SA and it got away.
Click to expand...

Agreed; there is an enormous difference between a mistake and a crime. One warrants FAA action and the other does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top