Originally Posted by
Fl1ingfrog
An insurer is an expert in risk but not in the specific operation nor the maintenance of an aeroplane. The national aviation bodies do that and they provide the expertise and rules that the insurer relies on.
FYI: insurance providers in the US do not consult with the FAA with any regularity on how to write their policies. These providers employ experienced pilots and mechanics on staff for that purpose or retain 3rd party consultants to provide the necessary aviation expertise. It might be different where you fly but that is not how things work here.
An application for the stunt was made to the FAA but was rejected. No underwriter will ever consider insuring a flight that is to be intentionally conducted illegally.
There was no application made for the stunt as no application was required for the stunt flight. One pilot requested an exemption to Part 91.105 which requires a crewmember to be at their station during flight. Since he would be leaving his required station during the flight he would have violated 91.105. The FAA denied that specific exemption request and not the flight. His original exemption request, additional submission docs, and the FAA replies are all a matter of public record if you care to read them. And as I mentioned above the insurance provider would have known about all the details prior to that flight as well IF they issued a policy. Simple.