Entering an aircraft in flight
The rest of the FAA correspondence is in this AvWeb article: https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/...ne-swap-stunt/
There are three letters with a couple more pages each specifying the FAA's take on the stunt and the measures that result from it.
There are three letters with a couple more pages each specifying the FAA's take on the stunt and the measures that result from it.
whether RB bought a policy I cannot confirm except that from strictly a liability standpoint vs hull-loss they would be stupid not too.
It depends on how the insurance policy is written at least in the US.
Moderator
So if red bull had an experimental exhibition policy on both 182s for the proposed flight and an insurance company wrote the policy they would pay the claim.
Well.... one of the aircraft got out of control, went into a spin and crashed after the pilot exited the aircraft. It's just the sequence of these events that's in the wrong order.
Half the aircraft accidents/incidents in the US involve some sort of operator error or rule violation but those insurance policies still pay out after such events regardless of the pilot's actions. It's the law. For example, recently a provider denied a damage claim due to the pilot lacked the "proper qualifications." However, that denial was overturned in court and required the provider to pay. The cause of the accident... he ran out of fuel. The only people the insurance providers can blame is themselves. But then again the same industry that writes policies to cover weekend warriors who fly into the ground on a regular basis is the same industry who continues to write multi-million dollar policies for high rise condos that get wiped out by hurricanes every 10 years or so on the GOM.
Last edited by wrench1; 16th May 2022 at 19:13.
Moderator
For the few non aviation insurance claims I have been involved with, the entry point to discussion of a payout seemed to have been: Did the damage result from deliberate action, or accidental action? Pilot runs out of fuel, not bright, but arguably accidental. Pilot deliberately (and evidently preplanned) abandons the plane for no reason associate with the pilot's safety = deliberate action resulting in a loss. Though I doubt we will hear, were there to be an insurance payout on the airplane, I would be fascinated to hear the basis for finding it to be an insurable loss. To me, this is akin to bailing out of your car the moment before it went off a cliff you deliberately pointed it toward. The crash at the bottom and destruction of the car was not accidental.
a number of the policies out there in the US do not itemize how the aircraft is maintained or operated
There will always be the exceptional circumstances that require specific permissions and oversite. The FAA in this instance have a protocol in place to deal with such applications. 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.
Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 16th May 2022 at 22:33.
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.
Moderator
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.