Bailing out...Hypothetical situation question

flhrci

flhrci

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
5,932
Location
Groveport, OH
Display Name
Display name:
David
The recent Trever Jacob plane crash stunt situation makes me wonder...

What he did was wrong, acknowledging that. If I read the FAA's stance on this correctly, they say he could have landed the plane if the engine was really out instead of bailing out. I agree without being familiar with the area he was in.

My question is this: What if you decide you want to fly a 172 with a pilot's safety parachute and something goes horribly wrong and you feel you cannot glide to safety and bail out. Are they going to come after you to?

I realize its unusual to see pilots wear chutes in a 172 or similar plane, but no one says we can't. Just thinkin. When is it ok to bail out and when is it not? Hmm...

Please don't shoot the messenger here.
 
flhrci said:
The recent Trever Jacob plane crash stunt situation makes me wonder...

What he did was wrong, acknowledging that. If I read the FAA's stance on this correctly, they say he could have landed the plane if the engine was really out instead of bailing out. I agree without being familiar with the area he was in.

My question is this: What if you decide you want to fly a 172 with a pilot's safety parachute and something goes horribly wrong and you feel you cannot glide to safety and bail out. Are they going to come after you to?

I realize its unusual to see pilots wear chutes in a 172 or similar plane, but no one says we can't. Just thinkin. When is it ok to bail out and when is it not? Hmm...

Please don't shoot the messenger here.
Click to expand...
Not unless there are a dozen other things that you do including having 6 cameras running, one in your hand when you jump out.
 
I like to think that the FAA can distinguish between an actual emergency in which the pilot determined that the safest course of action was to hit the silk, and a transparent publicity stunt done strictly for the purpose of monetizing clicks on social media.

But I don't know.
 
GaryM said:
I like to think that the FAA can distinguish between an actual emergency in which the pilot determined that the safest course of action was to hit the silk, and a transparent publicity stunt done strictly for the purpose of monetizing clicks on social media.

But I don't know.
Click to expand...
I would hope so to.
 
flhrci said:
If I read the FAA's stance on this correctly, they say he could have landed the plane if the engine was really out instead of bailing out.
Click to expand...
I don't think you read it correctly.

I think the FAA concluded Jacob deliberately crashed a plane. The fact that he made no attempt to land after the "engine out" is evidence to support that conclusion.

Pilots wear parachutes every day. The FARs even require it under some circumstances.
 
flhrci said:
My question is this: What if you decide you want to fly a 172 with a pilot's safety parachute and something goes horribly wrong and you feel you cannot glide to safety and bail out. Are they going to come after you to?
Click to expand...
Yes, if by "something goes horribly wrong" you mean that you intentionally planned to stage an emergency, intentionally making the aircraft unairworthy, so that when the engine inevitably goes quiet you film yourself jumping out of the cockpit, leaving the plane to auger in some random spot...
 
I don’t recall…the plane he was flying was aerobatic? And you only actually need to wear a chute if you’re doing aerobatics, correct?
 
Only need a chute with aerobatics if there is more than one person. Oddly, it doesn’t look required for solo aerobatics.

Do need one for throwing meat bombs if there isn’t a divider.
 
eman1200 said:
I don’t recall…the plane he was flying was aerobatic? And you only actually need to wear a chute if you’re doing aerobatics, correct?
Click to expand...
Depends how you define “aerobatic”.

the actual reg is about bank and pitch angles.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds -

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
Click to expand...
Otherwise, mostly what @Tools said, except that it’s more than crewmember(s).
 
So has there been any semi recent examples of someone wearing a safety chute that did have to bail as their last option. Jump pilots at our field always wear a chute
 
Wearing a parachute along with fire extinguishers strapped to your legs might invite further scrutiny by the authorities and your peers.
 
benyflyguy said:
So has there been any semi recent examples of someone wearing a safety chute that did have to bail as their last option. Jump pilots at our field always wear a chute
Click to expand...
The only one I can remember in any detail as the GippsAero GA10 that went in in...2018? but that was in flight test and isn't exactly representative of a typical flight. There have been several glider bailouts in recent history but I don't have details immediately at hand.

Nauga,
who is ready to go
 
benyflyguy said:
So has there been any semi recent examples of someone wearing a safety chute that did have to bail as their last option. Jump pilots at our field always wear a chute
Click to expand...

Midair at Duxford a few years ago.

I recall a story, a while back, of a guy who had to bail out of a Citabria. He was doing solo aerobatics and the rear stick got hung up on the seat belt.
 
flhrci said:
My question is this: What if you decide you want to fly a 172 with a pilot's safety parachute and something goes horribly wrong and you feel you cannot glide to safety and bail out. Are they going to come after you to?
Click to expand...

It's actually a good question that was discussed a lot after the stunt. Fact is, the FAA isn't going to "come after you" without a boatload of evidence like a twenty minute video on YouTube that pretty much proved you violated a whole lot of rules. But even if they did and you told your whole story without lying to them you'd be okay. I'm pretty sure Trevor lied to them - he knows it, they know it and well, it's probably THE pet peeve of the FAA or any Governmental agency. They don't like lies.
 
Silvaire said:
… THE pet peeve of the FAA or any Governmental agency. They don't like lies.
Click to expand...
They also know making a materially false statement to a federal agent or agency can get you five years. See 18 USC 1001.
 
I think Trevor nailed his coffin shut when he removed the wreckage before the FAA could examine it.
 
I think he did that when he opened the airplane door and said “I have to jump out”

the trouble with this hypothetical is that if you ever need it, you will almost never have a parachute. If you really do need it (airplane on fire at 10,000’) and you have it, there won’t be a question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top