3 ms·
It may still be hard to prove intent by distinguishing intent from stupidity. Also, if he intended to crash the plane, he did so very stupidly on top, by not fo
by bayesian_horse 5y ago
It may still be hard to prove intent by distinguishing intent from stupidity. Also, if he intended to crash the plane, he did so very stupidly on top, by not following most of what he should have done.
Just wearing a parachute in a plane is unusual and suspicious, but that can't be the kind of thing that holds up in court. There are legitimate reasons to jump out of a failing plane...
- pcurve 5y agoFAA isn't suing him though. FAA revoked the license. If he wants to get it back, I think the burden of proof lies with him to prove that it wasn't intentional, and made an attempt to the followings: > Did he make an attempt to look for safe landing spot? > Did he make an attempt to contact ATC? > Did he make an attempt to restart the engine? It almost doesn't matter what his intent was. He showed grossed negligence through his action.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoI didn't say he should get back his license. Just that it will be hard to prove intent to anyone who wants to prove it. He may want to get back his license through litigation and then yes, he might have a hard time because he made those "mistakes". I'd assume his insurance will have a word with him on the intent question though.
- itsyaboi 5y agoYou keep mentioning the proof of intent. Intent of what? The FAA revoked his license for operating the plane in a "careless or reckless manner". The pilot was judged on the results of his actions, not on coulda/woulda/shoulda intent.
- kube-system 5y agoThe FAA can take immediate regulatory action without involving a court.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoYes, which is my point.