Go watch the guy's other videos. I think that flight was about the tamest thing I've seen.
click on the username under the video in youtube.
Judging from his other videos(mostly jumping) I would suspect that the pilot was not the same guy. One flying video(in the airplane). Maybe his pilot friend? Then again maybe he just went to an FBO and convinced them to rent him a plane and he went for it based on his MSFS experience. Who knows.
Probably the same thing that makes a pilot do this?
Possibly, but that doesn't mean he violated any rules/contracts unless low-altitude flight was explicitly prohibited. If it's an FBO with a bunch of other aircraft, they may not like it, but if he's got insurance coverage I don't know if it'd be enough to prohibit him renting again.
So . . . your argument is based on what might have happened, huh? Since neither you, nor I, was in the aircraft during this event, it's pointless to play the speculation game and throw out every regulation (FAA and local) that could be in question. He could have been completely within every reg, or violated a dozen. No proof either way.
I wasn't implying they'd need a legal reason to prohibit him from renting. I was implying that they may not care if the person didn't damage or mistreat the aircraft in any way, and is insured so that is covers the loss of their aircraft, and revenue from loss of use. They would be made whole and continue on. Whether that's a prudent decision is up to the rental outfit, but no reason to assume one way or the other, especially if this guy was renting the bird for 20 hours a month.
Certainly a concern, but that's definitely a grey area if it was shown that no regs were busted in the video you saw. . . although liability in a civil case can be unpredictable. What is the liability of an owner/operator who has seen a video in which no laws were broken, but the risk level was increased due to low-altitude maneuvers?
I suppose, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure what the burden of proof is for a civil case (obviously not the same as criminal case law). If it was shown that proper planning and care was taken for the flight, and the flight had been made numerous times without incident, then it becomes less careless and reckless. Like I said, all sorts of what-ifs can be thought up to justify renting or not renting to the guy, but chances are, it was his aircraft anyway.
I learned that tip from Dudley Henriques. He used to fly a P-51 at airshows. He said that only a very small amount of nose-up is required or desired, because you don't want to stall if you let go and you don't want your arms to tire out. Additional upside is that there's a certain slop in controls that loading them takes out.
