>>tafda+(OP)
A bit of context is that the FAA doesn't want plane crashes at all (unless you're NASA), even "safe ones" because of the public image, so it's extremely difficult to get a waiver for a stunt if there is a real risk of crashing an airplane, even if it's empty and as safe as possible, it's not about safety, it's about public image. People afraid of flying are a very difficult crowd to manage.
>>SirMas+kO1
Yes, there are real planes sometimes used in movie stunts for doing crashes, it's not all CGI, although most is, doing real things like that costs a lot of money.
But regardless, if "not scaring fly-scared people" was actually a concern, any planes crashing in movies would be forbidden, not just real planes crashing in movies. But it's not.
>>capabl+GR1
Not likely given the broad sweep of the First Amendment. Much easier for the FAA to deny a license to crash a plane under various safety rationales than to say "you can't show that because of the message" in the United States. The latter is almost certainly unconstitutional.