zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
It's funny how if you are a major corporation with fat government contracts you can systematically destroy your engineering department, ostracize whistleblowers, and wind up killing hundreds of people and nobody gets punished and the FAA will even be on your side, like the Boeing thing.

but if you make a youtube stunt that hurts nobody you can get 20 years in prison and the FAA acts like you besmirched the stellar reputation of the aviation industry.

>>fatnec+Gt1
Both should suffer serious consequences IMO. Boeing more so.

>>jjalle+rx1
Yes, but 20 years for this dude is a bit excessive, no? Especially when nobody was killed or injured?

>>akudha+Wy1
That’s the maximum. He’ll get something less than that. He could have killed lots of people in a bad enough fire.

>>jjalle+fH1
Nah. A fire is unlikely here.

>>byyyy+DZ1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Rafael_Wilderness#Climate

> Rain is extremely rare in the summer, and dry lightning from the occasional thunderstorms can start fires.

https://lpfw.org/san-rafael-wilderness-50-years-of-preservin...

> Wildfire frequency is an increasing concern in the San Rafael Wilderness. Over the past fifty years, three wildfires have together burned nearly the entire wilderness area, beginning with the 1966 Wellman Fire, the 1993 Marre Fire, the 2007 Zaca Fire, and the 2009 La Brea Fire. Overly-frequent fire in chaparral can permanently alter the ecosystem, depleting the seed bank and making it prone to invasions of non-native weeds.

>>shagie+pm2
Good sources. But a crashed small plane is unlikely to start a fire anymore than a car accident will go up in flames (basically never happens).

Starting a fire or crashing a small plane/car are completely orthogonal situations.

Your sources point to weather/climate as the causal source of wild fires.