The Feds Are Investigating a YouTuber Accused of Crashing a Plane For Views (thedrive.com) 185
A YouTuber and former Olympic snowboarder has been accused of crashing his plane on purpose for clicks, and the FAA has opened an investigation to get to the bottom of the growing mess. The Drive reports: Trevor Jacob has been the subject of online criticism after posting a YouTube video where he parachuted from a Taylorcraft BL64 plane and filmed it crashing into the hills of the Los Padres National Forest near Cuyama, California. The video outlined his newly-purchased Taylorcraft's final flight on Nov. 24, 2021, a trip from the Lompoc City Airport in Santa Barbara to Mammoth Lakes where he planned to partake in some general adventuring like paragliding and snowboarding. [If Nov. 24 rings a familiar bell in your head, that's the same day that D.B. Cooper famously jumped from a hijacked plane with $200,000 in ransom 50 years prior.] Jacob also mentioned that he would be spreading the ashes of his friend Johnny Strange during the flight. Strange was killed in a wingsuit accident in 2015 and Jacob explains that he loved the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
During the flight, however, the Taylorcraft's engine supposedly lost power, stalled, and could not be restarted. Jacob then points the plane nose-down and exits, sending the unoccupied aircraft into the ground. Jacob continued to film himself as he descended and proclaimed, "This is why I always fly with a parachute." He then trekked back to the wreckage and hiked until a farmer, who he credits with saving his life, found him in the darkness. This is where things started to go south.
The video of the incident was posted to YouTube where it immediately began racking up views. The aviation sector of YouTube wasted no time picking apart Jacob's claims. At the time of writing, the video has reached over one million views. It also amassed more than 5,000 comments, many of which called out the crash as being staged. Comments on the video have since been turned off, but that hasn't stopped people from making reaction and explainer videos that point out abnormalities in the pilot's videos. It's worth noting here that some suspect the video currently on Jacob's YouTube to be a trimmed-down version of what was originally uploaded. However, a few of the segments can be found when looking at other videos uploaded by YouTubers critiquing the pilot's handling of the situation. [...] "Whether or not Jacob will be prosecuted for the crash, or if he will have his pilot's license revoked, will take some time to play out," concludes Rob Stumpf via The Drive. "The FAA is notoriously thorough in investigating matters like these and often takes a year or longer to produce a final report and recommendation. But most importantly, if the FAA does decide he's guilty, it must prove that Jacob showed intent to break the law and federal aviation regulations."
During the flight, however, the Taylorcraft's engine supposedly lost power, stalled, and could not be restarted. Jacob then points the plane nose-down and exits, sending the unoccupied aircraft into the ground. Jacob continued to film himself as he descended and proclaimed, "This is why I always fly with a parachute." He then trekked back to the wreckage and hiked until a farmer, who he credits with saving his life, found him in the darkness. This is where things started to go south.
The video of the incident was posted to YouTube where it immediately began racking up views. The aviation sector of YouTube wasted no time picking apart Jacob's claims. At the time of writing, the video has reached over one million views. It also amassed more than 5,000 comments, many of which called out the crash as being staged. Comments on the video have since been turned off, but that hasn't stopped people from making reaction and explainer videos that point out abnormalities in the pilot's videos. It's worth noting here that some suspect the video currently on Jacob's YouTube to be a trimmed-down version of what was originally uploaded. However, a few of the segments can be found when looking at other videos uploaded by YouTubers critiquing the pilot's handling of the situation. [...] "Whether or not Jacob will be prosecuted for the crash, or if he will have his pilot's license revoked, will take some time to play out," concludes Rob Stumpf via The Drive. "The FAA is notoriously thorough in investigating matters like these and often takes a year or longer to produce a final report and recommendation. But most importantly, if the FAA does decide he's guilty, it must prove that Jacob showed intent to break the law and federal aviation regulations."
Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a private pilot (regular PPL-ASEL) and this thing has been going around the aviation forums for a few weeks. It's quite obviously staged. Nobody "always flys with a parachute" - much less a full skydiving rig (he wasn't wearing a normal emergency chute). Despite claiming that he "always" flys with a parachute he's never seen wearing one in any other of his Youtube videos while flying. That tiny Taylorcraft could have been easily sat down just about anywhere, yet the first thing he did was bail out of the plane. Oh yeah and grab his selfie stick and film his goofy reaction all the way down.
Plus he apparently tried (maybe succeeded - I've heard conflicting reports) to charter a helicopter to remove the wreckage before the NTSB could examine it.
It was a stupid stunt that potentially could have injured someone on the ground or started a wildfire, and it was an absolute waste of a classic airplane. I don't know if there are any criminal charges that will stick, but I hope to goodness the FAA yanks this guys' license for life.
Re: Obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no question in this video who the party involved is so your example is kind of weird. Clearly the situation is pretty different. Saying nothing is obviously his best tactic, but, it's too late! He already said stuff on the video. Some of those things are specific claims which, if false, will harm him. So you're right, and also wrong, but more to the point he's already not taken your advice.
Re: Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was to him I'd lawyer up and not say anything. Online sleuths always think they know best. I love the incident of the croud sourced Boston marathon bomber detectives. If I recall, lots of innocent people were accused of being the bombers by online d-bags who probably can't hold down a 9-5. I can't imagine the situation being much different here.
While a cool story, the people who have analyzed his vid include flying instructors and highly qualified pilots. They have caught bits of evidence like his working to make the prop stop rotating for the camera. It should have been windmilling. In fact it was windmilling after he bailed
The nonsensical inconsistencies of instead of trying to get back to civilization after landing, and hiking back to the wreck to retrieve the cameras that just happened to be in a great place to record, the pilot side door unlatched before the plane suffered it's so called engine failure, and other head scratchers noted by qualified professionals and knowledgeable others. None of the people I've seen appear to be your dirtbags. Problem is, he provided all the evidence needed to show that it was a scripted event.
Obvious that he crashed on purpose (Score:3)
The video shows that there were places for him to land behind. Any normal pilot would have just glided to safety, and probably not even bent the airplane.
He should have fudged something like a failed elevator. That would indeed be a good reason to bail. But also pretty dangerous -- it is not easy to exit a gyrating aircraft.
Publishing the video was a dubious move.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was bugging me. Why would you immediately bail from an engine failure and not try to glide to a safe location?
The whole thing feels so staged and designed to attract attention.
Re: (Score:3)
That was bugging me. Why would you immediately bail from an engine failure and not try to glide to a safe location? The whole thing feels so staged and designed to attract attention.
The videos show a gravel riverbed that he could have easily reached, that Alaskan bush pilots would have considered the equivalent of an international airport.
Re: (Score:3)
A failed elevator would be a flight control system malfunction, which under federal regulations unconditionally requires an immediate report to the NTSB. If he had been doing some planning ahead for this stunt he probably would have known that, and wouldn't want that much attention from the feds right away.
Re: Obvious that he crashed on purpose (Score:2)
The one video I recently saw they pointed out they noticed fire extinguishers tucked up in each of his lower pant legs.
The assumption is he was prepared to try to extinguish any fire sparked by the crash before he even took off.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he have a second reserve parachute? If so, it was definitely deliberate, pilot parachutes do not. They also are rather crude round ones that land you with a big thump, just designed to save your life and be comfortable to wear -- nobody expects to actually use them. Video did not show it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Obvious that he crashed on purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Except a few things.
First, very few pilots actually wear a parachute when they fly. Outside of the military, only aerobatic pilots don a chute as a matter of course.
Second, a skydiving parachute rig is not what a pilot wears if they do wear a parachute.
Third, crap happens. You pack a survival kit with stuff you need for the terrain you're going to cross. If you're going to cross a mountain range, you bring stuff just in case you need to set down on a mountain. It's just good piloting. It would include the basics to survive (fire, water, clothing, first aid). Some gear is even mandatory - if you're flying over water and can't glide to land, you must carry life preservers and potentially, a life raft.
The plane is still controllable even with the engine out. It turns into a really bad glider, but no airplane, from small little GA aircraft to a 747, drops out of the sky if the engines fail (and yes, 747s have had all 4 engines fail, as well as 737s (see Gimli Glider), and A320s.
Here's another question - he has cameras mounted in the wings and plane. He obviously doesn't take them before he leaves, and they don't record wirelessly to another device like a phone.
So how'd he get the footage? The only way is to recover the cameras afterwards because you need to retrieve the memory cards holding the video.
Benefit of the doubt is good, but it's going to be one of those that requires a pretty good explanation.
Especially since he had time to go and edit the footage to post it to YouTube, rather than report it to the NTSB and such who would be very interested in knowing.
You can also bet the entire aviation community will be coming down hard on the guy because it paints a very negative image of aviation to the public. It's likely going to cause the FAA to issue new rules that make life as a pilot harder and more burdensome, and it's not a good look.
The only good news for him is that he'll be getting a lot of coverage because there's going to be a lot of things happening in his life for the next decade because there's going to likely be court cases that are going to be dragged out.
Re: (Score:3)
The plane is still controllable even with the engine out. It turns into a really bad glider, but no airplane, from small little GA aircraft to a 747, drops out of the sky if the engines fail (and yes, 747s have had all 4 engines fail, as well as 737s (see Gimli Glider), and A320s.
I'm not disagreeing with your point in the slightest, however I think it needs to be pointed out to anyone non-aviation minded that an uncontrolled landing (called "ditching" when done on water) is incredibly difficult with larger planes. This is why we name the incidents like the Glimi Glider or the Miracle on the Hudson. Both of those were with "medium" aircraft (B737 and A320 respectively). Heavies (I.E. B747/777/787 and A330/350/380) are much more difficult and I'm not sure if a successful landing of a
Re: Obvious that he crashed on purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
It was definitely staged.
- The plane was an old plane that was previously being sold for parts
- He had drained and disconnected the wing fuel tank
- He was wearing a sport parachute, not a pilot's emergency parachute
- Despite his claim to always wear a parachute, this was the first video he posted of him flying with a parachute
- He was flying unusually high for an aircraft of that type (approx. 10k feet) but not unusually high if you are about to make a parachute jump
- He had the door open before the engine stopped
- He apparently made no attempt to restart the engine (at least, it wasn't shown)
- He spent time slowing the plane down either to stop the prop from windmilling for dramatic effect or to make it easier to open the door
- As he bailed out, he had a fire extinguisher strapped to his leg, presumably in case the wreck caught fire
- During his free fall and parachute descent there are numerous places visible where he could have landed the plane
- He lands in some kind of bush or thicket in spite of having a sport parachute that would allow him to choose his landing spot
- Instead of going back to civilisation to get help, he first hikes to the wreck to retrieve his cameras.
- The "farmers" that he eventually makes contact with are not shown, so you can't recognise them. Speculation is that they were the extraction crew.
- Allegedly, after reporting the accident, he hired a helicopter to remove the wreckage aka evidence. It had certainly gone by January 5th.
Re: Obvious that he crashed on purpose (Score:2)
What this guy did was "Jackass" taken up a notch.
Lucky for him nobody was killed on the ground in his quest for moar viewz.
Re: (Score:2)
To play devil's advocate: Is there a minimum altitude for parachute deployment?
And if there is, is it better to bail out early while that minimum altitude can be made, or is it better to go down with the plane in an unpowered glide, assuming that the structure of the plane will take a lot of the impact?
Re: Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
There needs to be some form of curb in play that flattens out payout as they approach a certain level to serve as a disincentive for reckless abandon of safety.
You are too kind. I can suggest a better curve. It should go to zero, and the channel be entirely banned, and all videos removed and the channel owner should be banned from the platform for a decade.
People did enough stupid shit growing up when only their immediate friends could see them. We do NOT need a big pile of cash incentives to make that worse. We live in a high tech, high energy society. The opportunities for destruction are far too high to allow this sort of thing to propagate. What happens when some fuckwit decides to aim a truck at an electrical substation, puts a brick on the accelerator, and bails out with his camera, for the fucking ad revenue?
As other posters have pointed out, this is going to drag through the courts for a decade. The consequences need to be much much much sooner than that, and hit 'em where they live, in their revenue stream.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:4)
I've been flying for 30 years. I have never seen any one, pilot or otherwise, climb into a airplane with a a parachute.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been flying for 30 years. I have never seen any one, pilot or otherwise, climb into a airplane with a a parachute.
Uh, well, I climbed into an airplane with a parachute a couple of times.
I mean, I’m not a pilot, and I was going for the express purpose of skydiving, but I did it
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed: generally people who wear a parachute onto an airplane are INTENDING to later jump out of it :).
MSFS (Score:5, Interesting)
I loaded up his crash co-ords and estimated altitude in MS flight sim 2020, in one of the planes that looks exactly-ish like his, cut the engine, and made many safe landings in local riverbeds that were dry in his video.
Which is basically to say he's either an idiot or a fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
"either"?...any particular reason to choose the exclusive-or over an inclusive-or?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You trust Microsoft's simulation of a Taylorcraft landing on a riverbed? Plus, is it worth that risk? There could be all kinds of obstacles on the riverbed you can't see until it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
I truly trust Microsoft simulation of a Taylorcraft landing on a riverbed. Why I don't trust is Microsoft's simulation of a riverbed.
I grew near a small river, and (even on its dry parts) it's difficult to _walk_ due to small and large boulders. Rolling might be possible with a truck-sized wheel.
Also, dried riverbeds might contain large branches, partially underground.
It's a recipe for front-rolling an aircraft. Landing on a fire road might be a much saner option.
As for "and that he had no reason to hike ba
Re: (Score:2)
I will say that at least one river I've researched - a year-round flowing river - is considered practically impassible by a canoe, even with portaging. People have tried, since it would provide a nice canoe route. I'd imaging trying to land at aircraft speeds would be fatal.
And having canoed many rivers, I'd say that they can be a pain for a
Re: (Score:2)
Slow flowing rivers will accumulate sand/silt. However, based on the presentation image on the youtube movie, that region is quite hilly.
So, if the choice is tall trees or riverbeds, then riverbeds might make sense. Yet, the plane apparently landed itself in some bushes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trimmed / altered video length (Score:5, Interesting)
I "youtube-dl"ed the original video and it was 16:41 in length. The current version is 12:53 in length. I expected he edited out the part where the door is cracked open even before the engine dies, and that seems partly to be the case - the head-on shot of the door being latched, then cracked (2:39 in the original video) is gone, but the tail shot of the door (00:54, then 00:48) remains.
Editing After Upload (Score:2)
Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realize youtube allowed you to make edits after uploading. Maybe they only allow trimming, rather than inserting new content.
From quick googling, there's a built-in editor that seems to be about as simple as you describe. Glad you grabbed the vid early and noticed.
It is worth noting that Youtube themselves were caught years ago using some capability to untraceably edit new content into one of their own vids:
https://techraptor.net/technol... [techraptor.net]
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube started allowing edits for copyright reasons. When you upload your video can get instantly hit with automated copyright claims. You can either edit it offline, or for a quick fix simply mute the audio or cut out the section being claimed entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
like a repeat of HMB aircraft ditching "stunt" (Score:5, Interesting)
why so obvious? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's an Ignoramus?
Re: (Score:2)
This ignoramus theory is backed up by evidence that he's a youtuber.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTubers who pull stunts generally aren't known for their intelligence.
It sounds like he's an experienced skydiver and paraglider though, in which case he probably knows very well that emergency chutes are there to save your life, but not necessarily your legs or back. There are YouTubers with that kind of commitment to their craft, but they tend not to last very long.
Re: (Score:2)
There was another video after his, which posed some questions about what he showed himself doing in his crash video.
There were lots of comments on that video, with one mentioning that he was a trustfund baby who was unbearable as a schoolmate. And there were other interesting comments about him as well, from others who claim to know him.
There was also a comment that a couple of days after this crash, lawyers were involved in getting certain websites to remove his flight logs.
I do wonder, if he hired a helic
Super common (relatively) (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's the problem - it will be extremely difficult or even impossible to prove that he didn't have an engine problem. A stupidly high fraction of investigated GA incidents reported as "engine out" involve an engine that works perfectly fine on the ground when the investigator checks it later. If it isn't literally the most common mechanical failure (among the available data) it is close.
Imagine the expert witness under cross examination:
defense attorney: The prosecution made a big fuss about the engine
Re: (Score:3)
Many pilots have engine problems. Very few bail out as a response, they land the plane dead-stick.
Re:Super common (relatively) (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly right. You dont jump out of a flyable aircraft and just leave it to its fate, and risk others. A glide landing, to a field or river bed would have the correct option.
Light aircraft pilots rarely fly with a chute, and if they do its not a paraglider type chute, its a standard round emergency chute.
Either way, the airmanship shown is very poor.
Re: (Score:3)
Some light aircrafts with the engine stopped are basically chutes .
The T-10 parachutes used by US Army starting from 1950s have a descent speed of some 7 m/s. A small aircraft might have an unpowered glide descent rate of 1000 fpm, which is some 5 m/s.
If the airframe is ok, you're safer in an aircraft.
Re: (Score:3)
It is very easy, however, to determine if he intentionally did not put enough fuel in the tank to cause the wreck. And easier still to tell if the plane was a hacked together parts plane with missing required instruments, parts, etc. The wing tank fuel valve hanging down disconnected in the video isn't a good indication of airworthiness, and the missing instrument panel view as in all of his other videos is a bit fishy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The attention economy is bound to produce ... (Score:3)
... stupid wasteful non-sense like this. Especially with moronic dimwitts like this guy appears to be. He most likely could've easily faked this convincingly with a small team of CGI experts for hire, for a fraction of the cost.
He definitely deserves/needs his license revoked if this turns out to be a deliberate crash-stunt without permission in open public territory.
So IOW (Score:2)
He broke a "don't crash your plane" law?
There are TV-shows pulling such stunts on a daily base.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority are 'fake' (Score:2)
The majority of aircraft crashes in films are faked or models. The plane/helicopter flies over a hill and is masked/hidden from the camera by an fireball/explosion.
What happened to all the videos (Score:3)
(d) The operator of an aircraft involved in an accident or incident shall retain all records, reports, internal documents, and memoranda dealing with the accident or incident, until authorized by the Board to the contrary.
If he's deleted or altered any of the video footage then he's in violation of section d.Doing so could go to show intent vs accident.
In addition:
(b) Prior to the time the Board or its authorized representative takes custody of aircraft wreckage, mail, or cargo, such wreckage, mail, or cargo may not be disturbed or moved except to the extent necessary
If he did remove it or any of the cameras he's in violation of section b as well, unless the FAA authorized its removal. It's interesting the camera filming the instrument panel was off just before the event, after having been on. If the camera was not disturbed investigators could determine if it was turned off or the battery went dead. Given his preparation with cameras it would seem odd that it would not have a fully charged battery. If you were recording teh flight it would seem you'd want all the footage possible, unless of course some might incriminate you.
At Least The Stunt Went Off Better That This One (Score:2)
"Swaggering wannabe YouTube star forcing his scared girlfriend to shoot him through a book in a video stunt". [dailymail.co.uk]
Nip it in the bud now (Score:2)
Because we will start seeing videos of people intentionally parking their car in the path of an oncoming train, or purpously crashing into the jersey barriers while speeding down the freeway, or crashing their speedboat into a dock "for the VIEWZ!!1!LOLLARSKATEZ!". And somebody (not the driver) is going to end up getting killed.
He's lucky his plane did not crash into a house, or else he would at the very least be facing attempted murder charges.
I hope the judge throws the book at him, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
IANAP, but...
If the plane is insured, and he's claiming an accident, that seems like it might be illegal. I'd imagine if you crash a plane, you're required to fill out some sort of report for the FAA. Falsifying data like that seems like it could be illegal. Keep in mind the FAA investigates every crash, and sending them on a wild goose chase won't be appreciated. Then there's the obvious risk of deliberately crashing a plane for yucks.
Hopefully some pilots can shed some more light on which law or laws
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he was to commit insurance fraud, that would certainly be illegal outside of the realm of the aviation laws, probably under the laws in the state the the crash happened or where his insurance policy was issued.
I'd imagine if you crash a plane, you're required to fill out some sort of report for the FAA.
Not necessarily. There are some trigger thresholds that would require reporting to the NTSB, but just the facts taken on the face being a simple engine failure in a single engine plane, little / no damage on the ground, and no injuries; this is not necessarily a mandatory report event. There is a
Re: (Score:2)
If he crossed state lines during the flight, does that makes it a federal issue?
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, aviation is almost exclusively regulated at the federal level. State laws usually just cover things like registering and/or taxing the value of the aircraft.
Re: (Score:3)
The aircraft is a write off. I'd say it was "substantial damage". In any case, he was told that he had to report it and he did report it.
Re:It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:5, Informative)
There are a number of regulations ("Federal Aviation Regulations" which fall under 14 CFR of United States law) they could potentially cite against him, but I'm thinking something like:
 91.13 Careless or reckless operation. (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
or
 91.105 Flight crewmembers at stations. (a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall - (1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and (2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.
or
 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
There are many others, but all will come down to whether or not they believe the engine failure was real or staged.
Re: (Score:2)
91.15 Dropping objects - No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.
Re: (Score:2)
 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
or
 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Seems like air shows violate most of the rules you lay out here. Unsurprisingly, pilots seem to get killed at them relatively frequently.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA has a permitting process to authorize air shows or other similar kinds of events.
Re: (Score:2)
Clickbait. /s
Re:It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:5, Informative)
Among others, here are several different laws he probably has broken (14CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations chapter 14, concerning aviation.)
14CFR 91.7(a) "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition." - Reports are that the Taylorcraft was for sale on Barnstormers as an parts aircraft a week before the incident, and no certified aviation mechanic at his home field signed the logbook. The allegedly removed wreckage also likely had many other issues and missing equipment.
14CFR 91.151 "No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes" - The fuel cutoff valve for the wing tank is hanging down in the video not even connected to the tank (more violation of 91.7(a)), he was running on just the header tank and likely only put a tiny amount of fuel so he didn't start a fire. The allegedly removed wreckage would have also shown this.
He likely did not break 14CFR 91.119, but I mention it here because it does stipulate how the situation should have been handled:
"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."
What he absolutely did break if this was done intentionally (and every detail about how that flight was handled clearly shows to other pilots (like me) that this was done intentionally), was 14CFR 91.13:
"Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
With zero addional lift and no power, the glide ratio of a Taylorcraft BC12 is 10:1, the closest town to the crash (Los Olivos, CA) was 14 miles away, at an elevation of 800 feet MSL. If the plane was as 7,400 feet MSL or higher, it had enough energy to glide there on it's own. If it flew into an area of ridge lift or wave lift (which happens around those mountains) the plane could have glided a long, long way, Bakersfield or L.A. wouldn't be out of the question. He abandoned control when it clearly wasn't necessary, and had no way of knowing where or how far the plane would travel. This pretty much defines careless and reckless.
I'm sure there's more, that's just what I could think of to look up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are a bunch, but for starters:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
I'm not an American, nor a lawyer, but that seems apropos on first inspection. There are probably also laws about maintaining a qualified pilot in command at all times, and I'd be rather surprised if there weren't' some especially nasty laws about crashing airplanes into things on purpose.
Re:It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see-- improper operation of an aircraft, violating a number of FAA safety regs, crashing a plane into a national park, making a false accident claim, interfering with an FAA/NTSB investigation, littering-- and oh yeah, what if, by some freak chance, his plane had crashed into a campsite? And for all we know, he filed a claim on his private aircraft insurance.
At the very least, he can kiss his pilot's license good bye.
I guess you're one of those people who don't believe that anyone should ever be held responsible for being stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's weird how many people on this thread don't seem to understand that there are laws governing how you can operate an aircraft. Or that insurance fraud is illegal, for that matter. If he hasn't filed an insurance claim already, this leaves him in an interesting position, actually. It looks pretty certain that he'll be found to have crashed intentionally. If he believes that's the case, then he might avoid filing a claim to avoid charges for that. Trouble is, if he doesn't file an insurance claim,
Re: (Score:2)
Can you have liability insurance only for a plane if it's fully paid off?
If I crashed my older car into a boulder, I wouldn't file a claim.
Re: (Score:2)
And why would the FAA care about a plane that was being used as a prop?
They would mostly care about the lack of proper procedure for the stunt to be done safely. There is a permitting process for events like air shows or filming movie stunts in which one has to have approved plans, safety review, etc all approved by the FSDO (regional FAA office). As part of that process the FAA may choose to issue a TFR (temporary flight restriction) to limit other air traffic in the area of the risky event. I'm sure they would also require ground fire fighting equipment and medical equipm
Re: (Score:3)
Are your car, your lamp and the lightbulb insured? Do you plan to file a claim? Also, try dropping your car off a cliff in a national park instead. Could it catch fire? Plus, I'm pretty sure the police are going to have a few things to say about you smashing light bulbs on a public street regardless of whether you're cleaning them up after.
Re: It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not legal to just drive your car off of a cliff rather than dispose of it properly.
Depending on what was around (I think there was a road) there could be a potential hazard to people on the ground.
May have also been insurance fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
That point is particularly important to the situation - any airplane crash has to legally be reported to the FAA for NTSB investigation. You can't just crash a plane and be like "Whelp, I cleaned it all up! Nothing to see!".
Re: (Score:3)
If you drop your car off at your house, you are leaving it parked and immobile.
If on the other hand if you were to put a brick on the gas pedal and let the car drive uncontrolled until it crashed into something that's highly illegal, and that's basically what this guy has done.
Leaving a vehicle of any kind uncontrolled on or over public land is illegal except under exceptional circumstances.
As a pilot, bailing out of an aircraft should be the absolute last resort in a dire emergency situation and you should
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you are not allowed to drop your car over someone else's house.
Re: (Score:3)
Am I allowed to drop my car off my house?
Sure, as long as you can ensure it's not going to let gasoline or oil leak into the ground (improper disposal of those fluids is a crime in many areas) or cause a fire.
But you can't lift it 2000 feet in the air and then cut it loose without knowing where it's going to land or if it's going to land on some people or damage property.
And if you do crash your airplane for any reason, you're not allowed to go pick up the pieces before letting the FAA/NTSB investigate.
Re: It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, it's like fitting an ejection seat on a car, driving it to maximum speed on a highway, putting it in neutral, shutting down the engine and bailing.
Airspace (above a certain altitude related to ground) is not "free" - that's why you need a pilot license, just as you need a driver's license.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:2)
The one video I recently saw they pointed out they noticed fire extinguishers tucked up in each of his lower pant legs, so it seems he was prepared to try to extinguish any fire sparked by the crash before he even took off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In my opinion, no, it's unclear which law was violated.
If nothing else, 14 CFR 91.119 was violated if this was an intentional act.
Re: It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:2)
If it's reasonable that someone could be in the way (a hiker in this case) then yes, you can be criminally charged.
If you weigh down the gas petal of your car and send it crashing down the street, you will be charged with "reckless endangerment" even if nobody was hurt and no other peoperty was destroyed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If he caused injury or damage, then he is personally liable. If neither of those things occurred, he cleaned up the mess, and no one decides to charge him for reckless endangerment (good luck!), then there is nothing else to see here.
If you walked down the street firing an AK-47 randomly in all directions and missed everyone, would you expect the police to say "no one got hurt, fine, carry on"?
Re: (Score:2)
IMNSHO, it makes no difference at all. This guy purposefully crashed a plane as a stunt. Given the outcome, he is, at worst, guilty of filming a stunt without a permit. Most people probably won't care about this, because at the end of the day, it's just inflammatory news tripe. Chalk it up to #slow-news-day, I suppose.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure. A movie filming a stunt will be done in a controlled way - i.e. they will control the area in which the plane crashes, they will ensure no members of the public will be inured, or property damaged without permission, they will have safety personnel available.
I think the issue here is that (as mentioned by people above) the guy has done the equivalent of jumping from a speeding car on a public road. I don't know American law, but I'd guess there are laws around "reckless endangerment" etc. N
Re:It's not illegal to destroy your own property (Score:4, Informative)
You have to inform the FAA if you are going to deliberately crash a plane (sometimes it's done by aircraft manufacturers for testing purposes, or by movie companies for film stunts etc) and seek appropriate permissions.
You have to control the crash as far as possible, you have to crash in a pre agreed location, and you have to ensure that any possible side effects from the crash (fires, debris etc) are dealt with.
You can't just bail out of a fully working aircraft and leave it to crash on public land - you have no idea if there might be people or property down there which might be destroyed by the crash, and you have no control over wether your crashed airplane catches fire and sets fire to other things. If you managed to kill someone by deliberately crashing a plane you'd be facing manslaughter charges.
Re: (Score:3)
I would be quite surprised if there isn't a requirement that a pilot strive to maintain control of the aircraft at all times. The sole occupant deliberately bailing out of a perfectly good plane is dereliction of that duty.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming he just happened to have a skydiving chute on, had cameras, and rather than attempt a controlled landing (and I've seen a guy land his plane after the propeller *FELL OFF HIS PLANE!*), he immediately sent it into a dive, jumped out, and filmed the crash.
That's a very generous assumption.
Re: (Score:3)
The plane was his property, how about the land onto which it crashed?
Was the plane flying through regulated airspace at the time?
If you intentionally crash your own car on your own private land that's all fine...
If you are operating a vehicle in a government regulated area (public roads, airspace) or crash it on land which you do not own, then you are subject to government regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Since he has ALREADY mis-represented this as an accident, your point is moot.
Re: (Score:2)
It is no more misrepresented as an actual accident, than, say, Benedict Cumberbatch misrepresents himself as a powerful sorcerer in Marvel movies.
If he files any sort of official report claiming that it was an accident, then you'll have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
The Marvel movies are presented to the public as movies. While they strive for willing suspension of disbelief (as any fiction writer does), they don't expect anyone to ACTUALLY think any of it happened and they don't present it as such. They don't just put them on youtube and claim "Hey, we were doing this podcast and the most amazing thing happened!".
Re: (Score:2)
Fiction taking the form of a documentary is still legal.
That some people might be enough to believe such a presentation is not the fault of the filmmaker.
Remember the alien autopsy film?
Re: (Score:2)
The alien autopsy film did not result in wreckage on public land. It also didn't claim to be an accidental event.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)