A YouTuber Purposely Crashed His Plane in California, FAA Says (nytimes.com) 171
The Federal Aviation Administration has found that Trevor Jacob, a daredevil YouTuber who posted a video of himself last year parachuting out of a plane that he claimed had malfunctioned, purposely abandoned the aircraft and allowed it to crash into the Los Padres National Forest in Southern California. From a report: In a letter to Mr. Jacob on April 11, the F.A.A. said he had violated federal aviation regulations and operated his single-engine plane in a "careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." The agency said it would immediately revoke Mr. Jacob's private pilot certificate, effectively ending his permission to operate any aircraft. Reached by email on Wednesday, Mr. Jacob appeared unaware of the F.A.A.'s ruling and replied, "Where'd you get that information?"
In a video posted on his YouTube channel last week, Mr. Jacob, a former snowboarding Olympian turned YouTuber with more than 100,000 subscribers, briefly addressed the airplane controversy, saying, "I can't talk about it, per my attorney." "But the truth of that situation will come out with time," he added, "and I'll leave that at that." The F.A.A. does not have the ability to prosecute; it can only revoke and suspend certificates and issue fines. The agency ordered Mr. Jacob to surrender his private pilot certificate and said he could face "further legal enforcement action" if he did not do so, including a civil penalty of up to $1,644 for each day that he did not return it.
In a video posted on his YouTube channel last week, Mr. Jacob, a former snowboarding Olympian turned YouTuber with more than 100,000 subscribers, briefly addressed the airplane controversy, saying, "I can't talk about it, per my attorney." "But the truth of that situation will come out with time," he added, "and I'll leave that at that." The F.A.A. does not have the ability to prosecute; it can only revoke and suspend certificates and issue fines. The agency ordered Mr. Jacob to surrender his private pilot certificate and said he could face "further legal enforcement action" if he did not do so, including a civil penalty of up to $1,644 for each day that he did not return it.
Seems like an expensive promotion (Score:3)
Light planes, even bug smashers, aren't cheap. I'd be surprised if the fame and clicks he garnered from the video are enough to cover his costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Light planes, even bug smashers, aren't cheap. I'd be surprised if the fame and clicks he garnered from the video are enough to cover his costs.
In addition to the time and expense of training to get a pilot's license, which has now been revoked.
Re: (Score:2)
Another news source says he lost his license for a year, so that training isn't wasted.
Re: (Score:2)
Another news source says he lost his license for a year, so that training isn't wasted.
False. It was not suspended; it was "revoked."
Re:Seems like an expensive promotion (Score:5, Informative)
A comparison to this is the story of Martha Lunken [flyingmag.com] who flew under the Jeremiah Morrow Bridge in 2020. She has 60+ years of aviation experience, and while she probably performed this action with care, she was caught out doing it.
The end result was that her license and endorsements were all revoked by the FAA and she was not allowed to to reapply for 12 months. After that time she is entitled to to re-apply for a student license and then has to start from the very beginning and apply for and pass each license and endorsement that she wishes to re-obtain.
On various websites, I have seen chatter that suggests while technically this is the course she has to take, pragmatically the FAA might not make it possible to achieve these goals (nudge nudge, wink wink).
In the case of Jacobs, it was obvious from the videos that he himself posted that what he was doing was a self promotional stunt, and I hope the FAA ties him up in enough red tape that he never gets his license back.
Re: (Score:2)
A comparison to this is the story of Martha Lunken [flyingmag.com] who flew under the Jeremiah Morrow Bridge in 2020. She has 60+ years of aviation experience,
Wow. That's badass. I hope she can get back in the air.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you read Legal Enforcement Actions [faa.gov]
Re:Seems like an expensive promotion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The top youtubers like PewDiePie and Logan Paul earn millions a month from YouTube. I've seen videos where Logan Paul rents a house at $20,000/month (why, I don't know).
Used planes vary widely in prices. A brand new Cessna 172 with all the options can come in at around $250k, but a used one from the 50s can cost as little as $20k.Planes from the 60s and 70s (still airworthy) can go from that to around $50k or so
Re: (Score:2)
The top youtubers like PewDiePie and Logan Paul earn millions a month from YouTube. I've seen videos where Logan Paul rents a house at $20,000/month (why, I don't know).
It's probably for accounting reasons. That $20k is probably written off as a business expense. It's sort of like why companies lease everything rather than buy.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem I see is the YouTube terms and conditions for monetized video content. If you look closely, they reserve the right to refuse to pay you if the video depicts a dangerous or reckless event that could cause harm.
Re: (Score:2)
You think people like Logan Paul, PewDiePie and such are subject to such things? YouTube pays them millions a month (not a lot of millions, we're talking only about $5M/month at the high end, around $1-2M for the average).
The only reason YouTube can pay that much is because Google is reapin
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I hadn't really considered that angle. If you have enough other compelling content, I guess that strategy might work.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how "carefully" he's thought this out so far, I wouldn't be surprised if he was hoping insurance would cover the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Light planes, even bug smashers, aren't cheap. I'd be surprised if the fame and clicks he garnered from the video are enough to cover his costs.
There is no way in the world that the extra clicks he gained would even pay for the lawyers he needs to cover his ass alone everything else that is coming at him.
I know some people have done some analysis based on how many views he typically gets for a video, vs what YouTube pays out, and it wasn't pretty. Unfortunately I can't remember where I saw it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was a 1940 Taylorcraft BL-65...those seem to be ~$30k-ish. There are currently only 33 single-engine planes for sale on Trade-a-plane UNDER $20k...and that includes ultralights and un-airworthy aircraft.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to local papers the previous owner sold the plane as unflyable scrap and it would have needed major renovations to be airworthy. Apparently Jacob did some repairs himself so the machine would actually be flyable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, so he's also a licensed aircraft mechanic? I didn't think so... Well, those "repairs" would also be violations.
Just because an ignorant someone says something is scrap, doesn't necessarily make it so.(Likely just stated for their own liability)
You don't go from "scrap" to "flyable" with some light tinkering. You also don't write something off as scrap, if a few repairs make it worth $20-$30k.
Yes, I understand the cost of aircraft repairs...I also understand the cost of "simple 1940's aircraft" repair
Re:Seems like an expensive promotion (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what the local pilots who had knowledge of that plane said about it; and they said Jacobs repairs didn't go well. So one way to construe this is he got to the point where he decided the plane was worth more dead to him than alive. It's not the same cost/benefit calculus you or I would use, because we don't make our living filming daredevil stunts for YouTube.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also why I've seen it suggested that he did the apparent engine swap from one engine to another - the original engine was worth $$$
Re: (Score:2)
This is what the local pilots who had knowledge of that plane said about it; and they said Jacobs repairs didn't go well.
It seems obvious that they would be inferring that, either from statement by him that were intended to mislead people, or from the fact that it crashed, without really realizing the distance that it flew uncontrolled before crashing and what that implies about the actual state of the aircraft when he bailed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because an ignorant someone says something is scrap, doesn't necessarily make it so.(Likely just stated for their own liability)
Just because you do not know the qualifications of the person does not mean they were ignorant. Since you do not know the whole situation, I would say that you are the ignorant one. That being said, anything can be repaired given enough time and money. If someone said a plane was "unflyable scrap", I take that to mean that it would take more money to repair into flyable condition that it was worth after all repairs.
You don't go from "scrap" to "flyable" with some light tinkering. You also don't write something off as scrap, if a few repairs make it worth $20-$30k.
How would you know? Are you saying that the plane could not be worth $20-30K in parts? After
Re: (Score:2)
...from the experience of being a licensed pilot and A&P mechanic.
Anonymous person on the internet reports on unverifiable qualifications makes claims about someone else's situation for which he has no direct knowledge.
Most of the parts on that plane are probably hand fabricated. People have been restoring old warbirds for years...often from crash wreckage.
They are hand fabricated BECAUSE there are not spares just lying around. You know know that it is far easier/cheaper to get a part than having a part custom fabricated right? As a mechanic, I would think you would know that.
You underestimate how crudely and simply constructed old aircraft are. They're just bent and riveted sheet metal, or wood/steel tube frames with fabric stretched over them.
And you still have not answered the question: Would an "unflyable scrap" plane still contain $20-30K worth of parts? If so, that destr
Re: (Score:2)
Jackassery (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the comeuppance is rarely just, and often just profitable to make sure more jackassery can insure.
Before YouTube, we had people doing stupid stunts, getting hurt and causing problems, the laws on the books were enough to make sure they wouldn't do it again. However with the likes of YouTube, you can make a good amount of money more than what you have to pay, so it is just justified as part of the cost of business.
If you have to drive 100mph to get to a business meeting that will make you a m
Re: (Score:2)
Flying a plane like you would in a video game. "Welp, I'm done with this plane. *jumps out of it in a parachute and watches plane explode into a hillside*"
What madness (Score:3)
Attention seeking man... (Score:4, Interesting)
Dupe? (Score:2)
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Good (Score:3)
Hopefully this will discourage other morons who want to pull stunts like this for the viewz and subscribz.
Santa Barbara County (Score:2)
stall speed 38 mph (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: So? (Score:2)
So would it be the National Forest Service?
Re: So? (Score:2)
I correct my self, they would be the plaintiff
Re: So? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
The FAA isn't the DOJ. That, the DOJ going for civil/criminal prosecution, can come next. Then, there are theories of civil litigation that could hurt, too.
The DOJ and FBI can issue warrants, seize communications apparatus (laptops, phones, etc) to build its case(s). Then it goes to trial in US Federal Court. From there.... the legal fees are going to hurt.
YouTube is unlikely to be held liable. Because they're a fat potential wad of money, they may be sued anyway.
"I revoked your licence" (Score:2)
Trevor : "I crashed my plane"
FAA: "I revoked your licence"
Re: (Score:2)
Trevor : "I 'crashed' my plane"
FAA: "I revoked your licence"
FTFY
Re:So? (Score:4)
Calm the fuck down dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I guess that makes sense, if your audience is a bunch of wankers... Which I guess describes a certain segment of Slashdot pretty well, actually
The irony, it burns! Aaiii!!
Re: (Score:2)
In a letter to Mr. Jacob on April 11, the F.A.A. said he had violated federal aviation regulations and operated his single-engine plane in a "careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
reckless endangerment of life/property could be pursued, i'd imagine, and it may leave readers with the question, "well, why doesnt the FAA prosecute?"
Re: (Score:3)
FAA would have to refer it to the local US Attorney (or possibly the DOJ).
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, reckless endangerment of property is not a crime.
However, it is likely that there was in fact monetary damage to the USFS, so that is likely academic, and he probably violated a dozen federal criminal statutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another stupid Youtuber who can't get a real job (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
An airplane crashing into dry vegetation? That could easily have caused a fire that could have gotten out of control. That d
Re: (Score:2)
And yet conspicuously, nobody has come out and sued the guy for damage to their property....
Which is kind of my point.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying they need proof he crashed it deliberately, but where are they getting the idea that he operated it in a "careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another"? Reasonably, if the accident itself was fake, then what reason is there to believe that any appearance in his video of any danger to anyone else's property could not have also been faked?
I would think the act of letting a plane crash uncontrolled into the ground as a stunt was pretty reckless. It could have killed someone on the ground and/or damaged property. While he crashed somewhere that looks remote, he could not have guaranteed that it was completely empty of life or property.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving an aircraft unpiloted is, except in the most dire extenuating circumstances, going to qualify all by itself. If he'd turned on the autopilot, had a little nap, and landed perfectly safely he'd still be guilty.
Re:Proof? (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA. The crash was real. They just doubt it was an accident. The FAA listed evidence it was planned, listed the things he should have done if the emergency had been real that he didn't even attempt. They are also unhappy that he cleaned up the evidence by moving the plane right away. Essentially, they said that he should have tried to restart the engine (he didn't) and failing that they pointed out there were safe places he could have landed, but didn't. Instead, he let the plane fall uncontrolled where it could have caused damage, caused a fire or even killed someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there have been so many good videos on YouTube dissecting the video that Jacobs himself posted (and I binged a few early in the year). While you can claim "OMG I'm freaking out here in the middle of the flight", many of the online sleuths have pointed out things that directly imply pre-meditation (such as the fire extinguishers taped under the pants legs, or the obvious engine swap with the bad paint job)
Re:Proof? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, no one ever wears a skydiving rig to fly a plane. Even if you want to claim that maybe he was weird, there are videos of him flying and he never wore a skydiving rig to pilot except that one time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the direct quote by the FAA:
“You demonstrated a lack of care, judgment and responsibility by choosing to jump out of an aircraft solely so you could record the footage of the crash,” the agency said. “Your egregious and intentional actions on these dates indicate that you presently lack the degree of care, judgment and responsibility required of a certificate holder.”
Re: (Score:2)
How does jumping out of an aircraft soley to record footage of the crash show a lack of care, judgement, or responsibility?
Look at the evidence.
Absolutely no apparent collateral damage was caused. The aircraft was totalled, but nobody's property was damaged, and as far as I know, there were no reports of any damage to public property either.
Luck, you may say.
Just how lucky do you actually think a person would have had to been for an entirely uncontrolled plane crash to not leave behind a shred of
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody was in danger this time, but he had no way to know that. What if someone had just happened to be near where he crashed? He took none of the correct precautions needed to ensure that no one was ever in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone had been near, at least there would be some evidence or another witness to testify that he hadn't taken proper precautions.
If this was all just a poorly conceived publicity stunt for his social media, then the fact that nobody has come forward with any complaint about any damage to their property that was caused by his crash is what is making me thing that his crash was actually not as altogether uncontrolled as he was making it appear. Just how lucky do you think someone who was genuinely a
Re: (Score:2)
If someone had been near, at least there would be some evidence or another witness to testify that he hadn't taken proper precautions.
Unless the plane fell on them and killed them. And he took care of their bodies when he moved the plane.
It was a national forest. It's huge. Anyone could have been there. He was being completely unsafe. Sure, it's *possible* that the crash was much more controlled than it looks, but only in the same way that it's *possible* that this video was sent back in time from the future where AI is able to deep fake all of this and plant the stories about him and the FAA revoking his license so we all believe it is t
Re: (Score:2)
And along the same lines, Trump actually got far more votes in the last election than Biden, but the Dems somehjow stole it and successfully managed to destroy all the evidence that could have been found by now to cover it up.
See where I'm going with this? I'm being sarcastic, in case it wasn't obvious.
I prefer come to conclusions about reality based on the evidence that we know actually exists, not
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence we have been privy to and the all the evidence the FAA had was consistent with him being reckless. The video shows a guy mysteriously for the first time deciding to just up and wear a skydiving rig to pilot a plane, have his door open in mid-flight for no apparent reason, then coincidentally having his engine stall, for him to immediately just shrug and jump out despite pilots being explicitly trained to restart the engine and glide it in for a landing if that fails. A pilot only avails themse
Re:Proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even after the FAA investigation, you're quacking on about that? He failed to maintain control of his aircraft and abandoned the controls. There's your careless or reckless manner. You may be shocked to know that once you abandon the controls of an aircraft, anything could happen, even the plane finding a stable balance and gliding for miles before crashing. Do you claim that he stationed security throughout the area to make sure there were was nobody around? That he actually made sure there was no public or private property that could be damaged within the plausible crash area?
Since he made sure to destroy most of the evidence, through a long-standing legal precedent we may infer that any evidence that might have been there would be harmful to his position.
Re: (Score:3)
Endanger does not require actual harm, only a foreseeable possibility. There was an aircraft in the air with nobody at the controls. It crashed. One might even say it was uncontrolled and crashed. That is, an uncontrolled crash. Your own words damn your position. It is criminal to destroy your own property by smashing it in to somebody else's property without their explicit consent. Even moreso if you have not ensured that nobody might be in harm's way.
Note that simply abandoning the controls of an aircraf
Re: (Score:2)
So for you, accepting the notion that an uncrontrolled plane crashed with absolutely no apparently collaterial damage was simply blind dumb luck is easier to believe than the notion that the crash was simply more controlled than it appeared, and that suitable precautions to ensure no damages that neither you nor I nor the FAA might know have ever had a chance to know about had been taken. For myself, it is easier to believe that there are simply factors I don't know about which might have influenced the a
Re: (Score:3)
Aircraft pilots are held to a higher standard than people dicking around on their own property. Leaving an aircraft uncontrolled is a violation of the regulations.
Beyond that, it is a practical regulation. As the GP said, when you leave an aircraft uncontrolled, anything can happen. There are many cases of pilots ejecting from apparently doomed aircraft and the planes recovering and flying along happily afterward. In one case a Soviet pilot ejected, the plane recovered, flew into West Germany and had to be
Re: (Score:2)
And what's more likely? The fact that no collateral damage was caused by sheer extraordinary luck, or that there are precautions that nobody else was aware of which which might have led to such a safe outcome, particularly since he could have had reasonable motive to have wanted to keep such precautions hidden from everybody in the first place to maintain a particular public social media image.
For myself, the latter is easier to accept.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to see or hear of some kind of proof
Re:Proof? (Score:5, Informative)
He jumped out of a plane in the air to let it go uncontrolled.
The crash happened, but his claim of it being an accident was rubbish.
His intentions were clear when he randomly decides to wear skygiving gear this one time he went up, he did maneuvers to deliberately stall the propellor for the camera, he made no effort to restart the engine, made no attempt to glide it in for a landing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not illegal to destroy your own property. The above observations are what give me enough pause on the matter to question whether the idea that anyone else or their property was ever seriously in danger is true. Stunt drivers deliberately crash cars all the time, but they don't get their licenses revoked for it.
A stunt driver is still in control of the car at the time of the crash, or even if they leave the car the car is still only going a very short distance. With reasonable precautions no one else is getting hurt.
Leaving a plane mid-flight? There's no way in hell you know where it's going to land, or what damage it will cause when it lands. It's pretty much impossible to ensure you won't hurt someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously.
And the fact that despite this virtual impossibility nobody got hurt or that evidently nobody else's property got damaged is kind of why I've taken the position that I have.
For me, it easier to swallow that the crash simply wasn't as entirely uncontrolled as it might have looked.
Re: (Score:2)
He may have selected a region with low chance of damage to private property and relatively few people, but he had no idea where it would precisely hit and if, for example, there would be hikers or a campsite. Again, a 'harmless' crash may have been the probable outcome, but there was a rather significant risk for a bad outcome.
So sure, it worked out that no one got hurt and he might have picked a place where the odds were 'decent' for that outcome, but the fact that no one happened to get hurt does not mean
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside endangerment to other people, there is still the matter of simple property damages that should have occurred in an uncontrolled crash.
I'm saying I find it easier to imagine that he might have done something that we do not know about to actually ensure nobody got hurt and that no damage was done to any one else's or to public property than to imagine that he was somehow able to clean up his mess and leave no evidence of any damage in an entirely uncontrolled plane crash.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, he probably bailed where there isn't much private property, but rather public forest. Even if were privately held forest, property damage is a tricky thing when it's just undeveloped forest that gets hit. Damage to any sort of developed stuff was probably less likely than hitting people hanging out in the forest in that region.
The good news is, there is a group to investigate and do fact finding beyond what we can see on youtube and speculate might have been otherwise the case. That group found
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I never alleged that it wasn't a staged stunt.
I am saying that there doesn't seem to be any actual proof that he conducted this stunt without consideration for other people or their property.
As I've said elsewhere, just how lucky do you think someone would have to be that an entirely uncontrolled plane crash would not seem to cause any apparent collateral damage to someone else's or to public property?
For me, that is what makes the allegation that he had actually performed this stunt as unsafely as h
Re: Proof? (Score:2)
Why are you still paying this viewpoint?
Is one thing if a production company secures a large area for a plane to crash in.
But you are not allowed to destroy your own property if you endanger other people on public (not your own) land.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. But what is the evidence that they are using to conclude this?
His video footage?
You mean the same footage that they are saying was just a pretense in the first place?
I'm not saying he didn't crash the plane, but what on earth makes you think that it was as entirely uncontrolled as it appeared if nobody else's property actually got damaged? My point is that it seems to me that it
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying he didn't crash the plane, but what on earth makes you think that it was as entirely uncontrolled as it appeared if nobody else's property actually got damaged?
Your entire point seems to be that since no one got hurt and there was no property damage; therefore no one could have gotten hurt nor property was in jeopardy. That is circular reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely... particularly when you consider that the event was evidently staged in the first place.
It is, as I have said elsewhere, easier for me to imagine that he did something we do not yet know anything about to make that crash less harmful to collateral damage than it appeared than it is for me to imagine that it was nothing less than sheer dumb luck that he was able to clean up his own mess without leaving any material evidence of property damage at the site.
Re: (Score:2)
It is, as I have said elsewhere, easier for me to imagine that he did something we do not yet know anything about to make that crash less harmful to collateral damage than it appeared than it is for me to imagine that it was nothing less than sheer dumb luck that he was able to clean up his own mess without leaving any material evidence of property damage at the site.
Less harmful != without risk The whole point was crashing a plane intentionally was the reckless part. He did not know if anyone might have been on the ground. He probably did not know the locations of all property including cabins, sheds, etc. and where they would be to avoid them. He could not be certain that the plane did not start a fire upon crashing.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything that you've alleged that he did not know is hypothesis, not materially evidenced.
There is no actual evidence that the event was not far more controlled than it appeared. The evidence to support that it was might be materially absent, but the simple fact that he had preplanned the stunt from the outset does, at the very least, make it a distinct possibility that is greater than if he had not really planned it at all.
For me, accepting that the incident was performed with just as much careles
Re: (Score:2)
Everything that you've alleged that he did not know is hypothesis, not materially evidenced.
So Jacobs knew the exact location of every individual on the ground including hikers, campers, rangers, etc so precisely that the plane would not have crashed into them. He knew the location of every piece of property so that the plane would not have damaged it. That includes fixed structures like cabins and movable items like vehicles? Have you thought about that? Did he have them all implanted with tracking chips? He cannot POSSIBLY haven known any of this information when he let his plane crash into the
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point was crashing a plane intentionally was the reckless part.
Exactly. Ruined a perfectly good flying machine. I think of the so many inspiring pilots and clubs that would love to have their own plane to fly and take good care of so it lasts for decades. But I guess you have some people with so much money they are careless.
Re:It took them HOW long? (Score:4, Interesting)
Took them this long to say that he purposely did it, when he recorded himself doing it purposely... useless organisation
1) Did you read the first sentence of the summary? He claimed it was a "malfunction" meaning he lied. 2) Did you watch his video? At no point does he say he did it on purpose. In fact, in his video, at the 12 minute mark, he says to someone "I had an engine out in the mountains. . ". 2) Crash investigations may take years as the FAA has to be sure and this is not the only crash or incident the FAA was working on. By the way, the crash was November 2021 and by April 2022, the FAA had concluded their investigation. That is 5 months.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, it takes years to investigate the crash of a modern airliner, but this was a 1940 piston power plane ... and there was video, in fact multiple video angles, showing exactly where the airplane was and what it was doing, and what those videos show is really fishy. Some of the footage cut into the video is drone footage; we're supposed to assume it was taken by Jacobs from the parachute, but he must have had a confederate in the area to operate the drone and guide him so he could land within a few hund
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it takes years to investigate the crash of a modern airliner, but this was a 1940 piston power plane ... and there was video, in fact multiple video angles, showing exactly where the airplane was and what it was doing, and what those videos show is really fishy. Some of the footage cut into the video is drone footage; we're supposed to assume it was taken by Jacobs from the parachute, but he must have had a confederate in the area to operate the drone and guide him so he could land within a few hundred yards of the crash site, rather than heading for a safer landing in the dry riverbed below.
And what part of all of that says he did it on purpose? Sure it is suspicious that he would have multiple angles of the crash but nowhere in the video does he say or hint that he was going to crash the plane. In the video itself, the actual moment where he experiences an engine malfunction is edited in such a way that you cannot tell what happened other than it stopped. Did the engine struggle? Obtaining the whole footage may have taken a bit of time if Jacobs was unwilling to hand it over
The other thing wa
Re: (Score:2)
And what part of all of that says he did it on purpose?
The part where the FAA came to that conclusion.
I did. I fail to see how any of that shows he purposefully crashed it as opposed to all of it merely being highly suspicious.
So you think he took that tracking shot of the plane from above from his parachute? Why does it look and sound different than the rest of his GoPro video?
Re: (Score:2)
The part where the FAA came to that conclusion.
That came AFTER months of investigation. The OP said "Took them this long to say that he purposely did it, when he recorded himself doing it purposely... useless organisation" as if he obviously said on video that he purposefully crashed the plane.
So you think he took that tracking shot of the plane from above from his parachute? Why does it look and sound different than the rest of his GoPro video?
I think there is a huge difference in the video being suspicious as hell and the FAA having enough evidence to conclude that he did it on purpose especially since the FAA had to justify revoking his license. I think that taking 5 months to conduct a thorough inves
Re: (Score:2)
You're not very smart are you?
Re:It took them HOW long? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a significant difference between "Yeah, we're pretty sure he was lying about the engine failure" and "We conclude from thorough investigation that he lied about the engine failure so we're taking his license and referring the matter to other agencies".
Many were able to say the former right here on /. within a day or so. The latter took time and resources. They really did need to distinguish between faking the engine failure vs. taking inappropriate action upon the real failure of the engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTuber /yoot(y)oobr/
noun
noun: YouTuber; plural noun: YouTubers
a person who uploads, produces, or appears in videos on the video-sharing website YouTube.
"we've been seeing top YouTubers getting TV deals over the last couple of years"
Re: (Score:2)
Is potato.
Re: (Score:2)