YouTuber who staged plane crash faces up to 20 years jail

https://news.yahoo.com/youtuber-staged-plane-crash-faces-205718964.html

by tafda • 3 years ago

460 470 3 years ago

news.yahoo.com

zerohp• 3 years ago

Good. Make an example out of him.

dang4• 3 years ago

Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. We want curious conversation here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

keyme• 3 years ago

Why? In all, the original crime is equivalent to dumping a big piece of trash in the forest. Faking stuff for youtube is not a crime.

Obstructing an unnecessary investigation is a big deal only because people fear-mongered us to believe it's a big deal.

Guy should get a good slap and a 6 figure fine. Not get his life taken away.

Alupis3• 3 years ago

Why? In all, the original crime is equivalent to dumping a big piece of trash in the forest

It's a bit more serious than that. It worked out to not harm anyone or do large-scale damages (fire, destruction, etc) this time, but it was still wildly dangerous and demonstrated a complete lack and disregard for aviation safety and rules.

A more apt comparison would be throwing a table off the Empire State Building, and it just so happened to not hit anything below.

renlo• 3 years ago

He also crash landed into Los Padres National Park. He's lucky he didn't start a forest fire. The area is very dry and forest fires are not uncommon around there.

dmitrygr• 3 years ago

Curiously, the charge he pled guilty to as part of the plea deal has nothing to do with planes. He pled guilty to obstructing a federal investigation (of the crash). Makes sense. Proving his intent w.r.t. the crash back then would be harder than proving that he DID remove the wreck and subsequently destroyed it.

mc326• 3 years ago

I dunno. I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” someone.

Prove the original crime, don’t rely and peripheral procedure like “they lied to a federal agent” (uhh) cop-out. Do your job.

Likewise I’m not don’t of people getting off on “technicalities” (Some more than others)

sgjohnson5• 3 years ago

Prove the original crime

The evidence of which was destroyed?

MattRix• 3 years ago

It’s not really an indirect charge, he did try to cover it up.

jkubicek• 3 years ago

People getting off on technicalities is one of the things that keeps police honest.

johndhi• 3 years ago

Agree

dfadsadsf• 3 years ago

Fully agree. After how obstruction of justice without underlying crime was used in political trials recently, I would fully support either removing or substantially increasing bar for it to be a crime.

tedunangst4• 3 years ago

You're saying he didn't impede the investigation into the cause of the crash?

gavinsyancey• 3 years ago

If you read the article, it's not really a technicality. He filed a false incident report with the FAA, lied to the FAA about what happened, and destroyed evidence despite an order from the NTSB to preserve the wreckage in order to cover up what really happened. That is all illegal for a good reason.

dragonwriter10• 3 years ago

I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” someone.

I think in the absence of actual injuries, the obstruction charge is actually the more serious criminal charge applicable. Which is not an indirect charge; obstruction is a distinct crime with its own harms.

ocdtrekkie2• 3 years ago

Arguably the lying to investigators crime is worse than the original. He crashed a plane he owned with only him in it. Sure, there was risks of danger to the ground and wildfires, but those risks are the same if you accidentally crash a plane, and the actual resulting damage was indeed minimal. Reckless behavior that ultimately does not cause damage or harm is rarely penalized heavily.

Lying to investigators and destroying evidence is unquestionably wrongdoing, and required far more explicit intent and action than merely failing to correctly fly an aircraft.

thrill• 3 years ago

Harsh, but fair.

valine• 3 years ago

Feels overly harsh considering no one was hurt. Send him to jail for a year for obstructing the investigation. It’s not like he’s going to do this again.

silisili2• 3 years ago

But they could have been hurt, especially if he kicked off a wildfire or landed on some unsuspecting party.

I mean, we charge people for hiring a hitman, or shooting at someone and missing, even though in both cases nobody is necessarily harmed. 20 years may be excessive, but I'm not sure 'was anyone actually hurt' is a good sentencing guideline either.

dgacmu• 3 years ago

It's popular in news articles to report the maximum possible sentence for a crime, but this isn't particularly informative. The federal sentencing guidelines usually give a more clear picture, and my -very much not a lawyer much less a federal criminal defense attorney- quick skim suggests he's looking at more like 1-3 years. Which is closer to your gut reaction. The details will depend also on what kind of plea bargain he negotiated, which we'll find out at sentencing.

astura4• 3 years ago

He hasn't been sentenced yet, 20 years is only the maximum.

pigbearpig2• 3 years ago

Since it's a plea deal I wouldn't expect anywhere near the maximum. Additionally, it looks like a fine and/or prison. Since the goal was to make money on a YouTube video, I could see the plea being more on the fine side, with little or no prison.

"shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

mardifoufs2• 3 years ago

How is it fair to get more than actual murderers? I get that this is "up to 20 years" but I don't see how more than a few months for a victimless crime would be fair.

Yes it could have been worse, but he deliberately crashed in a desert and it wasn't actually worse. So let's judge him by what happened, not by what could have happened.

pupppet• 3 years ago

So is drunk driving a victimless crime?

hammyhavoc5• 3 years ago

People do some bizarre stuff in the name of clickbait.

404mm• 3 years ago

Sweet, sweet juicy internet points!!

mabbo• 3 years ago

And also the sponsorship he had with some wallet company.

ortusdux• 3 years ago

He is going to get so much content out of his trial and prison time!

hammyhavoc5• 3 years ago

I dare say it'll inevitably get a book or low-budget movie adapting his life, focusing on how prison was good for him.

irjustin• 3 years ago

While this is bad, I consider those who do things against their children in the name of views up there with the worst kind of human.

climb_stealth• 3 years ago

That and mistreating animals. Don't even want to think about it.

nordsieck2• 3 years ago

I consider those who do things against their children in the name of views up there with the worst kind of human.

IMO, the prank videos are at least as bad.

* There are many people, many of whom are children, that don't understand that most of those videos are staged.

* Every so often people being pranked - especially by copycats who prank strangers in public - react violently.

cuteboy19• 3 years ago

And only 1 million veiws from all that.

captainkrtek2• 3 years ago

Intentionally crashing a plane into a national park, in a state that deals with lots of wildfires, is incredibly reckless. Lucky no one got killed, or that a wildfire didn’t start.

garrettgarcia• 3 years ago

National Forest, not National Park

saganus• 3 years ago

Genuine question, what is the difference?

I've never heard the term National Forest before.

CPLX4• 3 years ago

It’s beyond reckless. But ironically it’s not even close to the worst part of what he did.

The whole thing went to another level when he lifted the plane out with e helicopter. There’s essentially no possible way he was going to get away with that part the mind really boggles with what he was thinking there.

thaumasiotes3• 3 years ago

Intentionally crashing a plane into a national park, in a state that deals with lots of wildfires, is incredibly reckless.

Given that wildfires are, as you note, common, why is that supposed to be an aggravating factor?

You can't actually make the wildfire problem any worse by starting an additional fire. The more frequent fires are, the less fuel there is for each fire to burn. And in the other direction, if you suppress a fire, all that means is that another fire later will be worse.

captainkrtek2• 3 years ago

Something something “only you can prevent wildfires”…

“You can't actually make the wildfire problem any worse by starting an additional fire.”

What if there wasn’t a fire in the first place in this location

pvaldes4• 3 years ago

This is a common myth. Not all ecosystems are fire oriented. Is much more complex than just burn more often.

waiwai9337• 3 years ago

20 years is the maximum, not what he'll get. Skimming the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, I make it:

* A base level of 14 for an obstruction of justice charge (§2J1.2)

* -2 for acceptance of responsibility (§3E1.1)

Assuming no previous criminal history, that's a guideline sentence of 10-16 months. If he can get it down one more point to a level 11 sentence, that's a Zone B sentence and can be entirely served on probation.

The DoJ press release is at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-ma..., but the plea agreement isn't available (yet), which would indicate if they've agreed on an offence level and any adjustments.

EDIT: Found the plea agreement; see comment in thread

dragonwriter10• 3 years ago

The DoJ press release is at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-ma..., but the plea agreement isn’t available (yet), which would indicate if they’ve agreed on an offence level and any adjustments.

Note, however, that even if an agreement was reached that such an agreement is an agreement on what to present to the court; the court may not be bound, in accepting the plea agreement, to accept, in sentencing, the recommended offense level, or the recommend adjustments, or even to stick to the guidelines, depending on the exact form of the agreement.

[EDIT: Revised based on a correction in the response comment].

waiwai9337• 3 years ago

I believe - and to be honest the Sentencing Guidelines are just on the boundary of my wheelhouse, but plea agreements are well outside - that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a plea agreement that binds the court, so depends on the nature of the exact plea agreement. (see also §6B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines)

tptacek4• 3 years ago

I think you can go higher here. It's 18 US 1519; you might bump it with:

* Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage

* Substantial interference with administration of justice

* Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation

Minus the guilty plea, he could be looking 4-5 years.

waiwai9337• 3 years ago

Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage

The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't think that any of the actual dangerous actions were done to obstruct.

Substantial interference with administration of justice

That's defined as a "premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."

I think the first two don't fit the factual picture that we're aware of; the last _could_ but I think it unlikely that there was that much conduct that was beyond the obstruction charge that caused this.

Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation

Possibly - the SG don't go into much detail about what they mean by this; however, I would be surprised if this enhancement applied (but less so than the other two).

idlewords• 3 years ago

I can't imagine the government agreeing to a plea where this guy does not spend at least symbolic time in the pokey. The offense was too obnoxious and high profile to let him walk.

nieve• 3 years ago

It's not just obnoxious, people hike out there regularly he could have hit and he could easily have started a significant fire in a vulnerable environment. He endangered others for a sponsorship deal and then engaged in a conspiracy to hide it.

teeray• 3 years ago

The FAA will want to make it very unattractive for copycat YouTubers. “No bro, did you hear about that guy?” is what they want prospective YouTube aircraft ditchers to hear from their friends.

waiwai9337• 3 years ago

Found the plea agreement: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.88...

Agreed to (page 10):

* Base level of 14 for obstruction of justice

* +2 for the extensive planning enhancement (b)(3)(B)/(C)

No agreement w.r.t:

* Criminal history (which I believe is fairly standard)

* +2 for aggravated role - §3B1.1(c).

* Going outside the guidelines

~ I'm surprised there's no acceptance of responsibility reduction reserved by the defendant; feels like the DoJ were pressing reasonably hard on this one (tbf, seems entirely reasonable given the conduct here) ~ Correction: this is agreed on p. 2/3

If the court sentences to 18-24 months (p. 12), both parties have waived right to appeal. (And aligns with the minimum level of 15 on p. 3)

throwanem• 3 years ago

Good grief, it's like something out of a role-playing game.

sfmike• 3 years ago

is there a video or a simple follow through how one would be able to practically search through city/state/federal court cases with your speed and precision?

thaumasiotes3• 3 years ago

There's no charge other than obstruction of justice? That's one of those crimes that shouldn't be valid at all without an actual crime in the background. If no crime other than obstruction of justice was committed, how can justice have been obstructed?

qingcharles6• 3 years ago

You make an excellent point. When I was in jail there were many people who were charged only with obstruction of justice or resisting arrest. Often what would happen is law enforcement would try to arrest someone or search their property and the suspect would interfere with the process. Later, whatever caused the police to take action in the first place was nullified, either by reason of being illegal or having no factual basis, but the suspect was now still in jail for potentially years based on their (possibly) rightful action in trying to stop the police from whatever they were not supposed to be doing.

Sometimes it can just be a lose/lose scenario once you come to the attention of law enforcement. If at all possible, never put yourself in a situation, or associate with those who are going to bring heat upon you from the police.

tptacek4• 3 years ago

"Could be sentenced to" or "faces" means literally nothing.

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

dragonwriter10• 3 years ago

“Faces up to…” means exactly what it says, that is “Faces a sentence that cannot exceed…”

Now, it doesn’t (in general) mean “Is likely to receive, if convicted”, which some people tend to assume, but it also doesn’t mean nothing. And given the fact that upward departure is allowed from the federal sentencing guidelines, but not from the statutory maximums for the offenses charged, it is literally all you can tell with certainty from the charges themselves.

akerl_3• 3 years ago

"Faces a sentence that cannot exceed" and "faces up to" convey very different messages.

tedunangst4• 3 years ago

Is the maximum sentence particularly useful information? How does this fact aid my understanding of the severity of what he's done?

pigbearpig2• 3 years ago

This is a plea deal, no one is going to plea to the maximum, which in this case is 20 years. The punishment can also be a fine [1], which may be fitting if the goal was profit from a YouTube video.

When news articles mention the maximum, especially in headlines, it feels a bit misleading. It seems there's a decent chance there is little or no prison.

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

glonq• 3 years ago

TBF when internet news articles mention anything, it feels quite misleading :P

andreygrehov• 3 years ago

"If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

ehsankia2• 3 years ago

But that's what "up to" means. Almost every indictment is reported as "up to X" with X being the maximum. But it's almost never the maximum.

5424582• 3 years ago

I mean, it’s a bit like if I reported “Next-gen Tesla could reach speeds as high as 671 million miles per hour”. But in both cases the reality will fall so far short of the maximum that the maximum’s value is essentially irrelevant.

CobrastanJorji• 3 years ago

Technically correct isn't actually the best kind of correct. "Local Man Shorts One Share of IBM, Faces Up To One Billion Dollars of Loss" is technically correct, in the sense that there's no real upper bound, but it's not useful, and it's actively misleading.

A reasonable estimate based on sentencing guidelines isn't super hard for a lawyer to work out, and it'd be far more useful for readers, but it's slightly more work and it makes for significantly less exciting headlines.

detrites2• 3 years ago

So then, leaving it off the headline, and including something like your comment as a hefty qualifier when mentioning it in the article would be a way to present that aspect more honestly and without sensationalising it?

5424582• 3 years ago

Relevant here is Popehat’s “Whale Sushi. Sentence: ELEVENTY MILLION YEARS.”

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

rippercushions• 3 years ago

Popehat nailed it: breathless headlines proclaimed "up to" 67 years in federal prison, he ended up with 2 years of probation.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sushi-chef-whal...

dragonwriter10• 3 years ago

This is a plea deal

True.

no one is going to plea to the maximum, which in this case is 20 years.

Unlike in some state systems, federal plea deals do not usually packaged with a sentence. You can plea to a more limited set of charges than initially charged with (or than the Feds were waiving around at you), but you usually don’t “plea to” a particular sentence within the range for the charge you plea guilty to. [0]

The reason the maximum sentence is what is in news articles is that it is a fact. Anything else as to what the sentence will be is speculation, but that the statutory maximum for the charged offenses is the upper limit is an uncontroversial legal boundary.

[0] revised from stronger language, a reply on a separate subthread corrected that; it is possible for federal plea agreements to include a binding sentence terms which the court can only reject by also rejecting the plea agreement. But very often they do not, and the reporting of the statutoriy maximum is in that case correct as the only knowable limit.

ramraj07• 3 years ago

I could publish an article saying Elon Musk is going to die. It's incontrovertible, and likely the only fact you can say about his death, given in fact that he's not yet dead and going insofar as to agree that all people will die eventually. Do you think an article saying "Elon Musk is going to die" is not disingenuous?

lozenge• 3 years ago

There are hundreds of lawyers and retired judges who would happily and legally provide their opinion to be published alongside their name, this is not done because of disinterest. Not because of a commitment to factual reporting.

fauxpause_• 3 years ago

The goal does not seem relevant. The goal of a bank robbery is to profit from the bank robbery.

nr2x• 3 years ago

I don’t know about you but I’d not want to spend one day in federal, or any, prison.

MBCook3• 3 years ago

Yeah but I would also never concoct a plane crash video “to make money through a sponsorship with a wallet company.”

That’s literally in the article. I don’t know how this was supposed to make me want a wallet either.

ROTMetro2• 3 years ago

The worst part is the 'diesel therapy' that is transport to get there: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/15/the-federal-pr...

It's fun when you pissed someone with authority off and get on the sh!t list and the local guard kicks an inmate out of their bed and puts them on a floor (they call it a boat but it's just being on the floor) and gives you the bed (the guards can't get violent with you, but they know how to get someone else to). Not every inmate is going to beat you up, but when you are moved from place to place during the month or more transport takes one of the guys who get's kicked out to make room for you is guaranteed to fight over it.

The one you don't think of is that they won't unshackle you to use the bathroom (especially on con-air) so half the guy's backsides are covered in their own excrement because you need your hands to wipe. Good times, good times.

qingcharles6• 3 years ago

Having spent 10 years inside I can promise you that you are right.

Of all the things you see on TV and in the movies about prison, the worst two are not shown: total mind-numbing boredom, and your cellmate's farts.

epolanski2• 3 years ago

Every time I hear stories about someone being wrongfully committed while having nothing to do with the facts I'm super scared.

A person I know who lives in Sicily shared the very same exact name with a local criminal who was often mentioned in tapes and got arrested and jailed for few weeks till it was cleared it was somebody else. It even was a strike of luck the other one was arrested few weeks after him, and you know how it goes in small Sicily villages, everyone knows each other so he also occasionally would find himself in the same places known criminals would hang out, same super markets of bars or restaurants.

Another person I know spent a similar amount of time accused of aggression towards police. He was stopped for drunk driving (which isn't a jailable felony in Italy obviously) and when he was asked to leave the car he leaned on cop's car and they "framed" that as an aggression while the guy simply couldn't keep his balance so he half felt on the cops vehicle. He was cleared thanks to cameras.

paulpauper• 3 years ago

very very unlikely he gets even 10.

ROTMetro2• 3 years ago

It's funny when you take a plea you have to say you were not coerced into making the plea even though everyone knows that you were threatened with the 'trial tax' of an extremely high maximum sentence in order to pressure you into taking the plea. That's the whole reason for these max sentences. Think of the 'trial tax' as a threat to 'not dare' exercise your right to trial. And then the plea includes taking away your Constitutional right to appeal later. It's like Constitutional rights are malleable (except of course the good old 2a, then those same people are fine with restricting other rights say Constitutional rights can not be violated). Sad that there are euphemism like 'trial tax' 'diesel therapy' for blatant Constitutional rights violations in the USA.

qingcharles6• 3 years ago

This.

It's funny, in Illinois they altered the judge's plea script a couple of years back. They used to say "has anyone made you any promises in regards to this plea?", but now they say "except for the prosecutor, has anyone made any promises.."

It is hard, because if you are innocent you have to make a tough choice. Two weeks after my arrest I was offered a plea to be released the next day. I refused and it took nine and a half years in pretrial custody to actually get my case heard.

duxup5• 3 years ago

The strange thing about it was that the video was so odd.

Dude was filming himself flying, the engine stops… and all of a sudden he decides to bail out.

No effort to do anything, he just bails out.

I don’t know why he thought his video would even seem realistic.

ocdtrekkie2• 3 years ago

He's probably a shoddy actor and wouldn't be able to give anything approaching a believable performance of trying to save the plane.

duxup5• 3 years ago

Probably didn’t want to make a radio call that would raise more suspicions, or try land a fully functional the plane on a road…

But then the result was even more unrealistic / suspicious.

stevehawk3• 3 years ago

it's only strange if you forget that most criminals are dumb. and this guy is clearly a fucking idiot

mulmen• 3 years ago

Convicts are the intersection of idiots and criminals.

runsWphotons• 3 years ago

he can fly a plane and parachute and seems to have other skills though. he is a smart idiot.

dncornholio• 3 years ago

This guy was a professional skate and snowboarder and even went to the Olympics and performed in Pastrana's Nitro Circus.

spuz• 3 years ago

Honestly, like a lot of guys who do stunts, he just seemed hooked on the thrill of chasing fame and engagement and to that extent the video was a success. I don't think that makes him an idiot. However, I remember writing a comment at the time that regardless of whether the crash was real or not, he better start being honest when it came to the FAA and the NTSB or he would see some real consequences. It seems trying to destroy evidence and then lying about it to the authorities was a truly idiotic decision.

shadowgovt3• 3 years ago

The failure mode here is interesting to me.

Like, I'm not a pilot but I've read exactly enough to know that the way he handled this is the opposite of the way a private pilot is trained to. So he managed, I assume, to get the idea in his head that a video of someone bailing out of a private plane would attract the attention of low-knowledge rubes for attention and clicks... While not attracting the attention of every other amateur pilot who knows how to work YouTube, as well as the FAA.

Strange train of thought.

shmde• 3 years ago

Dude was filming himself flying, the engine stops… and all of a sudden he decides to bail out.

This reads like something Beavis and Butthead would do.

nraynaud3• 3 years ago

Well he had no choice, if you want to jump safely, you need some height, which is contradictory with trying to land the plane (it’s actually a bit of a problem for planes with a parachute basically you can’t try to save the plane)

I don’t think he could have been realistic in a single take.

_s2• 3 years ago

BRS / CAPs is (usually) available above 600'.

duxup5• 3 years ago

I think there was in fact room to make the video seem more realistic and still jump safely. But I agree general:

I think he was at a weird intersection where doing all the things he "should" have in the case of an actual engine failure, (try to restart it, make a radio call, try to land (there were plenty of options to land)) and somehow faking that none of those worked / were not sufficient .... would also have introduced a lot of variables he couldn't control / still resulted in a video that didn't look right / raised more suspicious.

Of course the issue ultimately was that doing none of those things was suspicious too... and you have to hide the evidence that your plane was in fact fully functional ...

Turns out it isn't an easy thing to fake.

wink• 3 years ago

Should've hired a better script writer I suppose.

kiicia• 3 years ago

you forgot about wallet sponsor/advertisement and some ashes in plastic bag

astura4• 3 years ago

Really surprised the reupload of the video still up - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM

The original version had some silly BS "I'm so brave for posting this video always wear a parachute (even though I don't in any other video)" text at the beginning and a ridge wallet sponsorship.

userbinator• 3 years ago

It's evidence.

diebeforei4852• 3 years ago

I think this guy should spend a weekend behind bars. What he did was quite dangerous.

bitcharmer4• 3 years ago

I hope you're joking because he should spend years behind bars, not a weekend

diebeforei4852• 3 years ago

No, I actually disagree with long sentences.

I think somewhere between a weekend to a month is appropriate.

renewiltord2• 3 years ago

Interesting, considering he could have saved up to 7 billion lives through this act and been a real hero.

welcome_dragon• 3 years ago

I feel like I'm missing some sort of inside joke ...

renewiltord2• 3 years ago

Just thought I'd add to the 'up to' jokes that were the predominant comment matter here.

rbosinger• 3 years ago

Over the next few days, he cut up the plane into small pieces, and dumped the parts in trash bins in and around Lompoc City Airport.

I once helped a friend do something like this with a bunch of garbage from a house party he threw at his parents place and wanted to cover up. We drove around dropping bits of the 10+ bags of trash in bins here and there. I'm in awe imagining doing this with a plane.

tobych2• 3 years ago

First time in a decade I've ever laughed out loud at a HN comment.

Gorgeously absurd. And I believe you. Thanks. I needed a laugh.

blt• 3 years ago

Maybe he wanted to familiarize himself with Lompoc in preparation for the inevitable.

(There is a low-security federal prison in Lompoc.)

ilyt• 3 years ago

Wow, so he did some utterly dumb thing then... doubled and tripled down on other dumb things.

avazhi2• 3 years ago

Remember boys, don’t fuck with the FAA.

I hope Mr Jacobs ends up serving several years (5-10 seems reasonable) to very strongly dissuade others from having similar ideas in the future. General aviation is already a relatively high risk activity without bringing reckless attention whoring influencers into the equation.

turrican• 3 years ago

The guy is truly a moron and deserves some jail time, but 10 years? For being an idiot influencer that didn’t harm anyone? Heck, if you rape someone in California, the max time in jail is less than that.

avazhi2• 3 years ago

The fact he didn't harm anyone (or anything other than his plane) is partly luck. Yes it's an uninhabited area, but there are hikers, campers, wildlife, etc. It's a public area. It was incredibly reckless.

As for your comment about sentencing in California, that possibly says less about what the punishment for recklessly endangering lives and property should be than it does about criminal sentencing in California, in my opinion. One might also suggest that putting completely innocent lives at risk over YouTube clicks is something that would be absolutely harmful if enough people engaged in that sort of behaviour, and to that extent I think that a sentence that corresponds to what one would receive for certain kinds of sexual assault is not inappropriate.

tobych2• 3 years ago

And girls.

bmurray7jhu2• 3 years ago

This search warrant has details not in the plea agreement.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.85...

mvdtnz• 3 years ago

Do you care to share what those details are, or shall we all just read the 38 page PDF?

bmurray7jhu2• 3 years ago

Jacob plead guilty after the government found Jacob's unilateral recording of himself making false statements during a phone call with an FAA investigator. The plea bargain mentions these false statements, but only the search warrant notes that Jacob made perhaps the only recording of himself committing a federal crime.

The search warrant also includes a narrative into the investigation of four other crimes for which Jacob was investigated, but not ultimately charged.

gnicholas• 3 years ago

Jacob admitted he...had created the video to make money through a sponsorship with a wallet company.

How much money would the sponsor have paid, and would it have been worth more than the cost of the crashed plane? I have no idea what planes cost, or how much sponsors pay, but this struck me as unlikely to be profitable (even before the costs of his criminal prosecution).

koromak2• 3 years ago

I think sponsors pay surprisingly well, like 10k for that video wouldn't be unreasonable, and it could be way more.

The plane he crashed was a real beater, not worth much at all.

astura4• 3 years ago

The search warrant (posted elsewhere on this thread) answers this question.

He bought the plane specifically for this stunt a few weeks before, he did not use his normal plane. He paid $5,000 for the plane and $5,000 for the helicopter recovery of the wreckage. He received $8,000 from the Ridge Wallet sponsorship.

Here's the relevant quotes-

Inspector Krantz provided me a receipt he obtained from the company Ridge Wallet. The receipt showed an $8,000 payment to JACOB for the sponsored ad shown on JACOB’s YouTube video.
An FAA Aircraft Bill of Sale for N29508, Taylorcraft BL65, serial number 2351 showed that, effective October 06, 2021, Laura Smith (seller) transferred ownership of the aircraft to JACOB (purchaser). The sale price listed on the form was $5,000.
On January 05, 2022, Sinton provided Krantz a written statement via e-mail. I reviewed the statement and learned the following: (1) JACOB called SINTON a few days before December 10, 2021, to lift his wrecked Taylorcraft airplane out of the forest; (2) JACOB said he was cleared to salvage the plane; (3) On December 10, 2021, Sinton flew his helicopter and met JACOB and a friend at Rancho Siquoc (Santa Maria, California); (4) Sinton flew JACOB and his friend to the wreckage and dropped them off with straps and shackles; (5) Sinton landed in an open field nearby, put on the helicopter long line and returned to the wreckage site; (6) Sinton hooked onto the plane and flew it to JACOB’s trailer; (7) Sinton sent JACOB an invoice for $4,950; and (8) On December 31, 2021, JACOB’s friend “Steve Dozier” paid Sinton $5,000 on behalf of JACOB.

neom• 3 years ago

I was a little obsessed with this when it happened, here are some good analysis videos if you're interested in Rabbitholing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dghy-yyUMHo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD6m-gVKoYw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEsXJB8IOzQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EZ3Uom7tFo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYE7-XSSz0I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PgGvl2ZMFs

koromak2• 3 years ago

That was a fun week

testfoobar2• 3 years ago

Not a pilot. Could he have landed that plane safely in the valley below him from that altitude with a dead engine?

akiselev• 3 years ago

Yes. There was a nearby dry river bed clearly visible in the video.

It's a moot point though because it was a deliberate stunt.

mfkp• 3 years ago

Yes, multiple people on YouTube recreated the scenario in a flight simulator and found that it could have been landed safely.

ineedasername• 3 years ago

Seems like yet another game of:

Play stupid games;

Win stupid prizes

Just… stupid

ftxbro2• 3 years ago

I remember being taught about "yellow journalism" in the 1890s history chapter in school. Maybe in the future they will have some name for the kind of influencer culture or sponsored deceptive clickbait youtubing illustrated in this article and they will teach about it in some history chapter in schools.

proxiful-wash• 3 years ago

What is the reason this is called yellow journalism?

ftxbro2• 3 years ago

It's not yellow journalism.

thaumasiotes3• 3 years ago

Yellow journalism is named after a frequent theme in the journalism of the time, the yellow peril.

gavinhoward10• 3 years ago

This case infuriates me.

At the time, I had just finished sending in an appeal to being denied a medical clearance to become a pilot because of a history of clinical depression.

That appeal required undergoing a battery of tests, a psychological evaluation, multiple meetings with a therapist and a report from the same, and 15 hours of flight instruction plus a report of my performance by the flight instructors.

I intended to be professional. Everyone thought I was safe to fly.

I nevertheless thought the FAA would deny my appeal. I was right. [1]

So because I once had clinical depression, I can't get a medical. And yet, yahoos like this get to fly simply because stupidity and malice isn't as well-documented as a history of mental illness. Sigh...

To be clear, I don't think the FAA is at fault here; they didn't know, and they acted fast once he did it. They did a great job.

I just wish they would let me fly.

[1] https://gavinhoward.com/2022/09/grounded-for-life-losing-the...

latchkey4• 3 years ago

Is flying in the US your only option?

gavinhoward10• 3 years ago

Now that I have a history with the FAA, I probably couldn't fly international.

I also have a wife. I can't just pack up and move to a different country.

When the rejection came, I decided my marriage was worth more than flying.

insomagent3• 3 years ago

That is a good reason to forever hide your mental illnesses, which mean they will never get treated. Stupid policy.

gavinhoward10• 3 years ago

I agree. I was even willing to agree to regular appointments with a therapist who could ground me at any time for any reason.

But no. I was punished for being honest.

klardotsh2• 3 years ago

I know someone going through flight school right now who largely reached the same conclusion: that soon, we'll have next to no inbound new pilots, because Gen Z and Alpha are diagnosed with various mental conditions at high enough rates (in hopes of getting treated, which we should be encouraging) that FAA medicals will become less and less likely.

The FAA needs to get its stuff together in this regard, and quickly.

insomagent3• 3 years ago

I don't know man, maybe you should remove some of these posts next time you apply:

https://gavinhoward.com/2020/10/the-next-great-project-zion/

(This one jumped out to me in particular.) https://gavinhoward.com/2022/08/the-nature-of-heaven-what-i-...

https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/the-next-free-nation/ https://gavinhoward.com/2021/06/israel-is-not-an-apartheid-s... https://gavinhoward.com/2020/07/political-slavery/

These posts you've been making might have more of an influence on your application than your medical history, bro.

edit:

In this post: https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/the-next-free-nation/

You stated ..."So the United States must die.

But what will rise in its place will be even greater: Zion."

Bro, I would NOT want you flying my plane after reading that.

bitcharmer4• 3 years ago

Oh wow, this is nuts. I guess this guy is a walking evidence FAA does some things right. Sheesh.

rhaps0dy• 3 years ago

What’s so wrong with the anime post? I think it’s kind of endearing the way the writer makes this all seem religiously ok.

dang4• 3 years ago

Bringing in someone's external details as ammunition from elsewhere on the internet is not allowed on HN. It's a form of personal attack (even if you didn't intend it that way). I'm not saying that such details are necessarily irrelevant, but the cost of allowing them is much higher than any benefit (to wit: this subthread), so please don't.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

shipscode• 3 years ago

Unfortunately in today’s day and age any mental illness is a scarlet letter on your record when it comes to anything government related. Firearm licenses in antigun states are probably the most egregious.

It’s especially troubling with the hype surrounding “mental illness” or “neurodiversity” and popularization of it amongst the youth. It seems to be creating a nation of prohibited persons and second class citizens.

jopolous• 3 years ago

Fly under sport pilot privileges. All you need is a drivers license.

Reach out to West Desert Aviators in Utah. Several young people in tech fly there. If you can find LSA to fly, light sport isn’t as restrictive of a license as it’s made out to be and you don’t have to live in fear of the FAA yanking your medical

gavinhoward10• 3 years ago

That is a good point.

I guess I was so discouraged because I wanted to become a professional helicopter pilot, for which I needed a first-class medical.

ThePowerOfFuet• 3 years ago

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-madness-in-our-metho...

HN discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35755630

throwaway5752• 3 years ago

What a trash person. Cutting up the plane and distributing the wreckage. They clearly knew it was a crime. I hope they get the upper bounds of the sentencing guidelines.

wodenokoto• 3 years ago

I’m not trying to insinuate that coming clean would have absolved him, but I do wonder what it would have looked like if he admitted to investigators that he crashed the plane on purpose.

M3L0NM4N• 3 years ago

Anyone following this from the beginning knew it was fake. Glad he tacked on another charge by pleading guilty to obstruction of the investigation.

epolanski2• 3 years ago

It was beyond obvious: the idea of trying to glide and land to a safe place didn't even scratch his mind which is the standard procedure, and all he did as soon as the engine stopped was to go in parachute mode.

jnsaff22• 3 years ago

yea, amateur hour youtube production too not only disgraceful behavior of a pilot and a human, one could have gotten so much more drama out of actually "trying everything" before "accidentally" finding a parachute in the plane and getting out "at the last moment"

everyone• 3 years ago

Nice! What an idiot.

sundarurfriend• 3 years ago

Trevor Jacob (born August 6, 1993) is an American snowboard cross competitor, extreme sports athlete, YouTuber, and former aircraft pilot.

For anyone else wondering if it's a YouTuber they know. It seems more like they're an athlete that dabbles in YouTube and got famous for this one video.

curiousgal• 3 years ago

The only shocking thing about the story is him being 29 years old

grecy2• 3 years ago

FWIW, the video of the "crash" has 3 million views, which earned him roughly $30,000 from YouTube direct revenue alone.

jraph• 3 years ago

How does this compare with the cost the crashed plane?

TMWNN• 3 years ago

How linear is the scale? I presume that 300,000 views for a video does not give the video's uploader $3,000. (Or does it?) Conversely, would 3 million views = $300,000, or more than that?

grecy2• 3 years ago

It's a good approximation to say 1,000 views = $10.

shapefrog• 3 years ago

Please enter a plead - Not guilty by reason of its a prank bro.

tibbydudeza• 3 years ago

Well it worked out better than somebody who tried to repeat the telephone book stunt in the Sopranos (Phil Leotardo shoots somebody through a telephone book at close range to make his point about next time)

Youtuber forgot it was a tv stunt.

koito17• 3 years ago

I remember first seeing the video of the guy crashing his plane. It's one of the rare times I opened up yt-dlp just to download the video and archive it, because I was expecting him to take down the video after sufficiently many people caught on to the act.

While a maximum of 20 years prison sounds rather harsh, intentionally crashing a plane is no joke or laughing matter. It's unfortunate that things had to end this way. The FAA does not mess around.

sschueller• 3 years ago

Isn't the punishment not for deliberately crashing but for destroying evidence involving a federal investigation?

s_dev• 3 years ago

The fact that it wasn't a controlled crash it's what's most alarming -- a plane crash could be achieved legally using qualified stunt professionals etc -- he just parachuted out of a plane leaving the plane to it's own devices. While unlikely it's possible that plane could have crashed in to a person killing them.

jwilk• 3 years ago

https://archive.today/nhSVy

FreeCodeFreak• 3 years ago

20 years is outrageous and very unlikely given his probable experience and making sure no one would be hurt. There is a vast difference in crashing an airplane over a populated area, intentionally wanting to cause harm, and it being accident. Afaik this area is not even populated.

If such a thing happened by accident, you should not get 20 years. If you did so intentionally wanting to cause harm, them perhaps you should get 20+ years, because that would be an act of terrorism. If someone got killed, you should probably not get your freedom back.

Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome. It is not really truthful to bluntly state he faces 20 years. If he were to actually get 20, the legal system would obviously be severely flawed. There are murderers that get 20 ffs.

rat9988• 3 years ago

He has agreed to plead guilty to one count of destruction and concealment with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation, a crime that carries a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.

I find the context very clear. The writer did a superb job.

xd4• 3 years ago

Someone crashing a plane on purpose doesn't amount to terrorism - there would need to be a political motivation as well.

Edit: Also the post says up to 20 years .. not sure why you've become fixated on it being simply 20. People dropping planes out of the sky for likes need to be made an example of imo, and I personally would be happy to see him locked up for life as a deterrent to others. The lengths people are going to for likes is frightening.

jona-f3• 3 years ago

I just hope you have absolutely no power in this world. You shouldnt have with your total lack of empathy and common sense. Locking an annoying guy away for life for a stupid prank... Nobody got hurt. And you're not even alone and don't even get downvoted like crazy. American society sure is fucked up.

Clubber2• 3 years ago

Deterrence doesn't work, if it did, there would be no drug use (or insert any other crime really, you should see our incarceration statistics) in the US. Why do people still think this?

The biggest problem with deterrence is it relies on people not thinking they won't get caught. Everyone thinks they won't get caught.

bambax3• 3 years ago

There is a vast difference in crashing an airplane over a populated area, intentionally wanting to cause harm

That would be mass murder, and would carry a much harsher penalty than 20 years! In the US, probably life times the number of victims.

and it being accident

It wasn't an accident. He intentionally crashed his plane. That's the crime he's accused of.

dirtyid• 3 years ago

be an act of terrorism

Intentionally ditching a plane in region known for catastrophic forest fires is close to ecologic terrorism.

xd4• 3 years ago

Only terrorism if his intention was to cause a fire for some pollical influence.

swarnie• 3 years ago

If that's the case you must have prisons full of Tannerite gender reveal Muppets right?

Clubber2• 3 years ago

Here's the definition of terrorism:

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism#:~:text=Internatio....

International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

You can't just call anything terrorism from a legal standpoint, though many try.

pizza234• 3 years ago

IANAL, but ridiculous cumulative charges (20 years in this case) are standard strategy, intended to make the defendant plead guilty on some of them.

piker2• 3 years ago

I think you may need to familiarise yourself with US federal sentencing guidelines. Unlike being found guilty of breaking state laws, where many state judges will be endowed with discretionary authority to impose a sentence within a wide range and reflecting the facts found/pleaded, my man is pleading to a federal crime involving defrauding the US government and federal judges are largely beholden to a matrix of crime/sentence with a teeny bit of wiggle room for facts and circumstances.

throw_m239339• 3 years ago

20 years is outrageous

No, it was a stupid stunt for profit (he made a significant amount of money from his video), a dangerous one. Flying is highly regulated for obvious reasons, he should have done his research before thinking it was a good idea to do that just to get views.

yunohn• 3 years ago

Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome.

I’d really suggest you read the article, which offers a clear explanation of the facts and crimes he committed. Not sure which journalists you’re ranting about?

d--b• 3 years ago

The one question no one seems to ask is: are youtube views really worth a plane? Did this guy also try to defraud his insurance?

jnsaff22• 3 years ago

There was a sponsorship deal with a wallet company involved. Airworthy planes seem to start from around $20k so it may even work out. Tho the intelligence of the guy doing it seems not to be brightest so I would not rule out it being a lose-lose situation out of stupidity.

sharkbird2• 3 years ago

I think they could be, if they lead to subscriptions and long-term success for his channel. Not saying it was in any way ethically justifiable, just that from a purely machiavellian perspective I think it could make sense.

bambax3• 3 years ago

Over the next few days, he cut up the plane into small pieces, and dumped the parts in trash bins in and around Lompoc City Airport.

Marvelous! Like an ordinary criminal trying to dispose of the body.

He may have thought no body, no crime? but that doesn't work very well when said crime is filmed start to finish and published on Youtube...

b112• 3 years ago

He may have thought no body, no crime?

He may have, or maybe he thought he did nothing wrong, which is why he had it on youtube.

And so he disposed of the plane wreckage, as he needed to, lest he be fined, and he cut it up so it would fit in the bins.

bambax3• 3 years ago

He was a licensed pilot. It's unlikely he thought he hadn't done anything wrong.

He also repeatedly told the FAA and the NTSB he didn't know where the plane was -- whilst he was in fact cutting it up in his garage...

madeofpalk• 3 years ago

...or if you call the 'Police' before and tell them you crashed!

lt_kernelpanic• 3 years ago

Airbeas Corpus

ithkuil• 3 years ago

"The video was just a deep fake, your honour"

caskstrength2• 3 years ago

He may have thought no body, no crime? but that doesn't work very well when said crime is filmed start to finish and published on Youtube

Judging by the Hans Reiser case "no body, no crime" doesn't work at all.

vdfs• 3 years ago

Maybe he just couldn't handle the smell

kurisufag3• 3 years ago

to this day I believe reiser could have gotten away with it if he hadn't been so clearly socially awkward/autistic. there wasn't much solid evidence at all.

there's something to be said about people instinctively distrusting the socially inept: just look at all these modern "catch a pedophile" outfits, where losers are baited by impossible situations into ruining their life.

HeyLaughingBoy5• 3 years ago

I forgot about him. /. was all up in arms at time. He still in jail?

jacquesm2• 3 years ago

There were two of these, one guy crashing his plane over land (this guy) and another iirc that did the same thing over the sea. Anybody know what happened with that second guy?

cogogo• 3 years ago

The other one was suspicious but not so much evidence it was a stunt.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/on-video-guy-ditche...

jacquesm2• 3 years ago

That one definitely endangered someone else as well.

nraynaud3• 3 years ago

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.

Dah00n• 3 years ago

Huh, managing people sounds very ominous.

SirMaster• 3 years ago

Surely they crash real planes in movies from time-to-time no?

Or is it really always all CGI?

capableweb3• 3 years ago

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.

grishka• 3 years ago

Or maybe they film that part in another country.

nraynaud3• 3 years ago

it's higly unlikely that they would do anything else than dropping it from a crane, which is not overseen by the FAA.

hinata08• 3 years ago

tenet featured a real plane blowing up (a B747), and that's a 2020 movie.

So I guess they can crash planes.

And I hope the public makes the difference between a Christopher Nolan movie and what can happen to them on their way to Hawaii.

thecapybara• 3 years ago

The FAA generally only has jurisdiction over American airspace, while other countries may be a bit more willing to allow deliberate crashes. In 2012, an experiment that involved deliberately crashing a 727 took place in Mexico, as the FAA was unwilling to grant approval to conduct the experiment, but Mexcian authorities were more tolerant of the idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...

Namari• 3 years ago

Taken from youtube comments: > For anyone wondering why the FAA yanked his license.

1) attached multiple cameras to the craft (not illegal but suspect)

2) Wearing a sports parachute (there uncomfortable as hell and he never wore any chute on any other flight)

3) opened the side door before claiming any engine failure.

4) made no attempt to restart engine

5) made no attempt to find a safe landing spot even though there were multiple landing areas in easy gliding distance

6) jumped out of the plan with a selfie stick which is not normal behaviour during a crisis .

7) Made his way to the wreck and took all the cameras

8) had the wreck disposed of before contact the authorities .

9) made no attempt to communicate on emergency frequency

None of which deals with the fact he had fire extinguishers strapped to his legs since that not technically illegal or the deliberate crashing of his plane into national reserve.

capableweb3• 3 years ago

8) had the wreck disposed of before contact the authorities .

Not just disposed, but disposed in multiple locations:

two weeks after the drama he and a friend winched the wreckage out of the forest with a helicopter, [...] Over the next few days, he cut up the plane into small pieces, and dumped the parts in trash bins in and around Lompoc City Airport. [...] In a plea agreement, Jacob admitted he had intended to obstruct federal authorities when he disposed of the wreckage

hef198987• 3 years ago

I get, from his point of view, that he removed the cameras. But the plane wreckage? How stupid can people be...

plorg5• 3 years ago

8) had the wreck disposed of before contact the authorities

Worse, he reported the incident to the FAA, who asked him for the location and told him not to disturb the wreck (they told him more than once). He then disposed of the plane and continued telling the FAA/NTSB he didn't know where it was.

belter4• 3 years ago

Some others also from youtube videos

- Claiming always used a parachute, while having multiple prior flight videos in his channel wearing no parachute.

- Buying the airplane from the previous owner and saying then to previous owner, he "planned to do something big" with the airplane.

34°48'53.6"N 119°57'40.4"W is the exact airplane crash location: - https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B048'53.6%22N+119%C2...

plorg5• 3 years ago

Another pilot also said that they strongly recommended he do some specific maintenance on the plane before attempting to fly it to his purported destination, and that Jacob repeatedly told him not to worry about it.

The other pilot even offered to tail him but was rebuffed, with Jacob reportedly saying "if something goes wrong I'll just jump out".

smegsicle• 3 years ago

6) jumped out of the plan with a selfie stick which is not normal behaviour during a crisis .

this isn't normal

but on social media, it is

Doxin• 3 years ago

Honestly I could kinda see going "Oh shit gotta bail! might as well grab my selfie stick that's within reach", but the whole sum of "could happen but not very likely" definitely points to the whole thing being on purpose.

stevehawk3• 3 years ago

He also jumped out of the plane with a fire extinguisher attached to his leg, but under his pants. Because that's normal.

belter4• 3 years ago

Because you know...liar, liar, pants on fire...and he did not want to risk it. :-)

acd• 3 years ago

Youtube acts as social media. Its an attention economy. I think there is something wrong with advertisement combined with social media.

What I think is wrong is that as long as there are viewers algoritms promotes content which get a lot of viewers.

mcfedr• 3 years ago

What is the sponsor getting? They presumably knew what they were paying for, a hefty fine in their direction seems very appropriate

omega3• 3 years ago

They should follow the money and look into the sponsor as well.

pm3003• 3 years ago

He's a top contender for the Internet's most hated person....

fatneckbeard• 3 years ago

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.

jjallen2• 3 years ago

Both should suffer serious consequences IMO. Boeing more so.

akudha• 3 years ago

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

tedk-42• 3 years ago

It's easy when it's 1 person to blame.

In an organisation which is connected to the government in many ways through partnerships and contracts, putting a face to a crime is much harder to do. There's no single accountable person who can be thrown under the bus.

It was more a collection of bad actions by actors that had their own motives but nothing that was ever explicitly mean to hurt people.

(Assuming you're referring to 737 MAX)

byyyy23• 3 years ago

There are names that can be found. While not everyone can be fairly thrown under the bus certain names can be found and those people can be blamed. Who approved the design? Who signed off on the inspection? There is a signature that points to at least one guilty party.

Doing this sets a precedent and an example that prevents people from frivolously permitting things that are unsafe if there is a risk you'll be thrown in jail.

jeffwask2• 3 years ago

There is 100% a single name and that's the CEO. If CEO's were actually held liable, they would do a lot more to ensure they didn't end up in jail.

bergheim• 3 years ago

This is a strange take. So what if it is more effort. I remember as a member of my cooperatives board, I was reading a lot of what-ifs. One was that if spikes of ice fell down and killed someone on the street, and it happened because of neglilence on the boards side, we would absolutely be under the gun.

The board should be responsible. You don't get to make $200m a year and just brush hundreds of lives off as a whoops.

bgirard• 3 years ago

I totally agree. I think if we got better at holding organizations liable for their failure they would be a stronger incentive for them to weight responsible behavior more appropriately.

I think this would be greatly improve our society.

windexh8er• 3 years ago

There's no single accountable person who can be thrown under the bus.

There is: the CEO. This is the person put in charge to run the business against their principles [0]. This is the charter, set by the business, in how it should be run.

When the company fails to execute and people die because of these failures this is a systemic problem that is rooted within the control of a CEO. Nothing major happens in aviation without a lot of checks and balances. Boeing settled because the CEO lied. He should have gone to jail. Instead he was allowed to pay no social penalty and is making money and avoiding taxes [1].

Dennis Muilenburg killed people. He had the position to stop it. Yet he chose profits over the value of others lives. Dennis Muilenburg should be spending the remainder of his life behind bars or subject to fly in a 737 Max with the flawed MCAS that he said was safe for the rest of his life for any and all air travel.

[0] https://www.boeing.com/principles/values.page [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/forme...

golemotron• 3 years ago

It looks like the only illegal thing he did was cover up what he did. Is there another charge?

plorg5• 3 years ago

It's a plea deal. The things he was covering up were also illegal, but by taking the deal he will not be charged for those actions.

jancsika• 3 years ago

fatneckbeard_in_alt_universe_001: this guy will get little to no jail time? Seriously??? What is even the point of having an FAA when both big corp && small fry are !punished?

fatneckbeard_in_alt_universe_002: I can understand why FAA came after big corp. But both big corp && small fry are punished? Nobody got hurt here so what exactly is the government going after? This is truly chilling.

Zesti2• 3 years ago

Not sure what should be funny about this or implications?

He did something wrong, he might go to prison. Does any other actions from others change what he did? No.

And tbh hindsight is easy. Of course no one was hurt of 'the guy who purposely crashed a fucking airplane in some more remote area for clicks'.

Like wtf how sick is this?

Why do you even defend such a shitty thing?

MSFT_Edging• 3 years ago

He's not defending this but baring witness to the double standard that a corporation can basically do the same thing(Knowingly put bad hardware/software into a plane for profit vs jumping out of a plane) and kill hundreds and see no consequences.

Every executive and manager in the hierarchy of responsibility should be seeing that jail time, if not even more.

I don't think the person you're replying to thinks that this youtuber should have gotten off scott free, but that the double standard is an indictment of the industry and regulation agencies at large.

detrites2• 3 years ago

Loads of people have smashed or blown up vehicles in the name of entertainment, or clicks. An airplane is just a vehicle. Important is whether what was done was conscious of the safety of others. Seems in this case it was.

Not condoning his actions, but if he didn't intend anyone to be hurt, took reasonable precautions to ensure that, and then as a result, no one got hurt, it seems you're just left with fraud and a few damaged trees. Who even cares?

I similarly wouldn't care if someone targeted their 18-wheeler at a brick wall in the middle of nowhere and bailed, for clicks, and then lied on the accident report. This sensationalist reporting just makes a copycat more likely.

sfe22• 3 years ago

The FAA as government gets huge support from big corporations (bribes and other help, partnerships and funding), so of course has to do something for the favor. I doubt some random youtuber(s) can offer continued support to the government, so they are not at all in a similar power position. I am amazed that this is surprising to educated people.

canadaduane• 3 years ago

Educated people can still have faith in the good, and be surprised at failings. I was intrigued that the famous Jewish theologian and civil rights activist Abraham Joshua Heschel included surprise as a kind of virtue: "I have one talent, and that is the capacity to be tremendously surprised, surprised at life, at ideas. This is to me the supreme Hasidic imperative: Don't be old. Don't be stale."

hef198987• 3 years ago

The FAA was to deep into bed with, e.g. Boeing, true. For everything else you claim, I'd like to see some evidence so.

I am surprised educated people can come up with unsubstentiated claims like that.

byyyy23• 3 years ago

It's not surprising to everyone here.

It's just brought up as a topic of discussion. Everyone is pretty much aware of what you said.

What isn't fully spelled out is that there are social relationships involved as well. Responsible parties are buddy buddy with regulators while this YouTuber probably pissed off a regulator with his dumb antics so the regulator is unreasonably likely going all out in a fit of annoyance.

toss1• 3 years ago

>make a youtube stunt that hurts nobody

Bullshirt.

The actual result was mere chance. He took zero precautions against hurting anyone beyond being over a remote area. Nothing to prevent wildfire (which would hurt a lot more than just people). The location of the crash was pure random chance.

Moreover, it is not ONLY for doing the stupid stunt, it is for deliberately obstructing, in multiple ways, the federal investigation. Plus, he hasn't been sentenced for 20 years, that is merely the maximum available sentence, highlighted for clickbait.

I'm only disappointed it took this long to get consequences for this outrageous BS stunt. And I'm all for risky things, just not being dishonest about it and endangering people who have no involvement or interest.

And yes, Boeing should ALSO be far more harshly punished for the deliberate 787MAX design flaws (but it looks like they didn't compound it by lying to investigators).

xxs2• 3 years ago

737MAX,

one of the dumber things Boeing did was having two angle of attack sensors; who the hell thought it was possible to have a quorum of two

hef198987• 3 years ago

The difference is Boeing was negligence and carelesness, while that plane crash was intentional.

nathanaldensr• 3 years ago

Some may argue that when negligence and carelessness are systematic, as they tend to be in corporations, it becomes intentional.

moolcool• 3 years ago

You might even go so far as to call it "criminal negligence"

mannykannot3• 3 years ago

Boeing (with the collusion of the FAA) deliberately withheld information about the capabilities of MCAS, even after it was discovered that the original concept was insufficiently powerful to achieve the intended purpose. There was no intention to cause harm, but all reasonable and expected prudence was completely subordinated to maintaining profit margins. Something similar could, of course, be said of this joker.

nirimda2• 3 years ago

Technically it's not the difference, the possible 20 years is actually from deliberately obstructing a federal investigation.

Incidentally, I don't know if deliberately crashing a plane is a criminal act in and of itself, because planes occasionally get crashed as part of safety studies. So it seems that the offense in the actual plane crash is that he traded others' safety for his own profit, rather than the crash per se. But that is very similar to Boeing.

nazka• 3 years ago

I thought it was way beyond that with perfectly knowing there were problems, covering them up, no disclosures, etc…?

iLoveOncall• 3 years ago

This guy willingly crashed his plane (which might have killed people, no way to know of course), I don't think Boeing ever willingly crashed a plane full of passengers.

pdabbadabba• 3 years ago

The problem is that we really want companies (especially, in the U.S., U.S. companies) to build planes. So we need a regulatory regime that appropriately governs their behavior but also does not result in such draconian penalties for negligence that they decide it would be safer to invest in some other business.

Not to say we've struck exactly the right balance, necessarily. But there's just no logic in making a direct comparison between a company that made an error in designing am aircraft and an individual who flew a plane into the ground on purpose.

byyyy23• 3 years ago

There is logic. When you do an investigation the threads will point to individuals and people with names.

Those people should be punished for murder.

Instead the concept of a corporation ends up abstracting the details away and blurring responsibility.

If our justice system was truly just it would seek out and charge named individuals for crimes.

This has the effect of being in actuality more just but it also prevents the entire corporation from pulling off crimes like this as no one can hide behind the protection of the corporation.

It's not that there is "no logic." But that there is fundamental illogic in the way it all works.

dzonga• 3 years ago

does the youtuber design bomber planes ?

does the youtuber self-certify for safety and compliance ?

ectospheno2• 3 years ago

Thought exercise: List all crimes for which five years in prison would be a deterrent for you but one year in prison would not.

My list is zero entries. Perhaps sentencing guidelines are just us spanking people and not actually a deterrent.

Please post your list when responding.

mongol• 3 years ago

I mean, most people are not interested in doing crimes, no matter the sentence. Do you expect someone to say, "cool, only one year for burglary, what a steal!"

ectospheno2• 3 years ago

Yes... that is the point...

atum47• 3 years ago

I think the 20 years is more to make an example out of him. In those days where people eat soap, put themselves in danger, harass police officers and even crash planes to get views / attention, this kind of sentence will put fear in people, I think.

can16358p2• 3 years ago

It was a terrible and a stupid, not-well-though stunt.

Absolutely terrible.

Though, what damage other than crashed debris in a remote land, is exactly done?

Not to support the act anyway, but as long as no one got hurt, one may not face 20 years jail time for crashing their own plane in a remote land.

Stupid? Absolutely.

Illegal? Shouldn't be.

shadowgovt3• 3 years ago

He's not facing 20 years of jail time for crashing the plane. That would have been revocation of his license and possibly some time for reckless endangerment.

He's facing 20 years of jail time for wanton destruction of evidence and impeding a federal investigation. The FAA doesn't have the resources to launch a deep detective dive on every crash, and the penalties are set to highly discourage the practice of impeding understanding of what happened in a crash because that's part of the process of making the air safer for everyone (ground-side as well as air-side).

Even the wreck itself, in its undisturbed state, would have been valuable for better understanding of how an uncontrolled plane meets its end (including possible opportunities to improve the safety of the inevitable disassembly when it finds the ground). ... unless some likes-hound cuts the plane up into tiny pieces and tries to hide it.

hermannj3142• 3 years ago

Your desire is that reckless disregard for human life, tampering with evidence and lying on official government documents aren't crimes unless a person is physically hurt?

Got it, most people in our democracy disagree with you, but feel free to vote in the next election.

kurisufag3• 3 years ago

your comment is unhelpful and unnecessarily aggressive. a better way to express the same sentiment would be pointing out the reasons that evidence tampering, despite not having an immediate victim, can be harmful.

can16358p2• 3 years ago

Disregard for human life?

Putting others in danger: should be punished.

Putting self in danger in a remote location: he can do whatever he wants with their life, even kill themselves if they want.

capableweb3• 3 years ago

It shouldn't illegal to potentially harm others? I'd follow your reasoning if it was his land and he took precautions to make sure there was no one else on the land where he plan to crash, but it doesn't seem like that was the situation. He basically hip-fired a plane from the sky to a public nature park, hoping no one got hurt.

Also, excluding all the coverups he engaged in, of course.

PaulHoule• 3 years ago

See https://abcnews.go.com/2020/marcus-schrenker-fake-death/stor...

solotronics• 3 years ago

Is it actually even illegal to crash a plane on purpose? Plane companies do this all the time for testing purposes, albeit in a controlled manner.

93po• 3 years ago

Another story of why you should never talk to the police (or investigators of any kind). This kid would have been fine if he didn't fucking say anything to them.

mdwalters• 3 years ago

youtubers nowadays would do anything for a sponsorship

tintedfireglass• 3 years ago

Just a small question. Why does crashing a plane cause such a huge discussion and such an impressive sentence? unless someone causes damage to any public or private property while crashing the plane it's a harmless thing to do. Who is it hurting and why is the YouTuber punished?Curious.

skobovm• 3 years ago

There are probably many reasons for this, but here’s my take: the GA community is largely self-policing. There are dozens of regs one could break — whether it’s 8 hours bottle to throttle or busting VFR cloud mins — however the pilot community adheres to them almost religiously. To have someone so blatantly and publicly violate regs with a complete disregard for safety and property would be setting a terrible precedent for the FAA.

Additionally, this is in the best interests of the GA community as a whole, given that it always has been and will continue to be under scrutiny from the general public. No one wants there to be the perception that among them there is a 100LL cowboy who’s gonna bust through a bravo, slam a red bull, and ditch their plane over a neighborhood.

The hammer needs to come down, and it needs to come down hard.

YouTuber who staged plane crash faces up to 20 years jail

Related Stories