Will Crash for Youtube Views?

Hangar Flying
41

May it be forever.

2 Likes
42

The original story from the NYT articlehas the pretty scathing language from 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,”

It gets better from there. I’m looking forward to the inevitable federal charges for crashing a plane in a wildlife preserve, among other things. Apparently he also did in fact move the wreckage afterwards?

2 Likes
43

FAA moved at lightning speed, for them, on this incident.

Wheels

1 Like
44

I wonder how they proved the case against him? What evidence do they provide?

2 Likes
45

Um
youtube?

1 Like
46

I think it was a tongue in cheek sort of question :wink:

2 Likes
47

No, seriously.
The YT video can’t be considered evidence. Circumstancial, perhaps, but it doesn’t actually prove that he did something illegal.
I mean, does the video prove that it wasn’t an actual engine failure? I don’t know? Did the FAA view other material than in the published video?
There’s nothing illegal about jumping out of an aircraft in an emergency and nobody can demand that a pilot performs a dead stick landing if he/she considers bailing out to be the safer option.

Now I believe that he did this as a publicity stunt too, but can I prove it? I doubt that it would stick in court
 Unless there’s some evidence here that I’m not privy to.

48

Probably they’ve seen enough to justify pulling his cert now. Takes a bit of pressure off the case, at least 12 months (not that he’s ever going to fly anytime soon).

1 Like
49

I’d guess that it was quite easy to check the engine for signs of actual failure or fuel starvation. Even more likely, the guy was inconsistent in his interview responses. Plus
the parachute. The Kennedy assassination, this was not.

2 Likes
50

This is info I haven’t seen which may explain what the FAA based their decision on.

51

But the parachute is circumstantial. Apart from that, I guess it depends on the state of the wreckage. If the engine still runs (which it probably doesn’t, but for the sake of the argument let’s pretend it does) then there’s a case, otherwise I agree with Troll that this is kind of difficult to prove.

1 Like
52

Have they examined the wreckage? From what I read, he removed the wreckage before it could be examined
 I may have missed it though. But again, it would be hard to prove that the engine failure was deliberate and if he got to the wreckage before the investigators he could’ve tampered with it, so I still question the evidence in the case. Anybody know what kind of evidence they’ve got?

53

In the YouTube video, it’s very evident that he had at least one fire extinguisher strapped/taped to his leg(s) inside of his pants (possibly on both legs). If that’s not premeditation I’m not sure what is.

2 Likes
54

So
you’re the prosecutor. What are you proving to the court, by stating that the accused had fire extinguishers strapped to his legs?

Don’t get me wrong, of course he did this. I’m just thinking that the FAA would need pretty solid proof, that would need to hold up in court, to take away the priviliges of his certificate. I’m just wondering what the evidence is here.

2 Likes
55

Surely beyond reasonable doubt applies here

1, parachute in a non aerobatic GA plane. Not usual to wear one, but ok, could happen.

2, fire extinguisher taped to leg, again not common but i suppose you could make an arguement in favour of personal quirks

3, perfectly placed cameras capturing his exit but not any information on the failure or recovery efforts. Again, could be dumb luck due to his professional work

4, destruction of a crash site and removal of evidence, this is more complicated because i dont know the laws in US regarding crash sites but if he called a mayday im sure that there must be a procedure in place for investigation of a hull loss incident (but i dont know)

There are obviously more points but for brevity ive just listed a few quick ones, add them all together and it sure looks at the very least a deception or an outright premeditated act.

2 Likes
56

Reasonable doubt isn’t evidence and could just as easily be in favour of the defendant.
Carrying a chute could easily be dismissed as being cautious.
Fire extinguishers
 If he faked it
why would he need them? If he didn’t fake it, why would he need them? What do they prove?
Cameras
 Dude’s a youtuber.
The crashsite is harder to explain. Maybe he got the go ahead from local law enforcement? The NTSB doesn’t usually examine wreckage of small GA aircraft when the pilot is alive to tell them what happened.

I’m still looking for the legal grounds of pulling his priviliges. Surely the FAA must know more than we do
? Yes, that part was sarcasm :wink:

2 Likes
57

I know you are agreeing with me by repeating what i wrote, but my point wasnt that the evidence i hinted at was reasonable doubt, but was evidence itself, once combined though they BECOME beyond reasonable doubt.

But yes, we are kind of arguing semantics as we all know the jackass did it :joy: as do the FAA and their Veto of his future as a pilot :thinking:

1 Like
58

Put his ass on the no-fly list. Surely a success-mindset can scrounge up the money to buy an RV for trips, now. Man, if only he had something he could sell to get that kind of scratch. Something spendy like, say



 an airplane?

1 Like
59

I believe the fire extinguishers were to ensure recovery of the go pros post-crash. Loss of the footage would render the crash pointless to him.

1 Like
60

Fortunately for the FAA, this is not done in a court with due process and a jury. They enjoy near-dictatorial rights when it comes to certificate action. I imagine that an appeal process is available to him to lobby for his ticket back.

3 Likes