I’m not sure how this works precisely but we may be mixing our standards.
The FAA holds, IIRC, that your flying privileges are indeed privileges. Thus they have a good deal of latitude in granting or revoking them.
In fact, they are now functionally revoked for this guy. The airman may appeal this decision and reapply for them. But I believe that falls under the jurisdiction of an Administrative Law judge. As such, I’m not sure “reasonable doubt” is the standard that must be met. Rather “preponderance of evidence” might be the only required standard. I’m not certain. For that matter, the burden of proof may be on the Airman to prove that the FAA acted unfairly not the other way around.
While we’re at it, any aircraft crash would be investigated by the FAA’s Accident Investigation Division, but acted upon first by Inspectors from the nearest Flight Standards District Office. The site should be guarded by the police, park rangers, etc. So, if he got there first and moved the wreck, even if he didn’t break a law, his actions could be used as evidence of obfuscation.
I didn’t do accident investigation myself, but I attended a class given by the FAA about it. They are pretty clever about figuring out why airplanes crash.
If this guy did legitimately lose the aircraft, he should probably hope that it happened in a way that left pretty irrefutable earmarks (clogged fuel filter, score marks in the cylinders, etc) and not some “mystery failure”…at least if he has any intention in flying again.
If preponderance of the evidence is the applicable standard, the standard is “more likely than not.” It is not a difficult bar to get over and the circumstantial evidence by itself is plenty to accomplish it if there is enough. Additionally there is normally not a burden of proof (ie that the FAA has to prove their case) each side normally must attempt to sway the finder of fact. Usually in a civil hearing failing to provide evidence is considered automatic grounds for awarding the case to the other side.
Not likely there will be any post crash analysis possible by the FAA if this statement from the NY Times article that @Navynuke99 linked is in fact correct.
So nobody knows of any actual evidence that the FAA could have and that they pulled his priviliges because they can…
I confess I didn’t read the NYP article as I didn’t want to sign up, but just the headline makes me think.
A YouTuber Purposely Crashed His Plane in California, F.A.A. Says
In order to make this claim I think they would have to have pretty substantial evidence..? If Jacobs takes this to court, he could sue for defamation of character to get cash and his priviliges back.
What about the tampering with evidence angle? I got to admit I’m oblivious to aviation regulations and standards, especially in the US, but I assume that one has to demonstrate a certain soundness of mind and a capability to act at least not willfully irresponsible. Tampering with the wreckage however could be construed to not agree with the aforementioned qualities.
Well, the FAA certainly didn’t revoke this guy’s license simply because they could…at least not on paper. The FAA doesn’t stick their neck out like that.
The registered letter that they sent to his address of record was undoubtedly thick and included copies of all the “evidence” that they used to justify their decision.
Now the FAA does not, as I said, stick their neck out. So whatever they have, they believe it is sufficient to not make them look like idiots on the back end and has been run through their lawyers.
This does not mean that this guy won’t get his license back at some point. It might be that the FAA will relent once the public outrage fades, and declare victory through time served. Or it could be that the various lawyers will allow the airman to reapply/recheck for every license that they held.
It’s always VERY political, so logic does not apply.
As for suing for slander, I don’t think that would work. Otherwise every airman who ever received a Letter of Proposed Certificate Action where the FAA released a statement could do the same. Were that the case, the FAA would never say anything. At least that’s my experience in dealing with them.
I totally agree with the logic that the FAA must have something more than the guys youtube video.
My logic is that if they don’t…then he could sue.
I’m just curious to know what it is they have on him as his video alone can’t be enough, the way I see it.
I believe it’s, also, the responsibility of we airmen who reside in the US and Canada to follow the lead of the FAA. FBOs, instructors, and anyone else associated with the maintaining of skills and the support of aviation should feel a moral obligation to look upon an individual like this and feel extreme skepticism about him and his intentions.
If not outright refusing service, I know I’d never have given him a flight review.
I watched a couple of videos and it made me think about a few things.
I wonder if the FAA will be/had been able to determine at least a couple of things from this guy’s footage.
For instance, the prop is turning when it crashes. So, engine seizure is unlikely. Someone had pointed out that the fuel float gauge shows that the aircraft was not empty when the engine stopped. Footage of the crash and wreckage shows that the aircraft was not on fire when it crashed and appeared to not catch fire when it impacted.
Also, knowing what little I do about airplane construction, I’d have been surprised if the actual engine block was destroyed in that crash…the wreckage appears to be largely intact. By the same logic, if he “disposed” of the wreckage, how did he do that? I think anything less than a suspiciously thorough hydraulic compactor would still leave an inconvenient amount of the engine block inspectable. That alone raises a few questions.
The other side of the coin is that the airman declared no emergency, by all appearances attempted no restart, followed no recommended procedures, and made no effort to glide the aircraft to safety, which could be said to have demonstrated a lack of competence to hold a certificate, even if it was unintentional.
In the end, I still think it will come down to burden of proof. Must the FAA show unassailable evidence for revoking the airman’s certificate? Or must the airman convincingly be able to refute the FAA’s assertions?
It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.
FWIW, my experience with the FAA (mostly personnel/training related litigation) - let’s just say it’s the world’s largest bureaucracy; finding that someone that will stick their neck out, even if it’s just a short distance, can be problematic.
Seems we (FAA) had to prove not 100%, but 110%+, for the end result to make sense. Looking back this was probably a good thing in the end however, for some.
The lawyers will benefit for sure.
Then there’s: everything seems to be trial by social media these days. But, live by the sword…
EDIT: I just saw this - if true, sheesh, crazy doesn’t begin to describe it…I haven’t been following it (he doesn’t need any more attention).
