Will Crash for Youtube Views?

Hangar Flying
81

If this indeed was a real emergency, he sure handled it poorly. But all he needs to do is claim he was scared and stressed.
No mayday. Was he even in contact with ATC?
Even if everything points at a deliberate crash, he can say he did a lot more, but it was edited out because of bad footage or something.

But, again, the fact that the FAA went as far as they did suggests they have something on him. I just wonder what.

1 Like
82

He could say he was below coverage: it’s pretty sketchy out west - a lot of “saves” were via relay (there’s always some Big Iron overhead) - but doesn’t sound like he even tried that.

1 Like
83

Very true.

I wonder if the actual investigation will ever be released via FOIA, or if it is sealed by the Pilots Bill of Rights/Privacy Act

1 Like
84

I think the due-process discussion a bit academic as that is not how the FAA works. The “revoked” link above reinforces my long-standing firewall for all online visual content: If the title screen or link shows the face of the presenter making any sort of reaction, he/she’s likely a soulless troll and the content is more clickbate than informative. This personal filter has the added benefit of ruling out about 95% of the garbage out there.

5 Likes
85

First, there’s nothing wrong with having an academic discussion :wink:
Sure, the FAA have their standards for when they deem a certificate should be revoked, but they may also face legal action from the certificate holder and that will be subject to due process of the law.
At least I hope that is the case in the US, otherwise all certificate holders would be totally defenseless

So, the way I see it, the FAA can’t simply act on a hunch either.

I apply the same filter, but in this case the picture doesn’t show the presenter :slight_smile:
It’s a video by Mentour Now and was quite informative, IMO.

2 Likes
86

:wink: :wink:

87

the Youtube pilots are tearing him a new one.

One Pilot says you can see the wing tanks are disconnected, so with only the front tank, he prolly purposely ran out of fuel, also explains no fire.

In all his other videos, hes not once wearing a parachute, and his situational awareness is horrible. as he had to "“fly with no avionics” because his dog jumped from the back seat.

Others are saying if it wasnt intentional, he woudlve said “my plane crashed”, not a direct statement of action " I crashed my plane "

2 Likes
88

plus the added benefit of saved time :slight_smile:

3 Likes
89

Wait for the other federal and state level charges that are due to follow next. I’m sure there will be amplifying details there.

2 Likes
90

I’m not saying he can’t file suite, but it would be difficult to get a win. Regulatory agencies dealing with “privileges” usually have broad ability to revoke said privileges, and doing so is an administrative act not a criminal one. This moves the case over to civil court, which is a far different area than criminal court regarding standards of evidence. There is no “burden” of proof automatically required by either party, merely prove your version is more likely than the other persons. The rules of evidence are markedly relaxed as well. A mountain of circumstantial evidence does very well in civil court usually.
Also a lot of times (and I have no clue here, I’ve never checked into this area of law regarding the FAA), in the agreement granting you these “privileges” you expressly waive your right to sue for their revocation and instead must go through arbitration or some other process that is usually highly unfavorable to the plantiff.

A law suite for libel would be almost guaranteed to fail, as they would have to show that the other party knowingly made false statements. Even if he eventually won back his certificate, he would have to convince a court that the author of whatever was released in the media intentionally and knowingly made false statements that would have an averse result for him. Secondly civil court has no timelines for a speedy trial, and the trial couldn’t even begin till after he was restored his certificate. The feds have drug trials out for decades to avoid judgements, I wouldn’t expect anything different here.

3 Likes
91

“Preponderance of Evidence” is the applicable burden of proof for FAA certificate action, if it were to go before an Administrative Law Judge.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/adjudication/civil_penalty

1 Like
92

Thanks for the clarification, @jenrick.
Over here there are a number of cases where pilots have to go to court to get their license back, or fight criminal charges and winning against the government.

93

On a similar note, the FAA looking into Red Bull’s recent “plane-swap” stunt that did not end successfully, but both pilots are ok.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/tyqcJoNjNv0Fq/giphy.webp?cid=8d2e674amjyp32tehymoxl31exs8xe7mbv5pr5orwg5evgwe&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g(image larger than 1 MB)

4 Likes
94

Ouch
 Applying for permission, being denied by the FAA
and doing it anyway. Well, at least Jacobs didn’t do that :wink:

1 Like
95

I’ve mentioned a few times that I dislike what YouTube has become, and I think stories like this only confirm my point of view


6 Likes
96

We discussed this at length, but that was probably before you joined. If you don’t mind, I’ll merge this thread with the old one.

1 Like
97

fine, no worries. Just trying to show that I’m not just a griping old git! (note I said “not just
” :laughing:

2 Likes
98

Considering he could have received a 20 year sentence for this stunt I wonder if his plea agreement keeps him from spending any time in jail?

Wheels

1 Like
99

I don’t know if this adds anything to the discussion but I certainly agree with the statement near the end regarding stupidity:

1 Like
100

He needs to be in jail, he’s a danger to society

7 Likes