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.
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)
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...
The board should be responsible. You don't get to make $200m a year and just brush hundreds of lives off as a whoops.
I think this would be greatly improve our society.
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.
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).
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am surprised educated people can come up with unsubstentiated claims like that.
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.
does the youtuber self-certify for safety and compliance ?
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.
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.
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.
https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sushi-chef-whal...
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.
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.
Lots of things lawyers do are easy for lawyers to figure out. That doesn't mean a programmer is going to be able to make a reasonable estimate unless they both understand the law and the history of the accused.
Sentencing is a fairly well defined things. You have guidelines and upper limits that come with specific charges, and then the judge uses those guidelines and various other factors to then sentence somewhere along that spectrum. Anyone read a handful of sentencing news stories is very well familiar with how it works.
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.
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.
That’s literally in the article. I don’t know how this was supposed to make me want a wallet either.
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.
* 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
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)
I do think what he did was stupid and brazen and that he should be punished. The punishment should be dealt in such a way that nobody else attempts this again. I'm also glad nobody was hurt (the probability of that was extremely low).
But all of that said, I'm very glad that this video and anecdote now exist. It's incredibly fascinating. Nobody was hurt, and it's such a novel thing.
If you haven't seen the video, you need to see it.
* 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.
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).
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].
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.
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)
The evidence of which was destroyed?
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.
“Failing to correctly fly an aircraft” is quite an understatement. This person didn’t just accidentally run out of fuel, or accidentally stalled.
He intentionally set up the airplane with cameras, intentionally wore a parachute, intentionally stopped the engine mid-flight and then intentionally jumped out of the airplane while holding a camera on a selfie stick.
None of this can be described as ”failing to correctly fly an aircraft”. What he did required explicit intent.
Nobody was in it when it crashed, he jumped out of the plane midair.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think he could have been realistic in a single take.
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.
But then the result was even more unrealistic / suspicious.
This reads like something Beavis and Butthead would do.
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...
The FAA needs to get its stuff together in this regard, and quickly.
But no. I was punished for being honest.
HN discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35755630
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.
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
I guess I was so discouraged because I wanted to become a professional helicopter pilot, for which I needed a first-class medical.
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.
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.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
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.
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.
I find the context very clear. The writer did a superb job.
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.
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?
Intentionally ditching a plane in region known for catastrophic forest fires is close to ecologic 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.
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.
The biggest problem with deterrence is it relies on people not thinking they won't get caught. Everyone thinks they won't get caught.
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.
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.
“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
I've never heard the term National Forest before.
National Parks run by National Park Service. Federally protected lands. There are lot fewer of them. They are more tourist-oriented and are treated like natural wonders for the public to experience. Very high restrictions to protect the land (staying on trail in certain areas, pets, campfires, leave no trace, camp and wilderness permits, manicured roads and trails). Has an entrance fee. Patrolled by park rangers. Often has crowds.
National Forest run by US Forest Service. Also federally protected and managed. There are a lot more of them and aren't marketed with much grandeur as a national park. They often contain a maze of rough, less-maintained forest roads. You can camp anywhere in them for free mostly without any fee or permit requirement, so it's sort of like wilderness. Less stringent rules of what you can and can't do. Very easy to drive into a national forest and see no one around. If I'm ever on the road, I'll sleep in a national forest or other public lands
On the other hand, National Forests, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, follow a multiple-use and sustained-yield approach. They're designed to support a variety of activities, including logging, grazing, mining, and recreation. These activities are carried out under sustainable practices to ensure the resources remain for future generations.
"National parks focus on protecting natural and historic resources "unimpaired for future generations." Park rangers work for the National Park Service (NPS) under the Department of Interior.
National forests, on the other hand, emphasize not only resource preservation, but other kinds of use as well."
A national park is a place for humans, and to some extent, wildlife, to enjoy,
A forest in this context is a natural resource to be exploited. For the most part it’s a place where lumber is harvested.
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.
They probably didn’t know. And if they did it would probably be incredibly hard to prove.
Just doesn’t seem like anyone involved in any way should walk away without at least some punishment.
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.
- 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...
The other pilot even offered to tail him but was rebuffed, with Jacob reportedly saying "if something goes wrong I'll just jump out".
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
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.
this isn't normal
but on social media, it is
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...
Judging by the Hans Reiser case "no body, no crime" doesn't work 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.
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.
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...
"shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
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.
So the argument that I keep seeing in this thread that it could've led to death so he deserves to get his life ruined by a 20 years sentence or whatever doesn't make sense to me
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...
Or is it really always all CGI?
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.
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.
https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
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.
In this case, probably not - 20 years is pretty stiff, and the crime implies that typical sentences are much less than that.
But if the maximum sentence was say... 6 months instead; or just a fine. Yeah - I think that would be useful information.
Opinions will differ on this highly subjective question.
> How does this fact aid my understanding of the severity of what he’s done?
It aids your understanding of the potential consequences, not the severity of what he has done.
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.
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.
Got it, most people in our democracy disagree with you, but feel free to vote in the next election.
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.
Also, excluding all the coverups he engaged in, of course.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.85...
The search warrant also includes a narrative into the investigation of four other crimes for which Jacob was investigated, but not ultimately charged.
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).
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.
The plane he crashed was a real beater, not worth much at all.
I think somewhere between a weekend to a month is appropriate.
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/on-video-guy-ditche...
My list is zero entries. Perhaps sentencing guidelines are just us spanking people and not actually a deterrent.
Please post your list when responding.
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
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.
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.
What I think is wrong is that as long as there are viewers algoritms promotes content which get a lot of viewers.
Youtuber forgot it was a tv stunt.
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.
Play stupid games;
Win stupid prizes
~
Just… stupid
