53 ms·

A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA says

666 points by chrononaut 4y ago

vernie 4y ago
intunderflow 4y ago
The article says the FAA can't charge him with a crime, only remove his license If the FAA can't charge him, who is responsible for that? The local district attorney where he crashed?
- jacquesm 4y ago
  If he made a claim against his insurance they might nail him for insurance fraud, with the FAA report to back up the claim that would have a pretty high chance of sticking.
  - monkeybutton 4y ago
    Is he allowed to not make a claim? Unless the plane was purchased outright, the bank will want to make a claim.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      >Unless the plane was purchased outright, It may very well have been. Used GA planes aren't cheap but they aren't thaaaat expensive. >the bank will want to make a claim. It would take a very foolish bank to write a loan on a plane (or boat) that is secured by said object. It's probably secured by something else and even if it's not they probably won't care as long as the payments keep coming. Remember, they're money dealers, not plane dealers. They'd rather have the money.
      - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
        He is pretty well off. We can be quite certain that he bought the plane with cash.
        ineedasername 4y ago
        Lots of well off people still purchase things via loans. Also various net worth estimations online place him between $1M to $1.5M. That's not the kind of money where you automatically just pay cash for something that might be $50k to $100K, especially when net worth at that level is often (not always) tied up in a primary residence. There's no certainty here. And regardless, insurance is required on private aircraft, owned or loaned.
      - dmitrygr 4y ago
        > It would take a very foolish bank to write a loan on a plane (or boat) that is secured by said object. What now? Air Fleet Capital and AOPA Finance will both happily do this. It is quite typical, just like buying a car...
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      No more than you're allowed to claim insurance after setting fire to your property.
      - sumedh 4y ago
        but he will claim that he didn't start the fire. How exactly are you going to verify that unless the plane has some blackbox?
        jacquesm 4y ago
        Given that he nicely put it all on video...
        bombcar 4y ago
        I’d normally say you get to pick one - make the video OR make the insurance claim, but given how stupid this pilot was I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried to get both (and arguably NOT trying to claim the insurance itself might look suspicious)
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      Him making a false claim would be insurance fraud, but if it's bought on a loan and there's an insurance policy favoring the bank, then the bank definitely can and will make a claim - it's just that the insurance company will then attempt to recover the money from this pilot since he's at fault, and is likely to succeed.
      - ensignavenger 4y ago
        "likely to succeed" if the individual has the money for them to get... they may succeed in getting a judgement otherwise, but if the individual doesn't have the money, they likely won't get it. But if the individual lied to the insurance company about having deliberately caused the crash, it is still probably insurance fraud, whether or not the individual was the one filing the claim, and can be prosecuted as such.
  - astura 4y ago
    The weird thing is, when I looked into this, I learned that the plane he crashed didn't appear to be his plane. In all his other videos he is piloting a different plane and the plane he crashed wasn't registered to him, it was registered to someone named "Laura Smith." Edit: I just watched another video which claimed that he purchased the plane about a month before the crash, but didn't complete the registration until after the video came out (which was another month after that). Still suspicious.
    - smcin 4y ago
      Are you oppressing his right to identify as Laura Smith?!
    - Breza 4y ago
      There's evidence that he purchased an old plane with lots of problems explicitly for this stunt.
    - scoot 4y ago
      I don't think that we can assume that even if submitted on the day of purchase, that a change of registration would be processed immediately.
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  The state or whomever should charge him for littering. Though I imagine they'll probably get him for insurance fraud.
  - intunderflow 4y ago
    I would have thought there would be a felony for intentionally crashing an aircraft
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      There would have to be harm...I mean I think so. Like if he made sure nobody got hurt? No damage, no risk?
      - MerelyMortal 4y ago
        "Reckless endangerment" doesn't necessarily have to have harm done to be a crime. The pilot could not have known with 100% certainty that the plane wouldn't land on a hiker or wildlife.
        daniel-cussen 4y ago
        Oh that makes sense. And it's an airplane, the ultimate sword of Damocles hanging over people's heads by a horse hair, yeah this was like a fucking kamikaze. And like the other commenters say, there are means to do aircraft destructions properly, with permission and so forth, meaning in that case with 0% chance of killing living things and therefore no felony.
      - brewdad 4y ago
        If he stayed with the plane all the way to the ground in control he could make that argument. The minute he relenquished control of the plane, there was risk it would go somewhere he didn't expect.
    - ericd 4y ago
      Why would you need to make that criminal? It's already a crime to do something criminal like hurting someone else whether it's with a plane, a car, or a knife.
- perihelions 4y ago
  I'd imagine a US attorney. Don't airspace crimes usually fall under federal jurisdiction? Here's a fancy-looking felony that seems on point: - "18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32
  - thematrixturtle 4y ago
    That's for tampering with aircraft "used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce", which seems unlikely for a private GA plane, even if you stretch the definition of "interstate commerce" like courts like to do. Plus the section is really about other people's planes, not ones you own, otherwise anybody performing maintenance work "disabling" a plane just committed a felony.
    - stordoff 4y ago
      > That's for tampering with aircraft "used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce" Is that not an OR requirement of paragraph (1), meaning that "sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" would be sufficient on its own? That was my initial reading of the paragraph, but I'm not hugely familiar with US law. "Special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" seems to be defined here: > “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight: (A) a civil aircraft of the United States. (B) an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States. (C) another aircraft in the United States.[...] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46501#2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46501#2
      - perihelions 4y ago
        I think the US Attorneys' Manual agrees with your reading: - "Jurisdiction over acts relating to the destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities extends to "any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States." https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1423-destruction-aircraft-18-usc-32a https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
- moralestapia 4y ago
  If what he did is somehow linked to attempting to start a fire in federal land, arson or w/e (which I don't think is a hard thing to argue), he's in BIG trouble. If one or two people come out later and state they were hiking around the area when/where this happened, he's in BIG trouble. Also, this is a wild speculation, but I'm sure 9/11 put in place a lot of dos and don'ts regarding aircraft and their use linked to terrorism. I mean, I don't think he was a terrorist, but if the local jurisdiction finds a way to make it look that way ... he's in BIG trouble, again. I know this is a bit exaggerated, but I think they're going to throw everything they can at him, to make an example out of this sort of thing and prevent others in the future from attempting these idiotic "stunts".
- protomyth 4y ago
  The United States Attorney is the folks that actually prosecute federal crimes. They decide to bring criminal charges. https://www.justice.gov/usao https://www.justice.gov/usao https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-pro... Old comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16586965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16586965
- daveslash 4y ago
  From the article, it sounds like they can't even remove his license - they can only ask for it back and fine him for every days that he doesn't voluntarily return it.
Vecr 4y ago
Archive link: https://archive.ph/fNSOD https://archive.ph/fNSOD
hayd 4y ago
The crazy part is that he thought he could get away with it...
- 14 4y ago
  It’s not so crazy. People commit crimes all the time because they think they can get away with it.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Your average prosecuted criminal is either pretty stupid, careless or overconfident with getting away with it, multiple times... And on last one maybe one or two slips are enough to collapse everything.
reader99 4y ago
Originally discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729307
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Interesting to see the number of people arguing that it can't be fake.
  - thematrixturtle 4y ago
    I couldn't actually see anybody taking that line? There's a lot of quibbling about whether individual details like hiking to the wreckage indicate that it's fake or not, but there's also a pretty consistent view that there's a whole lot of red flags and the sum total is suspicious as hell.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      I agree. I read all 414 comments (go me). The closest two I found were: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29737601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29737601 - "these arguments from pilots or enthusiasts are all so weak" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29742283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29742283 - "I'm impressed how quickly folks here are able to arrive at the most certain conclusion that this was staged! While that explanation seems possible (and not unlikely), I keep coming back to Hanlon's Razor"
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
tragictrash 4y ago
He totally thought he was going to get away with it too. There's really interesting observations made by the YouTube community - he had a fire extinguisher concealed under his pants right above his ankle. Great that he got his pilots license revoked. He obviously is not mature enough.
- chrononaut 4y ago
  > he had a fire extinguisher concealed under his pants right above his ankle. This was also something I just learned about the incident an hour ago, and in fact he has a fire extinguisher on both legs, which are relatively evident in his video: - Bulge on his right calf when jumping out of the plane at 2m06s into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM&t=126s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM&t=126s - You can then see the bottom of the fire extinguisher on his left leg lit up by the sun for a couple frames at 2m11s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM&t=131s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM&t=131s
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    You have absolutely amazing eyes.
    - bfz 4y ago
      You can frame-by-frame on YT by pressing '.', but yes, still an amazing catch by parent
      - jolmg 4y ago
        And ',' to go back a frame, for those that didn't know.
        smegsicle 4y ago
        mpv controls!
schoen 4y ago
Under U.S. law, are there circumstances in which it could be acceptable to deliberately crash a plane? In this case, it clearly wasn't (crashing on public lands with risk of starting a wildfire and polluting them), but if you wanted to crash a plane for a scene in a movie, could you do so? Maybe crashing on private property in a predetermined location with appropriate fire department support and prior notification to air traffic control about your intentions? Can manufacturers perform genuine crashes (from controlled flight) on private property for safety tests, the way car manufacturers perform tests with crash test dummies?
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  Could he just say "I panicked"..? I'm sure pilots panic and make mistakes all the time.
  - throwanem 4y ago
    Having had the forethought to wear a parachute and the steady nerves to use a selfie stick on the way down, among other things mentioned in the article, would complicate this defense.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Also: > “During this flight, you opened the left side pilot door before you claimed the engine had failed,” the F.A.A. wrote.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    You can say whatever you want, and many people who break the law do exactly that. But in the end, evidence may show that you are not being truthful. For example, if the evidence demonstrates that you premeditated your actions, then nobody is going to believe that it was a split second mistake.
  - _moof 4y ago
    That would, at best, get you a 709 ride (reexamination by the FAA to see if you really do qualify to hold your pilot certificate) or mandatory re-training. There is no universe in which the FAA would hear that and just say, "lol, totes, we get it man, planes are hard." Responding appropriately to an engine failure is a required skill for even the most basic pilot certificate and if you can't do it, you have no business flying an airplane.
kyleblarson 4y ago
Two thoughts I had while watching this video: 1) Given how dry it was, what if this asshole started a forest fire. It would take little more than a spark in that tinder dry scrub. 2) Given the terrain, it's too bad he didn't stumble across one ore more angry rattlesnakes or cougars.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- poopsmithe 4y ago
  I think your #2 is unjust and illogical given the lack of harm caused by the stunt.
  - kayodelycaon 4y ago
    I don’t know if it’s an American thing, but I definitely hear a lot of “stupid people should suffer serious harm” around me. “Stupid people shouldn’t breed” is popular phrase. As in, they should have died to spare humanity their existence. This attitude definitely shows in our legal system and how much of our population in prison. It doesn’t bother me nearly as much as it should and I’m trying to think differently. :(
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      The popularity of such phrases as "stupid people shouldn't breed" seems to be correlated to the degree which the rest of society is punished for the once-upon-a-time actions of stupid people. Stupid people aren't really a big problem if you're not using them to set the lowest common denominator by which you treat everyone.
      - gretch 4y ago
        I highly disagree with this. I think it's because of the asymmetry between how hard it is to create something and how easy it is to destroy something. For example, it takes a team of skilled people months to construct a house and 1 idiot with a can of gas and a lighter to burn it down overnight. This actually happens a lot - like in california a gender reveal party burned down thousands of acres of wildlife, destroyed homes, created pollution, and endangered lots of people.
user_7832 4y ago
Folks frequently underestimate the danger that we are exposed to in daily life, and this shows it. As a mechanical engineer who used to frequent r/watchpeopledie before it was closed I have immense respect for powerful, sharp or fast/heavy objects; and abundant caution towards things I am unfamiliar with (eg chemicals). I sometimes wish some videos/cases of commonly used products causing accidents were taught in school/uni. The vast majority of people have no idea how dangerous an escalator can be. (If you're downvoting me, could you tell me why? If there's something inaccurate in my post I'd then correct it as I've done in the past.)
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The vast majority of people have no idea how dangerous a simple stepladder can be. One day I plucked my 75 year old neighbor off one whilst trying to one-handedly use a chainsaw (that a fit adult would have a problem handling with two hands, so forget about one) whilst holding on to the branch that he was cutting through. It took some convincing to get him to come down. They don't make that particular brand anymore this guy had lived through so much that I don't think he thought what he was doing was dangerous at all, but there really was no way that would have ended well. No safety gear, nothing at all, and a chainsaw so old that it didn't have a chain brake...
  - hamburglar 4y ago
    Very similar experience with my mid-70’s neighbor. I talked him down off the ladder more times than I can count. Sometimes he even had a glass of bourbon in one hand.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      I really loved that guy. He died a few years ago after a series of strokes. He had worked his whole life in a paper factory at a time when 'personal protection' had entirely different connotations and vats with acid were large and open and real men bleached the paper for the cardboard with utter disregard for their own health. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_Triton https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_Triton So I can see some of what made him do these things (with alarming regularity I might add). His name was Jakob, which is a traditional Dutch version of my own and right after I moved there we hit it off as if we'd known each other for years, I still don't know why. When the front gable of his house became too dangerous the whole neighborhood chipped in with materials and work and we built him a new front for his house for a ridiculously low budget, which was both a fun project and made everybody on the street that much closer to each other. I'd bet that if we could have gotten them together your neighbor and my neighbor would be able to talk for hours :) These old-timers are interesting, they all have their stories and it is definitely worth making time for them.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
perhaps this is an extreme demonstration of an underlying problem in modern society
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  It's an extreme version of Tide Pods. Anything for the clicks and popularity, which translates to notoriety and usually ad dollars.
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
  This is hardly new. People have doing stupid things for attention since humanity discovered thumbs were useful.
- SteveNuts 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fitzpatrick_(pilot) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fitzpatrick_(pilot)
  - FabHK 4y ago
    Or good old Douglas “Wrong Way” Corrigan https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wrong-way-corrigan-crosses-the-atlantic https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wrong-way-corrig... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Corrigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Corrigan
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    that is modern, post-industrialization, society
- alphabettsy 4y ago
  This doesn’t seem like a particularly modern problem. People have been doing stupid things for attention since before there were newspapers too. https://www.trains.com/trn/railroads/history/crash-at-crush-killed-3-in-1896-texas-publicity-stunt/ https://www.trains.com/trn/railroads/history/crash-at-crush-...
mmaunder 4y ago
Oh good. As a PPL working on an instrument rating this gladdens my heart. The aviation community isn’t just pilots. Many folks contribute to safety including ATC, first responders, SAR, aerospace engineers, investigators and many more. If you’d like a sense of how invested some of these people are in flight safety, listen to ATC recordings of incidents where you can hear back chatter between control facilities. This guys actions show a lack of appreciation for the work these people do and the care they put into that work. There’s also the risk of forest fire. I think the cherry on top would be if the USFS got him for littering.
- _moof 4y ago
  There are very, very few things that get my goat like a willfully irresponsible pilot. What really bothers me though are the CFIs who keep signing these guys' flight reviews. I trained pilots for years and it is in-your-face, flashing-neon-sign obvious when someone like this walks through the door.
  - djbusby 4y ago
    As someone barely qualified for MS FlightSim I think it's amazing how so many people, on the OG thread on HN and the Reddit ones I saw could point out things that made the whole scenario look odd. Pointing out little things that just made sense after it was laid out. Terrible but educational. And also neat that so many "amateurs" could see the same flaws.
    - arlcode 4y ago
      It's probably because the "pilot" role plays an airplane emergency like a Hollywood-primed layman audience imagines it. For anyone who has ever flown in a small airplane (even as a passenger) this collides strongly with how things are in done in the real world.
osigurdson 4y ago
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That makes zero sense. Watching a video is in no way to be compared with crashing a perfectly good airplane on purpose.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    He created the video knowing that there would be demand from people like us who simultaneously enjoy the content and the feelings of superiority that we get while watching it. It hurts, but with out such demand, the video would never have been created.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      You mean the feelings of superiority that you get from making comments like these.
      - osigurdson 4y ago
        jacquesm 4y ago
- bombcar 4y ago
  This is like blaming the invasion of Ukraine on people watching combat footage. I haven’t watched it, but I don’t hold myself to any moral superiority.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    There is a distinction as the war in Ukraine is not being waged for views.
Vladimof 4y ago
Would it have been ok if he crashed it in the ocean? BP did much more terrible things like adding very toxic dispersant to oil floating in the ocean to sink it... (and I don't think that the fine they received because of the oil leak was because of that).
- beeboop 4y ago
  If he was able to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in lawyering and bribes (oops, I mean lobbying and campaign donations) then yes I am positive he'd get away with it
- tedunangst 4y ago
  Did BP uncap a well just for the youtube views?
  - Vladimof 4y ago
    They used the dispersant to avoid the views/bad press (hide the oil).
- kube-system 4y ago
  No, two wrongs don’t make a right; they are simply two wrongs.
astura 4y ago
Anyone who saw the video could tell it was staged. I could tell it was staged and I don't know the first thing about aviation. Every single thing about it was just off in so many ways. I really hope they throw the book at this guy with criminal charges so others will think twice before trying similar stunts.
- LanceH 4y ago
  The only thing missing was him thanking sponsors and asking us to like an subscribe before he jumped.
  - cyphar 4y ago
    In the original video he had a Ridge wallet sponsorship read at the beginning of the video. After the initial blowback he re-uploaded the video with the sponsor read removed.
  - astura 4y ago
    He actually does (did?) thank a sponsor in the video - Ridge Wallet. It was one of the really off things about the video. Apparently he must have re-uploaded it if it not longer contains the sponsor plug. The things that felt off to me, a non aviation person, on first impression- The opening text about him saying "I didn't think I had the courage to share this video." (This has also been removed in the apparent reupload). The sheer amount of cameras/camera angles for a routine plane ride. Plus constantly pulling out the Ziploc bag full of "ashes" to show the camera. Jumping with a fucking selfie-stick then immediately hiking back to the plane. This one is hard to explain - He's general affect throughout the video coupled with the other videos on his channel. It just seemed like the entire thing was trying to tell a story rather than an almost-tragedy caught on film. At first, as a non aviation person, I didn't know there was a whole engine out procedure he didn't follow. I didn't really question his recommendation to fly with a parachute, and I didn't know that he flys without a parachute in his other videos. I didn't know he bought the plane a month before.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nopenopenopeno 4y ago
I personally know Trevor from back in my snowboarding days. I always enjoyed his company and I hate to say it but anybody who personally knows Trevor knows exactly what happened here.
- robterrell 4y ago
  Go on...
  - thematrixturtle 4y ago
    It can be reasonably deduced from context that GP does not mean "Trevor is quiet, dedicated, upstanding, sincere young man and this whole thing is a terrible misunderstanding."
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    On that note, maybe I should clarify it’s not that he is dishonest or has a reputation for dishonesty. Rather, he was always a stuntman and a showman more than he was an athlete. To his credit, he always seemed comfortable with that reputation, maybe because he really enjoys scheming up stunts. Either way, to anyone who knows him, it would seem strange for him to buy an airplane and not dream up a stunt to perform with it. He also has the money to waste.
    - salawat 4y ago
      ...Then get a two seater, hide the other guy off camera, and if you really insist on the narrative angle, stage a crash site? The thing I don't understand is the destruction of the plane really doesn't add anything... Why invite the downstream complexity and bureaucratic ire of the most notoriously iron fisted, merciless, detail oriented, and humorless federal agency out there? Like I get adrenaline is a hell of a drug. It can be a great high. That adrenaline spike is a completely different spike when you're getting your wings clipped, because you've demonstrated a remarkably poor grasp of cost/benefit analysis. Like, I'm more open than most to the freedom to do stupid things as long as no one gets hurt... You kinda have to make a credible effort to guarantee that though. IIRC from the original video and thread, the plane actually ends up looping or spiraling around below him at some point, meaning he apparently didn't even bother to trim the aircraft/lock the controls for a predictable trajectory to impact. Even having that thought on camera would have gone a long way toward getting this whole thing further away from scandalous controversy territory, because it would have at least demonstrated forethought and concern for what the plane would do afterward. The crime here, in a sense, is being a perfect example of what not to be in my estimation. If the FAA does nothing, it kinda presents a major image problem. Which is bitter, I might add, because optics based justice is the worst kind in my estimation.
nullc 4y ago
Is it actually known for sure that he crashed the plane for real and didn't just fake it with a bit of VFX? The times article seems to suggest that he completely cleaned up the crash?
- astura 4y ago
  I mean... the FAA did an investigation and came to the conclusion that the plane had crashed.
  - nullc 4y ago
    Link?
    - kuhewa 4y ago
      Did you not read the article you are commenting on?
      - macintux 4y ago
        In fairness, the article doesn’t include any statements from the FAA that couldn’t be gleaned strictly from the original video, so it’s not an entirely ridiculous hypothetical.
        kuhewa 4y ago
        Well yeah, their investigation was presumably based in large part on the video. But they still did an investigation and found he actually intentionally crashed the plane, per the article.
        macintux 4y ago
        Trust me, I’m not arguing for the hypothetical.
        brewdad 4y ago
walrus01 4y ago
About a month back, this guy got absolutely roasted in a private group of faa part 107 (commercial UAS) operators and we don't even hold manned aircraft certificates.
ohyoutravel 4y ago
I assume the vid is monetized because I see ads. Does anyone know how much someone can make from 1.7M YouTube views? I have no idea if it’s like tens of dollars, or tens of thousands. Trying to assess whether it was “worth it.”
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Rule of thumb I've always heard is 1000 views = $1 USD.
  - Breza 4y ago
    Yeah, a $1 CPM for a creator seems reasonable. Depending on the audience you're targeting, audience targeting might be less than $3, which has to pay the creator and Google.
- nisse72 4y ago
  Earlier today I watched a video where someone reported that his medium term youtube income averaged about 15 GBP per 10000 views (based on a couple of million views over a year). That's just about $20 US, or double what the sibling has responded. Both numbers seem reasonable to me, it's likely to be in that range $1-$2 per thousand.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Well he also originally sold a sponsorship for Ridge Wallets which was in the video. I believe he uploaded a new copy of the video that removed some things including that sponsorship. But I am under the impression sponsorships pay more than YouTube ad revenue.
- jokoon 4y ago
  Yeah I was curious about it, because even the cheapest airplane is not so cheap.
blobbers 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=724JxkwWqA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=724JxkwWqA8 Trent Palmer did a nice review of this awhile ago. That guy was an idiot.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  As did Mentour Pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PgGvl2ZMFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PgGvl2ZMFs and a load others.
smm11 4y ago
As someone who is routinely out-and-about in wilderness areas of California (and other states), I'm offended some asshat can just chuck a ton or so of heavy metal into the ground there at a high rate of speed.
windex 4y ago
Spectator apps are encouraging and literally incentivising dangerous behavior in the real world. The world is worse off for entertainment and ads.
- wonderbore 4y ago
  Stuntmen existed long before "apps". Didn't they fight lions in arenas thousands of years ago?
  - smt88 4y ago
    No one is claiming that crime or stupidity were invented by social media. But they do help people monetize those things. If YouTube pays people for views without human review, they're funding videos like this. Nothing as powerful as YouTube should be moderated mostly by algorithms.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    If you're fighting a lion in an arena, it's very unlikely that anyone other than yourself gets hurt.
    - jamiek88 4y ago
      Well, except for the lion.
    - wonderbore 4y ago
      Kind of a strawman: 1. Not true, it's not like safety standards were a thing back then. Even in today’s circuses safety isn't a guarantee. 2. It was just one example. Encierros (street bull runs) are still a thing. Plenty dangerous and lots of people involved, even without retribution.
- frontman1988 4y ago
  I feel guilty when I watch these crazy free climbing/BASE jumping videos. Feels like I am enabling their behaviour by helping them monitize their lifestyle.
smm11 4y ago
Should something go wrong this weekend, we might have two more planes crashing in California. https://abcnews.go.com/US/pilot-cousins-attempt-1st-plane-swap-midair/story?id=84172966 https://abcnews.go.com/US/pilot-cousins-attempt-1st-plane-sw...
bayesian_horse 4y ago
It may still be hard to prove intent by distinguishing intent from stupidity. Also, if he intended to crash the plane, he did so very stupidly on top, by not following most of what he should have done. Just wearing a parachute in a plane is unusual and suspicious, but that can't be the kind of thing that holds up in court. There are legitimate reasons to jump out of a failing plane...
- pcurve 4y ago
  FAA isn't suing him though. FAA revoked the license. If he wants to get it back, I think the burden of proof lies with him to prove that it wasn't intentional, and made an attempt to the followings: > Did he make an attempt to look for safe landing spot? > Did he make an attempt to contact ATC? > Did he make an attempt to restart the engine? It almost doesn't matter what his intent was. He showed grossed negligence through his action.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    I didn't say he should get back his license. Just that it will be hard to prove intent to anyone who wants to prove it. He may want to get back his license through litigation and then yes, he might have a hard time because he made those "mistakes". I'd assume his insurance will have a word with him on the intent question though.
    - itsyaboi 4y ago
      You keep mentioning the proof of intent. Intent of what? The FAA revoked his license for operating the plane in a "careless or reckless manner". The pilot was judged on the results of his actions, not on coulda/woulda/shoulda intent.
- kube-system 4y ago
  The FAA can take immediate regulatory action without involving a court.
  - 4y ago
aurora72 4y ago
He wears no skullcap. He wears nothing to protect his head from cold yet alone from crash. If he planned it, he'd wear something protective on his head.
rejor121 4y ago
I remember seeing this YouTube video a few months ago. It’s obvious that the guy was setting the whole thing up. Glad he lost his license
sjtgraham 4y ago
The funny thing is he would probably have gotten more views if he faked a loss of power but did everything right and put the plane down safely instead of bailing.
- unfocussed_mike 4y ago
  This is what I thought at the time. It just goes to show that guys like this project their own stupidity onto their audiences (this is not always an unsuccessful strategy)
- hemreldop 4y ago
- notahacker 4y ago
  It would have been a more useful video for the subset of YouTube viewers that actually have/want private pilot licences, but "I crashed" as a headline is bound to generate more clicks than "I nearly crashed". Not least because people familiar with YouTube clickbait titling know the latter is quite likely to show a plane taxiing past another plane, or there being two planes within sight distance of each other in the air...
  - majani 4y ago
    During covid there was a super viral video on Facebook of a commercial pilot saving the plane from crashing while landing in extremely windy conditions. Did over 100 million views IIRC. People love a happy ending
  - tokai 4y ago
    You know he could still use the 'I crashed' title even if he ultimately didn't. Thats the whole point of clickbait.
- thruway516 4y ago
  Ah, how I wish I could go back to the days when I was as optimistic about the world we live in as you are
jokoon 4y ago
There was also a video of a guy landing his airplane on water, and it was called fake too. I thought this was about this other video. It's amazing the lengths the internet will go to fake content so it can look legitimate. I'm actually wondering if it can actually be profitable to crash a plane, but that would also be insurance fraud. To be able to defraud aircraft insurance might still be quite stupid. So even if he did not get reimbursed the aircraft, he might have made a profit. If this is the case, that means the advertising industry makes it profitable to crash airplanes.
FabHK 4y ago
Does anyone know whether the FAA had access to the unedited raw GoPro footage? Could they have demanded it? Did they?
kkfx 4y ago
A side note: we clearly live in a society where appearance count more than substance, so spectacles are the core of social trends, a modern and even worse version of classic "panem et circense". Given that the point more than discovering and punishing those who try profiting from others need of spectacle/pleasure, witch in the end can be a legit job so many do in different form and different grotesque's levels, it would be interesting discussing how we got there and how we can correct the aim given that we all like being pleased and we all like easy things, like any living being. The actual dominant school of though say "please peoples steering the where you wish, no good intentions will remain unpunished" my proposal is try finding ways of win-win games vs the actual win-lose ones...
olalonde 4y ago
Crash video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
y42 4y ago
Revoking the flight license is one thing, what about blocking the account? I guess this moves also gets him a lot of antention and therefore followers?
- VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
  why would they block the account
hakube 4y ago
things people do for content money. It's so sad
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
I have a very strong disdain for the kind of people level of cognitive dissonance it takes to complain that there isn't some highly specific law forbidding a particular fact pattern of stupidity and then turn right around and complain that America is puritanical because some random things considered mundane elsewhere are illegal.
afrcnc 4y ago
No criminal charges yet?
- crowbahr 4y ago
  Per the article the FAA cannot persue criminal charges. I'm assuming they've handed over their evidence to whomever can.
danielktdoranie 4y ago
What an asshole.
lizardactivist 4y ago
I can't fly, know little about airplanes, and can count the number of flights I've taken on one hand, and even I got the feeling the whole crash seemed set-up.
Verdex 4y ago
The experts are saying this was intentional, and I'm happy to believe them. Having watched the video back when it came out, my first thought was that maybe he was panicky or a second (third, fourth) rate pilot. Of course, I don't know much about aviation AND I'm really bad at reading people's intensions. That being said, even if my (admittedly bad) instincts are correct and this was accidental, I still think the FAA came to the right conclusion. They say you should assume ignorance over malice. However, there comes a point (or there are circumstances) where it doesn't matter what the origin of a thing is. If you crash a plane into a hill, even if it's just because you're really bad at flying planes, then maybe you shouldn't fly planes anymore. We have plenty of alternate transportation options available.
duxup 4y ago
I'm amused how Youtubers sometimes greatly misunderstand their audience. Stage a fake argument, yeah you'll get away with that. Stage a plane crash? Every pilot and non pilot is going to be all over your video.

666 points by chrononaut 4y ago

The article says the FAA can't charge him with a crime, only remove his license If the FAA can't charge him, who is responsible for that? The local district attorney where he crashed?

jacquesm 4y ago
If he made a claim against his insurance they might nail him for insurance fraud, with the FAA report to back up the claim that would have a pretty high chance of sticking.
- monkeybutton 4y ago
  Is he allowed to not make a claim? Unless the plane was purchased outright, the bank will want to make a claim.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >Unless the plane was purchased outright, It may very well have been. Used GA planes aren't cheap but they aren't thaaaat expensive. >the bank will want to make a claim. It would take a very foolish bank to write a loan on a plane (or boat) that is secured by said object. It's probably secured by something else and even if it's not they probably won't care as long as the payments keep coming. Remember, they're money dealers, not plane dealers. They'd rather have the money.
    - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
      He is pretty well off. We can be quite certain that he bought the plane with cash.
      - ineedasername 4y ago
        Lots of well off people still purchase things via loans. Also various net worth estimations online place him between $1M to $1.5M. That's not the kind of money where you automatically just pay cash for something that might be $50k to $100K, especially when net worth at that level is often (not always) tied up in a primary residence. There's no certainty here. And regardless, insurance is required on private aircraft, owned or loaned.
    - dmitrygr 4y ago
      > It would take a very foolish bank to write a loan on a plane (or boat) that is secured by said object. What now? Air Fleet Capital and AOPA Finance will both happily do this. It is quite typical, just like buying a car...
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    No more than you're allowed to claim insurance after setting fire to your property.
    - sumedh 4y ago
      but he will claim that he didn't start the fire. How exactly are you going to verify that unless the plane has some blackbox?
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Given that he nicely put it all on video...
        bombcar 4y ago
        I’d normally say you get to pick one - make the video OR make the insurance claim, but given how stupid this pilot was I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried to get both (and arguably NOT trying to claim the insurance itself might look suspicious)
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    Him making a false claim would be insurance fraud, but if it's bought on a loan and there's an insurance policy favoring the bank, then the bank definitely can and will make a claim - it's just that the insurance company will then attempt to recover the money from this pilot since he's at fault, and is likely to succeed.
    - ensignavenger 4y ago
      "likely to succeed" if the individual has the money for them to get... they may succeed in getting a judgement otherwise, but if the individual doesn't have the money, they likely won't get it. But if the individual lied to the insurance company about having deliberately caused the crash, it is still probably insurance fraud, whether or not the individual was the one filing the claim, and can be prosecuted as such.
- astura 4y ago
  The weird thing is, when I looked into this, I learned that the plane he crashed didn't appear to be his plane. In all his other videos he is piloting a different plane and the plane he crashed wasn't registered to him, it was registered to someone named "Laura Smith." Edit: I just watched another video which claimed that he purchased the plane about a month before the crash, but didn't complete the registration until after the video came out (which was another month after that). Still suspicious.
  - smcin 4y ago
    Are you oppressing his right to identify as Laura Smith?!
  - Breza 4y ago
    There's evidence that he purchased an old plane with lots of problems explicitly for this stunt.
  - scoot 4y ago
    I don't think that we can assume that even if submitted on the day of purchase, that a change of registration would be processed immediately.
MerelyMortal 4y ago
The state or whomever should charge him for littering. Though I imagine they'll probably get him for insurance fraud.
- intunderflow 4y ago
  I would have thought there would be a felony for intentionally crashing an aircraft
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    There would have to be harm...I mean I think so. Like if he made sure nobody got hurt? No damage, no risk?
    - MerelyMortal 4y ago
      "Reckless endangerment" doesn't necessarily have to have harm done to be a crime. The pilot could not have known with 100% certainty that the plane wouldn't land on a hiker or wildlife.
      - daniel-cussen 4y ago
        Oh that makes sense. And it's an airplane, the ultimate sword of Damocles hanging over people's heads by a horse hair, yeah this was like a fucking kamikaze. And like the other commenters say, there are means to do aircraft destructions properly, with permission and so forth, meaning in that case with 0% chance of killing living things and therefore no felony.
    - brewdad 4y ago
      If he stayed with the plane all the way to the ground in control he could make that argument. The minute he relenquished control of the plane, there was risk it would go somewhere he didn't expect.
  - ericd 4y ago
    Why would you need to make that criminal? It's already a crime to do something criminal like hurting someone else whether it's with a plane, a car, or a knife.
perihelions 4y ago
I'd imagine a US attorney. Don't airspace crimes usually fall under federal jurisdiction? Here's a fancy-looking felony that seems on point: - "18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  That's for tampering with aircraft "used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce", which seems unlikely for a private GA plane, even if you stretch the definition of "interstate commerce" like courts like to do. Plus the section is really about other people's planes, not ones you own, otherwise anybody performing maintenance work "disabling" a plane just committed a felony.
  - stordoff 4y ago
    > That's for tampering with aircraft "used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce" Is that not an OR requirement of paragraph (1), meaning that "sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" would be sufficient on its own? That was my initial reading of the paragraph, but I'm not hugely familiar with US law. "Special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" seems to be defined here: > “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight: (A) a civil aircraft of the United States. (B) an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States. (C) another aircraft in the United States.[...] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46501#2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46501#2
    - perihelions 4y ago
      I think the US Attorneys' Manual agrees with your reading: - "Jurisdiction over acts relating to the destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities extends to "any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States." https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1423-destruction-aircraft-18-usc-32a https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
moralestapia 4y ago
If what he did is somehow linked to attempting to start a fire in federal land, arson or w/e (which I don't think is a hard thing to argue), he's in BIG trouble. If one or two people come out later and state they were hiking around the area when/where this happened, he's in BIG trouble. Also, this is a wild speculation, but I'm sure 9/11 put in place a lot of dos and don'ts regarding aircraft and their use linked to terrorism. I mean, I don't think he was a terrorist, but if the local jurisdiction finds a way to make it look that way ... he's in BIG trouble, again. I know this is a bit exaggerated, but I think they're going to throw everything they can at him, to make an example out of this sort of thing and prevent others in the future from attempting these idiotic "stunts".
protomyth 4y ago
The United States Attorney is the folks that actually prosecute federal crimes. They decide to bring criminal charges. https://www.justice.gov/usao https://www.justice.gov/usao https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-pro... Old comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16586965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16586965
daveslash 4y ago
From the article, it sounds like they can't even remove his license - they can only ask for it back and fine him for every days that he doesn't voluntarily return it.

Vecr 4y ago

Archive link: https://archive.ph/fNSOD https://archive.ph/fNSOD

hayd 4y ago

The crazy part is that he thought he could get away with it...

14 4y ago
It’s not so crazy. People commit crimes all the time because they think they can get away with it.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Your average prosecuted criminal is either pretty stupid, careless or overconfident with getting away with it, multiple times... And on last one maybe one or two slips are enough to collapse everything.

reader99 4y ago

Originally discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729307

jacquesm 4y ago
Interesting to see the number of people arguing that it can't be fake.
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  I couldn't actually see anybody taking that line? There's a lot of quibbling about whether individual details like hiking to the wreckage indicate that it's fake or not, but there's also a pretty consistent view that there's a whole lot of red flags and the sum total is suspicious as hell.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I agree. I read all 414 comments (go me). The closest two I found were: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29737601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29737601 - "these arguments from pilots or enthusiasts are all so weak" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29742283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29742283 - "I'm impressed how quickly folks here are able to arrive at the most certain conclusion that this was staged! While that explanation seems possible (and not unlikely), I keep coming back to Hanlon's Razor"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

tragictrash 4y ago

He totally thought he was going to get away with it too. There's really interesting observations made by the YouTube community - he had a fire extinguisher concealed under his pants right above his ankle. Great that he got his pilots license revoked. He obviously is not mature enough.

chrononaut 4y ago
> he had a fire extinguisher concealed under his pants right above his ankle. This was also something I just learned about the incident an hour ago, and in fact he has a fire extinguisher on both legs, which are relatively evident in his video: - Bulge on his right calf when jumping out of the plane at 2m06s into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM&t=126s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM&t=126s - You can then see the bottom of the fire extinguisher on his left leg lit up by the sun for a couple frames at 2m11s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM&t=131s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM&t=131s
- jacquesm 4y ago
  You have absolutely amazing eyes.
  - bfz 4y ago
    You can frame-by-frame on YT by pressing '.', but yes, still an amazing catch by parent
    - jolmg 4y ago
      And ',' to go back a frame, for those that didn't know.
      - smegsicle 4y ago
        mpv controls!

schoen 4y ago

Under U.S. law, are there circumstances in which it could be acceptable to deliberately crash a plane? In this case, it clearly wasn't (crashing on public lands with risk of starting a wildfire and polluting them), but if you wanted to crash a plane for a scene in a movie, could you do so? Maybe crashing on private property in a predetermined location with appropriate fire department support and prior notification to air traffic control about your intentions? Can manufacturers perform genuine crashes (from controlled flight) on private property for safety tests, the way car manufacturers perform tests with crash test dummies?

dzhiurgis 4y ago
Could he just say "I panicked"..? I'm sure pilots panic and make mistakes all the time.
- throwanem 4y ago
  Having had the forethought to wear a parachute and the steady nerves to use a selfie stick on the way down, among other things mentioned in the article, would complicate this defense.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Also: > “During this flight, you opened the left side pilot door before you claimed the engine had failed,” the F.A.A. wrote.
- kube-system 4y ago
  You can say whatever you want, and many people who break the law do exactly that. But in the end, evidence may show that you are not being truthful. For example, if the evidence demonstrates that you premeditated your actions, then nobody is going to believe that it was a split second mistake.
- _moof 4y ago
  That would, at best, get you a 709 ride (reexamination by the FAA to see if you really do qualify to hold your pilot certificate) or mandatory re-training. There is no universe in which the FAA would hear that and just say, "lol, totes, we get it man, planes are hard." Responding appropriately to an engine failure is a required skill for even the most basic pilot certificate and if you can't do it, you have no business flying an airplane.

kyleblarson 4y ago

Two thoughts I had while watching this video: 1) Given how dry it was, what if this asshole started a forest fire. It would take little more than a spark in that tinder dry scrub. 2) Given the terrain, it's too bad he didn't stumble across one ore more angry rattlesnakes or cougars.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
poopsmithe 4y ago
I think your #2 is unjust and illogical given the lack of harm caused by the stunt.
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
  I don’t know if it’s an American thing, but I definitely hear a lot of “stupid people should suffer serious harm” around me. “Stupid people shouldn’t breed” is popular phrase. As in, they should have died to spare humanity their existence. This attitude definitely shows in our legal system and how much of our population in prison. It doesn’t bother me nearly as much as it should and I’m trying to think differently. :(
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    The popularity of such phrases as "stupid people shouldn't breed" seems to be correlated to the degree which the rest of society is punished for the once-upon-a-time actions of stupid people. Stupid people aren't really a big problem if you're not using them to set the lowest common denominator by which you treat everyone.
    - gretch 4y ago
      I highly disagree with this. I think it's because of the asymmetry between how hard it is to create something and how easy it is to destroy something. For example, it takes a team of skilled people months to construct a house and 1 idiot with a can of gas and a lighter to burn it down overnight. This actually happens a lot - like in california a gender reveal party burned down thousands of acres of wildlife, destroyed homes, created pollution, and endangered lots of people.

user_7832 4y ago

Folks frequently underestimate the danger that we are exposed to in daily life, and this shows it. As a mechanical engineer who used to frequent r/watchpeopledie before it was closed I have immense respect for powerful, sharp or fast/heavy objects; and abundant caution towards things I am unfamiliar with (eg chemicals). I sometimes wish some videos/cases of commonly used products causing accidents were taught in school/uni. The vast majority of people have no idea how dangerous an escalator can be. (If you're downvoting me, could you tell me why? If there's something inaccurate in my post I'd then correct it as I've done in the past.)

jacquesm 4y ago
The vast majority of people have no idea how dangerous a simple stepladder can be. One day I plucked my 75 year old neighbor off one whilst trying to one-handedly use a chainsaw (that a fit adult would have a problem handling with two hands, so forget about one) whilst holding on to the branch that he was cutting through. It took some convincing to get him to come down. They don't make that particular brand anymore this guy had lived through so much that I don't think he thought what he was doing was dangerous at all, but there really was no way that would have ended well. No safety gear, nothing at all, and a chainsaw so old that it didn't have a chain brake...
- hamburglar 4y ago
  Very similar experience with my mid-70’s neighbor. I talked him down off the ladder more times than I can count. Sometimes he even had a glass of bourbon in one hand.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    I really loved that guy. He died a few years ago after a series of strokes. He had worked his whole life in a paper factory at a time when 'personal protection' had entirely different connotations and vats with acid were large and open and real men bleached the paper for the cardboard with utter disregard for their own health. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_Triton https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_Triton So I can see some of what made him do these things (with alarming regularity I might add). His name was Jakob, which is a traditional Dutch version of my own and right after I moved there we hit it off as if we'd known each other for years, I still don't know why. When the front gable of his house became too dangerous the whole neighborhood chipped in with materials and work and we built him a new front for his house for a ridiculously low budget, which was both a fun project and made everybody on the street that much closer to each other. I'd bet that if we could have gotten them together your neighbor and my neighbor would be able to talk for hours :) These old-timers are interesting, they all have their stories and it is definitely worth making time for them.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

perhaps this is an extreme demonstration of an underlying problem in modern society

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
It's an extreme version of Tide Pods. Anything for the clicks and popularity, which translates to notoriety and usually ad dollars.
kayodelycaon 4y ago
This is hardly new. People have doing stupid things for attention since humanity discovered thumbs were useful.
SteveNuts 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fitzpatrick_(pilot) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fitzpatrick_(pilot)
- FabHK 4y ago
  Or good old Douglas “Wrong Way” Corrigan https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wrong-way-corrigan-crosses-the-atlantic https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wrong-way-corrig... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Corrigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Corrigan
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  that is modern, post-industrialization, society
alphabettsy 4y ago
This doesn’t seem like a particularly modern problem. People have been doing stupid things for attention since before there were newspapers too. https://www.trains.com/trn/railroads/history/crash-at-crush-killed-3-in-1896-texas-publicity-stunt/ https://www.trains.com/trn/railroads/history/crash-at-crush-...

mmaunder 4y ago

Oh good. As a PPL working on an instrument rating this gladdens my heart. The aviation community isn’t just pilots. Many folks contribute to safety including ATC, first responders, SAR, aerospace engineers, investigators and many more. If you’d like a sense of how invested some of these people are in flight safety, listen to ATC recordings of incidents where you can hear back chatter between control facilities. This guys actions show a lack of appreciation for the work these people do and the care they put into that work. There’s also the risk of forest fire. I think the cherry on top would be if the USFS got him for littering.

_moof 4y ago
There are very, very few things that get my goat like a willfully irresponsible pilot. What really bothers me though are the CFIs who keep signing these guys' flight reviews. I trained pilots for years and it is in-your-face, flashing-neon-sign obvious when someone like this walks through the door.
- djbusby 4y ago
  As someone barely qualified for MS FlightSim I think it's amazing how so many people, on the OG thread on HN and the Reddit ones I saw could point out things that made the whole scenario look odd. Pointing out little things that just made sense after it was laid out. Terrible but educational. And also neat that so many "amateurs" could see the same flaws.
  - arlcode 4y ago
    It's probably because the "pilot" role plays an airplane emergency like a Hollywood-primed layman audience imagines it. For anyone who has ever flown in a small airplane (even as a passenger) this collides strongly with how things are in done in the real world.

osigurdson 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago
That makes zero sense. Watching a video is in no way to be compared with crashing a perfectly good airplane on purpose.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  He created the video knowing that there would be demand from people like us who simultaneously enjoy the content and the feelings of superiority that we get while watching it. It hurts, but with out such demand, the video would never have been created.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    You mean the feelings of superiority that you get from making comments like these.
    - osigurdson 4y ago
      - jacquesm 4y ago
bombcar 4y ago
This is like blaming the invasion of Ukraine on people watching combat footage. I haven’t watched it, but I don’t hold myself to any moral superiority.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  There is a distinction as the war in Ukraine is not being waged for views.

Vladimof 4y ago

Would it have been ok if he crashed it in the ocean? BP did much more terrible things like adding very toxic dispersant to oil floating in the ocean to sink it... (and I don't think that the fine they received because of the oil leak was because of that).

beeboop 4y ago
If he was able to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in lawyering and bribes (oops, I mean lobbying and campaign donations) then yes I am positive he'd get away with it
tedunangst 4y ago
Did BP uncap a well just for the youtube views?
- Vladimof 4y ago
  They used the dispersant to avoid the views/bad press (hide the oil).
kube-system 4y ago
No, two wrongs don’t make a right; they are simply two wrongs.

astura 4y ago

Anyone who saw the video could tell it was staged. I could tell it was staged and I don't know the first thing about aviation. Every single thing about it was just off in so many ways. I really hope they throw the book at this guy with criminal charges so others will think twice before trying similar stunts.

LanceH 4y ago
The only thing missing was him thanking sponsors and asking us to like an subscribe before he jumped.
- cyphar 4y ago
  In the original video he had a Ridge wallet sponsorship read at the beginning of the video. After the initial blowback he re-uploaded the video with the sponsor read removed.
- astura 4y ago
  He actually does (did?) thank a sponsor in the video - Ridge Wallet. It was one of the really off things about the video. Apparently he must have re-uploaded it if it not longer contains the sponsor plug. The things that felt off to me, a non aviation person, on first impression- The opening text about him saying "I didn't think I had the courage to share this video." (This has also been removed in the apparent reupload). The sheer amount of cameras/camera angles for a routine plane ride. Plus constantly pulling out the Ziploc bag full of "ashes" to show the camera. Jumping with a fucking selfie-stick then immediately hiking back to the plane. This one is hard to explain - He's general affect throughout the video coupled with the other videos on his channel. It just seemed like the entire thing was trying to tell a story rather than an almost-tragedy caught on film. At first, as a non aviation person, I didn't know there was a whole engine out procedure he didn't follow. I didn't really question his recommendation to fly with a parachute, and I didn't know that he flys without a parachute in his other videos. I didn't know he bought the plane a month before.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nopenopenopeno 4y ago

I personally know Trevor from back in my snowboarding days. I always enjoyed his company and I hate to say it but anybody who personally knows Trevor knows exactly what happened here.

robterrell 4y ago
Go on...
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  It can be reasonably deduced from context that GP does not mean "Trevor is quiet, dedicated, upstanding, sincere young man and this whole thing is a terrible misunderstanding."
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  On that note, maybe I should clarify it’s not that he is dishonest or has a reputation for dishonesty. Rather, he was always a stuntman and a showman more than he was an athlete. To his credit, he always seemed comfortable with that reputation, maybe because he really enjoys scheming up stunts. Either way, to anyone who knows him, it would seem strange for him to buy an airplane and not dream up a stunt to perform with it. He also has the money to waste.
  - salawat 4y ago
    ...Then get a two seater, hide the other guy off camera, and if you really insist on the narrative angle, stage a crash site? The thing I don't understand is the destruction of the plane really doesn't add anything... Why invite the downstream complexity and bureaucratic ire of the most notoriously iron fisted, merciless, detail oriented, and humorless federal agency out there? Like I get adrenaline is a hell of a drug. It can be a great high. That adrenaline spike is a completely different spike when you're getting your wings clipped, because you've demonstrated a remarkably poor grasp of cost/benefit analysis. Like, I'm more open than most to the freedom to do stupid things as long as no one gets hurt... You kinda have to make a credible effort to guarantee that though. IIRC from the original video and thread, the plane actually ends up looping or spiraling around below him at some point, meaning he apparently didn't even bother to trim the aircraft/lock the controls for a predictable trajectory to impact. Even having that thought on camera would have gone a long way toward getting this whole thing further away from scandalous controversy territory, because it would have at least demonstrated forethought and concern for what the plane would do afterward. The crime here, in a sense, is being a perfect example of what not to be in my estimation. If the FAA does nothing, it kinda presents a major image problem. Which is bitter, I might add, because optics based justice is the worst kind in my estimation.

nullc 4y ago

Is it actually known for sure that he crashed the plane for real and didn't just fake it with a bit of VFX? The times article seems to suggest that he completely cleaned up the crash?

astura 4y ago
I mean... the FAA did an investigation and came to the conclusion that the plane had crashed.
- nullc 4y ago
  Link?
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    Did you not read the article you are commenting on?
    - macintux 4y ago
      In fairness, the article doesn’t include any statements from the FAA that couldn’t be gleaned strictly from the original video, so it’s not an entirely ridiculous hypothetical.
      - kuhewa 4y ago
        Well yeah, their investigation was presumably based in large part on the video. But they still did an investigation and found he actually intentionally crashed the plane, per the article.
        macintux 4y ago
        Trust me, I’m not arguing for the hypothetical.
      - brewdad 4y ago

walrus01 4y ago

About a month back, this guy got absolutely roasted in a private group of faa part 107 (commercial UAS) operators and we don't even hold manned aircraft certificates.

ohyoutravel 4y ago

I assume the vid is monetized because I see ads. Does anyone know how much someone can make from 1.7M YouTube views? I have no idea if it’s like tens of dollars, or tens of thousands. Trying to assess whether it was “worth it.”

CamperBob2 4y ago
Rule of thumb I've always heard is 1000 views = $1 USD.
- Breza 4y ago
  Yeah, a $1 CPM for a creator seems reasonable. Depending on the audience you're targeting, audience targeting might be less than $3, which has to pay the creator and Google.
nisse72 4y ago
Earlier today I watched a video where someone reported that his medium term youtube income averaged about 15 GBP per 10000 views (based on a couple of million views over a year). That's just about $20 US, or double what the sibling has responded. Both numbers seem reasonable to me, it's likely to be in that range $1-$2 per thousand.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Well he also originally sold a sponsorship for Ridge Wallets which was in the video. I believe he uploaded a new copy of the video that removed some things including that sponsorship. But I am under the impression sponsorships pay more than YouTube ad revenue.
jokoon 4y ago
Yeah I was curious about it, because even the cheapest airplane is not so cheap.

blobbers 4y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=724JxkwWqA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=724JxkwWqA8 Trent Palmer did a nice review of this awhile ago. That guy was an idiot.

mnw21cam 4y ago
As did Mentour Pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PgGvl2ZMFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PgGvl2ZMFs and a load others.

smm11 4y ago

As someone who is routinely out-and-about in wilderness areas of California (and other states), I'm offended some asshat can just chuck a ton or so of heavy metal into the ground there at a high rate of speed.

windex 4y ago

Spectator apps are encouraging and literally incentivising dangerous behavior in the real world. The world is worse off for entertainment and ads.

wonderbore 4y ago
Stuntmen existed long before "apps". Didn't they fight lions in arenas thousands of years ago?
- smt88 4y ago
  No one is claiming that crime or stupidity were invented by social media. But they do help people monetize those things. If YouTube pays people for views without human review, they're funding videos like this. Nothing as powerful as YouTube should be moderated mostly by algorithms.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  If you're fighting a lion in an arena, it's very unlikely that anyone other than yourself gets hurt.
  - jamiek88 4y ago
    Well, except for the lion.
  - wonderbore 4y ago
    Kind of a strawman: 1. Not true, it's not like safety standards were a thing back then. Even in today’s circuses safety isn't a guarantee. 2. It was just one example. Encierros (street bull runs) are still a thing. Plenty dangerous and lots of people involved, even without retribution.
frontman1988 4y ago
I feel guilty when I watch these crazy free climbing/BASE jumping videos. Feels like I am enabling their behaviour by helping them monitize their lifestyle.

smm11 4y ago

Should something go wrong this weekend, we might have two more planes crashing in California. https://abcnews.go.com/US/pilot-cousins-attempt-1st-plane-swap-midair/story?id=84172966 https://abcnews.go.com/US/pilot-cousins-attempt-1st-plane-sw...

bayesian_horse 4y ago

It may still be hard to prove intent by distinguishing intent from stupidity. Also, if he intended to crash the plane, he did so very stupidly on top, by not following most of what he should have done. Just wearing a parachute in a plane is unusual and suspicious, but that can't be the kind of thing that holds up in court. There are legitimate reasons to jump out of a failing plane...

pcurve 4y ago
FAA isn't suing him though. FAA revoked the license. If he wants to get it back, I think the burden of proof lies with him to prove that it wasn't intentional, and made an attempt to the followings: > Did he make an attempt to look for safe landing spot? > Did he make an attempt to contact ATC? > Did he make an attempt to restart the engine? It almost doesn't matter what his intent was. He showed grossed negligence through his action.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  I didn't say he should get back his license. Just that it will be hard to prove intent to anyone who wants to prove it. He may want to get back his license through litigation and then yes, he might have a hard time because he made those "mistakes". I'd assume his insurance will have a word with him on the intent question though.
  - itsyaboi 4y ago
    You keep mentioning the proof of intent. Intent of what? The FAA revoked his license for operating the plane in a "careless or reckless manner". The pilot was judged on the results of his actions, not on coulda/woulda/shoulda intent.
kube-system 4y ago
The FAA can take immediate regulatory action without involving a court.
- 4y ago

aurora72 4y ago

He wears no skullcap. He wears nothing to protect his head from cold yet alone from crash. If he planned it, he'd wear something protective on his head.

rejor121 4y ago

I remember seeing this YouTube video a few months ago. It’s obvious that the guy was setting the whole thing up. Glad he lost his license

sjtgraham 4y ago

The funny thing is he would probably have gotten more views if he faked a loss of power but did everything right and put the plane down safely instead of bailing.

unfocussed_mike 4y ago
This is what I thought at the time. It just goes to show that guys like this project their own stupidity onto their audiences (this is not always an unsuccessful strategy)
hemreldop 4y ago
notahacker 4y ago
It would have been a more useful video for the subset of YouTube viewers that actually have/want private pilot licences, but "I crashed" as a headline is bound to generate more clicks than "I nearly crashed". Not least because people familiar with YouTube clickbait titling know the latter is quite likely to show a plane taxiing past another plane, or there being two planes within sight distance of each other in the air...
- majani 4y ago
  During covid there was a super viral video on Facebook of a commercial pilot saving the plane from crashing while landing in extremely windy conditions. Did over 100 million views IIRC. People love a happy ending
- tokai 4y ago
  You know he could still use the 'I crashed' title even if he ultimately didn't. Thats the whole point of clickbait.
thruway516 4y ago
Ah, how I wish I could go back to the days when I was as optimistic about the world we live in as you are

jokoon 4y ago

There was also a video of a guy landing his airplane on water, and it was called fake too. I thought this was about this other video. It's amazing the lengths the internet will go to fake content so it can look legitimate. I'm actually wondering if it can actually be profitable to crash a plane, but that would also be insurance fraud. To be able to defraud aircraft insurance might still be quite stupid. So even if he did not get reimbursed the aircraft, he might have made a profit. If this is the case, that means the advertising industry makes it profitable to crash airplanes.

FabHK 4y ago

Does anyone know whether the FAA had access to the unedited raw GoPro footage? Could they have demanded it? Did they?

kkfx 4y ago

A side note: we clearly live in a society where appearance count more than substance, so spectacles are the core of social trends, a modern and even worse version of classic "panem et circense". Given that the point more than discovering and punishing those who try profiting from others need of spectacle/pleasure, witch in the end can be a legit job so many do in different form and different grotesque's levels, it would be interesting discussing how we got there and how we can correct the aim given that we all like being pleased and we all like easy things, like any living being. The actual dominant school of though say "please peoples steering the where you wish, no good intentions will remain unpunished" my proposal is try finding ways of win-win games vs the actual win-lose ones...

olalonde 4y ago

Crash video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

y42 4y ago

Revoking the flight license is one thing, what about blocking the account? I guess this moves also gets him a lot of antention and therefore followers?

VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
why would they block the account

hakube 4y ago

things people do for content money. It's so sad

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

I have a very strong disdain for the kind of people level of cognitive dissonance it takes to complain that there isn't some highly specific law forbidding a particular fact pattern of stupidity and then turn right around and complain that America is puritanical because some random things considered mundane elsewhere are illegal.

afrcnc 4y ago

No criminal charges yet?

crowbahr 4y ago
Per the article the FAA cannot persue criminal charges. I'm assuming they've handed over their evidence to whomever can.

danielktdoranie 4y ago

What an asshole.

lizardactivist 4y ago

I can't fly, know little about airplanes, and can count the number of flights I've taken on one hand, and even I got the feeling the whole crash seemed set-up.

Verdex 4y ago

The experts are saying this was intentional, and I'm happy to believe them. Having watched the video back when it came out, my first thought was that maybe he was panicky or a second (third, fourth) rate pilot. Of course, I don't know much about aviation AND I'm really bad at reading people's intensions. That being said, even if my (admittedly bad) instincts are correct and this was accidental, I still think the FAA came to the right conclusion. They say you should assume ignorance over malice. However, there comes a point (or there are circumstances) where it doesn't matter what the origin of a thing is. If you crash a plane into a hill, even if it's just because you're really bad at flying planes, then maybe you shouldn't fly planes anymore. We have plenty of alternate transportation options available.

duxup 4y ago

I'm amused how Youtubers sometimes greatly misunderstand their audience. Stage a fake argument, yeah you'll get away with that. Stage a plane crash? Every pilot and non pilot is going to be all over your video.