13 ms·
It's funny how if you are a major corporation with fat government contracts you can systematically destroy your engineering department, ostracize whistleblowers
by fatneckbeard 3y ago
It's funny how if you are a major corporation with fat government contracts you can systematically destroy your engineering department, ostracize whistleblowers, and wind up killing hundreds of people and nobody gets punished and the FAA will even be on your side, like the Boeing thing.
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.
- jjallen 3y agoBoth should suffer serious consequences IMO. Boeing more so.
- akudha 3y agoYes, but 20 years for this dude is a bit excessive, no? Especially when nobody was killed or injured?
- wartijn_ 3y agoThe 20 years is not for crashing his plane, but for "one count of destruction and concealment with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation"
- jstanley 3y ago[flagged]
- eppp 3y agoWe all are. Pests like this are a drain on our entire government and society. How many hours have been wasted on this stupid stunt that was entirely his doing for no reason at all. He then tried to cover it up and lied about it. He wasted our time this morning reading about it again because he is a selfish liar.
- byyyy 3y agoHe's asking about victims that were slaughtered. Your "time wasted" is not significant at all. Perhaps I should be sent to jail for wasting your time with this reply.
- jameshart 3y agoyou can’t have rules where it’s okay to break them if nobody gets hurt. You can’t have investigative agencies where it’s okay to lie and obstruct them so long as there was no harm done. If you skip the penalties in a case like this, you encourage people to do the very things your regulations exist to prevent if they think they it probably won’t harm anyone. You’re not allowed to deliberately crash a plane without telling the FAA. You’re certainly not allowed to do it into random public land. You’re not allowed to send a plane out of control deliberately. Those are incredibly dangerous things to do. If you do those things and are lucky enough not to start a wildfire or kill anyone then there still have to be consequences. And if you try to avoid those consequences then that needs to be punished too.
- byyyy 3y agoA wild fire has a slim chance of happening and so does a death of a bystander when you crash a plane into unpopulated forest. The danger is so minimal here that what he did is clearly will not lead to accidental injury or deaths of others. It's Just stupid, like a person who road rages and rams into a parked car, unoccupied car. The consequences here should be a fine and loss of pilots license. Jail time isn't even a discussion here.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kayfox 3y agoI don't know if you haven't noticed, but California has been having massive wildfires in the same area for years now.
- byyyy 3y agoThis idea that crashed cars or small planes explode in a ball of fire is from Hollywood. When a car or small plane crashes it just crumbles into hunks of metal debris. It has no relationship to the concept of fire starting. Every action done here is completely orthogonal to fire risk and completely independent of the fire risk of the region. Under your logic Making an illegal campfire is much much more of a crime here. And this logic makes more sense to me.
- gabereiser 3y agoThe government. He’s charged with obstructing a federal investigation et al. and if he gets max sentence he’ll spend maybe 7 in jail.
- intrasight 3y agoJustice is the victim in an obstruction of justice case.
- byyyy 3y ago[flagged]
- thisGuyFlicks 3y agoAll of us that pay taxes. All of us that would get higher insurance premiums (if he got away with it) as a result of his stunt.
- frumper 3y agoIf he makes an insurance claim, that sounds like insurance fraud. That is a very real crime with a victim. Did that happen and why isn't that the headline?
- hef19898 3y agoYou do not consent, do you?
- goda90 3y agoIf you intentionally light a building on fire with the potential to kill a bunch of people and destroy a bunch of property, how much lesser should the arson sentence be if someone puts the fire out quickly, preventing loss of life? A plane crash can cause a wildfire.
- byyyy 3y agoNo this is Hollywood making you think that. Car crashes and small plane crashes result in metal debris, not exploding balls of fire like Hollywood likes to depict. In general the concept of starting a fire and a crashing small plane are orthogonal concepts. What happened with that plane is not arson at all.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoYou seem pretty hung up on this "exploding balls of fire" thing while ignoring that he's crashing a gas-powered vehicle, likely rupturing its fuel tanks and supply lines in close proximity to hot exhaust metal. You don't need "exploding balls of fire" to create a disaster.
- byyyy 3y agoI'm hung up on it because it's true. When's the last time you seen a car light up on fire during an accident? Never because the chances of it happening are basically negligible.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoEarly March, I think? Sometime this year, anyway.
- byyyy 3y agoOk, but you get my point. It's rare. Most people haven't seen this ever.
- 3y ago
- ufmace 3y agoHe didn't get 20 years, that's just the maximum permitted penalty for the crime he committed. The article title cites it as clickbait. It's rather irritating. The law was made with a flexible range of punishments to permit the judge of any particular case to use discretion when determining an appropriate punishment. The maximum permitted is thus rather high. So now every article written about the subject lazily cites "up to 20 years", and thus everyone reading those articles gets the impression that he's actually likely to get 20 years for this incident.
- byyyy 3y agoThe maximum permitted should be zero years. Any jail time for this dumb stunt is overboard. There just needs to be a huge ass fine and revocation of pilots license. I point my car at a wall and drive into it on purpose for views... And suddenly that's a possibility of jail time? That's crazy. There needs to be a minimum number of permitted years when death is involved with clear negligence. Sadly there isn't any our court systems use max permitted years to pick and choose who they can punish. Dumb kid who crashes his plane on purpose versus safety inspector who Actually killed hundreds of people? There is a clear disconnect here.
- ngcc_hk 3y agoThere could be people … can start a fire … your wall will not. Also whilst there can be mitigated circumstance you cannot argued for 0 max. There is a crime, there could be danger … 0 max meant anyone officially can do this without consequences?
- byyyy 3y agoNo thats just Hollywood. In general a crashed car or small plane crumbles on impact. It doesn't explode in a ball of fire. A forest fire is very unlikely here. When you point your car at a wall and drive into that wall you ALSO cannot argue for 0 max danger of death for an innocent bystander. But the probability of a person dying is so low we know there is no danger for murder or death at all. It's just really stupid. Of course there needs to be consequences. A loss of pilots license and a huge ass fine. Jail time is crazy. You know how jail will ruin a person's entire life right? Even a month of jail time is in certain ways hangs on your record like a life sentence. It's too much.
- jjallen 3y agoThat’s the maximum. He’ll get something less than that. He could have killed lots of people in a bad enough fire.
- byyyy 3y agoNah. A fire is unlikely here.
- shagie 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Rafael_Wilderness#Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Rafael_Wilderness#Climate > Rain is extremely rare in the summer, and dry lightning from the occasional thunderstorms can start fires. https://lpfw.org/san-rafael-wilderness-50-years-of-preserving-santa-barbaras-backcountry/ https://lpfw.org/san-rafael-wilderness-50-years-of-preservin... > Wildfire frequency is an increasing concern in the San Rafael Wilderness. Over the past fifty years, three wildfires have together burned nearly the entire wilderness area, beginning with the 1966 Wellman Fire, the 1993 Marre Fire, the 2007 Zaca Fire, and the 2009 La Brea Fire. Overly-frequent fire in chaparral can permanently alter the ecosystem, depleting the seed bank and making it prone to invasions of non-native weeds.
- byyyy 3y agoGood sources. But a crashed small plane is unlikely to start a fire anymore than a car accident will go up in flames (basically never happens). Starting a fire or crashing a small plane/car are completely orthogonal situations. Your sources point to weather/climate as the causal source of wild fires.
- shagie 3y agohttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/27/plane-fires-crashes-deaths/16530225/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/27/plane-... > Small-airplane fires have killed at least 600 people since 1993, burning them alive or suffocating them after crashes and hard landings that the passengers and pilots had initially survived, a USA TODAY investigation shows. The victims who died from fatal burns or smoke inhalation often had few if any broken bones or other injuries, according to hundreds of autopsy reports obtained by USA TODAY. > Fires have erupted after incidents as minor as an airplane veering off a runway and into brush or hitting a chain-link fence, government records show. The impact ruptures fuel tanks or fuel lines, or both, causing leaks and airplane-engulfing blazes. > Fires also contributed to the death of at least 308 more people who suffered burns or smoke inhalation as well as traumatic injuries, USA TODAY found. And the fires seriously burned at least 309 people who survived, often with permanent scars after painful surgery. And while that is about dangers for an occupant it should be noted that a fire from a small airplane crash is not a rare occurrence. --- https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/flighttestprep/skills/aircraft-fires https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/flighttest... > Aircraft fires often occur following forced landings, and the result is often more dangerous than the forced landing itself. The sad truth is that most light aircraft fuel systems are not designed to withstand crash impacts, and they often fail during a forced landing. Spilled fuel and hot crash components often result in a fuel-fed inferno. Note the word often there.
- tedk-42 3y agoIt's easy when it's 1 person to blame. 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)
- byyyy 3y agoThere are names that can be found. While not everyone can be fairly thrown under the bus certain names can be found and those people can be blamed. Who approved the design? Who signed off on the inspection? There is a signature that points to at least one guilty party. 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.
- jeffwask 3y agoThere is 100% a single name and that's the CEO. If CEO's were actually held liable, they would do a lot more to ensure they didn't end up in jail.
- marshray 3y agoIf you punish the CEO for every illegal thing done in a corporation (often without their knowledge), then no wise person would want to be CEO. In order to function, large companies would have to make the CEO position largely ceremonial and appoint desperate risk-takers, and do the actual executive leadership somewhere else. So a strict rule like that risks setting up a formal scapegoat situation which could then lead to the opposite effect.
- Asooka 3y ago> no wise person would want to be CEO Hey, I'm already for it, you don't have to sell it to me.
- 3y ago
- golemotron 3y agoIt looks like the only illegal thing he did was cover up what he did. Is there another charge?
- plorg 3y agoIt's a plea deal. The things he was covering up were also illegal, but by taking the deal he will not be charged for those actions.
- jancsika 3y agofatneckbeard_in_alt_universe_001: this guy will get little to no jail time? Seriously??? What is even the point of having an FAA when both big corp && small fry are !punished? 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.
- Zesti 3y agoNot sure what should be funny about this or implications? 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?
- byyyy 3y ago[flagged]
- brokenkebaby 3y agoThe punishment is for destroying evidence, not destroying a plane. And it's so heavy because otherwise it would make perfect sense to destroy evidence.
- byyyy 3y agoDestroying evidence for what? A crashed plane that did nothing to no one? Don't be naive, this is a crime punishable by revocation a pilots license and a huge fine. That's it. Boeing deliberately withheld information on what was causing people to get killed. Actual man slaughter.
- brokenkebaby 3y agoDestroying evidence. Not for something. Just destroying evidence is a crime in itself. Ask your lawyer maybe.
- byyyy 3y ago[flagged]
- throwbadubadu 3y agoStill there must be a difference between destroying evidence for stealing a chewing gum vs a murder? > And it's so heavy because otherwise it would make perfect sense to destroy evidence. Thus no, this is no good argument for high punishment for any evidence destroyed? Proportionality is a principle in many law systems.. not in the US? Wouldn't surprise me too much, but personally I find 20 years also much out of proportion, so not sure why parent poster gets downvoted so much. (On the other hand, rereading, faces up to 20 years, and judges will likely put this still in proportion, right? So just sensationalist headline once again..)
- sfe22 3y agoThe FAA as government gets huge support from big corporations (bribes and other help, partnerships and funding), so of course has to do something for the favor. I doubt some random youtuber(s) can offer continued support to the government, so they are not at all in a similar power position. I am amazed that this is surprising to educated people.
- canadaduane 3y agoEducated people can still have faith in the good, and be surprised at failings. I was intrigued that the famous Jewish theologian and civil rights activist Abraham Joshua Heschel included surprise as a kind of virtue: "I have one talent, and that is the capacity to be tremendously surprised, surprised at life, at ideas. This is to me the supreme Hasidic imperative: Don't be old. Don't be stale."
- hef19898 3y agoThe FAA was to deep into bed with, e.g. Boeing, true. For everything else you claim, I'd like to see some evidence so. I am surprised educated people can come up with unsubstentiated claims like that.
- byyyy 3y agoIt's not surprising to everyone here. 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.
- toss1 3y ago>>make a youtube stunt that hurts nobody 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).
- xxs 3y ago737MAX, 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
- shockeychap 3y agoI’m not sure I understand the last statement. Are you saying they should have one sensor, or three? The problem wasn’t two sensors - that’s normal redundancy. The problem was that MCAS was only tied in with one of the AOA sensors, and wasn’t aware when there was a disagreement in readings from the two sensors.
- xxs 3y agoThree obviously - one would provide no redundancy, and having two with different readings would be bad as well since it would be unclear which provides a correct value
- hef19898 3y agoThe difference is Boeing was negligence and carelesness, while that plane crash was intentional.
- nathanaldensr 3y agoSome may argue that when negligence and carelessness are systematic, as they tend to be in corporations, it becomes intentional.
- hef19898 3y agoAnd sometimes there are courts judging which it was. Some may even be able to see those subtle, but important, differences by themselves.
- themitigating 3y agoWhy? Intentional is completely different. People are careless all the time.
- moolcool 3y agoYou might even go so far as to call it "criminal negligence"
- mannykannot 3y agoBoeing (with the collusion of the FAA) deliberately withheld information about the capabilities of MCAS, even after it was discovered that the original concept was insufficiently powerful to achieve the intended purpose. There was no intention to cause harm, but all reasonable and expected prudence was completely subordinated to maintaining profit margins. Something similar could, of course, be said of this joker.
- hef19898 3y agoNot going into details of aircraft certification, I am only loosly involved there, but the FAA and the EASA actually allow certifies manufacturers to do a lot of the certification work on aithorities behalf. Calling that collusion is plain ignorant.
- iLoveOncall 3y agoThis guy willingly crashed his plane (which might have killed people, no way to know of course), I don't think Boeing ever willingly crashed a plane full of passengers.
- pdabbadabba 3y agoThe problem is that we really want companies (especially, in the U.S., U.S. companies) to build planes. So we need a regulatory regime that appropriately governs their behavior but also does not result in such draconian penalties for negligence that they decide it would be safer to invest in some other business. 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.
- byyyy 3y agoThere is logic. When you do an investigation the threads will point to individuals and people with names. 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.
- dzonga 3y agodoes the youtuber design bomber planes ? does the youtuber self-certify for safety and compliance ?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]