5 ms·

> [...]this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated[...] If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they

by avar 3y ago

> [...]this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated[...] If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional? They'd almost certainly have revoked his license to ever fly again, but filming everything you're doing isn't illegal. Nor is wearing a parachute because you know you're a crappy pilot that'll bail out at the first sign of trouble.

calamari4065 3y ago
>If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional? Isn't that what the black box is for?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  It's very unlikely that a private aircraft this small would have a 'black box' (either of the cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder variety). That said, the pilot in this case had incriminating evidence on board due to his own recording devices.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  The tech in that airplane is much closer to a 1935 tractor than it is to even a 1985 passenger car (which also didn’t have anything like a black box).
omginternets 3y ago
Applying a bit of abduction, I see two narratives that track: 1. Some other illicit activity was going on in or around that plane. 2. The pilot thought he could make the whole mess go away by erasing physical evidence of the crash; his reasoning might be along the lines of "no evidence, no feds". I find both equally credible. I'm stumped.
- jxf 3y ago
  Never overestimate the intelligence of someone willing to jump out of a moving plane for clicks and views.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    Never underestimate the propensity of a criminal to engage in multiple crimes. I maintain it could go either way.
constantly 3y ago
My understanding reading the original incident report, to my recollection, was that there was enough there that random grossly negligent youtuber trying to get clicks for an ad + a dozen cameras + parachute + not following safety protocol + not giving enough time of trying to restart before immediately bailing meant the beyond reasonable doubt conclusion would almost certainly be that this was premeditated.
mplewis 3y ago
Yes, because nothing in the plane caused a loss of power.
- vkou 3y ago
  And even if it did, he made no effort to resolve the issue.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional? In a normal setting, probably not. General-aviation aircraft don't have flight recorders. Helpfully for the investigators, however, this numpty decked his plane out in cameras. And then posted the video online. After he'd executed the cover-up.
ksherlock 3y ago
General Aviation airplanes require an annual inspection (from an IA A&P mechanic -- that's airframe & powerplant with inspection authorization). My understanding is that the plane was out of annual (ie, bought as parts) and he fixed it up enough to fly. There are strict limits on what repairs you can do yourself without involving a licensed A&P mechanic. FAA actually does ramp checks on occasion to verify that your bug smasher has up to date registration and annual inspection. Regardless of how the flight ended, the flight shouldn't have happened in the first place and his PPL could be revoked for that alone.
- lovecg 3y ago
  Edit: this is wrong as pointed out below. FAA doesn’t mess around with the maintenance regulations. If I remember correctly the A&P knowledge test requirement was to answer 99% of questions correctly, compared to something like 75% for a PPL (I might be way off but there was a large difference).
  - civilitty 3y ago
    You're way off. Comically so. A&P passing grade is more like 70%. It's not a comparable figure to PPL ground school.
    - lovecg 3y ago
      You’re right, but I’m wondering where my confusion comes from. I’m absolutely positive something required a much higher %. Maybe a different license or regs changed in the last decade or so?
      - ultrarunner 3y ago
        I thought I remembered something like this— maybe it's a higher question count or lower time limit for e.g. commercial? The FAA testing matrix seems to suggest all are 70% as of now[0] [0] https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-09/testing_matrix_2.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-09/testing_matr...
phire 3y ago
It was pretty blatantly obvious from just the video. The engine didn't just stop producing power, that would leave typically the propeller spinning, windmilling in the air. (unless the engine seized, but he was faking fuel starvation) He put a bunch of effort into making sure the propeller actually stopped spinning, I think he had to actually reduce speed; Just so that your average YouTube viewer could clearly see the engine had stopped.
tass 3y ago
Probably, because he was stupid enough to record a video with cameras in the plane. But there’s plenty of ways to achieve it which could pass as accidental: Accidentally lean mixture (e.g., grab the wrong control). Set to use an empty fuel tank. Set the fuel valve to off or in between settings. With some preparation, destroy a spark plug or two, only enable those spark plugs in the air - extreme misfires will be obvious on video. There are plenty of pilots who wear chutes (and there are special chutes which basically replace your seat) but he also had a fire extinguisher strapped to his leg which is not a normal occurrence.

by avar 3y ago

calamari4065 3y ago

>If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional? Isn't that what the black box is for?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seabass-labrax 3y ago
It's very unlikely that a private aircraft this small would have a 'black box' (either of the cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder variety). That said, the pilot in this case had incriminating evidence on board due to his own recording devices.
sokoloff 3y ago
The tech in that airplane is much closer to a 1935 tractor than it is to even a 1985 passenger car (which also didn’t have anything like a black box).

omginternets 3y ago

Applying a bit of abduction, I see two narratives that track: 1. Some other illicit activity was going on in or around that plane. 2. The pilot thought he could make the whole mess go away by erasing physical evidence of the crash; his reasoning might be along the lines of "no evidence, no feds". I find both equally credible. I'm stumped.

jxf 3y ago
Never overestimate the intelligence of someone willing to jump out of a moving plane for clicks and views.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Never underestimate the propensity of a criminal to engage in multiple crimes. I maintain it could go either way.

constantly 3y ago

My understanding reading the original incident report, to my recollection, was that there was enough there that random grossly negligent youtuber trying to get clicks for an ad + a dozen cameras + parachute + not following safety protocol + not giving enough time of trying to restart before immediately bailing meant the beyond reasonable doubt conclusion would almost certainly be that this was premeditated.

mplewis 3y ago

Yes, because nothing in the plane caused a loss of power.

vkou 3y ago
And even if it did, he made no effort to resolve the issue.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional? In a normal setting, probably not. General-aviation aircraft don't have flight recorders. Helpfully for the investigators, however, this numpty decked his plane out in cameras. And then posted the video online. After he'd executed the cover-up.

ksherlock 3y ago

General Aviation airplanes require an annual inspection (from an IA A&P mechanic -- that's airframe & powerplant with inspection authorization). My understanding is that the plane was out of annual (ie, bought as parts) and he fixed it up enough to fly. There are strict limits on what repairs you can do yourself without involving a licensed A&P mechanic. FAA actually does ramp checks on occasion to verify that your bug smasher has up to date registration and annual inspection. Regardless of how the flight ended, the flight shouldn't have happened in the first place and his PPL could be revoked for that alone.

lovecg 3y ago
Edit: this is wrong as pointed out below. FAA doesn’t mess around with the maintenance regulations. If I remember correctly the A&P knowledge test requirement was to answer 99% of questions correctly, compared to something like 75% for a PPL (I might be way off but there was a large difference).
- civilitty 3y ago
  You're way off. Comically so. A&P passing grade is more like 70%. It's not a comparable figure to PPL ground school.
  - lovecg 3y ago
    You’re right, but I’m wondering where my confusion comes from. I’m absolutely positive something required a much higher %. Maybe a different license or regs changed in the last decade or so?
    - ultrarunner 3y ago
      I thought I remembered something like this— maybe it's a higher question count or lower time limit for e.g. commercial? The FAA testing matrix seems to suggest all are 70% as of now[0] [0] https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-09/testing_matrix_2.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-09/testing_matr...

phire 3y ago

It was pretty blatantly obvious from just the video. The engine didn't just stop producing power, that would leave typically the propeller spinning, windmilling in the air. (unless the engine seized, but he was faking fuel starvation) He put a bunch of effort into making sure the propeller actually stopped spinning, I think he had to actually reduce speed; Just so that your average YouTube viewer could clearly see the engine had stopped.

tass 3y ago

Probably, because he was stupid enough to record a video with cameras in the plane. But there’s plenty of ways to achieve it which could pass as accidental: Accidentally lean mixture (e.g., grab the wrong control). Set to use an empty fuel tank. Set the fuel valve to off or in between settings. With some preparation, destroy a spark plug or two, only enable those spark plugs in the air - extreme misfires will be obvious on video. There are plenty of pilots who wear chutes (and there are special chutes which basically replace your seat) but he also had a fire extinguisher strapped to his leg which is not a normal occurrence.