A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA says
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
Amongst all the other callouts, like why a parachute, why so many cameras strapped up, some timeline incongruities, some camera shot incongruities. His flight path made no sense. It was well executed enough to trick your regular view I'm sure, but it did not stand up to scrutiny, and you better believe the FAA was going to scrutinize.
Like to get the engine running again, figure out if there's anywhere close enough to land/ditch safely, radio ATC, etcetera. And he didn't appear surprised or stressed out, he looked like he was expecting it.
Plus having the parachute on in advance, and so many cameras?
But this guy? This guy just pressed triangle and immediately pulled a full on GTA-V move.
For example, despondent people have historically tended to behave differently from those suffering dementia or lost hikers or plane crash survivors.
The text includes statistical data on where lost people have been found relative to the initial planning point for a search (e.g. last known point) - how far away, what type of terrain, whether they tend to go uphill or downhill etc.
One of the largest step-changes in lost person behavior came with the general adoption of the cellphone: many, many people now tend to go uphill than before - specifically in the hope of finding cellphone coverage.
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Historically, it was pretty situational if you should stay put and make yourself safe and visible to rescuers or if you should try to self-rescue. But my sense is today the general impulse is to call for rescue--with the caveat that many of the places people are most likely to get in trouble are the least likely to have cell phone reception.
I'm mildly amused that we have trained ourselves into anti-survival behaviors- head uphill where there is less water, more exposure to elements, etc. (of course, being uphill might make you more visible, but that's assuming anyone is coming anytime immediately soon)
I've seen a lot of near-accident videos and they all show the initiation of the accident sequence and allow you to step through the process the PIC went through to either _cause_ and/or _get out of_ the incident. This video had none of those qualities. Trim for best glide speed? Nope. Head on a swivel looking for suitable alternates? Nope. The performative display of pumping the yoke? Engine is out and the pilot is trying to do what? Precipitate an aerodynamic stall?
I can think of very few disciplines that are more contradictory than the juxtaposition of aviation with the "influencer"/social media spectrum. Hopefully the FAA revocation of his certificate paves the way for law enforcement to look into fraud and other issues.
If you're not one of Tony Stark's AIs, what might this mean?
IA seems to mean he is a flight instructor.
Yup. He spent most of his time doing absolutely nothing, just maintaining back-pressure on the yoke and holding the aircraft in the stall.
I suppose at least he was lucky enough to pick an aircraft with docile stall characteristics. Somehow he does not strike me as the sort of person who could manage to recover from a wing-drop and induced spin.
Frankly shame on YouTube for allowing the video to remain on their platform
I was nodding until this bit... why do you think YouTube should censor this? It's a real video of a real thing that he did (which he misrepresents the circumstances of). I could possibly get on board with "put an explanatory note next to it" or "don't let him get ad revenue from it", but what possible reason would there be for deleting it?
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1242/son-of-sam-law...
Simply collect the ill-gotten gains from the perpetrator. The video seems like evidence anyway, should be part of the public record.
Evidence suggests he may have bought the plane explicitly for this stunt. He's an experienced sky diver, so I imagine he knows what kind of plane is good for a pilot looking to bail.
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
- 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
I doubt that by the time he got too the plane there would have been anything left worth extinguishing?
Perhaps too prevent a forest fire? Although that would've been equally futile.
Maybe someone who intentionally crashes a plan for a few YouTube clicks isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier after all.
An extinguisher that small is basically useless except for very temporarily beating back the fire to get to something/someone.
For instance, the apparent reason why the engine stopped working isn't due to mechanical failure of the engine (very common in old ass prop planes, just as your Hyundai might blow up, due to oil starvation, spun bearings, rods grenading itself, etc), but rather running out of fuel. He purposefully brought not enough fuel to kill the engine, and secondarily prevent a fire. It was also strongly speculated that he filled one of the fuel tanks with water, probably in an attempt to prevent a fire from erupting.
Unlike cars, even old aviation engines have strict rules for inspection, and for replacement of parts after a certain number of hours, rather than when they wear out or fail. You could get away with circumventing these for a while, but it is simply not true that it is "very common" for "old ass prop planes" to have engine failures, comparably to old cars.
> It was also strongly speculated that he filled one of the fuel tanks with water...
I would be interested in seeing how strong the evidence behind this speculation is, but if it were the case, it would be yet further evidence of his incompetence, as water is no help, and sometimes a problem, in preventing, containing and extinguishing a gasoline fire.
blushes thanks
You have an amazing brain just doesn't really tickle all the same physiological switches though.
1. It would be useful to fight fire at the wreckage if attempting a recovery of the go-pro footage from the plane
2. To limit a bush fire from spreading (and national park blowback) around the wreckage, although those tiny extinguishers would probably do diddly-squat if a bush fire actually started
Better to use the extinguishers as extra thrust for a wing suit.
And most (all?) parachutes allow the capability for the operator to control direction of flight and (relative) rate of descent.
Considering the stunt he pulled it seems he was confident he could do both.
The skydiving equipment he wears is very bulky but steerable and allows for a safe landing. There also is a backup.
Actual emergency parachutes (e.g. as used by glider pilots) are much thinner, cannot be steered and only guarantee "survival" (expect a broken leg)
This is a dangerous thought. There is already too much decision making of what is allowed on our social platform by the big corps.
YouTube should at best demonetize the video, and only if it does that consistently based on a public policy.
They should delete the video. And I really don't understand the argument that they shouldn't stop him using their platform; my goodness if Youtube was mine he'd be gone and I wouldn't for a second wonder if there was any meaningful free speech implication for removing it.
He is dangerous, and the allure of more views on youtube made him do a dangerous thing. I'd be like: "OK, you're not my customer anymore".
So did the Discovery channel. The only difference is that they had asked the FAA permission to do so.
This guy crashed a plane for profit without permission. This may have just been stupidity, not understanding the consequences. Loads of people also crash other vehicles for fun and profit, so why should YT distinguish between someone crashing a car vs a plane. Where should YT draw the line? They don't make the laws.
And would "dangerous" include technically legal but dangerous actions like speaking up for gay rights in Yemen or criticizing cartels in Mexico? Or would they be more limited to the youtube wrong-think-corrections officer judging the video to demonstrate outright illegal actions like protesting Putin's special operation while in Russia, or publishing documents containing evidence of western war crimes?
The solution would be for a court to take that money away at the same time as convicting him. And I think many courts would do exactly that.
Then it should be in their terms of service. In fact it probably is…
In this case though the FAA has made the decision, he didn't do something in bad taste - he did something that could have been very dangerous to others, could have started a major fire, and was illegal (or at least broke the FAA rules enough for him to loose his license). And the reason he did that was (almost certainly) to make a YouTube video - I think YouTube would be justified from kicking him off their platform for this.
But remember that aside from a few narrow exceptions (e.g., CSAM), sharing videos of someone doing something illegal isn't itself illegal.
Exactly.
I'm generally in favour of youtube removing objectionable material, or at least corralling it somewhere as they already do with their half-assed "mature content" filter, but it absolutely must be done on a policy basis which is written down upfront and made clear to uploaders, and subject to fair reviews. Doing it on outrage based case by case basis is just enraging to all involved.
And it's not the actual content of this video which is objectionable, but the circumstances under which it was made. Possibly it contravenes UK rules on profiting from crime if it's monetized: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02...
- but (a) it's not in our jurisdiction and (b) he hasn't actually been convicted yet.
No, a responsible behaviour is for Youtobe to purposely leave him on the platform for everybody to see what he did and the comments below the video, but cut his revenue for this video due to ToS violations. I sure the lawyers who wrote the ToS thought about something like this.
Everyone is free to choose who they do business with. There are some protected categories but “people wantonly destroying airplanes for publicity and profit” is not one of them.
Don't forget that each view on a big video is a chance of a subscription by that user, which leads to more views on followup videos, more sharing, more chance of sponsorships, etc. So the total revenue earned by a 'hit' video is actually much larger than it appears.
Really goes to show how shitty the "creator" economy is for the "creator"
He was speculating to accumulate.
He probably will just be banned from flying for life, but will still have a much enlarged youtube audience and ad revenue that more than pays for the lost plane.
I highly doubt he'll spend even a day in prison.
However why conceal it? Most planes just have a place for them. That's suspicious. There were also loads of empty roads to land safely.
I agree this whole thing looks really staged. Jumping out with a selfie stick.. :X Such a waste of an airplane.
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?
In 2012, a team of television studios crashed a Boeing 727 in Mexico (to film footage) because US authorities would not permit the test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...
So I'm guessing that outside of very specific scenarios, you would have a hard time getting permission to deliberately crash a plane anywhere in the US.
I’ve wanted to know ever since I saw the same clip in a few films, including Airplane 2
> the F.A.A. said he had violated federal aviation regulations and operated his single-engine plane in a “careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”
the FAA did say he wore a parachute (unusual), opened the door before the engine quit, didn't follow procedure to attempt to restart the engine, and intentionally climbed out of the plane to film it rather than attempting to land it.
For instance: https://youtu.be/zuynxwQMad4
I assume there's some permitting regime, and of course you'd need to find a place to do it, but probably nothing too onerous by the standard of being able to buy a whole airplane specifically to wreck it.
edit: I was close! It's a Boeing 720, a short-range variant of the 707. https://youtu.be/Jpc32JQXT_0
There probably isn't a specific permit or process for two primary reasons.
Firstly, crashing a plane intentionally is a rare thing and (until now, apparently) isn't the kind of thing the riff raff do so there's no reason to throw up barriers to keep the riff raff out nor enough volume requests to warrant a an institutional process for dishing out said denials.
Second, it is naive to expect a government agency to stick their neck out and accept some degree of liability for something like this (which is what approving a comprehensive plan would do). It's not like there's highly developed industry standards for plane crashing they can rely on.
The closest you'll get to a "permit" is probably the FAA knowing your intentions in advance and not objecting.
If you're something like a movie studio, you bring in the experts that help you plan a stunt to be done safely. Insured. Plan, plan plan. Also probably get permits, have fire fighters on standby, etc. Basically the exact opposite of "careless or reckless".
Here's a description of one such series of tests, and some video:
Somewhere there’s a form that allows you to crash a plane legally, I’d bet. Probably be a much longer form for a commercial plane though
It has been done. I'm pretty sure Howard Hughes wasn't cited for crashing his plane while filming Hell's Angels.
Maybe he should have been, though. Even though he survived the crash and it was an accident, four people died doing the stunts for that movie.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_role_...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Transcontinental_%26_West...
(Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_role_...)
Yep. And, they do. Usually it's in a controlled environment. Just like you don't see automakers crash testing on the highways ;).
Here's an example of what it looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbFMogBNUa0
> “During this flight, you opened the left side pilot door before you claimed the engine had failed,” the F.A.A. wrote.
When you're in the air alone, there is no one to rely on but yourself, and failure to exercise proper judgment can kill people on the ground. So the FAA has broad leeway to determine that you don't have the right mindset for a private pilot's license.
I hate calling things like this a privilege. It's licensed and regulated for the safety and benefit of the people who fly and live underneath airspace (all of us).
There are too many things involving the government that have turned into privileges where it takes knowing someone or being able to afford access to obtain action.
- Having the money to afford the training for the pilots license
- Having the time to complete the training and stay current
- Having no health issues that may deny you a medical
It is pretty out of reach for most people with out the time / funds for it.
And I doubt this is the final action. FAA can't criminally prosecute but they can refer to the DOJ.
NTSB might still investigate and determine the plane has nothing noticeably wrong however.
Of course, without the intent of posting the video, that plane doesn’t crash, so the NTSB doesn’t come looking then either.
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29737601 - "these arguments from pilots or enthusiasts are all so weak"
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"
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.
Terrible but educational. And also neat that so many "amateurs" could see the same flaws.
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.
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.
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.)
It should be a weekly or monthly practice on any job site to review the recent additions and think about how you might change or review your own safety standards to avoid them.
They had company-wide reporting on OHS incidents, and it was a daily litany of absurd and tragic accidents. Fatalities weren't common, but injuries and close calls were very common.
Most common: falls and electrocution.
(/s)
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.
I had several arguments recently with multiple family members about food safety. They do very risky things like leaving warm (but not hot!) cooked food out on the counter all day next to the sink where they wash raw chicken meat. The bacteria from the chicken can easily splash onto the perfect growth medium.
But you see, they "never" got sick in the past, so I'm worrying about nothing. Meanwhile I've hugged the toilet throwing up all night twice from getting food poisoning from the cooking of a family member.
Food poisoning can and does kill people, but it's not seen as something to worry about. E.g.: "CDC estimates 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States."
Okay, it's not as bad as COVID, but still...
My father taught me something a long time ago:
There are three kinds of people in the world. 1) those that do not learn from their mistakes. 2) those that learn from their mistakes. 3) those that learn from the mistakes of others.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are in categories 1 and 2. Very few people are capable of avoiding risks they haven't personally encountered at least once.
I plan on showing it on the job. They have so many basics well presented. Thank you Canada!
Like consider the following scene. A drunk man. He is lighting the fuses of small explosives and rockets shoot into the air. Then he stumbles into his house and finds his gun. He goes back out laughing and screaming. People look at him scared, what is he gonna do with that gun? He starts firing. Straight into the air. Happy new year!
People do this. They do this and live. Most of the time.
If the FAA can't charge him, who is responsible for that? The local district attorney where he crashed?
Here's a fancy-looking felony that seems on point:
- "18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities"
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.[...]
There was deceit, and it's probably a reasonable presumption that he did it to enrich himself via media attention & monetized content.
I'm sure there's plenty of statutes that could apply here.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-pro...
Old comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16586965
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.
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.
Though I imagine they'll probably get him for insurance fraud.
TFA says he recovered the wreckage and disposed of it
Its just expensive as hell, and the knock on fines will only add onto it.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/pilot-cousins-attempt-1st-plane-sw...
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.
That guy was an idiot.
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.
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...
> 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.
I'd assume his insurance will have a word with him on the intent question though.
I really hope they throw the book at this guy with criminal charges so others will think twice before trying similar stunts.
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.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wrong-way-corrig...
https://www.trains.com/trn/railroads/history/crash-at-crush-...
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.
“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. :(
(Contains link to NTSB preliminary report, which is pretty empty though.)