Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

YouTuber admits deliberately wrecking aircraft for 'views'

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

YouTuber admits deliberately wrecking aircraft for 'views'

Old 12th May 2023, 12:19
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Still above ground
Posts: 87
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
YouTuber admits deliberately wrecking aircraft for 'views'

American Trevor Jacob has pleaded guilty to faking an engine failure and abandoning his aircraft over Los Padres National Park in California. His video was almost immediately debunked at the time, ironically mainly by YouTubers...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65567519

Fargo Boyle is offline  
Old 12th May 2023, 18:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It’s not that he crashed his plane that got him in trouble but that he interfered with the investigation. He told the Feds he didn’t know where the plane was but had been to the crash site just after impact and removed cameras and got a helicopter to remove the wreckage a few days later.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 12th May 2023, 21:54
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 791
Received 34 Likes on 28 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkerInbound
It’s not that he crashed his plane that got him in trouble but that he interfered with the investigation. He told the Feds he didn’t know where the plane was but had been to the crash site just after impact and removed cameras and got a helicopter to remove the wreckage a few days later.
Its even more than that. Lying to federal investigators, destroying evidence, etc, etc. He's got a plea agreement. Here's more details.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr...e-video-admits

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...-agreement.pdf
wrench1 is offline  
Old 13th May 2023, 00:56
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 178
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Reading the plea agreement, it seems they are looking for 18-24 months, followed by a period of probation.

Somewhat less than the 20 years demanded by the punters in the other thread.

Intentional plane crash?
Zombywoof is offline  
Old 13th May 2023, 04:40
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 56
Posts: 981
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
20 years seams stupid. It is not just about the rules you break, it should be about the damage you cause too. I'm okay with him being banned from flying&youtube,paying for any damages, and spending some time to think about it, but 20 years should be for those who really harm others.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 13th May 2023, 07:10
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 990
Received 363 Likes on 196 Posts
20 years was the maximum allowable under the laws he broke - no one was saying he necessarily deserved that long a period. Had his plane injured or killed people on the ground or set fire I think that the upper limit would be in the government offering.

Also, what happened was neither an accident or a close call - he planned and executed an intentional plane crash in a National Park.

I see no benefit to the world to allowing him a private pilot's license. I suppose that leaves ultralights and powered parachutes if he wants a motor to go with him.
MechEngr is online now  
Old 13th May 2023, 07:18
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: Seattle
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would argue that these two did something very similar for likes and views:


Clues; multiple camera angles for a routine flying lesson, zero startle effect with a long and coherent Mayday call, a “thank you Jesus” for the audience back home, the RPM gauge is pixelated out or obscured aaaand the engine never failed! They taxied to maintenance under normal power

What do others think?
Boeingdriver999 is offline  
Old 13th May 2023, 11:15
  #8 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,683
Received 113 Likes on 65 Posts
What do others think?
Opinions and discussions about flying are very welcomed here. That said, there are obviously a small group of pilots who would like to attract YouTube views by doing stupid things in airplanes. As much as we pilots would like to comment this foolishness, if we're watching their YouTube videos, we're giving them exactly the [wrong] attention they want, and encouraging them to do more of exactly what professional pilots should not be doing.

For myself, I deliberately avoid watching any aviation YouTube videos which have a "watch me!" entry point to the video. My first clue will be dramatic sounding text diagonally across the title page....

What do others think that we pilots do our part to take the oxygen out of their room, and not watch?
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 13th May 2023, 11:48
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Surprised Sporty's would want to be a part of that. They're a serious shop, aren't they?
172_driver is offline  
Old 13th May 2023, 13:31
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 791
Received 34 Likes on 28 Posts
Originally Posted by hans brinker
20 years seams stupid. It is not just about the rules you break, it should be about the damage you cause too. I'm okay with him being banned from flying&youtube,paying for any damages, and spending some time to think about it, but 20 years should be for those who really harm others..
You'll find the "20 year felony" comments have nothing to do with the aviation side. Those FAA violations were already dealt with previously with the revocation of his pilot certificate. The current charge he plead on is the obstruction of a federal investigation which falls under a different statute and covers all federal investigations. As part of his plea agreement the prosecutor has recommended the minimal penalty of 12-18 months on a single charge vs the maximum of 20 years for multiple counts which he was initially charged. The plea agreement link above gives some details of what he did to obstruct the investigation. Regardless, lie to any federal investigator and destroy evidence will get you a VIP membership at Club Fed.
wrench1 is offline  
Old 13th May 2023, 19:35
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by Boeingdriver999
Clues; multiple camera angles for a routine flying lesson, zero startle effect with a long and coherent Mayday call, a “thank you Jesus” for the audience back home, the RPM gauge is pixelated out or obscured aaaand the engine never failed! They taxied to maintenance under normal power

What do others think?
The multiple camera angles were because that flight is part of a series of videos where the student pilot is earning her license. In a follow up video, Baron Pilot stated that the engine suffered a stuck valve, hindering power production from one cylinder at full power; i.e., a partial power loss.

I don’t think this video has any similarities to the Trevor Jacobs’ stunt.
BFSGrad is online now  
Old 16th May 2023, 09:48
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by wrench1
. As part of his plea agreement the prosecutor has recommended the minimal penalty of 12-18 months on a single charge vs the maximum of 20 years
The prosecution and defence have agreed to Level 14 +2 = level 16 (see page 12 of the plea agreement), which is 21 to 27 months assuming no priors. They have agreed the prosecution can appeal if its less than 18 months, and Jacob can appeal if it is more than 24. This puts him in the 21 to 24 month range I woudl say ... and remember, federal crimes have a minimum 85% time served.

The courts have long held that you cannot profit from crime, so I expect a fine big enough to negate anything he may have earned from the stunt to date, de-monetisation etc.

See https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...cing_Table.pdf for sentencing guidelines.
paperHanger is offline  
Old 16th May 2023, 21:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,991
Received 316 Likes on 162 Posts
Original PPRuNe thread here: Intentional plane crash?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 28th May 2023, 07:06
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
He has plead guilty as per a plea agreement. The penalty for the crime of obstructing a federal investigation is part of the plea agreement. However this must be approved by the federal judge before he is formally sentenced. The judge has some latitude within the sentencing guidelines and the plea agreement appears to fall within the lower part of the range for the crime committed. Lying to or deceiving treasury agents, the internal revenue service or the securities and exchange commission has gotten plenty of people a similar sentence of 18-24 months plus probation. He's getting what other people have gotten for a similar severity of crime.

Personally, I feel that a year or so (if he earns early release) in club fed, post incarceration probation and the FAA enforcement action to revoke his pilot certificate is a fitting set of penalties for what he has done. He was careless and reckless with regard to the safety of others. He allowed his plane to crash in a fire-prone National forest (not park) Then he lied to investigators, destroyed and disposed of evidence in an effort to hide his culpability. That displays a criminal intent and criminality calls for punishment. In addition to the above, he will also be a convicted felon for the rest of life. So in a very real way, he will be living with the consequences his behavior for the remainder of his life. As do we all.

Some felons are able to learn and change their life for the better. Many re-offend. It's up to him how he chooses to proceed with what's left of his life. Some people do better than others.
westhawk is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2023, 10:15
  #15 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,996
Received 557 Likes on 317 Posts
Six months in the slammer...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67622247
treadigraph is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2023, 12:04
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 565
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
He just released a YT clip with title "I Got My Pilots License Back! But Going To Prison...".

Don't go find the clip & click on it, like I did. I stopped after a few minutes, although apparently realizing it was "a bad example for kids", at the same time still defending his actions: "I knew I was not going to hurt somebody"....
DIBO is online now  
Old 6th Dec 2023, 16:59
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: France
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly. Vote with our eyes DO NOT WATCH stupid stuff that is for with Nays not ... not "ayes."
Dogflyer is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2023, 11:45
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,869
Received 93 Likes on 60 Posts
There is a screenshot from that new video in this PetaPixel article: https://petapixel.com/2023/12/06/you...ing-his-plane/

In my view having an unrestrained dog in your lap, even as a passenger, is a safety issue. I guess he hasn't learned all his lessons yet.
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2023, 12:08
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Jhieminga
In my view having an unrestrained dog in your lap, even as a passenger, is a safety issue.
That would mean that approx. 25% of business jet flights would have a safety issue (at least in my statistics). As per our operating manual, there are designated "pet areas" for takeoff and landing, but during cruise passengers are free to have their dogs around them just like at home. Being able to carry on's pet along without much hassle is a strong selling point for private aircraft, as written in this article from a Textron customer journal: https://txtav.com/en/journey/article...ivate-aircraft
what next is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2023, 13:59
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Alberta
Posts: 307
Received 19 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by what next
That would mean that approx. 25% of business jet flights would have a safety issue (at least in my statistics). As per our operating manual, there are designated "pet areas" for takeoff and landing, but during cruise passengers are free to have their dogs around them just like at home. Being able to carry on's pet along without much hassle is a strong selling point for private aircraft, as written in this article from a Textron customer journal: https://txtav.com/en/journey/article...ivate-aircraft
What Next but on your business jet that pet isn't sitting in the lap of your co pilot next to the flight controls
Bksmithca is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.