YouTuber admits deliberately wrecking aircraft for 'views'

[Fargo Boyle]

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

[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.

[wrench1]

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/santa-barbara-county-man-who-deliberately-crashed-airplane-youtube-video-admits

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/jacob-plea-agreement.pdf

[Zombywoof]

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. :)

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/644361-intentional-plane-crash.html

[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.

[MechEngr]

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.

[Boeingdriver999]

I would argue that these two did something very similar for likes and views:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cikDSsZQf8M&t=603s&pp=ygUYZW5naW5lIGZhaWx1cmUgaW4gZmxpZ2h0

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?

[Pilot DAR]

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?

[172_driver]

Surprised Sporty's would want to be a part of that. They're a serious shop, aren't they?

[wrench1]

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.

[BFSGrad]

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.

[paperHanger]

. 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/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2016/Sentencing_Table.pdf for sentencing guidelines.

[DaveReidUK]

Original PPRuNe thread here: Intentional plane crash? (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/644361-intentional-plane-crash.html)

[westhawk]

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.

[treadigraph]

Six months in the slammer...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67622247

[DIBO]

He just released a YT clip with title "I Got My Pilots License Back! But Going To Prison...". :eek:

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".... :ugh:

[Dogflyer]

Exactly. Vote with our eyes DO NOT WATCH stupid stuff that is for with Nays not ... not "ayes."

[Jhieminga]

There is a screenshot from that new video in this PetaPixel article: https://petapixel.com/2023/12/06/youtuber-gets-six-months-in-jail-for-deliberately-crashing-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.

[what next]

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/articles/advisory-series/tips-for-flying-your-pet-on-private-aircraft

[Bksmithca]

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/articles/advisory-series/tips-for-flying-your-pet-on-private-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

[CISTRS]

Isn't it amazing that the dogs of the rich and famous can "use the bathroom" according to the linked article.

[Jhieminga]

That would mean that approx. 25% of business jet flights would have a safety issue (at least in my statistics).
Apologies, I should have added 'in a small two-seater' to the relavant sentence. But I will take the same approach for any four to six-seater, although the risk can be mitigated a lot better in the latter types. As has been mentioned, in this particular case the dog restricts the flight controls, is able to seriously distract or hinder the PIC and being unrestrained, could become a 'loose object' with a significant bit of inertia in case of a high-energy event.

[visibility3miles]

What makes you think the dog enjoys the ride, especially if they go “weightless”?

Ha ha ha.

You have a seatbelt but the dog doesn’t.

Anything for views…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NvBGb5lf78

​​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NvBGb5lf78