YouTuber May Get 20(+?) Years For Airplane Stunt

[TheTexan]

"The captain goes down with the ship" is a maritime tradition that a sea captain holds ultimate responsibility for both the ship and everyone embarked on it, and in an emergency will either save those on board or die trying. -Wikipedia

That is not what the 'react' guy is saying.... At 18:55 he says "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" is what new pilots are taught, instead of what the pilot did which is jump out immediately when the engine failed. In other words, the pilot made no effort whatsoever to save his aircraft... Because gliding to a landing is kind of boring compared to a dramatic jump and crash!! lol

Wrong. He's criticizing him for jumping out, period.

What you are saying is what students are taught in school. which is: Fly the plane, but jumping out is ok too.

No school on this planet would teach what he is saying which is, summarized: he was an idiot and/or asshole for using a parachute at all.

He said nothing about his problem with him jumping out is that he jumped out "too early".

Based on the strength of how offended he was to the man's comment that he "brought a parachute", and the lack of any reason to suggest that he thought a parachute could be useful in this situation at all, absolutely: he expected the pilot to land the plane in this situation vs jump out.

 

[TheTexan]

Pretty damned easy to understand what he actually said, ain't it?

Just tell me where he said his problem with him jumping out is that he jumped out "too early" ?

(And English isn't even his first language.)

Clearly, if he agrees with you

 

[TheTexan]

I would add into evidence 9:30+

"There are some pilots that carry parachutes: glider pilots, acrobatic pilots, fighter pilots"

He further goes to say that the parachutes are for "catastrophic situations only" - and based on the examples he gave, catastrophic would mean an in-air collision or serious structural failure. (E.g., a flame out over the mountains, would not be "catastrophic" in his opinion)

His point being, that a parachute is not useful for general aviation, and he questions (as he does repeatedly throughout the video) why Jacob would need a parachute. (Even though, if the engine flameout were real, the parachute saved his goddamn life)

The message is consistent throughout the video: he expected Jacob to land the plane in this situation. (Assuming a real engine failure)

 

[dannno]

There was a very remote, but definite possibility of impacting a person.

There was a very likely possibility of starting a fire that could have been catastrophic.

Fire, yes, person, not so much.. it was in a National Forest. I've been on multi-day backpacking trips out there and never seen another soul the entire time (except the small group I was with).

 

[sparebulb]

Fire, yes, person, not so much.. it was in a National Forest. I've been on multi-day backpacking trips out there and never seen another soul the entire time (except the small group I was with).

Regardless of the population density, there is enough of a possibility to rightfully call this extremely reckless to the public.

Don't forget that this was not a guided descent. Just because you point the nose of an aircraft down, it does't mean that the a/c will follow that path. Things happen.

As far as probabilities of hitting a person.....this photo is a woman who was hit by a meteorite while taking a nap on her couch.

 

[ClaytonB]

Fire, yes, person, not so much.. it was in a National Forest. I've been on multi-day backpacking trips out there and never seen another soul the entire time (except the small group I was with).

You've refuted yourself -- you were there.

Obviously, the problem here is that if you're going to perform a dangerous stunt like this, which could affect those around you, you need to take the proper precautions, which means notifying or obtaining consent from the relevant authorities. "Authorities" here doesn't just mean government authorities... a crash like this could be performed on a sufficiently large private ranch, for example. Even then, the FAA is tasked with authorizing and monitoring all flights, so yes, there would have to be some kind of special grant given for the flight to be intentionally terminated. I don't know how the paperwork is done, but there is obviously some way to do this stuff because the Hollywood studios do it.

I'm a libertarian not a stupiditarian. This is not an example of being "ungovernable", it's just petty grifting at very real risk to the public. Liberty is not "the right to be a stupid a-hole with reckless disregard to all around you" and that vicious strawman of libertarianism is used by the Swamp Establishment to great effect.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Just tell me where he said his problem with him jumping out is that he jumped out "too early" ?

[...] from 18:55.

"So, what [Jacob is] saying here is basically, 'You should always fly with a parachute so that when you're in a tricky situation like this you can just jump out', which is counter to anything that any CFI would ever teach a PPL student" [because there are other things which can and should be done first, as taught by CFIs to PPL students]". (bold emphasis added)
​

Only the willfully obtuse and/or comprehension-challenged can possibly interpret that as meaning "he had [an] obligation to go 'down with the ship'" (or that a parachute ought never to have been used at any point or under any circumstance).

I would add into evidence 9:30+

"There are some pilots that carry parachutes: glider pilots, acrobatic pilots, fighter pilots"

He further goes to say that the parachutes are for "catastrophic situations only" - and based on the examples he gave, catastrophic would mean an in-air collision or serious structural failure. (E.g., a flame out over the mountains, would not be "catastrophic" in his opinion)

His point being, that a parachute is not useful for general aviation, and he questions (as he does repeatedly throughout the video) why Jacob would need a parachute. (Even though, if the engine flameout were real, the parachute saved his goddamn life)

He is referring to acrobats, fighter pilots, etc. wearing special emergency parachutes while they fly, because by the nature of their flights, they face a significantly heightened risk of catastrophic events which might require immediate abandonment of their craft. He is not saying that general aviation pilots should not have any parachutes available, or that they should never use them - he is saying there is no reason for such pilots to wear them during normal flight (and the fact Jacob was wearing one is evidence that he anticipated having some sort of "problem" he could use as an excuse for bailing out right away, instead of aviating).

The supposed "flame out" over the mountains was not "catastrophic" in his opinion for the simple reason that it was not catastrophic. As he noted, a catastrophic event is one that compromises the airworthiness of the craft, rendering it unflyable. That is not at all what happened here, as the plane was still flyable (and landable) after Jacob precipitously bailed out of it (see @ 17:00, for example). If Jacob had attempted to aviate & navigate but had been unable to find any viable landing spot, then it would have been appropriate for him to have abandoned the craft in-flight. But that is not what happened.

The message is consistent throughout the video: he expected Jacob to land the plane in this situation. (Assuming a real engine failure)

Yes - he expected Jacob to try to land his still-flyable, still-landable plane in this situation. He is criticizing Jacob for not even trying to do so, contrary to the standards CFIs teach their PPL students, and for immediately bailing out instead. There's a damn good reason for that - and for those instruction standards. Unlike Jacob, pilots who experience genuine in-flight problems don't get to pick and choose when and where those problems occur, and any pilot who behaves under real circumstances the way Jacob did under his faked-up circumstances is apt to get people killed - maybe a lot of people. That's why those standards exist, and that's why Petter Hörnfeldt was (and is) entirely justified in calling out Trevor Jacob for his "oh my god, I wuz gonna die, that's why I always wear a parachute, so I can just bail out right away" bullshit. If anything, he wasn't harsh enough. (And again, only the willfully obtuse and/or comprehension-challenged can possibly interpret any of this as meaning "he had [an] obligation to go 'down with the ship'", or that a parachute ought never to have been used at any point or under any circumstance.)

 

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNERrZ4yZo8

 

[TheTexan]

He is not saying that general aviation pilots should not have any parachutes available, or that they should never use them - he is saying there is no reason for such pilots to wear them during normal flight (and the fact Jacob was wearing one is evidence that he anticipated having some sort of "problem" he could use as an excuse for bailing out right away, instead of aviating).

This is the same argument that people make about carrying firearms. (Why do you carry a firearm when its so unlikely that you'll need it? Are you looking for a fight?)

Jacob specifically said he was bringing a parachute because he was worried about flying over the mountains. And this is a legitimate concern, which this Hornfeld dude just completely dismissed. He spent half the video criticizing him for even bringing a parachute. He even further criticized him for bringing a "sport" parachute, which by any measure is a better life saving device over dangerous terrain than a standard parachute. (Why did you bring a rifle? Is a handgun not enough?)

If I'm gonna fly over the mountains in a single engine, I'm bringing a goddamn parachute, and if I have a sport parachute, I'm bringing that. This hornsfeld dude - as I said at the start- was overly critical of this decision.

If Jacob had attempted to aviate & navigate but had been unable to find any viable landing spot, then it would have been appropriate for him to have abandoned the craft in-flight.

Again, not once did Hornsfeld say it would have been fine to jump out if he had just "aviated a little longer". He did however spend a great deal of the video criticizing the decision to even bring a parachute.

And by the way - its the pilot's decision and the pilot's decision alone for how long one needs to "aviate" before jumping out. If he felt safer to jump out at a higher altitude, and there was no substantial safety benefit to others by further "aviating" (and there wasn't), who the fuck cares how long he "aviated" ?

Yes - he expected Jacob to try to land his still-flyable, still-landable plane in this situation. He is criticizing Jacob for not even trying to do so, contrary to the standards CFIs teach their PPL students, and for immediately bailing out instead.

Just because it's "landable" does not mean its safe. 10% of forced landings are fatal - and that's in average conditions. In mountainous conditions, that number goes way higher.

Jacob had no obligation to even "try" to land.

Despite hornsfeld's handwaving of the "perfectly suitable landing areas", any forced landing in the mountains is going to be extremely dangerous.

Neither Hornsfeld, you, nor the FAA, has any authority to try to tell Jacob that he had an obligation to "try" to land, in a situation where it would be extremely unlikely for anyone to be hurt by an abandoned aircraft.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

​

He is referring to acrobats, fighter pilots, etc. wearing special emergency parachutes while they fly, because by the nature of their flights, they face a significantly heightened risk of catastrophic events which might require immediate abandonment of their craft. He is not saying that general aviation pilots should not have any parachutes available, or that they should never use them - he is saying there is no reason for such pilots to wear them during normal flight (and the fact Jacob was wearing one is evidence that he anticipated having some sort of "problem" he could use as an excuse for bailing out right away, instead of aviating).

The supposed "flame out" over the mountains was not "catastrophic" in his opinion for the simple reason that it was not catastrophic. As he noted, a catastrophic event is one that compromises the airworthiness of the craft, rendering it unflyable. That is not at all what happened here, as the plane was still flyable (and landable) after Jacob precipitously bailed out of it (see @ 17:00, for example). If Jacob had attempted to aviate & navigate but had been unable to find any viable landing spot, then it would have been appropriate for him to have abandoned the craft in-flight. But that is not what happened.

It seems that the likelihood of injury to human life would be far greater at ab acrobat air show. They should be banned.
What is wrong with fictional dramatization for entertainment? Happens all the time in the movies and TV.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

This is the same argument that people make about carrying firearms. (Why do you carry a firearm when its so unlikely that you'll need it? Are you looking for a fight?)

Jacob specifically said he was bringing a parachute because he was worried about flying over the mountains. And this is a legitimate concern, which this Hornfeld dude just completely dismissed. He spent half the video criticizing him for even bringing a parachute. He even further criticized him for bringing a "sport" parachute, which by any measure is a better life saving device over dangerous terrain than a standard parachute. (Why did you bring a rifle? Is a handgun not enough?)

If I'm gonna fly over the mountains in a single engine, I'm bringing a goddamn parachute, and if I have a sport parachute, I'm bringing that. This hornsfeld dude - as I said at the start- was overly critical of this decision.




Again, not once did Hornsfeld say it would have been fine to jump out if he had just "aviated a little longer". He did however spend a great deal of the video criticizing the decision to even bring a parachute.

And by the way - its the pilot's decision and the pilot's decision alone for how long one needs to "aviate" before jumping out. If he felt safer to jump out at a higher altitude, and there was no substantial safety benefit to others by further "aviating" (and there wasn't), who the $#@! cares how long he "aviated" ?




Just because it's "landable" does not mean its safe. 10% of forced landings are fatal - and that's in average conditions. In mountainous conditions, that number goes way higher.

Jacob had no obligation to even "try" to land.

Despite hornsfeld's handwaving of the "perfectly suitable landing areas", any forced landing in the mountains is going to be extremely dangerous.

Neither Hornsfeld, you, nor the FAA, has any authority to try to tell Jacob that he had an obligation to "try" to land, in a situation where it would be extremely unlikely for anyone to be hurt by an abandoned aircraft.

I remember hearing a story of a guy that walked around town all the time wearing a floatation life jacket and people thought he was nuts. He said that you never know when you would need it. And one day a flood happened and the life jacket saved his life.

 

[dannno]

You've refuted yourself -- you were there.

I realize that, and I also know how large the area is. Out in the middle of that area, there is probably an average of maybe less than one person at any given time. On the outskirts there is more activity, people doing day hikes and such. But there are no motor vehicles allowed, not even bicycles are allowed in the wilderness areas close to where he was, a little further east.

The idea that he would hit a person is astronomically tiny, to the point I would barely consider it in sentencing.

I'm not saying he shouldn't get prison time, the guy in the video said that the plane's engine could have come back on (although I have no proof of that, I think he was saying that if your engine actually failed that could potentially happen). That could have ended in disaster. The fact is, it didn't, maybe he made precautions for that, or maybe it was totally impossible. I just think 20 years is a bit steep.. and here's why.

You also aren't allowed to have campfires in that area. Even if they are small and well contained in a fire pit. They even said a while back you had to have a permit for a gas stove, not sure if that is still the case after all the rains they had this year.

Do you think a person who breaks the rules and has a small, well contained campfire or uses an unpermited gas stove should get 20 years in prison as well? What if they impede the investigation?

And lastly, aren't there murderers who spend less time in jail?

 

[dannno]

I remember hearing a story of a guy that walked around town all the time wearing a floatation life jacket and people thought he was nuts. He said that you never know when you would need it. And one day a flood happened and the life jacket saved his life.

 

[ClaytonB]

Do you think a person who breaks the rules and has a small, well contained campfire or uses an unpermited gas stove should get 20 years in prison as well? What if they impede the investigation?

And lastly, aren't there murderers who spend less time in jail?

Well, I'm not going to any greater depth on this topic than "this was a stupid reckless stunt." I don't know what the proper punishment is.

 

[TheTexan]

Well, I'm not going to any greater depth on this topic than "this was a stupid reckless stunt." I don't know what the proper punishment is.

It probably was. A reasonable doubt still exists based on what I've seen. There's a reasonable explanation for any of his decisions/actions.

Like the fact that the plane was trimmed down when he jumped, it's certainly plausible he did that to reduce chance of hitting the tail when he jumped out.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Jacob specifically said he was bringing a parachute because he was worried about flying over the mountains.

Trevor Jacob is completely and utterly full of shit, in every respect (as he himself has now admitted on the record).

He wasn't worried about any such thing.

If I'm gonna fly over the mountains in a single engine, I'm bringing a goddamn parachute, and if I have a sport parachute, I'm bringing that. This hornsfeld dude - as I said at the start- was overly critical of this decision.

He didn't criticize Jacob for taking a parachute. He criticized Jacob for saying, in effect, "I always wear a parachute in-flight while I'm piloting so I can just bail out right away at the first sign of trouble". He was entirely justified in making that criticism, because it's a dangerously irresponsible thing to do, and a goddam stupid thing to say (and thereby promote that others do).

Neither Hornsfeld, you, nor the FAA, has any authority to try to tell Jacob that he had an obligation to "try" to land, in a situation where it would be extremely unlikely for anyone to be hurt by an abandoned aircraft.

The hell we don't (and by "we", I mean myself and Hörnfeldt - fuck the FAA). We can try to tell him whatever the hell we want, just as you can try to tell us whatever the hell you want.

And the fact that the attention-seeking jackass stuffed a fire extinguisher up his pants and tried to come down as close to the crash site as he could is sufficient to conclude that the idiot had at least enough brain cells to know that what he was doing was in fact dangerous (and not merely to his personal property, which he intended to destroy anyway). Of course, if the crash had started a fire, his little extinguisher might not have been of much use by the time he got to it - but that just goes to show even further what an idiot he is, and what a stupidly dangerous stunt this was.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I just think 20 years is a bit steep

He's not going to get anything close to twenty years. That's just the statutory maximum for the charge.

According the the plea agreement, he can appeal any sentence greater than 2 years.

He might not even get that (though by the same plea deal, the feds can appeal if the sentence is less than 16 months, IIRC).

It's not out of the question that he only gets some kind of probation, if the feds don't feel like pushing it.

He probably has the fact that he didn't hurt or kill anyone or start a fire to thank for that.

 

[ClaytonB]

A reasonable doubt still exists

Based on the quick glance I've given to this, if I were on the jury, I would not agree there is any reasonable doubt that it was intentional and not an accident. Maybe I overlooked something (and I don't consider this headline worth any further investigation) but I doubt it.

 

[TheTexan]

Trevor Jacob is completely and utterly full of shit, in every respect (as he himself has now admitted on the record).

He wasn't worried about any such thing.

Irrelevant to any of the points I've made but sure.

He didn't criticize Jacob for taking a parachute.

He certainly assumed that Jacob took a parachute because he intended to bail. That counts as criticism for taking a parachute, in my book.

He criticized Jacob for saying, in effect, "I always wear a parachute in-flight while I'm piloting so I can just bail out right away at the first sign of trouble".

He said nothing of the sort. For a guy that likes to say "He didn't say that", I would think you would have more appreciation for referencing what he actually said, than putting words in his mouth to try to make a point.

What he actually said is

"where the hell am I gonna land a plane, I'll frickin die. That's why I always fly with a parachute".

The hell we don't (and by "we", I mean myself and Hörnfeldt - fuck the FAA).

The fact that you think you have the authority to tell someone that they have an obligation to try to land - in the mountains, is evidence that your head is so far fucked up on this topic that it's beyond reason.

You can argue all day long that this guy is an asshole or whatever, but the real asshole here is you, if you think you have any right to demand that someone try to make a forced landing versus the much safer option of just jumping out.

 

[TheTexan]

Based on the quick glance I've given to this, if I were on the jury, I would not agree there is any reasonable doubt that it was intentional and not an accident. Maybe I overlooked something (and I don't consider this headline worth any further investigation) but I doubt it.

Besides the fact that he confessed, it all does add up to a shit load of suspicious shit. But none of it is proof. I can understand how a jury could convict, but I wouldn't - I expect a higher standard of proof than most.

I would also note, that a confession under coercion (e.g. a plea deal), doesn't really mean much to me.