ATC Audio of TNFlyGirl Fatal Accident Released

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barrett50 said:
Ok, I guess that's enough evidence to resolve it. If there's video of her with a CFI in the Deb(Bo) the NTSB likely talked with that CFI and confirmed the endorsement. My bad.
Click to expand...
No need to apologize. It's not 100% certain that she had the endorsements. But from what I saw on her channel, I believe she did obtain them.
 
dmspilot said:
I'm still not sure of the issue here. The NTSB did address it, by saying the information is not available because the logbook was damaged. Unless you mean they should have tried harder to investigate whether she had obtained the endorsements? They are a government agency and have limited resources though, I'm not sure what difference it would make. They tried. The instructors interviewed didn't give her the complex/HP training, those were different ones.
Click to expand...
You criticized Hoover... I gave perspective on his reasoning. Like I said I agree with you that she likely had the endorsements, but that's merely my opinion. Again, I wouldn't go to bat for her but sounds like her fan base would. I do know one thing that's for certain. She was not qualified to fly based on all the drugs she was taking and I wish this would have been investigated a bit more.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Unless you mean they should have tried harder to investigate whether she had obtained the endorsements? They are a government agency and have limited resources though, I'm not sure what difference it would make. They tried. The instructors interviewed didn't give her the complex/HP training, those were different ones.
Click to expand...
Assuming she did have the endorsements, the CFI who signed them may well be relieved that those pages were destroyed and may not be too motivated to come forward...
 
JScarry said:
No one makes you watch him.
Click to expand...
I think there is a little bias here too... Allegedly Hoover plagiarized his video when the initial report was released. While I do not see plagiarism whatsoever, I can understand the frustration. Here are the videos decide for yourself. If I were to rate these videos, Hoover wins the initial report and dmspilot wins in landslide the final. Both IMO give great insights.

Pilot Debrief - Hoover (Initial Report)

Pilot Disconnections - dmspilot (Initial Report)

Pilot Debrief - Hoover (Final Report)

Pilot Disconnections - dmspilot (Final Report)
 
Last edited:
All these guys are selling clicks, including Blancolirio. Don Henley said it best. 'did they do the operation, is the head dead yet. The boys in the news room got a running bet. Get the widow on the set - we love dirty laundry'. There's money to be made in promoting tragedy disguised as news, or 'education'. I don't think the podcaster or youtube channels are too concerned about plagiarism of 'original content' work.
 
if I say "she was a bad pilot*" then someone in a video says "she was a bad pilot*", is that plagiarism?**

* which she was
** I did not watch either video so I don't know what may or may not have been plagiarized, just asking
 
Barrett50 said:
All these guys are selling clicks, including Blancolirio. Don Henley said it best. 'did they do the operation, is the head dead yet. The boys in the news room got a running bet. Get the widow on the set - we love dirty laundry'. There's money to be made in promoting tragedy disguised as news, or 'education'. I don't think the podcaster or youtube channels are too concerned about plagiarism of 'original content' work.
Click to expand...

For the big channels, its a business. Most of the giant aviation channels have shelled out big money for this course:

Channel JumpStart — YouTube Growth Coaching with Derral Eves

A 12-week YouTube growth coaching program for creators who want a sustainable channel strategy.
channeljumpstart.com

And by big money, I mean tens of thousands of dollars. You buy your way into the inner circles once you have completed one set of courses.
Rinse and repeat. I think its like Scientology.

They aren't paying for the class because they are trying to bring you quality entertainment and make sure the news is getting out to make safer pilots.
I'd wager Hoover's (Pilot Debrief) channel is making him about a grand a day based on a quick glance at his view counts.
 
Last edited:
That’s not the impression I get from watching Blancolirio or Pilot Debrief. They both seem genuinely interested in stopping pilots from doing stupid stuff that gets them killed. Hoover definitely emphasizes that every accident he covers is not caused by one hole in the Swiss cheese but multiple failures, any one of which could have prevented the loss of life. Blancolirio has a much wider range of videos but is very often frustrated by pilots doing stupid pilot tricks—most recently the Steamboat Springs crash. I’ve never heard of the other guy, so I don’t know what his videos are like.
 
eman1200 said:
if I say "she was a bad pilot*" then someone in a video says "she was a bad pilot*", is that plagiarism?**

* which she was
** I did not watch either video so I don't know what may or may not have been plagiarized, just asking
Click to expand...
Not even close to what I was talking about.
He's a serial plagiarist that copied 2 out of my first 3 videos (selectively just the popular ones).
 
Last edited:
JScarry said:
That’s not the impression I get from watching Blancolirio or Pilot Debrief. They both seem genuinely interested in stopping pilots from doing stupid stuff that gets them killed. Hoover definitely emphasizes that every accident he covers is not caused by one hole in the Swiss cheese but multiple failures, any one of which could have prevented the loss of life. Blancolirio has a much wider range of videos but is very often frustrated by pilots doing stupid pilot tricks—most recently the Steamboat Springs crash. I’ve never heard of the other guy, so I don’t know what his videos are like.
Click to expand...
I would say then that the marketing brief they use is paying dividends. I know spit for spit about how monetization works on youtube or other channels but I can say with certainty that Blancolirio is monetized. The most true thing I remember from teaching Marketing in grad school was: "Sincerity is the big win. When you learn to effectively fake sincerity, you can write your own check". That's why a distinguished looking gray hair guy with a white smock and a stethoscope is selling boner pills. He prob has a room-temp IQ, but the smock and 'scope are very sincere.
 
JScarry said:
That’s not the impression I get from watching Blancolirio or Pilot Debrief. They both seem genuinely interested in stopping pilots from doing stupid stuff that gets them killed. Hoover definitely emphasizes that every accident he covers is not caused by one hole in the Swiss cheese but multiple failures, any one of which could have prevented the loss of life. Blancolirio has a much wider range of videos but is very often frustrated by pilots doing stupid pilot tricks—most recently the Steamboat Springs crash. I’ve never heard of the other guy, so I don’t know what his videos are like.
Click to expand...
Well there was an issue awhile back where Pilot Debrief got temporarily demonetized and he said he couldn't/wouldn't make videos if they didn't make money...so there's that.
 
The way I look at it, unless I get put on a relevant jury, it's not my responsibility to figure out who's plagiarizing whom. I just enjoy whatever wisdom I can glean from the videos, and I do my best to figure out which channels are AI slop, so I can mark them "Do not recommend."
 
dmspilot said:
Not even close to what I was talking about.
He's a serial plagiarist that copied 2 out of my first 3 videos (selectively just the popular ones).
Click to expand...
You keep making this claim but have not provided any proof. You both made videos about the same topic. The Fair Use Notice at the beginning of your videos allow you to use other's content but no one else? Plagiarism is using another person's original work without permission. If we use your definition, every single video about TNFlyGirl would be plagiarism. Let's move on from this non-sense...

That said, you did a great job in your last video sharing your insight. Complaining about plagiarism without evidence is unproductive.

Screenshot 2026-03-02 at 11-47-56 TNflygirl posted dumpster fire flight a year before crash - ...png

dmspilot said:
Well there was an issue awhile back where Pilot Debrief got temporarily demonetized and he said he couldn't/wouldn't make videos if they didn't make money...so there's that.
Click to expand...
Any proof of this claim? Been watching Hoover since day one. Wishful thinking?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2026-03-02 at 12-02-16 Pilot Debrief - YouTube.png
    Screenshot 2026-03-02 at 12-02-16 Pilot Debrief - YouTube.png
    150.2 KB · Views: 51
Last edited:
DeltaCharlie172 said:
You keep making this claim but have not provided any proof aside from you both making videos about the same topic. The Fair Use Notice at the beginning of your videos allow you to use other's content but no one else?
Click to expand...
Copyright infringement ain't the same as plagiarism. One is illegal, the other is a form of intellectual dishonesty by passing off someone else's work as your own.

The proof is he posted his videos 2 weeks after mine using the same analysis, same explanations, and footage that only I have a copy of. An analysis he is not capable of producing himself because he doesn't know the difference between a Garmin 430 and an autopilot because he is not a GA pilot and has very little knowledge of GA.
 
dmspilot said:
Copyright infringement ain't the same as plagiarism. One is illegal, the other is a form of intellectual dishonesty by passing off someone else's work as your own.

The proof is he posted his videos 2 weeks after mine using the same analysis, same explanations, and footage that only I have a copy of. An analysis he is not capable of producing himself because he doesn't know the difference between a Garmin 430 and an autopilot because he is not a GA pilot and has very little knowledge of GA.
Click to expand...
The Fair Use was brought up because the only thing I found in both videos was the same video footage... The analysis way totally different and the wording too. Did he also plagiarize the mix up on the Garmin 430 and AP from you? This is self-contradiction of the argument. Concrete proof would be your analysis used word-for-word by Hoover. That did not happen. If it did, put up or sh_t up!

You said: the use of the footage was proof of plagiarism and "footage that only I have a copy of." Really... You alone?

On the ethical topic, I see defamation rather than plagiarism.
 
Last edited:
DeltaCharlie172 said:
Concrete proof would be your analysis used word-for-word by Hoover.
Click to expand...
Again you are confusing copyright infringement and plagiarism. It doesn't have to be word-for-word to be plagiarism. But if you're not convinced, I will not try to convince you. Time to move on, I won't bring it up again.
 
They are not even your videos? They were her videos. they are copyrighted. how are either of u posting her videos and making money off of it.
 
Barrett50 said:
Blancolirio is monetized.
Click to expand...
Slight nit pick. He’s mentioned several times that his videos are often demonetized because YouTube advertisers don’t like the content. He implies that he makes most of the money for the videos from Patreon. So enough people like his analysis that they are willing to spend money to support it. He may also make money from merchandise. He has a sponsor link for Flying Eyes but I don’t recall him ever shilling for any products.

If you would like to have an in depth look at how YouTubers make money, check out Casey Ladelle’s video.

 
Last edited:
Moreover it’s all prurient and morbid. U r not adding to safety. there’s nothing to be learned. She was a hot mess, geeked on bars of xanax who had no business piloting an aircraft. u cld watch five minutes of any video and see that. and she killed herself and her father. It’s sad. so spare me the handwringing about someone stealing your work.
 
wellknow said:
Moreover it’s all prurient and morbid. U r not adding to safety. there’s nothing to be learned. She was a hot mess, geeked on bars of xanax who had no business piloting an aircraft. u cld watch five minutes of any video and see that. and she killed herself and her father. It’s sad. so spare me the handwringing about someone stealing your work.
Click to expand...

I disagree with a lot of this (not the part about her being a bad pilot). Most of those YouTubers’ videos aren’t for us, they’re for the uninitiated sheeple. If “the message” could get thru to even one of those knucks who raved in the comment section about how great a pilot she was, then they’re worth it to me.
 
Am I right in thinking that it's not plagiarism if you credit the original author when you adopt their ideas or analysis?
 
dmspilot said:
Again you are confusing copyright infringement and plagiarism. It doesn't have to be word-for-word to be plagiarism. But if you're not convinced, I will not try to convince you. Time to move on, I won't bring it up again.
Click to expand...

Which channel is yours?
 
Jenny spent more effort on making videos instead of being a better pilot. In fact, I think she thought she was already a great pilot and enjoyed being an internet celebrity. With 20k subscribers, she was making bank off of a bunch of mouth breathers.

Now back to the CFI's signing her off; she probably went through several instructors who might have signed her off to get rid of her but take her money first.

She appeared to use her looks and celebrity status to manipulate the instructors. The report had quite a few comments about her "lacking in pilot skills" from a few people. She was unsafe as a student let alone getting her license. But they passed her anyway. I saw the photos of her busted up Cherokee from her high-speed taxi crash and it looked liked it was totalled.

But hey, let's sign her off because she's pretty and very nice.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
In fact, I think she thought she was already a great pilot and enjoyed being an internet celebrity. With 20k subscribers, she was making bank off of a bunch of mouth breathers.
Click to expand...
Reality check: She may have had ambitions of making bank. But 20K subscribers isn't even close to getting her there. That's maybe 100-200 a month from YT and, if she had brand deals, maybe 500-1000 a month total.
 
Lindberg said:
Sure. When people stop writing totally not misogynistic assumptions about the dead pilot that they're making only because she was a woman.
Click to expand...
Naw, she was a dumpster fire who thought she was a pilot. So were her fans.

She deserves being criticized and those who egged her on.
 
I think we went over the science behind this... But here is some more:

Eagly & Mladinic (1994) wrote in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, that women do get more favoritism over men they called it the women-are-wonderful effect. One of the key findings was that women were rated more positively overall than men. We do know that she receive extra praise for competence, when it was lacking. Also, many of her followers treated her as exceptional and having unique skills. What's more, YouTube itself has algorithms that favor women, thus amplify because of her sex. Are we calling YouTube misogynistic?

There is a lot of research to support why some praise her and others may not... Another example is benevolent sexism: some followers become protective, overly supportive in their comments, excessively praise her (compared to male creators doing the same thing), and infantilizing language (“she is so brave” or “wow! good for her”).

In the end this all makes clear one thing: grand delusions of grandeur. The irony is that the very people that point the finger and say stop being misogynistic are the ones that may have very well created the delusion.

If you care to go down the rabbit hole on this topic: women-are-wonderful effect, benevolent sexism, in-group favoritism, gender in-group bias, protective paternalism (a good one), positive gender bias, chivalry norm (even better one), pro-female bias.

My fav: Dunning-Kruger Effect... In this case she had an artificial positive reinforcement loop, increasing the likelihood of Dunning–Kruger overconfidence.

The research is there...
 
Last edited:
noun: misogyny
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women

How is suggesting that some male instructors might have overlooked her obvious deficiencies as a pilot due to her being attractive consistent with the definition of Mysogyny? If they were being mysogynistic, they would have told her she is a crappy pilot because she is a woman vs enabling her to be a crappy pilot by not giving her direct and honest feedback
PS - definition pulled from the Oxford DIctonary
 
Last edited:
Hang 4 said:
noun: misogyny
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women

How is suggesting that some male instructors might have overlooked her obvious deficiencies as a pilot due to her being attractive consistent with the definition of Mysogyny? If they were being mysogynistic, they would have told her she is a crappy pilot because she is a woman vs enabling her to be a crappy pilot by not giving her direct and honest feedback
PS - definition pulled from the Oxford DIctonary
Click to expand...
<facts have entered the chat>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top