Taylorcraft down California

Hengelo said:
wow that's pretty comprehensive... incredibly though it's not enough - you forgot the whole "removing the wreckage after the fact" angle ;)
Click to expand...
i left that out intentionally actually, while it is certainly possible i don't think anybody has any evidence that he did that ahead of or without the consent of the NTSB. their report specifically notes they "didn't attend the accident location" so for all we know they told him they had no intention of visiting and released the wreckage back to him
 
Nate9191 said:
i left that out intentionally actually, while it is certainly possible i don't think anybody has any evidence that he did that ahead of or without the consent of the NTSB. their report specifically notes they "didn't attend the accident location" so for all we know they told him they had no intention of visiting and released the wreckage back to him
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's not like there is a dearth of evidence against him at this point...
 
I had a 1939 B model for a few years, The old fashion mag switch could be in the upper left corner like Bryan says or in the center bottom part of the panel where there was a keyed mag switch. Someone could have probably installed a keyed switch in the upper left corner that we are seeing in that photo grab. Otherwise it looks like a twisty air vent.... Didn't need one in those planes, just had to open the window. Looks like there is a 3 in 1 Stewart Warner gauge in the center of the panel, (see the large curved arc) tach, oil press. and oil temp. Those things are hens teeth now. probably $1500 if you can find one..... as stated above the fuel line and switch go to a 6 gallon aux. tank. They were an extra. Many only had the 12 gallon nose tank. The vertical wire ahead of the windshield is the fuel gauge. There was fuel in there unless it was stuck. With all the vibrations in there probably not ;-)
 
In many cases the FAA won't even come out to look at the crash, they'll just get a report from the local cops. When I had my accident the FAA didn't come, just local and state cops. The property owner (the state) wanted the plane removed before the end of the day, the FAA told them fine, go ahead, then two guys from the FSDO came out a few days later to look at the plane sitting on the trailer at my cabin, though they were more interested in the paperwork than the plane itself.

My 1941 BC-12-65 had the keyed ignition switch in the lower center of the panel.

I suspect he intended to land the parachute close to the plane, but may have misjudged a bit. Of course we have only his word for how long it took to find the wreckage.
 
The fact the prop started windmilling from a stop after he got out of the plane is particularly entertaining. I hope the magneto switch, fuel valves, and mixture control (if it has one) were damaged too much for him to tamper with them after the crash but not so much that their precrash positions cannot be determined by investigators.
 
Okay I'm convinced this was a craven, reckless stunt performed solely for social media attention, which the dude got in spades. But aside from riling up the angst of a whole bunch of people (both pilots and chronic yootoobers) what exactly is the "crime" here? As PIC does he not have the right of command to decide whether or not he should bail out of his plane? I mean, even if he's mistaken? Now the YT community are calling for a life sentence for cripe sakes. So, while I do believe his certificate to fly should be revoked and I feel bad that the little T-Craft got wasted, nobody got hurt and nobody should go to prison just for being a dirtbag. Blame it on social media with all of the likes and thumbs up and views and subscribers with their gushy "love you" comments. It has to go to a guy's head and cause him to do something stoopid eventually. lol.
 
Silvaire said:
Okay I'm convinced this was a craven, reckless stunt performed solely for social media attention, which the dude got in spades. But aside from riling up the angst of a whole bunch of people (both pilots and chronic yootoobers) what exactly is the "crime" here? As PIC does he not have the right of command to decide whether or not he should bail out of his plane? I mean, even if he's mistaken? Now the YT community are calling for a life sentence for cripe sakes. So, while I do believe his certificate to fly should be revoked and I feel bad that the little T-Craft got wasted, nobody got hurt and nobody should go to prison just for being a dirtbag. Blame it on social media with all of the likes and thumbs up and views and subscribers with their gushy "love you" comments. It has to go to a guy's head and cause him to do something stoopid eventually. lol.
Click to expand...
So, what do you base your reason to take away his pilot's license on then?
Failure to use a checklist?
 
An interesting perspective. Not sure it's a true apples to apples comparison. But it sure does make it seem like even if he couldn't have made it to the airport, there were a lot of fields below between where the engine "failed" and the airport.
 
Silvaire said:
But aside from riling up the angst of a whole bunch of people (both pilots and chronic yootoobers) what exactly is the "crime" here?
Click to expand...

If it was not a true emergency, but a stunt…


§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
 
IK04 said:
Bonsai= Small trees and shrubs.

BANSAI!= Look out! I'm doing something dangerous!
Click to expand...
I will somewhat pedantically point out that those are Japanese words that are spelled with an entirely different alphabet rendering your criticism pretty much null and void.
 
aftCG said:
So, what do you base your reason to take away his pilot's license on then?
Failure to use a checklist?
Click to expand...

I think that during the investigation the FAA is going to ask him some questions and he's either going to fess up to it being a careless and reckless stunt or he's going to lie to them and well, that's it. If you make a false statement on a medical or any other form your certificate will be revoked. It's one of their pet peeves.

I don't think moving the wreckage is a problem. It's his airplane.
 
steingar said:
I will somewhat pedantically point out that those are Japanese words that are spelled with an entirely different alphabet rendering your criticism pretty much null and void.
Click to expand...

Those are the phonetic equivalents of word that cannot be shown in their original character form and would not be understood by 99.75% of the POA audience.

I am performing a service for our community.

Constructive criticism is always welcome as part of intellectual discussion.

This ain't that, Mr. pedantic.
 
My concern that I take from this stunt, is that someone is going to try and "one up" Jacob and the result will be a plane crashing and killing innocent people on the ground.

I'm still bothered by the Dubroff crash (another stunt) that was media driven.
 
Silvaire said:
I think that during the investigation the FAA is going to ask him some questions and he's either going to fess up to it being a careless and reckless stunt or he's going to lie to them and well, that's it. If you make a false statement on a medical or any other form your certificate will be revoked. It's one of their pet peeves.

I don't think moving the wreckage is a problem. It's his airplane.
Click to expand...
Actually, an accident occurred, thus the wreckage cannot be touched, beyond what is needed to rescue occupants or prevent fire or to actually preserve the evidence.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Actually, an accident occurred, thus the wreckage cannot be touched, beyond what is needed to rescue occupants or prevent fire or to actually preserve the evidence.
Click to expand...

Huh? Who told you that?
 
IK04 said:
Bonsai= Small trees and shrubs.

BANSAI!= Look out! I'm doing something dangerous!
Click to expand...
steingar said:
I will somewhat pedantically point out that those are Japanese words that are spelled with an entirely different alphabet rendering your criticism pretty much null and void.
Click to expand...

Well, we could really get down into the weeds and point out that the Japanese art of bonsai was derived from the Chinese art of Penjing.

And the other word is not properly romanized as bansai but rather banzai. And it translates as "10,000 years", not "I'm going to do something dangerous".

But when it comes to romanization of Chinese, there are two major systems, pinyin and wade-giles. They are very different. It would not surprise me to learn that there is more than one for Japanese as well.

But, no need to point any of it out.
 
But in regards to moving the wreckage in this case, he might have been cleared to do so. The accident occurred 30 days before the video came out. In that timeframe considering the type of accident, it is quite possible that the NTSB released the wreckage as they saw no reason to hold it for investigative reasons.
 
Silvaire said:
Huh? Who told you that?
Kenny Phillips said:
Actually, an accident occurred, thus the wreckage cannot be touched, beyond what is needed to rescue occupants or prevent fire or to actually preserve the evidence.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
NTSB 830 is the reference here.

Subpart C—Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records

§ 830.10 Preservation of aircraft wreckage, mail, cargo, and records.

(a) The operator of an aircraft involved in an accident or incident for which notification must be given is responsible for preserving to the extent possible any aircraft wreckage, cargo, and mail aboard the aircraft, and all records, including all recording mediums of flight, maintenance, and voice recorders, pertaining to the operation and maintenance of the aircraft and to the airmen until the Board takes custody thereof or a release is granted pursuant to § 831.12(b) of this chapter.

Part (b) of the same section says...
(b) Prior to the time the Board or its authorized representative takes custody of aircraft wreckage, mail, or cargo, such wreckage, mail, or cargo may not be disturbed or moved except to the extent necessary:
(1) To remove persons injured or trapped;
(2) To protect the wreckage from further damage; or
(3) To protect the public from injury.

If the NTSB waived custody, the owner would have been allowed to move it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
In this specific case I don't imagine the FAA or NTSB ever had any intention of going out there to examine the wreckage and any investigation is most likely focused on the actions of the pilot who has already dug himself an enormous pit full of incriminating evidence and published it for all to see. The guy just never really thought this through.
 
FastEddieB said:
If it was not a true emergency, but a stunt…


§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the FAA could get creative and claim that since his intent was to monetize the flight/crash through his click-bait video, it was a commercial operation. That would expand their rolodex of potential charges to file.
 
GaryM said:
I wonder if the FAA could get creative and claim that since his intent was to monetize the flight/crash through his click-bait video, it was a commercial operation. That would expand their rolodex of potential charges to file.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing...
 
GaryM said:
I wonder if the FAA could get creative and claim that since his intent was to monetize the flight/crash through his click-bait video, it was a commercial operation. That would expand their rolodex of potential charges to file.
Click to expand...

I wondered that as well, but then they'd have free reign to go after Trent Palmer and various other aviation YouTubers that don't have a commercial license for posting aviation content.
 
GaryM said:
I wonder if the FAA could get creative and claim that since his intent was to monetize the flight/crash through his click-bait video, it was a commercial operation. That would expand their rolodex of potential charges to file.
Click to expand...
Don't give them any ideas. That would mess up a lot of people posting legit content.

Not that the FAA would care.
 
I don't think they are as malicious as some people imagine. Sure there have been a few high profile cases that made them look that way but overall I think they just have a job to do and try to do it as best they can.
 
iamtheari said:
The fact the prop started windmilling from a stop after he got out of the plane is particularly entertaining. I hope the magneto switch, fuel valves, and mixture control (if it has one) were damaged too much for him to tamper with them after the crash but not so much that their precrash positions cannot be determined by investigators.
Click to expand...
Except that investigators will never get to see the wreckage.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Except that investigators will never get to see the wreckage.
Click to expand...

Well, then he gets to endure the consequences of violating yet another FAR by hiring a heli to extract the wreckage before it could be investigated. (I'd post the ADSBx track here, but as a new account (though lurker for years) I need a few more posts before I can do so - can be found in r/aviation, though)
 
What far says you can’t move wreckage?
 
Salty said:
What far says you can’t move wreckage?
Click to expand...

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! [raises hand] I know this one! 49 CFR § 830.10 - Preservation of aircraft wreckage, mail, cargo, and records.

Unless, of course, the NTSB released custody of the wreckage back to the owner, in which case moving the wreckage would be allowed.
 
You might be able to argue it was to protect against further damage, but that's a stretch.

With no wreckage to inspect, and no report (assuming he didn't report it), did it even happen? Is a YouTube video enough proof to "prosecute" with no other evidence?
 
Salty said:
You might be able to argue it was to protect against further damage, but that's a stretch.

With no wreckage to inspect, and no report (assuming he didn't report it), did it even happen? Is a YouTube video enough proof to "prosecute" with no other evidence?
Click to expand...

"To protect against further damage" would be a stretch of stretches, agreed. Trevor claims "I notified the FAA and the NTSB immediately" in the title cards of his original video, but those have now been removed in his current redacted video that is also missing the sponsorship plug (apparently his sponsor asked to not be associated with him any more).

As far as whether or not a YouTube video is enough to "prosecute" anyone, it is not - u/yourfriendlyasi on the flying subreddit has stated that they cannot seek enforcement action based solely on social media posts. However, such posts are apparently enough to open an investigation, as Bryan (Just Plane Silly) discovered after making sarcastic/humorous comments on Facebook a while back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top