Taylorcraft down California

Have Blue said:
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)
Click to expand...

Reread the thread. There have been a few posts addressing the fact that there were 30 days between the accident and the video being posted to YouTube. That is more than enough time for the NTSB to conduct what was likely a very cursory investigation and then to release the plane. Only after the video was posted was there any suspicion of wrongdoing and that would fall to the FAA to investigate. I’m sure they have asked to see the wreckage after they saw the video but any obligation for our young misfit to preserve the wreckage likely expired once the NTSB released the plane.
 
Salty said:
What far says you can’t move wreckage?
Click to expand...
Have Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

You did not correctly answer the question that was asked.

The FARs are in 14 CFR, so while 49 CFR § 830.10 is the appropriate regulation that deals with the subject matter and is a regulation that must be followed, it is not a FAR.

I don’t know if that is a distinction that @Salty was trying to get at but it is a distinction worth noting nonetheless.
 
SkyDog58 said:
You did not correctly answer the question that was asked.

The FARs are in 14 CFR, so while 49 CFR § 830.10 is the appropriate regulation that deals with the subject matter and is a regulation that must be followed, it is not a FAR.

I don’t know if that is a distinction that @Salty was trying to get at but it is a distinction worth noting nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Huh, I have my 2014 FAR/AIM (used for my SPT, sorry I don't know where the more recent one that I used for my PPL is) cracked open to 830.10, and the header at the top of the left page says "Federal Aviation Regulations". You may want to alert ASA of that grevious oversight if it still exists in more recent copies.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Reread the thread. There have been a few posts addressing the fact that there were 30 days between the accident and the video being posted to YouTube. That is more than enough time for the NTSB to conduct what was likely a very cursory investigation and then to release the plane. Only after the video was posted was there any suspicion of wrongdoing and that would fall to the FAA to investigate. I’m sure they have asked to see the wreckage after they saw the video but any obligation for our young misfit to preserve the wreckage likely expired once the NTSB released the plane.
Click to expand...

I am fully in agreement - if NTSB released it back to "our young misfit" (lol), then he can do whatever the heck he wants with it. (hopefully the engine is still in good shape, but I'm guessing he may not have logbooks for it)
 
Have Blue said:
Huh, I have my 2014 FAR/AIM (used for my SPT, sorry I don't know where the more recent one that I used for my PPL is) cracked open to 830.10, and the header at the top of the left page says "Federal Aviation Regulations". You may want to alert ASA of that grevious oversight if it still exists in more recent copies.
Click to expand...

Well, ASA has been wrong since, about, 2002 if you really want to go their.

“Do not use the acronym "FAR" to refer to FAA's regulations. Neither the Department of Transportation nor the Office of the Federal Register allow us to use "FAR" for our regulations.

The Federal Acquisition Regulations apply government-wide and are allowed to use the acronym "FAR."”

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/order/1320_46C.pdf
 
SkyDog58 said:
I don’t know if that is a distinction that @Salty was trying to get at but it is a distinction worth noting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Even if FARs were still aviation regs the distinction is insignificant, given that 49CFR is transportation and applies to the circumstances being discussed. Since they are *not* FARs, it's pedantry without a point.

Nauga,
and missed marks
 
TCABM said:
Well, ASA has been wrong since, about, 2002 if you really want to go their.

“Do not use the acronym "FAR" to refer to FAA's regulations. Neither the Department of Transportation nor the Office of the Federal Register allow us to use "FAR" for our regulations.

The Federal Acquisition Regulations apply government-wide and are allowed to use the acronym "FAR."”

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/order/1320_46C.pdf
Click to expand...

Well, dang. I've been out-pedanted.

Anyway, I've fulfilled my purgatorial 5 posts; thank you all for assisting - ADSBx track of the purported heli recovery is here: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?ica...1.2&showTrace=2021-12-10&timestamp=1639165209
 
It’s the fraud that just keeps giving

 
Silvaire said:
slung that thing out with a helo in the pitch black of night
Click to expand...
FYI: it takes a very talented pilot to sling out anything at night. While night external sling ops are permitted it takes a lot of prep to set up and at a premium.
 
Is an AS50 enough helicopter to carry out a Taylorcraft? (I have no idea what the airplane weighs or what an AS50 can carry)
 
That taylorcraft couldn't have been much more than 1000 pounds.
 
Hiring a helicopter to remove the wreckage probably cost more than that airplane was worth... though possibly less than the fines for leaving it there.
 
donjohnston said:
Is an AS50 enough helicopter to carry out a Taylorcraft?
Click to expand...
Plenty. An AS350B3 can lift 3000lbs and a AS350B2 is at 2200lbs max on the hook. They both also have increased useful loads when in external load mode.
Dana said:
Hiring a helicopter to remove the wreckage probably cost more than that airplane was worth
Click to expand...
Not really. If this was a quickie set up and and pick up in one or two flights was probably done for in the $6000-$8000 range. Or cheaper as this is the off season for utility and fire work. Even using a much bigger helicopter would not get you to the average Taylorcraft price.
 
Bell206 said:
Plenty. An AS350B3 can lift 3000lbs and a AS350B2 is at 2200lbs max on the hook. They both also have increased useful loads when in external load mode.

Not really. If this was a quickie set up and and pick up in one or two flights was probably done for in the $6000-$8000 range. Or cheaper as this is the off season for utility and fire work. Even using a much bigger helicopter would not get you to the average Taylorcraft price.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree that a demolished Taylorcraft is worth $6-8k much less more. Depends on the engine and damage I suppose.
 
I would guess the value of that particular Taylorcraft is not much above scrap aluminum price after the impact.
 
TCABM said:
Well, ASA has been wrong since, about, 2002 if you really want to go their.

“Do not use the acronym "FAR" to refer to FAA's regulations. Neither the Department of Transportation nor the Office of the Federal Register allow us to use "FAR" for our regulations.

The Federal Acquisition Regulations apply government-wide and are allowed to use the acronym "FAR."”

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/order/1320_46C.pdf
Click to expand...
Yeah, we get engine cert documents rejected for that, unless referring to a legacy item. Took about ten years for the engineers to get it sorted. BTW, the change for us was ordered in 2005.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: it takes a very talented pilot to sling out anything at night. While night external sling ops are permitted it takes a lot of prep to set up and at a premium.
Click to expand...

Considering the location I think it had to be an extremely difficult and dangerous operation. If they filmed it and put it on YT I'd watch it. Gotta be as thrilling as a Deadliest Catch episode at least.
 
Salty said:
I'm not sure I agree that a demolished Taylorcraft is worth $6-8k much less more. Depends on the engine and damage I suppose.
Click to expand...
Wagondriver said:
I would guess the value of that particular Taylorcraft is not much above scrap aluminum price after the impact.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of insured value. But tube and fabric aircraft have a better rebuild value vs an aluminum scrap value as a Cessna/Piper. Not a lot of aluminum to recycle on a BC-12. Bottom line while helicopters are expensive per se they're not as expensive as a lot of people think.
Silvaire said:
Considering the location I think it had to be an extremely difficult and dangerous operation. If they filmed it and put it on YT I'd watch it.
Click to expand...
While I seriously doubt it was done at night in one flight, these types of ops are done more frequently than not during the day. Its basically a regular day in the office for most utility pilots/aircraft. In some cases there can be extenuating circumstances but all workable and safe. I think the 133 operator in this case would be stupid to become associated with this aircraft and especially on YT. To give you an idea of the prep needed here is one helicopter recovery that was performed in a remote location where its a bit more than flying to the scene and hooking a sling line to it.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Where is the pickup here? The helicopter seems to be booking the whole time.
Click to expand...

Look at the track data, there is a ~2.5 hr gap between going out into SF Wilderness and then coming back (flew out at 1900 came back at 2130).

Considering it was at night, I'm skeptical that this was a pickup operation.

Edit - wait, is that UTC time? Does anyone know? I am not familiar at all with ADSB Exchange.

Edit x2 - I looked up one of my own flights and confirmed ADSB Exhange is in UTC time. So this particular helo flight was done during the early afternoon, not at night.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
FYI: it takes a very talented pilot to sling out anything at night. While night external sling ops are permitted it takes a lot of prep to set up and at a premium.
Click to expand...

The data is UTC time. The flight posted was in the early to late afternoon.
 
I'm curious about the logistics of clearing up plane wreckage like that. I figure you'd need someone to be able to get out there and fit the straps etc beforehand who would have to make their own way back - seems like it'd be a bit of a hike to get up there and back. Hopefully Trevor remembered some water this time.
 
CaptainXap said:
I figure you'd need someone to be able to get out there and fit the straps etc beforehand who would have to make their own way back -
Click to expand...
The usual process is the 133 ops ground person (crew) will fly out with the aircraft if it has room, land, rig the load, connect the longline/hook, then either the ground person will ride back at that time or the load will be slung out and the helicopter returns to pick up the ground person. No 133 operator in their right mind would allow an untrained person to rig a load.
 
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...

I think the YouTube video is enough to pull his cert permanently. I doubt it alone would be enough evidence to convict him criminally of anything. I think most of us pilots have a good idea of which FAR's were hurt in the production of his video, but I am no lawyer and have no clue what, if any, laws were broken in the course of such an act. Surely there are some on here which may have an idea that could help those of us who are curious.
 
Nate9191 said:
I think the YouTube video is enough to pull his cert permanently. I doubt it alone would be enough evidence to convict him criminally of anything.
Click to expand...

A video or social media post by itself cannot be used for an enforcement action. It can, however, be sufficient grounds to open an investigation. I'm sure the investigators will have _many_ questions for "our young misfit", and quite possibly for his CFI and DPE as well.
 
MrAnderson said:
How are there not 10 pages yet?
Click to expand...
Funny, I came here thinking 'how do we have 9 pages about this?'

I don't see the controversy.. a social media idiot crashed a plane in an obviously gone awry stunt. He was made a laughing stock on the web, and he'll eventually get caught and pay the penalty.. or not - the world is not a fair place. The moron Lesh who craps in protected lakes and crashes Bonanzas FOR THE CLICKS BRO! is still out there, basically getting away with all of it. I guess I just don't see what more there is to talk about with this stunt.
 
Tantalum said:
Funny, I came here thinking 'how do we have 9 pages about this?'

I don't see the controversy.. a social media idiot crashed a plane in an obviously gone awry stunt. He was made a laughing stock on the web, and he'll eventually get caught and pay the penalty.. or not - the world is not a fair place. The moron Lesh who craps in protected lakes and crashes Bonanzas FOR THE CLICKS BRO! is still out there, basically getting away with all of it. I guess I just don't see what more there is to talk about with this stunt.
Click to expand...
What went awry?
 
Salty said:
What went awry?
Click to expand...
that it was so obviously a stunt. So gone 'awry' from his intended goal.

Frankly, I doubt anything will come of it, unfortunately. It's not a fair world, but if you follow the Lesh saga and use that as any clue, then these people largely get away with it.
 
The number of youtubers who have decided to analyze this video is astounding to me. I watched the beginning of one video where the guy said this guy will be sentenced to life in jail for this, lol. Can't watch any more.
 
..don't forget to buy your Ridge Wallet btw
 
PaulS said:
The number of youtubers who have decided to analyze this video is astounding to me. I watched the beginning of one video where the guy said this guy will be sentenced to life in jail for this, lol. Can't watch any more.
Click to expand...
Has gryder weighed in?
 
He seemed to go a bit off the deep end with the Gwen Shamblin and DB Cooper thing.. previous to that it was interesting to sometimes get his unfiltered take on things.. but I haven't watched any of his stuff since then
 
Salty said:
Nobody is defending him, or it would be 80 pages by now.
Click to expand...
OK, let me see what I can do...
No radio for help - did the T cart even have a radio?
No attempt to restart. Boring part got edited out.
Sky diver rig. Run whatcha brung, eh? Why spend extra for yet another 'chute when you already have at least 2.
Jump instead of land. Panic. Somewhere in the NTSB data base is a case where a student pilot (wearing a 'chute) on a long cross country ran out of gas on final - turned away from the airport and jumped. It happens.
Selfie Stick. Umm, perhaps he didn't even realize it was in his hand until he was out the door.
Delaying the chute opening. Well, that's what skydivers do.
Going to the airplane first. Can't fix stupid.
Stuffing fire extinguishers in his pants. He was probably concerned about the whole the "Liar, liar, pants on fire." thing. So totally legit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top