Taylorcraft down California

in my humble opinion, if this were real even the most naive pilot would recognize how staged this looks and would have some hesitation about the framing of the events and why it was documented the way it is before posting. they would surely explain themselves and show cockpit footage. every suspicious circumstance is not addressed as though he is unaware of how it looks. that’s what is so damning to me

regardless of whether or not this was staged, he has exercised terrible judgement and dangerous behavior and should never be allowed to operate an aircraft again. jumping out of a plane you have no idea about where it will go, what fires it may cause, etc… is reprehensible behavior. that hunk of metal is your responsibility and you have a duty to at least try to keep it from killing people on the ground. utterly pathetic. the FAA owes it to the rest of us to come down hard on these fools endangering GA for literally a few thousand clicks and selling crap wallets
 
What's the thing hanging down by the right door that looks like a switch or fuel selector?
 
Racerx said:
"I crashed my plane"

Guy doesn't look like a Laura...the registered owner.

The only Trevor Jacob on the FAA registry got a student cert in 1998. This Trevor Jacob was born in '93.
Click to expand...
There's a Trevor Jacob on the registry with a PP-ASEL cert issued in 2020. New aircraft registration in May to a "Laura Smith" with a PO Box in Cali. Maybe it was so problem ridden they decided to get rid of it.
 
I haven’t and won’t watch the video. It seems the 49 CFR 830 definition if aircraft accident has been met and immediate notification of the NTSB should have happened, but a search of CAROL only returns two Taylorcraft accidenta/incidents in the last year and neither is this one.

I’d be real surprised if this was reported to NTSB. I’d also be real surprised if insurance is involved, FAA registration was up to date, annual was up to date, or a whole host of other things. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the ELT was removed or dead, and I will be real surprised if any kind of .gov action at any level comes from this.
 
TCABM said:
I haven’t and won’t watch the video. It seems the 49 CFR 830 definition if aircraft accident has been met and immediate notification of the NTSB should have happened, but a search of CAROL only returns two Taylorcraft accidenta/incidents in the last year and neither is this one.

I’d be real surprised if this was reported to NTSB. I’d also be real surprised if insurance is involved, FAA registration was up to date, annual was up to date, or a whole host of other things. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the ELT was removed or dead, and I will be real surprised if any kind of .gov action at any level comes from this.
Click to expand...

Well, if Bryan got called by the FSDO 'cause of his spoof videos, this ought to cause a grand inquisition with no prisoners taken.
 
Racerx said:
Let's all boycott the crappy wallet that was sponsoring this. And someone forward the other video to his AME. This guy wanted attention. He's got the FAA's now.
Click to expand...

I sure hope so. They need to throw the book at this idiot.

Thanks to all who described the video in some detail. I won't give him the 'click' to watch myself.
 
RyanShort1 said:
So, uh, my response is that the FAA absolutely needs to deal with this. Otherwise they can’t be taken seriously. They’ve prosecuted far better pilots for far less.
Click to expand...
he actually crashed an airplane into a mountain with zero regard for persons or property on the ground. he will be investigated. they simply cannot ignore this
 
kyleb said:
Well, if Bryan got called by the FSDO 'cause of his spoof videos, this ought to cause a grand inquisition with no prisoners taken.
Click to expand...
Yet Jerry still flies free of enforcement action.
RyanShort1 said:
So, uh, my response is that the FAA absolutely needs to deal with this. Otherwise they can’t be taken seriously. They’ve prosecuted far better pilots for far less.
Click to expand...
Needs to, yes. Has to? No. I wish it weren’t so.
GaryM said:
I sure hope so...
Click to expand...
Me too.
Nate9191 said:
… he will be investigated. they simply cannot ignore this
Click to expand...
I’m waiting with baited breath.
 
Lindberg said:
What's the thing hanging down by the right door that looks like a switch or fuel selector?
Click to expand...
It's the fuel valve for the optional 6 gallon wing tank. T-Craft has a 12 gallon fuselage tank which feeds the engine, when the fuselage tank is half empty you can open the valve to refill it from the wing tank. For whatever reason it's disconnected from the wing.
 
FAA only cares if a rule was overtly broken.

Jumping out of a disabled plane ain’t a big deal. Military (and some civilians) have ejection seats. Aerobatic and jump pilots wear chutes regularly...

Doing it deliberately another matter, but they ain’t gonna get involved in that determination.

Insurance is his biggest obstacle, if it was claimed. And even if so, hull value ain’t enough to really care. A mild ground loop would total it...

My guess, he faces the wrath of POA and life goes on.

He will get a lot of clicks. A lot of people will buy into it. His goal will likely be met. Not as incapable as ya may think. Sad but true...
 
Reckless endangerment at a minimum.
 
Tools said:
FAA only cares if a rule was overtly broken.

Jumping out of a disabled plane ain’t a big deal. Military (and some civilians) have ejection seats. Aerobatic and jump pilots wear chutes regularly...

Doing it deliberately another matter, but they ain’t gonna get involved in that determination.

Insurance is his biggest obstacle, if it was claimed. And even if so, hull value ain’t enough to really care. A mild ground loop would total it...

My guess, he faces the wrath of POA and life goes on.

He will get a lot of clicks. A lot of people will buy into it. His goal will likely be met. Not as incapable as ya may think. Sad but true...
Click to expand...
If that is true… this behavior goes unchecked…the bar is set that much higher then. What is the next crazy thing that has to be done to get more clicks.
I don’t know a pilot that isn’t typically Surrounded by pilot friends. This guys attitude has to be the exception, not the rule. I can’t imagine he doesn’t have a bunch of ppl around him that call bs on this stunt. If I tried something like this or a friend did there would be nothing short of an intervention next time I set foot on the field.
 
Salty said:
Reckless endangerment at a minimum.
Click to expand...

which ain’t gonna be investigated unless someone files a complaint. I didn’t see any witnesses...

Doesn’t mean it’s GOT to be that way, but it’s kinda the norm.

And ya, I can’t see this going ANYWHERE good. Geesh. But I doubt he’s really surrounded by anyone. Much less conscientious types. Why else would he be so attention seeking?
 
benyflyguy said:
… I don’t know a pilot that isn’t typically Surrounded by pilot friends...
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem; assuming the jackhole aviation appliance operator considers himself a pilot. He’s a media whore..nothing more, maybe something less charitable.
 
There was that guy with the youtube documented Cirrus chute pull and dramatic rescue a year or so ago, too...
 
This event smacks of being staged. Similar to that knothead skiboard/ski clothing salesman that dumped a perfectly good Bonanza in the Pacific, while he gleefully recorded his "harrowing near death" and amazing rescue.

What a disappointment. I would have given $8K for that Taylorcraft! Affordable planes are no longer to be found.
 
Racerx said:
Let's all boycott the crappy wallet that was sponsoring this...
Click to expand...

I bought one of those "crappy wallet(s)" long before Trevor boy pranged his T-cart.

The damned thang hurt my bony be-hind worse that the old school billfold it replaced. I can confirm they are indeed pretty crappy!

I was wondering why his prop stopped immediately, instead of windmilling. And, I was wondering why he wasn't turning toward lower terrain instead of continuing on into indian country. Another BS staged video on Youtube. Who'd 've thunk?
 
wilkersk said:
I bought one of those "crappy wallet(s)" long before Trevor boy pranged his T-cart.

The damned thang hurt my bony be-hind worse that the old school billfold it replaced. I can confirm they are indeed pretty crappy!

I was wondering why his prop stopped immediately, instead of windmilling. And, I was wondering why he wasn't turning toward lower terrain instead of continuing on into indian country. Another BS staged video on Youtube. Who'd 've thunk?
Click to expand...
I bought one of those crappy wallets early in their life cycle as well. I don’t think it was intended to go in your back pocket. More like making the total size small enough that it goes in a different pocket so you’re not sitting on the wallet at all.

I like my crappy wallet.
 
Still stuck on why he didn’t ditch the parachute rig before beginning his trek towards civilization.

And I think at one point in the video there’s a quick glimpse of his shadow which seems to show him carrying something, perhaps the actual chute? All too strange.
 
wilkersk said:
I was wondering why his prop stopped immediately, instead of windmilling.
Click to expand...
Because if he didn't stop the prop (by slowing the plane) his youtube viewers wouldn't believe it wasn't running.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I bought one of those crappy wallets early in their life cycle as well. I don’t think it was intended to go in your back pocket. More like making the total size small enough that it goes in a different pocket so you’re not sitting on the wallet at all.

I like my crappy wallet.
Click to expand...

If I put it in my front pocket, where the heck will my cell phone, car keys and pocket knife go? I got an all leather one same shape and size as the metal one, threw out 2/3rds of the crap that was in my old billfold, and carry the new one in my back pocket. Problem solved!
 
FastEddieB said:
Still stuck on why he didn’t ditch the parachute rig before beginning his trek towards civilization.

And I think at one point in the video there’s a quick glimpse of his shadow which seems to show him carrying something, perhaps the actual chute? All too strange.
Click to expand...
Cuz he's an idiot? Purposely crashing a plane is exhibit A.
 
Question 1) doesn’t he need to report this to the Faa as an accident with “substantial damage “?

Question 2) since the plane didn’t crash until after he “disembarked” technically does it meet the definition of an accident?

Question 3) does the “unmanned” clause at the end bring it back to being an accident?

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.
Click to expand...
 
Salty said:
Question 1) doesn’t he need to report this to the Faa as an accident with “substantial damage “?

Question 2) since the plane didn’t crash until after he “disembarked” technically does it meet the definition of an accident?

Question 3) does the “unmanned” clause at the end bring it back to being an accident?
Click to expand...
The alleged engine failure happened before he disembarked…
 
Nate9191 said:
he actually crashed an airplane into a mountain with zero regard for persons or property on the ground. he will be investigated. they simply cannot ignore this
Click to expand...
As long as he used the right pronouns in all communication, the FAA won't care.
 
Salty said:
Engine failures are not required reports.
Click to expand...

No, but

The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office,[1] when:

(A)…snip…
(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

It could be argued the aircraft was not overdue if the intent was to deliberately crash the aircraft. That however should meet the 91.13 careless or reckless operation criteria though.
 
TCABM said:
No, but

The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office,[1] when:

(A)…snip…
(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

It could be argued the aircraft was not overdue if the intent was to deliberately crash the aircraft. That however should meet the 91.13 careless or reckless operation criteria though.
Click to expand...
It's not overdue if the PIC knows where it is the whole time. It's not like you have to report if you divert to a different airport, therefore are overdue at your intended destination.
 
Salty said:
It's not overdue if the PIC knows where it is the whole time. It's not like you have to report if you divert to a different airport, therefore are overdue at your intended destination.
Click to expand...

As I said, that should trigger 91.13 if the intended destination was to navigate the aircraft specifically to a location where it could not be landed safely once the pilot intentionally disembarked the aircraft to cause an aircraft accident.

I also stand by my original statement that nothing will come of this other than zeros and ones posted in the ether.
 
TCABM said:
As I said, that should trigger 91.13 if the intended destination was to navigate the aircraft specifically to a location where it could not be landed safely once the pilot intentionally disembarked the aircraft to cause an aircraft accident.

I also stand by my original statement that nothing will come of this other than zeros and ones posted in the ether.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree. I think the purpose of that is for someone other than the PIC to report if the aircraft "disappears". Not for the PIC to report an aircraft as "overdue" when he is no longer "due" to take it anywhere. No different than a diversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top