Anyone Following This Whole Trevor Jacobs Crash ?

[MRC01]

The reg you cited is a classic question during flight tests & reviews. The examiner asks, "Is it legal to throw something out your airplane window while you're flying?"
Most people instinctively answer "no". But the correct answer is "yes" - if you take care not to cause injury or property damage.
Of course, what's legal is not always prudent or safe.

 

[billt460]

Some years back, in this now infamous Glock torture test, a guy threw one out of an airplane. Scroll down to the bottom. Nothing ever came of it from a "punishment" standpoint.

Glock 21 Torture Test | Survival Spot

For almost 10 years I’ve been abusing and neglecting my Glock 21. Its been a running joke among some friends and I. Nothing was planned or documented. As

www.survival-spot.com

 

[billt460]

The FAA has responded. Here is what happened to him.

 

[Malo83]

 

[Silver]

That'll show him!

 

[billt460]

That'll show him!

He still may be facing a LOT of other legal action. Both criminal and civil. The FAA may be finished with him, but District Attorney's, and judges just love to make legal examples out of guys like him.

 

[alcyon]

A disturbed young man who is in love with himself and desperate for attention. What a disgrace.

Scott

Sadly there plenty more on social media.

 

[billt460]

A disturbed young man who is in love with himself and desperate for attention. What a disgrace.

Scott

Don't forget the other more powerful motivating factor..... $$$$$$$$$$

 

[MRC01]

I'm not sure he should face criminal charges, since he didn't hurt anyone else, nor destroy anyone else's property. Nor did he intend to. He is already financially responsible for the airplane crash, removal, etc.
But I do think revoking his license was entirely appropriate. He does not have the right judgment or attitude to be a pilot. Being a pilot is not a right, but a privilege, and we do and should expect more of people who exercise that privilege.

 

[billt460]

I'm not sure he should face criminal charges, since he didn't hurt anyone else, nor destroy anyone else's property. Nor did he intend to. He is already financially responsible for the airplane crash, removal, etc.

I can agree with that. If you want to look at this through the whole prizm of "legality", the Red Bull "Plane Swap" was actually worse. They requested permission from the FAA, and gave them very detailed information about what they intended to do, and how. The FAA then examined everything, and said NO!

Then they basically gave the FAA the middle finger, and went and did it anyway. Jacobs never requested anything from the FAA. He just did it, then tried, (unsuccessfully), to pawn the whole thing off as an, "accident".

Admittingly he didn't do a very good job of it. But being a idiot isn't really a crime. As far as what it cost him to clean up the mess, I'm sure it was all profitable for him. Everyone has been yacking about this all over the Internet...... Including here. That video got a LOT of hits. And that is what making money on You Tube is all about.

You could tag this with the same title they gave Apollo 13.... A "successful failure". Only for different reasons.

 

[MRC01]

... the Red Bull "Plane Swap" was actually worse. They requested permission from the FAA, and gave them very detailed information about what they intended to do, and how. The FAA then examined everything, and said NO!

Then they basically gave the FAA the middle finger, and went and did it anyway. Jacobs never requested anything from the FAA. He just did it, then tried, (unsuccessfully), to pawn the whole thing off as an, "accident".

Yep, while both cases show careless disregard for the regulations, the Red Bull pilots took it to the level of insubordination. That's an important distinction and I'd be surprised if those red bull pilots ever fly again. In that respect, Jacobs' case seems less severe. However, he did lie about it afterward, which suggests the same level of insubordination combined with intent to deceive (the Red Bull pilots gave the FAA the middle finger but didn't lie). In that light the FAA might see Jacobs' case as just as bad or worse.

 

[billt460]

I just came across this :

"A California man was sentenced to six months in federal prison on Monday for allegedly lying to federal authorities when they were investigating an airplane he intentionally crashed to make a YouTube video."

California YouTuber sentenced to prison after intentionally crashing plane

A California man was sentenced to prison after impeding the investigation into the plane he crashed.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Taildragger]

Trevor Jacob Goes Flying On Temporary Certificate - AVweb

The FAA has confirmed that Trevor Jacob, the California pilot who intentionally crashed a Taylorcraft for a YouTube video two years ago, has been issued a temporary pilot certificate. “His pilot application is working its way through our standard process. He has a temporary pilot certificate...

www.avweb.com

 

[Jetronic]

The reg you cited is a classic question during flight tests & reviews. The examiner asks, "Is it legal to throw something out your airplane window while you're flying?"
Most people instinctively answer "no". But the correct answer is "yes" - if you take care not to cause injury or property damage.
Of course, what's legal is not always prudent or safe.

so it's not littering now?

 

[MRC01]

so it's not littering now?

The question during flight reviews is whether it violates FAA regulations, not whether it complies with city, county, or state laws or other regulations. In the latter case, I would suppose that depends on what you are throwing out of the airplane. For example on long x-country flights I'll eat an apple or two and throw the core out my window when flying over remote wilderness areas. It will be eaten by insects, or a lucky deer or other animal. I wouldn't consider that "littering", not like I would if it were truly trash like an empty bag of chips (which I would never throw out of the airplane).

 

[TimeFlies]

Fortunately it didn't start a forest fire.