Trevor Jacob "staged" plane crash

[photofly]

I don't see that in CAR401, but I concede I could have missed it. It takes a lot to revoke someone's licence for good, and it's generally only done for "iincompetence", which has a specific meaning that someone is unable to obey the regulations, not that they chose not to on one or more occasions.

Usually it's because it's "not in the public interest." https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 8/index.do

Yes, that's a poster child for having a licence cancelled, and it's waaaaay beyond what the person who made this video did. Unless there's a pattern of deliberately crashing airplanes? I suppose "in the public interest" is easier to make stick, because it's a subjective decision of the minister's.

I know of no cases where a CAD has been cancelled for incompetence.

Here's a suspension on the basis of incompetence:
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 1/index.do

Part of the reason is that in a movie, everyone understands the fiction. In this case, he tells people that this actually happened. It's like if a Bond film sold itself as a documentary.

That's a great analogy, but you can't deny there are plenty of more stupid things on youtube.

[AirFrame]

That's a great analogy, but you can't deny there are plenty of more stupid things on youtube.

Hell, there are more stupid things here on AvCanada... Look in the COVID forum.

Nobody is denying he's a royal *sshat for wrecking a perfectly good airplane. All we're debating is how severe the punishment should be, and in reality, since nobody was actually hurt in the process the penalty will probably be light... He got lucky. Fines for damages, recovery, etc., loss of pilot's certificate, and slap on the wrist and it'll be over.

[photofly]

Is it actually a regulatory infraction deliberately to crash an airplane in Canada?

[172_Captain]

Is it actually a regulatory infraction deliberately to crash an airplane in Canada?

Gross negligence, reckless endangerment are a couple that come to mind. Letting a plane ghost fly through the sky to crash into the hillside where it could have hit any number of hikers or campers is incomprehensibly stupid.

[photofly]

Is it actually a regulatory infraction deliberately to crash an airplane in Canada?

Gross negligence, reckless endangerment are a couple that come to mind. Letting a plane ghost fly through the sky to crash into the hillside where it could have hit any number of hikers or campers is incomprehensibly stupid.

There's section 320.13 of the criminal code:

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

But that's about endangering people; if you take adequate precautions to be sure the public is not endangered, then that statute doesn't stop you crashing a plane at all.

Any other guesses? I'm pretty sure that if you want to crash your own plane, on your own property, and can do it without endangering anyone, you're free to go ahead. I guess there could be some environmental infraction about releasing fuel or oil into the environment. It doesn't sound like the quantity of fuel in a Cub would be considered a big deal though.

[ALPApolicy]

Here is Dr Grande's assessment of Trevor.

[linecrew]

Guess the remote control in this was very effective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbgYB-d ... atsargent1

Or this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5YPhb ... =Discovery

Seems to me this yutz is a legitimate target of criticism, but "This kind of sh*t warrants a number of years in prison, substantial fines and of course loss of any aeronautical privileges FOR LIFE." seems a little strong.

...oy.

[airway]

This video is obviously a hoax, and this guy is a totally reckless and an idiot for doing it.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around how he could think this was a reasonable thing to do.

Did he know how much controversy, derision, and likely some enforcement from the FAA he would get? Maybe he factored that all in, in order to get more hits, more publicity, and money.

How much is he going to make from all the hits on this video (I'm embarrassed that my hit will be included), the apology video that I'm sure will be next, and all the other people that are going to subscribe to him now just to see what other stupid things he does.

Does anyone know roughly a average "influencer" like this guy makes from YouTube?




.

[Flight94]

This video is obviously a hoax, and this guy is a totally reckless and an idiot for doing it.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around how he could think this was a reasonable thing to do.

Did he know how much controversy, derision, and likely some enforcement from the FAA he would get? Maybe he factored that all in, in order to get more hits, more publicity, and money.

How much is he going to make from all the hits on this video (I'm embarrassed that my hit will be included), the apology video that I'm sure will be next, and all the other people that are going to subscribe to him now just to see what other stupid things he does.

Does anyone know roughly a average "influencer" like this guy makes from YouTube?




.

https://www.noxinfluencer.com/youtube/c ... ThI2G7F4_g

About $2k/month. He's not getting rich off YT by any means.

[Skykiwi]

My FO showed this latest video to me and I felt it was a stunt.

"My FO"??? The people you fly with do not belong to you. The First Officer I was flying with...

[Cessna 180]

He's going to probably enjoy life in prison. I'm not sure what the minimum sentences are, but there's a variety of state and federal charges he will probably be convicted of if they prove this was a hoax.

1) Reckless endangerment
2) Fraud (insurance)
3) EPA and State environmental regulations
4) 14 CFR § 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation
5) False report
6) Other 14 CFR violations

not to mention the millions in damages the courts will probably award to the state and to the insurer.

What an idiot.

[photofly]

It’s funny how small airplanes arouse such passions in people. Both the anti-airplane people (“a small plane flew over my house once and I knew I was going to die!!!!”) and the pro crowd have that in common.

[Bede]

"My FO"??? The people you fly with do not belong to you. The First Officer I was flying with...

Heaven forbid he were to discuss his doctor....

[photofly]

Different power dynamic. Compare “my valet” with “my probation officer”.

[redlaser]

No mention of a flight plan or an ELT on the aircraf to alert search and rescue, especially since he made his way back to the damaged aircraft, he could have retrieved the ELT, no attempt was made to restart the engine, I agree with others who say the guy is an idiot.

[Bede]

Different power dynamic. Compare “my valet” with “my probation officer”.

There is no power dynamic between captain and FO. They are equal parts of a team, but in the event of a disagreement, the captain has final authority.

My captain/my FO?
My wife/my husband?
My boss/my employee?
My teacher/my student?
My son/my dad?
My lawyer/my client?

Sorry, can someone point out some authoritative style guide to guide my word choice?

[JasonE]

Does anyone know roughly a average "influencer" like this guy makes from YouTube?

The individual I know with 100k followers makes 70K USD per year with 2 weekly videos averaging 20 minutes in length.

[photofly]

There is no power dynamic between captain and FO. They are equal parts of a team, but in the event of a disagreement, the captain has final authority.

Most people would call that a power dynamic.

[Bede]

There is no power dynamic between captain and FO. They are equal parts of a team, but in the event of a disagreement, the captain has final authority.

Most people would call that a power dynamic.

I lower case my titles and names and therefore do not recognize power.

[ALPApolicy]

There is no power dynamic between captain and FO. They are equal parts of a team, but in the event of a disagreement, the captain has final authority.

Anecdotally I have heard there was a First Officer at Encore who the Captains unofficially referred to as "Captain Matt". I am willing to bet there was a power dynamic in that flight deck.

As well, rumour had it there was an Encore Captain referred to as " Captain Five Bars". Likely as a result of a power dynamic of some sort.

[Bede]

At one point in my career I was Captain ALPApolicy's submissive FO. Was there ever a power dynamic.

[Posthumane]

I agree with photofly on this one; calling for jail time for an incident like this is totally excessive.
I think the guy is an asshat for wrecking a perfectly good airplane, but that's because I'm part of the general aviation community and I like airplanes. I recognize, however, that us getting outraged over this stunt is not really any different than the Reliant Robin Owner's Group getting outraged at Top Gear for wrecking yet another Reliant Robin by dropping it off a crane or driving it over a cliff, or for giving Reliant Robins a bad name by making them look unsafe, like they roll over all the time.

I think it's well established here that this crash was stage, the guy didn't really have an unplanned engine failure, and he doesn't actually wear a parachute every time he flies. So why is everyone accepting at face value the statement that he called the FAA and NTSB to notify them of the crash, or assuming he tried to collect insurance on it? For all we know he may have called the FAA and other authorities before hand and told them "Look, we're filming something in this area that will involve a small plane crashing into a hill, here's my risk mitigation plan, the plane will contain minimal oil and fuel just for this flight and will be scuttled on private property with the land owner's permission, etc...."

Now, maybe he didn't do any of that and was in fact as reckless as it is made to appear in the video. Perhaps he has a production team to look into those issues (big name youtube channels are often not just one person shows), or perhaps not. The point is, we really don't know. If he followed proper procedures for a film shoot then this is exactly as outrage worthy as what a lot of car shows do. If he didn't then he should get penalized as appropriate for not following the appropriate procedures for filming. This stunt was less dangerous than what happened on the set of that Alec Baldwin show, and yet I don't see anyone getting life in prison for that.

[AirFrame]

If he followed proper procedures for a film shoot then this is exactly as outrage worthy as what a lot of car shows do.

Agreed, 100%. And if that's the case, hat tip to him for creating a metric sh*t-ton of publicity for his site. Nice marketing move.

If he didn't then he should get penalized as appropriate for not following the appropriate procedures for filming. This stunt was less dangerous than what happened on the set of that Alec Baldwin show...

No. There is a MASSIVE difference between a film set with safety protocols in place where a legitimate accident happens (the Alec Baldwin incident), and a solo yutz just winging it and hoping nothing goes wrong (and getting lucky because nobody was hurt).

As the Alec Baldwin incident shows, accidents can still happen even in tightly controlled environments. They are rare, because they *are* tightly controlled environments. In *uncontrolled* environments, anything goes. You can even get lucky and not hurt anyone or damage anyone's property.

Assuming the plane crash was staged without any official safety planning or permission, the difference is negligence. The lack of care to ensure safety of persons and property on the ground will speak to that. He didn't even try to make it safe, he just did it and hoped for the best.

[PilotDAR]

creating a metric sh*t-ton of publicity for his site.

Sadly true. Happily not here! It appears that AvCanada has (wisely, in my opinion) removed the link to his Youtube. I'm sure people will still find it, but not 'cause it was linked from here.

[photofly]

No. There is a MASSIVE difference between a film set with safety protocols in place where a legitimate accident happens (the Alec Baldwin incident)

From the bits and pieces coming out about that film set accident, your description could at best be called "charitable".

"Where's the live ammo?" - "In the box with the blanks".

Don’t get too excited about “official” safety protocols. They may have been official, but they didn’t stop someone being shot dead. As far as I know, nobody even stubbed a toe in making this video.