Trevor Jacob "staged" plane crash

[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.

[linecrew]

As far as I know, nobody even stubbed a toe in making this video.

I'm curious if there were safeguards in place that ensured this or did it just happen to work out that way.

[Mach1]

I agree with photofly on this one; calling for jail time for an incident like this is totally excessive.

Prison time (a small but reasonable amount) is justified if

he didn't do any of that and was in fact as reckless as it is made to appear in the video.

because of the reckless endangerment of people and property on the ground. The empty aircraft could have hit a building, people out hiking, infrastructure such as power lines, gas pumping stations, roads, rails or any number of items that could have resulted in injury or death of people or damage to property. He could have accidentally started a wild fire with the striking of any or all of the above that may have resulted in more damage and destruction. He would have needed a method of control over the empty aircraft to determine it's crash area.

A little time in jail to discourage future behaviour like this, and/or discourage copy cats, is not out of line.

Now, if he had

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...."

And

If he followed proper procedures for a film shoot

Then, and only then, is jail time not an option. However, the video should be labelled as a commercial would be labelled: Closed track, professional stunt crew, do not attempt.

If it was, as presented, just colossally bad decision making in the face of an actual emergency, it should not result in jail time. However, if I am in an attempt to save my life, I'm not going to take the time to make sure I have my camera filming the whole event from start to finish, making it look like a stunt rather than an accident.

[photofly]

because of the reckless endangerment of people and property on the ground. The empty aircraft could have hit a building, people out hiking, infrastructure such as power lines, gas pumping stations, roads, rails or any number of items that could have resulted in injury or death of people or damage to property.

Did you pay any attention at all to the terrain?

Screen Shot 2022-01-05 at 5.57.40 PM.jpg (616.66 KiB) Viewed 2007 times

[Mach1]

Yes I did. Does that preclude any and all development, recreational users and the fact the aircraft could have continued on a long driftdown to crash outside of the camera view?

Perhaps you need to think things through a little more deeply.

[photofly]

Yes I did. Does that preclude any and all development, recreational users and the fact the aircraft could have continued on a long driftdown to crash outside of the camera view?

It could have. Suppose you were going to pick terrain to stage an aircraft crash; if you wanted to minimize the risk of damage to property or injury, isn't that the kind of terrain you'd pick? While you and I might agree that it alone wasn't an adequate precaution, the choice of terrain does suggest someone who was neither indifferent to risk nor oblivious to it. If this stunt had been staged over downtown Los Angeles, you'd have a stronger argument.

Perhaps you need to think things through a little more deeply.

Perhaps you do.

[Mach1]

Perhaps you do.

Oh yeah? Well I'm rubber and you're glue.

Seriously, I can't believe you are defending his actions. As I stated, if all the proper precautions were taken, NOTAM's issued, and a method of controlling where the aircraft crashed was in place... I have no issue with this other than the need for a warning label. If it was a stunt without any of that, it is inexcusable. The fact you are defending it says a lot more about you that it does anything else.

Oh well, I have better things to do than argue with someone who defends the indefensible.

[Posthumane]

I can't speak on behalf of others, but I'm not defending his actions as I hate seeing a good aircraft destroyed for entertainment. I am, however, comparing this situation to that of other entertainers that wreck things on purpose for entertainment. Every time that the Top Gear crew rolls a vehicle off a cliff somewhere, there is a chance that something could go wrong such as a fire. In fact, they have had a number of injuries on that show from their stunts. They do put in place measures to minimize the risks of their stunts, but those measures do not completely eliminate them. My disagreement with the "throw him in jail" crowd is twofold:
a) There is an assumption being made that he did not take any precautions to make his stunt somewhat safe, but you can't convict someone based on an assumption. Some level of safety can be achieved by picking the appropriate area, getting permission from the landowner, ensuring there is no infrastructure where the plane is expected to crash, and rigging the plane to crash in a predicable manner (there are various ways to do this with different levels of precision). He may have done all, some, or none of those things, but until the matter is investigated the best anyone here can say is that they don't know how much he did or did not do. The fact that it looks ad-hoc does not necessarily tell the story, as many TV stunts are made to look ad-hoc and there are not "warning labels" on them. Top Gear doesn't state that their car crashes are created on a closed course by professional drivers, because quite often they are not.
b) There is a legal precedent for how much punishment is awarded for certain actions. Creating a condition which could endanger people is something that is punishable, but does not garner as strong a punishment as if people were actually hurt. For example, if you go twice the speed limit you create the potential to injure or kill someone with your car, and that would merit at least a fine, and possibly a suspension of your driving license. If you go twice the speed limit and actually kill someone because of the danger you created you will face a much harsher punishment, even though the difference between the two situations is largely based on luck.

I may not like the guy or what he did, but the judicial system is not a popularity contest and I would not want it to become one.

[gwagen]

You fellows should check out some of his other flying videos and “stories”

He is in my opinion at a minimum, a menace to aviation.

[PilotDAR]

You fellows should check out some of his other flying videos and “stories”

No, we should not. Giving this irresponsible person any publicity or "views" just validates his dumb behaviour - ignore him, totally. Everyone should turn their back on him, and get on with being professional pilots!

[airway]

because of the reckless endangerment of people and property on the ground. The empty aircraft could have hit a building, people out hiking, infrastructure such as power lines, gas pumping stations, roads, rails or any number of items that could have resulted in injury or death of people or damage to property.

Did you pay any attention at all to the terrain?


Screen Shot 2022-01-05 at 5.57.40 PM.jpg

This Youtuber did a decent analysis of Jacob's flightpath. He says Jacob carefully edited out any view behind the aircraft, as it would have shown more civilization and flatter terrain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRSZuC84CEg

Other red flags:
The N number is never clearly shown in the video.
This aircraft is not the same one that he flies in his other videos, and is not registered to him. Either he just bought it, and it's not registered in his name yet, or he borrowed it from somebody.






.