Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

YouTuber bails out due to stopped engine (looks like it was staged)

No pilot can watch this video and say “this seems perfectly normal”. It started weird, and got worse.

Fly more.
LSGY, Switzerland

eurogaguest1980 wrote:

It started weird, and got worse.

The fire extinguishers almost hidden inside the trousers were the best bit.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

LeSving wrote:

In an emergency situation you simply do what you have to do to survive. “Not according to protocol” is a silly comment.

The allegation of the agency is not that he was “not according to protocol”.

It rather is, that the pilot did not perform any of the actions you would typically expect from a pilot “who wants to survive”.
When experiencing an engine failure at a comfortable altitude without any indication of fire or problems with the controls it is extremely unusual that the first and only impulse of the pilot is “get out of this plane immediately”.
Also the impression of the pilot on the videos (not at last including the mere fact that he actually takes a video of the entire process), is not consistent with a situation where the pilot is so scared to death that he forgets everything he learned in flight school and can only think of jumping out to save his life.

Germany

The gist is “we don’t believe you because you did…” rather than a direct critique of actions taken in a (claimed) emergency.

Probably, but when reading it, that isn’t what it says

It seems to me “the internet” is more concerned with the director/production mistakes he allegedly did when performing the YouTube “stunt”, rather than the actual legal matters involved and the eventual danger it could have caused.

Also, if you have a chute, on the back or attached to the plane. Is it best to let the situation deteriorate until you have no options left, or is it better to use it when the situation is still under control?

The video has got 1.7M views, and I’m sure it will increase, so it’s a success regardless

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

Is it best to let the situation deteriorate until you have no options left, or is it better to use it when the situation is still under control?

There was quite clearly no ‘situation’ – that’s the point. It was all very obviously completely deliberate. Is it not apparent to you?

EGLM & EGTN

The article quotes the FAA saying “ Mr. Jacob made no attempt to contact air traffic control on the emergency frequency, did not try to restart the engine by increasing airflow over the propeller and failed to look for a place to safely land, “even though there were multiple areas within gliding range in which you could have made a safe landing.”

It could be read that these actions are required in an emergency, and that would indeed be quite worrying.

I don’t think that this is what the FAA means here. The licence was withdrawn for the stunt and intentional crashing the aeroplane, these are simply indications that this was staged rather than a genuine engine failure

Biggin Hill

There was no emergency.

Of course no one may be sued because he prepares for everything, including wearing fire extinguishers below the trousers.

And no one says that one has to try everything until it is too late.

The art of flying is upmost the avoidance of risks, in certain limits where the limits are defined according to the mission. Acrobatics has certain other limits than a passenger flight.

An airplane that has not broken in-flight into pieces is no threat, as long as a pilot is staying at its controls (and I mean a pilot and not an idiot). Exiting an airplane is a valid option under certain circumstances. But you trade in other risks, in particular for others, but also for yourself. In this very example here, Mr. Jacob established a potentially life-threatening situation out of nothing, on behalf of his own will. This is what was done the wrong way and what is analyzed by the FAA using what is shown in the videos.

@Cobalt I don’t read the FAA letter that the mentioned items were required in an emergency. In fact, we all know it better (aviate, navigate, communicate).

Last Edited by UdoR at 22 Apr 15:07
Germany

I think the best thing to do in situations like this is ignore them, and not publicize any e.g. FAA action taken. The FAA press statement contributes to the objective of the wacky guy, which is to gain publicity. If I were responsible within the FAA I’m not sure I’d have taken any action, I would’ve instead made his subsequent piloting life hell, until a case existed to remove his pilot certificate for more prosaic violations. Nothing they’ve done will discourage anybody with the mindset to do a repeat performance and it wasn’t particularly harmful in any case. Just brainless. You can’t fix stupid, as the saying goes.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 22 Apr 15:49

Graham wrote:

Is it not apparent to you?

It may appear apparent, but so may any accident which involves running out of fuel (which is among the most frequent causes of “engine failure” ), if you look at it from the right angle. One could argue that he only filled up enough to barely make it, but didn’t. That’s what everybody else does. Also, it shouldn’t be dismissed that he is a youtuber. He could have had the same video preparations for every flight, just in case something happened. The only difference is that this time, it did.

The only difference really is that he was well prepared for an “engine failure”, and survived. He might have been thinking: YES finally, but that’s another matter

The most likely explanation for this accident is that it was deliberate. The fact he is a youtuber emphasizes this notion. But, precisely because he is a youtuber, the argument can also be made that he did not stage this, he was merely more careless than the average about fuel, but no worse than lots of others. It wasn’t that big of a problem for him, because he was prepared for it, and there is the added bonus of millions of views in case it should happen. How many youtube videos do skydivers and base jumpers make, and many of them involves accidents or incidents?

He got the mentality of a (crazy) base jumper/youtuber rather that that of a pilot, but that’s it. I had a look, it’s 1.9M views now.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

Also, if you have a chute, on the back or attached to the plane. Is it best to let the situation deteriorate until you have no options left, or is it better to use it when the situation is still under control?

In this instance, the situation would still be under control for some minutes. An engine quitting in a Taylorcraft doesn’t render the aircraft unflyable – you’ve got quite a lot of time to try for a restart. Even with an airframe parachute, when you’re a couple of thousand feet AGL, your first option doesn’t have to be pull the chute (you’d feel really silly if the engine stopped merely because you had the wrong fuel tank selected and now you’re committed to crashing because you pulled the chute…)

Last Edited by alioth at 22 Apr 16:53
Andreas IOM
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top