dublinpilot wrote:
If putting him in jail is the answer, where does it lead? Does someone who bailed out of a damaged glider (which was subsequently shown to actually be flyable even if a bit broken) get prosecuted?
He’s being prosecuted for the equivalent of perverting the course of justice, not any aviation related offence.
In any case, the actual aviation offence (careless and reckless operation, in the USA) had grave risks of starting another California wildfire. That the only victim was an unfortunate Taylorcraft was rather lucky. California was suffering a long drought at the time, and wildfires present serious danger to property and life.
The US AOPA article reads really terribly.
Reminds me of a court case I was in, in my youth, together with another guy, both driving hot hatches (me an XR3i and him a Lotus Sunbeam), and the moment when he said, when asked about his speed, “I was not looking at the speedo; I was looking at the rev counter”. The 3 kangaroo court judges (magistrates) exploded like the muppets on Spitting Image had been pressurised at 3000psi 
Only this is 100x worse. What did he expect?
From the AOPA article:
It’s important to note that every aircraft operator has a duty to preserve their accident wreckage per 49 CFR 830.10.
Which is interesting and potentially a significant burden. I would think it would be reasonable to notify the NTSB and the local sheriff. In this case however it’s a crime of commission rather than ommission.
A crashed plane I know of had a policeman stationed next to it for the rest of that day, who then went home at end of shift. Over the next few nights most of the instruments and avionics disappeared, probably a mixture of souvenir-hunters and cheapskate pilots.
I’ve changed my opinion on this slightly since it happened. Would it have been different if he’d done it on private property and not put the video on youtube? Maybe packaged as a scientific experiment. “It’s my airplane and I’ll do whatever the hell I like with it. I moved the bits into my hangar to keep them safe and dry.” The intention to put it on youtube is the key bit.
Jacob took apart and destroyed the aircraft wreckage, depositing pieces into various trash receptacles at the airport and elsewhere
I don’t understand: why not just make it disappear completely?
Once the fuss has died down and the FAA point made he’ll be on probation. “Up to two years” obviously means less than that. I’m surprised it got that far but it appears somebody at FAA is concerned about the precedent.
I’m sure all the pieces disappeared – dumpsters get emptied every week or two.
Dan wrote:
Not gonna reveal what I choose
What do Avweb think they are doing? Sentencing and conviction is not something the public should decide but a court of law. Otherwise, how long until lynch justice is back? Oh wait, the press have been doing that for ever.
dublinpilot wrote:
Does someone who bailed out of a damaged glider (which was subsequently shown to actually be flyable even if a bit broken) get prosecuted?
The problem will be what the public takes from this case. He is prosecuted for tampering with evidence. Only that is not what the public will take from it. Remember that most people still think Bill Clinton got prosecuted for getting a BJ in the WH?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The problem will be what the public takes from this case
I don’t think the public cares all that much, if at all, other than it’s a slightly funny story. Youtubers bail out of anything they can possibly bail out of on a daily basis.
I don’t think the public cares all that much
I think you have to do more than jump out of a plane, harming nobody to get your five minutes of mass market notoriety nowadays. Charlie Manson would have a tough time getting lasting attention in 2023.
LeSving wrote:
I don’t think the public cares all that much, if at all, other than it’s a slightly funny story. Youtubers bail out of anything they can possibly bail out of on a daily basis.
I appear not to have made myself clear…. the question is, will this verdict whatever it may be, be regarded as a slap on the wrist of a Youtuber who got carried away or as one of those “irresponsible private pilots” and therefore turn against GA?
Precedents are always a critical thing to look at.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I appear not to have made myself clear…. the question is, will this verdict whatever it may be, be regarded as a slap on the wrist of a Youtuber who got carried away or as one of those “irresponsible private pilots” and therefore turn against GA?
I’m not sure what you mean. A youtuber or what exactly?
He will probably/probably not? be found guilty in destroying evidence. But then again, he must have a pretty brain dead lawyer if the sentence would amount to much. Was that evidence needed for the investigators to find the cause of the “accident” ? No, because it wasn’t an accident that needed investigation to start with. It’s not illegal to destroy your own aircraft, or car or train or whatever. He did fool the FAA and the investigators to believe it was an accident (or did he really succeed?) In any case, is that something to go to jail for? I don’t know, but a fine for sure.
LeSving wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean.
The public does not necessarily understand why someone gets convicted, so they often take the reason which is most convenient to slag off against people or groups or people, when the actual reason is quite different.
To make the case, a very large percentage of people STILL to this day believe that Bill Clinton was prosecuted because he did what he did with an intern in the WH.
Only that is wrong. They tried to impeach him for perjury and obstruction of justice.
This guy gets sentenced for tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice.
But you bet that a large percentage of the people who follow this will understand that. They will assume the trial is about his behaviour as a pilot or because he did something against the law as a youtuber. So the public opinion may well turn against GA or youtubers in general.
Granted, not a lot of people follow this, but well, negative publicity is never good.
