Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 281 posts

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#171

Post by ultrarunner »

lovecg wrote: post #158
civilitty wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're way off. Comically so. A&P passing grade is more like 70%. It's not a comparable figure to PPL ground school.

You’re right, but I’m wondering where my confusion comes from. I’m absolutely positive something required a much higher %. Maybe a different license or regs changed in the last decade or so?

I thought I remembered something like this— maybe it's a higher question count or lower time limit for e.g. commercial?

The FAA testing matrix seems to suggest all are 70% as of now[0]

[0] https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-09/testing_matr...

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#172

Post by maxbond »

bmitc wrote: post #170
s1artibartfast wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting is obviously subjective to the observer, but subjects can be interesting and informative in their detail and not just their conclusion.

That's generally true, but I am reticent to call anything this guy did interesting.

He did a lot of strange stuff (which you probably didn't notice on your first viewing) which people picked apart in interesting visual analysis. For instance, he jumped out of the plane with a mini fire extinguisher strapped to his leg, hidden under his pants. Why? We don't know, but there are several hypothesis.

If you feel the urge to ask me what those hypothesis are - then I think you'll see the point.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#173

Post by BobaFloutist »

evan_ wrote: post #69
boeingUH60 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody does hard time for stealing a loaf of bread, but sure keep ranting..

Tell that to Jean Valjean.

I don't know how to tell you this, but Jean Valjean is a fictional character.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#174

Post by s1artibartfast »

bmitc wrote: post #170
s1artibartfast wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting is obviously subjective to the observer, but subjects can be interesting and informative in their detail and not just their conclusion.

That's generally true, but I am reticent to call anything this guy did interesting.

If I recall correctly, there was a lot of nuanced discussion of different engine behaviors with different failure modes, and how those did or did not match the video evidence. Sound of the engine, rpms, prop behavior, ect

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#175

Post by berniedurfee »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #3

Critically, he is not going to jail for intentionally crashing the plane. He is being jailed "for obstructing a federal investigation by deliberately destroying the wreckage of an airplane." Had he cooperated, it's plausible to see him getting away with a license revocation and fine. Instead he did this: "In the weeks following the plane crash, Jacob lied to investigators that he did not know the wreckage’s location.…

That takes a lot of cash and a lot of stupid.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#176

Post by bmitc »

maxbond wrote: post #172
bmitc wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's generally true, but I am reticent to call anything this guy did interesting.

He did a lot of strange stuff (which you probably didn't notice on your first viewing) which people picked apart in interesting visual analysis. For instance, he jumped out of the plane with a mini fire extinguisher strapped to his leg, hidden under his pants. Why? We don't know, but there are several hypothesis. If you feel the urge to ask me what those hypothesis are - then I think you'll see the point.

> For instance, he jumped out of the plane with a mini fire extinguisher strapped to his leg, hidden under his pants. Why? We don't know, but there are several hypothesis.

I think this is part of my point because it's obvious why: he crashed the plane on purpose in an extremely dry area, so he took a fire extinguisher with him in hopes of extinguishing any fire he started. He concealed it because he was faking the crash. He's also an idiot there as well because it took him a while to get to the crash site, which was much too long for a mini fire extinguisher to be useful.

So see? It's obvious and not interesting. He's just an idiot.

Granted, what the other commenter pointed out is indeed an interesting facet, which is to your original point as well, but it's more to do with engines and planes being interesting.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#177

Post by JeremyNT »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
throw0101b wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Had he cooperated, it's plausible to see him getting away with a license revocation and fine. Reminder of the quotation from Howard Baker (R-TN): “It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble.” Though some would disagree: > There's this old line the wise folks in Washington have that 'it's not the crime, but the cover-up.' > But only fools believe that. It's always about the crime. The…

> the whole point of the cover-up is a recognition that a full revelation of the underlying bad act is not survivable There are numerous counter-examples to this claim. In many cases, it's obvious because the cover-up is of a civil infraction.

> There are numerous counter-examples to this claim. In many cases, it's obvious because the cover-up is of a civil infraction.

Indeed, people go out of the frying pan and into the fire all the time.

I think the kernel of truth in the parent post is that the subjects might genuinely believe that the revelation of the original "crime" alone would be impossible to recover from, so they might as well go all in on trying to cover it up.

So, the "marginal cost" of additional penalties from a failed coverup just doesn't seem all that high given the potential upside of a successful coverup.

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#178

Post by tw04 »

fxtentacle wrote: post #8

For me, the really interesting question is not if he's guilty - I had assumed as much - but if he will come out financially successful. That video had millions of views and a sponsorship deal. Call me a cynic, but it seems that some companies will deliberately break the law and pay the price if it's worth it, so why not independent hustlers.

Is YouTube actually letting him monetize it? I didn’t think you could make money off a video of yourself committing a crime?

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#179

Post by bradfox2 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #141
foobarian wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's a lot of expensive trouble to go through to cover up. I wonder what the penalties would be otherwise - I'm sure there is some kind of code it broke but it's not obviously illegal. It's like me crashing my car on purpose.

I'm pretty sure it is legal in the United States to buy a car and drive it uninsured on your own private property... and drive it into a brick wall at high speed. There is a YouTuber who is basically doing this now: Buying expensive cars and wrecking them on his private land. (I forget his name, but US-based guy. One video was him wrecking a highly customized Mercedes G Wagon.)

Whistlindiesel

Re: YouTuber sentenced to 6 months in prison for obstructing probe into plane crash

#180

Post by xkekjrktllss »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #99

Can't understand his risk/reward calculation on crashing the plane. Was the bump in views (not guaranteed, only probable) greater than the cost of the plane and potential personal hazard from crashing a plane then broadcasting it to the world?

He comes from a very wealthy family. He just wanted fame, no matter the financial cost.
Post reply on HN