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

161–170 of 281 posts

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

#161

Post by jahsome »

laborcontract wrote: post #130
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.

We're living in the age of advertisers hyperfixated on brand safety. I can't see any brand thinking it's a good idea to throw money at this guy. More attention is a good thing until you're OJ Simpson.

Will ridge wallet come crawling back? Heck no.

But in the world of influencers one of the primary currenciez is notariety, some cess pool like kick or rumble would gladly take the publicity, good or "bad."

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

#162

Post by rcpt »

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.)

Okay but in the US cars are generally above the law in many ways

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

#163

Post by gosub100 »

bhhaskin wrote: post #13
duskwuff wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note, however, that this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated. It means that the federal prosecutor decided that the act of obstruction would be easier to prove, since the intentional nature of those acts is much more self-evident.

Is there a law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane? Honest question. There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people.

So far, all of us are just guessing, so here's my guess:

What Trevor did would be considered an "aerobatic flight" [1]

"aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

He may have been technically legal on the FAA side, but reckless dumping of hazardous materials in the desert is probably an actual charge they could have nailed him on. Perhaps "operating a vehicle off an approved trail" type of charge, or some kind of wildlife violation / fire hazard are also what I would guess. Perhaps running afoul of some kind of parachuting laws as well, maybe having to file for that so other aviators know about it.

Someone below mentioned filing a flight plan, which has nothing to do with anything. Flight plans are to aid in search-and-rescue if you dont show up.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

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

#165

Post by jacurtis »

ksherlock wrote: post #98
avar wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...]this doesn't mean that he would have gotten away with it if he'd cooperated[...] If he'd stuck to the story that he just had an engine mishap would they have been able to prove that it was intentional? They'd almost certainly have revoked his license to ever fly again, but filming everything you're doing isn't illegal. Nor is wearing a parachute because you know you're a crappy pilot that'll bail out at the fi…

General Aviation airplanes require an annual inspection (from an IA A&P mechanic -- that's airframe & powerplant with inspection authorization). My understanding is that the plane was out of annual (ie, bought as parts) and he fixed it up enough to fly. There are strict limits on what repairs you can do yourself without involving a licensed A&P mechanic. FAA actually does ramp checks on occasion to verify that your b…

> There are strict limits on what repairs you can do yourself without involving a licensed A&P mechanic.

Sure, you're right that this plane was clearly violating a myriad of maintenance violations. But maintenance violations aren't going to get you thrown in jail. They might get your license taken away and would definitely yield some fines, but not thrown in jail.

I am assuming of course this is on a personal GA plane (like the youtuber was using to fly himself). Skipping maintenance and/or doing it himself would have gotten him a few relatively small fines. He probably wouldn't have lost his license and certainly wouldn't have been thrown in jail for these.

Of course the rules would change significantly if this was a charter plane like Part 135, then things are more serious. He would have lost his license then, and maybe gotten some jailtime. Skipping or fraudulent maintenance on a part 121 (scheduled commercial airlines like United or Delta) would certainly yield jailtime.

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

#166

Post by throw0101b »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25
throw0101b wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people. You can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land . But on public roads you need a license to operate, and you must operate the vehicle in certain prescribed ways. Similarly you can probably do whatever you want with your private air vehicle whi…

> can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land Sort of. Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed. After that, there is the environmental component. Our influencer here not only inundated the crash site with leaded avgas, but…

> Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed.

If he had a private air field/airport and "landed" (crashed) the plane on his air field, then that could be argued, but there's still the fact that he bailed out of the airplane and left it in an uncontrolled state, in which case there's probably some kind of 'reckless' charge that could be thrown at him.

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

#167

Post by gorgoiler »

mozman wrote: post #17
duskwuff wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A federal felony and a 6-month prison sentence, on their own, would almost certainly tip the scales to "not worth it". I wouldn't be surprised if there were also a disgorgement involved.

It’s a big black mark on your reputation, it’s rarely worth it. He could have injured or killed someone for a video. Crime doesn’t pay

I agree with you of course but I wonder how wise it is for governments to follow the strategy of felonies being irrevocable black marks?

That is to say if we rely on the permanent reputation taint as a deterrent then once you’ve been tainted are you not now much more likely to go do more harmful, felonious things?

I don’t know much about felonies though — perhaps they can be expunged after X years of good behaviour?

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

#168

Post by goles »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #122
mozman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a big black mark on your reputation, it’s rarely worth it. He could have injured or killed someone for a video. Crime doesn’t pay

> He could have injured or killed someone for a video. I'm pretty sure you are more likely to kill someone driving to work today than crashing a plane in some random as forest.

Killing someone driving to work so you can pay for rent/mortgage/groceries is somewhat different than putting Go Pros on your car and deliberately crashing into someone so you can pay for rent/mortgage/groceries.

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

#169

Post by BobaFloutist »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #120
anigbrowl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misinterpreting it a bit. Yes, the covered-up thing is usually bad enough that there's an incentive to conceal it, but it's the efforts at concealment that often end up drawing attention to the perpetrator. Absent those, many crimes would either not be investigated so thoroughly or talked down to less significance with a 'so what' or 'I didn't think it was illegal/a big deal' response (this happens a l…

The problem with cover ups is that they are creating more data points and evidence to find/arrest/prosecute you.

They also demonstrate intent that was potentially unproveable before the attempt to cover up. It's pretty hard to say "oh whoops, was that illegal?" if you've gone to significant lengths to hide it from law enforcement.

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

#170

Post by bmitc »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #127
bmitc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall any discussions being particularly interesting because even a cursory, single watch of the video made it immediately apparent that he crashed it on purpose.

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.
Post reply on HN