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

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.

And we will never know if it was worth it.

In a normal setting, probably not. General-aviation aircraft don't have flight recorders. Helpfully for the investigators, however, this numpty decked his plane out in cameras. And then posted the video online. After he'd executed the cover-up.

The engine didn't just stop producing power, that would leave typically the propeller spinning, windmilling in the air. (unless the engine seized, but he was faking fuel starvation)

He put a bunch of effort into making sure the propeller actually stopped spinning, I think he had to actually reduce speed; Just so that your average YouTube viewer could clearly see the engine had stopped.

Accidentally lean mixture (e.g., grab the wrong control). Set to use an empty fuel tank. Set the fuel valve to off or in between settings. With some preparation, destroy a spark plug or two, only enable those spark plugs in the air - extreme misfires will be obvious on video.

There are plenty of pilots who wear chutes (and there are special chutes which basically replace your seat) but he also had a fire extinguisher strapped to his leg which is not a normal occurrence.

1. Some other illicit activity was going on in or around that plane.

2. The pilot thought he could make the whole mess go away by erasing physical evidence of the crash; his reasoning might be along the lines of "no evidence, no feds".

I find both equally credible. I'm stumped.

Isn't that what the black box is for?

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 while it sits on your private land, but when you are operating in public air space then you must operate in the ways prescribed by your pilot license.

No. We do crash tests from time to time [1]. But at a minimum, you must control--not even just own--the terrain you're crashing into. (It's also not solely a Part 91/FAA matter. The EPA, for example, would also want to have a say.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...

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...

EDIT: Looks like user JumpCrisscross beat me to it.

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

Those two sentences don't make any sense next to each other. There's no way to intentionally crash your vehicle that doesn't include several other things for which their are specific laws for. One can't intentionally crash a car in the same way that you can intentionally swing a bat in your backyard without hitting anything.

Edit: Also, for what it's worth, it wasn't even his plane.

In a more grand sense, this feels like a good example of our absurdity/excess. I'm not sure this would have happened if "influencers" hadn't become what they are

If you run scam X and earn Y from that scam, then get caught doing X, it is extremely unlikely that you are walking away with a fine less than Y. The problem is of course maybe the feds only notice Y/2 or Y/10. There's some hand wringing about scam X earning you Y directly but helping to support scam Z in the future that you will do better (or legitimate businesses A,B,C that earn you Y * 1000). But there's a base principle, and "let's just fine off of overall revenue" things leading to "some case officer in Omaha lied on forms, so we will fine this bank $2 billion" is kinda silly[0].

But generally speaking illegal activity where you get caught is going to end badly for you. And illegal activity you get away with will end better for you, but that's true independent of the fee structure.

[0] the case officer might be part of a larger pattern. This is what discovery and investigations are for! Do enough work and you can prove that the earnings from the illegal activity is higher!

Like if you drive somewhere with a suspended license somewhere and make a million dollars as a result, should all that money be subject to seizure?

Maybe if he was applying for a job at the FAA, as a pilot, or as a school teacher. but for a professional youtuber, not so much.

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?

Justice is not in play here. The punishment should match the crime.

I'm pretty sure you are more likely to kill someone driving to work today than crashing a plane in some random as forest.

A felony prevents you from getting a job. Obviously being hyperbolic but you know that the conviction is as much a punishment as the incarceration.

Risk of death for pedestrians goes up 250% when hit by a car going 32mph vs one going 23mph. Given the rising rate of pedestrian deaths in North America (at a 40 year high), it is an almost certainty that 5mph has made the difference in a great number of pedestrian deaths.

You could make the same point about going 5mph under the speed limit.

It is somewhat interesting to think about the factors that go into setting a punishment. It is rarely the magnitude of potential damage (worst case), and often not even the damage adjusted by the probability of occurrence.

Most often, it has more to do with subjective custom and norms. Some dangerous things are OK, some are harshly punished.