Does Trevor Jacob Need a Lawyer? Discussion with Aviation Attorney - InTheHangar
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- (Please Subscribe!) Does Trevor Jacob (who crashed his small plane after parachuting from it) have significant legal troubles or is he just fine? Dan Millican (@TakingOffDan) sits down with Attorney Greg Reigel shackelford.law/ to talk about potential legal troubles for Trevor Jacob if the crash turns out to be a stunt versus a legitimate accident.
Win The Duke flight bag from Lightspeed Aviation!! To enter to win, go to:
lightspeedavia... Code TAKINGOFF
Contest will run for one week and a winner selected!
The Duke Bag Info: www.lightspeed...
Looking for a residential mortgage or refinance? Try Colten Mortgage! coltentakingoff... Founded and run by a pilot! Find out how he applies the Five P's to taking care of your mortgage. Support the aviation family!
First 50 apps get a free pair of Flying Eyes sunglasses and a Hoodie!
Join Hangar Club to support our channel at takingoff.s-fi... Order the teeshirts and the new ballcap there as well!
Support Christy at patreon.com/pilotchristy
And don't forget to buy your Flying Eyes sunglasses at www.flyingeyes... using the TAKINGOFF code for 10% off!
Dan, I wish you had asked Greg if the helicopter pilot (and owner) could be facing any penalties for tampering with the accident scene. They could argue that the fault lies with the client who hired them, but I wouldn't buy that if I was the NTSB.
Yeah good question.
Evan R. - I had the same question. It would seem that if you are in the business of lifting cargo you know when, where and who needs to be informed or involved prior to the lift. In this case in particular you are an aviation individual with a pilots certificate and know other entities (FAA, NTSB) have to be involved prior to touching a crashed aircraft. I think they too have opened their selves up to regulatory investigation.
Im going to pin this great question. Here's the answer from Greg: "Yes, I think the helicopter pilot and/or operator could have some exposure for violating the NTSB regulations regarding removal/movement of the wreckage. The consequences for the violation could be assessment of a civil penalty by the NTSB. However, I should point out that it is extremely rare for the NTSB to assess civil penalties. I can’t remember the last time the NTSB actually did that. So the risk/exposure for the helicopter pilot and/or operator is probably pretty low."
I wonder if the NTSB would assess a penalty on this one to make it an example (if they are allowed to?) that it’s not ok to do this without NTSB/FAA approval. I mean, how would that conversation go with the helicopter company?
(Like a Monty Python skit)
Customer: Can you airlift my small plane? It’s not airworthy right now.
Helicopter Co.: Sure, where is it and where does it need to go?
Customer: Well, it’s near the top of a mountain and I want it moved to my hangar.
Helo Co: ??? What’s it doing on a mountain? How did it get there?
Customer: It sort of landed itself there after I bailed out of it. I mean, I ‘had’ to bail out of it.
Helo Co: Uh…I see…hmm. (It seems like I should talk to my lawyer before taking this job.)
Customer: Let’s just say that we would like to avoid any ‘Imperial’ entanglements.
Helo Co.: That the real trick, isn’t it? It’s gonna cost you extra.
@@TakingOff did you realise he had on a sky diving suite on and in other videos of him flying he does not have it on he new something was going to happen also who brings there dead friends ashes in a lunch bag
To me, one of the biggest tipoffs is him making a beeline for the wreckage. I think he wanted to a.) make sure he hadn't started a fire (hence the concealed fire extinguisher), and b.) make sure that he was the first one to pull the memory cards from the cameras!
He really had to think this through. If someone had seen him crash and sent up rescue - they could have taken the SD cards from the cameras. What then? He HAD to follow the plane.
More recently, it is suspected that his video was likely filmed over the course of a few days, almost certainly with help. But this does make it baffling as to why he had fire extiguishers, maybe he had hoped to film it in the one day, but decided to go back for better footage?
Exactly what i was thinking... Just finished saying this to my friend. Im sure in his mind he was ok with crashing the plane but not exactly ok with causing a huge forest fire. But if the plane was full in fuel and it had caught in fire 1 or 2 small fire extinguishers probably wouldn't have been enough to put out whatever fire by the time he got to the wreck.
@@merkga To add to the mystery, he didn't have a backpack, only a parachute backpack, so he would have to carry 2 fire extinguishers with him to the crash site, through the bush and mountains. I imagine it would be hard to walk with fire extinguishers stuffed in your pants trying to make that hike, or carrying them in his hands.
Or at the very least, he wanted to cover himself, like you said, to give the impression he was worried about a fire. Worst case scenario, he can point at the video in court, and point out that he had extinguishers, as he didn't edit the video to hide his legs. But that still is premeditated, especially the way the extinguishers where stuffed up his pants.
If he is guilty, he doesn't deserve jail time, he would need to be institutionalised in a mental asylum. 🤷🏻♂️
Heck those GoPros are nearly $400 a pop and he had several of them so I was positive that he was going for those.
They don't have any choice; they have to go after him. They have to shut down any future 'stunts for views' before something deadly happens.
I agree with you. Sadly this country’s legal history has been a disappointment and s farce
@@trnguy6137 How so? Maybe you’re referring to a very few high profile cases and basing your opinion on the outcomes of those cases? There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of civil and criminal cases decided every year. Have you done any sort of analysis of all these cases to come to any conclusions of whether justice is being done or not done?
I think that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Maybe you’ve formed an opinion based on very little evidence, maybe you’re just repeating B.S. you’ve been told on social media, maybe you’re just trolling. Whatever the case, you’re out of your depth, Donny.
@@MarcosElMalo2 dude. He does know what he is talking about. Lighten up.
@@MarcosElMalo2 dude. He does know what he is talking about. Lighten up.
@@MarcosElMalo2 Ok so on the flip side of what you said I guess a question for you could be "Would you have any analysis to show that all of these hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cases have turned out mostly to be fair and just to both parties? And just to clarify I'm definitely not claiming to know one way or the other myself, I'm just pointing out the fact that you could just as easily being doing the opposite and propping up the legal system based on what you've seen or heard and possibly formed your own opinions around.
I personally think our legal system is definitely not perfect but it's what we've got and it affords us our rights and the ability to fight for them so I'd say we're lucky to have it, and I also think it would be fair to say, even without having references to provide, that many justices have been served and many injustices have also been severed as well.
Idk maybe I'm wrong and if you have references to show that the vast majority of cases end up with justice being fairly served compared to not then I'll be happy to concede, but just out of curiosity would you at least agree with the statement that "there is at least a possibility that justice may not be served in this case"?
thanks for this...much better to hear from a professional than scores of internet experts ..well done
science has proven multiple times over, and many studies have been done backing it up, that crowd sourcing is faster and more accurate than trusting in singular experts.
@@SoloRenegade No, it hasn’t.
@@MarcosElMalo2 yes it has. there have even been lectures on the subject at teh Royal Institute, same venue Newton and other great minds lectured at.
@Eric Johnson That's because you don't know how the crowd works to outperform the expert.
@Eric Johnson Why would I need a crowd to fly? I'm a professional pilot and would just pilot the plane myself.
You know full well that's not what I meant.
Did you know that in a matter of about 2 weeks, a pigeon can be trained to diagnose humans with or without cancer more accurately than highly trained doctors can? Yeah, if pigeons have a higher accuracy rate than "expert" doctors, I'll take the pigeon. Results matter.
"Take a moderately difficult math problem. Who do you think will be more able to solve it -- a crowed of thousands of people or pretty much any single expert in the field." Actually, this is a perfect example of where crowds excel.
"If you ask a crowd to explain the General Theory of Relativity, do you really think that their explanation will be better than that of a physicist who works in the field." yes, the crowd would explain it better. TH-cam is perfect proof of this.
One thing you utterly fail to comprehend is that crowds are full of people of all skill levels and all manner of areas of expertise. And when they pool their experiences and collective knowledge, they can easily refine any explanation and concept. Use scientific method to refine the explanation. You see this in action on forums, and things like Quora where people ask questions and numerous people respond, explaining it different ways, and refining the confusing parts of another's explanation, or correcting errors, etc. And different people reading it will understand different responses more easily than others.
I debate and teach theoretical physics concepts with lots of people all the time, you'd be surprised how well crowd sourcing works. Did you know that while Einstein came up with the logical reasoning behind Relativity, it took him many years of crowd sourcing afterwards with others to actually develop the math behind it.
If proven intentional, I think a criminal charge of reckless endangerment to the public would be a no brainer. He had no idea the exact location where that plane would come to rest or what or who was there.
Interesting discussion - The one thing that I was surprised to NOT hear is the potential of endangerment, assuming it was a stunt, that is present when letting an aircraft proceed uncontrolled with the possibility of hurting or killing someone on the ground.
I was wondering this myself. The aircraft didn't hit anything, though, so they could say 'did it fly over populated areas before impacting the ground, and if so, how far was it, and the way it was flying, would it have been able to make it there.' This is going to be an interesting case, but I get a feeling he's going to get the book thrown at him.
agreed...I can't believe no one else has mentioned this yet. An abandoned and (assumingly) completely uncontrolled AC full of fuel being left to its own devices in an area where a devastating fire could have started or could have killed someone on the ground?...yeah, trevor needs to be made someone's bitch in prison.
@@GaryMCurran He crashed it into Southern California Wildlands during Fire Season. The potential for loss of life was extremely high even when crashing it so remotely.
@@GaryMCurran I said the same thing. But this guy makes it sound like its a match book not a phone book.
Also, it's a condor sanctuary.
This is one of those things that seems like a GREAT IDEA in your head when you don't take 5 minutes to see the plethora of laws you're about to break. Then you get home and people are calling you out and talking about laws broken and it dawns on your that it was the biggest mistake of your life. LOL
I'm concerned for Trevor's mental health. His head must be spinning from all the content on TH-cam that is exposing his lies. I wish Trevor would come clean and confess to authorities so that his lawyer will have something to work with. The writing is on the wall. Whether or not Trevor will confess is something we will have to wait and hope for.
The interesting thing here is the remorse didn't set in when he got home, not even the next morning, but he went a month before posting the video, implying still no remorse. I am surprised that the FAA allowed him the video footage to edit the sequence. It makes me wonder if he revealed to them that he had it.
@@NavinJohnson_thethird Nice to bring your politics into your post.. (Ahole)
.
@@NavinJohnson_thethird Im more concerned he murdered a beautiful airplane that thousands of others would love to have the ability to have. I think the prosecutors are going to come down hard on him and he will eventually come clean. there are so many obvious things that if he were to be put in front of a Judge/Jury he would definitely find him guilty. He'll confess to get a lesser sentance
Screw the broken laws. This sounds like a GREAT IDEA in your head when you don't take the five minutes to think of all the different ways this could go sideways and someone gets hurt or killed because of it.
So there's a potential that this will haunt Jacob for years to come... good! Everything he did should be questioned heavily.
He murdered his friend..look into it
@@thetexastickler5698 Citation reuired
@@thetexastickler5698 lol, thank you for that.
@@thetexastickler5698 wait what?
@@slimetime4668 the friend whose ashes he was carrying on the plane (murdered the ashes) That’d be my best guess as to what he meant by that.
A court cannot find an individual "innocent". They can find them "not guilty". They are not the same.
In Scotland they have three verdicts. Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Proven. The latter is usually interpreted as "You're innocent; but don't do it again."
@@KravKernow Very funny.
Right. OJ was found "not guilty."
Ehhh... The nitpicking in wording... Grammar police here or you have additional point to make??
@@htcmlcrip the distinction in verbage actually is very important. We are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Technically speaking, you are innocent, but the point of the trial is to prove guilt, not to prove innocence. If the burden of proof is not met for what the person is accused for, they are found not guilty. Your innocence wasn't what the trial was for.
I learned to fly in a B model Taylorcraft (1937 vintage BC-50) in the early '60's. This plane appeared to be basically configured like mine. The R wing has a 6 gal. fuel tank. You can see the fuel control valve dangling and disconnected. This tank I would assume is empty. the main tank 12 gal. capacity. When the main was down to 1/2 full you opened the wing tank fuel valve and it gravity fed into the main. The bobber gauge on the main was not something that you could rely on. Part of pre-flight was to check the 'bobber' for free and smooth operation and wipe the stick ga. to be sure of no contaminate or deposits interfering with the smooth operation. That being said any extreme pitch or roll would and could cause the bobber to temporarily hang up or stick down. If the tank was empty, no fuel to bump/agitate the float part of the bobber, It might very well hang up and give a visual of having a 'full' tank. I am saddened by the loss of a vintage aircraft because an egotistical narcissist thought it might be a good way to bump his channel numbers. This is a good video. Thanks
Got curious about the status of the registration and did a N # inquiry, the plane was issued an AWC on 1/3/2022. However, the certification was for this plane with the original Lycoming engine and NOT the Continental in it at the time of the video.
I wish more people cared to preserve old tech like this airplane. It was an IMPORTANT aircraft. Even being sold for parts, as it was reported, it would have had a second life restoring other old planes. Instead a dude bro crashed it on purpose for the cash. Gross. How could anyone think that would be acceptable?
Alright, I have a question...how could this admittedly beautiful old Taylorcraft be issued an AWC on 1/3/2022 when it was crashed, intentionally or not in November of 2021?
@@randypurtteman1183 Not only that, but it is still on the registered list. There is some reasonable speculation that 2 aircraft were involved and was an even more elaborate hoax. The reg. would have been terminated if in fact the plane was destroyed in a crash. The FAA has pulled his ticket. With no damaged airplane to examine for cause no ruling from the NTSB can be added to the investigation. If the plane in fact still exists, what do you do with a plane that supposedly crashed?
FYI, the NTSB has the David Lesh incident, NTSB# WPR19LA238, still listed as "In Work." If that is any indication, we're going to be waiting awhile to hear what happens to Trevor. In the meantime, I'm sure he'll "almost die" at least a couple dozen more times, as that seems to happen to him on a regular basis according to his claims on his TH-cam videos. ;)
ROFL!
Some call him Bruce Willis' legitimate son.
It takes a long, long time to get through an investigation. Federal organizations are already overwhelmed. And now they have the public clamoring at them to figure this one out. They shouldn’t have to. They should be out there making aviation safer by investigating GA crashes. But here we are, spending untold amounts of money investigating a stunt.
@@jahbern You are absolutely correct. I was only commenting on that particular point (about the David Lesh incident), as it was mentioned in the video and that one is still under investigation as well. I *do*, however, think these stunts need investigated as well, because letting them go does, indeed, make GA less safe.
@@wintermute740 oh, I was agreeing with you! I realize reading it now it could be read as “well AKSHUALLY…” 😂 No, I 100% agree.
@@jahbern No worry. Nuance is sometimes (frequently) lost in text. ;)
The strapped fire extinguishers would be the smoking gun in a trial in my humble opinion. There just is no real reason to do that without it proving directly. Now he could try to argue for lesser charges by saying he was stupid but he was thoughtful to try and mitigate any damages. But those extinguishers make him toast in my opinion.
"But those extinguishers make him toast in my opinion." Oh, the irony!
I wonder if in a trial the defense could argue that away. Is the evidence convincing beyond a shadow of a doubt? What we do see is the color red, the size seems about right, and there is an imprint thru his pants of maybe the pressure gauge of fire extinguisher, but could a good lawyer create a reasonable doubt?
ALL the cameras FOR THE FOOTAGE is THE #1 tipoff to me. Then comes the ‘chute and the extinguishers, the ‘mechanics’: the disconnected/plugged fuel line, etc is and just the stupid faux “emergency” attitude he TRIES acting on camera. What an ididot…
@@m118lr Yeah, who would mount that many cameras to document an ordinary trip? A camera on the wing AND the tail?
And why didn't he recommend to everyone to strap on fire extinguishers like he did for the parachute?
OJ was not "innocent", he was found "not guilty". There is a difference and the lawyer should have commented as such.
There’s no difference, They're the same.
@@ApolloVIIIYouAreGoForTLI No, they're not. Functionally they may be the same, but even in principle, a failure to prove guilt is just a failure to prove guilt. This comes up in cases where Person A accuses Person B of a crime, but Person B is found not guilty. Doesn't that mean Person A is proved guilty of perjury? No, not at all, and rarely are charges pursued for such a Person A. Usually the case falls into the gray area in which the truth is not known beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@ApolloVIIIYouAreGoForTLI sorry, you failed internet law. They are not the same.
On a practical level I agree but on a legal level they're no different. In our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty and he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree that he's guilty as sin, it was technicalities and mishandled evidence that handed him the verdict but the point still remains, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
We are all innocent until someone proves guilt in a court of law.
Thanks lightspeed and taking off for the opportunity for this great bag!
Big thanks to Greg Reigal for explaining the legal nuts and bolts of the Jacob case.
I wish they had delved deeper into the false statements issue. We don’t know for sure what Trevor Jacob said to the FAA, but I bet anyone a dozen donuts that he misrepresented the events surrounding the crash when he reported the crash.
I don't think there was much more I could dive in on that... if he made false statements, that can lead to jail time. Don't know how I could go deeper?
@@TakingOff Here’s some questions I would ask if you get a second bite at the aviation lawyer apple:
What sort of false statements might Trevor have made in a case like this? Would his initial report of the crash to the FAA constitute a false statement? Would the FAA allow him to amend his report if he omitted any facts? What might happen if the FAA allowed him to remove the plane from the crash site based on false statements about the crash?
I think that the issue of false statements to a federal agency is the more serious threat to Jacob. Losing your ppl and paying civil fines is nothing compared to prison.
There’s the possibility that he had permission somehow, he may have told the truth to the Faa and the video was pure fiction for entertainment purposes? Not likely, just playing devils advocate.
Hell yeah he did it on purpose, it’s clickbait, he’s guilty as hell
Not click bait if he actually jumped out of it 😅😂
@@alexsherfield1701 Good catch. "Clickbait" suggests misleading/exaggerating the content, and this is an actual crash video. But it's still lying about the reality of the content as being not done on purpose, so the dishonesty still exists, just farther back in production. 😂 Kinda a brain-twister.
I’m surprised the question was not asked about the helicopter pilots assistance in removing the wreckage
I was thinking the same thing. Did the helicopter pilot hear from TJ before the crash? It would be interesting to view TJs internet search history prior to this. That is on the border of big brother, but could be pertinent info.
What about abuse of a corpse?
Johnny Strange in a Ziploc bag... 😞😞😞
Lol that ain't no corpse my friend.
What helicopter pilot would move a newly crashed plane? Could that pilot be in trouble? Wouldn't you check with the NTSB or FAA first?
My question too!
This was in the Dick Smith wilderness within the Los Padres National forest and pretty sure it's taboo to land a helicopter in a wilderness area
Aside from the technicalities of aviation, if this is proven to be a stunt surely allowing the plane to crash not far from people's homes (and of course the fire issue) is "reckless endangerment"?
As an aside surely the offence of "damaging an aircraft" does not apply when it is your own property. There are huge airliners being cut up for scrap, quite legally. As I understand it the aircraft (as built with the lycoming engine) had no electrical system except for the magnetos for ignition. This would reduce the fire risk on crashing, a bit of a moot point.
I don't know about aviation but is the aircraft considered not to be airworthy purely due to expired certification? A lot about this case is puzzling, the rocker covers were undoubtedly painted to make the Continental engine look like the Lycoming why do that if the plane was out of certification? Looking at the video the exhaust manifolds of the replacement engine were in contact with the cowling, no--one would do that unless they knew it was just for one last flight. I guess the comedy angle of this whole incident was that despite extensive video and the digital footprint of the subsequent helicopter flight it is difficult to prove what we all saw was deliberate. Of course we all know it was... If you look at TJ's other aviation videos it is blatantly clear he likes a bit of drama, in just a few months he has had a number of alleged scary moments, I believe he has a mentality that makes him a liability in the air.
@@g0fvt I've never seen a dirt bike catch fire and they're also magneto only from my experience. Idk about the modern ones, so that might be true.
This was definitely a stunt.
@@Whitejesselink To be fair each of those cameras have a lithium ion battery in them. Those are most definitely capable of spontaneous ignition if their internal structure becomes damaged causing an internal short. A sudden impact crushing, bending, or worse puncturing the cell are all capable of triggering them to vent jets of flame in short order. One unlucky run in with a branch or rock to any of those external cameras would probably be all it would take at that sort of speed.
@@g0fvt you be wrong - you know nothing of aviation law
@@json2582 I didn’t claim to, but smashing up your own property is fine in most imstances. There is another old Taylorcraft destroyed on the groumd in another YT video quite legally.
Trevor has now had hid pilot’s licence revoked but no fine yet.
In addition to the already noted discrepancies, the engine cooling “eyebrows” were not installed after the engine swap was done. The type certificate data sheet (TCDS A-700) for the Taylorcraft BL-65 list an optional aux tank in the fuselage only. If the aircraft was changed to a BC-65 configuration ( TCDS A-696) for the engine swap, the aux tank is to be in the left wing only. Also was the aux fuel line disconnected to prevent water from entering the main tank fuel system if indeed water was in the right wing aux tank during the flight?
Thank you for the details. Appreciated.
It is obvious that this aircraft was rigged and pieced together in so many ways it's a wonder it even flew or was controllable. This idiot apparently took a lot of steps to both save the most valuable parts of the plane, and to prevent it from starting a fire when it crashed. That Continental engine probably came out of a junk Cessna 150. It may have been running on fuel from a portable container. Who knows just how far this guy went to stage this.
@@geraldscott4302 The sad part is, he probably wasn't worried about fire prevention for the sake of starting a deadly forest fire, but simply so he would be able to recover the footage. Hints why he had even bothered strapping such small extinguisher to his leg.
@@FlipLoLz If he was concerned about starting a fire, it was probably more about the legal aspects of it than anything else. If a staged crash had started a fire, destroyed property, and maybe even killed somebody, he really would be in trouble. I've noticed that coverage of this on TH-cam has started to drop noticeably. IF the FAA is looking into it, it will likely over a year before they reach any kind of decision, and by then everybody will have forgotten about it.
I have always considered the FAA a PITA, and lost total respect for them after the Boeing Fiasco. Nevertheless they exist and have to be dealt with. I think they should be replaced with a completely new agency.
@@geraldscott4302 but if he was concerned about the legal aspect, he wouldn't have done all the things he did, and then film it. Everything points back to him wanting to recover the footage above everything else. In his mind, he did everything to look like a legitimate accident, so had there been a large fire, "it was purely caused by circumstances beyond his control".
I mean, he was brazen enough to post the evidence afterwards, so he definitely felt he wasn't showing his hand enough to take any accountability.
I read somewhere that the area the plane crashed in is actually a Condor sanctuary. I wonder if that would have any extra effect on the case.
Could, the feds could come after him and hit him with additional fines above the FAA fines and potential jail time.
I would note that down to the notepad
Nope....it is in a Designated Wilderness however. The Forest Service will have something to say about this but most likely this was not his intent to crash there given proximity to the boundary being only a couple miles west.
As Elffirr says, no the crash site wasn’t near the Condor Refuge. They’re on opposite sides of the Los Padres National Forest.
In the VFS map from the FAA, the crash site indeed is inside a Condor sanctuary, it differes from the one of the forest service. You can check out the video "Trevor Jacob Plane Crash Condor Sanctuary Update #1 VFR chart and the USFS map" from Buck Crockett
I would love to win that flight bag, even if it doesn't double as a parachute.
So does everyone else.
It might come with a 🧯 and some duct tape
I wonder how many Go Pro’s would fit in that beautiful bag!
:)
That thing is sweet
Don't be so hard on Trevor, there'll be plenty of hard ons waiting for him in prison.
If I jump out of a moving car so I can film the crash and post it I would almost definitely go to jail.
You don’t get much more reckless and dangerous than a stunt like that.
This guy needs more than a slap on the wrist, he needs to be made an example of or you can bet these stunts are going to keep coming and escalate until someone gets killed.
From the FAA there may not be consiquences for any spilled fuel or oil, but there could be state or federal charges for negligently discharging oil. Also public safety charges of reckless endangerment for abandoning the airplane with disregard of the consiquences from the crash.
From what I'm seeing it looks like his plane crashed into the San Rafael Wilderness inside the Los Padres National Forest. Wilderness areas have strict rules about what you can do on them. Often, no motorized or mechanized vehicles are allowed into these areas under any circumstances. People can enter into them on foot and camp in them but there are strict rules about not leaving behind any trace once you leave. So no four-wheeling, no Jeeping, no mountain biking (yes, seriously), and no intentionally crashing an airplane into them.
And, of course, we still have reckless endangerment charges that I also haven't mentioned.
Those would be state charges. I wish Lawyer Greg had gotten into that, but I don’t think he practices in California and probably was hesitant to comment on an area outside his expertise. Instead he got sidetracked by the question about civil claims.
@@peteranderson037 Yup, the National Forest could also fine him to littering, and possibly unauthorized access when they retrieved the plane wreckage.
The crash location was in a national Wilderness Area, from the 1964 Wilderness Act passed by Congress. So both in a National Forest and Wilderness Area.
This was an interesting conversation and I definitely learned a lot. My main disappointment is there was so little discussion of potential criminal charges and how that might play out.
Greg is a is a aviation lawyer not a criminal lawyer. He wouldn’t have that much knowledge necessarily on criminal law.
@@007knick and I believe in this case it was a mistake to have just an Aviation Lawyer for an interview... what would have been more useful would be a criminal lawyer who was aviation related experience... if they could have found one at least.
I mean he discussed it as deep as he could. If they can prove there are false statements given he could face jail time. They really can’t prove too much of anything considering he had the plane air lifted and destroyed before they were even able to see the wreckage. Only thing they have to go off is video that he already altered.
When I first saw the video, I thought he bailed out over the Sierras, turns out he was over mountains, barely, after flying a few minutes over lots of places he could have landed. He made a big deal about the mountains, but they weren't the High Sierras which would have been a lot more serious and landing sites harder to find.
He bailed at big bear. Souther Sierra mts
@@zacknelson8918 No, he was inland of the Central Cal Coast, no where near the Sierras. The "mountains" were barely in 4 digits altitude wise.
I thought that I read a federal law about entering and altering an aviation crash site, which he definitely did. Everyone knows what he did.
Re: temporary vs permanent attachment, the FAA defines “permanent” as attachment done by a mechanic using tools.
I mean if I did what he did (I wouldn’t) I would definitely be seeking legal help before and after the stunt. I feel there will be a new addition to far91 saying “intentional destruction to aircraft persons or property is not legal….why do we have to include this?”
I’m not a lawyer.
I think it’s pretty clear that he lawyered up relatively quickly. It’s hard to imagine why a blowhard like Trevor would suddenly clam up unless he was taking legal advice.
If I was plotting a legal strategy, the biggest potential threat would be the criminal charge of making false statements to the FAA. As Lawyer Greg pointed out, potential consequences are up to 5 years in prison and up to $250,000 fine. So I’d want my client to come clean to the FAA immediately by amending the report and taking my lumps from an administrative judge-revocation of the PPL and fines for FAR violations. That done, perhaps there would be no false statement charges. If there are, you try to plead those down to avoid or minimize prison and minimize the financial penalties. Trevor might be able to avoid prison by pleading guilty by reason of idiocy while his advocate is also pushing hard on “no harm, no foul”.
@@MarcosElMalo2 that makes perfect sense to me. someone reasonably savvy HAS to have given him advice, "do NOT make public statements while the authorities are working on this case"
There would be no reason for someone to consult an attorney for advice on how to commit a criminal act. Any attorney worthy of being paid for their professional advice cannot ethically advise a client on how to break the law (and, in fact, the attorney is expected to alert the authorities in order to prevent the criminal act from occurring). Any attorney willing to advise on such a matter is of highly questionable competency.
Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(2) "A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary . . . to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services"
Finally, a clear, concise description of potential ramifications for stunt man Trev. Love the Kennedy tool box in background too!
As an attorney for going on 33 years, if anyone on the planet ever needed representation, it's this guy.
Will he listen though? Could he keep his mouth shut long enough for his ears to hear? Doubt it. If he starts singing, and I'm going to predict he will, his mouth will seal his fate. Not even the Dream Team will be able to overcome it.
Hope I'm wrong. To all of you with mouths: take heed.
I disagree. He’s lawyered up and he’s listening to his lawyer. The proof is that he did shut up completely as soon as the FAA announced their investigation into the crash. I’m not saying it’s easy for a loud mouthed self-aggrandizing attention seeking twerp to shut up, but he has very serious potential charges hanging over him.
I suspect Trevor is a rich kid, and I don’t think this is the first time he’s had to hire a defense attorney. His lifestyle screams “I’m from a wealthy family that gives me money but very little love and attention”. Another of his videos claims he was arrested for illegally riding freight trains. I also think he’s been to rehab and/or a 12-step program. I base this opinion on his talk of being protected by his “higher power”, which is AA terminology. It might be interesting to see if Trevor has had any DUIs and if he got a diversion rehab.
For the record, I hope you’re right that he does start representing himself pro se in the court of public opinion.
@@MarcosElMalo2 : Very interesting information. And very telling! Could be that he's fooled me the way he sought to fool 'the public' with the video. Quite possible.
But that mouth . . . its "incurable." To quote somebody important to me.
@@MarcosElMalo2 Not to mention his "friends" that got commissioned into helping him with all this. Good chance someone is going to plea there way out and start squeaking.
@@elffirrdesign2063 : Exactly right. You think you have friends? Just find yourself in trouble and you'll find out.
The way of the world.
I used to delete all my raw footage too. A lot of my friends do it like that too
I've analyzed his parachute drop closely and was able to see the crash site from his selfie shots shortly before he landed. I did not see any plane wreckage as he came down at about 100 feet of elevation. This seems to prove my theory that he landed before the plane crashed.
This might be more evidence that his ditching was an intentional act, because his video portrays the plane crashing before he landed.
Contact me if you want the actual evidence I gathered (2 screenshots, one from his video showing the crash site from his parachute drop and one from Google Earth showing the exact landing spot from the perspective of him at about 100 feet of elevation).
i’m just imagining him going nervously watching this video and rapidly going through the comments 😂
Great discussion, Dan! Studio is looking nice there, BTW. I'm also surprised there isn't a standard lifetime revocation for something off-the-wall crazy. I've heard of a few lifetime revocations for driver's licenses, but those usually involve multiple drug or alcohol (or both) convictions. I suppose a drunken pilot would qualify for a lifetime revocation as well, since many more innocent lives could potentially be at risk. As for Trevor, I think he grossly miscalculated the results of the stunt here, and it's going to rightfully bite him BIG TIME. Regular Joes who aren't even investigators are noticing all the red flags - I'd wager he's going to be much poorer, and grounded for at least a year (maybe longer due to the publicity). Whenever there's publicity involved, that tends to make the powers that be want to set an example, so that potential copycatters will rethink their plans.
One year revocation is barely a slap on the wrist.
The prosecutors also have to make sure the pain is larger than what he gained.
I'd be surprised that any larger TH-camr would delete un used footage - it costs too much to create and if this all went well for him he could have release more - directors cut anyone? I'm tiny, but still keep and index/document all my footage.
I am curious to know if the helicopter company that did the recovery of the wreckage had a responsibility to say no on removing it. Can someone advice.
That’s a good question. Unfortunately, there are a lot of unanswered questions with regard to the helicopter company. We don’t even know for a fact that the wreckage was removed from the crash site. I know people have done fly overs, looking for the wreckage, but not finding it from the air isn’t proof that it was removed. Proof would require finding the crash site on foot and verifying that the wreckage was not present.
Even if we can determine for certain that it was removed, we don’t know who had it removed nor do we know who has possession of the wreck. It could be sitting in a small warehouse rented for the investigation as we speak. We just don’t know.
@@MarcosElMalo2 I think the evidence pretty strongly points to it at this point since we've identified a likely helicopter in the area, heard from someone who stated it had happened and can see no trace of it in flyover footage. I'd think the FAA/NTSB can further confirm it in their own investigation.
@@MarcosElMalo2 Is far as I understand various witnesses (even someone(s) close to him), can testify to his usage of a heli to remove the wreck...
In one of these YT analysis videos there's is a lengthy comment of one of his (pissed) associates mentioning it. Anyone one can lie about that right? BUT his guy mentioned many things that only someone close to this clown could know.
It is done - the FAA has recalled his pilot certificate. It is a relief to see this action taken. I, like all pilots I know, take flying very serious. When we sit in that front seat, right or left, we fully know our responsibility - first to the people behind us, secondly to those on the ground below us, and someplace down the list to ourselves. To see someone get away with what he did would be turning your back on all we as pilots believe and do.
He's gone radio silent, so many jokes can come from that 🤣
Flight bag giveaway, I rather have a parachute and two fire extinguishers.
😜
Then use this bag to collect business cards of lawyers. :)
For a bit of clarification I have a memo from the FAA that says if a camera like a GoPro is not permanently installed (and it mentions the use of suction cups or other temporary methods of attachment) it doesn't count as a major or minor alteration if it doesn't appreciably affect the plane (weight, balance, structural strength, performance, flight characteristics etc.). That being said it also says the FAA does not support the use of temporary mounts and will throw 'careless operations' 91.13 and 91.15 at you if you have an inflight detachment or other issue.
BLM property is not what you think TH-cam masses.... he's talking about the Bureau of Land Management haha
BLM land matters! 🤣
@@eugeneweaver3199 haha brilliant
Dan-you forgot the code for the Lightspeed giveaway!
My bad!!! TAKINGOFF
best video on the subject by far thank you for this!
I hope he does go to jail, and never able to fly again, otherwise its such a weak punishment, even i would do it, you do a little race in a car on a empty road and you automatically lose your license and go to jail, crash a plane, no one cares
Agree. It's guys like this that give ALL of us a bad name not to mention higher insurance premiums!
@@paulschannel3046 I’m not a pilot but i couldn’t agree more, what happeneds if he does fly again and does start a forest fire, or the plane lands in a active camp site, just blows my mind
Deleting a video is not the same as erasing it. Deleting is simply removes the file name from directory, but the file can be recovered unless it is overwritten. If you throw out and old computer remove the hard drive and pound a nail through it or put a blow torch to it. Special software is available to overwrite the data on it.
But deleting the video could be evidence of criminal intent, and would be considered tampering with evidence.
If this was indeed a stunt (which it sure seems like it is) then this guy needs to go to jail. It's hard to get over the fact that California is a tinderbox and this act could have started another wildfire that California doesn't have the resources for. That act alone should be some time in prison and a fine that can't easily be paid for by writing a check. Unbelievable stupidity.
Sure, you can fit a computer and radio in the flight bag but how about the really important stuff like how many fire extinguishers, selfie sticks, and parachutes can fit in there? :p
I for one am not at all happy with the possibility of him getting his licence back eventually after it’s been revoked. Somebody who would make the decisions he has is not fit to be a pilot now or in the future. If he doesn’t have the maturity to make sensible, safe decisions now, he won’t suddenly be mature enough to in a couple of years.
Yes he should get a Lawyer!!
His statement in The NY Times suggests he has retained an attorney. He would be a Double-Fool if he tried to handle this himself.
One interesting question: could he have legally done that (ditched the plane and safely crashed it somewhere) if he wanted?
Absolutely there is a legal way to do it legally, this was much easier.
Yes but it would cost a lot of money to pay for protection of environment, clearing off an area and police to keep people out of the area, etc etc. This was cheap and free initially but I'm guessing it's going to cost him dearly.
Hat's off to the person who did the lighting on your set. It looks great.
Everyone needs lawyer, especially if they are being investigated. Even (or perhaps especially) innocent people need lawyers.
I would say especially guilty people, like Trevor.
Thanks for the video. Disclaimer: I know nothing about flying and how planes work. If it's possible he probably filled one of the tanks with water, which is why it's full and then he used the other one until it was dried up, which is when he crashed. Given that he brought FE's he clearly was very concerned about fire and would have taken the precautions with water in on of the tanks reduce the chance of fire. :)
The fuel supply to the engine on this aircraft is solely from the main which is in front of the instrument panel behind the firewall beneath the cowling in front of the wind screen. There is no selecting which tank the fuel is fed from. When the main is down to 1/2 you open the R wing fuel valve and it gravity drains to the main. 6 gal. in the R wing, 12 gal. cap in the main.
How many pilots are rooting for the FAA on this one?
Hadn’t looked at it that way. Funny.
didn't he own the aircraft? How can it possibly be illegal to damage your own aircraft?
My question is, *supposing* this was an intentional stunt, how much trouble could he spare himself if he came clean now?
None at all
I think that's his only choice now. Either that or continue to lie to the FAA, NTSB and possibly FBI. He should know by now that he's not too good at lying.
As a former juvenile delinquent/jailhouse lawyer one NEVER admits one's guilt!! That being said, I truly hope that this BOZO pays huge money for a really crappy attorney and then pays huge fines, NEVER flies again and then we never hear from him again! Thanks Dan!
@@johnreed5253 I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me he's probably wanting to make a plea deal. "I'll accept ____ penalty, admit responsibility for ___, if you all agree not to take me to trial for ____"
@@julianbrelsford If he cuts a deal like that with the feds, it won't prevent the state from coming after him. His lawyer will have to impossibly careful to avoid admitting to a limited set of charges that doesn't open him up to charges in a different jurisdiction.
Props to staying as fair and impartial in discussing the topic. Many shows/podcasts would go off the deep-end with assumptions and trains of thought based on assumptions that are not explicitly mentioned as being assumptions. What a faith in humanity restoring way to see a discussion of a topic that has multiple sides to a story and one party is not present to give their side. Albeit that Trevor is likely being instructed by lawyers to say absolutely nothing to anyone.
What I don't get is, how does someone with a PPL (at least) not think "Don't F with the Alphabet boys".
Finally a different angle on this story!
His video is literally titled "I crashed my plane." not "My engine went out!"
I think you should donate the flight bag to Trevor it would be ideal for his next stunt!!!!
This being so highly publicized, it appears to be a planned stunt.
The removal of evidence, the cameras, the helicopter removal of the aircraft, etc.
Was the aircraft insured? Is there an insurance claim? Will this be another area for prosecution?
Too many questions and too few answers.
Thanks for sharing.
engine swapped, corroded lift struts, possible disconnected pitot tube, etc begs whether the airplane was legally airworthy.
The previous owner sold the airplane as "parts only". So I doubt Mr. Jacob was able to obtain insurance on it.
Funny thing is, IF it was uninsured and IF there was no claim, that is circumstantial evidence of intent to crash.
@@sct913 Parts only, implies unairworthy.
@@SoloRenegade Exactly.
You all calling that a flight bag and all I can say is that looks like the worlds coolest pocketbook ever! Informative video. Thanks.
Fits my large MacBook Pro!
He should be punished but "making an example of someone" is not how our justice system is supposed to work. It's supposed to be about reform.
Fire extinguisher, parachute, water bottle, open door, he said he was buying the plane with something special in mind, cameras, headset cords tucked away, cockpit door step removed, etc. all points to premeditation and intent.
You forgot the aircraft was trimed nose down and he checked it before bail out.
The FAA is a toothless tiger. The worst that can happen is that they permanently revoke his license, however we know from past history people have continued to fly illegally after their license has been revoked or suspended.
I think any deletion of the raw video footage would be an issue.
I'm thinking he does: 18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
Whoever willfully sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
TWENTY YEARS?? oh wow, seriously? 20 years imprisonment for willfully wrecking an aircraft?
Yeah, he could get tagged hard with this one.
@@SithLord2066 So many things could have gone wrong here... 20 years for a REALLY STUPID act? An did this for likes! PLUS tried to profit on the while thing?
thanks for the sharing the expertise explanation of the possible outcome of the incident. not a good thing for the GA.
does he need a lawyer?
yes
*roll credits*
Great video, very informative and well presented?!
Does he need a lawyer....yes and the best one he can afford. He's facing massive fines from the FAA on top of having all of his certifications revoked. The FAA can't send him to prison but if its found that he crashed it into a national wildlife refuge, which I read somewhere he did then the feds could come after him and that could lead jail time and/or additional fines. But its all going to happen at a snails pace, probably going to be around a year before anything concrete comes out.
He didn’t crash it into the Condor refuge. The crash site isn’t even close, although both the crash site and the refuge are in the Los Padres National Forest.
Which isn’t to say there wasn’t a potential risk of the crash causing a fire that would threaten the habitat, or that the abandoned plane couldn’t have glided to the refuge. But neither happened.
The crash location was in the San Rafael Wilderness Area, from the 1964 Wilderness Act passed by Congress. This Wilderness Area is in the Los Padres National Forest.
Brilliant!
Great video. Regarding the David Lesh incident, Scott Purdue has a video wheee he goes through all the bread crumbs from the suspicions point of view and concludes that all the evidence suggests that ditching was legit
Yeah, but it's been like a year and a half or more...? What has officially happened?
@@TakingOff I don’t think anything. He was under some legal scrutiny for some other “stunts” involving photos in protected areas in certain national parks But he reviled all those photos were faked so I don’t know if those charges went anywhere. Love him or hate him, David generates social media attention in a far more inelegant way than this parachute guy
There's a preliminary NTSB report out but it doesn't answer any questions whether it was planned or not.
Thanks!
Trevor is obvious a nut. As much as I enjoy seeing him roasted on the internet I hope he doesnt do something desperate and dangerous from all the negative publicity that his stunt has generated .
He can still monetarily benefit from his notoriety. I wonder if there are Son of Sam types of laws in California that will prevent him from financially benefiting in the future?
Now, I'm not from the US, nor a lawyer, but wouldn't letting an aircraft go uncontrolled (and hit god knows where... what, and whom) be at least in "reckless endangerment" territory? (If it wasn't actually a life or death situation for the pilot, that is).
Wow. A lawyer that cannot give direct and specific answers. Who knew?
Just for everyone's information word is that yes NTSB are the ones investigating and Senior Investigator Elliot Smith is the lead on it. If Trevor hasn't called his lawyer yet, he probably should. But I'm sure the NTSB will be absolutely happy to work with Trevor. I mean I can't think of what other crash would be able to provide so many points of CVR/FDR data. Because yeah, that's what those cameras now are.
"Eliott Simpson", not "Elliot Smith".
Cannot wait too soon for the Trevor Jacob issue to leave. Can’t hardly get into an aviation site without the “talking heads” covering this story.
Really like the bag that was shown.
Me too!!
I've flown both Continental and Lycoming 65s. It's 170 vs 145 cubic inches ... getting an o145 powered Tcraft to 10000 feet always seemed ... improbable, imo.
I wander if an insurance claim was filed on this aircraft.
This channel is really well done. Let’s get them to 100k TH-cam.
Yes please! 😜
I love how he's trying to not laugh.
His lawyer mask slipped on a few occasion!
What about it being illegal to intentionally parachute into a nature reserve? I firmly believe that it is a stunt, and that he should be prosecuted for the illegal jump as well.
He landed in a national Wilderness Area, from the 1964 Wilderness Act passed by Congress. Not sure if it's illegal, but worth checking.
Thank you so much. I’ve been hearing people talk about jail but nobody seemed to know what laws were broken.
NTSB Investigation # WPR22LA049. Elliot Simpson is the senior investigator assigned as Investigator In Charge.
This reminds me of another video, in which someone said something along the lines of, "I don't wear a parachute, for the same reason that I don't strap a fire extinguisher to my leg". Is the leg extinguisher in response to that?
Great episode as always Dan, thank you. Excited for all the new episodes to come. Keep up the great work. 🤘🇺🇸🛩️
Excellent! Thanks again!
Trevor doesn't need a lawyer. Trevor needs a shrink.
Yes! Is the answer to you’re question 😎
That Juicy Smullyay reference at the start was fire.
I mentally debated making it.
They need to throw the book at this guy. Ask anyone whose home burned in a California wildfire. He very easily could have started one with that. You want to do a stunt, do it properly with permits and regulations followed
Very informative and comprehensive!
I liked this discussion. Thanks for sharing!