Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Breaking news... he does it again, this time in a Cessna 172!
I found the video below from the one you shared. This video has a lot of great information about what the FAA will be doing to figure out what happened.
It sounds believable that he did in fact contact them about the crash when it happened because according to the video, the old owner was spoken to the next day.
At around the 7:40 mark, he starts talking about the specific cameras that were in and mounted on the plane. There is one right behind the pilots right shoulder, that he said is on when it takes off but that it is not on during the flight, he does say which could have died in flight... which, that camera being off says a lot, it could be one of the smoking guns that nabs him in the next year or two when they're done investigating.
He talks about how "he always wears a parachute" which a lot of people have said it is not true according to other videos.
He also talks about how hard it is to even open the door while flying.
He also asks why did he hike over to the plane when he had no water or supplies when he was in a survival situation? I guess he missed him saying that he always kept water in the plane but it wasn't there. Of course he wanted to recover all of his cameras, I'm sure before someone else did which the FAA will also look at, what RAW video is left and whether he keeps all the other RAW video he takes.
He bought the plane about a month before the crash. Apparently he told the seller he was "going to do something special" with the plane which could be something or it could be nothing since that's all he said.
A guy Max that used to work on the plane said that he could tell there was a lot of fuel in the header tank. He feels that the key was in an off position because the plane should have restarted. I'm no pilot, so watch the video to hear his explanation, he's at the 12:40 mark. He said that 2 years ago the plane was in great shape.
He also mentioned a sand bar where the plane could have landed but doesn't think the FAA could charge him for anything related to it, but there are a lot of other things the FAA could charge him with.
So, whoever catches the charges or not when the FAA is done, please post in this thread because I'm really interested
In true YouTube fashion, every content provider with an aviation channel is jumping on this bandwagon. Put "Trevor Story" in the title and watch the dollars flow in.
At the time of the event, Jacob was allegedly enroute from Lompoc City Airport (KLPC) in Santa Barbara County to Mammoth Lakes (KMMH) in order to snowboard. He had recently purchased the aircraft and according to several reports in local newspapers, there is some question as to whether the aircraft was airworthy at the time of the flight, as it needed maintenance.
If the FAA concludes that the accident was intentional and therefore staged, Jacob could be cited for violation of FAR 91.13: careless and reckless operation of aircraft. If it is determined that the aircraft was unairworthy at the time of the flight and there was no ferry permit, more citations could follow.
The FAA does not comment on ongoing investigations. It will be several months before the final report is released. For more information, pilots can reference the NTSB report by its file number: WPR22LA049.
Was reading/ watching a video of another news story, a video of this came on saying they pulled his license so of course came to update too lol will quote your article, wow, only a year loss.
I think there was more they could have said IIRC, something about one of the cameras that would have been behind his shoulder never showed the instrument panel to see if he flipped an off switch or something like that.
I didn't read the attached report to see if they asked for his unedited video of it which probably would have really hung him out to dry.
Apparently he learned about it after being contacted by the times. He said where did you hear that? lol
According to the 3rd link, while the FAA can't do much to him, the state of California and the DOT can possibly fine him for what he did so this may not be the end of it. The DOT would not confirm or deny if they have a case against him.
The FAA has pulled the certificate of a California pilot and ex-Olympian who it says intentionally abandoned a vintage Taylorcraft and shot video of it crashing as he parachuted to the ground. Trevor Jacob has been told to surrender his ticket immediately and that he can’t apply for another one for a year for the flight, which occurred Nov. 24, 2021. “Your flight … [was] careless or reckless so as to endanger life or property of another,” says the letter notifying him of the emergency revocation of the private certificate he’d held since 2018.
The FAA’s litany of findings supporting the revocation reads a lot like the comments that were posted to YouTube before they were shut off. The agency noted that Jacob popped the door before the engine stopped, didn’t issue any kind of distress call or contact ATC, didn’t try to restart the engine and didn’t try to land the aircraft on the numerous clear and flat areas that could be seen in the video. The FAA also claims Jacob recovered the cameras and then disposed of the wreck.
The FAA agreed that it seemed odd that Jacob was wearing a parachute in the first place, the Times said.
Jacob also made no attempt to contact air traffic control on the emergency frequency, did not attempt restarting the engine, and did not look for a place to land, "even though there were multiple areas within gliding range in which you could have made a safe landing," the agency said, according to The Times.
On Wednesday, Jacob did not appear to be aware of the FAA's ruling, telling the Times in an email: "Where'd you get that information?"
Immediately following the crash, other pilots and aviation experts immediately began picking apart the incident.
Jacob did a lot of things that most pilots just don’t do when flying, like wear a parachute on his back and a pair of fire extinguishers strapped to his pant legs. He also failed to do what pilots learn early on in their training such as scan for a safe place to land, set the plane for its best glide, or even try to restart the engine. He jumped from the aircraft when it had plenty of altitude to work with.
As we’ve noted before when an unruly passenger disrupts a flight, the FAA does not have the power to prosecute people who do reckless stunts with planes. Thus, Jacob will only lose his private pilot certificate. A license revocation lasts just one year, so Jacob will be able to reapply for his licenses after 12 months. And in the meantime, he could still fly an ultralight.
That said, this may not be the end of Jacob’s troubles. The FAA’s findings could be used by other government entities such as the State of California and the Department of Transportation for fines or more. The New York times reached out to the DOT and at this time it does not confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.
The FAA is under the DOT. They aren't separate entities. States won't get involved, unless a state law has been broken. Aviation falls entirely under federal jurisdiction.
The FAA is under the DOT. They aren't separate entities. States won't get involved, unless a state law has been broken. Aviation falls entirely under federal jurisdiction.
In California, where this occurred, the state law basically says, if you violate the FAR's, you have violated state law. It would be up to the local jurisdiction to enforce the state law, if they want to.
In California, where this occurred, the state law basically says, if you violate the FAR's, you have violated state law. It would be up to the local jurisdiction to enforce the state law, if they want to.
FAA refers any criminal prosecution to the DOJ.
The issue you often run into with state law and aviation, is that it is rare that local authorities have any knowledge of aviation, much less the ability to enforce any laws pertaining to it.
After securing an accident site, local law enforcement is taught to call the FAA. I suppose you could find an overzealous district attorney, with an aviation grudge, but I've never heard of one.
The usual issue concerning interaction between local and FAA jurisdiction, comes into play with noise abatement ordinances. Where a local government finds out that their finely crafted ordinance, to limit operations at the local airport, has no teeth. They have the ability to ban certain operators from utilizing the airport, but that's about it. The FAA will not take punitive actions against noise abatement violators. There are instances where local politicians take a scorched earth approach. Most notably, Mayor Daiey's tactics in Chicago, when he had Meigs Field bulldozed in the middle of the night.
Location: The Circle City. Sometimes NE of Bagdad.
24,451 posts, read 25,987,852 times
Reputation: 59813
I got a ticket on federal property by a range citing a NV state law. Research it I found in the FARs that if a state has a law we (the government) may elect to enforce it.
Besemof my recollection.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
