Does Trevor Jacob Need a Lawyer? Discussion with Aviation Attorney - InTheHangar 

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

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.

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"?

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. RU-vid 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.

I'm concerned for Trevor's mental health. His head must be spinning from all the content on RU-vid 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

"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?

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?

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

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.

Lol that ain't no corpse my friend.

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.

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.

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 RU-vid 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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

😜

Then use this bag to collect business cards of lawyers. :)

But deleting the video could be evidence of criminal intent, and would be considered tampering with evidence.

My bad!!! TAKINGOFF

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.

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.

Fits my large MacBook Pro!

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.

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.

I would say especially guilty people, like Trevor.

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.

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

BLM land matters! 🤣

@@eugeneweaver3199 haha brilliant

Hadn’t looked at it that way. Funny.

"Eliott Simpson", not "Elliot Smith".

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.

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?

You forgot the aircraft was trimed nose down and he checked it before bail 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.

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?

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.

I mentally debated making it.

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.

forget the hiker, a wildfire started by the crash could have killed hundreds of people, not to mention the property damage

Me too!!

Thanks Martin. We missed you this weekend!

His lawyer mask slipped on a few occasion!