but if you make a youtube stunt that hurts nobody you can get 20 years in prison and the FAA acts like you besmirched the stellar reputation of the aviation industry.
In an organisation which is connected to the government in many ways through partnerships and contracts, putting a face to a crime is much harder to do. There's no single accountable person who can be thrown under the bus.
It was more a collection of bad actions by actors that had their own motives but nothing that was ever explicitly mean to hurt people.
(Assuming you're referring to 737 MAX)
A plane crash can cause a wildfire.
It's rather irritating. The law was made with a flexible range of punishments to permit the judge of any particular case to use discretion when determining an appropriate punishment. The maximum permitted is thus rather high. So now every article written about the subject lazily cites "up to 20 years", and thus everyone reading those articles gets the impression that he's actually likely to get 20 years for this incident.
fatneckbeard_in_alt_universe_002: I can understand why FAA came after big corp. But both big corp && small fry are punished? Nobody got hurt here so what exactly is the government going after? This is truly chilling.
He did something wrong, he might go to prison. Does any other actions from others change what he did? No.
And tbh hindsight is easy. Of course no one was hurt of 'the guy who purposely crashed a fucking airplane in some more remote area for clicks'.
Like wtf how sick is this?
Why do you even defend such a shitty thing?
Bullshirt.
The actual result was mere chance. He took zero precautions against hurting anyone beyond being over a remote area. Nothing to prevent wildfire (which would hurt a lot more than just people). The location of the crash was pure random chance.
Moreover, it is not ONLY for doing the stupid stunt, it is for deliberately obstructing, in multiple ways, the federal investigation. Plus, he hasn't been sentenced for 20 years, that is merely the maximum available sentence, highlighted for clickbait.
I'm only disappointed it took this long to get consequences for this outrageous BS stunt. And I'm all for risky things, just not being dishonest about it and endangering people who have no involvement or interest.
And yes, Boeing should ALSO be far more harshly punished for the deliberate 787MAX design flaws (but it looks like they didn't compound it by lying to investigators).
Every executive and manager in the hierarchy of responsibility should be seeing that jail time, if not even more.
I don't think the person you're replying to thinks that this youtuber should have gotten off scott free, but that the double standard is an indictment of the industry and regulation agencies at large.
I am surprised educated people can come up with unsubstentiated claims like that.
Doing this sets a precedent and an example that prevents people from frivolously permitting things that are unsafe if there is a risk you'll be thrown in jail.
I point my car at a wall and drive into it on purpose for views... And suddenly that's a possibility of jail time? That's crazy.
There needs to be a minimum number of permitted years when death is involved with clear negligence. Sadly there isn't any our court systems use max permitted years to pick and choose who they can punish. Dumb kid who crashes his plane on purpose versus safety inspector who Actually killed hundreds of people?
There is a clear disconnect here.
Some may even be able to see those subtle, but important, differences by themselves.
one of the dumber things Boeing did was having two angle of attack sensors; who the hell thought it was possible to have a quorum of two
Also whilst there can be mitigated circumstance you cannot argued for 0 max. There is a crime, there could be danger … 0 max meant anyone officially can do this without consequences?
Incidentally, I don't know if deliberately crashing a plane is a criminal act in and of itself, because planes occasionally get crashed as part of safety studies. So it seems that the offense in the actual plane crash is that he traded others' safety for his own profit, rather than the crash per se. But that is very similar to Boeing.
Not to say we've struck exactly the right balance, necessarily. But there's just no logic in making a direct comparison between a company that made an error in designing am aircraft and an individual who flew a plane into the ground on purpose.
That guy planned a plane crash for social media likes, and tried to cover it up. Actively.
Those two cases are nothing a like, not even remotely.
When you point your car at a wall and drive into that wall you ALSO cannot argue for 0 max danger of death for an innocent bystander.
But the probability of a person dying is so low we know there is no danger for murder or death at all. It's just really stupid.
Of course there needs to be consequences. A loss of pilots license and a huge ass fine. Jail time is crazy. You know how jail will ruin a person's entire life right? Even a month of jail time is in certain ways hangs on your record like a life sentence. It's too much.
And when the court does sentence a person for a certain offense, it should compare the specific facts of the case to the worst possible case, the one that would warrant 20 years, and if this is somewhat less than the worst possible case, then to sentence them to an appropriately shorter term.
Not condoning his actions, but if he didn't intend anyone to be hurt, took reasonable precautions to ensure that, and then as a result, no one got hurt, it seems you're just left with fraud and a few damaged trees. Who even cares?
I similarly wouldn't care if someone targeted their 18-wheeler at a brick wall in the middle of nowhere and bailed, for clicks, and then lied on the accident report. This sensationalist reporting just makes a copycat more likely.
Those people should be punished for murder.
Instead the concept of a corporation ends up abstracting the details away and blurring responsibility.
If our justice system was truly just it would seek out and charge named individuals for crimes.
This has the effect of being in actuality more just but it also prevents the entire corporation from pulling off crimes like this as no one can hide behind the protection of the corporation.
It's not that there is "no logic." But that there is fundamental illogic in the way it all works.
The board should be responsible. You don't get to make $200m a year and just brush hundreds of lives off as a whoops.
does the youtuber self-certify for safety and compliance ?
I don't think you understand how capitalism works.
It's just brought up as a topic of discussion. Everyone is pretty much aware of what you said.
What isn't fully spelled out is that there are social relationships involved as well. Responsible parties are buddy buddy with regulators while this YouTuber probably pissed off a regulator with his dumb antics so the regulator is unreasonably likely going all out in a fit of annoyance.
Hypothetically we all want a justice system to be based on justice but everyone is well aware that the system is at its heart capitalistic.
It's ok to discuss hypotheticals.
Or you could waste the opportunity and throw the dude in jail, almost ensuring he's never a productive member of society again. That's the norm in the "land of the free"[1]
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarcera...
In general the concept of starting a fire and a crashing small plane are orthogonal concepts. What happened with that plane is not arson at all.
I think this would be greatly improve our society.
Are you serious?
And you don't care at all about the oil and fuel and fire and debriss in nature as well?
And that for clicks?
If that's true I despise you too
And anyway, fines only penalize poor people. Someone who can afford to AIRLIFT A PLANE and disassemble it would not be disincentivized by a fine.
Your attempt to portray me as clueless is backfiring rather spectacularly.
It's not bizarre at all. The bizarre part here is your stringing of logic to try to transform this into a crime related to murder.
First off he crashed the plane deliberately into empty forest. There's no hikers in the place he crashed it, he knows that.
Second small planes or cars don't explode in a ball of flames when they crash. That's just movie magic. What actually happens is the car or plane becomes metal debris. That's it. A fire and a crashed car or small plane are completely orthogonal concepts. Might as well arrest people who make bouncing balls because the bouncing ball might accidentally smack the trigger of a gun and kill someone.
What's bizarre here is your post says I'm trying to completely eliminate rule of law when I never said that. Why lie straight to my face? What's the point? It's bizarre. You're the one twisting the rationale to fit your convenient narrative. Please be more logical with your reasoning.
The punishment should fit the crime. A huge fine and revoke the pilots license. That's it. Ruining his life with jail time does not fit the crime at all. If he's rich, then increase the fine... that simple.
Rule of law has probably been most influential under capitalist authoritarianism like Nazi Germany.
You don't need "exploding balls of fire" to create a disaster.
> Rain is extremely rare in the summer, and dry lightning from the occasional thunderstorms can start fires.
https://lpfw.org/san-rafael-wilderness-50-years-of-preservin...
> Wildfire frequency is an increasing concern in the San Rafael Wilderness. Over the past fifty years, three wildfires have together burned nearly the entire wilderness area, beginning with the 1966 Wellman Fire, the 1993 Marre Fire, the 2007 Zaca Fire, and the 2009 La Brea Fire. Overly-frequent fire in chaparral can permanently alter the ecosystem, depleting the seed bank and making it prone to invasions of non-native weeds.
When's the last time you seen a car light up on fire during an accident? Never because the chances of it happening are basically negligible.
Starting a fire or crashing a small plane/car are completely orthogonal situations.
Your sources point to weather/climate as the causal source of wild fires.
Nothing. So why even say this? Makes no sense to me.
> Small-airplane fires have killed at least 600 people since 1993, burning them alive or suffocating them after crashes and hard landings that the passengers and pilots had initially survived, a USA TODAY investigation shows. The victims who died from fatal burns or smoke inhalation often had few if any broken bones or other injuries, according to hundreds of autopsy reports obtained by USA TODAY.
> Fires have erupted after incidents as minor as an airplane veering off a runway and into brush or hitting a chain-link fence, government records show. The impact ruptures fuel tanks or fuel lines, or both, causing leaks and airplane-engulfing blazes.
> Fires also contributed to the death of at least 308 more people who suffered burns or smoke inhalation as well as traumatic injuries, USA TODAY found. And the fires seriously burned at least 309 people who survived, often with permanent scars after painful surgery.
And while that is about dangers for an occupant it should be noted that a fire from a small airplane crash is not a rare occurrence.
---
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/flighttest...
> Aircraft fires often occur following forced landings, and the result is often more dangerous than the forced landing itself. The sad truth is that most light aircraft fuel systems are not designed to withstand crash impacts, and they often fail during a forced landing. Spilled fuel and hot crash components often result in a fuel-fed inferno.
Note the word often there.
If you take a look at the numbers, only a ratio of 0.04 accidents result in a post-impact fire. It's rare.
As you suggested, I noted the word "often," in return please note 0.04.
So a strict rule like that risks setting up a formal scapegoat situation which could then lead to the opposite effect.
Anyone who intensionally crashes a huge hunk of metal into pubic land, causing a significant hazard, and exposing the public to stupid risks for "views" absolutely deserves significant jail-time
Hey, I'm already for it, you don't have to sell it to me.
I mean we have no lawyer or doctors for the same reason.
I mean when you drive a car everyday you could make a mistake too. It's too fuzzy to go in this direction.
No people who slaughters others through deliberate negligence deserve jail time. That includes FAA and boeing employees who violated clear rules.
A person who does stupid shit with no intention of killing people and put no one at risk and ended up not killing anybody should be punished for doing stupid shit. Jail time which is huge is reserved for actual criminals, who actively and have Already harmed people.
I'm hung up on it because the likelihood of this happening is in Actuality overblown. It's not fire season yet and CA just came out of a drenching torrent of rain.
That seems to be the most common occurrence in all fields...
This is not an unreasonable regulatory burden impinging on individual freedom.
Literally where he crashed.
How?
He's in trouble for covering up, not so much what he did.
There is: the CEO. This is the person put in charge to run the business against their principles [0]. This is the charter, set by the business, in how it should be run.
When the company fails to execute and people die because of these failures this is a systemic problem that is rooted within the control of a CEO. Nothing major happens in aviation without a lot of checks and balances. Boeing settled because the CEO lied. He should have gone to jail. Instead he was allowed to pay no social penalty and is making money and avoiding taxes [1].
Dennis Muilenburg killed people. He had the position to stop it. Yet he chose profits over the value of others lives. Dennis Muilenburg should be spending the remainder of his life behind bars or subject to fly in a 737 Max with the flawed MCAS that he said was safe for the rest of his life for any and all air travel.
[0] https://www.boeing.com/principles/values.page [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/forme...
If you're going to make an example of capitalism in particular then you should be able to justify it with non-capitalist examples. Are there some socialist or feudal states where the more powerful would lose a case like this?
Agreed and we should punish these people accordingly with fines and suspension of license. We should not classify these people as potential murderers and put them in jail.
I don't know if you're just trolling or are completely stupid, but that might be a distinction without a difference.
You going to drive has extremely high risk of killing somebody. Traffic accidents are some of the highest causes of death in the country.
What I'm saying is what he did carries equivalent risk of killing to driving. He aimed the plane at a spot devoid of people and crashed it. Is there risk? Technically yes, but it's technical to the point where it stops making sense to consider it.
Traffic accidents is one of the largest causes of death in this country. When you drive you make the same call.
He aimed his plane at a specific location 100%. This is obvious because he deliberately chose not to crash in a highly populated area. He chose an area that is largely unpopulated. This is easy to choose if you know your location and you just look out the window.
>I don't know if you're just trolling or are completely stupid, but that might be a distinction without a difference.
Clever way to call someone stupid. Please be mature enough to have a civil discussion. Neither of us is stupid but possibly one of us does not have the maturity or self control not to call someone stupid. Please act like an adult or go somewhere else where antics like this are welcomed.
Think about it. I point my car at an area devoid of people and drive towards that area then jump out of the car. Is there a slight risk of the car still hitting someone? Technically yes but it's so miniscule it's stupid to consider. Am I murderer? no.
I do the same thing with a plane. Am I murderer? No.
One thing that's making me scratch my head is you realize people have eyes right? They can see out of a window and they can see if a wide area below or in front of them is populated.
Could be. This depends a lot on the owner of the wall
The fact that the personna played by this account doesn't understand that makes it either stupid or disingenuous.
Either way I'm no longer treating it as an entity worthy of dialogue with.