[HN Gopher] FAA investigating controversial crash video
___________________________________________________________________
FAA investigating controversial crash video
Author : nostromo
Score : 163 points
Date : 2021-12-29 20:02 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.avweb.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.avweb.com)
| jb1991 wrote:
| I'm curious who is the person who supposedly shot footage of the
| plane from a distance as it was heading towards its crash. If he
| was in the air in the parachute, who was filming the plane from
| the ground?
| emilburzo wrote:
| I suspect it's from the selfie-stick gopro and cropped with
| subject tracking
| chrononaut wrote:
| Do you have a timestamp for which part you're referring to? It
| looked like it was entirely recorded by GoPros attached to the
| air frame, the camera on his selfie-stick, or the GoPro on his
| wrist.
| jb1991 wrote:
| I think I misinterpreted that part of the footage and the
| sister comment explains it.
| runjake wrote:
| A lot of mistakes were made. The FAA is investigating and I'm
| sure they will come to a sound conclusion. This is the most I can
| say, based on the footage I've watched. I cannot speak to his
| intent.
|
| Anything more is just Internet Pile-On, and the Internet can use
| less of that.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Not in this case. /r/flying put this idiocy on the map.
|
| FAA is an imperfect organization. Check out some of the
| discussions around pilots masking mental health issues to
| maintain medical status.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I don't think it's wrong to talk about this rather than sit in
| complete silence until the FAA releases a report.
| planesceptic wrote:
| I agree, but the comments are all either "how dare he place
| an ad in his video (contractual, perhaps?)" to "I would
| never"
|
| There isn't much meat on the bone, to a layman at least.
| neom wrote:
| Reminds me of the David Lesh incident:
|
| https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/on-video-guy-ditche...
| KaiserPro wrote:
| My dad used a fly a cesna 172 when I was a kid. So I've heard
| many stories from his pilot friends about losing engines, landing
| in fields and the like. It happens quite a lot, apparently.
|
| A few things strike me:
|
| o why was he wobbling the yoke so much forwards and backwards,
| that costs you speed, and knackers your glide efficiency.
|
| o Why wasn't he looking for landing sites (he was up really high,
| like 2k+ above the mountain top), _edit_ : see comment daughter,
| decent is measured in feet per minute, unfeathered prop will
| cause drag, nailing your glide ratio so not 10 minutes glide time
| before action was needed
|
| o why didn't he set his glide path up properly, to give him time
| to think?
|
| o why isn't he looking at the checklist for engine failure? (my
| dad had one in the middle) I suspect he might not have one
|
| o Did he send a distress signal?
|
| o where was the attempt to restart the engine (granted it might
| not be young enough to have a starter, but he had the height to
| spin the prop)
|
| Finally, the other thing that gets me, is that the door is open
| before the engine fails. which either means that he's expecting
| the failure (checklists are your friend here) so why wasn't he
| lining up/searching for a river bed for landing?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Sink rate is much higher than 200 fpm engine out (likely 500+
| fpm in a T-craft). From 2K AGL, you don't have 10 minutes.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| thanks, I have updated.
| stevesearer wrote:
| Oddly enough, I'm familiar with the wilderness where the plane
| crashed and based on the video am pretty confident I know where
| the crash site was. Am now interested in hiking out to it
| sometime too.
|
| In the case that this was real, it is interesting to me to see
| just how close he was to trails and camps without knowing it
| where he might have been able to better assess his situation and
| get his bearings.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| It boggles my mind why he recommends a parachute but no offline
| maps on the phone.
|
| Still I think this entire thing is staged
| giarc wrote:
| I only watched about the first half of the video, but I
| understand there is controversy whether this was an accident or a
| planned wreck. If so, I think there is an easy answer, he should
| just release the footage of when the engine started to fail.
| There should be a good chunk of time where he is trying to
| restart, should also be genuine surprise when that happened and
| not a shot of him shutting the engine down. The youtube video (or
| at least the first half) didn't include that, only cut to a point
| where he has obviously decided to jump. He may claim to have
| turned off the gopro on the dash, but there was a gopro on the
| left wing that was focused on the cockpit that should show his
| reaction.
| cdiamand wrote:
| Came here to say this. Pilots are drilled to work an extensive
| engine-out checklist during training.
|
| In this situation, the pilot had what seemed like a significant
| amount of altitude (time) to work the problem.
| planesceptic wrote:
| So, I'm a complete ignorant when it comes to planes, but I do
| have the habit of giving folks BOTD and so I was wondering a
| few things:
|
| 1. How experienced a pilot is this man? Is he a very junior
| novice or experienced such that this should be a non-factor.
|
| 2. I see lots of folks mentioned hardwares in the comments -
| would a vintage craft (80+ years) be lacking good maintenance
| or equipment?
|
| All in all I think he needs to release full footage otherwise
| he isn't actually helping anyone as he claims to hope to. At
| the same time I see lots of armchair quarterbacking on what
| should have happened - but having been in high stress
| situations (fist, knife, and gun fights) in my life your
| reactions are never what you expect from the comfort of a
| computer chair. I've also witnessed as a software engineer
| very "senior" folks with loss of experience make amateur
| choices in no-stress situations - I cannot imagine the "oh
| shit this plane is going down" stress.
|
| Wish someone would have a good layman explanation instead of
| showing off their personal knowledge.
| Syonyk wrote:
| > _1. How experienced a pilot is this man? Is he a very
| junior novice or experienced such that this should be a
| non-factor._
|
| Shouldn't matter. By the time the FAA examiner gives you a
| pilot's license, they should be convinced that you can
| safely handle aviation, to include engine failures.
|
| But unless the airplane is literally coming apart around
| you, bailing out of a light airplane is almost always the
| wrong answer. They land fairly slow, especially an old
| T-craft, and it doesn't take very many feet of deceleration
| room for it to be something you walk away from.
|
| I'm not familiar with the particular accident and
| circumstances, but nothing I've seen in the avweb writeup
| makes it look very good. And I generally suspect YouTube
| "pilots" are mostly in it for the views, and nothing sells
| views like a crash.
|
| As far as "the engine has quit" stress, as long as the rest
| of the airplane is in good shape, it's still a perfectly
| good airplane. And pilots regularly train (at least,
| should...) for engine out landings. It's a common event in
| training - you get somewhere near the airport, the
| instructor pulls the throttle back and says, "Your engine
| quit." I hate to say it's not a big deal, because if it
| quits for real, you'll certainly be sweating, but a general
| aviation airplane doesn't fall out of the sky if the engine
| quits.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> you get somewhere near the airport, the instructor
| pulls the throttle back and says, "Your engine quit."
|
| The first time mine did this was on downwind in the
| pattern. I looked forward at lots of farmland and said
| "how about there?" He pointed left and said "you got a
| perfectly good runway over there." I said "oh you really
| want me to do this, I better make my turn." IIRC I made
| the landing but not really near the numbers :-)
| sparkling wrote:
| The giveaway for me is the camera mounted to his wrist. Why
| would you have that on the wrist, it makes no sense if the
| flight had gone "as planned".
| planesceptic wrote:
| I guess the question to what is, is this featured in
| other videos of his? If not, very bad look.
| jcrites wrote:
| Yeah, and does he wear a full, regular skydiving rig (not
| an emergency backup rig) while flying airplanes in his
| other videos?
|
| I have not watched them, but commenters in the original
| article have said that he does not wear skydiving rigs
| while flying other airplanes. (I haven't watched his
| other videos and can't personally confirm or deny)
| zikduruqe wrote:
| Thanks to Ridge Wallet being the sponsor.
|
| Don't forget that.
|
| N29508 if anyone is interested.
|
| NTSB investigation number - WPR22LA049
| varamocs wrote:
| For foreigners like me that are not so initialism-savvy,
| "BOTD" stands for "Benefit of the Doubt".
| weaksauce wrote:
| > 1. How experienced a pilot is this man? Is he a very
| junior novice or experienced such that this should be a
| non-factor.
|
| he has a pilot license and that is enough experience to get
| out of this without bailing on the plane. the fact that he
| had a full proper skydiving rig was a red flag.
|
| > 2. I see lots of folks mentioned hardwares in the
| comments - would a vintage craft (80+ years) be lacking
| good maintenance or equipment?
|
| every plane has to undergo some form of periodic
| maintenance and 80 year old planes are worthy if kept up.
| it's a single engine plane though and those do fail from
| time to time, however they do have practice in engine
| failures as part of the path to getting the pilot license.
| these things can glide for a long long way and he had a lot
| of altitude to find a place to land such as a road or dirt.
| this was imo a stunt for his youtube page.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| 1: A lot of failures could be attributed to someone
| forgetting their training due to stress... but he didn't
| seem under that much stress and evidently forgot _all_ of
| his training. That 's pretty suspect. You shouldn't be able
| to get a certificate without showing that slow to best
| glide, start looking for a landing site, and start the
| engine out checklist is a set of steps that you can conduct
| quickly from memory. It should be trained into pilots to do
| this kind of thing out loud (e.g. pointing and narrating)
| because the instructor and examiner want to see it that way
| and it just helps you keep on track and concentrating. That
| makes it odd that, if any of this happened, he omitted it
| from the video... from a vanity perspective it's an
| opportunity to Look Like A Real Pilot by working your list
| in an authoritative voice (I'm pretty sure every pilot gets
| a kick out of saying Landing Assured, otherwise they
| haven't found out how fun it is yet).
|
| Of course we can't totally tell from the video but it
| really doesn't seem like he took any of these actions prior
| to bailing out, certainly we don't see him with a
| checklist. Bailing out isn't even really something that's
| discussed as an option in an engine-out scenario, it would
| have to be such an unusual situation for it to be the best
| choice and it will tend to endanger anyone/anything on the
| ground (and of course it's a goal of aviation not to do
| that). One thing that is explicitly trained for any kind of
| precautionary (e.g. "this might go poorly") landing is
| opening the door, because in the past doors have jammed in
| the frame and prevented the pilot escaping a fire. That's
| why a lot of people are calling it out as suspect that he
| has his door open a bit from the very start... like he
| already worked some kind of precautionary landing
| checklist. Forward-hinged doors are also hard to open in
| flight because of the air pressure on them (that's kind of
| a feature), so one also wonders if he had tested to make
| sure he could get it open enough to fall out.
|
| It's hard to believe that someone with a certificate
| wouldn't at least promptly fumble for the checklist, and I
| bet inexperienced pilots would probably be inclined to make
| a radio call earlier than experienced ones did since it
| takes some discipline to keep your priorities on aviate,
| navigate, communicate when things go wrong. Yet we never
| see him make a radio call at all, which is very odd since
| he expresses concern about having a way out of the
| mountains... I personally suspect that he knew that a
| mayday call would probably result in a fire brigade or
| sheriff's deputies or state police helicopter or whatever
| showing up before he had much time to address the crash
| site (controllers activate local fire and search and rescue
| as a precaution when they hear a plane might go down in the
| wilderness and it didn't look like he was that far from
| civilization). That could easily lead to questions and
| discovery of evidence that would become a problem for him
| later, so I think it was an intentional decision to avoid
| having authorities notified in real-time. This is a cynical
| take obviously but it feels like he was preserving his
| ability to tamper with the incident site before anyone
| showed up who would know to preserve it for investigators.
|
| 2: I mean it's hard to say about some random airplane,
| obviously it's a very old aircraft but most of the critical
| parts will have been outright replaced much more recently
| than it was made. The FAA has requirements to keep an
| aircraft in use and they involve regular inspections and
| preventative maintenance, so older planes don't tend to
| fall out of the sky just because they're old. There are
| ways to skirt these rules but not a lot of them, and if
| it's found that he did (or the owner did or whatever) he
| will really get the book thrown at him just on that front.
| For the most part if an airplane is still registered to fly
| it's in as good of mechanical condition as any other plane,
| although sometimes older aircraft will get relegated to
| basically experimental status because of missing safety
| features (which puts in place restrictions like not flying
| over cities). The Taylorcraft he was in is certified as a
| standard aircraft though, nothing weird going on, except
| that I think it might fall into the grandfather sport pilot
| rules that allow certain standard aircraft to be called
| "light sport" if they meet the requirements but were
| certified as standard because the light sport class didn't
| exist yet at the time. That raises the question of whether
| Jacob had a sport pilot license or not since that program
| gets some criticism from a safety front, but from searching
| the airman registry it looks like he has a regular private
| certificate issued about a year and a half ago, on a third-
| class medical from 2018 which suggests maybe he started and
| stopped training but isn't super unusual.
|
| Also what YouTuber in their right mind leaves the part
| where they say "mayday mayday mayday" out of the video.
| It's just like the movies! If we believe that he worked the
| steps and just edited them out, it's a really bizarre
| creative decision for him to make. Hard for me to believe.
| jcrites wrote:
| If you have a pilot's license, which this man did, then you
| have been extensively trained on these things. Getting a
| pilot's license is not easy.
|
| As someone who has also been training for his own pilot's
| license, and has practiced engine-out situations while
| flying, his reactions look suspect. First of all, he has
| considerable altitude and could likely fly to a safe forced
| landing location. Second, he doesn't bank at all to provide
| better visibility into landing options. Third, we don't see
| him trying to restart the engine at all.
|
| (Unless this airplane is somehow so old that it doesn't
| have one) - all airplanes come with a quick reaction
| checklist which you keep right next at you, and are ready
| to pull out at a moment's notice. It provides instructions
| on exactly what to do in situations like an engine failure.
| From what I can see, I don't see him attempting to recover
| the engine. It would be poor airmanship to bail from the
| aircraft without at least running through the engine
| failure checklist.
|
| I'll let the FAA do their job before drawing any final
| conclusions but my impression as a student pilot is that
| this was planned and staged.
|
| Most light aircraft like the kind that he's flying have a
| glide slope of something like 1:6 with no power: meaning
| that you can travel quite a long distance with the altitude
| that he has in the video.
|
| Lastly, I will remark on comments made in the article
| itself. He is not wearing an emergency bail-out skydiving
| rig. He is wearing a full, redundant skydiving rig (the
| kind that come with two parachutes). This is highly unusual
| as full skydiving rigs are bulky and would be uncomfortable
| to wear in the cockpit of an airplane. Emergency bail-out
| rigs are considerably thinner since they are meant as
| actual backup systems.
|
| The guy's focus looking out the door, rather than focusing
| on flying the plane and looking for a landing spot (he has
| tons of altitude and potential to get to plenty of viably
| safe ones), gives me the impression that he's already made
| the decision to skydive out of the plane.
|
| Someone may have radio recordings. If we know the tail
| number of the aircraft (people were working it out in the
| article comments) then it may be possible to find the radar
| tracks showing the craft's last known location. If Internet
| sleuths want to dig in, then you can from there find the
| radio frequency that he'd be expected to be on, and if he's
| even attempting to make this seem like a real accident
| you'd hear him declare an emergency on the radio.
| Furthermore, if Air Traffic Control had a radar track on
| him, then they may have been able to guide him to a safe
| landing location given his altitude and knowledge of the
| aircraft's "best glide".
|
| To me it's highly suspicious that he's not showing any of
| the video angle of the cockpit interior, including what he
| should be/is doing to recover the aircraft and look for
| safe forced landing sites.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| All of this.
|
| My dad had a PPL (uk single engine pilots license). The
| checklist was on the dash, it was easy to understand.
|
| Even though I haven't flown with him since I was ten, I
| still vaguely remember what things you should generally
| do:
|
| 1) adjust trim for best glide
|
| 2) attempt restarts
|
| 3) find the best landing site, go to 2
| earleybird wrote:
| I still have a crystal clear memory of the time I was out in
| the practice area with my flight instructor and had what
| appeared to be a legitimate engine failure. I was all set to
| land in a stubble field and about 200' agl my instructor
| reached down and flipped the fuel selector from off to both.
| Never forgot that step in the checklist since. Learned
| several valuable lessons that day - practice til you don't
| miss anything . . . and keep an eye on your instructor :-)
| paul7986 wrote:
| Also ... who is his friend Johnny that died ... is there an
| obit ... a facebook or instragram page of johnny's that shows a
| long history of using those apps and that he passed. Are there
| any pics of him with this johnny on those apps?
| planesceptic wrote:
| Cursory Googling gives:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Strange_(adventurer)
|
| The pilot mentions snowboarding and such, seems plausible it
| was this man. Then again he's a California extreme sports
| type so might just well be some commonly named punker friend.
| In that world "Johnny $FAKE_NAME" is a trope.
| paul7986 wrote:
| The guy you linked to died in 2015. I guess you could be
| holding onto his ashes that long...but HA
| emilburzo wrote:
| There's definitely some suspicious stuff going on:
|
| - gave up waaaay too early compared to any pilot I've seen with
| an engine out
|
| - skydiving rig[1] (bulky, more/less easy to reach handles,
| steerable) instead of safety parachute[2] (light, one accesibile
| handle, none/little steering, not intended for high freefall
| speeds)
|
| - gopro on ~wrist~ selfie-stick
|
| - long and stable freefall before pulling
|
| - before jumping, he opens the door and looks straight down a few
| times, exactly like skydivers spot the landing zone before
| jumping
|
| Basically I feel like I've watched an experienced skydiver on a
| planned jump more than a pilot surprised by an engine out.
|
| [1]
| http://scrisc.com/image/cache/data/m2aad/tn_zoom_obrazek_88-...
|
| [2]
| https://www.chutingstar.com/media/catalog/product/cache/dc97...
| walrus01 wrote:
| In addition to everything you mentioned there's two fixed mount
| gopros, one on the wing aimed at the fuselage, and one on the
| tail aimed forward. Footage from these is seen in the first 15
| minutes of the video. Absolutely some kind of publicity stunt.
| progbits wrote:
| I could believe that if the channel had a history of that
| kind of footage. But I just skipped around a few past videos
| (actually most of the channel content is not about flying)
| and couldn't see one.
|
| I'll let FAA assign blame, but sure does seem like he added
| that angle because it seemed like a cool shot for the crash.
|
| Edit: Also, he doesn't seem to fly with a full parachute
| normally, for example: https://youtu.be/OnOrfJo2LE0?t=253
| Kye wrote:
| Alternate possibility: a skydiver had engine trouble during a
| non-skydiving flight and used his skydiving skills with the
| skydiving kit he had with him to escape the plane. Not to say I
| would be surprised if a YouTuber did a stunt for views, but
| there are other explanations. Even for the fakey stuff at the
| end. He _is_ a YouTuber, after all. Playing stuff up is habit
| for them.
| soneil wrote:
| It does leave me with two glaring questions.
|
| One, is where was he going? He states at the start the plan
| is to go paragliding in the mountains. Apparently without his
| paragliding kit. And up into the mountains with nowhere to
| land. And they're really not the wheels for bush landings, so
| I don't assume the plan was to land wild.
|
| He does have access to bush-appropriate craft though, he has
| an earlier video (this september) where he tells stories of
| how scary mountain flying can be, and the recurring craft in
| that video has the balloon-type tyres I expect from bush
| flying. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMrwPPMTCmM )
|
| But that earlier video raises the second question by
| repeatedly, consistently, shooting down his "I always fly
| with my chute on" statement.
|
| I don't want to be "we did it reddit", but I can see why
| questions are being asked.
| pageandrew wrote:
| Why would he have a wrist GoPro and a full skydiving rig on a
| non-skydiving flight?
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Recording the whole thing for other friends of the
| deceased, skydiving rig because it's what he's used to or
| had on hand. (Hypothetically of course)
| pc86 wrote:
| To try and draw a technical analogy, wearing a skydiving
| rig in this instance is really like buying your
| grandfather a high end gaming PC so he can use email
| because "that's what you're used to." It's plausible, in
| the sense that those words in that particular sort of
| make sense, but realistically nobody would ever do it.
|
| Even if you've got thousands of solo jumps, if you're
| doing a non-skydiving flight and feel the need to wear a
| parachute (very few pilots _ever_ do this), you 're just
| not going to wear a full skydiving rig. It's several
| times bulkier, it's harder to move in the cockpit, and it
| doesn't fit the purpose, which is to allow you to bail
| closer to the ground after running your engine failure
| checklist and not die.
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| I don't know a whole lot about skydiving or piloting (nothing
| in fact), but to each of your points:
|
| > gave up too early
|
| You and a couple other commenters mention this and not trying
| to land. Do we know how long it was before he gave up? Did he
| float 15 minutes before bailing after failing to restart, and
| that's just not included in the video? I understand landing on
| a small road would be possible in a plane like this, but since
| he's over mountains (3rd disclaimer, I don't know this area) -
| is it likely there would be roads available to him?
|
| > skydiving rig
|
| Is this because he is already a skydiver and/or was going
| paragliding (is this the same rig? Another thing I don't know).
| Would it make sense that this is just "what he has," as opposed
| to owning both a bail out and a sky diving kit?
|
| > gopro on wrist
|
| Wasn't it mounted on the plane dash, and he took it with him
| when he bailed?
|
| > long/stable freefall
|
| What is the norm for this? My thinking was this was to distance
| himself from the plane, which he later mentioned "came back
| around him" after he pulled.
|
| I don't have any opinion either way, but I'm curious to know
| more about why some of these details are "give aways" on it
| being fake
| stymaar wrote:
| Casual skydiver with no piloting experience here.
|
| > > skydiving rig
|
| > Is this because he is already a skydiver and/or was going
| paragliding (is this the same rig? Another thing I don't
| know). Would it make sense that this is just "what he has,"
| as opposed to owning both a bail out and a sky diving kit?
|
| Not really. Those are really different material, with really
| different design constraints. Skydiving parachutes open
| slowly so they aren't a good fit for an emergency situation
| because if you have to leave the plane too low, you're pretty
| much dead, and as long as your plane is still high in the
| sky, I guess there's little reason to leave it...
|
| > > long/stable freefall
|
| > What is the norm for this? My thinking was this was to
| distance himself from the plane, which he later mentioned
| "came back around him" after he pulled.
|
| AFAIK safety parachute don't open well at high fall speed
| (unlike skydiving ones) so you want to open it quickly and
| not enjoy your freefall.
| lumost wrote:
| Generally planes are good gliders. The only reason to bail
| out is if it is _impossible_ to find an airport /landing
| strip within glide range _and_ the aircraft is in a remote
| location where the aircraft crashing won't matter.
|
| Even in the latter case - there is limited benefit from
| jumping early vs. gliding towards civilization/possible
| landing sites.
|
| IIRC dealing with engine out/glide contingencies is part of
| pilot training and licensing in the US
|
| EDIT: the commenters on the FA also point out several
| distinct troubleshooting steps that are missing from the
| video including pre-engine failure signs + recovery steps,
| radioing ATC for guidance, flying above roads to ensure
| proximity to off field landing sites, and maintaining an
| updated list of off field landing sites along the route.
|
| At the very least, several flying mistakes were demonstrated.
| emilburzo wrote:
| > You and a couple other commenters mention this and not
| trying to land. Do we know how long it was before he gave up?
|
| It's true that there might be video cuts, but just visually
| guesstimating, there's very little altitude difference
| between when the propeller stops and when he jumps.
|
| > Is this because he is already a skydiver and/or was going
| paragliding (is this the same rig? Another thing I don't
| know). Would it make sense that this is just "what he has,"
| as opposed to owning both a bail out and a sky diving kit?
|
| Paragliding gear is even more bulkier than a skydiving rig,
| there's various types depending on the flying you want to do,
| but here's a typical example: https://qefimagazine.com/wp-
| content/uploads/sites/303/2018/0...
|
| Even if he is a skydiver and pilot, you want to use the right
| tool for the job
|
| - skydiving rig: larger, main handle is out of sight, has
| more snag points, built to stop you from terminal velocity
| (~120mph/200km) so the opening distance is higher
|
| - emergency parachute: small, usually just one handle which
| you can see and very hard to snag on anything, meant to be
| opened in under 3s after jumping, definitely not for terminal
| velocity kind of speeds
|
| > Wasn't it mounted on the plane dash, and he took it with
| him when he bailed?
|
| I re-watched the video now and you're right, it's a selfie
| stick in his hand, as he moves the camera from one hand to
| the other. Another "unlikely things a pilot does in an
| emergency" from my side then.
|
| > What is the norm for this? My thinking was this was to
| distance himself from the plane, which he later mentioned
| "came back around him" after he pulled.
|
| This ties in to the parachute type mostly, for rescue
| situations with emergency parachutes you want to pull ASAP,
| as the plane will usually fly away anyway (excepting maybe
| spins, but then it's pretty hard to exit anyway)
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| Vespasian wrote:
| You want to pull the cord a few seconds after exiting.
| 1...2...3...pull. Freefall is not the goal when bailing in
| case of an emergency.
| polack wrote:
| Especially in a case like this when you need to hike your
| way out. Then why not pull ASAP and then fly back towards
| civilization and look for the best possible landing spot.
|
| You can also see much better landing spots when he's
| hanging in the shoot that he could easily make. So why the
| hell did he end up in a bush like that?
|
| And why go look for the plane? Like just focus on getting
| to safety. Nothing in this video makes sense.
| Vespasian wrote:
| > And why go look for the plane?
|
| You would attempt to go back to civilization
| ASAP...Unless you'd need to, for example, reenable the
| magnetos/fuel switch in order to avoid "embarrassing"
| questions from the authorities.
| gambiting wrote:
| I mean, if you were far from civilization, it's probably
| best to wait for rescue next to the crashed plane, no?
| Much easier to spot from the air.
| akiselev wrote:
| _> I understand landing on a small road would be possible in
| a plane like this, but since he 's over mountains (3rd
| disclaimer, I don't know this area) - is it likely there
| would be roads available to him?_
|
| Comments in the article point out several viable landing
| spots are visible in the video including a (seemingly huge)
| dry river bed you can see just after the 5 minute mark.
|
| I'm not a pilot (working on it) but my understanding is that
| most crash landing fatalities occur when the plane clips
| something like a fence or a power line because they couldn't
| see it on the approach or they miscalculated the glide angle.
| This causes the plane to suddenly pitch down and fall like a
| rock but the stall speed for a 1940s Taylorcraft is around 40
| mph so as long as the pilot avoids obstacles, they can touch
| down and quickly dump enough kinetic energy so that the final
| impact is more like a slow speed auto collision on a
| residential street (minus airbags). The plane will be
| totaled, but the pilot will probably survive.
|
| It's even possible to land up a hill [1] but that area is
| relatively rocky so I don't know how safe that would be
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvKdfa8CoBw
| bjornsing wrote:
| I'd say it's understandable though that he prefers to jump.
| The risk of personal injury is probably much lower that
| way.
|
| Still many reasons to doubt that there even was an engine
| failure, but that's a separate question.
| chrononaut wrote:
| > Wasn't it mounted on the plane dash, and he took it with
| him when he bailed?
|
| I had the exact same thought. If you look at 3m53s in the
| video, he has both a camera in his hand and the other GoPro
| remains on the dash.
|
| > Is this because he is already a skydiver and/or was going
| paragliding (is this the same rig? Another thing I don't
| know). Would it make sense that this is just "what he has,"
| as opposed to owning both a bail out and a sky diving kit?
|
| Another set of comments discuss that traditionally pilots who
| might consider using a parachute generally bring a different
| type of parachute on board, and not one that would be used by
| normal skydivers:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29730298
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| > 3m53s
|
| Hmm, I see what you're saying - is that a second camera or
| a mount though?
|
| https://imgur.com/a/REa64jn
| ZanyProgrammer wrote:
| On the ground he sounds like he's faking how difficult of a go
| it is-I had to watch it with sound off because of all his
| complaining.
| amelius wrote:
| Yes, he says he needs water badly yet he's complaining loudly
| all the time. That's contradictory. If you need water and
| there is none, you better keep your mouth shut.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That's not a core competency of YouTubers.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I watched the video and I'm no expert, but I'll be amazed if this
| guy didn't crash his plane for views (and maybe insurance fraud).
| This situation _feels_ like the perfect disaster... almost like a
| low-budget Man vs Wild. I hope I 'm wrong.
| shimonabi wrote:
| Yeah, in the middle of the video I was expecting to see a hand
| to hand combat with a man in a bear costume.
| nefitty wrote:
| A tangent, but the movie Hardcore Henry is a first-person
| perspective action movie in that vein. Once I got over the
| initial motion sickness it was insanely riveting.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Martha Lunken lost her pilots license at 78 years old for flying
| under a bridge. She had 14,000 hours, worked for the FAA as a
| safety manager and ran a flying school for 28 years. This guy is
| toast.
|
| https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/04/18/lunken-airp...
| sephamorr wrote:
| My father used to fly with the RAF - he told me that old pilots
| who were about to lose their licenses due to age/health used to
| 'go out with a bang' flying under a bridge rather than quietly
| aging out of their license. IIRC, Tower Bridge in London was a
| favorite. This was decades ago, but I'm curious if the
| motivations were similar here.
| darrenf wrote:
| I don't know that it was a favourite, but there was certainly
| a famous incident in 1968 where a pilot decided to buzz Tower
| Bridge as a protest against the MoD not recognising the RAF's
| 50th anniversary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter
| _Tower_Bridge_inc...
|
| (My father was also ex-RAF, though his role was to jump out
| of planes - and teach others how to - rather than fly them)
| masklinn wrote:
| According to a followup article she'd also turned her ADS-B
| off before going under the bridge (which is apparently why
| her license was revoked rather than suspended).
|
| So the hypothesis seems credible at least.
| twhb wrote:
| Article says she only lost it for nine months, and has to
| retake the test if she wants it back.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > She had 14,000 hours, worked for the FAA as a safety manager
| and ran a flying school for 28 years
|
| Sounds like the FAA correctly decided that she should have
| known better. Especially given her age, she should have been
| dotting every i and crossing every t, because everyone knows
| the FAA comes down like a pile of bricks on elderly pilots.
| mmaunder wrote:
| They do?
| pc86 wrote:
| They might, but probably not for the reason(s) the GP is
| implying. I've definitely noticed a correlation between age
| and how quickly a pilot is to disregard safety, checklists,
| etc.
| amelius wrote:
| > ... worked for the FAA as a safety manager ...
|
| Sounds more like she was a liability.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| The linked article is a little odd to me, this story is kind
| of famous as she's a bit of a celebrity in the aviation world
| for her accomplished instruction career. The way I've always
| heard it is that she was aware that her pilot's certificate
| was going to be revoked soon anyway due to her advanced age,
| and so she flew under the bridge well aware that there was a
| possibility her certificate would be revoked for it. AOPA's
| article supports this theory, it says that she did fight the
| revocation but quotes her saying that she knew it would
| likely happen.
| temikus wrote:
| - Crashing an airplane
|
| - Recklessly endangering other people in the area (this was not
| far from established hiking trails)
|
| - Getting investigated by FAA
|
| All for barely 200k views on YouTube. Wow.
| johnnyApplePRNG wrote:
| Even hearing the synopsis, I don't even care to watch the
| video...
| walrus01 wrote:
| But it was all sponsored by _ridge wallet_ , I'm sure that
| totally paid off. /s
|
| At least not sponsored by RAID SHADOW LEGENDS
| missblit wrote:
| His youtube channel really sets the scene...
|
| "I got stuck on a chairlift", "Skydive ends in police car", "A
| helicopter left me in the ocean", "I Brought My Dog Flying (Bad
| Idea)"... just on and on.
|
| In the don't bring your dog flying one he starts with "this
| story may or may not be true", mentions that his gopro
| coincidentally didn't capture the critical moments, then talks
| about nearly crashing during takeoff and all his electronics
| going out and his dog panicking. So of course he alledgedly
| continued on without navigation into a no-fly zone instead of
| y'know turning around and landing.
| umvi wrote:
| Even if it is staged/fake... he only got 200k views out of it, so
| it wouldn't have even been worth the cost of the plane
| reidjs wrote:
| For some people, notoriety/fame is more important than money.
| Now he has a one-up story for parties. Instead of a rich
| nobody, now he's someone who survived a plane crash.
| Digory wrote:
| Insurance.
| gruez wrote:
| but if it's an insurance scam why bother filming it? Surely
| the investigation/evidence risk isn't worth 200k views?
| usefulcat wrote:
| Did he even own the plane?
| ksherlock wrote:
| The airplane is registered with the FAA under someone else's
| name.
| chrononaut wrote:
| > "Please fly with a parachute"
|
| Do pilots of small aircraft consider this in practice?
|
| (As someone who doesn't fly, it's obviously an interesting
| thought experiment as a means to survive, but I would imagine
| most pilots are going to be looking to recover or land the
| aircraft, not bail out of it?)
| Syonyk wrote:
| > _Do pilots of small aircraft consider this in practice?_
|
| No. Not unless it's required (doing aerobatics work requires
| it, which is rather more likely to overstress the aircraft than
| regular mostly straight and level flying).
|
| Small airplanes just don't fall apart in flight (exceptions
| like the Piper wing spar in training duty are just that -
| exceptions, and typically lead to a lot of exception
| requirements). They only come apart if you've already screwed
| up _a lot_ - usually lost control flying into a cloud without
| an instrument rating and ended up in a graveyard spiral (nose
| down, steep bank, you either hit the ground at speed or pull
| the wings off first, and then hit the ground at speed).
|
| I know a lot of GA pilots. I know _none_ who fly with
| parachutes.
|
| Things like the Cirrus airframe chute are interesting, and have
| saved some people, but Cirrus seems to attract a large number
| of people who outfly their skill level and get themselves into
| a lot of trouble. Sometimes the parachute helps, but they
| shouldn't have been there in the first place.
|
| General wisdom is that once the engine quits, the airframe is
| the insurance company's problem. However, an awful lot of the
| time, the pilot is able to perform a safe off-airport landing
| with minimal or no damage to the aircraft. You can safely land
| on roads, in fields, in random desert, etc, and walk away with
| a perfectly usable airplane. A typical single engine GA
| aircraft only lands at about 50mph. It really doesn't take much
| distance to get down and, if not stopped, at least slow enough
| that you don't really hurt yourself or the airframe if you go
| off the end of [whatever].
| CSSer wrote:
| It amazes me how many pilots I see on here when the topic
| comes up. Is it because this site is just popular enough to
| have a mix of everyone or is there some true demographic
| overlap here?
| tialaramex wrote:
| CAPS (the Cirrus parachute system) has a pretty impressive
| record. One of the ways Cirrus actually improved crash
| survivability for their aircraft was training pilots to
| _start_ by assuming they 're going to pull the chute. Might
| they be able to perform a successful engine-out landing? Yes.
| Might they be able to restart the engine? Also yes. But, by
| starting with the mindset "Plane failed, pull the chute" you
| don't fixate on these ideas past the point where the chute
| ceases to be available, so when that engine _won 't_ start,
| and you realise you can't find that long straight road you'd
| always imagined landing on, you still have enough altitude to
| pull the CAPS handle and live to make better choices another
| day.
|
| On their Vision Jets they also have emergency autoland, which
| is a blessing under FAA conditions where realistically some
| elderly pilots are going to die up there, leaving anybody
| else in the plane to get down on their own. Is it possible to
| talk a zero experience lay person down in a single engine
| plane when their pilot buddy slumped over suddenly in level
| flight? I wouldn't bet money on them even operating the radio
| correctly. But the emergency autoland can put that plane back
| on the ground pretty reliably, maybe even in time for the
| pilot to receive medical attention if they're merely
| incapacitated not yet dead.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I was doing a video shoot of a group of sky divers, but I was
| not getting out of the plane. I don't know the exact make/model
| of plane, but it was small. I was provided a parachute. I was
| told it was required by regulations that all in the plane
| needed one. The only training I was provided was a pointing to
| a handle on a chest strap and the phrase "if you find yourself
| outside of the airplane, this is the only thing you will want
| to be concerned".
|
| I did not enquire about what subsection of the regulations made
| this requirement or any of the qualifications of equipment. The
| pilot did have a parachute on as well.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| > I did not enquire about what subsection of the regulations
| made this requirement or any of the qualifications of
| equipment.
|
| I'm glad it turned out okay. Personally, I've learned over
| time that plenty of people will sacrifice _my_ safety or
| financial risk for _their_ convenience. Now I 'm rarely
| satisfied by them saying "Don't worry, it will be fine.
| Everyone does is this way." I'm glad that I've learned to
| stick up for myself under that kind of pressure.
| cmurf wrote:
| Literally never (former flight instructor). I have no idea how
| to operate a parachute. Not required knowledge!
|
| Occasionally a student pilot will inadvertently get into
| stall/spin (only allowed at a proper altitude) during stall
| training. The value of the student getting into the stall spin,
| and flight instructor calmly saying "what are you going to do?"
| is way higher than a parachute. Low altitude stall/spins are
| essentially not recoverable (in time) and you die. A parachute
| won't help you, you're not getting out of the plane soon
| enough. And a parachute as a fallback for proper stall/spin
| recovery technique to me is idiotic. Don't get in a stall spin
| low to the ground, and if you have the altitude you recover.
| Either you can't parachute out or you don't need to. That's the
| bottom line.
|
| Further, my confidence getting out of the plane with a
| parachute on is essentially zero. Whereas I know I can recover
| from a stall/spin. In fact, normally trimmed, most planes have
| positive static and dynamic stability, and will recover from a
| stall spin on their own if you just relax back pressure on the
| yoke. Which I'd have to do to parachute away from the plane. So
| hilariously, by jumping from the plane, the plane has a very
| good chance of recovering on its own, obviating the need to
| jump.
|
| Now for aerobatics training, it's different because plausibly
| you could stress the airplane enough to break it. At which
| point it might be uncontrollable enough you'd need to parachute
| out to survive. And flight over hazardous terrain is another
| plausible scenario although I'd argue that's just plain bad
| flight planning. WTF are you doing planning a flight where you
| can't glide to a road? I've done quite a lot of mountain flying
| and it's not difficult to plane this, at least in the lower 48.
| In Alaska and Canada, I'm sure there's a bit of a chuckle the
| idea of being in gliding distance of a road or some flat enough
| surface.
|
| But for the other 95% of flights going on, you're not
| considering a parachute. No. I've never worn one.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| For some small airplanes (I think every one by Cirrus), they
| actually have a parachute for the entire aircraft
| ZanyProgrammer wrote:
| I don't think it's normal for the overwhelming majority of
| pilots who fly single engine propeller planes. The Cirrus is
| very much an exception. Given the older ages of many people
| who are private pilots, they probably shouldn't be
| parachuting regardless.
| azalemeth wrote:
| No. Glider [sailplane] pilots routinely do, but only because of
| their habit of soaring together in thermals, and the increased
| risk of a mid-air collision. Larger and much newer (i.e. more
| expensive) general aviation aircraft sometimes have a
| "ballistic recovery system" fitted where the whole aircraft has
| a parachute -- Cirrus a/c are famous for this. Other than that,
| pilots dropping skydivers use them. And in some jurisdictions,
| aerobatics. And that's it.
|
| General aviation is about as safe as riding a motorbike. You're
| trained to not get into that situation in the first place --
| it's a very fishy video for many different reasons. We plan for
| eventualities! Pilots assume that everything _will_ fail and
| ideally don't let themselves get into a position where a
| parachute is needed. I've been in a glider (ASK-21) under tow
| from a tug plane (a Piper Pawnee) where it lost an engine
| cylinder at exactly "the worst point" on the way up. The pilot
| waved us off immediately, and we both executed our well-
| practiced "eventualities" plan for that airfield, with no
| incident whatsoever. An investigation showed that the engine
| casing on the Pawnee had cracked, despite recent inspection.
| dpifke wrote:
| They're required when performing aerobatics, or if you plan to
| open the door in flight. (e.g. pilots of skydiving planes need
| to wear one, even though they plan to land with the plane)
|
| But bail-out rigs are much smaller than normal skydiving rigs;
| the latter would be uncomfortable to wear while operating the
| plane. A bail-out rig is thinner, shaped more like a seat
| cushion, and contains only a single parachute, often a non-
| steerable round (which can reliably open much lower).
|
| Example of typical bail-out rig:
| https://www.summitparachutesystems.com/pilot-emergency-back-...
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > (e.g. pilots of skydiving planes need to wear one, even
| though they plan to land with the plane)
|
| This is not true. I've watched numerous youtube videos of
| pilots flying skydivers and I've never seen them wearing a
| parachute. Flight Chops, for example. The pilot in question
| in the videos was chief instructor for a flight safety
| training company.
| benlm wrote:
| I've been a skydiver for many years and as far as I know
| the FAA _does_ require the pilot to wear a bail out rig.
| Most skydiving pilots I know do wear them, but I have come
| across some pilots not wearing them in flight (even though
| their bail out rig was in the plane next to them).
| dpifke wrote:
| I thought this was required by the FAA advisory circular
| governing parachute operations (https://www.faa.gov/documen
| tLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... - PDF), but after just
| looking, I now think it was part of the supplemental type
| certificate (https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_a
| pprovals/stc/) or 337 approval for the door modifications
| on the planes at the drop zone where I used to work.
|
| Thus, it probably depends on the aircraft, and possibly the
| process by which the owner got FAA approval to modify the
| door.
| arch-ninja wrote:
| This guy sounds like he's fishing for attention, the phrase "I
| didn't think I would have the courage to share..." is something
| 10-year-olds think up for attention. It drips vanity and a
| covered ego the size of the Hindenburg.
| bartread wrote:
| I mean, he literally says that he immediately reported the crash
| to the FAA and NTSB at the beginning of the video.
|
| It's certainly both fascinating and terrifying to watch, but
| wouldn't the FAA investigate, regardless of whether or not the
| crash was "controversial", whatever that actually means in the
| context of this incident (disclaimer: not a pilot)?
|
| Also, isn't the "controversy" here basically a bunch of armchair
| critics/commenters?
| jrootabega wrote:
| Seems like a stunt on MTVs Jackass.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| Biggest guilty before proven innocent aspect: He's a Youtuber.
| xzcvczx wrote:
| i am not a pilot but i am a skydiver so i am not going to comment
| on what he did/didn't do to keep the plane in the air. i watched
| the video and the one thing that makes it slightly more
| believable for me is the headset still on in (part of) freefall.
| it could easily cause problems on opening, and wouldn't be too
| suspicious to remove it if you were getting out planned or
| unplanned.
| colechristensen wrote:
| The FAA/NTSB investigates basically every crash, they do a good
| job. I doubt they will react kindly to crashing on purpose for
| views.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > The FAA/NTSB investigates basically every crash
|
| No. The NTSB investigates significant accidents (either
| commercial operations or passengers involved.)
|
| There's an average of 400 GA accidents per year, so about one a
| day.
|
| If two CFIs climb into a Piper and crash, it probably won't be
| investigated. Add a passenger, then the NTSB gets interested.
|
| Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Yeah, parent commenter has no experience in any aviation
| matters. I've been in a "crash" (off runway excursion, no
| injuries, no damage save a slightly bent landing gear door
| flap.)
|
| The "investigation" consisted of the airport director
| speaking with the PIC and passenger (me.) His sole question
| to me was "were you operating the aircraft?"
|
| There are a lot of stories of pretty terrible decisions made
| by GA pilots and little/nothing happening from the FAA. And
| then do stupid shit like going after Bob Hoover's license
| because he was too old for their tastes.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| The details are nuanced by the definitions in the CFR, the
| details of the reporting requirements (NTSB must do
| _something_ with everything reported to it but that may be
| minimal), and the NTSB 's authority to delegate more minor
| investigations to FAA flight standards. Lots of people in the
| thread are hashing these out. But it suffices to say that
| when an airplane is seriously damaged or people are seriously
| injured, the NTSB is obligated to investigate. This dates way
| back to before the NTSB existed. In straightforward
| situations that sometimes consists only of the regional
| office making some phone calls and then preparing a two-page
| summary (you see a LOT of these two-page summaries for GA
| incidents, it's basically a form letter), but that's under
| the assumption that their cursory review doesn't turn up
| anything interesting. You can already find this incident in
| the NTSB's investigation database, WPR22LA049.
| shkkmo wrote:
| The NTSB website says:
|
| "The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent
| Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every
| civil aviation accident in the United States and significant
| accidents in other modes of transportation - railroad,
| highway, marine and pipeline."
|
| So if the NTSB is not investigating every civil aviation
| crash, then they are failing in their congressional mandate.
| If you have evidence of this, you should probably contact
| your congress person or a newspaper with the details.
| galago wrote:
| I wonder how they define a "civil aviation accident"? In
| places like Alaska, people routinely land at sites which
| are not airports. If someone has a hard landing, there
| could be some damage to the aircraft with no injuries. Do
| they investigate every one of those? It might be there are
| a lot of minor "accidents" that fall into grey areas. I
| don't know if that's the case, I'm actually curious if
| anyone knows.
| p_l wrote:
| _Accident_ , _Incident_ and _Serious Incident_ have
| explicit definitions in civil aviation, and are also
| graded internally and thus might have different scope of
| investigation.
|
| A planned landing in terrain, if it caused no injuries
| but caused enough damage to aircraft to prevent takeoff
| without repair, would be classified as accident, but its
| investigation might be very brief depending on the event
| in question.
|
| Essentially if you have an "occurence", you're required
| to report it to NTSB, which in turn will grade it and
| decide if you need even a cursory interview.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Not quite correct. You have to report any accident and
| any of a specific list of serious incidents to the NTSB.
| You do not have to report other incidents or occurrences.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.5
|
| Also note: a landing that required repairs would not
| necessarily be an accident either, assuming no serious
| injuries occurred. "Engine failure or damage limited to
| an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent
| fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes
| in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or
| propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels,
| tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are
| not considered "substantial damage" for the purpose of
| this part." (Those minor damages, even if they made the
| airplane require repairs prior to further flight, are not
| enough to make that landing an accident.)
| krisoft wrote:
| "SS 830.2
|
| Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the
| operation of an aircraft which takes place between the
| time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of
| flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in
| which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in
| which the aircraft receives substantial damage. "
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2
|
| Later on the same page you can see how they define
| "substantial damage" and "civil aircraft" too.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| That sounds like an incident, not an accident. They are
| treated differently.
|
| > [1] Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated
| with the operation of an aircraft which takes place
| between the time any person boards the aircraft with the
| intention of flight and all such persons have
| disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or
| serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives
| substantial damage.
|
| Substantial damage is then defined as:
|
| > Substantial damage means damage or failure which
| adversely affects the structural strength, performance,
| or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which
| would normally require major repair or replacement of the
| affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to
| an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent
| fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes
| in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or
| propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels,
| tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are
| not considered substantial damage for the purpose of this
| part.
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2
| p_l wrote:
| In most countries, depending on severity of the event, the
| agency responsible for crash investigation can delegate
| investigation of the event to another entity.
|
| Mind you, this is usually done for _incidents_ , not
| accidents. However, sometimes an accident is clearly due to
| illegal operation, and sometimes that means that a) matter
| is passed directly to prosecution b) investigation is
| closed without conclusion due to explicit disregard of
| safety mechanisms, thus making further investigation
| useless to the purpose of aircraft accident investigation
| (under common rules from ICAO that NTSB also operates when
| it comes to aircraft)
| sokoloff wrote:
| Not every aircraft crash is an aircraft accident.
|
| The definition of an aircraft accident is a matter of
| federal law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2
|
| An aircraft crash where the aircraft suffers minor damage
| and no one is seriously injured is, by definition, not an
| aircraft accident, but rather an incident. (This incident
| is definitely an aircraft accident, of course, whether or
| not it was accidental. :) )
|
| There is prior art for non-accidental plane crashes:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhoxaJTzPu4
| shkkmo wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification of terminology. "Crash" is
| indeed a bit ambiguous as a layman's term (though I would
| personally argue that incidents that cause minimal damage
| are generally not considered crashes.) Indeed, I think
| there are even many accidents that don't rise to the
| level of what I consider a crash (such as when my dad's
| friend bent a prop by briefy tipping his plane onto its
| nose when landing on a gravel bar to pickup a load of the
| moose they had killed. While they did fly it out by
| cutting/sanding all the prop blades to match and reducing
| weight, it would seem to easily match the definition of
| "significant damage" but I still wouldn't call it a
| crash.)
|
| I believe the claims made by the GP are still clearly
| wrong, given that they do use the term "accident" and
| stipulate criteria for investigation that (commercial or
| passengers) that have no basis in the definition your
| provided or the NTSB's mandate.
| [deleted]
| natch wrote:
| Repeated "oh my gosh" and "oh my godsh" came off as the biggest
| fakey red flags here. Clear sign it was a performance; he was
| more worried about offending some sensitive people than he was
| actually stressed out.
| shoo wrote:
| youtube demonetizes videos that use language that advertisers
| do not wish to be associated with.
|
| so, arguably less about offending viewers and more about
| keeping the advertising revenues flowing
| [deleted]
| paul7986 wrote:
| TikTok is a cancer to society ... you see so many staged.. mean
| things pulled on innocent people either working.. shopping at a
| store, pranks, etc that i loathe most of it. Reels is the same
| and both pay creators for content like Youtube does.
|
| All such people should be made an example of get huge fines or do
| jail time for creating fake content that harms others for their
| financial gain or in this instance forces the FAA to spend money
| on investigation only to find it was staged.
| eCa wrote:
| Really looking forward to commentary from Mentour and blancolirio
| on this. Judging from Mentour's comment on the video I think it's
| an understatement to say that he thinks it is correct for the FAA
| to investigate...
| Laforet wrote:
| Just wanna chime in and say that Mentour has been doing a great
| job with his videos.
|
| There is a lot of low effort air crash videos on YouTube that
| does not do much more than reading off the official report or
| the script of an ACI episode. Mentour is one of the few that
| goes beyond that by injecting actual professional insight into
| the events.
| mmaunder wrote:
| They should arrest him for littering.
| thrill wrote:
| That aircraft could land on a driveway, much less the miles of
| dirt roads visible all around.
| Syonyk wrote:
| Seriously. Your average dirt road is probably comparable to
| some of the runways it used to fly off when it was new.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-29 23:00 UTC)