Hacker News Reader

Comment by emilburzo | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

The strongest tell for me was that he hiked first to the crashed plane. The broken plane isn't going to save him, ergo, by going there first he suggests he knows he knows that he does not need saving. The second tell is he didn't show the part where he declared a mayday to air traffic control, or radio anybody. Either it didn't happen, or the exchange explains why he knew he needed to hike rather than wait. The third is where he encounters the driver at the end and buries the lede-- plane crash-- instead making it sound at first like an emergency landing.

From the safety of my armchair, it feels reasonable to go to a known landmark? It is a lot easier for search and rescue to find a crashed plane that a guy wandering on the ground. Additionally, the plane might contain salvageable food, water, medkit, etc.

All else being equal yes. But all else is far from equal here. The plane is on a slope in the brush. There is a clear flat riverbed nearby. When those are your choices, you definitely want to pick the riverbed because that's where water the the path to civilization are.

And indeed he did eventually get himself to the riverbed. If he'd just landed there in the first place he would have shaved many hours off the hike and avoided nearly falling off a cliff.

In the video it sounded like he thought the plane had a water jug in it and was talking about how thirsty he was. That part was reasonable to me. But as a non-pilot the flight itself was pretty sketchy.

It looks like he ditched it on the hurricane deck, that's as close to a landmark as you'll get in that range. It's more or less the midpoint of a 20-mile wide mountain range, pretty sure he could've glided far enough to get to plains on either side.

It's worth noting that there's decent cell service there if you just hike up to a ridge. Fair number of other hikers out on the trails too, his odds of bumping into somebody within a couple hours was high.

It's obvious why he returned to the plane: to collect the cameras and put the settings back that he used to stall out the plane.

Why wouldn't he just have done that before bailing out?

The camera on the plane was there to film the crash, for his video, so it's pretty straightforward why he would not remove it before bailing out.

As far as the controls, it just depends on what was done. At some point he started filming, and he couldn't change any controls after that without giving it away for free.

He made a comment about how he was expecting a water bottle in the plane. Seems reasonable to me.

Isnt that what survivorman and bear grylls do in every episode?

Both make it abundantly clear that their "survival" situation is artificially contrived (i.e.: traveled into the target area with acknowledge purpose of concocting a "survival" scenario, have safety teams either on-site or nearby, have a decent idea how to get out if not an actually arranged plan).

Seems this guy is claiming it was a genuine malfunction/crash/survival case, while giving numerous "tells" that it wasn't. Deliberately disabling and abandoning a functioning aircraft in-flight over potentially habitated/occupied territory (i.e.: it's gonna crash somewhere, and perpetrator doesn't know it won't kill someone) is actionably reckless endangerment.

Putting all of that aside, do you not see any logic in getting items from the plane that could be used in an actual real survival situation? For example a first aid kit, or emergency tarp?

The concern isn't the normal emergency items normally in the vehicle (airborne or other), it's the other stuff that normally wouldn't be there if there wasn't a decided intent to use it during the trip.

I'm very much into survival/preparedness, and am quite aware of gear that stereotypically one would, or would want to, take into a genuine survival situation but in no way would actually haul around on a regular basis for the unlikely chance of actually needing it - stuff that I would be quite suspicious of should the "victim" actually have handy.

For this case, many other comments here are startled about the presence of a full sport parachute, already being worn, during an ostensibly mundane "just traveling" trip ... along with wrist-mounted GoPro, selfie stick, etc.

> Both make it abundantly clear that their "survival" situation is artificially contrived (i.e.: traveled into the target area with acknowledge purpose of concocting a "survival" scenario, have safety teams either on-site or nearby, have a decent idea how to get out if not an actually arranged plan).

Worse than conceived. Totally fake.

Bear Grylls filmed an episode near where I live. It was some how to survive a white water disaster whatever. He had a scene where he was crying about missing his family, and how many other people in his exact spot would be dead this far out in the wilderness… issue is, I know exactly where he was, and you can hear the highway from there, it’s literally just out of scene.

Grylls fakes it.

Stroud doesn’t.

Going to the wreckage is a reasonable idea. There will be an ELT in there which is what a rescue crew will come looking for. Plus it's easier to spot from the air than a lone person. And maybe something useful survived the crash.

That said, it's an incredibly fake stunt video.

Yeah but once you make it to the plane the best bet would be staying in that area after activating the ELT, perhaps only making slight excursions in search of water or food.

The plane even if it didn't have an ELT would be a great beacon for rescuers that works come looking after he didn't arrive back on time.

Great point! My grandfather's B-17 caught on fire back in the 1940's flying over California and the crew all had to bail out. They definitely did NOT hike back to the crash site.

Further, his video conveniently cuts to the tail camera when the engine goes out, making it impossible to see if he manually cut fuel, mags, etc (which I strongly suspect he did).

We also never see him even attempt to restart the engine - let alone glide to a reasonable area to land (at the altitude he was at, he had time to think before jumping as a last resort - he also crashed the plane near what appears to be a road, which would have been sufficient to land such a small aircraft).

Instead, he immediately opens the door and starts looking below himself... with his conveniently already strapped-on parachute... and his go-pro selfie-cam. Without even attempting to call mayday or restart, he jumps.

He jumps without even radioing his location on UNICOM or closest airfield freq - made evident by his repeated claims he has no phone service and therefore can't reach help (I suspect he was hoping this entire video would avoid notice of authorities). He had plenty of time to radio for help and attempt a restart at the altitude he was at.

Everything about this video screams fake crash.

I hate to second guess a pilot in a real situation, but nothing about this video makes me feel it was a real situation. Seems like this youtuber was trying to get some easy views and that sweet, sweet monetization. What a shame, really gives the aviation community a bad rep if there's folks out there like him.

Agree 100%, easy to restart, radio unicom, and glide to possible safety, it's even windmilling so unless there really was no fuel... but I just can't fathom someone would do it for the views.

Scary, and does youtube even pay that much? Isn't it like $1000 per million views?

> Isn't it like $1000 per million views?

That ($1 cpm) would be relatively low.

Average cpm is $2. Depending on numerous variables, this can go higher — $7-$13 is average cpm for certain high value niches.

But at this time, the video only has 165,000 views. Unless we're really early and it's going to go viral and blow up to millions overnight... it seems like it was not the smartest of plans.

It’s not something I would do for a number of reasons.

In terms of cost effectiveness — that is, leaving out the ethics aspect — this gambit could make sense if he converts those views somewhere else in a sales funnel (not sure he has one). As a simple example, increasing his subscribers will likely raise the floor for his views of future videos. A more complex example might be using that video as a lead generator for a gofundme.

I haven’t really looked into the economics of this particular niche, but a savvy marketer could turn those views into additional money by using it as a feeder into a sales funnel of some sort.

He should have tried a bikini try on.

And, in any event, it compounds. Views are great, but subscribers are repeat viewers (and juice the algorithm).

So 100k new subscribers could be worth millions of views over a one year period.

> but I just can't fathom someone would do it for the views.

Do have a look at his other video titles. He seems to do a fair bit of unfathomable stuff.

Completely agree. No visible engine restart attempt. Very little time between engine out and bailing out. It's not clear he attempted to pitch for best glide. Complains of no phone service but presumably he could have gotten a call out to ATC while in the air. He could have tried to put in down on the river bed.

It does seem like an expensive way to get monetization.

It does seem like an expensive way to get monetization.

I'm sure he put in an insurance claim . . .

If he did intentionally cut the engine, it might well be obvious from an inspection of the wreckage, so even more reason to go to the wreckage first.

I doubt it. There's no need to do anything detectable to turn off the engine. There are three things he could have flipped to kill the engine, then put back in the same position (mags, fuel valve, mixture). Then, it's unlikely that a crashed airplane is going to be in such good condition you can prove nothing was wrong with it.

I would hazard fuel exhaustion due to the shape of the crash site.

I think that if he put the controls back the engine could have restarted when air drag started turning propeller during steep descent?

Part of checklist for shut down before emergency landing is to close mixture, close throttle, turn off master & magnetos.

So those can be expected to be closed if he done things right in a real emergency too.

I’m curious to see what the investigators will use to debunk this.

You’re right. If you put anything I listed to “off” to kill the engine and put it back to “on”, windmilling would have restarted it.

But, as your sibling comment notes, turning those things to “off” when you can’t restart the engine is normal. So I still doubt the airplane would be conclusive (and really won’t be since he visited it after the crash).

And even if the fuel valve was off and even if you could prove that he turned it off in flight and never turned it on, that alone doesn’t prove it was intentional. People have turned off fuel valves by accident and failed to check them during the engine failure.

One thing that’s misleading about this whole comment section is the skill level assumed in your average Private Pilot. The “pilots are drilled from day one…” is a bit amusing to read as someone who did the drilling for a few years.

But the “seriously, no one wears chutes” are more accurate. That being said, I did just sell a parachute to a pilot who said he wanted it “just in case”, so who knows.

> If you put anything I listed to “off” to kill the engine and put it back to “on”, windmilling would have restarted it.

I cannot speak for the particular airframe / engine / propeller configuration here, but speaking from personal experience (supervised training) one can stop the engine from windmilling on a Cessna 150 Aerobat by pulling the mixture back an slowing down. Once it is stopped, you have to dive quite steeply to start it rotating again.

With regard to parachute-wearing, it is the usual practice for glider pilots, mainly because the desire to fly in rising air tends to lead to flying in close proximity to other gliders.

This is a somewhat ambiguous response, so, for the record, Let me say that this looks suspiciously like a staged crash - as did that Beech Bonanza ditching off Santa Cruz some months ago. Even if Any one thing might be explained, each story is just one such thing after another.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/on-video-guy-ditche...

I think it did windmill in the video.

Good point on glider pilots, forgot about them. Friend of a friend used his after a midair. He said he had doubted he’d be able jump if he needed to. But when he saw that long wing folding up towards him, he was out before he knew it.

Frim 1:13 onwards in the video (prior to the pilot bailing out), the propeller is stopped.

he could have put the controls back when he visited the wreckage

Despite other reasons for the circumstance to come under scrutiny, these arguments from pilots or enthusiasts are all so weak. It's an edited video. There is no chronology. There is nothing from us to glean from "a cut to the tail camera". We have no idea how long any of this sequence lasted.

The only one that will know is the FAA if they issue a subpoena and get to see the full footage from all sources, not saying conversation isn't warranted, just pointing out that we don't know if any of this stuff happened or not.

He edited it for what would be interesting, not to appease pilots mentally checking a box.

I agree with you; the other day I watched Moxie Marlinspike's video zine he produced almost 20 years ago ("Hold Fast" [0]), and I was really moved by it. But, I could also throw the same shade of doubt about every aspect that is not shown to question its authenticity. But, alas, sometimes people are living richer, fuller lives with fewer expenses.

[0]: https://vimeo.com/15351476

> this youtuber was trying to get some easy views

I think the word "easy" means something different to you than it does to me. Even staged, I wouldn't call what he did easy. But it certainly seems like a way to get guaranteed views!

He said he had water in the plane but couldn’t find it.

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

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

From the video it doesn't even look like he called atc. But to answer your question, yes. He would tell atc where he's going and where he can be found.

The thing about engine out situations is that it's not that hard to get to civilization before you bail out. These light aircraft glide great, he should have been able to ditch (or land) closer to a town or road.

Are these switches really robust enough that "flipped during crash" isn't a likely explanation you could give to the authorities?

Needing to return to the crash site to destroy the evidence feels like a very forced narrative to me (though I know nothing about flying).

some are. The mixture nob for example could easily survive this especially in a slow splane like this.

But I agree it's not the strongest argument

Wouldn’t you want to go back to the plane to see if anything survived the crash that will be useful to help you get back to civilization?

Radio, food, water, warmer clothes, first aid kit, and weapons are all things that are plausible to have in the plane that would be nice to have when trying to either hike out or get help.

There's a simple explanation for both. Freefall is more dramatic and you want to be low enough that you get some good shots of the plane crashing into terrain for your video. Both help increase view count.

Landing in a bush and climbing out from bramble is also more dramatic.

Unless you're a skydiver by trade in an emergency situation and you fall back on what is familiar to you?

Let's say instead they did pull the chute immediately after bailing and then used the extra altitude to sail back to safety. Would you be more inclined to believe the stunt was real?

> 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

> 3m53s

Hmm, I see what you're saying - is that a second camera or a mount though?

https://imgur.com/a/REa64jn

Its a GoPro Fusion 360° we never see any video from.

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.

> IIRC dealing with engine out/glide contingencies is part of pilot training and licensing in the US

Recently got my Private Pilot License, emergency descents and planning for emergency landings is definitely part of the check ride.

And early, way earlier than I expected as a student. In my flight club at least they taught you engine failure explicitly early on, then practiced it frequently throughout rest of the lessons and training. I. E. My instructor would literally pull out throttle during a different planned exercise which was my signal for "oh crap I guess we are doing engine fail sim now" :-D

There are very very very few situations where I'd imagine trusting my parachuting skills over my Cessna gliding skills. That thing is meant to protect you all the way down.

Congratulations on the pilot’s license!

recently got gifted a plane ride, it was a something something pioneer, a low two seaters, and a dead stick landing was part of the routine, and was almost menial.

> 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.

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)

> Another "unlikely things a pilot does in an emergency" from my side then.

Well, these youtubers are strange people. It doesn’t strike me as that odd he’d consider his fame before his safety.

The alternative scenario is also that he crashed a plane just for views; grabbing video gear is rather sane in comparison.

> - 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

Are you sure about that? Then you would have to bring some planes to stall speed first in order be able to bail out. Sounds like a huge flaw…

Softie parachutes indicates that the effectively risk free bail out conditions are 1000ft AGL and 100MPH, with a lower speed requiring more altitude. They don't specify a max speed, but it's worth pointing out that 100MPH is pretty slow comparatively.

> 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

Edit: Forgot to add, with 40mph stall speed you only really need about a football field worth of space to safely land without totaling the plane, with a decent safety margin to boot.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvKdfa8CoBw

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.

I'm not a pilot so I have no clue what is or isn't understandable. But based upon what other pilots are saying, it appears to not be a reasonable reaction in this case.

Beyond that, if you're flying an airplane, I think you have some responsibility to not jump out at the first sign of trouble.

Beyond that, if you're flying an airplane, I think you have some responsibility to not jump out at the first sign of trouble.

As the saying goes, "The captain goes down with the ship."

> Beyond that, if you're flying an airplane, I think you have some responsibility to not jump out at the first sign of trouble.

I agree, and in the video it looks like he abandons ship very quickly. But there could be a section of video edited out.

EDIT: It doesn’t help his moral case that he’s carrying a selfie stick though, and is filming himself as his plane is potentially landing on someone.

Licensed private pilot here. Absolutely not understandable at all. Planes are natural gliders. The only reason to jump out of a plane is if you have 0 chance of landing it safely. Unless you have no other recourse, land the plane.

I don’t know if all pilots are trained to do this, but my instructor literally turned off the engine multiple times during training and had me land without power. Whoever made this video did it for show; incredibly irresponsible.

I’m not a licensed pilot, so I’m just arguing from my intuitive understanding of the risks involved.

> The only reason to jump out of a plane is if you have 0 chance of landing it safely.

I understand that’s the responsible professional attitude. But if it was me in that plane and I saw a 10% risk of serious bodily harm / death in trying to land and a 0.1% risk in jumping, it would be tempting to jump.

As I understand it the landing attempt here would probably be on a dry river bed or a dirt road. That’s not the same thing as turning back to an airfield. There’s serious risk involved.

> I’m not a licensed pilot, so I’m just arguing from my intuitive understanding of the risks involved.

> But if it was me in that plane and I saw a 10% risk of serious bodily harm / death in trying to land and a 0.1% risk in jumping, it would be tempting to jump.

I think your intuition is wildly off base w.r.t. the risks of general aviation and sky diving.

If you exclude experimental aircraft like fighter jets and kit builds, general aviation isn't much more dangerous than riding a motorcycle. The leading causes of death are misjudging the weather and miscalculating fuel because most of a pilot's training isn't in how to fly a plane but how to troubleshoot it midair or land safely if that is impossible.

An unplanned skydive in a mountainous area in Southern California during Santa Ana season? Now, that's risky. (Edit) For perspective, Nevada sky diving companies won't even jump over Black rock desert because of the wind and that's a desert so big and flat that it's used for amateur rocketry in the 100k+ feet range.

> If you exclude experimental aircraft like fighter jets and kit builds, general aviation isn't much more dangerous than riding a motorcycle.

Sure, but now we’re talking about a situation where your engine has already failed… That’s very different.

> Sure, but now we’re talking about a situation where your engine has already failed… That’s very different.

What to do on engine failure is one of the first things they teach you after basic flight lessons. After that many instructors will even simulate surprise engine failure by cutting off the engine at random while the student is trying to learn about some other emergency situation. Engine failure is part of the check rides every pilot needs to pass to get a license.

You said one of the leading causes of death was miscalculating fuel. I.e., engine failure. (I assume you don't mean weight miscalculation)

By that logic the only cause of death in GA is "plane hit the ground."

When the engine stops working because it doesn't get enough fuel because there's nothing left in the tanks, the root cause is not putting enough fuel in the tanks, not engine failure.

> By that logic the only cause of death in GA is "plane hit the ground."

Here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29731719 it seems like you are essentially saying "engine failure is not too dangerous; one of the leading causes of death is running out of fuel".

I did not say running out of fuel should be formally classified as an engine failure. It was more that I supposed that the effect on the airworthiness of their airplane should be approximately the same whether the engine stops due to failure or running out of fuel. So that makes your comment appear contradictory. Hence my prompting for an explanation, I'm quite willing to believe I misunderstood something of your post or about aviation so I didn't intend for it to sound glib.

My apologies, this discussion leans heavily into federally mandated jargon that has very recently been drilled into my head and it's all to easy to forget how overloaded the words are - as an SWE in my day job the irony is almost palpable.

I'm only a flightsimmer but even fighter jets can probably make it to somewhere with the kind of energy he had. A Space Shuttle or a Blackbird might have been a different story. If you're busting through Autobahn at 240mph and the car suddenly goes neutral, trucks coming up behind is going to be quite low on the list of immediate dangers.

I live not too far from where this was supposed to take place, and November is not a bad time for winds. If you go further East (or South as people say here) that may change, but Lompoc -> Mammoth ending somewhere described as "50 miles N of Santa Barbara" doesn't seem like it would take you there.

I only pointed out the Santa Ana winds to emphasize the "unplanned" portion. Even a 10-20 mph gust is enough to bash a skydiver against a rock outcrop, and (in my experience) that's the equivalent of a light morning breeze in mountainous regions.

I think it's pretty obvious this was staged and he very carefully chose the landing spot.

Your intuition here is wrong. Probably the better way to think of it: in a car crash, would you rather be the person in the car or the pedestrian?

While I have never flown a plane nor parachuted, my understanding is that the maneuverability options of both are going to be roughly equivalent, so that either option will have roughly the same ability to choose the site of collision and (for small aircraft) even roughly the same speed at collision. And that makes the choice down to having a layer of metal that can absorb some of the impact for your versus having to be in the exactly correct position to absorb the impact energy best with your body.

Unless cars have ejection seats it's not the same comparison. Pedestrians in this case are potential hikers or people in the area.

Another licensed pilot here (but not a skydiver).

I would have attempted a controlled crash over gentle mountainous terrain like this. You want to dump the aircraft's kinetic energy rapidly but not suddenly -- gliding into the side of a cliff will kill you, but keeping the airplane pointed forward while shearing off the wheels and crumpling the nose is fine. It looked like there were several areas where this would have been relatively safe to attempt. You don't need a nice flat field for a survivable crash.

After you're on the ground, you also need to be able to survive (possibly for days), and then be visible enough to be found and rescued. Staying with the aircraft is usually considered the safer approach, both for visibility as well as the emergency gear that you're supposed to be carrying in the back.

The only terrain where I'd seriously consider bailing out (assuming I had a parachute) is dense forest with no clearings. Surviving a crash like this is incredibly difficult -- you hit a redwood, shear off your wings, and then plummet 250 ft to your death. It'll be hard to spot the wreckage of a small plane from above. Even with a parachute, there's a serious risk of getting stuck in a tree (or impaled by branches). There are basically no good options here.

In short, mountains aren't so bad. But be super careful flying over forests. If this video was a stunt, there's a reason why he decided to stage it over mountains rather than a forest.

> I would have attempted a controlled crash over gentle mountainous terrain like this. You want to dump the aircraft's kinetic energy rapidly but not suddenly -- gliding into the side of a cliff will kill you, but keeping the airplane pointed forward while shearing off the wheels and crumpling the nose is fine. It looked like there were several areas where this would have been relatively safe to attempt. You don't need a nice flat field for a survivable crash.

This sounds pretty scary though… If you were an experienced skydiver, with your gear on, don’t you think you’d be tempted to jump instead?

>you were an experienced skydiver, with your gear on

You would controlled crash the plane because you would know that jumping over mountainous terrain with vegetation is a great way to break a bone which is going to make getting the heck out of there really, really suck.

A plane like pictured is going to stall at like 40mph so that will be your approximate crash speed, which is really damn survivable in an aircraft with a 4pt belt to keep you off the hard bits of the cabin.

Risk of some bruising and maybe a concussion beats risk of broken ankle any day.

No, even then it’s the wrong call. You’re forgetting what happens when you land after jumping out of the plane if it’s not staged. No cell service, no epirb, no flares, no first aid kit, etc. One broken leg because you floated into the dense trees and you’re dead.

Experienced sky divers get to choose their jump points and landing sites. They don’t get thrown out of the plane at an arbitrary time with no preselected landing side.

I think the risk of dying in a crash are still too high. If I had a parachute and a knew there was nobody else who would be hurt if I bailed out, I think the parachute is safer. The plane is going to crash either way.

You're in a metal shell in the plane. Even the small trees can impale you under a parachute.

I used to work in SAR. I've seen crash sites where tree branches punctured through helicopter blades.

It's not so cut and dry as you might think.

I have plenty of hours flying planes (unlicensed - while doing aerial work and playing around to kill time thanks to my instructor pilot), and have a limited amount of experience skydiving.

One thing in these comments I haven't seen said: F*K that plane. Off runway landing has significant risk. Parachute is so close to 0.0 risk that you do it just for fun on a day off. I wouldn't do an off runway landing just for fun on my day off.

The thing is staged, no question. The guy knows he messed up and will pay for it. But if I had to decide between my life and protecting a bunch of metal tubes and (fabric | aluminium, not sure), I know what I would do.

As a skydiver, I think it’s important to note he didn’t have an emergency chute but a regular sport one. They are extremely maneuverable and if there is a small clearing or riverbed nearby (he looked down for such a thing) the risk of injury is nearly non existent for an experienced skydiver.

The whole thing looks planned, but if I were in the same situation I’d definitely be jumping over trying to crash land a cheap plane in a riverbed or clearing.

>>"But if it was me in that plane and I saw a 10% risk of serious bodily harm / death in trying to land and a 0.1% risk in jumping, it would be tempting to jump."

Of course. Point is, risk does not actually turn that way. Parachuting into rocks is not exactly safe and easy either! Vast majority of pilots are much more trained to safely land than to safely parachute. Movies give us this idea that you pull a cord and land feather like. That is empathically not the case. Especially for an untrained person, parachuting on safe ground will break your limbs virtually guaranteed.

Small airplanes have very low stall speed. If you fly into the wind you can have your land / crash speed very low and very controlled, you are trained to find best possible spot, and are buckled inside metal chassis.

I genuinely believe most licensed pilots would stay inside the damn plane :)

> Vast majority of pilots are much more trained to safely land than to safely parachute

So if the person is an experienced skydiver, doesn't the equation change towards ditching the plane?

Mind you, no one is arguing whether the video is real or not, that's conclusive that it's likely fake. But what if an experience skydiver was actually in this situation?

if skydiver has a pilots license he will always prefer to try to land it, unless the wings broke off

I am not an experienced professional skydiver so I really cannot speak to that. :-/

I think he should still follow the procedure far further than showed in video (where he doesn't follow ANY), and I still feel he should have tried far harder to find a landing spot - cessna 152 has 11 to 1 glide ratio, which means for every foot of altitude you can travel 11 feet of distance. I imagine his airplane has roughly comparable gliding distance so given his original height, he had a LOT of time and options he seemed to have immediately squandered. At best, assuming reality, that feels like a yahoo parachuter rather than methodical pilot, and not advice / approach to follow.

The vast majority of private pilots are not trained parachutists and don't fly regularly with parachutes.

I think an important thing to note here is that as a pilot, bailing out does not absolve you of your responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft, so if it hits something or someone when it goes down, your still on the hook for that.

Its also important to remember that wilderness does not mean people are not there, so if you do something stupid thinking noones around so noone can get hurt, you might still hurt someone.

> Its also important to remember that wilderness does not mean people are not there, so if you do something stupid thinking noones around so noone can get hurt, you might still hurt someone.

And just because people aren't directly in the path of a falling plane doesn't mean that the pilot isn't putting people's lives at risk. The recent rains have improved the situation a bit, but a plane crash in the remote mountains of Southern California? That's how you get wildfires.

Most USAAF WWII training manuals all tell pilots to bail out in preference to trying to glide to a landing at night or over rough terrain, because the odds of surviving a landing under those conditions are poor.

Mind you, those planes stall at much higher speeds, and those pilots all wore parachutes and trained on how to bail out if needed. But I wouldn't go so far as to say there's never any reason to jump.

I agree the video looks intentional.

Irrelevant, this isn’t a high speed aircraft, which totally changes the risk calculus of a crash landing.

It's also not being flown in warzone...wtf

The manuals I refer to advise a bail-out under some conditions, even flying stateside. For example, this manual is for students training in the AT-6:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth873939/m1/76/

"Never attempt a night landing except on a lighted field. So if you are completely lost at night, you have no other choice than to jump. Climb to at least 3000ft (above the terrain), trim your airplane for level flight, cut the switches, and bail out. It may be heartbreaking to crash a fine airplane -- but it beats cashing in your own chips."

"If your fuel supply is running low, if the terrain (mountains, swamps, water, or heavily timbered area) offers no possible landing place, you must bail out."

"If there is no suitable field and the weather is closing in from all sides, climb to 3000ft, trim your airplane, cut the switches, and bail out."

keyword is "night"

Military pilots are gonna be wearing parachutes. Civilian private pilots don't.

Acceptable risk for military aviation is not the same as acceptable risk for civilian aviation.

That may be perspective from outside but not I think for actual pilots. I have not finished my flight training yet but already I've had enough prep to be way way way more comfortable gliding a controllable predictable metal cocoon designed to protect me, over parachuting :O. I think for all but experienced pros, parachute is a guaranteed personal injury. Movies are way way off when it comes to ability of a random person to safely parachute even in most controlled situation.

I thought you were going to post Steve Henry's stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zDo7hkmCNY

There's a great clip of him parallel parking a tail dragger at some fly in on the side of a mountain somewhere in his videos.

For engine failures turning in to fatalities, the biggest cause are stalls/spins where the pilot fails to maintain airspeed, unload the wings and stay coordinated.

Flying the aircraft just above stall speed into the side of a barn is far more survivable than entering a stall or spin at 200ft.

Pilots panic and yank back the yoke in denial that they're going down. Or they try to “stretch the glide” in hopes of making it back to an airport. Or if the engine failure is on take-off, they don’t shove the nose down fast enough (you literally have seconds to do so before airspeed gets dangerously low)

I'm talking about crash landings in general. It doesn't matter what caused the emergency landing, what makes them dangerous isn't crashing into something at the end, but snagging an obstacle right before touchdown that sends the plane cockpit first into the ground. Power lines don't care about the state of the power plant.

Casual skydiver with no piloting experience here.

> > skydiving rig

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.

Jumping in that terrain with a safety parachute would be pretty dangerous. You don't have any control, so just as well crash the plane in a flat spot.

Skydiving rigs are also big which make them annoying to fly with. You can tell early on in the video that he's basically on top of the yoke, which would be extremely obnoxious for obvious ergonomic reasons. The idea that someone would "always" fly like that (as the pilot claims) is ... dubious.

Also, there are other videos of this guy flying without that rig, which doesn't help his case.

Unless he was in Alaska, there are always roads relatively close by from a gliding perspective.

For more perspective, in the mainland US, the furthest you can get from a McDonald’s, let alone a rode, is 107 miles as the crow flies.

A Cessna can glide 9000 feet per 1000 feet altitude loss so at 10k feet that thing can go roughly 17 miles.

A 17 mile radius gives you 900 square miles to find a place to land. Even deep in the Rockies wilderness areas I’m familiar with, there are going to be several forest service roads available and plenty of natural clearings with that kind of range.

Skydiver and pilot here. A skydiving rig can't be used for paragliding. Also a skydiving rig is incredibly uncomfortable worn as pilot of the plane. Pilots use emergency parachutes that are smaller and designed to be used sitting in an airplane seat. Pilot rigs are used primarily for aerobatics.

The most suspect thing is jumping with a selfie stick.

It's already established that he's a Youtuber and has cameras, why would you not take all your cameras with you when jumping out of the plane? Not even for the cool factor, a gopro costs like over $500, why would you not take it with you?

Because if it were an actual emergency, survival is your main priority, "great footage of it" isn't a priority at all.

And:

(1) GoPros are a lot cheaper than $500.

(2) GoPros are a lot cheaper than any flyable airplane.

Of course, I wouldn't fly in a plane with a pilot who had and used a selfie stick in flight, so my judgement clearly isn't up to that of YouTube Famous Stars.

(1) GoPro Hero10 has MSRP of 500$

(2) He (supposedly) couldn't save the plane, but taking the GoPro takes 5s.

> used a selfie stick in flight

Everyone keeps talking about selfie stick, it was just the normal leg attachment, not a "selfie stick": https://i.imgur.com/hOkcxOa.png

> "great footage of it" isn't a priority at all.

Where is this "Great footage"? He's literally just holding the camera by the leg attachment. Half the falling footage is just his feet or chest, and that's already the heavily trimmed version, which I assume he only kept the better part of the footage.

Again, to me it just seems like he grabbed whatever he could quickly and jumped out, which is a natural instinct.

> Do we know how long it was before he gave up?

We don't need to know this. We can clearly see ample altitude at the time he abandoned the plane. Although there are reasons to jump at great altitude (severe fire, etc.) none of those reasons are apparent here.

When a competent driver loses engine power while driving they do not immediately stop their vehicle in the middle of the road. They will use the available momentum (pulling to the shoulder or whatever) for the benefit of their own safety and the safety of others, and ground vehicles are deliberately designed to achieve this. The analogy for (conventional, fixed wing) aircraft is altitude; this pilot wasted available altitude for no discernable reason despite the fact that he had a perfectly functional glider.

No competent pilot would do that. So the best case here is an incompetent pilot that shouldn't hold a license. All other possibilities are some form of attention seeking fraud and also reckless endangerment.

Look at 3:33 into the video, about where he's about to ditch it.

It's easy to identify the Y shaped delta of the mountain ridges just 2 clicks north of the Manzana School Camp, with the plane travelling westwards. 34.8081872, -119.9438522.

Given the near service ceiling altitude the dude had plenty of opportunity to double back to eg 34.7683290, -120.1101663 . Not exactly sure how much gliding range it has, but can go to just over 60km/h before stalling, and can't be radically different from a Cessna which will do "1.5 nautical miles per 1,000 feet of altitude above ground level". The landing gear appears made for grass fields.

Of course, one might speculate, given lack of in-plane footage and everything else, he could also not have throttled the airplane and landed it normally instead of pulling this pathetic stunt. Ie it appears reasonable to assume that the entire thing is a complete fabrication.

Who carries a hip altimeter (a few frames of 4:03) and full parachute when flying, as well as covering every angle of the "emergency departure" with GoPros, not a single frame of the "emergency" instruments despite another GoPro in full view, freefalls for ages instead of taking their time to assess etc, then avoids several flat spots including flat riverbeds that were a great alternative to doubling back if completely panicking on basic arithmetics, only to land in dangerous bushes instead "for the views". And then complains of being so so thirsty whilst carrying the whole chute around in his "life and death" situation.

Look at the YouTube history, the guy's pathological prankster.

Lots of camping sites and such in the area, just look at the coords in your favourite map provider. It was reckless beyond belief.

Should I not be wrong with my analysis (having spent a few hours reviewing this), I hope he goes to prison for a very long time.

Why should he go to prison? Faking an airplane crash for YouTube views, while clearly in bad taste, doesn't seem worthy of jail time.

Reckless self endangerment maybe? But that also doesn't seem to rise to the level of "put you in jail".

If the crash was intentional, then he's certainly liable for violating littering laws by depositing a moderate amount of wreckage in the mountains which he didn't clean up. Again, not worthy of prison time. Probably a hefty fine though.

Last I can think of is if he makes a fraudulent insurance claim; in that case then yeah he might be eligible for jail time, but I don't think we know whether he filed an insurance claim in the first place.

> Why should he go to prison?

"Reckless endangerment", or whatever it's called when you let a plane crash where it may -- i.e, potentially onto people -- in stead of bringing it to a controlled glider landing? If you let your car coast on in traffic and bailed out at speed, in stead of rolling it to a stop on the hard shoulder, then you'd get caught for dangerous driving, wouldn't you? (Should you not?)

A follow up nitpick question, would a hip altimeter be part of the jump suit he's wearing already - assuming the "he just wore what he had" theory, which it seems isn't plausible, but just playing hypotheticals.

Fair point. I guess he should have said: "I never go solo flying without my jump rig" instead of "I never go flying without my parachute".

Regardless of how prepared or experienced of sky diver he might be, the notion he'd selfie his way down and look at camera rather than doodoo his pants wondering if he'll live another day and looking for a place to land feels implausible for unplanned emergency excursion.

Particularly telling moments are when he's steering parachute with one finger because others are holding the selfie stick; and the footage when he just landed and is trying to disentangle from bushes - but still prioritizing holding the selfie stick at correct angle. If somebody actually has those priorities in real emergency, dear gawd, I don't want to be near that person!

(other inconsistencies have been well noted in op and in other posts)

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.

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

That's not so unusual. Tons of student pilots mount external gopros for routine training flights these days.

Not only it's not unusual for a Youtuber who frequently posts videos of themselves flying, but it also would explain why they would trek to the crash site, to recover expensive equipment, especially if the crash was nearby (which it was due to the plane turning and coming back and almost hitting him).

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.

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.

That's not a core competency of YouTubers.

I know you're referring to the tendency of many Youtubers to not shut up, but every streamer I've seen has invariably had as part of their setup the "massive drink" in large part because incessant talking requires heavy liquid consumption. So I actually imagine most YouTubers are actually aware that talking is not the wisest idea in a dehydration scenario...

It's not exactly uncommon for someone lost to record themselves. If he died, the recording could give family and friends closure.

I'm sure his family would appreciate his grunting, groaning and profanities.

And to this already perfect list, I'll add the subjective:

- terrible acting

That was the main giveaway for me too. Sure there are lots of technical things that give it away, but this man couldn't act to save his life. When he first reached the tree with his parachute, I couldn't help but burst out laughing at his "anger".

Oh man I skipped right over that. Terrible acting and he went for the cliche of getting stuck in a tree. If he's an experienced skydiver, surely he could have easily landed in a better spot.

Bad writing too. If he wanted it to be believable he should have left out the crap about his friend's ashes.

There's also the text at the beginning saying he didn't think he'd have the courage to share the footage, but then he ends up sharing something that he had to have spent a lot of time editing? If it was that traumatic, surely he wouldn't be able to have put that much effort into editing it like that. It's not like all cutting between all those angles was necessary to demonstrate that a parachute is handy.

Don't forget about the gopro batteries, they only last an hour tops, this guy keeps shooting for several hours. Even if you turn it off in between the shots it's hard to get a full days worth of video, unless you have spares batteries in you pocket, plausible given that he's a youtuber after all.

At the end of the video you can tell he's an experienced skydiver, which could explain how lax he is in the air and with the camera handling, but then why the hell did he crashland into a tree on the side of a cliff when there is a flat field right below him 10 seconds earlier in the video.

And why is he dragging his heavy parachute gear throughout the jungle when he's tired and water deprived?

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.

Why would he have a wrist GoPro and a full skydiving rig on a non-skydiving flight?

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)

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.

Look, I'm not claiming it would be a good idea. But if you're the type who wants to wear a parachute despite it being non-standard, and you've got the skydiving rig taking up space in your closet, and would have to pay extra for the usual emergency parachute -- maybe you don't have a ton of money (after aircraft maintenance anyway), or even think the skydiving rig is "better" in some ill-specified way -- do you really think it's impossible someone would just use what they have?

Like, if a high-end gaming PC is what you have on hand after upgrading, why not give Gramps a computer that will maybe take a little longer to bog down?

No one would want to sit on a sport parachute pack for funsies. They’re bulky and the cockpit is small. Even the acro chutes are slightly bulky and uncomfortable in a light aircraft cockpit. You wear them when flying acro; no one I know wears them when flying their aerobatic aircraft on a random trip.

Not to take from your argument but my retired in law just bought top speced M1 Max for 5k or so. He is using it for light browsing so total overkill but his argument was that buying highest package Audi was way more expensive compared to base model but nobody questioned him on that and $2k is just not worth worrying about if 1tb is enough for photos or not.

The same with parachute. He probably felt that flying in mountains on 1942 piece of crap is risky so he needed backup and that flight suite was what he had available and can use at the moment. Better than nothing and good enough not to hustle to get something better.

> He probably felt that flying in mountains on 1942 piece of crap...

Then the right answer is not take the trip in that airplane.

General aviation is pretty timeless, as far as vehicles go. If an airplane has regular annual inspections, decent maintenance as required, and a proven record of "not being a consistent pain in the ass," then it's likely to be quite reliable. I've flown stuff from the 60s and 70s, far older than I am, and I don't think twice about it. I do think about the general condition of the airplane and the maintenance trends I've seen, but age of the airframe just isn't a concern if it's still airworthy. If it were a "piece of crap," then it's not being maintained to something resembling airworthy. There are some out there, but they're rare.

And then, if you don't think it's the right plane for the trip, don't take that trip in that plane. Find a different route. Again, this is part of what you're supposed to learn in the process of getting your pilot's license. In general aviation, there are places you can't be, and there are places you shouldn't be - not in terms of "legal to be there," but in terms of "stupid to be there."

It varies from person to person, but a single engine, piston powered GA aircraft can't do an awful lot of things people would like to do with them. Or, at least, can't do it consistently. I personally think night single engine IFR is insane without a turbine up front and anti-icing equipment, though I've known people who do it. There are plenty of weather conditions you shouldn't fly in, and there are places you simply shouldn't be - downwind of a mountain ridge on a windy day is one of those places where the air will simply rip small airplanes out of the sky and dash them against the rocks. You can climb at 500 fpm up there? Cute, the descending air is doing 4000 fpm. On the flip side, if you're on the upwind side, you can get a nice boost from the rising air and, from what I hear, can damned near soar a Cessna on ridge lift in good conditions.

I'll tend to follow the valley, though, if I can find a route that goes where I'm going, and tend to skip as many ridge crossings as I can. It adds some time, yes, but I prefer to have an awful lot of big flat area under me in case the engine does go quiet.

If you're so concerned about flying in the mountains in a 1942 airplane, though, the right answer isn't to take a parachute and a studio worth of cameras. It's to re-evaluate the trip you're about to take and find a solution you're comfortable with.

As Syonyk said, the year of manufacture is completely irrelevant in a plane. The maintenance is so standardized that unless it has a lot of hours on the airframe - think 20k+ and you're in the right ballpark - or was a primary flight school trainer with 12-15k (not possible given its age due to insurance reasons), a 1942 plane with a 500 hour engine is all but identical to a 1982 plane with a 500 hour engine, as far as reliability and safety of flight goes.

Even flight school planes aren't that bad, it's usually just the landing gear that is a little worse for wear :)

> Not to take from your argument but my retired in law just bought top speced M1 Max for 5k or so. He is using it for light browsing so total overkill but his argument was that buying highest package Audi was way more expensive compared to base model but nobody questioned him on that and $2k is just not worth worrying about if 1tb is enough for photos or not.

The difference is that if you are already looking at a M1 Macbook Pro, the only downside from getting the top end one if you don't need it is cost. If that amount of money doesn't matter to you, then there's no significant downside.

Same with the Audi. If I'm looking at an A7 and don't care much about the overall cost, there's not really much of a downside to buying a S7 or RS7 as long as the roads in your area are decent.

---

GP's example of a gaming PC was a good analogy for this situation because a gaming PC brings significant downsides for normal users over non-gaming PCs. They're bulky, can be noisy, definitely not portable, sometimes finicky, etc.

As a pilot, I consider skydivers a weird lot.

I can understand a skydiver-first, pilot-second being a bit dependent on their blanky kit.

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.

Maybe there is paragliding equipment at Mammoth?

What if it’s a scheme to collect commissions selling wallets?

Noooo. Couldn't be. \s

Can't believe people are even seriously discussing this - the controversy over the fake is exactly the desired outcome.

Right. The reactions to the post, it’s almost like watching a thought process evolving in slow motion. And I think there’s a beautiful robustness here to this socially engineered system, where those wallets still get sold.

Not sure about the US but in Europe I'm pretty sure that would fall under commercial use and not allowed on a PPL.

Of course that would be the least serious infraction if he did it on purpose. Which I agree it has all the hallmarks of.

Yea, I really want a wallet which is advertised with ashes of people. /s

I don't have the relevant experience to judge one way or the other, but my internal BS meter was definitely going off. Main thing I can say is his reactions to the engine failure and troubles while on the ground didn't seem authentic.

One more thing, play it at 0.25x speed at 4:03 - then frame by frame it (double tap) until you see the hip mounted altimeter - white clock with a red "pie". It's visible for a few frames.. just, gold. (If his left hand has filled the frame you've gone just too far, still at 4:03.)

Sure, a perfectly normal thing for a pilot to wear on a not at all pre-coreographed free fall plane ditch.

The prepared selfie-stick was a really awful look. I couldn't' believe what I was seeing.

no one mentioned how he films himself with LIGHTS ON drinking water from the river... If I was lost at night in this kind of bush, I guess I would try to save my battery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com