Hacker News Reader

Comment by unyttigfjelltol | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com