Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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 . . .

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

> 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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com