9 ms·

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 kno

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.

db65edfc7996 5y ago
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.
- lisper 5y ago
  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.
- jaxomlotus 5y ago
  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.
- katmannthree 5y ago
  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.
deeviant 5y ago
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.
- kadoban 5y ago
  Why wouldn't he just have done that before bailing out?
  - deeviant 5y ago
    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.
chaps 5y ago
He made a comment about how he was expecting a water bottle in the plane. Seems reasonable to me.
jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
Isnt that what survivorman and bear grylls do in every episode?
- ctdonath 5y ago
  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.
  - jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
    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?
    - ctdonath 5y ago
      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.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    > 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.
minimuffins 5y ago
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.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  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.
topherPedersen 5y ago
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.
Alupis 5y ago
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.
- coryfklein 5y ago
  > 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!
- rootsudo 5y ago
  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?
  - verytrivial 5y ago
    > 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.
rzz3 5y ago
He said he had water in the plane but couldn’t find it.

db65edfc7996 5y ago

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.

lisper 5y ago
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.
jaxomlotus 5y ago
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.
katmannthree 5y ago
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.

deeviant 5y ago

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.

kadoban 5y ago
Why wouldn't he just have done that before bailing out?
- deeviant 5y ago
  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.

chaps 5y ago

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

jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago

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

ctdonath 5y ago
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.
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
  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?
  - ctdonath 5y ago
    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.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  > 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.

minimuffins 5y ago

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.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
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.

topherPedersen 5y ago

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.

Alupis 5y ago

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.

coryfklein 5y ago
> 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!
rootsudo 5y ago
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?
- verytrivial 5y ago
  > 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.

rzz3 5y ago

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