5 ms·

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 strong

• 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.
  • csa 5y ago
    > 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.
    • rootsudo 5y ago
      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.
      • csa 5y ago
        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.
      • belter 5y ago
        He should have tried a bikini try on.
    • thathndude 5y ago
      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.
• coin 5y ago
  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.
  • goodcanadian 5y ago
    It does seem like an expensive way to get monetization. I'm sure he put in an insurance claim . . .
• usefulcat 5y ago
  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.
  • travisjungroth 5y ago
    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.
    • Leherenn 5y ago
      I would hazard fuel exhaustion due to the shape of the crash site.
    • garaetjjte 5y ago
      I think that if he put the controls back the engine could have restarted when air drag started turning propeller during steep descent?
      • louwhopley 5y ago
        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.
      • travisjungroth 5y ago
        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.
• vmception 5y ago
  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.
  • rolandog 5y ago
    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 https://vimeo.com/15351476