Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

YouTuber bails out due to stopped engine (looks like it was staged)



Lots of high quality video footage, how convenient.
Certainly an entertaining watch.

At the least it does prove that bailing out of a slow flying highwing in stable flight can be done (e.g. over hostile terrain).

Some commenters point out that he had ample altitude and time to find a landing spot, though.

always learning
LO__, Austria

I don’t buy, I think he did it on purpose. Well prepared, even the engine stop, the artificially happy face when departing… I zgree also that he could find some place to land, this plane is so easy to put on a field. Look also the place state… ready to be trashed.

Last Edited by greg_mp at 27 Dec 09:41
LFMD, France

Snoopy wrote:

point out that he had ample altitude and time to find a landing spot, though

Well, the terrain is hostile. But nevertheless with more than 10 minutes flight time you’re able to land such a slow flyer on any free 100 meters strip. I spotted a lot of possible “out-landing fields” within gliding range, where you could land without crashing, however no real landing strip of course. Given the slow landing speed of that particular plane I doubt that the risk of taking injuries was in fact higher trying to land it safely than hang-landing below a parachute, which is what he did. He could’ve easily broken a leg on the bad landing.

And then he didn’t really try to restart the engine. At this moment I thought it is fake, or insurance fraud. The engine did not explode, nor did it do any unusual things. It maybe just ran out of fuel (as in 95% of the cases) and switching the tanks would’ve solved it. The prop was windmilling on higher speed, so that you don’t even need a starter or functioning battery. And an engine can run on three cylinders if necessary, however very limited time of course.

The only reason for me for using a chute would have been a mid-air collision, which I never had (which is, by the way, much more probable in a glider because you just fly in the same thermals).

But jumping out a plane which is perfectly gliding for such a long time in perfect VMC just doesn’t make any sense to me. More so if passengers were onboard.

Edit:

I see @greg_mp was faster. I conclude the same, I don’t buy it.

Snoopy wrote:

Certainly an entertaining watch.

No, in the end it is not, because it generates a bitter-sweet taste in the mouth. If it’s not done deliberately, it is at least very unnecessary to have destroyed that plane.

Last Edited by UdoR at 27 Dec 10:00
Germany

Totally staged. Plus irritating. Waste of time watching.

Last Edited by Emir at 27 Dec 09:58
LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Well, the terrain is hostile

As you said not “hostile” but not “very hostile”, at least if you look at the “random crash site” (people say the same for Alps but when flying ridges at 500ft agl you notice load of landing options, way more than the two rocks or glaciers near peaks or cliffs)

Obviously with ASI/VSI values from that pilotless landing, even Heathrow is deadly

Last Edited by Ibra at 27 Dec 10:12
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

No doubt that it was totally deliberate. Not nice to see a perfectly good aeroplane wilfully destroyed like that.

My bet is that he ran it out of fuel. That prevents a post-impact fire that might have destroyed his cameras. You can see in the footage around the time of the take-off (inside the cockpit looking back at him) that the fuel system has been messed with and part of it is disconnected.

Last Edited by Graham at 27 Dec 10:14
EGLM & EGTN

The plane was like: “Fine ! I’ll land it myself !”

EBST, Belgium

Ibra wrote:

Not that much if you look at the crash site, people say the same for Alps but flying at 500ft agl you notice load of landing options other than the peaks…

Well, you seriously want to start a discussion that it was easy to land outfield in mountaineous area, or even comparable to how it is in flat lands with open fields? I’ve made a lot of outfield landings, including in the Alps (most of them during competitions), and I can tell you that I felt a lot safer in flat lands and had more options where to go. In case you need to land you just have 360 degrees to go to and choose your field, not so in mountains. And if the landing field is not flat and level it requires more skills to perform a good landing. I don’t think that this can seriously be questioned – but anyone is free to have his own opinion. (For sake of completeness, just in the next sentence from my earlier comment I already wrote that although the terrain is hostile, I think that there are a lot of fields visible where a landing should have been easily possible).

Germany

We both agree then, before anyone says it, we should all buy a Cirrus chute or twin to fly over Sierra Nevada even those gliding there should get a parachute and 2nd engine !

Reaching Goodwin point for aviation it’s about the ratio of a “good spot for 50kts touchdown” in plains vs mountains, it’s likely 3 vs 1, not 1 trillions to 1 that will get portrayed by the GA marketing departments !

Last Edited by Ibra at 27 Dec 11:13
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Staged or not, that’s up to the insurance company/police to find out. I didn’t see any obvious good place to land in that video. A chute is like an old fashioned BRS. Nowadays I fly mostly with BRS or a chute (aerobatics). More and more people around here fly only if they have a chute or BRS, and lack of obvious emergency landing sites is the one and only reason. If there are no obvious landing site, I think jumping is the best alternative. Typical for rugged terrain is that you might spot a site that looks doable from high above, only to find out it is impossible when getting lower.

Another thing is getting injured alone at desolate places. A broken leg, and you are as good as dead. A broken arm, and you might have a chance, a blow to the head, and anything can happen. A PLB is a must.

All things considered, jumping/pulling the chute in a hostile and desolate terrain, is you best option IMO. Considering this is authentic (not staged), he did the right thing IMO.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
157 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top