Like to get the engine running again, figure out if there's anywhere close enough to land/ditch safely, radio ATC, etcetera. And he didn't appear surprised or stressed out, he looked like he was expecting it.
Plus having the parachute on in advance, and so many cameras?
But this guy? This guy just pressed triangle and immediately pulled a full on GTA-V move.
For example, despondent people have historically tended to behave differently from those suffering dementia or lost hikers or plane crash survivors.
The text includes statistical data on where lost people have been found relative to the initial planning point for a search (e.g. last known point) - how far away, what type of terrain, whether they tend to go uphill or downhill etc.
One of the largest step-changes in lost person behavior came with the general adoption of the cellphone: many, many people now tend to go uphill than before - specifically in the hope of finding cellphone coverage.
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Historically, it was pretty situational if you should stay put and make yourself safe and visible to rescuers or if you should try to self-rescue. But my sense is today the general impulse is to call for rescue--with the caveat that many of the places people are most likely to get in trouble are the least likely to have cell phone reception.
It’s kind of nuts, really.
Our whole time left in DV, we never found any other reliably strong signal.
I'm mildly amused that we have trained ourselves into anti-survival behaviors- head uphill where there is less water, more exposure to elements, etc. (of course, being uphill might make you more visible, but that's assuming anyone is coming anytime immediately soon)
I've seen a lot of near-accident videos and they all show the initiation of the accident sequence and allow you to step through the process the PIC went through to either _cause_ and/or _get out of_ the incident. This video had none of those qualities. Trim for best glide speed? Nope. Head on a swivel looking for suitable alternates? Nope. The performative display of pumping the yoke? Engine is out and the pilot is trying to do what? Precipitate an aerodynamic stall?
I can think of very few disciplines that are more contradictory than the juxtaposition of aviation with the "influencer"/social media spectrum. Hopefully the FAA revocation of his certificate paves the way for law enforcement to look into fraud and other issues.
If you're not one of Tony Stark's AIs, what might this mean?
IA seems to mean he is a flight instructor.
Yup. He spent most of his time doing absolutely nothing, just maintaining back-pressure on the yoke and holding the aircraft in the stall.
I suppose at least he was lucky enough to pick an aircraft with docile stall characteristics. Somehow he does not strike me as the sort of person who could manage to recover from a wing-drop and induced spin.
Frankly shame on YouTube for allowing the video to remain on their platform
I was nodding until this bit... why do you think YouTube should censor this? It's a real video of a real thing that he did (which he misrepresents the circumstances of). I could possibly get on board with "put an explanatory note next to it" or "don't let him get ad revenue from it", but what possible reason would there be for deleting it?
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1242/son-of-sam-law...
Simply collect the ill-gotten gains from the perpetrator. The video seems like evidence anyway, should be part of the public record.
I wouldn't - which is why I don't mind if it's taken down.
On the other hand, if content is encouraging people to do harmful or dangerous things then that becomes a different issue. I'm less uncomfortable with YouTube trying to stop Tide Pod Challenge videos which were basically encouraging such activity: The first two weeks of 2018 saw about as many poisoning reports from this as most entire years before then. [1]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220412042754/https://time.com/...
But if you're going to ban dangerous/stupid video someone has to make that determination. And you can be sure that there are a ton of activities that are dangerous/stupid in the eyes of some people (even understandably so). BASE jumping, wingsuits, really any kind of extreme sports, stuff with explosives, etc.
People were doing stupid stuff before YouTube existed. As long as it's legal (which this stunt was not) who cares? Teach your son why he shouldn't do that kind of stuff instead of turning to censorship.
Evidence suggests he may have bought the plane explicitly for this stunt. He's an experienced sky diver, so I imagine he knows what kind of plane is good for a pilot looking to bail.
Amongst all the other callouts, like why a parachute, why so many cameras strapped up, some timeline incongruities, some camera shot incongruities. His flight path made no sense. It was well executed enough to trick your regular view I'm sure, but it did not stand up to scrutiny, and you better believe the FAA was going to scrutinize.