Added: 4 years ago
From: baronbvp
Views: 129,317
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (252)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I'm not going to wast my time insulting the idiot's here, I'm just going to educate them a little. It's fake and not even well done.

  • checklists saves asses!!!!!!!!!

  • what the heck!!! That is very horrible!! Didn't they know they were too close to the ground

  • If you did your research, that in its self is really easy now, just Google, you will find the investigation involved with this incident. It found that the control locks were left in during takeoff. Even if you are too lazy to do the research, blind Freddy can tell this is real footage. The Fake Brigade give me the shits, like I said, they are either Trolls or dumb, neither adds anything interesting to the video.

  • i dont get it ....looks too fake to me

  • @shadowfax1903 what don't you get? are you intellectually challenged?

  • @unapro3 i think YOU didnt get my message there ...looks like you are the one with mental issues.

    it looks fake .

  • I'm convinced this is fake...

  • @hookiebookie1 I'm convinced people that say "it's fake" are either trolls or have an IQ of a sausage

  • @unapro3 Sausage it is then.

    But seriously, it's fake.

  • @unapro3 what is your issue unapro ...are you the wanker that made this video? and trying to feed it to people ...what a wanker you are going around calling people sausage around ....

    if its sausage you want ...you are checking the wrong videos...

  • I was on that plane and jumped out and broke my ankle!

  • Looks like the payload goes straight to the tail when he take-off.

  • R.I.P.

  • omg

  • ollrighty then...

  • Comment removed

  • And just that quick!

  • @oracle2world - I think a Checklist with just item: "Don't F*ck Up" is useless. Watching a video like this and merely concluding "Follow the Checklist" is nearly as useless. I believe it's worth speculating about exactly How and Why they F*ck'd up and also explore the possibility that they didn't. You should know that accident reports sometimes blame the Dead to shield the guilty that are still alive. We are still alive and can Question, Think & Plan to help stay alive.

  • If we just forget about this because the accident report said "Gust lock engaged" we haven't learned much of value. We need to think about what they could have done to stay alive from the moment of death back to after the pre-flight. I think if they had cut the throttle or otherwise killed the engines as soon as they knew something was wrong they would have made it.  If seats slide back you might still kill the throttle with your feet. Whenever things happen fast we need trained responses.

  • @thenorq - they f*ed up. Why do you think there is a "gust lock engaged" interlock in the first place? Because you can't recover from that kind of screw up.

  • Another explanation is the seats slid back. That would explain why they couldn't cut the throttle. Oh, if you own a Cessna you can have a warranty fix for the pilots seat. Doesn't matter how old it is.

  • @thenorq  Accident report says gust lock engaged. Improper preflight.

  • I'll never understand how watching an air crash makes people forget how to use video cameras.

  • it's all over folks see you next time

  • that was an awful take off...

  • so in laymen terms , he took off in the car while it was still on the jack? Im no pilot but this vid here should be labeled pilot error.

  • and their alive......and their dead.

  • I agree with Sejo172. It's likely to be an aft CG issue. I mean who doesn't check controls? Reversed controls? Now that happens, but this doesn't look like that. It DOES look like what I imagine an unleashed cargo accident would look like. So, is Radical CG shift part of everyone's emergency checklist? If one is carrying cargo that COULD cause a CG issue then this SHOULD be part of the Check Lists for all phases of flight. In this case the last sure remedy would have been cutting power

  • @thenorq It shouldn't be Center of Gravity because it's a test flight. I'm more inclined to believe the official report, the locks on the control were still engaged when the wreck was sorted out.

  • @thenorq Yep, accident report. Gust lock engaged. Sinple as that. A Ford Trimotor replica drashed at an airshow for the same reason. Manouver looked the same. Simple pilot error.

  • I don't think the cause of the accident is what you say. I also don't believe that pilots didn't check 'controls free' for own safety. It would be more understandable that payload was not correctly tied and, when rolling and during the initial climb, it was displaced backward, moving the aircraft's Center Of Gravity backwards also, provoking the aricraft to be forced to fly with the Center Of gravity ouy of limits.

  • This is why you train with your hand on the throttle--anything not behaving normally means you cut power. If the rotation seemed a little fast cut power. If the pitch increases-cut power.

  • Comment removed

  • @Cannellrc "Not helping". Please, Einstein, explain to us mortals how the camera man would help. Run over an stamp out the flames before the crew got burned? Or perhaps he should have run over and caught the plane before it crashed. I sometimes wonder how people that can't spell "you", "stood" and "were" manage to get dressed in the morning without injuring themselves (actually, just you).

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • @Cannellrc actually the person who filmed this is not the same one who put it on youtube.

  • Comment removed

  • @Cannellrc Helped what you clueless twit?

  • Comment removed

  • "The aircraft involved was an experimental, modified version of the Caribou which had undergone conversion to turbine power, and was being tested to check fuel and hydraulic systems on the date of the crash, 27 August 1992."

  • @sonnylatchstring were there people inside? and did they die?

  • @RSaSheak

    de Havilland Canada DHC-4T Caribou

    Operator: NewCal Aviation

    Fatalities: all 3

    Gimli, MB (Canada)

  • Augering in is a term used when someone enters a spin and can't recover before reaching ground level. The pilots natural response is to pull back on the yoke to gain altitude but the effect is to tighten the spin rotation until it's unrecoverable. Wasn't part of the problem here though...

  • Was in similar situation. Plane was checked, everything seemed OK - controls free, etc. Full throttle, 20, 30, 50 - taking off, and suddenly feeling how the elevators are going up, stick is trying to get off my hand. PUshed it with my leg, tried to rotate trim - recovered with a success.

    It turned out, that some damn kids were sitting inside and playing with everything they found. At the end - broke the limiter.

    Now I am litterally kicking them out, if I see one. BTW, I was just 16 then.

  • Forgeting about the preflight is one thing, what happened to controls full and free before the take off roll

  • i've seen this posted somewhere before and it was commented as fake by multiple viewers..am sure as hell its real..maybe the colors on the airplane makes some viewers feel so, especially when it just thunders past the videocam

  • Rest their souls. Horrible accident.

  • At least they didn't have long to think about their fate. R.I.P.

  • @winsun96 That's probably the camera white balance/shutter speed when the father (of the pilot) filming the video lowers the camera (presumably in shock) and triggered the camera to adjust to different scenery before he re-realized he was videoing and probably painfully mentally thought to continue videoing the rest of the disaster. When you point a camera at different things it autoadjusts differently, and sometimes doesn't completely autoadjust back...

  • @mdrejhon the father was filming? thats so very sad

  • that's insane

  • Those of you who think it's fake: Look it up on the FAA's website and shut up already!

  • What is he thinking at 0:16 ?

  • Hate to see what those bodies looked like afterwards.

  • deperture stall

  • felt like some1 has cut my heart with sharp knife ... :-(

  • That was Gimli MB. Those were brand new turbo props two. Very sad :(

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • maybe fake???? not saying u r really fake... but no one would be that calm after seeing this thing! at least say holy ****.... and then when u turned the camera, all the colours changed, so maybe that was a clip change... BTW the fire cant expand that fast.

  • @winsun96 Mate, Its NOT fake. Click on the explaination above, its easy to research this accident. The guy at the end who's says "its all over" was the father of one of the pilots.....

  • @jagerfaust2009 wow... poor guy then... but do you know why did the colours all changed at 0:19?

  • I cannot believe it... Calm voice.

  • I cannot... belive that its all over either!

  • Comment removed

  • Was this some sort of crash test...Well...It crashed.

  • this whole thing looks kinda... fake. im not saying that it IS, im just saying that its not very convincing...

  • its all over 

  • It looked like he intended to do that from the very beginning.

  • @NakenKenguruTiss

    no one survive..and unfortunately they can't rebuild it, because the pilot/builder is there

  • PT-6-67 Turboprops? are you sure ??? (Pratt n Whitney)

  • EXECUTION of the HAMMERHEAD!!!

  • the way the guy handles it makes me think it's fake

  • 11 seconds it was in the air.

    man that was one wasted pilot.

  • This is what happens when you forget to remove the gust locks.

  • You know if you closely at the cut off part(0:19)just seconds after the crash you can see the explosion seconds before(0:20)

  • Comment removed

  • @Supafly1233 It has flaps, and plane can climb like that for small time and then stall. PIlot forgot yoke lock on.

  • @Supafly1233 its not

  • royal fuck up

  • I think the pilot still alive :p

  • this is not a fake... check the net for more info.. the plane was upgraded.. somehow not properly!

  • look Ma! No hands!

  • @Supafly1233 its the turbo prop version. i think.. thats the only logical explanation for its climb rate.

  • i believe it crashed because it slammed into the ground.

  • @f0rn1c0n i don't get it...

  • @f0rn1c0n less funny talk more R.I.P for the men inside!

  • Listen to all you fucking experts.

    Basically this 'accident' happened because it hit the ground too hard.

  • Natural Selection

  • As a pilot myself I don't understand how ANY aircraft could take off with gust/control locks in place. A controls free and correct check is performed on aircraft from the simplest ultralight right up to the space shuttle ,sometimes twice before takeoff,so it begs the question why wasn't a THOROUGH (If any) preflight conducted? As a restricted category aircraft WITH TEST PILOTS should exemplify even more rigorous operating procedures. Are they sure it wasn't F.O.D ?

  • @goatlube Hello Goatlube, not sure the pilots were actually experienced "test pilots". The command pilot was the senior ranking pilot for Newcal, the co-pilot (who was replaced at the last minute) was an experienced piston Caribou pilot, but not experienced with turbines. The replacement co-pilot was not too experienced & he was also the owners son. Report said the gust locks were not fully disengaged & caused control lock up in the air. No 6 point controls test was seen to be done. They forgot.

  • Comment removed

  • Is this what they call ... "augering in"?

  • @oracle2world

    Definitely.

  • @oracle2world less funny talk more R.I.P for the men inside!

  • @dillman1999 - Thinning of the herd. Some of those "bold" pilots that never make it to "old". Uh, am I missing something here?

  • What goes up ... must come down.

  • Also seeing as i now Mr. Hart I can tell you people that the camera was stopped for about 3 minutes because the owner Mr. Hart was consoling the owner who had just lost his son. You can see by the video that the plane was about 500 yards away at impact but when you see the fire there standing way closer. Trust me everyone this was real and did happen. And I've talked with him about it many times. GUST LOCKS WHERE STILL ON. And on a previous flight he said the same thing almost got him .....

  • is this real cause that guy didnt sound too concerned about wat happened. if that ever happened and i saw it i would be screamin OMG!

  • Comment removed

  • @149PCE You may be making a mistake many do. They conflate one actual real event with a purported & questionable video of that event. This video seemingly has numerous problems which is likely why people have debated it since around 1999 or 2000, when I first saw it. If you have specific knowledge pertaining to N400NC & would like to offer your opinion on various discrepancies, please do. For instance, some facts from the TSB crash report don't match the video. How can that be ?

  • Comment removed

  • @149PCE Yes. but out of the thousands of aviation videos, this one in particular generates questions of authenticity. The others do not. There are demonstrable reasons for that incredulity. For instance we know from TSB that the smoke is blowing in the wrong direction, the wind direction and speed was known at the exact time of the accident. Also, I've checked closely, this plane covers 920 feet in 7.2 seconds. That simply is impossible. A turbine converted Caribou can't accelerate that fast.

  • @bigbird1188 This crash can be found from Plane crash data, so this is real.

  • @Pvjinflight I know the actual crash is real, I've read the TSB crash report. The question has always been is the video authentic. The TSB report contradicts things seen in the video. For instance how to adequately explain the elapsed time of the T/O roll, that remains a problem.

  • @bigbird1188 What kind of a fucking idiot are you? Oh, yes...the kind that is far too stupid to understand the obvious.

  • @beeroosterm Canadian TSB stated the T/O roll was 900 feet yet this plane unsticks in 7+ seconds. Even an imbecile like yourself knows that a 22000 pound Caribou can't accelerate that fast :)The elapsed time of the T/O roll proves the video is not genuine. Before you waste time mentioning it, the aircraft is at the bottom of the runway at Gimli as it's well behind the access road on the right. We're seeing the entire roll. Now show us how smart you are & try to explain that.

  • @bigbird1188 You're just a lazy asshole/conspiracy theorist - and quite stupid and credulous to boot - along with the rest of the fools in here who make similar claims. Take the 2 minutes I did and visit the Pen Turbo website (the manufacturers of this turbo conversion). Their published STOL spec for the turbo Caribou ground run is 800 feet at MAX weight (28,500 lb. - not 22k, dipshit). YOU sir, are the imbecile. It's pearls before swine to go any further...

  • @beeroosterm Wrong again, dope. You obviously haven't read the crash report. Directly from TSB "The ground run of the accident flight was measured to be approximately 900 feet and was therefore more than 20 per cent longer than the performance charts predict." and "All ballast used on previous test flights had been removed. The total take-off weight for the accident flight is estimated to be 22,000 pounds." You're really not very good at this. You might try more research. 900 feet in 7 sec :)

  • @bigbird1188

    Did you stop and think that maybe, just maybe, the plane was rolling before the video began? Conspiracy tard.

  • @xMKIVxVR6x bigbird could be a tard in a giant yellow bigbird costume:) i dunno for certain this vid is real or not but the plane is actually stationary for quite a number of frames before it gets moving. open it in a video editor

    @bigbird1188 newcal seems to still exist as does pen turbo but only pen is now doin the conversions these days.

    @ beerostem- bigbird was correct about the weight being 22000 pounds. it says that in the TSB file.

  • @beeroosterm continued: It was NEWCAL AVIATION that performed the turboprop conversion, not Pen Turbo. Pen didn't even exist when NC400N crashed. Dope.

    You made a very foolish mistake when failing to realize the problem lies with the elapsed time, not the distance covered. Now prepare your crayons & pay attention: wittle pwane go too fast down big wunway! No DH4, even with turboprops, can reach 900 feet in 7 sec. It's impossible. Even a resounding dope like you can realize that :-) Try harder

  • i hope no 1 died

  • Comment removed

  • this fake?? it does not seem fake... it looks pretty real actually...

  • oh fuck!

  • if it's a fake the crash is really realistic, good job. but i think it s not a fake.

  • They all got what they deserved. I found it quite funny to watch as well.

  • This is fake, notice how right after the crash the camera man points the camera down then all of a sudden the smoke is in the air and the plane exploded.. Doesnt happen that instantly

  • @XxMotoChrisxX you're an idiot

  • @darraghk1989 how am i the idiot you fuck bag?

  • i find it weird how the camera man isnt freaking out at all.. he seemed way to calm

  • People, this is not the video of the actual crash. The real aircraft took off with flaps deployed: per the accident report, film, photo stills, eyewitnesses & visual ID of flap lever indicator after crash.

    This "plane" has zero degree of flaps ! Its a fake ...

  • @bigbird1188 you don't know what you're talking about. jackass. checkout incident report for RCAF Base Gimli. it happened there, recorded. jackass.

  • @treeguy57 Is English not your primary language ? You should practice reading comprehension prior to making decisions. This is not the video of THE ACTUAL CRASH. The real aircraft had flaps deployed on takeoff. The aircraft in this simulation DOES NOT. See the contradiction ? How can this be the real footage if it does not match the crash report ??

  • @bigbird1188 seriously? This is completely real. 

  • Comment removed

  • @bigbird1188 if this is fake, then they did a good job, but I find it convincing. Any anomalies you are seeing might be from the fuzzy quality of the film, or because you are up too late or something.

  • @edyken77 The Canadian TSB crash report contradicts how this plane behaves. Either TSB is wrong or this video is a fake. Everything past frame 591, the fire, looks like real video. Everything prior is a sim. Viewed in avidemux frame by frame (lots of free time after my heart attack :) there are errors. After viewing certain frames it's more obvious it is not real video. This crash occurred 20 years ago, & the people are dead & buried. I suppose it really doesn't matter now either way

  • @bigbird1188 ok can you elaborate on the frames that are wrong? And can you send me a link to the TSB report? You have my attention, so weird ~ it looks so real!

  • Comment removed

  • @edyken77 You may search for "James Donnelly Bombardier Aerospace, 2001 Australasian Air Safety Seminar" it brings up a a discussion safety experts had on the Gimli crash. It's of interest in that they say the video evidence showed slight rudder/hinge elevator/hinge movement right at start of takeoff run. There doesn't seem anyway the youtube video could show anything that detailed; rudder hinges deflecting ? At that distance its hard to see if it even has a rudder, let alone any movement.

  • @edyken77 @edyken77 Hi I deleted that previous mssg as I may have gotten the frames wrong, though they may be right after all. I sent a mssg to you re TSB report A92C0154. Check frames 591(fire) this begins real video 590 looks fake. CK frame 534 frwd aircraft color change & wing tip issues/ many artifacts around plane looks blended/frame 353 begin some scale problems/frame 237 window issues & NO cockpit light at all/ left wing missing hinges, take off roll 7.5 seconds ? report stated long roll

  • @bigbird1188 I now the gentlemen you hear in the video he was my landlord. The video is real and it was 1 of 3 Flights left to certify the plane. Jim Hart was the Chief Pilot who was replaced minutes before takeoff with the owners son. Who didn't removed the Gust locks before takeoff. And I have talked to him about this day. It is Real And True And very tragic

  • @radridz3 A very simple question... The actual crash video was used by Bombadier in a safety seminar given by Mr James Donnelly, Manager, Product Safety, Bombardier Aerospace, in 2001. In this seminar, they discussed how the actual 8mm crash video showed how rudder & elevator control surface hinges were flexing & bowing out under deflection on the take off roll. Not such detail or anything even close to it is seen in any part of this video. If this is real, please explain the discrepancy.

  • @bigbird1188 I cant give you that answer. But I can tell you when I saw the footage I Called Mr. Hart who was the persons voice in the film . He told me the story about the events that day. The Gust Locks where most definitly in place. He said one time in pre-flight on a previous test they almost forgot them becuase they wheren't tied into the throttles. He said he caught it that day souly on the feel of the stick. seeing as he had lots of flights under his belt . He new the difference

  • @bigbird1188 Also the hole videos about 15 minutes long. And I'll get back to you about flap and what test flight this was.....

  • @bigbird1188 OK Jim Hart said that 7 degree is un-noticable in most of the videos and he told me where all the info was.....penturbo(dot)com....It shows some of the other test fights and has a bunch of pics about the hole project I told him people where doubting the video so he's got the link and is gonna watch it. He also told me that it wasn't on 8mm camera. It was a up to date BETA Camera. But had low frame rates.HE said the reason why you dont notice the hinge is because of design...

  • @radridz3 At frame 280 & forward we see edge of flap is EVEN & in line with rest of wing, not lower, this is precisely the profile of zero degree flaps. Even with only 7 degrees of flaps, the back edge of that flap would still be lower than the wing edge, but it isnt. Caribous have 6 very large underwing hinges, at frame 291 we can see under the left wing BUT only 4 hinges are drawn 2 are completely missing ! They aren't hidden, the hinges just aren't there.

  • @radridz3 The film was 8mm since Hi8 is 8mm, BUT there is NO WAY this youtube video was filmed on Hi8. Video-Hi8 has a resolution of over 400 lines ! Even earlier Video-8 with 240 lines resolution is many times better than this vid. Video-Hi8 & Video-8 are not low frame rate films at all, nor were the cameras that used these films. The fire is a completely different type & quality video than the crash, the clarity frame rate & definition are many times better. What we see is here is not Hi8

  • @bigbird1188 This was a actual Test Flight and I personally now the gentlemen in the video. THis did happen and the reason was the control locks where still on. The stick still had 15 Degrees of play so Co-pilot thought they where disengaged. I have talked to him about this. He was my landlord. For many years. And he was the Chief Pilot and was replaced with the owners son 5 minutes before they took off. And thats the only reason Mr. Harts still around to talk about it.

  • @radridz3 We know the crash actually happened, what we don't know is whether this video is genuine. It certainly does not look genuine. You offer anecdotal statements, but fail to explain the problems with the video. How can an actual Caribou be missing the its under-wing hinges ? Why are the flaps on this aircraft NOT DEPLOYED when the real plane took off with flaps ? What evidence do you have this video is genuine ? You have explained the actual crash, but not the errors in the video.

  • @bigbird1188 I've also seen this video at his home well before it ever hit youtube. The full video I watched was on a high 8 cassette and showed taxi from hanger and clearance pause. And I dont now about statistics on website facts but I've seen this plane in other videos takeoff without flaps. There's short takeoff and stohl videos on the web but im still hunting for them . I'll call him tomorrow and ask. For further info and such. I was just putng my 2 cent in because I didnt want peps 2 doubt

  • Comment removed

  • @149PCE For the moment lets forget the flaps as they are debatable due to video quality. Even if we ignore all the issues related to poor video quality, of which there are about 30, we STILL see the Canadian TSB report contradicts documentary aspects of the video. Basic logic would suggest they can't both be correct when they do not coincide. How to explain the discrepancies ? Which is accurate & which isn't ? Certain elements here are physically impossible. We can't have it both ways.

  • Comment removed

  • @149PCE I have looked at over 400 Caribou pics on airlinersDOTnet. I am not convinced this plane has flaps deployed. After viewing those photos, we see that the curved down position you mention is present even when the flaps are not deployed. Look at the photos the wing profile of zero flaps, it looks very similar to what we see in the video. I suggested we ignore flaps as there is other evidence not reliant on video quality. I see no way the short ground roll can be accurate. Thoughts ?

  • oh man :( Thats awful. :(

    Poor pilots. RIP

  • to all those who think this is fake go to planecrashinfo. com and  there is a record of the caribou and the 3 dead people on board this test flight! use the date from the video

  • @1208punk The crash did actually occur, and this video is certainly not of the real crash. Too many factual errors in the video...

  • what the 0:19 when the carema view the plane again 0:21 WTF.

  • for these sort of incidents, we have the NTSB to investigate, and then youtube viewers

  • wtf was this to test or did the pilot get like hit by another person and trying to take control or did the idot not no to fly up not all the way straight well rip

  • @tommy19470rocks Read the fucking info idiot... And while you're at it, learn to spell it is pitifull.

  • @zaphr89 you suck my dick nigha

  • @tommy19470rocks Shut tha fudge up ya punk ass mafucka!

  • @zaphr89 bitch don't go hard on my ass and don't boss up on my shit you got me fucked up hoe and one other thing stop pushing you scunt yes not cunt scunt look it up

  • @tommy19470rocks Haha, hilarious man

  • @zaphr89 pitiful (lol)

  • RIP

  • pre flight check FAIL

  • And they filmed this takeoff because this was supposed to be the last flight because they were putting turbine engines on a reciprocating engined airplane, and they were on their last flight before it would be certified to fly. They were planning a BBQ party right after the test flight

  • Its all over all right

  • For "official" information on this "real" crash, go to the Aviation Safety Network (ASN) at flightsafety dotorg. It was the first test flight of this aircraft following conversion to gas-turbine engines. Mike Quirk (highly experienced test pilot and probably flying at the time of the crash) and Perry Niforos (listed as command pilot), plus a 3rd test pilot were all killed in this crash.

  • 1: Who would possibly stage the destruction of a real aircraft just to make a video hoax?

    2: Maybe because he knew there was no hope in the crew surviving?

    3: Oh, because it's soooooo uncommon to be filming any aircraft taking off. Nice assumption.

    4: More than likely due to handling the camera poorly in shock, then editing out those parts to the aftermath seconds after.

    5: Uhh, no. It's pretty stupid controlling an aircraft that size via RC.

    Starting to believe Youtube users never think.

  • its real watched it in my aviation safety class in college

  • The guy filming this went to Stevenson Aviation in Southport, Manitoba. I also went there (long after him), and my instructor used to teach him. He obviously turned off the camera after the crash, then turned it back on later. They left the mechanical gust-locks on the wings and elevators. It's not fake. The Pilot was the owner's child, and died.