I'm not saying the crash is but this video is fake as shit. I hear that bastard in the back round of every single plane crash video I've seen go " I cannot believe it."
@DJMemphis Indian puuusiii stfu u dont know anything bout aviation videos go watch your "mehelee pehelee" videos and this gonna happen t y not to me poosyyy
can you hear the one shooting this video...... "i cannot believe it........ its all over" not even a simple glitch in his action or description, now that is the most unbelievable part of the video!
The Caribou has a lock on the flight controls that was not removed/disengaged before flight...The aircraft rotated and continued to climb uncommanded.
To me it looks like the plane was seriously off balance and was very tail heavy. This would cause and uncontrollable nose up and rollover to the side. If cargo shifted to the rear at take off, this could cause an accident as such too. I really believe it was tail heavy. Even a full evelvator to give it a nose down couldn't save such a bad weight problem. Only power down and enough altitude could save you. May their souls still rest in peace. God bless the families of pilots.
The crash took place but this is phony film. No flaps, really nose high for having the yoke locked, and this could be solved easily by finding the person that made the film. I will bet NO ONE comes forward. Check the govt report. No one is listed. And to nail the coffin shut, how did the person filming happen to be standing in exactly in the right place?? Whoever faked this is scum, as three people died in the real crash.
Fake. 1. Why would he stand still and quiet as it's plumitting? 2. Upon impact there is no explosion.. 3. The camera guy happens to point his camera down as soon as it hits.. Literally puts the camera down then up in a second and when he comes back up all of a sudden there are flames and black smoke that is pretty high. It IS fake
@SuckDeezNutzBitch 1. Why would he scream and run away, that changes nothing? 2. Its pretty small plane, and probably not much fuel if it was test flight, so you couldnt see fuel burning behind dust. 3. I think that film just cuts that part, it doesnt mean that its fake.
Anyway plane of this type really crashed in that airport because of elevator lock, it can be seen from official sources. Why would anybody bother to fake real crash?
The Caribou is famous for its STOL capabilities. Makes sense to modify one to turbine power and see if it improves its performance parameters further.
It's not difficult to imagine that the throttle quadrant / power assembly and checklist would be modified that would have disabled the gust locks and thus the test pilot would have trained differently for the flight.
What's unfortunate is that the flaps were not used for extra lift to assist in avoiding high angle of attack stall. Sad indeed.
This, folks, is how an aircraft can seem to "disappear" when it hits nose-first. Imagine they were going nearly 600 mph!
This is how Flight 93 didn't appear to have much wreckage. It was extremely compacted by the impact and smashed *thru* the ground by the leftover kinetic energy.
Hi, not sure what you mean? I read some older comments here & birdman is quoting stuff directly from the crash report. My copy says the same stuff too. a while back this same video was disputed on the aviation forums for a bunch of reasons. There were mechanics & pilots who saw the whole video (about 15 minutes) in training class but said this short youtube clip was not the same thing. Who knows. I start flying lessons in 6 months & I'll be doing a control check b4 every flight :)
If this video IS fake, has anybody seen the one referred to in the accident report! Some people just refuse to believe their eyes, the same people that think the government blew up the World Trade Center.
Anybody who thinks this video or the moon landings are fake is a total idiot. Sorry, your mothers must have got drunk when they were pregnant with you. Please, don't try to learn how to fly a plane.
I do believe this video is 'real'. however, i believe the moon landings were faked.
and the main reason I think the moon landings were fake is that we have not even attempted to go back, even tho it should be much easier today with the newer technology. not even an attempt.
and there is absolutely nothing left on the moon that indicates we landed there. you would think with that many "succesful" missions to the moon ( 5 I think) they didn't leave a beacon or marker on the moon. nothing.
@nootaramus your a queef they placed a receptor beacon there to receive laser waves from the McDonald observatory Center. in a video called Man landed on the moon it proves this. Why don't skeptics like yourself actually do some research and stop trying to be geniuses when obviously your not.
@bigbird1188 stall speed only applies to level flight. otherwise it applies to the critical angle of attack when the wing quits flying. a wing can stall at any speed. maybe it wasn't stalled in the video, i don't know, but i guarantee you it was going slower than the published "stall speed" at it's highest point. i guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. nice debating you, paul
@bigbird1188 stalled or not stalled it really doesn't matter. It was close if not stalled. i know the right wing stalled thus the turn right. i dont have to research something that is obvious. it was probably doing 25 mph at the top of the (basically hammerhead) turn. I'm a flight instructor and can see that it's real. the fact that there's an tsb report on it ought to tell you it's genuine. it's a STOL airplane. the airplane is already on roll when video starts. jeez
@paulsnyder Paul, the Canadian TSB report directly contradicts MANY things we see in the video. So does the Bombardier Aerospace safety seminar notes on this crash.
You are wrong about the roll. The plane is clearly well behind the access road/ramp on the right indicating it's already at the end of the runway (see aerial pics of Gimli airport to prove this fact) so we are seeing the entire take off roll. If it were any further back it would be on the grass. Plane doesn't move till frame 13.
@paulsnyder cont: Incorrect on the aircrafts speed Paul...saying it was 25 mph contradicts what the investigators said. TSB's Conclusions point #9 is "Airspeed remained above the stall speed throughout the in-flight manoeuvre."
Bombardier stated videographic evidence (Hi8 video w/ 400 lines resolution) showed very slight elevator & rudder control surface movements at the very start of the take off roll. This video displays no such resolution or level of detail nor evidence of movement. Why ???
@paulsnyder Paul, if you think it's genuine how do you explain what we see?
We're witnessing what is far beyond the performance scope of that aircraft. That's fact, not supposition. The DeHavilland nomenclature & factory performance charts show that..
In 10 years since two DH5 Buffalo pilots noticed the time over distance problem for this DH4 boo on the aviation forums; I have not seen any proof to support 900 in 7. Can you offer some actual technical evidence to the contrary ?
@bigbird1188 This plane did not have the factory 450 Horsepower Engines. It had been converted to two 750 horsepower PT-6 Turbines. Yes, it climbed too steep, that is why it stalled and crashed.
Exactly how stoned are you and how many whacks to your head would it take you to get you to unfuck yourself?
@jizzmonger Dude your horsepower numbers are wrong. The standard Caribou Pratt & Whitney R-2000-7M2 WASP piston engines were rated @ 1450 HP. The turbine replacement powerplant, P & W PT6A-67R was rated roughly the same power ~ 1400-1500 static horse power.
I really dunno if it stalled or not. But the company that owned the plane, the company that made the plane & the canadian safety investigators all stated very clearly in the crash reports it DID NOT STALL. All three said the same thing.
@jizzmonger no I believe you should stick to your car videos. Are you to stupid to know the difference between shp ratings and bhp ratings. You have been playing flight sim to long so fuck off. You look mighty fuckin dumb about now. So go play flight sim and dream on nancy boy
@farmer6987 The only person that ever talked about Jet Engines was you. You thought this airplane had jet engines.
"The Honeywell TPE331-10 provides advanced performance for the Predator B, producing 900 shaft horsepower with best in class fuel consumption"
~Honeywell~
"The PT6A turboprop engine is a powerhouse that offers unmatched performance, reliability and value in its class of 500 – 2,000 shaft horsepower for a wide range of applications."
Turboprops ARE jet turbine engines. They just produce the thrust in a different way to Turbojet and Turbofan engines. With the turboprops they measure them in SHP.
@farmer6987 Right so in other words you thought this airplane had jet engines and thus my claims about it having horsepower ratings were incorrect.
You then developed tourettes after being shown to be stupid since you feel the need to needlessly correct people even thought you are the one who is wrong. :)
@paulsnyder continued : By the way Paul, your statement that this plane stalled is not credible; in fact it's flat out wrong. Did you research this at all?
TSB Report quote : [The aircraft did not stall throughout the entire in-flight manoeuvre. The Aircraft Flight Manual indicates that the normal 1-g stall speed for take-off configuration is 71 mph when at zero thrust. The power-on stall speed, in take-off configuration, is not published but would be lower than the published value of 71 mph.]
@bigbird1188 Not impossible, the airplane stalled immediately because the control lock was left in. pilot error (laziness). It's also a turboprop carribou conversion with P&W PT6As that has a much shorter take off roll. it's amusing to see the "fake!" posters. Probably the same idiots that think the moon landings are fake. bigbird, are you a pilot, or just wannabe? @Legowelshy also, you can walk right up to almost any general aviation airport runway in the country (yes Canada too) and videotape
@paulsnyder I don't believe you're understanding this Paul.
It didn't have a short roll, it needed a FULL 900 ft to take off per TSB. The video shows NC400N unsticks in 7+ seconds. It is IMPOSSIBLE for even a turbo conversion Caribou with Harzell propellers weighing 22000 pounds to cover, from a standstill, 900 feet in 7+ seconds. For reference, if the plane began the roll ALREADY GOING 82mph it STILL couldn't do it in 7 sec. A 427 Cobra with racing slicks can't reach 900 feet in 7+ seconds.
@MUNI743 The actual plane needed 900 feet to get airborne per the crash report. There's no way any Caribou could cover 900 feet in 7+ seconds. The plane is also clearly well behind the access road on the right indicating it's already at the end of the runway (see aerial pics of Gimli airport) so we are seeing the entire take off roll. If it were any further back it would be on the grass. Something must be wrong with the video since 900 feet in 7 seconds is physically impossible for this plane.
I hope this is a fake-if it is not what the hell caused it? The guy above that sights a discrepancy in the flap deployment nevertheless is referring to an accident report, which offhand would tend to support that there really was an accident. If he is trying to say that this accident was different than the one in the video, why refer to it?
i have my doubts about this video sec 00:18 then sec 00:19 ??? is not consistent, flaps was in ZERO, but look the airstrip, i checked a big BLACK LINE and then nothing dissapears ! .. FAKE !
First of all this was a test of the new, Canadian designed NERF-nosecone. Obviously it needed to be tweaked just a bit but because of the flames the government shut down the program. That's why Stan says, "its all over."
Obviously not a Boeing 767, because when they the WTC/911 they slid right through the WTC. It exploded only inside, not on impact and the wings tips, edges, tail and all made a successful complete and seamless entry into the WTC. This plane just falls apart when it impacts the ground, the wings snap off and there is an explosion on impact: not a Boeing.
@IExposeMormonism whew....thank goodness we have all these nutjobs like you out in the world. You have the answers to EVERYTHING!!!! Pssh....you damn skippy...that big ass plane going 400+mph should have just bounced off that building. So what if it hit in a small area and with the force of a small office building. Dat dur plane was just made of tinfoil anyway...no support structure in dat thing.
Control locks are used to hold rudders and ailerons in place so they dont flap around uncontrollably in windy conditions while the the plane is tied down or sitting on the apron. Modern day locks have bright read or yellow streamers that clearly state REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT. I didnt start flying until 2000 so I dont know if they were like that in 1992 but in any event, a pre-flight check would have clearly revealed the control surfaces were locked.
If this video is not fake, I wonder why the accident report (AVIATION OCCURRENCE REPORT NUMBER A92C0154) clearly indicates flaps were deployed at 7 degrees... yet this film clearly shows ZERO degrees flaps on takeoff. There are 35mm film stills & 8mm video taken that day & used by Canadian safety board which confirmed position of flaps.
@bigbird1188 LoL Everyone calling this video fake and think it was made digitally have no clue what they're talking about. It's real. It happened. Three people died. End of story.
@vientorio We all know the actual crash occurred, anyone reading the TSB report realizes that. The problem is that the video contradicts what TSB stated in their report. They can not both be correct. Per TSB the incident aircraft needed a 900 foot T/O roll but the video shows the plane unsticks in 7+ seconds. That is physically impossible. No 22000 pound Caribou can cover 900 feet in 7+ seconds. If you had taken the time to learn about this incident you wouldn't claim it's a genuine video.
@vientorio Placing "LoL" at the beginning of a statement about an incident, where three people died decreases your credibility to about 10%.
It just looks unreal even if it isn't. Maybe because the plane wasn't painted yet or the bright color of the runway, the unfamiliar type of the plane, etc....
@bigbird1188 if you watch 0:08 to 0:09, you may find the flaps indeed extended a little bit. Seven degrees is not much, when watching this video quality.
@bigbird1188 It makes me glad to see that some people on youtube don't just talk random crap like 'its fake' or '240p, OMG' and know what the hell they're talking about, have all the facts, and is mature about what they post.
I'm gonna go with Doublesotted. There doesn't appear to be any deflection of the elevators, flaps or rudder in the video which would indicate locked controls. Checklist...checklist...checklist...
the pilot forgot to pull the elevator lock pin which locks the elevators in the up position so they are out of the way when loading and unloading from the rear of the plane. this is what happens when you dont do the checklist. there is a cocpit transcript and accident report on the web.yes this was equipped with a cvr and the captian realised he forgot to pull the pin right after rotation but didnt pull it out in time. if you fly do the checklist !!! or you might die. see northwest dc9 crash !
what the hell you talking bout man, that comment was, serious. why someone just gonna say i cannot beleive it? wuithout saying OMG OMG OMG! or something
No it wasnt a remote, they just finished rebuilding the motor and when the pilot took off the throttle got stuck which didnt allow the plane to level out, 3 ppl died im from this town, i remembered when it happened.
Well Why In The World Did The PLane Do Almost A Complete Backflip? I Think It Was Something Wrong With The Yoke, Throttles Wouldn't make The PLane Do That
It looks more like a tail heavy stall. When an aircraft is loaded with too much weight towards the rear, it goes way out of balance and the elevators can't compensate. The result is that the tail goes down, the angle of attack goes way up and the aircraft goes into an uncontrollable flip.
Not fake. Go to the Aviation-safety website (google it) and search the crash database for the date in the video. You'll find on Aug 27, 1992 that de Havilland Canada DHC-4T Caribou crashed at Gimli on a test flight for a turbine-engine conversion programme.
if it was fake why would they have a guy standing next to the runway holoding a handheld cam??? also, when nasa do dummy tests they never perform a nosedive. , they make the wings hit the ground FIRST.
IT"S REAL! It was a Canadian Plane which was modified and was on it's first flight when the control column jammed making them lose control causing the crash killing everyone on board.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pilot talking to his Co pilot.....LOOK LUIEY WERE ON TV!!!HIGH MOM!!LUIEY DON"T LEAN OVER ME!!YOU CAN"T WAVE OUT THE WINDOW!!!GET OFF ME I HAVE TOOOO!!!AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Watch closely. Camera shuts off just after impact. Comes back on some time later with plane already ablaze. No telling what comments where made in the interim.
I cannot decide which is sadder, this accident or the people who claim this to be fake because it lacks the hollywood drana. The guy sounds just like someone who's went into a real shock (which really does punch you down) and not a screaming ape drama hysteria. The plane's look is very consistent to satin gloss paint, and there's little surface details because it's flush riveted.
It looks like screaming fake is a YouTube fad, but come on.
The reason for the word of the camera man was that they had just spent 18 months retrofitting the pale with turboprop engines.. Just prior to the flight there was an argument over who was going to fly the plane.. things were heated..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
if its real why didnt the camera man react more?... why did the camera view pan down for a moment before the flames and smoke appeared....im not sure its real...mainly due to the stupid camera mans reactions...not even 1 "oh SHIT! "
maybe someday when you experience that you can answer your question. Just make sure you bring a recorder so someone on youtube can count your "oh shit"s.
Yua are right "control check" I flew CL44 and it had Hyd Locks , but when they were Out of Serv a mech lock on the surfaces was installed. Forgot to remove it before Taxiing? "If it were so it was a grevious fault, and greviusly have they answered"It happened once in MIA with one of our YUKONs
It looks real to me. It is not unusual that a pilot leaves the control locks engaged. Lack of operational discipline. May be I'm wrong but I've flown for some 30 years and retired as 737 Captain. I'm not wise but I've been a lot of time on the bussiness. Regards Alec
served 4 years on the beast.You can't advance power levers for take-off with locks in! I flew the DH-4 in artic,Hi artic,Yukon and Alaska.A possible pin still in tail would produce this tragedy. Control check?
don"t need to be a pilot to know why it crashed
namnguyen66 2 weeks ago
I'm not saying the crash is but this video is fake as shit. I hear that bastard in the back round of every single plane crash video I've seen go " I cannot believe it."
MrQTIP56 1 month ago
i guess they give pilot licenses to anyone nowa days
dgifford88 1 month ago
You take off into to the wind to help the wings work why why why turn down wind so darn soon. My gosh.
Facewest 2 months ago
@Facewest No he took off without removing the gust locks on the control surfaces.
buster757 2 months ago
the shitty bitch captain deserves this
HKS134 3 months ago
@HKS134 may your family die in a fiery housefire lit by your own stupid self :)
DJMemphis 3 weeks ago
@DJMemphis Indian puuusiii stfu u dont know anything bout aviation videos go watch your "mehelee pehelee" videos and this gonna happen t y not to me poosyyy
HKS134 3 weeks ago
i just don't get why the plane did that. looks like the pilot did it on purpose or something.
heathfiedler 3 months ago
@heathfiedler Gust locks not removed. No control function. Poor preeflight. Big Pilot error.
sonex424 3 months ago
@sonex424 makes sense, sucks that happens things could of been done better but i guess it was fate.
heathfiedler 3 months ago
@heathfiedler ummm yeah.
MrDevilstreaker 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheSplendidcloud 4 months ago
Aren't they supposed to do preflight checks??
ffjsb 4 months ago
My condolences to all concerned, it's beyond belief that fellow humang beings actually make horrible remarks in such tragic circumstances.
jordand727 4 months ago
I know its not fake but the plane at the begining looks kinda strange,dont you think guys its like animation or something .
xtreem45 5 months ago
Caribou??
Turyervoriai 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can you hear the one shooting this video...... "i cannot believe it........ its all over" not even a simple glitch in his action or description, now that is the most unbelievable part of the video!
MrUmairG 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrUmairG 5 months ago
It was not fake..
The Caribou has a lock on the flight controls that was not removed/disengaged before flight...The aircraft rotated and continued to climb uncommanded.
RIP...
globalpilot76 6 months ago
Pilot pre-flight check fail, complacency killed all on board, because he captain forgot to remove the elevator control lock.
xoio 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fake!! fake!! fake!! fake!!
sloeginn 6 months ago
Good thing (for the videographer) the plane swung to the right and not the left after takeoff...
radudeATL 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As I remember the control lock was still in place.
cloudkissr 7 months ago
As I remember he control lock was still in place.
cloudkissr 7 months ago
To me it looks like the plane was seriously off balance and was very tail heavy. This would cause and uncontrollable nose up and rollover to the side. If cargo shifted to the rear at take off, this could cause an accident as such too. I really believe it was tail heavy. Even a full evelvator to give it a nose down couldn't save such a bad weight problem. Only power down and enough altitude could save you. May their souls still rest in peace. God bless the families of pilots.
stephenpales 7 months ago
"I cannot believe it. It's all over. I just saved 15% by switching my car insurance to Geico."
rbrbran277 8 months ago
why did he hold the stick up , let it go normal
cuzzythewolf2 9 months ago
Checklists!
w5cdt 9 months ago
Im guessing the plane was loaded tail heavy or Pilot didnt notice that elevator trim was fully up?
BJWTF 10 months ago
Idiot video and idiot people arguing here.
awaissd1 10 months ago
that looks real...
platinumpinkice 10 months ago
The crash took place but this is phony film. No flaps, really nose high for having the yoke locked, and this could be solved easily by finding the person that made the film. I will bet NO ONE comes forward. Check the govt report. No one is listed. And to nail the coffin shut, how did the person filming happen to be standing in exactly in the right place?? Whoever faked this is scum, as three people died in the real crash.
madisonelectronic 10 months ago
that sucks
nvccpuller 10 months ago
Fake. 1. Why would he stand still and quiet as it's plumitting? 2. Upon impact there is no explosion.. 3. The camera guy happens to point his camera down as soon as it hits.. Literally puts the camera down then up in a second and when he comes back up all of a sudden there are flames and black smoke that is pretty high. It IS fake
SuckDeezNutzBitch 11 months ago
@SuckDeezNutzBitch 1. Why would he scream and run away, that changes nothing? 2. Its pretty small plane, and probably not much fuel if it was test flight, so you couldnt see fuel burning behind dust. 3. I think that film just cuts that part, it doesnt mean that its fake.
Anyway plane of this type really crashed in that airport because of elevator lock, it can be seen from official sources. Why would anybody bother to fake real crash?
Pvjinflight 8 months ago
The Caribou is famous for its STOL capabilities. Makes sense to modify one to turbine power and see if it improves its performance parameters further.
It's not difficult to imagine that the throttle quadrant / power assembly and checklist would be modified that would have disabled the gust locks and thus the test pilot would have trained differently for the flight.
What's unfortunate is that the flaps were not used for extra lift to assist in avoiding high angle of attack stall. Sad indeed.
dhanchard 11 months ago
This, folks, is how an aircraft can seem to "disappear" when it hits nose-first. Imagine they were going nearly 600 mph!
This is how Flight 93 didn't appear to have much wreckage. It was extremely compacted by the impact and smashed *thru* the ground by the leftover kinetic energy.
Take that, you dumbass truthers!
macgeek2004 1 year ago
fake the camera gone down when gone up again the smok was to high xd
335925 1 year ago
hahaahahahh that was really funny !!!!!!!! :)
abhishek4yu 1 year ago
haahhaahhah ....... that war really funny !!! :)
abhishek4yu 1 year ago
@abhishek4yu you sick twisted fuck
jml8841 4 months ago
BIG BOYS straight up
tonyzango 1 year ago
loop the loop fail
xxczerxx 1 year ago
it's like...flying against the wind and blown by strong winds ?!
TheCorbuzier 1 year ago
@TheCorbuzier yes it was a tip stall. The worst word in a pilots life
kinggiggles999 1 year ago
@kinggiggles999 I'm guessing the worst words in a pilots life is still nut smashed.
bailer4life 1 year ago
All you have to do to prevent this type of crash is to use the check list." flight controls free and correct" period end of story over and out
farmer6987 1 year ago
@farmer6987 that is about it. with an unresponsive yoke why did he rotate?
StellarBlue1 1 year ago
Hi, not sure what you mean? I read some older comments here & birdman is quoting stuff directly from the crash report. My copy says the same stuff too. a while back this same video was disputed on the aviation forums for a bunch of reasons. There were mechanics & pilots who saw the whole video (about 15 minutes) in training class but said this short youtube clip was not the same thing. Who knows. I start flying lessons in 6 months & I'll be doing a control check b4 every flight :)
bevwawa 1 year ago
If this video IS fake, has anybody seen the one referred to in the accident report! Some people just refuse to believe their eyes, the same people that think the government blew up the World Trade Center.
twohelmets 1 year ago
Holy sh#t
Gayestskijumpever 1 year ago
Go ahead and go to aviation-safety doooooot net and search on this date for Gimli MB.
Qermaq 1 year ago
i think it's to fast to turn the plane.
vertikal39 1 year ago
Anybody who thinks this video or the moon landings are fake is a total idiot. Sorry, your mothers must have got drunk when they were pregnant with you. Please, don't try to learn how to fly a plane.
akcastlemason 1 year ago
This accident was caused by the control locks not being removed prior to flight.
a300guy 1 year ago 2
I do believe this video is 'real'. however, i believe the moon landings were faked.
and the main reason I think the moon landings were fake is that we have not even attempted to go back, even tho it should be much easier today with the newer technology. not even an attempt.
and there is absolutely nothing left on the moon that indicates we landed there. you would think with that many "succesful" missions to the moon ( 5 I think) they didn't leave a beacon or marker on the moon. nothing.
nootaramus 1 year ago
@nootaramus your a queef.
robosis 1 year ago
@nootaramus your a queef they placed a receptor beacon there to receive laser waves from the McDonald observatory Center. in a video called Man landed on the moon it proves this. Why don't skeptics like yourself actually do some research and stop trying to be geniuses when obviously your not.
robosis 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 stall speed only applies to level flight. otherwise it applies to the critical angle of attack when the wing quits flying. a wing can stall at any speed. maybe it wasn't stalled in the video, i don't know, but i guarantee you it was going slower than the published "stall speed" at it's highest point. i guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. nice debating you, paul
paulsnyder 1 year ago
@paulsnyder Good talking to you to Paul. Since my heart attack I sit at home with alot of free time on my hands :) Have a good weekend.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 stalled or not stalled it really doesn't matter. It was close if not stalled. i know the right wing stalled thus the turn right. i dont have to research something that is obvious. it was probably doing 25 mph at the top of the (basically hammerhead) turn. I'm a flight instructor and can see that it's real. the fact that there's an tsb report on it ought to tell you it's genuine. it's a STOL airplane. the airplane is already on roll when video starts. jeez
paulsnyder 1 year ago
@paulsnyder Paul, the Canadian TSB report directly contradicts MANY things we see in the video. So does the Bombardier Aerospace safety seminar notes on this crash.
You are wrong about the roll. The plane is clearly well behind the access road/ramp on the right indicating it's already at the end of the runway (see aerial pics of Gimli airport to prove this fact) so we are seeing the entire take off roll. If it were any further back it would be on the grass. Plane doesn't move till frame 13.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@paulsnyder cont: Incorrect on the aircrafts speed Paul...saying it was 25 mph contradicts what the investigators said. TSB's Conclusions point #9 is "Airspeed remained above the stall speed throughout the in-flight manoeuvre."
Bombardier stated videographic evidence (Hi8 video w/ 400 lines resolution) showed very slight elevator & rudder control surface movements at the very start of the take off roll. This video displays no such resolution or level of detail nor evidence of movement. Why ???
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 i understand, but you think that this looks impossible and therefore must be fake. Absolutely rediculous.
paulsnyder 1 year ago
@paulsnyder Paul, if you think it's genuine how do you explain what we see?
We're witnessing what is far beyond the performance scope of that aircraft. That's fact, not supposition. The DeHavilland nomenclature & factory performance charts show that..
In 10 years since two DH5 Buffalo pilots noticed the time over distance problem for this DH4 boo on the aviation forums; I have not seen any proof to support 900 in 7. Can you offer some actual technical evidence to the contrary ?
cont:
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 This plane did not have the factory 450 Horsepower Engines. It had been converted to two 750 horsepower PT-6 Turbines. Yes, it climbed too steep, that is why it stalled and crashed.
Exactly how stoned are you and how many whacks to your head would it take you to get you to unfuck yourself?
jizzmonger 1 year ago
@jizzmonger Dude your horsepower numbers are wrong. The standard Caribou Pratt & Whitney R-2000-7M2 WASP piston engines were rated @ 1450 HP. The turbine replacement powerplant, P & W PT6A-67R was rated roughly the same power ~ 1400-1500 static horse power.
I really dunno if it stalled or not. But the company that owned the plane, the company that made the plane & the canadian safety investigators all stated very clearly in the crash reports it DID NOT STALL. All three said the same thing.
bevwawa 1 year ago
@bevwawa Well then that really puts a lid on BigBird's claims doesn't it.
jizzmonger 1 year ago
@jizzmonger horse power on a jet engine I think not
farmer6987 1 year ago
@farmer6987 Turboprops have a horsepower rating.
Perhaps you are stupid and think this plane was equipped with jet engines?
jizzmonger 1 year ago
@jizzmonger no I believe you should stick to your car videos. Are you to stupid to know the difference between shp ratings and bhp ratings. You have been playing flight sim to long so fuck off. You look mighty fuckin dumb about now. So go play flight sim and dream on nancy boy
farmer6987 1 year ago
@farmer6987 The only person that ever talked about Jet Engines was you. You thought this airplane had jet engines.
"The Honeywell TPE331-10 provides advanced performance for the Predator B, producing 900 shaft horsepower with best in class fuel consumption"
~Honeywell~
"The PT6A turboprop engine is a powerhouse that offers unmatched performance, reliability and value in its class of 500 – 2,000 shaft horsepower for a wide range of applications."
~Pratt & Whitney~
jizzmonger 1 year ago
Actually jet engines do have horsepower ratings.
Turboprops ARE jet turbine engines. They just produce the thrust in a different way to Turbojet and Turbofan engines. With the turboprops they measure them in SHP.
lilflyboy262 4 months ago
@jizzmonger See another stupid comment. Maybe you need some jizz nancy boy
farmer6987 1 year ago
@farmer6987 Right so in other words you thought this airplane had jet engines and thus my claims about it having horsepower ratings were incorrect.
You then developed tourettes after being shown to be stupid since you feel the need to needlessly correct people even thought you are the one who is wrong. :)
I think you just need a hug.
jizzmonger 1 year ago
@paulsnyder continued : By the way Paul, your statement that this plane stalled is not credible; in fact it's flat out wrong. Did you research this at all?
TSB Report quote : [The aircraft did not stall throughout the entire in-flight manoeuvre. The Aircraft Flight Manual indicates that the normal 1-g stall speed for take-off configuration is 71 mph when at zero thrust. The power-on stall speed, in take-off configuration, is not published but would be lower than the published value of 71 mph.]
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Not impossible, the airplane stalled immediately because the control lock was left in. pilot error (laziness). It's also a turboprop carribou conversion with P&W PT6As that has a much shorter take off roll. it's amusing to see the "fake!" posters. Probably the same idiots that think the moon landings are fake. bigbird, are you a pilot, or just wannabe? @Legowelshy also, you can walk right up to almost any general aviation airport runway in the country (yes Canada too) and videotape
paulsnyder 1 year ago
@paulsnyder I don't believe you're understanding this Paul.
It didn't have a short roll, it needed a FULL 900 ft to take off per TSB. The video shows NC400N unsticks in 7+ seconds. It is IMPOSSIBLE for even a turbo conversion Caribou with Harzell propellers weighing 22000 pounds to cover, from a standstill, 900 feet in 7+ seconds. For reference, if the plane began the roll ALREADY GOING 82mph it STILL couldn't do it in 7 sec. A 427 Cobra with racing slicks can't reach 900 feet in 7+ seconds.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
how did got in the air so fast ???? -_-
less then 6 sec and his in the sky ? :S
c172 take more time....
MUNI743 1 year ago
@MUNI743 The actual plane needed 900 feet to get airborne per the crash report. There's no way any Caribou could cover 900 feet in 7+ seconds. The plane is also clearly well behind the access road on the right indicating it's already at the end of the runway (see aerial pics of Gimli airport) so we are seeing the entire take off roll. If it were any further back it would be on the grass. Something must be wrong with the video since 900 feet in 7 seconds is physically impossible for this plane.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
I hope this is a fake-if it is not what the hell caused it? The guy above that sights a discrepancy in the flap deployment nevertheless is referring to an accident report, which offhand would tend to support that there really was an accident. If he is trying to say that this accident was different than the one in the video, why refer to it?
craig557 1 year ago
False, anyway why would the camera man be aloud so near to the runway?
Legowelshy 1 year ago
Is this fake? Clearly the filmer shows little emotion while it's happening and there's breaks in the video before the crash.
ejuoi 1 year ago
ejuoi - a new slogan for YouTube: The website were half the people believe everything is fake and the other half get reality.
149PCE 1 year ago
i have my doubts about this video sec 00:18 then sec 00:19 ??? is not consistent, flaps was in ZERO, but look the airstrip, i checked a big BLACK LINE and then nothing dissapears ! .. FAKE !
gaberth 1 year ago
why did he go straight up in the air?
dgifford88 1 year ago
@dgifford88
First of all this was a test of the new, Canadian designed NERF-nosecone. Obviously it needed to be tweaked just a bit but because of the flames the government shut down the program. That's why Stan says, "its all over."
ErebusPit 1 year ago
why couldnt he just took off at less off a bank
lionking4iscomingIV 1 year ago
Sad :(
ertyuiopascv 1 year ago
he took off against strong wind which in turn had no control.
calgaryflame08 1 year ago
Obviously not a Boeing 767, because when they the WTC/911 they slid right through the WTC. It exploded only inside, not on impact and the wings tips, edges, tail and all made a successful complete and seamless entry into the WTC. This plane just falls apart when it impacts the ground, the wings snap off and there is an explosion on impact: not a Boeing.
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism whew....thank goodness we have all these nutjobs like you out in the world. You have the answers to EVERYTHING!!!! Pssh....you damn skippy...that big ass plane going 400+mph should have just bounced off that building. So what if it hit in a small area and with the force of a small office building. Dat dur plane was just made of tinfoil anyway...no support structure in dat thing.
wiseman85 1 year ago
Control locks are used to hold rudders and ailerons in place so they dont flap around uncontrollably in windy conditions while the the plane is tied down or sitting on the apron. Modern day locks have bright read or yellow streamers that clearly state REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT. I didnt start flying until 2000 so I dont know if they were like that in 1992 but in any event, a pre-flight check would have clearly revealed the control surfaces were locked.
floridaskater07 1 year ago
If this video is not fake, I wonder why the accident report (AVIATION OCCURRENCE REPORT NUMBER A92C0154) clearly indicates flaps were deployed at 7 degrees... yet this film clearly shows ZERO degrees flaps on takeoff. There are 35mm film stills & 8mm video taken that day & used by Canadian safety board which confirmed position of flaps.
bigbird1188 1 year ago 36
@bigbird1188 I don't get what you said, but, agreed.
Jackpot807 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 LoL Everyone calling this video fake and think it was made digitally have no clue what they're talking about. It's real. It happened. Three people died. End of story.
vientorio 1 year ago 12
@vientorio We all know the actual crash occurred, anyone reading the TSB report realizes that. The problem is that the video contradicts what TSB stated in their report. They can not both be correct. Per TSB the incident aircraft needed a 900 foot T/O roll but the video shows the plane unsticks in 7+ seconds. That is physically impossible. No 22000 pound Caribou can cover 900 feet in 7+ seconds. If you had taken the time to learn about this incident you wouldn't claim it's a genuine video.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@vientorio Placing "LoL" at the beginning of a statement about an incident, where three people died decreases your credibility to about 10%.
It just looks unreal even if it isn't. Maybe because the plane wasn't painted yet or the bright color of the runway, the unfamiliar type of the plane, etc....
ComplainBear 8 months ago
@vientorio Only 3 people died in a crash like that? That's not that much.
XXXCompAssesXXX 7 months ago
@bigbird1188 if you watch 0:08 to 0:09, you may find the flaps indeed extended a little bit. Seven degrees is not much, when watching this video quality.
My condolences to the crews families.
metalandertaler 4 months ago
@bigbird1188 It makes me glad to see that some people on youtube don't just talk random crap like 'its fake' or '240p, OMG' and know what the hell they're talking about, have all the facts, and is mature about what they post.
Krezmer2 4 months ago
why in the world would the pilot go strait up
magnumwarrior001 1 year ago
Just suicide!!!
monkaco 1 year ago
what kinda takeoff was that?
jaked812812 1 year ago 7
@jaked812812 lol thats what i said
tommy19470rocks 1 year ago
@jaked812812 a bad one
MRVIKING123 1 year ago
@jaked812812 A bad one..
inQlusive 1 year ago
rockstars
attardboy 2 years ago
They left the control lock in place....i believe the guy filming is the father of the pilot.
lvcyberpimpin 2 years ago
The cause was a piece of metal that keeps the control surfaces locked in place during storage not being removed :P
DO YOUR CHECKLISTS.... RIP
DontSkrewWitMe 2 years ago 2
MAYDAY MAYDAY
RD14453 2 years ago
it was stall and spin... no way 2recover it... unless u have altitude.. sorry for those 3guys... they were just some feet up....R.I.P
cougerf14 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
haha!!!!!!! it was so funny when he just lost altitude!lol
CMIG15 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
MADE IN THE USA
Andres3095 2 years ago
@Andres3095 I'm pretty sure that the Caribou was built in Canada by DeHavilland (which is a British Company.)
iain152c2i 2 years ago
I'm gonna go with Doublesotted. There doesn't appear to be any deflection of the elevators, flaps or rudder in the video which would indicate locked controls. Checklist...checklist...checklist...
ROCKSTARCRANE 2 years ago 2
Look From 0:15
SecondLifeMaker 2 years ago
the pilot forgot to pull the elevator lock pin which locks the elevators in the up position so they are out of the way when loading and unloading from the rear of the plane. this is what happens when you dont do the checklist. there is a cocpit transcript and accident report on the web.yes this was equipped with a cvr and the captian realised he forgot to pull the pin right after rotation but didnt pull it out in time. if you fly do the checklist !!! or you might die. see northwest dc9 crash !
doubleslottedflaps 2 years ago 2
@doubleslottedflaps U GOT IT RGT DUDE... THANKS FOR THE INFO.... THE WORD LAZY IS NO NO FOR PILOTS..
cougerf14 2 years ago
You people Have got it all Wrong. Look up the Crash report. (DHC-4T Gimli Manitoba 1992) Also it was one of the pilots fathers filming.
engnboy 2 years ago
WTF WAS THE PILOT DOING
manu0whu1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lmao The Guy's Like I Cannot Beleive It..... It's All OVER HE DONT EVEN PANIC OR GO GET HELP OR ANYTHING Retard
vanillaskateco 2 years ago
Is this terrible sarcasm, or are you just normally a piece of shit.
semiaquaticeel 2 years ago
what the hell you talking bout man, that comment was, serious. why someone just gonna say i cannot beleive it? wuithout saying OMG OMG OMG! or something
vanillaskateco 2 years ago
it has to be a test, what airport lets a man with a video camera stand at the end of a runway.
Wafe88 2 years ago
look at the very small explosion after the impact ....this tells you a lot !!!!
gibsonfr 2 years ago
i think that was a crash test wit hRemote Control, No Pilot Would Do That, And Idk Of Any PLanes To Ever Do That
vanillaskateco 2 years ago
No it wasnt a remote, they just finished rebuilding the motor and when the pilot took off the throttle got stuck which didnt allow the plane to level out, 3 ppl died im from this town, i remembered when it happened.
Rockyg8 2 years ago
Well Why In The World Did The PLane Do Almost A Complete Backflip? I Think It Was Something Wrong With The Yoke, Throttles Wouldn't make The PLane Do That
vanillaskateco 2 years ago
It looks more like a tail heavy stall. When an aircraft is loaded with too much weight towards the rear, it goes way out of balance and the elevators can't compensate. The result is that the tail goes down, the angle of attack goes way up and the aircraft goes into an uncontrollable flip.
jasoneunson 2 years ago
how do u crash and u were in the air for like 10 seconds.
IcyLikeACupcake 2 years ago
That's what you get for not performing a decent walkaround.
Study and learn or crash and burn.
unusmultorumm 2 years ago
Control locks still in. Check your flight controls prior to take off......
grcocean3 2 years ago 2
he was in shock u stupid dooshbags did u ever here of that?
solidsnakeo6 2 years ago
Not fake. Go to the Aviation-safety website (google it) and search the crash database for the date in the video. You'll find on Aug 27, 1992 that de Havilland Canada DHC-4T Caribou crashed at Gimli on a test flight for a turbine-engine conversion programme.
yargh92 2 years ago 2
if it was fake why would they have a guy standing next to the runway holoding a handheld cam??? also, when nasa do dummy tests they never perform a nosedive. , they make the wings hit the ground FIRST.
Al3xan6er 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LMFAOOOO!!!!!
thats why stupid fucks shudnt be pilotes!!
I also love that persons reaction..very calm for an explosion infront of your eyes.!! ahahah;)
BurntCells101 2 years ago
IT"S REAL! It was a Canadian Plane which was modified and was on it's first flight when the control column jammed making them lose control causing the crash killing everyone on board.
Slooter93 2 years ago
It looks real to me some one tell me why its gake?
Slade366 2 years ago
0.09 seconds in, you tell us.
JDMAero 2 years ago
That's not exactly a normal reaction to a horrific plane crash right infront of ones eyes.
girlhitsbus 2 years ago 2
I would call that shock i have experienced it before.
Curufin42 2 years ago
Comment removed
girlhitsbus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dude its a fake and its ment to be thats whats funny
OTDLancey 2 years ago
CALL 911
DACLAWER 2 years ago
check this out guys it is the facts planecrashinfo[dot]com/1992/1992-52.htm
360Freakoutkid 2 years ago
re fake
KmakeR1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pilot talking to his Co pilot.....LOOK LUIEY WERE ON TV!!!HIGH MOM!!LUIEY DON"T LEAN OVER ME!!YOU CAN"T WAVE OUT THE WINDOW!!!GET OFF ME I HAVE TOOOO!!!AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Muddcrazy 2 years ago
lmao!
XA395XA 2 years ago
that was a weight watchers flying trip
rsturbo240bhp 2 years ago
lmao
OTDLancey 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is FAKE
marioyuc95 2 years ago
how is this fake?
XA395XA 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we know its fake dipshit
OTDLancey 2 years ago
Watch closely. Camera shuts off just after impact. Comes back on some time later with plane already ablaze. No telling what comments where made in the interim.
drguffey 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we know its ment to be a fake thats why its funny dipshit
OTDLancey 2 years ago
Good eye.
Curufin42 2 years ago
What caused this crash? Why did he pitch up so much?
sinfuldavy0 2 years ago
I cannot decide which is sadder, this accident or the people who claim this to be fake because it lacks the hollywood drana. The guy sounds just like someone who's went into a real shock (which really does punch you down) and not a screaming ape drama hysteria. The plane's look is very consistent to satin gloss paint, and there's little surface details because it's flush riveted.
It looks like screaming fake is a YouTube fad, but come on.
KarriKoivusalo 3 years ago 2
It was no fake at all. I worked with the company owning that plane, One of the pilots was the Boss. We had bad time after the crash
iconlover1 3 years ago 2
The reason for the word of the camera man was that they had just spent 18 months retrofitting the pale with turboprop engines.. Just prior to the flight there was an argument over who was going to fly the plane.. things were heated..
jjayf 3 years ago
Real.. I saw it happen.. 3 men died..
jjayf 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
if its real why didnt the camera man react more?... why did the camera view pan down for a moment before the flames and smoke appeared....im not sure its real...mainly due to the stupid camera mans reactions...not even 1 "oh SHIT! "
crazyknight2008 3 years ago
maybe someday when you experience that you can answer your question. Just make sure you bring a recorder so someone on youtube can count your "oh shit"s.
CrabtreeGuitar 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
After all that happen infront of him........he says "I can not believe this, its all over"....like a 5yr old after watching spiderman movie climax.
jasperduf 3 years ago
Yua are right "control check" I flew CL44 and it had Hyd Locks , but when they were Out of Serv a mech lock on the surfaces was installed. Forgot to remove it before Taxiing? "If it were so it was a grevious fault, and greviusly have they answered"It happened once in MIA with one of our YUKONs
abastin1 3 years ago
It looks real to me. It is not unusual that a pilot leaves the control locks engaged. Lack of operational discipline. May be I'm wrong but I've flown for some 30 years and retired as 737 Captain. I'm not wise but I've been a lot of time on the bussiness. Regards Alec
abastin1 3 years ago 2
served 4 years on the beast.You can't advance power levers for take-off with locks in! I flew the DH-4 in artic,Hi artic,Yukon and Alaska.A possible pin still in tail would produce this tragedy. Control check?
cariboupro 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1 word: FAKE
thetreeregimovies 3 years ago
Well the two pilots and flight engineer left in pine boxes. Kinda hard to fake that. macboffin below has the facts.
vientorio 3 years ago 3
his "words" sound like they did it on purpose.
"It's all over..." Sounds like they were testing winds or something.
thetreeregimovies 3 years ago 2
just because something tragic happends doesnt alway make it fake.
shadowz116 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its fake nonetheless.
thetreeregimovies 3 years ago
thetreeregimovies
yeah all of life is fake when you are on drugs
MondoMedia7 3 years ago
the pilots left the control lock in...the guy filming was the pilots father.
lvcyberpimpin 3 years ago