Probably the most amazing plane crash footage ever recorded. Sends shivers up my spine...and now to find out the filmers son was the pilot! But damn..... I cannot understand how they forgot to check the control lock! How the hell does that happen?? Where is it located on this aircraft?
The voice of the guy in the video is the pilots father. They were testing the aircraft and didnt do the pre-flight controls check. The control lock was still engaged not allowing for free range of motion on the controls. Once the pilot pulled back the control was essentially stuck in a steep climb. Heard this during pilot training from my IP as we had to watch this and other videos during ground school.
great i just looked at prices to fly to France to join the FFL and it was 1.626$ to fly coach on this exact model of aircraft.............................cooooool. =)
You really shouldn't just assume that just from one line that he said. That statement could have also been applied to the lives of those three. It also cut off when the camera pointed downward, who knows what he could have been saying during that.
@MostAncientOne Isn't hindsight a great thing? The guy watching and recording certainly wasn't expecting that. What would you have said. Would you have had several pre-scripted and rehearsed comments ready to utter depending on the circumstances!? Maybe YOU could refrain from posting your self-serving angst for posterity next time.
@MostAncientOne His son was the Pilot and he just watched him die. He was in shock.
The girls who father died (the pilot, the son of the man filming the video) also used to post on this video when it was first uploaded under a different screen name.
She was dumbfounded by the comments people were making calling it fake, the pilot stupid etc.
I don't know how retards like yourself can infer so much information from one little state to make a comment such as the one you made.
Fake! Watch as the plane takes off its computer genarated...... And the camera points away for a second the it comes back in and there is flames everywere! Also wat idiot would stand rite next to a plane taking off?!!!!!
Thats quite odd that the plane was in a nose up attitude with the control locks/gust locks in place...unless the aircraft was trimmed for a departure attitude...You would think that pilots would notice at V1 upon the takeoff roll that the yoke was unresponsive. That is very unfortunate...
I just love all the "expert commentary" you can find on a YouTube Video. Everyone is a Know-It-All
" I think his "Reverse-flow-thrust-converter-valve" was deployed to far to the left. That's what caused this one! Yep... I use to put tires on those babys back in the war.....and I know everything about 'em. I'm a YouTube Expert!"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A clever fake, most likely accomplished with the use of a radio control model. Notice how the camera man lowers the camera and stops shooting, interrupting the video at a critical time.
Also, the most damning proof that this is fake is the fact that the engine sounds are totally wrong for a real plane of this vintage.
Very Real. 10 seconds of research will bring up the real accident.
Use google and type in Gimli Caribou Crash.
The engine noise is different becuase 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.
The crash was caused because the gust lock was engaged.
The fact that the captain had the knob for the control lock embedded in his wrist was the deciding factor that they failed to do a "controls free and correct" check. Also, the guy who shot the video was the owner of the plane and his son was a last minute inexperienced replacement for the experienced first officer who was there for this flight but got bumped.
The only thing that makes me think this is fake is the way the guy who's filming it reacts to a huge plane having just taken off infront of him, pitching high and then nose diving straight into the ground - exploding into flames! Surely you'd be more histerical then that!? I'd be like "OMFG!!!!"
@aburton83 well thats you man. Different people experience shock in different ways. I thought the guys reaction was hilarious with how dry it sounded but that very well could be his legitimate freak out reaction believe it or not.
It's real. I was there and I lost a good friend that day. To those of you who say its fake, stop watching plane crashes on Youtube if you can't accept it being real. Dumb asses.
Hey assholes....before you jump to your fake assumption this video isnt real....lets assume it is....because you dont know jack shit if its real or not....and if it is, Im sure at least one life was lost. So have a little respect.
I hate fake videos. This is so 70's I prefer real engine sound not some dubbed turbine sound.After all every good british subject knows the DH4 has radials.
@aviator147 It looks that way, but it isn't. The first 10-11 frames the aircraft is still, at frame 12-13 it then starts to move. That equals about 0.40 seconds on the clock. Plus, we see how the aircraft is well behind the access road on the right. By looking at an aerial of Gimli airport, we see the plane is already at the end of the runway. Even if we added 3 or 4 seconds to to roll, it STILL couldn't be that fast.
This is real. It occured on August 27, 1992. The plane was owned by NewCal Aviation. This plane was a test for the turbine-engine conversion program. The plane crashed at Gimli Airport. A simple search at the Aviation-Safety network website will give you the proof you need.
Consider this: a 2010 ZR1 Corvette with 650 hp, racing slicks & much better power to weight ratio will accelerate WAY faster than the 22000 pound DH4 Caribou. During its fastest run on the drag strip, the ZR1 reached 900 feet in about 8.5 seconds.
If this video is accurate, the Caribou depicted reaches the 900 foot mark in about 7.2 seconds. How is that possible ? ? Very simply, it can not be true. A Caribou can not out accelerate a ZR1; that's impossible. Check the numbers, do the math.
The problem started when the jet engine's fuel range mechanism in conjunction with the calibration failed. Setting it to zero puts pressure on the anti-pressure release valve of the throttle. Extra carbon escaped from the restrictor resulting in a spark between the fuse and the engine controls.
@ButtomFACE You nailed it ! That's exactly what I was thinking, I just didn't know all the technical words & all. I'm not an engineer or a pilot but I know from history class that you never put pressure on the anti-pressure valve. That's probably how the French & Russian Revolutions started.
@ButtomFACE They also forgot to grease the muffler bearing which would cause pitch problems,or maybe the load of muffler bearings shifted to the back of the airplane causing and aft C.G. overload negating elevator authority. Im just speculating of coarse LOL.
@IslandThunder84 Hey why so mean to the girls ? Some are good pilots I guess. I dont know who is flying the plane. Man or Woman they need more lessons.
@IslandThunder84 My flight instructor as well as my examiner were both females and i believe they taught me well.That still doesnt explain why my friends and family as well as other pilots refuse to fly with me.Ive only damaged 3 aircraft so far and the F.A.A classified them as incidents as opposed to accidents. So anyone want to go for an airplane ride.
@c0string I agree.. They fly better than many male counterparts and if not better then atleast as good as them.. There are no gender Titles before a pilot's name . its only captain and F.O. XYZ .. cause it doesn't matter if they are male or female.. They fly equally well..
I am in the USAF in pilot training, and we saw this video during a safety brief. The video was filmed by the pilots dad, and the pilot just hopped in the plane, and was so eagar to impress his dad that he didn't do the pre-flight checks before take-off and didn't remove the control lock. The control lock imobilizes the elevator control in the back and up position, so the plane lifted off way too early and stalled, rolled to the right and impacted the ground. Sad, and it could have been prevented
He died doing what he loved. DRINKING. OK I tell you the truth. what you are seeing. It is a 3/4 size DHC r/c. Flown by to men who's names I won't mention. It is a clip from a film that was to be made of the real crash. By some low budget friends of mine in collage. I should no I was the one who built, and crashed it. In my first reply below, I tell how the real crash happend. We just recreated it. It is a real crash. All I did was rotate, cut the R engine nito oil,stik TnT. exsplosion to late!
Not being a pilot, all I see is an insane angle of attack - not sure what might have caused that, other than the pilot pulling up too hard or a sudden head wind bouncing off the ground. So, what happened?
You can here the right engine mixture is to rich. There for it having stalled the right wing.... BAD ENDING. If you look at tha angle that the somke and fire are at, you would know he did not need flaps. At least a 12 to 15 mh head wind. That Plane is built for qwik rotation and the pitch of the aircraft nose up would have been no big deal. If not for the right dead engine. Been Checked out in all kinds of twins. Of vintage aircraft. Simple. no need to see tachs. he knew it was over .
@Cantfindusername100 he didn't turn..wings exceeded angle of attack, lost lift, stalled and leaned right and that was it..the pilot knew he was dead before that thing even rolled
A real De Havilland DHC-4A did crash at Gimli Industrial Park in Manitoba on August 27, 1992. Yet just because one event occurred doesn't mean this video is genuine. In fact, this looks very much like a simulation; there are seemingly numerous problems with it. Do you have any evidence that this video is showing the actual crash ?
@bigbird1188 Partner, I can't convince you of anything if you simply refuse to believe it, any more than anyone can convince the "truthers" that planes actually did hit the towers or those other nut bags that man has been to the moon. I can't see the justification of the controversy of this video....it looks completely legit to me. Why would someone make a "simulation" of this event? It doesn't stand to reason. Care to expound on the "numerous problems"?
@floydfreak63 Research shows real aircraft had flaps deployed, this plane has zero flaps. Left wing missing hinges. Windows in wrong spot or not drawn at all(see frame by frame)Real crash was filmed with 8mm video & Investigators could actually see rudder & elevator hinges flexing & bowing out under deflection on take off roll, clearly that level of detail is missing here. Flight profile in crash report does not match what is shown in this video. Other problems exist w/ video as well.
@crazygood150 If you do believe this video is real, how do you explain all the problems ? For instance, why are the underwing hinges missing on this Caibou ? Why are the flaps not deployed when the crash report said they were ? The real video was filmed in Hi8 film with 400 lines resolution, no way this vid is done in Hi8. Care to explain ? If you have any relevant information, please share it.
@AustinSwill On each wing there should be 6 underwing hinges on DH4's. This only has 4. Count them. Two are missing. If the flaps are lowered, why are they even with the rest of the wing ? If a flap is lowered even a little, its edge will be lower than the rest of the wing edge. These are not because these flaps are at zero.
@bigbird1188 this doesn't look at all like a simulation.. Your post however are interesting evidence of how far people will go to bury their head int he sand. Before I show you reference videos and point out frams for you to see that the flaps are in fact in a TO position AND that the under wing hinges are where they are supposed to be... Why don't you humor me and tell me why this being a fake is so important to you and also what OTHER evidence you have to support it being a fake.p
@AustinSwillSo Do you have any specific knowledge about this ? You didn't answer a basic question. Problem # 1 for instance : Canadian TSB & Bombardier used the actual crash video in seminars. They stated specifically the video showed very slight movement of elevator & rudder control surfaces during the take off roll. Clearly this video shows nothing like that level of detail. This can't be the video they watched. Avidemux shows very bizarre frames that can't be from a real plane.
@AustinSwill Problem 2: B & I frames in avidemux show magic plane components. Here one moment gone the next. When real video is compressed, B frames generally wont change unless the image does. It carries the old image over into the next frame. Yet here we see something different, porthole windows & a cargo door barely drawn in one frame gone the next, without any accompanying lighting or focus change. This type of image detail loss will not happen in real video no matter the compression codec
Prob 2 : the portholes are visible when light is hitting them a certain way.. And how on earth can you claim there are no changes to accompany this.. how about the nearly 180degrees of POV change in the horizontal and the 20 degree FOV change in the vertical COMBINED with the pitch roll and yaw changes.
@AustinSwill Prob 2* You seem to not understand the window issue & the importance of B frames. When the plane is directly across from the camera (see frame 260 & forward) there clearly are NO PORTHOLE WINDOWS in most of the frames. They do not exist. This is impossible in real life. In those series of frames, there is no focus or ambient light change as the plane passes the camera, but we only see evidence of windows in a few individual & non consecutive frames. Real video doesn't do that.
@bigbird1188 Look, the video obviously sucks and the light only hits the windows in a way that can be picked up at certain angles... Riddle me this... If someone went o through the TREMENDOUS effort to fake this video and did such a wonderful job in every respect..WHY did they not draw the windows when the plane is broadside ( when their absence would be most easily noticed) yet they went through the effort to make them visible as the plane climbs and their absence would be unnoticeable ?
@AustinSwill Problem 3 The takeoff roll was much longer than normal per TSB, 920 feet rather than the expected 700 or so feet. In this vid the Carribou appears to rotate at frame 215 but doesn't move until frame 10-11. This gives an elapsed time of 6.79 seconds for rotation in a plane weighing an estimated 22,000 pounds. Now from a standstill to rotation in under 7 seconds is very impressive yet we know it took much longer than normal to take off. So, why the discrepancy ?
@bigbird1188 Prob 3: If this crash was caused by a control lock in place... then the takeoff roll very well could have been longer considering the pilot couldn't PULL UP at a lower speed. Once the aircraft build 2-3 more seconds worth of speed it came airborne without pilot input.... this also accounts for the lack of aileron and elevator deflections yet a slight rudder deflection can be seen.
@AustinSwill Prob 3 The gust locks were partially engaged at take off but full up elevator control was actually available on takeoff per TSB. Here's the problem- this plane covered 920 feet & rotated in only about 6.7 seconds. I've seen DH4 turbines conversions & DH5 standard STOL videos. Even the more powerful & better performing dh5 probably cant cover nearly 1000 feet in only 6 seconds from standstill. Caribou N400NC couldn't cover 920 ft in 6.5 seconds. Also throttle settings were not @ max
@bigbird1188 @ prob 3.. I don't know what video you are watching... but in the one I see.. the video starts with the plane already moving... It then leaves the ground around 9 seconds into the roll... It appears the winds are 10-15 knots... if Liftoff speed is 80IAS this puts him at 65-70 GS. so he goes from 0-65-70 in 9-10 seconds.... this is not an amazing feat by any means. Ignoring the factors involved tells me you have little if any aviation experience
@AustinSwill Additional issue, we never discussed how this plane is missing two of its underwing hinges. In frame 290 I see 4 obvious hinges but the two outer most are not present. Where did they go ? The other 4 are visible why are those two gone ?
@AustinSwill The video does not start with the plane moving. The first 8-10 frames the aircraft is still. It begins to move after frame number 11 or 12. I have watched every frame in the 5-11 second range. I do not see rudder control movement. I see a change in the aspect ratio from the camera angle to the rudder, it becomes wider as it approaches, but I cant see any deflection of the control surface there at all. Nor can I see any frame that show elevator movement at all.
@bigbird1188 At least you're entertaining in your answers if not a little disturbed. I bet you think 911 was all trickery, too. Well in reference to this plane crash, it's well documented and is not a fake. Despite you checking frame to frame and finding out a videos quality limits, you are wrong. Do your homework. I am a pilot and am very aware of this accident and video.
@beautowise If you are a pilot, you are not a very observant one. You conflate a real event, the actual crash, with this video which has been disputed for years. We know from TSB ground roll was 920 feet. If this video is genuine, we see elapsed time from first movement to airborne (frame 11 to frame 236) is 7.2 seconds. A 22000 pound DH4 can't do that, it's impossible. A low 7 second 900 split equates to a low 9 second 1/4 mile time. No possible way. Care to explain that ?
@bigbird1188 Are you serious? Are you really this into developing some conspiricy surrounding a well known accident? The only debate on this has been between YouTube wackos who think it's fake and those that know what really happened. It was a simple mistake of not doing control checks at run-up, which would have found the steering locks in place. Right where they found them after the crash. Sorry to burst your bubble. Waste your time on this some more. Im so done. ROTFLMAO ... at you. Wow.
@bigbird1188@bigbird1188 Are you serious? Are you really this into developing some conspiricy surrounding a well known accident? The only debate on this has been between YouTube wackos who think it's fake and those that know what really happened. It was a simple mistake of not doing control checks at run-up, which would have found the steering locks in place. Right where they found them after the crash. Sorry to burst your bubble. ROTFLMAO, at you. Wow.
@beautowise This debate has been in play since at least 2000 & has been discussed on numerous aviation forums since then. You again display a very simplistic flaw in your logical thinking, hopefully you are not a commercial pilot :) I can understand you reluctance to engage in discussion; it's obvious you don't have much specific info about NC400C. It now seems very clear you're simply trying to save face, as contrary to your inflated boasts, you lack any substantive knowledge or answers.
@bigbird1188 This aircraft has STOL capabilities coupled with the turbine conversion and a light load makes this aircraft capable of takeoffs in 1000 ft.or less depending on conditions and obstructions.Ive been in aviation for thirty plus years as a pilot and maintenance and engineering
@MissyMicole23 Hello Missy, yes the Caribou has impressive STOL capabilities. The TSB report said that the predicted ground roll for the incident flight was around 700 feet, though on that day it needed 900 feet. This is based on previous flights under similar conditions. However, in doing research I am confident a Caribou can not cover 900 feet in 7+ seconds. That's the possible problem with the video.
@bigbird1188 You must also remember the premature rotation due to the gust lock made the take off distance shorter than normal.The time and distance reguarding take off performance really isnt the main point.the gust lock and lack of removal is.
@MissyMicole23 Hello I believe the time and distance issue is precisely the point. Just as we know a video of a man sprinting 100 yards in 3 seconds must be fake, we must also believe a Caribou moving 900 feet in 7 seconds must also be fake. Again, that elapsed time is impossible for a Dh4 Caribou even with turbines. Either the TSB or the video is wrong. They cant both be correct as they contradict each other. The take of distance was 20 % (200 ft) longer than expected that day, not shorter.
@bigbird1188 Well you seem like a nice enough person despite being higher than 10 hippies at wood stock.The aircraft pitched up in a manner that took the pilot by surprise GEE,YA THINK .So what does the t/o distance have to do with your post??????
@MissyMicole23 Hello Missy, you seem nice too but I think you're not understanding the concept here. Check performance for this aircraft. Even DH5 Buffalos, an STOL aircraft with much better performance, can't move 900 feet in that amount of time. It's simple; a DH4 can't accelerate that fast. I can't convey this concept in a more basic manner. If you think I'm wrong, please do some research and show me the numbers that disprove what I've said. I've sent you the TSB report to begin with :)
@bigbird1188 In 1992, this aircraft was being used as a testbed for the Pratt & Whitney PT-6 turboprop conversion. The pilots failed to remove the control lock before this flight.
It is supposed to be physically impossible to advance the throttles with the lock on. But this aircraft was being modified The throttle quadrant was not properly rigged to accommodate the throttle levers for the turbine engines. Three people were on board; two test pilots and an engineer.
@AustinSwill Problem 4 The video quality cannot be from Hi8 8mm tape which it purportedly is. TSB quotes slight control surface movements are visible yet we cant see NEWCAL or serials on the tail. When directly across from the camera, with plenty of back-lighting, we don't see any windows at all. At frame 262 half a window is drawn, barely. There is no light whatsoever from the cockpit. Again the two outboard hinges under the left wing are simply not there, they are gone. Frame 290
@bigbird1188 Prob 4: You can see a large left rudder deflection on the TO roll and also a slight deflection as the plane starts to climb. I don't know why you refuse to see these things that are clearly visible to me. Joking aside, how is your eyesight? Windows are clearly visible at certain angles and not so visible at others... Why would someone who is faking the video not make all the windows clearly visible at all times? why would they draw them one frame and not the next. ?
@AustinSwill Prob 4 What frame do you see this "large rudder deflection" ? TSB stated they saw video slight evidence @ the start of the roll. From that distance we can barely even see the rudder. There is NO WAY anyone can see control surface movement at the start of the takeoff roll. A computer generated graphics program such as MS flight sim does precisely what we see here. It only draws detail when it has to. Vids from MS look exactly like this video on a frame by frame basis.
@bigbird1188 Between 6-9 sec if you watch the rudder you will see it "broaden" then reduce in size indicating left rudder deflection and then a re-centering. If the rudder had been held steady this perceived increase and then decrease in chord would not be seen... It would appear as a steady growth in width.
@AustinSwill Well one thing is for certain, no matter what we may believe those 3 men are still dead. Something I haven't checked is the acceleration needed to cover 920 feet in about 7.2 seconds, possibly running into a head wind. That might be too quick to be realistic for that plane. Some NHRA Pro Mod & Super Comp dragsters are getting 1000ft times around 7 seconds. Those have to be quicker than a DH4.
@AustinSwill Prob 4 continued: They isn't a person drawing or not drawing windows, it's likely a CGI PC program. Available processing cycles are used to draw what is necessary, residual or redundant items such as windows or minor details are not drawn consistently, especially when the object is moving. We see that present in sims but never in actual video of real events. This is why I stated this looked like a simulation with the vanishing details one frame to the next.
@AustinSwill Problem 5 Frame 537 The planes right wing tip suddenly disappears BEFORE hitting ground. There are obvious blending & insert issues here, photoshop Tail falls in front of wrong wing according to TSB crash report. Frame 589 & 590 show poor looking explosion, but occurs after camera is brought back up. Frame 591, smoke & fire, which looks real, is clearly spliced in afterwards. It's obvious. Port wing snaps & moves forward & that's a little odd considering estimated impact speed.
@bigbird1188 Prob 5: Loko, the plane at impact was probably doing 80+knots... the Wing is fairly high aspect ratio meaning that from front to back it is fairly narrow. it appears to be ~2 feet at the tips and 4-5 where it meets the nacelle. Why dont you calculate how long it takes to move 3 feet going 80 - 100 knots. Then consider the changing background as it goes from sky to below the horizon and perhaps you will understand why it "appears" to disappear.
@AustinSwill Prob 5 : Please look at the frame referenced. There is a demarcation line in the video that slices off the wing tip. That is not natural or real. It does not merely "Appear" to vanish, we can see an obvious vertical line that is slicing through the wing tip. It looks very much like this was added on top of the background. There are also obvious blending marks surrounding the entire plane in the final sequences, very much like we see in photoshop or similar graphics apps.
@bigbird1188 Prob 5 cont: The port wing snapping forward would be expect IMPO as there is a lot of weight out there consisting of wing structure, FUEL and the engine... The wing actually has a lot more mass than the fuselage. Do you thing planes are built with the strength necessary to stop all that weight on an impact? The port wing going forward looks completely "natural"
@AustinSwill Problem 6 The Canadian TSB crash report describes the incident aircraft flight profile on that day. What they say & what we see in the video do not coincide. Additionally, is this the bottom or top of runway 14 @ Gimli ? If the vid does accurately show bottom of runway, then smoke is clearly blowing in wrong direction, TSB report shows weather station present @ Gimli & listed conditions, wind speed & direction at time of crash. These are some of the issues. Any explanations ?
@AustinSwill Those questions below are just 6 or so issues & problems that are present with this video, there are others. Maybe 30 or so in all. One issue by itself could be coincidence. 30 or so problems is starting to look suspicious. Video problems that directly contradict Bombardier, Canadian TSB & eye-witnesses are especially troubling. If you can, please enlighten us with your knowledge & evidence concerning these questions. I would be happy to hear what you have to say.
fuck fake
14September2011 1 month ago
survive the pilot????
monk3y777 4 months ago
@monk3y777 What the fuck do you think? Dumbo!
nvstewart 2 months ago
Probably the most amazing plane crash footage ever recorded. Sends shivers up my spine...and now to find out the filmers son was the pilot! But damn..... I cannot understand how they forgot to check the control lock! How the hell does that happen?? Where is it located on this aircraft?
smiley847 4 months ago
As much as life loss sucks, this retard tried to take off like a fighter jet and had it coming to him.
SodomGomorrahWaDC 5 months ago
mrpilot102 7 months ago
My worst fear. If I would've watched my son die like that! I WOULD've been screaming!
TheUdontrock 8 months ago
Face and gay
magnetwardrobe 8 months ago
pulled up way to steep and turned to sharp :(
xxxdarkheartedboixxx 8 months ago
@xxxdarkheartedboixxx Look at the control surfaces again, he wasn't pulling up that hard or turning the ailerons
NevadaWrangler 7 months ago
doesnt the pilot know he can't go over a 30 degree climb or else he wil stall??????
JuKe4BoX4hErO 8 months ago
@JuKe4BoX4hErO It's not degrees that truly determine a stall, it's angle of attack and airspeed
NevadaWrangler 7 months ago
either the control lock was in or weight and balance fail.... thats my guess.
Dietzeeeee 8 months ago
Should have followed the correct proceedure.
mcwolfus 8 months ago
The voice of the guy in the video is the pilots father. They were testing the aircraft and didnt do the pre-flight controls check. The control lock was still engaged not allowing for free range of motion on the controls. Once the pilot pulled back the control was essentially stuck in a steep climb. Heard this during pilot training from my IP as we had to watch this and other videos during ground school.
yousayahhyes 9 months ago
Fake
bleedsteal 10 months ago
@bleedsteal nope.
slobowitz 9 months ago
great i just looked at prices to fly to France to join the FFL and it was 1.626$ to fly coach on this exact model of aircraft.............................cooooool. =)
DavisCampbell 10 months ago
What the fuck happened.........did the wind catch it???
hearts76100 10 months ago
Comment removed
MostAncientOne 11 months ago
@MostAncientOne
You really shouldn't just assume that just from one line that he said. That statement could have also been applied to the lives of those three. It also cut off when the camera pointed downward, who knows what he could have been saying during that.
MegaRobo9867 10 months ago
Comment removed
bigandclever 9 months ago
@MostAncientOne Isn't hindsight a great thing? The guy watching and recording certainly wasn't expecting that. What would you have said. Would you have had several pre-scripted and rehearsed comments ready to utter depending on the circumstances!? Maybe YOU could refrain from posting your self-serving angst for posterity next time.
bigandclever 9 months ago
@MostAncientOne His son was the Pilot and he just watched him die. He was in shock.
The girls who father died (the pilot, the son of the man filming the video) also used to post on this video when it was first uploaded under a different screen name.
She was dumbfounded by the comments people were making calling it fake, the pilot stupid etc.
I don't know how retards like yourself can infer so much information from one little state to make a comment such as the one you made.
flanksteak2 6 months ago
y wud this be termed as fake..i dont see anythin fake in this
musicmankeyz 11 months ago
Fake! Watch as the plane takes off its computer genarated...... And the camera points away for a second the it comes back in and there is flames everywere! Also wat idiot would stand rite next to a plane taking off?!!!!!
MW2DiCKSonBLACKops 11 months ago
@MW2DiCKSonBLACKops u say wat idiot wud do that..well that idiot wud be the guy with camera..
musicmankeyz 11 months ago
R.I.P.
geoanvar 11 months ago
all people died, and all he could say is ...i cannot believe it?
dumbass!
23ilovetechno 1 year ago
ese si ke ta loko
DMC2383 1 year ago
indeed it's real... and horrible
SilverWill1 1 year ago
HAMMERHEAD!!!
rednoseroxy 1 year ago
RIP
28Jimbobf 1 year ago
How could he not feel the resistance in the yoke?
StellarBlue1 1 year ago
r.i.p.
maxzburatorul 1 year ago
Thats quite odd that the plane was in a nose up attitude with the control locks/gust locks in place...unless the aircraft was trimmed for a departure attitude...You would think that pilots would notice at V1 upon the takeoff roll that the yoke was unresponsive. That is very unfortunate...
heinejh93 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
:( I do believe it
GMdark11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just love all the "expert commentary" you can find on a YouTube Video. Everyone is a Know-It-All
" I think his "Reverse-flow-thrust-converter-valve" was deployed to far to the left. That's what caused this one! Yep... I use to put tires on those babys back in the war.....and I know everything about 'em. I'm a YouTube Expert!"
Lov2tinker 1 year ago
damn...
R32inAZ 1 year ago
Wow wish that I was indistructible and walk out of the crash site.
SR71ABCD 1 year ago
This is a very good piece of CGI, no computers were harmed during the making of this film :^D
Sherwoodhoodbud 1 year ago
@Sherwoodhoodbud And obviously no brain cells were harmed during the making for you comment. :^D
Karlwootwoot 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A clever fake, most likely accomplished with the use of a radio control model. Notice how the camera man lowers the camera and stops shooting, interrupting the video at a critical time.
Also, the most damning proof that this is fake is the fact that the engine sounds are totally wrong for a real plane of this vintage.
Milstar73 1 year ago
@Milstar73
Very Real. 10 seconds of research will bring up the real accident.
Use google and type in Gimli Caribou Crash.
The engine noise is different becuase 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.
The crash was caused because the gust lock was engaged.
The three crew members were killed in this crash.
thewhistler 1 year ago 10
@thewhistler Gust locks can be a bitch!
Lov2tinker 1 year ago
@thewhistler Gust lock. Crikey. I wonder what led to the pilot omitting this critical check-off from the pre-flight inspection? So sad.
indigocrystalC6 3 months ago
@Milstar73 You're an idiot.
pelagic6 1 year ago
@Milstar73 FUCKING TROLL
puckerfactor1 1 year ago
Comment removed
puckerfactor1 1 year ago
Comment removed
puckerfactor1 1 year ago
The fact that the captain had the knob for the control lock embedded in his wrist was the deciding factor that they failed to do a "controls free and correct" check. Also, the guy who shot the video was the owner of the plane and his son was a last minute inexperienced replacement for the experienced first officer who was there for this flight but got bumped.
av8rdav 1 year ago 2
AND THATS WHY I DONT FLY!
WormExit12 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I cannot believe it, it's all over no shit!
oakleymac1 1 year ago
Did they died?
policest1100 1 year ago
control locks FTL
incubus427 1 year ago
The only thing that makes me think this is fake is the way the guy who's filming it reacts to a huge plane having just taken off infront of him, pitching high and then nose diving straight into the ground - exploding into flames! Surely you'd be more histerical then that!? I'd be like "OMFG!!!!"
aburton83 1 year ago
@aburton83 well thats you man. Different people experience shock in different ways. I thought the guys reaction was hilarious with how dry it sounded but that very well could be his legitimate freak out reaction believe it or not.
JenkemGhengisGroid 1 year ago
this is real
DreamAboutSpace 1 year ago
hear the guys monotone xd i can not believe it cuz i'm a robot xdxd
MrProtect0081 1 year ago
Sad and I'm sorry. And for the people with the negative comments. I hope you all get cancer and die a slow death!
vexviper 1 year ago
If they would have simply followed Mrs. Obama's advice of apple slices over french fries, we wouldn't be having these conversations.
SpadeWhacker 1 year ago
It's real. I was there and I lost a good friend that day. To those of you who say its fake, stop watching plane crashes on Youtube if you can't accept it being real. Dumb asses.
populistjanitor 1 year ago
the poor 3 crew-members! :( ...RIP!
1bottlejackdaniels 1 year ago
ugh for the last time people its a modified C-7 fited with turbo props,it wasnt the pilots fault the controls locked and he couldnt recover.
1bearcatf8f 1 year ago
Hey assholes....before you jump to your fake assumption this video isnt real....lets assume it is....because you dont know jack shit if its real or not....and if it is, Im sure at least one life was lost. So have a little respect.
samdonelly7 1 year ago
I hate fake videos. This is so 70's I prefer real engine sound not some dubbed turbine sound.After all every good british subject knows the DH4 has radials.
MissyMicole23 1 year ago
@MissyMicole23 - The crash is real. And that particular one had been re-engined with PT-6s, take a close look at the cowling as it passes the camera.
fundiebasher 1 year ago
These were "bold pilots" that won't make it to "old".
oracle2world 1 year ago
to all the ppl arguing whether or not the plane could have accelerated that fast.. when the video starts..the aircraft is already rolling
aviator147 1 year ago
@aviator147 It looks that way, but it isn't. The first 10-11 frames the aircraft is still, at frame 12-13 it then starts to move. That equals about 0.40 seconds on the clock. Plus, we see how the aircraft is well behind the access road on the right. By looking at an aerial of Gimli airport, we see the plane is already at the end of the runway. Even if we added 3 or 4 seconds to to roll, it STILL couldn't be that fast.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
This is real. It occured on August 27, 1992. The plane was owned by NewCal Aviation. This plane was a test for the turbine-engine conversion program. The plane crashed at Gimli Airport. A simple search at the Aviation-Safety network website will give you the proof you need.
yargh92 1 year ago 21
@yargh92 plus the fact that it looks real to anyone with an IQ above 10.
flanksteak2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fake and gay!
omyvega1 1 year ago 9
@omyvega1 how is that fake
RAFCFC 1 year ago
@omyvega1 <--is fake and loves the cock!
666reasons2killU 1 year ago
@666reasons2killU don't be jealous i got more thumbs than you. :P
omyvega1 1 year ago
Consider this: a 2010 ZR1 Corvette with 650 hp, racing slicks & much better power to weight ratio will accelerate WAY faster than the 22000 pound DH4 Caribou. During its fastest run on the drag strip, the ZR1 reached 900 feet in about 8.5 seconds.
If this video is accurate, the Caribou depicted reaches the 900 foot mark in about 7.2 seconds. How is that possible ? ? Very simply, it can not be true. A Caribou can not out accelerate a ZR1; that's impossible. Check the numbers, do the math.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
Its bound to happen to happen when you fly it like that when it wasn't meant to be.. shows you stupid kills
heathfiedler 1 year ago
The problem started when the jet engine's fuel range mechanism in conjunction with the calibration failed. Setting it to zero puts pressure on the anti-pressure release valve of the throttle. Extra carbon escaped from the restrictor resulting in a spark between the fuse and the engine controls.
ButtomFACE 1 year ago
@ButtomFACE You nailed it ! That's exactly what I was thinking, I just didn't know all the technical words & all. I'm not an engineer or a pilot but I know from history class that you never put pressure on the anti-pressure valve. That's probably how the French & Russian Revolutions started.
bevwawa 1 year ago
@ButtomFACE They also forgot to grease the muffler bearing which would cause pitch problems,or maybe the load of muffler bearings shifted to the back of the airplane causing and aft C.G. overload negating elevator authority. Im just speculating of coarse LOL.
MissyMicole23 1 year ago
How the fuck does that look like a simulation?? Am I simply arguing with my reflection here!
cjellwood 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you think a woman was flying the plane
IslandThunder84 1 year ago 47
@IslandThunder84 Hey why so mean to the girls ? Some are good pilots I guess. I dont know who is flying the plane. Man or Woman they need more lessons.
bevwawa 1 year ago
@IslandThunder84 My flight instructor as well as my examiner were both females and i believe they taught me well.That still doesnt explain why my friends and family as well as other pilots refuse to fly with me.Ive only damaged 3 aircraft so far and the F.A.A classified them as incidents as opposed to accidents. So anyone want to go for an airplane ride.
MissyMicole23 1 year ago
@IslandThunder84 go fuck yourself bitch people died n that crash and you make jokes about it? dumbass
thefsxandREALpilot 1 year ago
@IslandThunder84 women fly better than men ever will
c0string 1 year ago
@c0string I agree.. They fly better than many male counterparts and if not better then atleast as good as them.. There are no gender Titles before a pilot's name . its only captain and F.O. XYZ .. cause it doesn't matter if they are male or female.. They fly equally well..
cassperraviator 1 year ago
@IslandThunder84 You're a PIG !
cassperraviator 1 year ago
@IslandThunder84 And you're a Chauvinist Ass****
cassperraviator 1 year ago
@IslandThunder84 You are a pig and a chauvinistic A******
cassperraviator 1 year ago
@cassperraviator shutit, get back in the kitchen
ChrisMiller1994 1 year ago
@ChrisMiller1994 Awwww.. Do you want to go cry in your momma's arms ?? Scared of a little competition little woos ???
cassperraviator 1 year ago
Awwww... Do you want to go cry in your momma's arms ?? Little woos aren't you ?? Get a life..
cassperraviator 1 year ago
@cassperraviator what? that doesn't even make sense?
ChrisMiller1994 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IslandThunder84 : You are a Pig and a Chauvinistic A******
cassperraviator 1 year ago
@IslandThunder84 you do know that a women can do as much stuff a guy can do. fuck i should rip your fucking head off and shit down yor neck
phanthom091 1 year ago
A piston Dh4 Caribou taking off in 12 sec ground roll .youtube.com/watch?v=Cw43sKkI1Ww
AustinSwill 1 year ago
least it wasnt a B52 Bomber, fully loaded.
flashfire320 1 year ago
That is why you always do your Pre-flight Inspection..
Never Rush.
It is your life.
aerobatic500 1 year ago
he sounds surprisingly calm having just witnessed 3 people die
ballastastronaut 1 year ago
for that dudes dad he seems realy calm!
CrIp1391 1 year ago
that was a maaaaaaaaaaaajjjjjor epic fail!!!!!!!!!
armymen1232 1 year ago
I am in the USAF in pilot training, and we saw this video during a safety brief. The video was filmed by the pilots dad, and the pilot just hopped in the plane, and was so eagar to impress his dad that he didn't do the pre-flight checks before take-off and didn't remove the control lock. The control lock imobilizes the elevator control in the back and up position, so the plane lifted off way too early and stalled, rolled to the right and impacted the ground. Sad, and it could have been prevented
Saxophonedude 1 year ago
what dumbass was flying that...
armymen1232 1 year ago
HOLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIZZZZZZ!!!
kturtle714 1 year ago
He died doing what he loved. DRINKING. OK I tell you the truth. what you are seeing. It is a 3/4 size DHC r/c. Flown by to men who's names I won't mention. It is a clip from a film that was to be made of the real crash. By some low budget friends of mine in collage. I should no I was the one who built, and crashed it. In my first reply below, I tell how the real crash happend. We just recreated it. It is a real crash. All I did was rotate, cut the R engine nito oil,stik TnT. exsplosion to late!
vonjohnny 1 year ago
lol drunk flyier :P
roju0229 1 year ago
Not being a pilot, all I see is an insane angle of attack - not sure what might have caused that, other than the pilot pulling up too hard or a sudden head wind bouncing off the ground. So, what happened?
CusterFlux 1 year ago
You can here the right engine mixture is to rich. There for it having stalled the right wing.... BAD ENDING. If you look at tha angle that the somke and fire are at, you would know he did not need flaps. At least a 12 to 15 mh head wind. That Plane is built for qwik rotation and the pitch of the aircraft nose up would have been no big deal. If not for the right dead engine. Been Checked out in all kinds of twins. Of vintage aircraft. Simple. no need to see tachs. he knew it was over .
vonjohnny 1 year ago
Is he ok?
theevilmeister 1 year ago
@theevilmeister hopefully your joking about your comment >.>
roju0229 1 year ago
I'm guessing everyone died.
tayler0528 1 year ago
wow he pulled up WAY to early and turned while pulling up. Did he even have a pilots licence
Cantfindusername100 1 year ago
@Cantfindusername100 he didn't turn..wings exceeded angle of attack, lost lift, stalled and leaned right and that was it..the pilot knew he was dead before that thing even rolled
scruffyrunkin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i cannot believe it, its all over!
vomm27 1 year ago
Tragic of lost lifes.
miltonluvsno1 1 year ago
I was the one who was flying the plane. I remember that day like it was August 27, 1992. Good times.
ButtomFACE 1 year ago
@ButtomFACE Haha! That made me laugh out loud!
fergi1499 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'i cannot believe it'
dhruvb38 1 year ago
neither can I....
keravankauhu 1 year ago
why pilot raise the nose so high?
dawood737 1 year ago
"i cannot belive it" - wow! really natural reaction!
Slimoleq 1 year ago
thats a strangely un-panicked reaction for just witnessing a huge plane crash.. thats what's weird about the video
Matt0the0dude 1 year ago
R.I.P Brothers.
333RedStar 1 year ago
ok mav, lets go ballistic...
andrewkennedy27 1 year ago 4
holy shamoly
cookievampire113 1 year ago
if this is not fake - the pilot is idiot! very low speed+big angle of attack+big angle on right side....= boom...
fighter aircraft can do that...
PBonline2009 1 year ago
Not fake. Note to all 'tards: Google is your friend and it's just a click away. Not hard at all to find out about this REAL crash.
floydfreak63 1 year ago
@floydfreak63 yea but google can be misleading
AnthraxByEmail09 1 year ago
A real De Havilland DHC-4A did crash at Gimli Industrial Park in Manitoba on August 27, 1992. Yet just because one event occurred doesn't mean this video is genuine. In fact, this looks very much like a simulation; there are seemingly numerous problems with it. Do you have any evidence that this video is showing the actual crash ?
bigbird1188 1 year ago 14
@bigbird1188 Partner, I can't convince you of anything if you simply refuse to believe it, any more than anyone can convince the "truthers" that planes actually did hit the towers or those other nut bags that man has been to the moon. I can't see the justification of the controversy of this video....it looks completely legit to me. Why would someone make a "simulation" of this event? It doesn't stand to reason. Care to expound on the "numerous problems"?
floydfreak63 1 year ago
@floydfreak63 Research shows real aircraft had flaps deployed, this plane has zero flaps. Left wing missing hinges. Windows in wrong spot or not drawn at all(see frame by frame)Real crash was filmed with 8mm video & Investigators could actually see rudder & elevator hinges flexing & bowing out under deflection on take off roll, clearly that level of detail is missing here. Flight profile in crash report does not match what is shown in this video. Other problems exist w/ video as well.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 this is the video of that crash and its 100% real
crazygood150 1 year ago
@crazygood150 If you do believe this video is real, how do you explain all the problems ? For instance, why are the underwing hinges missing on this Caibou ? Why are the flaps not deployed when the crash report said they were ? The real video was filmed in Hi8 film with 400 lines resolution, no way this vid is done in Hi8. Care to explain ? If you have any relevant information, please share it.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188
Dude, the under-wing hinges are clearly visible and so are the lowered flaps... What are you smoking ?
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwill On each wing there should be 6 underwing hinges on DH4's. This only has 4. Count them. Two are missing. If the flaps are lowered, why are they even with the rest of the wing ? If a flap is lowered even a little, its edge will be lower than the rest of the wing edge. These are not because these flaps are at zero.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 this doesn't look at all like a simulation.. Your post however are interesting evidence of how far people will go to bury their head int he sand. Before I show you reference videos and point out frams for you to see that the flaps are in fact in a TO position AND that the under wing hinges are where they are supposed to be... Why don't you humor me and tell me why this being a fake is so important to you and also what OTHER evidence you have to support it being a fake.p
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwillSo Do you have any specific knowledge about this ? You didn't answer a basic question. Problem # 1 for instance : Canadian TSB & Bombardier used the actual crash video in seminars. They stated specifically the video showed very slight movement of elevator & rudder control surfaces during the take off roll. Clearly this video shows nothing like that level of detail. This can't be the video they watched. Avidemux shows very bizarre frames that can't be from a real plane.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Problem 2: B & I frames in avidemux show magic plane components. Here one moment gone the next. When real video is compressed, B frames generally wont change unless the image does. It carries the old image over into the next frame. Yet here we see something different, porthole windows & a cargo door barely drawn in one frame gone the next, without any accompanying lighting or focus change. This type of image detail loss will not happen in real video no matter the compression codec
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188
Prob 2 : the portholes are visible when light is hitting them a certain way.. And how on earth can you claim there are no changes to accompany this.. how about the nearly 180degrees of POV change in the horizontal and the 20 degree FOV change in the vertical COMBINED with the pitch roll and yaw changes.
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Prob 2* You seem to not understand the window issue & the importance of B frames. When the plane is directly across from the camera (see frame 260 & forward) there clearly are NO PORTHOLE WINDOWS in most of the frames. They do not exist. This is impossible in real life. In those series of frames, there is no focus or ambient light change as the plane passes the camera, but we only see evidence of windows in a few individual & non consecutive frames. Real video doesn't do that.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Look, the video obviously sucks and the light only hits the windows in a way that can be picked up at certain angles... Riddle me this... If someone went o through the TREMENDOUS effort to fake this video and did such a wonderful job in every respect..WHY did they not draw the windows when the plane is broadside ( when their absence would be most easily noticed) yet they went through the effort to make them visible as the plane climbs and their absence would be unnoticeable ?
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Problem 3 The takeoff roll was much longer than normal per TSB, 920 feet rather than the expected 700 or so feet. In this vid the Carribou appears to rotate at frame 215 but doesn't move until frame 10-11. This gives an elapsed time of 6.79 seconds for rotation in a plane weighing an estimated 22,000 pounds. Now from a standstill to rotation in under 7 seconds is very impressive yet we know it took much longer than normal to take off. So, why the discrepancy ?
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Prob 3: If this crash was caused by a control lock in place... then the takeoff roll very well could have been longer considering the pilot couldn't PULL UP at a lower speed. Once the aircraft build 2-3 more seconds worth of speed it came airborne without pilot input.... this also accounts for the lack of aileron and elevator deflections yet a slight rudder deflection can be seen.
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Prob 3 The gust locks were partially engaged at take off but full up elevator control was actually available on takeoff per TSB. Here's the problem- this plane covered 920 feet & rotated in only about 6.7 seconds. I've seen DH4 turbines conversions & DH5 standard STOL videos. Even the more powerful & better performing dh5 probably cant cover nearly 1000 feet in only 6 seconds from standstill. Caribou N400NC couldn't cover 920 ft in 6.5 seconds. Also throttle settings were not @ max
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 @ prob 3.. I don't know what video you are watching... but in the one I see.. the video starts with the plane already moving... It then leaves the ground around 9 seconds into the roll... It appears the winds are 10-15 knots... if Liftoff speed is 80IAS this puts him at 65-70 GS. so he goes from 0-65-70 in 9-10 seconds.... this is not an amazing feat by any means. Ignoring the factors involved tells me you have little if any aviation experience
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Additional issue, we never discussed how this plane is missing two of its underwing hinges. In frame 290 I see 4 obvious hinges but the two outer most are not present. Where did they go ? The other 4 are visible why are those two gone ?
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@AustinSwill The video does not start with the plane moving. The first 8-10 frames the aircraft is still. It begins to move after frame number 11 or 12. I have watched every frame in the 5-11 second range. I do not see rudder control movement. I see a change in the aspect ratio from the camera angle to the rudder, it becomes wider as it approaches, but I cant see any deflection of the control surface there at all. Nor can I see any frame that show elevator movement at all.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 At least you're entertaining in your answers if not a little disturbed. I bet you think 911 was all trickery, too. Well in reference to this plane crash, it's well documented and is not a fake. Despite you checking frame to frame and finding out a videos quality limits, you are wrong. Do your homework. I am a pilot and am very aware of this accident and video.
beautowise 1 year ago
@beautowise If you are a pilot, you are not a very observant one. You conflate a real event, the actual crash, with this video which has been disputed for years. We know from TSB ground roll was 920 feet. If this video is genuine, we see elapsed time from first movement to airborne (frame 11 to frame 236) is 7.2 seconds. A 22000 pound DH4 can't do that, it's impossible. A low 7 second 900 split equates to a low 9 second 1/4 mile time. No possible way. Care to explain that ?
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Are you serious? Are you really this into developing some conspiricy surrounding a well known accident? The only debate on this has been between YouTube wackos who think it's fake and those that know what really happened. It was a simple mistake of not doing control checks at run-up, which would have found the steering locks in place. Right where they found them after the crash. Sorry to burst your bubble. Waste your time on this some more. Im so done. ROTFLMAO ... at you. Wow.
beautowise 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 @bigbird1188 Are you serious? Are you really this into developing some conspiricy surrounding a well known accident? The only debate on this has been between YouTube wackos who think it's fake and those that know what really happened. It was a simple mistake of not doing control checks at run-up, which would have found the steering locks in place. Right where they found them after the crash. Sorry to burst your bubble. ROTFLMAO, at you. Wow.
beautowise 1 year ago
@beautowise This debate has been in play since at least 2000 & has been discussed on numerous aviation forums since then. You again display a very simplistic flaw in your logical thinking, hopefully you are not a commercial pilot :) I can understand you reluctance to engage in discussion; it's obvious you don't have much specific info about NC400C. It now seems very clear you're simply trying to save face, as contrary to your inflated boasts, you lack any substantive knowledge or answers.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 This aircraft has STOL capabilities coupled with the turbine conversion and a light load makes this aircraft capable of takeoffs in 1000 ft.or less depending on conditions and obstructions.Ive been in aviation for thirty plus years as a pilot and maintenance and engineering
MissyMicole23 1 year ago
@MissyMicole23 Hello Missy, yes the Caribou has impressive STOL capabilities. The TSB report said that the predicted ground roll for the incident flight was around 700 feet, though on that day it needed 900 feet. This is based on previous flights under similar conditions. However, in doing research I am confident a Caribou can not cover 900 feet in 7+ seconds. That's the possible problem with the video.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 You must also remember the premature rotation due to the gust lock made the take off distance shorter than normal.The time and distance reguarding take off performance really isnt the main point.the gust lock and lack of removal is.
MissyMicole23 1 year ago
@MissyMicole23 Hello I believe the time and distance issue is precisely the point. Just as we know a video of a man sprinting 100 yards in 3 seconds must be fake, we must also believe a Caribou moving 900 feet in 7 seconds must also be fake. Again, that elapsed time is impossible for a Dh4 Caribou even with turbines. Either the TSB or the video is wrong. They cant both be correct as they contradict each other. The take of distance was 20 % (200 ft) longer than expected that day, not shorter.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Well you seem like a nice enough person despite being higher than 10 hippies at wood stock.The aircraft pitched up in a manner that took the pilot by surprise GEE,YA THINK .So what does the t/o distance have to do with your post??????
MissyMicole23 1 year ago
@MissyMicole23 Hello Missy, you seem nice too but I think you're not understanding the concept here. Check performance for this aircraft. Even DH5 Buffalos, an STOL aircraft with much better performance, can't move 900 feet in that amount of time. It's simple; a DH4 can't accelerate that fast. I can't convey this concept in a more basic manner. If you think I'm wrong, please do some research and show me the numbers that disprove what I've said. I've sent you the TSB report to begin with :)
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 In 1992, this aircraft was being used as a testbed for the Pratt & Whitney PT-6 turboprop conversion. The pilots failed to remove the control lock before this flight.
It is supposed to be physically impossible to advance the throttles with the lock on. But this aircraft was being modified The throttle quadrant was not properly rigged to accommodate the throttle levers for the turbine engines. Three people were on board; two test pilots and an engineer.
beautowise 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Problem 4 The video quality cannot be from Hi8 8mm tape which it purportedly is. TSB quotes slight control surface movements are visible yet we cant see NEWCAL or serials on the tail. When directly across from the camera, with plenty of back-lighting, we don't see any windows at all. At frame 262 half a window is drawn, barely. There is no light whatsoever from the cockpit. Again the two outboard hinges under the left wing are simply not there, they are gone. Frame 290
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Prob 4: You can see a large left rudder deflection on the TO roll and also a slight deflection as the plane starts to climb. I don't know why you refuse to see these things that are clearly visible to me. Joking aside, how is your eyesight? Windows are clearly visible at certain angles and not so visible at others... Why would someone who is faking the video not make all the windows clearly visible at all times? why would they draw them one frame and not the next. ?
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Prob 4 What frame do you see this "large rudder deflection" ? TSB stated they saw video slight evidence @ the start of the roll. From that distance we can barely even see the rudder. There is NO WAY anyone can see control surface movement at the start of the takeoff roll. A computer generated graphics program such as MS flight sim does precisely what we see here. It only draws detail when it has to. Vids from MS look exactly like this video on a frame by frame basis.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Between 6-9 sec if you watch the rudder you will see it "broaden" then reduce in size indicating left rudder deflection and then a re-centering. If the rudder had been held steady this perceived increase and then decrease in chord would not be seen... It would appear as a steady growth in width.
AustinSwill 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Well one thing is for certain, no matter what we may believe those 3 men are still dead. Something I haven't checked is the acceleration needed to cover 920 feet in about 7.2 seconds, possibly running into a head wind. That might be too quick to be realistic for that plane. Some NHRA Pro Mod & Super Comp dragsters are getting 1000ft times around 7 seconds. Those have to be quicker than a DH4.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Prob 4 continued: They isn't a person drawing or not drawing windows, it's likely a CGI PC program. Available processing cycles are used to draw what is necessary, residual or redundant items such as windows or minor details are not drawn consistently, especially when the object is moving. We see that present in sims but never in actual video of real events. This is why I stated this looked like a simulation with the vanishing details one frame to the next.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Problem 5 Frame 537 The planes right wing tip suddenly disappears BEFORE hitting ground. There are obvious blending & insert issues here, photoshop Tail falls in front of wrong wing according to TSB crash report. Frame 589 & 590 show poor looking explosion, but occurs after camera is brought back up. Frame 591, smoke & fire, which looks real, is clearly spliced in afterwards. It's obvious. Port wing snaps & moves forward & that's a little odd considering estimated impact speed.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Prob 5: Loko, the plane at impact was probably doing 80+knots... the Wing is fairly high aspect ratio meaning that from front to back it is fairly narrow. it appears to be ~2 feet at the tips and 4-5 where it meets the nacelle. Why dont you calculate how long it takes to move 3 feet going 80 - 100 knots. Then consider the changing background as it goes from sky to below the horizon and perhaps you will understand why it "appears" to disappear.
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Prob 5 : Please look at the frame referenced. There is a demarcation line in the video that slices off the wing tip. That is not natural or real. It does not merely "Appear" to vanish, we can see an obvious vertical line that is slicing through the wing tip. It looks very much like this was added on top of the background. There are also obvious blending marks surrounding the entire plane in the final sequences, very much like we see in photoshop or similar graphics apps.
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@bigbird1188 Prob 5 cont: The port wing snapping forward would be expect IMPO as there is a lot of weight out there consisting of wing structure, FUEL and the engine... The wing actually has a lot more mass than the fuselage. Do you thing planes are built with the strength necessary to stop all that weight on an impact? The port wing going forward looks completely "natural"
AustinSwill 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Problem 6 The Canadian TSB crash report describes the incident aircraft flight profile on that day. What they say & what we see in the video do not coincide. Additionally, is this the bottom or top of runway 14 @ Gimli ? If the vid does accurately show bottom of runway, then smoke is clearly blowing in wrong direction, TSB report shows weather station present @ Gimli & listed conditions, wind speed & direction at time of crash. These are some of the issues. Any explanations ?
bigbird1188 1 year ago
@AustinSwill Those questions below are just 6 or so issues & problems that are present with this video, there are others. Maybe 30 or so in all. One issue by itself could be coincidence. 30 or so problems is starting to look suspicious. Video problems that directly contradict Bombardier, Canadian TSB & eye-witnesses are especially troubling. If you can, please enlighten us with your knowledge & evidence concerning these questions. I would be happy to hear what you have to say.
bigbird1188 1 year ago