News Small plane engine failure

[Hielor]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the center of the camera FOV is not straight ahead, it is also too far angled to be just misaligned.

It's not uncommon to want to include bits of the plane when placing cameras to record in-flight video.

The question is not, if there could be a complicated, hypothetical reason why this camera is there.

The only one coming up with complicated hypothetical reasons for anything is you. I gave you the exact reason, according to the pilot, why the camera was there. You're running off making stuff up to suit your fancy.

Or why a camera was filming the crew at the same time. They are there. As they are, they are positioned for filming the action.

Why would you position a camera to not record action? They wanted to film their 15-minute flight to Lakeland, so they stuck a camera in the back of the plane. What's so hard to believe about that? People record themselves flying all the time, just go browse youtube for flying videos. There are thousands upon thousands, and I've even uploaded one.

There are countless reasons why they could be there, but only one that has no "hypothetical entities":

What about the whole stunt being done for a movie or TV production? Thought of it? Ok, the name of the production would still be a hypothetical entity. But the available pieces fit.

:facepalm:
No, I hadn't thought of it, because it's absurd. The only pieces that "fit" are the ones you've made up. There are simple, reasonable explanations for everything that happens in this video that don't require making stuff up, imagining things, or assuming that two high-time professional pilots are willing to put their lives and careers on the line for a minute-long video.

Moreover, if this were a stunt for a movie or TV production, I challenge you to find the movie or TV show it was used in or for. You're arguing from baseless assumptions. I've been arguing from facts and actually looking things up. Why don't you try it sometime?

 

[computerex]

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.

Interpretation of evidence is relative. Observations are relative. Understanding is relative. You would have to be one arrogant person to believe that what you observe is 100% correct. That the evidence you provide is irrefutable.

Urwumpe provides his point of view, and Heilor his. No way to tell who is right...

 

[Hielor]

Interpretation of evidence is relative. Observations are relative. Understanding is relative. You would have to be one arrogant person to believe that what you observe is 100% correct. That the evidence you provide is irrefutable.

Urwumpe provides his point of view, and Heilor his. No way to tell who is right...

Except that Urwumpe has provided no evidence at all, and every time he's claimed anything ("every time the engine cuts out, yellowshirt's hand was on the controls", "you can face legal issues...","it's strange to have a camera in a plane") I've shown it to be false.

---------- Post added at 17:22 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------

To be sure: if anyone can provide any actual evidence (as in, not failing-to-watch-the-video, ignoring-the-audio-track-for-your-own-convienence, just-plain-making-stuff-up) that this was faked or staged, I'll happily consider it. No such evidence yet has been provided.

 

[Urwumpe]

To be sure: if anyone can provide any actual evidence (as in, not failing-to-watch-the-video, ignoring-the-audio-track-for-your-own-convienence, just-plain-making-stuff-up) that this was faked or staged, I'll happily consider it. No such evidence yet has been provided.

:WTF:

Well, if you want to get down to that level: What about putting your glasses on, before watching the videos again? Maybe you just have a tiny sensory bias in your data.

I don't care if you don't trust my perception, since you can make up your own criteria for evidence, and can always find a reason to say, that my observations are not accurate enough.

I say that the engine did not fail (as in, behave different to the pilot inputs) and the landing was far less dramatic as it appeared, because the road did not see unplanned traffic, and the placement of the cameras is not a normal feature of such small planes. I don't mind at all, that somebody could mod a plane to have such camera placement, if it would be impossible, we wouldn't have that video. I mind that it was done in this case.

The odds of your interpretation actually being sound, are even lower than the odds of a TV production being responsible for the video.

Also, you did not show it false. You only give people the feeling that you are watching different videos.

 

[abninf]

Since Hielor actually has a PPL and real world aircraft experience, I will side with him.

 

[computerex]

Except that Urwumpe has provided no evidence at all, and every time he's claimed anything ("every time the engine cuts out, yellowshirt's hand was on the controls", "you can face legal issues...","it's strange to have a camera in a plane") I've shown it to be false.

Read what I posted and try to understand what it means. Observations, and interpretation of evidence is relative. If we could all agree on what is sufficient evidence, there would be no intellectual debates.

Urwumpe in my opinion has provided evidence, that is sufficient for him. He may have experiences that make his explanation viable for him, experiences that you may not have had.