He absolutely faked it. Consider:

- Happened to wear a skydiving parachute for the first time on YT on this flight
- Fuel selector line to the right wing was visibly disconnected, accounting for an empty wing, short intended flight, and the lack of fire
- Left door was ajar when prop started to sputter
- Down/up pitch inputs during "engine failure" add drag and slow the plane, whereas basic pilot training is to put the nose down to gain airspeed

This pilot had some good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=724JxkwWqA8

Congratulations! Your video, United B777 has ENGINE FAILURE+FIRE on departure | Cowling S, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 16 Badge!

Your video, United B777 has ENGINE FAILURE+FIRE on departure | Cowling S, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

A United Boeing 777 flight from Denver to Honolulu had a catastrophic engine failure after take off.

Incident report and photos https://avherald.com/h?article=4e35503b&opt=0

We found something that might be yours https://i.redd.it/gdrau4za8pi61.jpg

blancolirio channel goes into detail about all things this incident

Apparently they had an engine failure

http://www.inquisitr.com/2442673/dashcam-video-captures-small-plane-landing-on-a-busy-california-street/

Your video, Engine failure at 440mph, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My understanding is that a correct autorotation is NOT accompanied by a hard landing. However, it IS very difficult to pull off (hard---what a pun!), the closest personally analogy I can think of, being docking a boat by chopping the throttle while still tens of yards away from the dock, casting it up alongside just So---with all the kinetic energy elegantly spent before kissing the dock side.

The helicopter analogy, again, to my knowledge, is that once engine failure is clearly happening, you flatten the pitch, give up the lift the blades were generating, start falling and preserve main rotor RPM as much as possible---and you get exactly one chance and one chance only to pull pitch (make the rotor blades bite the air) at just the right distance above the ground to decelerate the helicopter just as all the rotational energy of the blades finishes spending itself in generating that last, final iota of lift--and then you kiss the ground.
Or not.

Some educated speculation from FlightGlobal:

"Crews taking off from military bases like Bagram in hostile territory normally plan to climb at the maximum climb angle, to put them at the greatest height above ground level achievable by the time they cross the airfield boundary. This entails a high nose attitude that is maintained for longer than normal, rather than trading climb angle for greater airspeed to make the aircraft easier to handle and safer in the event of an engine failure.

In this film there is no clear visual evidence of a missile travelling toward the aircraft, nor of the explosion or fire that a missile would cause if it were to detonate.

The risks of a maximum angle of climb departure are many. If an engine fails very soon after take-off there is a lower airspeed than normal. Slower speed reduces the rudder authority that keeps the aircraft straight and lowers the margin above stalling speed. In the event of an engine failure it is essential for the crew to push the nose down fast to maintain a safe speed with the lower power output.

Another major risk is that if any cargo is not adequately secured in the hold, the high climb angle will cause the payload to slide backward. This could unbalance the aircraft and cause the nose to pitch up, possibly overwhelming the elevator authority available to the pilots if they attempt to push the nose down."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-flightglobal-expert-analyses-bagram-747-crash-sequence-385338/?cmpid=SOC|FGFG|twitterfeed|Flightglobal

Apparently it was an engine failure.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/top-gear-korea-cobra-helicopter-turbines-fail-crashes-in-arizona-desert-video.html

He's not doing anything dangerous or putting anyone at risk. He's operating the aircraft within it's designed limitations. An engine failure would cause the props to auto feather which would remove the breaking effect, and the aircraft could go about flying normally.

Don't usually get to see this angle at St. Maarten, wind usually going the other way. Normal approach is over the water, and take off in the same direction, towards the center of the island. In fact, you have to juke on takeoff to avoid the mountains (see in the backdrop of this video), which is rather troublesome in a large jetliner. Made more so by the fact the runway at St. Maarten is only 7,150 ft. Of note, the recommended take off length for the fully laden 747 is around 10k feet (it is less, but that is what they recommend), so you can bet those aren't fully loaded. And if you have an engine failure, even just a single, your boned...can't abort, can't fly.

The collateral damage from war on drugs is incalculable - we abuse the non-users and demonize non-violent people users. When will the world understand that doing drugs is not equal to being bad person? War on drugs is a social engineering failure. People who do drugs will always get them legally through prescription or illegally, no matter consequences.

>> ^raverman:

Regardless why they stopped: To have a conversation, engine failure, or to avoid running over a baby - every driver is responsible to maintain their own safe stopping distance.
The asshole crashing through the side seems not have been looking at all let alone following too close to stop safely in wet weather.
I'm amazed anyone thinks it's appropriate to assume the people who stopped were at fault?
Sure, not ideal a place - but within their rights.


In pure legal sense, yes, the guy who ran into them is at fault, the one who runs into the back of the stopped ones is because they should have given enough space to avoid traffic incidents in front of them, indeed. And effectively they hit parked cars.

BUT, not stopping for an insanely STUPID reason in the FAST LANE of a freeway would have made none of this near fatal shit happen. Seriously, some people really need to look at themselves and their anger management.

Regardless why they stopped: To have a conversation, engine failure, or to avoid running over a baby - every driver is responsible to maintain their own safe stopping distance.

The asshole crashing through the side seems not have been looking at all let alone following too close to stop safely in wet weather.

I'm amazed anyone thinks it's appropriate to assume the people who stopped were at fault?
Sure, not ideal a place - but within their rights.

Found my answer on youtube comment:

To all those calling into question the age of the aircraft, any brand new twin engine airplane can have the same thing happen. It's called a Vmc (velocity, minimum controllable) roll. If you have an engine failure and the airspeed is below Vmc, the plane will not be controllable. Unfortunate pilot errors... first, letting the plane get that slow; once the roll started the only save is to cut the working engine and regain control.