>>2574125

Planefag here

There are two issues that I have not seen properly addressed and really bother me.

1 - The aircraft was filmed doing aerobatics which create g forces and yet Russell (supposedly the pilot) did not appear to be straining while talking to the tower. Pulling g's make it hard to talk clearly even if you are trained.

2 - Another anon pointed out that 'bitchin betty" - the cockpit alerts systems - were not heard in the background while the plane was performing the aerobatics close to the ground. Bitchin betty would have been screaming about just about everything we saw on the video.

I have a portable air to ground radio to use as a backup and could talk to the tower ( or other aircraft) safely from my office if I wanted to.

It really seems to me that the cockpit recording was NOT from the person flying the plane.

Anyone else have the same concerns?

>>2574395

Hard to be funny when the blood is draining from your brain from G's.

>>2574423

planefag again

Years ago Airbus showed they could remote pilot an Airbus A320 successfully through the flight computer. So it's not impossible it the Q400 had a "glass cockpit" which allows the computer to control everything if programmed properly.

>>2574576

Planefag again.

i had a friend that flew 757's for Eastern before they went under and he told me in the 80's that the modern aircraft could takeoff and practically land simply by programming the flight computers. I'm sure they've gotten even better since then

Airbus proved it in the 90's by remote flying an A320.