Most Helpful Customer Reviews
80 of 83 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Too many questions, April 4, 2005
This review is from: Survive!: My Fight for Life in the High Sierras (Hardcover)
As a pilot and owner of a small plane in the Sierra foothills, I spent a lot of time flying over the Sierra and I also do a lot of backpacking in the High Sierra. True stories of adventure and survival are my favorite reads and I was looking forward to reading this one.
But after only a few pages, I started to have some doubts about the veracity of this story. So, I visited the NTSB's web site to look up the actual NTSB report on this fatal aviation crash. What I found was very disturbing. At a minimum, the author is guilty of omitting facts which do not cast him in a good light. At worst, he is being dishonest with the reader. Regardless, it left me wondering how much of the rest of his story is complete and accurate. With those doubts in my mind, I could not enjoy the rest of his story. His writing style adds to this skepticism. I found it self serving, with too many words devoted to reminding the reader of his heroic efforts. I contrast this to a book like Touching the Void by Joe Simpson. In that book, the author is brutally candid about his own flaws, his own culpability, and his own shortcomings. Simpson makes no effort to personally glorify himself but instead simply tells the story and lets the reader come to their own conclusions. In "Survive", author DeLeo seems unable to go more than a paragraph without reminding us of his injuries or his heroic efforts.
The NTSB factual report can be found at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX95FA046&rpt=fa
The Probable Cause report is at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX95FA046&rpt=fi
Here are the salient points...
This accident was not caused by severe turbulence. It was pilot error. DeLeo flew into a box canyon because he was unfamiliar with the terrain. One of the first things pilots are warned about mountain flying is to avoid box canyons. Once entered, a box canyon can be too narrow for a plane to turn around in and the surrounding terrain can be too high for a small plane to climb above. In this case, the box canyon was extremely short and extremely steep. The terrain rose 3000' in 3 miles. At cruising speed, it would have taken his plane less than 90 seconds to go 3 miles. The Maule is not capable of climbing that fast in mountain altitudes. The "downdraft" the author claims he experienced was more likely the sensation of rapidly rising terrain. A pilot should never enter a canyon unless he knows that he can fly out of it. As for his claim of severe turbulence, the NTSB referred to four other pilot reports in the area stating that the air was smooth. Winds were also reported as calm or mild (even by the pilot/author) and it was early in the day - severe low altitude turbulence is unlikely in those situations. But even if there was turbulence, that is something all pilots should anticipate in mountain flying. Failure to do so is no one's fault but his own.
The pilot had a habit of flying low in mountain terrain and he was doing so on this flight. How do we know? Because one of his passengers was taking video of the flight. The NTSB was able to review the video up until the moment it was damaged by impact. That contradicts his statement that he was flying at 12,000' MSL.
While not required to do so, the pilot was not carrying VFR charts and, therefore, was not monitoring his position on those charts. Had he done so, he may have known that he had turned towards a box canyon before it was too late to do something about it.
The pilot did not file a flight plan. While that is not required by the FAA it is highly advisable for a mountain flight. In lieu of that, he should have at least told someone of their anticipated flight path and their ETA back in Long Beach. That would have initiated search and rescue soon after they were overdue.
But it was the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) which troubled me the most. The NTSB states that the ELT was found under the left seat (where it was installed) and was not turned on. More notably, they stated that its antenna not only was not connected but that it was not even in the plane and there was no evidence that an antenna had ever been installed. The antenna should have been permanently installed through the wing and continuously connected. The pilot should have known this, and probably did. The plane's annual inspection surely would have identified this problem. But even if it did not, as the owner/operator it is the pilot's responsibility to make sure the ELT is functional. Had the ELT worked, the search and rescue flights which flew overhead in the immediate days after the accident would have located the beacon, and the plane, and the injured passengers. Even more troubling though is the fact that the author states that he and his passenger (Wave) agreed to a plan in which the author would try to hike out of the Sierra while the Wave would remove the ELT from the plane, "extend" its antenna, and turn it on - preferably from a higher ridge. Why then was the ELT found still in its original location in the plane? Why hadn't they even removed it (even though the author infers that Wave removed it before he left the scene)? And why would the author leave his friends and the plane (supposedly with a functioning ELT) to attempt a winter crossing of the Sierra? Given that no antenna was found in the plane, one could conclude that the author (and his passenger) knew that the ELT would not function and that, without it, the likelihood of being found by search and rescue was remote.
On a minor, but rather odd note, the NTSB report also stated clearly that upon entering the Ranch House Café at the end of his ordeal, the author only called the Sheriff "after having something to eat." In his book, he claims that he immediately demanded a phone to call for someone to help his friends.
Lastly, given that the author chose to include copies of various documents in the book, why did he not also include a copy of the NTSB report? What could be more relevant?
Despite all of these omissions or discrepancies, the fact that the author was able to cross much of the Sierra in late November is indeed remarkable. His story, accurately and fully told, would not only have been riveting but it would also have been educational to other pilots and their passengers. It is unfortunate that the author apparently did not take this approach. Were I among the family and friends of the two people who died in this crash, I would probably be very upset that the pilot has glossed over his own mistakes in an effort to glorify his survival and profit from an accident which took their lives.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
22 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Questions for Peter DeLeo, May 22, 2005
This review is from: Survive!: My Fight for Life in the High Sierras (Hardcover)
Mr. DeLeo:
On the assumption you read the reviews of your book posted here at Amazon.com, I think many of your readers, particularly pilots like myself, would appreciate your comments regarding the inconsistencies between your book and the NTSB accident report. Questions I am personally curious about are:
1) As the pilot-in-command, why didn't you assure that the ELT was operational before leaving your two passengers to await rescue? With 600 hours in your Maule often flying over remote terrain how is it possible you did not know the ELT was never installed properly in the first place?
2) How do you reconcile the reported mild wind conditions with your accounting of sink so strong it caused a rapid 3,000 foot altitude loss? Were you simply caught in a box canyon flying too low as the report (and the video tape) suggests?
3) What are your thoughts ten years later about your lack of pre-flight planning such as not filing a flight plan, carrying the appropriate maps and ideally a handheld radio?
Your survival story is amazing. I doubt I could have endured what you did and survived half the time.
As a pilot though I find it disingenuous that your book hardly mentions the poor decisions that seemed to have made as pilot-in-command before and during your flight.
Your response would be appreciated.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
survival fairy tale, June 29, 2006
This review is from: Survive!: My Fight for Life in the High Sierras (Hardcover)
other reviewers have pointed out that the author of this book lied about the reason for the crash and provided government website links to prove it. i am not a pilot, but i have to bring up other points that just do not make sense. keep in mind, the author tries to portray himself as having some knowledge of survival and even states that his friends described him as a survivalist.
shortly after crashing the author decides that their only chance to be rescued is if someone sets off on foot to look for help. one passenger is trapped in the plane. one has, according to the author, one bruise on his forhead. peter, the author, has seven broken ribs, a shatterd left ankle, a broken shoulder and this is how his friend describes his head: "...your eyelid is torn, and your face and head are starting to swell real bad. you've got cuts and gashes on your face and head, too." he also says he no longer has the full use of his fingers or hands. the obvious question is, why was peter the one to set off on foot? the author never gives us any insight as to the decision making process.
the author tells us what supplies they had: 2 large camping tarps, 20 feet of rope, 3 flares, a lighter, a knife, 2 flashlights, assorted tools, a loaf of fruit bread, a jug of water, a jug of juice, and a couple of apples. feeling that their survival may depend on him succeeding, the author chooses...nothing!
during his trek through the wilderness he encounters a black bear, which he says average 300 to 400 pounds. i almost laughed when he said he could feel the ground tremble when the bear took a step! we have a lot of people in this country that weigh that much, and the ground never trembles when they walk past! i am sure anyone that has been to the circus and gotten close to elephants that are walking will tell you that something as small as a black bear will not make the ground tremble! but, i guess peter's goal was to tell an exciting tale, not an accurate one.
after being rescued, and suffering the pain of all those broken bones along with fingers and toes that are black from frostbite, the author decides to go home for a night or so and get some good reast before going to a hospital for treatment. is this supposed to convince us how tough he is, or how stupid?
other reviewers have already pointed out that his passengers did not survive, so i need to touch on this point. the one passenger that was not trapped in the plane had plenty of supplies to make shelter with, to make fire with, and enough food to have survived on, yet he died due to exposure to the elements.
there are many things in this book that simply do not make sense, and the author makes no attempt to explain any of it.
is the book at least exciting to read? from a fictional standpoint, maybe. but if you have ever read real survival stories, or if you have some common sense, the complete lack of believability will keep you from enjoying this.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
