Customer Reviews

Survive!: My Fight for Life in the High Sierras

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I read this book thinking it'd be along the lines of the moving and incredible "Into Thin Air". Unfortunately I was left with several questions about the book and the veracity of the narrator.

His accomplishment in surviving 13 days through extreme conditions is amazing and nothing short of inspirational. I mean to take nothing away from that and would have been satisfied with the book on those merits alone.

However, I felt there were too many unanswered questions. I'm not a pilot but I found it odd that he didn't mention the reasons for the plane going down. Writing from the perspective he was, several years after the incident, he obviously knew more about the crash than he chose to include.

Similarly, I continue to find it odd that between the author (a man with 16 broken bones) and Wave (who is described in the book as completely unharmed save for a bruise upon his forehead) that the author was the one chosen to walk over 45 miles (as the crow files) for help.

It would seem a highly illogical decision for the one severely hurt, especially with a shattered left ankle to make the hike than for someone who suffered no injuries whatsoever. I feel the author's reliability is questioned when he seems to gloss over reasoning for this and offer no collaborative information.

An interesting read but several nagging questions remained that had me wondering what really went on during this entire ordeal. Whatever the answers, his ability to survive is amazing.

I'm a pilot and love stories like this, so when I saw the book at my local bookstore, I snapped it up right away.

First, the good. The author definitly had the character and courage to walk out of the mountains and survive to hopefully save his friends. I kept wondering as I read it, whether I would have had the same determination or if I would have given in to sleep or exhaustion. So you gotta hand him that. And, he seemed to write the book himself without help which is admirable.

On the other hand, while the whole event itself really is a great story, the writing just kind of fell flat to me. I had trouble believing that the author could remember his exact thoughts and actions in such vivid detail. The author seems to remember every detail of each hour along with his actions, thoughts, words, etc. I realize that a lot of that was literary licence, it just seemed very padded and was distracting. Also, unless I missed it, the author didn't mention that he was determinted to be at fault in the crash. Here's a quote from the NTSB report on the cause:

"the pilot's entry into a box canyon at an altitude insufficient to maintain clearance from the surrounding terrain and obstacles. Factors in the accident were the high density altitude condition and the steep, rapidly rising nature of the mountainous terrain." That's a pretty serious detail to leave out.

To be honest, when I got to the last 30 or so pages of the book, I lost interest to the point where I was skimming rather than reading. Maybe I missed a mention of the cause of the accident.

To sum it up, great story of courage and determination. Not a great job of actually telling the story.

I, like many other readers, picked up this book and could not put it down. An excellent read. Then the questions began. Some things just left me with nagging doubts. I know the area of the crash and the author's trek route very well having spent many summers in this part of the Sierra doing scientific research and the last 30 years hiking its trails in summer and winter.

I too ask why Wave didn't walk out? He was essentially uninjured. Leaving the scene of the crash immediately also seems a bit far fetched- but who knows- people do odd things when they are in shock and injured.

I've reread the book several times now and still many things don't add up. Why did he go east over the crest of the Sierra rather than southeast over the lower portion of the crest? Why go over Olancha Peak when a much lower pass (and easier terrain) is clearly visible to the south of the peak? The east side of Olancha Peak, esp. in the summit area at night, in a weakened condition is a sure recipe for disaster. Why climb the extra 1500 or so feet to the summit?

Weren't there any charts in the aircraft which he could have used for navigation? What was that helicopter doing in the meadow when he just missed seeing DeLeo? The "I would like to know" list goes on-and-on. Obviously he survived - it is really a great survival story- but I think there is a lot more to the story.

All-in-all I liked the book- but I would like to hear more explanations from the author. Perhaps some of those nagging doubts will go away.

I am a pilot and this story was great until I really started to think about it. First off, the crash didn't sound very likely. Turns out it did NOT happen that way at all.

Then after the crash some things just didn't add up. The pilot, with 16 broken bones and NO FOOD, does a 2 week long hike in the middle of winter over terrain and in weather that would likely kill most people in good health that did have adequate supplies. He repeatedly does things that sound beyond impossible for someone with so many injuries and starved as well.

Why did he take off on this hike and leave an UNINJURED man behind? Wouldn't it have made more sense for the guy with no injuries to be the hiker? Why didn't they have adequate supplies for flying in this kind of remote terrain. A handheld radio would have had them out in a day or two. Two close enocunters with aircraft are described where it sounds like the pilot could almost have hit them with a stick and no one saw him with a red coat against white snow? The "rescue mission" by his brother riding a motorcycle on closed icy mountain roads sounds stupendously idiotic. Why not take a Jeep? This guy was very lucky not to be SAR mission #2 himself. Then at the end of the story he finally gets to a hospital with 16 broken bones and nearly dead from starvation and they put a cast on his ankle and SEND HIM HOME? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, as the saying goes.

I just found myself thinking that so much of the "real" actions from the crash to his escape to civilization really had the feeling of being grossly embellished...especially the near death fall off the cliff where he hung on with one arm and then pulled himself back up, and the multiple times where he was "ALMOST" rescued.... I dont question the general facts presented by Mr. Deleo but my feeling is most off the "exciting" details of his ordeal may be just that? A story. I found myself saying out loud several times "come on...that didnt happen" and "boy this guy is getting pretty creative with his "nonfictional" account!"

It just feels like it may have been "jazzed up" a bit to go into print. Maybe thats why it took 10 years to write?? Guess we'll never know. In the end, as others have pointed out, the book seems to leave you with as many lingering, nagging unanswered questions as anyting. This is a book that tries very hard to be like "Into Thin Air" but fails on most levels in comparison, not only because the writing is very basic but because it has the feeling of not being true to the actual events...

To begin with, I love a good real-life adventure story whether it's "Into Thin Air" or some other tale of incredible feats of human endurance. I wanted to like this book, having read and heard about Mr. DeLeo's story years ago when the plane crash happened. However, I also happened to have read an article by David Roberts in the magazine Men's Journal (May, 1995) called "The Survivor." Roberts was one of the first to explore the gaping holes in DeLeo's story, well before the NTSB had issued its report. DeLeo was portrayed as a reckless, thrill-seeking pilot who didn't mind putting other people's lives in danger. Yet in the book DeLeo says over and over how he thought about his dying friends and repeatedly told authorities that his friends needed to be rescued immediately. This goes on and on to the point of unbelievability. DeLeo does mention Roberts and Men's Journal in the "media frenzy" chapter, but only refers to it as a

"tabloidlike" article and makes Roberts out to be a wacko. If you can get hold of the MJ article, read it. Roberts had a good handle on the "truth" of the story before the rest of the media got a hold of it and turned it into a "hero" story.

While I, like others, find his trek out of the Sierra high counntry remarkable, the fact that two people died due to his negligence and carelessness make this a less than "must read" book.

This is an incredible, amazing survival story. So why isn't it an incredible, amazing book?

In November 1994, Peter DeLeo's plane, carrying him and two passengers, crashed deep California's Sierra Nevada range. With a broken ankle, broken ribs and a broken shoulder, he hiked out through deep snow in 13 days, eating only bugs to survive. He didn't make it out in time for his two friends, Wave Hatch and Lloyd Matsumoto, to be rescued. Both died at the site of the crash.

Survival story fans can live vicariously through DeLeo's ordeal, testing themselves on whether they would make the right moves in order to survive. He offers careful detail about each step of his hike, helping the reader picture where he was and the decisions he had to make.

DeLeo shows that he had to be smart to survive. He chose his route carefully to avoid going in circles. He learned to pick a good shelter (a rocky cave -- too cold; the hollowed out trunk of a tree -- good). He made sure to dry his clothes in the afternoon sun. I sometimes questioned his choices -- at one point he spent several hours climbing a tree to get a better

view -- but the fact is, he made it out under almost impossible conditions, so he clearly did something right.

Still, questions nag at this book. For starters, the author often seems just too cool and analytical about his horrible ordeal. A normal person would be saying, "My broken bones are killing me! I've only eaten bugs for days and I'm starving! I'm wet and cold and just plain exhausted!" But DeLeo instead portrays himself as carefully analyzing the crust of the snow, the angle of the sun, the droppings of wild animals, and the color of his urine (many times). Is this the way he really is, or is this just the way he wants to portray himself?

Was it really necesary to show DeLeo's whole hiking route in the map in Chapter Three, thus giving away much of the story?

And why was it DeLeo and not Wave who walked out? DeLeo describes Wave as having just a bruise on the forehead after the crash. DeLeo had 16 broken bones. Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for Wave to have gone for help?

I might have been able to let that one go if it hadn't been for the postings of some other reviewers on this site who pointed out that DeLeo left out some important details.

For starters, DeLeo never mentions the important fact that the investigation by the National Traffic Safety Board found that the crash was his fault for flying too low in a box canyon.

Second, while DeLeo mentions making a plan with Wave to use the emergency locator transmitter from the plane, he never mentions, even in the epilogue, that the ELT was found still in the plane, not turned on and lacking a required antenna.

True, DeLeo doesn't *lie* about these things but he clearly dodges them -- because both make him look bad.

Now, you might note that the book isn't really about the crash or the ELT, it's about DeLeo's survival ordeal. So, does his evasion on those two topics really matter to the rest of the book? Yes, they do. In this type of book, you're completely dependent on the author to recount events honestly -- there are no other witnesses. So you've got to trust the author to be giving you the straight story. Unfortunately these issues cast just enough doubt to make readers wonder: "How much of the truth am I getting?"