91–100 of 486 posts
It wouldn't be hard to maneuver it right in front of the airliner and cause a collision. While the aircraft would likely survive an engine strike, at only a few thousand feet of altitude it doesn't give much time to recover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of that alien stuff was miscalculating velocities by not taking into account field of view (zoom in/out) changes in the camera.
Are you referring to the documented cases of UFO sightings by the US navy? AFAIK there were also numerous pilot testimonies and radar logs to prove what was happening. Or is it a different case?
Here he goes through why the glare rotates while the horizon does not (and recreates the phenomenon): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka_bX9Hx1H0
Here he highlights the relevant gimbal information on the Navy display that explains the "sudden" movements of the UFO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1di0XIa9RQ&t=251s
He's a retired developer who is now a science writer and skeptical investigator (just to give you an idea of where his expertise/bias may lie)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I listened to the audio book of “The Only Plane in the Sky” (do recommend), and they played real recordings of ATCs on 9/11 as the planes were hitting buildings. It was surreal listening to them talk about the catastrophe but all while maintaining a total sense of calm.
It is quite admirable. I respect someone able to communicate effectively in a high stakes situation.
Sometimes I put them on as working background audio, it’s tremendously soothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a reason why the flights are all over water? LAX doesn’t have a body of water surrounding it other then the Pacific Ocean. Is that a requirement for the jet pack?
I'm pretty sure its because falling hundreds of feet into water is more survivable than hundreds of feet into earth or concrete. There are flights, however, over land, but they usually involve a lot of practice and permitting.
No, not really - hitting watter as damaging as hitting concrete once you get above 100 feet high. But at least you're not going to kill an unlucky pederastian by falling on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
During my Interaction Design master I had to read a paper about the interface design for tools aiding people in these kinds of jobs. The designers spent a lot of time observing them at work and concluded that one specific feature of this work environment was that it doesn't have a "normal" situation and "emergency" situation, it's a non-stop juggling of emergencies all the time . Which I guess is part of why they sta…
Would you be able to provide a link to the paper? Sounds like an interesting read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it's not Rossi, whose design has been years in the making, I think a copycat is most likely here. Rossi's wing operates at 4000+ feet and 189mph, which is comparable to jets slowing down on long final. Those hobby jet engines are very expensive but off the shelf, and anyone can build a wing in their garage. The FAA would classify it as an aircraft (already has), and would like to talk to this operator. I thin…
It is also odd that they said "in a jetpack" rather than wearing or riding on/under a jetpack. Might this also be a very small but conventional aircraft? Might it be a mannequin mounted inside a smaller drone? Size gets distorted in these situations. (FYI those hobby jets are one option, but there are considerably more capable small jets available, mostly used for cruise missiles and heavy drones.)
"Do you see that man in the suit over there?"
"the suspect in body armor was described as being 6 feet tall."
"man in an orange shirt" is the title of a popular pbs show.
etc etc etc.
ATCs have a reputation for never losing their cool and that really shines through here: “Tower, there’s a guy in a jetpack flying outside.” “Copy. To your left or your right?”
There are youtube videos of ATC recordings (with transcripts) of pilots losing their cool. You are right, I don't think any ATC lost their cool in any of the recordings I've listened to. This quote from the article made me smile: >> Another pilot chimed in: "Only in LA."
The SR71 radio speed check was in LA too.
I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its ground speed.
'90 knots Center replied.
Moments later,a Twin Beech required the same.
'120 knots' Center answered.
We weren’t the only ones proud of our ground speed that day
as almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted:
'Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests ground speed readout.'
There was a slight pause, then the response,
'620 knots on the ground, Dusty.'
As I was thinking to myself how ripe a situation this was,
I heard a familiar click of a radio transmission coming from my
back-seater. It was at that precise moment I realized Walt and I
had become a real crew, for we were both thinking in unison.
'Center, Aspen 20, you got a ground speed readout for us?'
There was a longer than normal pause
'Aspen, I show 1,942 knots.'
No further inquiries were heard on that frequency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is truly one of my favorite aviation stories of all time and reread it anytime it gets linked here. Not sure why you are downvoted, it's the most relevant and humorous explanation of the calm, professional ATC "Houston Center" voice out there.
I haven't downvoted it personally, because I would really really really love it to be true - but it's been "debunked"(if you can call it that). I suspect some of it is true - but not exactly as told. https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/8x5ndw/til_wh...
ATCs have a reputation for never losing their cool and that really shines through here: “Tower, there’s a guy in a jetpack flying outside.” “Copy. To your left or your right?”
Incidentally, do pilots say left and right? They don't have a special word (port / starboard) like naval vessels?
For example "traffic 3 o'clock" means there is someone on you right.
Port/starboard is not used in aviation and I don't know of any equivalent besides left/right.