Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 486 posts

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#341

Post by OJFord »

CPLX wrote: post #324
OJFord wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The upthread-linked Reddit debunk [0] is A) SR71 would've been on a different frequency to both other planes; B) ATC computers at the time were capped at 990 knots; C) SR71s' speeds were classified, no way the crew would've asked or ATC responded with it. Unfortunately. https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/8x5ndw/til_wh...

Well if someone on reddit said it convincingly it’s settled.

Come on, I didn't claim that. I responded to 'someone on HN claiming to have a pilots licence' who couldn't see a reason it wasn't plausible. I'm just offering three anti-plausability reasons someone else on the internet had.

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#342

Post by outworlder »

oh_sigh wrote: post #155
mamon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> falling hundreds of feet into water is more survivable than hundreds of feet into earth or concrete. 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.

The world record for cliff diving is 192', so I'm sure there is some special way you can enter the water, if not safely, at least more safely than entering land.

Just up to a point. Go fast enough and water won't be able to get out of the way in time.

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#343

Post by umvi »

amelius wrote: post #317
janlaureys wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I watch this video and the other jetman videos I can't help but try to find anomalies or something wrong in the video to somehow try and prove that it is CGI (which I know it's not).

From another viewpoint: people fly turbine-powered model aircraft all the time. Why wouldn't you believe it?

Well for one, where is the fuel? Seems like it would take a tremendous amount of fuel and there are no visible fuel tanks on the jetpack.

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#344

Post by OJFord »

danlugo92 wrote: post #301
vanderZwan wrote: post #78

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…

Glassdoor says they earn $30k - $64k yet lots of us earn more in our comfy office jobs typing code into a text editor, kinda puts things into perspective.

To be really blunt, I reckon it's just supply and demand: there's not that many jobs (relatively few airports in the world compared to other entire industries) and a relative lot of people who love it, and would rather do it than earn a bit more at a lower stress higher paid similarly skilled desk job & hobby listen-in/plane-spot.

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#345

Post by pqdbr »

MayeulC wrote: post #187
rozab wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think those look really exhausting and unnatural since you have to carry your whole bodyweight on your arms. Seriously, try suspending yourself with your hands on two chair backs. Now imagine doing that for many minutes at a time, while also withstanding heavy vibration and precisely controlling your flight.

It looks like the arms are just here for controlling the direction, the jets look supported by a belt attachment: https://youtu.be/aFQSFke0wFc?t=35 That video was one link down in the article, several other interesting concepts are shown, that generally seem to be platforms with thrusters. I feel like a more practical design could be something a bit like "falcon" in the avengers: back-mounted thruster that gives a lo…

I remember watching an YouTube interview with the founder, and he explicitly said that he could suspend his entire body weight on his arms alone, on pilates or something, and that was the base idea for the design he went with.

He is a former marine and I think one would need considerable strength to use his jetpack.

One very, very interesting project is Frank Zapata's Flyboard Air (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kB-BGMXxZc and https://www.zapata.com/). You basically stand on a hoverboard.

I wonder what these guys could accomplish if they partnered with, say, DJI or something. Their flight controllers are very small and have years of development in automatic flight stabilization. Anyone that has flown a DJI drone knows what I'm talking about. It would take balancing out of the equation and make these much more feasible for a general audience.

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#346

Post by foxdev »

umvi wrote: post #343
amelius wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From another viewpoint: people fly turbine-powered model aircraft all the time. Why wouldn't you believe it?

Well for one, where is the fuel? Seems like it would take a tremendous amount of fuel and there are no visible fuel tanks on the jetpack.

It's probably in the wing/back thing.

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#347

Post by [deleted] »

umvi wrote: post #343
amelius wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From another viewpoint: people fly turbine-powered model aircraft all the time. Why wouldn't you believe it?

Well for one, where is the fuel? Seems like it would take a tremendous amount of fuel and there are no visible fuel tanks on the jetpack.

[deleted]

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#348

Post by aaron695 »

Animats wrote: post #218

Inflatable display got loose?

That would cause the illusion.

Even if it was a donkey. It certainly won't be an inflatable 'guy in a jet pack'. I assume the other pilot heard the jet pack sighting which is why they said it.

But is it the most probable cause of the illusion?

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#349

Post by rkagerer »

tim333 wrote: post #205
sandworm101 wrote: post #6

>> They are also very high-profile in nature and require a mothership to launch from, such as a helicopter, or at least a very high point to leap from. No. Yves "Jetman" Rossi's design can now launch from a standing position on the ground. It is able to launch, hover, transition to forward flight and zoom-climb to several thousand feet. Other than the landing, which is currently still via parachute ... ironman.

Wow - so he can - here's a video https://youtu.be/lK75XLUIKUk?t=8

Interesting TED talk from nearly a decade ago (before VTOL): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2sT9KoII_M

Re: Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them

#350

Post by mark-r »

enneff wrote: post #321
danso wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that fear of future shame be as primal as the fear of imminent death, at the moment of conflict?

I’d rather die than kill hundreds of people in error.

That may be true, but your brain reacts at a more primitive level in the moment.
Post reply on HN