Live data from Hacker News

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

thedrive.com

321–330 of 486 posts

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

#321
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just need to forever live believing their mistake caused the death of 350 people?

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.

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

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. They use left/right. Port/starboard is useful when you have a crew of people running around doing jobs aboard a three-dimensional ship. Pilots are never more than two people sitting in fixed seats facing forwards. It is a much more linear environment than a ship.

More linear does make sense. "Full astern" is a thing for ships but not planes. But it makes me wonder about helicopter pilots. Do they say left and right?

Yes.

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

#324
post #175
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the procedural problem with it? It's possibly a little too cute or maybe embellished, but there's nothing in it that sounds impossible or beyond plausibility. For reference I have a pilot's license.

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.

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

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got a few years on you evidently; I was in a college mechanical drafting class that had just let out after the disaster. As it was at UCF east of Orlando, I had to but look East and see it.

Columbia happened on a Saturday.

Yes, was thinking Challenger; where the SRB's that mentioned were relevant. Columbia I saw on TV with my toddler, who's a sophomore in college now.

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

#326

Every inch of that airport and all runways are covered by video cameras, many of them. There should be no ambiguity here. Let's hope they release the footage.

Of what? Something 6' long at 3000' up? That's a 1/10th of a degree across.

Even if you want to do the 6' long at 900' (300 yards), that's only about 4/10ths of a degree across.

Those aren't things that are captured on camera well. These are angles that are similar to a 110' long airplane cruising at 38000' (that spec in the sky leaving a contrail).

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

#327
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some weight would be supported by aerodynamic effects once you start moving (I've seen videos where they have a squirrel suit-like web between their legs). Holding yourself up like that is probably comparable in strength/endurance requirements to other sports like rock climbing, which still manage to be very popular. This design has a fitness prerequisite, which is okay. It's probably only the extreme sports crowd th…

Mostly you climb with your legs not your hands. Undercling is considered comparatively really beefy vs pitches that are mostly vertical.

Almost all gym lead routes are overhanging for fall safety reasons. Stemming/mantling (which would use the same muscles as the jetpack) is considered much less burly, anyway.

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

#328
I feel like I'm in a fucking clown land.

There was no guy in a jet pack flying along side them.

It'll be something big a long distance away.

It's good they accurately reported what they saw. And that's fun. But it's also not real.

Any pilots want to chime in? Surely you get training in optical errors. And would the second pilot have heard the first report?

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

#329
post #137
post #123

How is it 2020 and no one got a video of this. Hopefully some airport security camera got it, and they will release the video at some point.

Surprised there are not cameras recording what the pilots can see outside? Even if it's overwriting itself every few hours or something.. just to keep a record in case of something weird like this.

Even if there was, what resolution do you want to be capturing? The 6' long at 900' is 0.38°. If you've got a normal lens, that's about 45°. That's about 1/120th of the field of view - about 25px on a 3000px width frame. Switch that to a wider lens (75° or a 180° for the "capture all the windows in one panoramic image") or go to a more common resolution for streaming video and its even smaller.

Even if the camera was there, the image wouldn't be that interesting. You could capture the view of the runway approach... but other than that, there wouldn't ever be anything of interest on the camera. Anything weird would be tiny on the camera.

It is deceptive - we've got good eyes. I remember my grandmother identifying my grandfather at the other end of a very large parking lot by his particular shuffle. Our eyes can resolve two objects that are 30 cm apart at 1km away. Cameras are no where near this good when it comes to details (and those that are aren't taking pictures with something that has its imaging area measured in millimeters). We see at about 500 megapixels.

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

#330
post #326

Every inch of that airport and all runways are covered by video cameras, many of them. There should be no ambiguity here. Let's hope they release the footage.

Of what? Something 6' long at 3000' up? That's a 1/10th of a degree across. Even if you want to do the 6' long at 900' (300 yards), that's only about 4/10ths of a degree across. Those aren't things that are captured on camera well. These are angles that are similar to a 110' long airplane cruising at 38000' (that spec in the sky leaving a contrail).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN