52 ms·
Airline pilots landing at LAX report “a guy in jetpack” flying alongside them
- 2rsf 6y agoTony Stark ?
- zw123456 6y agoThe two video trailers at the end of the article are pretty fun to watch.
- hourislate 6y agoPeople are Awesome...
- IgorPartola 6y agoYou know it’s true because it’s 2020. Remember that whole alien thing back in April? Me neither because about 10 years worth of events has happened in the past four and a half months.
- cma 6y agoMost of that alien stuff was miscalculating velocities by not taking into account field of view (zoom in/out) changes in the camera.
- bitcharmer 6y agoAre 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?
- vinalk 6y agoIt’s fascinating to me that people with zero experience to be in that situation or use the equipment are saying what the pilots saw was wrong. Everyone is an expert on the Internet.
- sandworm101 6y agoIt is equally fascinating to me that people who do not work with aircraft, pilots, ships, radars or aviation in general automatically assume that the pilots are not incorrect. being a military pilot doesn't make one an expert on all aircraft/weather/radar etc. The scope of their expertise is far smaller than popularly believed.
- dang 6y agoI suppose that people were always this way and that the internet has just brought the phenomenon to mass visibility.
- cma 6y agoThe most prominent was from a pilot who had a history of UFO pranks (flying in over campfires silently then turning on afterburners; his story about doing that showed up in an online UFO report contemporaneously with when he described doing it).
- dsaavy 6y agoMick West on YouTube has some pretty good explanations behind the UFO sightings by the US Navy. 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 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 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)
- ColanR 6y ago> retired developer who is now a science writer Unless there's some unmentioned specific expertise, that's not a very high bar, relative to what he's trying to discuss.
- dsaavy 6y agoSure it's not a high bar, I just wanted to point out what his background was. I don't want to suggest that you need specific credentials in order to conduct reasonable scientific investigations either. His videos do a decent job of replicating the behavior seen in the UFO videos in a simple way and will give experts in the area a starting point to agree/disagree with his conclusions. Especially with the simple descriptions of the gimbal behavior/limitations in range of motion paired with the data given in the view of the video.
- l33tman 6y agoYeah there were a lot of auxiliary interviews that corroborated the story, going back like for the entire morning with radar operators tracking multiple objects. Still, since it feels absolutely crazy that the navy wouldn't investigate more closely in that situation and then just "leak" 20 seconds of it, suggests that it's some kind of intentional or unintentional hoax..
- rhinoceraptor 6y agoUFOs are just unidentified flying objects. It's pretty hard to identify flying objects when you're moving hundreds of miles per hour, looking at another object moving hundreds of miles per hour, from a distance of miles, and you're looking at it through a camera lens.
- paranoidrobot 6y agoOn this, a Youtube creator Julie Nolke had a fairly popular couple of videos on "Explaining the Pandemic to my past self"[1] in April and a part 2 in June[2]. The first one was hilarious, and I struggle to believe that was only in April. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms7capx4Cb8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms7capx4Cb8 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyDpP2s-og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyDpP2s-og
- peterholcomb 6y agoThanks for posting that. That was great.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ibejoeb 6y ago"You're gonna wanna pull all your investments..." Markets are rockin'
- ant6n 6y agoNot between Jan and April
- sophacles 6y agoTurns out I needed to see those. Thanks!
- joosters 6y agoA quick recap of 2020: https://imgur.com/gallery/x2o7JOi https://imgur.com/gallery/x2o7JOi "Anything else?" ..."I'm still in January"
- starpilot 6y agoThat's because we are in the cool zone: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkypdg/were-all-living-in-the-cool-zone-now https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkypdg/were-all-living-in...
- aceman22 6y agoI have a theory that 2020 is not any more unusual than other years, but that information dissemination and digestion has become so efficient that it seems like it's a crazy year. Just think about the Beirut explosion without cellphone cameras. Maybe it would have been in newspapers, but because so many people caught it on camera we were able to understand what 4.1 kilos of ammonium nitrate exploding looks like.
- marcosdumay 6y agoWe got a few rare events all happening this year. I mean... Something like the Beirut explosion only happens ever 3 or 4 years. Our current recession is a two or three times in a lifetime. Mass protests in large countries are some 1 in a decade event... And, of course, the US, Russia and China trio threatening to end the world over the Mid-East and China sea happens a few times an year. It's just that they suddenly stopping because they have something more important to care about is a one in a century thing.
- blhack 6y agoIn 2020 the sitting US president was impeached, we saw a massive stock market crash, a global pandemic, the worst civil unrest in the US in 50 years, massive wildfires all over california, and are heading into what will almost definitely be a contested election where we won't know who won the most contentious presidential election in the last century likely far past what the inauguration date is supposed to be. I think this year is worse than most.
- filoleg 6y ago>we saw a massive stock market crash For this one specifically, i don't really agree, because the index is positive year-to-date, sitting at the historical all-time high right now. Doesn't seem like a massive crash to me, given that it dipped not that badly in the first place and then almost instantly recovered.
- bobbean 6y agoSo the market didn't crash this year?
- sandworm101 6y ago>> 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.
- mrjaeger 6y agoSource?
- sandworm101 6y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj-Iwv5NJKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj-Iwv5NJKg https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/17/tech/jetman-dubai-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/17/tech/jetman-dubai-trnd/index.... "The achievement occurred last Friday, when Jetman pilot Vince Reffett took off from a standing start on the runway at Skydive Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and then flew up to nearly 6,000 feet in altitude. He demonstrated the ability to hover, stop, turn and maneuver."
- dr_orpheus 6y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de_YJzKeGKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de_YJzKeGKU Go to about 3 minutes in to see the take off from standing and continuing to hover.
- imglorp 6y agoEven 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 think you can rule out the multirotor bathtubs for now.
- 6y ago
- ethbr0 6y agoI guess Elon finally finished the Mark II.
- anaganisk 6y agoIm pretty sure Elon is not an inventor of any of the tech he promotes/owns or invents. He is no Tony Stark.
- mdorazio 6y agoI'm surprised that there's not a single picture of this from any of the passengers on the landing flight and that ATC didn't seem to confirm it via radar, either.
- anderiv 6y agoATC primary radar can’t resolve objects that small, and the jetpack-person was unlikely to have the requisite transponder to make it visible to secondary.
- throwanem 6y agoAnd you'd need a very long lens to get a worthwhile shot of a human-sized object a fifth of a mile (~300 yards, so ~900 feet, ~0.3km) away. No phone camera can come anywhere close. I do actually own a lens that could do it. Extended to full 500mm focal length and mounted on a camera body, the whole package is about three feet (0.9m) long. That's a lot to wrestle in economy class, especially if you're not in the window seat! Given advance knowledge of the opportunity, with time enough to prepare, it wouldn't be too hard a shot to get, I think. But taken totally by surprise? Even if you spot me the camera being out and ready to shoot - which is no triviality given that this happened on final - and the jetpack guy being perfectly visible out the passenger windows, I'd still need a very large helping of good fortune, not to mention a good deal of tolerance on the part of whoever is in the window seat.
- sudosysgen 6y agoIn theory, a sharp enough crop body and a 300mm lens could do it. But yes, you really do need a good lens.
- mdorazio 6y agoThat's interesting. Do you have any reading material on the relative resolutions of primary vs. secondary airport radars? Given the shape and profile of a human with a jetpack (basically zero angles), I just assumed that such a person would be easily radar visible.
- 6y ago
- josephpmay 6y agoHow are there no passenger videos?
- mas3god 6y agoIts LA some rich kids are having some risky fun
- bgun 6y agoThis sort of cowboying is how cool technologies end up getting banned and set back years.
- anonymfus 6y agoIt's better when problems with technology are recognised during its development than when that technology is already widespread. What good can bring one of the most wasteful ways of travel imaginable to be worthwhile? It is not cool to emit an anual carbon footprint equivalent of small city in the poor part of the world to take off. Hence it will be better to ban jetpacks for personal travel.
- snarfy 6y agoI recognize those 'jetcat' engines. https://www.jetcat.de https://www.jetcat.de
- intotheabyss 6y agoThose are a lot cheaper than I expected them to be
- sudosysgen 6y agoSwiwin makes even cheaper, more powerful ones. 6000$ retail for a 400N jet. Though, it is a Chinese company, so I would test the engines pretty carefully and a carry a parachute just in case.
- nradov 6y agoThe trouble with jetpacks is that there is a large dead zone in the flight envelope. Too high to survive a crash but too low for a parachute to be effective.
- sudosysgen 6y agoVery true, but to be fair with four engines and a wing you'd need 3 engines to fail out of four to be in a catastrophic situation.
- elteto 6y agoATCs 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?”
- natcombs 6y agoThere 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."
- BurningFrog 6y agoStakes are higher when you're on the plane...
- bityard 6y agoNegative. Pilots only ever have to worry about one plane. ATCs have to worry about all of them.
- dividedbyzero 6y agoBut that one plane has you on it.
- mark-r 6y agoATCs rarely have to worry about dying in the accident.
- hnlmorg 6y agoYou don't need to be physically sat on the plane to emphasise with the severity of the situation. It's not like ATCs are willing pilots to die. And sometimes not being able to physically control the actions of the pilots can add to the stress.
- princekolt 6y agoI don't think there's any question the pilots would describe it as "a guy in a jetpack" if they weren't sure that's what they were looking at. Spotting traffic around the plane is part of pilot training. With that being said, if it zipped by the plane very quickly, there's the possibility it was maybe a very large RC plane shaped like a guy in a jetpack, which I think could be a bit more plausible.
- sandworm101 6y agoI wonder about this. If he was off the wing, could the pilots actually see him with their own eyes? Off the wing tip is actually rather far back on a modern airliner. Pilots wouldn't leave the cockpit to look during approach. I have to assume these were reports passed on by people in the cabin. If so, where are the pictures?
- numpad0 6y agoNot “off the wingtip”, the phrasing is “off the left side, maybe 300 yards or so”. Probably means captain on the left seat saw it.
- princekolt 6y agoNo, I believe what happened is that the "jetpack" was either hovering or flying at low speed, and the airplane flew by it. So the pilots could see it approaching and get a visual on the jetpack before it zipped by the side.
- sandworm101 6y agoSo a relatively fixed object that they passed at speed? There is even more room there for size distortion. A doll hanging from a drone? A partially-inflated balloon of some sort? Once one person radios "jetman" then subsequent spotters will tend towards that description too.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoThe probably passed him. Like a semi truck passing a turned up moped that shouldn't be on the highway (though the semi driver would probably just laugh and not call it in).
- callumprentice 6y agoI don’t imagine it was these guys but another “Ironman” type flight suit I’ve been following is the tech from https://gravity.co/ https://gravity.co/ - it looks like so much fun although I’m sure it’s much harder to use that the videos suggest.
- rozab 6y agoI 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.
- logicprog 6y agoIf I'm not mistaken, the Gravity one has a jet mounted on the back too, and in fact it's by far the biggest one. The one on the arms is just for balance.
- ahelwer 6y agoSome 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 that would be interested anyway. If you want to fly, well... better start practicing those chair dips!
- jschwartzi 6y agoMostly you climb with your legs not your hands. Undercling is considered comparatively really beefy vs pitches that are mostly vertical.
- ahelwer 6y agoAlmost 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.
- lawlessone 6y agoThere are toy drones shaped like a guy in a jetpack. Not sure they go high enough though.
- dghughes 6y agoI've always been of the belief that a jetpack could never exist until flame-proof pants/trousers were made first.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bufferoverflow 6y agoJetpacks have been around for years, tons of youtube videos of people flying them. You can even buy one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj-Iwv5NJKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj-Iwv5NJKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBe9bucYPcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBe9bucYPcY
- egfx 6y agoIs 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?
- geerlingguy 6y agoI'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.
- mamon 6y ago>> 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.
- oh_sigh 6y agoThe 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.
- jansan 6y agoBicycle Repair Man comes to mind. "Look! Is it a stockbroker? Is it a quantity surveyor? Is it a church warden? NO! It's Bicycle Repair Man!" https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2howud https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2howud
- ck2 6y agoWhich brings up a question of why multi-million dollar airlines don't have "dash cams"
- HumblyTossed 6y agoPlausible deniability.
- oh_sigh 6y agoThey want to deny seeing a man in a jetpack, despite transmitting the fact on the radio?
- HumblyTossed 6y agoI was thinking more broadly than just this single incident.
- grumblepeet 6y agoThere is also Richard Browning in the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJM5L9hhBs
- degenerate 6y agoNobody is going to mention how this is an overly-hyped PR stunt? edit: Nevermind, I thought the embedded youtube videos in the article was footage of the event described in the article. I didn't realize the video footage was a separate flight from 2015.
- bronco21016 6y agoWhere is the footage you mention?
- jamessb 6y agoI think they might be referring to the first embedded YouTube video [1], but this is not from the incident being described: it was uploaded in 2015, and shows Dubai rather than LA. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPvKl6ezyc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VPvKl6ezyc
- kingbirdy 6y agoThe jetpackers in the video at the bottom of the article aren't the same jetpackers the article is about. The people in the video clearly have permission as you pointed out, but I don't think we can say for sure as to whether the person at LAX did.
- Turing_Machine 6y agoI think it's a near-certainty that this person didn't have permission. It's extremely unlikely that he'd be given permission to fly his jetpack in the approach to LAX, and even if he were, you can bet that air traffic control would be fully aware of it ahead of time.
- admn2 6y agoCan you please link to the footage?
- postingawayonhn 6y agoThe videos embedded in the article are completely separate to this event.
- tiku 6y agoAnd nobody on the plane recorded it?
- jaywalk 6y agoThe passengers probably couldn't see it.
- dreamcompiler 6y agoMy money's on this guy: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCkHr2Z0JWH8KGmQNDp4QXLw https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCkHr2Z0JWH8KGmQNDp4QXLw
- anotheryou 6y agomine on this one https://youtu.be/P5xPtOAbt70?t=35 https://youtu.be/P5xPtOAbt70?t=35 it also happened in the evening if I'm not mistaken
- dhosek 6y ago2020 gonna 2020.
- peeters 6y agoTook me a while to find on LiveATC as this wasn't actually on the Tower frequency, but here is the full feed: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/klax/KLAX-Final-Aug-31-2020-0130Z.mp3 http://archive-server.liveatc.net/klax/KLAX-Final-Aug-31-202.... At 5:23. Unfortunately their web player is not linkable, but this is the KLAX North/South Final Approach feed (https://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?m=klax6 https://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?m=klax6) from Aug 31, 0130-0200 UTC.
- lightlyused 6y agoThat is a friend of mine's site. If you live near an airport and have a good internet connection volunteer to provide a live feed.
- jf 6y agoI just used the contact form on the site because of this comment :)
- Teelo 6y agoI live close to LAX. I'll send them a message.
- henvic 6y agoI bet there is plenty of coverage there for LAX already. In my impression, services like this (and even Flightradar24) at this day and age are mostly interested in coverage in spotty areas in rural areas and far away from civilization. Don't get me wrong! I'm not trying to demotivate you. Just letting you know that maybe they'll turn you down. However, even if they do so, you can always learn a lot by doing so... and it's quite cheap, and redundancy is always welcome, right? :)
- gala8y 6y ago"Only in LA." at 6:15.
- 6y ago
- peterkelly 6y agoSacha Baron Cohen.
- hinkley 6y agoVery nice!
- topkai22 6y agoIs Disney doing another reboot of the Rocketeer?
- Johnny555 6y agoAs amusing as this is, it highlights how fragile air travel is -- someone managed to fly a 200 lb payload within a couple hundred feet of an airliner on final approach. And apparently did so anonymously since there was no mention of who or exactly what it was. 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.
- ckocagil 6y agoAll sorts of transportation are very fragile. Everyone with a driver's license is trusted with operating tons of steel that can move at enormous speeds. Society's based on some amount of mutual trust. We can't lock everything down and treat every person as a potential criminal. That leads to an inefficient and dystopian country.
- achow 6y agoWell at the risk of sounding pedantic, things on rails - railways, metro/subway etc. are not in same category.
- masklinn 6y agoOTOH the fragility of the original comment was about wilfully disrupting transports. It's pretty easy to significantly distrust rail transportation. There are hundreds of rail suicides every year, and each and every time the line shuts down until everything's cleaned up. And of course you could destructively interfere with the train or railway, a rather common sabotage operation during WWII.
- dehrmann 6y agoI can't seem to find a source, I heard about a culture (maybe Japanese?) where suicide by train is rare because of the inconvenience it causes others and the shame that brings your family. When you go through the math on lost productivity due to train delays, you get some interesting conclusions. If a commuter train has 1,000 passengers making an average of $50 per hour who are, a delay is $833 per minute. That means it's more efficient (not going to touch on ethics or legality) to make minimal accommodations for disabled passengers and provide them point-to-point car service, instead.
- throwaway9870 6y agoReminds me of lawn chair Larry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight
- MattGaiser 6y agoOne would think that there would be higher fines for this sort of misbehavior.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoAs it turns out, you can't just make up laws just because someone did something unsafe for the purpose of punishing said person
- pacaro 6y agoIsn't this the difference between common law and civil law? That under common law the existing body of written laws doesn't need to cover every eventuality, because equitable principles and "natural" law can be applied when necessary
- ceejayoz 6y agoYou can absolutely pass laws to punish the next person who tries it, though.
- Maximus9000 6y agoor the same person who tries it again.
- intotheabyss 6y agoSad that he later committed suicide
- Zigurd 6y agoConsidering someone would have had to surreptitiously home-brew a jet pack rivalling the Yves Rossi Jetman in order to get to that altitude, I would not be surprised if this turned out to be a balloon "dressed up" to look like a person with a jetpack.
- shadowgovt 6y agoDoes the government have the legal and executive resources it needs to investigate these claims of rocketeering in the airline industry? Serious allegations if true!
- nestlequ1k 6y agoIt’s like the Liar Liar scene but with a jet pack.
- ohples 6y agoHow 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.
- mrlala 6y agoSurprised 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.
- vultour 6y agoThere aren't even cameras recording what's happening inside most airplanes.
- TT3351 6y agoThis is fascinating to me, so many municipal buses are loaded with cameras (thinking particularly of Washington, DC), but they also are dealing with everyone who wanders in the bus off the street.
- shagie 6y agoEven 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.
- TazeTSchnitzel 6y agoIf someone wanted to fake this as a prank, could it be something attached to a drone?
- TheChosen 6y agoSo that’s how you properly fly the IRNMN2 arrival...
- SiempreZeus 6y agoThat report would have put the jetpack guy right over south-central. Who would fly in that neighborhood?
- AS126 6y agoI've seen speculation that it's one of those person shaped disney balloons they sell at grocery stores.
- yalogin 6y agoWow are they supposed to be this emotionless when talking to pilots? Its amazing how calm they were even after hearing a person in jetpack.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tezza 6y agoMaybe it was Elon Musk, bored with the Pig already ?
- hinkley 6y ago"God damnit Elon, this is not an appropriate way to celebrate jumping to #1 on the Richest People list." Seriously though, pissing off the FAA would be, I think, the last thing a board member of SpaceX would want to do.
- anotheryou 6y agoMaybe an RC plane like this? https://youtu.be/P5xPtOAbt70?t=35 https://youtu.be/P5xPtOAbt70?t=35 At least mostly foam board.
- nimbius 6y agoGlad to see Spirit Airlines is back in business.
- Animats 6y agoInflatable display got loose?
- aaron695 6y agoThat 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?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SeanFerree 6y agoThe Rocketeer is a great movie :)
- LinuxBender 6y agoEvery 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.
- shagie 6y agoOf 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 6y ago[deleted]
- bb611 6y agoListening to the recording, this is something pilots saw on 10 mile final approach at ~3000 feet. There is not going to be any airport video of this.
- krm01 6y agoI would imagine there are passengers who caught this guy on camera. Would love to see some footage.
- tibbydudeza 6y agoThe Rocketeer.
- aaron695 6y agoI 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?
- markstos 6y agoElon?
- tus88 6y agoIt's 2020 guys. Haven't you seen that documentary Iron Man yet?
- mannykannot 6y agoUntil a humanoid balloon inflated with helium is definitely ruled out, that's my default assumption.
- wonderwonder 6y agoDo we think this is going to get elevated to a major plot line in this season of "2020: The longest year" or just fizzle out unexpectedly like the Murder Hornets episode?
- cronix 6y agoC'mon, Elon.
- peter303 6y agoA hoverboard with fuel container on back looks like a jetpack. One guy crossed the English Channel on one in two hops. He had to refuel midway. Thats more distance in a flying device than I had heard before. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/4/20753648/jet-powered-hoverboard-english-channel-crossing-franky-zapata-success https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/4/20753648/jet-powered-hover...
- ggm 6y agoIf we have come to the place where individuals can violate controlled airspace either in a flying suit or a drone and our reaction is to shut down transport, we've come to a very strange place. I say this because some responses here are exploring the catastrophic consequences. Catastrophic consequence in flights are a fact of life. We've had these consequences for some time, in other ways which really aren't that different. You can buy materiel on the open market and devices like drones without gps lockouts, or I guess flying suits. El-Al has been flying at a higher risk profile than others for some time. So has cargo in the "stans" and the middle east and Africa. I'm not saying "shoot him down" is the best choice but there surely exist a range of choices here up to and including defensive action? Commercial ships can request rights to armed force on deck in the pirate zones. Lethal force. We lock the guns up otherwise but the reasons the Gatling guns are fitted (if that's what they are) are understood. Aircraft can have anti missile systems. We've had that for years. I think the ways we will deal with this will be broadly similar - perimeter defences, on aircraft detection systems, IFF and boots on the ground. We probably don't have a systemic risk profile change here beyond the breakdown in the social contract: its funny to play but things work better when grown-ups don't do some things. Maybe 2nd amendment rights to a flying suit as a weapon is a thing? WINGMAN FUNNY NOT FUNNY
- sizzle 6y agoWhy didn't the FAA get the cops or military to scramble some jets to apprehend this individual? How is this not a national security threat?? Who knows if they were strapped with IED type device.
- russler23 6y agoI feel like the above comment is the HN analogue of an old man yelling at skateboard kids from his porch.
- rtx 6y agoThis is amazing. Jets can't capture someone with a Jetpack. He will simply land, they work with other planes.
- icebraining 6y agoIf you want to get a flying IED, you can use a commercially available RC plane. Nobody with the means to build a working jetpack would use it to do something so pedestrian as a suicide bombing. The FAA should still have a stern talking to the guy, of course, if he flew in the path of airplanes.
- sahoo 6y agoSo, which one of you was this?
- prtkgpt 6y agoI am glad they saw me because I took a power nap around 3000ft alt. Cool beans.