12 ms·
'Person in jetpack' spotted flying again near LA airport
- hokumguru 6y agoThis happened last month too didn't it? You'd think airport security would have heightened in the period since, especially at LAX. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36096/airline-pilots-landing-at-lax-report-a-guy-in-jetpack-flying-alongside-them-on https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36096/airline-pilots-l...
- jwilk 6y agoDiscussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24341535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24341535 (477 comments)
- bdamm 6y agoTo be fair, the ATC led the pilot to the conclusion "jet pack". It was not an independent observation from the pilot. It could have very well been an aircraft drone.
- helsinkiandrew 6y ago70 years ago people saw weird things in the sky and thought they were aliens. Now we have drones and jet packs, are people more likely to attribute weird atmospheric/light patterns/weather balloons as those?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- taneq 6y agoNow we also have radar and hd cameras, so hopefully this time we'll get to the bottom of this.
- Accujack 6y ago70 years ago we had RADAR.
- dylan604 6y agoRADAR 70 years ago mistook an incoming attack on Pearl Harbor as a flock of birds (of course there's conspiracy theories about it too). The 70 years ago tech wasn't that good, and the operators interpretation of that data was even worse.
- bigbubba 6y agoAfaik the men manning that radar station confused the Japanese planes with a formation of B-17s that were scheduled to arrive from approximately that direction, not birds.
- dylan604 6y agoYou may be right. I'm probably mixing stories of issues with early radar.
- mhh__ 6y agoRADAR 80 years also kept Britain in the war and helped win the battle of Britain.
- taneq 6y agoI thought they knew the attack was coming due to breaking Purple but couldn't move the ships out because it'd tip their hand that they could read the Japanese transmissions?
- tzs 6y agoI don't have a cite, but I remember reading an article that looked at UFO sightings going back a couple hundred years. People have long (always?) been seeing things in the sky that they could not explain. What they tend to think they are seeing matches pretty well with what the science fiction of their day uses in stories of the near future (or whatever is the equivalent of science fiction in pre-science fiction times). So when the first tentative manned balloon flights were starting, and futurists were predicting an upcoming age of airships, people were reporting seeing large dirigibles. When futurists were saying widespread heavier than air flight was going to be solved and would be widespread in the next couple of decades, people were seeing airplanes.
- blakesterz 6y agoI don't know much about real live person sized jetpacks, aren't they really loud and large and expensive? Wouldn't this likely be seen/filmed by others around LA and end up on social media if it was a real live person in a real jetpack? I guess I'm thinking it's more likely a drone or something?
- JKCalhoun 6y agoYeah, 6000 ft. was raised my suspicion. Really? A jetpack at 6000 ft.?
- ceejayoz 6y agoEntirely possible; here's a vid of someone getting to 1800m. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj-Iwv5NJKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj-Iwv5NJKg
- typicalbender 6y agowow that's really cool. I had only seen the "Iron Man" style jetpack demonstrations that hover a few feet or the jet suits that I thought usually jump from an airplane but I'd never one of these take off from the ground. Must be a really amazing feeling.
- russfink 6y agoAnd then it's only two minutes of flight. Drone/model is the most likely scenario in my opinion. Great suggestion. Occam's razor.
- im3w1l 6y agoThe flame seems crazy close to his feet. Is that really safe?
- JKCalhoun 6y agoRandom thought: could it perhaps be a "balloon" or some sort of modded drone made to look like a dude with jetpack? People have done stranger things for the lulz.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoMy son-in-law was flying a shark skin on a drone a month or two ago. (For the record, he's nowhere near LAX...)
- jansan 6y agoHere is a video of a "Superman" drone. Could be something like this, but I doubt this particular one could fly that high: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgACwfl6FBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgACwfl6FBI
- scoot 6y agoSo now every RC aircraft is a "drone"?
- ethanbond 6y agoSure, why not?
- Shared404 6y agoI even have a reason why drone is better: Drone is one syllable, RC Aircraft is four.
- leetcrew 6y agotechnically, a drone has some capability for autonomous flight, at the very least something like the ability to travel from waypoint A to B without human control. at this point the horse has already left the barn; any RC quadcopter is a "drone" as far as the general public is concerned. and to be fair, the sophisticated stability controls on a typical quad makes it a lot more similar to a drone (using the narrow definition) than a fairly primitive RC aircraft.
- StLCylone 6y agoAnyone checked to see what Tony Stark is doing these days?
- cvaidya1986 6y agoUnconfirmed sightings at SHIELD HQ
- TrainedMonkey 6y agoSo the thing about LA is that there is a beach... and on that beach there are people with smartphones... and on those smartphones are cameras. What I am trying to say if that is a jetpack it is unlikely to have taken off from the city. Possibly from a boat, although flying jetpack from a boat sounds sketchy. edit: I was wrong, LAX arrival corridor is inland and takeoff corridor is over the ocean. So this has to have been spotted over the land. See below comment by taneq.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>although flying jetpack from a boat sounds sketchy. Why? If takeoff fails it's likely to hurt a lot less than over land and if you get hurt your buddies can drive a direct line to within feet of you. Exhaust blast is trivial to solve.
- deanclatworthy 6y agoMy understanding is after you reach a certain height you might as well land on the ground. There’s a reason why even the biggest dives aren’t that high and see hugely dangerous
- harpiaharpyja 6y agoI only have an undergraduate level understanding of the physics but, an object falling into water should be comparable to water flowing over an object. There's a certain flow rate at which the flow around the object becomes turbulent instead of laminar, an actual transition point at which point you might as well be hitting concrete.
- iaw 6y agoNope. Water has a surface that basically applies force relative to how fast you're going. If you go slow the water displaces and nothing happens, if yo slap the water it stings your hand, if you hit the water at terminal velocity you may as well hit concrete because it can't displace fast enough for you to sink so your body decelerates rapidly from terminal velocity to a much slower sink leading to massive amounts of internal damage.
- aaron695 6y agoThis is called mass hysteria. Nice twist on drones though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases
- LinuxBender 6y agoHere [1] is the ATC conversation. She sent IDAHO30 (military aircraft) to go looking for them. IDAHO30 did not find the jetpack. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jblAQXY8AKo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jblAQXY8AKo
- valar_m 6y agoATC talks a lot faster than I would have expected. Seems like that would be problematic.
- Denvercoder9 6y agoIt's necessary in busy airspace such as around LAX, due to limited frequency-time. Pilots are used to it.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago"Problematic". seriously?
- dylan604 6y agoShow HN: New JS Library to revolutionize Problematic ATC
- scubbo 6y agoI'm not the person you're responding to, but - yeah, that's a perfectly reasonable word in this situation. "Likely to cause problems". They're not (I assume!) trying to make any social-justice-related implications. (I don't actually agree with the evaluation - ATC and associated parties are probably well-adjusted to that speed of communication)
- spoopyskelly 6y agoThat's exactly how the social justice types operate: they inject themselves into a subculture they know nothing about, but feel like should assert control over and start calling things they don't understand "problematic". That's how you end up with pronoun rules in ATC operations.
- davidhyde 6y ago> "A jetpack is a device usually strapped to a person's back, which uses jets of gas or liquid to propel the wearer through the air" Shoddy reporting. I think the author just looked up "jetpack" on the internet without comprehending anything. This jetpack is powered but sets of air breathing jet engines, the kind traditionally used to power modern passenger aircraft.
- callamdelaney 6y agoPerhaps the jetpack in the example video is, but this is not the jetpack that's been flying around LA International Airport, necessarily.
- davidhyde 6y agoThis is probably what the reporter looked up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack Those hydrogen peroxide jetpacks have a flight time of 30 seconds so I doubt that's what this jetpack was since it was seen at 6000ft.
- bigbubba 6y agoJet: A collimated stream, spurt or flow of liquid or gas from a pressurized container, an engine, etc. The 'jet' in 'turbojet' refers to the stream of hot gas coming out of the engine. The 'turbo' in 'turbojet' refers to the turbine. Not all turbine engines are jet engines, and strictly speaking not all jet engines are turbine engines (though by convention 'jet engine' is taken to mean an air breathing turbine engine specifically, excluding rocket engines which also use jets of hot gas for thrust..) This naming convention is also broken by ramjet and scramjet engines, which breath air and produce jets, but do not have turbines.
- defterGoose 6y agoThis might be the most unnecessary clarification ever made...
- macjohnmcc 6y ago
- mastrsushi 6y agoMy calves are burning!
- code4tee 6y agoThe whole ATC system is based on the underlying idea that stuff isn’t supposed to be in certain places at a certain time. For example the system can operate without radar in zero visibility conditions because it can use a “one in one out” philosophy where a certain 3D block of the Sky only has one flying object in it. Random drones, jet packs or whatever turning up unannounced in busy airspace totally destroys that system (irrespective of other issues) hence why when something like this happens you see the FBI rocking up and treating this like they are.
- redis_mlc 6y agoTo be more numerical, generally non-airplanes are supposed to stay below 500' AGL, and outside airport areas down to the ground as charted on sectional maps. So a jetpack flying around at 3000' sounds like an airspace violation, unless it's over a hilly area to 2500'.
- salex89 6y agoAnd it should (at least looking from outside the system) stay that way. That's pretty serious business and violations should be treated harshly. Some flying items did not exist or were not massively adopted just a few years ago, but I would not like it to become a "new normality" to expect them where they should most certainly not be. As far as I'm concerned, just shoot the damn thing down.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chrismmay 6y agoWas it the Flying Frenchman Frankie Zapata? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UbOG0ERCwM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UbOG0ERCwM
- cpeterso 6y agoI find this jetpack story unlikely. I would imagine anyone with the means and knowledge to use a jet pack would know to respect the airspace near an airport (even if just for their own safety!).
- Nextgrid 6y agoCould it be some kind of marketing stunt to drum up attention around jetpacks ahead of an official announcement? It's irresponsible, unsafe and illegal, but you can't deny that it works - they've made the news.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoTo poke the bear that is the federal government in such a loud and aggressive way is a good way to bring the full weight of the federal government down on such a company. Air travel is vital to our modern economy. To weaken its perceived safety and security in the name of profit would not end well for them.
- electricviolet 6y agoAbsolutely, but you write like we don't have startup CEOs doing stupid immature things [1] frequently... [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoElon Musk's immaturity may affect the perceived legitimacy of his own company, but his actions don't affect the perceived legitimacy of an entire category of the economy like such a jetpack exploit would.
- WJW 6y agoIt seems extremely likely that the market cap of Tesla is larger than the market cap of all jetpack companies combined. In any case you assume that any such CEO is concerned with the fate of other companies in the same space, an assumption for which the proof is extremely lacking.
- appwiz 6y agoIs that Elon Musk working on his jetpack personal transporter? <grin> More seriously, if you are so inclined to build your own, here are instructions: https://timwylie.com/files/jetpack/building.pdf https://timwylie.com/files/jetpack/building.pdf I tried but quickly decided that I wasn't sufficiently motivated.
- DeonPenny 6y agoGot to be Elon Musk. Makes too much sense
- sys_64738 6y agoAre there any photos or even video of the rocket man?
- ketamine__ 6y agoHow do they make their escape? I'm presuming that they are hunted.
- dylan604 6y agoIt might not be as hard as you might think. Doubtful the only person involved would be the "pilot". Probably some ground support. I could imagine ground support listening to ATC for the inevitable report. Similar to bank robbers. Once the call goes out, you know how long it will take for a response. However, calls to the police about a bank robbery are guaranteed to get an immediate response. Calls to the police to investigate a UFO are probably not going to see the same response. So once you hear the ATC report, you radio your buddy in the jetpack to land, pack up in an SUV, and drive away. Depending on the size of the jetpack, the pilot might even be able to climb into the back of the SUV without taking anything off. It could be feasible even if it was a call to a more motivated FBI. LA traffic sucks.
- dalbasal 6y agoIsn't this an air force problem? An unidentified craft in US airspace... What's the escalation point, between civilian authorities and military if/when something is in the sky that shouldn't be?
- jsmith45 6y agoThat is complicated. Most of the documents with the details seem to be Resticted or Classified. There is some procedure for the ATC to request military intervention. This process at least used to be slow complciated, and requiring approvals at the highest levels. (Think office of the Secretary of Defense levels). That was pre 9/11 though. I've not come across any good information since then. Separately, the military can act on its own initiative against potential threats. This is so much simpler that I'm pretty sure it is what gets used in practice. For example, if a plane is heading into DC now, without appropriate permission, the military will initiate the intercept on its own (this particular scenario is documented publicly, but with limited details, obviously). There is no restriction on ATC providing relevant information in such situations. It is even legal for ATC to alert the military of the situation. The alert teams used for these fall under NORAD authority. Lastly, what happens even more often than that, is that the ATC will ask nearby military planes if it is possible for them to come and take a look at something. Depending on their mission, it is sometimes possible to the military plane to do so. This is nothing out of the ordinary, and ATC can make such requests of any plane, but most airliners are likely to be in to big a hurry for scheduling reasons.
- Abishek_Muthian 6y agoI'm curious, doesn't commercial planes have any equivalent for dash cams? I get that the jetpack man might not have been in direct flight path, but I do know that there are inflight cameras for entertainment purposes in some passenger flights for viewing outside the plane and cameras in the landing gears of newer Airbus planes.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hanoz 6y agoI thought this was probably a man-in-a-jetpack shaped balloon last time it happened, now at 6000 feet it surely is. The Venn diagram of people capable of making/flying one, and people wanting to do so round LAX, surely has a substantially bigger intersection for balloon than for actual jetpack.
- akerro 6y ago>someone in a jetpack on Wednesday at 6,000ft (1,829m), seven miles (11km) Is technology for such jetpack even possible already?!
- brunoqc 6y agoIt will probably never be possible. Sure having fun with a jet of water is possible but having a super hot jet engine on your back? not sure about that. EDIT: I just saw that dubai video. Uh it's possible but I would be surprised if it becomes a thing since the flight time was only 2 minutes.
- jon-wood 6y agoGravity Industries in the UK have a working jet pack, although flight time is extremely limited, I think in the order 5-10 minutes, and it isn’t designed to fly at altitude. The founder demonstrated using it for rapid casualty assistance in mountains recently, although I’m dubious about the actual usefulness given the difficulty in actually controlling the thing - it’s more like a paramedic would end up smeared across the mountain themselves than actually assist a casualty in anything but the calmest weather. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gtvCnZqZnxc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gtvCnZqZnxc
- brunoqc 6y ago> it’s more like a paramedic would end up smeared across the mountain themselves than actually assist a casualty in anything but the calmest weather. Haha yeah. A chopper with fast ropes is much better and still pretty cool.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoIt was just some good old swamp gas.
- Serious_Cheese 6y agoObligatory share: [0] An interesting story onboard an SR-71 Blackbird [0](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/sr-71-blackbird-pilot-tells-story-behind-famed-ground-speed-check/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/sr-71-blackbird-pilot-tells-...)
- tomcam 6y agoClassic. "Aspen, I show 1,942 knots."
- defterGoose 6y ago"I'm showing closer to 2000" "Roger that, your equipment is probably more accurate than ours" Gets me every time.
- Maursault 6y agoThat version is succinct, but without color. Here is a longer but also a better telling.[1] That Hornet must die, and die now. [1] http://b.johnwurth.com/aspen-20/ http://b.johnwurth.com/aspen-20/
- Dalrymple 6y agoIt should be noted that the technology to do this is quite old. The Williams X-Jet was operational about the time the first Intel x86 processor came off the assembly line. The Army evaluated the technology and decided not to use it at that time about 40 years ago. Here are the specs from Wikipedia: Specifications (X-Jet) Data from[citation needed] General characteristics Crew: 1 Length: 3 ft (0.91 m) approx. Height: 4 ft 0 in (1.22 m) Empty weight: 401 lb (182 kg) Gross weight: 550 lb (249 kg) Powerplant: 1 × Williams F107 turbofan engine, 570 lbf (2.5 kN) thrust (modified) Performance Maximum speed: 52 kn (60 mph, 96 km/h) Endurance: 30–45 minutes Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,000 m) Thrust/weight: 1.11 More recent turbofan engines combined with modern computer-assisted controls could result in a considerable boost in capability, particularly in reliability by using multiple smaller turbofans. Given the extreme irresponsibility Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook have shown in the last few days in censoring important voter information, let us hope someone at Homeland is keeping them from buying advanced turbofan engines: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/big-tech-in-the-tank-for-defending-biden-family-and-democrats-devine/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/big-tech-in-the-tank-for-defen... https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden... https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/kayleigh-mcenany-twitter-has-me-at-gunpoint-to-delete-biden-story/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/kayleigh-mcenany-twitter-has-m...
- Tainnor 6y agoThis reminds me of the weird incident where a guy attached some weather balloons to his chair and landed at LA airport: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight
- temp43t453 6y agoi dont see real issue here. if they are afraid that landing plane might be hit by him - simply crash a cheap drone into that man, that would strongly discourage him from flying nearby because it hurts a lot