5 ms·
The meat of the actual conversation: > [Airliner] We just saw a bright object at about 6000 ft > [ATC] Can you say that one more time? > [Airliner] We just s
by stickfigure 6y ago
The meat of the actual conversation:
> [Airliner] We just saw a bright object at about 6000 ft
> [ATC] Can you say that one more time?
> [Airliner] We just saw a flying object - like a flying object passing by at 6000'
> [ATC] Flying object, was it a UAV or was it a jetpack?
> [Airliner] Like a jetpack. Too shiny and too far.
"PERSON IN JETPACK SEEN OVER LAX!" seems to overinterpret that exchange.
- dylan604 6y ago> [ATC] Flying object, was it a UAV or was it a jetpack? this has occurred enough times that this is now a question ATC rattles off. just.wow.sad.
- bigbubba 6y agoBy wording their question like that, they may actually be priming pilots to report ambiguous sightings as jetpack sightings.
- erdos4d 6y agoThat's the point. Nothing good comes from ambiguity in these matters, in fact it could be quite damaging to the careers of those involved if they reported anything that sounded vaguely UFO-ish. Best to have a catch-all like jetpack, drones, etc so there won't be any unpleasant questions later.
- bigbubba 6y agoIf you are implying deliberate misdirection by ATC, then I do not agree. It's more likely ATC prompted the pilot with the jetpack possibility because they believe it's happened before recently in that area. I think ATC, expecting a jetpack, may have inadvertently primed the pilot to interpret an unknown object as a jetpack.
- ALittleLight 6y agoSad? I was just thinking how awesome that was. If I read that this exchange happened in 2020 when I was a child I would think the future was going well. (Obviously I do not condone jetpacking in restricted airspace)
- Rebelgecko 6y agoIt had happened no more than once AFAIK
- dylan604 6y agowhile that may be true, you know that all ATC meetings had this reported to them so they are all aware and on the look out for it. it only goes to make sense. if someone was developing a jetpack unit, they would need to do multiple test flights. if they were dumb enough to do it the first time, they are probably willing to do it a second time.
- lvs 6y agoNot heavily reported is that ATC tasked a military aircraft that was already in airspace with callsign IDAHO30 to turn westbound and check it out.
- jjwiseman 6y agoThere's no evidence that it was a military aircraft. Based on the IDAHO call sign, it was probably police, or maybe feds.
- verroq 6y agoATC sounded like she was putting words in the pilot’s mouth. “Like a jetpack” followed by “Too shiny and too far” != “jetpack man spotted again”.
- dylan604 6y agoI just listened to the audio, and maybe, but.... "Too shiny and too far" made me think the response was to the ATC's question about drone and assuming drone would be something in the DJI realm of object size. The pilot was implying that it was too far away to be that visible from reflection to be a consumer drone.
- nexuist 6y agoThis is just how ATC conversations go. The plane could literally be on fire and the controller would still be like "Ok. So I guess now that you're on fire, you want to turn around and land?" Pilot: "Yes we can do that."
- JshWright 6y agoThe issue is that ATC is the one that suggested it could be a jetpack.
- marcosdumay 6y agoThe fact that ATC is suggesting it normalizes jetpacks in a way that no amount of pilot reports could.
- stickfigure 6y ago...or maybe the controller watched Ironman last night. Which is more likely?
- innocenat 6y agoWe don't have any evidence on ATC watching Ironman last night, but we do have evidence on JetPack last month: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tQyEV9Hl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tQyEV9Hl0
- touisteur 6y agoThat was a very strange interaction... I thought this was something to be avoided by ATC, suggesting things. Usually the conversational training is asking out details with no influence, and repeat question to make clear the answer was not understood. Right?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nemetroid 6y agoI wonder if "like a flying object" really is correctly transcribed. It's difficult to hear at this quality, but to me it sounds more like "like a flying suit jet". The end of the sentence could also have been "too fast" rather than "too far", which would make more sense together with the certainty in "like a jetpack".
- elliekelly 6y agoYea the transcript of that video is definitely not accurate. The pilot was the first to mention the flying suit jet pack, not ATC.
- himinlomax 6y agoA jetpack at 6000 ft? That seems rather unlikely.
- minitoar 6y agoWhat makes you say that? 6000' doesn't strike me as particularly high.
- tastyfreeze 6y agoFlight time of a jetsuit is about 10 minutes. Rate of climb on a full tank is 500 ft/min and doubles as fuel burns off. Flying a jetsuit to 6000 ft seems like a spectacular way to commit suicide.
- fastball 6y agoNot if you have an Arc reactor in your chest.
- ce4 6y agoOnly if they took off from ground level.
- Zak 6y agoFlying into the approach path of LAX also seems suicidal. If the reports from this and the previous incident are accurate, the person responsible is exceedingly reckless.
- himinlomax 6y agoOnly way it's possible is if it's a jet-powered wingsuit dropped from a plane, but that is as unlikely as a jetpack, just for other reasons.
- m463 6y agoThat french guy with a jetpack started out that way. He did all his testing at high altitude and when he was done, he popped his parachute. It was only later that he took off near the ground.
- tristanb 6y agoCould also be a person in a squirrel suit. Looks exactly the same.
- crispyporkbites 6y agoI thought that initially, but the transcript is wrong or at least questionable, the pilot says something like: > We just saw a flying object like a flight suit jet pack pass by at 6000 He may also have said “Too shiny and too fast” at the end as well