Jet Pack Company Executive Crashes During A Test Flight (kdvr.com) 100
The Vice President of Jet Pack International was hospitalized Friday after crashing during a test flight in Denver, according to the Associated Press. Though he's successfully flown the company's hydrogen peroxide-fueled jet pack more than 400 times, Friday the vice president experienced "control issues" while hovering 20 feet over the "Go Fast" energy drink company while testing some adjustments, and ultimately crashed in a nearby industrial park. He fell on his head, and he wasn't wearing a helmet, but after receiving 27 stitches, he was released from the hospital Saturday afternoon. The company's jet pack normally has a range of about one-quarter of a mile (and reaches heights of 100 feet) with a flying time of 32 seconds, the Associated Press reports, adding that "The FAA is investigating the crash."
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
At least motorcycle riders are useful as organ donors. Jetpack pilots are dog food.
No helmet??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fantasy would be using CGI instead of a real jet pack.
They could have just replaced the helmet in post-production if that was it. How much cheaper can a real jet pack really be?
Re: (Score:3)
Flying a jet pack over anything besides water, a net or an air cushion sounds like a terrible idea. At least his head broke his fall.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to say... even James Bond wore a helmet back in the '60s, as uncool as it was (though they did seem to find one that matched his three-piece suit...)
http://www.craveonline.com/ima... [craveonline.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A 2 story fall into water (~20 feet, ~6 meters) is considered +90% lethal. These odds change radically if it is a controlled dive. This number is the guideline gathered by the US Navy, compiled from Sailors being blown over the deck.
With a jet pack accelerating you, I would imagine that you could simulate a 20 foot fall onto water without actually requiring the 20 feet.
The professional divers survive higher falls onto water by perfecting their entry technique and diving into a pool of bubble filled water
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably going to be a bit difficult to really control a dive with that much weight on. That's really going to be, you mention, the problem.
On the other hand, it's not all that difficult to jump, and even dive, from much higher heights into regular water. I've done so many, many times. The highest confirmed height that I've jumped from was a little over 84' and that might not have been the highest. It's the only one that I can say, without a doubt, was that high - it's the only one that high that we've
Re: (Score:2)
A 2 story fall into water (~20 feet, ~6 meters) is considered +90% lethal. These odds change radically if it is a controlled dive. This number is the guideline gathered by the US Navy, compiled from Sailors being blown over the deck.
Bullshit. I have seen people belly flop from a 5 meter platform (over 16') and while it's awful, 90% lethal is just a false statement. I have from that 5 meters many times, and while I didn't always stick the landing, I sure wasn't in mortal danger. In fact, the majority of people falling from a 2 STORY BUILDING survive.
So many reasons this is wrong... the "deck" (of an aircraft carrier) is about 60' high, not 20'. Also, stats have shown at least 5% of people jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge (245'
Re: (Score:2)
No, he doesn't, since the whole thing started with "2 story fall..."
Thanks, AC, for your utterly pointless comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Falling off a ship in the ocean has a different risk profile than falling into still fresh water.
When I was a teenager, lots of people would jump way more than 20' off of bridges into freshwater lakes. Popular rock-jumping spots near me these days are about 50'.
You might have a basket of apples and oranges that have led you to false beliefs about the dangers of jumping into water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in airliners but I do when hang gliding or riding a bike.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a hang glider crash. It happened real quick. The guy stalled and went straight down fairly close to me.
I've also seen the results of a Cessna crashed on a runway after power loss. The pilot turned around, had a bit too much altitude, freaked out and stalled 1/2 down the runway. This is why you practice your sideslips.
Both walked away.
The difference between those two crashes and a jet pack crash is that former crashes could have been avoided by good pilots. When a jet pack looses power you're alway
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with hang gliders is that the pilot can swing forwards and up, and strike the keel with his head. A lot of people get paralyzed that way. The risk of head injuries in that scenario is clear as well, so you wear a helmet.
My impression about this incident was that was more likely to be an asymmetric power failure, which he didn't have control authority to offset. If he had been at higher altitude and able to deploy a parachute the result may have been better. At low altitude you are truly fucked o
Re: (Score:2)
>>When a jet pack looses power you're always fucked.
Not if you have enough altitude and a parachute.
Some people do it right :
www.jetman.com
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This type of system dates back to the 70s. it inspired countless engineers, but has a long history of accidents.
the time aloft is so short that there isn't room for the slightest hesitation before you run out of fuel and become a falling brick.
it was ok for Hollywood where you filmed a series of 10 second sets and spliced them together, but it was never practical for any other use.
Companies with newer designs have increased the time aloft and in doing so the safety.
https://www.youtube.com/channe... [youtube.com]
Martin A
Bicycle helmets aren't useful (Score:3, Informative)
Helmets aren't especially useful [bicyclesafe.com] and at least some research [bath.ac.uk] say, they increase risk to the bicyclist's health [cnet.com].
Given how much more fun it is to ride without one, you may want to reconsider — unless you wear it all the time, even when walking. Just in case a car hits you [google.com]...
Dunno about jetpacks, but bicycles just aren't fast enough for helmets to perceptibly increase one's chances in a rare accident to justify constantly incurring costs in comfort and situation-awareness during the rest of your riding
Re: Bicycle helmets aren't useful (Score:2)
A bicycle is not a jetpack. The risks with bicycles are different and vary between slow 20 to 25 km/h and fast above 30 km/h cycling. Thema BlÃtter should war proper helmets. Kinds often wear helmets wrong as parents suck and are unable to read and understand instructions. It is also important to remove the helmet at the playground .
Re: (Score:1)
The data you are referencing details a specific type accident, collisions with vehicles.
Bicycle helmets protect against two main types of accidents, falling off bicycles, and over-the-handlebar sudden deceleration. They never were intended to prevent a bicyclist from running into a vehicle.
The article tends to place blame on motorists viewing cyclists with helmets as antagonists leading to aggressive driving (and lack of proper space). If so, then I believe a massive media campaign recasting divers who hi
Re: (Score:2)
A bicycle helmet will certainly help you if head meets the ground. So, don't hit the fucking ground? Easy enough most times, even when getting hit by a car in some circumstances. But if you're doing a daily commute and that day you didn't get your sleep or whatever.. Maybe you're at night or in low light. You could have an avoidable fall even with no cars around, just because you're concerned about something else, you're doing the trip without a need to pay conscious attention. Some freak bump on the road m
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be especially unlucky to hit the ground with your head, when falling off a bike. I never have, for example... But, if you wish to guard from that fine — are you wearing one at all times? Why limit it to bicycle — your head will hit the ground from about the same height whether you are biking or walking. Aren't you concerned about a much higher chance of falling, when it is icy outside, for example? Or of icicle falling
Re: (Score:3)
It's happened to me twice. Diesel spill on a wet road. You can't see it, and if you're cornering or changing lanes when you encounter it, you've lost all traction and are down before you realise. Slamming into the tarmac at 30+mph isn't fun. Your arms instinctively go out, but the forward momentum means your head will make hard contact with the road. Both times, I walked away with a dented helmet (and a fractured finger once), and a little road rash down the face. If I hadn't had a helmet on, I might
Re: (Score:2)
It's the greatest feeling, in the split-second, you're realizing you're going to crash... realizing you're going to take one this time... and probably really fucking hard!!! And then the feeling comes over you like a revolutionary spirit. .you remember that you have a helmet on, and you think Oh, thank God I have a helmet on, I am so fucking lucky something's protecting my head!!!
Your brain doesn't have to think about being splattered across the pavement and it can think about not having your hands and ar
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely agreed on being thankful on having a helmet on! I'm not sure about it being the greatest feeling--it's certainly a very strange (and brief!) state to be in, kind of a detached hyper-alertness maybe?
After the wheel slides out from under and you start to fall, you eventually react to it by sticking your hand out to catch the fall. But after that point there's no concious or unconcious action you can take to prevent the inevitable consequence of the fall, so I kind of experienced it in a kind of d
Re: (Score:1)
Like I said, these are all good arguments for wearing a helmet all the time — slippery roads can cause to fall on sidewalk and onto the road, for example, right in front of a car. Or an icicle may fall on your head. A construction guy 5 stories above may drop his hammer.
So, if you only wear the helmet when biking, you are inconsistent.
Ah, Ok, good for you...
I did a 94-mile trip last August. In the 12 hours
Re: (Score:2)
Since you feel this way, where is your published study disputing the published studies he linked?
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be assuming that a (motorcycle) helmet would have saved this guy. I don't think such helmets or really any helmets are designed to protect you from such a fall or really any aircraft crash. Maybe a small parachute would have helped though. It's always better to have a helmet in such head smashing situations of course, but it probably would not have made much difference in the severe brain damage this guy has suffered.
We all like to think that our brains are more damage resistant than they really
Re: No helmet??? (Score:1)
It might have helped him. What's the difference between falling onto you head and being accelerated into something from a motorbike? I'd imagine they are very similar.
Re: (Score:2)
From 20 feet, he likely would not have accelerated to over 25 miles per hour at the point of impact. I guess it depends a lot on what "on his head" actually means. If he did a swan dive into the asphalt it might be more comparable to a faster speed on a motorcycle. If he hit at an angle or offset somewhat, it could be more directly comparable to a 25 mile per hour accident.
And for the mathematical challenged, 25 mph is about 40 kph
Re: (Score:2)
... while hovering 20 feet over the "Go Fast" energy drink company ...
...but after receiving 27 stitches, he was released from the hospital...
No parachute will open at that height, unless it's a rocket-propelled military jet seat parachute.
Kinda hard to imagine he could carry one of those.
And any kind of helmet, even a bicycle helmet, would have prevented those injuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you dont know anything at all about helmets and need to stop talking about them until you get some education.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I guarantee he would not get scrapes on his head and needed the stitches if he was wearing a helmet. Again you are shown to be clueless.
But I'll give you a chance to win $1000 right now.
Come to chicago, I will give you $1,000 cash if you put a running belt sander to your head for 20 seconds, I'll do the same but I wear the helmet. if we both have the same injuries, you get $1,000 in CASH!
You know you will be unharmed! so what are you waiting for?
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, about 2 or 3 seconds on the edge of the belt would be more comparable.
Re: No helmet??? (Score:2)
DOT or M rated maybe not. SA rated probably.
There are many different ratings and styles for helmets. They should probably do A risk assessment on this and figure out what the need before they strap people to it.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... Really? I mean, yeah, we don't usually read the article around here - and I'm kind of guilty of that one myself. Heck, I might even be more guilty of that than most. I almost never read the article. I do, at least, skim the summary. Yeah, a helmet would have, almost certainly, helped this person in this particular crash. There's some claim that a helmet might have actually killed him in this crash but that's a REALLY unlikely outcome.
He flipped upside down and smashed into the ground, head-first. The
Re: (Score:2)
He almost certainly *is* brain damaged. I did read the summary and I know he 'survived'. With the amount of cognitive impairment he ends up with though he may wish he were dead. Most head injuries that cause permanent disability are much less severe than what happened to this guy. There is no doubt that this guy is fucked for life. Whether he realizes it or not. I just hope he didn't have a high IQ before the accident because in an accident like this it will almost certainly drop 30+ points.
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing how scary the situation sounds, and presuming damage based on that. No need to start speculating about IQs and such things.
He got some stitches and was sent home. That is way more informative about his injuries that a hand-wavy "what happened to this guy." People with head injuries that lead to permanent disability are usually admitted to the hospital for observation. Blood tests can tell the ER doctor if there is damage, and various scans can test for swelling. He's not poor, so he probabl
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people end up with permanent brain damage just from slipping on some ice and hitting their head from a normal fall. This guy fell 20 feet. The brain is as fragile as jello.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to repeat the part you didn't read... (you can read, right?)
People with head injuries that lead to permanent disability are usually admitted to the hospital for observation. Blood tests can tell the ER doctor if there is damage, and various scans can test for swelling.
It does not matter if you fall on ice, or fall from the sky. That is completely irrelevant. That is causing you emotive bias. What matters is the actual injuries to the brain , which is very easy to test for in any ER. A simple blood t
Re: (Score:3)
It's as stupid as the morons on motorcycles that ride without helmets.
Disclaimer: I have been and still am a motorcycle rider. 20 years and over 250,000 miles on 2 wheels.
Re: (Score:1)
It's as stupid as the morons on motorcycles that ride without helmets.
Don't call them morons. They are organ donors on wheels, and they deserve our appreciation for their sacrifice.
Re: (Score:1)
I have maintained for a long time that motorcycle riders should be allowed to ride without a helmet as long as they are registered organ donors. There could be a special endorsement on their license designating this.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd want to require them to have a special donor plate on the bike, for easier enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a full documentary movie (Rocket Compulsion (2011)) about a guy(David Mayman?) on a mission to build a jetpack, he also used hydrogen peroxide fuel.
Finally after over a year of research and building the prototype he tests it .... in shorts and a tshirt instead flame retardant suit .. and afair burns his leg. Maybe its the same guy? :)
Re: More ridiculous toys... (Score:1)
And they'll want the federal government to subsidize their medical bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense. We pay for theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Q: What do you call a soldier flying a jet pack?
A: Skeet.
(Stolen from Howard Tayler's Schlock Mercenary.)
Heinlein's Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers) were also armored.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. On my planet, test flights are more dangerous than routine flights, not less.
Jet pack or Jump Jet? (Score:1)
With a flight time of 32 seconds is this more of a jump jet than a jet pack?
Also wear a dam helmet.
Re: (Score:2)
>> With a flight time of 32 seconds is this more of a jump jet than a jet pack?
No, it's a Dumb Jet.
An accident waiting to happen. Any unforeseen difficulty, needing a few more seconds of fuel, and you're toast.
Re: (Score:2)
No helmet - no surprise. (Score:2)
Given you're willing to test fly a jetpack, your maniac credentials are firmly established. Doing it without a helmet seems almost par for the course.
No helmet no brains (Score:2)
Already awesome technology (Score:1)
It may not be ready for regular transportation use, but military may finally have, what they wanted for decades [vice.com]. And not just to run faster [geek.com], but to be able to get over a river or a mine-field or some fortified perimeter quickly.
So basically this is a company of fucking jerks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity sure sucks, doesn't it? Instead of jet packs maybe research anti-gravity matter. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
FAA Investigating? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NTSB investigates the cause of the crash. The FAA investigates which regulations the pilot was breaking. But yeah, if the NTSB is involved (they're not always, especially for single-occupant non-fatality accidents) they get first dibs.
NTSB reports have been known to put some of the blame on FAA, for example in the Korean 801 crash in Guam some years back, where FAA had made some "irresponsible" changes to the operation of the MSAW. (The pilot training was also faulted.)
Repeat with me (Score:1)
The technology is not there yet. What the "jetpack" word evokes in most of us (a small, light rucksack that you strap to your back) in its current inception is outrageously expensive, unreliable and good for a minute of flying time, if that. If you want better than that, you have to pay more and strap yourself to what is essentially a small helicopter. Which is not a jetpack any more. Which implies that we do not have the technology for it as yet. The same with flying cars, as currently conceived - they are
Re: (Score:2)
The technology is not there yet.
It might be that the whole concept is not "there" yet, and won't ever be. The technology might be really awesome and mature, and the nature of the vehicle is just not effective at anything useful.
No excuse (Score:2)
>> he wasn't wearing a helmet,
What a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Helmet or not won't matter much falling from above 30 foot altitude. This guy didn't fall from very far if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
He needed 27 stitches in his head becuase he wasn't wearing a helmet. That was my point.
Re: (Score:2)
if he had superglue in his pocket and any reflective surface to use as mirror he could have fixed that problem himself
Brillian (Score:2)
"He fell on his head, and he wasn't wearing a helmet,..."
Sounds like a genius to me, who could possibly have foreseen an accident using this stable, proven technology? Oh, wait...
From the description of the accident... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)