Pilot Landing At LAX Reports 'Guy In a Jetpack' Flying Alongside Them (thedrive.com) 98
schwit1 shares a report from The Drive: As if 2020 couldn't get any weirder, airline pilots landing at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on Sunday, August 30th, reported seeing "a guy in a jetpack" flying about 300 yards off their wing while on final approach to the bustling airport. What makes the reports even stranger is that, like a scene out of The Rocketeer, the airliners were descending through 3,000 feet when jetpack guy showed up next to them. Fox 11 broke the story and has the air traffic control audio clips which you can listen to here.
There are a number of new jetpack-like designs that are remarkably capable, but all have very limited range and most have only very low-altitude flight envelopes. Yves "Jetman" Rossi's winged jetpack is definitely capable of such a feat, but his flights have always occurred under highly controlled and well-coordinated circumstances and in sanitized airspace. 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. So, apparently, someone has a system that is similarly capable, but they are stupid enough to actually use it in incredibly congested airspace as part of an undeclared stunt...
There are a number of new jetpack-like designs that are remarkably capable, but all have very limited range and most have only very low-altitude flight envelopes. Yves "Jetman" Rossi's winged jetpack is definitely capable of such a feat, but his flights have always occurred under highly controlled and well-coordinated circumstances and in sanitized airspace. 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. So, apparently, someone has a system that is similarly capable, but they are stupid enough to actually use it in incredibly congested airspace as part of an undeclared stunt...
Sounds like marketing (Score:5, Funny)
every billionaire and wannabe are frantically calling their people to place an order.
Re:Sounds like marketing (Score:4, Funny)
It's just Elon Musk who figured out the combination to the lock on his liquor cabinet.
Re: (Score:2)
3,000 feet elevation sounds kind of close to SpaceX...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
South runway flight path is just north of the 105 at Crenshaw. Much less than a 3,000 ft horizontal distance...
Re: (Score:2)
This does seem like a Musk stunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Welp, now I've heard of him.
Re: (Score:3)
Welp, now I've heard of him.
I'm bet the light bill money certain that's the point. This is the sort of stunt designed, in its inherent garishness, to grab the public's goldfish-like attention span... rather unfortunate it continues to be, thus far, such effective clickbait.
In this day and age, to survive the noise, It takes chutzpah of this magnitude to stand out.
Re: (Score:2)
Billionaires winning lots of Darwin Awards; lovit!!
Re: (Score:3)
Billionaires winning lots of Darwin Awards; lovit!!
Yeah, now the engine manufacturers will have to upgrade their engines from being able to survive sucking in a goose, to being able to survive sucking in a billionaire wearing a jet pack and spitting him out the other end. Somebody is about to be handed an interesting engineering challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully it's not someone warming up to the idea of messing with any flaps or aelerons on a moving aircraft.
But then again, Mr. Magoo used to ride on the tail of an airplane.
https://youtu.be/7o5zipU6r7o?t... [youtu.be]
For those not old enough to remember, he was EXTREMELY near sighted and always got into trouble.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, this should have a familiar feel to anyone acquainted with the history of the Turbinia.
And we thought drones were a problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we thought drones were a problem... (Score:5, Informative)
How big does something need to be to get picked up on radar near LAX? Can/Should NWS weigh in on anything unusual they picked up in the area?
You mean for the local radar to pick up an object using a primary return? The answer is likely very big because most airport surveillance radars don't actually work on primary returns anymore. These days, in order to show up on "radar" you have to carry a transponder that replies to the interrogation of the radar. Transponders are required equipment on registered aircraft in the USA (meaning you have to have one, with altitude reporting to fly a registered aircraft.) I seriously doubt a jetpack is going to be registered as an aircraft or carry a Transponder. Because of this, most aircraft radars, won't see a primary return, and in fact, likely are set to ignore primary returns and only listen to transponder returns.
This basically means that the jet pack could likely overfly the radar station and not be seen. And there is zero chance the approach radar would see anything 10 miles out at 3,000 feet that's not equipped with a transponder.
Re: (Score:3)
I need to refine this.. There are exceptions to the transponder requirement if you are in specific kinds of equipment and operating in areas away from specific airports. HOWEVER.. A Transponder would be required (or special dispensation granted) to fly at 3,000 feet within 10 miles of LAX. Further, most aircraft operating today will have a transponder, as they've been required to operate in the majority of the airspace over the USA for the 3 decades I've been licensed as a pilot (and a few decades before
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No, most new surveillance radars being installed today simply don't use primary returns for anything. Some of the old equipment still has the ability, but because you are now required to carry a transponder they usually turn it off to avoid the clutter on the display that the controller is using.
So yea, some of the older equipment out there may have been tracking you w/o a transponder because they knew you where there and had the capability to track you, but in most cases, they won't have the primary re
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.waymarking.com/way... [waymarking.com] The wiki says "The receiver has the sensitivity to detect a radar cross-section of 1 meter^2 at 111 km, and a range resolution of 450 feet". I have no idea what the radar cross-section of a guy in a jetpack is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: And we thought drones were a problem... (Score:1)
Re:And we thought drones were a problem... (Score:4, Informative)
Weather radar probably shows nothing.
LA's WSR88-D NEXRAD radar site is located near Ventura, approximately 36 miles north of LAX's flight path, is at a fairly high altitude, and its lowest beam points 0.5 degrees upward. Anything below approximately 1,700 feet, plus whatever its own altitude is, would be invisible to it.
Level 2 WSR88-D radar has a resolution of 0.5 degrees x 250m.
At 36 miles, each "pixel" is basically an arc approximately 500 meters long x 250 meters deep. Assuming it was high enough to be visible to the radar array in the first place.
LAX doesn't have radar capable of hosting TDWR.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, most radar only works on metals.
So a fleshy thing with plastic wings wont show up.
Secondly, it was close to big airplane.
So it is difficult to decide if there are two pings or only one.
Re: (Score:2)
"First of all, most radar works only on metals.
So a fleshy thing with pastic wings won't show up"
That's why birds, storms and even swarms of locusts appear on radar right.. because they're made of metal! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to read.
"Most!" I intentionally said "Most!"
The objects you mention are picked up with "special radar", made for the size and material of those objects. Facepalm. And those special radars would not pick up air planes without special signal processing, if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we know that airline pilots can never be wrong [washingtonpost.com]... right?
tail number (Score:1)
Don't worry, the FAA will have their way... (Score:3)
Either the pilots here are just involved in a huge hoax OR some idiot actually did this.... Either way, SOMEBODY is fixing to get a very unhappy visit from the FAA where they will have some explaining to do...
You don't bust a Class A airspace and get away with it and you don't waste the approach controller's radio time with bogus reports of men in jet packs on approach unless they are true.
Re:Don't worry, the FAA will have their way... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't worry, the FAA will have their way... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm with you on this one.. Commercial pilots are trained to not play around below 10,000 feet for a reason, so I'm pretty sure there was some idiot in a jet pack who's got some serious explaining to do. I just mention that it's a possibility because of the improbability of a manned Jet Pack at 3,000 feet and the sheer stupidity of pulling such a stunt. But as the one pilot says "Only in LA"....
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I'm with you on this one.. Commercial pilots are trained to not play around below 10,000 feet for a reason...
Took off out of LAX one time. Hit 12,000 feet and the pilot pulls a full barrel roll.
I guess taking 230 pounds of overhead luggage to the face just meant he was well trained. Only amateur pilots pull that shit below 10K...
Re: (Score:2)
The pilot of a commercial airliner did a barrel roll, the overhead lockers were unsecured and you got hit in the face with the weight of a full grown American with corners on it and lived to tell the tale...
Imma go ahead and say /r/thathappened, or whatever the local equivalent is around here.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I did see a documentary once about the design, development and testing of the BAC / Sud Aviation Concorde. The program had two lead test pilots - one French, one British. During a documentary interview, the French pilot was asked about his British colleague and what the guy was like to work with...
The Frenchman proceeds to tell the interviewer that his British colleague, Brian Walpole was "crazy", and when asked, "Why's that?" went on to say that th
Re: Don't worry, the FAA will have their way... (Score:5, Informative)
I just mention that it's a possibility because of the improbability of a manned Jet Pack at 3,000 feet and the sheer stupidity of pulling such a stunt. But as the one pilot says "Only in LA"....
Not improbable at all in LA apparently. Lawnchair Larry also ended up in controlled airspace around LAX ... and he managed even higher altitudes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
See if there are any radio towers or tall buildings where base jumpers typically go, but where someone with a jet pack will take it to the next level. Being that high up gives them a significant fuel savings.
Re: (Score:2)
It was originally reported by an American flight, then confirmed by a pilot for Skywest. So it's a pilot hoax, either whimsy or conspiracy struck multiple pilots for multiple airlines simultaneously which seems unlikely.
It seems equally unlikely that out of hundreds of passengers (pilots too, right?) with mobile video recording devices, none of them got a shot of this. Also, aren't there recording devices on the planes themselves?
Re: Don't worry, the FAA will have their way... (Score:2)
Sounds like it's in the phase where the pilot instructs all electronic devices be turned off. Sure, some won't be but you've greatly reduced chances of someone with a recording device switched on and pointing the right way.
I've never heard of an aircraft with external cameras. Otherwise, accident investigations would be so much quicker.
Re: (Score:1)
I've never heard of an aircraft with external cameras. Otherwise, accident investigations would be so much quicker.
That's Lynnwood level airline bullshit.
Plenty have external cameras you can watch on the seat back screen in front of you.
Re: (Score:3)
Erm, you can view the aircraft's external cameras on the in-flight display on flights I've been on recently.
Typically it's one on the top of the tail looking forward, so wouldn't have helped spot something 300m to the side, and they also disable them for take-off/landing.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard of an aircraft with external cameras.
every plane I used the last 4 years had that. You could usually chose between 4 cameras on your "TV". Ofc the impressive one is the one in the front nose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
LAX and other similar large commercial airports are surrounded by Class B airspace. Class A airspace starts at 18,000 feet above mean sea level.
Re: (Score:2)
I forget, they changed everything since I was last current... :( We used to call it an ARSA and I only ever flew into one once... I guess the CFI will have a lot of work to do to get me back up to speed should I ever want to fly again..
Re: (Score:1)
...their way, won't let me have my say.
They try to shut me down in LA
The skies so empty when I'm away...
If I had a jetpack (Score:3)
I wouldn't fly my jetpack anywhere near LAX. This person is completely stupid or this was a stunt.
Re: (Score:3)
This person is completely stupid or this was a stunt.
Why not both?
Re: (Score:2)
This person is completely stupid or this was a stunt.
Why not both?
Uh, absolutely why not both. In fact, let me translate your question into redneck:
"Hold my beer."
One of the very FEW good things about Covid crisis (Score:2)
...is that wacky ideas can be tested at the wrong places.
Re: (Score:2)
Wacky ideas, but really, social distancing has been set at 6 ft and not 10,000
no video (Score:5, Insightful)
As we all know cameras are huge and expensive, nobody can afford personal camera, especially on Pilots salary!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the pilot letting go of the controls and fumbling for his phone during final approach would be fine with all the passengers..
Re: (Score:1)
"If you look out of the port side of the aircraft ladies and gentlemen, you'll notice what appears to be a person wearing a jetpack flying alongside the aircraft"
A wild video evidence has appeared!
Re: (Score:2)
"Dear Passengers, please panic"
No, I don't think this is something that would be announced before they were safely on the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Dash cams are not expensive. $50 on the outside,
While I realize in general there isn't going to be a lot of interesting things to take pictures of while at 10k feet, it has always seemed conceivable to me that there could be unplanned encounters with all sorts of aerial phenomenon which may justify further analysis on the ground later to better plan for it in the future.
I'm quite surprised that there wasn't even a photo, let alone video.
Re: no video (Score:2)
At the risk of being all conspiracy theory crazy, there may be a reason that they (governments/military) donâ(TM)t want that to occur...
Re: (Score:2)
you do know you can't just slap a $50 dash cam on the instrument panels of a jet and clip the wires to a power bus? put down the crack pipe, sonny-boy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
you do know you can't just slap a $50 dash cam on the instrument panels of a jet and clip the wires to a power bus? put down the crack pipe, sonny-boy.
If only someone would invent camera batteries. Then I wouldn't need my extra long extension cable whenever I take my GoPro snorkeling with me.
Re: (Score:2)
And you'll need to charge those batteries, like connecting to the power bus as I said. You are talking of a system that need immense mountain of test, paperwork and certification process. Besides which wouldn't catch things to side, typical dash cam is about 130 degree field of view. What is really needed is cameras in all directions, a great thing but redesign of aircraft body and avionics at that point. Half-ass $50 solution isn't going to cut it, and wouldn't be allowed in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you are electrocuting all the fish around you :(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't want to be in the plane with a pilot that would pull a phone out of a pocket to take a picture while on final approach to a landing. The FAA takes a similar attitude.
Even if there were pilots willing, and provided that they noticed it at 160mph with enough time to get a photo before they passed it, an object 900 feet away is unlikely to result in anything but a few blurry pixels. This is a longer shot than if you were at the top row in one corner of the largest stadium in the US (Univers
Re: no video (Score:4, Interesting)
Still worth getting some shots. Even a few pixels over a second or two of video is enough to establish velocity and size, which makes it a lot easier to guess if this was a person, a drone, balloon, or trick of the light.
If I had to bet, Iâ(TM)d put money on a manikin or inflatable doll strapped to a drone.
Re: no video (Score:2)
300 yards south of the south runway at LAX would also put it almost on the approach for Hawthorne municipal airport where SpaceX has operations. Though of course they wouldnâ(TM)t be stupid enough to have unregistered flights of prototype equipment in such a busy airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
It was spotted 10 miles out, 300 yards South of the final approach path at 3000 feet, not 300 yards south of LAX. Approximately near I-710, closest airport is Compton-Woodley, about 4 miles away.
Re: (Score:1)
I realize it's a tradition around here to armchair quarterback without actually reading the articles and usually while only half reading the summary, but sometimes you really should read them before commenting. Otherwise, it just outs you as the uninformed blabber you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It is entirely possible that they were relatively synchronous position with the jetpack pilot for a reasonable amount of time.
The point about the pilot hopefully having higher priorities than taking pictur
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I read the article, but didn't make random assumptions as you did. Nowhere in the article or the pilot's report does it say the jetpack was moving at high speed in the same direction of the plane. If it were moving significantly, the pilot would have likely reported that, I do when reporting unknown aircraft to ATC. Also, each plane made the report once, if it were moving along with plane, it would take a particularly idiotic pilot not to mention this, and the second plane would have reported a different p
Re: (Score:2)
Unidentified Flying...Person? (Score:2)
pprune.org (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
suppose it was a terrorist practicing?
Re: (Score:2)
They would do that at an "third world" airport.
What a difference a year makes (Score:2)
Last year
FAA guy: Drone strikes are a continuing problem, just look at the damage to this plane!
FAA assistant: Actually sir, we found blood and feathers again...
FAA guy: shut up!
This year
FAA guy: Can we go back to the drones?
This is the way! (Score:3, Funny)
Where was the warning to jet pack man... (Score:1)
Tony Stark? (Score:3)
Tony Stark? I thought he was dead!
Re: (Score:2)
Naw. Just Elon or Larry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that LAX is pretty close to Malibu, right?
It's not a piece of equipment, I'm in it! Its a suit! It's ME!
That's good (Score:4, Funny)
Now when it gets sucked into the engines we can point and laugh instead of feeling bad for the poor animal.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to say "worth it!"
Ye olde YOLO?
Re: That's good (Score:2)
I am older than you but I think this warrants an OK BOOMER anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't feel sorry for the idiot pulling this stunt, but I would be upset about the 100s of innocent passengers endangered by it. Losing an engine on approach is probably quite disruptive.
Contact Adam Savage. (Score:2)
Likely an inventor or drone operator with a human mannequin instead of a heavy human pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
probably a miniature (Score:1)
plenty of jetpack remote aircraft available... somebody probably just stuffed a doll and attached it.
At 300 yards? At speed? In these Latitudes? (Score:1)
At 300 yards, the standard Mark I human eyeball is not rated to differentiate between a human in a jetpack and, say, a black 80-litre bin-liner caught in an updraft.
This is just the same situation as those British pilots convinced they were under attack from a non-existent quadcopter drone a few years back.
Re: (Score:2)
those British pilots convinced they were under attack from a non-existent quadcopter drone a few years back.
Were they saying anything about the drone trying to something to the airplane's wing?
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, I thought it was 300 feet, not yards .... ppl changing all the time between feet and yards, lol.
Nope (Score:2)
require a mothership to launch from
That video of him launching from the ground must've been my imagination.
https://newatlas.com/aircraft/... [newatlas.com]
Ad (Score:2)
Probably a drone ... (Score:2)
Where are the vids? (Score:2)
I don't believe the jet pack thing for a second, you don't think that someone wouldn't have got a video? Even LAX? Where would the jetpack guy landed (with parachute)? This is to say that there is zero tracking at LAX?
And the next idiot... (Score:2)
Who thinks they're Superrman (tm), and flies closer... and the plane does an emergency landing, after the idiot is sucked into an engine.