A Pilot Reported Another 'Possible Jet Pack Man' Near Los Angeles (go.com) 77
ABC News reports:
A Boeing 747 pilot near Los Angeles reported Wednesday night another "possible jet pack man in sight." It's the latest in a string of mysterious jet pack sightings near the City of Angels since last year.
"A Boeing 747 pilot reported seeing an object that might have resembled a jet pack 15 miles east of LAX at 5,000 feet altitude around 6:12 p.m. Wednesday," a spokesperson for the Federal Aviation Administration told ABC News. "Out of an abundance of caution, air traffic controllers alerted other pilots in the vicinity." Air traffic controllers could be heard directing pilots in the area to "use caution towards the jet pack." The FAA spokesperson said there were no "unusual objects" that had appeared on the radar around LAX around that time on Wednesday.
"We were looking but we did not see Iron Man," one person said on the air traffic recording.
"Unauthorized operators flying around airplanes, helicopters and airports is illegal and may be subject to fines and criminal charges, including jail time, the FAA says..."
"A Boeing 747 pilot reported seeing an object that might have resembled a jet pack 15 miles east of LAX at 5,000 feet altitude around 6:12 p.m. Wednesday," a spokesperson for the Federal Aviation Administration told ABC News. "Out of an abundance of caution, air traffic controllers alerted other pilots in the vicinity." Air traffic controllers could be heard directing pilots in the area to "use caution towards the jet pack." The FAA spokesperson said there were no "unusual objects" that had appeared on the radar around LAX around that time on Wednesday.
"We were looking but we did not see Iron Man," one person said on the air traffic recording.
"Unauthorized operators flying around airplanes, helicopters and airports is illegal and may be subject to fines and criminal charges, including jail time, the FAA says..."
These will be (Score:2)
Re:These will be (Score:5, Insightful)
> Who would not want to fly like a bird.
Remember the bird flying into an airliner's engine?
That bird.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: These will be (Score:3)
Have you ever been involved in air traffic (or street traffic for that matter)? In the air you may see the jet from a too bad an angle to correctly assess its speed and direction. First of all, the surface area from below is much, much larger percentage than when its approaching head on. Secondly, unless it has two engines quite far apart, it is almost impossible to judge its speed head on as you have no perspective to give you a clue. That is why an approaching carâ(TM)s speed is easier to assess than
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: These will be (Score:3)
And yet there are fatal traffic accidents in traffic daily⦠I donâ(TM)t doubt your flying experience with your friend. I however doubt any pilot would be very happy to fly without air traffic communications using only visuals in the LAX area.
Re: These will be (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone in this thread assumes the sightings of "guy in a jetpack" are really a guy in a jetpack. I think it's much more likely that this is a drone integrated with a mannequin that looks like a guy in a jetpack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: These will be (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This was seen at 5000' 15 miles east of LAX, which puts it firmly in the LAX Bravo, which is illegal for Part 103 aircraft without prior authorization. Furthermore, part 103 aircraft are not permitted to fly over congested areas, irrespective of airspace.
http://www.usppa.org/federal-a... [usppa.org]
However, as long as the jetpack weighs less than 254lbs, has less than 5 gallons of fuel, does not do more than 55kts in level flight, and has a stall speed of 24kts or less, then there are lots of other places you can legal
Re: (Score:2)
I think humans can pretty easily avoid jets.
Not even jets can sometimes avoid other jets. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[...] if they get them safe and inexpensive.
Unlikely... [topatoco.com]
Someone get ahold of Don Cheadle. (Score:2)
Only if they get caught. My bet's on Iron Man.
Re: (Score:2)
he'll get caught. In the real world, "Iron man" violates a long list of laws and the penalties are quite severe.
Re: (Score:2)
If he is flying at that altitude for any extended time while simultaneously staying rather unnoticed by others then he gets job, end of story. Do you know how much of this kind of tech would be worth to many, especially the military industrial complex. The utility of airborne, radar hidden/small, easily launchable rocket infantry is probably the kind of tech that makes you an instant millionaire.
Re: (Score:2)
No, jet pack flying times are on order of 20 seconds to 9 minutes. near useless for typical military applications. Drones, missiles and bombs get the job. This guy will get 24K steel bracelets.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Amateur built aircraft generally require very little in terms of permissions and staying out of ATZs and other restricted areas should be enough to stay out of trouble with the authorities.
Re: (Score:1)
This jet pack flier already has violated airspace and separation standards. Amateur aircraft a different legal matter and not relevant to jet packs.
Re: (Score:2)
the penalties are quite severe.
Not if Iron man is wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked the comic, Iron Man is ridiculously wealthy.
He'll be fine.
Re: Someone get ahold of Don Cheadle. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. With all you fan boys, I think we could totally launch him to the moon as rocket man.
Re: (Score:2)
A Jet Pack Man can't be creimy !! He defeated me in an argument and it was so bad I'm STILL going around anonymously posting that he's fat.
Umm okay. You're making this joke amongst nerds that know that modern jetpacks have trouble carrying ANY human.
Read the room.
Re: (Score:1)
Not seeing any evidence the holy warriors care about "jetpacking away" as they teleport themselves into the land of 6 dozen (refurbished, they ran out of pure) virgins and the payload restriction for jet packs is quite small, as typical 149 kg for pilot plus any payload.
Re: (Score:2)
>delivering a bomb and then jetpacking away would send the country into an absolute panic.
You 'mericans are already in a panic, making shit up is unnecessary
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As Americans, we love to make shit up about how everyone is against us. It makes it far easier when we want to fight literally everyone over the smallest things.
Re: Potential terrorist dry runs (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Easier to bomb the same number of people who are standing in the security theater lines.
Message to Iron Man (Score:3)
Also (Score:2)
Unauthorized operators flying around airplanes, helicopters and airports is illegal and may be subject to fines and criminal charges, including jail time, the FAA says..."
Class G airspace (in an uncontrolled area) is free for all to use. Both pilots are required to practice safe visual flight rules. Regardless if the craft is or isn't FAA certified.
Re: (Score:2)
I was not familiar with this designation but I did some research following your comment. I guess the question is how does it relate to airports and landing vectors? It says class G can start at 700 to 1,200 but generally is around 14,500. So is the issue, this person is relatively in a lander pattern or are they maybe playing the game of being on the edge of class G.
I mean shit, if I had a jet pack, watching jet liner pass me by might be a freaking awesome experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely correct. My comment was generated regarding uncontrolled airspace. Operating in controlled airspace without guidance or permission is stupid, dangerous and most likely criminal (and a Federal crime at that).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While the probably is more likely to die colliding with a large passenger jet, he can jet sucked into an engine which might catastrophic for a plane in the midst of takeoff or landing.
And the guy being sucked into the jet engine will be alright?
P.S. Godzilla almost had a stroke trying to read your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next to LAX isn't exactly Glass G....
Eagles may soar ... (Score:2)
The amazing part... (Score:2)
To me, the amazing part isn't the guy flying around in a jet pack. That's cool, he invented a jet pack and all, but to me the amazing part is that he's going up to 5k feet. If he has an equipment failure, he's dead. I don't think 5k is enough to dump the apparatus and open a chute before impact. My guess is we'll learn his identity as they're trying to scrape what is left of him off of the pavement.
Re: (Score:2)
If he can ditch the equipment quickly, 5k is plenty of altitude to open a chute. 5,000 ft is the normal deployment altitude for recreational skydivers. Automatic Activation Devices (AADs) will typically deploy the reserve chute at 1,000-1,700 ft. BASE jumpers routinely jump off structures less than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but with the apparatus strapped on? It's likely going to be secure (so he doesn't fall out of it mid-flight), so it it quit and he started falling, he has to be able to undo all of that, get free of it, and get the chute open in time...
Just seems like too much to do in that little time.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that flights to/from LAX are trying to operate in that zone... as other posters pointed out, he's likely to get sucked into or crash into one of those... killing hundreds on board the hit flight is just not acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he didn't invent a jet pack; there was one used in the opening ceremonies of the 84 Olympics, and there'd been a few of them in use since the '60s. What he did do was design and build one on his own, which is pretty cool anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
There's this bizarre myth that, because camera phones are common, that everything any one sees is necessarily going to be recorded.
I'm going to guess the crew is too busy flying the plane to take the time to whip out their cell phones.
No new data (Score:5, Interesting)
So the prevailing theory still holds -- that it's a nice drone with a lightweight mannequin attached.
Re: (Score:2)
So the prevailing theory still holds -- that it's a nice drone with a lightweight mannequin attached.
It has been done before [youtube.com] in NYC.
The infamous Man-Strike strike tests on engines .. (Score:2)
After frozen turkey we need now frozen man with jetpacks attached to them being shot into engines on a test run.
If you don't know what I mean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
at 1m:57s
Re: (Score:2)
Republican Jetpack Person. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
TSA is now searching for jetpacks in carry-on lugage...
Considering this is LA (Score:2)
One would think there would be plenty of people who saw or heard something. Jet packs are not silent.
Also, considering this is LA, one would think a multitude of people would be taking potshots at the guy in flight.
/. run by 3 or 4 submitters? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
BeauHD, EditorDavid, msmash are editors.. there always were about 5 editors since the old days.
Things like ABCNews.com automatically submit everything they have in sci/tech (just look at the Firehose...) so they don't depend on a submitter from the cloud to relay stories.
Small wonder (Score:2)
"We were looking but we did not see Iron Man," one person said on the air traffic recording.'
Radar doesn't work as good with wetware-man as with Iron-man.
San Andreas in real life (Score:1)
Range (Score:2)
Those kinds of jet packs run off hydrogen peroxide and only fly for 30s. There's no way to make them considerably longer range such that they could get to 5000 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the airlines now need to install ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like time to update the chart. (Score:2)
The chart [hackaday.com] needs an addendum.
na na na na Jetpack Man! (Score:2)