Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

A Pilot Reported Another 'Possible Jet Pack Man' Near Los Angeles (go.com) 77

Posted by EditorDavid from the fly-over-country dept.
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..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Pilot Reported Another 'Possible Jet Pack Man' Near Los Angeles More

A Pilot Reported Another 'Possible Jet Pack Man' Near Los Angeles

Comments Filter:
  • the ultimate in personal mobility if they get them safe and inexpensive. I recall many dreams where I was flying. Who would not want to fly like a bird.

    • Re:These will be (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mustafap ( 452510 ) on Saturday July 31, 2021 @12:08PM (#61641681) Homepage

      > Who would not want to fly like a bird.

      Remember the bird flying into an airliner's engine?

      That bird.

      • I think humans can pretty easily avoid jets. Heck I can see jets from the ground. I'd know to avoid them in my pack. If the story is true, the person is nuts. I'd give *any* aircraft a wide berth. I'd use mine for travel and sightseeing. I had a roommate in college that took me acrobatic flying once. It was insane. Better than any amusement park ride I have ever been on. I was amazed he could keep his bearings.

        • 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

          • Assume the speed is "fucking fast" and just get out of the path as quick as possible? Why even bother attempting to see how long you can wait before moving out of the way.
          • Just how fast do you expect to be going in a jetpack? You are all but stationary relative to the jet. I doubt airspeed in a jetpack is more than 30 or 40 mph, slow even relative to a cessna. And yes, I flew fairly often with my roommate. Enough to know that it is not that difficult to be aware of other planes. And this with limited viz in a prop plane relative to a jetpack. And I'd be jetpacking only VIR. I've no desire to fly thru clouds in a jetpack.

            • 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)

              by Enigma2175 ( 179646 ) on Saturday July 31, 2021 @03:23PM (#61642135) Homepage Journal

              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.

              • I tend to agree. If such a jetpack existed and worked well, demand would be over the top. Frankly I can't believe the comments that are all negative. Effin personal flying. The closest we have is that iflyair thing.
          • Not impossible to fly like this. Fly under 400 feet where recreational drones can fly. You'd be flying under experimental FAA provisons. Not sure why everyone assumes this is illegal. Paramotors are legal and also fall under experimental FAA provisions. (And technically don't need a pilot's certificate (license), but you'd be stupid to not get training.) As far as large jet planes, if you had the ability to receive ADS-B, you could avoid them from a large distance away. If you can transmit ADS-B (there is e

            • 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

        • I think humans can pretty easily avoid jets.

          Not even jets can sometimes avoid other jets. [wikipedia.org]

        • Watch "Mayday", a number of mid-air collision occur when the pilot are looking in the wrong direction for others in the sky and movement is so fast that they can't react in time.

    • [...] if they get them safe and inexpensive.

      Unlikely... [topatoco.com]

  • Unauthorized operators flying around airplanes, helicopters and airports ... may be subject to fines and criminal charges, including jail time, the FAA says...

    Only if they get caught. My bet's on Iron Man.

    • he'll get caught. In the real world, "Iron man" violates a long list of laws and the penalties are quite severe.

      • 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.

        • 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)

          by Lake Level ( 6897432 )
          The USA Military developed and tested small jet powered Segway shaped vehicles as long ago as the early 1960s. They had them to the point where they could fly more than a half an hour. They were a little hard to fly but with modern digital control systems, training could be quite easy. The concept was shelved when helicopters became the preferred, more practical method for transporting troops to battlefields. I saw this in a documentary which curiously, is now hard to find.

      • 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.

        • This jet pack flier already has violated airspace and separation standards. Amateur aircraft a different legal matter and not relevant to jet packs.

      • the penalties are quite severe.

        Not if Iron man is wealthy.

      • Last I checked the comic, Iron Man is ridiculously wealthy.

        He'll be fine.

    • At 5,000 ft, you'd be trying to avoid small Cessna planes (not traveling that fast) and larger commercial planes taking off from / landing at airports. (Also at slower speeds.)

  • Message to Iron Man (Score:3)

    by Randseed ( 132501 ) on Saturday July 31, 2021 @12:07PM (#61641675)
    If you really want to get some attention, go buzz the LAX tower. "JARVIS, we're going to buzz the tower." "Reeeally, sir?" "Hit it, JARVIS."

  • Also (Score:2)

    by fred911 ( 83970 )

    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.

    • 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.

      • Airports have a radius around them (class B) that requires clearance to enter. For LAX it is a 30 mile radius. The jetpacker appears to be in the class B space so it is a violation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fred911 ( 83970 )

          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).

    • He was seen at 5,000ft within 15 miles of LAX. That is not an "uncontrolled area" but class B (Bravo). My understanding is the Bravo airspace around LAX is 30miles and 0 to 10,000 feet. 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.

      • 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.

    • Next to LAX isn't exactly Glass G....

  • ... but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • That's cool, he invented a jet pack...

      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.

  • No new data (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lije Baley ( 88936 ) on Saturday July 31, 2021 @12:45PM (#61641747)

    So the prevailing theory still holds -- that it's a nice drone with a lightweight mannequin attached.

  • 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

  • They are all for de-regulation. Fly when they want to. They can pry the jetpack off her/his cold dead body.

  • 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.

  • Anyone else notice there's only a few submitters on /. now? BeauHD, EditorDavid, msmash submit 99% of the content now. I feel like /. went from a community to a blog

    • 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.

  • "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 taught me enough about jetpakcs to be willing to get myself one of these. And a pair of guns.

  • 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.

    • How do you know they're not powered by zero point energy coming out of the quantum fluctuations of virtual particles?

  • I guess the airlines now need to install ... (Score:3)

    by Big Bipper ( 1120937 ) on Saturday July 31, 2021 @06:26PM (#61642577)
    dash cams

  • The chart [hackaday.com] needs an addendum.

  • Stay tuned for next week's episode, same Jetpack Man channel, same Jetpack Man time.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Close