from the that'll-be-an-ugly-bird-strike dept.
'Just Passed a Guy in a Jetpack': Sightings at Los Angeles Airport Fuel Concern
'Just passed a guy in a jetpack': sightings at Los Angeles airport fuel concern:
The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is investigating reports from airline pilots of someone flying a jetpack near Los Angeles international airport over the weekend.
[...] "Tower, American 1997, we just passed a guy in a jetpack," a pilot said.
"American 1997, OK, thank you, were they off to your left side or your right side?" the controller asked.
"Off the left side at maybe 300 yards or so at our altitude," the pilot said. Another pilot also reported a sighting.
"We just saw the guy pass by us in the jetpack," he said. The controller then advised another aircraft flight crew to use caution.
"The FBI is aware of the reports by pilots on Sunday and is working to determine what occurred," the agency said in a statement.
Inquiry Into 'Guy in Jetpack' Flying at LA Airport
Inquiry into 'guy in jetpack' flying at LA airport:
The FBI is investigating reports that a "guy in a jetpack" was seen by pilots flying near Los Angeles' LAX airport nearby to where planes were landing.
The incident, which was recorded by air traffic controllers, happened on Sunday evening and was witnessed by pilots on two separate planes.
The apparent culprit was seen flying at an elevation of 3,000ft (915 meters).
[...] JetPack Aviation, based in the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles, boasts of being able to fly a person to 15,000ft, but the owner of the company told the LA Times on Tuesday that their product is not available for private use.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 04 2020, @06:23PM (7 children)
This idiot probably sees nothing wrong with small children playing on the freeway.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday September 04 2020, @07:35PM (6 children)
The real question is was the guy actually in the restricted airspace around the airport? If he was, then shame on him - every pilot is responsible for knowing and obeying the laws of the air.
Outside of that, and some common altitude based restrictions, airspace is fair game for anyone, and everyone is responsible for being aware of, and avoiding collisions with, every other aircraft in their vicinity. Including guys in jetpacks. That airspace is a public good, and airliners don't have any special right-of-way.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday September 04 2020, @08:06PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 04 2020, @08:06PM (2 children)
If this guy was 3000 feet up, he was in air space controlled by the ATC, without question. Pretty much nationwide, air space is uncontrolled below 400 feet. Anything higher requires some kind of adherence to flight regulations. Obviously, this pilot never contacted the control tower, to inform them of his presence.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday September 05 2020, @03:26AM
Hmmm... I doubt I'd have the guts to get 1km high into the air. But again, it may be actually safer to be that high, have enough time to ditch the hot equipment and open the parachute in case of malfunction
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday September 05 2020, @09:47PM
It's also where he was. In Las Vegas you could be jetpackin' 399ft above the ground, on private property, and STILL be interfering with the flight paths of an airplane trying to land. There are business parks within a stones throw from the runways. Once a jet had a problem with its brakes and stopped in front of a gas station after going through a fence.
I would think rationally they would define protected airspace to be anything around an airplane in flight. So all that private property around the airport would be additionally encumbered.
These are Darwinian policies anyways. Who needs to be told not to ride a jetpack next to commercial airlines in flight?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday September 04 2020, @08:10PM
That said tho are not a lot of those rules and regulations fairly old and mainly written for a fairly large sized aircraft in mind and not single humans flying about with a jetpack on their back. The Jetpack guy probably doesn't have or are connected to the various airtraffic systems, does he even show up on radar and similar? Is he a ping on some screen or was it purely a visual identification?
When a small, comparatively, bird hits an aircraft that could be fairly problematic, the larger the bird the bigger the problem. So what is the outcome if Jetpack-dude strikes the cockpit (perhaps there is bad weather, night or the sun is shining in their eyes or whatnot) or gets sucked into the engine? I'm fairly sure jetpack-dude will be dead, or redmist, but what about the aircraft? Can the cockpit window survive the collision? I assume the engine will trash if he and his jetpack gets sucked in. Which may or may not cascade.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 04 2020, @09:45PM
With at least two pilots seeing jetpack guy as they flew past, I'd say yes. It's not that easy to see human-sized objects in the air unless you're really close to them. Further, there is [stackexchange.com] a no-approach zone around all planes:
These numbers are for air traffic directed by a controller. In the article, one pilot reported same level and 300 yards away. That seems reasonable since one would have trouble making out human-sized objects with unaided eyesight much beyond that range. 300 yards is about 0.2 miles, far short of the 3 miles lateral separation required for directed air traffic.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @06:26PM (1 child)
I guess it was more technically sophisticated than a lawn chair with balloons.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 04 2020, @11:09PM
iiNet NBN extending into LA [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by fustakrakich on Friday September 04 2020, @06:27PM (7 children)
Nothing to see here
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @06:44PM (6 children)
That man is no criminal. It was COVID-induced boredom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @06:49PM (3 children)
Maybe he was trying to get a haircut from a plane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @08:12PM (2 children)
Most aircraft can lose one engine and keep going. One of the pilots should have done a go-round and sucked this weasel into his engine. Trace later from DNA scraps who the idiot was.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 04 2020, @09:05PM (1 child)
Turbine blades are thousands of dollars each, and a typical commercial engine has many hundreds of them. Idiot's definitely not worth destroying an engine for.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2020, @03:23AM
True, keep them for the birds.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2020, @08:44PM (1 child)
Lockdown. Day 127. Four walls. And furniture.
I'm starting to understand why my dog chews the furniture.
(Score: 3, Funny) by RandomFactor on Friday September 04 2020, @10:29PM
Lockdown. Day 132. Out of Scotch. Why did I ever have children?
Joined the dog chewing on furniture.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Funny) by DECbot on Friday September 04 2020, @11:29PM
Is that you testing your ironman suit?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2020, @03:29AM
It was Tim Apple.