For a single airplane. But LAX has parallel runways, with aircraft stacked up and approching both runways from before sun up to well after sun down. He didn't need to hear an airplane first then go through your sequence, he just had to go through the sequence and fly on just about any given day of the year and have a high liklihood of being in the middle of traffic.

Somewhat revisionist history? That's NOT what he said initially. Speedy, in his "expert" opinion, ruled it out, and postulated it was an "inflatable." NOWHERE did he mention RC:

"... so that about eliminates the vertical take off and landing jet pack. That leaves us with the wing type that have to be launched from a manned aircraft in flight ... My guess at this point is that the pilots saw a promotional inflatable that got away..."

Did you not read the part about impacting the earth before one got the second or third engine started? Talk about twisting ones words.....

And I believe Echo was talking about the noise signature of an airliner on final approach drowning out the noise generated by one of these jetpack things. Nobody said anything about waiting to hear an airliner before jumping out of another aircraft.....

That's why I keep you on ignore.

R_Strowe

The only evidence is what was reported by the two pilots. What's really driving the divergent opinions here
is the desire to settle scores from previous differences, i.e., arguing for the sake one-uppmanship.

Okay, I can deal with that but, in this case, that's not my motivation. My motivation is trying to get a plausible explanation to what the pilots reported after landing.

I was referring to the alternate theories being vehemently argued to the point of personal attacks.

I would agree. It's sad that only a few years ago, a good chunk of the R.C community was accusing airline pilots of calling out 'drones' that were really plastic bags, balloons, birds, etc. Yet now they are being taken seriously.

I personally don't doubt they think they saw what was essentially a person flying by at 3000'. (As an airline pilot, I will say that we actually can identify things outside the aircraft with fairly good accuracy. But even that has limits). All I am suggesting is that, given the limitations (that I've been able to research and determine) of flyboards and jetpacks, that this incident was most likely an R.C wingsuit-type of model, just like what Speed posted. That's all.

And of course if that is in fact the case, that bodes even worse for our hobby. Although it does prove that registration/airspace restrictions/etc are no deterrent to idiocy.

R_Strowe

Read his post, Speed said it was impossible for it to be a person with a jetpack. Big difference from "not likely". Changing narratives make for difficult discussions, especially when one side uses vulgar attacks when the facts are brought forth.

Astro

With all due respect, you are wrong.
Read the words.
Someone posted an article that said airline pilots sighted a man in a jetsuit at 3000'. Speed posted that by his calculations it was impossible for a man in a jetsuit to take off, climb to 3000' and land. Franklin and I both posted 2 different companies that produce jet suits that are capable of such a feat. Speed then went on the attack.
That is what REALLY happened.
For you to spin it otherwise is pure rubbish and will only serve to degrade these forums further.

Words have meaning, folks. If you are going to type words, be prepared to be accountable to them.

Astro

As I mentioned previously, an airline pilot in France who reported a close call with a drone on final was able to identify the model
of DJI drone from the graphics. No way would two separate airline pilots misidentify a jetpack/person with an RC model. I'm a private
pilot and you can easily identify types of birds at 130 MPH.

You can mention irrelevant things all you want, it doesn't change the original narrative.

I am left in a quandry here.......

You are either, 1) being obtuse and ignoring the facts to stick up for Speed, or, 2) suffer from an extremely low rate of reading comprehension, in which case I am shocked that you were able to study for, and pass, your PP written exam.

Astro

Not trying to argue with you, ECHO, but from 10,000' on down an airliner flight deck is a very busy place. When at 3,000' on down on final approach the crew is busy with flap and speed reconfigurations (typical speeds are upwards of 180-220kts), gear extension, checklist compliance, ATC communications, and maintaining the aircraft in a stabilized configuration. The 2 1/2 minutes or so don't leave much time for sight-seeing, and most bird strikes that occur are discovered during the post-flight walkaround.

Can we (as pilots) determine objects at altitude? Of course we can, especially if they are closer. I'd be curious to know the estimated distance that this 'jetpack flyer' was from the aircraft in question. Because the flight deck is busy enough that, with a quick glance they could have seen a 'jetpack flyer'. Or they might have seen the 'flying wingsuit thing' that Speed posted.

R_Strowe

and, jfi, there is no real valid reason to not have a single start sequence for all the engines on the jet pack, at one time. just a slightly larger capacity start battery.

I would concede that 'impossible' was a poor choice of words on his part. However, read my prior post. Looking at the logistics of this, 'highly improbable' might be better. After all, given enough time, anything is possible, right? Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters......

Of course, if you could harness the power of that improbability, you could travel anywhere in the universe....

R_Strowe

Most articles I have read places the " Jetpack " 300 yards from the airliners.

Had I said " Improbable " as opposed to " Impossible " the thread would have progressed the same. The tone of this thread has more to do with the people involved then it does with the actual event.

That said, I am in good company with the word "Impossible" as the CEO of Jetpack Aviation uses the same word to describe pulling off this feat without the use of a parachute. It would be IMPROBABLE that a parachute coming down in densely populated South LA would go unnoticed.

We've gotten off in the weeds a bit here. I wasn't responding to you. It was directed at R_Strowe, who wouldn't be contradicting his colleagues
were it not for his antipithy for Franklin and you, the point being that this endless and totally useless debate on the subject is just an extention
of the ongoing saga of AMA believers vs. the critics.

As for speed, he's lost all perspective with his gigantic fonts and wherever else his mind has wandered off to.

The term he used, "impossible", is the entire premise for him being wrong and the entire premise of this debate, NOT whether or not the airline pilots saw a person in a jetsuit or something else.

Astro

To be a jetpack the guy would have had to land with a parachute, vitually impossible to do 3 miles from LAX without being spotted.

So let's toss this in the mix: The guy jumps from a plane at 10,000' in the practice area for Torrance airport (where I got my pilot's
licence) just offshore. He glides north east, fires up and passes the two airliners and continues on to someplace in Riverside Co. (Perris,
86 miles) where skydiving is common and chutes down without anyone noticing. At 3,000' a person with a jetpack would be invisible
and just random jet noise that everyone who lives there is used to hearing.

Wrong again, just more of your spin and deflection....but keep trying.....

Astro

Okay, now we have a second way that is plausible, just like my earlier suggestion of standing on a boarding step and jumping off after starting all the turbines. That gives us two ways this could have gone down and keeps the credibility of the pilots safe, for now

He's just desperately trying to save face.....unfortunately for him, the hole just keeps getting deeper....
Astro

Suppose I am wrong, so what? You and Franklin were wrong about me being Mach5nchimchim. Have either one of you admitted it? Did I feel the compulsive need to go on for two pages? How freaking pathetic that your goal in life for the past 2 days is to prove somone who has zero influence in your life wrong. Get over it already!

People do crazy ****.

Still the fuel issue.

How do you know how much fuel someone could carry on a jump?

Watch from 7:15 to 7:47. If what he says is indeed true, it is very possible for one of these suits to be seen at 3,000 ft. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

As far as what the pilots saw? I have no idea, I wasn't there and neither was Speed, or anyone else here that is pulling wild speculations from their posteriors....

Astro