Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by stickfigure | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

stickfigure

The meat of the actual conversation:

> [Airliner] We just saw a bright object at about 6000 ft

> [ATC] Can you say that one more time?

> [Airliner] We just saw a flying object - like a flying object passing by at 6000'

> [ATC] Flying object, was it a UAV or was it a jetpack?

> [Airliner] Like a jetpack. Too shiny and too far.

"PERSON IN JETPACK SEEN OVER LAX!" seems to overinterpret that exchange.

View on HN

This is just how ATC conversations go. The plane could literally be on fire and the controller would still be like "Ok. So I guess now that you're on fire, you want to turn around and land?"

Pilot: "Yes we can do that."

The issue is that ATC is the one that suggested it could be a jetpack.

The fact that ATC is suggesting it normalizes jetpacks in a way that no amount of pilot reports could.

...or maybe the controller watched Ironman last night. Which is more likely?

We don't have any evidence on ATC watching Ironman last night, but we do have evidence on JetPack last month: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tQyEV9Hl0

That was a very strange interaction... I thought this was something to be avoided by ATC, suggesting things. Usually the conversational training is asking out details with no influence, and repeat question to make clear the answer was not understood. Right?

I wonder if "like a flying object" really is correctly transcribed. It's difficult to hear at this quality, but to me it sounds more like "like a flying suit jet".

The end of the sentence could also have been "too fast" rather than "too far", which would make more sense together with the certainty in "like a jetpack".

Yea the transcript of that video is definitely not accurate. The pilot was the first to mention the flying suit jet pack, not ATC.

I thought that initially, but the transcript is wrong or at least questionable, the pilot says something like:

> We just saw a flying object like a flight suit jet pack pass by at 6000

He may also have said “Too shiny and too fast” at the end as well

A jetpack at 6000 ft? That seems rather unlikely.

What makes you say that? 6000' doesn't strike me as particularly high.

Flight time of a jetsuit is about 10 minutes. Rate of climb on a full tank is 500 ft/min and doubles as fuel burns off. Flying a jetsuit to 6000 ft seems like a spectacular way to commit suicide.

Not if you have an Arc reactor in your chest.

Only if they took off from ground level.

Flying into the approach path of LAX also seems suicidal. If the reports from this and the previous incident are accurate, the person responsible is exceedingly reckless.

Only way it's possible is if it's a jet-powered wingsuit dropped from a plane, but that is as unlikely as a jetpack, just for other reasons.

That french guy with a jetpack started out that way. He did all his testing at high altitude and when he was done, he popped his parachute. It was only later that he took off near the ground.

The 3 A's from flight school - Aircraft, Area, Altitude

He definitely wasn't flying at 2000 ft. More like 100.

https://youtu.be/de_YJzKeGKU

Not heavily reported is that ATC tasked a military aircraft that was already in airspace with callsign IDAHO30 to turn westbound and check it out.

There's no evidence that it was a military aircraft. Based on the IDAHO call sign, it was probably police, or maybe feds.

Could also be a person in a squirrel suit. Looks exactly the same.

ATC sounded like she was putting words in the pilot’s mouth.

“Like a jetpack” followed by “Too shiny and too far” != “jetpack man spotted again”.

I just listened to the audio, and maybe, but.... "Too shiny and too far" made me think the response was to the ATC's question about drone and assuming drone would be something in the DJI realm of object size. The pilot was implying that it was too far away to be that visible from reflection to be a consumer drone.

> [ATC] Flying object, was it a UAV or was it a jetpack?

this has occurred enough times that this is now a question ATC rattles off. just.wow.sad.

By wording their question like that, they may actually be priming pilots to report ambiguous sightings as jetpack sightings.

That's the point. Nothing good comes from ambiguity in these matters, in fact it could be quite damaging to the careers of those involved if they reported anything that sounded vaguely UFO-ish. Best to have a catch-all like jetpack, drones, etc so there won't be any unpleasant questions later.

If you are implying deliberate misdirection by ATC, then I do not agree. It's more likely ATC prompted the pilot with the jetpack possibility because they believe it's happened before recently in that area.

I think ATC, expecting a jetpack, may have inadvertently primed the pilot to interpret an unknown object as a jetpack.

Sad? I was just thinking how awesome that was. If I read that this exchange happened in 2020 when I was a child I would think the future was going well.

(Obviously I do not condone jetpacking in restricted airspace)

It had happened no more than once AFAIK

while that may be true, you know that all ATC meetings had this reported to them so they are all aware and on the look out for it. it only goes to make sense. if someone was developing a jetpack unit, they would need to do multiple test flights. if they were dumb enough to do it the first time, they are probably willing to do it a second time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com