Flying Humans

mlimber sends us to the NYTimes for a story about flying people who jump from planes or other high locations wearing a wing suit akin to a flying squirrel's. Their efforts have potential military and Xtreme sports applications. The story profiles, with video, one guy who wants to be the first to jump from a plane and land without a parachute (and live). Here's a YouTube video of another of these fliers skimming six feet above skiers in the Swiss Alps. Quoting: "Modern suit design features tightly woven nylon sewn between the legs and between the arms and torso, creating wings that fill with air and create lift, allowing for forward motion and aerial maneuvers while slowing descent. As the suits, which cost about $1,000, have become more sophisticated, so have the pilots. The best fliers, and there are not many, can trace the horizontal contours of cliffs, ridges and mountainsides."

Comments

64 years late!

[Eric Smith]

one guy who wants to be the first to jump from a plane and land without a parachute (and live)

He's at least 64 years too late. Alan Magee and Nick Alkemade already survived jumps from aircraft without parachutes in 1943 and 1944.

Re:64 years late!

[Architect_sasyr]

That and this sort of thing has been around for years. Outside of of the cinema and within, take the angels in "Reign of Fire", I'm pretty sure I've even seen it in a bond flick. The Guinness Book of Records has something of it. Slow news day at /. HQ?

Re:64 years late!

[Repton]

That's not quite the same thing -- they didn't plan to jump without a parachute. If you throw enough people out of aeroplanes (as WWII did), it's not quite so amazing if a couple survive. This guy wants to be one from one -- much more difficult.

Re:64 years late!

[ottothecow]

When you think about it, it doesn't really matter how far they fall as long as it is past a certain threshold.

With a the wind resistance of a skydiver on earth, you would reach your terminal velocity of around 125MPH in about 1500ft or about the height of the sears tower.

Of course this still is pretty high and has a very high risk of death, it would result in only the same risk of death as a fall from 15,000 ft.

Re:64 years late!

[HadesInjustice]

I agree, but I think the main idea is to not only survive but also not breaking any bones. Remember - drop and roll!

Re:64 years late!

[mindwhip]

Slow NERD day you mean?

Re:64 years late!

[__Drachen__]

No, no... its PLF...

PLF==Parachute Landing Fall and is taught in every first jump course.

Re:64 years late!

[the_fat_kid]

as my uncle Ralph, a vietnam era pilot, liked to say, "why would any one want to leave a perfectly good airplane?"

Re:64 years late!

[siriuskase]

Don't be cruel, GP has simply confused the PLF with a Fire Safety Lesson he had in kindergarten.

Re:64 years late!

[Eric Smith]

In the cases I cited, the people apparently did plan to jump without a parachute. They were faced with two alternatives, of which both were likely fatal, and chose to jump.

I disagree with your assessment that "it's not quite so amazing if a couple survive." Someone falling from tens of thousands of feet with no protection and surviving is amazing by any reasonable standard.

This guy wants to be one from one -- much more difficult.

I disagree with that also. If you plan it for months or years, develop suitable technology, model and simulate it, do various tests before the real attempt, etc., it should be much less difficult to survive it than if you're forced to do it by circumstances.

Re:64 years late!

[Eric Smith]

One of the cases I cited, Nick Alkemade, survived without broken bones.

Re:64 years late!

[jamesh]

i wonder if being in the relaxed state of unconsciousness would make any difference to the injuries sustained when you hit the ground... as you probably would be in a fall from a high enough altitude

Re:64 years late!

[goatpunch]

Unfortunately some of these anecdotal stories are quite hard to believe. Often the onlookers have confused a partially open parachute with no parachute at all, or the already impressive survival story gets exaggerated up from a partially opened parachute, to no parachute at all. The most plausible ones involve decellaration over a decent distance, like hitting a dense tree + falling into deep snow underneath, etc.

Re:64 years late!

[MichaelSmith]

i wonder if being in the relaxed state of unconsciousness would make any difference to the injuries sustained when you hit the ground... as you probably would be in a fall from a high enough altitude

I doubt it. Most likely you will have the same injuries regardless of your state of conciousness.

I have heard that people who fall from airliners into water are often found to have died of drowning, which makes me think a fall into water at terminal velocity is borderline survivable.

Re:64 years late!

[hawicz]

Have you ever seen a perfectly good airplane?

Re:64 years late!

[codemachine]

It might be, but you still have to be very lucky. People have died from landing very badly when jumping off of the 10m diving platform at a swimming pool. The odds of dying from a 10m fall are fairly slim, but it shows how hard of a surface water can be. And when you're going at terminal velocity, the water's surface would feel about as hard as cement, assuming you felt anything at all.

Re:64 years late!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough, Nick Alkemade DID intentionally jump. He had no parachute, and decided to jump rather than sit in a burning plane.

And he was the only jumper who survived with no injuries. Falling through a pine tree and into a snow drift, the only thing he suffered was a sprained ankle.

I believe there was also a Russian who fell out of a helicopter over an airport. He managed to hold his anorak out and steer himself into a pile of cleared snow. So none of this is new.

But I am sure the Americans will claim a 'World First' by re-defining the requirement - it's what they always do...

Re:64 years late!

[MichaelSmith]

And when you're going at terminal velocity, the water's surface would feel about as hard as cement

Hit concrete and you might decelerate over 0.1 metres. Hit water feet first and you might decelerate over five metres. Thats 50 times the distance so divide the acceleration by sqrt(50)==7. Its probably not as good as that because acceleration will be proportional to velocity. So I half agree with you. I think peak acceleration will be 0.5 or 0.3 of hitting a solid surface.

Re:64 years late!

[Almahtar]

Well yeah, that and he didn't specify the plane had to be flying. That's some REALLY old news.

Re:64 years late!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...This guy wants to be one from one -- much more difficult.."

This guy wants to be prepared, with a flying suit! What do you mean "much more difficult"? Compared to jumping without ANY aids, this will be a piece of cake!

Either you are an American fruitcake, or you didn't RTFA!!!

Re:64 years late!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jumping from a plane without a parachute and surviving/not getting injured/etc. is easy, anyway. Nobody ever said it had to be a plane in flight... ;)

Re:64 years late!

[Eivind]

That's optimistic actually. We're talking survival here, not being unharmed.

The first part of the deceleration is all that matters, we know that jumping from 10 metres will give essentially 100% survival-rate, indeed odds are excellent that you won't just survive, but be -unharmed-. Jumping from 10 metres gives you an impact-speed of perhaps 20m/s, terminal velocity for a human is about 55m/s.

The trick is surviving the deceleration from 55m/s to 25m/s, if you can do that, declerating in water from 25m/s is comparatively undramatic. The thing is, water is "harder" the faster you push trough it, so the fact that you may penetrate to a depth of 5 metres is almost completely irrelevant, the trick is surviving the first single meter of water.

Re:64 years late!

[DaedalusHKX]

Yes, the bond movie in question was actually Lara Croft and the Cradle of Life...

The flying squirrel suit thing I'll buy. That is not "news", but I'm glad someone mentioned that the technology is improving. Once people can land without needing a parachute (and without losing any limbs while doing so), I'll buy myself one :)

Re:64 years late!

[harl]

Perfectly good airplane?!

Have you seen jump planes? No seats and there's a huge hole in the wall.

I can honestly say without caveat that of the hundreds of rides I've taken on Twin Otters not once have I safely landed in one.

Re:64 years late!

[CastrTroy]

Which brings up the old story about the bridge builder throwing his hammer into the water as he was falling to save his life. The hardest part about falling into water is breaking the surface tension on the top. After that it's quite a bit easier on your body. The story goes that if you're falling into water from a great height, you can break surface of the water by throwing a heavy object (like a hammer) into the water just before you hit it. I think I saw this on mythbusters. Although I can't remember if it was busted or not.

Re:64 years late!

[CastrTroy]

That's funny, Google thinks that PLF is something completely different.

Re:64 years late!

[peragrin]

In the last 5 days two men fell 40 stories while washing windows on a skyscraper. One died, and the other one is still alive.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5820578

Falling from great distances isn't always fatal.

Re:64 years late!

[smooth wombat]

I think I saw this on mythbusters.

Correct

Although I can't remember if it was busted or not.

Yes, it was. Fantastically busted. Water is water and no matter what you do, including throwing a hammer into the water before you hit, will change its properties enough to influence the wonderful feeling of smashing into what will then be a hard surface when you fall from a great height.

Re:64 years late!

[NeilTheStupidHead]

It was. ^>^

Re:64 years late!

[IndustrialComplex]

I wouldn't rely on Mythbusters to confirm is something is possible or impossible, but rather if they were able to repeat the event in their own, unscientific and often imprecise manner. They have 'busted' myths of actual and verified events. Mythbusters isn't the end-all be-all of what is possible.

Re:64 years late!

[__Drachen__]

Liberate those penguins!!!

http://www.google.com/search?q=PLF Look towards the bottom where it says related searches :)

Re:64 years late!

[Megane]

Okay, fine. Then this guy can become the first to survive two jumps without a parachute.

Re:64 years late!

[sorak]

one guy who wants to be the first to jump from a plane and land without a parachute (and live)

He's at least 64 years too late. Alan Magee and Nick Alkemade already survived jumps from aircraft without parachutes in 1943 and 1944.

Does it count if the plane is still on the runway?

Re:64 years late!

[bkr1_2k]

Hell, they even had a similar suit in "drop zone" though it didn't have the "web" between the legs, just the wings.

Re:64 years late!

[bkr1_2k]

Yes, but the only people who are going to be able to land without hurting themselves are already skydivers. Average Joes (which you may or may not be) won't be able to do this without a lot of training or through sheer luck.

Re:64 years late!

[bkr1_2k]

You made a large assumption that you will, in fact, hit feet first. If your feet happen to be slightly spread on impact, you can be sure you're going to do horrible internal damage. I knew a girl who rupture her girly bits (yes they "exploded") cliff jumping from 20 feet. Blood everywhere and massive reconstructive surgery required. I also know another guy who broke several bones doing the same thing. The only thing he hit was the water. Slower deceleration or not, water hurts.

Re:64 years late!

[goatpunch]

It seems that the platform that they were on fell 40 stories, and there is no analysis of how or why it fell- if the spool of cable supporting it was still attached it could have slowed their descent a little. Even in freefall the platform could have lowered their terminal velocity a little.

The media and the public love to take an already impressive survival story and exaggerate it. As I said there are always other circumstances with these stories that skew the odds in the survivor's favour. People who fall 40 stories and land on concrete have so little left of their skull or torso that 'survival' isn't really up for discussion.

Re:64 years late!

[Chris Burke]

Uh, okay, but you can't "break" surface tension. Water that is rippling from the splash of the hammer still has surface tension, just as much as before. The surface tension is "broken" briefly when the hammer passes through, but then it's the same ol' water. You could try holding onto to something that will precede you into the water, but then the force of the surface tension would still be transmitted to you (so it'd have to be some special diving apparatus designed to absorb the shock, highly unlikely that you'd have around if you accidentally fell from a bridge).

Maybe if you did something that actually affected the attraction of the water molecules, like throw a big bucket of dish soap down, that would actually disrupt the water's self-attraction at the surface long enough for you to hit without going splat.

Re:64 years late!

[zarthrag]

Oil? Obviously, you wouldn't be able to get a meter of it, but if you spray a jet of oil just before landing, then maybe that would break up the surface area of the water enough (especially if the oil has penetrated the surface and even inserted some bubbles....

Re:64 years late!

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother used to be in the 82nd airborne. I teased him once about jumping out of a perfectly good plane. He informed me in all seriousness that given the state of maintenance of the training C-130s they used, he would definitely not agree that it was a perfectly good plane. I think he really believed he was better off jumping out than trying to land in a C-130 lol

Re:64 years late!

[Mr2cents]

Some swimming pools use air bubbles for training 10m dives. The air diminishes the density of the water and the athletes don't hurt themselves as much if they land badly.

Re:64 years late!

[braindrainbahrain]

Good point!

A rule of thumb quoted ofter during my skydiving days (I made about 1400) was that it took some 8 or 9 seconds to achieve a terminal valocity of about 120 mph. Experience gives me a good feel that this is accurate since it takes about that long after jumping before you can do freefall manuevers effectively.

At one time, there was such an event as skydiving style, in which the jumper would get into a compact tucked position to achieve a higher speed (and more manuevarability). Nowadays, skydivers can achieve high speeds by going into a stable head down position.

Exhaustive links, references here and here.

Re:64 years late!

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, but mythbusters disproved it, so they probably just got conned by some salesmen who said "think of the diving children". Everybody knows that mythbusters are always right.

Re:64 years late!

[Amouth]

no they arn't.. but they atleast tend to do a decent job and make big explosions which makes me happy :)

Re:64 years late!

[Mr2cents]

Hmm, I didn't see that show, but you could be right. I tried to watch mythbusters a couple of times, it's quite interesting but I hate the format : in this episode, we're going to test X. (Ads). Previously, we said we were going to test X, and we're really going to do it. (Ads) So, we are going to test X, and we will do it this way. (Ads). Previously, we said we are going to test X this way. Keep watching. (Ads). Etc, etc. (Ads).

So I started a one-man boycot. (Ads).

Re:64 years late!

[IndustrialComplex]

I agree with your statement, but my complaint is against mythbusters approaches that are often then used as examples of what can't be done because it was 'busted'.

If the myth is that something isn't possible, and then they go and do it (like the cannon made from a tree trunk) However watching the show it sometimes occurs that they make mistakes or the setup wasn't right and end up declaring something 'busted'. If it can occur once, then it is unlikely, not busted. (unless of course, they are trying to determine if something is likely or unlikely and not simply impossible).

In the case of the water and the hammer, that was a very difficult experiment to setup correctly. We do know that the surface area impacting the water has a great affect on how much force the water exerts back on the object (if it didn't then there wouldn't be a difference between diving, and bellyflops). In the end, when entering water it is the acceleration that is important, and I think it really boils down to the fact that they didn't hit on the exact placement and timing of the hammer and body.

A hammer wouldn't help with someone doing a bellyflop, but to prove something possible, then we only need one example of a success.

Cliff divers. No hammer necessary.

Re:64 years late!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It seems you might do better going in feet first to minimize your surface area (and let the feet take the brunt of it), though preferably after straightening out just before impact so you hit at 150 or so instead of 230 or whatever the straight-up-and-down terminal velocity is.

How long of a flapping streamer, say 1 meter wide, would one need to slow enough to not die hitting land?

One could probably jump to the head of this idiotic line if one could do it with a few hundred yards or less.

Re:64 years late!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Where are those posts about whether the word "retarded" should be being used? >:(

"Surface tension" barely keeps a specialized, tiny water skimmer bug afloat. Going from almost zero to zero isn't the problem. It's about the mass of the water getting in the way and your flabby body trying to delta-v it in a hurry.

"Throwing a hammer" might help...if it, when plunging in, sucked enough bubbles down along with it to temporarily (read a second or so) thus reduce the average mass of the hammer's impact area and depth. Then, if you were prescient and oriented enough to plunge in feet first at that exact spot, you might have a marginally increased chance of survival.

But good luck orienting yourself to fall in skydiver position, then re-orienting just as you are about to hit, hurling the hammer, then re-re-orienting yourself (said hurling would spin you) such that you plunge feet-first in, and to top it off, at the exact spot where you hurled the hammer.

Re:64 years late!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Best bet would be to tie the end of the hammer's handle to your shoes, and keep your feet together and your arms extended like a whirly-seed from a tree. The hammer should (be trying to) fall more quickly than you and would thus be at the lead, then you will follow right in. But that would add an extra 70 or so mph to your fall vs. falling freefall ("terminal velocity" is no fixed rate, but depends on the net mass-to-area ratio of the object in the direction of the fall, neglecting shape and movement which leads to additional effects, of course.)

Re:64 years late!

[Master of Transhuman]

That's what "Triple X" did in the second movie - he fired his grenade launcher at the water while diving a couple hundred feet (it had previously been established in the movie that he had the highest Navy SEAL dive - 200-some-odd feet). Plus he had a train falling down right behind him, which he managed to swim away from before it fell over and almost crushed him!

Fun scene, but utterly unbelievable, like most "Triple X" stunts.

At least he wasn't deliberately following a plane off a cliff on a motorcyle, then sky-diving down to the plane in the canyon, entering it, then flying it out of the canyon like that Pierce Brosnan Bond movie. I could everything about that - except the decision to do it in the first place! Personally I'd rather be captured by the Russians!

Re:64 years late!

[Suicyco]

Well, real world events don't happen in a precise, scientific manner. Falling from a bridge and trying to drop a hammer to help break the fall is something easily testable by the mythbusters, all they do is replicate the events as stated in the myth. "Busted" does not mean impossible, just not likely, given their simple but effective testing of events that happened "in the wild" so to speak.

The mythbusters could certainly, and with good reason, bust the "myth" that people can survive a fall of 18,000 ft. Yet somebody HAS survived that.

Improbable does not mean impossible. Just because they busted something that is "actual and verified" doesn't mean they haven't busted the myth. The myths imply a repeatable effect typically, as in "you can break your fall from a bridge by dropping a hammer in the water." No, you can't. Can somebody survive the fall, after having dropped a hammer? Possibly. Doesn't change the typical result however.

Re:64 years late!

[Eivind]

That won't help, first you can't "break" surface-tension, even if a hammer entered the water 0.1 seconds ahead of you, it's still there just as ever, sligthly more rippled, but otherwise no difference.

Second, it's simply untrue. If it *was* true, then obviously, your foot will break the surface-tension when it enters the water, so by this logic, your foot may end up crushed, but the rest of you should be fine, which isn't even close to what happens in real life.

It *does* help to inject large amounts of air into the water, because that means you're essentially landing in air-water-mixture rather than in water, which helps. Some pools for dive-practive can blow lots of bubbles from the bottom, which -does- make quite a difference in the pain you feel when you make a mistake and enter the water awkwardly.

The best fliers

[Anonymous Coward]

The best fliers, and there are not many,
That is because the bad one die.

Darwinism in action

Re:The best fliers

[Seferino]

Of course not, it's Intelligent Design !

Re:The best fliers

[Inzite]

Actually, the reason there are very few good wingsuit fliers is because very few people on this planet have the time, money, and passion to pursue the sport to this level. There are lots of BASE jumpers who would love to devote themselves to wingsuit BASE. However, to push yourself to the level of the best of the best takes years of practice, thousands of jumps, a LOT of patience, and incremental increases in the complexity/aggressiveness of your flying.

Plus, there are only a few places on this planet where one can become a world-class wingsuit BASE jumper. Nearly all the best wingsuit BASE jumpers are Norwegians, though there are a few places in the Swiss Alps where you can do some successful wingsuit BASE. I'm sure there are a few other places around the world, but they're likely far less accessible and likely not as ideal as the Norwegian fjords.

If you want to join the ranks of the best, you need to live near one of these spots, travel there weekly, spend hours hiking to the exit point, and be prepared to walk back down if the weather doesn't look good (and in Norway, bad weather is the rule, not the exception).

Lastly, there are a huge variety of reasons people die in BASE jumping. However, it's not just because people are bad at the sport. Sometimes shit just happens. Even the best of the best screw up one jump in 1000.

Re:The best fliers

[Thanshin]

Darwinism in action They should throw the children from a plane.

If they live we'll also have Lamarckism in action.

Re:The best fliers

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid by Design then?

Re:The best fliers

[tzot]

Actually, the article should read: The best fliers, and there are not many left

See? Now it's correct.

Re:The best fliers

[ceoyoyo]

No, it's because they're not flying, they're falling, slightly slower than they would otherwise. The best fliers want to fly and take up hang gliding or paragliding, and there are a lot of them.

Re:The best fliers

[bandmassa]

Prove it's not intelligent design ;-)

OB In Soviet Russia

[davidwr]

In Soviet Russia, Boris and Natasha get Moose and Flying Human.

Re:OB In Soviet Russia

[hazem]

You joke about Soviet Russia, but when I was a paratrooper - many years ago - there were stories of how the Russians would drop airborne troops by flying very low and dropping them into to snow drifts.

Maybe they just told us that so we wouldn't bitch about how fast we hit the ground WITH parachutes... One thing the army taught me is that someone ALWAYS has it worse.

Re:OB In Soviet Russia

[AJWM]

Which reminds me of the story of a group of draftees (this goes back a ways) who were selected to begin jump training. They were told how they'd begin jumping the next day. There was some muttering and in response to "Any questions?", one soldier asks "how high will we be jumping from, sir?"
    "About 2,500 feet."
    More muttering, and the guy hesitantly raises his hand to ask another question: "Uh, couldn't we start a little lower, maybe 200 feet?"
    "200 feet!? Good god, man, the parachutes won't have time to open!"
    "Oh, parachutes. You didn't tell us we'd be using parachutes."

(I've got a couple of static-line jumps under my belt, but decided it'd be more useful to learn to pilot the plane than to jump out of it.)

Re:OB In Soviet Russia

[MichaelSmith]

there were stories of how the Russians would drop airborne troops by flying very low and dropping them into to snow drifts.

Then there was this guy who was flying an ultralight in an air race somewhere in Europe who landed in a field and didn't see the abandoned machinery because of grass/crops/etc.

It would be nasty to find a tree stump inside your nice soft snow drift.

Re:OB In Soviet Russia

[Archtech]

There used to be a saying in the Red Army:

"If you don't know how, we'll show you. If you don't want to, we'll make you".

Re:OB In Soviet Russia

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Who do they think they are - Chuck Norris?

Re:OB In Soviet Russia

[AndersOSU]

How long does it take to train a paratrooper?






Three weeks.
The first week they separate the men from the boys.
The second week they separate the men from the fools.
The third week they throw the fools out of a plane.

Re:OB In Soviet Russia

[Deadstick]

Yes, I've seen photographs of that. They had a box hung under the wings and divided into multiple one-man-size compartments, open fore and aft, and one man would lie in each one gripping his rifle. The airplane would slow to maybe 60 knots five or ten feet above the snow, and they'd just slide out.

It wasn't used much...the drag of that contraption was horrendous, so it couldn't accommodate many men per airplane.

rj

Re:OB In Soviet Russia

[hazem]

That's awesome! It's no wonder the 3rd week was so easy!

I just forwarded that to several of my veteran paratrooper friends. "If the shoe fits", or maybe I should say, "If the reserve chute fits"...

Thanks!

I got mine...

[Marko DeBeeste]

...from Acme products. Tragically the roadrunner continues to elude me.

Re:I got mine...

[Anonymous Coward]

THEY LIVE... until they hit the ground

Re:I got mine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Acme Batman costume. The only Batman costume worn by bats.

Why?

[Meshach]

I love the quote from the article:

Which leads to an obvious and inevitable question: Why?
"Because everybody thinks that it's not possible," Mr. Corliss said. "The point is to show people anything can be done. If you want to do amazing things, then you have to take amazing risks."

That sums up so much. Why does any one do anything? Who does anyone jump out from the sky? Why does anyone contribute to open source?

Because it is there

Re:Why?

[FooAtWFU]

Bah. I am skeptical. I think there's another answer, for when the reality of it being possible sets in: because flying is danged fun.

I mean, why do people go on roller coasters? Not because it's impossible, that's for sure...

Re:Why?

[Aneurysm]

I like your point, but i'm not entirely sure that contributing to open source software is the same death-defying act of derring-do as jumping out of a plane with a few thin pieces of lycra stretched between my arms whilst skirting the edges of vertical rock faces.

Re:Why?

[heteromonomer]

I think it might have applications in airplane safety in future. With (many more) improvements such suits can possibly be used by every passenger to quickly bail out of an aircraft in trouble, at least at low altitudes.

Re:Why?

[Meshach]

Okay Aneurysm, I'll give you that one.

I was not necessarily saying that open source is just as exciting as jumping out of a plane. I am just saying that it is something that people often do because they enjoy the challenge, not for any particular intrinsic benefit.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does any one do anything? Who does anyone jump out from the sky? Why does anyone contribute to open source?

Because it is there Struth, it would be much harder to jump out of the sky if it weren't there...

Re:Why?

[Aneurysm]

Sorry, I didn't mean to jibe. I know what you're saying and I agree, althought I think the quote is more about making huge risks for huge gains (but also potential losses). Sometimes it just feels like Godwins Law somtimes on slashdot though, except like this: As a Slashdot thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison to the benefits of open source approaches one. In fact I name it Aneurysm's law :)

Re:Why?

[Meshach]

Sorry, I didn't mean to jibe... No jibe occurred. I agree with you sentiments entirely. I was just hoping to extract something out of this mess. However I have have scummed to the law of averages....

Re:Why?

[hack slash]

"if you ask a mountain climber why they climb mountains their reply is always 'because it's there', well, an elephant's bum is there..."
(paraphrased from Jasper Carrott)

Re:Why?

[SL Baur]

when the reality of it being possible sets in: because flying is danged fun. Yeah, even something as tame as para-sailing. Did that for the first time last month.

Of course, any kind of flying where you don't have to strip half naked, pass through metal detectors and get searched by goons would be fun too. Only problem with those suits is that I'll bet lighting cigarettes is pretty tough.

Re:Why?

[elronxenu]

But there is an intrinsic benefit to contributing to Open Source.

Re:Why?

[SL Baur]

I think it might have applications in airplane safety in future. Nope. From the sounds of it, flying in one of those suits takes some training. They won't let you jump out of a plane with a parachute without taking a safety class first. There are floating vests not parachutes in planes now for a reason.

Re:Why?

[jcr]

Hey, has anyone survived driving an ice pick through the base of their skull and swishing it around a few times?

The guy's a Darwin Award applicant.

-jcr

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why does any one do anything"

I Don't know, I was really drunk at the time.

Re:Why?

[MichaelSmith]

There are floating vests not parachutes in planes now for a reason

When I think about the crappy PFD's which you get on aircraft I wonder why they can't be better. They should inflate on immersion. A better harness wouldn't hurt. And while you are it it why not have a simple parachute?

Materials these days are pretty good, so it won't take much space.

Re:Why?

[Bitsy Boffin]

Parachute is pointless in almost all modern aircraft for two reasons...

a) Likelyhood of aircraft actually catasrophically failing (breaking up) at a height at which parachute would be of any help is almost nil, almost all accidents were not accidents until the perfectly flyable plane hit the ground.
b) Likelyhood of occupants of a catasprophically failed aircraft, which is now falling to earth, actually getting out of said aircraft, let alone deploying chute at sufficient height, is essentially nil.

If you're flying a one or two seat aircraft aerobatically, or in combat, or gliding (which involves lots of more or nearly aerobatic manouvering) where losing a wing or control surfaces at altitude is a possibilty, and getting out not too problematic, then wear a chute. For everybody else, it's just dead weight.

Re:Why?

[SL Baur]

When I think about the crappy PFD's which you get on aircraft I wonder why they can't be better. They're as good as the law requires them to be and no better I suspect. Did you sink?

why not have a simple parachute? Because it's not simple. If the plane is in such trouble that it cannot continue to fly, it is easier to get it to the ocean than to do anything else. Boeings, at least (don't know about Airbus except that they scare me), are designed to have the pieces of the airplane die before any passengers are hurt. I think you've been watching too many bad movies.

Here is one place where you can definitely say "Think about the children". Would you rather be holding your toddler in your arms in a parachute hitting the ocean at high speed or in a life vest sliding down a ramp?

I just don't see parachutes or any kind of airborne evacuation becoming a viable safety measure ever. Trust the pilot to get you down and after all, his life is at stake too.

Disclaimer: I've only had experience on the avionics side of airplanes, not the engineering.

Re:Why?

[MichaelSmith]

I am sure you are right. But one day I might pick up an old cargo canopy to carry on board "just in case".

I think airlines should face their seats backwards. Saves having to put your head on your knees during an emergency landing.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sums up so much. Why does any one do anything? Who does anyone jump out from the sky? Why does anyone contribute to open source?

Small penises.

Re:Why?

[Richard_at_work]

Do that and your face becomes the target for any loose items in the cabin that decide to make a break for freedom during the emergency breaking or the violent deceleration that happens when the aircraft goes off the runway etc. Thats one of the main reasons for putting your head on your knees during such an incident.

Re:Why?

[Eivind]

Actually, it's even the other way around, the flotation-devices in comercial passenger-planes are almost completely pointless.

First, the majority of planes that crash or emergency-land do so in connection with take-off or landing, on land. Only a fraction of passenger-planes that come down outside of the airport come down on water.

Second, of the ones that -do- come down on water, quite a few come down violently enough that flotation-help makes no difference, it doesn't help you if you're dead or unconscious on impact.

Third, even when the plane *does* land on water and you *are* conscious after landing, it *still* makes no difference to your survival if you're in the north-atlantic and rescue arrives an hour later. You'll be frozen to death rather than drowned but that isn't really much of a benefit.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorta looks like fun, and probably is one hell of a thrill... But the sensible side of me with the instinct for self preservation says no. But I'll be more than happy to watch.

As for the landing aspect of it? Sure it reduces the vertical aspect of falling. But I doubt that even with a nice glideslope the landing would be much fun, as a good percentage of terminal velocity is now translated into horizontal movement. More or less the same effect as landing from a 3 ft jump from a car going 90MPH. Ouch!

But the article submitter missed the really cool flying guy link, but at least the YouTube page cross-links over to it. Jet man! The rig reminds me of one of those action-figure toys from the 1980s. :D

Now if only the fuel lasted more than a few minutes... :S

Re:Why?

[MichaelSmith]

Do that and your face becomes the target for any loose items in the cabin that decide to make a break for freedom during the emergency breaking or the violent deceleration that happens when the aircraft goes off the runway etc

So wear face protection. And while you are at it, clothing with a degree of fire resistance. It seem to me that we are not doing enough to help people survive that (fairly common) scenario.

Re:Why?

[rufty_tufty]

Why do Airbus scare you?

Re:Why?

[msormune]

There's a difference in just seeking thrills for your personal life, and contributing to a greater good... It's more than just "because it's there".

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler..

Re:Why?

[OldeTimeGeek]

Fire resistant clothing will only help if the fire doesn't last very long or isn't very hot.

As a club racer, I am the proud owner (and somewhat poorer one) of a two-layer SFI 3.2A/5-rated Nomex fire suit. At eight hundred dollars, it is designed provide about 5 seconds of protection in a fire of 1800 to 2100 degrees - just long enough for me to activate the fire suppression and to escape the vehicle or for safety personnel to get me out of the safely away from the car. Airplane fires last a lot longer and are a whole lot hotter, so I can't see where it would help in a plane crash.

I'm sure that fashion industry would love it, though. The same folks that will sell you a swimsuit in the middle of winter at a higher price and call it "cruisewear" would have no problem coming up with a line of stylish, fire-resistant, airlinewear...

Re:Why?

[OldeTimeGeek]

Besides, "fire resistant" clothing generally means that it is resistant to burning itself rather than keeping you from getting burned...

Re:Why?

[Domint]

The point, I think, is the illusion of safety. Otherwise you'd have a perfectly safe plane full of raving lunatics thinking they're all dead as soon as the engines kick on.

Re:Why?

[henryhbk]

There are life rafts on the aircraft as well. The ramps can detach to form flotation rafts. Agree that they are not great rafts, and I wouldn't want to go in the north atlantic with one, but in rescue diver training I did ride on a detached ramp in a half frozen lagoon (in a dry suit of course) and it was remarkable in its stability and weight carrying capacity. They now even sell them detached from an airplane as instant docks for rescue (picture a box with the ramp and gas cylinder which dumps all the gas in a few seconds to inflate the thing [can't remember the brand name]). You could walk around on the thing. This might buy you an hour or 2 (depending on ambient temperature, but if you are dressed and dry you can go much longer in cold), wet you're dead as you mentioned.

Re:Why?

[Eivind]

True. A *raft* may indeed save your life if the plane lands on water, and you're still conscious after that, even if the water is cold.

My point was the flotation-thingies that each passenger has under the chair won't be of help. As you correctly point out, if you get wet in the north-atlantic you are essentially dead anyway. And a personal flotation-device is only designed to help in the case where you're already swimming in the water -- at which point its really too late.

Yes, you can survive falling in ice-cold water, if you're picked up and given the chance to re-heat inside of the first 15 minutes or something. But let's face it, the odds of that are slim to none.

As I said: I wouldn't be even sligthly surprised if it turns out the millions of floating-vests brougth along on planes all over the world has yet to save even a -single- life. They are very -VERY- close to completely pointless. Indeed the 30 seconds extra you may need for leaving the plane because everyone is messing with vests may harm more than the vests help.

Darwin Awards

[wildsurf]

The best fliers, and there are not many

Darwin in action.

Re:Darwin Awards

[cowscows]

Actually, doesn't the term "the best" by definition sort of mean there can't be that many? The best means superior to all others, and unless you're talking about something that has an absolute and measurable limit to "perfection", then "the best" is a pretty exclusive club.

Re:Darwin Awards

[Crypto Gnome]

Actually, doesn't the term "the best" by definition sort of mean there can't be that many? The best means superior to all others, and unless you're talking about something that has an absolute and measurable limit to "perfection", then "the best" is a pretty exclusive club. Seriously!

The Best is a *very* exclusive club.

THE Best means implicitly that (as made famous in The Highlander)

There Can Be Only One
People who write such phrases as

The best fliers, and there are not many write such crap/drivel/rubbish because they don't have anything useful to contribute, but they get paid "by the word" so the more syllables they sprout the more money they make. If they're just spouting off in a public forum (eg like slashdot) they obviously think that taking 20 minutes to contribute 5 seconds of information is proof that they're intelligent (or something).

Re:Darwin Awards

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you see any irony in the length of your post complaining about unskilled writers being verbose as a means of obfuscating a lack of talent?

Re:Darwin Awards

[Jeremi]

THE Best means implicitly that (as made famous in The Highlander) There Can Be Only One

Since we're being pedantic, I'd like to point out that there can be more than one "best" if multiple people are tied for first place.

Re:Darwin Awards

[Inzite]

Actually, the reason there are very few good wingsuit fliers is because very few people on this planet have the time, money, and passion to pursue the sport to this level. There are lots of BASE jumpers who would love to devote themselves to wingsuit BASE. However, to push yourself to the level of the best of the best takes years of practice, thousands of jumps, a LOT of patience, and incremental increases in the complexity/aggressiveness of your flying.

Plus, there are only a few places on this planet where one can become a world-class wingsuit BASE jumper. Nearly all the best wingsuit BASE jumpers are Norwegians, though there are a few places in the Swiss Alps where you can do some successful wingsuit BASE. I'm sure there are a few other places around the world, but they're likely far less accessible and likely not as ideal as the Norwegian fjords.

If you want to join the ranks of the best, you need to live near one of these spots, travel there weekly, spend hours hiking to the exit point, and be prepared to walk back down if the weather doesn't look good (and in Norway, bad weather is the rule, not the exception).

Lastly, there are a huge variety of reasons people die in BASE jumping. However, it's not just because people are bad at the sport. Sometimes shit just happens. Even the best of the best screw up one jump in 1000.

Re:Darwin Awards

[Hognoxious]

All of your BASE are in upper case.

Re:Darwin Awards

[AndersOSU]

BASE is an acronym standing for Building, Ariel, Span, Earth, and is properly capitalized.

Re:Darwin Awards

[srussell]

Darwin in action.

Why is it that, when you say this, I imagine Charles Darwin in a Bond suite and a repelling harness?

--- SER

An understatement

[iamacat]

The landing, as one might expect, poses the biggest challenge,

I would say it's the only challenge actually. Gliding around in any winged suit is fun and safe as long as you still open the chute at the end.

Re:An understatement

[blastwave]

The principal difficulty seems to be in throwing oneself at the ground and missing.

Re:An understatement

[grcumb]

The landing, as one might expect, poses the biggest challenge,

I would say it's the only challenge actually. Gliding around in any winged suit is fun and safe as long as you still open the chute at the end.

Pilots have a saying that sums things up quite nicely: "Take-off is optional. Landing is compulsory."

Re:An understatement

[Riktov]

As described in the article and accompanying video, in this case that challenge is very circumscribed: he will "land" in a $2 million "landing trap" that has a 20' x 20' entrance which funnels into a gradually decreasing slope, like a ski jump landing. He's not going to be "hitting the ground" in any meaningful way.

Re:An understatement

[Crypto Gnome]

I would say it's the only challenge actually Absolutely! Gravity does all the work for you. If you don't do anything, you will still continue to fall.

Re:An understatement

[TheLink]

The one I heard is:

Odds of not surviving a hit-
AA = 25%
SAM = 50%
ground = 100%

Re:An understatement

[iamacat]

Can't he just jump with hands as "wings" and land on an oversized airbag? Terminal velocity for a human with outstretched limbs is around 120mph. People are known to occasionally survive head on collisions at highway speeds which would amount to about the same. A stationary airbag can be designed to provide much more gradual deceleration than one in a car. All we need is a stuntmen willing to risk their life with ridiculous odds. I don't think such people are in short supply.

Re:An understatement

[BiggerIsBetter]

I would say it's the only challenge actually. Gliding around in any winged suit is fun and safe as long as you still open the chute at the end.

Good point. How do the squirrels do it?

Re:An understatement

[harl]

Controlled flight in a wing suit is almost as important as landing.

If you can't achieve stability and/or proper speed at deployment the chance of your chute malfunctioning go up dramatically. That makes landing a little more exciting.

Re:An understatement

[iamacat]

By not jumping from trees so high as to achieve their terminal velocity?

Re:An understatement

[MrAngryForNoReason]

Can't he just jump with hands as "wings" and land on an oversized airbag?

I think the problem with this is when falling from any significant height it is very difficult to land accurately. The risk of missing the airbag and hitting the ground would be huge unless the airbag covered a very large area. Stunts where stuntmen jump from just a few stories use a very large airbag to reduce the chance of misses but there have still been people injured or killed because of a gust of wind or a misjudged jump.

Re:An understatement

[BiggerIsBetter]

This needs an experiment. Get me 100 flying squirrels and a PAC7500-XL, stat!

I ponder

[downix]

would it be possible to use an engine to turn these gliders into true flying suits? Similar to the Bell suit, but with real lift to allow it to fly for longer?

Re:I ponder

[Dr. Eggman]

I would think that even the lightest engine powerful enough to generate enough lift for flight would be far too heavy for this. However, perhaps we could see stationary "Jump pads" that generate powerful upward drafts for people with the suit to jump over, spread their suits to maximum surface area and take off high enough to "fly" some distance from the jump point.

Re:I ponder

[rts008]

Check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHYXrqoS08o&feature=related. Is this anything like you were asking about?

Re:I ponder

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it would! Just put telescoping poles on each limb and increase the wingspan about 20 feet or so... then add an engine and a propeller... maybe incase the guy in some kind of lightweight metal to protect him from the wind and such and to make him a bit more aerodynamic...

Re:I ponder

[Mawbid]

yup

Re:I ponder

[djupedal]

"...possible to use an engine to turn these gliders into true flying suits? "

Pull my finger, Phillip, and we'll see....

Re:I ponder

[fat bastard of doom]

Just eat Taco Bell. The farts have more thrust than most rockets.

Re:I ponder

[deviated_prevert]

Considering the only safe means of propulsion for jet packs like the Bell run on 20 second blast of HP sauce (atomized liquid hydrogen peroxide) it is very unlikely that a practical pack will happen anytime soon. A truly flame/heat resistant suit increases the weight to the point where a genuine jet pack is not feasible, although I am sure someone is going to try. I have visions of flying fiery chicken wings and lots of wtf were they thinking would be aviators.

Re:I ponder

[eclectro]

Yes, this indeed has been done.

Re:I ponder

[mcrbids]

As a recently licensed FAA private pilot, I can only say: I wish I had the cajones this guy has. (my wife is glad I don't!) I've admired this video many times before, and just now, I enjoyed every second of it... yet again.

Flying is one of those things where, once you've tried sitting "front seat", you know right away if it's "in you" or not. About a year ago, I went on a "discovery flight" with my wife and youngest son. My response was immediate and absolute - I had to be a pilot! And, now I am, and I can say with certainty: I will die with a love for flying!

If you are curious, go to your local airport and risk $50. You'll either find that it wasn't for you, or you'll have one of the most incredible experiences of your life. You might not be the extreme hard-core nut-buster junkie that this guy is, but there's still lots of fun to be had buzzing around in a Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee, too!

Re:I ponder

[Thagg]

the best L/D they are getting seems to be about 3:1, which is pretty amazing, really.

So, if they weigh 180 lbs, and the engine weights 30 lbs, then you'd need 70 lbs of thrust to maintain altitude. Not as much as a jetpack, but not a heck of a lot less, either. It would also make landing a heck of a lot harder.

Re:I ponder

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this might be more like it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8HMdioj6kng

Re:I ponder

[AndersOSU]

I think the risk isn't so much the $50, but in the case you like it the many thousands of dollars it takes to obtain a pilots license. And then you get to lust after your own plane.

Re:I ponder

[GrubInCan]

You mean like this... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=613

Falling with style

[inflamed]

Kinda like Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story

Re:Falling with style

[evilbetty]

That wasn't flying, that was falling with style.

Bad news...

[talkingpaperclip]

"one guy who wants to be the first to jump from a plane and land without a parachute (and live"

I have some bad news for this idiot. Plenty of people have survived jumping out of planes without parachutes.

Nick Alkemade was an RAF tail gunner in World War II who jumped out of his flaming plane and fell 18,000 feet. He only suffered a sprained leg after he hit a tree and landed in snow.

Vesna Vulovic was a flight attendant who fell out of a plane after an explosion, fell in snow, and survived.

Re:Bad news...

[xSauronx]

Vesna Vulovic was a flight attendant who fell out of a plane after an explosion, fell in snow, and survived.

And he liked it!

Re:Bad news...

[martyb]

Vesna Vulovic was a flight attendant who fell out of a plane after an explosion, fell in snow, and survived. And he liked it!

I don't think so... Vesna Vulovic was female. ;)

Re:Bad news...

[Timothy Brownawell]

Vesna Vulovic was a flight attendant who fell out of a plane after an explosion, fell in snow, and survived. And he liked it!

I don't think so... Vesna Vulovic was female. ;)

After the accident, at least...

Re:Bad news...

[hack slash]

And Stuey Gluck fell out of a plane and survived, too.

Oh, wait, that was a film. My bad.

Flying?

[schwit1]

Are their any true airfoils involved? This seems like nothing more than a creative way to fall.

Re:Flying?

[gstoddart]

Are their any true airfoils involved? This seems like nothing more than a creative way to fall.

"That's not flying, it's falling with style"

Woody, Toy Story

Re:Flying?

[KC1P]

I wouldn't know about this in particular, but single-surface hang gliders effectively create an airfoil by defining the top and letting a pool of dead air (uh, or something, I'm sure not an AeroE) define the rest. So I imagine that's what they mean about this thing.

Obviously, when they say "lift" they just mean it contributes an upward component to the whole system. They're still plummeting. The clips I've seen look they're doing a little better than 1:1 (which is actually pretty impressive, considering) but not much better.

The maker of my H.G. reserve parachute claims their design (pulled-down apex but I don't know and/or wouldn't understand what else is special about it) generates "lift" too, whatever that means. I sure hope it still goes down not up! It's bad enough trying to crash-land a piece of twisted wreckage gracefully w/o worrying about winding up in outer space.

Re:Flying?

[SL Baur]

Obviously, when they say "lift" they just mean it contributes an upward component to the whole system. Well, um, yes. When you have a wing that's in the right shape, and you move air fast enough past it on top of it, it's pulled up. How that is done safely is the $!0,000,000 question and there are only two companies left still in the business. You can see the effect just by blowing across a sheet of paper held in your hand.

You wouldn't need as heavy of an engine if you were starting out dropped from a plane, you also wouldn't need an over-sophisticated wing design because you are starting out with enough air speed that you'll get enough lift from just about anything. The engine is only needed to maintain air speed and that's a much easier problem to solve. This was all done in the 1950's with specialized aircraft and how all the earliest speed records were set, so it's even been done before. A human as an airframe is the only exotic component.

Re:Flying?

[stud9920]

Are their any true airfoils involved? This seems like nothing more than a creative way to fall.

If the glide ratio > 0, and no rocket is involved, an airfoil is involved.

Re:Flying?

[AeroIllini]

Only two companies?

These people would disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_manufacturers

Re:Flying?

[SL Baur]

No, they don't. For commercial fixed wing aircraft, which is what I'm referring to, they devote a special page to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing

Re:Flying?

[AeroIllini]

I'm fully aware of the competition between Airbus and Boeing. I work for Boeing as an engineer, in commercial airplanes.

However, there are only two companies that manufacture airplanes over a certain size. There are lots of other companies that are in competition with the smaller A320 and B737 models and make commuter and shuttle sized commercial aircraft, including Embraer, Bombardier, DeHavilland, Gulfstream, and several others.

If you want a 500 passenger airplane, then yes, there are only two companies to go to (excluding, of course, what China and Russia are cooking up -- we'll see that in the next ten years). However, "commercial fixed wing aircraft" also includes the shuttle-type airplanes and smaller models, and many times includes the business jet and general aviation markets, which have many players.

Re:Flying?

[SL Baur]

There are lots of other companies that are in competition with the smaller A320 and B737 models and make commuter and shuttle sized commercial aircraft, including Embraer, Bombardier, DeHavilland, Gulfstream, and several others. I guess it's been too long since I've been on a small plane and now that you mention it, I even knew about Gulfstream being a going concern but had forgotten. I stand corrected and I'll go crawl back under my rock now. Thanks for the info.

Re:Flying?

[Anonymous Coward]

stud9920 has 'gay hard-ons', or so he tells us

Re:Flying?

[stud992O]

My name is Nathanael Majoros. I like making jokes about gay hardons! http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=385989&cid=21668765

Here's my linkedin page: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nmajoros

Here's my website: http://majoros.net/

I am a Design Administrator at Belgacom Mobile (Proximus) http://www.proximus.be/ in Brussels, Belgium

I use the emails troudenouille@gmail.com and nmajoros@majoros.net

I've worked as a Developer at FL Consulting, and an Academic Assistant at Vrije Universiteit Brussel

I was educated at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Koninklijk Atheneum Keerbergen

Been around for 10 years

[greenbird]

These things have been around for 10 years. Google Birdman Suit or go to any skydiving boogie. Anyone with a D license can demo one.

Re:Been around for 10 years

[Bones3D_mac]

Yep... I'll bet there's even a record for longest sustained flight using such a suit. If I recall correctly, the method for landing is something to the effect of making the landing entry as close to horizontal as possible and sliding in along the stomach.

Not something I'd ever want to try, but interesting anyway.

Re:Been around for 10 years

[Leebert]

Yeah, Here's a picture of a friend of mine jumping from a skyvan with one on:

http://leebert.org/skydive/jump2.jpg

Sad that the flash didn't fire as I expected. Would have been a great shot.

(I took up skydiving two summers ago... I finally actually finished AFF last summer. Hopefully will get my "A" license this spring, when it warms back up again.)

Re:Been around for 10 years

[Aneurysm]

There was a British guy who held the World Record for longest horizontal skydive I believe using one of these suits. Landing was still by parachute though I believe. http://www.bpa.org.uk/skydive/pages/people/adriannichols.htm and http://adriannicholas.com

Re:Been around for 10 years

[hawicz]

You don't even need a D license at some places. Having more experience won't hurt, but most people recommending around 200 jumps minimum (C license). Actually all it takes is convincing someone who has a suit to let you borrow it. (of course, if they have enough jumps to actually own a suit, they'll probably make sure you've got the skills to fly it before handing it over :) )

They're also a ton of fun to fly. If you've ever considered getting into the sport (or making a few more jumps if you're already a skydiver), and needed another reason for it, flying a wingsuit is a good one.

eric

Re:Been around for 10 years

[Chris Burke]

Sad that the flash didn't fire as I expected. Would have been a great shot.

I dunno, you can make out him flipping you the bird as he sails out the back of the plane, so I'd say it was good enough. :)

Re:Been around for 10 years

[greenbird]

You don't even need a D license at some places. Having more experience won't hurt, but most people recommending around 200 jumps minimum (C license). Actually all it takes is convincing someone who has a suit to let you borrow it.

Yeah, I'm guessing that would likely be determined by the S&TO at a USPA DZ. I only have an A and haven't jumped for 2 years but if I recall correctly, they were requiring a D for demo jumps at the last boogie at my DZ.

That wasn't flying! That was... falling with style

[victim]

Apparently my title isn't enough to qualify as a post. I will regale you with this snippet from my email of today...

This is to inform you that the situation earlier today regarding a potential problem with a student did not occur and the library has been reopened.

Best wingsuit video ever...

[inflamed]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=asTo8eAoFUI

Re:Best wingsuit video ever...

[jimboindeutchland]

Kinda reminds me of this little guy

man alive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy underwear, batman!

Damn, I have got to go get one of those suits. That has the be the most awesome thing I've ever seen

Bah

[matt_martin]

This is neither news nor for nerds !

Re:Bah

[Martian_Kyo]

It is for nerds, cause it makes being a nerd less embarrassing (if it's embarrassing at all) by comparison.

You're nerd, get a life!
At least I don't jump out of aircrafts and hope to survive.

Anyway this guy's success can be label as nothing else other then 'failed suicide'. My goal in life is to continually fail to kill myself.

Patrick De Gayardon

[goatpunch]

Patrick was working on developing these winged suits before he died when a rigging error caused his parachute to malfunction. He was planning a way of skiing with one of these suits, so that he could take off and land on the way down. http://www.bpa.org.uk/skydive/pages/people/gayardon.htm

Blue Skies Patrick

Re:Patrick De Gayardon

[stud9920]

What's a gay hardon ?

Re:Patrick De Gayardon

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who seems to be excited by that idea, 'stud'

Re:Patrick De Gayardon

[stud992O]

I just thought I'd add that my obsession with gay hard-ons is because I, Nathanael Majoros aka stud9920 am always available at nmajoros@majoros.net to suck off any hot guys

Re:Patrick De Gayardon

[stud992O]

My name is Nathanael Majoros. I like making jokes about gay hardons!

Here's my linkedin page: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nmajoros

Here's my website: http://majoros.net/

I am a Design Administrator at Belgacom Mobile (Proximus) http://www.proximus.be/ in Brussels, Belgium

I use the emails troudenouille@gmail.com and nmajoros@majoros.net

I've worked as a Developer at FL Consulting, and an Academic Assistant at Vrije Universiteit Brussel

I was educated at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Koninklijk Atheneum Keerbergen

Re:That wasn't flying! That was... falling with st

[McFadden]

Dammit... Now I want to know about the library incident.

Viable or not...

[Brad1138]

that YouTube video is Awesome.

The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[pigiron]

In 1960 William Rankin ejected from his F8U Crusader jet at 48,000 feet and his parachute was ripped away in the jet stream. He traveled 150 miles and didn't come down for an hour. There are more stories like it here: http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffreading.html

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[goatpunch]

Unfortunately the "man survives X thousand foot fall without parachute" are almost always wrong, or at the very least misleading. Typically the person fell under a partially open parachute- often still a remarkable survival story, most people die under half-open parachutes; it's quite possible to die under a fully open parachute if you land badly.

In this case, you seem to have confused the story that you quoted a little. The page that you sited states that he "had the ride of his life in his parachute", rather than it being ripped away. This detailed account from has him ejecting at 47,000 feet, and his parachute opening automatically a while later at sometime just above 10,000 ft (my skydiving calculations are a bit rusty, but this was probably about 3 minutes of freefall). He was under the chute for a lot longer than he was in freefall. Sources that I found said 40 minutes and 65 miles, 60 minutes and 150 miles are not improbable either.

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[goatpunch]

Sorry, here's the TIME story from 1959: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,937849,00.html

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[pigiron]

Your account does not jibe with his book. Some more free falls:

http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffallers.html

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[harl]

Please review your physics. Falling 48,000 would take no where near an hour. Sport skydivers in the belly down position fall about 10K a minute.

If he was an ejected pilot he would have more weight, gear, and less surface area, tumbling rather than a stable body position. Thus he would fall faster than 10K a minute.

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[pigiron]

It was not a physics thought experiment!!! He was caught in the wild air currents of a major storm moving along the jet stream:

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Rode-Thunder/dp/0135482712

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[Deadstick]

Note the word thunder. A parachute can stay airborne indefinitely in a thunderstorm because of its massive updraft.

Ever see a golf-ball sized hailstone? That stone traveled up and down between the lower part of its thunderstorm, where it was raining, and the upper part where the temperature was well below freezing -- perhaps a 10,000 foot difference -- at least a dozen times.

rj

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[harl]

He was caught in the wild air currents of a major storm moving along the jet stream Again learn your physics. Not in freefall he wasn't. It just doesn't work that way. I may only be an A license holder with the US Parachute Assoc but I have over half hour of free fall time. At 48,000 with no chute and flight gear he'd be on the ground in 5 minutes.

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[harl]

Notice the words:

and his parachute was ripped away in the jet stream No parachute and thunderstorm or no the updrafts aren't going to do anything.

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[pigiron]

You don't know what you are talking about as you obviously have no clue about the intensity of winds aloft.

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a licensed skydiver. I'm familiar with the aerodynamics of the human body and freefall. What you say is not possible had his parachute been ripped away. End of story.

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[pigiron]

The mere existence of hail belies your ignorance. Add the additional drag induced by the remnants of his tattered chute and it becomes obvious your 9th grade general science curriculum needs a bit of updating. Ever hear of convective overshoot? No? You mean you just jump from low altitudes on calm days? I think I'll just stick to the first-hand account of a jet pilot with thousands of hours of flight time along with the corroborations by the US Navy and NOAA.

Re:The Man Who Rode the Thunder

[Deadstick]

...and "ripped away" is false. He did not lose his parachute: RTFB.

rj

Medieval flying suits made from silk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this leave the possibility open of any similar Medieval flying suits made from silk?

Would explain a lot of the vampire mythology...

Gettin' close...

[capnkr]

I happen to use the same fabric the 'flying squirrel' suit makers use, although in a much different application. Several years ago (5-6?) I was told by a sport chute (which is the name of the fabric) and squirrel suit maker that they'd had a mid-air link up between a guy under chute (albeit small) and a guy wearing the 'squirrel suit'. I don't think it unlikely that that someone will make, if not accomplish, a 'squirell suit' landing, before too many years are out.

How many people *confirm* the first guys results with *successful* landings of their own, _that_ will make the difference. All the difference in the world. :)

Good luck to all who try! I hope you have statistically strong results!

Safe Practice

[Doc Ruby]

The tricky part of these wingsuits is how to practice enough to get good, without smashing to goo because you're not good enough.

Now there's a solution, that's probably fun enough in itself that many "skydivers" won't ever have to take a risk at all: SkyVenture has wind tunnels set up around the world expressly for simulating skydiving, but without jumping out of a plane. Jumps that last 2-3 minutes, with 45-60 minute setup and plane rides each jump, can now spend hours just "diving" in the chamber.

Maybe once the skills of maneuvering are learned in the tunnel, a suit wearer can tackle the real sport: facing the fear of jumping out of a plane with nothing but a simulator history to save them from smashing to bits.

Re:Safe Practice

[ashitaka]

Given the usual cost of these things it's 45 minutes of setup and video training followed by 3 or 4 "jumps" of 2-3 minutes max.

All for $75+.

Re:Safe Practice

[Neo Quietus]

I read about these squirrel suits some time ago in Popular Science, and they cannot be practiced with in a wind tunnel because they move you... it's not possible to stay in one place and just fall with these things.

Re:Safe Practice

[hawicz]

Which is a pretty good deal, if you compare how much it costs to do an actual jump out of a plane. Even for experienced skydivers, it is a very cost effective way of getting "air time" (and at twice the interval of a "normal" 60 second skydive)

However, it's mostly useless for flying a wingsuit. The problem is that wearing a wingsuit will convert your downward motion into horizontal motion. Besides the increased time in the air, it's fun to be more flying around rather than falling, but try that in a tunnel with a width of about 14 ft and you won't be very happy.

Re:Safe Practice

[Doc Ruby]

Totally correct - I hadn't thought about that.

They're building all those new ones, including two within a morning's drive from NYC. If only they were building one that's donut shaped, a wingsuit would work great, if a little cramped. They'd probably need the equivalent of 12 16'diameter rooms in a square, which would be something like a million horsepower. Unless they could somehow shunt the airflow to just where a person was actually in it, which sounds like a completely different wind tech.

Oh, well. Back to practicing wingsuits in the snow.

Re:Safe Practice

[Chris Burke]

The tricky part of these wingsuits is how to practice enough to get good, without smashing to goo because you're not good enough.

That's why the the first question I always ask whenever I call a sky diving joint to set up a jump is "How close is the nearest save point?"

Better video

[blhack]

There is a much better video of what you can do with one of these suits Here

Re:Better video

[Infensus]

That clip is IMO the best BASE clips in existence. It's two VKB guys from Trondheim, Norway and Loic ("Flying Man" from youtube video) from France. Espen Fadenes (VKB) is doing the most insane lowflying ever recorded there.

Re:Better video

[rrohbeck]

Same video, better quality: http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=4262

Re:Better video

[rasputin465]

Wow, that's an incredible video.

Ok, it's official: if I'm ever diagnosed with a terminal illness, I'm doing THAT!

Re:Better video

[rHBa]

Here is footage of an attempt to match the worlds highest BASE jump (about 2000m). A jump of this height wouldn't be possible without a wingsuit because there aren't any cliffs high and vertical enough to jump without one.

Re:Better video

[Radical Moderate]

Thanks for that. The video on snotr was pretty...snotty.

Wile E's failure...

[dgun]

...is our gain. It was going good for him until he got smug about it.

Re:Wile E's failure...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The Guinness Book of Records has something of it

Yeah, "greatest height fallen without a parachute and living". Some dude fell out of a plane at like 20,000 feet and whonked on a mountain side and slid thru brush and such.

Sure, no problem for a gear head

[flyingfsck]

All you would need is a propeller hat add-on for the gear head...

Why fly a glider...

[Fishbulb]

when you can fly a jet?

warren miller

[generic]

Got some really cool video of this being done at the Iger or Jungfrau in Switzerland I don't recall. It was in his movie 'off the grid' I think. What was really cool is the sound the guy made going past the camera, sounded like a jet. Pretty crazy.

And the answer is

[apankrat]

Stress -> Adrenalin & Norepinephrine -> Physical and mental euphoria

Hardly works for an open source, though some uber-optimization can give a brain spasm to those trying to fix a bug in it :)

Re:And the answer is

[alex4u2nv]

Not always the case, as I for one loathe roller coasters. I do however enjoy Sky Diving / Free Falling as it invokes a sense of ultimate freedom. To simply "lay" there in the vast open space, with the fresh wind rushing into your body is one of the most relaxing experience I've had. I do hate however, when it comes time to deploy the parachute, and even worse touch the ground. The guys intention isn't too bad, however he should be looking at ways to gain altitude (without an aircraft / rocket assist) instead of just retarding deceleration.

Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[PPH]

It would be interesting to see if any legit aerodynamics analysis and/or testing has been done on these suits?

It appears that the suits are just trading vertical speed for horizontal speed. That might keep the flyer from making a crater in a field somewhere, but the human body won't tolerate a 100 MPH slide along the ground very well either. It might be possible to 'land' on a ski slope or a lake. But if the goal is to set down on flat ground, that speed will have to be reduced.

The aero folks get concerned with things like wing loading, drag and stall speed when figuring aircraft landing characteristics. The same would appear to apply here. Unfortunately, we already know what one suitable (no pun intended) glider configuration looks like that is safe for humans. It's a paraglider configuration. I don't think you can hang that much airfoil between your arms and legs.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[ScrewMaster]

I don't think you can hang that much airfoil between your arms and legs.

Buddy, let me tell you, I've got plenty of airfoil where it counts.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[B3ryllium]

I don't think you can hang that much airfoil between your arms and legs.

Not with today's fabrics. But perhaps ... with some sort of nanotech-inspired hyperlifting fabric design from the future? :)

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[Riktov]

As the article states, the goal is *not* to set down on flat ground -- that's pretty much out of the question. He will be landing on a ski slope-like device.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[Jarik C-Bol]

there was an article in popular science some time ago about these suits, that went into some detail about the physics of it all. The trouble turns out to be, that if you built a suit with enough wing material to give you enough drag to go slow enough to land without a normal 'chute, you'd rip your arms and legs off when you jumped out of the plane. the wings we have at this point are just shy of the maximum size the human body can stand to open mid flight without loosing an appendage. Thus, as it stands now, the current basic design of the suit (wing between the legs, and under each arm to the leg, reverse delta wing style) won't work, and someone has to do some serious design work to come up with an alternate design/materials/technique of flying to create a way to fly, and then finally apply enough drag to land. the way I personally see it (and i am not a physicist ) the solutions may be some sort of imaginary material like in batman that when an electrical charge is applied, it becomes rigid, and has a tensile strength near that of steel, which would allow you to make a suit that became rigid on command. thus, you make the suit, where you launch with small wings, fly, ridgidize the suit, and then cause the wings to expand somehow, giving you enough drag to land, but short of a parachute.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be possible to 'land' on a ski slope or a lake. But if the goal is to set down on flat ground, that speed will have to be reduced.

I gather from the video at the NYTimes article that Mr. Corliss (if not his competitors/compatriots) don't actually intend to land on flat ground but to build some sort of runway which will allow them to safely land with a very high forward airspeed. Though I can only imagine what kind of contraption it could be to cost $2 million bucks - worlds largest moon bounce perhaps? Giant net? Oh, the comic possibilities abound...

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[hawicz]

uh, no. Sorry, but you're not going to rip your arms and legs off, and suits are definitely not "just shy of the maximum size the human body can stand". The limiting factor is how long your arms and legs are, and how far apart you can spread them. Anyway, even if you were approaching limb wrenching sizes there's a simple solution: bring your arms and legs in. That's what you have to do now when exiting (at least if you want to avoid the tail of the plane), and when opening your chute so you gain enough speed for it to inflate properly.

Also, you don't need any fancy materials, or "electric charge" to make a rigid suit. They already _are_ rigid, using the same method that parachutes use: airspeed to inflate the cells. Some of them even have airlocks to keep them inflated even if you slow down.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[Propaganda13]

At what point, is it not a flying suit anymore? Could you add enough material to make it more parachute like? Could you add skis or wheels to help with landing? Leg, arm, and spine braces? Reverse thrusters?

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to TFA, he (or one of them) is working on some sort of ski jump type landing strip. No vertical speed, just horizontal velocity. Kinda makes sense, but I still think they need to loose more speed before being able to land in one of those suits = 120mph seems just to fast.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Okay, a regular canopy flies by generating lift from an air-filled airfoil, so we can use some of that with the squirrelsuit. The tricky bit is landing, because A) we need to land slow, and B) we need to land REALLY slow. A) is tricky, but I wonder if we can produce some extremely high drag (high lift?) wings, say cells with additional pockets that can be opened (air brakes if you will), and B) the flaring to land bit could be handled with cells all over the suit, that open when the flyer has a more vertical pitch - eg, falling vertically, cells all over the suit open to create maximum surface area. I dunno how cool it would be to land looking like the Michelin Man though.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[shrykk]

It appears that the suits are just trading vertical speed for horizontal speed.

That's fine, in principle. You can always convert your horizontal speed to (positive) vertical speed in time for landing. The same way hang gliders and paragliders flare on landing.

The rest of your post is correct, of course, you simply won't get enough lift from the area of your body. But bear in mind that parachutists already tolerate a much greater rate of descent than (soaring) paraglider pilots - after all, they're there for the falling, not the gliding. With advanced design and lightweight materials, it might be possible to create a body suit that unfurls to give some kind of non-lethal descent to the ground (and would be a LOT of fun to fly).

If you consider the lift that, say, kitesurfers get, it seems possible that someone might be able to achieve the up, up and away Junior Birdman effect with something only slightly larger than the human armspan.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[ImWithBrilliant]

Why limit the airfoil surfaces to the end points of the human appendages? Jump with a variant of a hang glider attached so to extend the controllable surface area. Some engineering details to work out between terminal velocity and landing.

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[MaxGravity]

That's a pretty accurate summation. We trade vertical speed for lift which increases our horizontal speed. Some wind-tunnel based aerodynamics testing has been done by the French Army but most of our data is collected from freefall computers and GPS units carried on jumps -MaxGrav

Re:Any Aerodynamics Testing?

[ceoyoyo]

Why not just fly a hang glider? Aerotow aloft if you must.

Obligatory Far Side Caption

[jpellino]

"Say what's a mountain goat doing way up here in a cloud bank?"

Flying Dreams

[MichaelCrawford]

I often have dreams where I'm flying like these guys. Oddly, in these dreams I never question that it should be impossible; it feels like the most normal thing, even though no one else in my dreams can fly.

Maybe I'll try one out someday...

Hey!

[markov_chain]

I was not necessarily saying that open source is just as exciting as jumping out of a plane.

Speak for yourself there, buddy! :)

Vesna Vulovic

[XSforMe]

Vesna Vulovic, a stewardess for JAT airlines holds the world record for surviving a free fall without a parachute.

Re:Vesna Vulovic

[Harmonious Botch]

Sorry to quibble, but she wasn't in free fall. She survived by being in part of a damaged plane. There are lots of people who have survived crash landings of airplanes that came down in multiple pieces.

She may hold the record for the longest fall among those people.

Re:Vesna Vulovic

[goatpunch]

She didn't have a parachute, but she did however have half a DC-9 around her. This could have both lowered the terminal velocity, and cushioned the impact through providing a crumple zone. There could have been seat cushioning and, rather unpleasently, other bodies around her too.

I think it's more accurate to say that she survived a plane crash in half a plane than freefall without a parachute.

Either way it's an impressive and extremely fortunate piece of accident survival.

Pass...

[thatskinnyguy]

Just look at the suit! It would sharply direct 140mph air at my man parts!

Re:Pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at the suit! It would sharply direct 140mph air at my man parts! ... Yet cause very little drag.

Re:Pass...

[Deadstick]

You think you have a wind-blast problem?

http://marbella.to/humour/dec00/skydivin.jpg

rj

Re:Pass...

[thatskinnyguy]

Seen it. But the concave boobs get me every time!

How high?

[camperdave]

I'm sure many, many people have jumped from aircraft without parachutes and survived. It's just that the aircraft were parked on the runway, or in the hangar at the time. :-)

Of course, navy frogmen jump out of helicopters into the sea all the time, and I'm sure that there were many soldiers being dropped off in combat (ie Vietnam) who jumped out of helicopters while they were still flying. Heck, it wouldn't even surprise me if someone dug up a reference of pre-WWI barnstormers having people jump out of the planes into haystacks.

Re:How high?

[CrimsonAvenger]

reference of pre-WWI barnstormers having people jump out of the planes into haystacks.

Extremely unlikely, since barnstorming was a POST WW1 phenomenom. A side effect of a whole bunch of ex-fighter pilots and ex-fighters. Neither of which existed pre-WW1

Re:How high?

[Eric Smith]

Did you even look at the links I posted before replying? I wasn't talking about people jumping off aircraft parked on runways. I cited examples of people who jumped without parachutes from altitudes more than 15000 feet above ground level.

Re:How high?

[camperdave]

Yeah. My bad. I had written a corrective post about that about two minutes after my original post. However, I forgot to hit Submit, and the browser tab/window with my correction got buried beneath all my other cruft.

there's a better video

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't find it again right now but I was looking at these back in March and someone is hugging a cliff, then does a roll in mid-air and continues over a road. It's far more amazing than the snow one which has no contrast/perspective.

Re:there's a better video

[PenGun]

Yeah I got that it's in South America. Amazing he clears the road by a few feet ...

Relevant Perry Bible Fellowship Comic

[sssssss27]

Today I'm Going to Fly

Summer recruits

[Harmonious Botch]

Yeah, the Russian commanders probably told them that they didn't have it so bad - the guys who were drafted in the summer had to do it without snow.

Re:Summer recruits

[krotkruton]

Maybe it's because I was expecting some "well actually, according to reports from , Russians really blah blah blah" type response, but I got a good laugh out of that post.

Re:Summer recruits

[Keeper Of Keys]

In Soviet Russia the ground hits you.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Summer recruits

[bondjamesbond]

Someone please mod this "+1 Funny As Hell".

Forget jumping from airplanes

[jollyreaper]

I want to see a flying suit where the guy makes it up off the ground, into the air, tools around and then comes back down in one piece. The rub, of course, is that the engines so far aren't up to the task of a vertical take-off and a horizontal take-off brings to mind someone on jet roller skates or a belly toboggan with wheels.

Come to think of it, landing in one of these jet suits would also be tricky. Parafoil guys can manage a running landing because the wing has great lift at low speeds. The batsuit guys tend to be traveling way too fast for non-Evil Kinevel landing.

Re:Forget jumping from airplanes

[joto]

I want to see a flying suit where the guy makes it up off the ground, into the air, tools around and then comes back down in one piece. The rub, of course, is that the engines so far aren't up to the task of a vertical take-off and a horizontal take-off brings to mind someone on jet roller skates or a belly toboggan with wheels.

Or you could just jump off a high cliff (or bridge, or whatever). If it works from a plane, it works from a tall structure as well. The difficult part is still the landing.

The batsuit guys tend to be traveling way too fast for non-Evil Kinevel landing.

Absolutely. If the first one attempting a landing dies, there will probably be some time before the next one attempts the same thing. If he somehow manages to succeed, I can pretty much guarantee you that Darwin will claim dozens of people later. Travelling at these insane speeds, I guess the safest would be to go for a landing on a snow hill, like the one in the movie linked to in the writeup, where he passed some skiers. But it would be extremely difficult to keep some level of control at the critical moment where he stops flying and starts floating on snow instead. At these speeds, killing yourself is pretty easy.

A suit?

[omnipresentbob]

And here I thought it was Python...

Domestic Surveillance or Forced Marketing...

[johnquincyadams]

I can't decide whether I'm more comfortable with them pulling information OUT of my emails, or inserting information INTO my web page? I guess I'd probably stick with the latter. Check this out: http://fakerush.blogspot.com/2007/10/us-domestic-surveillance.html

That's EASY!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just tried it. I jumped off an aircraft and I SURVIVED!

Oh, didn't I mention that the aircraft was on the ground when I jumped? I should.

Gypsy Moths

[rossdee]

"The Gypsy Moths" a 1969 movie starring BurtLancaster and Gene Hackman had a 'fly suit' like that. I remeber Burt Lancaster's charater "jumping the Cape' and flying it into the ground.

Re:That wasn't flying! That was... falling with st

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do tell us about the library. I reckon it will be more scientific than Slashdot's stories.

Tracing what?

[SEWilco]

"The best fliers, and there are not many, can trace the horizontal contours of cliffs, ridges and mountainsides."

I'm confused. The worst fliers, people who are merely falling... do they trace the horizontal or vertical contours?

Re:Tracing what?

[TheLink]

The worst fliers leave their traces on the contours :).

Re:Tracing what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They leave traces on them.

Re:Tracing what?

[hawicz]

Most people that fly the suits do so well away from obstacles denser than a cloud. With the forward speed you get, it's actually possible to fly around cloud formations. Of course, if you screw up in that situation and get too close, it's not that big of a deal. Still, if you're tracing the vertical lines more than the horizontals, you're doing something wrong.

(warning - scary mofo pic ;)

[nephridium]

I once saw an illustration of how a man would look like if he had the sternum and pecs that would be needed to support wings like those of a bird. The diameter of the breast (front to back) was about triple that of a normal human. Which makes me wonder if people like these could pull it off - maybe after losing some of the weight in places where it's not really necessary (and pulling those socks out of the undies to improve aerodynamics ;).

Free Fall? No Problem!

[guardiangod]

Source

Admit it: You want to be the sole survivor of an airline disaster. You aren't looking for a disaster to happen, but if it does, you see yourself coming through it. I'm here to tell you that you're not out of touch with reality--you can do it. Sure, you'll take a few hits, and I'm not saying there won't be some sweaty flashbacks later on, but you'll make it. You'll sit up in your hospital bed and meet the press. Refreshingly, you will keep God out of your public comments, knowing that it's unfair to sing His praises when all of your dead fellow-passengers have no platform from which to offer an alternative view.

Let's say your jet blows apart at 35,000 feet. You exit the aircraft, and you begin to descend independently. Now what? First of all, you're starting off a full mile higher than Everest, so after a few gulps of disappointing air you're going to black out. This is not a bad thing. If you have ever tried to keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you know what I mean. This brief respite from the ambient fear and chaos will come to an end when you wake up at about 15,000 feet. Here begins the final phase of your descent, which will last about a minute. It is a time of planning and preparation. Look around you. What equipment is available? None? Are you sure? Look carefully. Perhaps a shipment of folded parachutes was in the cargo hold, and the blast opened the box and scattered them. One of these just might be within reach. Grab it, put it on, and hit the silk. You're sitting pretty.

Other items can be helpful as well. Let nature be your guide. See how yon maple seed gently wafts to earth on gossamer wings. Look around for a proportionate personal vehicle--some large, flat, aerodynamically suitable piece of wreckage. Mount it and ride, cowboy! Remember: molecules are your friends. You want a bunch of surface-area molecules hitting a bunch of atmospheric molecules in order to reduce your rate of acceleration.

Re:Free Fall? No Problem!

[ColaMan]

Look around for a proportionate personal vehicle--some large, flat, aerodynamically suitable piece of wreckage.

Unfortunately at this point, all those bits are still wayyyy above you, flapping about as they tumble gently to earth. You, however, having been in the "dead spider" position for a few minutes, are wayyyy below them. Bummer.

But still, keep your hopes up and your mind clear, and you'll be able to take some nice shots with your cameraphone, smiling and waving cheekily as you plumment to earth. Try and get into one of those legs-crossed hindu levitation positions for the last ones - they'll look a treat.

Re:Free Fall? No Problem!

[surprise_audit]

Reminds me of Dark Star.

Perris, California

[rheotaxis]

Video on NYTimes page shows Perris, California, USA. Look at time point 3:05, Lake Perris is visible in upper left portion of screen. Here is google maps link: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.803685,-117.193909&spn=0.169743,0.216637&z=12&om=1

Mental Image

[suggsjc]

Did anyone else immediately think of Wile E Coyote in his flying suit or this (minus the rocket)?

Re:Mental Image

[pecosdave]

The first version is the first thing that pops into my had every time I see, hear, or read about the things.

Where do these guys get money from?

[TheLink]

It's not that cheap to do this sort of stuff right? Equipment, practice, fees, travel and accomodation expenses etc.

Re:Where do these guys get money from?

[hawicz]

To get to the point of flying wing suits, especially at the level as the people you see in various videos: no it's not cheap.
However, it takes years to get to that point. Just like you can't hop on a motorcycle for the first time in your life and expect to win the Grand Prix, you can't jump right into being an expert skydiver. On the other hand, just getting into the sport of skydiving is about as expensive as getting a motorcycle (Actually, less expensive, if you're comparing it to a fancy GoldWing or Harley) and IMO a hell of a lot more fun.

Re:Where do these guys get money from?

[GwaihirBW]

Same as anyone else with an un-cheap hobby. When people are really into something, they'll make whatever sacrifices / do whatever extra work is necessary to fund it, given their initial financial position. And that's not much of an answer because I am primarily writing to say I think your sig is quite awesome and clever. :-)

Re:Where do these guys get money from?

[Synn]

Costs are:

1-2k for training to become a licensed skydiver.
3-5k for your own skydiving gear.
Then for a wingsuit, you first need to make 200 normal skydives @ $20-22 each.
Then the wingsuit will cost you about 1k.

So, all in all to fly wingsuits you're looking at spending about 10-13k over the course of a couple years and you can get the basic skydiving training at pretty much at any skydiving dropzone. And there's usually a dropzone within an hour of two of most places.

Chaos theory and Mother nature will not be stopped

[Bonzoli]

Anyone dumb enough to skim a mountain cliff in a suit flight, will be removed from the gene pool, and posted for a Darwin award. :)

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with that also. If you plan it for months or years, develop suitable technology, model and simulate it, do various tests before the real attempt, etc., it should be much less difficult to survive it than if you're forced to do it by circumstances.

It was difficult for the two pilots you mentioned in the same way it would be difficult for me to flip a coin 50 times and land on heads in every instance.

Much less difficult?

[djw]

If you plan it for months or years, develop suitable technology, model and simulate it, do various tests before the real attempt, etc., it should be much less difficult to survive it than if you're forced to do it by circumstances. Isn't that like saying it's much less difficult to become President after you've won the election?

Re:Much less difficult?

[Eric Smith]

No, it's like saying that it's much less difficult to become the President after you've been a Congressman or Governor for years, built up support in the party and with the public, raised millions of dollars in campaign funds, run television and print advertisments, etc.

First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

What, flying people doesn't interest anyone since Heroes came on the air?

Wingsuits have been around for ages now...

[Builder]

The main catch is that you need at least 200 regular freefall jumps before you can legally learn to fly one in most places. Some countries have even higher requirements than this.

first to live

[ruffles321]

he wouldn't be the first to live, there was a russian soldier, with more than 5000 jumps, that had a parachute failure. he suvived the jump, manouvering his body in flight.

Oh dear..

[streetphantom]

That wasn't flying! That was... falling with style!

I kind of doubt the military usefulness...

[Anonymous Coward]

...military jumping (both SL and FF) is fairly different than civilian jumping.

Take the suit, add 40kg+ of gear, some of it being very non-aerodynamic gear, and then see how well it works.

Looks like fun though.

For what it's worth, SL and FF qual'd veteran here, with a couple hundred jumps over the years.

great name but

[commodoresloat]

In fact I name it Aneurysm's law :) Aneurysm Slaw? It sounds like a side dish made from cabbage and bulging blood vessels.

Re:great name but

[zobier]

In fact I name it Aneurysm's law :) Aneurysm Slaw? It sounds like a side dish made from cabbage and bulging blood vessels. I'm trying to decide if I'm glad I already finished eating lunch a minute ago or not.

Lethal dose of height

[spineboy]

The height at which 50% of the people die from a fall is about 50 feet( actually 4 stories or 48 feet). The Lethal Dose at which 90% of people die (LD 90) is approximately 84 feet , or 7 stories. At least those numbers are what we use in medicine in an urban setting. Falls outside may be cushioned by trees/ bushes,snow, etc and may change the numbers. Obviously there exists anecdotal evidence of people falling 5 feet and dieing and people who fell 20,000 feet and lived, but statistically those are the numbers collected by medical literature.

You hit the ground at about 35-36 MPH from a 48 foot fall, at 84 feet - about 50 MPH. Actually speeds are a little bit smaller,since I didn't takeinto account the effect of wind resistance and body density, and just used the simple physica acceleration formula V^2 = U^2 + 2AS

I'm an orthopaedic surgeon, and when fall/jump from those heights, putting them back together can be a bit "tricky", and the pieces don't always go back together well. When the suicide jumper only jumps from 40 feet and lives with horrible fractures, we sometimes joke that they didn't read the literature and plan things out correctly. Now the person is depressed AND may have bad arthritic pain from their smashed joints now, or just be plain old paralyzed.
Life sucks.....and then you live.

Re:Lethal dose of height

[Chris Burke]

I'm an orthopaedic surgeon, and when fall/jump from those heights, putting them back together can be a bit "tricky", and the pieces don't always go back together well. When the suicide jumper only jumps from 40 feet and lives with horrible fractures, we sometimes joke that they didn't read the literature and plan things out correctly. Now the person is depressed AND may have bad arthritic pain from their smashed joints now, or just be plain old paralyzed.
Life sucks.....and then you live.

Ugh... Sounds nasty. That's exactly why
1) if I do commit suicide, I'm going to take the time I would have wasted writing a stupid note to instead plan very carefully to ensure there is no chance of survival.

2) if I ever find myself falling out of an airplane with no parachute, instead of getting into the frog position to slow my fall, it's head-first arms-flat-to-the-sides power-dive for me, baby! I want my corpse to bounce after smashing into the ground.

Speaking of which, when I went diving a number of years ago, the instructor said that the one death they'd had in fifteen years of operation was ruled a suicide because the guy didn't appear to ever try to open his parachute, he just went into a dive and crashed right into the ground. And according to the instructor who claimed to witness this from the ground, the body did in fact bounce about 30 feet into the air.

Re:Lethal dose of height

[socz]

It might be interesting to you guys, but the department of transportation (DOT) rates motorcycle helmets as "safe" when they can withstand the fall from the height of an average man at the average riding height of a motorcycle without allowing too much damage to the human brain! The belief is, that most people fall over to the side, not head first! Thus, the helmet has to withstand that impact! So they don't care if you crash head first, thinking you'll have worse comorbid problems internally, not just brain trauma.

There are other standards, such as the snell, which makes different types of helmets with the same rating but with "improvements." Anyhow, long story short, lot's of heights can kill a man... you don't have to be more than 5 feet of the ground :P

Re:Lethal dose of height

[node159]

Could we have that in units that countries that are not america use please :P.

Re:Lethal dose of height

[strange_boy]

Does this assume landing on a particular kind of surface? I imagine that landing on grass is a lot less nasty than landing on paving slabs?

Re:Lethal dose of height

[spineboy]

This study came from urban environment data - falls in cities. Falls from those heights make little difference between grass and stone apparently. Obviously landing on a nice cushy tall bush would be better than landing on stairs.

Fails to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

The articles don't mention the various wingsuit pilots who have died through complications with parachutes or just flying into things like bridges and mountains. Yes the very best can attempt this, the glory hounds, until they kill themselves, most wingsuit pilots have more sense and fly at altitude and give themselves plenty of time to land.

As with many things...

[sesshomaru]

This reminds me of a Magic: The Gathering card:

The goblin word for "flying" is more accurately translated as "falling slowly."

Landing on water

[hernyo]

Yep; also there is one thing the guy mentions: building a runway for 2 million bucks. I'd think he could practice landing above water, then the risk of getting injured is much lower, and the runway doesn't cost a thing either.

Too late.

[master_p]

Icarus did it first...

Flying squirrels?

[Anonymous Coward]

wing suit akin to a flying squirrel's I didn't realize flying squirrels needed wing suits. Unless there are differently-abled flying squirrels wearing tiny suits in order to keep up with their more fortunate brethren.

Another great video

[sglow]

Someone sent me this link of guys base jumping with these suits and skimming the rock walls on the way down.

http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=4262

Pretty nuts!

Re:Another great video

[fonik]

HAHA Oh wow. I clicked play and it gave me a Poligrip Denture Adhesive commercial. "Never lose that important grip!"

Jeff Corliss

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeff Corliss, a wing suiter / BASE jumper discussed in the article, is freaking insane. I saw a show about his BASE jumping exploits. The craziest part of the show was a tragic wingsuit jump that Corliss and a friend did to cap off a BASE jumping festival. The plan was for Corliss to fly under the a bridge while his friend flew over it. Unfortunately, Corliss's friend didn't quite clear the bridge, and pieces of his body rained down on Corliss. Corliss discusses it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug1rCyeNujU

It's disturbing. Extreme BASE jumpers like Corliss have friends die left and right, and they just keep on doing. They're clearly crazy, but I still find I that I have a certain respect for their commitment to pushing the limits.

Military Use? ummm.. .k

[JustASlashDotGuy]

If they want to use it for military purposes, then they need to strap 100 pounds onto their back and push them out of a plane at night. If they survived the landing, all the team members would probably be separated by a country mile.

Not many of the best fliers...

[Aqualung812]

The best fliers, and there are not many, can trace the horizontal contours of cliffs, ridges and mountainsides.

Would there not be many because few have tried, or because when you try you have two outcomes: Live or die? Those that live become the best I assume? What about the average ones?

It reminds me of a saying: "There are stupid exterme skiers and there are old extreme skiers, but there are no old, stupid extreme skiers..."

Re:Not many of the best fliers...

[Synn]

There's not many because BASE jumping is a pretty small participant sport as it is, the number of wingsuit BASE jumpers is smaller yet and the number of BASE wingsuit jumpers with access to the sorts of spots you can do proximity flying is smaller yet.

There are a lot of very skilled wingsuit pilots that don't buzz cliffs or do BASE jumping. I routinely flyby other skydivers when they're under canopies and some of the most fun an "average" wingsuit pilot can have is buzzing around clouds or flocking in formations with other wingsuit flyers. I've been on 50 member plus formations that required 3 planes to get in the air where everyone was flying within inches of the people next to them and would consider myself an average flyer. You can build up your skills pretty easily doing that sort of stuff, then take it to flying a few feet from a mountain face if you're into that sort of thing.

Re:Not many of the best fliers...

[Aqualung812]

That's pretty amazing, however I would consider anyone that can fly within a few feet of a cliff and live as "some of the best".

What if you sneeze?

Re:Not many of the best fliers...

[ceoyoyo]

Forget sneezing. What if the wind shifts a little? Splat. Which is why there aren't many of them. The best of the best are still subject to the whims of the wind, and if you give it the chance it will eventually hurt you.

Didn't I see this

[kiick]

In a Laura Croft movie?

Maybe that's why this is news for nerds.

Has it been in a bond flick yet?

[walterbyrd]

I think another poster commented that this has been in a bond flick, but I don't remember it.

Re:Has it been in a bond flick yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was in the second Tomb Raider movie.

Not that difficult

[Anonymous Coward]

We've been putting stuff into orbit for decades.

Re:Not that difficult

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, try throwing yourself up into orbit without any huge propelling device, like a rocket.

Why does one put strychnine in the guacamole ?

[MooseTick]

Because it is there!

Super Mario World

[Anonymous Coward]

Old news.

Simple:
- Get Mario with Cape
- Jump
- Push in the opposite direction one was originally moving

That's not the worst of it

[blueZ3]

When we jumped out of Air Force planes (when I was in the 82nd Airborne) the pilots regularly did a "terrain following" flight path for the last part of the flight. So, imagine 60 guys crammed in a C-130 like sardines for three or four hours, wearing 100lbs of kit, stifled from lack of fresh air, the temperature is in to 80s, you can't see out, and the plane is maneuvering as violently as a roller coaster.

Then they open the door and let the jump-master look out for the jump point landmarks. At this point, you're so desperate to get out of the plane and into that fresh air that it wouldn't matter if you were over water and didn't have a chute. You'd jump.

Re:That's not the worst of it

[harl]

round chutes *shudder* No thank you.

Re:That's not the worst of it

[intangible]

The airborne jumps aren't about fun, it's about getting the group to the ground without collapsing each-others' chutes, as close together and as close to the dropzone as possible, while falling as fast as possible without killing the person.  I know I don't want to float around in the air for a long time collecting sniper bullets.

Re:That's not the worst of it

[harl]

Yup that's why they do low altitude static line drops with rounds. Much quicker and safer. But boy do you land hard.

I jump for fun. Hence why I jump from alititude and use a canopy that I can steer and flare.

Re:Military Use? ummm.. .k

[rholland356]

True, on landing they may be separated by a country mile, but just think of the opportunities for micro-strafing on the way down...

Sky assassins away!!!

MOD UP

[2bitcomputers]

Best video ever!

Re:That wasn't flying! That was... falling with st

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dammit... Now I want to know about the library non-incident."

There, fixed it for you.

Congrats on your AFF

[kullnd]

Yup, seen these things more times than I'd care to count... Not really news.

Enjoy your jumping and congrats on your AFF... Hurry up and get that 'A' because that's when the real fun starts, being able to jump in groups and all ... I stopped about a year ago at 230 jumps, but I really do miss it...

---
There's nothing quite like the smell of Jet A in the morning.

Re:Congrats on your AFF

[Leebert]

Enjoy your jumping and congrats on your AFF... Hurry up and get that 'A' because that's when the real fun starts, being able to jump in groups and all ... I stopped about a year ago at 230 jumps, but I really do miss it...

Thanks! I have a few solo jumps post-AFF, and it's so nice not to have somebody flying along with me. I kind of enjoy the aloneness for the time being. I did try a two-way once, but in the guy's words "Dayum you fall slow." (He was 100' below me within 10 seconds and I couldn't get down to to him...) Amazing hobby, though, I'm hooked.

Blue skies!

Bomb Proof Fabric to the Rescue?

[Plekto]

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/06/1625216

Bomb Proof Fabric and a reinforced carbon fiber bodysuit/skid plate would make landing on your stomach doable I bet. If they can get the speed down from 75mph(half terminal velocity) to 50mph with enough technology, well, people survive that all the time with airbags and other safety devices.

In fact, this fabric might be the answer to a lot of similar applications, since its fibers expand under stress and get stronger(plus ripping looks to be nearly impossible). Even sailboat sails would be improved I bet. rip resistant and they get stronger and stiffer the more wind hits them.

This has been in military use for decades

[WillAffleckUW]

I remember the classified versions back in the 80's, when I was in.

It's not that new - and, yes, it was based on designs by a certain Italian inventor named Leonardo da Vinci.

Re:Military Use? ummm.. .k

[WillAffleckUW]

If they survived the landing, all the team members would probably be separated by a country mile.

The military doesn't use miles. We use kilometers.

Get your terminology right.

And it depends on the landing site and training level of the users.

Warren Miller

[Wolvey]

A guy jumped off a cliff with one of these flying squirrel suits. He had a parachute just in case, but he did not use it. Picture a huge V where the tops of the V are the 2 mountain peaks and the center is a valley. He jumped off one mountain, flew over the valley, and then landed on another mountain that was covered in snow. Anyway it is one of the coolest things I have seen to this day, and this was almost 10 years ago in a Warren Miller ski video.

She had a parachute...

[tomthegeek]

She not only landed in snow, but Vesna Vulovic was still inside the center section when found. I think that she should be disqualified since even though it's not a terribly good one, the center section would have acted as a parachute and slowed her terminal velocity as well as added padding for the landing.

What's the highest anyones survived with no help at all?

To parrotphrase Mony Python

[Anonymous Coward]

... not so much flying as plummetin'

Well - lots did survive when done in the front

[spineboy]

It's called a frontal lobotomy, and the doctor who perfected it used basically a fancy ice pick, and placed it THRU the eye socket, and destroyed your frontal lobe, making you ---- calmer.
Thousands of people unfortunately had that done.

You have been - it's called....

[spineboy]

Life - it has a 100% mortality rate.

Flying?

[Lochwren]

Been pokin' thru this thread long enough. Folks, this is gliding not flying. If it's flying, ask him to do a loop... then gain altitude and do it again.

My comment in SI units For Lethal Height fall

[spineboy]

The height at which 50% of the people die from a fall is about 16 meters feet( actually 4 stories ). The Lethal Dose at which 90% of people die (LD 90) is approximately 28meterst , or 7 stories. At least those numbers are what we use in medicine in an urban setting. Falls outside may be cushioned by trees/ bushes,snow, etc and may change the numbers. Obviously there exists anecdotal evidence of people falling 2 meters and dieing and people who fell 6000 meters and lived, but statistically those are the numbers collected by medical literature.

You hit the ground at about 60 KPH from a 16 meter fall, at 28 meters - about 80 KPH. Actually speeds are a little bit smaller,since I didn't take into account the effect of wind resistance and body density, and just used the simple physica acceleration formula V^2 = U^2 + 2AS

I'm an orthopaedic surgeon, and when fall/jump from those heights, putting them back together can be a bit "tricky", and the pieces don't always go back together well. When the suicide jumper only jumps from 13 meters and lives with horrible fractures, we sometimes joke that they didn't read the literature and plan things out correctly. Now the person is depressed AND may have bad arthritic pain from their smashed joints now, or just be plain old paralyzed.
Life sucks.....and then you live.