Jet Pack Company Executive Crashes During A Test Flight (kdvr.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jet Pack Company Executive Crashes During A Test Flight (kdvr.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday April 9, 2016 @07:41PM from the unidentified-falling-objects dept.

The Vice President of Jet Pack International was hospitalized Friday after crashing during a test flight in Denver, according to the Associated Press. Though he's successfully flown the company's hydrogen peroxide-fueled jet pack more than 400 times, Friday the vice president experienced "control issues" while hovering 20 feet over the "Go Fast" energy drink company while testing some adjustments, and ultimately crashed in a nearby industrial park. He fell on his head, and he wasn't wearing a helmet, but after receiving 27 stitches, he was released from the hospital Saturday afternoon. The company's jet pack normally has a range of about one-quarter of a mile (and reaches heights of 100 feet) with a flying time of 32 seconds, the Associated Press reports, adding that "The FAA is investigating the crash."

100 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Dogfood by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 19:42 · Score: 0

Is only for dogs!
1. Re:Dogfood by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 19:56 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  At least motorcycle riders are useful as organ donors. Jetpack pilots are dog food.
No helmet??? by mpoulton · 2016-04-09 19:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Flying a rocket pack with no helmet on sounds about as appealing as felling trees barefoot with a chainsaw, or arc welding with no hood.

--
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
1. Re:No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  But it was over an energy drink company, perhaps an advertisement of some sort, and who wants stuff like helmets getting in the way of fantasy
2. Re:No helmet??? by WarJolt · 2016-04-09 20:11 · Score: 2
  
  Flying a jet pack over anything besides water, a net or an air cushion sounds like a terrible idea. At least his head broke his fall.
3. Re:No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 20:15 · Score: 0
  
  Do you wear a helmet when you fly?
4. Re:No helmet??? by MichaelSmith · 2016-04-09 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  Not in airliners but I do when hang gliding or riding a bike.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
5. Re:No helmet??? by Cyphase · 2016-04-09 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  At least his fall didn't break his head (completely); although someone who'd fly around in a jet pack without a helmet might already have a broke head. The guy's lucky.
  
  --
  by Cyphase ( 907627 )
6. Re:No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  It would be somewhat ironic if the water saved his life by breaking his fall, only to drown hime because the weight of his jetpack dragged him under.
7. Re:No helmet??? by WarJolt · 2016-04-09 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen a hang glider crash. It happened real quick. The guy stalled and went straight down fairly close to me.
  I've also seen the results of a Cessna crashed on a runway after power loss. The pilot turned around, had a bit too much altitude, freaked out and stalled 1/2 down the runway. This is why you practice your sideslips.
  Both walked away.
  The difference between those two crashes and a jet pack crash is that former crashes could have been avoided by good pilots. When a jet pack looses power you're always fucked.
8. Re:No helmet??? by MichaelSmith · 2016-04-09 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with hang gliders is that the pilot can swing forwards and up, and strike the keel with his head. A lot of people get paralyzed that way. The risk of head injuries in that scenario is clear as well, so you wear a helmet.
  My impression about this incident was that was more likely to be an asymmetric power failure, which he didn't have control authority to offset. If he had been at higher altitude and able to deploy a parachute the result may have been better. At low altitude you are truly fucked of course.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
9. Re:No helmet??? by stooo · 2016-04-09 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  >>When a jet pack looses power you're always fucked.
  Not if you have enough altitude and a parachute.
  Some people do it right :
  www.jetman.com
  
  --
  aaaaaaa
10. Re:No helmet??? by 0111+1110 · 2016-04-09 21:55 · Score: 2
  
  You seem to be assuming that a (motorcycle) helmet would have saved this guy. I don't think such helmets or really any helmets are designed to protect you from such a fall or really any aircraft crash. Maybe a small parachute would have helped though. It's always better to have a helmet in such head smashing situations of course, but it probably would not have made much difference in the severe brain damage this guy has suffered.
  We all like to think that our brains are more damage resistant than they really are. The price of so much computing power in such a small space is that it is incredibly easy to damage it's delicate jello-like structure and microscopic filaments that make fiber optic fibers seem like massive bridge cables.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
11. Re: No helmet??? by Threni · 2016-04-09 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  It might have helped him. What's the difference between falling onto you head and being accelerated into something from a motorbike? I'd imagine they are very similar.
12. Re:No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 22:10 · Score: 0
  
  > aaaaaa
  tee he he
13. Re:No helmet??? by Longjmp · 2016-04-09 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't even bother to read the summary, right?
  
  ... while hovering 20 feet over the "Go Fast" energy drink company ...
  ...but after receiving 27 stitches, he was released from the hospital...
  No parachute will open at that height, unless it's a rocket-propelled military jet seat parachute.
  Kinda hard to imagine he could carry one of those.
  And any kind of helmet, even a bicycle helmet, would have prevented those injuries.
  
  --
  There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
14. Re: No helmet??? by sumdumass · 2016-04-09 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  From 20 feet, he likely would not have accelerated to over 25 miles per hour at the point of impact. I guess it depends a lot on what "on his head" actually means. If he did a swan dive into the asphalt it might be more comparable to a faster speed on a motorcycle. If he hit at an angle or offset somewhat, it could be more directly comparable to a 25 mile per hour accident.
  And for the mathematical challenged, 25 mph is about 40 kph
15. Re:No helmet??? by Lumpy · 2016-04-09 23:22 · Score: 2
  
  It's as stupid as the morons on motorcycles that ride without helmets.
  Disclaimer: I have been and still am a motorcycle rider. 20 years and over 250,000 miles on 2 wheels.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
16. Re:No helmet??? by Lumpy · 2016-04-09 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Then you dont know anything at all about helmets and need to stop talking about them until you get some education.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
17. Re:No helmet??? by religionofpeas · 2016-04-10 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  It's as stupid as the morons on motorcycles that ride without helmets.
  Don't call them morons. They are organ donors on wheels, and they deserve our appreciation for their sacrifice.
18. Re: No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  Okay helmet expert, please summarize the data or explain your research on how helmets help when falling from over 20 feet while wearing a jet pack. Closest you're going to get is ski jumping, but the landing area is very steeply sloped so that the impact is much less than falling that distance onto a vertical surface.
19. Re:No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  While it is stupid, it feels awesome. I very rarely do it but riding with no gear is the best feeling ever. I mean most people ride for the feeling in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't ride because it's dangerous even with the best gear.
  With that said, really the only time I ride with no or little gear is when I'm taking my bikes in to get them inspected once a year. It's a 4 mile jog/walk home and then back again. I'm not doing that in the middle of August while carrying a bunch of gear.
20. Re: No helmet??? by Lumpy · 2016-04-10 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. I guarantee he would not get scrapes on his head and needed the stitches if he was wearing a helmet. Again you are shown to be clueless.
  But I'll give you a chance to win $1000 right now.
  Come to chicago, I will give you $1,000 cash if you put a running belt sander to your head for 20 seconds, I'll do the same but I wear the helmet. if we both have the same injuries, you get $1,000 in CASH!
  You know you will be unharmed! so what are you waiting for?
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
21. Re:No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 01:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  A 2 story fall into water (~20 feet, ~6 meters) is considered +90% lethal. These odds change radically if it is a controlled dive. This number is the guideline gathered by the US Navy, compiled from Sailors being blown over the deck.
  With a jet pack accelerating you, I would imagine that you could simulate a 20 foot fall onto water without actually requiring the 20 feet.
  The professional divers survive higher falls onto water by perfecting their entry technique and diving into a pool of bubble filled water (they use machines to add bubbles). This causes the deceleration to occur over a greater period of time. It's not the height of the dive the kills you, it's the rate of deceleration. Diving into a pool of bubbles lengthens the deceleration in the water / air mixture, allowing survival from higher heights. Diving with good technique allows your body to slip through the water, again spreading out the period of deceleration.
  There is an upper limit in normal water. Few people have ever managed to dive (regardless of height, or survival) deeper that 15 feet.
  Considering these factors, I would imagine that water wouldn't be a friend. One would probably knock themselves out (if not dead on impact) and then drown. Not to mention it greatly complicates the medical crew getting quick access and transport back to a medical facility.
22. Re: No helmet??? by Amouth · 2016-04-10 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  DOT or M rated maybe not. SA rated probably.
  There are many different ratings and styles for helmets. They should probably do A risk assessment on this and figure out what the need before they strap people to it.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
23. Re:No helmet??? by phrostie · 2016-04-10 02:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This type of system dates back to the 70s. it inspired countless engineers, but has a long history of accidents.
  the time aloft is so short that there isn't room for the slightest hesitation before you run out of fuel and become a falling brick.
  it was ok for Hollywood where you filmed a series of 10 second sets and spliced them together, but it was never practical for any other use.
  Companies with newer designs have increased the time aloft and in doing so the safety.
  https://www.youtube.com/channe...
  Martin Aircraft even uses a ballistic recovery parachute for added safety.
  https://www.youtube.com/channe...
  people need to apply a little darwinism and start supporting the companies with the safer systems.
24. Re:No helmet??? by citizenr · 2016-04-10 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  There was a full documentary movie (Rocket Compulsion (2011)) about a guy(David Mayman?) on a mission to build a jetpack, he also used hydrogen peroxide fuel.
  Finally after over a year of research and building the prototype he tests it .... in shorts and a tshirt instead flame retardant suit .. and afair burns his leg. Maybe its the same guy? :)
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
25. Re:No helmet??? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2016-04-10 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I have maintained for a long time that motorcycle riders should be allowed to ride without a helmet as long as they are registered organ donors. There could be a special endorsement on their license designating this.
26. Re:No helmet??? by KGIII · 2016-04-10 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  It's probably going to be a bit difficult to really control a dive with that much weight on. That's really going to be, you mention, the problem.
  On the other hand, it's not all that difficult to jump, and even dive, from much higher heights into regular water. I've done so many, many times. The highest confirmed height that I've jumped from was a little over 84' and that might not have been the highest. It's the only one that I can say, without a doubt, was that high - it's the only one that high that we've ever measured.
  There's a couple of techniques. I prefer what's basically a modified pencil drop or emergency jump. The standard emergency jump is you jump, feet first, cross your legs at the ankles, and cross your arms tight across your chest. However, I was taught (and thus prefer) to point the toes (with them still crossed), to cup the balls with one hand, and to pinch your nose with the other - and hold both arms in as tight as you can. When you're hitting water at that speed, you want to protect yourself as much as possible and (or so I'm told - I've never witnessed this happen) it's possible for water to be forced up the nose and really mess up your face. It's also possibly for your junk to protrude enough so you point the toes and cup your nuts with one hand.
  I want to say that they teach the women just to either cross their arms (breasts at that speed are gonna be potentially hurt) and pinch their nose with one hand.
  I don't think I've jumped from much higher than 84' by the way. I just know that's the absolute most that I've jumped for and measured. I was pretty old the last time I did it. I'm told that you don't want to go much over 110' to 120' because it becomes nearly impossible to not be injured (or die) at about that distance. I've jumped a few other places that were similar heights to the 84' height but, again, we didn't measure them. Some of the best spots to jump are quarries that have been flooded. That's where the 84' jump is, it's in a quarry.
  By the way, this isn't something to be undertaken lightly. I'm scared shitless of heights so I go out, every couple of years, and force myself to face down my fear of heights. I don't mind being on a plane all that much. I'm not too keen on helicopters but I'll fly in one. If I go to the top of a building or a tower, where there's no chance for me to fall, I still get scared for some reason. I have no idea why - it really petrifies me and I have to force myself to move. It's a silly fear but, there it is. It's really the only thing that scares me besides being maimed, incapacitated, or serious loss of brain function.
  That'd be why I go jump or find something that terrifies me and go do that. I force myself to do so. 'Snot easy but there may come a time when I need to overcome those fears and be able to face them. Having proven to myself that I can face them seems to help my peace of mind.
  Oh, another good thing about quarries is that they often have varied heights. You don't necessarily have to go all the way to the top. I have to start at the top. If I jump from one of the lower heights that's it, I'm done for the outing and probably won't even consider it for another few years. It's terrifying. They're starting to get the touristy things out on the beach down here. I see a few more of them.
  I think I might like to try the parasailing thing. I've thought about hang gliding but I just don't have the berries to do that and freezing up will get me killed.
  At any rate, the important thing to remember is that you're correct in that an uncontrolled fall into water can end up going very poorly. Shit, try a belly flop from just that 20' height and let me know how that goes for you. I've had drunken friends who have done shit like that and end up all sorts of messed up - for days afterwards. They probably cracked ribs but I doubt we ever went and got them checked. It ends up pink, sometimes blood on the surface - like needles of blood, and is bruised for quite a while afterwards. Some of those were only from a
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
27. Re:No helmet??? by KGIII · 2016-04-10 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  LOL... Really? I mean, yeah, we don't usually read the article around here - and I'm kind of guilty of that one myself. Heck, I might even be more guilty of that than most. I almost never read the article. I do, at least, skim the summary. Yeah, a helmet would have, almost certainly, helped this person in this particular crash. There's some claim that a helmet might have actually killed him in this crash but that's a REALLY unlikely outcome.
  He flipped upside down and smashed into the ground, head-first. There's no severe brain damage mentioned. In fact, he went home the same day. He probably is concussed, swollen, tender to the touch, throbbing, and has a booming headache but he's almost certainly not brain damaged. We humans are pretty tough, actually. However unlikely, people have fallen from great heights and lived to tell the tale.
  Did you really "TL;DR" the summary?
  As for falling and living, you might want to see this... Here's the record holder:
  http://www.guinnessworldrecord...
  (She feel from over 33,000'/10,000 m.)
  I've just used the mighty Google so I've not read these yet.
  http://www.cracked.com/article...
  http://www.mandatory.com/2012/...
  Those are all folks who have fallen from absurd heights and, from the looks of it - just a quick skim of the Cracked article, they somehow managed to do so without losing a whole lot of brain function.
  Two caveats - I didn't actually read the mandatory.com link. I didn't load the JavaScript up to see it. The second is that #1 at Cracked is the most awesome one of them all, of course. Dude bailed out of a plane, passed out from a lack of O2, and managed to only get banged up a little bit with a sprained ankle. The dude fell a couple of miles, or so it would appear. That's kind of neat.
  But, there's some more stuff for you to read - seeing as you didn't even read the summary. :/
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
28. Re:No helmet??? by 0111+1110 · 2016-04-10 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  He almost certainly *is* brain damaged. I did read the summary and I know he 'survived'. With the amount of cognitive impairment he ends up with though he may wish he were dead. Most head injuries that cause permanent disability are much less severe than what happened to this guy. There is no doubt that this guy is fucked for life. Whether he realizes it or not. I just hope he didn't have a high IQ before the accident because in an accident like this it will almost certainly drop 30+ points.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
29. Re:No helmet??? by CohibaVancouver · 2016-04-10 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  Fun fact: When Bill Suitor stood-in for Sean Connery and flew the jet-pack (aka "The Rocket Belt") in the 1965 James Bond movie "Thunderball," he refused to do it without a helmet, much to the chagrin of the producers who felt it made Bond look less cool
30. Re:No helmet??? by Dahamma · 2016-04-10 10:39 · Score: 2
  
  I was going to say... even James Bond wore a helmet back in the '60s, as uncool as it was (though they did seem to find one that matched his three-piece suit...)
  http://www.craveonline.com/ima...
31. Re:No helmet??? by Dahamma · 2016-04-10 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  A 2 story fall into water (~20 feet, ~6 meters) is considered +90% lethal. These odds change radically if it is a controlled dive. This number is the guideline gathered by the US Navy, compiled from Sailors being blown over the deck.
  Bullshit. I have seen people belly flop from a 5 meter platform (over 16') and while it's awful, 90% lethal is just a false statement. I have from that 5 meters many times, and while I didn't always stick the landing, I sure wasn't in mortal danger. In fact, the majority of people falling from a 2 STORY BUILDING survive.
  So many reasons this is wrong... the "deck" (of an aircraft carrier) is about 60' high, not 20'. Also, stats have shown at least 5% of people jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge (245') survived the fall (though most of those then drowned, of course). Trivial amount of Googling shows a couple estimates putting the LD50 of falling into water at about 60-100'.
32. Re:No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  He means jumps where you dive more than 6 meters deep INTO the water.
33. Re:No helmet??? by Aighearach · 2016-04-10 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  Fantasy would be using CGI instead of a real jet pack.
  They could have just replaced the helmet in post-production if that was it. How much cheaper can a real jet pack really be?
34. Re:No helmet??? by Aighearach · 2016-04-10 18:19 · Score: 2
  
  Falling off a ship in the ocean has a different risk profile than falling into still fresh water.
  When I was a teenager, lots of people would jump way more than 20' off of bridges into freshwater lakes. Popular rock-jumping spots near me these days are about 50'.
  You might have a basket of apples and oranges that have led you to false beliefs about the dangers of jumping into water.
35. Re: No helmet??? by Aighearach · 2016-04-10 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  In fairness, about 2 or 3 seconds on the edge of the belt would be more comparable.
36. Re:No helmet??? by Aighearach · 2016-04-10 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  You're comparing how scary the situation sounds, and presuming damage based on that. No need to start speculating about IQs and such things.
  He got some stitches and was sent home. That is way more informative about his injuries that a hand-wavy "what happened to this guy." People with head injuries that lead to permanent disability are usually admitted to the hospital for observation. Blood tests can tell the ER doctor if there is damage, and various scans can test for swelling. He's not poor, so he probably was given those diagnostics.
37. Re:No helmet??? by Aighearach · 2016-04-10 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  I'd want to require them to have a special donor plate on the bike, for easier enforcement.
38. Re:No helmet??? by delt0r · 2016-04-10 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  I have jumped off 30 meter falls before. Feet first of course, a number of times when i was a young lad, and one of us did get hurt (bruising). But that is higher than 90feet. 20 feet 90% lethal sounds like BS to me. In fact lets run the numbers. 20 feet is 6 meters, lets make it 10 cus round numbers and all. 2as=v^2 so you would be going at 14 m/s at impact. (at 6 it is only 10m/s) or 50km/h (36km/h). Lots of people water ski faster. I have hit a car from my motor cycle side on faster (ok that really hurt, but nothing broke, except the car and bike). People say water is like concrete, it really isn't. try hitting concrete at 50km/h.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
39. Re:No helmet??? by 0111+1110 · 2016-04-11 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of people end up with permanent brain damage just from slipping on some ice and hitting their head from a normal fall. This guy fell 20 feet. The brain is as fragile as jello.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
40. Re:No helmet??? by Aighearach · 2016-04-11 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Just to repeat the part you didn't read... (you can read, right?)
  People with head injuries that lead to permanent disability are usually admitted to the hospital for observation. Blood tests can tell the ER doctor if there is damage, and various scans can test for swelling.
  It does not matter if you fall on ice, or fall from the sky. That is completely irrelevant. That is causing you emotive bias. What matters is the actual injuries to the brain , which is very easy to test for in any ER. A simple blood test can tell you if there is brain damage, because the human body responds to that damage.
41. Re:No helmet??? by Dahamma · 2016-04-13 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  No, he doesn't, since the whole thing started with "2 story fall..."
  Thanks, AC, for your utterly pointless comment.
More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 19:48 · Score: 0

for those rich people.
1. Re: More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 19:49 · Score: 0
  
  That's how they be.
2. Re: More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  And they'll want the federal government to subsidize their medical bills.
3. Re: More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  The government should subsidize our bad decisions.
4. Re: More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 20:01 · Score: 0
  
  And then when their kind gets hurt, they want us to subsidize their medical bills.
5. Re: More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 20:30 · Score: 0
  
  What a rugged individual you are!
6. Re: More ridiculous toys... by Plus1Entropy · 2016-04-09 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Makes sense. We pay for theirs.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
7. Re: More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 23:25 · Score: 0
  
  That's still a lot cheaper than a single woman having a baby on our dime.
8. Re: More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the federal government subsidized the creation of the jet pack. It was intended to be used in battle, so soldiers could just fly over ravines, treelines, lakes, etc. for battle.
  Upon the first test flights, the military deemed it too temperamental and difficult to control for the average soldier. On cannot operate a weapon from the platform, and the need to use a low-heat exhaust (can't cook the pilot) led to a very short flight time.
9. Re: More ridiculous toys... by AJWM · 2016-04-10 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Q: What do you call a soldier flying a jet pack?
  A: Skeet.
  (Stolen from Howard Tayler's Schlock Mercenary.)
  Heinlein's Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers) were also armored.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
10. Re:More ridiculous toys... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-11 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  You mean like the Flyboard? But, that guy was at least going over water, with a life jacket, and a helmet.
Jet Pack Company Executive Crashes During A Test by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 20:30 · Score: 0

Sounds to me as if he had a 'Eureka' moment...
Someone needs to learn good development practices by Cyphase · 2016-04-09 20:37 · Score: 0

From TFA: “No, he should`ve been wearing a helmet but he`s so good and again this was just a test flight.”

This is why your testing environment should mirror production as much as possible.

--
by Cyphase ( 907627 )
Jet pack or Jump Jet? by Diac · 2016-04-09 21:13 · Score: 1

With a flight time of 32 seconds is this more of a jump jet than a jet pack?
Also wear a dam helmet.
1. Re:Jet pack or Jump Jet? by stooo · 2016-04-09 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  >> With a flight time of 32 seconds is this more of a jump jet than a jet pack?
  No, it's a Dumb Jet.
  An accident waiting to happen. Any unforeseen difficulty, needing a few more seconds of fuel, and you're toast.
  
  --
  aaaaaaa
2. Re: Jet pack or Jump Jet? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 21:46 · Score: 0
  
  And a range of a quarter mile that many people can run in under a minute.
3. Re: Jet pack or Jump Jet? by tomhath · 2016-04-10 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe run in under a minute. Unless that means running across a mine field, or bringing a rope to someone caught in fast moving flood waters.
4. Re: Jet pack or Jump Jet? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure a jet will trigger mines.
  Flood rescue takes more than 32 seconds. A t-shirt cannon would be better for gettin a rope out.
CEO's quote says it all.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 21:48 · Score: 0

Troy Widgery is the CEO of Jet Pack International and admitted Macomber wasn’t wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, “No, he should`ve been wearing a helmet but he`s so good and again this was just a test flight.”
Just a test flight? yeah, cos testing modifications is so much safer than regular flight !
No helmet - no surprise. by taylorius · 2016-04-09 22:27 · Score: 1

Given you're willing to test fly a jetpack, your maniac credentials are firmly established. Doing it without a helmet seems almost par for the course.
So he is stupid too by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 22:43 · Score: 0

Flying around without a helmet with a jet pack sounds like the guy is either stupid or has a death wish. Hey, far be it for me to say a jet pack pilot requires a helmet but common sense would argue it probably is a good ideal.
Bicycle helmets aren't useful by mi · 2016-04-10 00:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Helmets aren't especially useful and at least some research say, they increase risk to the bicyclist's health.
Given how much more fun it is to ride without one, you may want to reconsider — unless you wear it all the time, even when walking. Just in case a car hits you...
Dunno about jetpacks, but bicycles just aren't fast enough for helmets to perceptibly increase one's chances in a rare accident to justify constantly incurring costs in comfort and situation-awareness during the rest of your riding. Yes, there are statistics showing correlation between fatalities and riding without helmet, but that does not prove causation.
Surely, everyone is entitled to making their own choices, and I'm not going to force anyone to ride without the protection they want. I just want the same freedom for myself.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re: Bicycle helmets aren't useful by prefec2 · 2016-04-10 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  A bicycle is not a jetpack. The risks with bicycles are different and vary between slow 20 to 25 km/h and fast above 30 km/h cycling. Thema BlÃtter should war proper helmets. Kinds often wear helmets wrong as parents suck and are unable to read and understand instructions. It is also important to remove the helmet at the playground .
2. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  The data you are referencing details a specific type accident, collisions with vehicles.
  Bicycle helmets protect against two main types of accidents, falling off bicycles, and over-the-handlebar sudden deceleration. They never were intended to prevent a bicyclist from running into a vehicle.
  The article tends to place blame on motorists viewing cyclists with helmets as antagonists leading to aggressive driving (and lack of proper space). If so, then I believe a massive media campaign recasting divers who hit cyclists as premeditated murders is our only hope (similar to the Drunk Driving campaigns of the past).
  I imagine that the helmet could reduce visibility enough to increase the odds of colliding with vehicles; but there is a simple and easy solution. Helmets have attachable rear view mirrors. They cost less than $10, come with bases that allow the mirror to be detached and reattached (for storage) and provide a better rear view than those on vehicles because you can adjust the vision by slightly tilting your head.
  In short, I think you are dangerously promoting the kind of science that ignores what it doesn't want to promote. Richard Feynman would have called this "Scientific Dishonesty". The solution might just as easily be wearing jerseys stating "PLEASE DON'T KILL ME".
3. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by Blaskowicz · 2016-04-10 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  A bicycle helmet will certainly help you if head meets the ground. So, don't hit the fucking ground? Easy enough most times, even when getting hit by a car in some circumstances. But if you're doing a daily commute and that day you didn't get your sleep or whatever.. Maybe you're at night or in low light. You could have an avoidable fall even with no cars around, just because you're concerned about something else, you're doing the trip without a need to pay conscious attention. Some freak bump on the road might get you, or riding at full speed into some construction area, whatever.
  By all means don't use a helmet to run errands. But I think it is worth it specifically to get to work.
4. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by mi · 2016-04-10 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  A bicycle helmet will certainly help you if head meets the ground.
  You have to be especially unlucky to hit the ground with your head, when falling off a bike. I never have, for example... But, if you wish to guard from that fine — are you wearing one at all times? Why limit it to bicycle — your head will hit the ground from about the same height whether you are biking or walking. Aren't you concerned about a much higher chance of falling, when it is icy outside, for example? Or of icicle falling on your head?
  Some belt-and-suspenders kind of people might wear a helmet in all such situations, but if you do not, then you are inconsistent... And, probably, unduly influenced by helmet-manufacturers...
  
  But I think it is worth it specifically to get to work.
  Sure, if you think, it is worth it, go for it. I was primarily lamenting laws making it mandatory...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
5. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by rl117 · 2016-04-10 11:45 · Score: 2
  
  It's happened to me twice. Diesel spill on a wet road. You can't see it, and if you're cornering or changing lanes when you encounter it, you've lost all traction and are down before you realise. Slamming into the tarmac at 30+mph isn't fun. Your arms instinctively go out, but the forward momentum means your head will make hard contact with the road. Both times, I walked away with a dented helmet (and a fractured finger once), and a little road rash down the face. If I hadn't had a helmet on, I might have had a fractured skull, or been killed outright.
  It's not the height of the fall, and it's not about the ability of the rider. A fall while stationary will likely be injury free; you fall sideways and your head won't even hit the ground before the rest of your body does. But a sudden and unexpected loss of control at speed is a different story. It could equally be caused by sand or gravel on a sharp bend; that happened to me once, but without any head impact. Or a sudden sidewind. It could possibly also be caused by a car e.g. if one pulls out in front of you, and you hit it. Never happened to me personally, but I've seen it. Imagine your bare face being slammed down onto a road while you are also moving forward at speed; it's not pretty. Your forehead will take the full force of the initial impact, and then your face will get scraped along the road as you slide to a stop. With a helmet, the polystyrene absorbs and distributes the force of the impact, and the plastic casing will slide along due to sticking out, in preference to your skin. That makes the difference between a few scratches and major hospitalisation or worse.
  I wear a helmet all the time. I know the consequences of not wearing one, and I know people who died as a result of not wearing one who would most likely have lived if they had. While being in a road collision is nasty, in my experience most cycling injuries happen without any other traffic being involved. You can adjust your speed and riding style based on the type of road, weather conditions etc., but there are factors which are totally out of your control which can't be fully accounted for. Idiots brimming their tanks and then spilling slippery liquid over the road is one I've seen far too much. If the conditions are dry, you can see it; but if it's raining you can be screwed. Whatever the reason, a helmet keeps you from getting brain damage if your head hits the road; and after seeing that happen to a friend who wasn't wearing one, the benefits of wearing one vastly outweigh the costs.
6. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by EETech1 · 2016-04-10 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's the greatest feeling, in the split-second, you're realizing you're going to crash... realizing you're going to take one this time... and probably really fucking hard!!! And then the feeling comes over you like a revolutionary spirit. .you remember that you have a helmet on, and you think Oh, thank God I have a helmet on, I am so fucking lucky something's protecting my head!!!
  Your brain doesn't have to think about being splattered across the pavement and it can think about not having your hands and arms and fingers and legs broken in the crash, and maybe if you're lucky curling your toes so you don't lose your shoes!
  Crashing in a boat is the same way, you think thank God I'm wearing a life jacket and you worry about not losing your wallet and your phone!
7. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by rl117 · 2016-04-10 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Definitely agreed on being thankful on having a helmet on! I'm not sure about it being the greatest feeling--it's certainly a very strange (and brief!) state to be in, kind of a detached hyper-alertness maybe?
  After the wheel slides out from under and you start to fall, you eventually react to it by sticking your hand out to catch the fall. But after that point there's no concious or unconcious action you can take to prevent the inevitable consequence of the fall, so I kind of experienced it in a kind of detached third-person sense. You know your head is going to thump the road, and you watch it happen in slow motion. Your hand touches down and gets whipped back by the forward motion, your shoulder hits the road, and your body is by now rotating forward so you see the road come up to meet you, and *bang*, slide. Head meets road and the unprotected chin takes a nasty deep graze. Probably less than two seconds between slipping and being stopped on the floor, but it seems to take longer. I really hate to think about what would be the outcome would have been without a helmet.
  For the poster who was implying that there's some conspiracy with helmet manufacturers, get some perspective. They aren't a gimmick. They are safety equipment. You don't go out expecting to get into an accident, but there's a nonzero likelihood that you will, and that some of those times they will be serious. Wearing a helmet reduces the chance that the serious accidents will be fatal or life changing. It is literally the difference between being able to get up off the ground, dust yourself off, knock the twisted brake levers back into position and carry on to your destination to get cleaned up, and being carted off in an ambulance as a mangled wreck. It's no different than wearing a seat belt in a car, to prevent you being hurled through the windscreen or into parts of your car during rapid deceleration on impact. You don't expect to get into an accident every time you drive your car, but you still wear a seat belt. The cost of not wearing one if you *do* get into an accident makes it worth it. That's not a conspiracy on the part of seat belt manufacturers, it's common sense. I'll agree that making cycle helmets a legal requirement is a bit different and not totally black and white, but I will also say that after having had my life saved on two, probably three occasions by wearing a helmet, choosing not to wear one is not a rational choice, and that's being polite. I've been cycling almost every day for over 20 years, including commuting to work on busy roads. You encounter bad drivers, bad road conditions, but these can be anticipated and accounted for with experience. But you can't protect yourself against the random and unexpected, and to not wear a helmet is to invite disaster when such things occur.
  A small anecdote: one of my work colleagues is an adamant "no helmet" cyclist. While cycling in the city, a car suddenly pulled out in front of him, and his head hit the rear window and went into and through it. He got some serious lacerations requiring stitches and nearly lost his eyesight in one eye from the glass cuts. If he had been wearing a helmet, it would likely have taken the impact and deflected most of the glass shards. You can't prevent other people doing stupid things, but you can definitely mitigate their consequences.
8. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-11 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  you have to be especially ignorant to have even written that post.
9. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-11 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  no, you're just completely ignorant about bicycle related head injuries.
  ie, ignorant...as usual.
  http://www.cdc.gov/healthcommu...
10. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-11 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong.
  Entirely wrong.
  Entirely ignorant.
  Typical mi.
11. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by mi · 2016-04-12 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Like I said, these are all good arguments for wearing a helmet all the time — slippery roads can cause to fall on sidewalk and onto the road, for example, right in front of a car. Or an icicle may fall on your head. A construction guy 5 stories above may drop his hammer.
  So, if you only wear the helmet when biking, you are inconsistent.
  
  I wear a helmet all the time.
  Ah, Ok, good for you...
  
  Your forehead will take the full force of the initial impact [...]
  I did a 94-mile trip last August. In the 12 hours I never fell once, but I did end up with a (very) sore whatsit — despite wearing specially-padded pants — and both pinkies shaking from the ulnar nerve problem. Had I been wearing a helmet, I would've had sore spots on the head as well. Use of protective armor is not free...
  I will use lubrication and special gloves next time to mitigate the real problems, but the helmet would only increase them, while reducing a hypothetical...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
12. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by Coren22 · 2016-04-13 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Since you feel this way, where is your published study disputing the published studies he linked?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
No helmet no brains by dbIII · 2016-04-10 00:16 · Score: 1

No helmet means the idiot was not taking it seriously.
Already awesome technology by mi · 2016-04-10 00:24 · Score: 1

The company's jet pack normally has a range of about one-quarter of a mile (and reaches heights of 100 feet) with a flying time of 32 seconds
It may not be ready for regular transportation use, but military may finally have, what they wanted for decades. And not just to run faster, but to be able to get over a river or a mine-field or some fortified perimeter quickly.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Already awesome technology by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  In a form that is so loud, everyone will know what is going on?
2. Re:Already awesome technology by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-11 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yes...a heavy pack that's useful for precisely 30 seconds is exactly what the military wants....
  Please don't comment about topics you know nothing about.
  For you, that rather extensive list also includes the military.
So basically this is a company of fucking jerks by AndyKron · 2016-04-10 00:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

He should have worn a helmet, but then again it was just a TEST FLIGHT? So basically this is a company of fucking jerks.
1. Re:So basically this is a company of fucking jerks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  You'd think that during a test flight, when you're less sure about how it's going to work, you'd wear MORE safety gear.
  Not very bright.
2. Re:So basically this is a company of fucking jerks by danomac · 2016-04-10 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Gravity sure sucks, doesn't it? Instead of jet packs maybe research anti-gravity matter. :-)
3. Re:So basically this is a company of fucking jerks by delt0r · 2016-04-10 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  They are making a rocket pack. What would you expect? They have almost zero flight time. Pretty nasty fuel on your back, and blistering hot gasses pretty close to your arse. They just don't even sound fun. Wingsuit flying sounds like fun.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
FAA Investigating? by LifesABeach · 2016-04-10 02:41 · Score: 1

Must be a cub reporter; It's the NTSB that constacted. FIRST, or there will be hell to pay.
1. Re:FAA Investigating? by AJWM · 2016-04-10 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  The NTSB investigates the cause of the crash. The FAA investigates which regulations the pilot was breaking. But yeah, if the NTSB is involved (they're not always, especially for single-occupant non-fatality accidents) they get first dibs.
  NTSB reports have been known to put some of the blame on FAA, for example in the Korean 801 crash in Guam some years back, where FAA had made some "irresponsible" changes to the operation of the MSAW. (The pilot training was also faulted.)
  
  --
  -- Alastair
Repeat with me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-10 03:00 · Score: 1

The technology is not there yet. What the "jetpack" word evokes in most of us (a small, light rucksack that you strap to your back) in its current inception is outrageously expensive, unreliable and good for a minute of flying time, if that. If you want better than that, you have to pay more and strap yourself to what is essentially a small helicopter. Which is not a jetpack any more. Which implies that we do not have the technology for it as yet. The same with flying cars, as currently conceived - they are just small airplanes, whose wings can be folded and the resulting contraption can be (more or less) driven around as a ludicrous car. The same way that such ridiculous contraptions are not flying cars, current jetpacks allow you a very short flying time. The contraptions that give you more flying time are not jetpacks. Like I said, the technology is not there yet, and it probably won't be for a long time.
1. Re:Repeat with me by Aighearach · 2016-04-10 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  The technology is not there yet.
  It might be that the whole concept is not "there" yet, and won't ever be. The technology might be really awesome and mature, and the nature of the vehicle is just not effective at anything useful.
No excuse by JustNiz · 2016-04-10 03:19 · Score: 1

>> he wasn't wearing a helmet,
What a moron.
1. Re:No excuse by iggymanz · 2016-04-10 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Helmet or not won't matter much falling from above 30 foot altitude. This guy didn't fall from very far if at all.
2. Re:No excuse by JustNiz · 2016-04-10 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  He needed 27 stitches in his head becuase he wasn't wearing a helmet. That was my point.
3. Re:No excuse by iggymanz · 2016-04-10 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  if he had superglue in his pocket and any reflective surface to use as mirror he could have fixed that problem himself
Brillian by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-04-10 04:11 · Score: 1

"He fell on his head, and he wasn't wearing a helmet,..."
Sounds like a genius to me, who could possibly have foreseen an accident using this stable, proven technology? Oh, wait...

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
From the description of the accident... by ctrl-alt-canc · 2016-04-10 05:16 · Score: 4, Funny

...he probably was wearing the jetpack upside down.
1. Re:From the description of the accident... by ctrl-alt-canc · 2016-04-10 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  This happened before...
Re:Someone needs to learn good development practic by Aighearach · 2016-04-10 18:40 · Score: 1

Interesting. On my planet, test flights are more dangerous than routine flights, not less.
"Wasn't wearing a helmet" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-11 05:22 · Score: 0

I got written up on a job for not wearing my hardhat in the server room of an industrial site. The only people there were myself and two of my direct reports, as we were doing some maintenance on the application server during the planned shutdown. The safety guy just happened to see our cars in the parking lot, ran in and started screaming at us that we were not following PPE rules and that all zero of the operating forklifts were a gigantic danger to us - inside the server room.
This story is just example #4812845912 of how upper management is above the law (both literally and figuratively).