Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on 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."

15 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. No helmet??? by mpoulton · · 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 WarJolt · · 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.

    2. Re:No helmet??? by 0111+1110 · · 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.
    3. Re:No helmet??? by Lumpy · · 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.
    4. Re:No helmet??? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:No helmet??? by phrostie · · 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.

    6. Re:No helmet??? by KGIII · · 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."
    7. Re:No helmet??? by CohibaVancouver · · 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

    8. Re:No helmet??? by Dahamma · · 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...

    9. Re:No helmet??? by Aighearach · · 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.

  2. Bicycle helmets aren't useful by mi · · 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 mi · · 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.
    2. Re:Bicycle helmets aren't useful by rl117 · · 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.

  3. So basically this is a company of fucking jerks by AndyKron · · 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.

  4. From the description of the accident... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...he probably was wearing the jetpack upside down.