Better to use the extinguishers as extra thrust for a wing suit.

And most (all?) parachutes allow the capability for the operator to control direction of flight and (relative) rate of descent.

Considering the stunt he pulled it seems he was confident he could do both.

The skydiving equipment he wears is very bulky but steerable and allows for a safe landing. There also is a backup.

Actual emergency parachutes (e.g. as used by glider pilots) are much thinner, cannot be steered and only guarantee "survival" (expect a broken leg)

"Better to use the extinguishers as extra thrust for a wing suit." does not read like something a reasonable person would inject as a contribution to the conversation.

1. Fight forest fire. 2. thrust for wingsuit

Given how useless they'd be at 1. I suspect they would be more useful at 2. Not very useful in either case however...

Someone who actually just had something happen to them probably would not be carrying two fire extinguishers that they suddenly had an epiphany and realized they could use as a thrust source.

Our legal system is absolutely perfect for ensuring that "cool" will almost always get couched as "reckless and wanton disregard". This does however, push the calculus in favor of, "if you're going to do it, get the most out of it".

As yours has mine.

> and I'm considering pinging a higher power.

Delusions of grandeur.

Which is something one can't guarantee from outside the plane.

Also, it's much easier to ensure a safe crash site when you're only doing the calculations in one axis, which a nose down, straight in trajectory would have offered.

But that wouldn't have made good cinema would it?

It would have made great cinema, it would just not have looked like an accidental bailout which was the whole point.