News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
[dead]
Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by noitpmeder on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @10:11PM (#31105366)
Best to always assume people comment in good faith.
Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by jacquesm on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @10:24PM (#31105430)
I do but this account has come to my attention a couple of times by now and I'm considering pinging a higher power.

"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.

Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by lolc on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @10:58PM (#31105618)
Using fire extinguishers for thrust is a joke about the futility of carrying them to extinguish a bush fire. That's how I read it anyway.
Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by _carbyau_ on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @10:59PM (#31105623)
Meh, starting from:

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...

Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by stirfish on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @11:55PM (#31105902)
If the options are do something useless, or do something useless that looks cool, doing the cool thing is strictly better.
Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by salawat on Thursday April 21, 2022 @12:10AM (#31105960)
...Legally speaking, that would not be the case, as you're giving the prosecution ammo for proving premeditation.

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".

Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by scoot on Thursday April 21, 2022 @09:38AM (#31109218)
> this account has come to my attention a couple of times by now

As yours has mine.

> and I'm considering pinging a higher power.

Delusions of grandeur.

Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by tgsovlerkhgsel on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @11:06PM (#31105660)
I too would assume that a plane would typically crash (significantly) further away than the distance that you can typically travel in a parachute, unless it was put in a straight nosedive.
Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by kuhewa on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @11:28PM (#31105776)
If the plane is set to bank slightly it will just do a loop or three on the way down with a manageable radius
Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by salawat on Thursday April 21, 2022 @12:15AM (#31105982)
IF winds and drafts remain favorable.

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?

Re:A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA... by kuhewa on Thursday April 21, 2022 @12:22AM (#31106019)
I feel like you might be underestimating the difficulty of setting up nose down dive and then bailing out successfully, but I'm not pilot.

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