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".
"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.