17,500 feet in a Paramotor (video)
- Thread starter fairgambit
- Start date
I used to work with a guy who had an ultralight. He had a little side job where he would take airiel photographs for companies. They liked him because he was cheaper than hiring a helicopter. He took some pretty nice pictures of our site and was pretty good at it. This was the mid 90s, now they just use drones.
After seeing this, I did some quick research. I was surprised to read how safe this was relatively speaking.
I imagine mucking up where you go with respect to local air traffic could cause problems, but the machinery and glider don’t seem super likely to cause a fatal fail if reasonable care is taken.
I imagine mucking up where you go with respect to local air traffic could cause problems, but the machinery and glider don’t seem super likely to cause a fatal fail if reasonable care is taken.
I don’t understand the Risk vs Reward ratio with these people
The idiot probably has a wife and young children. Is a zero value YouTube video worth it?
It’s quite a bit safer than you’d expect. And that’s a young kid if you watch the beginning.I don’t understand the Risk vs Reward ratio with these people
The idiot probably has a wife and young children. Is a zero value YouTube video worth it?
Amazing indeed! Hard to relate to that feeling at 10k feet of "Keep going higher". I think I would have been satisfied at 1000'.
Guy stuck a perfect landing. That might be the most dangerous part if you come in too fast.
Guy stuck a perfect landing. That might be the most dangerous part if you come in too fast.
He was really on the edge with regard to oxygen level. At 17500 ft, O2 is about half of that at sea level and mental function and breathing become impaired.
Reminds me of "pioneer aviators" as I never appreciated how intrepid it was to get in a plane when internal combustion engines were still emerging technology. The writings of Antoine de Saint-Exupery are really great reading for anyone interested in the subject.I don’t understand the Risk vs Reward ratio with these people
The idiot probably has a wife and young children. Is a zero value YouTube video worth it?
I recently watched a silent film from the 1920s about naval aviators that the US Navy contributed to and gave great support, including using the USS Kittyhawk. They had a scene where they plugged the aviators' noses and they had to breathe through a tube. They would drop the oxygen level until the pilots passed out, and then give the pilots ratings about how high they could fly, whether it was 20K ft, 25k, etc. One pilot passed out too soon and washed out of the program. It was a neat little reminder of how much things have changed. Anyways, I found it interesting to see the novel ways different problems were addressed and solved.
Airplanes have multiple backup systems. He has what appears to be a single motor and a parachute/glider. I wouldn’t fly 40 feet in the air in that thing, much less 17,500. He is certifiable.
But he has the one backup system that no airliner has… the parachute. If the engine goes out, no problem whatsoever.
And from my 10 mins of reading (I know), most serious paramotorists use a backup emergency chute as well.
After 50 feet or so, you’re dead regardless if you fall. 17500 feet or 250 feet…the result is the same.
Airlines have two engines and can safely land with just one operating engine. Technology of airplane engines has advanced so much in the last 20 years, that now two engine planes can cross large expanses of water (like ocean), and can still land safely if one engine fails. The ETOPS is generally 180 minutes (i.e. one engine should be able to power the plane 180 minutes to land safely) although there are longer ETOPS. Prior to that, the FAA and other governing bodies mandated 2 working engine on an airplane crossing large expanses of water, hence 4 engine 747s, A380s and 3 engine McDonnell Douglass L1011s.
A parachute on an airliner travelling at +500 mph would be ripped to shreds - and there is no parachute in the world that would be able to create enough tension to allow an airliner to gently land on the ground. A airliner that is considered "heavy" has a gross weight of over 300,000 lbs. So, if you could design a parachute for an airliner, the parachute itself would be so heavy that it would require a reduction in fuel, pax, or cargo. Because the planes can only take off with so much weight. You can, however, get a General Aviation aircraft that has a parachute - the Cirrus 22T comes to mind. However, the landing is not gentle - I believe the few times the parachute has been deployed, the owner had to write off the air frame due to extensive damage at landing. The Cirrus jet may also have a parachute.
The parachute is really for the general public's peace of mind. Relying on a parachute is like saying "I am going to drive 100 mph into this tree, because I have an airbag and I am not worried".
Getting back to this guy, it's a nice little toy, but you are not really going to be able to do much with it -an 80 mile max, meaning 40 miles out and 40 miles back. The safety issue is not controlled airspace. The safety issue is uncontrolled airspace below or outside controlled airspace. General Aviation aircraft travel in these airspaces - and I guarantee you no one is looking out for a paramotor. He is too small, and the planes, even the slow ones with single engine props, are travelling too fast to catch him during visual scanning of the horizon. I am assuming he does not have any equipment to indicate his position to other aircraft that he is in the air (Called ADSB-Out). So, he won't show up in any radar/software designed to identify other aircraft even by GA aircraft.
It was a nice publicity stunt, but I don't think this is a good idea unless you stay closer to the ground. The issues with lack of oxygen at altitude, plus reduction in temperature is another issue.
Last edited:
ro, he used an app in the video to track altitude on his phone. He also mentioned leaving restricted airspace when referencing the app. I wonder whether the app served the function of pinging him on the aviation grid?
Air traffic was the big risk the case to mind for me too. More, I imagine hitting a human in a paramotor at high speed could cause many/most other aircraft to crash. Not good.
Negative on the first item. The units that are used (ADSB) require more power than what a cell phone can provide. It's not like tracking your kids' cell phones so you know they are not where they are not supposed to be. The altitude tracker is another matter - that is simple software - if you have a compass on your iPhone, look at it and it will give you your elevation. He did not mention using any software for him to emit a signal for aircraft, right? Because for other aircraft to see him on their software, he would have to be emitting a signal, and they would have to be able to capture it.
You can also download speed apps to track your speed (for example if you are on the bullet train in Japan or the Eurostar from London to/from Paris). I would imagine you could use that in an aircraft, but that is for lateral (forward only) movement.
General Aviation training starts with obtaining a private pilot's license which limits to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) - which means roughly 3 miles of visibility near airports and at least a mile in the air. Further you need to be 1000 feet above, 500 feet below and 2000 feet away from clouds. If you are 1000 feet above, and then you see this guy coming up through the clouds, no guarantee you will be able to avoid him- because you might be descending. Going through the clouds was just dumb, IMO. He may think he can maneuver around an airplane, but no way he will have the reaction time necessary to avoid one. There are also rules about who has the right of way, and if he has not taken some training, he may not be aware of the requirements.
Aircraft have flashing red beacons, red lights on the pilot side wings and green lights on passenger side wings. Plus a bright white light behind. These run all time. When you are close to an airport, you put on landing lights. The FAA recommends within 10 NM of the airport. All of this is to help VFR pilots see each other. This guy had nothing. Frankly, I think the FAA should investigate this kind of action, because he poses a danger to himself and others. He gets smacked by the wing, fuselage or propellor of a plane doing any kind of speed, and he is done. I appreciate he has a passion for the flying - but think this approach, of getting up to 17,500 is just irresponsible.
By the way, a few times in the last few years, pilots coming in and out of LAX have reported some kind of unknown flying object, similar to this paramotor. Assuming some person is doing this, it's insane to be in controlled airspace of one of the busiest airports in the nation. If getting smacked by a GA aircraft sounds awful, imagine getting smacked by a 757, or getting sucked into a jet engine.
Lest anyone think I don't appreciate this for what it is, I can tell you at couple of places where this vehicle would be great to use - a few hundred feet above a beach, west of State College in the valley where the gliders fly, and right down 5th Avenue about 100 feet off the ground, to avoid mid town traffic.
Last edited:
Latest
-
01
BWI Football
Penn State-Michigan Friday injury reports: What did we learn less than 24 hours before kickoff?
-
02
BWI Football
Penn State 3-2-1: Finishing games, mounting injuries and a chance at Michigan
-
03
BWI Football
Penn State first half superlatives on defense: Standouts, room to grow, more
-
04
BWI Football
Pre-Snap Read: Inside how Penn State is handling its 0-3 skid, and how it will try to end it
-
05
BWI Recruiting
DL Ernesto Ballesteros following Penn State vist: 'The coaching staff really cares about the people and the players here'