F/A-18 Hornet low altitude flying over Northern California has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

I read the article and while he mentions a couple of ridiculous things like redirecting a firework, he does have several valid points. The fact that the quad may have been flying inside a zoned area is certainly a valid claim. There is also the fact that he most certainly was flying over an occupied area, which while not a crime is a bit of a no no, unless he has the insurance to cover it if it all goes wrong. I get a little upset/nervous when guys go behind the flight line at an an RC airshow and those guys probably have more experience than this guy.
But the one thing I can see that is most certainly an issue and could bring down the FAA on his butt is that he most certainly broke 500 feet in altitude. Since most large fireworks detonate at 1,000 to 1,200 feet and he was right there with them, I'd put his at well over 500 feet. That's a problem, and considering the recent FAA guidance that was slammed down and pissed everyone off, the last thing we need is more people doing this sort of spectacle. It will just make things worse.

It sounds like a good idea in theory (entertainment wise) But in practice...a lot of a fight gets taken out...

-Your on a short time limit so endurance doesn't come into full effect

-The notion of balance is different, which might be interesting, but take downs or throws become less useful. However, posturing to compensate for wind comes into effect.

-Safety, what happens if someone gets hit to hard near parachute time. I've heard there are altitude activated parachutes but it still comes down to what can go wrong. How much of an actual fight gets removed to accommodate the jump?

-What constitutes a victory? You have a short amount of time to knock someone out? Let out some anger on your opponent?

I think it normally depends on the mountain. As I see it, most people have an issue with destroying mountains for things like mining because 1) they disagree with the reasoning for it, 2)it's in places where people can see the damage, and more importantly 3) those 'mountains' are often much lower altitude and are decent habitats for critters with significant water runoff that's contaminated by 'mountain top removal'. When you're talking 9-10K feet up, beyond the tree line, there's far less habitat being destroyed (granted, something likely lives there that's now dead or displaced). That means it's not 0 damage done, but far less damage to what most people consider important. Very few people care about damaging the rock itself, mostly Shinto and Buddhists I would guess. Personally I find this a good trade off of damage vs possible gain, but of course I don't live there.
I'm wondering how this is better than the VLTA http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/vlt/
I expected there to be no more giant telescopes made now that they know how to combine smaller ones to simulate large ones. I wonder why they went this way on this project?

The right term is "weightless". Gravity at the space station altitude is 88% as strong as on Earth surface. However, everything is weightless.

The twist, to me, says "Oh shit, I'm gonna overshoot. Time to lose mass altitude."

The fact that he made that little loop at the end just so he could dramatically decrease his altitude rather than just keep on gliding tells me that this person was extremely skillful and knew full well what they were doing at every moment.

Not even remotely close to being snuff, and I think the camera added to the effect of making some of those moments *seem* like they were closer calls than they ever were...

Occam's Razor suggests to me it was at least stuck to the plane's landing gear.

I don't doubt it -like every other atom of matter on, in, or under the surface of this planet- came from space. I just think it's currently viewed altitude was due to more terrestrial factors.

Barrel-rolls gently deposit the rodents from a safe altitude, into your neighbor's maple trees!

When they say "certain death" that's really just typical objective news sensationalism, right? I mean his emergency chute would have automatically deployed once his gear detected he was at a low enough altitude and not slowing down, right?

I don't know much about the mechanics of skydiving, but I thought all skydivers had a backup/automatic chute in case of emergency.

Worth mentioning that :
Altitude record for a mig29 is 90'092 feet.
Altitude record for a mig25 is 123'520 feet.
Not bad for some 'air breathers'.

-scheherazade

Well, technically speaking, I think the faster human free fall was around 800mph, unaided by propulsion. It was a matter of being in the right angle and wearing the right fabrics…. and the right altitude. So realistically speaking, they *could* parachute insert a lot faster than terminal velocity . . . If they tried hard enough.

nice centerline landing... lots of runways go up and down in altitude... if it goes in one direction generally you want to land UPHILL

Well he was at that altitude, but kinda fast and with gear up. Someone on ll suggested invisible landing gear

I had a similar fight with one "pilot" before about a Mi-24 Hind crash.
He the one supposedly flying generic civilian helicopters and telling me that forward speed in choppers can never be converted into altitude or at least to decrease the falling speed. Not realizing that a chopper like the Hind has huge wings that actually give a lot of uplift in situations like in this video here or the Hind crash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IbXNN5eyM

Funny how it even seems to work with "wingless" choppers to a lesser extend.