ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th September 2016, 04:22 PM   #1
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Flyboard Air - An actual "hoverboard" Is it real? / 4 reasons why Flyboard is a hoax

Mod InfoThis thread has been split from the similarly named thread in the SMMT section. Discussions of the science and technology behind and at odds with the Flyboard Air should remain in the original. Discussions of the conspiratorial aspects of the Flyboard Air being or not being a hoax belong here.

The split of the original thread was made at a point of convenience. You may, of course, in posts made in this thread refer to relevant material still in the original.
Posted By:jsfisher


Okay - so no one thinks its weird that no local online newspapers, no online newspapers at all and no local news crews mentioned this.

Or that the only online newspaper reporter who went to the event and even interviewed Franky never mentioned the Flyboard air. And nor did Frankie.

If you read that one and only article online, all it says is that Frankie was there to cheer him on.

Really? No one finds that odd? Just me?

Maybe i should go see a head doctor then. Clearly i am severely abnormal.

Last edited by jsfisher; 1st October 2016 at 07:49 AM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 04:34 PM   #2
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,442
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
..Also, they may not yet have permission from the relevant aero authorities to fly at that height.
Flyboard Air demonstration in Collier not certified with FAA.
I realise that it is FOX news, but
"Fox 4 reached out to the Federal Aviation Administration to see what kind of permitting might be required for a Flyboard Air.

"The FAA is aware of the operation, and is looking into it," Kathleen Bergen, an FAA spokeswoman, wrote in a statement. "The device/operator did not have an FAA-issued experimental aircraft certificate, which is required for an experimental aircraft."
Why would the FAA be making statements about a "hoaxed" flight of an "hoax" aircraft?
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage

Last edited by EHocking; 20th September 2016 at 04:35 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 04:40 PM   #3
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by RussDill View Post

Here's a question to make you think. Spacex has had two recent failures. Both failures involved the second stage in some way. Is this information alone evidence that there is something faulty with the second stage?



erm.....
If the spaceX had even one failure involving the second stage, then that alone is evidence that there is something faulty with the second stage.

If there was nothing faulty with the second stage, no failure could have occurred...during the second stage.




Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
there have been many more public flights already so it doesn't rate as much of a news story.
I would say that 50 million people in only 48hrs on facebook alone would disagree with you there.

Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
Even the championships themselves barely garnished one local media story:

http://www.naplesnews.com/story/news...park/90513198/

But it does show that Naples Daily sent two journalists, so the championship event did occur when and where as shown in other live coverage.
It would appear that these 2 journalists failed to do any research on Franky prior to showing up. And Frankie thought it best not to mention that he was doing the USA's first demonstration of an experimental aircraft quite like any other. Just completely skipped over that. Meanwhile, eye witnesses in the comments section of the videos on facebook are declaring it was the single most amazing thing they have ever seen in person in there entire flipping lives.




http://www.kappit.com/img/pics/20150...gegebfi_sm.jpg

Last edited by kmortis; 3rd October 2016 at 08:43 AM. Reason: changed image link to url due to prohibition against hotlinking
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 04:42 PM   #4
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Flyboard Air demonstration in Collier not certified with FAA.
I realise that it is FOX news, but
"Fox 4 reached out to the Federal Aviation Administration to see what kind of permitting might be required for a Flyboard Air.

"The FAA is aware of the operation, and is looking into it," Kathleen Bergen, an FAA spokeswoman, wrote in a statement. "The device/operator did not have an FAA-issued experimental aircraft certificate, which is required for an experimental aircraft."
Why would the FAA be making statements about a "hoaxed" flight of an "hoax" aircraft?
Okay - now this is cool.

Thanks heaps for finding that.

I must be terrible at google,
Off to read it now,


Last edited by esspee; 20th September 2016 at 04:47 PM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 07:44 PM   #5
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Flyboard Air demonstration in Collier not certified with FAA.
I realise that it is FOX news, but
"Fox 4 reached out to the Federal Aviation Administration to see what kind of permitting might be required for a Flyboard Air.

"The FAA is aware of the operation, and is looking into it," Kathleen Bergen, an FAA spokeswoman, wrote in a statement. "The device/operator did not have an FAA-issued experimental aircraft certificate, which is required for an experimental aircraft."
Why would the FAA be making statements about a "hoaxed" flight of an "hoax" aircraft?
A couple of questions

Is the Flyboard Air an aircraft?

If it is, then why isn't a Flyboard an aircraft? Why isn't a ground effect vehicle such as this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ih_KBru6Co

....an aircraft. At least this actually has wings and uses lift, and this requires no certification from the CAA.


ETA: FAA Regulations (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations) General Definitions Section 1.2

Aircraft: Means a device that is used or intended to be used in the air

but FAA Regs Part 103 covers JetPacks and Ultralights, which require no certification, and no pilot's licence.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 20th September 2016 at 08:32 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 08:45 PM   #6
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,878
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A couple of questions

Is the Flyboard Air an aircraft?

If it is, then why isn't a Flyboard an aircraft? Why isn't a ground effect vehicle such as this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ih_KBru6Co

....an aircraft. At least this actually has wings and uses lift, and this requires no certification from the CAA.


ETA: FAA Regulations (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations) General Definitions Section 1.2

Aircraft: Means a device that is used or intended to be used in the air

but FAA Regs Part 103 covers JetPacks and Ultralights, which require no certification, and no pilot's licence.
However, the FAA does regulate "drones" which they have difficulty defining, and with all the new regulations, nobody actually know especially what the hell.
Hell, they even tried, against Congressional direction, to regulate model airplanes...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 09:51 PM   #7
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,442
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A couple of questions

Is the Flyboard Air an aircraft?
Well the FAA seems to consider it to be an experimental aircraft., e.g., from the news report.
"Kathleen Bergen, an FAA spokeswoman, wrote in a statement. "The device/operator did not have an FAA-issued experimental aircraft certificate, which is required for an experimental aircraft.""
Quote:
If it is, then why isn't a Flyboard an aircraft? Why isn't a ground effect vehicle such as this...
It is tethered to a water craft which also houses it's powerplant?
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ih_KBru6Co

....an aircraft. At least this actually has wings and uses lift, and this requires no certification from the CAA.


ETA: FAA Regulations (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations) General Definitions Section 1.2

Aircraft: Means a device that is used or intended to be used in the air

but FAA Regs Part 103 covers JetPacks and Ultralights, which require no certification, and no pilot's licence.
Remember I did put in the disclaimer in my post that the quoted article was from a FOX news affiliate.
Facts and actual FAA stance may not actually exist in the article.

But, here's the FAA's guidance on Experimental Aircraft.
A special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category is issued to operate an aircraft that does not have a type certificate or does not conform to its type certificate and is in a condition for safe operation.
...
Special airworthiness certificates may be issued in the experimental category for the following purposes:
...
Exhibition: to exhibit an aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics for air shows, motion pictures, television, and similar productions, and for the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency.
That pretty much covers the FAA's spokesperson's take on the Naples display by Zapata, vis, "The device/operator did not have an FAA-issued experimental aircraft certificate, which is required for an experimental aircraft.""
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage

Last edited by EHocking; 20th September 2016 at 09:57 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 02:12 AM   #8
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,129
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Okay - so no one thinks its weird that no local online newspapers, no online newspapers at all and no local news crews mentioned this.
I do not think that the Flyboard Air is news. The demonstrations are more likely classified as a sort of entertainment. It has already been demonstrated many times, and similar devices have been demonstrated. If a newspaper should be interested in writing about it, it should be in a special column for technology, or possible in the culture section describing the event where the demonstration took place.

Personally I would not even have considered going to a place where a demonstration of the Flyboard Air took place, but if I was already there, I would watch it.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 03:06 AM   #9
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,138
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Just to give you some idea - the air flyboard using a hose which he used in the France has Got talent final required 2 lorries each carrying two full size air compression units on their trailers, thats four in total, in order to keep him aloft.

We go from that, to no hose, and four miniature jets, and 5 minutes flights pulling high G's etc.
And?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 03:11 AM   #10
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,138
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
I will admit that my position is not looking good right now.
True.

Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Still lots of (way too many) strange and unlikely things about this whole story.
Not true.

Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Surprised the mainstream media has not covered this in the USA yet.
It has.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 03:37 AM   #11
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
And?
...yet he still claims to be involved in aviation, but does not understand that even a small turbine engine can deliver more thrust than a water jet.


espee

Using your reasoning, your garden hose (assuming natural pressure) requires the entire water reticulation infrastructure of the town in which you live, to allow you to squirt a column of water perhaps 30 feet in the air, if you are lucky, while a bottle rocket, with the same nozzle diameter as your garden hose, can easily shoot up to over 300 feet in the air, or more, and yet, you don't understand how this can be!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 21st September 2016 at 03:40 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:37 AM   #12
COLONEL
Sniper of the Galactic Universe
 
COLONEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The many voids of the Universe
Posts: 14,753
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
In one segment, about 1:00 in, it seems to me the vehicle and rider might be describing an arc from a long radius above him. Also, the rider is wearing a fall protection harness. In terms of flight testing, it would be reasonable for the pilot of such a device to try it out while attached to a safety point above the flight area, such as a helicopter. Like rock climbing while on belay from a top rope.

Presenting a test without mentioning a safety helicopter seems more than a bit dishonest.

So questions:
Fuel consumption required for the amount of thrust and run time
Type of turbines available for this application, various sizes, fuels and capabilities

If I can quickly Google up a random turbine off the shelf that might be capable, I'd expect an inventor to be able to find a suitable engine over what has supposedly been a 4 year dev process.

I cannot reject the reality of this video out of hand. But it seems fuel volume and use of an unmentioned safety helicopter remain in question.
I have just started to read this thread and if he was attached to the under side of a helicopter, I would think the down wash would blow him all over the place making a smooth flight almost impossible
__________________

Major Ashley-Pitt: In our experience, Americans are uncouth misfits who should be run out of their own barbaric country. Matthew Quigley: Well, Lieutenant...
Major Ashley-Pitt: Major. Matthew Quigley: Major. We already run the misfits outta our country. We sent 'em back to England.
COLONEL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:37 AM   #13
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
And?
(regarding high G's.)


Okay - I am guessing i used the wrong terminology or something an this is why you are all asking 'when did he do high g;s)


In all of the videos you can see him performing impressive maneuvers, such as banking turns. Accelerating and decelerating. During some of these maneuvers he is pulling enough g's to rewuire banked over 45 degrees.

Not only is extra energy needed to change the trajectory in such a turn, but during the turn itself the jets are no longer blasting downards but up to 45 degrees off of vertical. Gravity is still in play so more energy is also needed to stop the device from falling that were it level.

All of these actions therefore would require a lot more fuel and energy than simply hovering.

His latest video for instance shows very aggressive and bold flying.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:45 AM   #14
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,104
He cannot experience any significant lateral g-force or else he couldn't maintain an upright body posture and maintain control. Let's just get that out of the speculation now.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:46 AM   #15
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by COLONEL View Post
I have just started to read this thread and if he was attached to the under side of a helicopter, I would think the down wash would blow him all over the place making a smooth flight almost impossible
Good point. And very possible

Any such effect would vary on the length of the rope, however there is a theoretical limit to the length of a rope as rope has weight.

So I would imagine certainly some effect would be experienced.


I have watched helicopters removing tree trunks down a mountain quite a few times, and there was no obvious effect like this for those, but treetrunks are pretty heavy.

I have watched the Navy training pulling up and dropping off a guy several times for almost a whole afternoon ( on dry land which i thought was pretty brave) I don't remember seeing such an effect.

However. when franky stays still on the board, like when he waves at a crowd or lands, if he was under a helicopter we would expect to see his clothes ripple in the down draft a bit. As when he is stationary he will be below the rotors.

Also when he does this he is often near the crowd or the person on the landing platform, we would see the effect on their clothes too, unless the helicopter is ridiculously high,

Other things like sand and dust being blown around might also occur if he is close to the shore and when he lands his device etc.

I'll have to go back and look at the videos again with this in mind, but i think you might have just given some excellent evidence regarding disproving the helicopter theory.

Last edited by esspee; 21st September 2016 at 05:49 AM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:51 AM   #16
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by COLONEL View Post
I have just started to read this thread and if he was attached to the under side of a helicopter, I would think the down wash would blow him all over the place making a smooth flight almost impossible
I suggest reading further into the thread before opining. I no longer hold any doubts as to the veracity of Zapata Racing's claims.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:53 AM   #17
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
He cannot experience any significant lateral g-force or else he couldn't maintain an upright body posture and maintain control. Let's just get that out of the speculation now.
I agree

All g force will be downwards ( in relation to the flyboard) on the device at all times, or he loses control.

Kind of like on a bike going round a corner, all g's are downwards ( in relation to the bike).
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 06:04 AM   #18
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,172
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
(regarding high G's.)


Okay - I am guessing i used the wrong terminology or something an this is why you are all asking 'when did he do high g;s)


In all of the videos you can see him performing impressive maneuvers, such as banking turns. Accelerating and decelerating. During some of these maneuvers he is pulling enough g's to rewuire banked over 45 degrees.

Not only is extra energy needed to change the trajectory in such a turn, but during the turn itself the jets are no longer blasting downards but up to 45 degrees off of vertical. Gravity is still in play so more energy is also needed to stop the device from falling that were it level.

All of these actions therefore would require a lot more fuel and energy than simply hovering.

His latest video for instance shows very aggressive and bold flying.

A balanced turn requiring a 45 degree bank angle means that the horizontal acceleration toward the center of the turn is equal to the pull of gravity, which is of course 1g. The net force experienced by the flyer (along the axis of his legs and body) would then be 1.41g.

That's more than starting an up trip in an elevator (most elevators, anyhow) but less than even the tamest roller coasters. I wouldn't call it "high g."

However, the description is understandable, in that a fixed-wing aircraft doing the same maneuvers would have to do them at much higher speed (to generate sufficient lift and torque to perform the maneuver), and in that case high g accelerations would result.
__________________
A zmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 06:12 AM   #19
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
For arguments sake - I am going to go full retard here.



"The FAA is aware of the operation, and is looking into it," writes Kathleen Bergen, an FAA spokeswoman in a statement. "The device/operator did not have an FAA-issued experimental aircraft certificate, which is required for an experimental aircraft."

At no point did she state that he actually had an experimental aircraft.
Just that he did not have a certificate. And that such certificates are required for experimental aircraft.
At no point does not state that he has an experimental aircraft, or that he had used one.
So really this is neither here nor there ATM.

I'd love to see the exchange or reply in full.

Last edited by esspee; 21st September 2016 at 06:14 AM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:14 AM   #20
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,224
Originally Posted by The Verge
Oh, no. Its impossible to ride it before you have a minimum of 50 or 100 hours in the original Flyboard with water. Also, if you want to try it, you must have seven lives, like the cat. [Laughs]
There it is, proof solid the Flyboard Air is a fake!

Everyone knows cats have NINE lives. So Zapata is signaling to everyone the lie of it all.

Checkmate believers!
__________________
- "Who is the Greater Fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the Fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:15 AM   #21
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 747
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A couple of questions

Is the Flyboard Air an aircraft?

If it is, then why isn't a Flyboard an aircraft? Why isn't a ground effect vehicle such as this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ih_KBru6Co

....an aircraft. At least this actually has wings and uses lift, and this requires no certification from the CAA.


ETA: FAA Regulations (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations) General Definitions Section 1.2

Aircraft: Means a device that is used or intended to be used in the air

but FAA Regs Part 103 covers JetPacks and Ultralights, which require no certification, and no pilot's licence.

I don't see how Flyboard Air could be considered an ultralight under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 103.

It wouldn't meet 103.1 Applicability. because it is powered and is (purportedly) capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight.

Questionable is also how much fuel is in that backpack- it can't exceed 5 U.S. gallons under FAR 103. That's a big looking backpack...

If an ultralight, there are also noise considerations.

Also, if it were an ultralight, there are issues that it's not supposed to operate over "congested" areas.

Also questionable issue regarding if it were an ultralight for sport or recreation, aerial advertising might be a violation? Franky Zapata is wearing some business logos (advertising?) on his racing suit, such as Ford.

Not sure if this applies from Advisory Circular AC No: AC 103-7 page 14:

(5) Participation in Airshows and Events. You may participate in airshows and other special events where persons are charged for viewing those events, so long as you receive no compensation for your participation. This does not hold true where you stand to benefit directly from the proceeds as the organizer or producer of the event.

For whatever it's worth: Advisory Circular Number AC 103-7. Date 1/30/84.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.

Last edited by Ernie M; 21st September 2016 at 07:33 AM. Reason: added a word for clarity.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:21 AM   #22
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
There it is, proof solid the Flyboard Air is a fake!

Everyone knows cats have NINE lives. So Zapata is signaling to everyone the lie of it all.

Checkmate believers!
I should include this detail in my next video.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:33 AM   #23
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
I don't see how Flyboard Air could be considered an ultralight under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 103.

It wouldn't meet 103.1 Applicability. because it is powered and is (purportedly) capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight.

Questionable is also how much fuel is in that backpack- it can't exceed 5 U.S. gallons under FAR 103. That's a big looking backpack...

If an ultralight, there are also noise considerations.

Also, if it were an ultralight, there are issues that it's not supposed to operate over "congested" areas.

Also questionable issue regarding if it were an ultralight for sport or recreation, aerial advertising might be a violation? Franky Zapata is wearing some business logos (advertising?) on his racing suit, such as Ford.

For whatever it's worth: Advisory Circular Number AC 103-7. Date 1/30/84.
On the other hand he only flies above water and just few feet above water.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:35 AM   #24
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 747
I don't know enough to comment. Have to defer to FAA for decision making.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:38 AM   #25
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,104
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
On the other hand he only flies above water and just few feet above water.
More than just a few feet.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:39 AM   #26
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
I don't see how Flyboard Air could be considered an ultralight under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 103.

It wouldn't meet 103.1 Applicability. because it is powered and is capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight.

Questionable is also how much fuel is in that backpack- it can't exceed 5 U.S. gallons under FAR 103. That's a big looking backpack...

If an ultralight, there are also noise considerations.

Also, if it were an ultralight, there are issues that it's not supposed to operate over "congested" areas.

Also questionable issues regarding if it were an ultralight for sport or recreations, because Franky Zapata is wearing some business logos (advertising?) on his racing suit, such as Ford.

For whatever it's worth: Advisory Circular Number AC 103-7. Date 1/30/84.
5 gallons would be pretty close to the limit for Franky i would say but not impossible. Given that with four jets the max fuel he can use is about 5 liters a minute ( ignoring the fact that he uses 6 jets now) according to Smartcoocky)

His last flight was just under 5 minutes. (4:40 ish) NOt counting start up and wind down *


SO he could have done it with less than 5 gallons, but I would say if it is legit, he could be carrying more than 5 gallons for warm up and cool down and for redundancy. Like when flying hover-boards it probably better to have too much fuel than not enough I would imagine..



*( I beleive that generally people cool these jets down a little while by idling them for a while after use going by the videos i've watched )
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:42 AM   #27
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
On the other hand he only flies above water and just few feet above water.
This varies from country to country

Like some countries you can literally jump high enough to be under the local CAA jurisdiction. Unfamiliar with US FAA laws. But i know is some places even a foot would count.

Last edited by esspee; 21st September 2016 at 07:46 AM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:46 AM   #28
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Any of the new blood care to comment on the lack of safety clothes of teh guys on the launch pads?

The ones closest to the device should anything go wrong on take off or landing.

(experimental aircraft, hot jets, fuel lines etc etc)

THey like to wear shorts or loose trousers, and either trainers or they just go barefoot.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORSrt1BAOk4

ANy opinions about that?
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:00 AM   #29
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,104
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
ANy opinions about that?
They are dressed for a potential mishap where Franky falls into the water while attached to the device and they have to immediately do a water rescue while swimming.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:30 AM   #30
COLONEL
Sniper of the Galactic Universe
 
COLONEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The many voids of the Universe
Posts: 14,753
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
I suggest reading further into the thread before opining. I no longer hold any doubts as to the veracity of Zapata Racing's claims.
Well seeing as I worked with the loading and lifting with helicopters in the Army I felt qualified to comment about the Down wash and a person hanging under a chopper
__________________

Major Ashley-Pitt: In our experience, Americans are uncouth misfits who should be run out of their own barbaric country. Matthew Quigley: Well, Lieutenant...
Major Ashley-Pitt: Major. Matthew Quigley: Major. We already run the misfits outta our country. We sent 'em back to England.
COLONEL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 03:48 PM   #31
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,442
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
For arguments sake - I am going to go full retard here.



"The FAA is aware of the operation, and is looking into it," writes Kathleen Bergen, an FAA spokeswoman in a statement. "The device/operator did not have an FAA-issued experimental aircraft certificate, which is required for an experimental aircraft."

At no point did she state that he actually had an experimental aircraft.
Just that he did not have a certificate. And that such certificates are required for experimental aircraft.
At no point does not state that he has an experimental aircraft, or that he had used one.
So really this is neither here nor there ATM.

I'd love to see the exchange or reply in full.
Why would the FAA comment on a non-existent demonstration of a non-existent aircraft?
"The FAA is aware of the operation, and is looking into it..."
So the FAA have stated that an aircraft that falls under their authority was operated - e.g., flew.
Why would they investigate a non-existent "operation"?
You really are clutching at straws.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage

Last edited by EHocking; 21st September 2016 at 04:49 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:17 PM   #32
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by COLONEL View Post
Well seeing as I worked with the loading and lifting with helicopters in the Army I felt qualified to comment about the Down wash and a person hanging under a chopper
Great.

With regards to your experience working around or in the helicopters, what is your opinion on how high a helicopter would need to be to

A - not cause a problem with buffeting its load around
B - not disturb water it was over
C- not blow peoples clothes and dust etc around over the place below it.


Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable opinion.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:30 PM   #33
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Why would the FAA comment on a non-existent demonstration of a non-existent aircraft.
You really are clutching at straws.
Are FAA disputes public record?
Would they have to divulge to an American citizen if questioned by one whether or not this thing did indeed fly on this day and that an actual flight of an actual flyboard Air occurred in their opinion and knowledge?


If so I will see if i will see if I find an American to phone them up and get to the bottom of this. ( I am not an American)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKM1AAzeRCg

Last edited by esspee; 21st September 2016 at 04:46 PM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:08 PM   #34
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
There it is, proof solid the Flyboard Air is a fake!

Everyone knows cats have NINE lives. So Zapata is signaling to everyone the lie of it all.

Checkmate believers!
Not quite.

British cats have always traditionally had nine lives, but recent cuts in Government spending has led to suggestions that they want this reduced to only seven. Any such action would bring the UK in line with the accepted "Euro-Standard" of seven lives per cat based on parity among member states, where life sharing will operate between EU states. However, Ms Savannah Tabby, spokesperson for British cat lover's group, "Moggy" has spoken out against what she is calling "an unfair 22% reduction in the lives of British cats". Additionally, there are some fears that Greece is unlikely to make this new target and there have already been feline protests in Athens...

It is unknown at this time, what effect "Brexit" will have on this issue
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 05:47 PM   #35
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by COLONEL View Post
Well seeing as I worked with the loading and lifting with helicopters in the Army I felt qualified to comment about the Down wash and a person hanging under a chopper
Colonel

You quoted a five month old post.

Jrrarglblarg and the rest of us (with the exception of those who are climbing down the rabbit hole to meet the Mad Hatter) have moved on a long way since then.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 06:06 PM   #36
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,079
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Find black ones and I'll concede that point.
Since a tie rated for 500oF isn't an established requirement, I'd think any of the standard high-temperature ties would suffice--available in black.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 06:20 PM   #37
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,442
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Are FAA disputes public record?
Would they have to divulge to an American citizen if questioned by one whether or not this thing did indeed fly on this day and that an actual flight of an actual flyboard Air occurred in their opinion and knowledge?


If so I will see if i will see if I find an American to phone them up and get to the bottom of this. ( I am not an American)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKM1AAzeRCg
Here is the email contact page for the region that would go to the FAA officer responsible for for the email that is quoted in the FOX news service article we are discussing.

Please feel free to copy your email to this thread.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage

Last edited by EHocking; 21st September 2016 at 06:21 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 06:25 PM   #38
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Here is the email contact page for the region that would go to the FAA officer responsible for for the email that is quoted in the FOX news service article we are discussing.

Please feel free to copy your email to this thread.
Someone already contacted them. They did not know either way.

AT least this confirms one thing - Franky did not contact FAA prior to this event. Prior to flying an experimental aircraft over US soil and being a foreign citizen he did not contact the FAA.

Wow.


( is that because it never happened in real life? who knows, interesting though - almost as interesting as there only being 2 news stories in the whole of the USA covering this event - and only one mentioned the flyboard air. Meanwhile the most popular FB video currently has achieved 40 million views in 3 days.)

Last edited by esspee; 21st September 2016 at 06:36 PM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 06:51 PM   #39
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,442
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Someone already contacted them. They did not know either way.
Would you quote the exchange?
I don't recall anyone here do this.
Quote:
AT least this confirms one thing - Franky did not contact FAA prior to this event. Prior to flying an experimental aircraft over US soil and being a foreign citizen he did not contact the FAA.
Why would he - according to you the aircraft doesn't exist.

OK, snideness aside, so you now concede that the aircraft
1. exists
2. flew.

Evidenced by your own statement,
"AT least this confirms one thing - Franky did not contact FAA prior to this event. Prior to flying an experimental aircraft over US soil "
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 07:34 PM   #40
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Would you quote the exchange?
I don't recall anyone here do this.Why would he - according to you the aircraft doesn't exist.

OK, snideness aside, so you now concede that the aircraft
1. exists
2. flew.

Evidenced by your own statement,
"AT least this confirms one thing - Franky did not contact FAA prior to this event. Prior to flying an experimental aircraft over US soil "
I see what you did there. Very good.

That is why i came here.

You don't need to be smart yourself, you just need to discuss with and bounce things off smart people. And i think you are smart.

In this thread i have outsourced the intelligence and knowledge base that will be needed to break this hoax to you guys. Thanks for playing along. You will all be credited if i break this story.

Regarding who contacted the FAA. After posting in this thrread about the FAA and how an American might be able to find out blah blah blah.....well, i wasted no time. I contacted a person in the USA. They spoke to the FAA. The FAA said to them that they did not know either way.

Phone the FAA yourself if you are unsure.


p.s don't think for a second i am kissing you guys's ass. Its been known for decades that intelligent smart people can be some of the dumbest MF'ers on the planet ( at times). And often the easiest to fool.


Last edited by esspee; 21st September 2016 at 07:45 PM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.