

Just in case you fall out of a plane without your 'chute - shrike
http://www.origin.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4344036.html

======
hendler
I've always wondered what I'd do. I imagined ripping off some clothes (pants
in particular, if I still had them) and creating just enough of a "parachute"
or flying squirrel effect that I'd be able to slow down to about 60mph and hit
the ground at 45 degrees instead of 90 degrees.

Inspired by, e.g.
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21240738.h...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21240738.html)

~~~
electromagnetic
Agreed, I imagine I'd remove my pants and attach them around my waist with my
belt, tying the ankles shut. Similarly I'd tie off the wrists of my shit (I
always wear a long-sleeved t-shirt when I fly, I'm naturally warm so a jacket
makes me hot and a regular t-shirt makes me cold) and hold that.

As another poster said, falling like you're hugging the top of a giant ball
can reduce your terminal velocity by an extra 5MPH, but it's unstable. However
with your pants acting like a drogue, you might be able to stay stable enough
to use it's effect.

I'd agree with you however, gaining lateral velocity instead of vertical is
perhaps key because 'tuck and roll' could probably save your life. It's also
worth remembering that the human body can survive more g-force through their
back than their front, so the 'tuck and roll' landing increases your odds.
Although carrying a backpack full of foam would be preferable if you wanted to
try the 'tuck and roll' landing.

~~~
vl
well, if you are going to carry a backpack full of foam just get a parachute
instead.

~~~
electromagnetic
Foam is easier to explain to security than a bag full of high-tension wires
and masses of canvas, which all could be damaged by debris and be rendered
useless where as foam still works. Plus, where's the fun?

~~~
mct
[http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1...](http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1147.shtm)

------
ShabbyDoo
"To slow your descent, emulate a sky diver. Spread your arms and legs, present
your chest to the ground, and arch your back and head upward."

You will fall slightly (5MPH-ish) slower if you instead arch your back and
arms in the opposite way, as if attempting to hug a large beachball. This
position is slightly less stable though, so you risk flailing around and
increasing your speed.

What the article did not discuss was any attempt at horizontal movement as a
way of plummeting into something safer than a parking lot.

~~~
mattmaroon
I've read previously that you can move up to 12 miles in any direction while
falling if you aim for it. Over most of America this gives you ample
opportunity to find a tree.

I've also read that you should come down in a sitting position on top of a
tree. Haystacks seem like they would be too hard to spot until it's too late.
A grain silo might be recognizable and have a thin enough roof to be helpful.

I suppose you could aim for the suburbs and hope someone has one of those
obnoxiously large trampolines.

~~~
rlpb
> I've read previously that you can move up to 12 miles in any direction while
> falling if you aim for it.

Skydiver here. You could manage a mile or two; no more. But both this and
changing your body position is quite a bit harder than you might think. You
have to push against the air in quite a counter-intuitive manner. A beginner
will just flail about and probably start spinning; especially without any
tuition.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
Yeah. Somebody who's really good at "tracking" (flying horizontally) can fall
at about a 45 degree angle. So, from a couple miles up, ...

Another thing not mentioned is that terminal velocity decreases as the air
gets more dense. So, if you fall four miles, you can't track four miles -- the
45 degree thing is based on dense air.

------
nobody_nowhere
The mantra I've heard among BASE jumpers is "if the chute fails, go in head
first" -- e.g., if the shit's going to go down, finish it quick instead of
ending up a mangled vegetable.

~~~
mattmaroon
If someone's hobby is throwing themselves off of high cliffs and buildings, I
think that would prevent me from ever accepting their advice about anything.

~~~
nobody_nowhere
Well, you could also look at it as taking advice from people with domain
expertise in hard landings :)

~~~
staunch
Or they had a hard landing as a child and have been trying to recapture the
experience ever since...

------
georgecmu
I've read about quite a few documented survival cases of shot down pilots
during WWII landing without a parachute. Pretty much all of them had the same
scenario: landing site was a steep slope covered in snow. Snow helped cushion
the initial impact, and the rest of the kinetic energy was dissipated during
the roll to the bottom of the slope.

------
mdasen
There's a similar post from a while back:
<http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/carkeet.html> (also at
<http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0103/freefall/>).

------
ComputerGuru
While very nicely written and a good read, I too was taken aback by "Lower
body weight reduces terminal velocity" - Physics 101 anybody?

~~~
carbocation
Only in Physics 101 is the article incorrect. Outside of Physics 101, we stop
assuming a vacuum.

