How does one know two people impersonally?

good point. I guess one could know of two people indirectly, but in my case I know them directly. One broke his neck.

I used to work with the first glider pilot in Australia to use a parachute. He'd flown bombers in WW II and aerial photography in (then) Dutch East New Guinea, and never had to use one, He was only wearing his because the rules of the competition required it. After that, he always wore one. He may have been the first one you mentioned.
As he was descending, he tried to remember all the things he'd been taught more than 20 years before. Just before he landed, he remembered to spit his false teeth out.

Here we go again…

Putting this potential balloon at 45k feet (avg of the reported height between FL400-500) and running NOAA's HYSPLIT model shows a very interesting future trajectory over the next 48 hours for an object being steered by the wind.

Right over Hawaii.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....896d201f53.png
​​​​​​​

Aviation content:

Twitter

Wow...it's not often you see a U2 at low level. I bet the pilot was wondering why he couldn't see both coasts.

I like that the U2 pilot used his own plane's shadow for scale.

4G Inverted by any chance??? :oh: :} := :E

Slightly better version from the BBC News article:
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....684df1c492.png
From https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64735538

Edit: higher resolution version here on Twitter:

More here https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...m_medium=email

Smooth

The RAF Vulcans being special in that regard was always a myth. A large number of the hundreds of SAC bombers (B-47s, B-52s, B-57s) also penetrated the NORAD air defences during those same Operation Sky Shield exercises of the early '60s, the first large-scale tests of NORAD/SAGE after it's initial deployment. The illusion that the Vulcans achieved something unique is owed to the fact that their success was leaked by someone to the British press shortly thereafter (in1963) who in turn happily crowed about it, while on the other side of the pond OPSEC and classified materials relating to the capabilities of the then-new North American air defence system were taken far more seriously, for obvious reasons. Thus, for the next 35 years the perception that the RAF Vulcans succeeded where others had failed persisted, grew in the re-telling, and became part of British aviation lore. Any magazine article, program, or discussion about the Vulcan was almost sure to mention this "amazing" fact.


Then, in 1997 the Sky Shield files were de-classified and that particular RAF Vulcan myth got popped like a Chinese spy balloon: The files showed that, in 1961, the initial NORAD/ADC system was very porous over such a large geographic area vs a large-scale, coordinated attack employing hundreds of bombers employing all manner of tactics and available ECM not because a few RAF Vulcans had succeeded but because the true scope of success by the SAC bombers as well. In fact, the majority of bombers flying SAC and RAF profiles/formations were successful (NORAD/ADC had better success picking-up/intercepting those assigned to fly Soviet profiles/formations). Obviously, it would be pretty stupid, even traitorous, to let your Cold War adversaries know the full extent of that weakness and fortunately it wasn't revealed at the time despite those publicly trumpeting the handful of RAF Vulcans. Once the full scope was revealed in 1997 however, instead of pride in the Vulcan affair there should instead be a dose of embarrassment for the leak plus for the decades of glorifying a success that was, in reality, not uncommon for all bomber types and crews during Sky Shield.


Of course, all of the above occurred when JFK was president. During the following 6 decades, NORAD has mostly likely managed an upgrade and tweak or two, so I doubt the balloon is like the Vulcans at all.

A bit of closure from the i. Seems it wasn't spying after all.

Remember the furore seven months ago when what was described as a Chinese spy balloon passed over the United States until it was finally shot down by US fighters on 4 February over the Atlantic, from which its wreckage was later dredged up by the US navy. The US-China confrontation escalated significantly as Republicans criticised the White House for failing to shoot it down earlier.

But last weekend, the retiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said that the alleged spy balloon was not, in point of fact, spying, having most probably been blown off course by the wind when approaching Hawaii.

In contrast to the previous uproar, American politicians and media scarcely reacted when Milley told CBS News last Sunday that the balloon was not spying. “The intelligence community, their assessment – and it’s a high-confidence assessment – [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon,” he said.

What was the balloon doing over the US, having got there by way of Alaska and Canada? Milley had a prosaic explanation, saying that it had been heading towards Hawaii at 60,000 feet when it was diverted by the wind. “Those winds are very high,” he said. “The particular motor on that aircraft can’t go against those winds at that altitude.”

When the errant balloon was examined by American experts they discovered that its sensors had never been switched on. Milley still described it as a spy balloon, though he added that “we know with a high degree of certainty that it got no intelligence, and didn’t transmit any intelligence back to China”.

So it WAS a spy balloon, but simply switched off!

And lost

…but found itself over some interesting sites.

Given the altitude and the potential area of observation, could you draw a serpentine route over the US that didn't?

Has there been any previous suggestion that the balloon had a ‘motor’ to counter winds? Seems rather improbable to me.

Good question; to stand still or slow down substantially the "motor" needs to produce at least 100kt, sustainable ............. the fuel burn [portmanteau phrase] would be big and would itself demand a lot of lift.
Just possible but very unlikely.

Is Hawaii still a part of the USA? Is it ok to fly suspicious looking balloons over just Hawaii?