User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:25:01 PM EDT
Now this is CLOSE! and no amount of ATC Bullshit is going to convince me otherwise!
 Although the planes appear extremely close in the photograph, the Civil Aviation Authority said no near miss had been reported. Photo: Barry Bland Planes 'seen in close encounter' The planes appear to be flying extremely close together Enlarge Image Officials have denied any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently flying perilously close together over east London. The aircraft - a DHL plane and a Japan Airlines jet - were reportedly seen flying over West Ham FC's Upton Park ground just after 1500 GMT on Saturday. The Civil Aviation Authority said no near miss had been reported and it was impossible to tell how close they were. DHL said both planes had landed at Heathrow with no safety lapses. The photographer who captured the image told the Sunday Mirror he started taking photos after seeing the planes apparently coming together "on a collision course". But a spokesman for DHL said photographs could be "incredibly deceptive". "In the picture, they look like they are close together but it doesn't mean they are. And in fact they were not," he said. "If there had been any incident of them being close together, there are all sorts of systems which would have gone off, both in the plane itself and at air traffic control - but there wasn't any report of an incident." The spokesman said there was no question that either aircraft had strayed from its proper path, which should mean there was a distance of some two and a half miles between them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660644.stm |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:26:22 PM EDT
[#1]
They wernt that close.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:27:08 PM EDT
[#2]
it was just mating season.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:27:44 PM EDT
[#3]
2.5 miles apart?
riiiiiiight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:28:25 PM EDT
[#4]
2.5 miles? my ass. you can estimate distance with a photo graph if there are known factors in the photo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:28:25 PM EDT
[#5]
I can only imagine the flood of invectives coming from the cockpit of that rear bird!
 ETA:
BULLSHIT! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:29:02 PM EDT
[#6]
they were refueling..... yeah, thats the ticket!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:29:58 PM EDT
[#7]
Is that a small 737 DHL and a much larger wide-body JAL?
If so, they probably are quite a distance apart. But I doubt 2.5 miles!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:30:25 PM EDT
[#8]
I would say… There is damn little separation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:30:30 PM EDT
[#9]
The high plane is a 777. They're so huge that distances can be deceptive. I saw one once and thought it was a close 737. I think they could easily have adequate vertical seperation in that pic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:34:04 PM EDT
[#10]
777 - 209ft, 737 - 138ft... That scales not far off for that picture at a quick eyeball.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:36:23 PM EDT
[#11]
There is no way those two aircraft are 2.5 miles apart. They're barely 100 YARDS apart. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:36:33 PM EDT
[#12]
What is minimum vertical seperation? Isn't it 1000 feet? As long as minimum vertical seperation is maintained the lateral distance can be less than minimum.
Telephoto lenses compress depth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:42:23 PM EDT
[#13]
I was flying from West Palm to Tampa on Southwest and as we went out over the ocean I saw something moving off in the distance and then I recognized it to be another jet. It looked like we were on an crossing pattern and it got so close to use that I could see the pilots in the cockpit. They passed directly under us and everyone on the left side of the plane gasped as it went under. I was shocked at how close it was. I still remember that it was a Continental plane and I also remember the pilots looking up at us. I really should learn to sleep on flights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:42:46 PM EDT
[#14]
2.5 miles? PFFFFFT......I'd say it looks closer to 2 if you ask me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:42:47 PM EDT
[#15]
The engine nacelles on the 777 are the same diameter as the fuselage of the 737. Looks to me like the 777 is at least 1000 ft above the 737. All you need is 1000 ft even in cruise flight as far as vertical separation goes. The 2.5 miles is lateral separation from planes at the same altitude or on the same approach.
Think about this, lost of airports have parallel runways. You do NOT have to have 2.5 miles between those runways and ATC can have planes landing and departing on parallels with no problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:46:47 PM EDT
[#16]
I think the lower plane might be an A320. See the "canoes" under the wing? Those are flap track fairings (say that ten times fast). A 737 doesn't have that many.
If that pic was taken over London, they're both being watched very closely by Heathrow or Gatwick's approach control. If they were too close, all kinds of alerts would be going off in both airplanes as well as at the controller's station. A little airplane straying into the wrong airspace and not having what's called a TCAS would be much more likely to make a close pass than two commercial jets. The way the sentence is constructed, I can't tell if it was the ATC spokesperson or the reporter who wrote the artical that said they were 2 1/2 miles apart. Whoever, it was just some hired mouthpiece who doesn't understand the difference between lateral and vertical seperation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:52:40 PM EDT
[#17]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:52:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Here's a good article about aircraft separation here in the US
http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183213-1.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:53:15 PM EDT
[#19]
A telephoto lens can make two or more thing slook like they're glued together.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:53:28 PM EDT
[#20]
If those planes were as close together as it looks in the photo, wouldn't the rear plane suffer from some sort of lift loss from cavitation. I seem to remember a great deal being made about that a while back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:54:52 PM EDT
[#21]
Zoom lens, play with one and you'll learn that a pic like that is deceiving. Like that pic of Dick Butkus standing over a guy who had a spinal injury on the field, making Butkus look like a true villian. Turns out Butkus was like 50 yards away from the guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:55:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Uh, what? The only danger I can see would be from wingtip vortices. The 777 is considered a heavy, IIRC. I'll have to look in my FAR/AIM to be sure. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:56:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Not cavitation, but wake turbulence. Its basically flying into two tornados coming off the wingtips.
In the article I posted, pay special attention to the section titled "Cleared for the Visual" When a controller tells a pilot to "maintain visual separation" that pilot can fly as close to the other aircraft as he feels like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:57:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Reminds me of pulling in and out of NAVSTA Charleston. Going under the Hwy 13 bridge, while looking up at the mast, well you'd think you were about to hit the bridge every time. In truth, there was plenty of seperation. I would hazard a guess a similar effect is happening here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:00:53 PM EDT
[#25]
If it's an a320, the listed length is 123feet vito listed the 777 as 209 feet If these are correct, the a320 is 58% of the size of the 777 Opening the pic and measuring in photoshop, the 777 measured 5.084, and the 320 measured 3.987 So in the picture, the A320 is 78% of the size of the 777 There has to be some math whiz out there that can take this numbers and approximate a distance between the two planes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:02:39 PM EDT
[#26]
What plane?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:02:52 PM EDT
[#27]
I agree. That is less than 100yds |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:11:27 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:15:12 PM EDT
[#29]
I was just gonna point out the same thing. Have a book on Boeing aircraft and they had a 737 pull right up to the engine of a 777 and what do you know... same diameter!! so the pic is decieving. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 11:23:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Nope, ain't buying it!
When the planes are so close the pilots can wave to each other that's Waaaaay too close in my books.... I'll carry on avoiding flying thank you.  ANdy |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:20:14 AM EDT
[#31]
This explains your misplaced confidence in IRST. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:25:59 AM EDT
[#32]
Well, if that's an optical illusion, it's a very good one!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:28:35 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:33:51 AM EDT
[#34]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:38:51 AM EDT
[#35]
I was gonna call BS on ATC, but now I'm not so sure. I didn't know telephoto lenses could create illusions like that. Hmmm....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:43:22 AM EDT
[#36]
It's all a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:48:50 AM EDT
[#37]
Indeed! And my 'perspective' is..... that don't look safe.... ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:53:48 AM EDT
[#38]
The press release contradicts the cockpit voice recordings:
DHL captain> SHIT! DHL co-pilot> WTF? DHL captain> Where the hell did he come from? JAL captain> You wrike wipe nose fryboy? JAL co-pilot> You fry nice. We call you Top Gun Tom Cruise now chop chop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:01:07 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:06:02 AM EDT
[#40]
Bwaaaa ha ha ha
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:14:40 AM EDT
[#41]
These are quick numbers and may not even by correct but I find approximately 135 feet linear distance between the planes assuming a typical digital zoom camera with the zoom at 3X, using the Cannon A95 on my desk to get the angle of view. If a more telephoto lens was used the planes are further apart. Kent |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:43:52 AM EDT
[#42]
That’s actually a DHL Airbus A300B2-200F freighter (it’s a widebody). The other aircraft is a JAL Boeing 777-300. Here are their respective specs (hope this helps):
A300B2-200F Wingspan: 147ft 1in Length: 175ft 11in Height: 54ft 3in 777-300ER Wingspan: 199ft 11in Length: 242ft 4in Height: 60ft 9in * Edited to say "777-300ER" instead of "-300LR". Also added "Boeing" just to be consistent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:59:44 AM EDT
[#43]
Need to know the distance to the planes for a proper estimate. It comes out to separation = .07*distance to the Scarebus. So to maintain 1000 feet separation, they would have had to been at 14,000 feet; which if they were at altitude, they probably were. This is using TLwrench's figures for the A300; the 737 would be even further off. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:01:48 AM EDT
[#44]
 Heres another one |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:02:12 AM EDT
[#45]
WTF, are they serious. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:08:34 AM EDT
[#46]
It would not be uncommon for them to be that close if they were using parallel runways. What disturbs me is that they do seem close even accounting for plane size. The near one looks like a 767-200 to me. I think they ARE quite close. No big deal except the near one appears to be turning INTO the far plane. That's a little bizarre, especially given wake turbulence dangers.
ETA: Just ask Mav and Goose about wake turbulence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:14:25 AM EDT
[#47]
C'mon guys didn't any of you take a picture of you pretending to hold a fish that was actually hanging from a line way in front of you? It's the same thing with this picture the front plane is about half the actual size of the rear plane, the angle the picture was taken just makes it look way closer than it actually is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 8:12:18 AM EDT
[#48]
OH MY GOD, LOOK OUT!!!!!!!!  Good example BTW, |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 11:22:39 AM EDT
[#49]
Using these figures I get a separation of 50 feet due to the reduced ratio between the airplanes sizes. This of course is assuming a standard digital camera zoom of 3X. Kent |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 11:24:14 AM EDT
[#50]
If that photo was taken with the planes at 14,000 feet (nearly three miles away) it was with profesional level equipment and a profesional should know how the telephoto lens "compresses" space, therefor the pro is putting forth a fraud to scare the sheeple. Kent |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
