nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Near Miss

jamieh

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4660644.stm

...Scary stuff!!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RuggieBear

that's some optical illusion if they are supposed to be 2.5 miles apart:eek:

WhiteWashMan

near.......

far away........

/father ted mode.

rubadub

There are near misses all the time in the states. I remember being on a plane and the pilot saying that a plane may be visible and not to worry, looked like we just skimmed past it, he said the distance was some ridiculous amount, can't remember the number but it was like 100's of metres if not km!

bullrunner

doesnt 2 planes coming within 1 km of each other constitute a near miss??

lil-buttons

Jesus lads ye are scaring the bejesus out of me... I plan on going to Oz next yr and Im already ****t*n the plane journey!!!

Dooom

Strings tbh

Bluetonic

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.

Saturday 28th Jan 2006
FA CUP 4th round.
Kick off 15:00
West Ham 4 - 2 Blackburn

hmmmmmm :rolleyes:

Sleipnir

The pilots must have had a bet on that match.

fade2black

"In the picture, they look like they are close together but it doesn't mean they are. And in fact they were not," Ted said.

:v:

seamus

1000 feet = 333m. That would certainly make the picture plausible, but 333m seems very close to me...

hullaballoo

WhiteWashMan wrote:

near.......

far away........

/father ted mode.

Feck! :v: You got there first.

One of my mates was over in Toronto over the summer and was standing up at the top of a tall building, looking out at another tall building, which he informed his blonde friend was the tallest building in Toronto. She said it didn't look like it was taller, to which he said "That's perspective". So she turned to her friend and said "Oh my God, do you see that building over there? It's called perspective."

Rhyme

Naughty planes...

OMcGovern

lil-buttons wrote:

Jesus lads ye are scaring the bejesus out of me... I plan on going to Oz next yr and Im already ****t*n the plane journey!!!

Don't worry about it.
Those Ozzy air traffic controllers have a strict limit of 2 cans of fosters while on duty.

Rhyme

OMcGovern wrote:

Don't worry about it.
Those Ozzy air traffic controllers have a strict limit of 2 cans of fosters while on duty.

He who drinks Australian flies *hic* Australian...

No worries, that was a freak accident... Australia flight routes are fairly damn safe.

stag39

can someone more awake work this one out ....converging course at say 50knots per hour starting distance of 333meters at an angle of lets say 5 degrees how many seconds till the two meet!!!

seamus

stag39 wrote:

can someone more awake work this one out ....converging course at say 50knots per hour starting distance of 333meters at an angle of lets say 5 degrees how many seconds till the two meet!!!

It's actually not *that* simple. Well it is, it's geometry. You need to get the two lines of travel of the aircraft, in X,Y co-ordinate terms. Then you need to figure out the point at which those two lines cross. Last but not least, you need to figure out how long it takes plane A to get to that point, and where plane B will be at that instant in time.

Remember that if both aircraft are travelling at the same speed, and the aircraft above begins a dive, he will drop behind the lower aircraft (negating any acceleration due to gravity), because he is travelling slower on the horizontal plane.

Yes, it is rocket science

Actually, I worked it out (God bless excel).

Imagine the two aircraft are infinitesimally small points in space, travelling at around 800km/h. Aircraft A is at 100m (for the sake of the example), and aircraft B is at 433m. If aircraft B dips by 5 degrees, it will reach the same altitude as aircraft A after 17.316692 seconds, negating acceleration due to gravity. At this point, A will have travelled 3809.67224m, and B will have travelled 3795.091585m in the horizontal axis. That is, Aircraft B will be about 14.5m behind aircraft A. So they would collide (because an aircraft isn't a point in space).

Interestingly, if aircraft B took a much sharper dive, say 15 degrees, it would reach the same altitude much sooner (~5.9 seconds!) but it would be much further behind - around 39 metres.

JohnCleary

When I was on my way back from Cyprus to Ireland... I looked out the window and just saw a plane in mid flight! I was sh1ttin it!

To make things worse, it was the same area that those 2 planes collided 1/2 years ago... Scary stuff, that airspace must be busy

el tel

That picture was taken by a photographer at a football match (i.e. most likely using a lens of about 300mm - 500mm) and it illustrates very well what 1000 feet minimum separation looks like when viewed through such a long zoom lens. There's nothing new, strange or dangerous about the 'incident' at all.

CountryWise

Nobody can convince me those planes are a safe distance away! taking all factors into consideration surely they still shouldnt be that close!

franksm

I've been in two near-miss events myself, both of which were unreported although I didn't bother researching too far.

First one was upon landing at Stockholm - plane was taxiing slowly back to the terminal when all of a sudden the engines go full-power and the plane jumped forward. I looked out the right windo and saw that were were crossing a runway perpendicular - and there was a plane landing about 1/2 a mile away (which isn't a great distance away) all noise and bright lights. Nothing was said by the stewardesses although they were looking a bit put out.

Second one was on the way back from Seattle - had flown through the night and it was just after dawn, near the arctic circle and on a route that would take us over Scotland and down to Heathrow. I can't sleep on the plane, and had opened the window-blind on my left and just happened to be looking out - as our plane slowed down (you know the way when that happens that you feel like the plane has come to a full stop midair) momentarily as another plane (some sort of big fighter jet) just flew across the top of us at high speed. I watched for a while as its exhaust contrail went off into the distance. No-one else was awake, so wouldn't have seen it.

OMcGovern

Maybe they're being flown by the Red Arrows :-)

A few hundred feet of separation must be all they need for safety.
Usually there's a "stack" around an airport. It's the equivalent of a 3d multi-storey car park for planes. When there's a lot of traffic, they enter at the top, then spiral downwards. Takes a lot of practise to get the ticket in the barrier on the runway though :-)

Gordon

I was in a plane travelling over Scotland once and I saw a perfectly circular rainbow beneath me..

therecklessone

el tel wrote:

That picture was taken by a photographer at a football match (i.e. most likely using a lens of about 300mm - 500mm) and it illustrates very well what 1000 feet minimum separation looks like when viewed through such a long zoom lens. There's nothing new, strange or dangerous about the 'incident' at all.

Finally someone talks sense.

CountryWise wrote:

Nobody can convince me those planes are a safe distance away! taking all factors into consideration surely they still shouldnt be that close!

I suggest you never fly again so. Minimum radar seperation required in the London TMA is 2.5nm lateral or 1000' vertical (note: not a little from column A, a little from column

.

Flying into Dublin you could find yourself established in a hold with anything up to 9 other aircraft all seperated by 1000' vertical seperation, depending on traffic/weather conditions.

franksm wrote:

First one was upon landing at Stockholm - plane was taxiing slowly back to the terminal when all of a sudden the engines go full-power and the plane jumped forward. I looked out the right windo and saw that were were crossing a runway perpendicular - and there was a plane landing about 1/2 a mile away (which isn't a great distance away) all noise and bright lights. Nothing was said by the stewardesses although they were looking a bit put out.

Sounds nothing like a near-miss. You ever seen the set up at Newark? Crossing runways, departures off one runway with take-off clearances issued before the landing traffic on the other runway has passed the intersection.

Sounds like the 1st lander was slow to vacate the crossing runway and was asked to expedite by the tower controller so that he didn't have to issue a go-around to the 2nd lander. Of course, Swedish ATC regulations and/or local restrictions may mean that multi-runway ops are prohibited at Stockholm, but I doubt it. That being the case, tight but not a "near miss".

If you're really interested, try a trawl through this

goldilocked

Hey Seamus,

Surely in the real world there's an additional Z co-ordinate?

Or are you a flatlander?

seamus

goldilocked wrote:

Surely in the real world there's an additional Z co-ordinate?

Listen, I have better things to do then to spend all day recalculating for a third dimension.

Or at least I'd like to have...

Dooom

"Stewardess....there's a clown on the wing!"

goldilocked

Lol!

therecklessone

OMG!!!

They've welded a United 757 onto a Lufthansa 747!!!

galactus

seamus wrote:

(snip, snip)Imagine the two aircraft are infinitesimally small points in space

If that were the case then we wouldn't have nothing to worry about near-misses.

Boarding said infinitesimally small aeroplanes, would pose its own problems though. ;-)

OSiriS

Rocket Science isn't all that difficult once you get used to it tbh.