How close is acceptable???

[SquabblyLeader]

I would be interested to know how close 2 aircraft have to be, before it is classed as a near miss? I ask this, as I watched 2 747's flying nearly parallel to each other (200M - 300M) and on the same level, with a gap of 100m tail to nose max. I reckon they were at the bottom of a stack that builds over my home (Cowfold - Henfield, south of LGW). I estimated their height at 5-6k. This was on Sat 27 Aug @ 8.30 ish.

One 747 was a Virgin Atlantic, not sure of the other. I thought they maybe taking photo's??

Honestly they were very close to each other, this is the closest I have seen 2 civilian aircraft.

I have enjoyed reading this forum for many, many months, BUT do not feel qualified to post as not being a pilot myself.

[dusk2dawn]

"estimated their height at 5-6k" - whatever kind of k's you're thinking of you could easily miss 1000' or more of vertical spacing.

[evenflow]

I think you might be on to something there -try emailing the Daily Mail and see what they say

[SquabblyLeader]

I emailed a video clip to BALPA!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Maybe the second aircraft was a Condor?

This happens over my house every day, aircraft departing towards Clacton from Heathrow regularly fly right next to aircraft takeing off from Stansted- you can even see that they merge and then separate once again, must be made out some special ectoplasmic material that lets them fly right through, just like the green ghost "Slimer" in Ghostbusters.

[Retired Flt Eng]

fINAL 3

NOW; NOW:

[Scimitar]

evenflow is spot-on. The Daily Mail is the place for this exciting story.
Remember that piece they did about the 767 orbiting amongst the houses in Congleton some years ago, in reality at about 3000ft? They managed to get the captain fired for that. They won't want to miss this one.

[exvicar]

Had they have been that close, I believe that both crews would have filed an AIRPROX and the ATCO a report. Not entirely sure why you emailed BAPLA, what exactly are they going to do? Sorry to pour water on your experience but I really think this was a complete non event.

[splatt]

Concerning in flight proximity to other aircraft Rule 17 of the Air Navigation Order - "Rules for Avoiding Aerial Collissions" is what you want to read.

It doesnt specify any specific distances but I'm pretty sure that if the commander of either aircraft did feel that a risk of collission existed that they would file an AIRPROX.

In fact I'll paste a copy of the ANO's text below as its kind of in context under this thread, please excuse the lack of formatting. You can get your own copy in CAP393 from the CAA:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF

-----

Rules for avoiding aerial collisions
17 (1) General
(a) Notwithstanding that the flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it
shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible
measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft.
(b) An aircraft shall not be flown in such proximity to other aircraft as to create a
danger of collision.
(c) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), aircraft shall not fly in formation unless the
commanders of the aircraft have agreed to do so.
(d) An aircraft which is obliged by these Rules to give way to another aircraft shall
avoid passing over or under the other aircraft, or crossing ahead of it, unless
passing well clear of it.
(e) Subject to sub-paragraph (g), an aircraft which has the right-of-way under this rule
shall maintain its course and speed.
(f) For the purposes of this rule a glider and a flying machine which is towing it shall
be considered to be a single aircraft under the command of the commander of
the towing flying machine.
(g) Sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in
accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate.
(2) Converging
(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), an aircraft in the air shall give
way to other converging aircraft as follows:
(i) flying machines shall give way to airships, gliders and balloons;
(ii) airships shall give way to gliders and balloons;
(iii) gliders shall give way to balloons.
(b) (i) Subject to the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)(ii), when two aircraft
are converging in the air at approximately the same altitude, the aircraft
which has the other on its right shall give way.
22 April 2003
CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Section 2 Page 14
(ii) Mechanically driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are towing other
aircraft or objects.
(3) Approaching head-on
When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so in the air and there is
danger of collision, each shall alter its course to the right.
(4) Overtaking
(a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), an aircraft which is being overtaken in the air shall
have the right-of-way and the overtaking aircraft, whether climbing, descending
or in horizontal flight, shall keep out of the way of the other aircraft by altering
course to the right, and shall not cease to keep out of the way of the other aircraft
until that other aircraft has been passed and is clear, notwithstanding any change
in the relative positions of the two aircraft.
(b) A glider overtaking another glider in the United Kingdom may alter its course to
the right or to the left.
(5) Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome
Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 39, a flying machine, glider or airship while
flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows or ought reasonably
to know to be an aerodrome or moving on an aerodrome, shall unless, in the case of
an aerodrome having an air traffic control unit that unit otherwise authorises:
(a) conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that
aerodrome, or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and
(b) make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate.
(6) Order of landing
(a) An aircraft while landing or on final approach to land shall have the right-of-way
over other aircraft in flight or on the ground or water.
(b) (i) Subject to sub-paragraph (ii), in the case of two or more flying machines,
gliders or airships approaching any place for the purpose of landing, the
aircraft at the lower altitude shall have the right-of-way, but it shall not cut
in front of another aircraft which is on final approach to land or overtake that
aircraft.
(ii) (aa) When an air traffic control unit has communicated to any aircraft an
order of priority for landing, the aircraft shall approach to land in that
order.
(bb) When the commander of an aircraft is aware that another aircraft is
making an emergency landing, he shall give way to that aircraft, and at
night, notwithstanding that he may have received permission to land,
shall not attempt to land until he has received further permission so to
do.
(7) Landing and take-off
(a) A flying machine, glider or airship shall take-off and land in the direction indicated
by the ground signals or, if no such signals are displayed, into the wind, unless
good aviation practice demands otherwise.
22 April 2003
CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Section 2 Page 15
(b) A flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if the
runway is not clear of other aircraft unless, in the case of an aerodrome having
an air traffic control unit, that unit otherwise authorises.
(c) Where take-offs and landings are not confined to a runway:
(i) a flying machine or glider when landing shall leave clear on its left any
aircraft which has landed or is already landing or about to take off; if such a
flying machine or glider is about to turn it shall turn to the left after the
commander of the aircraft has satisfied himself that such action will not
interfere with other traffic movements; and
(ii) a flying machine about to take off shall take up position and manoeuvre in
such a way as to leave clear on its left any aircraft which has already taken
off or is about to take off.
(d) A flying machine after landing shall move clear of the landing area as soon as it
is possible to do so unless, in the case of an aerodrome having an air traffic
control unit, that unit otherwise authorises.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Squabbly.... you deserve a sensible reply. Splatt has provided details of the ANO but not of standard separation provided by Air Traffic Control, and the aeroplanes you saw would be under postive control from ATC. It's extremely unlikely that what you saw was a loss of separation, or "airmiss". If two aircraft got as close together as you suggest there would have to be major problems with a) the ATC system and b) the collision avoidance system on the aircraft.

In the holding pattern they have to be 1000 ft vertically apart and no horizontal separation. So your eyes have to differentiate between two objects 300 yards apart at a distance of well over one mile. You said they were around 5-6K high; I presume you mean thousands of feet? If the aircraft you saw were near the bottom of the stack they would be around 7-8000 ft. Outside the holding pattern they may be at the same altitude but in that case they would have to be at least 3 nautical miles apart horizontally.

It is exceptionally difficult to estimate the vertical distance between two aircraft. During my time in ATC I have taken numerous phone calls from people claiming to see something dangerous - even senior airline pilots have rung Heathrow to say they have seen an "airmiss" - one gent was adamant and said he would file a report! He was simply mistaken and there had been no incident.

[The Trappist]

Evenflow,

Sounds like you're mocking the afflicted (?) :)

[SquabblyLeader]

Thanks Splatt and Heathrow Director for your help.

[GrahamCurry]

You will see from my location that I live at the 'gap' on the approach to Newcastle EGNT Runway 07 where the military North - South corridor crosses. Approaching Civils have to be at 'at least 3500feet' whereas the military guys can (and do) alternate lower and higher. We HAVE had an actual air-to-air involving two military a/c (one landed at EGNT with a damaged tail whilst the other crashed after the crew ejected safely).
One day I saw a light GA (probably a Warrior) heading inward when a Tornado flew across (and slightly below) the GA. I suspect the GA pilot may NOT have seen the Tonka (due to the instrument panel). I 'phoned Newcastle to be told that only the relative crews or an ATCO could register an Airprox . . .
They were CLOSE - but obviously there was no collision.

[brockenspectre]

I walk my hound at early-o-clock in SE London/Kent, under the nothern arc of the BIG stack, and often observe a/c heading LHR-wards from the stack. Even knowing what Heathrow Director has said is the case, I just had to smile to myself on 24 August when I was taken aback to see a couple of a/c which had the appearance of being extremely close and realised just how easy it isn't to judge these things! In fact I mentioned it in passing on another thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=180741&perpage=15&pagenumber=332) :ok:

[jewitts]

You only have to look at this photo (Optical illusion) to see how close they can get!

http://coppermine.luchtzak.be/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=1&pos=-4012

[PaperTiger]

ISTR in the photo linked to above, the LH744 has an engine out and is doing a 'precautionary'. Note the rudder deflection !

[splatt]

Oi! Who Let the Yobs Out?

Annoying I know but I would like to point out to the negative posters on this thread that coming down on SquabblyLeader's question like the proverbial is hardly necessary. Perhaps you have too much free time on your hands? A well meant joke here or there goes down well but all you've succeeded in doing so far on this thread is showing the rest of us just how immature and thoughtless you can be. I'm pretty sure I speak for the silent majority on this forum when I say we want to read quality posts from one another not meaningless insult hurling. All of us are only human, and all of us were new to this game at some point in our lives, so personally I feel that a little tolerance goes a long way. If I don't like a post or can't contribute meaningfully I don't post - maybe next time you should too. I, for one, am laughing at you, not with you.

[Charly]

Don´t worry. The Runways are very close in SFO. And with a visual approach and "own" seperation it looks as it looks on the photo.

Don´t get too excited on the rudder, some rudder deflection is always normal (below 1500 ft)...

[PaperTiger]

Don´t get too excited on the rudder, some rudder deflection is always normal (below 1500 ft)...Hmmm, you drive 747s then Charly ? Maybe time for a refresher on when and how much rudder to use normally. :zzz:

Hint: Very, very rarely and very, very little. Or put another way, never and none.

[LGS6753]

To quote Roger Bacon...

'If you're the pilot of an airliner with a hundred souls on board, an air miss is when you see another aeroplane in the sky; but if you are training at Biggin Hill and you're used to sharing your approach with half a dozen others, an air miss is when you can read the other bloke's map.'

[Behindblooeyes]

Well said Splatt, I'm always astounded by the downright rude replies some postings get. Are we not trying to encourage folk to take an interest in our business? Shooting them down with facetious replies will not do that, nor will disparaging their lack of experience. All of us have much to learn from each other, even after many years experience.

If some of you joined in conversations you overheard in the pub with such an attitude you would probably (and deservedly) get a good slapping, so perhaps you could apply the same courtesy on here that you would to people in the real world?

[ComJam]

GrahamCurry

I've used the "gap" a lot, it's outside controlled airspace, we use it under VFR so it's the old see and be seen. Keep your eyes outside...