Near miss over The Hammers??? [Archive]

Gonzo

29th Jan 2006, 12:55

Quote from photographer:

I saw the planes coming together, from where I was sitting they looked very close.

Photo was obviously taken with a hefty zoom lens (500m at the very least, possibly 1000m as it was a professional football photographer), and it's very grainy; lots of foreshortening going on. Looks like a JAL B773 and a DHL A300.

The Mirror says that....

incredibly, it has not been classified as a near-miss

chevvron

29th Jan 2006, 13:09

Picture is definitely take with a 'long' telephoto making it look as though the DHL aircraft is almost touching the JAL. Anyone who's seen the photo taken at San Francisco with the 747 and 757 will know what I mean.
That photographer should go to Craven Cottage when Heathrow are on westerlies; you get a much better view with the helicopters on H3/H4 mixing it with 747's on 'collision courses' and they're almost 2000ft apart !

2 sheds

29th Jan 2006, 13:56

read it on the sunay mirror website

Must be true, then!

boredcounter

29th Jan 2006, 15:21

Was the footy that bad the fans turned to plane spotting for entertainment?:ouch:

West Coast

29th Jan 2006, 17:35

Isn't a near miss actually a hit them?

Jerricho

29th Jan 2006, 17:38

Sure is Westy, it's a term I can't stand hearing.

"Damn, they nearly missed" :rolleyes:

261A

29th Jan 2006, 17:54

Anyone got a link to this story?

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

29th Jan 2006, 18:22

All sounds terribly, terribly scary and I'm amazed they weren't all killed!!!!!!!!!!

TATC

29th Jan 2006, 19:22

heres the link - no pictures on it though
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16639684%26method=full%26siteid=62484%26headline =winging%2dit-name_page.html

captain_flynn

29th Jan 2006, 19:38

I hate the press so much. They kill public confidence in everything by killing their confidence in safety aspects.

PPRuNe Radar

29th Jan 2006, 19:48

Here's the pic ... 1000' vertical separation is all that would be required.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/uk_enl_1138567284/img/1.jpg

chrisstiles

29th Jan 2006, 20:06

Anyone know what planes were involved in this ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660644.stm

I'm guessing a DHL 737 and a JAL 777 ?

--
chris

foghorn

29th Jan 2006, 20:12

"Unknown traffic, 12 o'clock, 0 miles...." :}

BOAC

29th Jan 2006, 20:13

Check out http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=208698.

Moving you right now!:)

TheOddOne

29th Jan 2006, 21:00

That photographer should go to Craven Cottage when Heathrow are on westerlies;

The way Fulham are playing at home this season, should be quite worthwhile!!!

Cheers,
TheOddOne

ps for some reason, they've stopped referring to themselves as 'the Cottagers'...

Onan the Clumsy

30th Jan 2006, 00:52

I would have thought it was a very simple matter to work out exactly how close they were, seing as the aircraft types and therefore their dimensions are obvious.

The lower one appears to be in a slight turn which would make the arithmatic a little more complex, but the silhouette could be studied to get the bank angle to use as an adjustment, blah blah etc etc, I'm even boring myself.

It's just simple trignometry. If we can send a probe all the way to Mars, how hard can this be?

:8

Jerricho

30th Jan 2006, 03:18

Who remembers the Father Ted episode........

"Now Dougal, these are small........those are far away" ;)

Talkdownman

30th Jan 2006, 05:30

Yawn. Just skilful vectoring. Safe, orderly and expeditious..........

chevvron

30th Jan 2006, 06:21

The Odd One:
At least they beat Newcastle, and we had the pleasure of seeing Shearer get 'decked' twice in one minute just prior to his elbow 'accidentally' ending up in someone's face.
Tomorrow against Spurs is another matter though.

TheOddOne

30th Jan 2006, 07:31

chevvron

30th Jan 2006, 07:53

Todays Daily Wail has the surprisingly sensible comment that:
'Thankfully, however, it was merely a trick of perspective and the jets were not flying as close as feared'. The reproduction of the photo is much clearer as well.
But why do they persist in calling them 'near misses'?

steinycans

30th Jan 2006, 08:47

But why do they persist in calling them 'near misses'?
Because they still want to sell more papers than the next team.
Ive read a couple of books on journalisim and even submitted a couple of articles and the feeling i get about the theory of journalisim is this:
if you want to report something, you have to check 100% that it isnt as it appears at first ie: proofreading. If something looks amiss and you want to report it, you should make 100% sure that something actually is amiss. This is where all media companies involved in this nano-storm in a micro-teacup screwed up. If they called the appropriate authorities and they said nothing untowards happened, whats the point in reporting it?
as for the man who submitted the pictures, call me a cynic but far from wanting to inform anyone of anything useful, i think his first thoughts would have been 'twenty grands'.

edited to say:
if he had have kept watching them after taking the pics, he would have noticed they were, in fact miles apart.

Standard Noise

30th Jan 2006, 08:54

edited to say:
if he had have kept watching them after taking the pics, he would have noticed they were, in fact miles apart.
Yep, but if he'd tried to sell a picture from a few seconds later, he wouldn't have been able to ask for "twenty grands (sic)" Therein lies the point.

Mind you, the footie down 'ere must be good, I can do that with two planey things all day long, but no one bothers their arse to take piccies of my work!!!:mad: :mad: :{ :{

steinycans

30th Jan 2006, 09:37

Exactly Standard Noise
while i was trying to s### on the person who took the photos, the core flow of my 'disdain' was directed at the editors and companies that propogate this nonsensical, page-filling, reader-tricking, padding/rubbish/chaff, trash [breathe] which should have been fully discounted quite early on in even the greenest of journalists' investigation.

Then we get this chap/chapette come on here and say how its all unfair us blaming 'bad apples' of the press corps when its obvious this """incident""" made it to head office (the editor/subeditor for the bbc) and was passed off by them. Dont the editers have the final say as to what goes to 'press'? is this chap trying to rubbish head office personages as 'bad apples'?

ps: its only the warm-up season down here so ive got time on my hands to write stuff like this

Midland 331

30th Jan 2006, 09:45

<sigh>

Next we'll have the classic telephoto shot down 09R, five on the ILS 27L, with a 744 with tug crossing from T4 to the maintenance area.

"Carnage Just Seconds Away At Heathrow"

Or am I giving them ideas now?

331

steinycans

30th Jan 2006, 09:55

Or am I giving them ideas now?

They've probably already got the pics on file, waiting for another 'slow news day'.

Midland 331

30th Jan 2006, 10:01

So, were they both at LAM (does this correspond with Upton Park on the ground?), or just happened to be vectored?

331

AirNoServicesAustralia

30th Jan 2006, 10:33

The pedantic argument of whether to call it a near miss or a near hit, has been waged here on PPRUNE many times. It is called a near miss because they missed and they were near to each other. A near hit would be just that, they got really near to each other, so near that they actually hit each other. So I continue to argue that the term near miss is the correct term.

ukatco_535

30th Jan 2006, 10:38

Officials have denied any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently flying perilously close together over east London.

(taken from BBC)

What does not help is the first few lines of a 'news' report containing the above. It infers straightaway that there is a cover up and as such becomes sensationalist; which is after all, what sells news.

The use of the word 'officials' also makes Joe and Josephine Public get their backs up straightway - especially in todays climate of more and more alleged Governement/corporate cock ups and cover ups.

ukatco_535

30th Jan 2006, 10:39

AirNServicesAustralia

That is why we now use the phrase 'air miss', not near miss in the UK

PPRuNe Radar

30th Jan 2006, 11:00

That is why we now use the phrase 'air miss', not near miss in the UK

Or the term Air Prox (for about the last 7 years ;) )

steinycans

30th Jan 2006, 11:12

the funniest part was then the media person who come on here threatened to stop reading becuse of harsh treatment of journalists. (in R&N).

ukatco_535

30th Jan 2006, 11:33

PPPrune Radar

Thanks for that...

still half asleep when I posted that - it did not seem right at the time, but for some reason my brain just could not connect as to why.

I'd like to think it's because of my lack of them that I got the name wrong lol :ugh:

AirNoServicesAustralia

30th Jan 2006, 12:30

Yes well here in the Middle East we call it a reduction, which I think is quite cute. Still don't see the problem with near miss though, seems pretty clear to me, as I said, they were near, but they missed, it was a near miss. I would say that every day on my sector I have 200 air misses, most passed 10,000 ft apart and 20 NM abeam each other but they were air misses, now hopefully none of them were near each other, so I had no near misses.

GearDown&Locked

30th Jan 2006, 12:51

I've got a caption for this one:
"Scientists discover dog behaviour between planes - they seem to sniff their tales on a regular basis"

GD&L :ok:

Jerricho

30th Jan 2006, 15:43

One notices the R&N thread has been locked.........that's ashame as the discussion was just starting to get interesting seeing EAL401 decided to join in. Let me know if you make it over here EAL, I would love to discuss your interesting little proposal.

Gonzo

30th Jan 2006, 16:39

At 1503 the JAL was at FL100, the DHL at FL90 in the LAM stack. That was the closest they got.

Billy Onions

30th Jan 2006, 16:51

BBC News has updated this now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660644.stm. Spot the deliberate mistake - but it does name the glory boy. Ahhh Barry http://www.bluegreenpictures.com/perl/Cyan.pl?mode=photographer;ph_id=56 it's a crying shame that those 10 years of photographing sweaty people has taught you nothing about zoom and perspective. Either that or you're just grabbing at cheap hysteria and I'm sure the Mirror will have none of that nonsense.

Professor Yaffler

30th Jan 2006, 18:56

Despite being a bit miffed that the thread has been closed on R&N due to Moderator censorship...
I will continue...
In response to Christiles and Onan:
I reckon they are a DHL A300 and a JAL 777 346ER It looks too long for a 200 and the wing is slightly different. Feel free to correct.
Lengths 73.9m and 54.1m respectively.
The Daily Snail today 30.1.06 (dreadful rag IMO) has a better piccy which shows the length of both aircraft.
I measure 118mm and 158mm
giving a scale of 4.68 and 4.59 to one. The difference in scales being 98% (Aegean feel free to check please.)
There is a going to be some error due to foreshortenting due to perspective on the A300 though the angle is pretty small- maybe add 4mm and make it 4.43:1 However lets be conservative and call it 95%.
Altitude is about 10000-9000 feet according to ATC
Lets say from the orientation of the aircraft that the picture is taken from an angle to the horizontal of 45 degrees or above. (probably more) than the LOS distance must be no more than 14000 feet.
Which give a line of sight difference of 800 feet or less. Which at 45 degrees would be a vertical and horizontal separation of 565 feet. (Change the angle and as vertical increases horizontal decreases so it makes litle difference.)
Which is closer than I would like to be. (I have to admit I was expecting to prove the tabloids wrong.)
Maybe not all proximity incidents are even noticed let alone reported?
Anybody care to have a go at the calculation and try and spot any errors, I would be happy to be proved wrong. Apologies in advance if this is the case.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

30th Jan 2006, 19:29

I'm inclined to accept what Gonzo says and the matter should now rest.

DC10RealMan

30th Jan 2006, 19:35

What makes me wonder is the story reported here is, as we all know nonsense because we know something of the subject. How many times do we read things in the newspapers of which we know nothing and accept it as the truth (unless it is NATS News)

Married a Canadian

30th Jan 2006, 19:43

The DHL was VFR in Class D airspace and had the traffic in sight??

Jerricho

30th Jan 2006, 19:45

Tis Class A airspace round there.

Married a Canadian

30th Jan 2006, 19:54

I know I know.....just adding to the absurdity of it all.

Having read the posts on R and N and here and seeing how miffed Sunshine and others are at our contempt for the media and then asking if we could work in their proffession? I'd love to...they probably get paid more for a "near miss" than we do!

PPRuNe Radar

30th Jan 2006, 20:21

Which give a line of sight difference of 800 feet or less. Which at 45 degrees would be a vertical and horizontal separation of 565 feet. (Change the angle and as vertical increases horizontal decreases so it makes litle difference.) Which is closer than I would like to be. (I have to admit I was expecting to prove the tabloids wrong.) Maybe not all proximity incidents are even noticed let alone reported?

Professor Yaffler

You are welcome to post here and the ATC bunch are normally never shy at coming forward to explain things (but the truth might be less shocking than portrayed in the guter press ;) )

The minimum distance confirmed by radar recordings was 1000' vertical separation. Absolutely normal in a holding pattern :ok: and in most other parts of the sky.

NATS has equipment called Separation Monitoring Function which continually measures the vertical and horizontal distances between aircraft at all times. It is independent of the ATC controllers suites and will give an alert to the Supervisor if the parameters are breached. These parameters are smaller than the proscribed separation standards since there is some accuracy leeway, particularly in level occupancy by pilots, and numerous false alerts would ensue if it went off at the separation minima. The figure you calculate (565 feet) would fall within these parameters and if that had been the true vertical separation (and the aircraft were within a minimum horizontal separation parameter), then the controllers involved would have been filling in forms and having chats without tea and biscuits. You simply can't not notice an Air Prox event since Big Brother won't let you. And nor will the pilots who monitor their TCAS.

As was pointed out to the press by those in the know when quizzed at the time, there was no incident, because separation was provided as per the standards. No sensionalism can hype up the fact that it was a simple everyday event with no loss of any safety standards. Although some have tried to to sell their rags by trying to make it appear as a near catastrophe :sad:

RHagrid

30th Jan 2006, 20:30

Thanks for that explanation. But are you sure E watch were'nt on duty last weekend!!

TATC

30th Jan 2006, 20:30

for those of you concerned about a cover up just wait for the relevant airprox book to be published and try and find it

TATC

30th Jan 2006, 20:31

Thanks for that explanation. But are you sure E watch were'nt on duty last weekend!!
Didnt think there was an e watch at LTCC - isnt V,W,X,Yand Z

TATC

30th Jan 2006, 20:34

"Which give a line of sight difference of 800 feet or less. Which at 45 degrees would be a vertical and horizontal separation of 565 feet. (Change the angle and as vertical increases horizontal decreases so it makes litle difference.)
Which is closer than I would like to be. (I have to admit I was expecting to prove the tabloids wrong.)"

Actually this statement is incorrect - changing the angle to increase the vertical separation and reducing the horizontal separation would enable us to achieve 1000ft between the aircraft and no horizontal separation. Low and behold we have Standard Separation between the aircraft and no cover up nor and senational near mid air collision at Heahtrow.

So changing the angle to increase the vertical separation and reducing the horizontal separation makes a BIG difference in the context of this problem.

Case solved

The Obvious Choice

30th Jan 2006, 21:16

Who remembers the Father Ted episode........
"Now Dougal, these are small........those are far away" ;)

Now it pains me to do it but I'm afraid Jerricho sums it up in one here. 'End of' as they say. Night night.

PPRuNe Radar

30th Jan 2006, 21:49

Lucky the photographer was looking the wrong way and missed this pair ;)

http://www.planes.cz/data/fotografie/60129_LQHCZHSW.jpg

Jerricho

30th Jan 2006, 22:01

Now it pains me to do it

:(

Is it that bad?

Seloco

30th Jan 2006, 22:28

Sorry TATC but we can't let that one past. If the line of sight distance is 800 feet then however much you change the angle the vertical separation can never be greater than 800 feet (at angle=90 degrees) - it's basic Pythagoran geometry!

Case not solved (on this analysis anyway...).

TATC

31st Jan 2006, 02:32

quite true i didnt really think that through

RAC/OPS

31st Jan 2006, 09:20

Near miss, air miss, oooh miss etc but why do the Americans call it a deal?

Midland 331

31st Jan 2006, 09:22

Maybe Barry Bland and his lens should spend a day at O'Hare or Kennedy...

331

Dop

31st Jan 2006, 09:22

PPRuNe Radar:-

"BA's choice of employing former Red Arrows pilots didn't quite work out as planned."

Dances with Boffins

31st Jan 2006, 11:33

Thanks for posting the second piccie Radar, I needed a new wallpaper for me computer.:ok:

paulo

31st Jan 2006, 19:07

Guardian ran this today, in the position it uses for bite sized "truth behind the news" pieces...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,,1698636,00.html

Professor Yaffler

31st Jan 2006, 19:40

Professor Yaffler
You are welcome to post here and the ATC bunch are normally never shy at coming forward to explain things (but the truth might be less shocking than portrayed in the guter press ;) )
The minimum distance confirmed by radar recordings was 1000' vertical separation. Absolutely normal in a holding pattern :ok: and in most other parts of the sky.
NATS has equipment called Separation Monitoring Function which continually measures the vertical and horizontal distances between aircraft at all times. It is independent of the ATC controllers suites and will give an alert to the Supervisor if the parameters are breached. These parameters are smaller than the proscribed separation standards since there is some accuracy leeway, particularly in level occupancy by pilots, and numerous false alerts would ensue if it went off at the separation minima. The figure you calculate (565 feet) would fall within these parameters and if that had been the true vertical separation (and the aircraft were within a minimum horizontal separation parameter), then the controllers involved would have been filling in forms and having chats without tea and biscuits. You simply can't not notice an Air Prox event since Big Brother won't let you. And nor will the pilots who monitor their TCAS.
As was pointed out to the press by those in the know when quizzed at the time, there was no incident, because separation was provided as per the standards. No sensionalism can hype up the fact that it was a simple everyday event with no loss of any safety standards. Although some have tried to to sell their rags by trying to make it appear as a near catastrophe :sad:

All I can say that relying on radar recordings and automatic monitoring is not nearly as much fun as working it out using trigonometry.
Any way, Just think of the jobs it would create.:ok:
Now where are my slide rule and log tables.

BALIX

31st Jan 2006, 20:11

Of course, they could be quite legally closer together than the much quoted 1000ft, given mode C tolerance. The DHL 767 could have been at FL92 with the JAL 777 at FL98, only 600ft apart. Indeed, the JAL could have been procedurally cleared to FL100 after the DHL had reported leaving it, dropped like a stone and reached 100 well before the DHL reached 90. Ooer!

Right, what is the Sunday Mirror's phone number :E

Pierre Argh

31st Jan 2006, 20:28

all those sums... Are you guys bored with Soduko?

Seloco

31st Jan 2006, 22:35

At last! Has Balix perhaps finally solved this geometric and emotional conundrum? He wrote: "Of course, they could be quite legally closer together than the much quoted 1000ft, given mode C tolerance. The DHL 767 could have been at FL92 with the JAL 777 at FL98, only 600ft apart."

This figure of 600 feet is close to the euclidian calculations of ProfYaffler and others, but is also presumably just outside the range at which the Separation Monitoring Function sounds its bells or whatever before automatically writing the relevant resignation letters for the guilty parties to sign.

But think what this means: those much maligned journalists who reported that the aircraft appeared to be closer together than the published separation figure of 1000 feet might actually have been right! If so, I wonder if those posters who were so quick to pour emotional scorn on the journalistic race will be as rapid with their apologies?

Crashing Software

31st Jan 2006, 23:48

SMF wouldn't have triggered as it works off the radar data - which quite clearly shows FL100 and FL090 (and 0.3nm laterally at the CPA). I've replayed the data and checked. You'll to trust me on that as, although I could post a screenshot of the replay, I'm not going to do that on a public forum with what's probably NATS proprietary data.

Captain McDuff

1st Feb 2006, 00:22

Hi Guys,

It is amazing what a camera can do! Out of curiosity, would this scenario have shown on the TCAS so the pilots were aware of where each other were?

Also, does anyone have a link to the picture mentioned on page 1 concerning a 747 and a 757?

Captain McDuff

YourFriendlyATCO!

1st Feb 2006, 02:49

There could, quite rightly, have only been 600ft separation between the two aircraft. But the replays clearly shows that there was 1000ft. Plus, anyone that is in the business knows that TCAS would be acting in this situation if they really were close, and not trying to get the DHL perfectly in formation beind the JAL!!!! I'm kind of getting the feeling though, that a lot of people wish they were closer. Why is that???!

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

1st Feb 2006, 06:54

<<If so, I wonder if those posters who were so quick to pour emotional scorn on the journalistic race will be as rapid with their apologies?>>

I don't think so, Seloco. Pilots, controllers and other aviation professionals have had to put up with far too much garbage from journos over the years; it just gets too tiresome.

Why anyone is even bothering to argue about how close they might have been I can't imagine. The radar playback says they were 1000ft apart. End of story. A thousand aeroplanes a day will be similarly separated over London. Are people going to argue that they all might be separated by only 600ft... C'mon..

Seloco

1st Feb 2006, 09:47

Sadly HD you are right, but then every profession has to put up with inaccurate and sensationalist journalistic reporting - t'is the way of the world. There are however many extremely good journalists who work hard to understand the topic on which they are writing, and are keen to get the right answers to the questions on aspects of that topic which they do not fully understand. They are unlikely to even ask these questions if the first reaction from professionals to that which they have had the temerity to write is to be described as the spawn of the devil, or worse!

The story in this case was actually rather simple, wasn't it: standard separation is 1000 feet; allowable tolerances can safely reduce this to 600 feet before warnings sound and systems kick in; holding patterns mean that several aircraft can be in the same vista of sky at the same time; viewed from 10000 feet below (with or without a telephoto lens) that can look, to a layman, extremely close. But, it is OK and always has been and the West Ham turf, old peoples homes and primary schools have all survived another day.

Ahh-40612

1st Feb 2006, 10:25

Everyone has missed the point!!
Did the ref give the JAL offside??
If so, did Hansen and Lineker agree with the decision on Match of the Day?

TATC

1st Feb 2006, 12:53

Just a thought about the mode-c tolerance.

The tolerance is for difference between the reported altitude (i.e that showing on the altimeter in the cockpit) and the altitude shown on radar.

If there was an error and the altimeter is showing FL90 then the mode -c would be between FL88 and FL92 (to be within tolerances

Conversley - if there was an error and it is between tolerances - if the Mode C is showing FL90 then the altimeter will be showing FL88-FL92 - Implying the pilot has levelled at a level inconsitent with his clearance.

chevvron

1st Feb 2006, 14:16

According to Crashing Software, the radar replay shows there WAS 1000ft vertical, so why keep arguing.
(Fulham 1 Spurs 0)

xetroV

1st Feb 2006, 18:46

http://www.kevinwilley.com/images/educational/telephoto/slide_truck_barn.gif
Says it all really.

Jerricho

1st Feb 2006, 20:03

Now THAT'S enought to give you a headache...................

;)

xetroV

2nd Feb 2006, 09:48

By the way: today I had a truly terrifying experience! There I was, quietly enjoying the view from my train window, travelling at a comfortable speed of about a hundred MPH, when all of a sudden hell broke loose: a high-speed train approached us head on, missing us only by mere inches! :eek:

The terror-stricken faces of the passengers in the other train were clearly visible; they are burned in my memory forever.

Of course the railways deny any wrongdoing, using their usual cover-up tactics. Well, they'll never see me on their trains again!

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

2nd Feb 2006, 11:57

xetroV.. Phewww, I know exactly what you mean. Sounds as if, thankfully, the driver, 35-yr old Fred Smith, with his scarf blowing back in the wind, was able to steer the train away from a disaster at the last moment thereby also missing a children's playground and the local old people's home... What a hero!

DW11

2nd Feb 2006, 12:28

Mirror exclusively reveals that aircraft landing at Heathrow are regularly within feet of missing the runway.

Professor Yaffler

2nd Feb 2006, 12:44

ukatco_535

2nd Feb 2006, 13:39

ProfessorY;

There have been several other threads on this site which have talked about this (now) infamous photograph.

I am sure you know this as you have posted on some of them!

You even started one - 'closed threads'. On that thread, before it was closed(!!) I posted 2 photographs to show how the camera deceives the eye. The link to the thread is below, mine is the second to last post, showing 2 photographs of a plant in a driveway, with a house behind. The plant was not moved between taking the photographs.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=208834

What I think you will find is that most people here are not hacked off at the ignorance of Joe Public, but more p***ed off at the blatant cynicism of the photographer who sold a photograph using sensationalism as his bargaining chip, when he knew full well why his photograph looked like it did.... foreshortening by zoom lenses is a basic fundamental fact in photography and lots of keen amateur photographers with a decent SLR and ALL professional photographers know about it.

The copy editor of the 'newspaper' (in the loosest terms) would also either be aware of it or would have talked to people on his staff who would be in the know, when he checked out the story.

There are losses of separation almost every day, be it due to controller error, pilot error, or equipment malfunction. Every one of these is investigated and logged. There are no cover ups; our industry is all too aware of the implications of screwing up, therefore we have an open reporting system, whereby we can learn from incidents that other people have, to try to make us aware of possible problems etc.

To any Moderator who must be bored by now, reading yet another thread about this non subject - any chance of going for a record amount of closures and doing the honour with this one?? :p :p

Seloco

4th Feb 2006, 08:41

Sorry UKATCO_535 but you are missing the point by patronising ProfY. Of course he, and many others on this thread, knows how a telephoto lens can appear to distort distances between objects - many of us are photographers too! What the Prof was trying to do was to show, by simple geometry (and it is really straightforward maths..) what the "infamous" series of photographs were ACTUALLY showing, rather than what they APPEARED to show. Inconveniently, ProfY's geometric analysis came up with a result that was at odds with what we are told the ATC tapes showed. The Prof was keen to understand why; that seems reasonable to me.

Incidentally exactly the same relative-scale analysis can be carried out on your two flower pot pictures; it proves of course that the distance between them and the far flower bed is the same.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

4th Feb 2006, 09:12

Seloco... But are any of the professional pilots and controllers on here really interested in ProfY's deliberations? I'm not. The radar recording proved that everything was safe; that's more than good enough for me. You could spend a whole lifetime photographing aircraft and "proving" they were dangerously close but pilots and controllers trust their equipment, not snaps taken by somebody who possibly had no knowledge of aviation. Even those with years of aviation experience cannot determine vertical separation from the ground using their eyes.

For Lordy's sake let this drop... it ISN'T a story.

Seloco

4th Feb 2006, 10:06

Sadly, HD, the deluge of emotional rantings from many posters on this topic, several evidently from "professional pilots and controllers", indicated an apparent unwillingness to acknowledge a properly analytical approach to disproving the press's populist promotion of a dramatic series of photographs. I think that is unfortunate, but you are right, this "story" is now well past its sell-by date and should be laid to Pprune-rest!