PDA

View Full Version : Close encounter over London?


aegean
29th Jan 2006, 20:43
Could that be so deceptive? Or is it doctored?
Can anyone throw some light?

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

pba_target
29th Jan 2006, 20:44
could easily be safe vertical sep on that, plus the fact that it's taken from a side angle, so although not much, there's still horizontal as well.

Avman
29th Jan 2006, 20:58
Another very slow news day for the gutter press. Absolute load of nonsense. It's quite simply what 1000 feet minimum seperation looks like on a long zoom lens. Now lets put this to bed straight away please! :mad:

Human Factor
29th Jan 2006, 21:04
The JAL aircraft is a Boeing 777-300 which has a wingspan over 30% greater than the DHL A300. Not as close as it looks.

bagpuss lives
29th Jan 2006, 21:05
Looks like a good 1,000ft to me.

headsethair
29th Jan 2006, 21:11
You've got to hope that our news media get a bit brighter. In the age of "citizen journalists" we've got to be aware that there are some scoundrels around who will take advantage of this to make money. "Barry Bland" the photographer must know darn well that this was nothing like a near miss. He's an opportunist on a clear day with a big lens - and an ability to distribute his no-doubt digital image quickly around the picture desks.

It only takes one sucker to print/broadcast/webcast it for others to call Mr Bland (or his agent) and this one frame could net him a few thousand in global sales before someone shouts "not a story!"

Evening Star
29th Jan 2006, 21:25
Impressive photo mind ... can foresee it doing the rounds in spoof email for years to come ... :rolleyes:

(Can see this thread being thrown to the wolves in Jet Blast.)

BOZZATO
29th Jan 2006, 21:32
Wow!

I wouldn't like to guess there seperation but they look incredibly close. Is it possible that the picture could be fake??

Would the TCAS system not warn the pilots? They both look as though they're climbing?? I'm almost sure if there was any danger of a collision that the pilot would've taken evasive action.

Regards

James

sinala1
29th Jan 2006, 21:43
BBC - British Bullsh*t Centre

Clearly a slow news day, and surprising that this even made a mention :hmm:

Perhaps the journalists would like to include VERTICAL as well as horizontal separation standards when reporting supposed 'near misses'...

As for the picture, well surely everyone here knows that appearances can be remarkably decieving

Tan
29th Jan 2006, 21:48
Another very slow news day for the gutter press. Absolute load of nonsense. It's quite simply what 1000 feet minimum seperation looks like on a long zoom lens. Now lets put this to bed straight away please! :mad:

I couldn’t agree with you more what a bunch of journalist nonsense.

TheOddOne
29th Jan 2006, 21:52
We used to get regular calls from concerned members of the public on particularly lovely mornings, like this morning was. When these calls are made 'with good intent' we used to investigate to make sure that there was in fact no LOS, then call them back, thanking them for their concern, but assuring them that following an inquiry, there was nothing to worry about. We've now got a whole department who deal with these and other issues such as noise, so we don't get so much now.

I always treat calls made with good intent that report anything safety related seriously; every now and again someone spots something that really matters, like bits falling off aircraft. I personally value contributions from spotters, they tend to know what they're talking about and can at least give you the reggie of the subject a/c! Of course, the FIRST thing you do is ask the caller for a name, address and contact phone number, then say you're going to call them back for more info. If the line suddenly goes dead, you got a hoaxer.

Now, as to cynically punting around a photo like that to journos desperate for an easy story with which to frighten a gullible public, no excuses, pretty poor show, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. The DHL alleged quote didn't help, either, failing to mention the 1,000' vertical separation (or maybe they did and the journos deliberately left it out so as not to reduce the impact of their story).

Cheers,
TheOddOne

Speedpig
29th Jan 2006, 21:54
There are no end of photographs like this on the various aviation web pages.
Perhaps Mr Bland neglected to advise the photo desks the size of his equipment. Surprised the various editors didn't take foreshortening into account before they published.
Mind you, there used to be a plethora of "near disaster" reports in the Mail whenever an aircraft did a standard go around, anywhere:E .
Glad the orphanage was saved again.

SP

goinggrey
29th Jan 2006, 22:11
Clearly we can see that its the new ariticulated aircarft, AB3979!
The trailor doing its damnest to avoid the wake in all axises

RealFish
29th Jan 2006, 22:21
I assume the Barry Bland referred to is the sports photographer who I guess was covering the West Ham v Blackburn game at the aforementioned Upton Park in which case he would be using a very high spec digital camaera and a very long lens (probably 300mm possibly even 500mm given that he is begining to loose background definition).

Barry will know that such lenses compress perspective dramatically and that the real separation of the aircraft is significant (probably very much more than the 1000 ft mentioned above).

Naughty Barry, where is your integtity?

Read all about Barry Bland;
http://www.bluegreenpictures.com/perl/Cyan.pl?mode=photographer;ph_id=56

Ron & Edna Johns
29th Jan 2006, 22:22
Now if it'd been a couple of -400's in the LAM hold, above one another, 1000' apart, and both turning at the end of a leg, then it'd be starting to get a little close! I remember from a previous life sitting like that above a BA -400 one clear winter's morning, doing a few laps, and was impressed each time as his winglet came up towards us! What a beautiful sight - just wish I'd had a camera handy.

I wish this bloke hadn't had a camera handy.....

p.s. Well spotted, RealFish. Well spotted indeed.

RealFish
29th Jan 2006, 22:24
I assume the Barry Bland referred to is the sports photographer who I guess was covering the West Ham v Blackburn game at the aforementioned Upton Park in which case he would be using a very high spec digital camaera and a very long lens (probably 300mm possibly even 500mm given that he is begining to loose background definition).
Barry will know that such lenses compress perspective dramatically and that the real separation of the aircraft is significant (probably very much more than the 1000 ft mentioned above).
Naughty Barry, where is your integtity?
Read all about Barry Bland;
http://www.bluegreenpictures.com/perl/Cyan.pl?mode=photographer;ph_id=56


That should have read INTEGRITY, unless of course he works for the Sun

notdavegorman
29th Jan 2006, 22:34
Guys, why not tell the BBC what you think about this 'story'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3990000/newsid_3993900/3993909.stm

spitfire
29th Jan 2006, 22:44
Feedback submitted, on the most ridiculous story I've seen on the BBC website in a long time

sunshine40
29th Jan 2006, 22:55
Do y'know what? I really enjoy reading these forums. I love flying as a passenger, aviation fascinates me and I have respect for the crews who fly us all over the world.
But what I hate is when my profession gets caned (go on, take a wild guess what that is) every single time a story gets reported. Read that story again. It says:
''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.
Does that sound like the BBC overreacted to you? Sounds like it says ''never happened'' to me. I don't slag off your profession, so please stop slagging off mine. I work within regulations set down for me, as do you, and I can honestly say I have never put out anything I hadn't first stood up with the appropriate experts from their field, including pilots. You might not like what we say sometimes but that doesn't make us liars and bamboozlers.
Oh, and calm down, I read this site for enjoyment, not leads.

Hooligan Bill
29th Jan 2006, 22:59
Guys, why not tell the BBC what you think about this 'story'?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3990000/newsid_3993900/3993909.stm
Rather than pick on the Auntie Beeb I would suggest people contact the Sunday M****r with their views. They are the ones who broke the story (which other news agencies, including Sky have picked up on), and, IMHO, their coverage is far more sensational.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16639684%26method=full%26siteid=62484%26headline =winging%2dit-name_page.html

spitfire
29th Jan 2006, 23:01
Sunshine, the specific problem here is that after receiving information that this was a non-story, the BBC still went ahead and ran it on their front page anyway.

PPRuNe Radar
29th Jan 2006, 23:08
Sunshine40

What do you expect when we get this kind of tripe ??

DUCK... thousands of football fans held their breath yesterday as*two incredibly-close planes zoomed over their heads.

Wow !!! They could have been as little as 1000' vertically apart (which is a safe standard) ... I mean, that's incredibly close, it's less than 1/5th of a mile :oh: :oh: :oh:

The fans watched as the aircraft looked close to collision

Uh ???

"I saw the aircraft coming together !! they appeared to be on a collision course. I started taking photographs, which speak for themselves. From where I was sitting it looked very close."

Yes, the photographs speak to aviation professionals who say that this is sensationalist claptrap.

But, incredibly, this was not officially classified a near miss.

Incredible isn't it ?? That standard separation is not classified as a near miss. Give me strength. (PS if it was a near miss .. then by understanding English language properly .. it would actually be a hit :8 )



Sorry, but as long as the press continue to try selling newspapers by latching on to the hysterics of non aviation professionals and try to make stories up when the authorities and everyone else involved has told them there was a safe non event, then you will continue to see journos ridiculed generically by members of the aviation profession.

four_two
29th Jan 2006, 23:15
... Read that story again. It says:
''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.
Does that sound like the BBC overreacted to you? Sounds like it says ''never happened'' to me.

Thank you for bringing some sanity into this thread.

Professor Yaffler
29th Jan 2006, 23:20
Correct me if I'm wrong but its a DHL A300 and a Jal 777 346ER
lengths 54.1m and 73.9m respectively. (I could only find specs for the 300.)
In which case measuring the piccies gives respective scales of 1:5.27 and 1:5.15 a difference of about 98%
Which would mean A300 is at difference in distance (not necessarily altitude as its taken from an angle.) 98% (say +/- a percent or so) of the 777
which if they are at 50,000 feet gives a LOS separation of about 1000 feet or so, though you would have to know the angle from the horizontal to get a vertical separation.
Without altitude info. you can't know the separation.
If they are at 5000 feet then people ought to stop supporting West Ham...
but we knew that already.
feel free to check my sums....

sunshine40
29th Jan 2006, 23:21
I saw the story on BBC Online and thought, zoom lens, 1000 feet separation etc etc. bet Pprune has a thread putting it all to rights this very minute, and there you were. Like I said, we're not all stupid and we're not all liars and what you think is a non-story is not necessarily just that. You forget, you have the benefit of years of experience in your chosen profession but how many of you read papers, watch the news to get information on things you know nothing about? Most of you.

If you think EVERY story is fabrication or an outright lie made up by imbeciles then I feel sorry for you. I thought journalists were cynical.

Don't worry about posting a reply. If I continue to read this thread I'll be so very sad, angry and, believe it or not, hurt that I won't be able to continue reading this fine site (even with all it's utter contempt for the gutter *yawn* press). What a shame that will be.

Re-Heat
29th Jan 2006, 23:26
I cannot really see anything wrong in media publishing a picture, that the uninformed public might view as incredibly close, then going on to include points that assure the public that it is indeed not close at all.

I don't really think the general public care about 1000' vertical separation - or indeed would understand - it is simply a photographic illusion where two differently-sized aircraft look close, as the relative sizes of the types are not clear.

Photo shows two close aircraft.
It is incredible that this is not in fact the case.
I don't think anyone has been mislead, and not even the Mirror story goes on to say - or imply - that the experts are incorrect.

Does there have to be a comment on PPRuNe after any aviation story is reported in the media - with most commenting on how much more they know?


Would anyone like to volunteer to say that they - from the ground with no camera at that game - would not have though uh-oh if they had seen this with the naked eye? Although clear from the photo, you certainly do not have the level of acuity to identify the type, obliquely, at the altitude at which they probably are flying - certainly not in a snap instant.

Just admit the photo captures a rare moment, when the complex aviation business is portrayed in the media as just that - a complex business fully controlled by the professionals at all times - something the Mirror - incredibly - admits.

PPRuNe Radar
29th Jan 2006, 23:27
The BBC Online story is factual and does not try to add it's own slant on sensationalising the 'incident'. I agree on that.

The Mirror's piece is what I would expect from their type of rag ... alas :ok:

oversteer
29th Jan 2006, 23:30
The winner in all of this has to be the professional photographer, who (as mentioned above) would have known full well that this was just a trick of the lens, but was still able to sell the picture to a tabloid! Slow news day indeed.

Nige321
29th Jan 2006, 23:31
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.
Upton Park...
2 stops short of Barking:8
Nige

Ron & Edna Johns
29th Jan 2006, 23:31
Ha ha.... more likely the "thousands of fans" were holding their breath after Blackburn scored in the first minute, or for the Hammers' penalty or even the own goal by what's-his-name.... But thousands looking up at a couple of planes and holding their collective breaths? Oh really? Did the Mirror ask them if they held their breaths? I bet they didn't.

There's the problem, Sunshine40 - it is NON-news. It was all made up. Made up by a journo and/or photographer to sell a story and make some money.

We have no problem when you report the news, and report it accurately. We do have a problem, however, when you severely cock it up or outright INVENT it.

Doors to Automatic
29th Jan 2006, 23:35
Shots taken with telephoto lenses can be notoriously deceptive. Here is another one showing two planes appearing to be touching each other when in fact they are also almost 1000 ft apart:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/652327/M/

Seloco
29th Jan 2006, 23:38
If everyone is so convinced that this is perspective distorting a perfectly standard separation, why has no one questioned ProfYaffler's maths?

Thunderball 2
29th Jan 2006, 23:46
What a fascinating thread. But it's the thread that's fascinating, not the picture;

1. Extraordinary how many people obviously don't even scan the previous posts, hence the endless repetition of the same outrage, theories etc. Rather like journalists desperate to get a story into print.....

2. Depressing how any analytical approach to the problem - such as that of Professor Yafler - is ignored, just as it would be by a journalist, for example.

(PS: Just about to press the post button and I notice that Seloco has also made my second point while I was writing it).:ok:

(edited for spelling)

Gonzo
29th Jan 2006, 23:48
If everyone is so convinced that this is perspective distorting a perfectly standard separation, why has no one questioned ProfYaffler's maths?
Because I'm not very good at maths, but I know that if they did have less than the prescribed separation then it would mean an almighty cover-up....There's nothing about it at work....:zzz:

mocoman
29th Jan 2006, 23:51
though you would have to know the angle from the horizontal to get a vertical separation.
Without altitude info. you can't know the separation.


That's why!

Correct me if I'm wrong but Heathrow has been on Easterlies this week so the altitudes involved may not be as low as some may think, both aircraft appear to be 'clean' and the grain of the picture suggests a VERY long lens or subsequent magnification.

:E

Professor Yaffler
29th Jan 2006, 23:52
Actually my money is on a fantastic digital SLR on a tripod and aircraft at
~ 60 000 feet.
I just wish I had a camera that good.

geraintw
30th Jan 2006, 00:39
I don't slag off your profession, so please stop slagging off mine. I work within regulations set down for me, as do you, and I can honestly say I have never put out anything I hadn't first stood up with the appropriate experts from their field, including pilots. You might not like what we say sometimes but that doesn't make us liars and bamboozlers.
Oh, and calm down, I read this site for enjoyment, not leads.

And i'm sure there's some irony in that the people who are quick to slag off the press for jumping on a story (rightly or wrongly) with tuts of disgust and lines of vitriol, think it's ok, on the other hand to discuss on PPRUNE rumour and the facts of an incident without necessarily knowing facts :} Something which they're quick enough to admonish the press for.

If anything the BBC piece was right to run, given the wide (although diminishing) circulation of the Mirror it appears to be righting a wrong and has investigated and corrected what could've been a misleading story. Let's face it, the mirror's not going to publish a correction, is it.

fastjet2k
30th Jan 2006, 00:44
I've seen a lot of aircraft in the Ockham hold when we've been inbound to LHR and it often looks like there's no separation at altitude let alone from the surface, when of course all the separation minima are being met perfectly well! I think it's definitely fair to say that in this case the camera is lying. However, I'm not convinced the camera is lying so well in this close encounter in Phuket... http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=995911&WxsIERv=Vylhfuva%20Vy-86&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Infb%20Nveyvarf&QtODMg=Cuhxrg%20%28UXG%20%2F%20IGFC%29&ERDLTkt=Gunvynaq&ktODMp=Wnahnel%2010%2C%202006&BP=0&WNEb25u=Fnz%20Puhv&xsIERvdWdsY=EN-86140&MgTUQtODMgKE=Ab%20zber%20ehajnl%20yrsg%20%3D%20Zhfg%20ebgngr %21%20Ybbx%20ng%20jurer%20gur%201000%20sg%20znexre%20fvta%20 naq%20jurer%20gur%20ebgngvba%20vf%21%20Guvf%20vf%20bar%20fpn erl%20lrg%20guevyyvat%20gnxrbss%21%20Gurl%20cnvq%20sbe%20gur %20ehajnl%20naq%20hfrq%20rirel%20ovg%20bs%20vg.%20Gur%20Vylh fuva%20nyfb%20xvpxrq%20hc%20n%20ynetr%20fnaqfgbez%20ba%20gur %20ornpu%20naq%20vg%20jnf%20oneryl%20nobir%20vg%20nsgre%20eb gngvba.%20Gur%20VY86%20vf%20n%20erny%20ornfg%21%20%5BAvxba%2 0Q2k%2C%20Uvtu%20fcrrq%20pebc%20zbqr%5D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=2736&NEb25uZWxs=2006-01-29%2020%3A25%3A50&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=51483211102&static=yes&width=1000&height=678&sok=JURER%20%20%28qngrfgnzc%20%3E%20qngr_fho%28ABJ%28%29%2C% 20VAGREINY%2024%20UBHE%29%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20ivrjf%20qrfp&photo_nr=3&prev_id=995622&next_id=995627&size=L

Hippy
30th Jan 2006, 00:55
Actually my money is on a fantastic digital SLR on a tripod and aircraft at
~ 60 000 feet.
Professor, you would be well advised to save your money towards that camera, rather making ill-informed bets. 60 000 feet indeed. I doubt either those aircraft could reach such altitude and if they did, they would require more than 1000ft seperation.

Jerricho
30th Jan 2006, 01:17
But what I hate is when my profession gets caned (go on, take a wild guess what that is) every single time a story gets reported.
I think you'll find that my aviation brothers and sisters take exception to jouranlism like this because it simply is not newsworthy. Time and time again I read stories in the media that range from somewhat sensationalist to total bullsh*t. I have read the article linked from the BBC site. Spokesman said nothing out of the ordinary..........why the article then? Why I saw a potential conflict between a train and a truck carrying a highly flamable liquid.........good thing the crossing signals averted the tragedy at the last possible second, causing them to miss by mere metres. I wish I had my camera with me.
I'm sorry you feel the way you describe above when aviation professionals express their "vitriol" etc at these sorts of stories............I'll wager it equates to how pissed off I get when my profession (and I dare say others) receives such unfounded nonsense.

aegean
30th Jan 2006, 01:33
Professor

Sorry, but i don't agree with your maths.

Assuming you got correct the length of the DHL A300 and the JAL 777 (54.1m and 73.9m), measuring the piccie gives about 7.1cm for the DHL and about
9.2cm for the JAL, so the respective scales are 1:762 and 1: 803 (approximately), a difference of about 94.7%. At 15000 feet this is a distance of about 800feet. Mind you, it's not easy to measure the JAL from the pic so there is an error introduced already...

maui
30th Jan 2006, 04:17
Hippy.

Don't be to harsh on the Prof. I think you will find he is talking slant distance. So your 60,000' is roughly 10 miles, minus a bit for the altitude that he points out, is not available.:)

M.

eal401
30th Jan 2006, 07:38
Time and time again I read stories in the media that range from somewhat sensationalist to total bullsh*t.
Funny how you all keep on reading though.

Gives me a great idea for a new reality TV show though.

"Journo-Pilot Swap"

For one week, pilots and journalists swap jobs - the pilots have to run a national newspaper and maintain a readership of 600,000, the journos have to fly planes. Who will win, those who have to meet deadlines and maintain interest, or those who have to press the "autopilot on" button?

Given some people on here, I expect "The Daily Dull" would be an appropriate name for the newspaper.

:E

bjcc
30th Jan 2006, 08:26
aegean
Save your maths.

A telephoto lens will compress the apparent distance between 2 objects and give the impression they are much closer. It's a well known feature of those type of lenses.

Not only does this result in dramatic photos like this one, but can be used to produce 'trick' photos, like the one I saw a few years ago of an RAF Policewoman indicating to a scorpion tank to stop, and it apparently screeching to a halt an inch from her foot. In reality, it was 20 feet behind her.

The effect is well known in photography, but mentioning that of course, ruins a good story.