Virgin Atlantic flight to Barbados

[Yanny55]

I have just returned from Barbados with Virgin Atlantic.
Outbound I was on flight VS035 in 747 G-VGAL 'Jersey Girl'. At one point in the journey I cannot recall the exact time, but we were well over the Atlantic and my wife and I were both looking out of the window when another passenger jet appeared from under the port wing, at an angle of about 45 degrees to each other and what appeared to be very close.
I am well travelled and have often seen jets in the distance, but never as near as this. I am also no expert and it happened so suddenly that it is impossible to say how far below us the plane was, but from memory it was twin engined and its fuselage was mostly white with no distinctive markings.
Our plane did a slight turn to starboard as the other plane appeared which again seemed a bit unusual as up until then we were in level flight.
What would normally be the height separation for two planes converging like this, any clues to this would be helpful and would it have been reported.

[DA50driver]

1000' separation and you might both have been approaching a waypoint where both aeroplanes would make a turn to stay on the assigned route. 99% chance it was routine.

[Liffy 1M]

These images give some idea of how close aircraft can seem and still be at least 1,000 feet apart:

Photos: Boeing 777-236/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Boeing-777-236-ER/0955388/L/)
Photos: Boeing 747-446 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan-Airlines--/Boeing-747-446/0994963/L/)
Photos: Boeing 767-346 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan-Airlines--/Boeing-767-346/0883594/L/)

[stepwilk]

"These images give some idea of how close aircraft can seem and still be at least 1,000 feet apart"

Nonsense! Those are professionally done air-to-air photos, and I say that as a shooter with probably four dozen--never counted 'em--Flying Magazine cover shots to my credit in the late 1960s and '70s.

Those aircraft are -way- closer than 500 feet, even.

When did this become the Professional Passengers Rumor Network?

[Mercenary Pilot]

This is a Professional PILOTS news forum ... go away


Such a PROFESSIONAL response. :hmm:

I think this video demonstrates how close aircraft get to each other in flight. This is quite normal and is actually very common especially over the Atlantic where aircraft have special procedures to fly fairly close together, normally 1000 foot separation. Also keep in mind that larger jets will appear to be even closer due to their size.

RAbYxhKpR58

Now the question has been answered, I'm sure the Mods will move this to the forum they feel is most appropriate.

[Locked door]

Stepwilk,

Wrong, granted the second two photos are as you describe but the first one is almost identical to a whole host of shots I've taken from the flight deck of a 747 on the Atlantic tracks. All done with nothing more sophisticated than a Canon 450D and a Sigma 18-200mm lens.

RVSM surprises even experienced passengers when they see it first hand, especially if you're looking at a 'heavy'.

1000ft is quite close, and the turns described were either at a waypoint or the flightcrew changing the offset (0, 1 or 2 nm) to aviod sitting on top of each other in case of decompression, severe turbulence etc.

LD

[stepwilk]

Has nobody ever bothered to explain to you how a 200mm lens works? Shoot it with a 50--the distance resolution of the human eye--and then tell me what you see on the printout.

[Globaliser]

Those aircraft are -way- closer than 500 feet, even.Oh, so never mind the captions to the photos then.

[stepwilk]

Yes, you're right. Which means they're shot through telephoto lenses. What I meant was that if that's what an aircraft looks like to the human eye (50mm focal length, generally speaking), it's way closer than 500 feet.

I could shoot an F-15 a mile away through a 1,000mm lens and put it in your lap.

I don't know about you, but I've spent 44 years as a pilot estimating aircraft distances in flight, and I'm pretty good at it.

You?

[Globaliser]

Yes, you're right. Which means they're shot through telephoto lenses. What I meant was that if that's what an aircraft looks like to the human eye (50mm focal length, generally speaking), it's way closer than 500 feet.But as a matter of fact they weren't "way closer than 500 feet, even", which is what you said.

That casts doubt on your other assertion:-Those are professionally done air-to-air photos ...I suspect that few (if any) of these photos (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=&specialsearch=air_to_air&daterange=&keywords=1000&range=&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=120&thumbnails=) (which include the two I referred to above) are anything other than good quality snaps taken by crew from the office - just as Locked door describes.

So I think we might give him credit for the rest of his explanation, too, don't you?I don't know about you, but I've spent 44 years as a pilot estimating aircraft distances in flight, and I'm pretty good at it.

You?I have over 46 years of experience as SLF, which is the main qualification for this board.

And I have about 40 years experience of reading English, which is the main qualification for pointing out that at least two of those photos were not taken "way closer than 500 feet, even".

Happy?

[stepwilk]

My god you're boring. You haven't the faintest idea what I'm trying to say, and you're offering your vast experience of pudgy buttocks farting into a passenger seat to refute the experience of an actual pilot with thousands of hours in...well, last I counted it was 118 types.

I should know enough to not pursue these discussions when they are transferred to the amateur boards, so I won't.

[Globaliser]

You haven't the faintest idea what I'm trying to say ...No, you're quite right there.

But I know what you ought to have said: "I'm sorry, I misunderstood what those photos on airliners.net are all about; and I should have read the captions written by PROFESSIONAL PILOTS who know what they're talking about when they say '1000 feet'."... you're offering your vast experience of pudgy buttocks farting into a passenger seat to refute the experience of an actual pilot with thousands of hours in...well, last I counted it was 118 types.Do we know each other for you to describe me so well?

I'll still go with Locked door's post: he's a PROFESSIONAL PILOT.

[airbourne]

You have flown in 118 types of aircraft? Is there that many in the world? Have you held down a job in the same aircraft for longer than 3 weeks?

By the way, just on the PROFESSIONAL part, you do know that you are in the 'Passengers and SLF' so the questions that are asked are going to be from.....wait for it.......NON Professionals!

[stepwilk]

As the managing and then executive editor of Flying Magazine from roughly 1968 to 1978--you can look it up, I'm not going to bother--I flew, tested and wrote about a variety of aircraft from Stearmans and Pittses to a B-17 and a Super Constellations, both at Flying and as a freelance aviation writer from then until today. (My full name is Stephan Wilkinson, just to help with your search.)

Oh, and I also built, owned and flew an F8L Falco that made one of the longest flights ever made by a homebuilt airplane. You can look that up too. And I have a variety of ratings including one jet type rating.

There are other ways to learn about flight than spending a career flying five airliner types. I never said I was "a professional" other than to have made my living flying aircraft.

And you?

Oh, and by the way, this thread started out in Rumours and News, which is where I initially responded to it. I don't frequent passenger forums.

[airbourne]

Well we are not talking about me. I stand up and I always say that I dont have much experience but I dont have the desire to throw my c:mad:k out on the table to prove myself!!

However, as a member of pprune for 10 years, I have seen the age old argument of this site should be for professionals only!!! God, not that old chestnut again.

Maybe we should do a survey on how many people on this forum started by looking at aircraft and being wanabees, and have now ended up sitting in the right or left seat in the pointy bit simply based on the invaluable information they found on PPrune. I can tell you this much, for every one of you moany bitter 'professionals' there are 100 others that will give advice, answer questions and treat the SLF that come on to this site with a bit of respect.

You may have never have used the words 'professional' but when you make comments such as "refute the experience of an actual pilot with thousands of hours in" and "I've spent 44 years as a pilot estimating aircraft distances in flight", one would assume that you are infact a professional.

If you dont like what PPrune has to offer, then I suggest you lodge a complaint with Danny.

[Hotel Tango]

What a rude, arrogant and bigheaded twit you are stepwilk. Go away, you're not welcome here.

Back to the original question. Yanny 55, I can assure you that an aircraft (especially a widebody) passing by with a legal separation of 1000 ft (and even 2000 ft) below or above can look alarmingly close. As one with my nose often glued to the window I've seen it many times.

[10W]

1000' separation - and what HT said :)

Think of it another way, the vertical separation is about 1/5th of a statute mile. Not very far away at all.

[Dave Clarke Fife]

No tampering, no photoshopping, just what it looks like out of the front window head on and from aft with 1000ft seperation.......................................(all with my trust point and shoot so no critiquing please!!







http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb219/A330Skygod/1000ft%20seperation/044.jpghttp://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb219/A330Skygod/1000ft%20seperation/042.jpghttp://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb219/A330Skygod/1000ft%20seperation/034.jpg