Near miss over The Hammers???
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by chevvron
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.
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.
MUST beat that away duck!
Cheers,
TOO
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'?
'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'?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: EXPECT DIVERSIONS
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why do they persist in calling them 'near misses'?
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.
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by steinycans
edited to say:
if he had have kept watching them after taking the pics, he would have noticed they were, in fact miles apart.
if he had have kept watching them after taking the pics, he would have noticed they were, in fact miles apart.
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!!!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: EXPECT DIVERSIONS
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
<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
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
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Officials have denied any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently flying perilously close together over east London.
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.
)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/per...apher;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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: surrey
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Censorship?
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.
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.