Near miss over The Hammers???

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

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

[DC10RealMan]

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]

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

[Jerricho]

Tis Class A airspace round there.

[Married a Canadian]

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]

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 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

[RHagrid]

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

[TATC]

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]

Originally Posted by RHagrid

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by Jerricho

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]

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

[Jerricho]

Originally Posted by The Obvious Choice

Now it pains me to do it

Is it that bad?

[Seloco]

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]

quite true i didnt really think that through

[RAC/OPS]

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

[Midland 331]

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

331

[Dop]

One for a caption competition, I think!

PPRuNe Radar:-

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

[Dances with Boffins]

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

[paulo]

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/s...698636,00.html