Close encounter over London?
viva Osh Vegas
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Wichita, KS
Age: 52
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunshine40
What do you expect when we get this kind of tripe ??
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 
Uh ???
Yes, the photographs speak to aviation professionals who say that this is sensationalist claptrap.
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 
)
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.
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.
The fans watched as the aircraft looked close to collision
"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."
But, incredibly, this was not officially classified a near miss.
)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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sunshine40
... 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.
''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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: surrey
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the maths......
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....
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....
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Re-Heat; 29th Jan 2006 at 22:37.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
The Mirror's piece is what I would expect from their type of rag ... alas
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
2 stops short of Barking
Nige
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/652327/M/
The Aquatone Article
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
(edited for spelling)
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).
(edited for spelling)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If everyone is so convinced that this is perspective distorting a perfectly standard separation, why has no one questioned ProfYaffler's maths?
Location, Location, Location
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If it moves, watch it like a hawk: If it doesn't, hit it with a hammer until it does...
Age: 60
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Without altitude info. you can't know the separation.
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.
Last edited by mocoman; 29th Jan 2006 at 23:44.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sunshine40
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.
Oh, and calm down, I read this site for enjoyment, not leads.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chertsey, Surrey
Age: 41
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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... 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffler
Actually my money is on a fantastic digital SLR on a tripod and aircraft at
~ 60 000 feet.
~ 60 000 feet.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sunshine40
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'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.