Close encounter over London?
 

Could that be so deceptive? Or is it doctored?
Can anyone throw some light?

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

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.

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:

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.

Looks like a good 1,000ft to me.

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!"

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.)

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly we can see that its the new ariticulated aircarft, AB3979!
The trailor doing its damnest to avoid the wake in all axises

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/per...apher;ph_id=56

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.

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

yet more aviation related drivel in the media
 

Guys, why not tell the BBC what you think about this 'story'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs...00/3993909.stm

Feedback submitted, on the most ridiculous story I've seen on the BBC website in a long time

I don't tell you how to fly
 

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.

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/t...name_page.html