It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So How Close are These Planes?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Just seen this on the BBC website - a DHL and JAL plane over East London. Looks like they're practically on top of each other to *me*, but apparently according to authorities it's all an optical illusion and they were at least half a mile apart.

Hmmm.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Don't know where to put this, so it ended up here!

Cheers

TD




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
In the enlarged image, one plane seems to be fairly lower than the other.

Does anyone know how close planes have to be for there to be a "near miss"?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
They vlook pretty dam close to me



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Looks a little closer than explain to me aswell... especially whth the smaller looking plane actually being the one that is closer to our viewpoint.... I regarless of how far apart they were, I wouldnt want to be on either one of those planes at that moment.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Hi guys,


Wow, now that's very very close. They've been talking about the overcrowding over London for a while, now we can see what the've been talking about. Great post, thanks.

'DHL to Control Tower...three fresh pairs of pants please!'



Best Wishes

J



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
To be a near miss they have to be within 3 nautical miles at the same altitude, or else within 1,000ft vertically.

If the aircraft really were that close I'd have thought one would have suffered severe - possibly catastrophic - turblance?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Had the planes gotten as close as the photo makes it seem, their TCAS's would have been going absolutely apecrap and the pilots would have already redirected.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Quick math; everything rounded to make evenly divisible;

Wingspan:

Near Plane: A300=147' (50x3)

Far Plane: A330=198' (50x4)

For the planes to measure the same "apparent" wingspan,
they would be approx "25% of the distance from the observer
to the first plane" more apart.

IF near plane from observer = 1.00 , then far plane = 1.25 from observer.

If near plane is 2 miles, then far plane is 2.5 miles, a difference of half a mile.

Theox



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I read the story you linked, and then looking at the large photo, those planes look very close together. I think someone at Heathrow is lying or trying to cover up a mistake they made.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Ah, those chemtrail pilots, they are a bunch of hot dogs.




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
That’s a pretty clear picture how close were the planes to the ground? Or how close was the photographer to the planes?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
There was no comment of distance in the link - just a mention by the CAA that there was no incident reported and an Airline Pilot's Association saying that it was a fluke photo.

I just wanted a sense of perspective - in both senses of the word.


TD



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Here ia another story and better pic I think of a thankfully non- fatal near miss.

wizbangblog.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by niato007
Here ia another story and better pic I think of a thankfully non- fatal near miss.

wizbangblog.com...


Close, but no cigar.

This thread is talking about a DHL cargo jet and a JAL commercial flight near Heathrow in the UK. The link you provided is a British West Indies jet and an American Airlines jet near Miami.


But I know I wouldn't want to be on any of these planes..........



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by niato007
Here ia another story and better pic I think of a thankfully non- fatal near miss.

wizbangblog.com...



"All of the video in the original report was out of context STOCK FOOTAGE, strung
together to DRAMATIZE the story, but at least the Miami NBC affiliate had the sense
to label the CGI work as such. The rest of the affiliate network presented the story
AS IF it were all captured on film."

"Perhaps they should adopt the CBS slogan, "Fake, but accurate...""

[edit on 30-1-2006 by Theox]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
sorry. I meant to say here's another link of another near miss that has picture showing a much more authentic near collision in the air



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I've had some experience with Cessnas and gliders, but it's this sort of thing that always amazes me:



When flying, distance has always been the desire. I don't know how these folks have the guts to share such tight airspace.
I think I'd like to see a dozen 747-400s flying like this.


EDIT:

sorry. I meant to say here's another link of another near miss that has picture showing a much more authentic near collision in the air


Sorry, I realized after I posted that that was what you meant......

[edit on 30/1/2006 by anxietydisorder]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Sas this on the news yesterday, they do look mioghty close, that's for damn sure! But the turbulence woud have kciked at least one out of the sky if they were that close for sure?!

If tney were that close, it's a severe case of, 'oh dear crap on a stick I need new boxers'



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theox

Originally posted by niato007
Here ia another story and better pic I think of a thankfully non- fatal near miss.

wizbangblog.com...



All of the video in the original report was out of context STOCK FOOTAGE, strung
together to DRAMATIZE the story, but at least the Miami NBC affiliate had the sense
to label the CGI work as such. The rest of the affiliate network presented the story
AS IF it were all captured on film.

Perhaps they should adopt the CBS slogan, "Fake, but accurate..."


Please make it clear that you directly quote from said link. People here dont like plagiarism



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
There could be another explanation with the photographer using certain type of lenses to create forshortening of two objects. A bit like those large moon pictures people take to make the moon seem it fills the sky. It depends it could be a photo where the cameraman has been cleaver in using his leneses and maybe thought okay I can sell this illusion effect. Or that it really happened and was a lucky escape. If I was a passenger and saw this I would have made a fuss, but that is a bit difficult when the plane is behind you to see. Not sure really, lucky for London that it did not get an air disaster especially over a crowded city. Terrorism would have been culpret if it did happen.

I hate planes never used to though.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join