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"?

They vlook pretty dam close to me

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

Ah, those chemtrail pilots, they are a bunch of hot dogs.

That’s a pretty clear picture how close were the planes to the ground? Or how close was the photographer to the planes?

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

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

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]

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'

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.