Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:25:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 4:28:58 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:26:22 PM EDT
They wernt that close.....
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:27:08 PM EDT
it was just mating season.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:27:44 PM EDT
2.5 miles apart?

riiiiiiight.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:28:25 PM EDT
2.5 miles? my ass. you can estimate distance with a photo graph if there are known factors in the photo.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:28:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 4:29:45 PM EDT by Zaphod]
I can only imagine the flood of invectives coming from the cockpit of that rear bird!

ETA:



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.



BULLSHIT!
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:29:02 PM EDT
they were refueling..... yeah, thats the ticket!
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:29:58 PM EDT
Is that a small 737 DHL and a much larger wide-body JAL?

If so, they probably are quite a distance apart. But I doubt 2.5 miles!!

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:30:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Now this is CLOSE! and no amount of ATC Bullshit is going to convince me otherwise!



I would say… There is damn little separation.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:30:30 PM EDT
The high plane is a 777. They're so huge that distances can be deceptive. I saw one once and thought it was a close 737. I think they could easily have adequate vertical seperation in that pic.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:34:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 4:35:25 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:36:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
The high plane is a 777. They're so huge that distances can be deceptive. I saw one once and thought it was a close 737. I think they could easily have adequate vertical seperation in that pic.



There is no way those two aircraft are 2.5 miles apart.

They're barely 100 YARDS apart.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:36:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 4:39:21 PM EDT by pcsutton]
What is minimum vertical seperation? Isn't it 1000 feet? As long as minimum vertical seperation is maintained the lateral distance can be less than minimum.

Telephoto lenses compress depth.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:42:23 PM EDT
I was flying from West Palm to Tampa on Southwest and as we went out over the ocean I saw something moving off in the distance and then I recognized it to be another jet. It looked like we were on an crossing pattern and it got so close to use that I could see the pilots in the cockpit. They passed directly under us and everyone on the left side of the plane gasped as it went under. I was shocked at how close it was. I still remember that it was a Continental plane and I also remember the pilots looking up at us. I really should learn to sleep on flights.

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:42:46 PM EDT
2.5 miles? PFFFFFT......I'd say it looks closer to 2 if you ask me
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:42:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 4:44:43 PM EDT by dfowler21]
The engine nacelles on the 777 are the same diameter as the fuselage of the 737. Looks to me like the 777 is at least 1000 ft above the 737. All you need is 1000 ft even in cruise flight as far as vertical separation goes. The 2.5 miles is lateral separation from planes at the same altitude or on the same approach.

Think about this, lost of airports have parallel runways. You do NOT have to have 2.5 miles between those runways and ATC can have planes landing and departing on parallels with no problems.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:46:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 2:40:19 AM EDT by Rodent]
I think the lower plane might be an A320. See the "canoes" under the wing? Those are flap track fairings (say that ten times fast). A 737 doesn't have that many.

If that pic was taken over London, they're both being watched very closely by Heathrow or Gatwick's approach control. If they were too close, all kinds of alerts would be going off in both airplanes as well as at the controller's station.

A little airplane straying into the wrong airspace and not having what's called a TCAS would be much more likely to make a close pass than two commercial jets.

The way the sentence is constructed, I can't tell if it was the ATC spokesperson or the reporter who wrote the artical that said they were 2 1/2 miles apart. Whoever, it was just some hired mouthpiece who doesn't understand the difference between lateral and vertical seperation.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:52:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By azhammer:
2.5 miles? PFFFFFT......I'd say it looks closer to 2 if you ask me



+1
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:52:52 PM EDT
Here's a good article about aircraft separation here in the US

http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183213-1.html
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:53:15 PM EDT
A telephoto lens can make two or more thing slook like they're glued together.




Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:53:28 PM EDT
If those planes were as close together as it looks in the photo, wouldn't the rear plane suffer from some sort of lift loss from cavitation. I seem to remember a great deal being made about that a while back.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:54:52 PM EDT
Zoom lens, play with one and you'll learn that a pic like that is deceiving. Like that pic of Dick Butkus standing over a guy who had a spinal injury on the field, making Butkus look like a true villian. Turns out Butkus was like 50 yards away from the guy.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:55:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
If those planes were as close together as it looks in the photo, wouldn't the rear plane suffer from some sort of lift loss from cavitation. I seem to remember a great deal being made about that a while back.



Uh, what?

The only danger I can see would be from wingtip vortices. The 777 is considered a heavy, IIRC. I'll have to look in my FAR/AIM to be sure.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:56:31 PM EDT
Not cavitation, but wake turbulence. Its basically flying into two tornados coming off the wingtips.

In the article I posted, pay special attention to the section titled "Cleared for the Visual" When a controller tells a pilot to "maintain visual separation" that pilot can fly as close to the other aircraft as he feels like.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:57:05 PM EDT
Reminds me of pulling in and out of NAVSTA Charleston. Going under the Hwy 13 bridge, while looking up at the mast, well you'd think you were about to hit the bridge every time. In truth, there was plenty of seperation. I would hazard a guess a similar effect is happening here.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 5:00:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
I think the lower plane might be an A320.




If it's an a320, the listed length is 123feet
vito listed the 777 as 209 feet

If these are correct, the a320 is 58% of the size of the 777

Opening the pic and measuring in photoshop, the 777 measured 5.084, and the 320 measured 3.987

So in the picture, the A320 is 78% of the size of the 777

There has to be some math whiz out there that can take this numbers and approximate a distance between the two planes.

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 5:02:39 PM EDT
What plane?

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 5:02:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Rodent:
The high plane is a 777. They're so huge that distances can be deceptive. I saw one once and thought it was a close 737. I think they could easily have adequate vertical seperation in that pic.



There is no way those two aircraft are 2.5 miles apart.

They're barely 100 YARDS apart.



I agree. That is less than 100yds
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 5:11:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 5:15:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dfowler21:
The engine nacelles on the 777 are the same diameter as the fuselage of the 737. Looks to me like the 777 is at least 1000 ft above the 737. All you need is 1000 ft even in cruise flight as far as vertical separation goes. The 2.5 miles is lateral separation from planes at the same altitude or on the same approach.

Think about this, lost of airports have parallel runways. You do NOT have to have 2.5 miles between those runways and ATC can have planes landing and departing on parallels with no problems.



I was just gonna point out the same thing. Have a book on Boeing aircraft and they had a 737 pull right up to the engine of a 777 and what do you know... same diameter!!

so the pic is decieving.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:23:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:20:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Nope, ain't buying it!


When the planes are so close the pilots can wave to each other that's Waaaaay too close in my books....

I'll carry on avoiding flying thank you.


ANdy


This explains your misplaced confidence in IRST.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:25:59 AM EDT
Well, if that's an optical illusion, it's a very good one!
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:28:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By doc_Zox:
premium1.uploadit.org/docZox//jets.jpg



I think the lower airplane is an A320, not a 737.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:33:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Nope, ain't buying it!


When the planes are so close the pilots can wave to each other that's Waaaaay too close in my books....

I'll carry on avoiding flying thank you.


ANdy


This explains your misplaced confidence in IRST.



Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:38:51 AM EDT
I was gonna call BS on ATC, but now I'm not so sure. I didn't know telephoto lenses could create illusions like that. Hmmm....
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:43:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:48:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:53:48 AM EDT
The press release contradicts the cockpit voice recordings:

DHL captain> SHIT!
DHL co-pilot> WTF?
DHL captain> Where the hell did he come from?
JAL captain> You wrike wipe nose fryboy?
JAL co-pilot> You fry nice. We call you Top Gun Tom Cruise now chop chop.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:01:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:06:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SouthHoof:
The press release contradicts the cockpit voice recordings:

DHL captain> SHIT!
DHL co-pilot> WTF?
DHL captain> Where the hell did he come from?
JAL captain> You wrike wipe nose fryboy?
JAL co-pilot> You fry nice. We call you Top Gun Tom Cruise now chop chop.



Bwaaaa ha ha ha
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 6:14:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Rodent:
I think the lower plane might be an A320.




If it's an a320, the listed length is 123feet
vito listed the 777 as 209 feet

If these are correct, the a320 is 58% of the size of the 777

Opening the pic and measuring in photoshop, the 777 measured 5.084, and the 320 measured 3.987

So in the picture, the A320 is 78% of the size of the 777

There has to be some math whiz out there that can take this numbers and approximate a distance between the two planes.




These are quick numbers and may not even by correct but I find approximately 135 feet linear distance between the planes assuming a typical digital zoom camera with the zoom at 3X, using the Cannon A95 on my desk to get the angle of view. If a more telephoto lens was used the planes are further apart.

Kent
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 6:43:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 6:54:12 AM EDT by TLWrench]
That’s actually a DHL Airbus A300B2-200F freighter (it’s a widebody). The other aircraft is a JAL Boeing 777-300. Here are their respective specs (hope this helps):

A300B2-200F
Wingspan: 147ft 1in
Length: 175ft 11in
Height: 54ft 3in

777-300ER
Wingspan: 199ft 11in
Length: 242ft 4in
Height: 60ft 9in

* Edited to say "777-300ER" instead of "-300LR". Also added "Boeing" just to be consistent.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 6:59:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 7:14:55 AM EDT by mmx1]

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Rodent:
I think the lower plane might be an A320.




If it's an a320, the listed length is 123feet
vito listed the 777 as 209 feet

If these are correct, the a320 is 58% of the size of the 777

Opening the pic and measuring in photoshop, the 777 measured 5.084, and the 320 measured 3.987

So in the picture, the A320 is 78% of the size of the 777

There has to be some math whiz out there that can take this numbers and approximate a distance between the two planes.



Need to know the distance to the planes for a proper estimate.

It comes out to separation = .07*distance to the Scarebus.

So to maintain 1000 feet separation, they would have had to been at 14,000 feet; which if they were at altitude, they probably were.

This is using TLwrench's figures for the A300; the 737 would be even further off.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:01:48 AM EDT


Heres another one
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:02:12 AM EDT

which should mean there was a distance of some two and a half miles between them


WTF, are they serious.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:08:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 7:10:04 AM EDT by ArmedAggie]
It would not be uncommon for them to be that close if they were using parallel runways. What disturbs me is that they do seem close even accounting for plane size. The near one looks like a 767-200 to me. I think they ARE quite close. No big deal except the near one appears to be turning INTO the far plane. That's a little bizarre, especially given wake turbulence dangers.

ETA: Just ask Mav and Goose about wake turbulence.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:14:25 AM EDT
C'mon guys didn't any of you take a picture of you pretending to hold a fish that was actually hanging from a line way in front of you? It's the same thing with this picture the front plane is about half the actual size of the rear plane, the angle the picture was taken just makes it look way closer than it actually is.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 8:12:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dv8xbox:
images.airliners.net/photos/photos/7/2/3/652327.jpg

Heres another one



OH MY GOD, LOOK OUT!!!!!!!!



Good example BTW,
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 11:22:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TLWrench:
That’s actually a DHL Airbus A300B2-200F freighter (it’s a widebody). The other aircraft is a JAL Boeing 777-300. Here are their respective specs (hope this helps):

A300B2-200F
Wingspan: 147ft 1in
Length: 175ft 11in
Height: 54ft 3in

777-300ER
Wingspan: 199ft 11in
Length: 242ft 4in
Height: 60ft 9in

* Edited to say "777-300ER" instead of "-300LR". Also added "Boeing" just to be consistent.



Using these figures I get a separation of 50 feet due to the reduced ratio between the airplanes sizes. This of course is assuming a standard digital camera zoom of 3X.

Kent
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 11:24:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mmx1:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Rodent:
I think the lower plane might be an A320.




If it's an a320, the listed length is 123feet
vito listed the 777 as 209 feet

If these are correct, the a320 is 58% of the size of the 777

Opening the pic and measuring in photoshop, the 777 measured 5.084, and the 320 measured 3.987

So in the picture, the A320 is 78% of the size of the 777

There has to be some math whiz out there that can take this numbers and approximate a distance between the two planes.



Need to know the distance to the planes for a proper estimate.

It comes out to separation = .07*distance to the Scarebus.

So to maintain 1000 feet separation, they would have had to been at 14,000 feet; which if they were at altitude, they probably were.
This is using TLwrench's figures for the A300; the 737 would be even further off.



If that photo was taken with the planes at 14,000 feet (nearly three miles away) it was with profesional level equipment and a profesional should know how the telephoto lens "compresses" space, therefor the pro is putting forth a fraud to scare the sheeple.


Kent
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top