Simviation Forums

So in another aviation forum i frequent there is a little debate on the aviation term "Near miss"

some say that it should be called a "near hit" because two aircraft nearly hit one another.

What i heard: when i was a CFI an old B-24 bomber pilot used to come sit and drink coffee and watch the planes for about 10 - 20 minutes, one day he stopped in right during the middle of this exact same debate.

with that laugh that older folks can get about the foolish bickering of the young he explained

"Boys a near miss is an occurance that had the potential to do serious damage but did not"

with our attention as if he were about to settle the matter once and for all he continued...

"This term, as far as im aware, originated with high altitude bombing. During the review of post attack recon film and photos - if the attack missed the target but was very close we would give the strike a 'near miss' designation... meaning we were near the target, but we missed."

he then compared it to saying "close but no cigar in military terms"

that settled it for me. I have always held the thought that a near miss was rightfully called a near miss in the way that the two objects almost collided or impacted but did not.

so what do you guys think?

I think any discussion on this sort of subject is purely academic & unlikely to change anything. A lot of commonly used phrases & sayings don't make much sense if you care to analyse them. This doesn't matter at all providing everyone using the terms understands their precise meaning. I think the term "near miss" is widely understood throughout the aviation world & therefore changing it would cause confusion where none exists.

A more interesting debate might be why the perfectly good word inflammable (meaning liable to inflame or catch fire) was replaced by the word flammable on hazard warning notices back in the 1970s.

I think any discussion on this sort of subject is purely academic & unlikely to change anything. A lot of commonly used phrases & sayings don't make much sense if you care to analyse them. This doesn't matter at all providing everyone using the terms understands their precise meaning. I think the term "near miss" is widely understood throughout the aviation world & therefore changing it would cause confusion where none exists.

Quite. Hence it has now been formally defined in aviation terminology (apologies for posting the UK definition):

Definition of an Airprox

An Airprox is a situation in which, in the opinion of a pilot or a controller, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised.

I think "near miss" is totally overused.  A few weeks ago there was a "near miss" around here as reported by the news, and a few people at work and some of my family asked me if I knew what happened and if it happens a lot.  I asked about it at the airport, and apparently there was two aircraft flying over a VOR close to here that were vertically separated by 500 ft and about a half-mile laterally.  A little overblown in my opinion, the two pilots were probably talking to each other the whole time.

[quote]there was two aircraft flying over a VOR close to here that were vertically separated by 500 ft and about a half-mile laterally.

there was two aircraft flying over a VOR close to here that were vertically separated by 500 ft and about a half-mile laterally.  A little overblown in my opinion, the two pilots were probably talking to each other the whole time.

Not necessarily

I think it was my instructor who once told me to avoid potentially congested airspace around VOR's if I could because there have been aircraft collisions over VOR's in the past

I completely agree.  The only time I'll get within five or so miles of a VOR is when I'm on an instrument flight plan, otherwise, I'll just fly close enough that I can find a landmark that is on a sectional instead.