Collision?

[Saitek]

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

Sure looks close, even if it is diceiving.

[igs942]

Saitek, you beat me to it. Was just about to post the same story.

I agree that piccies can be deceiving but surely there is a minimum distance that has been breached here!?! I recall reading the minimum vertical seperation under FL290 is 1000ft and they look quite a bit closer than that.

Igs

[beaky]

Saitek, you beat me to it. Was just about to post the same story.

I agree that piccies can be deceiving but surely there is a minimum distance that has been breached here!?! I recall reading the minimum vertical seperation under FL290 is 1000ft and they look quite a bit closer than that.

Igs

Are you sure they were at 29,000 feet? Looks like the typical telephoto illusion to me.

[Craig.]

They are not that close really as has been stated.
Depth of field and all that sort of thing. The best photographers can make them look even closer

[F3Hadlow]

Just a trick of the lens, typical of the British press to take the slightest chance to slate any authority despite knowing next to nothing about the subject topic

[rich747]

From the BBC article quoted here I think it's safe to say there was no problem at all. Surely the DHL pilot would have seen the JAL 330 coming and avoided the "crash" if it had been likely.

[Mobius]

It said in the article there was around 2.5 miles between the two aircraft.

[Saitek]

Ay, but I'm wondering if it really did look like that or if it is just the appearance on the photo. After all he would have used a strong zoom.  ::)

[Hagar]

[quote]Ay, but I'm wondering if it really did look like that or if it is just the appearance on the photo. After all he would have used a strong zoom.

[beaky]

It must have been unusual enough for him to take the photos. If you look at the link in Eno's topic on this subject there's a series of shots. I think the relative size of the two aircraft adds to the illusion. The wingspan of the A300 is considerably smaller than the B777 above it.

To the naked eye, the effect may have been similar... I've often taken note of planes crossing overhead; it grabs your attention sometimes.  But it's usually easy to tell they're properly spaced.

BTW, if anyone cares- I see I misread igs942's post... he said "under" FL290, not "at".... there; i feel better now.

Some people really ought to just mind their own  damn business...