Near Miss, no so say CAA

[Scuzi]

Both aircraft would have been under a radar control service and been subject to standard radar separation which in the London TMA is 3 nautical miles horizontally or 1000 feet vertically. In this case it is likely that the aircraft had 1000ft vertical separation. From the ground, it is impossible to judge the separation between two aircraft, especially vertical. If there was a loss of separation, we have to fill in a Mandatory Occurrence Report and a full investigation will be carried out. As an MOR hasn't been filed we can be rather sure that the aircraft involved were subject to at least the minimum standard radar separation.

Typical media sensationalism getting out of hand, makes me sick.

 

[Memphis]

I think you will find ATC would have a pretty good idea, i would be very worried if they didnt know what the separation was!

As you appear to have missed it, there was intended to be a hint of sarcasm in my post .
What I was attempting to say was, it may look close to us from that photograph, however we weren't on either plane (or working for ATC at the time ) so therefore we can only make an uneducated guess as to how close the planes were.


EDIT - and just for the record, I'm quite happy to believe the planes were far enough apart.

 

[Scuzi]

What I was attempting to say was, it may look close to us from that photograph, however we weren't on either plane (or working for ATC at the time ) so therefore we can only make an uneducated guess as to how close the planes were.
.

You can't possibly guess how close they are from that picture. As a private pilot and a London TMA air traffic controller, I couldn't even hazard a guess at the separation however as I know the position of the aircraft I know it's likely that they were vertically separated. No guess can be made from that photograph.

If the CAA / NATS say there wasn't a safety related incident then everything was perfectly safe and standard.

 

[Memphis]

Okay I'm giving up now as it appears impossible for me to be taken anything other than completely seriously.

Scuzi - I think you need to relax a bit.

 

[Scuzi]

Okay I'm giving up now as it appears impossible for me to be taken anything other than completely seriously.

Scuzi - I think you need to relax a bit.

I'm perfectly relaxed, I just get annoyed when this typical media sensationalism badmouths the work of my colleagues. People believe these articles.

I'm just posting my professional opinion and the facts which are known to me, don't take it personally.

 

[NicktheNorse]

I'm just posting my professional opinion and the facts which are known to me, don't take it personally.

Scuzi for the ATC win!

 

[Jake 2.0]

Yeah, it's all about the flight levels

If they were too close their TCAS would have been 'screaming'

reminds me of that disaster that happened when DHL and a russian plane collided. could have been avoided if there was another person at the ATC.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

reminds me of that disaster that happened when DHL and a russian plane collided. could have been avoided if there was another person at the ATC.

Nooo, it would have been avoided if both aircraft had acted on tcas, as they are supposed to..

Mistake can happen with ATC, but they are rare, TCAS is a final line of defence and should come over all other instructions.

The Russian crew decided to ignore tcas, and listen to ATC. So only one aircraft was working to the script, meaning an accident was inevitable

 

[Scuzi]

Ahh, the Uberlingen disaster. Although it was a terrible disaster, a lot was learned from it. New procedures have been put into place with regards to pilot and controller responses to TCAS Resolution Advisories which have made our skies even safer. Unfortunately it takes incidents like Uberlingen to highlight faults in the system.

The UK skies are among the safest in the world, you have no worries here

 

[Phog]

Still, it's a good picture.

 

[Scuzi]

Certainly is

"London Control, DHL203 with you, climbing FL80, radar heading 305......ummmmm TCAS descent!"
"DHL203, London, roger"
"London Control, JapanAir624 with you maintaiii....ummm TCAS climb!"

 

[Indy500]

Certainly is

"London Control, DHL203 with you, climbing FL80, radar heading 305......ummmmm TCAS descent!"
"DHL203, London, roger"
"London Control, JapanAir624 with you maintaiii....ummm TCAS climb!"

DHL must be cursed...

 

[Scuzi]

Having watched a lot of radar replays of 'incidents' I don't really recall DHL being a regular sight. There is one airline in particular though which seems to pop up all too often

 

[Phog]

BA?

 

[Scuzi]

Of course not, I say tally ho! BA Captains have white leather gloves which possess powers beyond the comprehension of modern science.

 

[Phog]

lol Do EasyJet pilots wear orange uniforms by the way? I think that would be funny.

 

[Werewolf]

no, but i suspect the easy girls do - after all orange is a warning colour

 

[Scuzi]

I'm afraid they don't, I wish they did though! We could use it as a bargaining tool with the more irate pilots

 

[Beansprout]

Of course not, I say tally ho! BA Captains have white leather gloves which possess powers beyond the comprehension of modern science.

LOL

 

[Celestial Caravan]

I saw this earlier today and studied the photo for a while and concluded that its a fake.

This is a very easy topic to fake due to the background. The shadows are very similar although I think I can detect a discepancy. The clincher for me is the sun light is much stronger on the JAL aircraft than on the DHL. I suspect that these aircraft were photographed in the same part of the circuit over east London, travelling south at the easternmost part of the circuit, with the sun to the west and behind the photographer. Two photos taken probably 10 to 15 minutes apart - no more - in the same part of the sky. The later photo, the one of the DHL aircraft being a little nearer to dusk, has light that is less harsh shining on the subject. After that, the simplest photochop job ever.

Either that or someone needed fresh shreddies