Way too close for comfort!!

This happens often as the runways are both next to one another ....... Google it
 
Right that's it I'm never flying with BA again ! - seriously though, a good capture which has started an interesting debate. With a bit of careful commercial management of this image you may increase your bank balance. Definitely one to Copyright asap. - good luck and let us know how you get on !
 
Cheesy said:
From my limited experience, aircraft tend to take off and land into wind (something about lift being proportional to airspeed rather than groundspeed). To that end I guarantee that one aircraft is not landing while the other is departing, rather Heathrow have been using parallel departure runways or (less likely) one is in the stack as the other departs.
Click to expand...


:LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Cheesy said:
From my limited experience, aircraft tend to take off and land into wind (something about lift being proportional to airspeed rather than groundspeed). To that end I guarantee that one aircraft is not landing while the other is departing, rather Heathrow have been using parallel departure runways or (less likely) one is in the stack as the other departs.
Click to expand...

This did make me spit my drink everywhere
 
Cheesy said:
From my limited experience, aircraft tend to take off and land into wind (something about lift being proportional to airspeed rather than groundspeed).
Click to expand...

Not always. The upper wind is also taken into account. Nice photo but a total non story. Why send them to a newspaper? They will be at least 1000ft apart.
 
Last edited:
Looking back at the start of the thread there was a reference to them "doing circles" which would imply that they were in a holding pattern more commony known as "a stack" whilst awaiting their turn for approach. Holds are always flown in the same direction (which varies between different holding points, can be left or right hand) and have separation of 1,000ft between each aircraft. They fly a racetrack shaped patterns (usually 1 minute per leg and 1 minute turn between each leg so 4 mins per lap at lower levels, 1.5 mins/leg higher up) and as the one at the bottom leaves the hold to commence vectoring to approach they all move down one level.

So, these two aircraft IF on adjacent levels in the hold would be 1,000ft apart as an absolute minimum, far more otherwise. Their TCAS (collision avoidance system) which all BA aircraft have would be telling both pilots how far apart they are in altitude terms and if it were a problem those systems would scream a resolution advisory instruction at them. 1,000ft is perfectly normal and your flights to Ibiza will probably pass other aircraft head-on only 1,000 above or below you.

IOW, it looks good but it is perfectly normal behaviour.
 
Indeed it's a 767-300 and a 747-400 so quite a size difference, and it's actually quite common for aircraft to come this close (y) don't forget your talking about vertical and horizontal separation distances check out photo's of landings at SFO (San Francisco) where they have parallel runways both used for landing at the same time :eek:

Such as http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unit...0652327/&sid=5cb859db969ffaa4b0e6b1e77c1eceff

or this from LAX http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cath...0967005/&sid=5cb859db969ffaa4b0e6b1e77c1eceff

This is a amazing one :D
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-...0472418/&sid=5cb859db969ffaa4b0e6b1e77c1eceff

Or videos such as this :D

[YOUTUBE]xl6iR7w7a_Q[/YOUTUBE]

It's a nice capture though the fact that you have airliners from the same company eg. BA (y)

Matt
MWHCVT
 
Dave Stone said:
Not always. The upper wind is also taken into account.
Click to expand...

Errr ok (still trying to be reasonably subtle) Aircraft will takeoff and land into wind. They can takeoff downwind but this could increase their takeoff roll by a factor of around 1.5 . This makes it exceptionally dangerous. Trust me the upper wind is an irrelevance - it is the surface wind that is the deciding factor in takeoff direction.

I don't claim to know all of the answers but I do have a passing interest in this field. Why not have a look at my Flickr if you need an idea of my credentials!

Cheesy
 
I think folks are getting a bit carried away here with this image... a common site at most large airports with more than 1 runway
the compression of a telephoto lens also make them appear much closer than they are

I think this image and all this 'send it to the papers' is way OTT its a poor image of a common happening

Dave Stone
Cheesy was being modest about his 'limited' knowledge of the subject - believe me he is the 'foremost' expert on this forum on the subject (fact)
 
Buttkicker said:
I think folks are getting a bit carried away here with this image... a common site at most large airports with more than 1 runway
the compression of a telephoto lens also make them appear much closer than they are

I think this image and all this 'send it to the papers' is way OTT its a poor image of a common happening

Dave Stone
Cheesy was being modest about his 'limited' knowledge of the subject - believe me he is the 'foremost' expert on this forum on the subject (fact)
Click to expand...

Exactly (y) and Cheesy's Avatar kind of gives it away too (y)
 
Cheesy said:
Errr ok (still trying to be reasonably subtle) Aircraft will takeoff and land into wind. They can takeoff downwind but this could increase their takeoff roll by a factor of around 1.5 . This makes it exceptionally dangerous. Trust me the upper wind is an irrelevance - it is the surface wind that is the deciding factor in takeoff direction.

I don't claim to know all of the answers but I do have a passing interest in this field. Why not have a look at my Flickr if you need an idea of my credentials!

Cheesy
Click to expand...

By Upper Wind I mean ~1000ft wind. I spent 21 years in ATC including Southampton, Farnborough, Gatwick, Larkhill & Swanwick (were I spent 5 years training ATCOs). Also have somewhere in the region of 1500 flying hours. About 1200 gliding. 900 of those instructing. Before a runway change is considered at Gatwick winds on the approach are always considered. Landing with a tailwind component in the region of 5 knots + or - a few is not unusual. The take off run or landing distance will be increased by a factor, with lots of variables. It is also relevent to the size of the runway. It is only dangerous if the landing/take off distance required is greater than is available. It is possible to have a headwind on approach turning to a talwind component close to landing. A tailwind component on approach with very large jets brings it's own challenges :) Take my word for it. I have seen it a LOT. The military way of operating has an awful lot of differences to the way civil air traffic operates. At Fanborough we had to observe both sets of rules for some time.
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
Exactly (y) and Cheesy's Avatar kind of gives it away too (y)
Click to expand...

It tells me he flies small fast jets with I presume, the RAF. I have several friends that have done and still do the same. It is a completely different ball game to large commercial operations.
 
Looks like there's a couple of people here with ologys on the subject [if you're too young to understand the meaning of this.....oh well... :D]
 
My cash would be on an Airboooos.

As for only being told if it leaks out? Nope, have a look at AAIB's web site, and you'll see how flawed that assumption is. The Air Transport industry has a safety culture that involves learning from mistakes, and are much more open than most others about sharing errors.
 
Dave Stone said:
It tells me he flies small fast jets with I presume, the RAF. I have several friends that have done and still do the same. It is a completely different ball game to large commercial operations.
Click to expand...

2 points - physics is physics: check PMs.
- Small fast jets:LOL:!!! I have the best job going buddy!
 
Cheesy said:
From my limited experience, aircraft tend to take off and land into wind (something about lift being proportional to airspeed rather than groundspeed). To that end I guarantee that one aircraft is not landing while the other is departing, rather Heathrow have been using parallel departure runways or (less likely) one is in the stack as the other departs.
Click to expand...


Sorry, didn't quite explain it properly, what I meant was, one had departed Heathrow and the other had left the hold and was heading for Heathrow to land, if that makes more sense?
 
Cheesy said:
I'd like to caveat my next statement with the fact that I am in no way belittling your image.

This is exactly the sort of 'no story' photo that the Sun would print on a slow news day. Just email their news desk telling them you saw what you thought was going to be a collision and took the shot. Give them a headline by saying that you were so concerned about the possibility of collision that you now think any plans for extra runways in the South of England have you terrified!
Click to expand...

Got to love the press.

Dav
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
Valid! That is another non-story. You are aware that the Hawk has 2 seats? Trust me, I made sure I was operating inside the rules before ever posting here. TP do seem to be getting bored of Hawk shots though, perhaps it's time I took a break.

Cheesy
Click to expand...

NO please keep your hawk photos coming i dont post to often on here but your shots are always a bit special, keep em coming :)
 
My mate is in the tower at Manc airport.... happens a lot and those that do cause near misses in the air and more so on the ground taxiing. Usually get a rollicking or suspended until 'Why' it nearly happened is sorted out.

The UFO films during training for Air Traffic control are the most interesting my mate was telling me during training...

Ohhh spooky!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top