Mid-air 'near miss'

How far apart would you say these aircraft are?

[Syzygy]

Officials have denied any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently flying perilously close together over east London.

The spokesman said there was no question that either aircraft had strayed from its proper path, which should mean there was a distance of some two and a half miles between them.

The story, complete with photo, is courtesy of the BBC [news.bbc.co.uk].

Two an a half miles apart?

Syzygy

[sem4u]

I had a look at this yesterday. The planes look very close together on the photo but it could be the way it was taken.

[encyclo]

Depends on the lens used. This photograph was taken by a professional photographer who could have been using a long lens: 400mm to 800mm or even more. If that is the case then the two planes could have easily been more than more than 2½ miles apart - the effect of the lens is to give a very compressed impression of perspective.

[Sarah Atkinson]

where's the picture?

[sem4u]

Looks like the BBC have removed the picture from that page now.

[DamonHD]

Hi,

Look out for black helicopters...

Rgds

Damon

[kevinpate]

> where's the picture?

hmmm, maybe they were that close after all? :)

[Rugles]

The picture was on the Drudge Report earlier today.

Man, do they look close.

<added> it is still there now

[treeline]

I fly, and often at airshows where craft can be close together. After years of watching and considering the question of where someone else is, I've concluded that because of problems with perception you can not eyeball it and be accurate. Differences in size, distance, relative motion all led to enticingly obvious but wrong conclusions.

I haven't seen the picture, but one day at a photo show came across a photo that looked like I was about to become nose art on a 767. It was definitely me, and it was clear when. The 767 looked like it was about to crash into me, but couldn't have been within 10,000 ft vertically, and was only noticed by the photographer in just the right place to line it up. She gave me a copy.

[Neo541]

Uh, wow. I sure hope that it's just a perspective thing, because they look close.

[sky.com...]

[digitalghost]

Wouldn't it be a near hit? Is that why you put 'near miss' in quotes Syzygy? ;)

[Syzygy]

Exactly that reason, DG.

;-)

Syzygy

[akmac]

Semantics... [cjr.org]

[digitalghost]

>>semantics

But of course. ;) And why should ubiquity be a factor in considering correct usage? 'Ain't got none' enjoys ubiquity as does 'irregardless'.

[akmac]

;-)

Were it not, language would be limited, as opposed to living.

And for the record, 'irregardless' is listed in the Oxford American Dictionaries-though it is accompanied by a note that it is "avoided by careful users of English"

<aside>I tend to agree with dictionaries, except when they attempt to reign in my Scrabble inspired literary innovations.</aside>

Oops-nearly missed responding to the original question! I'd say about 12 feet-but lenses can work wonders.

[shigamoto]

I think it's the angle, the ONL aircraft should be below the other one, otherwise they would have crashed into eachother already :P But it does look close.