Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5752248/

Topic: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: raffik
Posted 2013-05-01 06:38:26 and read 18499 times.

Just read this extraordinary article about a Glasgow bound A320 having a near miss with a UFO.
Anyone care to shed some light on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22365368

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: shufflemoomin
Posted 2013-05-01 06:42:51 and read 18453 times.

Odd that they say it was "bigger than a balloon". That's like saying it was longer than a piece of string. I'd say a balloon would be the most likely explanation.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: Birdwatching
Posted 2013-05-01 06:45:34 and read 18418 times.

What's a "near miss"? Does that mean it hit the UFO, but almost missed it?

Soren   

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: Quantos
Posted 2013-05-01 07:12:15 and read 18186 times.

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 2):

What's a "near miss"? Does that mean it hit the UFO, but almost missed it?

They actually had a "near hit". Indeed, a collision is a "near miss" :P

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: RobK
Posted 2013-05-01 07:33:12 and read 18037 times.

Quoting raffik (Thread starter):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22365368

"although the radar at Prestwick did spot an "unidentified track history" 1.3 nautical miles east of the A320's position 28 seconds earlier."

Which surely should have been relayed to the A320, no?

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: shufflemoomin
Posted 2013-05-01 08:10:41 and read 17767 times.

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 2):
What's a "near miss"?

I don't understand why someone has to bring this up every single time. It was a miss and it came very near to the object it missed. Seems clear enough to most people.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: canadianpylon
Posted 2013-05-01 08:25:33 and read 17701 times.

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 5):
I don't understand why someone has to bring this up every single time. It was a miss and it came very near to the object it missed. Seems clear enough to most people.


If you nearly miss something, you hit it. I have to call my insurance company when I nearly miss another vehicle while driving.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: 2008matt
Posted 2013-05-01 08:59:38 and read 17539 times.

Erm, just to clarify, a 'near miss' DOES NOT mean you hit it! Near miss means you missed the object but were very close to hitting it. Maybe it is just an English saying?

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-05-01 09:11:20 and read 17459 times.

What is an A320 doing at 4,000ft some 20km East of GLA? Isn't that a little low that soon, there must still have been around 30km left to run before landing.


Dan  

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: IADCA
Posted 2013-05-01 09:22:54 and read 17375 times.

Quoting 2008matt (Reply 7):
Erm, just to clarify, a 'near miss' DOES NOT mean you hit it! Near miss means you missed the object but were very close to hitting it. Maybe it is just an English saying?

It's not. This joke was made very popular by the (American) comedian George Carlin. Yes, it's a slightly odd way of saying it, but the meaning is clear. People just like to feel witty when they point out the oddity of it.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: ScottishDavie
Posted 2013-05-01 09:32:10 and read 17295 times.

Bonnybridge, the UFO capital of Scotland (and in the views of some the UFO capital of the world) is only a few miles up the road from Baillieston. Just thought you'd like to know...   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnybridge

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: canadianpylon
Posted 2013-05-01 09:56:05 and read 17177 times.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 9):
Quoting 2008matt (Reply 7):
Erm, just to clarify, a 'near miss' DOES NOT mean you hit it! Near miss means you missed the object but were very close to hitting it. Maybe it is just an English saying?

It's not. This joke was made very popular by the (American) comedian George Carlin. Yes, it's a slightly odd way of saying it, but the meaning is clear. People just like to feel witty when they point out the oddity of it.

It's one of those subtleties of the English language were two separate words put together take on the opposite meaning of the individual words.

To be fair, one of the definitions of the words 'near miss' is for ordinance (missiles/artillery) that land far enough from their target to be considered a miss, but near enough to still contribute damage to the target.

The English language... you have to love it.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-05-01 11:38:43 and read 16893 times.

Quoting canadianpylon (Reply 11):
The English language... you have to love it.

"Near miss" = "Close miss". Nothing particularly confusing about it.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-05-01 12:38:48 and read 16531 times.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 9):

It's not. This joke was made very popular by the (American) comedian George Carlin. Yes, it's a slightly odd way of saying it, but the meaning is clear. People just like to feel witty when they point out the oddity of it.

Here is Carlin setting the precedent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuCN6CD8j_s

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: steex
Posted 2013-05-01 12:51:44 and read 16261 times.

Quoting canadianpylon (Reply 6):
If you nearly miss something, you hit it. I have to call my insurance company when I nearly miss another vehicle while driving.

Ah, but alas, "nearly" and "near" are different words despite the same root. "Nearly" is used as an adverb used to clarify the verb "miss" when you "nearly miss" something, whereas "near" is an adjective that describes the noun "miss" when you have a "near miss."

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: KaiTak747
Posted 2013-05-01 13:40:51 and read 15271 times.

This is a strange story. Most of the UFO sightings you read about are from unreliable sources.

But two airline pilots, I can believe that they saw something.

Quoting RobK (Reply 4):
"although the radar at Prestwick did spot an "unidentified track history" 1.3 nautical miles east of the A320's position 28 seconds earlier."

A microlight perhaps?

----------------------

This is an aviation forum with members from all over the world with many speaking English as a second language.

Emphasis on aviation forum!

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: bohica
Posted 2013-05-01 13:46:23 and read 15154 times.

Near miss? Near hit? It doesn't matter. Was there little green men inside the UFO?

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: moose135
Posted 2013-05-01 14:09:07 and read 14743 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 12):
"Near miss" = "Close miss". Nothing particularly confusing about it.

And considering the term has been used in the aviation field for decades to denote two aircraft coming in close proximity with colliding, and this is, after all, an aviation web site, you would think people would understand the meaning...  


Quoting bohica (Reply 16):
Was there little green men inside the UFO?

That's the real question we want answered!   

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: EIDL
Posted 2013-05-01 14:24:34 and read 14451 times.

Quite large, blue & yellow? MOLs ego might have managed to take flight of its own accord...   

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-05-01 14:26:16 and read 14416 times.

Quoting moose135 (Reply 17):
you would think people would understand the meaning...  

Oh, they understand, some people just want to be a smart aleck. But it's the people who constantly feel the need to bring this up that end up on the wrong end of things. "Near miss" does not mean "nearly missed" - it means a miss that was near. They're confusing an adjective with an adverb.

"Near hit" (the proposed alternative) would be redundant and incorrect. A "near hit" would be a hit that happened near to the object being hit - that's nonsensical. And "near hit" as opposed to what, anyway? A far hit? That's impossible.

If you add a dash to these terms ("near-miss"), then you could argue that it means something else, but *that* actually becomes a little confusing and would require explanation each time.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: Shany
Posted 2013-05-01 14:34:42 and read 14274 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 8):
What is an A320 doing at 4,000ft some 20km East of GLA?

That's 10,8 NM out. You normally count 300 ft per NM on a 3° final approach slope, so 3000 ft AGL (above gorund level) at 10 NM. So they were even a bit high, if GLA is at sea level, but I didn't look up GLA field elevation, nevertheless.

Best regards.
Shany

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: richierich
Posted 2013-05-01 14:36:47 and read 14241 times.

Quoting canadianpylon (Reply 6):
If you nearly miss something, you hit it. I have to call my insurance company when I nearly miss another vehicle while driving.
Quoting Quantos (Reply 3):
They actually had a "near hit". Indeed, a collision is a "near miss" :P

Darn Canadians - you always have to be so technical and precise!  
Quoting 2008matt (Reply 7):
Erm, just to clarify, a 'near miss' DOES NOT mean you hit it! Near miss means you missed the object but were very close to hitting it. Maybe it is just an English saying?

Yes, it's an oxymoron. It is a quirk of the English language and it does not make any sense, or at least any more sense than "pretty ugly" or "feeling numb"...but the generally accepted usage of a "near miss" is to describe an event that almost results in a collision but does not actually result in a collision. Let's move beyond English-language nuances and talk about the near collision with the UFO, please.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: Shany
Posted 2013-05-01 14:36:54 and read 14241 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 8):
What is an A320 doing at 4,000ft some 20km East of GLA?

That's 10,8 NM out. You normally count 300 ft per NM on a 3° final approach slope, so 3000 ft AGL (above gorund level) at 10 NM. So they were even a bit high, if GLA is at sea level, but I didn't look up GLA field elevation, nevertheless.

Best regards.
Shany

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-05-01 16:33:54 and read 12751 times.

Quoting Shany (Reply 22):
That's 10,8 NM out. You normally count 300 ft per NM on a 3° final approach slope, so 3000 ft AGL (above gorund level) at 10 NM. So they were even a bit high, if GLA is at sea level, but I didn't look up GLA field elevation, nevertheless.

This is the direct distance, if you are over that position you still have a minimum of 30km left to run, more realistically around 40km/20nm, before you arrive at GLA. Perhaps it isn't, but it seems a little low to me - I don't recall being much below around 6,000ft at that point when I've flown into GLA on that runway.


Dan  

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: flanker
Posted 2013-05-01 20:46:53 and read 10510 times.

Wow you people surely know how to turn a thread upside down. Knock off the stupid technicalities and get back on topic.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: Speedbird128
Posted 2013-05-02 01:45:33 and read 8015 times.

Quoting flanker (Reply 24):

Priceless! Not even a MC would get that..


Now,

Quoting RobK (Reply 4):
"although the radar at Prestwick did spot an "unidentified track history" 1.3 nautical miles east of the A320's position 28 seconds earlier."

I don't pass info on every ghost trail to pilots. I'd be more busy giving traffic information about a truck on a highway or a ship, or high-level traffic breaking through the target filter due to erratic mode C reporting than I would be separating or vectoring my traffic.

If it's obvious that its an aircraft that could possibly be in my sector and it has no transponder for altitude verification (often VFR's fly low level with no transponder turned on), I will give essential traffic info. But often due to the low level nature the targets are often intermittent etc If its a constant return then i know its not low level and caution should be taken. But traffic loading always plays a factor too...

EDIT:
And further to your quotation is this from the BBC article "The controller stated that he was not talking to anyone else in that area and that nothing was seen on radar.

Search action was taken with no result and the A320 pilot stated his intention to file a report to Airprox, which investigates near misses.

Air traffic control said they had no trace of any other objects in the area at the time of the incident, although the radar at Prestwick did spot an "unidentified track history" 1.3 nautical miles east of the A320's position 28 seconds earlier."

Bold/underline mine. The radar processor might not have actually presented the information to the ATC if the targets were too weak... RDP's and Track processors are complicated things. It might have been a subsequent look at raw radar data...



[Edited 2013-05-02 01:48:35]

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: flyglobal
Posted 2013-05-02 05:05:41 and read 6128 times.

I know what happened:

The A320 occasionally met the top secret Boeing 737 successor Prototype plane 'Next Gen Narrow Body'.
:D
Due to a temporary error in the stealth mode function, the A320 crew had a sneak preview of this top secret development.
It is obviously so secret that even Stich didn't get in the info loop yet.

Guess Airbus is quite nervous now.

:D

Regards
Flyglobal

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: AA777
Posted 2013-05-02 06:18:33 and read 5337 times.

LOL, wow..... I never thought about it but a near miss doesnt make sense at all.

If you nearly missed something, it means you almost missed it... which means you probably hit it.

It should be near collision or even close call....

Anyway.... lol.... Good that the plane DID NOT hit whatever it was that was buzzing around.....

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: Tristan7977
Posted 2013-05-02 07:51:22 and read 4912 times.

I'd like to see the pilots draw what they saw, that would give us a good explanation. Was there any some sort of footage? There are some airports that film the planes as they descend, mostly from the tower from what I can see.

The "as large as a balloon" bit really doesn't help give us an idea of what it is. We'll know more as time goes by....

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-02 09:18:19 and read 4757 times.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 26):
The A320 occasionally met the top secret Boeing 737 successor Prototype plane 'Next Gen Narrow Body'.

   It was Marvin hot rodding in his little saucer again. He likes to buzz planes for some reason. We've tried to talk with him, but he just telepathically takes control of us to let us know he's in charge...


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: breiz
Posted 2013-05-02 12:54:11 and read 4482 times.

What I am wondering is if the UFO is required to fill a near-miss report?
After all, the A320 was recklessly crossing their fly-path.
Not surprised from people who wash their engines with volcanic ashes or put ice cubes in their tanks  .

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: Yflyer
Posted 2013-05-02 14:57:34 and read 4316 times.

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 15):
This is a strange story. Most of the UFO sightings you read about are from unreliable sources.

But two airline pilots, I can believe that they saw something.

The pilots were most likely using the more literal meaning of "UFO". When most people hear UFO they imagine flying saucers from outer space with little green men inside. But it really just means "unidentified flying object." They say an object, it was flying, and they couldn't identify what it was, therefore they saw an unidentified flying object. I don't know if UFO is a standard term pilots use when they see something like that, but maybe an actual pilot could shed some light on that.

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: oldeuropean
Posted 2013-05-04 06:46:29 and read 3793 times.

The UFO was probably a IFS (Identified Flying Shark).

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/we...ium-shark-could-ufo-pilots-1864901

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: KaiTak747
Posted 2013-05-04 08:53:00 and read 3675 times.

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 32):

The UFO was probably a IFS (Identified Flying Shark).

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/we...ium-shark-could-ufo-pilots-1864901

This is the most likely explanation.
This must be one of the most unusual aviation events ever, a plane almost colliding with a shark!!

Topic: RE: A320 Has Near Miss With UFO?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-05 20:35:31 and read 3210 times.

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 32):
The UFO was probably a IFS (Identified Flying Shark).

Those were for sale a year ago at a local toy store. But there were quite bit more expensive than 15 quid... Little Billy has a bit of explaining to do.  


Lightsaber


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/