Learjet25 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 79 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
I really think aircraft pass as close or closer than that more often than people think. Same direction and speed, a mile and a half between them...technically but not really a "near miss". I recall several times in the past year passing closer above behind or below other aircraft.
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4113 times:
It's happened twice actually, and I'll provide them in reverse order since the first was more exciting.
The second time I was with an instrument student in his Mooney slightly north of Albany, OR on V23 at 4000 (I think, could be wrong on the altitude), and a Citation shot by just underneath us climbing towards our 2 o'clock. It really wasn't all that close, probably 300 feet or so below us, but he quickly climbed above us after passing. Center called the traffic for us just after it passed (though Center still saw it at our 7 o'clock about) and I can't remember exactly what I replied with but it was something about him being close.
The first time I was in a Cutlass over the Columbia southeast of Scappoose, OR at about 1,500 I think. Saw something move on the edge of my periphial vision on the right, look over, and there's a twin (something like a Baron) in a 90 degree bank pulling away from me. He (she?) didn't have any bugs on his belly, but there were a lot of grease stains. If he'd (or she'd) reacted a fraction of a second later, we'd both be dead.
Both situations illustrate that scanning for traffic doesn't always work, since I was in both cases.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 16, posted (10 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3852 times:
Actually, near miss IS the correct term. Near is used as an adjective (meaning 'within a short distance), miss is used as a noun (meaning 'a failure to hit'). Hence, it means a miss which was near [to being a hit]. A near hit actually means the things came close, and hit each other, provided near is used in the same, spatial sense. Now, if near were to be used in the temporal sense, then 'near hit' would mean close to hitting.
As 'near miss' is both grammatically and logically correct, AND the accepted term, I don't see there is any need to jump up and down saying it is wrong every time someone says it...
English teacher mode off...
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh