AA777-200 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 322 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4054 times:
Its not a near miss!!!! A near miss means they hit and almost missed! How many times do we have to say this?!?!?!?
(ok I feel better now)
CO2BGR From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 558 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4004 times:
These alarms are triggered more than one would hope and think. It never said how far the planes were apart. Must have been a slow news day.
The pic in the article is of a 744 however.
There are too many self indulgent weiners in this town with too much bloody money" Randal Raines- Gone in 60 Seconds
Learjet25 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 79 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3957 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.
Rick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3809 times:
"The National Air Traffic Service said there was no risk to passengers on board the two planes.
Controllers based in Hampshire said the planes were travelling in the same direction at the same speed, with at least a mile-and-a-half between them"
Slow news day indeed... not that close, sounds like separation standards were violated but little or no risk of collision existed. Have been closer than that before with a TCAS RA.
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3478 times:
Bah, 1.5 mile seperation. I don't get excited until I can count the bugs on the other airplane. I'd rather not be able to do that again though.
Stretch 8 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2561 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3062 times:
Actually, I was more surprised to read that the flight, BA#202 from Detroit, was operating with a 777. It had been a 767 for quite some time.
(I can remember as a kid flying a BOAC VC-10 from Detroit to Heathrow)
Maggs swings, it's a drive deep to left! The Tigers are going to the World Series!!!
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2813 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, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2552 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...
V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Aug 2001, 346 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4491 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 322 posts, 
Ta.
Sooo funny.
not!! 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
