Once again, Bailey strikes back with another of his incredible photos! Nice one!
How is this possible? What is the minimum separation?
Which separation are you talking about now? Between the two planes visible, or between the 340 and the plane from which the photo was taken. As far as I know, 1000 feet, as described in the remark, is the amount of separation that is usually used, and I suppose that is more than enough. I am assuming this shot was taken with a long tele lens, and its flying above the 340. These are all just (probably dumb) conjectures, so we should get Bailey himself here to answer this!
Is this real?
If I were you, I would take a look through the rest of Bailey's images, before accusing him of forgery. The nature of his job (777 pilot) allows him to take pictures such as these. Always expect the unexpected from him!
Edit: KI911: He is a pilot, and pilots have a view out the front! Careful what you say!
[Edited 2004-08-11 17:46:54]
I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
BIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 6 days ago) and read 15799 times:
I would be a pilot. Awesome stuff. Is there a link to view his other photos? Looks like amazing stuff. To the untrained eye it looks scary but it still looks phenomenal especially knowing it's authentic.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17428 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 6 days ago) and read 15735 times:
"before accusing him of forgery"
No one's accusing him of forgery. I wanted to know how this is possible primarily. I knew there was a reduced vertical minimum separation but I thought there was still a horizontal separation requirement...
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15563 times:
As the photographer's A/C is flying in the same direction as the A340, shouldn't there be a 2000 feet separation?
You almost stumped me . I had to think about that one for a minute, but yes there should be 2000' of vert seperation. But as people have said before, I think he has a long tele lens on his camera. I hope we can get a comment on here from the photographer, but being a 777 pilot, I'm sure he's quite busy.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
SafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15524 times:
Impossible, the photographer would have been about 200 yards behind the plane to shoot this,
Zoom lenses my friend.
plus , if you're on a plane you cannot look forward, only left and right.
As mentioned, there are cockpit windows. Also, there could have a been a situation where the plane that the person was taking the picture was perpendicular to the two other planes.
"before accusing him of forgery"
No one's accusing him of forgery.
You might no be, but this person is: "It's a fake!"
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4247 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15252 times:
Wow - this guy is pretty good with a camera.
My only concern is that I hope he is not forgetting to fly his own plane while taking these shots! I'd hate to think how close he must have been to that China Air A340 (although I have heard of 'zoom'!).
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14926 times:
Awww SafetyDude, do you really think it is a fake? I hope no one would be that low as posting fake images on this great site. Do you not think the screeners thoroughly reviewed this? Is it because you can't get shots like it? Can you explain a little more? I hope you are joking.