Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Separation?  
User currently offlinePilotNtrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1783 times:

Don't get me wrong the pics these guys take over in LAX are phenomenal, some of the best on a.net, but aren't they a little close to the departure corridor? I know they have radar coverage by ATC and they give them permission to fly that route, but seems to be a little close. I know zoom on the camera is used, but one of these air to air pics the photographer said the separation was only 1000ft, isn't that the minimum separation? Just a curious question or two, if the photographer reads this. Great Shot!




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Werner




Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17058 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

Actually the zoom lens fools the eye. Notice how the relatively small cars jump up at you. This plane is close to the ground. The caption mentions flying at 3500ft.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePilotNtrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Im not sure what the climb rate is on a 747, but isn't that still pushing it a little close? lol


Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6842 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1697 times:

"one of these air to air pics the photographer said the separation was only 1000ft"

1000 ft would be legal, right? But I'm guessing they didn't say that. Can you quote where they did?


User currently offlinePilotNtrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Maybe it wasn't a thousand feet, but a few hundred, check out the remarks in this awesome picture.




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Werner




Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
User currently offlineAeroflot777 From Russia, joined Mar 2004, 3010 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

In regard to the pic in reply #4, isn't this posing a risk for a disaster. I mean a huge jumbo is not only passing by, but actually going straight at you!! I mean counting how fast planes fly, should there be a crash in no time. I mean its 200+ m/hr!!!

Aeroflot777


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Since when does the angle of attack of a 744 taking off exactly match its climb rate?? Even though the plane looks as if it is coming at the photographer, it will pass far below him.


Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6842 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1659 times:

Far as we can tell, the head-on pic was taken from 3+ km away. Take a look at the "Right into your Face" thread in the Photography forum.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/144989/

While you're there, make sure to look at the simulated pics in the linked pprune thread, in reply #50.

[Edited 2004-08-27 18:59:24]

[Edited 2004-08-27 19:00:30]

User currently offlineMikeyUSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

The pictures were most likely taken from the Los Angeles Special Flight rules area, a VFR corridor directly over LAX 3500ft NW bound, 4500ft SE bound that allows VFR aircraft to pass through the Class B airspace without talking to ATC. All departures from LAX are initially assigned 3000ft, and 500ft is minimum legally required separation between VFR & IFR aircraft.

Mike


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17058 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

1000ft is acceptable horizontal separation. This does not indicate the actual distance between the aircraft. Also, one plane could be crossing so while the photoplane may be in the flightpath of the 744 (unlikely) it's crossing the path and will be nowhere near when the 744 gets to that point.

As Wietse points out, the direction in which the nose is pointing is not necessarily the direction in which the aircraft is flying. In most cases the nose points several degrees further up than the direction of flight (this is known as "angle of attack"), especially at low speeds.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5147 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Even if those photo's are very nice, it doesn't justify the risk they take. Imagine engine failure, or even worse, a guy who flies there and wants to go 'kamikaze' on a 747 or terminal building.

Do those people get the same screening passengers have? Don't think so. You make one mistake, deliberate or not, and you fly right into a 747 on take off.

I say this photographer takes to many risks to win our attention, and is forgeting about all the risks involved.

Again, just my 200 euro....

KL911


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6842 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1583 times:

"All departures from LAX are initially assigned 3000ft"

Yeah, I was wondering about that-- in Sam Chui's caption he said the 744's initial clearance was to 1000 ft. Sounds unlikely?

But we still have a problem: the pics clearly weren't taken from midfield. The SMO 132-degree radial almost bisects runway 25R, but the pics were taken from a mile or two (or three) west of there.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17058 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

If ATC thinks it's ok, that's good enough for me.

Besides, there's time for the 744 to dodge. We're talking clear sky VFR.

What are you going to do, block off huge swathes of airspace for no good reason. Planes still approach over Manhattan, for example.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMikeyUSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1544 times:

"But we still have a problem: the pics clearly weren't taken from midfield. The SMO 132-degree radial almost bisects runway 25R, but the pics were taken from a mile or two (or three) west of there."

There is also the shoreline transition route, which is offshore, 2500ft to 4000ft, ATC clearance IS required, altitude assigned by ATC, which allows another area (probably better) for getting the departure shots. It isn't generally used any more because of a couple of incidents with airliners busting their assigned altitude (NOT the GA guys) and coming close to a Mid-Air.

Mike


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

PilotNtrng, When you've got some hours logged understand the system, and seen other traffic while actually in the air your perspective of this will change.

Aeroflot777, Kl911. This is not meant as an insult, or put down. Your remarks show that you are not seasoned in the aviation field.
Don't let photos, news reports from untrained sources, or other nonaviation sources influence you thoughts on aviation matters. Trust me. Everything you see in those photos is camera magic, and completely safe. Were it not, every Commercial Pilot and ATC group would have ended it years ago. Directly over, or a mile or two either side of LAX is the safest place to be in the skies of southern California.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlinePilotNtrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

Spree I do have some hours logged, I was just curious about the separation. MikeyUSC thank you for the explanation. LAX obvioulsy has some special rules for us VFR pilots. Sorry for being ignorant on LAX's airspace regs.


Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Vortex Separation - No Near Term Change posted Sat Dec 22 2007 07:36:43 by OldAeroGuy
A380 - Any Wash Separation Problems In Reality? posted Tue Dec 11 2007 09:56:09 by Art
A380 Set For Cut In Wake Separation posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:18:55 by Leelaw
A380: Separation Rules Relaxed posted Thu Dec 14 2006 15:34:29 by RedFlyer
Airbus Predicts Reduction In A380 Separation Dist posted Mon Apr 24 2006 18:49:17 by Leelaw
Is This Separation Normal? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 08:01:24 by Hmmmm...
A380 10 Mile Separation & Operations At Sydney posted Tue Dec 13 2005 23:45:28 by RichardJF
Separation Between Aircrafts posted Tue Jun 21 2005 05:30:14 by Chris777
What's New With Air Transat Rudder Separation? posted Fri Apr 15 2005 23:30:12 by GoogleBoy
Aircraft Separation posted Wed Mar 2 2005 20:44:40 by USAir734