Did we get closer to another plane than we were supposed to, or was the pilot just protecting our delicate sensibilities?How close can planes fly to each other over the ocean?How is a near miss defined?What is a two- or three-mile base exactly?I accidentally deviated from an ATC instruction as a student pilot. How bad was it?Was I nearly involved in an accident?Are runways “one-way”?Are there any incidents caused by rudder failure in Military jets?Are sudden turns and descents a standard emergency procedure?Is prior clearance into Class B airspace revokable?How was I able to just plug in my headphones and listen to ATC and pilot chatter?Reasons for significantly lower than normal approachIs an Aileron Roll Easier Done Opposite The Rotation Of The Plane's Propeller?

Using wilcox.test() and t.test() in R yielding different p-values

Why Faces eat each other?

What are these round pads on the bottom of a PCB?

Pre-1993 comic in which Wolverine's claws were turned to rubber?

Are there vaccine ingredients which may not be disclosed ("hidden", "trade secret", or similar)?

Unicode-math and mathrm result in missing symbols

Why is there a cap on 401k contributions?

Why do the Avengers care about returning these items in Endgame?

Thawing Glaciers return to hand interaction

Best species to breed to intelligence

Double underlining a result in a system of equations with calculation steps on the right side

How can I test a shell script in a "safe environment" to avoid harm to my computer?

What replaces x86 intrinsics for C when Apple ditches Intel CPUs for their own chips?

Are on’yomi words loanwords?

Why was Sam Wilson chosen for this, but not Bucky?

Is there an application which does HTTP PUT?

Are wands in any sort of book going to be too much like Harry Potter?

Why is it wrong to *implement* myself a known, published, widely believed to be secure crypto algorithm?

Is it possible to reduce the cost of brewing potions?

How did Captain Marvel know where to find these characters?

Do Monks gain the 9th level Unarmored Movement benefit when wearing armor or using a shield?

How long can fsck take on a 30 TB volume?

Why are thrust reversers not used to slow down to taxi speeds?

Does Thread.yield() do anything if we have enough processors to service all threads?



Did we get closer to another plane than we were supposed to, or was the pilot just protecting our delicate sensibilities?


How close can planes fly to each other over the ocean?How is a near miss defined?What is a two- or three-mile base exactly?I accidentally deviated from an ATC instruction as a student pilot. How bad was it?Was I nearly involved in an accident?Are runways “one-way”?Are there any incidents caused by rudder failure in Military jets?Are sudden turns and descents a standard emergency procedure?Is prior clearance into Class B airspace revokable?How was I able to just plug in my headphones and listen to ATC and pilot chatter?Reasons for significantly lower than normal approachIs an Aileron Roll Easier Done Opposite The Rotation Of The Plane's Propeller?













56












$begingroup$


Yesterday, April 28, 2019, I was flying on Alaska flight 557 from LAX to PDX.



About an hour into the flight (near the California/Oregon border) I was looking out the window and saw a jet travelling the opposite direction from us. It was travelling exactly the opposite direction of us and I saw it when it was ~45-60 degrees forward of us.



Within a couple of seconds of my seeing it, we banked sharply to the right. It was not a violent turn; An answer to this question describes true evasive maneuvers as, "those of you not strapped down would have been hurled to the ceiling or slammed to the floor and your stomach would be heaving in a different direction from the rest of you." - and we didn't have anything like that. I'm not sure I would have even noticed the turn had I not been looking out the window.



However, it was a pretty sharp mid-flight maneuver, and because I was over the wing, I didn't get to see the other airplane at closest approach because the wing blocked my view. I would estimate that it was about 3-5000 feet away from us. I felt like he was at pretty close to our altitude, but again, as the linked question says, that's hard to say for sure.



The linked question points out that distances and altitude differences are hard to judge. That's fair, so I'll offer the following bona fides:



  • I live about half a mile from a commercial airport, perpendicular to the end of the runway, so I have a good idea of what jets that are half a mile away from me look like. I would estimate that the other jet was a bit but not a lot further away than that.

  • If two jets pass by each other at 1/2 mile, and you can see another jet that is 60 degrees in front of or behind you, and he, like us, was travelling 480 mph, he would have been in my field of vision for 6.5 seconds. That sounds about like what I remember. At 3 miles, that number turns into 40 seconds. I don't remember the exact amount of time, but my initial estimate before I did this math was 8 seconds.

I could imagine our pilot banking the plane simply to lessen the odds of the passengers noticing a safe encounter, as even a safe encounter leads to awkward questions on sites like this.



So, my question: Did we have a near miss, or was this a standard close-but-intended encounter?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The answer to this very similar question is a good one: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3680/…
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Hall
    Apr 29 at 23:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for posting the # and specifics, often these questions omit those crucial details. Did you happen to see any details of the other plane? Airline logo, etc.? Was there any weather in the vicinity, such as thunderstorms?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan1701
    Apr 29 at 23:48










  • $begingroup$
    Clear blue skies, minimal turbulence. I couldn't see what airline the other plane was.
    $endgroup$
    – Aric TenEyck
    Apr 30 at 0:26






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    What makes you think the turn had anything to do with the other aircraft at all? You were probably just turning to follow your route. Planes turn multiple times during a flight. And sorry, but the fact that you live close to an airport does not mean you are qualified to determine the vertical distance between two aircraft in the air, which would be especially difficult during a turn since your frame of reference would be tilted.
    $endgroup$
    – J. Hougaard
    Apr 30 at 9:19






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The basic rule of aircraft (and ship) collision avoidance is "if the thing you are looking at is moving across your field of vision, you aren't going to hit it". So if you see something 45 degrees way from your plane's course and travelling parallel to your plane in the opposite direction (and therefore the 45 degree angle will be increasing), that is nothing to worry about.
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    Apr 30 at 10:28















56












$begingroup$


Yesterday, April 28, 2019, I was flying on Alaska flight 557 from LAX to PDX.



About an hour into the flight (near the California/Oregon border) I was looking out the window and saw a jet travelling the opposite direction from us. It was travelling exactly the opposite direction of us and I saw it when it was ~45-60 degrees forward of us.



Within a couple of seconds of my seeing it, we banked sharply to the right. It was not a violent turn; An answer to this question describes true evasive maneuvers as, "those of you not strapped down would have been hurled to the ceiling or slammed to the floor and your stomach would be heaving in a different direction from the rest of you." - and we didn't have anything like that. I'm not sure I would have even noticed the turn had I not been looking out the window.



However, it was a pretty sharp mid-flight maneuver, and because I was over the wing, I didn't get to see the other airplane at closest approach because the wing blocked my view. I would estimate that it was about 3-5000 feet away from us. I felt like he was at pretty close to our altitude, but again, as the linked question says, that's hard to say for sure.



The linked question points out that distances and altitude differences are hard to judge. That's fair, so I'll offer the following bona fides:



  • I live about half a mile from a commercial airport, perpendicular to the end of the runway, so I have a good idea of what jets that are half a mile away from me look like. I would estimate that the other jet was a bit but not a lot further away than that.

  • If two jets pass by each other at 1/2 mile, and you can see another jet that is 60 degrees in front of or behind you, and he, like us, was travelling 480 mph, he would have been in my field of vision for 6.5 seconds. That sounds about like what I remember. At 3 miles, that number turns into 40 seconds. I don't remember the exact amount of time, but my initial estimate before I did this math was 8 seconds.

I could imagine our pilot banking the plane simply to lessen the odds of the passengers noticing a safe encounter, as even a safe encounter leads to awkward questions on sites like this.



So, my question: Did we have a near miss, or was this a standard close-but-intended encounter?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The answer to this very similar question is a good one: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3680/…
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Hall
    Apr 29 at 23:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for posting the # and specifics, often these questions omit those crucial details. Did you happen to see any details of the other plane? Airline logo, etc.? Was there any weather in the vicinity, such as thunderstorms?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan1701
    Apr 29 at 23:48










  • $begingroup$
    Clear blue skies, minimal turbulence. I couldn't see what airline the other plane was.
    $endgroup$
    – Aric TenEyck
    Apr 30 at 0:26






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    What makes you think the turn had anything to do with the other aircraft at all? You were probably just turning to follow your route. Planes turn multiple times during a flight. And sorry, but the fact that you live close to an airport does not mean you are qualified to determine the vertical distance between two aircraft in the air, which would be especially difficult during a turn since your frame of reference would be tilted.
    $endgroup$
    – J. Hougaard
    Apr 30 at 9:19






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The basic rule of aircraft (and ship) collision avoidance is "if the thing you are looking at is moving across your field of vision, you aren't going to hit it". So if you see something 45 degrees way from your plane's course and travelling parallel to your plane in the opposite direction (and therefore the 45 degree angle will be increasing), that is nothing to worry about.
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    Apr 30 at 10:28













56












56








56


9



$begingroup$


Yesterday, April 28, 2019, I was flying on Alaska flight 557 from LAX to PDX.



About an hour into the flight (near the California/Oregon border) I was looking out the window and saw a jet travelling the opposite direction from us. It was travelling exactly the opposite direction of us and I saw it when it was ~45-60 degrees forward of us.



Within a couple of seconds of my seeing it, we banked sharply to the right. It was not a violent turn; An answer to this question describes true evasive maneuvers as, "those of you not strapped down would have been hurled to the ceiling or slammed to the floor and your stomach would be heaving in a different direction from the rest of you." - and we didn't have anything like that. I'm not sure I would have even noticed the turn had I not been looking out the window.



However, it was a pretty sharp mid-flight maneuver, and because I was over the wing, I didn't get to see the other airplane at closest approach because the wing blocked my view. I would estimate that it was about 3-5000 feet away from us. I felt like he was at pretty close to our altitude, but again, as the linked question says, that's hard to say for sure.



The linked question points out that distances and altitude differences are hard to judge. That's fair, so I'll offer the following bona fides:



  • I live about half a mile from a commercial airport, perpendicular to the end of the runway, so I have a good idea of what jets that are half a mile away from me look like. I would estimate that the other jet was a bit but not a lot further away than that.

  • If two jets pass by each other at 1/2 mile, and you can see another jet that is 60 degrees in front of or behind you, and he, like us, was travelling 480 mph, he would have been in my field of vision for 6.5 seconds. That sounds about like what I remember. At 3 miles, that number turns into 40 seconds. I don't remember the exact amount of time, but my initial estimate before I did this math was 8 seconds.

I could imagine our pilot banking the plane simply to lessen the odds of the passengers noticing a safe encounter, as even a safe encounter leads to awkward questions on sites like this.



So, my question: Did we have a near miss, or was this a standard close-but-intended encounter?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Yesterday, April 28, 2019, I was flying on Alaska flight 557 from LAX to PDX.



About an hour into the flight (near the California/Oregon border) I was looking out the window and saw a jet travelling the opposite direction from us. It was travelling exactly the opposite direction of us and I saw it when it was ~45-60 degrees forward of us.



Within a couple of seconds of my seeing it, we banked sharply to the right. It was not a violent turn; An answer to this question describes true evasive maneuvers as, "those of you not strapped down would have been hurled to the ceiling or slammed to the floor and your stomach would be heaving in a different direction from the rest of you." - and we didn't have anything like that. I'm not sure I would have even noticed the turn had I not been looking out the window.



However, it was a pretty sharp mid-flight maneuver, and because I was over the wing, I didn't get to see the other airplane at closest approach because the wing blocked my view. I would estimate that it was about 3-5000 feet away from us. I felt like he was at pretty close to our altitude, but again, as the linked question says, that's hard to say for sure.



The linked question points out that distances and altitude differences are hard to judge. That's fair, so I'll offer the following bona fides:



  • I live about half a mile from a commercial airport, perpendicular to the end of the runway, so I have a good idea of what jets that are half a mile away from me look like. I would estimate that the other jet was a bit but not a lot further away than that.

  • If two jets pass by each other at 1/2 mile, and you can see another jet that is 60 degrees in front of or behind you, and he, like us, was travelling 480 mph, he would have been in my field of vision for 6.5 seconds. That sounds about like what I remember. At 3 miles, that number turns into 40 seconds. I don't remember the exact amount of time, but my initial estimate before I did this math was 8 seconds.

I could imagine our pilot banking the plane simply to lessen the odds of the passengers noticing a safe encounter, as even a safe encounter leads to awkward questions on sites like this.



So, my question: Did we have a near miss, or was this a standard close-but-intended encounter?







air-traffic-control maneuver incidents






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 30 at 0:19







Aric TenEyck

















asked Apr 29 at 22:39









Aric TenEyckAric TenEyck

389137




389137







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The answer to this very similar question is a good one: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3680/…
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Hall
    Apr 29 at 23:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for posting the # and specifics, often these questions omit those crucial details. Did you happen to see any details of the other plane? Airline logo, etc.? Was there any weather in the vicinity, such as thunderstorms?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan1701
    Apr 29 at 23:48










  • $begingroup$
    Clear blue skies, minimal turbulence. I couldn't see what airline the other plane was.
    $endgroup$
    – Aric TenEyck
    Apr 30 at 0:26






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    What makes you think the turn had anything to do with the other aircraft at all? You were probably just turning to follow your route. Planes turn multiple times during a flight. And sorry, but the fact that you live close to an airport does not mean you are qualified to determine the vertical distance between two aircraft in the air, which would be especially difficult during a turn since your frame of reference would be tilted.
    $endgroup$
    – J. Hougaard
    Apr 30 at 9:19






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The basic rule of aircraft (and ship) collision avoidance is "if the thing you are looking at is moving across your field of vision, you aren't going to hit it". So if you see something 45 degrees way from your plane's course and travelling parallel to your plane in the opposite direction (and therefore the 45 degree angle will be increasing), that is nothing to worry about.
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    Apr 30 at 10:28












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The answer to this very similar question is a good one: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3680/…
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Hall
    Apr 29 at 23:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for posting the # and specifics, often these questions omit those crucial details. Did you happen to see any details of the other plane? Airline logo, etc.? Was there any weather in the vicinity, such as thunderstorms?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan1701
    Apr 29 at 23:48










  • $begingroup$
    Clear blue skies, minimal turbulence. I couldn't see what airline the other plane was.
    $endgroup$
    – Aric TenEyck
    Apr 30 at 0:26






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    What makes you think the turn had anything to do with the other aircraft at all? You were probably just turning to follow your route. Planes turn multiple times during a flight. And sorry, but the fact that you live close to an airport does not mean you are qualified to determine the vertical distance between two aircraft in the air, which would be especially difficult during a turn since your frame of reference would be tilted.
    $endgroup$
    – J. Hougaard
    Apr 30 at 9:19






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The basic rule of aircraft (and ship) collision avoidance is "if the thing you are looking at is moving across your field of vision, you aren't going to hit it". So if you see something 45 degrees way from your plane's course and travelling parallel to your plane in the opposite direction (and therefore the 45 degree angle will be increasing), that is nothing to worry about.
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    Apr 30 at 10:28







1




1




$begingroup$
The answer to this very similar question is a good one: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3680/…
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Apr 29 at 23:23




$begingroup$
The answer to this very similar question is a good one: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3680/…
$endgroup$
– Michael Hall
Apr 29 at 23:23




1




1




$begingroup$
Thanks for posting the # and specifics, often these questions omit those crucial details. Did you happen to see any details of the other plane? Airline logo, etc.? Was there any weather in the vicinity, such as thunderstorms?
$endgroup$
– Dan1701
Apr 29 at 23:48




$begingroup$
Thanks for posting the # and specifics, often these questions omit those crucial details. Did you happen to see any details of the other plane? Airline logo, etc.? Was there any weather in the vicinity, such as thunderstorms?
$endgroup$
– Dan1701
Apr 29 at 23:48












$begingroup$
Clear blue skies, minimal turbulence. I couldn't see what airline the other plane was.
$endgroup$
– Aric TenEyck
Apr 30 at 0:26




$begingroup$
Clear blue skies, minimal turbulence. I couldn't see what airline the other plane was.
$endgroup$
– Aric TenEyck
Apr 30 at 0:26




9




9




$begingroup$
What makes you think the turn had anything to do with the other aircraft at all? You were probably just turning to follow your route. Planes turn multiple times during a flight. And sorry, but the fact that you live close to an airport does not mean you are qualified to determine the vertical distance between two aircraft in the air, which would be especially difficult during a turn since your frame of reference would be tilted.
$endgroup$
– J. Hougaard
Apr 30 at 9:19




$begingroup$
What makes you think the turn had anything to do with the other aircraft at all? You were probably just turning to follow your route. Planes turn multiple times during a flight. And sorry, but the fact that you live close to an airport does not mean you are qualified to determine the vertical distance between two aircraft in the air, which would be especially difficult during a turn since your frame of reference would be tilted.
$endgroup$
– J. Hougaard
Apr 30 at 9:19




5




5




$begingroup$
The basic rule of aircraft (and ship) collision avoidance is "if the thing you are looking at is moving across your field of vision, you aren't going to hit it". So if you see something 45 degrees way from your plane's course and travelling parallel to your plane in the opposite direction (and therefore the 45 degree angle will be increasing), that is nothing to worry about.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 30 at 10:28




$begingroup$
The basic rule of aircraft (and ship) collision avoidance is "if the thing you are looking at is moving across your field of vision, you aren't going to hit it". So if you see something 45 degrees way from your plane's course and travelling parallel to your plane in the opposite direction (and therefore the 45 degree angle will be increasing), that is nothing to worry about.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 30 at 10:28










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















142












$begingroup$

From the flightradar24 playback, it appears to have been an encounter with Etihad Airways 171.



Your flight (Alaska) was at FL360, while the opposing was at FL370. Therefore, there was 1000 feet of vertical separation between them, which is typically considered safe when operating with RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules (see other answers).



enter image description here



I also looked up the LiveATC recordings archive (Seattle Centre Sector 14 high, 28/04 2000Z), and found a clip that I think corresponds to the event:




  • Alaska 557, can we take a heading right of course to avoid some wind?

  • Affirmative

  • Ok, deviation approved [...]






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 12




    $begingroup$
    The other answer is good because it applies generally, but I like this one a lot; it directly reassures OP that everything was safe.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim
    Apr 30 at 10:09






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Also, to a casual observer, other aircraft often appear to be much closer than they actually are. People are used to cars and fail to appreciate how the lack of visual references and the size contrast play with their perceptions.
    $endgroup$
    – J...
    Apr 30 at 12:12






  • 31




    $begingroup$
    FLNaN undefined passing near Hackamore makes one wonder... :)
    $endgroup$
    – FreeMan
    Apr 30 at 15:16







  • 8




    $begingroup$
    I actually wonder now if the "wind" on the radio is wake turbulence from the 777. Is 1000 feet a reasonable separation to avoid that? It wouldn't have to be dangerous necessarily, just a pilot wanting to keep his passengers comfortable.
    $endgroup$
    – Gremlin
    Apr 30 at 15:59






  • 26




    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck two nanometers is awfully close for a pair of tin cans moving at 1000 km/h relative to each other...
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Apr 30 at 17:15



















49












$begingroup$

It's unlikely. Because of RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules, the vertical distance between airplanes passing each other is only 1000 ft. If you were in the flight deck so you could see out front, you'd be having a wonderful time freaking out because airplanes on the same airway pass above and below going the other direction only 1000 ft away. And when they pass over 1000 ft away it looks like 300 the first few times you experience it.



Plus, thanks to GPS, everybody is exactly on the center of the airway all the time, so every oncoming airplane seems to be coming straight at you until they are a couple miles away and when they go by they are perfectly lined up above or below (the passengers rarely see them all as a result and have no idea that they are regularly are passing other aircraft close by like cars on a highway).



Same with airplanes crossing your track, or going the opposite way on an offset track (those are the ones that passengers see). If they happen to pass directly above or below, or close by going the other way, same deal - only 1000 ft above or below if they are on the next flight level and it looks like they are right next to you.



The other thing is that collision avoidance systems (TCAS) give a climb or descend instruction when there is a need to take evasive action, not a turn, so if there was an actual TCAS event you'd be pressed into your seat or coming out of it, not turning.



That being said, it is possible that one of the crew saw something visually and decided to maneuver laterally to avoid it (it was likely someone hand flying because autopilot turns are pretty gentle), but keeping in mind that fact that airplanes normally pass really close vertically, and serious evasive action usually results in stuff flying about inside, it's a good chance that what you saw was normal.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 17




    $begingroup$
    Who knows? They could have been avoiding someone, or ATC could have asked for a fast heading change to avoid a conflict. My point was just not to make assumptions because you see other airplanes nearby. If there was something serious there is likely an incident report. I know of a Dash 8 that encountered some sort of unmanned drone at 15 or 20000 ft and pushed over to avoid it, injuring the FA.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    Apr 30 at 1:15






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck Planes do tend to turn every once in a while. It makes it easier to hit the right airport. It has nothing to do with other planes that are vertically separated.
    $endgroup$
    – J. Hougaard
    Apr 30 at 9:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    FYI, auto of autopilot in RVSM space is mandatory--no hand flying.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenS
    Apr 30 at 18:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you're in RVSM and you get a TCAS RA, or you see something you need to avoid right now, you are disconnecting and hand flying post haste, RVSM or not.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    May 1 at 0:57






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck Queue Monty Python skit: "Captain, I see on the manifest that avid Aviation StackExchange user AricTenEyck is in seat 10". "Roger that, executing hard right turn, that'll give him something to talk about!" "Just as that 777 is coming up on our left! Teeheeheeheehee!" "NEAR MISS!!" Teeheeheehee" "Oh, you forgot to turn on the cabin mic..." "Oh... well maybe next time!"
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    May 1 at 19:47



















10












$begingroup$

The Etihad flight was a 777, which is a much larger aircraft, but of almost the same proportions as the 737. Also living near an airport, I am well familiar with how difficult it is to gauge altitude. You see airplanes apparently moving at quite different speeds; actually a "slow" plane is moving at a similar speed but is larger and farther away. It's really a problem in open air, with no reliable visual references for size.



So I suspect you saw the same optical illusion, where the 777 seemed closer simply because of its large size. That said, it was quite close vertically - 1000 feet separation. The horizontal separation did not matter because the vertical separation was sufficient.



It's quite possible the wake turbulence from that huge 777 was of concern to the Alaska pilot, so he deviated (with permission) to avoid it.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "528"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63846%2fdid-we-get-closer-to-another-plane-than-we-were-supposed-to-or-was-the-pilot-ju%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    142












    $begingroup$

    From the flightradar24 playback, it appears to have been an encounter with Etihad Airways 171.



    Your flight (Alaska) was at FL360, while the opposing was at FL370. Therefore, there was 1000 feet of vertical separation between them, which is typically considered safe when operating with RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules (see other answers).



    enter image description here



    I also looked up the LiveATC recordings archive (Seattle Centre Sector 14 high, 28/04 2000Z), and found a clip that I think corresponds to the event:




    • Alaska 557, can we take a heading right of course to avoid some wind?

    • Affirmative

    • Ok, deviation approved [...]






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 12




      $begingroup$
      The other answer is good because it applies generally, but I like this one a lot; it directly reassures OP that everything was safe.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim
      Apr 30 at 10:09






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      Also, to a casual observer, other aircraft often appear to be much closer than they actually are. People are used to cars and fail to appreciate how the lack of visual references and the size contrast play with their perceptions.
      $endgroup$
      – J...
      Apr 30 at 12:12






    • 31




      $begingroup$
      FLNaN undefined passing near Hackamore makes one wonder... :)
      $endgroup$
      – FreeMan
      Apr 30 at 15:16







    • 8




      $begingroup$
      I actually wonder now if the "wind" on the radio is wake turbulence from the 777. Is 1000 feet a reasonable separation to avoid that? It wouldn't have to be dangerous necessarily, just a pilot wanting to keep his passengers comfortable.
      $endgroup$
      – Gremlin
      Apr 30 at 15:59






    • 26




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck two nanometers is awfully close for a pair of tin cans moving at 1000 km/h relative to each other...
      $endgroup$
      – John Dvorak
      Apr 30 at 17:15
















    142












    $begingroup$

    From the flightradar24 playback, it appears to have been an encounter with Etihad Airways 171.



    Your flight (Alaska) was at FL360, while the opposing was at FL370. Therefore, there was 1000 feet of vertical separation between them, which is typically considered safe when operating with RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules (see other answers).



    enter image description here



    I also looked up the LiveATC recordings archive (Seattle Centre Sector 14 high, 28/04 2000Z), and found a clip that I think corresponds to the event:




    • Alaska 557, can we take a heading right of course to avoid some wind?

    • Affirmative

    • Ok, deviation approved [...]






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 12




      $begingroup$
      The other answer is good because it applies generally, but I like this one a lot; it directly reassures OP that everything was safe.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim
      Apr 30 at 10:09






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      Also, to a casual observer, other aircraft often appear to be much closer than they actually are. People are used to cars and fail to appreciate how the lack of visual references and the size contrast play with their perceptions.
      $endgroup$
      – J...
      Apr 30 at 12:12






    • 31




      $begingroup$
      FLNaN undefined passing near Hackamore makes one wonder... :)
      $endgroup$
      – FreeMan
      Apr 30 at 15:16







    • 8




      $begingroup$
      I actually wonder now if the "wind" on the radio is wake turbulence from the 777. Is 1000 feet a reasonable separation to avoid that? It wouldn't have to be dangerous necessarily, just a pilot wanting to keep his passengers comfortable.
      $endgroup$
      – Gremlin
      Apr 30 at 15:59






    • 26




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck two nanometers is awfully close for a pair of tin cans moving at 1000 km/h relative to each other...
      $endgroup$
      – John Dvorak
      Apr 30 at 17:15














    142












    142








    142





    $begingroup$

    From the flightradar24 playback, it appears to have been an encounter with Etihad Airways 171.



    Your flight (Alaska) was at FL360, while the opposing was at FL370. Therefore, there was 1000 feet of vertical separation between them, which is typically considered safe when operating with RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules (see other answers).



    enter image description here



    I also looked up the LiveATC recordings archive (Seattle Centre Sector 14 high, 28/04 2000Z), and found a clip that I think corresponds to the event:




    • Alaska 557, can we take a heading right of course to avoid some wind?

    • Affirmative

    • Ok, deviation approved [...]






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    From the flightradar24 playback, it appears to have been an encounter with Etihad Airways 171.



    Your flight (Alaska) was at FL360, while the opposing was at FL370. Therefore, there was 1000 feet of vertical separation between them, which is typically considered safe when operating with RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules (see other answers).



    enter image description here



    I also looked up the LiveATC recordings archive (Seattle Centre Sector 14 high, 28/04 2000Z), and found a clip that I think corresponds to the event:




    • Alaska 557, can we take a heading right of course to avoid some wind?

    • Affirmative

    • Ok, deviation approved [...]







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited May 1 at 8:14

























    answered Apr 30 at 9:07









    GremlinGremlin

    8571710




    8571710







    • 12




      $begingroup$
      The other answer is good because it applies generally, but I like this one a lot; it directly reassures OP that everything was safe.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim
      Apr 30 at 10:09






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      Also, to a casual observer, other aircraft often appear to be much closer than they actually are. People are used to cars and fail to appreciate how the lack of visual references and the size contrast play with their perceptions.
      $endgroup$
      – J...
      Apr 30 at 12:12






    • 31




      $begingroup$
      FLNaN undefined passing near Hackamore makes one wonder... :)
      $endgroup$
      – FreeMan
      Apr 30 at 15:16







    • 8




      $begingroup$
      I actually wonder now if the "wind" on the radio is wake turbulence from the 777. Is 1000 feet a reasonable separation to avoid that? It wouldn't have to be dangerous necessarily, just a pilot wanting to keep his passengers comfortable.
      $endgroup$
      – Gremlin
      Apr 30 at 15:59






    • 26




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck two nanometers is awfully close for a pair of tin cans moving at 1000 km/h relative to each other...
      $endgroup$
      – John Dvorak
      Apr 30 at 17:15













    • 12




      $begingroup$
      The other answer is good because it applies generally, but I like this one a lot; it directly reassures OP that everything was safe.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim
      Apr 30 at 10:09






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      Also, to a casual observer, other aircraft often appear to be much closer than they actually are. People are used to cars and fail to appreciate how the lack of visual references and the size contrast play with their perceptions.
      $endgroup$
      – J...
      Apr 30 at 12:12






    • 31




      $begingroup$
      FLNaN undefined passing near Hackamore makes one wonder... :)
      $endgroup$
      – FreeMan
      Apr 30 at 15:16







    • 8




      $begingroup$
      I actually wonder now if the "wind" on the radio is wake turbulence from the 777. Is 1000 feet a reasonable separation to avoid that? It wouldn't have to be dangerous necessarily, just a pilot wanting to keep his passengers comfortable.
      $endgroup$
      – Gremlin
      Apr 30 at 15:59






    • 26




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck two nanometers is awfully close for a pair of tin cans moving at 1000 km/h relative to each other...
      $endgroup$
      – John Dvorak
      Apr 30 at 17:15








    12




    12




    $begingroup$
    The other answer is good because it applies generally, but I like this one a lot; it directly reassures OP that everything was safe.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim
    Apr 30 at 10:09




    $begingroup$
    The other answer is good because it applies generally, but I like this one a lot; it directly reassures OP that everything was safe.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim
    Apr 30 at 10:09




    8




    8




    $begingroup$
    Also, to a casual observer, other aircraft often appear to be much closer than they actually are. People are used to cars and fail to appreciate how the lack of visual references and the size contrast play with their perceptions.
    $endgroup$
    – J...
    Apr 30 at 12:12




    $begingroup$
    Also, to a casual observer, other aircraft often appear to be much closer than they actually are. People are used to cars and fail to appreciate how the lack of visual references and the size contrast play with their perceptions.
    $endgroup$
    – J...
    Apr 30 at 12:12




    31




    31




    $begingroup$
    FLNaN undefined passing near Hackamore makes one wonder... :)
    $endgroup$
    – FreeMan
    Apr 30 at 15:16





    $begingroup$
    FLNaN undefined passing near Hackamore makes one wonder... :)
    $endgroup$
    – FreeMan
    Apr 30 at 15:16





    8




    8




    $begingroup$
    I actually wonder now if the "wind" on the radio is wake turbulence from the 777. Is 1000 feet a reasonable separation to avoid that? It wouldn't have to be dangerous necessarily, just a pilot wanting to keep his passengers comfortable.
    $endgroup$
    – Gremlin
    Apr 30 at 15:59




    $begingroup$
    I actually wonder now if the "wind" on the radio is wake turbulence from the 777. Is 1000 feet a reasonable separation to avoid that? It wouldn't have to be dangerous necessarily, just a pilot wanting to keep his passengers comfortable.
    $endgroup$
    – Gremlin
    Apr 30 at 15:59




    26




    26




    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck two nanometers is awfully close for a pair of tin cans moving at 1000 km/h relative to each other...
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Apr 30 at 17:15





    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck two nanometers is awfully close for a pair of tin cans moving at 1000 km/h relative to each other...
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Apr 30 at 17:15












    49












    $begingroup$

    It's unlikely. Because of RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules, the vertical distance between airplanes passing each other is only 1000 ft. If you were in the flight deck so you could see out front, you'd be having a wonderful time freaking out because airplanes on the same airway pass above and below going the other direction only 1000 ft away. And when they pass over 1000 ft away it looks like 300 the first few times you experience it.



    Plus, thanks to GPS, everybody is exactly on the center of the airway all the time, so every oncoming airplane seems to be coming straight at you until they are a couple miles away and when they go by they are perfectly lined up above or below (the passengers rarely see them all as a result and have no idea that they are regularly are passing other aircraft close by like cars on a highway).



    Same with airplanes crossing your track, or going the opposite way on an offset track (those are the ones that passengers see). If they happen to pass directly above or below, or close by going the other way, same deal - only 1000 ft above or below if they are on the next flight level and it looks like they are right next to you.



    The other thing is that collision avoidance systems (TCAS) give a climb or descend instruction when there is a need to take evasive action, not a turn, so if there was an actual TCAS event you'd be pressed into your seat or coming out of it, not turning.



    That being said, it is possible that one of the crew saw something visually and decided to maneuver laterally to avoid it (it was likely someone hand flying because autopilot turns are pretty gentle), but keeping in mind that fact that airplanes normally pass really close vertically, and serious evasive action usually results in stuff flying about inside, it's a good chance that what you saw was normal.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 17




      $begingroup$
      Who knows? They could have been avoiding someone, or ATC could have asked for a fast heading change to avoid a conflict. My point was just not to make assumptions because you see other airplanes nearby. If there was something serious there is likely an incident report. I know of a Dash 8 that encountered some sort of unmanned drone at 15 or 20000 ft and pushed over to avoid it, injuring the FA.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      Apr 30 at 1:15






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck Planes do tend to turn every once in a while. It makes it easier to hit the right airport. It has nothing to do with other planes that are vertically separated.
      $endgroup$
      – J. Hougaard
      Apr 30 at 9:13






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      FYI, auto of autopilot in RVSM space is mandatory--no hand flying.
      $endgroup$
      – StephenS
      Apr 30 at 18:08






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you're in RVSM and you get a TCAS RA, or you see something you need to avoid right now, you are disconnecting and hand flying post haste, RVSM or not.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      May 1 at 0:57






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck Queue Monty Python skit: "Captain, I see on the manifest that avid Aviation StackExchange user AricTenEyck is in seat 10". "Roger that, executing hard right turn, that'll give him something to talk about!" "Just as that 777 is coming up on our left! Teeheeheeheehee!" "NEAR MISS!!" Teeheeheehee" "Oh, you forgot to turn on the cabin mic..." "Oh... well maybe next time!"
      $endgroup$
      – Michael
      May 1 at 19:47
















    49












    $begingroup$

    It's unlikely. Because of RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules, the vertical distance between airplanes passing each other is only 1000 ft. If you were in the flight deck so you could see out front, you'd be having a wonderful time freaking out because airplanes on the same airway pass above and below going the other direction only 1000 ft away. And when they pass over 1000 ft away it looks like 300 the first few times you experience it.



    Plus, thanks to GPS, everybody is exactly on the center of the airway all the time, so every oncoming airplane seems to be coming straight at you until they are a couple miles away and when they go by they are perfectly lined up above or below (the passengers rarely see them all as a result and have no idea that they are regularly are passing other aircraft close by like cars on a highway).



    Same with airplanes crossing your track, or going the opposite way on an offset track (those are the ones that passengers see). If they happen to pass directly above or below, or close by going the other way, same deal - only 1000 ft above or below if they are on the next flight level and it looks like they are right next to you.



    The other thing is that collision avoidance systems (TCAS) give a climb or descend instruction when there is a need to take evasive action, not a turn, so if there was an actual TCAS event you'd be pressed into your seat or coming out of it, not turning.



    That being said, it is possible that one of the crew saw something visually and decided to maneuver laterally to avoid it (it was likely someone hand flying because autopilot turns are pretty gentle), but keeping in mind that fact that airplanes normally pass really close vertically, and serious evasive action usually results in stuff flying about inside, it's a good chance that what you saw was normal.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 17




      $begingroup$
      Who knows? They could have been avoiding someone, or ATC could have asked for a fast heading change to avoid a conflict. My point was just not to make assumptions because you see other airplanes nearby. If there was something serious there is likely an incident report. I know of a Dash 8 that encountered some sort of unmanned drone at 15 or 20000 ft and pushed over to avoid it, injuring the FA.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      Apr 30 at 1:15






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck Planes do tend to turn every once in a while. It makes it easier to hit the right airport. It has nothing to do with other planes that are vertically separated.
      $endgroup$
      – J. Hougaard
      Apr 30 at 9:13






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      FYI, auto of autopilot in RVSM space is mandatory--no hand flying.
      $endgroup$
      – StephenS
      Apr 30 at 18:08






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you're in RVSM and you get a TCAS RA, or you see something you need to avoid right now, you are disconnecting and hand flying post haste, RVSM or not.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      May 1 at 0:57






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck Queue Monty Python skit: "Captain, I see on the manifest that avid Aviation StackExchange user AricTenEyck is in seat 10". "Roger that, executing hard right turn, that'll give him something to talk about!" "Just as that 777 is coming up on our left! Teeheeheeheehee!" "NEAR MISS!!" Teeheeheehee" "Oh, you forgot to turn on the cabin mic..." "Oh... well maybe next time!"
      $endgroup$
      – Michael
      May 1 at 19:47














    49












    49








    49





    $begingroup$

    It's unlikely. Because of RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules, the vertical distance between airplanes passing each other is only 1000 ft. If you were in the flight deck so you could see out front, you'd be having a wonderful time freaking out because airplanes on the same airway pass above and below going the other direction only 1000 ft away. And when they pass over 1000 ft away it looks like 300 the first few times you experience it.



    Plus, thanks to GPS, everybody is exactly on the center of the airway all the time, so every oncoming airplane seems to be coming straight at you until they are a couple miles away and when they go by they are perfectly lined up above or below (the passengers rarely see them all as a result and have no idea that they are regularly are passing other aircraft close by like cars on a highway).



    Same with airplanes crossing your track, or going the opposite way on an offset track (those are the ones that passengers see). If they happen to pass directly above or below, or close by going the other way, same deal - only 1000 ft above or below if they are on the next flight level and it looks like they are right next to you.



    The other thing is that collision avoidance systems (TCAS) give a climb or descend instruction when there is a need to take evasive action, not a turn, so if there was an actual TCAS event you'd be pressed into your seat or coming out of it, not turning.



    That being said, it is possible that one of the crew saw something visually and decided to maneuver laterally to avoid it (it was likely someone hand flying because autopilot turns are pretty gentle), but keeping in mind that fact that airplanes normally pass really close vertically, and serious evasive action usually results in stuff flying about inside, it's a good chance that what you saw was normal.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    It's unlikely. Because of RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima rules, the vertical distance between airplanes passing each other is only 1000 ft. If you were in the flight deck so you could see out front, you'd be having a wonderful time freaking out because airplanes on the same airway pass above and below going the other direction only 1000 ft away. And when they pass over 1000 ft away it looks like 300 the first few times you experience it.



    Plus, thanks to GPS, everybody is exactly on the center of the airway all the time, so every oncoming airplane seems to be coming straight at you until they are a couple miles away and when they go by they are perfectly lined up above or below (the passengers rarely see them all as a result and have no idea that they are regularly are passing other aircraft close by like cars on a highway).



    Same with airplanes crossing your track, or going the opposite way on an offset track (those are the ones that passengers see). If they happen to pass directly above or below, or close by going the other way, same deal - only 1000 ft above or below if they are on the next flight level and it looks like they are right next to you.



    The other thing is that collision avoidance systems (TCAS) give a climb or descend instruction when there is a need to take evasive action, not a turn, so if there was an actual TCAS event you'd be pressed into your seat or coming out of it, not turning.



    That being said, it is possible that one of the crew saw something visually and decided to maneuver laterally to avoid it (it was likely someone hand flying because autopilot turns are pretty gentle), but keeping in mind that fact that airplanes normally pass really close vertically, and serious evasive action usually results in stuff flying about inside, it's a good chance that what you saw was normal.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Apr 30 at 0:36









    John KJohn K

    27.9k14386




    27.9k14386







    • 17




      $begingroup$
      Who knows? They could have been avoiding someone, or ATC could have asked for a fast heading change to avoid a conflict. My point was just not to make assumptions because you see other airplanes nearby. If there was something serious there is likely an incident report. I know of a Dash 8 that encountered some sort of unmanned drone at 15 or 20000 ft and pushed over to avoid it, injuring the FA.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      Apr 30 at 1:15






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck Planes do tend to turn every once in a while. It makes it easier to hit the right airport. It has nothing to do with other planes that are vertically separated.
      $endgroup$
      – J. Hougaard
      Apr 30 at 9:13






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      FYI, auto of autopilot in RVSM space is mandatory--no hand flying.
      $endgroup$
      – StephenS
      Apr 30 at 18:08






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you're in RVSM and you get a TCAS RA, or you see something you need to avoid right now, you are disconnecting and hand flying post haste, RVSM or not.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      May 1 at 0:57






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck Queue Monty Python skit: "Captain, I see on the manifest that avid Aviation StackExchange user AricTenEyck is in seat 10". "Roger that, executing hard right turn, that'll give him something to talk about!" "Just as that 777 is coming up on our left! Teeheeheeheehee!" "NEAR MISS!!" Teeheeheehee" "Oh, you forgot to turn on the cabin mic..." "Oh... well maybe next time!"
      $endgroup$
      – Michael
      May 1 at 19:47













    • 17




      $begingroup$
      Who knows? They could have been avoiding someone, or ATC could have asked for a fast heading change to avoid a conflict. My point was just not to make assumptions because you see other airplanes nearby. If there was something serious there is likely an incident report. I know of a Dash 8 that encountered some sort of unmanned drone at 15 or 20000 ft and pushed over to avoid it, injuring the FA.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      Apr 30 at 1:15






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck Planes do tend to turn every once in a while. It makes it easier to hit the right airport. It has nothing to do with other planes that are vertically separated.
      $endgroup$
      – J. Hougaard
      Apr 30 at 9:13






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      FYI, auto of autopilot in RVSM space is mandatory--no hand flying.
      $endgroup$
      – StephenS
      Apr 30 at 18:08






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you're in RVSM and you get a TCAS RA, or you see something you need to avoid right now, you are disconnecting and hand flying post haste, RVSM or not.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      May 1 at 0:57






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @AricTenEyck Queue Monty Python skit: "Captain, I see on the manifest that avid Aviation StackExchange user AricTenEyck is in seat 10". "Roger that, executing hard right turn, that'll give him something to talk about!" "Just as that 777 is coming up on our left! Teeheeheeheehee!" "NEAR MISS!!" Teeheeheehee" "Oh, you forgot to turn on the cabin mic..." "Oh... well maybe next time!"
      $endgroup$
      – Michael
      May 1 at 19:47








    17




    17




    $begingroup$
    Who knows? They could have been avoiding someone, or ATC could have asked for a fast heading change to avoid a conflict. My point was just not to make assumptions because you see other airplanes nearby. If there was something serious there is likely an incident report. I know of a Dash 8 that encountered some sort of unmanned drone at 15 or 20000 ft and pushed over to avoid it, injuring the FA.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    Apr 30 at 1:15




    $begingroup$
    Who knows? They could have been avoiding someone, or ATC could have asked for a fast heading change to avoid a conflict. My point was just not to make assumptions because you see other airplanes nearby. If there was something serious there is likely an incident report. I know of a Dash 8 that encountered some sort of unmanned drone at 15 or 20000 ft and pushed over to avoid it, injuring the FA.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    Apr 30 at 1:15




    5




    5




    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck Planes do tend to turn every once in a while. It makes it easier to hit the right airport. It has nothing to do with other planes that are vertically separated.
    $endgroup$
    – J. Hougaard
    Apr 30 at 9:13




    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck Planes do tend to turn every once in a while. It makes it easier to hit the right airport. It has nothing to do with other planes that are vertically separated.
    $endgroup$
    – J. Hougaard
    Apr 30 at 9:13




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    FYI, auto of autopilot in RVSM space is mandatory--no hand flying.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenS
    Apr 30 at 18:08




    $begingroup$
    FYI, auto of autopilot in RVSM space is mandatory--no hand flying.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenS
    Apr 30 at 18:08




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    If you're in RVSM and you get a TCAS RA, or you see something you need to avoid right now, you are disconnecting and hand flying post haste, RVSM or not.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    May 1 at 0:57




    $begingroup$
    If you're in RVSM and you get a TCAS RA, or you see something you need to avoid right now, you are disconnecting and hand flying post haste, RVSM or not.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    May 1 at 0:57




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck Queue Monty Python skit: "Captain, I see on the manifest that avid Aviation StackExchange user AricTenEyck is in seat 10". "Roger that, executing hard right turn, that'll give him something to talk about!" "Just as that 777 is coming up on our left! Teeheeheeheehee!" "NEAR MISS!!" Teeheeheehee" "Oh, you forgot to turn on the cabin mic..." "Oh... well maybe next time!"
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    May 1 at 19:47





    $begingroup$
    @AricTenEyck Queue Monty Python skit: "Captain, I see on the manifest that avid Aviation StackExchange user AricTenEyck is in seat 10". "Roger that, executing hard right turn, that'll give him something to talk about!" "Just as that 777 is coming up on our left! Teeheeheeheehee!" "NEAR MISS!!" Teeheeheehee" "Oh, you forgot to turn on the cabin mic..." "Oh... well maybe next time!"
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    May 1 at 19:47












    10












    $begingroup$

    The Etihad flight was a 777, which is a much larger aircraft, but of almost the same proportions as the 737. Also living near an airport, I am well familiar with how difficult it is to gauge altitude. You see airplanes apparently moving at quite different speeds; actually a "slow" plane is moving at a similar speed but is larger and farther away. It's really a problem in open air, with no reliable visual references for size.



    So I suspect you saw the same optical illusion, where the 777 seemed closer simply because of its large size. That said, it was quite close vertically - 1000 feet separation. The horizontal separation did not matter because the vertical separation was sufficient.



    It's quite possible the wake turbulence from that huge 777 was of concern to the Alaska pilot, so he deviated (with permission) to avoid it.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      10












      $begingroup$

      The Etihad flight was a 777, which is a much larger aircraft, but of almost the same proportions as the 737. Also living near an airport, I am well familiar with how difficult it is to gauge altitude. You see airplanes apparently moving at quite different speeds; actually a "slow" plane is moving at a similar speed but is larger and farther away. It's really a problem in open air, with no reliable visual references for size.



      So I suspect you saw the same optical illusion, where the 777 seemed closer simply because of its large size. That said, it was quite close vertically - 1000 feet separation. The horizontal separation did not matter because the vertical separation was sufficient.



      It's quite possible the wake turbulence from that huge 777 was of concern to the Alaska pilot, so he deviated (with permission) to avoid it.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        10












        10








        10





        $begingroup$

        The Etihad flight was a 777, which is a much larger aircraft, but of almost the same proportions as the 737. Also living near an airport, I am well familiar with how difficult it is to gauge altitude. You see airplanes apparently moving at quite different speeds; actually a "slow" plane is moving at a similar speed but is larger and farther away. It's really a problem in open air, with no reliable visual references for size.



        So I suspect you saw the same optical illusion, where the 777 seemed closer simply because of its large size. That said, it was quite close vertically - 1000 feet separation. The horizontal separation did not matter because the vertical separation was sufficient.



        It's quite possible the wake turbulence from that huge 777 was of concern to the Alaska pilot, so he deviated (with permission) to avoid it.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The Etihad flight was a 777, which is a much larger aircraft, but of almost the same proportions as the 737. Also living near an airport, I am well familiar with how difficult it is to gauge altitude. You see airplanes apparently moving at quite different speeds; actually a "slow" plane is moving at a similar speed but is larger and farther away. It's really a problem in open air, with no reliable visual references for size.



        So I suspect you saw the same optical illusion, where the 777 seemed closer simply because of its large size. That said, it was quite close vertically - 1000 feet separation. The horizontal separation did not matter because the vertical separation was sufficient.



        It's quite possible the wake turbulence from that huge 777 was of concern to the Alaska pilot, so he deviated (with permission) to avoid it.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Apr 30 at 17:13









        HarperHarper

        5,055927




        5,055927



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63846%2fdid-we-get-closer-to-another-plane-than-we-were-supposed-to-or-was-the-pilot-ju%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Club Baloncesto Breogán Índice Historia | Pavillón | Nome | O Breogán na cultura popular | Xogadores | Adestradores | Presidentes | Palmarés | Historial | Líderes | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióncbbreogan.galCadroGuía oficial da ACB 2009-10, páxina 201Guía oficial ACB 1992, páxina 183. Editorial DB.É de 6.500 espectadores sentados axeitándose á última normativa"Estudiantes Junior, entre as mellores canteiras"o orixinalHemeroteca El Mundo Deportivo, 16 setembro de 1970, páxina 12Historia do BreogánAlfredo Pérez, o último canoneiroHistoria C.B. BreogánHemeroteca de El Mundo DeportivoJimmy Wright, norteamericano do Breogán deixará Lugo por ameazas de morteResultados de Breogán en 1986-87Resultados de Breogán en 1990-91Ficha de Velimir Perasović en acb.comResultados de Breogán en 1994-95Breogán arrasa al Barça. "El Mundo Deportivo", 27 de setembro de 1999, páxina 58CB Breogán - FC BarcelonaA FEB invita a participar nunha nova Liga EuropeaCharlie Bell na prensa estatalMáximos anotadores 2005Tempada 2005-06 : Tódolos Xogadores da Xornada""Non quero pensar nunha man negra, mais pregúntome que está a pasar""o orixinalRaúl López, orgulloso dos xogadores, presume da boa saúde económica do BreogánJulio González confirma que cesa como presidente del BreogánHomenaxe a Lisardo GómezA tempada do rexurdimento celesteEntrevista a Lisardo GómezEl COB dinamita el Pazo para forzar el quinto (69-73)Cafés Candelas, patrocinador del CB Breogán"Suso Lázare, novo presidente do Breogán"o orixinalCafés Candelas Breogán firma el mayor triunfo de la historiaEl Breogán realizará 17 homenajes por su cincuenta aniversario"O Breogán honra ao seu fundador e primeiro presidente"o orixinalMiguel Giao recibiu a homenaxe do PazoHomenaxe aos primeiros gladiadores celestesO home que nos amosa como ver o Breo co corazónTita Franco será homenaxeada polos #50anosdeBreoJulio Vila recibirá unha homenaxe in memoriam polos #50anosdeBreo"O Breogán homenaxeará aos seus aboados máis veteráns"Pechada ovación a «Capi» Sanmartín e Ricardo «Corazón de González»Homenaxe por décadas de informaciónPaco García volve ao Pazo con motivo do 50 aniversario"Resultados y clasificaciones""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, campión da Copa Princesa""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, equipo ACB"C.B. Breogán"Proxecto social"o orixinal"Centros asociados"o orixinalFicha en imdb.comMario Camus trata la recuperación del amor en 'La vieja música', su última película"Páxina web oficial""Club Baloncesto Breogán""C. B. Breogán S.A.D."eehttp://www.fegaba.com

            Vilaño, A Laracha Índice Patrimonio | Lugares e parroquias | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación43°14′52″N 8°36′03″O / 43.24775, -8.60070

            Cegueira Índice Epidemioloxía | Deficiencia visual | Tipos de cegueira | Principais causas de cegueira | Tratamento | Técnicas de adaptación e axudas | Vida dos cegos | Primeiros auxilios | Crenzas respecto das persoas cegas | Crenzas das persoas cegas | O neno deficiente visual | Aspectos psicolóxicos da cegueira | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación54.054.154.436928256blindnessDicionario da Real Academia GalegaPortal das Palabras"International Standards: Visual Standards — Aspects and Ranges of Vision Loss with Emphasis on Population Surveys.""Visual impairment and blindness""Presentan un plan para previr a cegueira"o orixinalACCDV Associació Catalana de Cecs i Disminuïts Visuals - PMFTrachoma"Effect of gene therapy on visual function in Leber's congenital amaurosis"1844137110.1056/NEJMoa0802268Cans guía - os mellores amigos dos cegosArquivadoEscola de cans guía para cegos en Mortágua, PortugalArquivado"Tecnología para ciegos y deficientes visuales. Recopilación de recursos gratuitos en la Red""Colorino""‘COL.diesis’, escuchar los sonidos del color""COL.diesis: Transforming Colour into Melody and Implementing the Result in a Colour Sensor Device"o orixinal"Sistema de desarrollo de sinestesia color-sonido para invidentes utilizando un protocolo de audio""Enseñanza táctil - geometría y color. Juegos didácticos para niños ciegos y videntes""Sistema Constanz"L'ocupació laboral dels cecs a l'Estat espanyol està pràcticament equiparada a la de les persones amb visió, entrevista amb Pedro ZuritaONCE (Organización Nacional de Cegos de España)Prevención da cegueiraDescrición de deficiencias visuais (Disc@pnet)Braillín, un boneco atractivo para calquera neno, con ou sen discapacidade, que permite familiarizarse co sistema de escritura e lectura brailleAxudas Técnicas36838ID00897494007150-90057129528256DOID:1432HP:0000618D001766C10.597.751.941.162C97109C0155020