what pesky facts? you insult my example and then claim that since I believe in "media hype" even though the media was not involved (because I was responding to the comment about not hearing every single near miss)give it up, go take a chill pill and find someone else to bash to keep your ego at FL900

>what pesky facts? you insult my example and then claim that>since I believe in "media hype" even though the media was not>involved (because I was responding to the comment about not>hearing every single near miss)>>give it up, go take a chill pill and find someone else to bash>to keep your ego at FL900TCAS would tell you what to do in a "near miss" scenario. it does NOT tell you to turn left as the pictures show. it would tell you to climb or descend. those are the facts.in your example if they landed at an "unknown" military field in calif/nev, wouldn't it be known then?

are you reading the words that I write or are you just in auto-respond mode? please point out one part of my posts which show me claiming this is a true and valid event that the news reported?Good luck... so immature

Whilst I am well aware that those two planes are not as close as the photographs suggest, I still think that the widely reported "two and a half miles" doesn't make sense. Like I have already said, the 777 should appear to be smaller than the A300 if it was that distance further away from the observer.Maybe this is a case of the papers reporting rubbish when they stated something to the effect of "people on the ground looked up in astonishment", because for those two planes to be two and a half miles apart AND STILL APPEAR TO BE THE CORRECT RELATIVE SIZES would mean that BOTH planes were a considerable distance away (too far for people on the ground to have given a toss).Chris Low.

>what pesky facts? you insult my example and then claim that>since I believe in "media hype" even though the media was not>involved (because I was responding to the comment about not>hearing every single near miss)>>give it up, go take a chill pill and find someone else to bash>to keep your ego at FL900I meant here in UK we hear about it. Hard not to when you're as densely packed as UK is. I didn't mean EVERY Airmiss per se, but every one here in our airspace. They do get seriously hyped up by the British Media, as if they were near fatal collisions when in fact the planes could be maybe 500 feet apart vertically or within a mile or so horizontal. Don't forget that would still be an airmiss even though the planes are going in the same direction. True that any collision here would be more than catastrophic, but it's chances of actually happening are pretty slender at best.