If he was afraid of turbulence, fine. That still didn't look very close. Try half that distance and then you might want to think about changing your underwear.
Flying west out of Chandler Az to Vegas you always cross the active Phx airport flight path. This happens all the time. Everybody knows this and are always advised by tower of inbound traffic. Most inbound traffic is 737 or A 320 so wing vortex is not a big issue.
Anybody who has never flown an aircraft IN REALITY (flight sim does not count), please stop commenting. This is a lot closer than you usually get to an airliner (yes it is legal, and no one was in danger) But it is rare to be that close, and for the cessna pilot to be uncomfortable is only natural. Thanks for posting this video. Safe flying!
@hosreh Wake turbulance happens at ALL altitudes however this aircrafts trajectory was such that it shouldn't be an issue.
This was NOT a "near miss" "near hit" or "near" anything. The aircraft have what appears to be 500 feet verticle seperation. IF the pilot were traveling a path that would have put him behind and below the path of the jet, turbulance could have been a problem. He didn't, it wasn't and the ATC as well as the pilot probably knew it. Pilots know this is no big deal at all.
Minimum separation varies with altitude and type of airspace but the common minimums are 5 nautical miles (9 km) of horizontal and/or 1000 feet of vertical separation. (there are other rules and minimums...Wiki it).
That was not a close call.
It was closer than I would be comfortable with but it was within safe parameters.
stop the play on words that was a near hit if they colide then that was a near miss god damm airlines misrepresenting the truth im sick of it be fuckin real god damm it
you can tell by the buildings at rockaway beach ;) love this location, used to be there standing on the beach & watching big airliners take off for transatlantic flights...
The term now used is airprox (as in proximity). Years ago the comedian BIlly Connolly called them near hits in his routine. Either way if you are not expecting another airplane then see one that close - you would understand!
I understand what people mean when they say "near miss" but the term makes no sense. If you nearly miss something, you've hit it. Why not say "near accident" or "near collision" etc.? Maybe I'm too literal.
@jackydefo You're not a pilot, are you... Little planes like that aren't built to take the wake from a large aircraft like that. The force would tear it apart.
That's nothing. In Toronto I fly VFR in uncontrolled airpace just 100ft below class C controlled and I see airliners cross overhead like this on approach to Pearson INTL (CYYZ) all of the time. As long as you use mode C and stay out of the airspace above, the controller can see that there is nothing to worry about.
Wake turbulence is hardly a problem either. You wouldn't be intersecting his flight path, and any waves that some how travel hundreds of feet below to you would be weak at best.
Thats what happens when you fly along final of a busy airport. To close for comfort? You can't claim this when you knowingly put your self in that location at that altitude. Do a little preflight planing and look at a chart.
Wasn't close, they only need 500 ft vertical seperation if one of the pilots is visual with the other. Wake turbulance is only an extreme safety concern when at low altitudes and the votices are created by a heavy clean and slow aircraft.
When I flew to Las Vegas last time, I remember seeing small aircraft all over the place, and they didn't seem that far below us. Another time, when I was flying up from SoFl there was only a small gap of passable airspace in the middle of a violent squall line, and looking off to both sides I could see fellow commercial jets above us, below us, and beside us. I've flown my entire life, and it's rare to see other airlines in close enough proximity that you can actually make them out.
You people need to understand that a Cessna is a small aircraft (in this case) and an Airliner can cause A LOT of wake that just really hits the plane... Even landing behind one can cause huge problems for a small aircraft if the pilot is not on his/her toes.
I see the whites of the eyes of these Avanti pilots all the time down here in St.Petersburg/ Clearwater!!! Let me know when you find a video where you get close! :)
@LateNightCable Every type of aircraft has its uses. Are you telling me a C208 caravan isn't a serious aircraft? Hell, even the 206 is one hell of a bird and between that and the 207 pretty much dominate short fields, off airports, and inaccessible landing spots.
@600bvoss Those planes have uses, and good ones, especially the 208. But I was referring primarily to the likes of the ubiquitous C172 and 182. If a pilot is going to fly in areas where wake turbulence is a serious issue, such as large ports / high commercial traffic, one would be best equipped in the most rugged and capable craft available to them. And preferably a turbine or fast twin.
@LateNightCable Yeah I suppose I would tend to agree with you. I definitely avoid transitioning to Class B around busy airports if I can, I know that much, and I am usually in a small M20J or Archer II depending on what is available to rent when I do take a trip.
@edsgoldens1 That was never even close to 1000 feet. Measure it out and you'll see that the airliner was less than three of its wingspans above the Cessna. That's under 500 feet.
The pilot isn't concerned about colliding with the airliner. He's concerned about the powerful wake turbulence that spirals out and downward from the wingtips of an aircraft like this. Such vortices can destroy an aircraft, it can be rolled and tossed around. So it may not look like they were anywhere near hitting but the pilot still needs to be careful because this could still pose a massive threat.
If anyone is familiar with NYC airspance this pilot is below the class B (499 ft msl) flying along the south shore of long island westbound. The separation between them and the airliner (which is over 1000ft) is common when Kennedy uses rwy 4L/4R for landing. I've never heard of wake turbulence dropping down 1000ft to get your airplane caught up in some bad stuff (years of experience talking here). Either way, it is cool to see that when in flight.
@chukli I see, sometimes it's hard to tell from a video how much separation is actually present I figured it would be much less than that but then again I don't have any experience with this airspace or american airspace classes.I was just interpreting why the uploader would have decided to name this a close call and I agree it is pretty spectacular
@Justinh789 The Cessna would have not felt that aircraft's wake turbulence, as it passed immediately below the 737 at the same time that the 737 passed over it. Wake turbulence follows an aircraft; it doesn't have any effect in a scenario such as this.
Your explaination isn't accurate. Wake turbulence descends 500-900' behind heavy aircraft for up to 5 miles. If the Cessna and 737 are vertically seperated by 1000' then it would probably be okay. But it's not due to the fact the Cessna is passing below it at the same time. If the Cessna passed at 200' immediately under he'd be dead.
@denhou1974 Wake turbulence does not function via a vertical plane. It follows an aircraft and gradually descends before dissipating. Passing immediately below the 737 at a perpendicular angle would likely not have affected the Cessna, either. Normal separation for aircraft is 1,000'. There's no "probably" to it.
@Justinh789 hey bud, it may look close on this video and wake turbulence may be a factor. however...if they are sitting their filling this video looking right at the damn plane, visual separation was applied. im sure both aircraft had traffic calls until they had each other in sight and the cessna was maintaining visual separation which means he is responsible for visual separation with wake turbulence also. not trying to talk s**t but thats the rule!
@TheThruster24 Not sure where you get your info, but that's totally wrong. Vortexes are made whenever the wing is in motion through the air. The vortexes are MORE DANGEROUS at takeoff and landing yes, but are produced all the time.
@TheThruster24 So are you telling me that a large plane sitting still on the ground produces wing vortices and doesn't produce them again until it lands. Think about it.
or if he wasn't landing the the controller would just tell the aircraft to pass behind that traffic caution wake turbulence.....either way you look at it both aircraft had to know about each other cause traffic for one aircraft is traffic for another, plus the airliners tcas may or may not go off and unless he knows about the traffic then he is going to respond to the tcas alert. well he didn't respond to it so obviously he knew about the cessna.
that wasn't close at all. If you think thats close then you are out of your mind, plus that cessna is probably VFR so i am sure that the controller issued traffic, then the cessna reported the aircraft (looks like a A319, or A320) in sight, then the controller said pass behind that traffic caution wake turbulence and cleared the cessna to land on a parallel runway.
Had a similar experience just this afternoon. Was departing a smaller airport in San Antonio and was being directed by the APP control there. A C-5 Galaxy was coming in to land at Kelly Field; he was heading straight for us, and was one thousand feet above us. We had already confirmed we had the traffic in sight. Then the dang ATC cleared him to descend! He passed above and behind my cessna and a passenger got a great pic on my iphone. Had we been climbing.... BOOM!
I am living in Sydney – Australia. We have scenic flight called Victor 1, going from North – South along the coast line. Because of the flight path encroachment to the International Airport at Mascot, both runway headings 25 and 34L/R, we must maintain altitude 500ft AMSL when flying this path, so seeing something like this is quite OK, as long as you have visual on the plain and maintain your separation.
@darkmensch that's IFR to IFR.... IFR to VFR and VFR to VFR the separation i know for sure vertically is 500 ft minimal and horizontal i can't remember, I'd have to refer to the FAR/AIM
Thats nothing. When I was 16 doing my first solo flight, I had to do a parallel landing with DC-8's to my side. Nothing like turning base to final and seeing the captain of the DC-8 waving at me!
As for the person who cannot believe 24,000 hours.....I have 3,000 JET hours after only flying lears for 4 years and work with a guy who is in his 40s and has over 22,000 hours. You do not know what you are talking about.
That's close, but try coming within 100 feet of a Citation X on it's climb-out! It was so close you could see faces in the windows...thank god the worst didn't happen
No danger provided both stick to your assigned attutudes but yer...its is always an uncomfortable moment. I had the same on an ILS approch with a king out that popped ourt of a cloud base !
Thats actually not that bad. Here in HSV I've had a 747 fly over our 172 the opposite direction and it was much closer than that, and we aren't even a busy airport. Besides, the big plane likely had TCAS so they "had you in sight" while you where passing near them. Its close, but it could be alot closer.
Thats actually not that bad. Here in HSV I've had a 747 fly over our 172 the opposite direction and it was much closer than that, and we aren't even a busy airport. Besides, the big plane likely had TCAS so they "had you in sight" while you where passing near them. Its close, but it could be alot closer.
Dude, cool video to be sure but this is NOT a near miss or anything close to it. I fly this airspace EVERY day and I've been MUCH closer than that. This is jsut part of the route, that's why you have to be at or below 500 when under the shelf.
guys he is saying to close for comfort for him. I didnt personally think that was as close as you can get but it might have been really scary for him.
@jamesyak52 actually that was very close, the jet wake could easily cause the cessna to lose all vitalls and crash. sadadaze were you on a vfr flight plan? and if so how were you allowed to cross the flight path of a landing jet?
Well if your cleared to pass under the airliner and you accept the clearance. Than you have the responsibilty for proper spacing and waketurbulence avoidance. So if something happens its your fault and problem.
I learned to fly at LGA in a Cherokee 140 using the same runways as the jets. You learn how to deal with wake turbulence. You even learn how to avoid getting blown off the ground when taxiing behind the big boys.
Just watch out for the wake turbulence. If you are getting too close you can quickly get into trouble from this and it will put you out of control in a matter of seconds.
nice video but I reckon I have seen, and experienced, closer flights than this.
No, that's pretty damn close. A little closer and you would be in trouble. Don't want to get caught in the wake turbulence; it will flip your airplane upside down. And remember wake turbulence sinks below large aircraft, so you don't have to be that close to get caught in it. That's why small GA aircraft turn right or left x-wind when departing a runway shortly after an airliner has taken off.
A "near miss" is when you almost hit a plane, when ATC isn't involved. Obviously ATC was involved seeing as how you are right next to a major airport. I've had near misses with military aircraft in the white mountains of NH. When you are in a 150, and a flight of 3 C-130's are coming at you and you are hugging a mountain at the same altitude, that's a near miss. The third one saw me and peeled off, but we were about 300 feet away from htting eachother.
I have been way closer to a jet then in this video. As long as you keep visual seperation and both pilots know where the other is located your fine. I been close enough to see the people inside the CRJ passing by us. Both me and the CRJ pilot saw each other and he passed by less then .25 mile in front and less than 100 feet above.
I did something like this except they were taking off. I was flying off the coast at around 4500 and all of a sudden I see a Southwest plane pass right below us very low, after they passed us they started climbing. I'm sure approach was holding them down there because of us, sorry Southwest!
Not exactly a near miss but if you feel like it is too close for comfort then it is too close for comfort. You are the pilot in command and you make the decisions. Safety can never be too much. A wake turbulence is not a joke and it is good to be afraid of it. Nice video :-)
@hunterhalo2 thats because military and Nasa pilots dont fly anywhere close to what civilian pilots fly. I have over 22 years at Delta and flky corporate Gulfstream G-V aircraft now for a private corporation.... and it wasn't 24, 000 it is 27,962.4 as of this day. I keep an active logbook still.
If he was afraid of turbulence, fine. That still didn't look very close. Try half that distance and then you might want to think about changing your underwear.
swordofthespirit 2 weeks ago
Looks like more than 1000 ft separation. Still within limits.
MaroonCamaro 1 month ago
lame - try flying a Cessna in Honolulu or even Missoula, Montana for that matter - we mix it up with big iron all the time! More like FUN!
caverpilot 1 month ago
Isn't your Cessna able to make quick turns? Why don't you just move a bit off course?
2scary4yu 1 month ago
Flying west out of Chandler Az to Vegas you always cross the active Phx airport flight path. This happens all the time. Everybody knows this and are always advised by tower of inbound traffic. Most inbound traffic is 737 or A 320 so wing vortex is not a big issue.
scrufferdog 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God - All the Glory to JESUS CHRIST. May God bless you all !
VIPrtn 2 months ago
actually not to close at all. This is a regular occurance in the SF Bay Area as well, very normal and not at all unusual in controlled airspace.
scottwoodland63 2 months ago
damn that is too close
that is unacceptable even if that was another small plane
wtficantgetausername 2 months ago
This is neither a near miss nor was it unsafe. It might be closer than usual, but this in in NY, so more likely to happen more often than elsewhere.
formfaktor 3 months ago
some how i am reminded of the guy on austin powers that was run over by the steam roller........... MOVE!
mynameisntmicah 3 months ago
Apparently most people here at bad asses. If I was flying and saw a plane that large and that close, I would flip shit too.
CincoSnare76 4 months ago
Was this at or below 500 ft agl? I hope you contacted JFK tower on 119.1. I've done this route many times.
plsniper 4 months ago
have to love chicago flyway!
Moopster12 4 months ago
Anybody who has never flown an aircraft IN REALITY (flight sim does not count), please stop commenting. This is a lot closer than you usually get to an airliner (yes it is legal, and no one was in danger) But it is rare to be that close, and for the cessna pilot to be uncomfortable is only natural. Thanks for posting this video. Safe flying!
DerPilotMann 4 months ago
@DerPilotMann agreed, if i were in the left seat of this flight i'd have to say the same thing, pause at 0:24... you don't see that everyday lol
roofy2k 4 months ago
Stupid post! Waste of our time even watching this CRAP!
ctelvis1 5 months ago
For a split second the shadow on the window at 0:30 looks like a funnel cloud.
TheRedbikemaster 5 months ago
@hosreh Wake turbulance happens at ALL altitudes however this aircrafts trajectory was such that it shouldn't be an issue.
This was NOT a "near miss" "near hit" or "near" anything. The aircraft have what appears to be 500 feet verticle seperation. IF the pilot were traveling a path that would have put him behind and below the path of the jet, turbulance could have been a problem. He didn't, it wasn't and the ATC as well as the pilot probably knew it. Pilots know this is no big deal at all.
jimalger 5 months ago
@Justinh789 wake turbulence occurs at rotation, at take offs and landings close to the ground ;) he is talking about actual comfort :)
hosreh 5 months ago
i was flying along the coast of florida in a cessna 172 and a c-130 buzzed me and made the plane shake really bad.
rs4life32 5 months ago
We need ADS-B
gonetoworkbbackin5mi 6 months ago
too bad they're cutting funding to the FAA...next time you might not be so lucky :/
Fourteen88SoCal 6 months ago
Minimum separation varies with altitude and type of airspace but the common minimums are 5 nautical miles (9 km) of horizontal and/or 1000 feet of vertical separation. (there are other rules and minimums...Wiki it).
That was not a close call.
It was closer than I would be comfortable with but it was within safe parameters.
I have been closer.
hammerogod 6 months ago
In a busy airport or airspace, that is not too close at all, if it is under controll of course.
SermanRoy 6 months ago
stop the play on words that was a near hit if they colide then that was a near miss god damm airlines misrepresenting the truth im sick of it be fuckin real god damm it
59cva 6 months ago
@59cva
Chillax.
They were in Bravo airspace.
It was not even close to anything the FAA would call an 'Incident'.
hammerogod 6 months ago
bloody miles away wot r u worried about?????
Maverick747uk 7 months ago
They definitely had the right away, not that it's your fault, because they were on final ILS it looked like
Dominoes282 7 months ago
immediately recognized the location: JFK
you can tell by the buildings at rockaway beach ;) love this location, used to be there standing on the beach & watching big airliners take off for transatlantic flights...
vsbfbmusic 7 months ago
Looks like alright separation but ATC should caution for wake.
I've felt the wake of a light aircraft and I do not want to feel it of a medium or heavy.
BenMoby 7 months ago
That's not a near miss, that's a near hit.
rjcass33 7 months ago
Which ATC controller's mess up is that lol
airwave089 7 months ago
River traffic, love it
bajesus666 7 months ago
How is this a near miss?
pugbongo 8 months ago
The term now used is airprox (as in proximity). Years ago the comedian BIlly Connolly called them near hits in his routine. Either way if you are not expecting another airplane then see one that close - you would understand!
sibrosib 8 months ago
I understand what people mean when they say "near miss" but the term makes no sense. If you nearly miss something, you've hit it. Why not say "near accident" or "near collision" etc.? Maybe I'm too literal.
badgeless 8 months ago
That's nothing...
Arrowhead2k1 8 months ago
466 people aren't pilots.
thefinalfrontier1701 8 months ago
Eh it wasnt a near miss but it was strangely close
KiDFRANKKK 8 months ago
you were like 100 miles away from it L
jackydefo 8 months ago
@jackydefo You're not a pilot, are you... Little planes like that aren't built to take the wake from a large aircraft like that. The force would tear it apart.
thefinalfrontier1701 8 months ago
There is no such thing as a near miss. It is either a miss or a hit. Cannot be anything else.
lifeallfun 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheMeslava 9 months ago
Near miss my ass.
JJERSE 9 months ago
"Caution wake turbulence behind Boeing on final.." (And don't sue me if it wasn't a Boeing, just thought it was suceptibly alike a 737 of some sort)
Tjita1 9 months ago
That's nothing. In Toronto I fly VFR in uncontrolled airpace just 100ft below class C controlled and I see airliners cross overhead like this on approach to Pearson INTL (CYYZ) all of the time. As long as you use mode C and stay out of the airspace above, the controller can see that there is nothing to worry about.
Wake turbulence is hardly a problem either. You wouldn't be intersecting his flight path, and any waves that some how travel hundreds of feet below to you would be weak at best.
Arrowhead2k1 9 months ago
Thats what happens when you fly along final of a busy airport. To close for comfort? You can't claim this when you knowingly put your self in that location at that altitude. Do a little preflight planing and look at a chart.
jcclark789 9 months ago
Wasn't close, they only need 500 ft vertical seperation if one of the pilots is visual with the other. Wake turbulance is only an extreme safety concern when at low altitudes and the votices are created by a heavy clean and slow aircraft.
Goodspeed56 9 months ago
good thing wake turbulence takes a lil time to descend... i'd need to change my shorts.
gowill2 10 months ago
Comment removed
KiDFRANKKK 10 months ago
When I flew to Las Vegas last time, I remember seeing small aircraft all over the place, and they didn't seem that far below us. Another time, when I was flying up from SoFl there was only a small gap of passable airspace in the middle of a violent squall line, and looking off to both sides I could see fellow commercial jets above us, below us, and beside us. I've flown my entire life, and it's rare to see other airlines in close enough proximity that you can actually make them out.
GUMMYBEAYUH 10 months ago
You people need to understand that a Cessna is a small aircraft (in this case) and an Airliner can cause A LOT of wake that just really hits the plane... Even landing behind one can cause huge problems for a small aircraft if the pilot is not on his/her toes.
TheMeslava 10 months ago
isnt is a near hit. A near miss means that you almost missed it. As in you hit it. Kinda funny
ae4xo 10 months ago
I see the whites of the eyes of these Avanti pilots all the time down here in St.Petersburg/ Clearwater!!! Let me know when you find a video where you get close! :)
USRaven 10 months ago
For goodness sake, that's hardly too close for comfort!
davidgeorge31 10 months ago
not even close little girl. And wake turb would not drop that fast you tards.
dmimcg 10 months ago
Cessna singles are for getting your PPL. If you want to avoid being a ping pong ball in the sky, get a serious aircraft.
LateNightCable 10 months ago
@LateNightCable Every type of aircraft has its uses. Are you telling me a C208 caravan isn't a serious aircraft? Hell, even the 206 is one hell of a bird and between that and the 207 pretty much dominate short fields, off airports, and inaccessible landing spots.
600bvoss 10 months ago
@600bvoss Those planes have uses, and good ones, especially the 208. But I was referring primarily to the likes of the ubiquitous C172 and 182. If a pilot is going to fly in areas where wake turbulence is a serious issue, such as large ports / high commercial traffic, one would be best equipped in the most rugged and capable craft available to them. And preferably a turbine or fast twin.
LateNightCable 10 months ago
@LateNightCable Yeah I suppose I would tend to agree with you. I definitely avoid transitioning to Class B around busy airports if I can, I know that much, and I am usually in a small M20J or Archer II depending on what is available to rent when I do take a trip.
600bvoss 8 months ago
What you saw was not a near miss, it was comfortable seperation.
flightoftheunknown 10 months ago
1000 feet of vertical seperation is all that is required folks...
edsgoldens1 11 months ago
@edsgoldens1 That was never even close to 1000 feet. Measure it out and you'll see that the airliner was less than three of its wingspans above the Cessna. That's under 500 feet.
anfnifarr 10 months ago
The pilot isn't concerned about colliding with the airliner. He's concerned about the powerful wake turbulence that spirals out and downward from the wingtips of an aircraft like this. Such vortices can destroy an aircraft, it can be rolled and tossed around. So it may not look like they were anywhere near hitting but the pilot still needs to be careful because this could still pose a massive threat.
Justinh789 11 months ago 92
If anyone is familiar with NYC airspance this pilot is below the class B (499 ft msl) flying along the south shore of long island westbound. The separation between them and the airliner (which is over 1000ft) is common when Kennedy uses rwy 4L/4R for landing. I've never heard of wake turbulence dropping down 1000ft to get your airplane caught up in some bad stuff (years of experience talking here). Either way, it is cool to see that when in flight.
chukli 10 months ago
@chukli I see, sometimes it's hard to tell from a video how much separation is actually present I figured it would be much less than that but then again I don't have any experience with this airspace or american airspace classes.I was just interpreting why the uploader would have decided to name this a close call and I agree it is pretty spectacular
Justinh789 10 months ago
@Justinh789 The Cessna would have not felt that aircraft's wake turbulence, as it passed immediately below the 737 at the same time that the 737 passed over it. Wake turbulence follows an aircraft; it doesn't have any effect in a scenario such as this.
BobWeaver112 10 months ago
@BobWeaver112
Your explaination isn't accurate. Wake turbulence descends 500-900' behind heavy aircraft for up to 5 miles. If the Cessna and 737 are vertically seperated by 1000' then it would probably be okay. But it's not due to the fact the Cessna is passing below it at the same time. If the Cessna passed at 200' immediately under he'd be dead.
denhou1974 10 months ago
@denhou1974 Wake turbulence does not function via a vertical plane. It follows an aircraft and gradually descends before dissipating. Passing immediately below the 737 at a perpendicular angle would likely not have affected the Cessna, either. Normal separation for aircraft is 1,000'. There's no "probably" to it.
BobWeaver112 10 months ago
@Justinh789 EXACTLY. Right on.
sushi064 9 months ago
@Justinh789 hey bud, it may look close on this video and wake turbulence may be a factor. however...if they are sitting their filling this video looking right at the damn plane, visual separation was applied. im sure both aircraft had traffic calls until they had each other in sight and the cessna was maintaining visual separation which means he is responsible for visual separation with wake turbulence also. not trying to talk s**t but thats the rule!
bubu101502 5 months ago 6
Comment removed
TheThruster24 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheThruster24 5 months ago
@TheThruster24 Not sure where you get your info, but that's totally wrong. Vortexes are made whenever the wing is in motion through the air. The vortexes are MORE DANGEROUS at takeoff and landing yes, but are produced all the time.
Freeflyer91 4 months ago
@TheThruster24 So are you telling me that a large plane sitting still on the ground produces wing vortices and doesn't produce them again until it lands. Think about it.
navajopa31 3 months ago
If the pilot is yelling "Holy Cow!" then it's a close call
HUTINAK 11 months ago
too close? are you shitting me, see and avoid dumb ass. what a mangina
ogc90 11 months ago
If that's a near miss, make sure not to fly in the San Francisco Bay Area, you'll soil yourself
mrdavedog 11 months ago
not that close really im sure the controller kept them at the right distance from each other
cdonnigan 11 months ago
That was close, lol
umpalumpa101909 11 months ago
@Briankey1960 this was a long time ago! not like now!
mauman707ec 11 months ago
@Briankey1960 have you flown in the areas surrounding lax?
piloty5 11 months ago
Jet's TCAS must of went crazy
AdamDesjardins 11 months ago
@AdamDesjardins in la they do
piloty5 11 months ago
It was miles away?!?
quickshooter100 1 year ago
I had a situation pretty similar to that. I was flying with the ATC and we passed a boeing 737 on our left side and it was only 2 miles away!
Polaris543 1 year ago
@Briankey1960 No .... that is called "pure skill"
aceflyer89 1 year ago
in honor of george carlin, he was so right in many ways..Why is it called a "near miss" ? Shouldnt it be called "near hit" hehehe...Nice vid btw
mvpo86 1 year ago
Looks like 1000ft to me. JO7110.65 says it's good!
kakwakas 1 year ago
pussy
gob1220 1 year ago
Wow! That did look kind of too close for comfort! Neat video.
kenpalmer1965 1 year ago
or if he wasn't landing the the controller would just tell the aircraft to pass behind that traffic caution wake turbulence.....either way you look at it both aircraft had to know about each other cause traffic for one aircraft is traffic for another, plus the airliners tcas may or may not go off and unless he knows about the traffic then he is going to respond to the tcas alert. well he didn't respond to it so obviously he knew about the cessna.
mooseknuckle84 1 year ago
that wasn't close at all. If you think thats close then you are out of your mind, plus that cessna is probably VFR so i am sure that the controller issued traffic, then the cessna reported the aircraft (looks like a A319, or A320) in sight, then the controller said pass behind that traffic caution wake turbulence and cleared the cessna to land on a parallel runway.
mooseknuckle84 1 year ago
Close call? You can't even see the whites of the eyes of the passengers.... Sheesh.
StearmanR985 1 year ago
near miss my ass
OWHSsoccer07 1 year ago
Had a similar experience just this afternoon. Was departing a smaller airport in San Antonio and was being directed by the APP control there. A C-5 Galaxy was coming in to land at Kelly Field; he was heading straight for us, and was one thousand feet above us. We had already confirmed we had the traffic in sight. Then the dang ATC cleared him to descend! He passed above and behind my cessna and a passenger got a great pic on my iphone. Had we been climbing.... BOOM!
frogfoot21 1 year ago
Plenty o room
EdmondMetroBrokers 1 year ago
I wish sometimes the people watching youtube vids would actually read the description before they go all warrior with the keyboard...
CQSlim 1 year ago
I am living in Sydney – Australia. We have scenic flight called Victor 1, going from North – South along the coast line. Because of the flight path encroachment to the International Airport at Mascot, both runway headings 25 and 34L/R, we must maintain altitude 500ft AMSL when flying this path, so seeing something like this is quite OK, as long as you have visual on the plain and maintain your separation.
PS. Transponder must be on = )
Cheers
Pilotobe 1 year ago
WAKE TURBULENCE!
pikapoketpu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you read this you will have good luck for the next 3 years
Demarkationzz 1 year ago
I've had a lot worse on IFR flights in to kmsp.
wes4569 1 year ago
Bull shit. Close...yes. Near miss...not on your life.
GutpileCharlie 1 year ago
rofl
chrisbarry44 1 year ago
not...even...close.
SkylaneRG 1 year ago
Looks like KJFK! But there are over 200 meters between the both planes!
HamburgAirport 1 year ago
please ....... i do this all the time
stealhty1 1 year ago
It's actually 500ft vertical between VFR. Which this certainly was. Or visual. Or a million things
FMWeasel 1 year ago
should be 3miles lateral or 1000feet vertical separation
darkmensch 1 year ago
@darkmensch that's IFR to IFR.... IFR to VFR and VFR to VFR the separation i know for sure vertically is 500 ft minimal and horizontal i can't remember, I'd have to refer to the FAR/AIM
fighter512 1 year ago
Ever heard of visual separation?
sioux0863 1 year ago
Thats nothing. When I was 16 doing my first solo flight, I had to do a parallel landing with DC-8's to my side. Nothing like turning base to final and seeing the captain of the DC-8 waving at me!
chipjumper 1 year ago
As for the person who cannot believe 24,000 hours.....I have 3,000 JET hours after only flying lears for 4 years and work with a guy who is in his 40s and has over 22,000 hours. You do not know what you are talking about.
robflys 1 year ago
I've had similar but with half that distance in ATL
johnnylondis 1 year ago
@Briankey1960 when did he say that was a near miss? doesnt say that anywhere, the title states that its too close for comfort. and it is...
polak4lyf 1 year ago 14
@polak4lyf
The title on the opening of the video reads "Near Miss".
AC6RH 10 months ago
@polak4lyf it says it straight at the start of the video if thats what your on about :)
ThePlaneShow 10 months ago
@polak4lyf It clearly states "NEAR MISS" in the first 3 seconds of the video...
StrikkklyROCKERS 9 months ago
@polak4lyf In the beggining you idiot.
BoeingDude777 6 months ago
if thats river traffic, stay below 1k and those big boys shouldn't bother you.
bajesus666 1 year ago
That's close, but try coming within 100 feet of a Citation X on it's climb-out! It was so close you could see faces in the windows...thank god the worst didn't happen
Mav1843 1 year ago
No danger provided both stick to your assigned attutudes but yer...its is always an uncomfortable moment. I had the same on an ILS approch with a king out that popped ourt of a cloud base !
OzParkPilot 1 year ago
dude that peice of crap cat I cessna is prob VFR anyway so if anything did happen its his fault
smackoholick 1 year ago
ha. ace lock co is awesome
templemountband 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thats actually not that bad. Here in HSV I've had a 747 fly over our 172 the opposite direction and it was much closer than that, and we aren't even a busy airport. Besides, the big plane likely had TCAS so they "had you in sight" while you where passing near them. Its close, but it could be alot closer.
3M5172 1 year ago
Thats actually not that bad. Here in HSV I've had a 747 fly over our 172 the opposite direction and it was much closer than that, and we aren't even a busy airport. Besides, the big plane likely had TCAS so they "had you in sight" while you where passing near them. Its close, but it could be alot closer.
3M5172 1 year ago
2 weeks ago flying up north in a super cub, we saw the registration of dhc-2 passing by. now thats close!!
MrArcticcatf7 1 year ago
this is a normal pattern, whats the problem.
easyamp123 1 year ago
I fly 500 ft over C5's all the time near kelly AFB in my 172.
This wasnt 500 feet. this was atleast a 1/4 mile.
Weefles 1 year ago
zooming the camera doesn't make it "closer"
skysnet 1 year ago
Thats not even close to being close duh
cap1900 1 year ago
I think you are suppose to be flying below 500ft at your location Near JFK airport heading to Coney Island...
manny298 1 year ago
yeah we got it its normal...
aarwilson 1 year ago
what the fuck.....nothing near
pacman4988 1 year ago
Dude, cool video to be sure but this is NOT a near miss or anything close to it. I fly this airspace EVERY day and I've been MUCH closer than that. This is jsut part of the route, that's why you have to be at or below 500 when under the shelf.
Quillons1 1 year ago
very normal.
Even with gliding your sometimes closer to the aircraft (100 meters vertical).
jurrienplijter 1 year ago
Very normal in JFK's Bravo for that to happen. In the 90's I got a wave from the F/O of a TWE Dash 7 we were that close.
Learjetjock 1 year ago
***Caution Wake turbulence***
franktbird 1 year ago
That's not a near-miss. That's a miss.
Crimestick 1 year ago
guys he is saying to close for comfort for him. I didnt personally think that was as close as you can get but it might have been really scary for him.
chris5812341234 1 year ago
Holy shit that's close lol
TonyFirelli 1 year ago
lol that wasnt close at all.
jamesyak52 1 year ago 24
@jamesyak52 read the fargen comments!
marco21falcon 1 year ago
@jamesyak52 actually that was very close, the jet wake could easily cause the cessna to lose all vitalls and crash. sadadaze were you on a vfr flight plan? and if so how were you allowed to cross the flight path of a landing jet?
bilshut 11 months ago
whats the problem here? A near miss or too close for comfort is when youo can read the name tag on the captains coat when you pass each other.
shooteraod 1 year ago
watch out for wake turbulence
22640cal 1 year ago
@22640cal Exactly what I was thinking.
Hondaridr58 1 year ago
That wasn't close!
RogerDeanSmart 1 year ago
as long as the two of you (cessna and airliner) had 3000 feet between you you should be fine and a air traffic controller won't get in trouble
Amtrak1194 1 year ago
These were 36 seconds of my life that were wasted
Bogey71 1 year ago
@Bogey71 Go back to wanking off your dog then.
izzy1234able 1 year ago
@Bogey71 You forgot to add the time you needed to type your ridiculous comment.
pingpongpung 1 year ago
that wasn't too close...
pretty standard when approaching/leaving any congested airport...
oderov 1 year ago 2
Near miss my hairy ass.
A320FirstOfficer 1 year ago 3
That wasn't close at all. 36 seconds of my life down the drain.
LoneNutter1 1 year ago
Near miss. I guess your idea of tailgating is following a 1/4 mile behind a truck on the expressway.
rickevans033050 1 year ago
Well if your cleared to pass under the airliner and you accept the clearance. Than you have the responsibilty for proper spacing and waketurbulence avoidance. So if something happens its your fault and problem.
curls1988 1 year ago
I learned to fly at LGA in a Cherokee 140 using the same runways as the jets. You learn how to deal with wake turbulence. You even learn how to avoid getting blown off the ground when taxiing behind the big boys.
distar97 1 year ago
Caution wake turbulence. The vortex drops at 500 feet/minute.
w5cdt 1 year ago
Just watch out for the wake turbulence. If you are getting too close you can quickly get into trouble from this and it will put you out of control in a matter of seconds.
nice video but I reckon I have seen, and experienced, closer flights than this.
MrUAV100 1 year ago
i'm a pilot and that isn't so close
TracyAndersonFoxhunt 1 year ago
That is rather close...
umpalumpa101909 1 year ago
not really that close, but for a low time GA pilot, can be quite intimidating. Nice view though. lol
evangelionbh 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
7GolfAlpha 1 year ago
No, that's pretty damn close. A little closer and you would be in trouble. Don't want to get caught in the wake turbulence; it will flip your airplane upside down. And remember wake turbulence sinks below large aircraft, so you don't have to be that close to get caught in it. That's why small GA aircraft turn right or left x-wind when departing a runway shortly after an airliner has taken off.
7GolfAlpha 1 year ago
A "near miss" is when you almost hit a plane, when ATC isn't involved. Obviously ATC was involved seeing as how you are right next to a major airport. I've had near misses with military aircraft in the white mountains of NH. When you are in a 150, and a flight of 3 C-130's are coming at you and you are hugging a mountain at the same altitude, that's a near miss. The third one saw me and peeled off, but we were about 300 feet away from htting eachother.
novsierra 1 year ago 2
@novsierra I fly in the white mountains also,,,,,and yeah those C-130's are a real bitch...lol
Thesupersmith79 1 year ago
That's JFK !!!
KRY030HModesto 1 year ago
An inch is as good as a mile. MR. FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
strawberrymelon1 1 year ago
then stay out of our airspace then!
cap1900 1 year ago
I have been way closer to a jet then in this video. As long as you keep visual seperation and both pilots know where the other is located your fine. I been close enough to see the people inside the CRJ passing by us. Both me and the CRJ pilot saw each other and he passed by less then .25 mile in front and less than 100 feet above.
Kanis91 1 year ago
I did something like this except they were taking off. I was flying off the coast at around 4500 and all of a sudden I see a Southwest plane pass right below us very low, after they passed us they started climbing. I'm sure approach was holding them down there because of us, sorry Southwest!
ejuoi 1 year ago
Not exactly a near miss but if you feel like it is too close for comfort then it is too close for comfort. You are the pilot in command and you make the decisions. Safety can never be too much. A wake turbulence is not a joke and it is good to be afraid of it. Nice video :-)
saevaroa 1 year ago
This ain't even close!!!
MSTLOM 1 year ago
Pussy
testpilot51 1 year ago
Why the hell did I just watch that? Somebody owes me 36 seconds.
1972njr 1 year ago
The video is fine. I just wouldn´t call it a near miss.
skazhiprivet 1 year ago
Comment removed
WTFBozo 1 year ago 5
@WTFBozo 24,000 hours?! The test pilots that were selected as Apollo astronauts had no more than 15,000 hours logged. LOL
hunterhalo2 1 year ago
@hunterhalo2 thats because military and Nasa pilots dont fly anywhere close to what civilian pilots fly. I have over 22 years at Delta and flky corporate Gulfstream G-V aircraft now for a private corporation.... and it wasn't 24, 000 it is 27,962.4 as of this day. I keep an active logbook still.
WTFBozo 1 year ago