Two planes at the "Same" Altitude, only one leaves a trail

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Via Twitter:


The first thing to notice here is that the planes are not actually the same type:


But even if they were, the visual difference in size between a plane at 36,000 feet, and another at 38,000 feet is just 5%. In this image, the visually smaller plane on the left is 57 pixels long, the large plane is 67. So if the plane on the right were at 36,000 feet, and the plane on the left were the same model of plane, then going by the lengths, the plane on the left would be at 36000*67/57 = about 42,000 feet, or 6000 feet higher.

And given that contrailing humidity can vary in as little as 1000 feet, that's plenty of room for there to be a difference.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The first thing to notice here is that the planes are not actually the same type:

Agreed.

There are a few common "keys" when viewing (or "planespotting"....an actual hobby of a surprising number of people. It is similar to "trainspotting" as another hobby focus).

In the OP photo, the airplane to the left (and therefore lower in altitude, as will become clear) is a narrow-body twin-jet....either a B737 or...I will go out on a limb here and identify it as in the Airbus A319/320 "family"...(NOT an A321...the fuselage is too short).

The other jet, physically "behind" but obviously at a different altitude (because of the parallax that distorts the apparent "proximity") is obviously a different airplane than the first. It might very well be another "narrow-body"....likely a B757....the apparent change (reduction) in fuselage diameter indicates that the second (right-hand of the image) airplane is higher...meaning, farther away from the camera when the photo was taken. (As is well known, I hope by now....the current "normal" vertical altitude difference is, worldwide. 1,000 feet. Since these two are on the same course and Jet Airway Route {at the moment of the snapshot}, in same direction, then normally...usually...they would be separated by 2,000 feet vertically. This is because of the typical "standard" of West-bound is 'even', and East-bound is "odd". Still for ATC purposes, the minimum of 1,000 feet can be implemented, when required, regardless of actual course direction).

To my trained eye, I would propose that this second (right side of image) airplane IS a B-757-200.

It is important to note that both the Airbus A-320 "family" and the Boeing B-757 "family" are approximately the same in fuselage diameter. Within 6 to 8 inches.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I have also seen this picture passed around on Twitter. It astonishes me that anybody would claim that these planes were at the same altitude. Do they really think passenger aircraft fly one plane-length apart?

Could someone with the requisite aviation knowledge tell me what would be the minimum required horizontal separation if both aircraft were at the same altitude, as claimed?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Could someone with the requisite aviation knowledge tell me what would be the minimum required horizontal separation if both aircraft were at the same altitude, as claimed?

Depends on the altitude, and thus the airspeeds. In a radar-environment AT typical cruise altitudes and speeds, it is 10 Nautical Miles ('NM'). (THIS is dependent on the distances OF the airplanes under radar-control from the antennas used to monitor them).

However, for the purposes of ATC ('ATC' = 'Air traffic Control') convenience (to reduce the workload on the controllers) they will typically use 15 to 20 NM at cruise altitude. This tends to be a "personal preference" per the Controller. This also allows for variations that occur in Actual Winds Aloft at altitude, as the airplanes move through the atmosphere. (IOW....a jet that is, say "leading the pack" can encounter sudden headwinds, and thus its groundspeed will be affected. The ones behind will then seem to be "gaining" on this 'leader'. This is an over-simplification, but used to illustrate the concept that in a DYNAMIC situation the Air Traffic Controller must manage).


In non-radar (such as over-water, mountainous areas, etc) the minimum that is strove for is 20 NM. BUT, in such circumstances, it is usually calculated in minutes, based on each airplane's ATC airspeed, as filed. (AND also, at Non-Radar Position Reporting Waypoints....the actual current Winds Aloft are provided, to ATC....included in the "Position Report". This helps to "update" what was previously forecast. A margin or "safety buffer" is usually added, to ensure sufficient spacing and altitude conflict problems (for airplanes that wish to change altitude).....these "buffers" will vary per ATC facility, worldwide.

The following text, below, veers away from the claims of "chem"trails at cruise altitude:

At altitudes where contrails do not form, such as takeoff/landing scenarios....the minimum is 3 NM....or, 5 NM when the preceding airplane is a "Heavy"(**). Not sure what the "In-Trail Spacing" is for a "Super-Heavy"....that would be only one airplane, the A-380 at present. (EDIT: Please see the PDF below....the spacing behind an A-380 varies from 6, 8 or 10 NM...depending on airplane type that is "in-trail").

(**) The classification (for ATC) as a "Heavy" has changed a bit over the years. 300,000 pounds (in the USA) was the typical number....but U.S. standards have tried to comply with ICAO (International) standards more and more. (Because of the "conversion" aspect between units: "pounds", "tonnes" {U.K., Canada and other places} and the Metric units).

...here is a Wiki ref. that is accurate (AFAIK):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_(aeronautics)

The B-757-200, although NOT capable of 300.000 pounds at takeoff...nevertheless was seen to produce significant wake turbulence, so it "falls" into the category, and is treated as "Large/Heavy" by ATC personnel when they sequence flights for takeoff and landing. (Even though the pilots of a B-757-200 do not need to add the "heavy" to their radio callsign)

This PDF may also be pertinent:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.567.pdf
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Separation at cruise altitudes is an air traffic control issue - it is anything from 3-10 nautical miles, depending on whether ATC can "see" the aircraft (ie where they have radar coverage) or not, altitude, sped, type of airspace, proximity to airfield, etc.

Yeah...kinda what I wrote above, except with a bit more detail. What's important to emphasize, in this context is....altitude (vertically).

1,000 feet. Yeah, to the non-pilot might not seem like much....(except it's just a bit less than the height of the TALLEST of the WTC Towers!!!)...BUT pilots understand that in terms of our "Vertical Velocity"...it can vary from....from as small as....say, 50 feet-per-minute to 4,000 feet-per-minute (or greater, when descending).

But, those ranges (although not absolute, it ALL depends upon airplane performance capabilities) are somewhat irrelevant, when it comes to nearby traffic, in airline operations. NO ONE wants to have a mid-air collision!!

This is just ONE (of many) reasons why TCAS is mandated.

TCAS has resulted in MANY, MANY safe resolutions since its inception....I dare-say there are online resources to back up this claim.

(ETA).....for MANY decades 1,000 feet vertically was the STANDARD for vertical separation for ALL airplanes that operated under Instrument Flight Rules....since the 1940s!!!

(ETA: AND, consider that airplanes (in the U.S.) that were NOT on IFR Flight Plans, but operating under VFR ('Visual Flight Rules") used altitudes only 500 feet off....IOW...a west-bound VFR airplane would choose 2,500, or 4,500, or 6,500 feet (ETC). East bound, used 'odd'-numbered thousands, but 500 feet off. SO....ALL of these VFR airplanes, which had NO REASON to contact ATC (except in certain airspace limitations) could operate, free and clear. THAT is the reality).

This 1,000-foot limit was good UNTIL the era of high-altitude flight, when there were some concerns about the accuracy of the pitot-static systems then....SO...
FL290 (or, "29,000 feet") became a "cut-off" point, back in the 1960s. THIS remained the "standard" until the late 1990s.....when RVSM standards were implemented, again ABOVE FL 290.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I am ADDING to my post, just above....for public consumption.

It is increasingly difficult to attempt to "teach" the public....MANY of whom are already well informed, BTW!!

But, there is an aspect of aviation that is SO specific....there is SO much to learn.....it seems (sometimes) nearly impossible to help those who are NOT a "professional pilot", much less an aviator of any type, to comprehend.

Hence, the "chem"trail myth. It propagates....and persists. (Pun). Because, CONtrails persist, and they (when conditions are suitable aloft) can propagate!!
 

Juha

Member
IMHO first plane is higher and a small wide body. Perhaps A310 or 767-200? Well that's irrelevant anyway.

But they can not be at same level. 757s TCAS would be screaming F-words if they were. :)
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
Wasn't there another picture very similar to this where the two planes are actually overlapping? Pretty sure the one on the left is a Virgin Atlantic A320.
 
Last edited:

Juha

Member
Wasn't there another picture very similar to this where the two planes are actually overlapping? Pretty sure the one on the right is a Virgin Atlantic A320.
Slightly too much white at front of cowling for a Virgin?
Albeit there is lot's of similar liveries as Virgin.
 

Juha

Member
Ok, apology to cloudspotter. It defenetly looks in that picture a Virgin(or similar). And it's lower and narrow body. A320.

At first picture it looked like 1/3 from cowling edge is white. It's not.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
I've seen this photo and others from the same series at the ChemtrailsProjectUK FB page

https://www.facebook.com/Chemtrails...0.1409565648./814002031967455/?type=3&theater
Click 'Next' to see the other photos or see them in the photostream:

The front plane is below and at some point has past underneath the rear plane:
View attachment 8885
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152395174003929&set=p.10152395174003929&type=1

That's the one I'd seen. Couldn't recall if it had been posted on MB though.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's the one I'd seen. Couldn't recall if it had been posted on MB though.
Doh, there was a discussion Facebook about this a couple of weeks ago, but in a different context, someone thought one of the enhanced photos was fake:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152195190557063&set=gm.838467599498944&type=1&theater
There's some good skydentification in the comments there.
Although I think his original estimate of 30,000/38,000 is the more likely one, what with there being contrails.

The original full set of photos is here:
https://www.facebook.com/LandRuler/media_set?set=a.10202898144790349.1073741834.1104445691&type=3

I posted this related video:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Related:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-gasp-2-planes-collide-approach-Heathrow.html
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Satellite ADS-B Data in FlightAware24 - Blue Planes Prove Globe Earth Flat Earth 1
Mick West UFOs Filmed from Moving Helicopters and Planes. Not So Fast! UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
I Flares in the Sky? [Landing Lights of Planes landing at Phoenix Airport] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Explained: Why Planes Get Dented Nosecones - It's Mostly Birds General Discussion 4
Cube Radio Donald Trump initially said he thought there were "bombs" on the planes on 9/11 9/11 44
Mick West How Do You Take Good Photos of High Altitude Planes and Contrails? Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
Clouds Givemethewillies Automated Video Tracking of Planes Tools for Investigating and Debunking 42
Mick West Two Large Planes Flying Parallel, Chiloquin, OR. Is it Legal? Yes. Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Marin B Three Planes Turn Right, South of San Francisco Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
Gary Cook 911 video with edited out planes. 9/11 6
J What might these three planes be? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Trailspotter Contrails from Turboprop Planes at lower than typical altitudes Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
Trailspotter Explained: Dark contrails behind bright planes Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
Libertarian Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover Flight MH17 72
Vindog Debunk this [Planes at different altitude and different contrails over France] Contrails and Chemtrails 43
ĕrēmīta Racetrack Contrails and "Bizzare" Planes off the Yorkshire Coast Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 70
Credible theorist How could the planes wings penetrate the WTC? Conspiracy Theories 156
Mick West Two planes in Germany flying Racetrack patterns together [Likely Eurofighter Typhoon Practicing] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Mick West Tip: Planes with "No callsign" in FlightRadar24 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
solrey Reward to catch people who point lasers at planes General Discussion 21
Josh Heuer 9/11: Any Evidence for remote controlled planes? 9/11 91
Mick West Debunked: US Reported In Panic After Chemtrail Planes Forced Down In India and Nigeria Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Billzilla A new low from Aircrap.org - Disney's Planes Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Neil Pennington No planes today Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Photos of Planes and Contrails (That you took yourself) Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1229
JRBids Identifying chemtrail planes Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West Debunked: Chemtrail Plane and Other Unlabeled Photos from Facebook etc. Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 227
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
A.G. "Unmarked planes" Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West Explained: UFOs that look like flares or fireworks [Aerobatic planes with wingtip pyrotechnics] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West Advocating violence against "Chemtrail" planes, pilots, scientists, and debunkers Contrails and Chemtrails 1762
lamentiraestaahifuera.com Crossing planes [Planes at different heights] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Seeing The Same Stars All Year Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 20
Snake Plisken Two objects over Ribblehead Viaduct [Probably birds] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Rory Dublin Moon and sun in same sky disproves Spherical Earth Flat Earth 16
R Can 3 towers placed equidistant at the same latitude demonstrate curvature? Flat Earth 2
Jonathan Evans Explained: Jupiter Photos look the same [Composite photo] Flat Earth 5
Mick West Debunked: Foley's Sister Katie Foley vs Lanza's Friend Alex Israel [Not the Same Person] Conspiracy Theories 105
saveus Drills on the same day as terrorist attacks Conspiracy Theories 110
Mick West Debunked: Coincidences. (Disney World Couple in Same Photo Before They Met) General Discussion 1
Mick West Explained: Manurewa NZ, 'Extra-terrestrial' Fireball Jumps Up [Contrail, Altitude change] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
omaehamoushindeiru De-fisheye techniques for high altitude photography of earth show earth still curved Flat Earth 11
Mick West F-WWQF high altitude test flights Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Trailblazer Persistent contrails at 26,000ft Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
TWCobra Flat earth Debunk-change in apparent altitude of clouds as seen from airliner Flat Earth 2
Trailblazer Altitude and contrail persistence Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Mick West Which Plane is Higher? Optical Illusions in Assessing Relative Altitude Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 23
Mick West Converting mb (pressure) to altitude, and sites where this is useful Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Henk001 High altitude clouds don't have a cooling effect Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Marine0811 Do contrails form around low level clouds? [Generally not] Contrails and Chemtrails 124
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top