• WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s not actually true, so don’t worry.

      Edit. If you’re going to reply with an “actually” comment, don’t. Just go back to Reddit.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It is actually true though. Just the FAA’s definition of “near collision” is much much looser than what a lay person would think.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean it is true, it’s just “near collisions” has a broad definition in terms of air safety. Things that are very low risk or potential problems that were simply resolved before they grew are still recorded.

        • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          No. The top comments already explain why the article is wrong.

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          He is just worried that HIS “actually” wouldn’t stand out as nicely if someone added second one…

    • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The article is clickbait. The margins of range for “near miss” is enormous to ensure such things don’t happen. A “near miss” is usually still miles and miles apart, and only registers because two flights may be at the same altitude to avoid weather.