Space Debris Narrowly Misses Airliner

An anonymous reader writes "An airliner jet traveling from Chile to New Zealand early today was in for an interesting ride. Flaming space debris — the remains of a Russian satellite — came hurtling back to Earth not far from a commercial jet on its way to Auckland, New Zealand. Here's further justification for the growing concern of the increasing amounts of space garbage orbiting our planet. From the article: 'The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340 ... notified air traffic controllers at Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space junk hurtling across the sky just five nautical miles in front of and behind his plane...'"

Comments

Behind the plane?

[hlh_nospam]

Looks like this article needs some proofreading (Russion?), in addition to a reasonableness check. I have never piloted an aircraft in which you could see to the rear. The only aircraft that I know of in which you can see to the rear are military fighters, and even then, the view is limited, and the pilot has rare occasion to look back. Well, actually, I take that back -- I've seen pictures of general aviation aircraft with 'bubble' canopies, but I've never actually seen one in person.

Very small chance

[FredDC]

I think there is a very small chance of space debris reentering the atmosphere, hitting an airplane. It is possible ofcourse, but I think you've got a better chance of winning the lottery...
 
Most of the debris coming down is burned up before it even reaches commercial airplane altittudes. And it's not as if the sky is full of airplanes, the amount of sky taken up by airplanes is extremely small.
 
So I don't think this is an actual problem, it could happen but most likely it won't!

OK, I'm confused

[FlyByPC]

Can someone please explain how a 340 pilot can see 5nm *behind* the aircraft? They don't exactly have rear-view mirrors, ya know...

The odds?!?!

[Kong99]

Seriously, what are the odds of being in an aircraft and being hit by space debris?!!? 10 Million : 1, 100 Million : 1, 1 Billion : 1. This is NOT a problem. An oddity, curiosity, decent headline... yes. A problem, no.

Relative Risk

[Silver Sloth]

Number of people killed per annum by falling space junk hitting aircraft - 0
Number of people killed per annum by motor accidents in the UK - 3221 (and that was a record low)

I'm not sure this story will keep me awake at night.

Re:Relative Risk

[steevc]

Over a million killed worldwide on the roads! I believe it's around 40k/year just in the USA.

How many die in plane crashes each year? I expect it's in the hundreds on average. Similar for trains.

I think the news programmes should announce road death statistics regularly to give people some perspective on which is the most dangerous form of transport. I'm certainly more scared when driving than when flying even though I appreciate that a motoring accident is generally more survivable.

Read some Schneier for some sanity.

Re:Chili? Russion?

[permaculture]

Slashdot "editors" do not "edit" submissions.
Seems high time to change the name to something that reflects what they actually do do.

Re:Behind?

[Odin's Raven]

I'm curious, when did Airbus start putting rear view mirrors in their planes? I have never known it possible in any recent commercial airliner for the pilots to see back behind them.

It's possible that the description of "behind" meant something other than "directly behind". Sure, in commercial aircraft cockpits you can't see the tail of the plane from the cockpit, but you could certainly see something well past a 90 degree bearing if you lean towards the window. Even from a dinky passenger window your field of view encompasses points that could reasonably be described as "in front of", "behind", "above", and even "below" the plane - and you can do all that without needing windows in the ceiling or floor, or forward-/rear-view mirrors.

So no need for mirrors, external cameras, visuals from other planes, etc - the pilot saw a flaming piece of debris falling down ahead of the plane, planted his face against the side cockpit window to get a wider field of view while scanning the sky, and reported seeing another piece of debris coming down somewhere in the rear quadrant - you know, "behind" the plane.

Occam's Razor - it's not just for shaving!

Re:define "narrowly"

[jonnythan]

He's saying that the airliner and the flaming ball of space debris occupied the same volume in space 30 seconds apart from each other.

Had the airliner been exactly 30 seconds (or whatever) ahead of schedule, we would be reading about an airliner that got shot down by what appears to be a missile.

Re:Phew. That was close

[crlove]

A car... no.

If flaming space debris fell from the sky a 20-second-walk ahead of me?

I'd be telling that story for years.

Re:It was not a comet.

[Fantastic Lad]

Show me the credible research that proves that we have an undetected binary companion on the fringes of our solar system, or that many of the small moons of the gas giants really were recently captured into stable orbits, or perhaps some documents or statistical data that proves there is a worldwide conspiracy to cover it all up. As far as I can see, you don't HAVE anything credible to prove your point -- you make very broad inferences from some weak hypotheses, and because you WANT it to be true, you believe it HAS to be true.

Tutt tutt! You are making assumptions, and you chose to be rude based on those assumptions rather than ask questions.

If you want to see the information you're requesting, ask nicely. And while you're at it, invest in your own curiosity and look around. (Asking and seeking are linked.) But if you are not interested then you may certainly continue to indulge in rudeness and bland witicisms. You'll get back exactly what you put forth.

-FL