Airline Pilot Central Forums - Rogue Examiners (Flying magazine)

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Technical (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/technical/)

- - Rogue Examiners (Flying magazine) (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/technical/74231-rogue-examiners-flying-magazine.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoda2 (Post 1395238)

Check out the NTSB Month/Year. Look up Friday May 22, 1987. I knew the guy flying the 206... And so much for ejection seats.

Sorry....Am I misunderstanding the specific point of your reply in bringing up the midair?
I certainly said nothing in my post which would lead you to believe that I don't think a midair could occur. The last two aircraft, and one pilot, my last squadron lost before I left he military was a Lead/Wingman midair during joinup AFTER a KIO :(
It is interesting that the report states that neither were in contact with ATC/MOA control. I don't know how things operated in '87, but in my time flying in that area (06-10), at least the T-38 SHOULD HAVE been talking to Joshua, and if doing work (maneuvering in the area for any amount of time), the -206 SHOULD HAVE been in contact too when working in a piece of airspace that is known to be full of military aircraft like the MOAs/Restricted Areas around Edwards/China Lake.

If anything this mishap should point out the importance of communication in SUAS in my opinion, and of course always do your best to keep a sharp eye out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1395246)

No worries, you raised some good points in your post and I just did a poor job of tying it in to my post when bringing up the midair. I was trying to offer an example relating to your last paragraph of post #68, that's all. I will never forget this event as it happened to someone I knew. Also due to the circumstances you will notice I didn't call it an accident. And what the heck were they both doing not talking... I guess we'll never know... Like you said, Big Sky Theory is not a good idea in an MOA and this proves it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by satpak77 (Post 1395240)

Yes, nobody said you couldn't.

Can and should are two different things.

I can pet stray dogs with foaming mouths. No law, policy, or regulation prohibits that. But should I ?

I can eat twinkies and Big Macs every day for the rest of my life. Should I ?

To each his own. Good luck

Im not saying fly circles all day in a MOA, but don't treat the airspace like it's a TFR or Prohibited area - if your VFR and the MOA is cold, fly through it...if the MOA is hot, don't plan on going through but make sure to ask.

I have never been denied passage through a MOA, but I have been asked to stay away from certain areas and I respect that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by web500sjc (Post 1395273)

I'm in total agreement with what you just said. What you said would get you berated by Ms. Lunken, based on my recollection of the recent article. I don't think she cares much about whether the MOA is active or not. My impression of her writing is that she doesn't care much about anything except what she thinks, and her thinking is pretty much ossified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by web500sjc (Post 1395177)

First going through a MOA is not a bad thing. a) the MOA will always be on the chart whether the MOA is active or not, b) the MOA is only designed to separate out IFR traffic and give warning to VFR traffic. You could fly VFR through a MOA all day if you want to, and sometimes ATC can coordinate with the military to get an IFR aircraft through a MOA.

You can fly through an active MOA all day if you want. You can also dress up in all camouflage and run through the woods during hunting season if you want. It's legal, but you're just as stupid for doing it. Anyone who thinks that there is some magic force keeping a student fighter pilot flying at 500 kts, task saturated (often by design), from running into you, you're putting too much faith into a system that may not exist. Many MOAs are uncontrolled and there's no one warning the fighters that you are some place no one thinks a sane person should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 1391271)

I've always had an opinion on pilots who unjustly fail, bust, or otherwise give lesser experienced pilots a hard time in the cockpit. It all stems down from insecurity and inadequateness, as both individuals and pilots, in their own abilities.

.

^^^^Very well said.

Just read her May column in Flying. Definitely living in the past and a "get off my lawn" type person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by web500sjc (Post 1395177)

I appreciate that this is a place where mostly high altitude flyers discuss things, but not everyone gets to fly a pilatus, some of us are stuck in Cessna, Piper and Cirrus.

Every one of us who flies 'high altitude' equipment once flew low and slow. Some of us still do. We're all just trying to give those who don't have our experience the benefit of what we've learned from that experience.

I'm sure each one of us could tell a I can't believe I did that in an airplane story or two that would make some of Ms. Lunken's aviation decisions look pedestrian - I know I could, at least.

The difference is, we're not ambassadors of aviation, writing for one of the most accessible media for inexperienced pilots and the general public, 'Flying Magazine'. If you have that platform, you have a responsibility to the community to avoid writing articles about things like choosing to fly VFR through active MOA's, purposefully slowing to induce another aircraft to execute a missed approach, or re-tuning a navaid on a proficiency test.

While all the choices Ms. Lunken advocates may be legal, they are poor choices, the worst of which is her choice of subjects for publication.