USMCFLYR

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!

Yoda2

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...

web500sjc

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.

Fluglehrer

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.

Nextlife

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.

Gupboy

^^^^Very well said.

N9373M

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

Sniper

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.