Here we go again.

[flightops1272]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/20/planes.collide/index.html

[KSYR-pjr]

Putting aside this particular tragedy for a moment, this somewhat dramatic subject line needs to be put into perspective by the fact that midair accidents are relatively rare, at least in the US. 

In the US for the years 2004 and 2005 (the most recent years analyzed by the Nall Report, a GA safety review/analysis report) there were 10 midair accidents each year (source - 2006 Nall Report, page 22). 

For 2005 there were a total of 1436 fixed wing aircraft accidents (source - 2006 Nall Report, page 5), so this results in midairs making up 0.7% of all GA accidents.  Airplanes are not banging into each other and falling out of the sky at an alarming rate, as the subject line might imply.

To put this a slightly different way, the Nall Report (page 1) reports that total GA hours in the US for 2005 were 23.2 million hours.   There were a total of 7.2 accidents of all types for every 100,000 hours flown in 2005.  Therefore a midair accident  happened once for every 2,000,000 hours flown.

Again, the subject line needed to be put into perspective at least based on my interpretation.

[tyketto]

This might be in the archives. a couple of us here know one of the guys that took the 911 call for the incident; another heard a call into KRAL Tower about it on his scanner. There may be something in the archives for this, if someone would like to go searching...

BL.

[flightops1272]

Thanks for the facts. But there have seem to been a rash of them over the last several months. That's all that was meant by the subject line. Maybe you should get over yourself and not read into things so much. Just a thought.

[KSYR-pjr]

But there have seem to been a rash of them over the last several months.

Source?   How about putting a verifiable number to your claim?  Surely you can back that up with something more than a divining rod and tea leaves.

That's all that was meant by the subject line.

Exactly the reason for my original reply.  The subject was yet another typical, Joe Sixpack response to a headline in the news.

Maybe you should get over yourself and not read into things so much.

Since you just proved my suspicion by claiming "there have seem to been a rash of them over the last several months" it is clear that I read into your subject line exactly as you had intended, which was to attempt to make something much bigger than it really is.

It's obvious from your words here that you are not involved in general aviation.   You have no idea what prejudice GA faces by the uninitiated and ill-informed media and masses like yourself who toss around unverifiable phrases such as "seems to be a rash of them," yet read of perhaps a hundred times the amount of deaths due to car crashes without so much as a second thought. 

The purpose of my original reply was to bring a modicum of reality to an otherwise lame attempt at sensationalism.  Don't like reality?  Then post this fodder over at AOL where a gaggle of housewives will all join in your chorus line, echoing your perceptions like the good shee-ple you hoped would have jumped in here.

[flightops1272]

You need a therapist. Seriously, make an appointment. Don't be too proud to cry a little either. You'll feel much better.

[KB6HLM]

Wow I don't feel so bad now 

It looks like KSYR gets a kick out of attacking people that reply to posts

He recently attacked and made fun of one of mine in another post please keep in mind it was totally unprovoked !

And to tell you the truth I was really looking for him to apologize to me and what I got in response was this "WOW"

And now I see he is at it again with more attacks on the liveatc members !!

its funny how the topic name fits (Here we go again)

KSYR-pir May I suggest reading http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php/topic,2966.msg16673.html#msg16673 before responding to posts?

I mean really man KNOCK IT OFF with the attacks on others !!!!!!!!

Be nice and have a great day
Glenn Las Vegas, NV

[flightops1272]

In a quick search I've found 14 MACs and 2 reported near miss events between 01/01/05 and current. Ten of those have occured in the last 21 months. Five have occured since the beginning of this month (31%). The phrase "here we go again" makes at least a little sense here don't you think?

The subject line was not meant to sensationalize anything, only to begin the discussion trail on this trajedy so that other aviation professionals (unlike you) and enthusiasts could input their thoughts and experiences and maybe even a clip or two so that maybe, just maybe, one of us could learn something by reading this forum. What makes this site so great is the fact that you have experienced pilots and controllers and dispatchers and Joe's off the street engauged in valuable information exchange about important aviation subjects, many safety critical. It is too bad that you have that enormous chip on your shoulder and let it cause you to be so paranoid and assume that you have some divine ability to detect the intent of others. Or is it just old fashion arrogance?

Thank you for your offer to solicit my fodder at AOL. I may have to try that out. In return, may I offer you a way to relieve your stored up tension? http://hugsforeveryone.tribe.net/

Be Safe!

flightops1272
-Converting 100LL into hugs-

[KB6HLM]

Well said 

Case in point "Never bash offend ext... someone on a public forum"

You may get more then you bargained for !

[KSYR-pjr]

In a quick search I've found 14 MACs and 2 reported near miss events between 01/01/05 and current. Ten of those have occured in the last 21 months. Five have occured since the beginning of this month (31%).

Source?  I absolutely do NOT believe that there have been five midairs since the beginning of January, at least in the US.  World-wide?  Maybe.  But without a source, your numbers have no credibility.  It's that simple.

Love your sidekick, BTW.  He's so cute.  Are his tights color-coordinated with your cape and mask?

[KSYR-pjr]

Here's my source that shows only one other mid-air accident (which was discussed in this site) in the US in the month of January:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=1&year=2008

Eager to read your source, which I am confident you will produce because I know you didn't make that number up.

[flightops1272]

Jan 1 - Napa, CA - PA28 vs Glastar
Jan 7 - Persian Gulf - F18 vs F18
Jan 16 - Newark, NJ - B737 vs Embraer 145 (NEAR MISS)
Jan 21 - Corona, CA - C150 vs C172

And, forgive me, but the 5th was a near miss that took place Dec 19 in Chicago (B737 vs LearJet). I was looking at the date the info was printed (Jan and included it in my post of "5 since the beginning of the month". Even so, I could say 5 in the last 30 days which would be 35% of the total over the last 2 years...OR...I could say 4 since the beginning of the month which would be 25%. Either way, THERE HAS BEEN A RASH OF THEM LATELY!!

I included the 2 near miss events because THEY MATTER. Just because the a/c didn't trade paint doesn't mean that they don't fit into this equation. In Newark the a/c were within 600' of each other. In Chicago even closer at 200'. That can't be ignored. Here's a quote from Chicago...

"They just about knocked each other right out of the sky," said David Stock, head of the air traffic controllers' union at Elgin's radar facility, which is under investigation related to the error. "That is as close to a mid-air collision as you can get."

Whether it was Pilot error, Controller error/staffing shortages, or a change needed to procedure, the topic of MACs is worth discussing. THAT IS ALL I WAS TRYING TO DO!.

Quit being so touchy and worried about people GA bashing. I think most here have the experience or common sense to understand that flying is incredibly safe whether Part 91, 135, or 121. This site and these forums exist as one means of, hopefully, making it a little safer - as well as providing others with some quality entertainment.

[mk]

well if we're including near misses we should count the other 7-8 runway incursions and "near misses" and the dozens more unreported. 

we gotta be realistic...there's been like 5 since spring '07.  right on average with every year before that, and the year before that, etc.   and you have to only look at GA VFR involved.  those are the ones just flying around trying to figure out how to program the GPS and not looking out the window. as for the military they assume responsibility for their own separation. MARSA.   And if you wanna count "near misses" there were over 600 of those in fiscal year '07. since october '07 there has been 104 "near misses" and 8 runway incursions. sourcehttps://employees.faa.gov/org/linebusiness/ato/   see bottom of page

Just another slightly below average year.

Remember the shark attack summer when sharks were goin ape shit "attacking" people off the coast of Florida that one summer?   there were less shark attacks that year than average.  i lived 2 miles north of Inlet Harbor, FL, and it's the same 20 surfers getting bit over and over, year in year out.  average year of shark bitting

[KSYR-pjr]

Jan 7 - Persian Gulf - F18 vs F18

Nope, can't give you this one.  This accident is totally irrelevant to the counts of MACs here in the US, as it happened well outside of US airspace.  Much different circumstances, different rules, completely different operations, etc.  Apples and oranges to our subject line here.   In fact, military MACs are not tracked nor investigated by the US's NTSB unless it involves a non-military aircraft.  The Florida F-16 hitting the C172 several years ago was, I believe, the last US military/non-military MAC over US soil.

If you are counting outside-US-airspace MACs you may as well count remote control aircraft collisions, for they have the same relation to this thread.

Jan 16 - Newark, NJ - B737 vs Embraer 145 (NEAR MISS)

Near misses (Near Midair Collisions, or NMACs)  are technically a complete different animal, in part because their definition is much more loose than a MAC.   Near misses are much more numerous, too.  If you are counting one in your list then you had better count them all - not just use them to conveniently fill your list to reach your magical SWAG of five.   How many near misses have you had in your car?  How many accidents have you experienced that involved hitting another car?  If you are like most of the drivers in the US, there would be a big difference in those numbers there, too.

Near misses are NOT used by insurance company actuaries when determining aircraft insurance premiums;  MACS are.

And, forgive me, but the 5th was a near miss that took place Dec 19 in Chicago (B737 vs LearJet). I was looking at the date the info was printed (Jan and included it in my post of "5 since the beginning of the month". Even so, I could say 5 in the last 30 days which would be 35% of the total over the last 2 years...OR...I could say 4 since the beginning of the month which would be 25%. Either way, THERE HAS BEEN A RASH OF THEM LATELY!!

You won't like this but you got caught with your pants down on this one.  You unequivocally stated that there were 5 MACs since the beginning of January, then revised this number down significantly when called to the task.   Your list shows only 2 MACs over US soil.  And yet you still insist there has been a rash of them lately?  At this point I am going to assume that you are just trolling and therefore I won't beat this horse any longer.  My point has been made.

Quit being so touchy and worried about people GA bashing.

Touchy?  LOL.   Once again you resort to a personal comment when you have no factual evidence to back up your claims.   This demonstrates you have no intelligent argument left.

I think most here have the experience or common sense to understand that flying is incredibly safe whether Part 91, 135, or 121.

Incredibly safe?  Part 91 in the US?  I would use that phrase when describing part 121 flight but not part 91.   But that is a topic for completely separate thread. 

This site and these forums exist as one means of, hopefully, making it a little safer - as well as providing others with some quality entertainment.

Get real.  Posting a link to an article about the midair over Corona under this subject line has absolutely nothing to do with how to discuss midairs properly.  Had you really had that intent you would have surrounded the link with several pointers reminding pilots how to avoid MACs.  Know any?

For the record, I will point out that as a pilot MACs scare the hell out of me.  But this is purely an emotional reaction, not a logical one, given the statistics that demonstrate the very low probability of being involved in one.   Based on your words here, I am convinced your reaction to the Corona MAC was also purely emotional.  Nothing wrong with that either, but my intent all along was to present a logical argument against this emotion, not attack you as your sidekick believed.  Your "get over yourself" comment is what took this discussion to the next level.

[Jason]

You guys obviously can't hold a mature, adult discussion in this thread.  Locked.