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.