MIKE DELTA X-RAY

[Mike Hart]

There are several threads running in the sister forum to this one regarding the Channel 7 program 'Sunday' and the loss of a light aircraft VH-MDX in August thirty three years ago. I believe it would be better if they were addressed in this forum first.

I am the same person interviewed for that program and I am the same person who was the Industry Complaints Commissioner for CASA. I am also the same person who was a professional pilot and flight instructor. I was on the day MDX was lost , the Air Traffic Services Officer, referred to then as Flight Service Officers, responsible for the airspace in which the aircraft was lost.

There is no issue or debate as far as I am concerned about the matters raised by Channel 7 in terms of the story that they have attempted to convey, it was a tragic loss of life and the airing of the matters is important to a lot of people as it should be to all of us as men and women.

I agreed to do the interview with Channel 7 as a matter of public record, the interview was extensive and covered everything relating to my recollections, now dated of that night and my role in the events. The material was for Channel 7 to use as they saw fit, it was not about me but the loss and continued uncertainty as to the exact whereabouts of the wreckage of the aircraft and its occupants. It is not Australia's only aviation mystery nor its first but nonetheless like all such events they do remain within Australian stories and folklore. A lot of very capable people have devoted a lot of time and effort to find MDX so far without success. I can add no more to the evidence out there other than another opinion.

As many in the industry know I have retired from the aviation industry and felt no need to have any further involvement in the industry, it was a great ride but it was over. My time in the industry gave me the opportunity to express my professional and considered views on a number of industry matters and I did so.

The assertion however of Mr Smith that officers of the Royal Australian Air Force were responsible for the loss of that aircraft and the lives of its occupants is however a view I find deeply offensive; as an aviator as a citizen and as an individual. I have no intention however of engaging in debate on the matters. The view espoused by Mr Smith is, one based on a profound ignorance on range of industry issues; the events on the day the aircraft was lost, the role of military airspace, military aviation activity, sound piloting technique, sound airmanship and the responsibilities of command.

Nor will I support the view of Mr Smith that the men and women of the RAAF would be so callous and indifferent to the welfare of the citizens who employ them that they would on a whim place their lives in jeopardy. To make such a remark is in my view to call one self into ridicule. Everybody did the best they could with the system they had at the time they had it.

I have my views as to the actions of the Captain of the aircraft but in the end there are some times in aviation where fate trumps. Let me say finally that I learnt the lessons of MDX very well and they tempered my flying, my approach to flight instruction, flight and line training and check and training for the rest of my flying career. Lessons learnt.

I do not wish to engage in further discussion to avoid edifying what is an unedifying spectacle and a ridiculous proposition. A lot of families were shattered by the events of that day, I think that is enough.

[HeSaidWhat]

You are not alone in feeling deeply offended by Mr. Smith's remarks, Mike. Your retirement days should not be affected in any way by his comments or the assertions of a section of the media trying to ensure the largest possible audience for their lazy attempt to capitalise on another recent aircraft disappearance.

The vast majority of the industry know the barrow that Mr. Smith has been pushing for so many years in relation to the obtaining of clearances for private flights through controlled and restricted airspace and I for one find it abhorrent that he chooses to denegarate the reputations of good people to achieve his aim.

There was only one person who was in direct control of that flight and who had the final decision to make as to whether it departed from Coolangatta, whether it continued into bad weather and whether it returned to land at a suitable aerodrome.

Enjoy retirement, Mike.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Mike has articulated my feelings about Mr Smith's remarks on the Ch7 'Sunday' program better that I could have myself.

For those that don't know, Mike's impressive career included training RAAF pilots at Tamworth. Therefore his remarks on the RAAF are based on experience.

Predictably, the pig-ignorant non-flying public will have lapped up Mr Smith's unsubstantiated insults of the RAAF. However I'd like to think that those aviators that watched that program would have seen Mr Smith's crocodile tears and theatrics for what it was.

As HSW said, enjoy your retirement Mike.

[004wercras]

Please come back to CAsA Mike. The ICC needs you, and so do the IOS :ok:

[Old Fella]

Mike Hart, thank you for your post which clearly identifies what any fair minded person would feel in relation to Mr Smith's remarks about where the blame lies for the loss of VH-MDX.

Might I suggest you make the same posting on the threads which have attracted much comment, i.e. that which is headed "Channel 7 Sunday Night Program about VH-MDX" and one headed simply "VH-MDX".

As a now retired former long term member of the RAAF, PPL and Flight Engineer I share your view that the assertion by Mr Smith that "The RAAF sent five people to their death" is deeply offensive as well as baseless and unfair. I have personally messaged Mr Smith using my real name to express my feelings. Mr Smith has not had the courtesy to respond, which is not surprising given his strident reluctance to retract his comment.

[TIMA9X]

video/story here..

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/a/24046608/new-evidence-in-missing-plane-mystery/

[Dick Smith]

Mike. I can understand your position however I ask a question on behalf of one of the families involved .

Have you considered that if you had a radar screen in front of you that night it would have been obvious that the pilot was heading about 90 degrees off the correct course after leaving the vicinity of CRAVEN.

If you did have access to radar and you had advised the pilot 20 minutes before the crash of a more suitable heading do you think there was say an extra 10% chance you could have prevented the accident?

And if Mike does not wish to answer perhaps another ex FSO could.

[Dick Smith]

And Mike. I have never ever suggested that lives have been placed in jeopardy "on a whim" by the RAAF or anybody.

This flight planning restriction was put in place so long ago that I bet no one today knows who wrote it. I have spoken to retired military ATC's who believe the restriction is no longer necessary and say they would far prefer to have the flight plan details in the system rather than have to key them in at the last moment.

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

Have you considered that if you had a radar screen in front of you that night it would have been obvious that the pilot was heading about 90 degrees off the correct course after leaving the vicinity of CRAVEN.

If you did have access to radar and you had advised the pilot 20 minutes before the crash of a more suitable heading do you think there was say an extra 10% chance you could have prevented the accident?

Exactly what would that have to do with your claims that "the RAAF were to blame for sending 5 men to their deaths"? You have stated the above that the RAAF WERE TO BLAME.

Now that you have admitted there were other factors involved, maybe you should issue AM Brown, and all the hard working members of the RAAF an apology?

[Dick Smith]

Rats. It's just another part of the holes in the cheese.

When I became Chairman of CAA those in charge of resistance to change were actually proposing a display console for FSO's that worked on flight plan inputs and dead reckoning - yes even for radar covered non controlled airspace.

My Board canned the proposal after some units were produced.

After the original cause of this accident ( forcing the aircraft inland) it may have been prevented if the pilot was informed by someone in front if a radar screen that he was heading in the wrong direction to his doom.

Now before you start abusing me and saying that those with the radar were not permitted to communicate directly to the pilot I ask "why was this so" .

Because of resistance to change I would say.

So can someone answer the question or is the answer to obvious.

[yr right]

Raaf and change. It seams they will change when it suits them. Case in point. When a civilian working as contractors on military aircraft and you sign the paper work to say you done the work. However the military have absolutely zero power to prosecute you if something happened. Guess what they change it all so if you do you now may be prosecuted as a civilian. Seams they can change when it suits them.
Many years ago the also purchased some b200 king airs. They where vh rego. Why vh and not military. . Because it was so hard to do mods as they required via the military system they done the via a car 35 EOs. This meant they Had to become lames to work on the aircraft.

Some it seams they can change if it suits them. Trouble is they won't loose face or give up power.

Cheers

[Old Fella]

In fairness to Mr Smith I now acknowledge a response from him to my private message. That said, one of Mr Smith's problems is his inability to have the rules relating to Williamtown airspace changed. My problem with Mr Smith is of a similar nature, i.e., he will not change his unjustifiable statement that the "RAAF sent five people to their death".

I have nothing more to add to what I have previously posted.

[Dick Smith]

My statement is clearly meant to be provocative to promote discussion and hopefully change.

Watching Four Corner's tonight on the delays in addressing the abuse problems in the military I can understand how it takes so long to remove an outdated flight planning restriction.

[Jetsbest]

Being 'provocative' is one thing. But being clearly wrong, arguably slanderous or libelous about the RAAF and/or it's personnel, and then linking your aim of removing what is, as only one of many opinions, an 'outdated flight planning restriction' with 'delays in addressing the abuse problems in the military' is extraordinarily insensitive.

Society in general has not addressed all it's 'abuse problems' in your lifetime, the issues didn't start in the military, and will inevitably take time to solve if ever. The correlation you try to make, while no doubt borne out of some real personal exasperation, ignores totally every other organisational and/or decision option available to the pilot of MDX.

Greater credibility could be found in greater balance.

[cwatters]

Could someone summarise the rules for crossing that area? Can/could you request clearance before taking off or do/did the rules require you to just turn up and hope you will get it?

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I'm going to put aside the issues of whether WLM should be where it is, whether it's justified in having all that airspace and how restricted access is or should be. Lets just assume that it's justified (or if you can't accept that, accept that it is the status quo for now). I don't think anyone can deny the RAAF the right to control their airspace and make it not available when they need to.

By preventing flight planning via WLM may actually increase safety! (what the.....?) Every VFR or low level IFR/NVFR pilot knows (or should know) that they need to plan elsewhere. If, once airborne, they get a clearance (90% of the time has been quoted) then great. If not, then they should have a plan 'b' ready to be executed without increasing stress levels (which for NVFR or IFR in a single needs very careful thinking about).

If flight planning via WLM were allowed, everyone would do it and consequentially each time (10%?) clearance was refused then you have a pilot who may not have a plan 'b'. That pilot then finds themselves over tiger country at night, in cloud whilst unprepared and needing to exercise command judgement, deal with weather, passengers, failures etc. Its much much harder to turn around and go back than to not take off in the first place.

By preventing the filing through the RAAF airspace, a little (lot?) of risk minimisation is essentially enforced upon pilots as they should then consider if they, their aircraft, the weather etc is actually suitable for the route they may end up flying - via tiger country.

Dick talks about a possible 1 in 50 year event. How many flights in the last 50 years haven't departed YBCG for YSBK because the pilot looked at the route needed to go around WLM and decided to wait for more favourable conditions?

[Dick Smith]

I wonder what Mike Hart is thinking re my question about radar?

He had no control over this so I do not believe he is responsible in any way.

If the person MDX was communicating to that night had a radar screen ( as now) would there have been a lesser chance of five people losing their lives?

I bring this up because just as changing the flight planning restriction is resisted the change in access to radar was also resisted. I am glad that change went ahead despite the abuse at the time.

Let's encourage the RAAF to remove the flight planning restriction Any support?

[FlareArmed]

Dick, I'm not sure the situation is much different anywhere else.

In the USA, there is a myriad of military areas, including Restricted Areas, MOAs and Warning Areas. The control zones around the associated airports are small, but the adjacent areas are often large (particularly for fighter and warship ops). File any route you like, but be assured of an amended route if planned through any of these areas during published hours. Once airborne, the controller may clear you more direct on their own initiative or on pilot request as long as the airspace is released by the military.

Related, is a recent initiative in the USA to have pilots plan more diligently, because the re-routes are handled manually, adding to controller workload. That program is called File Smart, and it's basically a voluntary program to reduce controller workload. In Australia, a system of mandatory flight planning routes are published to achieve the same end.

My understanding of Williamtown is that you have to plan via the approved route, but can request more direct airborne. In the case of MDX, the clearance was available (the pilot did not know that when he made the decision to track via CRAVEN), but he elected not to wait for it – things weren't as instantaneous back then, especially if you were talking to Flight Service who had to relay from ATC, and anxiety makes every moment seem longer.

Ending up over the Barrington Tops in very rough weather on limited panel is a nightmarish, if not impossible situation to handle, but IMHO it's a pretty big stretch to blame the RAAF.

Radar? I can't see how radar would help the pilot recover from a (likely) spiral dive on limited panel.

[Slippery_Pete]

I was somewhat heartened when I read the first post of this new topic.

Here's a guy, who probably more than anyone else on the planet, has relived this one accident in his mind over and over, analysing every tiny detail and trying to get his head around it.

It was articulate, blatantly honest, technically accurate - despite the emotions which can boil over in these situations. And it reads like he has moved on with his life and can calmly separate the wheat from the chaff in the current discussions and media attention.

I felt genuinely relieved and heartened in aviation to read it, and also happy for him.

And then... the childishness continues. We can't even respect someone who wanted to say their piece and be done with it. Before anyone blink, the sh*t slinging and finger pointing and circular arguments start again, when there's already another dedicated thread where people have already said their fair share - and then some.

Pathetic. We live in a society of children.

Mike, I wish you all the best.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Ok, as an FSO through the 80's, I'll bite.

those in charge......were actually proposing a display console for FSO's that worked on flight plan inputs and dead reckoning

That's because they were trying to come up with a way of automating the system that provided a service to the 80% of Australian airspace that was not administered by ATC, and mostly didn't have radar coverage. Don't forget, outside radar coverage, ATC in CTA was provided procedurally by using pieces of paper and a map, just like FIS OCTA.

...canned the proposal after some units were produced

That's because they couldn't get it to work. There were just too many variables OCTA and - shock horror - pilots didn't always do or go where they said they were going. ATC then (and probably still is) was designed to get VH-ABC from A to B along a clearly defined route. Everything else was left OCTA. ATC's system was designed to provide a service to a fixed limit - once that limit was reached, it was "Clearance not available". OCTA, the work was whatever the situation was (ex FSO's will remember the fun of a "full board" and more). The automation of the time could not handle this. Pen and paper and eyes on a map were considerable quicker than data entry into a keyboard.

Radar at the time was pretty basic. "Shrimp boats" were still manually moved along the screen to identify the targets. How they were ever going to get that system to work OCTA was beyond me, and obviously them too. OCTA pilots could and did fly whereever they wanted, that was the whole point, so if radar had been provided to FS, I'm sure the flight following regime would have been substantially different to cope. I'm sure that if every paint that wandered off track had to be queried as to it's intentions the system would have very quickly become unworkable. You would have had one system for CTA, one system for OCTA with radar coverage, and another for OCTA without. It would never have been feasible, and in the end it wasn't.

MDX at the time was OCTA, and noone was responsible for his track keeping and intentions but the pilot.

[004wercras]

Agreed!!!
We can't even respect someone who wanted to say their piece and be done with it. Before anyone blink, the sh*t slinging and finger pointing and circular arguments start again, when there's already another dedicated thread where people have already said their fair share - and then some. :D:D

Let's get back to Mikes original post.
For those not fully across the background of Mr Hart I have posted below just a brief snippet of his background and career;
Michael Hart—Industry Complaints Commissioner
Michael Hart joined CASA in June 2007. He gained wide experience in the management of complaints and complex investigations involving the public sector through positions at the NSW Attorney General’s Department, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption. He was the general manager for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association in 1999 during the (Mobil) Avgas fuel contamination crisis.
Mr Hart has flown more than 6,000 hours in his flying career and has held aviation industry positions including qualified flying instructor with the RAAF, and check and training captain with Coastwatch.
Michael Hart was well respected by many CAsA employees, a lot of industry and certainly a number of IOS who would have been completed pineappled by the Iron Ring had Mr Hart not been the ICC Commissioner. He was a fair man, guided by principles. He could be tough at times, but always fair.
I'm not going to speak on his behalf, but I wouldn't mind betting that one of the reasons he resigned from CAsA was because his moral compass pointed in a different direction than the rest of CAsA's executive muppets. In my honest opinion if CAsA's structure was filled by people with a similar mindset as Mr Hart then the industry would be in much better shape. Maybe, just maybe, some of that mutual understanding, respect, and a half decent working relationship that Mr Forsyth is recommending in his Wet Lettuce Review would exist today?

I will tell you this - there ain't a lot of current or former CAsA employees that I would gladly and willingly have a beer with, but Mr Hart is an exception to the rule. In fact it would be my shout :ok:
It's a crying shame you retired Mike, but who could blame you? Best wishes in all that retirement brings you.

Regards

A supportive IOS member

[flying-spike]

I cannot believe your gall. You openly admit that you deliberately made damning allegations against the RAAF controllers just to gain publicity for your own agenda. Crocodile tears and all, riding on the misery and grief of those families that lost loved ones in the crash of MDX just to further your case.
Then a tangental regurgitation of you radar for FSOs idea. As an ex FSO and a pilot I can tell you it would not have helped one iota. FSOs did not exercise any "control" over aircraft let alone operational control. Conduct of the flight is finally the responsibility of the pilot in "Command". I have had controllers try to vector me into thunderstorms within approach radar coverage. The solution? Exercise "Command" and tell the controller where you are going. They are Air Traffic Controllers NOT Aircraft Controllers i.e. Pilots

[Dick Smith]

Flying spike. I can't accept what you are saying

Are you telling me if the person the pilot was communicating to that night had a radar screen that showed the aircraft clearly heading west from CRAVEN instead of south towards Singleton that this would have not been conveyed to the pilot because the Ground operator did not exercise "control" of the aircraft.

Could this be the reason that the BASI did not recommend after the accident that pilots in radar covered airspace should be communicating to a person with a radar screen.?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Dick, your question is so hypothetical that it is beyond answering. Who knows what flight following procedures would have been in place in the early 80's if FS had access to radar. I would hazard a guess that it would have been so restrictive so as to not allow for any hint of a "control" function. Don't forget, prior to that time FSU's were built so that the FSO's providing an AFIS service at an outstation could not actually see the aerodrome, in case that might happen. There was an immense divide between ATC and FS functions and responsibilities.

Perhaps BASI came to the appropriate conclusion that not every pilot in radar covered airspace needed to communicate with a person with a radar screen. Perhaps changing the entire Australian Air Traffic system because 1 pilot went the wrong way was seen as an over-reaction.

[molsie]

Dear Dick - it disappoints be greatly that a man who has done so much good for other people and institutions throughout his life, completely drops the ball when it comes to all matters aviation. By implication, you have asserted that "people being resistant to change" has been a major part of the problem in Australian aviation.
With the greatest of respect Dick, could you please cast your mind back to your beloved "G" Airspace trial about 15 years ago when you were chairman of the CAA or whatever it was called in those days. Your insistance on proceeding with the trial met with the strongest of opposition from the entire aviation industry, those same people that you would refer to as being "reistant to change". Nevertheless, the trial went ahead.
Within a week of your trial commencing, there were no less than 3 serious mid-air conflicts directly as a result of the trial procedures, procedures that "those resistant to change" warned you about. The Chief Pilot of Impulse Airlines, who was probably the most outspoken person on the trial, was terminated because of his public opposition to the trial on saftey grounds; 3 days after his sacking, the ATSB stepped in and cancelled the trial overnight because of serious safety concerns.
Dick, not all those that are resistant to change are the enemy - please remember that, and with respect, continue to devote your well-intentioned and generous energies to areas other than aviation.

[Dick Smith]

Molsie

It’s great that you brought the Class G trial up because it’s so relevant to the MDX accident.

You may not remember, but the Glass G trial was to give a radar service for the first time in Class G airspace between Canberra and Ballina. Even after the AMATS changes I was responsible for in 1991, we still had flight service running the busiest uncontrolled airspace in Australia but having no access to radar screens.

The plan was quite simple – drop the responsibility of the Air Traffic Controllers down so at any place any pilot would be able to talk directly to a person who had a radar screen.

One hiccup was that Airservices swore black-and-blue that their Controllers were too busy and couldn’t possibly give a traffic information service down low. This didn’t concern me that much because I felt sure that orders would come from above to adequately man the sector so a service could be given.

Once the trial started, if I remember correctly, it was FSO standing behind an Air Traffic Controller at the radar screen who notified of the “horrendous conflicts” that were occurring – no doubt similar to the conflicts that had been happening for the last forty years but couldn’t be seen by the FSO with a microphone and a few flight strips.

I remember when Mick Toller phoned me (I was Chairman at the time) and said that after a recommendation from BASI he was going to stop the trial. I said to him, “and Mick, what? Give the airspace back to the Flight Service Operators who have no radar?”. There was a long silence as he realised that this was what was going to happen.

Yes, the airspace went back to the Flight Service Officers; all the stick-in-the-mud pilots had their system of radio arranged separation but with no radar assistance at all. Behind the scenes over the next two years, I and others managed to get this corrected so it’s the airspace we have now, i.e. Pilots in radar covered airspace can talk directly to the Controller with the radar screen, ask for a workload permitting “flight following” or to request a clearance into controlled airspace. Most importantly, if a Pilot has been in communication with Air Traffic Control requesting a clearance and then heads on a stormy winter's night at right-angles to his planned route, there is a very good chance the Controller who he has been communicating with will tell him.

[molsie]

Dick - you obviously did not read my post very carefully, but chose to shoot off on a tangent and twist my words and the facts to suit your own argument ( as I seem to recall you have done on countless occasions in the past ) Either you have a very selective memory or a short one, or perhaps both.
The point that I stressed in my previous post was that the trial PROCEDURES were what caused the problem, not the concept itself. You were happy to have directed traffic information taken away from IFR aircraft and replace it with a radar service that 1) lacked the required radar coverage and 2) lacked the manpower to provide it. In addition, the communication procedures and processes implemented to run the system were fundamentally flawed, and you were warned of all of this by "those resistant to change".
Dick, please for once in your life, listen and consider what OTHER people have to offer in the way of opinions on aviation matters - those of us who are sometimes "resistant to change" have an absolute wealth of experience in the industry, and their opinions should be respected accordingly.

[Creampuff]

Does anyone with a “wealth of experience” outside Australia consider Australian aviation procedures and infrastructure anything other than a quaint remnant of the 1960s? It’s caused mostly by the absence of concrete (runways) and technology (e.g. ILS and radar), but a consequence seems to be an attitude that Australia’s procedures and infrastructure are somehow the product of a country with moderate to high air traffic densities and challenging topography and weather, at the forefront of aviation regulation. That attitude is, frankly, laughable.

[molsie]

WHAT-THA - hey dude, stick to the topic why dont you - nobody has ever suggested that Australians have a monoploy on good ideas - nobody has ever implied that we have the busiest, most complex traffic situation in the world - all this thread is about is to ask our good "friend" Dick not to continually slander other people just because they have a different opinion to his, and not to regard those that are resistant to change as being stubborn old mules living in the past, but to actually LISTEN to their opinions and give them due consideration before mouthing off.

[Creampuff]

I agree that Dick has an unfortunate knack of blaming and therefore offending individuals who have no control over ‘the system’ about which he is complaining. It would be better if he concentrated on attacking those who actually run ‘the system’, and that ain’t anyone from the RAAF or Airservices.

However, and unfortunately, the stark reality is that the people who actually run ‘the system’ are driven by populism, not principle. Dick knows this. Scare or anger enough punters and the pollies will respond, irrespective of the objective merits of the issue.

Means/ends and all that…

[Dick Smith]

Moisie.

You are probably correct re lack of manpower- however how were we going to get there ?

When I came back as chairman of CASA it looked to me if Flight Service would hold that Canberra to Ballina non controlled airspace forever.

At least I supported the first move away from that. I have a feeling the change would have never taken place without that trial.

And I am not slandering other people.

I have made it clear that it's the RAAF as an organisation I am critical of. I feel sorry for those who work for the organisation. It must be almost impossible to get innovations in.

I know you must feel angry that most of the changes that I brought in are all still there! Semi- circular rule , ATC's operate all airspace , Operational Control by the government removed, CTAF 's , straight in approaches , no RFFS costs at Secondary Airports , removal of unique and expensive "first of type" certification requirements ,ICAO Airspace to name a few.

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff. You are on the correct track however in my defense in each interview I make it very clear that I do not believe that work face controllers are/were responsible.

This was edited out of the Sunday show but left in on Sunrise as it was live.

I have spent so much time behind the scenes trying to get fundamental change on these important issues and have had top people say they agree and change will come in. However it never does. What would you do- just give up?

[molsie]

Hi Dick - no I am definitely not angry at the good things you have achieved, not just in aviation, but in your life overall. The ONLY thing I'm angry at is that in aviation matters, you only ever see things your way and don't give due consideration to other's opinions, that's all. As a complete change of subject, why don't you channel all your energy and good will into changing the way Sydney Airport has to be run by politicians hell-bent on retaining curfews and all the other noise-abatement restrictions that do nothing else except stifle the NSW and Australian economy. Now there's a good idea Dick, and for once you'd have my complete backing. Food for thought ?

[Dick Smith]

Molsie. Give me a ring then and I will have a go.


By the way - the most erroneous thing that is said about me is that I don't take advice. In fact any success I have received in life is through asking advice from as many as possible and then deciding on which advice is likely to be the best and acting on it.

Of course there is a problem with this - those who's advise you did not accept then say you " Don't give consideration to others opinions"

I wonder if you have worked closely with me - maybe not - so you could be relying on advice that is here say .

[hiltonbaby]

Without getting into specifics Airspace 2000 was a complete joke. RPT Aircraft lined up at a controlled aerodrome simply wouldn't depart if unannounced aircraft in Class 'E' were present. It didn't work then as it wasn't safe. Standby for war story.. Once I remember a Citation pilot who was advised that to get visual on a certain radial they would need to follow the DME steps. They then complained that because of the turbulence they couldn't follow the steps and were then surprised when they didn't get visual, the whingeing in the missed approach was colossal. clearly my fault as I didn't use my ecclesial digit to remove the cloud.

[flying-spike]

What I am saying Dick is that all the person with the radar could have done is advise him he was off track and that the pilot was probably aware of that anyway. What he seemed to be incapable of due to either the u/s gyro instruments or turbulence or both was making a semi precision turn to rejoin his track. Even when in controlled airspace before giving radar vectoring controllers ask for "present heading", nigh on impossible to give if you are being bounced around and have no gyro instruments. Giving him course corrections, a bloody big no-no for flight service officers, based on erroneous information from the pilot could have at best frustrated the crap out of him in an already tense situation and at worst led to him being vectored into high ground. Remember, ATC radar at that time was very poor at picking up weather returns and weather avoidance was and still is up to the pilot excersizing Command decision making. A skill that would unfortunately appear to be lacking prior to even departing OOL.

I have no wish to denigrate the pilot however the lessons to be learned out of this accident (all of them, not just tenuous arguments about airspace restrictions) need to be learned if not the tragic deaths of these 6 people will be in vain.

[Duane]

Dick,
Saying things to be provocative in order to get a reaction is merely trolling. look it up, trolls arent nice people on the internet, nor are they in real life.

Saying you dont blame the cold face controllers that it happened in one breath and saying that they killed 5 people in the next, knowing the people that were involved I know that it impacted them greatly and that words like this hurt and furthermore, wont help anything or anyone.

The military airspace at WLM back in the day was only activated when it was being used, and would deactivate when it wasnt (even over lunch!) the reason the aircraft would have been denied a clearance was.......traffic! not the evil RAAF heirachy, not the fact he didnt flight plan, he didnt get a clearance, because aircraft were already operating in the area in which he wanted a clearance.

Being an EX mil WLM controller I can tell you that clearances will always be available to aircraft (even those who dont have the courtesy to flight plan!) if the requested clearance is available, and if not alternatives could be sought, but if you want to go through the area when it is busy....expect to wait, and if you have planned that way and dont have the fuel/endorsements to hold, well the PiC is to blame, not ATC when clearance is not obtained, man up declare an emergency and then you will get what you need, but expect repercussions.

Dick, I have controlled you more than once at WLM and I remember having to ask you to orbit once at Anna Bay before going southbound because I had aircraft on final for runway 30, and I got bile from you, because I was trying to separate you from aircraft, I got bile from you...for 1 orbit, which ensured your safe passage down the coast.

Finally Dick, because you may not understand this, please listen. Your ideas you love so much that didnt get implemented...they didnt get implemented because they are bad ideas, now its hard to tell the chairman of the board that, so they more or less ignored you till you left. The US, the UK all the ATC systems you loved whilst being privileged enough to fly your aircraft around the world...they arent Australia. Australia has its own challenges, we dont have great Radar coverage outside the J curve, we have lots of wide open space were nobody lives and over 90% of our population is coastal. So your solutions that you want to copy for Aus, wont work, cant work. Thats why we are world leaders at implementing ADS-B, and thats why you cant work out why you cant fly in RVSM airspace outisde radar coverage without ADS-B in your citation.

You fundamentally lack the understanding of the points you are trying to prove, Australian aviation laughs at you being as outlandish and outspoken as you are, I think you are the only person in aviation that doesnt realise, you are just a forum troll.

[ozbiggles]

It would be interesting to know just how many controllers have copped that from a particular individual, and how many complaints have been filed.

[Jack Ranga]

Too few pilots understand command responsibility (I'm talking more GA than RPT). I was lucky enough to be in the ATC system as a young pilot. I learn't very early that ATC are trained to deal with pilots requirements, i.e. them being unable to comply with some instructions (weather etc).

I was flying south down the coast and requested a clearance from Willy Approach, they denied it. I couldn't hold outside as there was lightning and storms behind me. I told them I required a clearance due weather, they gave it to me.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

flight service running the busiest uncontrolled airspace

Flight Service didn't "run" any airspace. They provided a Flight Information/Traffic/SAR Alerting Service to prescribed categories of flight. That's all. No control functions at all. That's why it was called Uncontrolled Airspace. What part of the Uncontrolled bit are you having trouble with?

Trouble was, the system seemed to work. Don't recall too many stories of neverending aluminium rain.

One hiccup was that Airservices swore black-and-blue that their Controllers were too busy and couldn’t possibly give a traffic information service down low. This didn’t concern me that much because I felt sure that orders would come from above to adequately man the sector so a service could be given.

World's best risk management at work!

Pilots in radar covered airspace can talk directly to the Controller with the radar screen, ask for a workload permitting “flight following”

Ah yes, but it's still only "workload permitting". So if the ATC is too busy doing what they actually pay him for, the pilot now gets nothing. Before, he got flight following no matter how busy it got.

Most importantly, if a Pilot has been in communication with Air Traffic Control requesting a clearance and then heads on a stormy winter's night at right-angles to his planned route, there is a very good chance the Controller who he has been communicating with will tell him.

Workload permitting, of course.

[Creampuff]

Some people may not be aware, or may have forgotten, what a paternalistic system Australia used to have, and why ‘uncontrolled’ is a slightly misleading description of airspace back then.

Have a close look at the flight plan submitted by the PIC of MDX. Mark well the significance of the “Operational Approval” box and the various stamps on that document.

The perspective from the ground may well have been that this level of supervision was to “help”. The perspective from the cockpit was of being supervised.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

http://vhmdx.********.com.au/2007/11/flight-plan.html (insert b l o g s p o t without the spaces where the stars are to see it)

The stamps on the flight plan are the generic stamp applied to show what pre-flight briefing material was supplied/discussed at the planning stage, and the date/time group stamped on it when it was submitted. The Operational Approval field is blank, has no approval or void time and the signature field for the ATC is blank. This flight plan was in no way subject to any form of control, except for the normal briefing requirements that it met the relevant regulations.

Yes, back then there was Operational Control by ATC over certain classes of operation, but this was not one of them (was only IFR in CTA if I recall correctly). And yes, it was paternalistic, and one of the first things to go, although from memory it went prior to Dick having any involvement.

Back in the day, Australia's FIS system was very similar to Canada's. Huge airspace, not much radar or CTA, and what there was of it all concentrated in a small area.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. You won't get away with that one. The rediculously expensive and unique to Australia " operational control" by the government was not removed until I became Chairman of CAA.

To save the industry needless costs!

[Hempy]

The rediculously expensive and unique to Australia " operational control" by the government was not removed until I became Chairman of CAA.

To save the industry needless costs!

So Dick. All these $$$ you saved.

Well spent, were they?

Things 'better' now? Safer? Yep we have TAAATS now, and 'ATC' to SFC.

And...??

Farmer Joe in his 172 any better off? What about old mate Charter operator with his two Chieftains? Regionals? Heavies?

Entertain me Dick. I really want to know, if all those reforms you enforced upon the industry were so cost effective and going to breath life-blood into aviation...

where is the money??

p.s what do reckon might be the bigger behemoth, Ops Control or the NOC??

[Dick Smith]

Where is the money?

Obviously gone to extra profits or less losses to an aviation industry that previously paid these costs.

[sunnySA]

Hempy
where is the money??

p.s what do reckon might be the bigger behemoth, Ops Control or the NOC??

Well this "river of money" certainly hasn't boosted aviation activity.

NOC

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Ok Dick. Point conceded. As I said, I couldn't remember when it stopped. I thought it was earlier than that.

[molsie]

"I wonder if you have worked closely with me - maybe not - so you could be relying on advice that is here say ."

Actually Dick, I did try and work closely with you, but with very little success - the reason I remember it so well was because of a conversation we had many years ago when you relayed a story to me about the day you were taxying at Taree or Port Macquarie ( I think ) in your citation, and Flight Service gave you about half a dozen lots of traffic.
You unashamedly told me that you couldnt even write them down quickly enough and because the skies were blue, you decided to completely ignore the traffic information and blast off regardless. At that point, you lost me. Hardly what you would expect from the Chairman of Casa. Your reasoning was your utmost belief in the see-and-avoid principle.
The folly of this principle was finally proven by the CSIRO who wrote an excellent article on the subject, debunking the whole concept. As a professional airline pilot, I can vouch for their opinion a thousand times over as I'm sure many others would as well. Even when we spot someone on TCAS, we often don't spot them visually til the very last second, at which point it would have been too late to take avoiding action if they HAD been in conflict.
So are the CSIRO and all the PROFESSIONAL aviators out there the people whose advice you chose to ignore ? It seems that way Dick, and that is a real shame. As I said previously, such a pity that such a fine Australian spoils himself when it comes to matters aviation ( with the greatest of respect ).

[Dick Smith]

Moisie. I can see why you post anonymously.

Your statement is not factually based.

I no stage did I " blast off regardless " after being given traffic on six other aircraft at Taree or Port Macquarie.

Seeing you can't even remember which airport it was I think their is a chance you have the story mixed up.

In fact I communicated to all six other pilots as I was taxiing and arranged full procedural " radio arranged" separation using superior spatial abilities I had leaned as an Aussie pilot. Required a total of 261 calls backward and forward while we jammed up the area frequency as there were no CTAFs in those days.

Somehow I got airborne safely and did not need to look out to see and avoid at any time- was head down writing all the call signs and estimates down!

Those Americans with their E airspace with VFR pilots not even knowing the frequency IFR aircraft are on are simply losers.

I dream of the day we can go back to the quadrantal rule where IFR and VFR fly at the same level and we are given a traffic information service on all aircraft within 50 nm. Get all those 600 FSO 's back in jobs all over Australia . Will stop all those en route mid air collisions we have had since 1991 - when we moved to the ICAO semi circular rule - some 23 years ago.

[molsie]

Dick, I can see why so many of my colleagues gave up on you years ago. I have continued to give you the benefit of the doubt and sung your praises when warranted. I cannot believe you have changed your story 100% from what you told me at the time. How very disappointing. Regrettably, and I mean that as sincerely as possible, I will now join my colleagues in giving up on you. I have completely wasted my time.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

ONYA MICK!!

PM me sometime....it WAS INDEED "a 'GREAT' ride".....

Rotsa Ruck....

Griffo

:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Dick,

Bit 'late' now for the 'RADAR' thingie....isn't it..???

WE did try for that one, and for 'VHF Direction Finding', and for the official monitoring of 121.5 from various outlets, and for additional VHF outlets, some of them quite 'cheap'.....all to no avail....

And just WHO gave Good Ole FS the 'coup de grace'..??


p.s. Thanks again for the redundo......

Griffo

[Aussie Bob]

And just WHO gave Good Ole FS the 'coup de grace'..??

Us pilots did. While cheap coffee and Arrowroot biscuits at Ceduna, friendly faces and flight plan "marking" at Devonport and genuine assistance at Bankstown were great things, Flight Service was redundant years before it ended.

Sorry Griffo, we as pilots never really needed it, it just took Dick to point that out. Hope your redundo was good though :O

[Dick Smith]

Ex FSO GRIFFO
I am actually going to write a bit of a book about some of my experiences in changes in aviation regulatory reform. I can remember that VHF direction finding one really well. When I was first on the Board it was one of the projects. I will send you a private message with my contact details – I would love to speak to you on the phone about some of those days as you really have the clues!

Were the VHF direction finding units going to go into the towers as well as for flight service or were they just for flight service? Can you remember what that project was actually called?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'day Dick,

Sorry, but I can't recall the VHF DF project having a 'project name', other than just that of 'VHF DF'.

A unit on the top of our outlet at Mt Canobolas near Orange, NSW, would have been a useful tool, because of the range of that particular VHF site.
Another unit at another adjacent location would have enabled a 'cross reference' of bearings to give a 'fix' perhaps....

I think the idea was to install VHF DF at some 'remote' locations, e.g. Kalgoorlie, Derby, Meeka etc., to assist pilots who may have been 'unsure of their current position' = lost.

It was a 'line of sight' direction only, displayed as a line on a circular CRT with a compass rose around the circumference to give the bearing of the line.
They were available 'off the shelf', and were used in the UK in conjunction with IF 'homing' procedures.

I cannot recall if ATC were going to need them, as most ATC units were located in populated centres, where nav. was not usually the problem.

All superceeded now by GPS....but 40 or so years ago....

I may 'drift' a little here....patience please...

Another 'project' that I had some connection with, was the proposal to install a VHF outlet on top of Mt Bakewell, near York WA.
This would have provided a much improved VHF coverage to the WA wheatbelt generally, and to Cunderdin in particular.

YCUN at the time was a major G/A IFR training location because of its proximity to Perth, and the NDB located there.

Imagine, a 'major' G/A training location only 67nm (if I remember correctly)from Perth International Airport, and, having NIL VHF below a 'good' circuit area altitude!
Aircraft below circuit area altitude, on the ground etc, had to call HF - only 67 nm from Perth.

As all of the required infrastructure, road access, power, TV and Telstra repeater towers etc, was already in place on Bakewell, the projected cost of this VHF installation was 'quoted' at just under $10K.
(You may have been able to provide the equipment for a fraction of this....who knows...)

All of the advantages - for what could be the cost of a 'corporate lunch' (?).... You get the idea.....'Affordable safety' was now in manager's minds....

None of which would have helped poor MDX on that fateful night.

I'm not sure I can assist you much with your book, However, I can ring you sometime, and have a yarn.

These days, the chronological order of sequence of events is a bit 'blurred'.
(Like, I can forget just where I left the car keys, but when I do find them, I still know 'wot they're for'.....)

The 'initial cut' of 12/12/'91 when services to VFR aircraft were deleted, (some may say 'relaxed') did enable rationalisation / consolidation, and 'affordable safety' became the new mantra.

The opportunity to see the 'old public service mentality' dinosaurs depart the service was good as it enabled a leaner meaner more 'flexible' service to be provided. And I was proud to be a part of that.

And therefore it became much cheaper to operate. e.g. Perth Flight Service Centre staff numbers went from something like 138 in '91 to just 38 or so towards the 'end' in December 2000 - as 'aircraft 'movements' became less and we were able to 'combine' adjacent areas to less staff operating those areas..

The closure of the Briefing Offices was a travesty. They were the 'Shop Front Window' where all flight information could be obtained, NOTAMs etc obtained maps / chart purchases made, and a personal briefing obtained if that was required.

Pertinent NOTAM's ONLY - THANKS. Not the pages of drivel we have to sift thru these days....And they also provided a 'meeting point' for pilots to 'interface' with the system - and exchange the rumours of the day...

Now we resort to this site, and what a site it is.

We did 'trial' a thing called 'FISADS' where we typed the dep. point, destination, aircraft time intervals into a computer, and when the aircraft departed, the actual dep. time.
The machine then 'drew' a straight line track and displayed a symbol along that track commensurate with the aircraft's planned position....However, it was in NO WAY 'connected' to the actual track that the aircraft actually flew - just the 'planned' details.

Of limited use.

And it took us longer to enter the info than it did to write the reported actual position on the cardboard Flight Progress Strip, in our abbreviated way, and process it.
It was reported to have cost MILLIONS - and was said to have morphed into TAAAATS - whatever that stood for...can't remember now - not important in my life these days....

Those days when most of the G/A Charter fleet comprised 8 - 10 seat 'normally aspirated' 402's, PA31's, and the like, which all flew OCTA fairly quickly after departure from Capital City, to destination, and needed multiple aircraft to carry a 'mining crew', were rapidly replaced with Conquests, King Airs and the like, which remained in CTA for much longer portions of the flight, usually until they were 'on descent' and passing FL200.

We went from 'processing' say, 60 or 70 smaller slower aircraft, OCTA for most of their flight to the various mining centres, into 30 or so of the larger, faster types.

And these in turn were replaced by Dash's, FK100's, BA146 etc , all of which can carry the same mining crew in a single aircraft, in CTA until descent....
You get the idea.

The 'good old days' of FS were numbered - we knew that - but we were still providing what was a good service to those aircraft that still flew OCTA.
Now the 'service' is provided by an often overworked ATC person, on the same operational frequency as his separation job, 'when workload permits'....

But, as stated, 40 or so years ago....

Cheers to all who took the time to read so far... :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And, Hi Aussie Bob,

Many FSO's including myself and others who sometimes post on these pages, were CPL's who did Charter work on their days off.

So when you say 'we as pilots'....t'ain't just you.

Some of us flew in remote areas just about all our flying lives, and appreciated Flight Service and the 'vagaries' of HF radio. It was our 'lifeline'.

The reason I joined FS in the first place was due to a recession in pilot hiring, and my wanting to feed a very understanding wife and two kids...

Then from a very senior FSO in Hedland, 'You can always join FS ya know'....airconditioned office, paid EVERY fortnight'....That was the clincher!!

Still managed to do charters on my days off in various locations....

Cheers Bob.

p.s. and yep! Still enjoying the redundo....and retirement.....
:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Sorry Guys and Gals,

Didn't want to take anything away from Mike's original post, nor from the tragedy of the MDX event.

But to most of the generation of today's pilots, FS was 'WHO? WHAT?'

So, had to make a small explanation and try to answer Dick's query at the same time....

Cheers to all...:ok:

[40years]

There was a VHF DF unit "on trial" in Essendon Tower late 70's. One intrepid controller used it as a pseudo radar for separation :eek: