Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX [Archive] - Page 3

Old Fella

8th Jun 2014, 11:20

As pointed out by "flying-spike", the presentation tonight was more about the search for VH-MDX and much less about the efforts of Dick Smith to bring about change to the existing restrictions in relation to Williamtown airspace.

What was immediately apparent was the opening statement by the program presenter that Dick Smith had partially blamed the RAAF for the accident to VH-MDX last week, causing a storm of controversy. Mr Smith did not partially blame the RAAF last week, he said "I hold the military responsible for the loss of MDX, the RAAF sent five people to their death"

Despite what anyone thinks about the restrictions in force regarding Williamtown airspace, any fair minded person would believe, I contend, that Mr Smith was utterly wrong to blame the RAAF for the loss of the aircraft and those on board.

Mr Smith has done many good and generous things for others over a long period of time. He has also been able to build an impressive public image, however Mr Smith is also no novice in the art of "self promotion", which brings me to recall good advice given me by my late father. "Self praise is no recommendation".

I am not party to the real reasons the restrictions are in force regarding Williamtown airspace and I believe there must be good reasons. If Mr Smith believes otherwise it is his right to seek change. What he has no right to do is to denigrate the Australian Military, in this case the RAAF, by unjustly blaming them for an event which we all know was avoidable had other options been taken by the PIC. If on one of his adventures Mr Smith is in need of assistance, which can best be provided by the RAAF, I wonder if he will refuse to accept such assistance from those of whom he is so critical? Only he can answer that question.

Hempy

8th Jun 2014, 11:21

And in 2 weeks this thread will be 3 pages back and forgotten. In conclusion:

1. To all the dedicated people who have given their time, blood, sweat and tears to try and give some solace to the families of the missing by continuing your search for VH-MDX over the years: Godspeed and good luck in any continued endeavors.

2. To Dick Smith. Your business acumen was obviously at a competent level, but you've never understood politics. "Any publicity is good publicity" might work when you are dealing with Joe Public, but it certainly doesn't when you are dealing with people who live by their position. Nothing will change in regards to your agenda...not while you are still breathing anyway. This whole thing was ill-considered and a little silly tbh.

Jabawocky

8th Jun 2014, 12:25

Anyone else but me recognise that baldy looking army dude on the TV tonight?

Good Job to him :ok: 06PA :ok:

Old bloke .....Good post.

I have a huge, humungous reason to be anti ADF/RAAF.....nahh ADFA, at the moment for botching a career, but I stand 100% behind the RAAF in resisting the assertion made.

Where is Binnie to back up Brownie..... Chief of Airforce?

500N

8th Jun 2014, 12:58

"Where is Binnie to back up Brownie..... Chief of Airforce? "

I think he might be in France with the PM.

500N

8th Jun 2014, 14:11

Dr.

"I hate giving that bloke in the Army garb credit"

Why is that ?

andrewr

8th Jun 2014, 23:07

Quote: How would a pilot remain OCTA in those circumstances ?
How about a rate 1 turn? Hardly difficult.

If you think you end up in the same place after a rate 1 turn, you need to do some remedial BAK.

You will drift downwind at the wind speed. If the wind is 30 knots, a rate 1 turn will take you 1 mile downwind. If the wind was, as suggested, 60+ knots a rate 1 turn will take you at least 2 miles downwind.

I'm not sure how you would even calculate a LSALT in those circumstances, without knowing how long you might have to wait.

frab

9th Jun 2014, 00:51

Andrewr, re your post #524, I'm not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning, however I'll note that under Night VFR the pilot must either navigate with continual reference to the ground or use Navaids. If he could no longer navigate visually and his navaids were not working, he had an obligation to report to ATC that he was unable to maintain standard track keeping tolerances, declaring an emergency if necessary and requesting radar vectors if available.

Dick, re your post #496 where your comment "No need for the gyro as it was CAVOK that would allow visual reference to ground all the way to Bankstown that night". Flying under NVFR it is mandatory to have a serviceable attitude indicator (artificial horizon) and heading indicator (directional gyro). See CAO20.18 Appendix IV Instruments required for aeroplanes engaged in: (i) aerial work and private operations under the Instrument Flight Rules (including night V.M.C.).

Also, remember that CAVOK means no cloud below 5000'. If you're flying at 8000' you could be flying over a cloud layer that prevents visual reference with the ground.

We know from the radio transmissions that the pilot was having trouble with his flight instruments but we don't know when these problems first became evident. Given that the pilot remarked to the refueller in Coolangatta that there was some problem with the gyros or electrics, therefore regardless of whether the pilot was planning to fly over the mountains or down the coast, one would have to question the pilot's decision to get airborne at night with suspect instruments. If the instruments failed airborne, the pilot should have declared an emergency right away which would have given him the ability to fly wherever he wanted even through active restricted airspace.

So if you're in the camp that states it was the fault of the RAAF airspace that caused the pilot to crash, you would have to agree that if the pilot had declared an emergency and flown down the coast, he would have reached his destination. And I could elaborate to identify other contributory factors as in all accidents removing any of the links or holes in cheese would have prevented the accident. My point is that the sweeping simplistic statement "I blame the situation on the military airspace at Williamtown" at the exclusion of all other factors is disingenuous.

andrewr

9th Jun 2014, 01:14

Andrewr, re your post #524, I'm not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning, however I'll note that under Night VFR the pilot must either navigate with continual reference to the ground or use Navaids.

It is in response to those who have said clearance would have been available if he had waited a few minutes instead of diverting.

HOW do you wait NVFR, away from a navaid and without a proper holding procedure, then resume track within the required tolerances?

The navaids are designed for aircraft travelling in a straight line i.e. holding a heading, not circling.

ForkTailedDrKiller

9th Jun 2014, 01:26

On arrival at Coolangatta the aircraft was refuelled and the pilot attended the Briefing Office, where he was provided with copies of the relevant weather forecasts for the remaining part of the flight. These forecasts indicated a strong westsouthwesterly airflow over northern New South Wales, with considerable low level cloud to the west of the mountains but only scattered stratocumulus or cumulus up to 6000 feet to the east and over the coast. The freezing level was expected to be between 4000 and 7000 feet above mean sea level, and moderate icing was forecast in cloud above that level. A SIGMET (forecast of significant weather which may affect aircraft safety) was current, indicating occasional severe turbulence existed below 12,000 feet to the east of the mountains.Leaving aside the possibility of aircraft defects on departure from Cooly, and given the forecast above, the obvious prudent way for the PIC to conduct this flight NVFR would have been to flight plan as he did (if that was the only option available to him), then request a clearance direct through the Williamstown zone at Taree, and if it was not forthcoming - land at Taree and overnight.

HOW do you wait NVFR, away from a navaid and without a proper holding procedure, then resume track within the required tolerances?

Andrewr, I don't think this is the right forum to give you a briefing on the use of navaids in instrument flying. The PIC in this case held a Class 3 IF rating - as such, a couple of orbits should have been well within his capabilities.

Dr

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 02:24

I don't accept that there is acceptable evidence that the refuelers claim is accurate . It's easy to make a comment like that after everyone in the aircraft are dead.

It's clear that the pilot made numerous errors that contributed to the accident. None of these were the fault of the passengers.

I believe if the RAAF flight planning restriction is removed from ERSA there will be less chance of this type of accident repeating itself.

Why didn't anyone tell the pilot when he turned and flew west from CRAVEN that he was heading in the wrong direction? I know - he wasn't the responsibility of either the RAAF ATC or Sydney ATC so it wasn't their jobs to tell anyone !

That's no doubt why BASI made no recommendation that the radar be used in future to prevent this type of accident.

Concrete minded investigators I would say. I will ask again - did BASI make any safety recommendations at all?

Check_Thrust

9th Jun 2014, 03:42

Andrewr,

Regarding your question about holding, you do not have to "just orbit", you can opt to conduct your own holding pattern taking into account known or estimated wind which will give you a much better method of maintaining your position over the ground.

For example, if the wind is estimated to be a 30kt tailwind outbound and thus a 30kt headwind inbound and your TAS is 160kt, an outbound leg will of 1 minute would be about 3.17nm, therefore the inbound leg to get you back to your starting point would take about 1 minute and 28 seconds. For the inbound leg of your holding pattern you would re-establish yourself on the bearing/radial of your tracking aid.

Yes, without DME or GNSS as was the case with VH-MDX you would not be assured of your exact position but the above method would in my opinion provide enough accuracy to keep your position within a good tolerance. As for the question regarding LSALT for the hold, you could utilise Grid LSALT.

Dick,

Can I please request that you answer my question regarding the accident of N25BR mentioned in post 354 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/540715-channel-7-sunday-night-program-about-vh-mdx-18.html#post8509763). Please don't make me resort to utilising excessively large fonts to gain a response from you as others have had to do.

evilroy

9th Jun 2014, 05:01

Bill Pike

9th Jun 2014, 05:07

p.j.m

9th Jun 2014, 05:14

When all is said and done I would say that 99% of people seeing those shots of the weather in which they were flying and the terrain over which they were flying will ask why the flight wasn't permitted to flight plan coastal.

More likely they will be asking why he was flying at all with faulty instruments/equipment, and why he didn't wait for clearance, if it is such an important requirement.

frab

9th Jun 2014, 05:30

From post #528 I believe if the RAAF flight planning restriction is removed from ERSA there will be less chance of this type of accident repeating itself.

Dick, what evidence do you have to back up your assertion? In the past 30 years since MDX crashed there would have thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of light aircraft flying over the Barrington tops. How many of these aircraft have crashed or how many have come close to crashing? If it's as dangerous as you suggest, surely there must have been some reported near misses which would be an argument in support of changing the procedures.

In that same time, how many aircraft have crashed due to pilots pressing NVFR into IMC, not declaring an emergency to ATC in time, poor decision making etc which you acknowledged were contributory factors in the accident It's clear that the pilot made numerous errors that contributed to the accident.

On the basis of probability and consequence if you are serious about wanting to prevent this type of accident from repeating itself, I suggest your time would be better spent advocating for improved pilot training and checking, better decision-making, encouraging pilots to declare emergencies sooner rather than later - i.e. education and training in airmanship.

I understand that you have been trying for years to reduce the amount of military restricted airspace however to use this accident as a vehicle to push your agenda without factual evidence is seen by many as just that.

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 05:53

Frab I have said it before. The risk generated by the flight planning ban may cause one accident every 50 years - that means we could have another 19 years before extra fatalities. But why take the risk when the problem is do easily fixed?

Your view may be that my time could be better spent elsewhere - my view is different.

Many posters on this site seem to be obsessed with keeping the status quo.

What wrong with changing rules from time it time if safety can be improved .

Check. Re post 354. Sounds like a classic controlled flight into terrain - which is the most common cause of fatalities by professional pilots in this world.

Contributing facts are the lack of radar coverage resulting in pressure on the pilots to depart into E airspace without a clearance - that is VFR

This clearly shows the USA has areas without radar coverage . In fact over 50% of US IFR approaches commence below radar coverage.

By the look of it BASI made no recommendations at all after the MDX crash. Why could that be? Yes. Offend people who resist any change.

p.j.m

9th Jun 2014, 06:10

By the look of it BASI made no recommendations at all after the MDX crash. Why could that be?

Because everything they had influence over was working perfectly?

Only the "human factor" needed to realise getting home for dinner, wasn't as important as getting home alive.

Hempy

9th Jun 2014, 06:23

Frab I have said it before. The risk generated by the flight planning ban may cause one accident every 50 years - that means we could have another 19 years before extra fatalities.

Oh so NOW it's safety - regardless?

DO TELL US ALL AGAIN ABOUT 'AFFORDABLE SAFETY'! :rolleyes:

You've been around too long mate, we've seen it all before.

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 06:27

So pjm. If they recommended that in radar coverage pilots would be on the same frequency as the person who had the radar screen( as introduced by my team over a decade later) that safety would not be improved and there would not be a reduced chance of that type of accident happening again?

Could it be they made no such recommendation because their culture of change resistance said. "FSO's are not trained to use radar so they never can"

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 06:31

Hempy. Money would be saved by removing the restriction - less paper needs to be printed for a start. If Williamtown ATC has the flight details the Chief of the Airforce in his press release says there is likely to be less holding- and that will save even more money.

Hempy

9th Jun 2014, 06:34

Dont start that 'resistant to change' bull**** all over again. If you'd spent 5 minutes learning what goes on you'd realise that it's only ever 'change'...no one is 'resistant to change', we are just 'resistant to change for no good reason other than to keep the idiot who came up with it in a job'.

Hempy

9th Jun 2014, 06:38

p.s if an ATC can't process a 'no details' flight, cobble up a strip and pick a safe level (if there is one available) inside a minute, then he/she doesn't deserve a licence...

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 06:51

Hempy what you will not address is

" What would be the problem in removing the flight planning restriction if the RAAF let 90% fly direct anyway"

Dare you to consider the proposal!

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 07:00

And Hempy how could you criticize "affordable safety"

It's just a fact if life. - the money spent on safety is limited by what can be afforded by those who pay.

Or don't you like the truth being quoted?

Check_Thrust

9th Jun 2014, 07:11

Thank you for answering my question Dick.

Now I do agree with you that N25BR was a "classic CFIT accident" whereas MDX was uncontrolled when it went down. But here is in my opinion the similarities between the two incidents.

The crew of N25BR elected to depart VFR in marginal VMC conditions instead of requesting an IFR clearance on the ground, this was probrably done to try and avoid delaying their depart. After they got airborne they requested to change to IFR but were essentially told that an IFR clearance was not available at that time, which to me is essentially saying "remain OCTA" (yes, I do understand that they were inside CTA for IFR aircraft but did not require clearance to be there as a VFR flight). Whilst manoeuvering to maintain VMC they impacted terrain. Now was this accident the fault of ATC? No. Was it the fault of the system of airspace? No. Was it the fault of the aircrews decision to depart in marginal VMC conditions in an attempt to elicit a faster clearence? Probably. If they requested an IFR clearance on the ground and had been issued one regards of whether or not a delay was incurred would have the accident occurred? Probably not. Therefore this accident could be most easily summarised as pilot error.

Now, the pilot of MDX elected not to wait for a clearance through Williamtown airspace. He chose to take his planned inland track. The controller at WLM was prepared to let him in through his airspace (granted MDX was not aware of this because there were issues with getting a clearance for his flight post WLM airspace, not due to the RAAF or their airspace). It may seem rough for me to say this, but an option was provided to MDX, he turned it down, he elected to go inland. Yes, if he transited WLM the outcome of his flight may have been different. Yes, to have been given the clearance to transit the airspace he would of needed to hold, if he was worried about the holding time he could of requested an estimate of how long it was going to take. Therefore, in my opinion, the major factor in this accident was pilot error. The RAAF did not make him take that route, yes they made him plan that route, but they did not make him take it.

If the same situation was to occur tonight, a NVFR aircraft planning the same flight with the exact same equipment and the same weather conditions of the night MDX went missing I dare say the outcome would perhaps be different. The reason for this is the fact that the hypothetical pilot in this scenario would be requesting a clearance directly from the WLM controller rather than having to deal with FIS who in turn had to deal with WLM and SY on behalf of MDX, in which case he would of been granted a clearance through WLM airspace more expeditiously, however issues perhaps would have still arisen when he reached the boundary of the next airspace sector due to the weather, not the RAAF, not civilian ATC, and the final outcome would depend on the decisions made by the PIC.

Just to be clear Dick, I am not against your desire to lift the flight planning restriction in regards to Williamtown, in fact I am for it. However I have my doubts as to whether or not it would of had any bearing in regards to the outcome of the flight of MDX if the clearance was denied by SY due to the weather.

I do find it disgusting though your statement that you hold the RAAF responsible for the deaths of those onboard MDX. Do you hold anyone else responsible for the deaths of the people onboard N25BR other than the pilots, I don't think you do as you stated it looked like a classic CFIT. So why is anyone else responsible for the outcome of the flight of MDX?

Yes, argue for a better system for traffic wanting to operate around Williamtown, but do not utilise a tragic accident that really does not have anything to do with it for the purpose. Do not unfairly tarnish people and an organisation that did not force the accident to occur. I do not work, nor have I ever worked for the RAAF or any branch of the armed forces for that matter, but I still find your public comments regarding the RAAF insulting and I would appreciate for an apology to be forthcoming from you to the RAAF.

sunnySA

9th Jun 2014, 07:26

Dick Smith
Many posters on this site seem to be obsessed with keeping the status quo.
Dick, no the majority of posters on this site would agree with Check_Thrust
I do find it disgusting though your statement that you hold the RAAF responsible for the deaths of those onboard MDX.

le Pingouin

9th Jun 2014, 07:37

You're asking the wrong people Dick. RAAF airspace, their requirements, their procedures, so ask them.

Being able to plan something does not guarantee you'll get it or without delay. Assuming he'd planned overhead WLM, MDX would still have been delayed because the SY sector would have knocked him back for exactly the same reason. The delay was not caused by no plan. Why would the pilot have waited any longer before tracking the way he did as that would have been plan "B" in case of clearance refusal? The outcome would have been no different.

And seriously, the only constant in our job is change.

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 08:51

Check thrust. You say that the outcome may be different today ( ie safer) because the pilot can call the military controller directly.

Do you realize i was directly involved in this change and it was greatly resisted at the time? I was abused on this site in the same way as I am now.

The pilot most likely did not wait for the clearance because he did not know how long the wait might be. Also as covered on other posts actually remaining OCTA would have been quite difficult

But the overriding issue is that the pilot new the RAAF had prohibited planning over the safest route. Why would they do that other than give the message "you won't be welcome if you come this way - and you are likely to be refused entry"

So which organisation is solely responsible for forcing this aircraft from the safest route along the coast in good visibility to a very much less safe route inland?

And which organisation still gives this message today - over 30 years later?

Yes you have it. The RAAF Bureaucracy .

evilroy

9th Jun 2014, 09:04

Many posters on this site seem to be obsessed with keeping the status quo.

No, many posters disagree with your blaming the RAAF for the accident. I would imagine a large number of those very same people would support your attempts to change the regulations; they just abhor your method of doing it.

RatsoreA

9th Jun 2014, 09:07

Evilroy,

Could not have put that better myself.

Dick, you say the pilot couldn't contact the military controller directly...

Yet ESV and AZC were in direct contact with Williamtown...

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 09:46

Rats. You are showing your ignorance of the ridiculous rules at the time.

The pilot could not call ATC directly when OCTA until told to do so by the FSO.

Yes. Even if you wanted to get your transponder checked you called the FSO who relayed the message to the ATC and then the FSO came back to you with the answer.

And I too dislike the way I have to go about this important safety change.

In fact it makes me feel sick.

However after a decade of letters , meetings , phone calls , committees and more it is clear there is unlikely to be any other way to make these important changes.

And I have only just started. I don't like being lied to by senior military people.

They don't say "we don't agree with you". Quite the opposite but even they can't get their desired changes through.

Australia deserves better.

yr right

9th Jun 2014, 10:15

Having grown up in an industry where most pilots if they ever flew over 500 feet they get a nose bleed need a bex and a lie down. It was instilled in me very very early reduce your risk when ever you can. Last night I saw his flight track over the ranges. This is toattly unacepebable. There was no reason to have to fly over that country.
To fly over that you should have 4 engines two isles and a drinks trolly. The pilots I was brought up around half a dozen of them would have more hours than prob every person on this site combined.

People say Ag flying is to dangous. We'll I think what I saw last night was shame full. Anyone that thinks that what the status quo is ok sorry you need your head read.

Cheers

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

9th Jun 2014, 10:40

How about we make the it a Prohibited Area, then no-one will ever have to fly over it again.

Problem solved.

Arm out the window

9th Jun 2014, 10:41

There was no reason to have to fly over that country.

Yep, spot on, so why did he, at night, into icing conditions and with unserviceable instruments? That's the real issue, not the airspace or anything else.

yr right

9th Jun 2014, 10:52

Arm
For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. It was in correct of him to do what he did. But if your in that position and have to wait for cleareance you can see why he pressed on. I'm not for one minute saying he did the right thing at all but I can see why he did. I'm sure that had he had an option of a straight run via a coastal lane he would have taken it. The fact that still after all this time it's the same it's seriously obscene

Cheers

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 11:10

I would say there is a chance that he thought he would be given a clearance without delay down the coast .

When he was told to remain outside the Williamtown zone and he was getting closer to the invisible line in the sky where he would have his license lifted if he crossed without permission from the RAAF he decided to take the chance and head on the riskier inland route as required by the RAAF if you dare to fly down the coast from Coolangatta to Bankstown .

A little later the gyro failed so instead of heading south towards Singleton he headed west towards the top of the mountain range.

Of course this error may have been visible on the RAAF radar but it wasn't the responsibility of that operator - even if the mistake was seen- to inform anyone.

The poor FSO ( that pilot by law must remain on his frequency ) just has a microphone , headset and a few paper strips and had no idea the radar screen at Williamtown could have easily shown the catastrophe unfolding.

And not one recommendation was made by the BASI investigators to fix this. That's resistance to change for you that continues today.

Hempy

9th Jun 2014, 11:53

When he was told to remain outside the Williamtown zone and he was getting closer to the invisible line in the sky
The invisible line that he didn't know how far he was from anyway because he didn't have a DME and according to you and others wasn't visual enough to be able to position fix himself by reference to the ground accurately enough to orbit??

You can't have your cake and eat it too

The poor FSO ( that pilot by law must remain on his frequency ) just has a microphone , headset and a few paper strips and had no idea the radar screen at Williamtown could have easily shown the catastrophe unfolding.
Why do you keep bringing this up?

That was 1981. You keep arguing for 'change', but surely you mean change to the current system not change to the system that existed 30 years ago?

Yes,ATC, not Flight Service, are now responsible for the airspace that MDX flew through that night. Yes, they have radar and flight plan details. Yes, there is one less step in the coordination chain to WLM.

So what is your point? Do you want to change the CURRENT system? If you do, why are you mentioning Flight Service when they ceased to exist 15 years ago?

Dick Smith

9th Jun 2014, 12:18

My point is that the change that allowed pilots to talk directly to the person with the radar screen was resisted by many within the bureaucracy .

However the change has undoubtedly improved safety.

Now we need a change that allows pilots to plan the safest way down the coast - that is remove the RAAF imposed prohibition of filing a plan over Williamtown.

Yes , sometimes a pilot may be delayed but I bet in most cases the military controllers will get civilian aircraft on the most direct and safest route.

Remove the restriction .

dubbleyew eight

9th Jun 2014, 13:00

I have no argument with Dick. I think all he has ever tried to do is improve the flying environment.

I find this post quite amazing....
There was no reason to have to fly over that country.
Yep, spot on, so why did he, at night, into icing conditions and with unserviceable instruments? That's the real issue, not the airspace or anything else.

well what else was he going to do arm.... he couldn't stop in mid air while the bureaucracy caught up with him!!!
gods some of you guys have blinkered views of the world.
have you ever tried flying yourself?

if you ever did you'd find Dick is pretty well on the money.

nitpicker330

9th Jun 2014, 13:06

How many hours did the PIC have? Who trained him? Was he trained in basic instrument flying?

Seems the holes on the Swiss cheese lined up on that night BUT the PIC is the last line of defense to close the holes in the Cheese and it seems he either didn't know how or wasn't trained to.

A situation he most likely shouldn't have gotten himself into in the first place.

When an Airline accident happens the investigators look at all contributing factors including the actions of the crew themselves, the training of the crew and the operator. Just as in QF10 BKK over run.

Had the PIC flown through this area before? Was he familiar with the area?

Why did he turn toward the hills at night not knowing if he could maintain VFR?? ( I'm assuming he was NVFR? )

I fly into some pretty crappy places around Asia and I sure a sh** ain't going to put my aircraft in harms way because ATC won't cooperate. I'll declare a PAN or a MAYDAY if I have to.

Edit----seems his DG failed later on? So obviously he didn't intend to fly over the mountains?

gerry111

9th Jun 2014, 15:41

Dick Smith,

Would you please confirm that you don't post on PPRuNe as yr right?

Thanks, mate.

yr right

9th Jun 2014, 23:19

Gerry I'll answer your question. No I'm me me alone no one else but me. So there.
In around 1985 a 210 took of out of ybkn as he took off he pull the mixture to ICO resulting in a all loose on board 5 as I recall. A baron took off out of ybkn and between goulburn and Canberra on the way to the snow fields crashed with a loose of another 5. Both of these accidents where low time pilots on type and both endorsed on the aircraft that week.

Make you think dose it.

And stop the raaf bashing. God giver a break

Cheers

nitpicker330

10th Jun 2014, 00:59

Wow, nice use of English and gramma there mate.
Reading it was like listening to finger nails on a blackboard........:ooh:

Keep up the good work:ok:

Wally Mk2

10th Jun 2014, 01:47

Oh I don't know I couldn't see any grammatical errors there but for the last word 'cheers', should have been 'beers':)

I can't believe this is still being bashed out here. Obviously the PIC made several decisions that night along the way that culminated in these poor buggers demise. Now at the end of the day despite all the little 'outs' the PIC had like staying put at Cooly, declaring a Mayday & heading straight for the coast where he could see straight thru whatever CTZ he saw fit etc etc he felt at the time to continue the flight under now obvious duress, peer pressure, & fear of failure the latter a very real human trait we ALL have.
Hands up those in here who would have turned towards the high country given the same circumstances? Obviously no one is going to own up & say 'I would' as hindsight is a beautiful thing & being judged amongst your peers is the worst feeling for pilots mostly.

This whole sorry saga should be a lesson for ALL as NO ONE is immune!

Wmk2

Arm out the window

10th Jun 2014, 08:34

well what else was he going to do arm.... he couldn't stop in mid air while the bureaucracy caught up with him!!!
gods some of you guys have blinkered views of the world.
have you ever tried flying yourself?

if you ever did you'd find Dick is pretty well on the money.

I haven't made it to 10000 hrs yet mate but not far away. There is a magic way to do something similar to stopping in midair, which I've been known to do when required, 1 minute legs and a turn at each end. It should only be attempted if you're good enough though.:rolleyes:

bentleg

10th Jun 2014, 08:46

yr right - the event between Canberra and Goulburn happened in 1992 was VH-JDL at Tarago. The causes identified were overloading and lack of recency.

PS - When you refer to ybkn I assume you mean YSBK (Bankstown)?

yr right

10th Jun 2014, 08:50

As I recall he only just been checked out in it and it went into an aft c of g when fuel was burnt.

Cheers

ForkTailedDrKiller

10th Jun 2014, 09:13

The crash of VH-JDL was the result of poor risk management and decision making by the PIC (and that is putting it nicely!).

Now where have I seen that before?

Dr :8

PS: Thankfully, the Williamstown airspace was NOT an issue in this case!

gerry111

10th Jun 2014, 10:07

yr right,

In your reply to my post you wrote: "And stop the raaf bashing. God giver a break"

Since when did I ever do that? FYI I spent twelve years as a RAAF member but nothing to do with ATC.

Hempy

10th Jun 2014, 10:28

The crash of VH-JDL was the result of poor risk management and decision making by the PIC (and that is putting it nicely!).

Taking off 180kg over-loaded and cog aft of limits, at night, with no instrument flying in 2 years. Yep, you were very kind.

yr right

10th Jun 2014, 10:41

The give me a break was was someone put up. Sorry if you thought it was referring to you.

Cheers

LegallyBlonde

10th Jun 2014, 12:11

Yeah right Blondie, don't change anything, us convicts resent change, we don't like the shackles being taken off at all.

Must be nice in your world, let's see, the television for entertainment, the politicians to make the rules and the police and military to keep them. Pissed Friday, shopping Saturday, footy Sunday and work Monday. Don't rock the boat.

Aussie Bob, presumably the above is a description of your life. Were you even around aviation in the 70's?
Then again, your location says it all "nosar" aka the old saying - no SAR, no brains:ugh:

yr right

11th Jun 2014, 00:43

And after 570 posts here not one person has given one reasonable answer to the initial problem.
Why dose the RAAF need to lock up such amount of airspace 1 hour out of aust largest city.
Not one reasonable answer as yet.

Cheers

Howabout

11th Jun 2014, 05:17

yr right, I hesitate to criticize, but you have been a constant poster on this thread and the mangled language has me wondering whether someone who writes the way you do actually holds a license, in whatever form. I struggle to see your points and I am therefore condemned to interpretation.

Debate, regardless of one's convictions, is healthy. I don't care what your position is; you are entitled to your views as I am to mine.

Please, just review what you write, make sure that it's understandable to the rest of us and then, only then, push TX.

That small concession would be greatly appreciated.

Aussie Bob

11th Jun 2014, 05:37

Aussie Bob, presumably the above is a description of your life.

Legally Blonde, it was written "tongue in cheek" and no offence was meant. What I am saying and have written before is that at least Dick is trying to make change where change is required, in this instance the amount of airspace that is restricted at Williamstown smack bank in the middle of a high traffic area. No one can adequately say why they have or need so much airspace, but folk are having a go at him for attempting change that in my opinion is needed.

Were you even around aviation in the 70's?

Na mate, not that old ... :}

aka the old saying - no SAR, no brains

Its actually - "no sar, no sense" and I have been around long enough to remember when we couldn't talk to other traffic, we were mothered along by a flight service that passed on our details to other aircraft in our vicinity, often, from a remote location. Some on this site lament the passing of Flight Service and full sar for everyone. I am not one of them.

yr right

11th Jun 2014, 05:45

Wells how's about. Yes i do write the way I do. I try hard to read it before I post and I'm sorry but most times it makes sense to me. Ye i do hold a licence as we'll. spelling gramma is not isn't a sign of a intelagainst on it's own.

Cheers

Howabout

11th Jun 2014, 06:26

Sorry yr right, but I rest my case given your last response.

Jeezus, whatever your view, articulate it properly.

No offence intended, but to be taken seriously there must be a modicum of language proficiency that supports one's case. One cannot argue on a written forum when one cannot communicate effectively via words.

You may have a legitimate case to make, but if you cannot articulate using the written word, which you can't right now, your posts will be be regarded for their amusement value and little else.

Wally Mk2

11th Jun 2014, 07:02

Not to sure why you guys are getting all worked up over speeling & grama, the the ability to spel corektly & tha Enrish langwhich is overated:ok::E:E

Me thinks this guy could also be having fun with you lot:)

I notice this thread is starting to lose some of it's impetus (had to look that one up!),maybe just maybe it's slipping into the annuls of PPrune to be brought back up again in the years to come.

Wmk2

le Pingouin

11th Jun 2014, 07:09

Bob, people being aggressive, insulting, exaggerating claims, unfairly laying blame might look good for tabloid media and play well to the ignorant masses and politicians but doesn't play well to those who have a clue. It yields precisely the reaction you see here.

It's nothing to do with concrete brains, anonymity on an anonymous forum, resistance to change, etc and so forth, but all to do with "the RAAF in effect sent these five people to their deaths".

That is not the way to garner support from those who are in a position to do anything about it.

I'd agree Wally, well and truly time to lock it.

LegallyBlonde

11th Jun 2014, 07:34

There is an old forum on this topic which was started in 2010, someone posted it was 29 years since the disappearance of MDX. That thread is interesting to read.
VH-MDX was not the first aircraft to depart on a VMC flight and get into trouble with IMC conditions over Barrington Tops, and sadly probably won't be the last. A series of bad choices adding up to tragedy, we are all human and none of us perfect, but to use this particular tragedy for other purposes, and specifically to blame RAAF personnel on duty that night for 5 deaths, is indefensible.
We can only hope that all the effort so far from air and land searches will one day bring these 5 men home to their families, especially a son who never met his father. That is what is important.
Just for the record, the RAAF base in NSW is Williamtown.
'Williamstown' is a suburb of Melbourne. :):)

ETA: Interesting article from last year - http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/1849836/the-plane-that-disappeared-search-continues-32-years-on/

Avgas172

11th Jun 2014, 08:31

I do not believe Dick ever blamed any Defence personnel on duty that night, rather the system that does not let anyone file a flight plan through the airspace.
Further that that hasn't changed one iota since MDX disappeared ....

VH-XXX

11th Jun 2014, 08:51

It's not quite JetBlast material yet Wally but soon will be if everyone keeps repeating themselves.

Dick Smith

11th Jun 2014, 09:50

You are correct. It is the RAAF "system" that seems not to be able to make change.

If Williamtown was class D as per the CASA recommendation and the flight planning restriction was removed there would clearly be less chance of another accident .

I sincerely believe RAAF personnel are let down by the hierarchy who don't appear to have the necessary leadership abilities when it comes to change.

All very sad for our country.

Arm out the window

11th Jun 2014, 11:12

It seems the need, based on your assertions Dick, is for aircraft to be able to transit coastal rather than go up over the hills. Is that right? Or are you after some sort of blanket clearance to plan through Willy airspace as and when required?

The whole accident / blame / change needed thing is too vague. What exactly do you want, clearance and planning wise?

It's the cities and air traffic around RAAF airspace that have grown hugely in recent decades - the old story of a suitable place becoming less suitable as time goes by. However, multi-multi-millions have been invested in places like this and to move them lock, stock and barrel is hardly feasible, and taxpayers are hardly likely to wear the cost of having places like Willy and Richmond up stumps and move out to the back of Bourke.

RAAF airspace has changed greatly around places like Pearce - 30 years ago it was basically a 50 nm circle, now it's a relatively tight funny-shaped setup in response to changing civil air traffic needs. Willy has extreme requirements because of the type of aircraft and flying that need to happen at the country's main fighter base.

How about instead of playing the hyped emotion card, you say what you want specifically, ie heights, routes, etc (I guess it's some kind of blanket clearance for IFR flights coastal at appropriate heights, given what you've been going on about with the 'sending to death' paid political message), and let the RAAF respond regarding what their operational requirements are with the airspace they need to get their job done?

Dick Smith

11th Jun 2014, 11:41

I would like to see the flight planning restriction removed so non pressurized aircraft can plan the safest way from coffs to the south .

Yes. They may not always get a clearance but I reckon most of the time the ATCs will be able to let most traffic get through without sending it to the mountains

I would like to see the CASA recommendation of about six years ago that the airspace change to class D . This will reduce the staggering amount of holding that takes place for VFR aircraft in the coastal lane. A friend who regularly uses the coastal route VFR says he gets held over 80 % of the time. Sometimes for 5 minutes but once for 30 minutes. Nearly always because civil aircraft are arriving or departing Willy.

This is holding single engined aircraft orbiting low of the ocean - some with young kids aboard .

Class D in many circumstances is operated with traffic information between IFR and VFR aircraft. Instead of holding a small aircraft at Anna Bay- 12 miles out because an IFR planned Navajo is about to land on runway 12 the small aircraft is allowed to proceed southbound and if the Navajo performs a missed approach (very rare)
a traffic information service is provided.

If it works in many other countries which have a major RPT runway close to the coast why couldn't it work here?

Of course class D empowers ATC s to move a lot of traffic safely because there is nothing to stop them from issuing instructions that result in a more conservative separation than just traffic info.

Hempy

11th Jun 2014, 11:55

Reminds me of Question Time :rolleyes:

Jabawocky

11th Jun 2014, 12:51

Dick, your class D argument is fine, but let it be known......it is an RAAF base.

How about you ask for it to be moved. Turn it into a privatised airport like the rest.

Send the problem to say Tindal. They need the extra numbers. :ok: Or how about Pearce?

sunnySA

11th Jun 2014, 13:42

Dick Smith
This is holding single engined aircraft orbiting low of the ocean - some with young kids aboard .
Oh dear, here we go again, emotive claptrap.:=

missy

11th Jun 2014, 14:31

Dick, are these the CASA documents you are alluding to?
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/download/williamtown_oct08.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/download/williamtown_study08final.pdf

Arm out the window

11th Jun 2014, 21:02

They use 'sight and maintain separation from such and such an aircraft' quite a lot in Cairns to facilitate the low-level helicopter and light fixed wing traffic around the place, and that's Class C, so there must be ways and means to make it happen.

I agree, holding for the possibility of an overshoot seems a bit over the top if they have the option of granting a see and avoid type restriction.

evilroy

11th Jun 2014, 23:54

Hi Avgas,

I do not believe Dick ever blamed any Defence personnel on duty that night, rather the system that does not let anyone file a flight plan through the airspace.

What Dick actually said that night on the programme was:

The Royal Australian Air Force sent these people to their deaths

That is what gets people so upset about this... not that he wants airspace reform but rather the statements Dick has made in order to try and achieve it.

Like some other people, I believe that because of his tactics he has alienated the very group who could help him achieve his aims, and lost the respect of many other people.

Dick Smith

12th Jun 2014, 02:32

But it was the truth. It is the institution of the RAAF which is incapable of learning from errors and also copying the best from all around the world .

On that night if the pilot had been encouraged ( not prohibited ) to flight plan over Williamtown it is obvious that there would have been no need for a clearance delay or holding. The Willy controller would have had prior notice of the route and would have advised Flight Service of the altitude that clearance could be expected.

No competent ATC wants to delay traffic but in this case the controller had no info on the flight until he was called by the FSO.

No wonder there was a delay - and with the pilot nervous that he would enter Controlled Airspace without a clearance ( licence most likely would have been suspended ) decided to go on the route that he had already been forced to plan.

I am now considering running a major Australian Wide campaign recommending that our young people do not consider joining the military until it's clear that the hierarchy are actually listened too and the latest and most modern procedures can be introduced.

I think there will be unecessary deaths under the present system of " never change a rule- no matter if it is decades out of date".

I have had over ten years of " Duchessing" by senior military people who tell me the support and want the change . Yet nothing material happens.

I feel sorry for them and have a feeling that the changes can only come from outside .

Yes. I will get a lot of flack - but that's happened before. In the long term many military people will possibly thank me for fixing some of the "resistance to change" problems.

Dick Smith

12th Jun 2014, 02:40

Did the Coroner make any important findings or recommendations? Can someone give me a link?

HarleyD

12th Jun 2014, 03:44

I am not sure why there is such virulent opposition to what Dick is saying. Are some of you people, pilots, actually advocating the RAAF's passionate and desperate grasp on large chunks of airspace where it is not just inconvenient to other airspace users, but at times places VFR and GA flights in jeopardy?

I have flown around a few other places and in both the EU ( incl UK) and the USA it is not uncommon to fly routinely very close to front line military bases.

An example is Montgomery field in San Diego where the contra circuits put IFR and VFR GA aircraft almost wingtip to wingtip with the traffic at Mirarmar NAS. They are very close to each other yet seemingly there is an ability to not need massive separation or severe, or ANY restriction to the Montgomery traffic, other than staying the other side of the freeway. Simples!

I recently got airborne out of Anacortes, a tiny airfield in Washington state, where the southern facing stip fires you straight into the airspace of Whidby Island NAS. A quick call as soon as airborne and hey presto! Track as required almost straight over the top at 2500 ft whilst there were formations of F18's in the pattern, and being given traffic of ' a Prop just airborne turning to pass 500 ft below' it was a P3, i saw him before he saw me, but i was more worried about being fried by his radar.

I was not given a 'clearance' per se, but advised my preferred tracking details to Whidby which was immediatly accepted by them, and they then seemlessly fitted me into thier traffic. This was with NO prior flight notification, just a simple call about 30 seconds from their airspace boundary, as my wheels left the ground at Anacortes. It was soooooo easy, and in the crappy weather conditions it allowed me to track safely over land instead of turning hard after takeoff, then staying low over the water in avoidance of their control zone. They were totally accepting of the fact i was a 'pop up' and assisted in every way. Try that at Darwin! Or Willytown.

Although ESL has a huge chuck of victorian airspace, they are ususally very co operative at short notice, though their traffic is hardly overwhelming given the massive airspace and a handful of low performance aircraft.

It is entirely possible for the Australian Military to provide significantly simpler access to transiting GA and other traffic without crowding all these into little low level lanes. The ability to transit on direct track is readily available, even at Edwards Air Force Base, and usually Nellis.

Fancy that PPruners accusing Dick of being emotive, hahahaha Black, Pot, Kettle

I actually agree with Dick WRT having Kiddies on board and orbiting over water. Emotive perhaps, but a very real consideration. Adults can be briefed and take care of themselves to some extent. A HRA that includes kiddies has different mitigation processes than one where the pax are all adults. I would not like to be out over water with all my kids in a single engine aircraft while some neddy is 'processing' my transit request. In US it would be an advisory not a grovelling request for permission.

BTW i do not agree with all Dick says, but he is spot on about this.

HD

004wercras

12th Jun 2014, 04:31

Surely it won't be long until Sluggers budget cuts and penny pinching ensures that military aircraft are grounded indefinitely? I mean if you are a quadriplegic or born with no arms or legs and they take your carers fund away from you then surely we can't afford to have RAAF aircraft flying anymore? What good are the planes when the bureaucrats can't afford to pay for a single bullet let alone fund a war!! Then the bean counters will sell off places like Willy to all the super funds front companies and the Boards and shareholders will reap the benefits? Carparks and retail outlets are the 'new black'! F#ck the military and f#ck the airlines I say, turn every military/civilian aerodrome and all the stand alone military bases into commercial enterprises! Take for instance Amberley. You could probably put 100 000 car parking spaces out there, throw in a Hungry Jacks, some overpriced coffee shops and perhaps a Dick Smith Electronics in there and just sit back and watch them beautiful pennies roll in boys!!

Pffft, airspace and safety, your living in the past boys. Think big. Think outside the square!!

nitpicker330

12th Jun 2014, 04:31

So what responsibility do you place on that PIC Dick?

Some of the blame must fall on his shoulders as well.

Bill Pike

12th Jun 2014, 07:21

The PIC would have been unlikely to have been in as much bother VMC coastal.
If the PIC had lost control over lower flatter country he still would have had a greater chance of saving the day.
It's all about playing the odds and keeping them trending the correct way.
How many times has this been repeated so far i wonder? Hand up anyone who doesn't understand?

Avgas172

12th Jun 2014, 08:22

Stop the press!!
Surely it won't be long until Sluggers budget cuts and penny pinching ensures that military aircraft are grounded indefinitely? I mean if you are a quadriplegic or born with no arms or legs and they take your carers fund away from you then surely we can't afford to have RAAF aircraft flying anymore? What good are the planes when the bureaucrats can't afford to pay for a single bullet let alone fund a war!! Then the bean counters will sell off places like Willy to all the super funds front companies and the Boards and shareholders will reap the benefits? Carparks and retail outlets are the 'new black'! F#ck the military and f#ck the airlines I say, turn every military/civilian aerodrome and all the stand alone military bases into commercial enterprises! Take for instance Amberley. You could probably put 100 000 car parking spaces out there, throw in a Hungry Jacks, some overpriced coffee shops and perhaps a Dick Smith Electronics in there and just sit back and watch them beautiful pennies roll in boys!!

Sorry for the long quote ....... but seriously grow up :ugh: if you choose to enter a debate at least have something meaningful to add to said debate.

OZBUSDRIVER

12th Jun 2014, 08:51

Waiting on a sane argument on allowing flight plan submission even though YWLM may be active.

Thirty years ago has no bearing on today. The overhead routing was successfully argued into reality after a huge bunfight on this thread more than a few years ago. Why not do the same without the bunfight. What is suggested is a change in the entry in ERSA. Not earth shattering, kids need not worry about joining our military services and occasional GA VFR as well as regular operators can submit a plan, still check availability re-suitable times and just practice bloody good airmanship.

I am not advocating a right to enter, just the ability to flight plan overhead. Change ERSA, plan and then ask for the clearance at the appropriate time. Airmanship means ringing RAAF ATCOs first and planning accordingly...and then when granted, fly the clearance like you flown it every day of your life and do not stuff it up for the rest of us.

EDIT- planning dct ovh means the plan is in the system so ATC can pull it out of the bin as required. Just ring up first if you are afirst timer...I know I will be.

Dick Smith

12th Jun 2014, 08:52

Nit picker. I think the PIC should have been a lot tougher in insisting he received a prompt clearance. I spoke today to pilot who was a personal friend of the MDX pilot. This pilot planned the same route about one and a half hours before MDX.

As it was still daylight he could see the clouds and rotor coming of Barrington Tops. He called for a clearance through Willy and was initially refused. He then got quite aggressive and insisted and was given the clearance.

Certainly the pilot could have done better- however he flew safely from Cooly to Taree and very possibly would have got to Bankstown if he had been allowed or even encouraged to flight plan and fly down the coast. After all I understand that there were no military planes flying that night

And OZ. You are correct- just allow the flight plan to go that way!

Arm out the window

12th Jun 2014, 08:55

But it was the truth. It is the institution of the RAAF which is incapable of learning from errors and also copying the best from all around the world .

Far out! I was just thinking Dick was getting reasonable and he comes out with this kind of guff. 'Incapable of learning from errors' - insulting and wrong.

No wonder there was a delay - and with the pilot nervous that he would enter Controlled Airspace without a clearance ( licence most likely would have been suspended ) decided to go on the route that he had already been forced to plan.

No competent pilot would be unable to remain outside controlled airspace, or so scared of busting it he would pick the high terrain, icing prone route rather than wait a minute or two, and that 's not even mentioning the U/S instruments.

I am now considering running a major Australian Wide campaign recommending that our young people do not consider joining the military until it's clear that the hierarchy are actually listened too and the latest and most modern procedures can be introduced.

Well, you would be a total tool if you did that.

I think there will be unecessary deaths under the present system of " never change a rule- no matter if it is decades out of date".

It appears you only want to change rules that fit your own agenda, but hide it in terms of pretending to help others.

Yes. I will get a lot of flack - but that's happened before. In the long term many military people will possibly thank me for fixing some of the "resistance to change" problems.

Unlikely.

VH-XXX

12th Jun 2014, 09:19

Waiting on a sane argument on allowing flight plan submission even though YWLM may be active.

If they are eventually giving you a clearance the majority of the time then why not? !!!

Dick Smith

12th Jun 2014, 11:20

Arm out of the window.

You say I only want to change rules " that fit my own agenda". In fact I want Australia to have a thriving and viable aviation industry while having an Air-force that has as modern a rule system as any in the world. What could be wrong with this?

I feel as if we have not learnt anything from the loss of these five valuable lives.

Yes , the pilot could have landed at Taree or he could have been more assertive and actually requested a clearance like others did that day. (Remember it was the FSO who asked the pilot if he would like a clearance from Williamtown)

Individuals will always make mistakes.

But let's say we had the US or UK military airspace system in place that night.

The pilot would have flown down the coast , over the base, and continued in good VMC to Bankstown at 2500'

The aircraft would have not headed west for over 30 miles, at right angles to the correct track, and had to climb into cloud and icing.

If the vacuum pump had failed at the same time interval the plane would have been near the well lit Gosford with the lights of Sydney in front - ideal conditions for a night VMC flight even without an AI.

Let's try and make sure this won't happen again- let's allow- indeed encourage flight planning that keeps away from that rugged 5000 ' mountain range.

Any supporters ?

I have spent a decade behind the scenes with top military people politely attempting change. I have failed despite many promises that changes will be made.

yr right

12th Jun 2014, 11:22

I find it amazing that the raaf can continue this to this day. Yet a ct4 has a problem and they grounded the whole fleet on safety. Clearly there people are worth more than the average Australian that pays there way.

Cheers

gerry111

12th Jun 2014, 12:30

Arm out the window: :ok:,:ok:,:ok:,:ok: and :ok:.

evilroy

13th Jun 2014, 03:27

Nit picker. I think the PIC should have been a lot tougher in insisting he received a prompt clearance. I spoke today to pilot who was a personal friend of the MDX pilot. This pilot planned the same route about one and a half hours before MDX.

As it was still daylight he could see the clouds and rotor coming of Barrington Tops. He called for a clearance through Willy and was initially refused. He then got quite aggressive and insisted and was given the clearance.

Dick - why do you continue to mislead people? Clearance through WLM airspace was granted on BOTH occasions; it was clearance through S1 and SYD APP airspace that was refused.

It had nothing - repeat - NOTHING to do with the military airspace. Why are you not trying to blame Sydney for sending the men to their deaths?

Bill Pike

13th Jun 2014, 04:20

C'mon Evilroy,
Dick isn't misleading anyone and you know it.
RAAF rules precluded Flight Planning through Willy airspace.
There should not have been any question of Flight Planning over the Barringtons.
That restriction should be lifted.
Despite any shortcomings on the part of the pilot (and he has been punished enough) Flight Planning that way should not even be part of the equation.

QSK?

13th Jun 2014, 05:09

Isn"t it about time this thread was closed?

Hempy

13th Jun 2014, 05:37

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/2014-06/59B30F37-FB22-40F8-86F0-60DFCA424FF9_zpshqxv3rzt.png

le Pingouin

13th Jun 2014, 05:56

You guys seemed obsessed with the idea that flight planning would have prevented the accident. I ask yet again, what do you think the pilot would have done if he'd planned over WLM and been refused a clearance by SY in exactly the way he was on the night? Answer me this: Why wouldn't he have pushed on in exactly the same manner?

Flight planning isn't going to stop this happening again as it will never guarantee an instant clearance or even a clearance at all. It will never guarantee the chosen route or preferred alternate routes are suitable for VFR. The pilot still has to decide "now what?". Pilot education will help and is more broadly applicable so will save far more lives.

Hempy

13th Jun 2014, 06:18

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 224

Pilot in command
(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.

(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:

(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and

(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and

(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and

(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.

(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility under paragraph (2)(a) in accordance with:

(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the start, continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are made available, or issued, under the Act or these Regulations; and

(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the operator of the aircraft.

(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.

End quote...

Dick Smith

13th Jun 2014, 07:08

Le Pin. It is very likely if the Willy ATC had the flight details in advance he would have given a clearance before the pilot decided he could wait no longer as he was about to penetrate the " never go or you'll be shot " military airspace invisible line.

No cloud below 5000 south of willy so he could have descended to 2300' and remain in VMC.

I ask again. Can anyone remember the control zone step height between Newcastle and Brookliyn bridge in those days?

Why did the Sydney ATC say weather was a factor if the pilot could have operated OCTA south of Newcastle.?

If the RAAF road block was not active that night there is little doubt the pilot would not have turned inland to CRAVEN.

Change the unnecessary flight planning restriction before more lives are lost I reckon!

le Pingouin

13th Jun 2014, 07:21

Sigh. Your views are the ones set in concrete. The clearance delay wasn't WLM, it was SY.

What are you doing to help pilots facing similar situations due to weather, no matter where they are? That would be a far more admirable and beneficial thing to do.

Dick Smith

13th Jun 2014, 08:51

Because of the changes introduced during my time at CAA/CASA pilots call ATC directly- not through a third party.

So that's a start. If that had been allowed on the night I bet the pilot would have gone coastal .

Now we need to remove the military enforced flight planning restriction re planning the safest way down the coast for non pressurized aircraft.

Isn't it interesting how hard it is to get this change. I bet the RAAF doesn't know why it has to remain but probably no one empowered to actually have it changed.

They can't even introduce MOA's. - leave everything as it was in 1940!

CWO Geoff

13th Jun 2014, 09:33

Dick...
It is very likely if the Willy ATC had the flight details in advance he would have given a clearance before the pilot decided he could wait no longer as he was about to penetrate the " never go or you'll be shot " military airspace invisible line.
That's a way over the top remark and was not what actually occurred!
To say that WLM didn't have flight details and caused the PIC to hold is, in my experience, another 'long bow being drawn', or putting it much more plainly, utter BS! It only takes a couple of seconds to manually make out a strip and only a few more to give some sort of clearance response. There was no delay there!

As 'evil roy' said it was clearance through S1 and SYD APP airspace that was refused. - that seems to be the point that you have not yet been able to grasp.

I haven't yet seen any mention of airspace releases that night. Just who had what airspace? Exactly where was the PIC "about to penetrate the 'never go or you'll be shot' military airspace invisible line"? On the TRE - WLM track, or the TRE - CRV track? Or the TRE - SGT track? From what I could see of the enclosures on the BASI file, the aircraft was tracking well NORTH of his planned route (TRE-CRV) when FIS5 offered the amended route over WLM.
Don't forget, the WLM control zone was GL-A050 radius 12nm. The areas in question that MDX planned to fly around were in some cases GL up to FL125. Are we referring specifically to R582A (GL to FL125) - who had control of R582A at the time that all this was going on? If that airspace was released to FIS5, it would have been OCTA, and above FL125 to Sector 1.
...the pilot decided he could wait no longer ... Pure speculation! What was he supposedly waiting for and what actions was he taking (orbiting, holding?) whilst he was supposedly waiting?

I note that you didn't manage (and I'm sure that you must have tried so hard) to get Channel 7 to give you another couple of minutes TV time in which you could have given that public apology for your liblellious remarks that started this whole thread off. What a shame - you've lost a lot of your supporters over this one Dick.

Avgas172

13th Jun 2014, 10:08

What a shame - you've lost a lot of your supporters over this one Dick.

And quite possibly gained a few ...
If anyone can tell me why the route Coastal Brisbane to Sydney should be locked out to my flying, please do. If it is necessary to shift the airbase then do it, seems it's no problem to send them to Iraq or Afganistan anytime some dumb politician (both sides) wants to impress the good old USA. What's wrong with sharing the airspace?

Pinky the pilot

13th Jun 2014, 11:49

Hempy: Re your Ten commandments;

Amen!:ok::ok:

Mods, This thread is to me at least, starting to go round in circles! Maybe I have been out of the game too long but all I see is the same points put in various ways. Care to apply the lock?

billyboy3

13th Jun 2014, 23:00

I ask again. Can anyone remember the control zone step height between Newcastle and Brookliyn bridge in those days?

According to an old yellowed WAC from about that time, 8000' to 65nm, 6000'/50, 4000'/35, 2000'/22. There was also that odd rhomboid shaped bit off Richmond leading into the lane - 3000'?? if I can read my scrawl under the laminate.

From what I remember of my days, negotiating clearance up there, was always a pain even with the advanced notice via FS.

Arm out the window

13th Jun 2014, 23:21

If it is necessary to shift the airbase then do it,

Sure mate, care to contribute the necessary tax dollars?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

14th Jun 2014, 00:27

AAAhhh......

"Affordable Safety"...???

:E

Avgas172

14th Jun 2014, 03:45

Quote:
If it is necessary to shift the airbase then do it,
Sure mate, care to contribute the necessary tax dollars?

AOTW old mate that's precisely what I have been doing since I was 15, which is a long time now, and would prefer that to the cost of sending any more of my Kin to the next Iraq picnic that the pollies will tell us is in my best interest.

nitpicker330

14th Jun 2014, 04:53

Mmmmmmm. I don't think having Syria and Iraq as fundamentalist states under ISIS is good for anyone actually.

So yes we might need to go and do something about it.

Anyway thread drift.....back to normal programming

Hempy

14th Jun 2014, 06:27

nitpicker330

14th Jun 2014, 10:51

Thread creep better? :}

Arm out the window

16th Jun 2014, 20:56

From the NOTAM this morning - the power of advertising, eh?

GEN-FPR-1, ROUTE FLIGHT PLANNING REQUIRMENTS AMD
PARAGRAPH 1, NEW SOUTH WALES, AMD FLW ENTRIES TO READ:
COFFS HARBOUR WILLIAMTOWN:
NOT TO BE FLIGHT PLANNED WHEN R580, R583A, R587A OR R587B ACT.
LORD HOWE - WILLIAMTOWN - LORD HOWE:
ATS ROUTE W149 MUST NOT BE FLIGHT PLANNED WHEN R574 ACT. AN ALTERNATE
ROUTE VIA PMQ MUST BE PLANNED.
LORD HOWE ISLAND - WILLIAMTOWN PORT MACQUARIE:
ATS ROUTE W768 MUST NOT BE FLIGHT PLANNED WHEN R574 ACT. VFR TRANSIT
NOT ASSURED WHEN R574 ACT.
WILLIAMTOWN TAREE:
NOT TO BE FLIGHT PLANNED WHEN R580, R583A, R587A OR R587B ACT.
WILLIAMTOWN - COFFS HARBOUR:
NOT TO BE FLIGHT PLANNED WHEN R580, R583A, R587A OR R587B ACT.

GEN-FPR-17, FLIGHT PLAN OPTIONS, PARAGRAPH 8, ADD THE FLW ALTN
ROUTING AVBL:
YCFS YWLM:
DCT CFS W196 TRE W603 WLM (REF ERSA-GEN-FPR-1, PARA 1)
YPMQ YWLM:
DCT PMQ W223 TRE W603 WLM (REF ERSA-GEN-PFR-1, PARA 1)
YTRE YWLM:
DCT TRE W603 WLM DCT (REF ERSA-GEN-PFR-1, PARA 1)
DCT TRE W223 NICLA W182 WLM DCT
YWLM YCFS:
DCT WLM W603 TRE W196 CFS (REF ERSA-GEN-FPR-1, PARA 1)
YWLM YPMQ:
DCT WLM W603 TRE W223 PMQ DCT (REF ERSA-GEN-PFR-1, PARA 1)
YWLM YTRE:
DCT WLM W603 TRE DCT (REFER ERSA-GEN-PFR-1, PARA 1)
DCT WLM W182 NICLA W223 TRE DCT
AMD EN ROUTE SUPPLEMENT AUSTRALIA

FROM 06 160005 TO PERM

Dick Smith

17th Jun 2014, 00:09

So. Are there any worthwhile changes?

Surely an improvement as at least can be flight planned over WLM when the airspace is not active.

Are those restricted areas normally active on weekends.?

Incredibly complicated.

CWO Geoff

17th Jun 2014, 03:50

Dick.
Are those restricted areas normally active on weekends.?See 'Designated Airspace Handbook' - Section 13 - Current edition dated 29 MAY 2014.

Dick Smith

17th Jun 2014, 04:13

Let us into the secret - what does the handbook say!

Imagine you are a low time private pilot? I think you would fly inland into the mountains rather than make a slight mistake in reading all that stuff. And doesn't it say the restricted areas can become active at any time?

CWO Geoff

17th Jun 2014, 04:41

Let us into the secret - what does the handbook say?
Secret??? Since when have AIPs been SECRET? I think that everything applicable is clearly stated in that PUBLIC (not SECRET) publication issued by Air Services Australia - surely you as a licenced pilot are aware of this??? You can even find a copy of the current edition on-line at Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/aip.asp?pg=10)

ForkTailedDrKiller

17th Jun 2014, 07:23

Imagine you are a low time private pilot? I think you would fly inland into the mountains rather than make a slight mistake in reading all that stuff.

So Dick, how about you take up the cause and try to have that airspace made more user friendly? :E

Dr :8

Arm out the window

17th Jun 2014, 08:54

I reckon it would be far better to just reach the airspace boundary, half-roll and pull through into the ground than have to interpret those NOTAMs.

It's a bloody conspiracy I tell you, forcing pilots to have to read, let alone understand them.

And while we're at it, there should be a mod for all GPS units so that when I hit Direct/Direct, a signal goes out to ATC getting a clearance for me on the required track rather than have to faff around with radios, transponders and such like.

Creampuff

17th Jun 2014, 09:58

[T]here should be a mod for all GPS units so that when I hit Direct/Direct, a signal goes out to ATC getting a clearance for me on the required track rather than have to faff around with radios, transponders and such like.Now that's a great idea! :D

gerry111

17th Jun 2014, 12:52

Re: The WLM NOTAMs, Dick Smith wrote: "Incredibly complicated." :ugh:

Dick Smith

18th Jun 2014, 08:24

Can someone in the know explain why this NOTAM was put out?

This is a dead serious question.

Best answer gets a carton of OzEmite!

Arm out the window

18th Jun 2014, 08:47

Second best gets two cartons! (Sorry Dick, just joking!):)

CaptainMidnight

18th Jun 2014, 09:41

Call the CDF or Margaret Staib and ask.

Comparing the NOTAMs to ERSA all I can see at a quick glance is that "during WLM ATS hours" or similar has been replaced with the specific Restricted Area numbers applicable to the specific track specified.

peterc005

18th Jun 2014, 09:55

@Dick Smith - I buy your tomato sauce, peanut butter and honey by the armful, but your Ozemite looks and tastes like axle grease.

BTW, the packaging for your honey is very practical and works well.

Dick Smith

18th Jun 2014, 09:58

Captain. Thanks. I will say again -Incredible complicated - but it does look like a slight move forward .

Are all of these restricted areas normally released on weekends? Can they become active at a moments notice?

Still looks to me that 80% of private pilots will take a look at the requirements and decide they are so complicated and so easy to make an error that it's better to go inland and try and keep out of all the restricted areas.

Pete. That's a compliment about Ozemite. -thanks - the yanks reckon Vegemite tastes like axle grease so maybe there is a market in the USA!

LeadSled

19th Jun 2014, 07:48

Second best gets two cartons! (Sorry Dick, just joking!)

Folks,
Can't say I am an aficionado of axle grease, but Ozemite is OK, the tomato sauce is all my wife now buys, some of the really hot sauces and chutneys from the Terry Hill shop are as good as you can get, and better than anything from Coles or Woolies.
Tootle pip!!

CaptainMidnight

19th Jun 2014, 08:01

Incredible complicated Many years ago there were briefing offices at GA aerodromes where one could drop in or telephone and ask such things as "I want to fly from A to B - what's the best way to plan through Willie airspace and what level?" and you'd be given the good advice or they'd find out. And ask a myriad of other questions and seek advice, talk to the met guy even. Or people were sufficiently trained and skilled to figure it out themselves.

Then as a cost cutting measure someone closed all the briefing offices down, and those in the consolidated briefing offices didn't have local knowledge and over time became deskilled and pilots were encouraged to self help rather than wait for lengthy period in telephone queues.

Consequently pilots were left to either try to figure things out themselves or perhaps ask an instructor, who in time also themselves became deskilled and less knowledgeable.

And that's pretty much where we are today.

Creampuff

19th Jun 2014, 08:16

... with a lower accident and incident rate.

OZBUSDRIVER

19th Jun 2014, 08:23

Creamie...you have to ask yourself...because of or despite of:E

Creampuff

20th Jun 2014, 01:40

Creamie...you have to ask yourself...because of or despite of ...

It’s the perennial question for regulators: How to measure the extent, if any, of any causal link between changes to ‘the system’ on the one hand and changes in outcomes on the other.

CASA alluded to the question in its submission to the ASSR Panel:6.21 As all regulators, and those who closely study the processes of regulation, know only too well, it can be difficult to accurately and reliably measure the effectiveness of enforcement action. …That’s bureaucratese for “practically impossible”.

What we do know for sure is that nearly everybody uses the ‘fear factor’ to justify whatever position they have about the regulation of aviation in Australia. There’s a reason for that.

Although the level of risk of an event is an objective fact, the perception of the level of risk is influenced by a number of factors, including dread of the potential outcomes. This is called “cognitive bias”.

Punters dread the potential for dying in an air crash, even though there are lots and lots of other ways to die that, as an objective fact, are far more likely and far more unpleasant than in an air crash. Punters imagine how horrible the inevitable ‘death plunge’ from 30,000’ would be in contrast to the pleasant death one has in a car wrapped around a tree next to the highway. Thus punters will press for and support anything that is perceived to reduce the risk of air accidents.

If we don’t get rid of those CVD pilots, there’s an increased risk to air safety.

If we don’t stop private pilots taking photos in aircraft and selling them for money, there’d be an increased risk to air safety.

If we don’t get rid of those VFR pilots off the IFR routes, there’s an increased risk to air safety.

If we don’t get rid of E airspace, there’s an increased risk to air safety.

If CASA stopped approving the appointment of Chief Pilots, there’d be an increased risk to air safety.

You’re all gonna die in a death plunge from 30,000’ unless …. You leave CASA to make a million rules and micro-manage every aspect of aviation, and give Airservices control over every cubic centimetre of airspace.

yr right

20th Jun 2014, 02:08

Creamie.
What's worse than casa at this present stage is the auditors for the oil gas and mining. They make casa look like Sunday school. They impose unrealistic conditions on aviation that has to be seen to be believed. One I had was I was not to use my tools for any other purpose that aircraft work. When I ask him can I have another 80k he ask what for. I said so I can have a tool box at home to use. He looked at me puzzled and ask why 80k and I said that's a minimum of what is in my tool box. Needless to say he didn't give me 80k so I use my tools as I see fit.
Cheers

Creampuff

20th Jun 2014, 03:39

But the difference is that a person buying a service can demand anything they like from the service provider. The person can demand that you wear a pink tutu while you’re doing maintenance and buy new tools every 6 months. The market, not the law, determines whether you choose to wear a tutu and buy new tools every 6 months, and whether the person goes elsewhere if you choose not to accept at a price the person is prepared to pay. (It seems that’s exactly what happened in the example you gave.)

But if law says you must wear a pink tutu and replace your tools every 6 months, there’s no choice.

ASGA

19th Jul 2014, 04:41

Since the 2nd World War Barrington Tops has claimed an astounding 21 lives through aviation accidents.

At an altitude of 1500m, Aeroplane Hill breaches the clouds, sitting tall, silent and deadly in what has become known as Australia's own Devils Triangle.

This prehistoric and almost impenetrable jungle is reluctant to give up its secrets, none more-so than the mystery of the disappearance of VH-MDX.

On August 9 it will be 33 years since the aircrafts doomed final journey. Despite numerous searches over the years, VH-MDX and the 5 men on board remain lost in our own backyard, their families left without answers.

Regardless of difficulty or cost - Is it time to bring VH-MDX home?

Tell us what you think - please go to our website and leave your comments.

- What do you think? (http://aircrashsupportgroupaustralia.weebly.com/what-do-you-think)

Creampuff

19th Jul 2014, 09:08

Don't you mean: "Bermuda Triangle"? :confused:

Prince Niccolo M

19th Jul 2014, 09:55

Creamie,

Maybe not:

The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil's Triangle, is a loosely defined region in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean)...

good old Wikipedia...

Hempy

19th Jul 2014, 10:15

It's not a phenomena like the Bermuda Triangle...everyone knows its a military Secret Weapon operated from RAAF Williamtown :rolleyes:

thorn bird

19th Jul 2014, 10:25

"Is it time to bring VH-MDX home?"
Are you suggesting it was kidnapped by aliens?

Centaurus

19th Jul 2014, 10:30

Regardless of difficulty or cost - Is it time to bring VH-MDX home?

While some will have sympathy with your cause, believe me, most people would say it is best put to rest. Most of the aircraft that have crashed into the Barrington Tops area would have been flying in low cloud without knowing their precise position. One typical example was a Lockheed Hudson of the Herald Flying Services that disappeared for many months before the wreckage was spotted by an over-flying airliner. The DCA investigation decided the highly experienced former wartime pilot was trying to fly underneath low cloud and in poor visibility to get from Sydney to Taree and took a risk which didn't pay off.

According to one transcript the pilot of the Cessna 210 reported failure of the engine driven vacuum pump. If that was so, then within one minute the pilot would quickly lose control caused by worsening erroneous attitude information. On the other hand, if he was not an experienced IFR pilot and saw what he perceived both artificial horizons apparently failing, but which actually was loss of control due to poor instrument flying ability, then he may have mistakenly diagnosed vacuum pump failure. Even an experienced instrument rated pilot flying on limited panel in cloud (few pilots are that good) would need all his skill and attention to have to rely on the electrically powered turn coordinator in association with the magnetic compass. Throw in erroneous attitude information, turbulence and thick cloud and his chances of getting out of that alive would be zero.

There is no "Devil's Triangle" in that area. That is nothing more than a journalistic dramatic beat up. Nothing is to be gained by re-visiting the search area. Quite the opposite in fact. There would be a real risk to life and limb of those hardy and well meaning volunteers who would willingly spend their time trying to locate long since deeply hidden wreckage in impossible country.

kingRB

19th Jul 2014, 15:41

Throw in erroneous attitude information, turbulence and thick cloud and his chances of getting out of that alive would be zero. stating the obvious, we already know he / they didn't get out alive.

There is no "Devil's Triangle" in that area. That is nothing more than a journalistic dramatic beat up. Nothing is to be gained by re-visiting the search area. Quite the opposite in fact. There would be a real risk to life and limb of those hardy and well meaning volunteers who would willingly spend their time trying to locate long since deeply hidden wreckage in impossible country.I'd argue it is indeed as relevant as a "Devils Triangle" gets for Australia. Considering the amount of aircraft that have gone down in this region and the difficulty in locating them. It's provided the terrain that has yielded the only missing aircraft on Australian mainland never to be found. I can't really think of a more fitting name for such a location.

There is much relevance to revisiting the search area. Plenty of us have done so and are continuing to. Perhaps ask the families of the missing occupants if they see there is nothing to be gained.

Yes the area is not without it's risk, but much of this can be mitigated with adequate precautions.

Quite surprised you'd take this position Centaurus. If people want to keep looking for it, really, what is the problem?

Tee Emm

20th Jul 2014, 05:03

Yes the area is not without it's risk, but much of this can be mitigated with adequate precautions.

Difficult to say this as it is obviously an emotional subject to those still involved one way or another. But the fact remains 21 unfortunates are dead due to various pilots failing to take adequate precautions. That being so, where is the certainty any new searchers will mitigate the risk with adequate precautions? 33 years is a long time to be holding the candle and a line must eventually be drawn somewhere.

tyler_durden_80

20th Jul 2014, 05:17

On weekends at WLM R578A-E are notam'd active, from memory they are RA2 (possibly incorrect here), and active from 0600-2200 local, up to FL125. It is Monday-Friday that the remainder are generally notam'd as active.

catseye

20th Jul 2014, 10:07

current DAh is showing them active by notam with controlling authority flt cdr 453 sqn Williamtown flight.

Thinks that means the SATCO.

catseye

20th Jul 2014, 10:10

typical without putting them all in.
C850/14
R578A ACT
MAY BE DEACTIVATED AT SHORT NOTICE.
PILOT RESPONSIBILITY TO CK CURRENT STS WITH ATS.
5000FT AMSL TO FL125
FROM 07 202000 TO 07 271200
DAILY 2000/1200

Jabberwocky82

9th Mar 2023, 09:00

Are there any known updates on this? Some murmurings I heard lately stated it had been found from a ground search.

tail wheel

13th Mar 2023, 19:04

Test posts.

IBJoel

13th Mar 2023, 19:58

test!

Creampuff

14th Mar 2023, 02:38

How come the index page shows two recent posts in this thread, but I can't see them?

megan

14th Mar 2023, 03:28

good old WikipediaNow you have me confused (not hard :p ), what's wrong with the Wiki piece?

KRviator

14th Mar 2023, 04:59

How come the index page shows two recent posts in this thread, but I can't see them?I had the same problem. I think our Admin Overlords were testing new settings for their posts...

PiperCameron

14th Mar 2023, 05:24

I had the same problem. I think our Admin Overlords were testing new settings for their posts...

And here's me thinking someone might have posted something interesting.. :uhoh:

tail wheel

14th Mar 2023, 06:05

Someone left the door open and a bug got into the big computer! :}

No one did anything. We are just as mystified as you why the last page and a number of posts disappeared for a couple of days.

A trick: If the last page disappears again click on the "Reply" button and you will see the missing posts below the posting window. Please don't ask how that works, I have no idea, but it does.

The Wawa Zone

7th Apr 2023, 07:31

There is no "Devil's Triangle" in that area. That is nothing more than a journalistic dramatic beat up. Nothing is to be gained by re-visiting the search area. Quite the opposite in fact. There would be a real risk to life and limb of those hardy and well meaning volunteers who would willingly spend their time trying to locate long since deeply hidden wreckage in impossible country.

That is unfortunately correct, although people should still continue ground searches because it is good headbanging fun and there is always the chance of good fortune showing you a brief glimpse of folded metal in the undergrowth.
The search area planning has, I believe, pretty much narrowed it down to a couple of 5Km x 5Km blocks, but what 25Km2 blocks they are ! I've been on a couple of ground searches, one of which the team was in / ex by winching from POLAIR helo, and the terrain and vegetation was limiting. Adjacent to these areas are very different areas there with 40degree plus slopes and double+ canopy rainforest where foot searches are impossible without technical means, and I suggest MDX would be in one of these.

Eventually the wreck and remains will be found, but I suggest it will by remote imaging technology, probably military, that will sniff it out of the years of vegetation growth rather than foot searches.

The same applies to the far more forgotten A34-47, missing out the back of Warragamba Dam less than 50Nm from YSSY with two RAAF and three USMC on board. https://www.ozatwar.com/ozcrashes/nsw178.htm This one has a very linear search area under what was probably a big birdstrike that bowled them middle stump on the first ball.
One of these days I'm going to walk/rappel/climb a compass bearing right through the middle of these search areas and who knows !

KRviator

27th Apr 2023, 09:16

That is unfortunately correct, although people should still continue ground searches because it is good headbanging fun and there is always the chance of good fortune showing you a brief glimpse of folded metal in the undergrowth.
The search area planning has, I believe, pretty much narrowed it down to a couple of 5Km x 5Km blocks, but what 25Km2 blocks they are ! I've been on a couple of ground searches, one of which the team was in / ex by winching from POLAIR helo, and the terrain and vegetation was limiting. Adjacent to these areas are very different areas there with 40degree plus slopes and double+ canopy rainforest where foot searches are impossible without technical means, and I suggest MDX would be in one of these.Can I infer from the last sentence that even with a (somewhat) low-level survey aircraft & 4K+ cameras, visual penetration of the canopy to ground level wouldn't' be possible? Was thinking those 25km2 areas could be covered fairly quickly with a GoPro strapped to a wing tiedown, even at just 100kts and 100m run spacing.