Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX

[Dick Smith]

Participants in this site may have seen the advertisements on Channel Seven that are running for their top rating show, Sunday Night, which is going to air this Sunday 1st June at 7.30pm. The program will cover that terrible VH-MDX Cessna 210 crash in the Barrington Tops area. This is where five people were killed and the crash site has never been discovered. The families of those on board have never had closure and been able to arrange proper burials.

I was extensively interviewed and probably had a different perspective to most. I blame the situation on the military airspace at Williamtown, which is situated right in the centre of one of the busiest air routes in the world. Even today the Enroute Supplement mentions flight limitations on how you cannot flight plan over Williamtown below 10,000 feet.

On the night of the accident (9th August, 1981), the Flight Service Officer even asked the pilot if he wanted to try and get direct tracking over Williamtown. The Pilot agreed, however was quickly told there would be a delay. Imagine holding out there over the mountains in turbulent winds, waiting for however long it would take for the flight details to be sent to Williamtown and for the controller to provide the clearance – it was CAVOK at Willi at the time.

The Pilot decided to take the risk and follow the normal route which diverts around Williamtown but puts an aircraft and its passengers over some of the most rugged country in Australia – if, indeed, the world! Of course, the winds reported that night was up to 70 knots and so there would have been a gigantic rotor. Pilots who have flown in that area in high winds all know just how violent it can be.

Of course, nothing has changed. You can’t file a flight plan across Williamtown if it’s active. I mentioned in my interview that I don’t know anywhere else in the world where such a situation exists. My experience on my flights around the world is that in other countries the military facilitate all traffic through their airspace in every way they can; they don’t use the Australian principle of ‘sterilising’ airspace whenever the airspace is made active – the whole airspace becomes active and others are restricted and can’t file a flight plan through the airspace.

Also, remember in those days - and what’s not in the BASI Report is that the Pilot never, ever spoke to a radar controller - it was all going second and third-hand to the Flight Service Officer. I’m glad I fixed that when I was Chairman of CAA – but I remember the resistance to having airspace that was covered by radar actually then allowing the pilots to talk directly to the radar controller – as it is today.

I have a feeling that this will be a very disturbing program.

[Ascend Charlie]

Dick, it probably won't lead to anything being changed, just a bunch of people shaking their heads is wonderment and tsk-tsk-ing and changing the channel to watch CSI.

I lost 3 mates as an indirect result of that search, when a RAAF Huey had a problem on that search, and landed. It subsequently crashed while investigating the problem.

I expect there will be the oft-quoted groups of people with their own theories on where MDX is, and good luck if they find it - nearby will be the vertically-buried remains of a couple of Mirages as well.

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

I certainaly agree with your comments about trying to go through/over/around Williamtown, and certainly share your enthusiasm in trying to bring the story to a close, but I have a few small points about your post -

On the night of the accident (9th August, 1981), the Flight Service Officer even asked the pilot if he wanted to try and get direct tracking over Williamtown. The Pilot agreed, however was quickly told there would be a delay. Imagine holding out there over the mountains in turbulent winds, waiting for however long it would take for the flight details to be sent to Williamtown and for the controller to provide the clearance – it was CAVOK at Willi at the time.

The controller had just provided a clearance for AZC, a C206 at 8000, the same level as MDX was requesting, and MDX was closing on him. He was offered 7000 or 9000, but declined it. The delay was only a few minutes, and wouldn't require much holding. Any holding that MDX was required to do would have been over the posistion that he was in at the moment, at 8000ft on a line roughly TAREE-NABIAC, practically over the ocean, where conditions were CAVOK and relativly smooth. There was a westerly wind blowing, but well outside of the range of the mountain induced turbulance. The place he finally elected to take up his original planned route was roughly over Nabiac. The decision to take up the original planned track was solely the choice of the PIC. The arguement about risk of SE flight at night or in IMC is for another place! We suspect that he was unaware at this point that his vac pump had failed (or was very nearly about to fail).

Also, remember in those days - and what’s not in the BASI Report is that the Pilot never, ever spoke to a radar controller - it was all going second and third-hand to the Flight Service Officer.

Whilst this may be factually correct, it did not contribute to the situation, and communications between Sector 1, FIS 5 and Williamtown Tower were communicated effectivly and promptly. The controller at Williamtown was operating inside the framework and left and right of arcs as dictated to him by policy at the time.

Hopefully we can bring this to a conclusion soon. If you want to discuss it with me at all, feel free to PM me!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I blame the situation on the military airspace at Williamtown, which is situated right in the centre of one of the busiest air routes in the world.Perhaps a contributing factor - but I blame poor risk management and decision making by the PIC!

Dr :8

[Dick Smith]

Yes. But if it had been kept simple with a prompt clearance through Williamtown which was CAVOK they might all be alive today.

[Dick Smith]

RatsoreA

At the present time I am looking at the transcript of the communications and I cannot see at any stage that the MDX pilot was offered 7,000 or 9,000 feet and declined this. In fact, my transcript shows that at 18:53-47 he was told by Sydney Flight Service that the airspace at a high level in Williamtown was non-VMC. He then came back and said,

“I’d prefer to go coastal”.

He was then told to remain outside controlled airspace with the flight service officer saying,

“I will advise clearance as soon as possible”.

At 18:54-39 he then said,

“MDX, well, ah, we’re coming up to it pretty shortly”.

Sydney FSU said,

“Roger, remain outside controlled airspace while attempting to gain airways clearance”.

Then at 18:55-33 the pilot said to Sydney flight service,

“MDX, rather than wait for clearance we’ll go via Craven. Thank you.”

RatsoreA, it is pretty clear to me that the pilot thought he would probably have considerable holding, which is normal at Williamtown, and he didn’t want to do that over tiger country in pitch darkness at night. He possibly had good lights ahead of Williamtown and Newcastle, but pitch black behind him which he would have to turn into if he was going to hold.

Most importantly, I reckon the fact that the pilot was not able to talk directly to a radar controller did contribute to the accident. That was because when the pilot turned away from the correct heading, the flight service officer didn’t tell him because the FSO did not know!

I find it fascinating that BASI made no recommendation about using the radar more effectively.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Yes. But if it had been kept simple with a prompt clearance through Williamtown which was CAVOK they might all be alive today. That's just speculation Dick. May have made it easier to find the wreck.

I think the holes in the Swiss cheese were already starting to line up for that flight when it departed Cooly.

The PIC could also have declared an emergency and gone anywhere he liked!

Dr :8

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

I strongly suspect that you are not in possesion of all the information or the FULL transcript. I am. I have also interviewed personally, at length both the FIS 5 FSO and the Williamtown controller.

The delay between MDX being offered to track via WLMTN is 5 minutes and 29 seconds, 08:50:31 (offered to track over WLTM) to 08:56.00 (turning to Craven).

During that time, there was near constant communications between FIS 5, Sector 1, and Williamtown, to get clearance through the Williamtown zone.

Betwen 08:52.22 and 08:53.00, Williamtown controller said to FIS 5 that 7 or 9 was available. It then went to Sector 1, who informed them that their sector was non-VMC.

I would hardly call the area SWS of Taree 'Tiger country', which it the area he would have had to hold in. Out to the west, over the Tops, certainly. But the area he would be required to hold in, and only for another 30-40 seconds, is quite ok.

Most importantly, I reckon the fact that the pilot was not able to talk directly to a radar controller did contribute to the accident. That was because when the pilot turned away from the correct heading, the flight service officer didn’t tell him because the FSO did not know!

MDX was not under radar control, and was outside the area of responsibility of Sector 1 and 2. He was essentially "OCTA" in that area. Also, the Williamtown Radar only operated out to 48nm.

As I said, I suspect that you are operating under not having all the information regarding this. If you like, PM me, and I will share with you everything. It will very much open your eyes about MDX!

[Creampuff]

… the Williamtown Radar only operated out to 48nm.What do you mean by that?

Do you mean the maximum range of the radar was 48nm?

Or do you mean the Radar controller’s range of responsibility in the sky ended at 48nm?

It’s the difference between not being on radar at all on the one hand, and being on radar but not within the radar controller’s area of responsibility on the other.

[RatsoreA]

Creampuff -

Do you mean the maximum range of the radar was 48nm?

That!

This -

Or do you mean the Radar controller’s range of responsibility in the sky ended at 48nm?

Was much smaller! In fact, the operator on that night was not yet qualified to rely on radar for separation. He knew how to use, and could use it to assist his situational awareness, but, he was only 'qualified' to use procedural separation for aircraft in his airspace.

[Creampuff]

And do you believe that the maximum range of the radar was 48nm?

If so, I have some very cheap shares in the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.

[RatsoreA]

Creampuff,

Yes, I do believe, as it is a verifiable fact. You you like me to send you the information about it?

[Creampuff]

No need to send me any information. I know the answer, from first-hand experience. ;)

[RatsoreA]

Judging from your posts about Brooklyn bridge, I would suggest that you don't.

[Creampuff]

We may be talking at cross-purposes. To which radar installation at Williamtown, precisely, are you referring?

Have you served any time in the RAAF?

[RatsoreA]

I am specifically referring to the SURAD, that was installed there and was operating in Aug '81. The PPI (Plan position indicator) that the controller had access to, was centred on Williamtown airport, and the outer edge of the PPI was 48nm. The MTI (moving target indicator, for those of you playing along at home, like a filter for clutter) was set at 44nm. There were range rings at every 10nm on the PPI, and a compass rose set around the outside edge. There were permanently displayed 'echoes' between 44 and 48nm that were the Barrington Tops.

There were other radars at Williamtown (and still are) but the only one being used for ATC duties, or even manned, on that night was the one I just described above. Would you like me to send a picture?

As for the last part of your post, you'll have to PM me.

[Creampuff]

No need for a picture: I know precisely what you’re talking about. ;)

[thorn bird]

Inclined to agree with Dick regarding military airspace, I never could understand, in a modern day and age of the cruise missile, the strategic sense of having the means of defense parked right next to the means of supply.
On the odd occasion, when they have enough money, or the mood takes them, RAAF willy have been known to put an aircraft into the air thus blocking nearly all the airspace between Willy and Dubbo in the low to mid FL's to civilian traffic.
I guess it never affected the Rat or other airlines to any extent at high levels, but of course GA at mid levels, well they are just the dregs of the industry, not worthy of consideration.
I've come out of Armidale bound for Wagga in a metro, fifteen in the back, very wide eyed, stuck at 7000 ft in the most appalling weather ( One of those days when you scope the radar and go OH sh..T and turn it off) and had to endure the pounding, severe ice, etc. all the way to Mudgee before I could get a climb, because RAAF Willy had a hard on and an F16 practicing steep turns or whatever, over Singleton. Had to do it a few times in a Citation as well.
Always wondered Dick just how many tails are sticking out of the trees on the Barrington's? bet there's more than officially recognized.

[RatsoreA]

Thorny,

I actually agree with the problems getting through Mil airspace. I go back and forth from Sydney and Brisbane, and I get tired of spending the extra fuel to go and see scone from the air! Evans head particularly sh$ts me!!!

But it's not the controllers fault, they are operating inside the rules and framework that is set for them.

And there is quite a few planes in trees! Off the top of my head, there's a skipper, a macchi, a mirage, a Hudson, and Mdx! By no means an exhaustive list, it's been a long week and it's beer o'clock!

[thorn bird]

Rats, I agree it aint the controllers, its the system. This Cr..P does not occur overseas, Australia is still living in a Second world war time warp.....no a first world war time warp!!!

[sms777]

Can someone explain my predicament here?
We have two disapperance here. VH-MDX and recently MH-370. One gone missing over land(?) over 30 years ago the other only a few months ago over water(?). I would have thought with todays digital technology we could find and aeroplane buried in the mountains with no problems since we can read a newspaper on the ground from outer space (according to NASA). so is it the costs that prevents a powerful satellite to scan the Barrington tops or is it conspiracy all over again?

[RatsoreA]

I'm sure satellites can see many things from space, but I doubt they can see something as small as bits of a C210, through a triple canopy rainforest in a deep, dark valley!

Believe me, we've tried every bit of tech to try and find it...

[Hempy]

I find it fascinating that BASI made no recommendation about using the radar more effectively.

Whist I find using the tragic fate of MDX as some form of spurious* link to a current day personal agenda repugnant, I don't find it unexpected.

* The events that occurred the night MDX disappeared could not transpire the same way today, so claiming it as a reason to have something done about Williamtown airspace is disingenuous. Civil airspace is now ALL (A, C, E, G) under a TAAATS 'service' - including a SIS to even VFR aircraft (as well as Safety Alerts) in Class G and E inside radar coverage. IFR aircraft receive a full FIS including MSA alerting. Not to mention duty of care. Communications with Williamtown are more streamlined. It goes on.

You need to take your issues with the management of Williamtown airspace up with the Royal Australian Air Force...

[Dick Smith]

Hempy. Done that over a 30 year period. Got nowhere

How many more deaths before the RAAF share their airspace like the military in other countries do.

Don't hold your breath.

[Hempy]

How many more deaths before the RAAF share their airspace like the military in other countries do.

How many deaths have there been in total? Even allowing for an incident 30 years ago (which we've already ascertained would transpire much differently in 2014), how many more civilians have been killed by the restrictive management of RAAF Williamtown airspace?

I don't have any problem with your agenda, honestly, I just think that if you are going to use an emotive argument to garner support you really need to back it up with relevant facts. The crash of MDX is NOT relevant to your argument in 2014. Fact.

Without stats mate, like I said, it all just reads as a little unsavory..

[p.j.m]

How many more deaths before the RAAF share their airspace like the military in other countries do.

Why should they? Civilian aircraft should stay well away from military airspace, especially given that neither the military or small civilian aircraft rarely transmit identifying or location details via ADS-B, which would help them avoid each other.

[Neville Nobody]

PJM
"Why should they? Civilian aircraft should stay well away from military airspace, especially given that neither the military or small civilian aircraft rarely transmit identifying or location details via ADS-B, which would help them avoid each other."
Most of the time there are no military aircraft flying in military areas.

[BEACH KING]

You need to take your issues with the management of Williamtown airspace up with the Royal Australian Air Force...

I don't know about the RAAF, but the army at YBOK have certainly showed some common sense. They have recently (on Thursday) squared-off the control area to the south, effectively allowing transit from YTWB to the west OCTA. Not sure if this is due to the new Wellcamp airport or not, but certainly is a step foward

[Howabout]

Well, well, who's not surprised by yet another pitch based on half-truths and 'expert' speculation to put the boot into the military once again? I'm sure that Channel 7, that paragon of objective reporting, wouldn't be swayed by sensationalism. No way! After all, its audience primarily consists of people that have never read a hard-cover book and hang on every development in the lives of the Kardashians. Can they be swayed by BS? Not a chance! Disappointing, though, that those that should have some discernment on this forum, when it comes to fact, present as a bunch of chooks at feeding time.

Read posts #4 and #9 from the Dr. The PIC has ultimate responsibility for the safety of flight. If the situation was dire, the declaration of an emergency, which never occurred, was mandatory.

The unending sniping to progress the never-ending agenda never surprises.

[Aussie Bob]

While all you have written is probably true Howabout, the simple fact remains:

It can be inordinately hard to get a simple clearance through Williamstown sometimes, I don't know why, I am not privy to the military traffic but the general impression I get is they don't give a toss.
Even the coastal lane can be sometimes be a tad difficult to get a clearance through.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The big difference between Australia and any other western country is the sheer extent of military controlled and restricted airspace in Australia, particularly given our miniscule military aviation.

If military airspace was designed and operated as it is in US, Canada or throughout UK/NATO, the problem would largely go away.

Using the US example in particular (they having the most military and civilian aircraft, and aviation activity, of any western nation), if Australia operated to the US standards, civilian complaints would cease, and very considerable economic benefits would accrue, both to military and civilian sectors. If we managed to step up our standards, to produce air safety outcomes that at least equaled the US record, that would be a bonus.

The Sydney basin would be transformed, if the Richmond zone was the same size as a NATO (or even better US) military airfield control zone.

The Australian military policy has always been: 'We won WW11, it all belongs to us".

Tootle pip!!

[Hempy]

All well and good..

WTF does it have to do with MDX??

[Aussie Bob]

WTF does it have to do with MDX??

Re-read #1

[Howabout]

AB, thanks for the considered reply.

There are two distinct issues here. The first is access to airspace, which should always be the aim. The second is sectional interests that cynically blame the military for loss of life to push the barrow regarding the first issue.

From my perspective, the underlying thrust of this thread, from its origination, is that the military caused deaths.

That's a reprehensible proposition that is brought up time and again to support a self-interested agenda. Just my opinion.

I'll watch the program, but I view the inevitable half-truths and the spin as the usual vested interests doing what they do best. I wonder who's going to be the front-man in this charade.

[Howard Hughes]

Well said Howabout and Leadsled!:ok:

[Aussie Bob]

I'll watch the program, but I view the inevitable half-truths and the spin as the usual vested interests doing what they do best. I wonder who's going to be the front-man in this charade.

Me too, but given it is commercial television, I can't help but think "charade" will be the correct term. Hopefully I stand corrected.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout , I just want to get the problem fixed.

I tried for 30 years to get the RAAF to use proven overseas procedures in our airspace to improve safety.

I have failed to get any measurable change.

I have offered to pay for RAAF personel to go overseas to see just how other modern countries share airspace. No luck.

The pilot of MDX said he would like a clearance coastal for obvious reasons.

It was only after he was about to die that he was told to track towards Willy.

You and your mates can cover the truth as much as you like and blame me!

You will not like what I say on the show. I hope it helps bring in change so this accident is not repeated.

[Aussie Bob]

Let's look at a VFR trip I have done often, originating near Wilsons Prom and ending at Tyagarah (Byron Bay).

First there is Sale where clearance is sometimes given at 500' up the beach despite arriving at the boundary closer to 4000.

Next comes Nowra where I have to follow a dogleg route in a narrow corridor for no good reason.

Next comes Williamstown where I may have to hold at Nobby's head then follow a beach (again) or if I have no transponder, follow a low level VFR route along a railway line.

Not long after this comes Evans Head airspace, which if active means no clearance at all, regardless of weather.

All for a tiny airforce with few aircraft airborne but with an ego that beats USA hands down.

Dick, I reckon I might just like what you say on the show.

[Dick Smith]

Ratsore. Re post 3

In the situation which exists in other countries the Willy controller equivalent would have had the flight plan details and advised the pilot to expect clearance at a certain level.

Even today the Willy controller gets no details on the plan. I believe our military controllers are as good as any in the world however they are constrained by out of date rules and airspace .

If this doesn't change there is clearly a likely hood of further fatalities in the future

I don't want to say. " I told you so" I want my country to be as good as other countries I have flown in when it comes to modern safe procedures.

[Howabout]

That's the problem with debating you Dick.

Your implication, less than rational, is that I 'blame' you for an accident that you had nothing to do with. I stretch my head as to how you could come to such a conclusion.

Where, oh where, did I make the allegation that you are to blame?

No; from my perspective, you run loose with the truth to pursue a personal agenda. That's my central issue - speculation and unsubstantiated accusations unsupported by fact to make an unsustainable argument.

'Me and my mates covering the truth?' That's a pretty serious accusation, Dick. Particularly since they weren't 'my mates.' 'Cover up?' Spare me!

You are on line now and will remain so for the duration of the program, and for some time afterwards, to check the responses. I suppose ego has something to do with that.

I'd ask, in anticipation, how many of your accusations about the military are supported by fact rather than speculation, opinion and baseless innuendo. Let's see.

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

I actually support your notion that traversing Mil airspace is difficult, and it needs to be changed.

What I don't support is your distortion of the facts of the case. At no point was clearance denied, in fact, 3 separate people were working to obtain clearance as quickly as possible. He just didn't wait. It would have been the wait of one or two orbits, while they organised what height, 7 or 9. FIS5 was coming back to him to ask him what height he would like to go, when he said he resuming his originally planned track.

The willy controller was not given details of the plan beforehand, because the PIC lodged a plan that took him around that airspace, and would not go through it. If I'm going northwest out of Sydney to Tamworth, I'm pretty sure they don't send my plan details to Coffs Harbour...

Yes, it is a pain in the a$$ going through the various mil airspaces around the east coast, and yes, the system needs to change, but the only person that could have changed this particular occourance, was the PIC of MDX.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Back in 80/81, according to a guy I shared an engineering course with in Brisbane, Willie was one hectic place when the Mirages were tearing around the place. Owing to their short duration , multiple sorties per day were the go. Granted this was of an evening but the era must be taken in context before bashing the modern system.

When I was in cadets in the 70s and EVERY time we were billeted at RAAF AMB, that place was full on from first light till after dark. Either F111s or Canberras or the milk run C130s...not to mention the Iroquios and Chinooks.

......context! The RAAF was pretty busy back then.

[Creampuff]

Yes, it is a pain in the a$$ going through the various mil airspaces around the east coast, and yes, the system needs to change, but the only person that could have changed this particular occourance, was the PIC of MDX.Fact + fact = utter nonsense.

The only first world country of which I know in which that can occur is Australia.

No criticism of the individuals. They are merely cogs in a machine that's designed and run by politicians.

Rat: Check your PMs.

Edited to add: Yes OBD, "when" they were flying...

[p.j.m]

You will not like what I say on the show. I hope it helps bring in change so this accident is not repeated.

Yeah, so the selfish, big headed, self centred business men with their own Cessna or Chopper can fly where ever they like when ever they like, and to hell with any regard for military conventions or requirements eh Dick.

Let those F35's etc look out for, and be delayed by the selfish small aircraft operator, instead of being able to be scrambled etc whenever is required.

[RatsoreA]

I haven't said anything that isn't factual. I regularly run up and down the coast in my PA34, and from my point of view, it is a pain in the a$$ going through Newcastle. I get denied roughly 50% of the time and have to go over Scone.

And being very familiar with MDX, (not trying to big note myself, but more familiar than most) but the PIC made the choice not to wait. Clearance was forthcoming, and for want of 2-3 minutes, he chose the path he did.

Yes, I did check my PMs, and I'll get to it...

[Dick Smith]

Ratsore. You don't seam to understand. He was prohibited from submitting a flight plan over Willy. Full stop.

And nothing has changed in over 30 years.

So naturally the Willy controller can't plan for an aircraft he or she knows nothing about.

I have flown a few times around the world and only in Australia have I heard the words. " remain outside controlled airspace".

In the current ERSA it still states that a pilot must not plan over Willy if the airspace is active. This is outrageous . Often the airspace is active but no military aircraft are flying.

I am committed to getting this fixed before more lives are lost.

I don't blame the military controllers - I made this clear in the interview- I blame those who have the responsibility to introduce modern and safe procedures - and don't .

Yes it's easier to say nothing.

[Creampuff]

So true, pjm.

When those F35s turn up they will be so important and delicate that there should be a 100nm exclusion zone around anywhere they might be.

That'll fool the bad guys. :ok:

[Hempy]

Howabout, don't bother wasting your energy. He can bleat to the masses and use a tragic accident to try and 'sway public opinion'. One would hope though that anyone familiar with the facts, both from an airspace management and command decision perspective, would see through this morally bankrupt fallacious argument and give it all the attention it deserves. One would hope decision makers would fit into this category.
You've just stumbled to a new low Dick. Accept the fact that your days of influence are over gracefully, please, have some shard of common decency and leave the dead alone. .

[VH-XXX]

I apologize for not reading the report, however was the flight private or chartered? The Channel 7 reporter used the word "charter."

[Arm out the window]

That TV propaganda is cynical self-seeking rubbish, Dick.

You've got a nerve saying the RAAF sent those people to their deaths, when clearly the choice to get airborne for a night flight with dodgy gyro instruments and then, rather than hold (described by you on air as being forced into bad weather, when as we all know it simply means hold!), the pilot in command decides to track over tiger country in a lightie in conditions conducive to icing, with those same U/S instruments, and in the process kills himself and his pax.

Push your airspace reform barrow by all means, but don't stoop to ridiculous spin, crocodile tears and emotional manipulation in the process.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Bit too dramatic. Looking at this dispassionately. Dick, you got it right with your comment about the Coolie departure. Gyros questionable and flying into deteriorating weather...at night.

For my thoughts, everything after this point was avoidable.

[Dangly Bits]

3 things:

1. Was it a NVFR Charter in a single engine?

2. Did the PIC have trouble prior to dep at Cooly with the Gyros?

3. Was that the Michael Hart who was the CASA ICC?

[Dick Smith]

Arm. The military controller was trying to sort out a clearance for the pilot of MDX .

However he had no details on the flight because it was not possible to put in a flight plan over Willy

That ridiculous rule remains today.

It was CAVOK at Williamtown.

This restriction should be removed . Everyone should support this if they don't want a repeat of the accident.

[RatsoreA]

:ugh:

Dick,

I am deeply disappointed.

To say that the RAAF sent those men to their deaths is disrespectful and demonstrably false.

[Turkeyslapper]

I flew down a route similar a decade or so ago in a gutless cutless and found myself getting bounced around in pretty ordinary turbulence over rough terrain - I informed Willy of my level of discomfort and my desire to get down the coast in more desirable conditions and they could not have been more helpful.


Agree with the above comments ref "blaming" the RAAF - pretty long bow to draw! Perhaps if this gent had communicated his issues a bit earlier I am sure he would of received his desired clearance! Tragedy none the less and hopefully they can locate the wreckage one day.


Cheers

[Arm out the window]

Fair enough, unnecessary restrictions should be scrutinised and removed where possible, I have no heartache with that.

I just don't think it's right to put such blatant spin on a story to get publicity for your cause - it can't do your credibility any good at all, and for me personally at least, makes me less likely to want to support you.

Maybe it's the way of the world now to do this media hype thing, but does it do you any good results-wise?

[Hempy]

I apologize for not reading the report, however was the flight private or chartered? The Channel 7 reporter used the word "charter."

Yeah, wouldn't be trusting their journalistic integrity tbh..

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/09C38596-8676-4019-917E-E462DD7F47ED_zpsax3hitcb.jpg

[Wally Mk2]

I find this whole event so sad, so unnecessary & yet after all these years we have leanrt nothing & professional people here right amongst these pages throwing rocks at each other as if it was a school ground to see whom has the biggest rock !
5 people lost their lives that awful night due a chain of events, no one single reason. Sure they would probably still be alive today had the pilot made a decision not to continue with suspect instruments but doing so was going to be a hassle at Cooly, the peer pressure made that decision for him & as most know 'push-on-itus' is very strong even on the ground. Sure the Willy controllers could have given the guy instant clearance to go coastal reducing the risks considerably but due some rather archaic & perhaps by world standards over the top rules clearance was not instantly possible & lastly the weather should have been a huge indicator that such a flight inland at night in an unpressurized single was of a high risk nature, that risk solely rested upon the PIC.

Lets all pray for closure so the families can put to rest once & for all the utter waste of life & the forever bickering that goes on.
We can't bring them back man has always leanrt from their mistakes the hard way but we can place upon their headstones someday ........"here lies 5 men whom paved the way for others so they can be kept from harms way"


Wmk2

[Dick Smith]

If the pilot had been permitted to file a flight plan coastal and if he had been given a clearance overhead willy- which was CAVOK - the accident very likely would not have happened.

There were no military aircraft flying at the time .

Could happen again this winter.

I find that military controllers want to facilitate traffic .

However if the law says you can't file a plan over William town if the airspace is active it means the controller can't pre plan the aircraft- so there very likely will be a delay.

[Modesetter]

Excellent info on the show Dick, a lot of raw emotions all round.

[Dick Smith]

Wally. Good post.

But why not facilitate aircraft down the coast over Williamtown?

Doesn't anyone agree that would be a good idea?

[Flava Saver]

Dick, as an airline pilot the fact I see that I'm doing a NTL sector on my roster infuriates me. Maybe it's not the controllers personally, but the procedures they have to abide by, but I absolutely loathe going in and out of there. It's a complete circus, even on a CAVOK day.

I personally don't think you have sensationalised the MDX story at all. I know you are driving change, and I hope we get this, but more importantly find the wreckage.

[Hempy]

YES DICK, WE PROBABLY ALL DO!!!

No one is disrespecting your arguments, just your seedy methods.

[Dick Smith]

Hempy. I have attempted for over two decades to get this changed .

I have sat on committees with the heads of everything including the Air force all to no avail.

I have written over 20 letters.

We will see what happens this time.

Hope we don't have to have another similar accident before Williamtown is shared fairly with civilian traffic.

And Craven - you try listening to a fellow pilot about to die and remain un emotional.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, pre-planning makes very little difference. The controller doesn't sit there waiting for you to call at the nominated time with a corridor of reserved airspace for you. You may or may not turn up after all. All it means is they have your details to hand a little quicker. Calling a few minutes earlier than required is always a good idea.

[Wally Mk2]

I personally don't find Dicks comments seedy at all. Lets face it we all get emotional at times no one is immune from that human trait & I wouldn't for one second begin to know the depth of this story that Dick has or his aviation experience but that's not what this should be all about guys/gals, this Ch7 'show' hopefully will bring more awareness about this unsolved mystery & that can only be a good thing despite some peoples efforts to drag this sad event down to gutter level & become a slanging match!!


Wmk2

[peterc005]

I missed the show, what was the "new evidence"?

[Flava Saver]

...furthermore, any pilot with any bit of decency, to criticise any other aviator for getting emotional over someone's death is quite remarkable. 30 hours, 30 months, 30 odd years after an accident..who gives a ****. I must of missed that bit during my training many years ago when you have to become a robot after hearing another fellow aviator in distress on a voice recording of an accident. Truly astounding. :ugh:

[Howard Hughes]

I'm all for opening up military airspace as they do in other parts of the World. But even with a flight plan in place you may still be subject to routing change and significant holding depending on operational requirements.

As far as this accident is concerned there were many chances to stop the chain of events long before they got anywhere near Williamtown, sadly the rest is now history.

PS: Great post Wally! :ok:

[roundsounds]

How about all parties responsible (CASA, ASA, RAAF, AOC holders with regular operations in that airspace) run a risk assessment through their respective Safety Management Systems? It would be interesting to see the outcomes.

[frab]

Dick, in the program and in your post you stated ... "it was not possible to put in a flight plan over Willy. That ridiculous rule remains today."
Can you please state the reference for that claim?
The 29 May 2014 ERSA at the bottom of page 689 and over the page describes the "Overhead route: Hexham Bridge-Williamtown AD-Soldiers Point-Broughton Island" so where does it say you can't flight plan this route? In fact, on page 688 note 1 states "VFR ACFT should submit FPL to reduce delays in ACFT processing".

[roundsounds]

Frab, maybe Dick is referring to ERSA GEN FPR 1?

[Howard Hughes]

Aircraft had a flight plan in the system (we all did back then), also he gave a position report in the audio. You seemed to have lots of information on the accident at your disposal Mr Smith, what was the original planned route?

PS: Not much good to refer to an ERSA issued in 2014, need to be working with the information available at the time. Anyone got an old VFG?

[RatsoreA]

Howard,

The original planned route was (from Taree), Taree, Craven, Singleton, Mquoid, YSBK.

[Wally Mk2]

'frab' that may very well be the case (ERSA route planning) but the key words there.........."VFR aircraft should submit FPL to reduce delays in aircraft processing", is the catalyst for this part of the conversation, that 'processing' could also apply to the control zone boundary meaning a delay & that is where we are pretty much right now amongst these discussions, the delay the PIC had which ultimately made him take the more dangerous route.
The pilot obviously didn't know how long a clearance would take to obtain & considering that he was now loaded up with lots of challenges he didn't have the luxury of chatting over it here like we are in the comfort of our arm chairs, he made a decision right or wrong, that's what PIC's do.
I hope a lot of youngsters & low experienced drivers are learning stuff here & if it saves just one life (which we will never know) then all this might just be worth it!



Wmk2

[Dick Smith]

Even today the flight planning requirements first page says you can't file Coffs - Willy when Willy is active.

And the reason I talk about present day requirements is that my interest is in preventing present day accidents!

[Hempy]

PS: Not much good to refer to an ERSA issued in 2014, need to be working with the information available at the time. Anyone got an old VFG?

Sorry, aren't we talking about the current day Williamtown issues? 2014? This is my whole point. What way is 1981 relevant??

Procedures are different.
Area is now provided with a radar service.
ATS inter-unit Comms are more streamlined, and VHF better.

So, if this happened in 2014 what would change?

Even assuming clearance was denied and a poor command choice was made, SSR coverage in the area would have provided the pilot with safe navigation advice if required, and in the event of a crash following pilot incapacitation etc, a better SAR response.

The civil system has overcome the failings that let down MDX. I would suggest thousands of pilots have been denied a clearance through Willi over the years. How many have died?

[Howard Hughes]

Thanks Ratsore! :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Can see this argument isn't going to end nicely....cya

[Simpleboy]

Blaming the RAAF for the tragic accident is clearly drawing a very long bow.


From what I have read and listened to, the RAAF did not deny access to the airspace, just asked the PIC to hold OCTA while they sorted it out.
Now, there is nothing inherently dangerous in that instruction and any pilot should expect such a response if they are OCTA and requesting a change in flight plan to enter controlled airspace, military or otherwise. It is simply normal procedure under these circumstances.


The holding requirement may be a minor contributing factor, but the requirement was not unexpected or unsafe.


The PIC decided to immediately continue into storms, IMC (was he operating night VMC or IFR?), at night, over hostile terrain and with no horizon, in a single engine aircraft, rather than
a. hold in VMC, or
b. return to Coffs, or
c. declare an emergency.


I agree with another contributor that said it was caused by poor decision making and risk management on behalf of the PIC.


It was compounded by the failure of the instruments. Either the aircraft instruments were not airworthy (hardly the fault of the RAAF) or they were working and the pilot was disoriented and did not believe what he was seeing.


Poor decision making by the PIC and (potentially) unserviceable equipment, essential for night flying, caused this accident. There were numerous contributing factors, of which flight into controlled airspace was but one.

[Hempy]

Can see this argument isn't going to end nicely....cya

I'm out so don't leave on my regard.

Dick. I wish you all the best in shaking up the powers that be. I even understand why you are taking this approach to push it. I just can't morally agree.

[VH-XXX]

I can't understand why anyone would argue about this. East Sale play nicely with VFR transits and it would be great if Willy would too.

As pilots we should all be writing letters, not arguing about it.

I'd like to see it opened for RAA traffic too so as to reduce the transit of tiger country for VFR lighties.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

In the situation which exists in other countries the Willy controller equivalent would have had the flight plan details and advised the pilot to expect clearance at a certain level.

Even today the Willy controller gets no details on the plan.....

How much detail is required for an ad-hoc clearance ffs? I was in FS back in the day and rego, type, route & level requested were all that was needed to initiate a clearance with ATC if they had no details. It wasn't that hard.

He at least had the option of being full reporting. You got rid of that too Dick.

[flying-spike]

I am not for one minute critical of the pilot or attacking his integrity. The poor guys is dead as are his passengers and who knows what pressures he was under to complete the flight. I am merely trying to point out that there were several factors leading to this tragedy.
If the story tonight is to be believed the the flight was a Charter flight that appears to have been planned as private (previous post of an extract of the report). It was planned night VFR. So for starters illegal on a couple of grounds.
Hearsay evidence that the aircraft was experiencing technical issues on arrival at OOL let alone on departure. Also pushing onto forecast poor weather. He apparently looked tired on arrival at OOL, no wonder his decision making was impaired, exactly the time to recognize the issues and re assess the situation. He would no -doubt have had to wait til the next day for repairs so that is another factor.
It is oversimplifying the situation to blame, and Dick does use the word, RAAF ATC as the cause of the tragedy.
Yes it would be nice to transit Willamtown or another Defence airspace at will but if the other issues were addressed and they spent the night at OOL it may have been a whole different outcome.
Lets not let these 6 deaths be in vain and recognize the lessons to be learned in stead of being dragged down the blame path to feed an "expert'" agenda.

[Skyfox671]

I have to ask a question? why was a single preforming a charter
that a look at the BOM breifing, which in the early 80's were vastly
different products granted, had the potential to become IFR

Was the rule different then as it was 8 years before I had my first licence,
but Night Charter/Commercial Operations are not permitted for single engine
aircraft (Standfast PC12) because of the lack of fall back systems.

Having flown the Centruion II on a number of occasions, are designed for operating IFR, but when the electrics start to fail, which was mentioned on the show, Why was the flight not stopped.

Potential Bad WX down Track. Instrument doubt, Electrical issues. They say it takes 5 things to contribute to an accident. MDX had three, possibly 4 with Push on Itis/PIC Fatiuge.

It is fine to give the RAAF a hard time, and at times they can be difficult, probably like the times you have been required to hold your self? but
I have to ask questions about the operation it self. Now if it was legal to preform a CHTR single engine at night/IFR then that is fine, Also I accept
the media may have gotten the termonology wrong ie if it was just a private operation then I guess it falls in to a different category.

But I would never offer a CHTR Service, to anyone, Single engine, NVFR or
N IFR in a 210. I have to confess, I would rather declair a PAN and just bust the airspace, get the 225, and be alive to receive the summons whilst breathing, than be stuck on a hill/moutian. It sounds like the night mare scenario of CFIT and Instrument failure/Electrical system failure. Also there was a problem with the electrical system, you can hear it on the AM transmissions.

[Skyfox671]

Your point is very valid, I have sent a post a few minutes ago echo'ing
your sentament. I dont know if the rules were different then, as I got my
first Licence in 88' so the rules were probably different in 81.

Single at night VFR Bad WX failing systems. very tragic,
Particularly the last few radio calls. I can only imagine what he was thinking
with the radio call below 5000 when he was told the LSALT was 5500. One call you never want to hear.

[CWO Geoff]

This programme and Dick Smith's performance were both worthy of an Oscar for [fictional] content and comment. So much missed out. So many inaccuracies. What humbug to lay the blame with the RAAF when it was clearly the pilot who was at fault.


Just what/where did the actions of the RAAF Controller at WLM contribute to this accident. From my years as a private pilot and RAAF Air Traffic Controller this programme has clearly shown me just how media can be manipulated. I served at WLM ATC 1982-3 and I base my comments on what I recall from those days.


Shame on you Dick for blaming the RAAF when as far as I'm concerned it was Pilot Error, possibly aided by mechanical failure. From my time in RAAF ATC we always tried to assist civilian aircraft if at all possible.


On a Sunday night I very much doubt that all the WLM R areas were active. After Base working hours, I remember releasing as much airspace as possible as soon as possible unless we had an inbound IFR flight when we would retain the CTR for positive control. The WLM CTR only extended to 12nm in the northern sectors. TRE is about 60nm to the N of WLM. Controlled airspace beyond 12nm N of WLM commenced at FL125 and belonged to WLM only when R580A was active and from ground level to FL125 when R578B was active. When those areas were not active they were released to FS5 and Sector 1.


One has to ask the following questions...
1. Why did the pilot fly with unserviceable instruments?
2. Why did he push on when the weather forecasts AND conditions showed that there would be problems maintaining NVMC?
3. Why didn't he land at TRE?
4. Why didn't he plan COT in light of the weather forecast?
5. The pilot chose to go via CRV when he should have persevered with tracking via the coast.
6. Looking through the transcript I note that MDX was radar identified at time 28, position 36nm N of SGT on the MSO to SGT track - something wrong here if MDX reported CRV at 18, especially with such a strong westerly blowing!
7. With all those instruments u/s, just how did he manage to fix his position at CRV?


There are more questions that I could pose, but such a strong condemnation on the RAAF by Dick is, in my opinion, most certainly misplaced. To me it sounds as though the whole flight was an accident just waiting to happen.

[500N]

Dick

You said earlier
" I have sat on committees with the heads of everything including the Air force all to no avail."

What was the reason they gave for no change occurring ?

Secondly, with the rotation of staff, over a 30 year period that is some change in staff yet you haven't been able to get a change yet others have said that Sale and other military areas are much more accommodating.

Has anyone asked directly what is so Williamtown specific that doesn't allow flexibility on the part of this location compared to others as posted in this thread ?

[Ascend Charlie]

Having watched the show last night, I am more convinced that the problem lay with the pilot and not Willy ATC. There were plenty of indicators that told him that things weren't all they should be, and a pilot ALWAYS has the option of just doing what he feels is necessary and worry about the 225 later.

He said he could see the lights on the coast, but launched into the gloop just to avoid waiting for a clearance - "an orbit would have taken him back into the bad weather" shows that he thought he was only 3nm from the bad stuff anyway, so why push on?

TELL the traffickers what you are going to do, don't just ask them.

Sure, Dick want the mil airspace to be more available, but (and I am a supporter of Mr Smith) this was an emotive and not so correct way of doing it.

[flying-spike]

Thankfully I won't have time to time to watch Channel 7 this morning to see "Aviation Expert" Dick Smith proffering himself to point the blame at RAAF ATC.
Unless I am seriously wrong that is what will happen. Good thing he only got his paws on what is now CASA and not BASI as he would have set that back 100years. Lets trot Geoff Thomas as well. He can practice his serious and concerned expert look while Dick mops up the tears. What a waste of time and senseless stirriing of the emotions for the still grieving families. Just use your resources to find the wreckage and give them some peace.

[004wercras]

Maybe Dick and aviation non-expert G.Thomas can hire a SIM and reenact the event, together?

[kingRB]

A shame this publicity had to be about this and not more centered around actually finding MDX, which is really all those that are still involved with the case want to see resolved. I suppose Channel 7's program wouldn't have even bothered giving this story a go if they didn't have Dick's spin story trying to make waves out of nothing.

I'd say most of the families who lost people to this accident are probably looking at Mr. Smith at the moment wondering what the hell he is even going on about.

Here's hoping part 2 next week looks more closely at the efforts ongoing in trying to find MDX and no more of this sensationalized rubbish from Dick.

[kingRB]

posted on behalf of RatsoreA,

MDX's original flight plan for those interested:

http://users.adam.com.au/rb4door/AA/aviation/201.jpg


https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuczr3ic4pmfw5z/201.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vuczr3ic4pmfw5z/201.jpg

[tric1960]

I find it disgusting that someone uses such an emotional approach and attempts to blame the RAAF controllers for the deaths of these men so they can fly their toys down the coast with less hassle.
Of course, to the ice cream licking public who don't know prop wash doesn't come in 1L bottles, this is quite the revelation and Dick will have uncovered quite the conspiracy. The real truth is bad decisions by the PIC.
Blaming the delay by the RAAF controllers is akin to an accident you have on the road because of an earlier red light holding you up.:ugh:

[mickjoebill]

Thankfully I won't have time to time to watch Channel 7 this morning to see "Aviation Expert" Dick Smith proffering himself to point the blame at RAAF ATC.

Didn't see the show but saw Dick this morning.
My summation of his interview is that the pilot made mistakes, but if he could have flown up the coast he would have made it.

He feels RAAF are partly to blame because they have known of the issue for years and despite saying they will do something nothing has happened.



Mickjoebill

[Dick Smith]

I just can’t believe what I am reading on this site. It’s amazing – more than thirty-one years later how people still have their minds fixed on rules which are decades out of date.

Let me give you a little bit more of the facts. I am taking them from the excellent publication called, “Operation Phoenix – the Theoretical Search for the Crash Site of Cessna C210 VH-MDX” written and researched by Donald E Readford. It is an excellent publication.

Let’s look at some of the times.

18.51-28 (local time 6.51:28) Sydney Flight Service asks Williamtown for a clearance for MDX – preferably direct Taree to Williamtown

Then lots of communications backwards and forwards between Sydney Flight Service, Sydney ATC and Willi. In effect, the clearance is not given so the pilot then starts to track towards Craven.

Now I ask you – how do you find Craven on a pitch dark night? It’s simply a reporting point and these are the days before GPS. Remember – the pilot at all times is forced by law to remain on the flight service frequency when the Flight Service Officer is not allowed and does not have a radar display.

19.28-00 – yes, some thirty-seven minutes after the original clearance request, the pilot says to Sydney Flight Service -
MDX – I’m struggling to get to 85 (8,500) – can you give me a vector to West Maitland.

Sydney Flight Service says, “Roger” but of course then has to call the Sydney Sector One Radar Controller to try and find out where the aircraft is. For the first time they find out something which is staggeringly amazing – they expect the aircraft to be tracking between Craven and Singleton, but in fact it is some thirty miles away. Yes, thirty miles away! It has crossed the Range and has actually crossed the Mt Sandon to Singleton track. That means that for over thirty minutes it has headed in exactly the wrong direction and no-one has told the pilot. That is because in those days (and resisted by most of you for the next fifteen years until I changed it), in non-controlled airspace and even under radar coverage the Pilots were prevented from talking to a Radar Controller.

The Sydney Radar Controller actually identifies the plane is forty miles north of Singleton on the Singleton to Mt Sandon track.

19:41-10 – more than eleven minutes later – the Sydney Radar Controller actually calls Williamtown Radar Operator and says, “you get your radar on, mate”. The Willi Radar Operator can’t find the plane and then calls back to the Sector One Radar Controller and says

19:41-45 “yeah, may not be on our radar. Sorry mate. We may not have 4,000 dialled up”. This is despite the fact that the pilot was told to squark 4,000.

Readers here will see what an amazing stuff-up this is and, by the way, all of this is covered up by the BASI investigation – there is no mention at all of it.

Finally, the Willi Radar Operator sees the aircraft on the screen and at

19:44-54 he says, “yes, I’ve got a squark about 45 miles in the Barrington Tops – just about 320 Williamtown 45”.

Now I ask thread followers to look at where that location is. How could an aircraft possibly get there without ever being told? Of course, the pilot headed in the wrong direction for thirty minutes but wasn’t told and, can you believe it, the Williamtown Radar Controller and the Sydney Radar Controller, who knew the aircraft had planned to fly from Taree to Craven then to Singleton was heading in the wrong direction but didn’t tell anyone.

19:46-32 Sydney asks the MDX pilot “what his endurance” is!

And the last call from the aircraft – in a screaming panic –

19:48-19 "MDX .. 5,000" (Pilot sounds particularly scared).

This is nearly an hour after the pilot asked for the original clearance through Williamtown.

What is incredibly outrageous is that nothing has been learned and if you look at the majority of posters on this thread, they haven’t learned anything.

The reason I am making this public is so we can fix the obvious problem and not have a repeat of the accident.

It took me something like fifteen years after this accident to change the airspace so all pilots in radar-covered airspace could talk directly to a Radar Operator – that was a start and resisted by many people on this site.

Whilst a requirement remains in the Regulations to state that pilots flying from Coffs Harbour south cannot flight plan over Williamtown, this risk remains. This must be changed.

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

Check your PM's.

[blacksmith]

I actually see it as two sets of issues:


The errors of judgment made by the PIC contribute substantially.
The Williamtown Airspace is difficult to transit - more than it should be. I never seem to have dramas going through Amberley or Richmond IFR in a lightie but Williamtown "transit" usually involves flying at 10,000 feet or tracking via Scone etc or some other “scenic” excursion.


If 2 above was better, this may have meant a safe arrival for MDX, but it is not in itself causal - probably only contributing.

But should we make Williamtown restricted areas easier to get through? Absolutely! I learn't to fly in 1981 - In 1980s there was no GPS and the barest of SSR. Now we have better radar, GPS, ADSB being adopted etc etc. Surely we have the technology to be able to separate a little bit of transmitting light aircraft traffic from the military users as seems to be able to occur at AMB at RI.

[MalBAU]

Channel seven is reporting VH-MDX is Australia's only unsolved civil aviation mystery

What about Brenda Hean and Max Price ? VH-AQL

VH-AQL (http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austa2/VH-AQL.html)

Flight VH-MDX is Australia's only unsolved civil aviation mystery!!!!!!!!!!

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/a/23976896/new-evidence-in-missing-plane-mystery/

Watch Whatever Happened To Brenda Hean? Online | smh.tv (http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Investigation/Whatever-Happened-To-Brenda-Hean-5000151.html)

[A320_CPTN]

I think that you are right. I can not stand G. Thomas. Now a bloke that I use to look up to is getting the same way.

VH-MDX Should have never taken off. That is the end of the story. it is not about what happened after wheels up. he was in strife, he should have declared an emergency, as soon as that was done he would have been able to go anywhere he likes, with help to boot.

I feel really bad for the family's of this crash, as I do for family's of all aviation incidents. Sometimes there are things that just go wrong. Then there are the times that poor planning and decision making take over.

The airspace was a known factor and he was "hoping" to get clearance.

Pilot Error.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

the clearance is not given so the pilot then starts to track towards Craven. Now I ask you – how do you find Craven on a pitch dark night? It’s simply a reporting point and these are the days before GPS.Same way we all did it pre-GPS, careful route selection to put us over aids at suitable intervals plus a bit of dead reckoning as required. Hard to do with just a single ADF and VOR and no DME, which by the flightplan seems to be the case here. Hard to understand why you would show Craven as a turning point on your FP when it is going to be nigh impossible to get a fix either visually (NVFR) or using aids.

they expect the aircraft to be tracking between Craven and Singleton, but in fact it is some thirty miles away. Yes, thirty miles away! It has crossed the Range and has actually crossed the Mt Sandon to Singleton track. That means that for over thirty minutes it has headed in exactly the wrong direction and no-one has told the pilot.Looking at the current Sydney TAC it looks to me like he had overshot Craven but as I read it would not have crossed the Mt Sandon - Singleton track. Just re-enforces the unsuitability of the FP route.

Interesting listening to the radio transmissions last night. The PIC referred on a number of occasions to "having a little problem" - electrical issues, vac pump failure, electrical fire, ADF failure, unreliable compass, can't maintain altitude, icing!

Freeing up access to Williamstown airspace is one thing - but leave the MDX mess out of it!

[Aussie Bob]

But should we make Williamtown restricted areas easier to get through?

This seems to be the gist of the matter and if the program helps then the end justifies the means.

[Bill Pike]

I seem to recall a Mooney was refused permission coastal at night through Willy airspace, lost a prop and the pilot died in the forced landing. Nothing new here.
I knew the pilot of MDX and flew with him a few times. He was a navigator retrained as a pilot. Yes he wasn't the most confident or able of pilots and not the sort of guy who would over rule a controller. (I well recall landing at Willy without permission one dark and stormy while the civil controller was busy warning me that "I couldnt land without prior permission". The RAAF could not have been more understanding about it all. But that's me, and indeed that's most of us here. It wasn't the pilot of MDX.)
Yes he could have done many things better. However it is not often mentioned that he, as I recall from the time, asked to flight plan down the coast at the planning stage and was told to "ask for clearance at Taree". That would, as I recall from a short time ago, still be the case today.
Yes many factors contributed, but if the system had hadn't sent a single engine NVMC aircraft out over that country in that weather I believe that the accident would not have happened.
That is Dick's point and I agree with him.

[Dick Smith]

Gorky. If the same flight took place today the pilot would not be forced to remain on the frequency of a radio operator who had no access to radar.

Fortunately I changed that system over a decade ago- but also with great resistance from some on this site who reckoned the existing FS system was safe and radar was not necessary for en route un controlled airspace.

My only aim is to get the restriction from planning over Willy removed.

Then pilots will be able to fly at a lower LSA below potential icing and with less turbulence .

Safer for everyone and the willy controllers will be very proud! As I said on Sunrise this morning from my experience they are as good as any in the world but have lousy rules and airspace.

[bogdantheturnipboy]

@Dick Smith - your issue with the military airspace is certainly worth considering -but to blame the military for the deaths of those 5 people is not even logical.

If this fact is correct -

- the pilot took off from Cooly with a dicky DI and AH

It appears the pilot's judgement on this night was very poor.

No one in their right mind contemplates flying at night with a questionable AH or DI.

The military did not make the pilot make this decision.

The military are not responsible for the decisions that go on in a cockpit.

The military didn't stop the pilot turning back, declaring an emergency, seeking help or from even staying on the ground.

Many things can contribute to unplanned events, and challenging situation but the pilot of MDX had enough experience to make better decisions than he did.

Say the changes that you'd like to see with airspace in Australia actually happen - you still have to deal with this issue of pilot decision making - because that will still kill people regardless of the airspace design.

Putting a system in place which improves pilot decision making and skills so that pilots can handle challenging situations when they do occur (because they will occur no matter how many improvements occur) is a better use of resources and energy in my opinion.

[Howabout]

Hi Dick,

The professional fan-club seems to have gone a bit quiet. I ask whether that's embarrassment by association in respect of the accusations you have made thus far, or whether they are dreading being seen as supporters of worse speculation after Part 2. Just my musings.

No point in revisiting a situation where a PIC should have been just that.

I'm sure the Kardashians of this world will lap up Episode 2.

[Dick Smith]

Bog, let's say things had been slightly different. When the pilot asked at the briefing office if he could flight plan over Willy he was told. " yes. Go ahead. That's clearly the safest route for a night VMC flight in these weather conditions"

As he tracked over Taree he was told to call Willy approach as they had a flight strip and new he was coming .A clearance was issued without requiring holding OCTA.

The aircraft remained in VMC. Out of cloud and icing and arrived safely at Bankstown.

I don't say the archaic RAAF regulations are solely to blame for the deaths- just that these people may not have died if a plan over Williamtown was allowed.

And it's no different today. Let's remove that planning restriction and allow pilots to plan on the safest route coastal southbound .

[CWO Geoff]

Yes Dick, lets look at the times then.


Unfortunately, I don't have a verbatim tape transcript but from what I now conclude is that it was the SY AACC S1 controller that had control of the controlled airspace beyond 12 nm to the N of WLM. This would have started at FL125 and below that was OCTA being serviced by FIS5. Since he flight planned at A060/A050 (but was flying at A085) just where was he intending to enter controlled airspace with S1/ARR(N) on his original plan? Would a clearance to enter Sydney steps/CTR have been given to him?


The aircraft reported TRE @ [time] 50 with an estimate for SGT of 30. At 19 he reported CRV with an estimate of 30 for SGT. At time 50 (just after TRE) he was asked if he preferred to take a coastal route via WLM. He indicated that WLM route would be acceptable. At time 53 S1 refused him a clearance (via FIS5) to enter controlled airspace. The pilot was not aware of this refusal but after some 'humming and harring', elected (at time 56) to follow his flight planned route via CRV to SGT. Big mistake, that sealed his fate.


In this case it was the [civilian] S1 controller who, as was his right, denied the access of a NVMC flight to have a clearance in his area of responsibility. If you are going to point the finger at anyone, perhaps you should be looking at CIVILIAN procedures in the Sydney terminal area, not the RAAF at WLM.


The aircraft, being OCTA at TRE, could quite easily have continued towards WLM from TRE and obtained a clearance to transit the zone directly from WLM TWR/APP or through FIS5.


I cannot ever recall that I have ever come across a civil or military controller who has withheld an air traffic clearance just for 'bloody-mindedness'. The only time such a clearance is withheld is to provide separation with IFR aircraft.


When I look at the timeframe of the condensed tape transcript, to me it shows that when positively identified, MDX was well off course which is strange given that the actual conditions in that area were westerlies. From that information I believe that the pilot took up a wrong heading from TRE and had no idea just where he was. Without fully serviceable navaids, he had no hope of calculating his CRV position. When he started to get a succession of problems he should have declared a PAN and I have no doubt that he would have been every assistance from ALL agencies.


As I said previously, the flight beyond Coolangatta was an accident waiting to happen and the RAAF airspace and procedures at WLM had nothing to do with the aircraft's eventual fate. I still reckon that you deserve an Oscar for last night's performance.

[500N]

Dick

I asked a couple of questions on the previous page, any chance you could answer them as would be interested to know what the responses from the RAAF were.

Thanks.

[CWO Geoff]

Have to disagree with you Bill. Dick's aim is to have a go at the RAAF, WLM in particular, something at which I'm rather surprised that you, being ex-RAAF yourself, appear to support.


However, wouldn't it be nice if we had something similar to what has been available in the UK since the '50s - an FIR controller who was able to give a positive reply for a 'Pigeons' request.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Bog, let's say things had been slightly different. When the pilot asked at the briefing office if he could flight plan over Willy he was told. " yes. Go ahead. That's clearly the safest route for a night VMC flight in these weather conditions"
As he tracked over Taree he was told to call Willy approach as they had a flight strip and new he was coming .A clearance was issued without requiring holding OCTA.
The aircraft remained in VMC. Out of cloud and icing and arrived safely at Bankstown.

One can just as easily speculate that with vac pump failure, leaning AH, wandering DI, dickie ADF, electrical issues etc .........., the PIC would have rolled it over and lost it anyway!

[Bill Pike]

Hi CWO Geoff, off course we should have a more user friendly system. That's what Dick wants surely?
Yes I am ex RAAF ex airlines ex GA ex all sorts of stuff. I have also been known to ask the Willy controller why he thinks we bought him a radar set after being refused a clearance. I have been cleared VFR through very busy USAF controlled areas. The concept of "see and avoid" causes horror in this aviation backwater.
The Navy owns a great slab of NSW airspace and doesn't own any aircraft worth talking about. It's all insane by international standards
Having seen Ton San Nhut in the sixties I can tell you that Willy airspace is not crowded.

[gerry111]

Yr right, it's bad. :E

[wishiwasupthere]

Yr right, after most of your recent posts, sometimes it's best to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot rather than open your mouth and confirm it.

[No Hoper]

Syntax, isn't that something that Catholics pay?
And you three should stop being knobs.

[Dick Smith]

There were no military aircraft flying in the airspace that Sunday night.

No doubt the airspace was active to provide a job for the controller.

If the RAAF airspace was not active that night or not there in the first place it is about 99% likely the pilot would have cruised down the coast in the CAVOK conditions and arrived safely at Bankstown.

And you don't understand who is partially responsible?

[Bill Pike]

Don't get frustrated Dick,

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

[yr right]

Ok let's make it simple. If was your dad your brother your mate your plane what ever what would you think then.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Far too many of you are spending energy getting stuck into Dick, because that is all you can do!! Give Dick some credit for trying ( as he has done over many years) to do something to improve aviation.

As I have previously posted, and Bill Pike has illustrated, the "dog in a manger" attitude of the Australian military (particularly the RAAF, and more particularly, the long history and custom of Willy) should have ended years ago.

There is (and never was) any justification for the vast swathes of airspace in Australia that is controlled or restricted by the military, particularly the RAAF.

There is more military controlled/restricted airspace in Australia, than the whole of the USA. Indeed, looks like the Chinese have been following Australian precedent in declaring airspace restrictions in international waters, where they have no legal right**.

It also looks like far to many of you have not absorbed much, over the years, about accident causation, remember all the good works of James Reason, Rob Lees etc.

Dick did not say that it was all the RAAF fault, the program acknowledged the actions of the PIC, but THE WHOLE POINT was that a clearance coastal would have almost certainly broken the building chain of events.

It only takes one action to prevent the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up, and the potential accident does not happen. A prompt clearance to track coastal through Willy would almost certainly have been that action.

Despite what some of you are saying, in all these years, and despite new equipment, the Willy situation has not changed, rigid, inflexible and bureaucratic, a metaphor for far too much of Australian aviation, a sclerotic inability to change and advance for the good.

Can any of you actually justify the vast swathed of military airspace in Australia, compared to USA or UK/Europe, or the military disrespect for the entirely legitimate needs of civil aviation??

Good on Dick for at least trying to force change.

Tootle Pip!!

** Australia (like P.R.China "ADIZ" more recently) continues to declare military restricted airspace outside of Australia's territorial limits. Such purported restrictions have absolutely no legal basis, and the DoD, and the A-Gs know it, but the practice continues.

[sunnySA]

RatsoreA
It then went to Sector 1, who informed them that their sector was non-VMC.

If the aircraft had obtained a clearance via Willy and the airspace south of Williamtown was non-VMC then was there any assurance that a clearance south of Willy would have been available or suitable for NVFR. What was the reported weather enroute via MQD, what was the reported weather at BK?

[RatsoreA]

SunnySA,

There was a C206, at 8000ft transitting Williamtown, bound for Bankstown. It had no problems. One thing I'd like to make clear, a clearance was being arranged, it just had to be at 7000 or 9000, as MDX was catching AZC. FIS5 went back to MDX to ask what height he'd prefer, but was told they were resuming planned track.

I can't recall what the weather was like further south, I'll have to look it up for you and get back. I have the COMPLETE transcript of all communications, from everybody (MDX, FIS5, Willy and Sector one, so that you may see for yourself what was going on prior to him turning west if you want me to put them up?

[JBoles]

I always find it interesting when someone on the ground sitting behind a screen (or not) cops some blame for an aircraft accident. In this case the pilot was clearly the one make ALL the decisions except for the one that allowed him through Willy.

Willy non clearance in this case was a small contributor but not the cause. Any pilots flying in and around Sydney for any more than five minutes know Willy is unpredictable with clearances and the reality is if your planning this area you need a back up plan. Its common sense. I cant see in all seriousness how we can blame Willy (no I am not military).

To draw a comparison - A friend of mine crashed in a Cheyenne at Benalla back in 2004 and the controllers were found partly to blame there because they knew he was well off course for some time and they didnt say a word to the pilot even though he began an RNAV in bad weather. In that case I agreed with that finding.

When you stack the odds against yourself like this guy in MDX did it only needs a couple of things to go wrong and your in serious trouble very quickly. Plenty of other outcomes were possible had the pilot taken better decisions - and we are all not immune to this.

But yes Dick, in this day and age we should have better ability to plan and fly through Willy - especially since we are all having to invest in ADSB and a very high level of fault tolerant GPS units. Surely we can use this technology to provide a safe lane (either IFR or VFR) through.

[missy]

LeadSled
Can any of you actually justify the vast swathed of military airspace in Australia, compared to USA or UK/Europe
Nope, I have worked Sydney Sectors (1,2,3,4,5,6) and Sydney Tower, access to Restricted Areas has improved but their proximity to Sydney Airport does impact civil traffic with domestic and international operators flying extra track miles.

[yr right]

And there lies the point. He had to ask for cleareance. Why. Why did he need cleareance. Because of the raaf that's why. May be just may be he would have all made it if he could see some lights. Flying into that he had no chance. Is the pilot got some fault yes he has.
Also can some one tell me why we need to turn runway lights on. The rest of the airport lite up like a Xmas tree but we forced to turn runway lights on.

[Arm out the window]

Dick did not say that it was all the RAAF fault, the program acknowledged the actions of the PIC, but THE WHOLE POINT was that a clearance coastal would have almost certainly broken the building chain of events.

It only takes one action to prevent the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up, and the potential accident does not happen. A prompt clearance to track coastal through Willy would almost certainly have been that action.


As would have not taking off with U/S gyro instruments, not turning into likely icing conditions over high rugged terrain, but turning back or diverting with an emergency declared if required ... not the WHOLE POINT at all.

Emotional arguments aside, the PIC did them in in the end, really, not the RAAF controllers.

Good luck to you, Dick, if you can get freer traffic flow through Willy airspace, but as I said earlier on, the cynical spin is too much.

[yr right]

If he could have gone costal would he off. Would he have pick to fly over tiger country and into that strom I would have thought not. Should that base be there from the coast to the range no it should not.
The Australian aviation system is governed by old military rules to this day. Rules from the 1914s that are still forced on use all. Ex military personal that leave and get jobs in casa. Like one I heard ask where is you duplicate inspection for knots on the vent flaps on a hot air ballon. It's this same mentality that is still being forced apron us all.

At the end of the day life's where lost that should not have been. Simple chooses not made but the fact remains if he had of been able to go costal there was a better chance for him to get away with it.

[Bill Pike]

My very good friend Wing Commander C.J. Sugden (DFC and Bar) once said.
"The system is designed to allow an average pilot having an average day to get his passengers home safely "
Personally, as i said, sending a NVMC single engine out over the Barringtons on a bad night does not measure up, no matter how average the pilot might have been. And in this case, for no reason other than "this is our airspace ".

[Hempy]

Just so it's clear..

The program will cover that terrible VH-MDX Cessna 210 crash in the Barrington Tops area. This is where five people were killed and the crash site has never been discovered. The families of those on board have never had closure and been able to arrange proper burials.

I was extensively interviewed and probably had a different perspective to most. I blame the situation on the military airspace at Williamtown .

[sunnySA]

RatsoreA
There was a C206, at 8000ft transitting Williamtown, bound for Bankstown.
Confirm that the C206 was NVFR

[flighthappens]

I very much dislike second guessing anyone (there for the grace of god go I and all of that stuff... But whilst we are in the situation of calling heavily on the speculation brothers.... to add to what AOTW has said).

"ATC, MDX, how long is the anticipated hold?"

"MDX, ATC, Approximately 2 minutes.."

"Copied, Happy with that, MDX"

----------------------------------------------------

For all of those barking about the present day situation..

Considering there are almost 100 military aircraft on the base, operating for the majority of the time under IFR, a wide variety of commercial operations, the vast majority of which are IFR, why does it come as a surprise that in a VFR light aircraft that you are the lowest on the priority pile?

[yr right]

Yeh Vfr light aircraft flying into **** over **** shot country with problems five killed lowest priority Yeap and some of you just won't to have ago at me cause of the way I write.

[Creampuff]

Considering there are almost 100 military aircraft on the base, operating for the majority of the time under IFR, a wide variety of commercial operations, the vast majority of which are IFR, why does it come as a surprise that in a VFR light aircraft that you are the lowest on the priority pile?How many of those needle-nosed, delta-winged, aluminium death-tubes were in the air anywhere Williamtown at the time? Who was paying their bills?

(Can you give the dyslexia schtick a rest, yr right?)

[yr right]

Ummm not given any mention to being dyslexic creamy. You done that. I was referring to syntax

[Wally Mk2]

Thanks 'Leady' for yr last post as I was losing interest fast here with all the bitching about Dick going on.
The 5 men are gone & at this stage so is the plane but hopefully they will find the plane someday thru even more awareness such as this Ch 7 program & put to rest not only the poor unfortunates but the whole sorry saga of a story, forever!


Wmk2

[evilroy]

Questions:

1. If you can't plan to WLM, then why did AZC have it on his flight plan as an alternate?

2. Why blame the Willy controllers when it was the civil ATC that caused all the delays? If you read the transcripts - which are freely available online via the National Archives website - when first asked for a clearance through Willy airspace, the Willy controller said no problems. When the FIS tried to co-ordinate the clearance through Sydney Sector 1, it was they who said clearance was denied because they would not accept VFR in the airspace. It was during this time that Willy said that transit through at 8000 was unavailable due slower preceding traffic (AZC) but 7000 or 9000 was available. When they asked for coastal, Willy once again was happy but Sydney said no VFR above 6000 and that they had some concerns regarding the weather below 6000 coastal and there would be a delay whilst they checked it out. At no time did the Willy controller deny entry.

I might also point out - IIRC - that it was Sydney that asked for the 4000 squawk with ident. When the Willy controller was asked if he held MDX, they said that they had a primary paint (at 46nm?) but 4000 wasn't programmed into their radar. They asked if the aircraft could squawk 3000 with ident and it was confirmed as identified by Willy.

Dick, I respect you but why this crusade to persecute the military regarding this tragic accident? They did absolutely nothing wrong.

[BPA]

I agree a review of RAAF airspace use is far overdue not just at Wily but all over Australia, but to say the RAAF is to blame for this accident is drawing a very long bow

If a can digress for a moment and talk about my experience in the same area less than 10 years after this accident. My flight was a day VFR full reporting flight from CG to BK. I had a PPL and building hours for my CPL. The WX forecast indicated it was good VFR conditions all the way to BK. From TRE I planned to use the inland route behind willy. Approaching TRE I noticed the WX along the coast seemed to be less than ideal VFR conditions, so I was pleased my choice to plan inland. As I approached the start of the inland route I noticed the WX was starting to move in around me, I did an orbit to see if I could make it back to TRE, no joy WX had moved in. I thought should I go down to 500' and try to scud run, not a good idea.

Above me was clear so, climbed, passing about 5000' the engine started to make a strange sound and SYD FIS made a broadcasting stating aircraft to the North West of Willy you are about to enter Willy restricted areas. I knew they were referring to me so I advised them of my problems and that the WX looks CLR towards Willy and I'm tracking that way. I levelled out around 6000-6500 and a few mins later I was told to contact Willy. I informed them I was a VFR pilot with the weather closing in, engine was making an usual sound and required DCT willy.

The controllers did a great job assisting me around the weather and providing guidance all the way to willy. Upon arrival in the circuit area, the X-wind was fluctuating around the limits of the aircraft (and me). The controllers offered me the use of the taxiway Hotel (long taxiway into wind) and I believe it was used at times by the FAC Winjeels, if I needed it. In the end I landed on 12. Submitted the required paperwork (225) and that was the end of it.

So why my long story, well I think it shows the PIC of MDX had another option that he didn't take. Once the WX started to close in, he could have done what I did and just turn towards Willy and advise SYD FIS he was in trouble. Unfortunately we will never know why he didn't do this but perhaps the reasons were;

1. Fatigue, the flight from CG to BK was 3 hours, and a rough guess the time down from North QLD to CG would have been around 4 hours. So allowing for all the ground time before DEP and on the ground in CG he would have been on duty for around 8 -9 hours at the time of the event.
2. Commercial Pressure: Although the flight was private, how many hours had he worked out to complete the job. Perhaps he calculated it on the min time with perfect winds and any delays would cost him.

So who or what is to blame for this accident, well there is not one single cause as in most accidents. The delay in RAAF providing clearance was only a small factor in the events that lead to this accident.

I'm not trying to defend the RAAF, but other then this tragic accident how many other accidents have been attributed to aircraft not bring able to a clearance through a RAAF airspace. My guess is there have have been more accidents caused by pilots scud running to avoid Civil airspace. So rather than point the blame at one department and get so angry and uptight about it. Use that energy to educate the current generation of PPL/CPL pilots about what happened that night, such as NVFR into IMC, flying an aircraft that wasn't serviceable and provide them with tools on how to avoid the same traps.

For the families hopefully the wreckage will be found soon, so they can finally get some closure.

[yr right]

evilro
I didn't see where dick had ago at the raaf controller. What I see is there is no need for the restricted airspace to be so large and no lane to use with out cleareance and not over tiger country. Had he been able to go costal with visible lights chances are he may have made it as it was he had zero chance.

[RatsoreA]

Evilroy

Bloody brilliant. :ok: :ok:

The use of facts in your post was a breath of fresh air.

Genuine thanks.

[Mhayli]

http://http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/06/02/statement-from-chief-of-air-force-air-marshal-geoff-brown-ao-sunday-night-1-june-2014/ (http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/06/02/statement-from-chief-of-air-force-air-marshal-geoff-brown-ao-sunday-night-1-june-2014/)

Nothing more needs to be said.

[evilroy]

I didn't see where dick had ago at the raaf controller. What I see is there is no need for the restricted airspace to be so large and no lane to use with out cleareance and not over tiger country. Had he been able to go costal with visible lights chances are he may have made it as it was he had zero chance.

0934.20 MDX: Ah, Mike Delta X-Ray. We've picked up a fair amount of ice and, ah, I can just make out a few towns on the coast. I'd appreciate it if we could, ah, could... oh hell. We've just got a downdraft now and we're down at about a thousand a minute.

0934.36 SYD FIS: Mike Delta X-Ray, roger. Is the aircraft equipped with pitot heat.... heating?

0934.40 MDX: Its a single... and we'll try to continue our flight plan.

0934.45 SYD FIS: Mike Delta X-Ray, roger Sydney. The lights are on at Maitland. The lights are on at Maitland.

0934.57 MDX: Say again, Maitland.

0934.00 SYD FIS: Mike Delta X-Ray, Sydney. The lights are on at Maitland if you wish to try and divert and make a landing at Maitland.

0935.05 MDX: Mike Delta X-Ray. No. We thought we had a... Just to compound things, we thought we had a cockpit fire but... ah... we seem to have resolved that little problem. West Maitland, but would appreciate if you would leave the lights on for a while.

[Hempy]

Contrary to the program’s story, civilian aircraft can and do fly through Williamtown airspace every day. Williamtown Air Traffic Control handles more than 34,000 civilian aircraft movements through the Williamtown airspace each year, including 1.2 million passengers who use the Newcastle airport terminal situated at RAAF Base Williamtown.

For civil aircraft flying visually through Williamtown airspace, Air Force created three specific flight paths that are designed to provide civilian access to Williamtown airspace and to deconflict with military and other civilian aircraft.

Air Force operates a multi-layered air traffic control system which is regulated by a comprehensive regime of independent audits and evaluations and is integrated with Australia’s national Air Traffic Management network

It is routine to restrict access to military airspace for both safety and security reasons. Such restrictions provide separation from hazardous environments including air weapons ranges. In fact, Australia is more generous than many nations, allowing civilian access when requested and whenever safety and security allow; and we operate formal airspace sharing arrangements at Williamtown, Darwin and Townsville.

In an emergency, civil aircraft can access defence airspace and airfields for emergency landings.

I told you using an irrelevant emotive argument would bite you on the bum...what chances of reform now do you reckon, after he's just gone on the public record explaining there is no need? You actually pulled the statement out of him!! Well done!!!

"Yeah, no, forget all that. I was wrong and Dick is right" :rolleyes:

Attributing this tragedy to the Air Force is sensationalist and incorrect and I note that the program did not seek any comment or clarification from either Air Force or Defence in relation to this incident. It is disappointing that these unsubstantiated claims were aired on national television.

Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO
Chief of Air Force

[Jabawocky]

Mhayli

I will go one step further and post it,
Statement from Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO – Sunday Night (1 June 2014)

2 June 2014 | On the Record
On 1 June, Channel 7’s Sunday Night program aired claims by Dick Smith, incorrectly claiming Royal Australian Air Force contributed to the crash of VH-MDX in 1981.

While the death of the pilot and passengers is tragic, and I hope the search for them will bring closure for their families, Air Force cannot speculate as to why the pilot of VH-MDX chose to not fly through Williamtown airspace, as was done by numerous other civilian aircraft at the time of the accident.

The program acknowledged that the aircraft had mechanical issues and instrument failures, including a failed altitude indicator, automatic direction finder and vacuum pump.

The [then] Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (now the Australian Transport Safety Bureau), which investigated the incident at the time, found no fault with RAAF or military air traffic control. The facts of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation into the VH-MDX accident on 9 August 1981 are available via the National Archives of Australia.

On the evening of the disappearance of VH-MDX, Williamtown Air Traffic Control immediately offered a clearance for VH-MDX at an amended altitude (of 7,000 feet or 9,000 feet) to ensure separation with a preceding civilian aircraft (at 8,000 feet) that was already inside Williamtown airspace. This was done without delay and more than 30 minutes before VH-MDX reported entering bad weather.

It is incorrect to claim that Air Force caused VH-MDX to fly an unsuitable track. The presence of civilian aircraft in Williamtown airspace demonstrates that civilian aircraft were permitted to transit Williamtown airspace.

Contrary to the program’s story, civilian aircraft can and do fly through Williamtown airspace every day. Williamtown Air Traffic Control handles more than 34,000 civilian aircraft movements through the Williamtown airspace each year, including 1.2 million passengers who use the Newcastle airport terminal situated at RAAF Base Williamtown.

For civil aircraft flying visually through Williamtown airspace, Air Force created three specific flight paths that are designed to provide civilian access to Williamtown airspace and to deconflict with military and other civilian aircraft.

Air Force operates a multi-layered air traffic control system which is regulated by a comprehensive regime of independent audits and evaluations and is integrated with Australia’s national Air Traffic Management network

It is routine to restrict access to military airspace for both safety and security reasons. Such restrictions provide separation from hazardous environments including air weapons ranges. In fact, Australia is more generous than many nations, allowing civilian access when requested and whenever safety and security allow; and we operate formal airspace sharing arrangements at Williamtown, Darwin and Townsville.

In an emergency, civil aircraft can access defence airspace and airfields for emergency landings.

The story also implied that VH-MDX was unreasonably requested to hold. Aircraft are routinely required by civilian and military Air Traffic Control to hold or adjust the aircraft’s track, altitude or speed, to ensure separation is maintained with preceding and higher priority military and civilian aircraft. The likelihood of holding is increased for aircraft that do not submit a flight plan because the aircraft’s data needs to be manually entered into the Air Traffic Control system.

Attributing this tragedy to the Air Force is sensationalist and incorrect and I note that the program did not seek any comment or clarification from either Air Force or Defence in relation to this incident. It is disappointing that these unsubstantiated claims were aired on national television.

Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO
Chief of Air Force

I would like to reinforce this with the fact the PIC did not execute his duties in many ways where the ADF did.

I am also told by a very credible source that Dick Smith was approached for help in the search effort. Not for money, but help in terms of contacts, resources, advice....anything. But they were fobbed off. What is your take on this?

[kingRB]

Nothing more needs to be said.

Quite sad and embarrassing the Air Force even needs to respond to this.

Unfortunately it's become obvious now Channel 7 don't give a rats ass about the MDX story, they're running this purely for the ratings generated by headlining unsubstantiated allegations. Not sure why I'm surprised really. :ugh:

[Mhayli]

Whether Mr Smith assisted or not I feel is off topic and making the discussion personal. However, what is apparent is that there are two sides to this story. The one posted by Jabawocky is based on fact and the official accident investigation by professionals in that field. The other is based on unsubstantiated claims by an enthusiast.

[The Banjo]

Mhayli,

Not "by an enthusiast" but "an enthusiastic amateur". :rolleyes:

[missy]

kingRB
Not sure why I'm surprised really.
To quote a former work colleague "I'm surprised you're surprised".

[wishiwasupthere]

You might want to change the callsigns of your aircraft Dick. Fat chance you're going to get a clearance through Willytown now! :E

[Hank Scorpio]

I just can’t believe what I am reading on this site. It’s amazing – more than thirty-one years later how people still have their minds fixed on rules which are decades out of date.

Let me give you a little bit more of the facts. I am taking them from the excellent publication called, “Operation Phoenix – the Theoretical Search for the Crash Site of Cessna C210 VH-MDX” written and researched by Donald E Readford. It is an excellent publication.



Wha? I'm sincerely hoping that is sarcasm because that is the most pants on head retarded publication on the MDX search to date.

If you honestly believe that 'publication' deserves any merit, I have lost whatever faith I had in any and all of your endeavours. :ugh:

[VR-HFX]

NVFR is an oxymoron but cross country in a light single, is more like a death wish.

Dick, whilst I respect the motive I must take issue with methodology.

As painful as it is, the cause of the accident is clear. I am only saddened by the fact that there was no-one else on board who could smell the impending disaster when clearly the PIC could not. A simple PAN call and direct Willy was all it would have taken.

Over the past 30 years, I have flown into SYD from HKG many times and always get a bit of a chill up my spine at the top of descent. I hope the wreckage is found soon. Maybe this thread will provide another impetus to allow closure.

[evilroy]

The easiest way for people to establish the facts are to check out the transcripts themselves. Go to the NAA home page:

National Archives of Australia (http://www.naa.gov.au/)

Select "Search the collection".

On the basic search page, under 'Keywords', enter VH-MDX.

There will be a single result; select "view digital copy".

The first 22 pages are news clippings.

Read the transcripts, from page 241. Particularly pages 244 - 245 (time index 0853 for the inital Willy clearance and Sector 1 saying they could not accept), and page 246 (time index 0853.42 for the initial coastal request to Sydney Approach) to page 248. Pay particular attention to time index 0856.12 where FIS says "Willy says he'd be able to clear him through his area".

Dick, I think you should make a public statement that the RAAF did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact assisted in every way in getting that aircraft a clearance.

[Trevor the lover]

In response to an earlier post - "this crap does not occur overseas." Oh yes it does. Absolutely - have a look at China. Airways designed all over the place to avoid mil airspace. Try entering China over Urumqi bound for hong Kong. True bearing would be about 120 - you end up heading about 020 for a long time. Often told airway closed, or once we flew HK to Shanghai at around 16,000 ft.


Many times I have been vectored around active mil airspace in the US.


Australia suffers because direct tracks or airways are drawn through mil airspace so the result may mean clearance not available. In many foreign countrys airways are just drawn up around mil airspace so we don't get the delays. We don't actually notice a problem, but we are always flying extra track miles. At least in Oz we get the chance of direct tracking when available

[Capt Fathom]

have a look at China.

Military dictatorships don't fall into the same category! Their whole airspace is probably military!

[kingRB]

Wha? I'm sincerely hoping that is sarcasm because that is the most pants on head retarded publication on the MDX search to date.

If you honestly believe that 'publication' deserves any merit, I have lost whatever faith I had in any and all of your endeavours.

i'll give it merit for the effort and research made, and its attempt to make headway on an unsolved mystery that for the most part has been long forgotten by the rest of Australia.

Unfortunately I agree, there are assumptions made on the radar / ATC data and aircraft performance that are fundamentally incorrect. These assumptions make it useless for any accurate calculation of the actual crash site, especially when talking about a place as nasty as the Barrington Tops.

[Dick Smith]

The Air Marshal is clearly ill informed. This is a damning reflection on the advice Air Marshal Brown receives. Let me quote from Air Marshal’s Media Release:

“The likelihood of holding is increased for aircraft that do not submit a flight plan because the aircraft's data needs to be manually entered into the Air Traffic Control system”.

By this, Air Marshal Brown clearly means that pilots should submit a flight plan if they want to fly the safer, more direct route so holding and delays are reduced and safety is improved. However, Air Marshal Brown clearly doesn’t know that it is not possible to file such a flight plan. That is why I stated on the Channel 7 Sunday Night program,

“The restrictions are still there. You can’t file a flight plan across the top of Williamtown”.

I then went on to say,

“you can do something with this show if we can get these rules changed, as they will save lives in the future”.

Here we have the Air Marshal agreeing with me, i.e.

“The likelihood of holding is increased for aircraft that do not submit a flight plan because the aircraft's data needs to be manually entered into the Air Traffic Control system”.

Air Marshal Brown just happens to omit a slightly important point which I will say again – you can’t file a flight plan over Williamtown when it is active! That clearly means the Willi Controller has no prior knowledge of the aircraft that is about to call for clearance. This is ridiculous in these modern days of technology. Once we remove that restriction from the Enroute Supplement, there will be a clear message that pilots are allowed to fly the safest way possible, i.e. over the low terrain coastal area over Williamtown rather than being forced to the west into the Barrington Top mountains as MDX was thirty years ago and as pilots are today.

Once again, I stand by what I said and that is the only reason MDX did not continue down the coast at a low level in clear weather conditions was because Williamtown was active that night - and I understand there weren’t even any military aircraft flying! It was an outrageous waste of life caused by archaic military rules – and nothing has changed.

Anyone who doesn’t understand this has a real problem.

[Dick Smith]

Evilroy – you want me to make a statement that says the RAAF did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact assisted in every way in getting VH-MDX a clearance.

Well, I won’t be making that statement because it would be a lie.

For a start, if the military airspace had not been active that night or had not existed in that location, the pilot would have cruised down the coast in good weather conditions and arrived safely at Bankstown.

The only reason the pilot was forced inland via a point called “Craven” was because the military-enforced regulations at the time stated that pilots could not flight plan over Williamtown. That meant the Willi Controller had no information that MDX was heading in his direction and wanted a clearance. That restriction remains today – that is, no-one is approved to file a flight plan from Coffs Harbour overhead Williamtown if Williamtown is active and that means aircraft today are forced inland towards the Barrington Tops.

Have you noted that the Willi Controller knew that the aircraft desired a clearance, but rather than take the holding the Pilot decided to head via Craven then to Bankstown. Have you noted the Willi Controller did not inform anyone when the aircraft turned to the west and flew at 90 degrees to the required track heading over the Barrington Tops towards Scone?

Yes, I know you will say, “it was nothing to do with the Willi Controller because the aircraft wasn’t in his airspace”. So, just let five people go to their deaths…?

Evilroy, I can tell you I will not give up until I have this ridiculous restriction removed from the Regulations – that is the one that pilots filing a flight plan south of Coffs Harbour are prohibited from flight planning over Williamtown if it is active. This is an outrageous restriction that clearly substantially reduces safety and will lead to yet another similar accident as aircraft are forced to the west into the mountains.

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

being forced to the west into the Barrington Top mountains as MDX was thirty years ago

MDX was not forced in any way to go to the west. He chose that route.

the only reason MDX did not continue down the coast at a low level in clear weather conditions was because Williamtown was active that night

That is also untrue. The only reason he didn't continue down the coast is that he was too impaitent to wait for the clearance. For the sake of one or two orbits, the aircraft was lost. FIS5 was going to ask him if he preferred 7000 or 9000 for his transit, due to preceding traffic (AZC, a slower C206 at the same level, 8000ft, who had no issues securing a clearance to transit Williamtown) but before he could even offer the alternate levels, he made the choice to go via Craven.

Another thing you said on TV was also incorrect, after the uncertainty phase was declared, by FIS5 not a PAN or MAYDAY by MDX, FIS5, Sector 1 and Williamtown did everything they could do to help him out, completely without regard to airspace requirements. They were in fact trying to direct him to come to Williamtown, but he chose to resume his planned track as late as 3 minutes before the aircraft was lost.

Evilroy – you want me to make a statement that says the RAAF did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact assisted in every way in getting VH-MDX a clearance.

Well, I won’t be making that statement because it would be a lie

Actually, the facts are very clear in this matter, the Williamtown Controller DID assist him in every way possible. It does not even have the remotest shred of doubt attached to it.

Yes, I know you will say, “it was nothing to do with the Willi Controller because the aircraft wasn’t in his airspace”. So, just let five people go to their deaths…?

He didn't, he spent a large amount of time trying to help a plot that was at the extreme edge of coverage of his radar, and well outside his area of responsibility.

[Dick Smith]

Was "going to ask him". Are you now going to confirm he was never actually asked if he wanted 7000 or 9000? Why wasn't he given this option?

You say " to impatient to wait for a clearance". How do you know that he wasn't concerned about how he was going to hold outside an invisible line in the sky?

He had no DME. How would have you held OCTA in that case?

If they did everything they could to help him out why didn't they at any time direct him onto a frequency where the operator actually had a radar screen?

At all times all communication was to a radio operator that had no idea what direction the aircraft was heading.

Did you note that BASI never mentioned this important point? If he had been on a radar frequency the pilot would have been told nearly 30 minutes earlier he was heading in the wrong direction.

Probably still be alive today!

[RatsoreA]

You say " to impatient to wait for a clearance". How do you know that he wasn't concerned about how he was going to hold outside an invisible line in the sky?

He had no DME. How would have you held OCTA in that case?

Very simply. I would have just turned 360 degrees at that point. A nice rate one turn, over low terrain/coast, with plenty of lights of towns visible in nearly every direction and relativly smooth flying conditions. That would have eaten up about 4 minutes, by which stage, he would have had his clearance delivered to him.

Was "going to ask him". Are you now going to confirm he was never actually asked if he wanted 7000 or 9000? Why wasn't he given this option?

This is not new news. He chose to continue on his original planned track before the co-ordination between the relevant airspace controllers had been conducted, which the biggest hold up was Sector 1 in Sydney. Are you now inferring that controllors should be making operational decisions for pilots, and that we are incapable of deciding which route we should take without being asked at least 3 times?

Did you note that BASI never mentioned this important point? If he had been on a radar frequency the pilot would have been told nearly 30 minutes earlier he was heading in the wrong direction.

He was, essentially, OCTA. Yes, if FIS5 was equipped with a radar screen, he probably would have noticed that he was off course. He wasn't in the area of responsibility of any other area. Are you inferring that controllers should be looking out for errant aircraft outside their areas of responsibility?

Where does it say that ATC are responsible for the safe conduct of a flight? I am pretty sure the last time I looked (Someone can probably quote me the reference, I'm to lazy to look myself) it said that the Pilot in Command was the person responsible for safe conduct of the flight, from startup to shut down. He wasn't under positive control, he was being offered advice and information.

[Dick Smith]

I love your total ego and confidence that you would never make a similar error and therefore not need more modern and safer procedures.

Why don't you comment on the current military restriction on civilian pilots being prevented from planning over Willy?

[Dick Smith]

And Rat. Why do you reckon BASI made no recommendation about using the radar more effectively to prevent a repeat of that type of accident?

Could it be fixed views re the existing regs like you have?

[evilroy]

Dick,

You should go and read the transcripts, especially the pages I have mentioned in the previous post. You'll see that the military controllers did everything possible to assist MDX with a swift passage through the WLM airspace.

Your attitude right now suggests you don't have all the facts and are therefore basing your beliefs on false assumptions or incorrect data.

[RatsoreA]

I love your total ego and confidence that you would never make a similar error and therefore not need more modern and safer procedures.

I don't even know where to begin with that... I have said to you on numerous occasions, that I support the campaign to make it easier to go over Newcastle.

And in fact, when I was just a little pilot, I did make such an error, and only for good luck, rather than good management did I not end up in exactly the place as MDX, AND if there was good management, it was all on behalf of the ATC on duty that day that saw me land safely in Singleton.

I don't know how you drew that statement out of what I said, but moving on to point 2 -

The CURRENT restriction about planing overhead Williamtown has absolutely no bearing on finding the crash site of MDX. That has been the only thing that the team of people I am working with are interested in. Finding it. The fact that you have hijacked this cause to further your own agenda has angered a considerable amount of people. We were not interested in the politics of why or how, only where the aircraft sits now. You have moved the focus of finding it, to suit your own agenda. We contacted you several times in the last two years asking for any assistance you might have, to be met with either no replies, or "no, not interested".

You have failed to consistently adhere to the facts of the case, overlooking the ones that contradict your viewpoint, and exaggerating those ones that you think you can manipulate to suit your agenda.

Your tirade against the RAAF has not helped us in any way, and in fact, you have probably made it about a million times harder to secure any sort of help in finding the crash site from them, as they would probably, quite understandably, want to distance themselves from this matter.

Evilroy, I have personally emailed Dick a full and complete copy of what is available in the national archives, and an index to go with it that we have created to make referencing certain aspects easier. He is also shown in Sunday Night as actually leafing through that very material.

[Onedown]

Your tirade against the RAAF has not helped us in any way, and in fact, you have probably made it about a million times harder to secure any sort of help in finding the crash site from them, as they would probably, quite understandably, want to distance themselves from this matter. I would like to think that our RAAF are a little more professional than to take a subjective precious position on attempts to locate MDX. After all this has almost become 'in the National interest'. To think the location has eluded us for so long. It will be more than interesting to find the final resting place and I sincerely hope we do soon.

[RatsoreA]

And Rat. Why do you reckon BASI made no recommendation about using the radar more effectively to prevent a repeat of that type of accident?

Could it be fixed views re the existing regs like you have?

Because whilst better radar coverage may have helped, the primary cause of this accident was a pilot flying into IMC without primary attitude instruments due to a vacuum pump failure. Yes, many factors lined up in the "swiss cheese" model, and just breaking one of them might have prevented it, but ultimatly, the responsibility rested with the PIC. You can't legislate against errors of judgement, no matter how hard the government tries to.

[puff]

I've gotta say years ago I felt very uncomfortable when flying a C182RG from PMQ to AF at night. We had planned coastal on a nice clear night at 10k so to at least give us options of both airports and beaches if the fan stopped. After passing CH we were advised that the RAAF had activated Evans Head and our track was not available, and we were re-routed well west over all the tiger country to get back to AF, we ended up negotiating the best we could to avoid the airspace and not the CH-CAS-AF track we were told to fly, CAS-AF track in day light scared the bejesus out of me let alone at night. Yes I could have pulled up stumps and landed at CH but considering I had made a plan based on the info that EVX wasn't active, it certainly was an uncomfortable situation to be thrown, in a twin, no probs but in a single it's a diff story.

Agreed that the pilot made a lot of poor decisions, but I do agree the RAAF does seem very inflexible at times...too many things are continued to be done in aviation because 'thats the way we've always done them'

[Dick Smith]

No. Not better radar coverage. Just a commonsense recommendation to use the existing radar effectively.

You can only do that properly if you have a system where pilots are already on the best radar frequency.

How could the BASI investigator not make such a recommendation when it was obvious that such a system would most likely have the pilot informed within minutes of him heading of in the wrong direction.?

No. Concrete minded investigators who did not have the ability to think laterally and ask and copy the best systems from around the world .

Bit like some if the posters on this site.

And Rats. I have not hijacked this site for any personal advantage. I want the system improved so there is less likely hood of such an accident repeating.

What is wrong with that? I have had a history of making change that is initially resisted. For example giving the responsibility of radar covered airspace to those that are actually qualified to use radar and have a screen in front of them.. Look back on this site and you will find I was simarly abused for such a heresy.

[RatsoreA]

How is you going on endlessly about current Williamtown restrictions bringing us any closer to finding MDX?

I didn't say you hijacked this site, I said you hijacked this investigation to push your own agenda (Again, which I agree that it could be easier and could be changed).

If you really genuinely want to help find MDX and bring it to an end, pull on a pack and a pair of boots and walk a line through the scrub with the rest of us! Get the Augusta out and fast rope some teams of BWRS through the canopy so they can search a larger area in less time without having to spend half a day walking to get to the search area! I work 40 hours a week, and do this in my weekends/spare time/holidays. I take my own time off work to do these things. I have donated many hours, at cost to myself, of my own aircraft so that we may be able to have a better chance at finding the crash site.

The whole point of channel 7 doing that segment was about finding it, and you have done nothing but hijack it and use the oppoutunity go on about the Williamtown airspace, using incorrect and incomplete information to make untrue statements and accuse the RAAF of manslaughter.

[Hempy]

Yeah that worked well. Now instead of simply giving FS a radar feed, we have ATC's doing Flight Service on better equipment and twice the pay. Cheers!

[Dick Smith]

Isn't that good to pay decent wages and share the wealth a bit as we do in Australia ? I made sure any FSO had the opportunity to train as an ATC if they had the abilities and wanted to.

Rats. Great what you are doing. However surely you agree that it's better that we reduce the chance of such an accident happening again ?

I was going to take some advice re the search from Don Readford. But now you say that's not accurate. So where should I be looking and with what group?

[Howabout]

It's all unraveling, Dick, and at a spectacular rate of kts.

I suppose you've still got the 'streakers defence' - 'seemed like a good idea at the time.'

This was a screw-up on the part of the PIC. No ifs, no buts. However, no joy taken there. It was a sad, sad tragedy.

Once again, in my opinion, you've used speculation, unsubstantiated innuendo, and press manipulation to drive your personal agenda. Judging by the majority of responses, I think that you've alienated the moderates in the aviation community that were willing to listen to you in times past.

Personally, I think you've lost some of your credibility in a crusade that I can only interpret as vindictive and opportunistic.

Sad, Dick, because I have incredibly good memories of an aviation pioneer that had cred. Your circumnavigation still brings thrills and chills - years afterwards.

That said: Part 2 will, no doubt, add to my disillusionment and disappointment. Sad that you need to resort to cheap shots to push an unsustainable position in order to put the boot in.

[RatsoreA]

Rats. Great what you are doing. However surely you agree that it's better that we reduce the chance of such an accident happening again ?

Yes, prevention of any accident is excellent. But using the search for MDX as a way of pushing your agenda isn't. As I have said, the current investigation is focused on nothing else but finding it. Everything else of little to no consquence in that matter. The fact that he wouldn't wait for the clearance to go through Williamtown matters not one tiny bit in determining the final location. People are now focused on that fact, rather than that it hasn't been found, and that is all I am interested in.

I sent you several links yesterday, including all the material publicly available to help you determine what is accurate and what is not. I have no doubt you are very busy, and there is A LOT of material to read, and not just read, but comprehend. By all means, read what Readford wrote as well. But until you are armed with all the facts, public comment can be harmful. You of all people should be aware of that! And make sure you watch part 2 next week. Hopefully, they will actually say a bit about the official search being conducted by the NSW Police.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout – no, I don’t believe it’s unravelling – in fact, quite the opposite. I can see a move towards removing that ridiculous restriction in relation to flight planning over Williamtown.

I thought you might like to see my Media Release:

Dick Smith Comments
on
Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown’s Media Release Dated Monday 2 June 2014

Dick Smith says, “AIR MARSHAL BROWN - REMOVE THE CIVILIAN FLIGHT PLANNING RESTRICTION BEFORE MORE LIVES ARE LOST”.

The Air Marshal is clearly ill informed. This is a damning reflection on the advice Air Marshal Brown receives. Let me quote from Air Marshal Brown’s Media Release:

“The likelihood of holding is increased for aircraft that do not submit a flight plan because the aircraft's data needs to be manually entered into the Air Traffic Control system”.

By this, Air Marshal Brown clearly means that pilots should submit a flight plan if they want to fly the safer, more direct route over Williamtown so that delays are reduced and safety is improved.

By flying over Williamtown, Pilots are not forced – as was VH-MDX on that terrible night – to fly to the west of Williamtown into the mountainous area of the Barrington Tops where high winds can turn a plane upside-down.

However, Air Marshal Brown clearly doesn’t know that military enforced regulations mean it is not possible for a civilian pilot to file such a flight plan. That is why I stated on the Channel 7 Sunday Night program,

“The restrictions are still there. You can’t file a flight plan across the top of Williamtown”.

I then went on to say,

"You can do something with this show if we can get these rules changed, as they will save lives in the future”.

Now, remember on the night of the VH-MDX crash, the pilot was forced by the regulations to file his flight plan to the west of the Williamtown military airspace towards the treacherous country near Barrington Tops.

The regulations of those days remain the same today. It was prohibited then, as it is now, to file a flight plan over Williamtown.

Air Marshal Brown just happens to omit this very important point from his Media Release - so I will say it again – a civilian pilot cannot file a flight plan over Williamtown! That means that the likelihood of holding will always be increased because the Williamtown Controller has no prior knowledge of the aircraft that is about to call for clearance. This is ridiculous in these modern days of technology!

In yet another major error, Air Marshal Brown states that,

“Williamtown Air Traffic Control immediately offered a clearance for VH-MDX at an amended altitude (of 7,000 feet or 9,000 feet) …. This was done without delay and more than 30 minutes before VH-MDX reported entering bad weather”.

In fact, this offer was made by the military Controller to the Sydney Flight Service Operator but it was never passed on to the Pilot! If the Pilot did not know of the offer, how could he possibly accept it?

Once the military remove the restrictions on Australian civilian pilots, there will be a clear message that they are allowed to fly the safest route possible, i.e. over the low terrain coastal area at Williamtown rather than being forced to the west into the Barrington Tops mountains as MDX was thirty years ago and as pilots are today.

I ask Air Marshal Brown to remove this restriction before more lives are lost.

[Jabawocky]

OK....what about the new RA2 at YBOK Dick. Get him to unwind that one too while you are at it would ya. :ok:

[flying-spike]

Surely you can still add a preferred route to a plan can't you? That way ATC at Williamtown or whoever on the PFR would get the info.
That aside perhaps Dick could join ASASI and even attend the conference in Adelaide in October so he could set all us "concrete minded" investigators straight. Perhaps you have a theory on MH370 you could share with us?

[amos2]

Surely you know that Dick lost the plot years ago!
Nobody with any Av experience ( SPL to ATPL) takes any notice of Dick!

[evilroy]

0850:31 MDX contacts FIS5; FIS5 asks if they would like clearance through WLM if available. MDX says yes. FIS asks for an estimate overhead WLM. MDX says to stand by.

0851:27 MDX advises FIS of an ETA for overhead WLM at time 20.

0851:47 FIS asks WLM for clearance for MDX.

0852:22 WLM agrees to a clearance. Says 9000 or 7000 due AZC, which estimates WLM at 17.

0853:00 Sydney Sector 1 denies clearance for MDX.

0853:42 FIS ask Sydney Approach if clearance coastal is available; they tell FIS they will check weather and advise.

0854:20 MDX advised that Sydney has denied clearance via WLM, and that a coastal clearance may be available. MDX advises they would prefer coastal route. FIS says they will seek clearance and MDX to remain OCTA. MDX says they are approaching controlled airspace “pretty quick”.

0856:00 MDX advises that rather than wait for clearance, they now wish to track via CRAVEN.

0856:39 Sydney Approach advises that clearance coastal should be available but they need to still check on weather and that route will most likely be inland via WLM and MQD. FIS says that WLM has already cleared MDX through their airspace.

0857:18 MDX advise that clearance coastal not yet available and they may have to remain OCTA to get clearance.

0857:54 MDX says they’ll go via CRAVEN.


Note that at no time did the RAAF controller delay clearance and all delays came from Sydney. To imply that the military airspace contributed in any way to the accident is being highly disingenuous.

Dick, you are a skeptic; why aren't you applying those critical thinking skills to this matter? Why don't you just admit that although your call for airspace reform may be valid, your implications regarding the RAAF are completely unfounded?

[Mafian]

Careful there evilroy, you can't go around using facts like that. They ruin a good story.........

[Dick Smith]

Why would a NVMC flight require a clearance from Sydney to fly south of Willy?

I know this was before I introduced a number of airspace changes in 1991 but surely controlled airspace north of Sydney was not that huge.

The military were clearly involved in this problem because then - as today pilots were/are prohibited from planning over Willy. I have never blamed the military ATCs - just out of date rules they are forced to use. And why the almost constant delays for VFR aircraft through Willy these days? Do you blame AsAfor these?

Should be class D airspace! But never ever change anything! Concrete must remain set in the RAAF.!

[VH-XXX]

What do I need to do to prove this Dick, submit a plan from Merimbula to Coffs during the day perhaps?

[evilroy]

Dick,

You say you can't plan via WLM. Could I get a reference for that rule?

Thank you.

[Aussie Bob]

Howabout, Evilroy, amos2 and all your other pilots berating Dick's efforts: Question for you all:

What have you done to reform Aviation in Australia? Nothing no doubt, (just like me) yet you heap ****e on somone who has a go at making change.

Williamstown can be a bloody hassle to get through, struth, I once orbited at Nobbys because a bloody helicopter was about to take off up the beach somewhere. I can fly under Jumbos on Victor 1 without a clearance but not up the beach past Williamstown. Willy airspace is needlessly large and way over regulated. No doubt you blokes never fly it VFR so because you have no problem, there is no problem.

I commend you Dick and any thinking person can put two and two together and realise that MDX would have been safer VFR down the coast.

[evilroy]

...yet you heap ****e on somone who has a go at making change...

Aussie Bob, be fair: I have shown nothing but respect for Dick and I have been polite in my responses at all times. All I have done is shown that he was wrong to imply that the RAAF controllers contributed in any way to the accident. I presented the facts. I showed people how to look up the facts for themselves.

If Dick believes that airspace reform is required, then all power to him in his crusade. Just don't be blaming the military for a terrible accident.

[kingRB]

What have you done to reform Aviation in Australia? Nothing no doubt, (just like me) yet you heap ****e on somone who has a go at making change.you are entirely missing the point. I suggest you read RatsoreA's posts, particularly in the last few pages of this thread.

The point here is Dick is using MDX to drive his own agenda. This was never about airspace reform, this story was supposed to be about finding MDX.

Whether channel 7 originally planned this or decided to ramp up the controversy just before airing this story by including Dick's interview I do not know. However, as RatsoreA has now posted multiple times, this hijack is a kick in the guts to the people on this forum (and elsewhere) who have substantially devoted their time, resources & energy in the search for MDX.

The focus of this story is now continuing to diverge from where it should be, and it's plainly obvious from the comments in this thread that Dick Smith does not give a rats ass about it.

[Mhayli]

Mr Smith is possibly correct in his hypothesis that if a transit clearance of WLM airspace was more expeditiously forthcoming, then this accident may not have occurred. However, most professionals in this industry know that the vast majority of major incidents and accidents have several causal factors. They happen when the so called holes in the cheese align. So, this accident probably would not have occurred if:

A WLM transit clearance had been more forthcoming. Does that mean we blame the controllers, the airspace regulators, the airspace architects or government regulations?

The instruments on the aircraft were not faulty. Does that mean we blame the instrument manufacturer or the LAME that maintained them?

The pilot was in less of a hurry and waited for the transit clearance? Does that mean we blame the pilot?

The somewhat high risk flight category of night VFR did not exist. Does that mean we blame the then CAA?

The weather over the Barringtops was not inclement. Does that mean we blame... ummm... God?

Lets put this in context with reference to another disaster. If the KLM crew weren't close to exceeding duty hours, if the KLM aircraft was not blocking the Pan Am aircraft, if the terrorists hadn't detonated a bomb, if KLM didn't refuel when it did, if it wasn't foggy, if the controller wasn't (allegedly) watching the soccer, if the KLM PIC had more line recency rather than simulator recency, if the airport designers had put another parallel taxiway on the other side of the runway, then the deadliest crash in aviation history would probably not have occurred. So who do we blame? Controller, pilot, refueller, terrorist, airport designer, god?

I find it absolutely abhorrent that Mr Smith has singled out one causal factor in the accident of MDX. Where is the discussion about faulty instruments or the validity and safety of night VFR? By his own admission, Mr Smith has been trying to change military airspace regulation and administration for over two decades and is using the tragedy of MDX as a vehicle for this crusade. While I do not necessarily disagree with what he is trying to achieve, using MDX in his campaign is sinking to a new low. Shame Mr Smith, shame.

Edited to add: interesting how Mr Smith's focus is to remove the restrictions on WLM airspace. What about Nowra? Oakey? Richmond? East sale? Amberley? Edinburgh? Pearce? Tindal? Darwin? Or any other military airspace contrained by the same rule? Where do you live again, Dick? Oh right... got it.

[Avgas172]

The focus of this story is now continuing to diverge from where it should be, and it's plainly obvious from the comments in this thread that Dick Smith does not give a rats ass about it.

While the search for MDX is commendable to give some closure to the people affected by its disappearance 30 years ago, I feel the saving of lives today is more important, if it was your son/daughter flying that route tomorrow what what be your thoughts?
A172

[RatsoreA]

Avgas172,

While the search for MDX is commendable to give some closure to the people affected by its disappearance 30 years ago, I feel the saving of lives today is more important, if it was your son/daughter flying that route tomorrow what what be your thoughts?

Some far more near and dear to my heart flys that route about once a month, namely, me!! And I get diverted out west to Scone maybe 50% of the time.

I agree that going over Williamtown can be a PITA, and it could do with being changed, but how about starting a different movement/thread/campaign about getting the change, rather than hijacking a topic that has only peripheral meaning to what Dick is trying to achieve.

I can sum up what has gone on here, in the media and between Dick and the RAAF in one phrase -

"Thread drift"

[kingRB]

I feel the saving of lives today is more important, if it was your son/daughter flying that route tomorrow what what be your thoughts?at the risk of sounding like a broken record, myself, nor RatsoreA or anyone else in the search for MDX have any issue with what Dick is trying to achieve here.

What is objectionable and what the issue here is the method being used. If you want to drive airspace reform, save lives, save the dolphins, whatever, that's fine.

But please do so without hijacking other peoples work that has been ongoing for years. This was supposed to finally be the chance of national publicity in the interests of generating further exposure to get this matter solved. Now it's turned into a side show circus that Dick Smith has managed to orchestrate in a matter of a few hours.

[Dick Smith]

Channel 7 actually came to interview me primarily about my successful search for the Kookaburra aircraft in the Tanami Desert.

However I was always concerned that the BASI report on MDX did not make any recommendations re improving the Willy airspace.

When the presenter kept playing that horrible utube video of the last minutes of MDX I realized that the accident could be repeated tomorrow because pilots still had to flight plan around Williamtown.

I have spent over two decades attempting to get our military airspace modernized so it has some of the advantages of the US system.

After all virtually all of the RAAF aircraft come from the USA- surely that country must know something about modern efficient aviation.

I have offered to pay the cost of sending RAAF ATC decision makers to the USA to see how modern airspace design and procedures can make their jobs easier while saving monetary waste for the civilian aviation industry.

However there appears to be a long term culture in the RAAF of not copying the success of others.

If Williamtown was changed to class D as recommended by CASA a number of years ago the constant holding of VFR transiting aircraft would virtually be eliminated.

I am now selling my place on the north coast so it won't effect me anymore!

However I will never give up on pushing for IFR non pressurized aircraft to be able to flight plan the safest way when going coastal in the area!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I am getting rusty in my memory. 4 in SSR was mode C or was it the number of codes in the box?

[Jabawocky]

Dick,

I am perplexed. :confused:

Evilroy – you want me to make a statement that says the RAAF did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact assisted in every way in getting VH-MDX a clearance.

Well, I won’t be making that statement because it would be a lie.

For a start, if the military airspace had not been active that night or had not existed in that location, the pilot would have cruised down the coast in good weather conditions and arrived safely at Bankstown.

That is right up there with something like.......if the left main gear tyre had a puncture and required repair the next morning at the Gold Coast, the aircraft would have cruised down the coast in good weather conditions and arrived safely at BK.

:ugh:

[SloppyShifter]

That is right up there with something like.......if the left main gear tyre had a puncture and required repair the next morning at the Gold Coast, the aircraft would have cruised down the coast in good weather conditions and arrived safely at BK.

Well i guess that settles it, anyone who didn't puncture that tyre is to blame........

[Dick Smith]

No. It is nothing like your example.

Williamtown was opened during the Second World War to protect the steelworks in Newcastle

Who would locate a major air base slap bang in the middle of Australia's busiest air route. Not very sensible in the 21st century.

Especially when there is ocean to the east and high mountains to the west .

[junior.VH-LFA]

Because it has decades and millions of dollars worth of infrastructure and development, and being so close to the coast means that aircraft can fly overwater away from other traffic to condut BFM.

[Dick Smith]

Junior. Why then the need to put road block airspace between 5000 and 10,000 above the airport?

Have a look at all C and D military airspace in the USA - does not go above 5000 agl

Why not copy the best and most proven?

I know. We designed the Nomad and they only designed the Raptor, the F18 and the 747! What would they know?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Geez Dick, you're more persistent than a Jehovah's Witness door knocker! :bored:

[Victa Bravo]

Go get em Dick!!!

Wooo Hoooo

The squeaky wheel WILL get the oil.... It's just got 30 years of rust on this one!

[Aussie Bob]

At a guess about 50% of us on this thread support you Dick. I think that is pretty good for aviation :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

'AB' there's nearly 200 posts about this & all that has been achieved is a high level of rock throwing!
Dick has had his moments over the years for sure we all have to some degree but having this very subject brought back into the limelight as I have mentioned b4 here can only be a good thing, brings awareness to all sorts of 'possible' anomalies within our at times ludicrous backwards aviation industry that can be at least looked at & improved. I'd hate to be up there under the spotlight as Dick has been, we Aussies love to cut such people off at the knees, that we are experts at!.
I mean are we all not on the same team here guys fostering aviation & making it safer even though we often have this little sign:ugh: in our faces due shear stupidity?

.......................relax out there, lets all work towards a common goal here, conquer & divide is not the way to go:ok:

Wmk2

[Howabout]

The problem with all the underlying arguments for airspace access is that evidence is used on a selective basis to push an agenda.

Years ago, during NAS, we were told that Australian airspace was 'unique,' that the restrictions happened nowhere else and that we were a bunch of troglodytes.

NZ was held up as the shining example for regulatory reform by the zealots. Leady, are you listening?

In 2002/2004, or thereabouts, the NZ CAA put out an airspace booklet, now offline, that depicted the beloved MOAs with no restrictions on access to civil traffic outside the 12-mile limit - I still have a hard-copy.

It's illegal, isn't it Leady, to deny access outside territorial waters? Let's get this straight to start off with. Because you believe NZ should be our model.

Our military were pilloried at the time by the zealots for having airspace off the coast that is regulated.

Check out page 10 of what was released by the NZ CAA in 2008 and which still stands as regards access to MOAs in international airspace. Read it for yourselves and ask why the NZ CAA changed the rules to regulate access beyond their territorial limits.

Airspace is 2/3 of the way down.

https://www.caa.govt.nz/airspace/airspace2.htm

The zealots will never reveal this stuff as it's an inconvenient truth. It's selective information that doesn't support the agenda.

Also look at Class F airspace off the NE coast of Canada in international airspace that's used by the military. You need a clearance and their AIP is pretty direct on that one.

We are fed less than honest arguments to support less than honest agendas; and the chooks suck it all in.

[TBM-Legend]

Open Letter to Channel Seven

Dear Channel Seven,

I was very disappointed to watch your interview with Mr. Dick Smith on the Channel Seven Sunday Night production on the flight of aircraft VH-MDX which crashed in the Barrington Tops in August 1981. In the programme, you denigrate the military air traffic controllers at Williamtown and I am left very concerned about an honest, objective and balanced view. Dick Smith stated in the programme that the RAAF ‘sent these five people to their deaths’. On the Channel Seven Sunrise programme on Monday morning, Dick Smith also stated that RAAF Controllers were ‘concrete minded people’.

You should be aware that the whole truth was not told in your programme and you gave neither the Department of Defence nor any former military air traffic controller any opportunity to provide any balance to the story. You will be interested to know that despite Dick Smith’s statements about the failure of Williamtown to facilitate clearance through the Williamtown airspace for VH-MDX, the actual voice transcript of coordination between Sydney Flight Service Unit and Williamtown Tower that evening, indicates that Williamtown Tower approved the transit of MDX through the Williamtown airspace immediately the clearance was requested by Sydney Flight Service. ‘Why not’ was the immediate response from Williamtown when Sydney Flight Service requested an airways clearance.

To confirm my assertion, the actual transcript of audio recordings from the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) records, available to the public in the National Archives is as follows:



In the above exchange, Sydney Flight Service (FIS 5) provides Williamtown Tower (WM) with the full flight details of MDX and asks if he can expect a clearance. Williamtown responds immediately - ‘why not’. A discussion then follows with a possible change of altitude because an earlier aircraft (VH-AZC) has already been cleared to transit Williamtown airspace at 8000 feet tracking from Taree to Williamtown. A confliction is possible so WM offers FIS 5 an alternate altitude for MDX of 9000 feet or 7000 feet to ensure that appropriate separation between MDX and AZC is maintained.

This immediate clearance issued by WM flies in the face of your programme assertion and Dick Smith’s statements that the RAAF ‘sent these five people to their deaths’.



Then:



In the above exchange, Sydney FIS 5 asks Sydney Air Traffic Control Sector 1 (S1) for an onwards clearance for MDX to enter the Sydney controlled airspace after the Williamtown transit is complete. S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud). So the clearance issued by Williamtown Tower to Sydney Flight Service was never transmitted to the aircraft due to Sydney Sector 1 involvement. As a result, three minutes later at 0856, MDX, with no clearance issued by FIS 5 through Williamtown airspace, tracked from Taree to Craven then Singleton and into bad weather where some 45 minutes later the aircraft crashed in the Barrington Tops.

None of this aspect of the MDX flight and Air Traffic Coordination was mentioned by Dick Smith or your programme. You seem to accept the inflammatory comments as the gospel truth however at no stage did you question or challenge the information provided by Dick Smith.

As Dick Smith is portrayed by the general public as a great Australian and an aviation expert, when he speaks, people listen and believe him. So the perception that the public would now have of the Williamtown (RAAF) controllers and (by association) every current Defence and former Defence controllers is that they (the controllers) have no interest in facilitating civil aircraft through military airspace. This is so far from the truth as military controllers at all Defence bases do their utmost to facilitate civil aircraft movements through military airspace.

To illustrate my point, in 1991, 10 years after the MDX accident, as an RAAF Reserve Officer, I was tasked by the Department of Defence in Canberra to travel to Williamtown specifically to collect data about civil aircraft transitting Williamtown airspace. During that task, I quantified the number of civil flights which requested transit clearance through Williamtown military airspace over a period of twelve days and what percentages were actually approved. The result of my research indicated that of 263 transit aircraft:

· 94.68% of civil transits were cleared through the airspace as requested.

· 3.04% of civil transits were cleared through the airspace via an amended clearance.

· 2.28% of civil transits were not cleared due to military traffic.

So, 97.72% of civil aircraft who requested transit of Williamtown airspace received approval. That is a totally different story from the one portrayed in your programme.

A significant public apology from your programme and an acknowledgement of the erroneous information portrayed would be greatly appreciated by many hundreds of current and former military air traffic controllers whose professionalism has been unfairly maligned by your biased programme.

Yours sincerely,



Harry Howard

Former Military Air Traffic Controller

[Trevor the lover]

5 and a half minutes between requesting clearance and the decision to rack off to the west. And a request which said "I'm approaching the airspace pretty quickly.........."


Would I be right to say he was behind the aircraft and considering that the RAAF had no problem giving a clearance, and Sydney was working on it - maybe he should have requested clearance in a more timely manner rather than just arriving at the boundary and then being prompted by the RAAF, ie "do you want a clearance through Willy."

[Howabout]

Onya, Harry!

Unfortunately, substance runs a distant second to sensationalism and TV ratings. The unfortunate fact is half-truths and innuendo will always win out. Nobody wants the truth because it kills a 'good story.'

The 'RAAF killed people' is a better commercial TV line than the PIC blew it.

[evilroy]

Well said TBM! Still, based on past performance I don't expect Ch 7 to do anything about it.

[Dick Smith]

Harry. Why did you leave out that because of RAAF regulations the pilot was prohibited from planning his flight overhead Williamtown and that meant the Willy controller had no prior notice of the flight - and that was one of the reasons for the delay.

Why did you leave out that this prohibition still remains today and another 5 innocent Aussies could be sent on the same journey tonight?

I have spent over 20 years attempting to encourage the RAAF to send its ATC decision makers to the USA or the UK to see how modern military airspace can be handled.

All to no avail.

Seeing you are all flying around in some of the best aircraft in the world - nearly all made in the USA - why wouldn't you also want to copy there efficient airspace design.?

About three years ago CASA produced a paper recommending class D airspace for Williamtown. Why has this not been acted upon?

Why don't you talk to some of the VFR pilots who get held all the time transitting Williamtown?

One day one of these aircraft is going to end up in the ocean with all the family drowned.

Then the changes will be made.

[evilroy]

Could someone point me to a reference that says it is prohibited to plan via WLM? I'm not up to date with this and want to familiarise myself with the regulation. I asked Dick earlier but not got a reply as yet.

[evilroy]

Dick, you have been told time and time again: there was no delay from Willy. The delays came from Sector 1 (clearance denied) and Sydney Approach (checking wx on a coastal route).

[Dick Smith]

Trevor. The pilot was never prompted by the RAAF controller.

The pilot never ever spoke to the RAAF controller - wasn't allowed to!

The pilot was informed at Cooly that RAAF regulations prohibited flight planning via Williamtown. Yes. Even on a Sunday night with no military aircraft flying

Same restriction today.

Clear evidence of concrete minded ness in the minds of the RAAF personnel who have resisted any change to this restriction.

[Dick Smith]

Evilroy. Gen-FPR -1

Coffs Harbour - Williamtown. Not to be flight planned during WLM HR ACT

[evilroy]

Dick: thank you.

[Dick Smith]

Willy controllers I am on your side.

You need some proper leadership from above or there is likely to be even more fatalities,

Get the route restriction removed- and get the more modern D airspace that allows controllers more flex ability to move aircraft safely.

[Aussie Bob]

Get the route restriction removed- and get the more modern D airspace that allows controllers more flex ability to move aircraft safely. And let us fly up the beach without a clearance!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And let us fly up the beach without a clearance!

...and there is the nub!

argument done before. 500ft coastal is inside the approach splay. Unlike Victor One, Willie is just a few km closer to the beach than SY.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I constantly wonder how Australian airspace would have evolved without meddling do-gooders.

[Dick Smith]

No doubt you would have to still go full position reporting VFR and pay full enroute charges like PNG

Coffs would not be class D but a secondary zone going out to 21 nm at ground level

No victor lane of course.

Canberra airspace would still go out north of Gundaroo so I would need a clearance to get airborne!

No CTAFs. You would still be on the area frequency or on an AFIS in the circuit.

Great. Let's go back

[LeadSled]

I constantly wonder how Australian airspace would have evolved without meddling do-gooders.

It would be even more restrictive and even further removed from the efficient airspace management that our peers in the US and Canada enjoy --- for no good reason than "this is the Australian way" --- closed minded, impervious to new ideas, with the smug certainty that what works so well on the other side of the Pacific "will not work in Australia" --- and, of course pedantic and inflexible in day to day operations.

What part of this system results in the high rate of "loss of separation" incident in Australia, compared to the FAA ATC system, on which the real ICAO SARPs are based.

As for the extent of military controlled airspace in Australia, it is simply ridiculous, quite unnecessary, and costs civil aviation very dearly.

Tootle pip!!

[Ascend Charlie]

His instruments were going to fail anyway.
Sydney was non-NVFR
He would probably have popped into a cloud near MQD, which may or may not have made finding the wreckage a little easier.

[LeadSled]

NZ was held up as the shining example for regulatory reform by the zealots. Leady, are you listening?

In 2002/2004, or thereabouts, the NZ CAA put out an airspace booklet, now offline, that depicted the beloved MOAs with no restrictions on access to civil traffic outside the 12-mile limit - I still have a hard-copy.

It's illegal, isn't it Leady, to deny access outside territorial waters? Let's get this straight to start off with. Because you believe NZ should be our model.

Our military were pilloried at the time by the zealots for having airspace off the coast that is regulated.

Check out page 10 of what was released by the NZ CAA in 2008 and which still stands as regards access to MOAs in international airspace. Read it for yourselves and ask why the NZ CAA changed the rules to regulate access beyond their territorial limits.Howabout,

Yes, I am listening, and hearing incoherent noise.

Let's get one thing straight, I have never advocated the NZ approach to airspace management, period. Although, generally, they do it well. Thus, most of your rant falls at the first hurdle.

At all times I have advocated the US implementation of the ICAO airspace classification, because it works, and works very well, and as described in the first Minister's Airspace Policy Statement in the Airspace Act 2007 (Cth).

Look it up, it's on the ComLaw web site

If NZ are are actually purporting to restrict operations in MOSs outside the territorial limits, that is beyond their power, regardless of what is on paper.

Putting forward the NZ Civil Aviation Act and Regulations rules set as a general example to follow in Australia is another matter entirely.

Also look at Class F airspace off the NE coast of Canada in international airspace that's used by the military. You need a clearance and their AIP is pretty direct on that one.Again, let's get some facts straight, ICAO Class F airspace IS NOT controlled airspace, look up your ICAO definitions. There is no such thing as a clearance to enter Class F airspace, any more than there is in G. If the Canadian AIP says otherwise, it is beyond power.

Canada is quite entitled to establish airspace classifications in international airspace that is under their jurisdiction, but ICAO rules apply, just as it does in Australia.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the US Navy treats Australia the same way it treats other (third world) countries that purport to ignore the Law of the Sea Treaties and other international treaties (when it suits us). When a aircraft carrier is coming to Australia, they make a point of conducting air operations, in airspace that Australia purports to restrict, despite it being in international waters.

Ever polite, the US Navy advises Australia of its intentions, and makes it very clear that this is advice, and is in no way is the USN asking for clearances to conduct air operations in international airspace.

This same US policy is applied to Indonesia, and including sailing through such as the Sunda Straight and other similar waters, that the Indonesia claim as domestic waters, despite the Law of the Sea Treaties, to which Indonesia is a signatory. No permission is asked by the USN.

Some years ago, an N registered light aircraft was flown up and down the beach off Willy, outside the 12 mile limit, when the the RAAF had purported to "activate" the military restrictions in international airspace.

No action was ever attempted to be taken against the pilot in command, because the DoT, DoD and the Attorney General's Department knew full well that no action could be taken, the pilot was completely withing his rights to do what he did.

It got up a lot of noses, that was the point, to show that all that offshore R airspace was unenforceable. Beyond power.

That something is printed on a piece of paper does not make it law.

Remember the fracas quite recently, when CASA decided that you needed an "international" AOC to fly Melbourne direct to Perth, and to fly from the mainland to a number of the islands in the Torres Straight. An interesting example of the application of the 12 mile limit to some rather silly CARs.

You should have a look, some time, at how rigidly the US observes the Law of the Sea Treaties, have a look at aeronautical charts for either the east or west coast, all US domestic civil and military airspace ends at the 12 mile limit, although, of course, the FAA continues to provide control services to traffic in international airspace administered by the US.

I sincerely suggest you get your facts straight.

If advocating world's best practice airspace management makes me a zealot, I am happy to wear the badge.

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

Username. This accident was clearly caused because RAAF requirements prohibit civilian pilots from planning and flying the safest way down the coast .

The pilot got safely to Taree from the border at night. A night VMC flight is normally flown in VMC and it's known that Williamtown was CAVOK that night.

The only reason he turned inland after Taree was to comply with RAAF imposed flight planning requirements.

If the gyro instruments had failed at the same time but the pilot was on the coast there was excellent visibility ahead to allow for a safe continuation of the flight to Bankstown .

I spoke today to a pilot who flew down the coast ahead of MDX on the same night and this pilot said it was a perfect night for a NVMC flight.

If the pilot of MDX had been allowed to file a plan from Taree to overhead Williamtown the Willy controller would have had prior details via the FDP system ( or it's equivalent ) and would have adequate time to advise Sydney FS of the levels that a clearance would be available without a delay.

The only reason the Willy controller could not do this is because of the RAAF requirement .

Stop attacking me. Help get this restrictive limitation removed before more lives are lost.

[Arm out the window]

FFS, when are we going to stop blathering about "sending people to their deaths" and "it's all about stopping more tragic accidents"?

Because "I don't like being held and I want to be cleared unrestricted wherever I want whenever I like" doesn't sound half as attention-getting!

Your self-generated hoo-ha has got bugger all to do with the MDX accident, Dick, so please stop pretending it has.

[TBM-Legend]

Why then didn't the PIC of the aircraft exercise his command position and declare an emergency due stress of weather and divert to Williamtown or return to Taree if the weather there was OK? Pushing on in marginal conditions is generally considered a bad decision.

Dick, the Willi controllers don't make the rules by the way. I know because I was one [who sent a QF B747 up the light aircraft lane one busy day - a fine sight to behold crossing the extended centre line of 12/30 at 500"]

[yr right]

What a crook. Can some one tell me why the raaf need and exclusion zone from the coast to the range 1 hour out of the largest city in Australia. It's not required at all.
Yes that pilot made some wrong decesions however the zone didn't help him out either.
Let's not forget that life's where lost this was not exercise.
Cheers

[Creampuff]

Because of the human mind's propensity to dichotomise, it's difficult for laypeople to comprehend that sovereign states can (and do) legislate for the regulation of aircraft of their own nationality beyond 12 nm from the baselines established in accordance with UNCLOS, even though the legislation may not be binding on aircraft of other nationalities. That's why it's illegal, in Australian law, for a VH-registered aircraft to operate in Swaziland for a commercial purpose prescribed for the purposes of section 27 of the Australian Civil Aviation Act, without an AOC issued under the Australian Civil Aviation Act authorising that operation. However, it is not unlawful, in Australian law, for an N-registered aircraft to operate, in Swaziland, for a commercial purpose prescribed for the purposes of section 27 of the Australian Civil Aviation Act without an AOC issued under that Act.

So Canada and Australia and Orangeland can declare any kind of airpace anywhere in the universe, and it will be binding on aircraft of the nationality of the declaring nation. Australia can declare Class B airspace in the middle of the Pacific ocean (and can declare a Romeo area that extends beyone 12nms from the baseline) and it will be binding on aircraft with Australian nationality (so it's probably best to publish that on a chart...) However, it won't be binding, as a matter of international public law, on aircraft of other nationalities when they are outside 12 nm from the baselines of Australia (or Canada or Orangeland) established in accordance with UNCLOS, unless the country of 'home' nationality has legislated requiring aircraft of its nationality to comply with the delarations of other countries to the extent they purport to apply further than 12nms from the baseline ...

But don't forget Rule 1 of public international law: The country with the most guns can regulate anywhere they like...

[BPA]

I've never flown in the USA or Europe, so can someone tell me if you are able to flight plan over the top of all airforce bases over there without any restrictions?

[Dick Smith]

Mate. The pilots dead! I can't bring him back to life and read the riot act to him.

And wasn't really the passengers fault anyway

I made it very clear on the Sunday interview that I believed the pilot made serious errors of judgement.

I reckon we should have learnt from what happened and try and reduce the chance of it happening again.

If 95% get a clearance why not remove the route limitation so the Willy controllers have the information at their fingertips. ?

I know. I know. You can't possible change a rule ever. " we are the safest in the world". The concrete sets!

[Old Fella]

Mr Smith

You continue to claim the RAAF and the restriction on planning Coffs - Williamtown as the cause of the aircraft VH-MDX being lost with all aboard.
I would have expected that you of all people would accept that every flight is planned within the existing rules and that every PIC has the responsibility to ensure that the flight is conducted with the safety of the aircraft and those aboard being the most important consideration. Numerous times every day pilots have to make decisions which will ensure safety is not compromised, regardless of any other imperative.

Whether or not one believes that the restictions in place in relation to Williamtown are justified or not, they are in place and were in place in 1981 when VH-MDX was lost.

You have a particular position to promote, as is your right, and many will agree with your view. What I find incomprehensible is your dogged refusal to retract your claim that "The RAAF sent five people to their death". Holding for onwards clearance is nothing unique or restricted to Williamtown. I have lost count of the number of times having been put in the hold on descent into Sydney, burning up tonnes of fuel whilst holding and then being asked to maintain best speed to West Pymble without explanation as to (1), why the holding was required and, (2) why "best speed" was then requested.

The RAAF DID NOT DIRECT THE PIC OF MDX TO FLY INTO THE WX ON HIS PLANNED TRACK. He made that decision it would seem because he was not prepared to wait. Your claim, in an earlier post, that he would have somehow been in jeopardy had he held beggars belief when compared to the decision he made to fly his original planned route. You claim the only reason he turned inland was because of RAAF imposed restrictions. No Mr Smith, that was not the only reason. Options were available.

There seems to me to have been a constant reference to "I" in your offerings, i.e. "I changed this" and "I changed that" and "I will change this", etc etc. Like many others on this thread I have no truk with your attempts to see change made but I am heartily sick of your continued blaming of the RAAF for the failings of the one person whom could have prevented this accident had other options been taken.

I hope that in the fullness of time the accident aircraft will be found and it is able to provide answers for all those people who seek them.

[Dick Smith]

User. He claims his request was initially refused so he demanded assertively to know why- then he was given a clearance

BPA. I will post the FAA color chart of their airspace when I can find it. Some on this site will go berserk!

VFR can overfly all FAA class B ,D and C airspace without a clearance.

Requires a transponder above B and C

[RatsoreA]

Username,

Exactly. Don't forget AZC was about 9 minutes in front of MDX, on exactly the same route, with no problems getting a clearance.

Username. This accident was clearly caused because RAAF requirements prohibit civilian pilots from planning and flying the safest way down the coast


No, it wasn't.

As someone with such a large range of experience with aviation, how you could possibly come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

Nobody made the PIC do anything. He made the all the decisions from end to end. Any MINOR delays he might have experienced, had he waited, were so that separation could be assured from preceding traffic.

If the pilot was that concerned, why didn't he ask for clearance before he got to Taree. And just in case you say he couldn't request it before then, there is absolutely nothing to support that.

I have asked SEVERAL direct questions, of which, you have ignored nearly 90% of them as the only possible answers you can give contradict your point of view.

I implore you, for the sake of all the people actually doing something constructive about this, go back, read every single one of my questions and reply to them.

[Dick Smith]

Old Fella. You just don't get it

Most pilots would surely want the planning restriction removed. Clearly reduces safety.

I have worked for over 20 years to try and get these military requirements updated. Dozens of letters, many meetings , lots of promises of change - and basically nothing happens.

Let's see what happens this time.

And I know people in the military who are just as frustrated as I am.

[BPA]

The IFR C206 in front of MDX had no problems planning via WLM.

If I remember correctly back then when you submitted a flight plan you would plan via SGT MQD (inbound to SY/BK) and via WMD (outbound). However you could include via WLM as an option/preferred tracking. If you included this option in your flight plan the Briefing Office/FSO would include WIlly they sent the flight plan to the relevant ATC units.

The flight progress strips (blue outbound, yellow inbound) would include a note of the overhead WLM option/preferred tracking.

[yr right]

No one has still answer the most simple question in all of this. Why oh why do the raaf need to lock up airspace between to major city's on what probably the most flown route north out of the largest city in Australia. From coast to range any way you look at it at some point even if you go west out of Sydney you over tiger country again. It make zero sence at all for this airway to be locked up and cleareance required. Can any give a positive view on why it should require cleareance or why it should be locked up.
Let's not forget that life's lost but look forward to prevent it happening again.

Cheers

[yr right]

I've landed at USA military bases that have active fighters on the ready (after 911) with zero problems. At one base we landed on the taxy way as the main strip was being up graded in North dokota only to look out the window to see f 16 and 15 on the ready. Not many spots you can't fly over in the USA. Take off put a plan on route get cleareance to 10 then 15 then 20 then25 then 30 doing px checks no dramas nothin a problem.
Cheers

[yr right]

So user why dose it need to be lock up for. Think you find Dick is frustrated by the lack of common sence here on this subject if I may say so. There is no responsible or reasonable reason for this lock up.

[sunnySA]

Dick Smith
Username. This accident was clearly caused because RAAF requirements prohibit civilian pilots from planning and flying the safest way down the coast .

The pilot got safely to Taree from the border at night. A night VMC flight is normally flown in VMC and it's known that Williamtown was CAVOK that night.

TBM-Legend
S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud).

So Dick, lets assume that the aircraft had received a clearance via O/H Williamtown, Sydney ATC Sector1 said that their airspace wasn't VMC. What airspace would the aircraft have used and how would the aircraft navigated between WM and BK? Remember CAVOK is nil cloud below 5000ft.

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

I have looked at the logbook, I have flown Sydney to Brisbane, or Brisbane to Sydney, 8 times in the last 7 months, during day and night. I have been diverted out to Scone 2 times in those, and cleared directly over Williamtown 6 times, and only one of those required any holding (less than 40 seconds) at all. I am pretty sure that turning 360 degrees at 8000ft + or - 100 feet isn't beyond the skill level required of an appropriately qualified pilot (like the PIC was). You seem to think that such a manoeuvre is the stuff of legend?! Are you saying that if we put you in a 210 at night in CAVOK, 5 miles from the coast and 8000ft high, you wouldn't be able to conduct one orbit?

The RAAF are not even remotely to blame for any of this.

[Mhayli]

Yr right - I don't think many people on here are questioning the agenda, only the method.

To state that 'this accident was clearly caused by RAAF requirements...' is political and emotive spin and BS.

The airspace and flight planning constraints may have contributed to the crash. The pilots decisions on the night may have contributed to the crash. The weather on the night may have contributed to the crash. The fact that a 'night VFR' flight category exists may have contributed to the crash. The fact that the flight was made on that night, in that aircraft, by that pilot, may have contributed to the crash. Faulty instruments may have contributed to the crash.

To lay blame solely on only one of those aspects, as Mr Smith has by stating the 'accident was clearly caused...' is incorrect and irresponsible. Anyway, like a lot of contributors, I'm going blue in the face, and getting pretty sick of not getting any answers to direct questions.

So, Mr Smith - why are you solely focusing on one causal factor of the accident, when a change of any of them would probably have prevented the crash? In all your dialogue, why do you only mention WLM airspace? There is plenty of other military controlled, RA2 airspace in this country in terrain as inhospitable and non conducive to forced landing as that around WLM. So far, your silence on these two issues has spoken a thousand words.

[Jabawocky]

yr right
No one has still answer the most simple question in all of this.

:}:}:} Funniest post all year coming from you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Of all the people on here who refuse to answer questions you are the best performer and even Dick, despite his always avoiding a well targeted question can't compete.

And Dick, why do you avoid the on topic questions? Seems a common problem that 16-AP and others are having with this topic.

16-AP :E :ok:

[Sheep Guts]

From what I can gather the Pilot was very experienced, and honestly should have known better. He flew knowingly into IMC, and seemed to have persisted. Even though there was strong winds and mountain wave wind shear, and the VAC pump cut out, he persisted. If he was Visual at Craven he should have held in VMC there, not continue into the soup. He had a truck load fuel. He was full fuel out of Cooly with 330mins Total endurance. And if it was going to be a no go, i.e. no clearance onwards, then request to fly back to Taree, and go to the pub, and try again the next day. He wasn't flying a bank run. He didn't have commercial pressure.
As a Night VFR pilot flying into IMC he should've done a 180deg turn on instruments and flown back out again and remain VMC. I'm sorry but he painted himself and his passengers into a corner that night. Its such a terrible tragedy lets not forget this.

I said this in a post before but deleted after reading the BASI report in the National Archive. He seemed to be well north of track when he reported his ADF was spinning or directly tracking. Next time RastoreA you fly the route in your airplane try dialling up the Scone NDB 209khz( I suppose its not there any more) as apposed to the SGT NDB 290khz( maybe gone aswell).He may have had them tuned incorrectly ( dyslexic figure change). Has this theory already been discussed with your investigation team? If he was tracking on fixed card ADF and magnetic compass after DG failure to Scone on weaker signal over the hills might account for his off track excursion.

[Hempy]

I am pretty sure that turning 360 degrees at 8000ft + or - 100 feet isn't beyond the skill level required of an appropriately qualified pilot (like the PIC was)

Approach didn't seem to think so either..

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/D057C777-4204-4C62-8D7B-674053DE03B1_zpsryq1febj.jpg

The sad part is, if you read the FULL transcript, the clearance from APP was essentially approved pending MDX's choice of level, and WLM were happy as long as he was vertically separated from AZC. It would have been sorted almost immediately if he hadn't turned towards Craven when he did.

[yr right]

We'll Jaba you failed to answer a lot of questions your self. So we'll then why is it so. A lot of you are all brave behind a key board. At least dick has said his peace although he has the ability far beyond what most of us have to get media attention.
I never heard him blame anyone in the interview. What he did have a go at was the system and rightly so. At the end of the day he really has nothin to gain in all of this. He really can sit back and say we'll fu$k you all. But he hasn't.

Not one person has been able to give one reason why we have a restricted airspace there and why there is no lame to be able to be use with out clearance.

As with most things in aviation when you push the limits sometimes it pushes back. In this case it did.

You are different though. You had your own agenda to push. Dick hasn't. He doing it for the good of the aviation community. Even if you don't like the man or what he stands for at least he has a go. It up to the person reding that to decided that. It a shame that you can't get behind him a help push for a change instead of having mindless digs just because his views may or maybe different to your own. Mmm pattern here me thinks. Not all of us are sheeps.

Cheers

[Hempy]

*yawn* haven't you got burnt clys to pick up off the floor?

[RatsoreA]

Sheep,

Yes, the possibility that he transposed the digits when tuning the ADF is certainly within the realms of possibility.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter *why* he took the route he did, and really, it doesn't even matter what the route he took was. As far as actually finding the aircraft is concerned, the most relevant part is the flight of the aircraft after it was identified by Williamtown radar at 320M/45nm at about 1936. We know it was there, and pretty much anything before that isn't very relevant in finding it.

From that time, until it lost contact, was about 3 and a half minutes.

[mgahan]

Dick,

I've a lot of personal involvement in this incident, as other posters may know and you will probably remember us discussing airspace issues in the past - in public forums where professionals were present.

I'm sure you have the language skills, intelligence and aviation experience to read and understand the transcripts of the communications as are on the public record and presented in several posts in this discussion. Please take a look at them again and note the time stamps.

Now, in an effort to help you regain some credibility in the aviation community, I offer you a quote to cut and paste into a post on this discussion:
"I have read the transcript of communication between the RAAF Williamtown controller and Sydney Flight Service and acknowledge that Williamtown offered a clearance through the active RAAF airspace as soon as requested by Flight Service."

MJG

PS - we are both Queen's Scouts -remember the Scout Law.

[Howabout]

Well, that about sums it up. Anyone that knows MJG knows that he's a dispassionate BS-free zone.

Listen Dick; for the sake of your (diminishing) credibility.

[Sheep Guts]

Ok from that last Radar plots and 3 and a half minutes on heading anywhere between 220 to 150 I suppose with that strong 60-70kt wind. Gosh its tough one then. How broad an area does that cover?

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

This is very much reminding of a very funny line in Blackadder - "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."

What is not funny is you taking the focus of what a lot of dedicated and hard working people are trying to achieve, with very limited resources, and usually, contributing their own resources.

This was a chance to put THE SEARCH into public awareness, so that maybe, we might be given a higher funding priority, to enable us to FIND THE AIRPLANE.

I am far from a millionaire but I have sunk countless hours of my time, and countless $$$ into SEARCHING, as have many other people.

You have hijacked this issue, both here, in the media and they eyes of the public, to push your own, very tenuously linked, agenda, and removed the best chance in about 30 years of us raising the profile of it to where we could maybe bring about a successful conclusion to this story. You have made it, not about the fact that the plane still hasn't been found, but about you and your misguided war on the RAAF.

So thank you very much, I really hope you're f$@king happy with the result you achieved. For yourself.

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
Whilst I agree with you as far as matter of Australia control of aircraft of Australian nationality is concerned, re operations or airworthiness generally, I do not agree that Australia has the power to impose airspace limitations on Australian aircraft in international airspace, that don't apply equally to other aircraft in the same international airspace or other national airspace.
It ultimately becomes a constitutional issue, in my view.
We could have an interesting discussion on this, but this is not the place for that discussion.
Tootle pip!!

[Dora-9]

yr right:

You had your own agenda to push. Dick hasn't. He doing it for the good of the aviation community

Are you serious? What planet are you on? Dick's agenda should be readily obvious.

And at least Jaba can spell....

[Creampuff]

I do not agree that Australia has the power to impose airspace limitations on Australian aircraft in international airspace ...The Commonwealth of Australia can impose any airspace limitations it likes, on any aircraft with Australian nationality, anywhere in the universe.

If the Commmonwealth can, as it does now, validly prohibit Australian aircraft from operating commercially inside or outside Australian territory, without an AOC issued by CASA, the Commonwealth can declare a Romeo or other airspace outside Australian territory and it, too, will be binding on Australian aircraft.

You can test it though. Find some of this extra-territorial airspace in an Australian aircraft, bust it, and do a Darryl Kerrigan... :ok:

[AirTrafficOne]

Hi Dick,

What personal agenda are you running here with your crocodile tears on TV?

I was a RAAF air traffic controller at ASWM in the 80's. I was the only ATC who was both military and civilian trained. I have cleared thousands of civilian flights through Willytown airspace whenever asked, especially if the weather was dodgy outside ASWM controlled airspace.

I have cleared YOU in your Jetranger, with your wife and kids on board to transit and land somewhere private north of Williamtown. On a return flight one day I cleared you to fly right over the Base, cautioning you not to take any photographs and then to hover in front of the control tower whilst you took pictures, your kids waved and I shone the Aldis Lamp at them.

How dare you baselessly and shamelessly blame military air traffic controllers for this sad incident.

I have, on at least 2 occasions, broken all the rules and RESCUED civilian pilots in distress by radar vectoring them and actually landing them at the RAAF Base. I have a letter from one of those pilots thanking me profusely for saving his life.

Read the transcript and apologise before a tsunami of very angry and upset military air traffic controllers get on television...

[AirTrafficOne]

Dick, and others who are posting on here without first hand knowledge.

"Fly up and down the Coastal Lightie Lane without a clearance"...

Mmmmm - it IS controlled airspace which means air traffic controllers actually "control" the airspace. We are (were in my case) responsible to separate aircraft in that airspace.

I've had many (read lots) of inexperienced civil pilots fly up the light aircraft lane who did understand the basic clearance and thought it was ok to shortcut close to the bombing and gunnery range (one actually flew right through the bombing range!).

Having a newly qualified VFR bug smasher pilot barely able to control the aircraft being passed in front at 400+ knots by a gaggle of fighters at close quarters is not good! We tried to avoid that situation.

Passengers in large jets do not like to see fighters outside their windows whilst sipping on a latte - it upsets them and causes all sorts of complaints - we try to avoid that.

If real, live bullets, bombs and missiles are flying through the ether, we try really hard to avoid mixing civilians in there too.

When your Cessna Citation or any other aircraft is HELD or diverted it is for good reason, not because we are (or were) BORED!

The things that go on in military airspace are not for everyone's ears or eyes, including yours Dick.

As a military and civilian ATC who also flew, I constantly invited pilots to the control tower and radar centre to observe, sit with us and plug in to see the other side of the coin. Very few took up the opportunity and yet many ATCs are pilots themselves.

Are we all sad, very sad when a life is lost? YES we are - ALL of us!

You have lost the support of a large chunk of the aviation community Dick.

Time to stop.