New MDX - Five Dead Williamtown Never Found

[Dick Smith]

In relation to the MDX crash west of Williamtown, many people have been fascinated by the fact that the pilot inadvertently flew almost due west for many, many miles until he was on the other side of Barrington Tops, and no air traffic controller in front of a radar screen mentioned this to the pilot – either directly or indirectly through Flight Service.

It has recently been claimed to me that the Williamtown air traffic controller – even though there was an operating radar in the tower, actually was not qualified to use the radar and could only do procedural work.

If this is so, it’s a very important point that was not bought out in the BASI investigation. Can anyone confirm whether the Williamtown controller was actually radar rated or is it true that person had not received that quite straight forward training? If that is so, why has this been kept hidden?

[allthecoolnamesarego]

From memory, RAAF controllers leave the school of ATC rated with a 'tower rating' and after a number of years, they can seek 'Applroch training'. They the go back to SATC to do their Radar course.
Tower controllers are not required to be radar qualified to do their tower job.
I doubt tis fact was 'hidden' as am sure ever military ATC. knows this progression path from TWR to approach. I understand it is reversed in civian ATC, as the Senior Controllers are tower controllers.

It has been a while, so I stand to be corrected.

To call the course 'straight forward' training is a bit of a backhanded insult to the controlers who complete the RADAR training.

Ther is more to RADAR control than just looking at the screen.

[Dick Smith]

So why didn't anyone inform the pilot he was such a staggering distance off track? " wasn't my job to" ?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Dick, the unfortunate outcome of the MDX flight is down to the PIC - all the rest is just ancilliary "noise"!

The PIC of MDX had numerous opportunities to break the chain of events that tragically resulted in the deaths of himself and 4 others - and he failed to do so. He just made one poor decision after another until the end result was inevitable.

I am a contemporary of the PIC, with a similar level of flying experience at the time, and remember the incident well. I would have stayed on the ground at Cooly!

Dr :8

[TBM-Legend]

In those days the control tower position did not have radar.,,so the bit about no radar service is irrelevant

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

many people have been fascinated

But only one cannot get past it.

[RatsoreA]

*Sigh*....

No, he was not qualified to use it at that time, but it was left on as an aid to his situational awareness. Procedural separation was in force that evening, not radar separation. The monitoring of the flight was not the responsibility of Williamtown. MDX was not inside Williamtown airspace. That fact has not been hidden by anyone. The RAAF ATC school syllabus for way back then obviously thought that it was not a required qualification on march out from the school. Hardly the controller in questions fault.

To recap -

MDX NOT in his area of responsibility.

PIC of MDX made the decision to track west away from the coast after being told of a short delay due to preceding slower traffic at the same (or about) level. No airspace hoarding at all.


PIC originally planned to follow the route he ended up taking, he was offered transit through Willamtown if he wanted to wait, which the PIC declined.

"Not my area of responsibility" is a slippery slope for everyone. Lines must be drawn *somewhere*.

Hope that clears it up...

[fujii]

Allthecoolnames.

Civilian controllers go through the college and are streamed as TWR or enroute. They leave the college and graduate as junior controllers in their respective stream. Controllers can apply for cross training after a few years but not many do. TMA controllers (approach /departures) mostly come from experienced enroute controllers.

[Dick Smith]

The pilot was not informed of a " short delay". Considering that at the present time at Willy pilots can be held up to 30 mins without explanation even when operating VFR up the coastal lane I can see why a pilot would think twice when being told there would be a delay.

It's incredible how you military people think you have to follow some type of clearly unethical code to protect the system you were in.

Even today the ERS prohibits planning over Willy if the restricted areas are active so the same type of accident no doubt will occur again. This is criminal .

And no. I have never blamed the individual controllers who were just complying with pathetic rules and leadership.

Typical that BASI protected the pathetic " system" and made no recommendation as to the controllers with a radar screen actually being responsible for radar covered airspace . Even when I changed that it was resisted by ex military people at CAA.

The pilot was not ever given any information on how long the delay might be Even the FSO was worried that the aircraft was getting close to the controlled airspace .

All five would have most likely lived if FAA NAS airspace had existed on the night with direct flight over the top in class E airspace . The military hierarchy who don't copy the best from around the world will be responsible for the next lot of fatalities.

[Dick Smith]

And I and others will be making sure they are held accountable

[Arm out the window]

You're taking over from Derryn Hinch as the human headline, Dick. New posts all the time with provocative titles may work for a quick bit of shock value but are thin on content while being loaded with emotive rhetoric.

I honestly believe this is not so much about saving lives for you as pushing your stance that you should be cleared wherever and whenever you like without holding.

[Arm out the window]

PS This is not a personal attack on you, you've achieved heaps more than I ever will in my lifetime, but on the '60 minutes article' approach you seem to love using.

[gerry111]

Fortunately, I only spent 12 years acting unethically within that criminal organization. But some of those guys and gals here spent in excess of 20 years. Perhaps you will string them up first?


Dick, Is this part of your electioneering for Mackellar?

[Band a Lot]

Dick, radar system is still not good. MH370 went past a few with nothing said. If you want to attack Australia seems the Western front is the way - The USA navel Base in Exmouth certainly would not have detection of aircraft incoming capability.

[Pinky the pilot]

Fortunately, I only spent 12 years acting unethically within that criminal organization.

Gerry111; Were you in RAAF ATC?:confused:

[RatsoreA]

Dick,

you military people think you have to follow some type of clearly unethical code to protect the system

That is inaccurate on so many levels, it's not funny.

One, if you had seen the train wreck that was my last PAR, you would know that that is one of the least accurate statements ever made in my general direction, it's not even funny...

Two, I have not been involved in military air traffic control, aside from the occasional visit to various towers around the country. I haven't even served in the relevant service.

Considering that at the present time at Willy pilots can be held up to 30 mins


So, please enlighten me as to what happens now is relevant to what happened over 3 decades ago? And, from my personal experience, I have never been held transiting Williamtown.

Dick, I support many of your causes, but you do yourself and your aims a great disservice trying to sensationalize an angle, and ignoring basic facts. But, I will point this out the flaws in this particular arguement using just facts, free from sensationalism.

At 08:50:31 UTC, MDX reported at Taree, giving his estimate for his next waypoint, being Singleton, as planned.

FIS 5 replied with a question of if he would prefer a clearance via Williamtown, if it were available.

There was a minute or so of MDX coming up with an estimate Williamtown, then at 08:51:27 he was told to standby whilst FIS 5 organised it.

At 08:51:47, FIS 5 contacted WM and informed WM of the request for a NVFR airways clearance.

At 08:52:22, WM advised FIS 5 that preceding slower traffic (AZC) at the same level would necessitate a change of level to either 7 or 9 thousand feet.

Now, this is the important part.

And for ease of reading, I will continue this on a new post.

[RatsoreA]

At about 08:52:50, FIS 5 then said he would check with Sector 1, and get back to WM because "Sector One's going to give him a clearance".

At 08:53:00, FIS 5 contacted Sector 1 to further the clearance request for MDX. He confirms that S1 is aware of AZC and then requests a clearance for MDX. S1 says that his airspace is not Night VMC and therefore, "clearance would NOT be available in controlled area" but advised he would check with approach to see if a low level coastal clearance was available.

It's now only been a bit over two minutes and 30 seconds since MDX was offered the clearance over WM, and WM very quickly stated that there would be no problems with that, bar separation from traffic at the same level, on the same track, that he was catching.

At 08:53:42 FIS 5 contacted Approach to inquire about the clearance for MDX, and Approach replied that they would have to check the weather and get back to him.

At 08:54:20, FIS 5 contacts MDX again to advise him of the situation regarding the possible clearance over Williamtown, of which, to recap, Williamtown was only 1 piece of airspace out of 3, such a clearance would require, and, the only one that at first request said yes (but with a change of level).

At 08:55:09, there is a bit of a 3 way conversation between AZC, MDX and FIS 5, that, for want of a better way to summarise, was a mere status update for the two aircraft.

At 08:56:00, MDX ADVISED FIS 5, that rather than wait for the clearance via Williamtown, he would track via Craven. Despite knowing that preceding traffic already had transited Williamtown, THE PIC elected to continue his PREVIOUSLY PLANNED COURSE.

Final recap - for those of you playing at home -

This exchange occurred over a time period of less than 6 minutes.

There were 3 separate pieces of airspace that require a clearance for the airways clearance to be granted, the first being Williamtown, which WM advised, almost immediately, would be available for the airspace that was his direct area of responsibility. The other 2 civilian zones, Sector 1 and Approach was, 'no but I'll see if I can get a low level' and 'let me check the weather' respectively, were what added (a not unreasonable) delay to the provisioning of an airways clearance to MDX, of which the PIC, for what ever reason, decided not wait it out.

These are the facts of the matter, and I can supply anyone that cares to ask for the material I am referencing.

Right now, I wish there was a little emoji for dropping a microphone and walking off stage...

:}

[gerry111]

Pinky,

I spent most of my time in the RAAF painting kerbs and rocks white and on the parade ground. Sometimes, I fiddled around with the avionics in the aircraft. (That's if they couldn't find anyone better for the job.)

Most certainly, I have no Air Traffic Control experience apart from flying in aeroplanes!

But Dick doesn't differentiate between any of us. All are equally smeared because we were in the RAAF. So we were all apparently part of that criminal organisation acting unethically.

(I sometimes wonder if perhaps Dick applied to join the RAAF and was knocked back. Over to you, Dick?)


A "Like" to FTDK; RatsoreA and AOTW who all summed it up rather well.

[Lead Balloon]

So all of that rigmarole, Rats, because there was one bugsmasher other than MDX? Just one. Catching up same level? OMG! MDX was VFR FFS. On what basis did S1 presume to know the actual weather where MDX was going?

I realise that Dick's wrong in blaming the RAAF or any individual, RAAFie or otherwise, because they were just applying the rules in the system they were part of. But what a silly, silly system, almost completely devoid of any connection with real-world risks and real-world risk mitigation. I think that's the substantive point that Dick's trying to make.

[Arm out the window]

His post #9 certainly strays a fair way from that point and culminates in a prediction that the criminal military will again be responsible for similar fatalities, so I reckon he should have a think about how he puts his ideas across.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So all of that rigmarole

No, it was the system. It was 30 years ago, and coordination similar to that probably happened 100 times a day throughout the country. You cannot look back at the system as it was in those times, and apply todays expectations to it. Airspace management in the main was vastly different, and this incident was subject to the rules in play at that time. Cries of "why didn't they just....?", or "he should have been...." are just specious.

[RatsoreA]

So all of that rigmarole

Hardly. I think you have somewhat missed the narrative...

To summarise, of the 3 areas that the flightpath crossed, the first one, Williamtown, said yes, immediately, providing a level change was made. If it were me, I would happily go up or down a thousand to avoid getting a nice new 206 shaped hood ornament.

The other 2, said, no, not night VMC and the other was I'll check the weather. Them saying no had in no way anything to do with the preceding traffic.

I think that's the substantive point that Dick's trying to make.

Dick has gone on national TV and blamed the RAAF for the deaths of those 5 men. That is a fact. I think I have demonstrated that the RAAF, Williamtown RAAF base, the system the controller was operating under and all the other things Dick is using to push his 'reform Williamtown airspace' agenda is nothing other than sensationalism devoid of facts.

[Dick Smith]

The problem of a clearance in the next sector is a furphy.

The clearance could have been given and any necessary holding could have taken place in a far safer way over the Willy NDB.

It's the RAAF organisation as a whole I am blaming for these deaths. Same can happen this winter as it is illegal to put in a flight plan over the lower and direct terrain overhead Willy if the airspace is active.

The only reason. I repeat only reason that the aircraft had to head towards the mountainous country was the RAAF regulations and roadblock airspace .

Look at equivalent British, Canadian and US military airspace . They all do not restrict flight planning over the top of facilities in similar circumstances.

On the night in question there were no military operations taking place yet the flight planning restriction remained - and it still exists today.

My next plan is to publically warn young Australians in a major campaign not to join an organisation which is so dis functional and so lacks leadership that it can't copy the best from around the world.. Even after 30 years.

I am sure more lives will be lost. Most likely with RAAF personnel. That's what happens when regulations remain in the 1930s.

You are all deluding yourselves if you don't admit there are serious problems of resistance to change within the regulatory side of the military ATC system.

[RatsoreA]

The problem of a clearance in the next sector is a furphy.

Demonstrate how? I can show you a transcript of the conversation between FIS 5, Sector 1, Williamtown and Approach that clearly states who said what and why. But I don't need to send you that, you already have a copy I have emailed you, but if anyone else wants it, please PM, and I will share.

The clearance could have been given and any necessary holding could have taken place in a far safer way over the Willy NDB.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, didn't. That was the regulatory framework put out by the DT back then. The RAAF, and the controller at Williamtown had absolutley nothing to do with that. If you will recall, I have mentioned that the Williamtown controller said almost immediatly that MDX could transit through the Williamtown zone. In fact, the only person that ever even spoke to MDX was FIS 5.

The only reason. I repeat only reason that the aircraft had to head towards the mountainous country was the RAAF regulations and roadblock airspace.

That is simply not true. The PIC CHOSE that route. If the "RAAF Roadblock" was such and impermeable membrane blocking all civilian traffic going north and south, how was AZC, a 206 able to get through a scant 5-10 minutes before. There was no change to the classification of the zone in between the time of AZC and MDX.

flight planning restriction remained

Can you offer some proof of this? A 30 year old ERSA? A 30 year old copy of some sort of AIP?

You are all deluding yourselves if you don't admit there are serious problems of resistance to change within the regulatory side of the military ATC system.

I am sure there are. Across the entire ADF there is resistance to change to a lot of things, because traditions, or human nature or whatever. But I wouldn't be able to comment on that, as that is not an area where I have any first hand experience. What I do have experience in is, flying between Brisbane and Sydney, VFR and NVFR and have never ever been held up anywhere near Williamtown.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Rat,
Good posts you are providing. Thanks.

Now I'm a little slow, so please be gentle on me. I'm not very good at picking up hidden agendas etc, so might be missing something.

I'm not sure what all the kerfuffle is about the Willy airspace. It seems that if one wants to transit coastal, you need (according to the AIP) to get a clearance and have enough fuel for 30 mins of holding.
A flight plan should be submitted to reduce delays.
Talk to ATC and get a clearance, or hold.

If this doesn't suit you, VFR can track via Maitland/Dugong (inland) without clearance.

As RatsoreA has pointed out, the MDX accident had very little to o with ATC issues, and more to do with pilot choices.

So what is the big deal about Willy airspace? Have fuel to hold, or go inland?
Am I missing something?

[RatsoreA]

Coolnames,

Thank you! :}

Am I missing something?

I have no doubts that sometimes it can be a bit of a P.I.T.A to get through Williamtown. Never happened to me, but I am sure it does happen. And I am sure Dick is right in the fact that there is room for reform, and making it easier to do so.

What I object to is hijacking an accident that never had anything to do with the issue he is trying to get resolution on. Especially when the facts do not match up with the rhetoric that he is using.

I have no affinity for the RAAF, or ASA, or CASA. I do have one for cold hard facts and the story they tell.

[sunnySA]

MDX was VFR FFS. On what basis did S1 presume to know the actual weather where MDX was going?

Yes, MDX was VFR, which is the whole point. The pilot made a conscious decision to continue flight his flight into known/forecast non-VMC.

Whilst not privy to the information at hand I presume S1 advised that his airspace was "NOT Night VMC" based on Area Forecast and/or Pilot Reports.

And correct me if I'm wrong, the rules at the time were such that if Military Airspace abutted Civil Airspace (that is, contiguous airspace) then the clearance through one constituted a clearance through the other. Therefore if Willy had issued a clearance to MDX then MSX would have had to descend to remain clear of the contiguous airspace.

Anyways, this is all probably just a rehash of what was discussed at the time of the accident. Discussed at the aero club, discussed within RAAF, discussed within SY ATC, discussed within SY FS. We are now 30 years later, 20-20 hindsight, availability of the internet to have these discussions. Unfortunately none of this changes the outcome, the tragic loss of life when the pilot made a conscious decision to continue flight into known/forecast non-VMC.

[Lead Balloon]

I would happily go up or down a thousand to avoid getting a nice new 206 shaped hood ornament.This is an example of reasoning that is almost completely disconnected with real-world risks and real-world risk mitigation.

A gross over-statement of the risk, so as to justify unnecessary procedures.

If you've ever been in a bugsmasher closing on another bugsmasher on the same track and level VFR, you'd know how hard you would have to try to deliberately collide with it. Assuming you don't want to deliberately collide with it, and what's more you've even been alerted to its existence, I reckon the chances of a collision are about the chances of the sun burning out tomorrow. You do what you do on the extraordinarily rare occasion it happens OCTA: overtake, in accordance with the rules of the air.

I repeat: I know it was the system. But Australia still has millions of cubic metres of airspace tied up on the basis of this thinking. Transitting Williamtown is like entering a universe in which every aircraft must be treated like Air Force 1 surrounded by a Romeo, and the remotest possibility that one civilian aircraft might come near another aircraft - civilian or otherwise - is a problem. We're talking airborne aircraft numbers that can usually be counted on our fingers. I realise that some of them go really fast and they don't have much fuel reserve when it's time to come home, but jeez, seriously? 1,000 light aircraft could fly at 500' without clearance from Broughton Island to Nobbies every day for a 1,000 years and the chances of a mid air with the hotshots and RPTs out of Williamtown would be still be infinitesimally small.

[Lead Balloon]

Yes, MDX was VFR, which is the whole point. The pilot made a conscious decision to continue flight his flight into known/forecast non-VMC.You don't know that.

But let's assume it's true. The weather in the Williamtown area was, based on the same assumption, VMC.

He could have been cleared into Williamtown at the level he was at. And let's think really hard about what option should have been obvious to him and offered to him in the circumstances of being unable to proceed in VMC beyond Williamtown. Any guesses? The answer involves a horizontal area of tarmac on which aircraft land.

[sunnySA]

The answer involves a horizontal area of tarmac on which aircraft land.
Yep, he'd flown over a few of those already.

[Lead Balloon]

So what? He was in VMC and would have remained in VMC in the Williamtown zone.

[le Pingouin]

And because the pilot wasn't prepared to wait they died. End of story. He made that decision, no one else.

[Dick Smith]

What most important is the OCTA airspace south of Willy was cavok and the LSA was 1300'. So no problem at all NVMC.

These military people will do everything they can to blame others. It's a type of " groupthink" they must learn.

My concern is the present day huge roadblock airspace. Same accident can happen again however more likely pilot will be told going in the wrong direction because of changes I made in the 90s. Pilot will be talking to a person with a radar screen.

What's wrong with FAA airspace dimensions and MOAs rather than restricted airspace? I know- never ever ask advice or copy worlds best practice. We in the RAAF know it all.

[Dick Smith]

The pilot had no idea how long the " wait " might be. He wanted to minimise risk. He made an error on that -contributed by rediculous airspace design. Still the same 30 years later.

[RatsoreA]

Leadie,

This is an example of reasoning that is almost completely disconnected with real-world risks and real-world risk mitigation.

Now, add night time to that equation. And it wasn't CAVOK. And add in that procedural separation required a level change to mitigate the risk of MDX running up the back of AZC. People win the lotto everyday, so whilst the odds are small, they do come up. I personally had an F100 shaped hood ornament near Mt Isa a few weeks back, and that was during the day, in 8/8ths blue sky.

The ATSB archive has plenty of mid-air collisions for you to peruse that would indicate that the sun has burned out for quite a few people over the years. With the millions and millions of cubic airspace that Australia has, there are still people trying to break the laws of physics that says 2 bodies can't occupy the same point in space and time as each other.

And let's think really hard about what option should have been obvious to him and offered to him in the circumstances of being unable to proceed in VMC beyond Williamtown. Any guesses?

My guess, would be a bad case of press-on-itis. Which the PIC caught, just not over the coast, because of the decisions he made. He was offered and given tracking options for a landing at Williamtown when sh!t got serious, but not so serious that he couldn't get out with nothing but a minor scare, but, once he thought things would be fine, the PIC declined that offer, and elected to 'continue on our original flight plane, via Singleton'.

[RatsoreA]

The pilot had no idea how long the " wait " might be.

This is true.

He wanted to minimise risk.

This, is not.

The PIC had no idea how long the wait might be, and elected not to even find out how long the wait would be. 5 and a half minutes, and he said, don't worry about it. The PIC KNEW that towards the west was rugged high ground. The BT's have been there for quite some time. Doing a couple of orbits over the coast in VMC is somehow a higher risk that flying to high, rugged terrain with bad Wx? I would like to have that reasoning explained to me.

Dick, the only one blamestorming, seems to be you. The only person that has gone on the record to apportion blame for this is you, towards a source that was not at fault.

When you took that girl to court for defamation, I assume to court requested you to provide them with evidence of your claims? All I ask is that you provide evidence of the claims you have made here, like I have. I have source/reference material to everything I have said.

I support your cause to reform the airspace around Williamtown. I do not support you using the RAAF as a scape goat for this accident because it suits your agenda.

[Bill Pike]

We are all aware of the "Swiss Cheese" model for aircraft accidents. If Mick in -MDX had been permitted to flight plan coastal, as he should have been, the other factors would not most likely have lined up and he and his pax would most likely not have been lost. On Friday June 1st 2001 I was quoted in the Australian (as AOPA President of the day) as "demanding" American regs in this country, including airspace regs. We were given US airspace classifications, such as "E" and such but "redefined" so that E ended up more like C . The reasons given for US regs not being applicable were as many as they were ridiculous. "The US are rewriting their regs" (hasn't happened yet) "We have a different legal system so their regs wouldn't work here" (from CASA's legal department). The truth is DCA/CAA/CASA etc like all bureaucrats like power and so they like proscriptive regs . In the meantime we have been stalled in the reg rewrite for twenty years. Un stuffing believable but true . At least part of the reason is that pilots here understand our system and like pilots everywhere don't like change. We even have regions with "rules" that do not reflect those that are written. Dick has his own way of attracting attention, so hate him as you wish, but having flown in less restrictive countries he is apoplectic at being constantly led along the garden path by those who promise change and do not deliver. I share his frustration. Our military have more restricted airspace than the the US and in most of theirs VFR can transit unhindered. I confess that I was startled when i was allowed over Travis Airforce Base (major transport base) in the US at 3,000 VFR without a clearance but that is how it worked. ' People like Dick are not just "private pilots", they are ambassadors for freedom. If he was given support instead of this nit picking we might get somewhere.

[Lead Balloon]

Comments embedded in square brackets.Now, add night time to that equation. [So what?] And it wasn't CAVOK. [You don't know that. I thought the accepted facts were that Williamtown was VMC?] And add in that procedural separation required a level change to mitigate the risk of MDX running up the back of AZC. [That was the rule. My point is that the rule isn't based on real-world risks or real-world risk mitigation.] People win the lotto everyday, so whilst the odds are small, they do come up. [Yet bugsmashers on the same track and level OCTA don't collide with each other each night. I wonder why.] I personally had an F100 shaped hood ornament near Mt Isa a few weeks back, and that was during the day, in 8/8ths blue sky. [Which has precisely nothing to do with the risk of collision of one bugsmasher catching up with another known bugsmasher on the same track and level - actually on the same approximate track and approximate level. Again, you're implicitly grossly overstating the actual risk of clearing MDX at the level he was at.

[RatsoreA]

You don't know that. I thought the accepted facts were that Williamtown was VMC?

Yes, I do.

It was VMC, but not CAVOK. There was some scattered cloud. I can provide a reference for this should it be required.

you're implicitly grossly overstating the actual risk

No, I am not.

At no stage did I attach a risk score to this type of operation. I stand by my assertion that the risk is present, and should be mitigated. Is it *really* that difficult for you to change levels by 1000 feet to remove that risk? An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

Regardless of this, no amount of arguing can change the FACT that it was the PIC decision to do what he did, rather than wait. Was those five lives not worth a few minutes?

[Lead Balloon]

You've grossly over-stated the risk twice. You've twice expressed the "hood ornament" risk as a certainty.

VMC but not CAVOK? A pointless point.

A few minutes? You've already conceded that the PIC didn't know that's all it would take.

[RatsoreA]

"hood ornament" risk as a certainty.

Please point out where I said there was no other possibility other than a mid air collision from a clearance being issued at the current level.

VMC but not CAVOK? A pointless point.

How? A pithy remark is hardly something to base something so serious on. Are you saying you that even the slightest smattering of cloud, regardless of density or location renders conditions either CAVOK or IMC, and no other gradation of conditions is possible?

A few minutes? You've already conceded that the PIC didn't know that's all it would take.

Correct. And for the loss of the aircraft, his life and those of his passengers, he couldn't have spared a few minutes to even find out how long the delay might be.

[Lead Balloon]

Please point out where I said there was no other possibility other than a mid air collision from a clearance being issued at the current level.I would happily go up or down a thousand to avoid getting a nice new 206 shaped hood ornament.What you meant to say was: "to mitigate the infinitesimally small risk of being unable to see and avoid an aircraft that I know's there and I'm catching up to slowly and who's almost certainly not at exactly the same altitude or on exactly the same track as I am."And for the loss of the aircraft, his life and those of his passengers, he couldn't have spared a few minutes to even find out.A completely circular argument. He didn't know what he didn't know, and to find out he may have had to wait a lot longer. I've orbited near Broughton Island wondering whether it's smoko or poet's day in Williamtown. I know that they're actually focusing on the important job of keeping vast distances between me and any other flying machine within the area, but again, that's kinda the point.

What, precisely, is your point about it being VMC but not CAVOK at WLM?

[RatsoreA]

Good try, but no. That in no way says that there is no other possibility that a mid air. But if that's the inference you drew from that, next time, rather than try turn a phrase, I'll spell it out for you in small words in legalese.

He didn't know what he didn't know

Yep, totally right. He didn't. And he didn't either wait around to see what the result was, nor did he ask FIS 5 what the result of his inquiries about and airways clearance was. He had a previous instruction to wait OCTA, which seems pretty self explanatory to me. He never once entered an orbit or held, he just got close to the zone boundary, decided he couldn't be bothered either doing even a single orbit. And rather than ask FIS 5, did he have any further information about the possibility of a clearance, he called up FIS 5 and said, don't worry about it, I will resume my previously planned route, and no more was spoken of it. So, there were many possibilities to find out what he didn't know... Waiting a minute. Asking for more information.

As for the Wx at Williamtown, I don't have the exact file with me (on my other computer back at the room, so If I am wrong, I will cheerfully retract) but, IIRC, there was some scattered cloud in the zone, and strong wind but still VMC. There exists the possibility for a reduction of visibility for the 'See and Avoid' principle.

But, I note you didn't address the most pertinent point, it was the PIC decision to do what he did, when he did it, and without obtaining all relevent information, and not the fault of the RAAF and it's conspiracy to hoard all the airspace it can.

You have also not given one single shred of evidence that supports Dick's position that it was all the RAAF's fault.

[gerry111]

(Allowing time out for Lead Balloon and RatsoreA to apply talc to their boxing gloves..)


"My next plan is to publically warn young Australians in a major campaign not to join an organisation which is so dis functional and so lacks leadership that it can't copy the best from around the world. Even after 30 years."


Please consider that the RAAF currently operates Super Hornets, KC-30's and Wedgetails in a war environment in the Middle East.


(That's the bad guys shooting at them.)


Dick, If that's really your intent then please hand back your 'Companion in the Order of Australia medal' (AC).


For me, you have now achieved a 'beneath contempt' status. You've previously claimed to be an Australian patriot with your Dick Smith Foods.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

You do what you do on the extraordinarily rare occasion it happens OCTA: overtake, in accordance with the rules of the air.

Except that it wasn't OCTA, it was in CTA, so under the system of the day, the clearance was only available at a different level. At the time, there was no emergency situation, it was just a routine request for a transiting clearance, and treated as one, so WM ATC could not offer a faster aircraft the same track at the same level as a just cleared slower one.

Rules of the time, maybe different now, but that's how they were applied. OCTA and CTA were two very different things, with very different service provision and requirements, unlike the alphabet of today.

[donpizmeov]

It was so simple back then. It was controlled or non controlled. You were quadrantal or semi circular. Flight service knew their areas and offered huge assistance, even with ordering the post flight beers and pizza.

Then some clown changed it all. Look at the dysfunctional mess he left behind. :E

[Dick Smith]

Don. I actually sort of agree with you re the mess.

That's because the NAS reforms were never completed and now have been partially wound back because of ignorance at CASA and the RAAF.

I have said we should go back to the safe but very expensive pre 1990 system or actually complete the proven NAS reforms.

For CASA to mandate ( primarily supported by its ex RAAF personel ) that pilots at non marked aerodromes must give calls on ATC frequencies that are also used for separation purposes is madness. They ignore the advice of every RAPAC in the country.

Gerry. My campaign will be for the sole purpose of saving lives of the pilots you are referring to and others. When an organisation is so lacking in leadership that it can't copy the best from around the world it's clear what is going to happen. All this huge road block airspace is just one example of the incompetence.

I really feel sorry for the RAAF ATCs that they are not allowed to use modern safe procedures and airspace classifications at places like Williamtown.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Dick,

I am tired of your relentless, indiscriminate and gross generalisations about what you did, what they wouldn't let you do and how its all somehow the RAAF's fault. I get that you want to fly wherever you feel like, whenever but with Willy right on the coast thats probably never going to happen unless you lobby hard with the government to shift it. Why must you then continually go on about how the military is to blame? Needless and misguided attacks on the military and individuals aren't gaining you any traction in the quest to fly as you please. If you were so good in your tilt as CASA chairman then you'd still be doing it.

I salute your goal of improving GA's lot in this country but do it without maligning the military and the professionals employed by it. Your campaign on this particular incident deflects responsibility of the safety of the flight from the individual it ultimately rests with, the pilot.

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

Dick,

When will you finally accept that the loss of that aircraft came down to the poor decision-making of the PIC. Many of us have made similar mistakes in our time, but fate showed her kinder side to us, while choosing to punishing the unfortunate occupants of that aircraft.

Whether the RAAF should've allowed him through their airspace is a moot point; if he felt sufficiently concerned, then the PIC should've declared a PAN or a Mayday and he would have been provided with all the help he needed.

Instead, he advised that he would stay west of Newcastle's CTA. You asked earlier in the thread why no one advised him that he was so far off track; why should they have? He advised he was heading in that direction. He chose to stay OCTA. No one had a responsibility, moral or otherwise, to interfere in his chosen plan on the day.

VFR pilots have enough airspace to fly in if they're unwilling to ask for (and occasionally wait for approval) a clearance to fly through CTA, irrespective of whether it's civil or military. There's no need to free up any more CTA than has already been given up.

The real scandal here is that at almost every major-city CTA in this country, airliners with up to 500 passengers are cleared to fly outside of class C airspace while descending towards their destination. Only one domestic carrier that I know of actively discourages their crew from entering class E airspace - which then necessitates higher pilot workload. Why? Just so that VFR pilots can fly more freely in the airspace beneath.

I think for some years now, the aviation environment in this country has become victim to a 'tail wagging the dog' airspace mentality. Perhaps the architects of the pairing-away of CTA some years ago should instead have concentrated on developing systems to permit closer interaction of VFR and IFR RPT in CTA without unnecessarily increasing controller workload. That way all users would have benefited.

Some observers would think that the loss of MDX has become, over time, nothing more than a convenient springboard for the political purposes of some. And therein lies the real tragedy.

[Lead Balloon]

I think for some years now, the aviation environment in this country has become victim to a 'tail wagging the dog' airspace mentality.And whom, in your view, should be the dog?

I'm tipping that you're going to say, in effect, that individual private citizens in their aircraft are the tail? Pesky citizens presuming to fly around in airspace owned by...now let me think about this...the ADF isn't separate from the Commonwealth so doesn't own anything separate from the Commonwealth...yeah that's it, the airspace is owned by the Commonwealth ... presuming to fly around in airspace owned by the county of which they are a citizen, within an air traffic control and flight service system that's paid for ... now let me think about this ... yeah that's it... paid for by their taxes. (I note here that e.g. QANTAS hasn't paid a cent in corporate tax in years.)

One day you'll wake up and realise that not all the freedoms taken away from and inconveniences imposed on individuals, in the name of "the greater good", are.

Perhaps the architects of the pairing-away of CTA some years ago should instead have concentrated on developing systems to permit closer interaction of VFR and IFR RPT in CTA without unnecessarily increasing controller workload. That way all users would have benefited.Like the system in the USA, for example?

An airline encouraging pilots not to fly through Class E just goes to show how many people involved in aviation in Australia are almost completely disconnected from real-world risks and real-world risk management.

[Bill Pike]

Is there any dissent here that
1. Australian military have far too much airspace allotted to them, and
2. In very inconvenient places, and
3. Access through this airspace is harder than in say the US, and
4. If the ability to flight plan coastal was available through Willy airspace to MDX the accident most likely would not have happenned?

[RatsoreA]

4. If the ability to flight plan coastal was available through Willy airspace to MDX the accident most likely would not have happenned?

That is the only point of contention, as this is not true.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

paid for by their taxes

Isn't AsA self-funded? If anything, those "pesky private citizens in their aircraft" are flying around in a system predominantly paid for by the passengers sitting in airliners (so it's irrelevent if Qantas does or does not pay corporate tax, as long as it pays it's nav charges. As much as people jump up and down about a Fire Service at Ballina, the ARFFS is paid for from Airline landing charges, so if you wander in in your bugsmasher, I imagine you are getting the Firies for free).

From the ASA website:

Our services are funded through revenue from our airline customers under a five-year pricing agreement

Additionally from the ARFFS site:

Our costs are recovered through a landing charge paid by airlines.

Flying through military airspace and using military facilities, yea, I guess those would be tax-payer funded, but really, how widespread would that be? At the end of the day, I can't drive my car through Puckapunyal or Canungra either (and they don't take the fences down if they are not exercising).

[Bill Pike]

Not true in what respect plse Rats? The requirement was to flight plan via Craven ?

[RatsoreA]

He could have planned through there, just as AZC, the preceding C206 did. The PIC of MDX did not. He planned Taree - Craven - Singleton, and was only offered overhead Williamtown by the controller as he got to Taree.

[RatsoreA]

Bill,

Here is a question for you...

Dick Smith went on a national TV show and said almost exactly the phrase "The RAAF sent those men to their deaths".

In any of the evidence I have furnished you with, is there any way that that phrase can be in any way true?

So you have some background, I will continue to disagree with Dick on this matter. The people searching for the wreck did that show so that awareness could be raised and maybe secure some funding to continue in the search. Then, Dick went on TV, banging on about how it was all the RAAF's fault, and that we should be listening to him about airspace reform around Williamtown, and completely and selfishly hijacked a cause that he didn't care about to suit his own agenda. The message was lost in the subsequent coverage of 'Dick Smith and his war with the RAAF'.

[onetrack]

Perhaps some memories need to be refreshed by examining the original BASI crash report. Particular importance needs to be given to Sec 7, "Relevant Factors" (at the bottom of the report) - which is, in essence, a neat summary of the major reasons for the crash of MDX.

The crash of MDX had nothing to do with the RAAF culture, failures on the part of military ATC, or regulations of the day - but a lot to do with a pilot struggling to control a crippled, iced-up aircraft - after having made some poor decisions, mostly centred around get-home-itis, when he was very aware of numerous problems that seriously impacted the control and flyability of his aircraft - as well as making a decision to fly into known and reported icing conditions, in an aircraft not equipped with airframe de-icing equipment.

One has to keep in mind that more than 90% of aircraft accidents are directly caused by pilot error, and the pilot of MDC could have made some far better decisions.
The crash of MDX was caused purely by a combination of icing, mechanical failure, and multiple poor decisions by the pilot.
It is sad the victims and aircraft have never been found, but to include this fact in the title is aggrandisement at its best. Dick, I expected better from someone of your status.

ATSB - BASI Aircraft Accident Investigation Summary Report - VH-MDX (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5214029/198101477.pdf)

[Bill Pike]

I am not here to defend Dick. He is a big boy. MDX flight planned inland because... he couldn't swim, right?
What did you expect BASI to say?
Coastal flight plan, coastal track, no iced up out of control aircraft. It is quite simple from my viewpoint. Too much military airspace not enough access.

[RatsoreA]

MDX flight planned inland because... he couldn't swim, right?

Sorry mate, don't quite follow you?

Coastal flight plan, coastal track, no iced up out of control aircraft.

Yes, just like an almost identical flight in an almost identical aircraft separated by only minutes. If AZC was so easily able to do it, that would suggest to me that the airspace wasn't really an issue.

The only difference of consequence in the planning stages of those two flights was the guy holding the map.

[Lead Balloon]

Isn't AsA self-funded? If anything, those "pesky private citizens in their aircraft" are flying around in a system predominantly paid for by the passengers sitting in airliners (so it's irrelevent if Qantas does or does not pay corporate tax, as long as it pays it's nav charges. As much as people jump up and down about a Fire Service at Ballina, the ARFFS is paid for from Airline landing charges, so if you wander in in your bugsmasher, I imagine you are getting the Firies for free).AsA is monopoly. Therefore, you'd have to be diverted to playing with three dicks before you could manage not to be able to make money out of it.

Those pesky private citizens pay Nav charges and landing charges too. Those pesky private citizens pay Nav charges and landing charges and personal tax. Unlike Qantas.

If the passengers paying for those ARFFS services at Ballina knew what a grotesque misallocation of finite risk mitigation resources that is (with the execs at Airservices naturally skimming their cut as a consequence of having the genius to run a monopoly) things would be different.

But your post, unsurprisingly, reveals the underlying attitude that pervades the Australian culture. Private citizens in their own aircraft should just cop whatever inconveniences are imposed on them, pushed to the back of the line behind the airlines and the military.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Actually I think that the RPT pax at Ballina would be more than happy to think that the ARFF that they are paying for is there to cover their a#@e, and not being spent on services that they don't use, or even know about.
Sure AsA is a monopoly, so you would want to think it makes money, or at least breaks even, because if it was losing money, who do you think would be paying more? Certainly not the taxpayer.
And yes, private citizens are often at the back of the queue, and not just in aviation. It is seen as just an expensive hobby. Airlines are seen as a little more important. That's what the P for public in RPT is for. That's why you and I can't drive in a bus lane either. The needs of the many are lesser to the few in just about all aspects of life these days.

[Lead Balloon]

Whose arse has RFFS ever covered?

Isn't the more significant risk to the passengers that of a mid-air in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G? What help would you anticipate RFFS providing in the event of a mid air in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G, other than hosing fire retardant over the bodies?

I'm not saying it isn't nice to have an RFFS. I'm saying an RFFS isn't the most effective use of the finite risk mitigation resources to mitigate the subtstantial risks.

"Seen as a little more important". A political point, not a safety point, which is precisely my point.

[Bill Pike]

There isn't any dispute from me that the pilot of MDX should have coped with where he was sent. There isn't also any doubt in my mind that the "inland' route should not have even been considered by the RAAF. Why not coastal? Traffic? Blame the pilot all day, but why was he sent there? Why was it mentioned? I do not want to fly a single engine aircraft at night over tiger country simply because the military want to own half of NSW airspace, and are protective of what they "own".

PS Some figures from memory of a Bureau of Transport Economics paper in the 80's. Formula is lives saved per dollar spent.
Motorcycle Helmets $15,000, Seatbelts $75,000, Life jackets $4,000,000 Life Rafts $12,000,000 RFFS $22,000,000.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Bill, you're claiming that MDX was 'sent' inland by the RAAF. RatsoreA's various posts (particularly #16 and #17) directly contradict this. Are you saying that RatsoreA's information is totally incorrect? This seems to be at the very core of the discussion.

[onetrack]

From the Report - "After departing Coolangatta the flight proceeded without recorded incident to Taree. At this point the pilot reported to Sydney Flight Service Centre that he was cruising at 8000 feet and estimating overhead Singleton at 1930 hours EST.

At the suggestion of Flight Service and with the agreement of the pilot, Flight Service and Sydney Air Traffic Control then began to co-ordinate a clearance to allow the aircraft to continue to track, more directly, via the coast and transit the Williamtown military areas; however this clearance was delayed because of uncertainty regarding the amount of cloud and general weather conditions to the south of Williamtown.

Some 8 minutes after passing Taree the pilot advised that he would continue on his planned track rather than hold to the north of Williamtown pending the issuing of a clearance.

He subsequently reported when passing the Craven position, and advised that the aircraft was experiencing "considerable turbulence now and quite a lot of downdraught". Five minutes later, at 1924 hours EST, the pilot reported that the aircraft had entered cloud. He requested a clearance to climb to 10,000 feet and shortly afterwards advised that the primary flight instruments, i.e. the artificial horizon and the gyroscopically controlled direction indicator had failed.

Search and Rescue procedures were initiated and at 1928 hours the aircraft was identified by radar. At this time the aircraft was near the Barrington Tops, some 58 km north of Singleton, and about 40 km Northwest of the planned track.
This information was relayed to the pilot , who advised that he was having difficulty in climbing to 8500 feet.
At 1934 hours he indicated that the aircraft was no longer in cloud, however it had accumulated "a fair amount of ice".
He continued to report strong turbulence and further ice accretion, and indicated that the aircraft was descending rapidly. The last recorded transmission from the aircraft was at 1939 hours, when the pilot advised the aircraft was at five thousand feet. Radar contact with the aircraft was also lost at this time." (my bold)

Bill, I don't see how you can say that MDX was "sent inland by the RAAF", when the pilot of MDX made his own decision to continue with his planned flight path, and elected not to wait for clearance over Williamtown.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

most effective use of the finite risk mitigation resources to mitigate the subtstantial risks.


http://www.1001crash.com/stats/graph/phase_en.gif

From that it seems that worldwide, 61% of commercial aircraft accidents occur during first or last stages of a flight, so there's a reasonable chance that if it happens, it'll happen at an aerodrome (where the firies are).

From a 2008 CSIRO paper 'Decision Support for Risk Assessment of Mid-air Collisions via Population-based Measures"

Excerpt from Table 5

Individual risk for mid-air collisions in Australia - (1961-2004)

National Individual Risk due to the (entire) air transport sector
7.8 x 10-8

That's 0.000000078 chance of you being involved in a mid air in Australia while engaged in any form of civil aviation (admittedly fairly old data).


Now we all know that there are a lot more accidents due other causes than mid airs, so I would say the the money is going where the substantial risk is.

Anyway, this is taking this way off thread.

[gerry111]

I suspect a counter argument may be this: How many lives have demonstrably been saved by the aerodrome firies freeing people from pranged GA aeroplanes involved in take off or landing accidents in Australia?


(For simplicity, perhaps over the last thirty years?)

[Lead Balloon]

From that it seems that worldwide, 61% of commercial aircraft accidents occur during first or last stages of a flight, so there's a reasonable chance that if it happens, it'll happen at an aerodrome (where the firies are).An interesting spin on the stats, Traffic.

There's a "reasonable chance" that it will happen in the vicinity of an aerodrome, not at the aerodrome. There's also a high probability that, if an accident happens, it will be a mid air or something at high speed, as a consequence of which everyone on a disabled aircraft will almost certainly be dead.

This is not to say that it's impossible for a fire to break out or accidents to occur at aerodrome during which lives could be saved by an RFFS. E.g. runway collisions in poor vis might not kill all POB. Nor is it to say that it's fantastic to have firies on standby if someone has e.g. an undercarriage warning that means there could be a problem on landing. But it is to say that those millions could be spent on mitigating risks with greater probabilities.

[Dick Smith]

One track. He was sent inland because of the road block airspace design

There was no military traffic at the time.

In North Amerca and the U.K. the pilot would have tracked overhead and not even required a clearance from the tower.

Holding OCTA that night without a DME or radar assistance would have been very difficult. The FSO was already concerned that the aircraft was getting close to the boundary .

The RAAF incompetents have prevented any worthwhile modernisation of the airspace for 50 years.

Even CASA said it should be class D like Broome - but these people are incapable of making a leadership decision that could save the industry money and improve safety

[Arm out the window]

We should really cut through all this crap and stop playing your game, Dick.

New MDX - Five Dead Williamtown Never Found

Williamtown VFR Flight Planning

Huge Willy Airspace

Three new threads, all really about the same thing - safety, no! Rather, your desire to never have to wait for a clearance.

If the moderators are happy to let you keep putting these emotive furphies up, well and good, but if you wanted people to get on your bandwagon, count me out from here on in.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Lead, emotively I'd agree with you, but statistics and actual probability guide the beancounters who allocate the money. There's another graph by Boeing that shows that 37% of fatal accidents (where more than one dead, but not necessarily all involved) to jets occur during takeoff and landing ie at the drome. Obviously in 100% of accidents everywhere, something went wrong, but the chance of that being a mid air are statistically very small, and in Australia more often involve gliders, or are in the circuit at the major secondary airports.

[Dick Smith]

I have no problems in waiting for a clearance if a real safety issue is involved.

I am trying to save needless lives lost because we do not use modern procedures that empower air traffic controllers .

Much of the holding ar Williamtown involves single engined aircraft over water. Never seen anything like it in other countries

[Lead Balloon]

[S]tatistics and actual probability guide the beancounters who allocate the money.Bwaaahaaaahaaaa! I hadn't realised you were a comedian, Traffic. :D:D:D

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

No problem, glad you find reality so amusing! I do two shows a day. :ok:

[Old Fella]

Mr Smith is entitled to his opinions, however if he were to follow through on his threat to conduct the campaign below,

"My next plan is to publicly warn young Australians in a major campaign not to join an organisation which is so disfunctional and so lacks leadership that it can't copy the best from around the world.. Even after 30 years",

one must question his claimed patriotism. Mr Smith is a self made wealthy man with the resources to conduct such a campaign.

As a former member of the RAAF I take exception to the comments of Mr Smith in relationship to the leadership of the RAAF and I might remind Mr smith that all aspects of life has it's share of incompetent "leaders". That does not mean that the whole organisation can fairly be labelled as such.

Certainly make a case for change if you must Mr Smith, but remember that one day it might be your backside the RAAF is out there looking for and, if possible, saving.

[Lead Balloon]

What, you mean the ADF might condescend to doing what Dick's taxes trained and equipped the ADF to do?

It is an odd aspect of the Australian psyche that the government and its agencies consider their existence to be some kind of immutable fact, with pesky private citizens getting in the way of governments and their agencies getting on with the important work of ... hmmm ... what is the ultimate purpose of the Australian government and its agencies?

Without private citizens creating real wealth, there would be no taxes to pay for the ADF. And the ADF exists to protect the freedom of ... whom? All those companies which pay no company tax?

I repeat: My view is that Dick's scaremongering is inexcusable, as is his attribution of the MDX tragedy to the RAAF. But he's only doing what many of his opponents do when he tries to implement change. There's gunna be mid-airs and aluminium confetti and burnt bodies and every other disaster that plays on the minds of the travelling public. Although I'm pretty sick of Dick on these issues, I'm even sicker of the scaremongering tactics of his opponents.

(And I have zero doubt that the RAAF are consummate professionals in carrying out any and every SAR task imposed on them.)

[Old Fella]

LB, what aspect of my post is scaremongering? I simply make the point that Mr Smith is entitled to an opinion and the only reason his wealth was mentioned is because he could, if he is of a mind to, afford a campaign aimed at discouraging young men and women from becoming part of the ADF. His statements about the "incompetents" in the RAAF are much too much of a general nature to be creditable. How about naming these "incompetents" Dick? Certainly the ADF has had it's share of less than forward thinkers, but so too does every industry. As for your comment about the "ADF condescending to do what Dick's taxes paid to train and equip them to do" I did not suggest that to be the case. The ADF, in particular the RAAF, have located, and at times saved the lives of, numerous people regardless of their position in society or their affluence. The humanitarian work undertaken by the ADF goes unheralded often simply because it goes with the territory. I suspect that many of the knockers of the RAAF on PPRuNe have either never been in the RAAF, failed their training or failed to gain selection.

[Lead Balloon]

My apologies, Old Fella. There was no scaremongering in your post and I did not intend to give the impression that I was accusing you of that. :\

[Dora-9]

one must question his claimed patriotism.He lost me when he started supporting David Hicks...

[Lead Balloon]

Who was proved to have done what, in what court?

Hopefully you'll never be gaoled without trial or access to an independent judiciary. Pray you have the luck never to find out why the laws of habeus corpus, evidence and separation of powers developed in civilised societies.

The 'crimes' Mr Hicks committed were:

- not to have the ESP to realise the USA's allies one week can be the USA's enemies the next, and

- to be an easy pawn for cravenly self-interested politicians.

[Fantome]

. .. . he's right you know old Rodbag

[Dick Smith]

The media claim that I was a supporter of David Hicks was always wrong.

I was a supporter of Hicks being placed in front of a jury .

One of the reasons I supported this was because it was pointed out to me that we could hardly object if our servicemen and women were treated the same way as Hicks in a future war.

As simple as that.

[Old Fella]

LB, thank you.

[gerry111]

Dick,


Whilst I am a critic of you in many ways, I've always supported your stance regarding David Hicks. And for the reasons that you and LB have outlined.


(Coincidently, David Hicks and I both attended Para Vista Primary School in S.A. but at different times..)

[onetrack]

The Australian military appear to be arrogant to many - because they are charged with protecting Australias security, and they do just that whenever a security threat is present.
In many cases, their actions appear heavy-handed - and under some circumstances, they are. But that's their job.

During WW2, the Australian military did many outrageous and heavy-handed things.
They stopped civilians driving trucks and commercial vehicles in the streets and confiscated their vehicles - and therefore their liveihoods - without anything more than promising the owners the Govt would send them a cheque for the Govt-assessed value of the vehicle.

The problem was the truck and commercial vehicle owners couldn't find replacements for their vehicles, so they nearly always lost out heavily.
There was no compensation for lost earnings due to this heavy-handed military requisitions action.

The landholders at Tocumwal in 1942 weren't even advised the Govt had confiscated their land for a major air base.
The first the land owners knew, was they found people cutting and rolling up their fences, prior to earthmoving equipment arriving to build runways and hangars and military buildings on their land.

Shortly after this heavy-handed takeover, the landowners were presented with official Govt orders to leave their homes - and they were given 24 hrs to collect their basic personal possessions, to get out, and to find another home and another way to earn a living.

Yes, there was a War on, and things were pretty desperate - but the Australian military acted with pretty extreme heavy-handedness in that era - because they were charged with defending Australia, and whatever it took to carry out that defence, was done - with no niceties.

So, with this background, this security attitude continues to this day within the Australian military.
They will not give up their hold on what they regard as important military assets and reserved areas, because they firmly believe they will be needed again one day, in the case of another 1942-type event.

[Bill Pike]

We must ask ourselves why it would even enter the head of the pilot of MDX to flight plan via Craven etc. My understanding at the time was that he had been told at the flight planning that clearance via Willy airspace was unlikely to be available. And, as I recall, there was a red arrow on the chart that prohibited flight planning via Willy Indeed in my view that is the only reason that makes sense. So one was not permitted to flight plan through Willy airspace although clearance might become available? There isn't any doubt that single engine aircraft were at times require to track that way when only risible levels of traffic by international standards were using Willy airspace. I doubt that anyone will believe the conversation I had with Alan Newman of DCA (or similar) about flight planning direct Sydney from Willy in lieu of via MQD about 1970. "Why can't we flight plan direct?" "Because there is a red arrow on the chart" "But why is it there?" "Because we don't want you flight planning direct" and so on. I did finally win that one, (with the support of Bob Green and Arthur Doubleday), saving my then employer a lot of money that had previously been wasted on pointless extra track miles.

PS I always am a supporter of Dick when I support his aims. I do not care about his methods. They are his business.
Why we are discussing Hicks here I cannot fathom.

[Dick Smith]

The current regulations , today , state that a pilot must not flight plan over Williamtown south from Taree if the Willy restricted areas are active.

They mostly are.

So a pilot is forced inland to the tiger country where five bodies are still lost.

It is an outrageous limitation which works against safety.

Willy was located there because of the steelworks at Newcastle . The steelworks have closed down .

Giant roadblock airspace on this busy air route between two of our largest cities works against our national interest .

Modern international procedures if copied would allow the airspace to be better shared with no measurable reduction in safety.

How long before the next fatalities caused by unnecessary holding or diversion?

[onetrack]

Another 35 years, perhaps? To put it in better perspective, MDX is the only known crash (reputedly) caused by diversion around Williamtown (well, according to Dick, anyway), in 113 years of aviation.
And in many peoples opinions, the diversion around Williamtown was not the primary cause of the crash of MDX.

[Dick Smith]

One track. What about the extra cost of the extra distance and holding? Wouldn't it be better to remove this waste if possible?

Have you seen what is happening to GA in this country?

A friend just tried to book his tour group on the float plane at Strahn in Tassie.

Closed down like the operator at Hobart. Can't even get my life raft serviced in Aus any more. Over $4 k to send it to Singapore as dangerous goods.

GA is doomed. Now that both CASA and AsA are run by the military as I said before- get out now before you lose even more money.

[RatsoreA]

What about the extra cost of the extra distance and holding? Wouldn't it be better to remove this waste if possible?

YES! Totally agree, and a very valid point to base the campaign for change on.

That it caused the loss of MDX. No.

But that point there is something I think everyone can get behind.

[Dick Smith]

If the US NAS military airspace had existed at Willy that night the pilot would have continued down the coast with lights and a horizon in front.

It was the RAAF leadership constant refusal to copy the best from around the world that forced the pilot to fly towards the mountains. The RAAF was clearly primarily responsible.

There were no military aircraft operating in the airspace at the time

Why then the huge death making roadblock airspace?

[RatsoreA]

If the US NAS military airspace had existed at Willy that night the pilot would have continued down the coast with lights and a horizon in front.

But, it didn't exist, and yet in spite of that, a C206, VH-AZC, planned, and flew that route with "lights and a horizon in front." MDX and AZC was, incidentally, not the only traffic operating in, over or around Williamtown then.

If what you are saying is true, then the above statement shouldn't have been possible. Could you please reply to that statement.

[A Squared]

Fascinating! I hadn't heard of this incident before this thread. Not being from Oz some of the terminology and acronyms are lost on me, but I think I follow the basic plot here. From reading what has been posted and linked here and some other reading, it seems that the PIC:


Planned a night VFR flight over a route which included flying into mountainous terrain, on the downwind side of a mountain range when winds aloft were up to 70 knots, (and if that wasn't enough of a clue, severe turbulence was specifically forecast in a SIGMET) with conditions forecast to be questionable for VFR flight, with forecast icing along his route and at his altitudes, in a single engine airplane not equipped for icing.

And, after getting beat around a bit on a preceding flight segment, (as a hint that the turbulence forecasts were not just fear-mongering), he landed for fuel, then took off in an airplane which, by the pilots own statements, was experiencing malfunctions with the gyros and/or electrical system, for a night VFR flight in marginal conditions with forecast icing and severe turbulence over mountainous and unpopulated (read unlighted) terrain, and proceeded to execute his flight exactly as he had planned it. Well, except for the crashing part, he didn't plan that, but it wasn't exactly unforeseeable, either.

Yes, I can completely understand how it is 100% the RAAF's fault that this poor victim encountered icing and downdrafts beyond the capabilities of his airplane and crashed.

Damn those murdering thugs.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

If the US NAS military airspace had existed at Willy that night the pilot would have continued down the coast with lights and a horizon in front

Or, to take this train of logic a bit further, we could say that if only the RAAF had never existed at all, this accident would not have happened.

So, regardless of any decisions made by the PIC of MDX, the blame lies squarely at the feet of that homicidal maniac, Sir Richard Williams.

[Lead Balloon]

Or perhaps his mother?

[RatsoreA]

Regardless of all else in this thread -

Or perhaps his mother?

was pretty funny.

And seeing as Dick hasn't responded to my question, I will just stick in small repeat quote here -

Quote:
If the US NAS military airspace had existed at Willy that night the pilot would have continued down the coast with lights and a horizon in front.
But, it didn't exist, and yet in spite of that, a C206, VH-AZC, planned, and flew that route with "lights and a horizon in front." MDX and AZC was, incidentally, not the only traffic operating in, over or around Williamtown then.

If what you are saying is true, then the above statement shouldn't have been possible. Could you please reply to that statement.

[Fantome]

pardon a further aside Rats . . .. Dickie as his intimates knew him, was the first head of the RAAF to be ranked Air Marshal. (Not noted for his humour. As with the book "The Wit of Malcolm Fraser". . . a companion piece would likewise be 100 blank pages.) His autobiography is one of the most uncompromising in the annals of Australian military history. As reflected in his chosen title . .. THESE ARE FACTS.

BACK ON TOPIC - is there any update on the efforts of the person or persons continuing their search?

[Bill Pike]

When I read Dickie Wiliams book I found it more self serving than factual

[Howabout]

Even CASA said it should be class D like Broome - but these people are incapable of making a leadership decision that could save the industry money and improve safetyNo Dick, wrong again; but, to me, you seem to have little hesitation in twisting the facts for your own ends.

The recommendations on WLM airspace were made in a rather amateurish paper prepared by AsA staff and submitted to CASA. That piece of bumf was so bad that it was embarrassing to read.

It was cobbled together around 2008/2009 in response to the continued pressure on the minister that was applied by a particular airspace messiah - no names, no pack-drill.

The reasoning, logic and justification were laughable; but, when you have a predetermined conclusion, made under unrelenting pressure to 'do something,' I suppose rationale goes out the window.

Nice one Bill in respect of 'sent.' Your use of language is approaching that of Dick's.

Well said A Squared. That is one of the best posts that I've read on this forum.

[Bill Pike]

If say the Willy RAAF base had long ago been shifted from its rather vulnerable coastal position, to somewhere up closer to our threats say Tindal (where miltary airspace abounds,) and if MDX had therefore been permitted to flight plan coastal the aircraft would not have been in a position where the pilot's purported limited abilities were insufficent. Therefore the accident would most likely not have happened. I am not sure what a "primary cause" is. Any break in the chain, no matter how trivial, can oft times avoid an accident.

[RatsoreA]

been permitted to flight plan coastal

Can you offer evidence that at the time, he was not permitted to plan as such? Because VH-AZC was, and did.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Rat,

It seems that many on this forum follow the General Melchett (Blach Adder) train of thought:

'If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.'

:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

If say the Willy RAAF base had long ago been shifted from its rather vulnerable coastal position, to somewhere up closer to our threats say Tindal (where miltary airspace abounds,) and if MDX had therefore been permitted to flight plan coastal the aircraft would not have been in a position where the pilot's purported limited abilities were insufficent. Therefore the accident would most likely not have happened. I am not sure what a "primary cause" is. Any break in the chain, no matter how trivial, can oft times avoid an accident.

Bill, that's a pretty silly argument, isn't it?

One can equally say that had the PIC paid more attention to the fact that there appearred to be issues with the AH/GD, and the forcast flight conditions for the flight, when he was on the ground at Cooly - and stayed there, then "the accident would most likely not have happened"!

Or, had the flight proceeded coastal, the AH rolling upside down at some point could equally have resulted in the same outcome!

Dr :8

[Aussie Bob]

The only reason you guys discuss this prang ad infinitum is because the wreckage has never been found.

I put it to you that; had the wreckage been found within a week of the disappearance, none of you would even remember the event. Perhaps its time to get over it.

Weather Willy airspace is over sized and over regulated is another matter.

[RatsoreA]

Weather Willy airspace is over sized and over regulated is another matter.

Totally agree. Tell that to Dick Smith.

And I will get over it when Dick stops misappropriating its status for his cause! (and when it does get found!)

[A Squared]

If say the Willy RAAF base had long ago been shifted ... Therefore the accident would most likely not have happened.

Seriously????? You really think that way about Aeronautical Decision Making????

Wow, ok. let's play that game a bit, just top see how stupid that philosophy really is.

"Well, if that mountain hadn't been there Joe would never have hit it in the dark, therefore it's the mountain's fault he crashed"

"If that nasty crosswind hadn't been there, Bob would never have lost control on landing and crash into the hangar, therefore it was the crosswind's fault he crashed (and also the hangar's fault for being in his way after he lost control) "

"If that level 5 thunderstorm hadn't been right there where Jeffery was flying, he wouldn't have had the wings ripped off his plane, therefore it's the Thunderstorm's fault he fell out of the sky in pieces"

Not a single one of those is any more inane that saying the existence of the Air Base caused the MDX crash.

I guess I walk out to an airplane with a radically different mindset than some folks here. In my philosophy, things like mountains, and thunderstorms, and restricted airspace, and ATC procedures, and short runways and all those other things are just facts, that's the environment in which I'm going to fly, and *my* job is to make good decisions on how I am going to conduct my flight given those factors. Up to and including the decision not to fly tonight, if too many of those factors are against me.

If the "it's not my fault" attitudes displayed here are representative of the prevailing view toward piloting responsibilities in Oz*, I would recommend that you stop using the term "Pilot in Command" and replace it with VOB, for "Victim on Board" Because that's what's being espoused, that the poor old MDX pilot was just a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

* just to be clear, I'm indulging in a little hyperbole here, obviously there are a number of Oz pilots here who have a little more rational view of what a pilot's responsibilities are.

[Howabout]

Once again, A Squared, whomever you are, an excellent bloody post!

For the man that flies the 'Fork' - totally rational and un-emotive comments; not like some that just bore you to death with the unending agenda.

You have cred when it comes to taking a legitimate shot if that's ever your want.

While Dick will never change, Bill is panning out as a total disappointment as a 'professional.'

As A Squared alluded to, Bill, there is a thing called 'personal responsibility,' that was sadly lacking in this tragic incident.

To twist the facts to kick the RAAF in the bum is way below the standards of a (supposed) professional, and analytical, left-seater.

[Fantome]

obviously there are a number of Oz pilots here who have a little more rational view of what a pilot's responsibilities are. slightly patronising?

Bill is panning out as a total disappointment as a 'professional.'

. .. . and that is a downright belittling insult

[Lead Balloon]

If I may presume to dissent from the content of A Squared's, et al, posts.

The comparators used by A Squared are matters over which there is no control: the position of mountains, the wind direction and the phenomenon of storms.

The location of the RAAF Base at Williamtown is merely a decision of humans. A decision that can be changed.

The unpredictability of the response that people trying to transit the airspace receive is the product of a human machine. Humans have control over that machine.

Please humour those of us who labour under the misconception that we have the right to point out that the location of the RAAF Base, the size of the surrounding airspace and the procedures for transit are all matters over which humans have control and can therefore be changed.

And although we all realise that a move or change would cost money, we also have a right to point out that a move or change might be a better investment of the taxpayer's limited dollars because of the return in, among other things, the reduced rigmarole for all civilian traffic through the entire corridor. Further, some of us still adhere to that quaint metaphor about pipers and tunes, but of course the reality is that private citizens should just STFU and pay taxes so as to be inconvenienced in whatever way government and its agencies choose.

(I agree, Fantome.)

[A Squared]

If I may presume to dissent from the content of A Squared's, et al, posts.

The comparators used by A Squared are matters over which there is no control: the position of mountains, the wind direction and the phenomenon of storms.

The location of the RAAF Base at Williamtown is merely a decision of humans. A decision that can be changed.]

The night that the pilot walked out to his airplane with known malfunctions of flight critical systems, with the intention of departing into poor metrological conditions, the RAAF base was an immutable fact in the context of that flight and the pilot's responsibilities to conduct it safely.

I get that there is a contingent here who feel that the ATC procedures associated with the base should be changed, or even that the base should be moved elsewhere. That may be. I really don't have an opinion one way or another on that.

But, those advocates diverge from rationality when they attempt to blame the astonishingly poor decisions made that night by the pilot upon the RAAF.

[Howabout]

Fantome (post #108), go back and read the use of the word 'sent' - post #63

The implication being that the PIC was 'sent' to his death by the RAAF. He wasn't 'sent' anywhere by the RAAF. He had choices.

It's unfortunate that someone of Bill's stature falls into the trap of using emotive language in an endeavor to sway opinion. Reminds me of someone else whose name escapes me.

If you regard 'sent' as legitimate in the context that it was posted, and think such use was 'professional,' then we inhabit separate planets.

[Dick Smith]

The five were clearly sent to their deaths because of the totally rediculous RAAF airspace restrictions that existed on that Sunday night when no military operations were taking place at all.

Delude yourself as much as you like.

I said it clearly on the Sunday night show and I know who most Australians will believe.

And it will happen again unless we get the necessary airspace reforms in.

I have offered to pay the cost for RAAF people to travel to North America to see how this type of accident has far less chance of happening there.

No need they say. " we are better and know it all".

[prospector]

I said it clearly on the Sunday night show and I know who most Australians will believe.


But, those advocates diverge from rationality when they attempt to blame the astonishingly poor decisions made that night by the pilot upon the RAAF.

If that point was debated on the Sunday Night Show, your knowledge of who most Australians would believe would be very doubtful I would think.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, as has been repeated over and over and over again, the only person who did any sending was the pilot. Stop deluding yourself. Not even the most creative use of English can distort reality to match your words.

[Howabout]

I must admit that I have some (grudging) admiration for Dick, because he is a bloody good media performer. He could sell spears to the Spartans and does have the talent to use language in a manner that can sway the gullible out there in TV land.

'Road-block airspace,' 'They turned the radar off (G Airspace Trial),' 'The manual telephone system (G Airspace Trial),' 'Dirt-road airspace (NAS),' 'The proven US system (NAS),' etc,etc.

He's damned good, and I dips the lid in that regard. He uses his profile well when it comes to influencing the unwashed.

But, for mine, I much more miss his juicy beetroot with a burger over his logic when it comes to airspace.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The five were clearly sent to their deaths because.....

Actually, that should read: Four clearly went to their deaths because of their misplaced faith in the skills of the fifth.

[Bull at a Gate]

Dick seems upset that clearance was delayed even though there were no military operations taking place that night. This is not logical. If there had been military operations taking place, would the outcome have been any different? You are focussing on the wrong problem Dick.

[Captain Sherm]

The title is "Pilot in Command" for a reason....command.


Years back I had to have a good heart to heart with a Captain who should have known better and had put in a report complaining that "He had been dispatched with barely minimum fuel" and wasn't happy. Well apart from the fact that on a15 hour flight he had lots of alternates available including his Refile airport the bottom line was that HE was the person who signed the flight plan. No-one else. There's always the option of delay, postpone, cancel etc etc.


That applies Dick, to the lowest time PPL and the highest time airline captain.


It can never ever ever ever ever be "their fault".

[RatsoreA]

The five were clearly sent to their deaths because of the totally rediculous RAAF airspace restrictions that existed on that Sunday night when no military operations were taking place at all.

Ok Dick, then answer the direct question regarding VH-AZC. Why was this aircraft also not 'sent to their deaths? Same planned destination (YSBK) almost identical aircraft, separated by about 10 minutes.

If the RAAF are the problem, why is there not a C206 as well as a C210 up there we are looking for?

Now, I go back to my original question, that you are dodging -

If the US NAS military airspace had existed at Willy that night the pilot would have continued down the coast with lights and a horizon in front.
But, it didn't exist, and yet in spite of that, a C206, VH-AZC, planned, and flew that route with "lights and a horizon in front." MDX and AZC was, incidentally, not the only traffic operating in, over or around Williamtown then.

If what you are saying is true, then the above statement shouldn't have been possible. Could you please reply to that statement.

Answer that question, using the aircraft in question as an example.

[LeanOfPeak]

All,
I read this thread and others bemoaning the state of GA and offer an observation as a mid-life, new-to-aviation PPL.

I begin by disclosing my admiration for both Dick (as a successful businessman and champion of GA) and the personnel of the RAAF (professionals trying to serve to the best of their ability).

Isn't this thread an example of why GA isn't united in getting improvements?
To use an annoying phrase, we are "playing the man, not the ball".
I sense broad agreement that allowing planning (in all circumstances) and overflight (except when specific activity requires) of Williamtown airspace at a reasonable level for GA (above 5,000 say) would be a great improvement.

If we could unite behind that; I reckon we stand a chance of a change (fresh eyed optimism maybe). If we attack each other on the way we each try to advance that cause, we have no hope (even with fresh eyed optimism).
One successful unified victory could begin to build momentum and the GA community may stop looking so hopeless to so many of you.

To get a change made; different messages will resonate with different audiences. We need people who can speak to the rule-makers in calm and logical language about the benefits, risks and practicalities of a proposal. We also need as much public support and visibility as possible (there are politicians involved ultimately who know more about being elected than aviation). I believe Dick's use of this accident is a way to explain to the public what we are trying to say; whether or not it had a bearing on the crash, it is a lightning-rod of interest around which we can get interest from voters.
Planning my first ever YSBK to YBAF flight recently, I found myself wishing for a fifth option:
- plan low level coastal (love Victor 1, but prefer height when available)
- plan inland route (low-ish, narrow-looking path just screaming out VCA to me)
- wait until the day of the flight in the hope RA was inactive and I could file over the top) or
- my eventual choice (like the accident flight), high and simple but inland over nasty terrain

Why can't we back each other, use the skills we all have in different areas of influence and actually try getting just one win on the board?

LoP
(waiting to be shot down by someone for my doe-eyed ignorance or told about Hicks, fire services at Ballina or the reason one member of our GA community won't ever support another one)

[Old Fella]

It is sad to read the posts of Mr Dick Smith and come to the view that his assertion that the RAAF are to blame for the loss of five lives in VH-MDX is totally unjustified.

For a long time I have admired Mr Smith and what he has contributed to Australia. His refusal to accept that one person, and one person alone, was responsible for the loss of the aircraft and those aboard is difficult to understand.

In my experience I cannot recall any organisation with whom I have been associated, either Military and Civil, which did not stress that the safety of the aircraft and those aboard was the over-riding consideration at all times. No commercial consideration or other reason could justify continuing a flight if safety would be compromised by doing so.

In the case of VH-MDX the PIC had options, including returning to Taree and landing, which could have prevented this tragic accident ever happening. That he chose to continue into severe weather in an aircraft with suspect flight instrumentation and no airframe de-icing equipment is unfathomable to me. It seems clear that the wrong decisions were made by the PIC, possibly under pressure from his passengers to get them home.

[gerry111]

What I'm really hoping for is that Bronwyn Bishop is again preselected by the Libs for the seat of Mackellar.

(Dick has previously indicated that if that happens, then he'll stand as an independent against her. And he supposedly has polling to indicate that he'd win the seat.)


If that happened, then I'm sure that some of the public would soon find out that Dick, deep down is pretty shallow. That's my belief anyway.

[Dick Smith]

So when further lives are lost because the RAAF hold light aircraft for up to 30 minutes orbiting low over the ocean at Anna Bay you will no doubt say it was the pilots fault .

However if they put in tower airspace and allowed " target resolution" as they do in the US there would rarely be any holding.

More people will be killed at Willy. Just watch. I sold my beautiful property on the coast South of of Coffs because I knew that one day the holding would result in an accident.

And no. I am not blaming the controllers for the fact they are not allowed to use modern proven very safe North American procedures.

Just the concrete minded " iron ring" who stop the modern airspace and procedures being put in.

And old fella. Only one reason the pilot headed inland that night- the giant road block airspace that existed at the time. Remember there was no military traffic at the time.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Dick, can you explain how VH-AZC got through the road block, and why s/he wasn't sent to their death?

[Dick Smith]

Quite simply-luck!

Sometimes you get held at Willy. At other times you get let straight through.

Once the pilot was told by Flight Service there would be a delay but with no information on how long the delay may be he decided to stick to the flight planned route.

It's still in the ERS today that if the Willy areas are active you are prohibited from putting in a flight plan on the safer direct route.

That's a pretty clear message to pilots to keep away!

[Old Fella]

Mr Smith, you are making an assumption which you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not it is correct. Certainly the PIC of VH-MDX chose to maintain his planned route because of uncertainty about how long, if at all, a clearance through Willy would take.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the PIC had other options. If, as we understand, he was operating NVFR there is no reason being put into a holding pattern whilst awaiting a clearance should have been unsafe. If he chose to he could have back tracked to Taree and landed there. If, as has been stated, the AH and ADI were suspect he should not have flown in IMC and as the aircraft was not equipped with any airframe de-icing system he should not have entered known or suspected icing conditions.

The ultimate responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and those aboard lies squarely with the PIC. To blame the RAAF, as you do, is both wrong and unfair in my opinion. If one is to use your logic we would not allow any PIC to accept holding awaiting onwards clearance as to do so would place the aircraft and occupants at risk.

[LeanOfPeak]

I don't want to give up; but you're all making it look like the only option.

[dogcharlietree]

Sorry Dick, but I too, have to agree with Old Fella. The PIC is ultimately the one and only person responsible for the safety of the flight and his/her passengers.
I don't want to start a debate, but also, the PIC of VH-NGA was ultimately responsible.
When you hop in the left hand seat of a fixed wing plane, you assume so much responsibility, whether it is a C150 or a B747. SAME responsibility.
Sometimes, when airborne, lot of hurdles and unforeseen circumstances arise. It is up to the PIC to take whatever action is required to ensure the safety of flight.
The PIC of VH-AAV should have TOLD ATC what he was going to do. Then ATC should have given him free rein and told the RPT's to buggah off.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Quite simply-luck!

Sometimes you get held at Willy. At other times you get let straight through.

Once the pilot was told by Flight Service there would be a delay but with no information on how long the delay may be he decided to stick to the flight planned route.

It's still in the ERS today that if the Willy areas are active you are prohibited from putting in a flight plan on the safer direct route.

That's a pretty clear message to pilots to keep away!

That's a pretty clear message to pilots to keep away!

Dick there is no way you would have thought like that in business so why throw it up here?

To me that is just a challenge to ask for the clearance at the earliest opportunity, and have Plan B up my sleeve if it's not forthcoming in a time frame that works for me!

[Dick Smith]

Forky. It's exactly how I would have thought in business.

Make something appear unfriendly and the customer goes elsewhere. That's what the pilot was attempting to do. That is - keep out of the unfriendly airspace .

It's the same today. I know of pilots in single engined aircraft that fly the inland route to save clearance delays and holding. There are parts of the inland route that you are so close to the ground that a safe forced landing in case of an engine failure would be doubtful.

But in that case we would blame the pilot. Not the airspace design which follows the railway line as it was designed pre GPS in Tiger Moth days and no military person will ever be able to update it as that would require a little leadership.

[Hempy]

Ah the biannual 'Dick Smith MDX' thread (aka 'Why can't I get a clearance wherever and whenever I want?').

It's all been said before. Instead of walking on their graves for your own personal soapbox, at least try something a little more original next time. Maybe 'I hate the RAAF because they think they own my airspace' or something.

[Fantome]

. . . . not much to be served by comparisons relevant the prime causes of loss of AAV or NGA... then that of MDX

prime causes of the first was hot day probably reduced power take off and no boom mic (given that s/e performance properly and promptly handled after EFAT should have got Kerry round onto 34) . . . . . NGA? well what a can of worms there

howl me down . . but only a kangaroo court would convict either PIC of gross incompetence . . . . (even the best pilot in the world if honest enough will admit to the possibility of overload . . .. . and even though it sounds simplistic to say easy to be wise after the event there will always be a grain of truth in that)

no slur upon the pilot of MDX either . . simply that the circumstances were entirely different unless tossed around in a confusion of hopelessly general terms.

[Dick Smith]

I don't hate the RAAF. Just feel sorry for their ATCs in the way they are prevented from using the best airspace and procedures from leading aviation countries.

I don't object to holding if there is a safety related reason for it.

In most cases at Willy it's the 1950s airspace design and procedures that are the problem.

Give the tower some class D airspace to the coast and nearly all of the holding at Anna Bay low over the ocean would not be required.

And as I made clear one of the best change agents I ever had working for me at CAA was ex RAAF Ron Cooper.

[RatsoreA]

Quite simply-luck!

Utter rubbish.

AZC planned, in advance, the route that he took, and flew it as planned.

[Dick Smith]

To put it even more simply. There was only one reason the pilot went inland.

That was to get around the huge "road block"military airspace that had no military traffic at all that Sunday night.

If the airspace followed the proven North American design ( derr! Where do most of the RAAF planes come from?) MDX would have tracked over the top in classE airspace and there would not be 5 fatalities.

[dogcharlietree]

Dick, with all due respect, I do not think you are seeing the full picture.
You seem to be tunnel-visioned on the RAAF airspace.
When you say, "To put it even more simply. There was only one reason the pilot went inland." I would say the only reason is "get-home-itis".
From my limited knowledge of the accident, I believe he had a few options.
When I was advising younger inexperienced pilots, I told them, "the hardest thing you will ever have to do is to say NO to your mates, family and friends".

[Dick Smith]

Come on. What's wrong in a free country of wanting to fly safely down the coast in good weather?

Yes. He could have cancelled the flight because of the ridiculous military airspace restrictions and that's clearly what he should have done with hindsight .

All Australians should Kowtow to the military at all times? Is that what you are suggesting?

His group are dead. I am attempting to prevent further deaths if other pilots are human and make mistakes.

Best way to do that is get the military to harmonise with proven safe practices from other leading aviation countries which are kinder to people who make human errors!

The ridiculous holding of up to 30 minutes low over the ocean in the coastal lane would then rarely happen.

[fujii]

Dick, once again, there is no "e" in ridiculous.

[dogcharlietree]

"Come on. What's wrong in a free country of wanting to fly safely down the coast in good weather?"
So I can then go safely down the freeway in perfect conditions with almost zero traffic at 150MPH in a perfectly safe modern car?
C'mon Dick. Sadly obstacles, whether justified or not, are put in our way by bureaucrats every day to stop us doing what we really enjoy.
Somewhere the words from The Serenity Prayer come to mind.
A PIC has a responsibility to gather and assess ALL (weather, airspace, fuel, navaids, the list goes on and on and on) information with regard to his/her flight and must continually update and reassess this information and decisions as the flight progresses.

[Dick Smith]

Fuji. I would love to claim I was just trying to see who was reading- but can't do that. Thanks.

Dog. I understand all that. But remember the KLM 747 captain who took off without a clearance at Teneriffe North? Anyone can make an error so if you keep the system as simple as possible it could mean less errors.

[Band a Lot]

You use to be able to do this in part of Australia a bit ago.

"So I can then go safely down the freeway in perfect conditions with almost zero traffic at 150MPH in a perfectly safe modern car?"

They changed the speed limit to only 130 KPH, death toll went up - fact!!!


Myself only did around 160 KPH but once on a known stretch of road about 200 KPH for a few hours.

Hint most deaths are in built up areas not freeway type roads - it is other idiots that contribute or obstacles in city/towns that kill you.




"Going off NT police’s road toll list, nobody has died on the open speed trial stretch of road since it was started in 2014.
In that same time 12 pedestrians and six motorcyclists have been killed.
There were 13 fatal car crashes on remote dirt roads and highways.
The fact is more people died on Territory roads after speed limits were introduced in 2007. 75 people died in 2008 — the highest number since 1987.
It’s time to stop attacking the open speed limit and start thinking about what can we be done to fix the real killers like hit-and-runs, drink-driving; and unsealed, under-maintained rural roads."

[dogcharlietree]

"150MPH" was not a misprint. I meant 150 miles per hour (240kph) and yes I do own a car that can do it :-)

[dogcharlietree]

"But remember the KLM 747 captain who took off without a clearance at Teneriffe North?"

Another classic case of "get-home-itis", although this time, "home" is the next lay-over.

[Fantome]

. .. . was that not more a case of a language comprehension cock-up?
Did not they take-off in the belief they had a clearance?

A truer case closer to home was in all probability the DH Dragon VH- UXG
four years ago in Queensland when the pilot believed he had a first priority to get one of his passengers back to base . . . a woman who had pressing work commitments early the next day.

[dogcharlietree]

"A truer case closer to home was in all probability the DH Dragon VH- UXG"

Agreed. The old "get-home-itis" again.