Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
5 and a half minutes between requesting clearance and the decision to rack off to the west. And a request which said "I'm approaching the airspace pretty quickly.........."
Would I be right to say he was behind the aircraft and considering that the RAAF had no problem giving a clearance, and Sydney was working on it - maybe he should have requested clearance in a more timely manner rather than just arriving at the boundary and then being prompted by the RAAF, ie "do you want a clearance through Willy."
Would I be right to say he was behind the aircraft and considering that the RAAF had no problem giving a clearance, and Sydney was working on it - maybe he should have requested clearance in a more timely manner rather than just arriving at the boundary and then being prompted by the RAAF, ie "do you want a clearance through Willy."
Last edited by Trevor the lover; 4th Jun 2014 at 07:04.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onya, Harry!
Unfortunately, substance runs a distant second to sensationalism and TV ratings. The unfortunate fact is half-truths and innuendo will always win out. Nobody wants the truth because it kills a 'good story.'
The 'RAAF killed people' is a better commercial TV line than the PIC blew it.
Unfortunately, substance runs a distant second to sensationalism and TV ratings. The unfortunate fact is half-truths and innuendo will always win out. Nobody wants the truth because it kills a 'good story.'
The 'RAAF killed people' is a better commercial TV line than the PIC blew it.
Thread Starter
Harry. Why did you leave out that because of RAAF regulations the pilot was prohibited from planning his flight overhead Williamtown and that meant the Willy controller had no prior notice of the flight - and that was one of the reasons for the delay.
Why did you leave out that this prohibition still remains today and another 5 innocent Aussies could be sent on the same journey tonight?
I have spent over 20 years attempting to encourage the RAAF to send its ATC decision makers to the USA or the UK to see how modern military airspace can be handled.
All to no avail.
Seeing you are all flying around in some of the best aircraft in the world - nearly all made in the USA - why wouldn't you also want to copy there efficient airspace design.?
About three years ago CASA produced a paper recommending class D airspace for Williamtown. Why has this not been acted upon?
Why don't you talk to some of the VFR pilots who get held all the time transitting Williamtown?
One day one of these aircraft is going to end up in the ocean with all the family drowned.
Then the changes will be made.
Why did you leave out that this prohibition still remains today and another 5 innocent Aussies could be sent on the same journey tonight?
I have spent over 20 years attempting to encourage the RAAF to send its ATC decision makers to the USA or the UK to see how modern military airspace can be handled.
All to no avail.
Seeing you are all flying around in some of the best aircraft in the world - nearly all made in the USA - why wouldn't you also want to copy there efficient airspace design.?
About three years ago CASA produced a paper recommending class D airspace for Williamtown. Why has this not been acted upon?
Why don't you talk to some of the VFR pilots who get held all the time transitting Williamtown?
One day one of these aircraft is going to end up in the ocean with all the family drowned.
Then the changes will be made.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th Jun 2014 at 07:16.
Could someone point me to a reference that says it is prohibited to plan via WLM? I'm not up to date with this and want to familiarise myself with the regulation. I asked Dick earlier but not got a reply as yet.
Dick, you have been told time and time again: there was no delay from Willy. The delays came from Sector 1 (clearance denied) and Sydney Approach (checking wx on a coastal route).
Thread Starter
Trevor. The pilot was never prompted by the RAAF controller.
The pilot never ever spoke to the RAAF controller - wasn't allowed to!
The pilot was informed at Cooly that RAAF regulations prohibited flight planning via Williamtown. Yes. Even on a Sunday night with no military aircraft flying
Same restriction today.
Clear evidence of concrete minded ness in the minds of the RAAF personnel who have resisted any change to this restriction.
The pilot never ever spoke to the RAAF controller - wasn't allowed to!
The pilot was informed at Cooly that RAAF regulations prohibited flight planning via Williamtown. Yes. Even on a Sunday night with no military aircraft flying
Same restriction today.
Clear evidence of concrete minded ness in the minds of the RAAF personnel who have resisted any change to this restriction.
Thread Starter
Willy controllers I am on your side.
You need some proper leadership from above or there is likely to be even more fatalities,
Get the route restriction removed- and get the more modern D airspace that allows controllers more flex ability to move aircraft safely.
You need some proper leadership from above or there is likely to be even more fatalities,
Get the route restriction removed- and get the more modern D airspace that allows controllers more flex ability to move aircraft safely.
Get the route restriction removed- and get the more modern D airspace that allows controllers more flex ability to move aircraft safely.
And let us fly up the beach without a clearance!
argument done before. 500ft coastal is inside the approach splay. Unlike Victor One, Willie is just a few km closer to the beach than SY.
Thread Starter
No doubt you would have to still go full position reporting VFR and pay full enroute charges like PNG
Coffs would not be class D but a secondary zone going out to 21 nm at ground level
No victor lane of course.
Canberra airspace would still go out north of Gundaroo so I would need a clearance to get airborne!
No CTAFs. You would still be on the area frequency or on an AFIS in the circuit.
Great. Let's go back
Coffs would not be class D but a secondary zone going out to 21 nm at ground level
No victor lane of course.
Canberra airspace would still go out north of Gundaroo so I would need a clearance to get airborne!
No CTAFs. You would still be on the area frequency or on an AFIS in the circuit.
Great. Let's go back
I constantly wonder how Australian airspace would have evolved without meddling do-gooders.
What part of this system results in the high rate of "loss of separation" incident in Australia, compared to the FAA ATC system, on which the real ICAO SARPs are based.
As for the extent of military controlled airspace in Australia, it is simply ridiculous, quite unnecessary, and costs civil aviation very dearly.
Tootle pip!!
His instruments were going to fail anyway.
Sydney was non-NVFR
He would probably have popped into a cloud near MQD, which may or may not have made finding the wreckage a little easier.
Sydney was non-NVFR
He would probably have popped into a cloud near MQD, which may or may not have made finding the wreckage a little easier.
NZ was held up as the shining example for regulatory reform by the zealots. Leady, are you listening?
In 2002/2004, or thereabouts, the NZ CAA put out an airspace booklet, now offline, that depicted the beloved MOAs with no restrictions on access to civil traffic outside the 12-mile limit - I still have a hard-copy.
It's illegal, isn't it Leady, to deny access outside territorial waters? Let's get this straight to start off with. Because you believe NZ should be our model.
Our military were pilloried at the time by the zealots for having airspace off the coast that is regulated.
Check out page 10 of what was released by the NZ CAA in 2008 and which still stands as regards access to MOAs in international airspace. Read it for yourselves and ask why the NZ CAA changed the rules to regulate access beyond their territorial limits.
In 2002/2004, or thereabouts, the NZ CAA put out an airspace booklet, now offline, that depicted the beloved MOAs with no restrictions on access to civil traffic outside the 12-mile limit - I still have a hard-copy.
It's illegal, isn't it Leady, to deny access outside territorial waters? Let's get this straight to start off with. Because you believe NZ should be our model.
Our military were pilloried at the time by the zealots for having airspace off the coast that is regulated.
Check out page 10 of what was released by the NZ CAA in 2008 and which still stands as regards access to MOAs in international airspace. Read it for yourselves and ask why the NZ CAA changed the rules to regulate access beyond their territorial limits.
Yes, I am listening, and hearing incoherent noise.
Let's get one thing straight, I have never advocated the NZ approach to airspace management, period. Although, generally, they do it well. Thus, most of your rant falls at the first hurdle.
At all times I have advocated the US implementation of the ICAO airspace classification, because it works, and works very well, and as described in the first Minister's Airspace Policy Statement in the Airspace Act 2007 (Cth).
Look it up, it's on the ComLaw web site
If NZ are are actually purporting to restrict operations in MOSs outside the territorial limits, that is beyond their power, regardless of what is on paper.
Putting forward the NZ Civil Aviation Act and Regulations rules set as a general example to follow in Australia is another matter entirely.
Also look at Class F airspace off the NE coast of Canada in international airspace that's used by the military. You need a clearance and their AIP is pretty direct on that one.
Canada is quite entitled to establish airspace classifications in international airspace that is under their jurisdiction, but ICAO rules apply, just as it does in Australia.
Whether you want to believe it or not, the US Navy treats Australia the same way it treats other (third world) countries that purport to ignore the Law of the Sea Treaties and other international treaties (when it suits us). When a aircraft carrier is coming to Australia, they make a point of conducting air operations, in airspace that Australia purports to restrict, despite it being in international waters.
Ever polite, the US Navy advises Australia of its intentions, and makes it very clear that this is advice, and is in no way is the USN asking for clearances to conduct air operations in international airspace.
This same US policy is applied to Indonesia, and including sailing through such as the Sunda Straight and other similar waters, that the Indonesia claim as domestic waters, despite the Law of the Sea Treaties, to which Indonesia is a signatory. No permission is asked by the USN.
Some years ago, an N registered light aircraft was flown up and down the beach off Willy, outside the 12 mile limit, when the the RAAF had purported to "activate" the military restrictions in international airspace.
No action was ever attempted to be taken against the pilot in command, because the DoT, DoD and the Attorney General's Department knew full well that no action could be taken, the pilot was completely withing his rights to do what he did.
It got up a lot of noses, that was the point, to show that all that offshore R airspace was unenforceable. Beyond power.
That something is printed on a piece of paper does not make it law.
Remember the fracas quite recently, when CASA decided that you needed an "international" AOC to fly Melbourne direct to Perth, and to fly from the mainland to a number of the islands in the Torres Straight. An interesting example of the application of the 12 mile limit to some rather silly CARs.
You should have a look, some time, at how rigidly the US observes the Law of the Sea Treaties, have a look at aeronautical charts for either the east or west coast, all US domestic civil and military airspace ends at the 12 mile limit, although, of course, the FAA continues to provide control services to traffic in international airspace administered by the US.
I sincerely suggest you get your facts straight.
If advocating world's best practice airspace management makes me a zealot, I am happy to wear the badge.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Jun 2014 at 10:12. Reason: spelling
Thread Starter
Username. This accident was clearly caused because RAAF requirements prohibit civilian pilots from planning and flying the safest way down the coast .
The pilot got safely to Taree from the border at night. A night VMC flight is normally flown in VMC and it's known that Williamtown was CAVOK that night.
The only reason he turned inland after Taree was to comply with RAAF imposed flight planning requirements.
If the gyro instruments had failed at the same time but the pilot was on the coast there was excellent visibility ahead to allow for a safe continuation of the flight to Bankstown .
I spoke today to a pilot who flew down the coast ahead of MDX on the same night and this pilot said it was a perfect night for a NVMC flight.
If the pilot of MDX had been allowed to file a plan from Taree to overhead Williamtown the Willy controller would have had prior details via the FDP system ( or it's equivalent ) and would have adequate time to advise Sydney FS of the levels that a clearance would be available without a delay.
The only reason the Willy controller could not do this is because of the RAAF requirement .
Stop attacking me. Help get this restrictive limitation removed before more lives are lost.
The pilot got safely to Taree from the border at night. A night VMC flight is normally flown in VMC and it's known that Williamtown was CAVOK that night.
The only reason he turned inland after Taree was to comply with RAAF imposed flight planning requirements.
If the gyro instruments had failed at the same time but the pilot was on the coast there was excellent visibility ahead to allow for a safe continuation of the flight to Bankstown .
I spoke today to a pilot who flew down the coast ahead of MDX on the same night and this pilot said it was a perfect night for a NVMC flight.
If the pilot of MDX had been allowed to file a plan from Taree to overhead Williamtown the Willy controller would have had prior details via the FDP system ( or it's equivalent ) and would have adequate time to advise Sydney FS of the levels that a clearance would be available without a delay.
The only reason the Willy controller could not do this is because of the RAAF requirement .
Stop attacking me. Help get this restrictive limitation removed before more lives are lost.
FFS, when are we going to stop blathering about "sending people to their deaths" and "it's all about stopping more tragic accidents"?
Because "I don't like being held and I want to be cleared unrestricted wherever I want whenever I like" doesn't sound half as attention-getting!
Your self-generated hoo-ha has got bugger all to do with the MDX accident, Dick, so please stop pretending it has.
Because "I don't like being held and I want to be cleared unrestricted wherever I want whenever I like" doesn't sound half as attention-getting!
Your self-generated hoo-ha has got bugger all to do with the MDX accident, Dick, so please stop pretending it has.
Why then didn't the PIC of the aircraft exercise his command position and declare an emergency due stress of weather and divert to Williamtown or return to Taree if the weather there was OK? Pushing on in marginal conditions is generally considered a bad decision.
Dick, the Willi controllers don't make the rules by the way. I know because I was one [who sent a QF B747 up the light aircraft lane one busy day - a fine sight to behold crossing the extended centre line of 12/30 at 500"]
Dick, the Willi controllers don't make the rules by the way. I know because I was one [who sent a QF B747 up the light aircraft lane one busy day - a fine sight to behold crossing the extended centre line of 12/30 at 500"]