Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a crook. Can some one tell me why the raaf need and exclusion zone from the coast to the range 1 hour out of the largest city in Australia. It's not required at all.
Yes that pilot made some wrong decesions however the zone didn't help him out either.
Let's not forget that life's where lost this was not exercise.
Cheers
Yes that pilot made some wrong decesions however the zone didn't help him out either.
Let's not forget that life's where lost this was not exercise.
Cheers
Because of the human mind's propensity to dichotomise, it's difficult for laypeople to comprehend that sovereign states can (and do) legislate for the regulation of aircraft of their own nationality beyond 12 nm from the baselines established in accordance with UNCLOS, even though the legislation may not be binding on aircraft of other nationalities. That's why it's illegal, in Australian law, for a VH-registered aircraft to operate in Swaziland for a commercial purpose prescribed for the purposes of section 27 of the Australian Civil Aviation Act, without an AOC issued under the Australian Civil Aviation Act authorising that operation. However, it is not unlawful, in Australian law, for an N-registered aircraft to operate, in Swaziland, for a commercial purpose prescribed for the purposes of section 27 of the Australian Civil Aviation Act without an AOC issued under that Act.
So Canada and Australia and Orangeland can declare any kind of airpace anywhere in the universe, and it will be binding on aircraft of the nationality of the declaring nation. Australia can declare Class B airspace in the middle of the Pacific ocean (and can declare a Romeo area that extends beyone 12nms from the baseline) and it will be binding on aircraft with Australian nationality (so it's probably best to publish that on a chart...) However, it won't be binding, as a matter of international public law, on aircraft of other nationalities when they are outside 12 nm from the baselines of Australia (or Canada or Orangeland) established in accordance with UNCLOS, unless the country of 'home' nationality has legislated requiring aircraft of its nationality to comply with the delarations of other countries to the extent they purport to apply further than 12nms from the baseline ...
But don't forget Rule 1 of public international law: The country with the most guns can regulate anywhere they like...
So Canada and Australia and Orangeland can declare any kind of airpace anywhere in the universe, and it will be binding on aircraft of the nationality of the declaring nation. Australia can declare Class B airspace in the middle of the Pacific ocean (and can declare a Romeo area that extends beyone 12nms from the baseline) and it will be binding on aircraft with Australian nationality (so it's probably best to publish that on a chart...) However, it won't be binding, as a matter of international public law, on aircraft of other nationalities when they are outside 12 nm from the baselines of Australia (or Canada or Orangeland) established in accordance with UNCLOS, unless the country of 'home' nationality has legislated requiring aircraft of its nationality to comply with the delarations of other countries to the extent they purport to apply further than 12nms from the baseline ...
But don't forget Rule 1 of public international law: The country with the most guns can regulate anywhere they like...
Last edited by Creampuff; 4th Jun 2014 at 11:20.
Thread Starter
Mate. The pilots dead! I can't bring him back to life and read the riot act to him.
And wasn't really the passengers fault anyway
I made it very clear on the Sunday interview that I believed the pilot made serious errors of judgement.
I reckon we should have learnt from what happened and try and reduce the chance of it happening again.
If 95% get a clearance why not remove the route limitation so the Willy controllers have the information at their fingertips. ?
I know. I know. You can't possible change a rule ever. " we are the safest in the world". The concrete sets!
And wasn't really the passengers fault anyway
I made it very clear on the Sunday interview that I believed the pilot made serious errors of judgement.
I reckon we should have learnt from what happened and try and reduce the chance of it happening again.
If 95% get a clearance why not remove the route limitation so the Willy controllers have the information at their fingertips. ?
I know. I know. You can't possible change a rule ever. " we are the safest in the world". The concrete sets!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blame Game
Mr Smith
You continue to claim the RAAF and the restriction on planning Coffs - Williamtown as the cause of the aircraft VH-MDX being lost with all aboard.
I would have expected that you of all people would accept that every flight is planned within the existing rules and that every PIC has the responsibility to ensure that the flight is conducted with the safety of the aircraft and those aboard being the most important consideration. Numerous times every day pilots have to make decisions which will ensure safety is not compromised, regardless of any other imperative.
Whether or not one believes that the restictions in place in relation to Williamtown are justified or not, they are in place and were in place in 1981 when VH-MDX was lost.
You have a particular position to promote, as is your right, and many will agree with your view. What I find incomprehensible is your dogged refusal to retract your claim that "The RAAF sent five people to their death". Holding for onwards clearance is nothing unique or restricted to Williamtown. I have lost count of the number of times having been put in the hold on descent into Sydney, burning up tonnes of fuel whilst holding and then being asked to maintain best speed to West Pymble without explanation as to (1), why the holding was required and, (2) why "best speed" was then requested.
The RAAF DID NOT DIRECT THE PIC OF MDX TO FLY INTO THE WX ON HIS PLANNED TRACK. He made that decision it would seem because he was not prepared to wait. Your claim, in an earlier post, that he would have somehow been in jeopardy had he held beggars belief when compared to the decision he made to fly his original planned route. You claim the only reason he turned inland was because of RAAF imposed restrictions. No Mr Smith, that was not the only reason. Options were available.
There seems to me to have been a constant reference to "I" in your offerings, i.e. "I changed this" and "I changed that" and "I will change this", etc etc. Like many others on this thread I have no truk with your attempts to see change made but I am heartily sick of your continued blaming of the RAAF for the failings of the one person whom could have prevented this accident had other options been taken.
I hope that in the fullness of time the accident aircraft will be found and it is able to provide answers for all those people who seek them.
You continue to claim the RAAF and the restriction on planning Coffs - Williamtown as the cause of the aircraft VH-MDX being lost with all aboard.
I would have expected that you of all people would accept that every flight is planned within the existing rules and that every PIC has the responsibility to ensure that the flight is conducted with the safety of the aircraft and those aboard being the most important consideration. Numerous times every day pilots have to make decisions which will ensure safety is not compromised, regardless of any other imperative.
Whether or not one believes that the restictions in place in relation to Williamtown are justified or not, they are in place and were in place in 1981 when VH-MDX was lost.
You have a particular position to promote, as is your right, and many will agree with your view. What I find incomprehensible is your dogged refusal to retract your claim that "The RAAF sent five people to their death". Holding for onwards clearance is nothing unique or restricted to Williamtown. I have lost count of the number of times having been put in the hold on descent into Sydney, burning up tonnes of fuel whilst holding and then being asked to maintain best speed to West Pymble without explanation as to (1), why the holding was required and, (2) why "best speed" was then requested.
The RAAF DID NOT DIRECT THE PIC OF MDX TO FLY INTO THE WX ON HIS PLANNED TRACK. He made that decision it would seem because he was not prepared to wait. Your claim, in an earlier post, that he would have somehow been in jeopardy had he held beggars belief when compared to the decision he made to fly his original planned route. You claim the only reason he turned inland was because of RAAF imposed restrictions. No Mr Smith, that was not the only reason. Options were available.
There seems to me to have been a constant reference to "I" in your offerings, i.e. "I changed this" and "I changed that" and "I will change this", etc etc. Like many others on this thread I have no truk with your attempts to see change made but I am heartily sick of your continued blaming of the RAAF for the failings of the one person whom could have prevented this accident had other options been taken.
I hope that in the fullness of time the accident aircraft will be found and it is able to provide answers for all those people who seek them.
Thread Starter
User. He claims his request was initially refused so he demanded assertively to know why- then he was given a clearance
BPA. I will post the FAA color chart of their airspace when I can find it. Some on this site will go berserk!
VFR can overfly all FAA class B ,D and C airspace without a clearance.
Requires a transponder above B and C
BPA. I will post the FAA color chart of their airspace when I can find it. Some on this site will go berserk!
VFR can overfly all FAA class B ,D and C airspace without a clearance.
Requires a transponder above B and C
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Username,
Exactly. Don't forget AZC was about 9 minutes in front of MDX, on exactly the same route, with no problems getting a clearance.
No, it wasn't.
As someone with such a large range of experience with aviation, how you could possibly come to such a ridiculous conclusion.
Nobody made the PIC do anything. He made the all the decisions from end to end. Any MINOR delays he might have experienced, had he waited, were so that separation could be assured from preceding traffic.
If the pilot was that concerned, why didn't he ask for clearance before he got to Taree. And just in case you say he couldn't request it before then, there is absolutely nothing to support that.
I have asked SEVERAL direct questions, of which, you have ignored nearly 90% of them as the only possible answers you can give contradict your point of view.
I implore you, for the sake of all the people actually doing something constructive about this, go back, read every single one of my questions and reply to them.
Exactly. Don't forget AZC was about 9 minutes in front of MDX, on exactly the same route, with no problems getting a clearance.
Username. This accident was clearly caused because RAAF requirements prohibit civilian pilots from planning and flying the safest way down the coast
As someone with such a large range of experience with aviation, how you could possibly come to such a ridiculous conclusion.
Nobody made the PIC do anything. He made the all the decisions from end to end. Any MINOR delays he might have experienced, had he waited, were so that separation could be assured from preceding traffic.
If the pilot was that concerned, why didn't he ask for clearance before he got to Taree. And just in case you say he couldn't request it before then, there is absolutely nothing to support that.
I have asked SEVERAL direct questions, of which, you have ignored nearly 90% of them as the only possible answers you can give contradict your point of view.
I implore you, for the sake of all the people actually doing something constructive about this, go back, read every single one of my questions and reply to them.
Thread Starter
Old Fella. You just don't get it
Most pilots would surely want the planning restriction removed. Clearly reduces safety.
I have worked for over 20 years to try and get these military requirements updated. Dozens of letters, many meetings , lots of promises of change - and basically nothing happens.
Let's see what happens this time.
And I know people in the military who are just as frustrated as I am.
Most pilots would surely want the planning restriction removed. Clearly reduces safety.
I have worked for over 20 years to try and get these military requirements updated. Dozens of letters, many meetings , lots of promises of change - and basically nothing happens.
Let's see what happens this time.
And I know people in the military who are just as frustrated as I am.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IFR C206 in front of MDX had no problems planning via WLM.
If I remember correctly back then when you submitted a flight plan you would plan via SGT MQD (inbound to SY/BK) and via WMD (outbound). However you could include via WLM as an option/preferred tracking. If you included this option in your flight plan the Briefing Office/FSO would include WIlly they sent the flight plan to the relevant ATC units.
The flight progress strips (blue outbound, yellow inbound) would include a note of the overhead WLM option/preferred tracking.
If I remember correctly back then when you submitted a flight plan you would plan via SGT MQD (inbound to SY/BK) and via WMD (outbound). However you could include via WLM as an option/preferred tracking. If you included this option in your flight plan the Briefing Office/FSO would include WIlly they sent the flight plan to the relevant ATC units.
The flight progress strips (blue outbound, yellow inbound) would include a note of the overhead WLM option/preferred tracking.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one has still answer the most simple question in all of this. Why oh why do the raaf need to lock up airspace between to major city's on what probably the most flown route north out of the largest city in Australia. From coast to range any way you look at it at some point even if you go west out of Sydney you over tiger country again. It make zero sence at all for this airway to be locked up and cleareance required. Can any give a positive view on why it should require cleareance or why it should be locked up.
Let's not forget that life's lost but look forward to prevent it happening again.
Cheers
Let's not forget that life's lost but look forward to prevent it happening again.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've landed at USA military bases that have active fighters on the ready (after 911) with zero problems. At one base we landed on the taxy way as the main strip was being up graded in North dokota only to look out the window to see f 16 and 15 on the ready. Not many spots you can't fly over in the USA. Take off put a plan on route get cleareance to 10 then 15 then 20 then25 then 30 doing px checks no dramas nothin a problem.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So user why dose it need to be lock up for. Think you find Dick is frustrated by the lack of common sence here on this subject if I may say so. There is no responsible or reasonable reason for this lock up.
Dick Smith
TBM-Legend
So Dick, lets assume that the aircraft had received a clearance via O/H Williamtown, Sydney ATC Sector1 said that their airspace wasn't VMC. What airspace would the aircraft have used and how would the aircraft navigated between WM and BK? Remember CAVOK is nil cloud below 5000ft.
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 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.
S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud).
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I have looked at the logbook, I have flown Sydney to Brisbane, or Brisbane to Sydney, 8 times in the last 7 months, during day and night. I have been diverted out to Scone 2 times in those, and cleared directly over Williamtown 6 times, and only one of those required any holding (less than 40 seconds) at all. I am pretty sure that turning 360 degrees at 8000ft + or - 100 feet isn't beyond the skill level required of an appropriately qualified pilot (like the PIC was). You seem to think that such a manoeuvre is the stuff of legend?! Are you saying that if we put you in a 210 at night in CAVOK, 5 miles from the coast and 8000ft high, you wouldn't be able to conduct one orbit?
The RAAF are not even remotely to blame for any of this.
I have looked at the logbook, I have flown Sydney to Brisbane, or Brisbane to Sydney, 8 times in the last 7 months, during day and night. I have been diverted out to Scone 2 times in those, and cleared directly over Williamtown 6 times, and only one of those required any holding (less than 40 seconds) at all. I am pretty sure that turning 360 degrees at 8000ft + or - 100 feet isn't beyond the skill level required of an appropriately qualified pilot (like the PIC was). You seem to think that such a manoeuvre is the stuff of legend?! Are you saying that if we put you in a 210 at night in CAVOK, 5 miles from the coast and 8000ft high, you wouldn't be able to conduct one orbit?
The RAAF are not even remotely to blame for any of this.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yr right - I don't think many people on here are questioning the agenda, only the method.
To state that 'this accident was clearly caused by RAAF requirements...' is political and emotive spin and BS.
The airspace and flight planning constraints may have contributed to the crash. The pilots decisions on the night may have contributed to the crash. The weather on the night may have contributed to the crash. The fact that a 'night VFR' flight category exists may have contributed to the crash. The fact that the flight was made on that night, in that aircraft, by that pilot, may have contributed to the crash. Faulty instruments may have contributed to the crash.
To lay blame solely on only one of those aspects, as Mr Smith has by stating the 'accident was clearly caused...' is incorrect and irresponsible. Anyway, like a lot of contributors, I'm going blue in the face, and getting pretty sick of not getting any answers to direct questions.
So, Mr Smith - why are you solely focusing on one causal factor of the accident, when a change of any of them would probably have prevented the crash? In all your dialogue, why do you only mention WLM airspace? There is plenty of other military controlled, RA2 airspace in this country in terrain as inhospitable and non conducive to forced landing as that around WLM. So far, your silence on these two issues has spoken a thousand words.
To state that 'this accident was clearly caused by RAAF requirements...' is political and emotive spin and BS.
The airspace and flight planning constraints may have contributed to the crash. The pilots decisions on the night may have contributed to the crash. The weather on the night may have contributed to the crash. The fact that a 'night VFR' flight category exists may have contributed to the crash. The fact that the flight was made on that night, in that aircraft, by that pilot, may have contributed to the crash. Faulty instruments may have contributed to the crash.
To lay blame solely on only one of those aspects, as Mr Smith has by stating the 'accident was clearly caused...' is incorrect and irresponsible. Anyway, like a lot of contributors, I'm going blue in the face, and getting pretty sick of not getting any answers to direct questions.
So, Mr Smith - why are you solely focusing on one causal factor of the accident, when a change of any of them would probably have prevented the crash? In all your dialogue, why do you only mention WLM airspace? There is plenty of other military controlled, RA2 airspace in this country in terrain as inhospitable and non conducive to forced landing as that around WLM. So far, your silence on these two issues has spoken a thousand words.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
yr right
Funniest post all year coming from you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Of all the people on here who refuse to answer questions you are the best performer and even Dick, despite his always avoiding a well targeted question can't compete.
And Dick, why do you avoid the on topic questions? Seems a common problem that 16-AP and others are having with this topic.
16-AP
No one has still answer the most simple question in all of this.
Funniest post all year coming from you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.Of all the people on here who refuse to answer questions you are the best performer and even Dick, despite his always avoiding a well targeted question can't compete.
And Dick, why do you avoid the on topic questions? Seems a common problem that 16-AP and others are having with this topic.
16-AP
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I can gather the Pilot was very experienced, and honestly should have known better. He flew knowingly into IMC, and seemed to have persisted. Even though there was strong winds and mountain wave wind shear, and the VAC pump cut out, he persisted. If he was Visual at Craven he should have held in VMC there, not continue into the soup. He had a truck load fuel. He was full fuel out of Cooly with 330mins Total endurance. And if it was going to be a no go, i.e. no clearance onwards, then request to fly back to Taree, and go to the pub, and try again the next day. He wasn't flying a bank run. He didn't have commercial pressure.
As a Night VFR pilot flying into IMC he should've done a 180deg turn on instruments and flown back out again and remain VMC. I'm sorry but he painted himself and his passengers into a corner that night. Its such a terrible tragedy lets not forget this.
I said this in a post before but deleted after reading the BASI report in the National Archive. He seemed to be well north of track when he reported his ADF was spinning or directly tracking. Next time RastoreA you fly the route in your airplane try dialling up the Scone NDB 209khz( I suppose its not there any more) as apposed to the SGT NDB 290khz( maybe gone aswell).He may have had them tuned incorrectly ( dyslexic figure change). Has this theory already been discussed with your investigation team? If he was tracking on fixed card ADF and magnetic compass after DG failure to Scone on weaker signal over the hills might account for his off track excursion.
As a Night VFR pilot flying into IMC he should've done a 180deg turn on instruments and flown back out again and remain VMC. I'm sorry but he painted himself and his passengers into a corner that night. Its such a terrible tragedy lets not forget this.
I said this in a post before but deleted after reading the BASI report in the National Archive. He seemed to be well north of track when he reported his ADF was spinning or directly tracking. Next time RastoreA you fly the route in your airplane try dialling up the Scone NDB 209khz( I suppose its not there any more) as apposed to the SGT NDB 290khz( maybe gone aswell).He may have had them tuned incorrectly ( dyslexic figure change). Has this theory already been discussed with your investigation team? If he was tracking on fixed card ADF and magnetic compass after DG failure to Scone on weaker signal over the hills might account for his off track excursion.
Last edited by Sheep Guts; 4th Jun 2014 at 13:29.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sad part is, if you read the FULL transcript, the clearance from APP was essentially approved pending MDX's choice of level, and WLM were happy as long as he was vertically separated from AZC. It would have been sorted almost immediately if he hadn't turned towards Craven when he did.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll Jaba you failed to answer a lot of questions your self. So we'll then why is it so. A lot of you are all brave behind a key board. At least dick has said his peace although he has the ability far beyond what most of us have to get media attention.
I never heard him blame anyone in the interview. What he did have a go at was the system and rightly so. At the end of the day he really has nothin to gain in all of this. He really can sit back and say we'll fu$k you all. But he hasn't.
Not one person has been able to give one reason why we have a restricted airspace there and why there is no lame to be able to be use with out clearance.
As with most things in aviation when you push the limits sometimes it pushes back. In this case it did.
You are different though. You had your own agenda to push. Dick hasn't. He doing it for the good of the aviation community. Even if you don't like the man or what he stands for at least he has a go. It up to the person reding that to decided that. It a shame that you can't get behind him a help push for a change instead of having mindless digs just because his views may or maybe different to your own. Mmm pattern here me thinks. Not all of us are sheeps.
Cheers
I never heard him blame anyone in the interview. What he did have a go at was the system and rightly so. At the end of the day he really has nothin to gain in all of this. He really can sit back and say we'll fu$k you all. But he hasn't.
Not one person has been able to give one reason why we have a restricted airspace there and why there is no lame to be able to be use with out clearance.
As with most things in aviation when you push the limits sometimes it pushes back. In this case it did.
You are different though. You had your own agenda to push. Dick hasn't. He doing it for the good of the aviation community. Even if you don't like the man or what he stands for at least he has a go. It up to the person reding that to decided that. It a shame that you can't get behind him a help push for a change instead of having mindless digs just because his views may or maybe different to your own. Mmm pattern here me thinks. Not all of us are sheeps.
Cheers