Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
I contend that the system that did not allow flight planning along the coast contributed largely to the crash of MDX.
"Contributed" - maybe!
"Largely" - nope!
Poor risk management and decision making by the PIC contributed largely to the crash of MDX.
Dr
PS: Yeah, I know I said that 376 posts ago - but I haven't seen anything on here yet that would make me change my mind!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's OK Fork Tail I can live with that.
It's my opinion that had MDX been permitted to flight plan and track coastal the aircraft would most likely not have crashed say 95% most likely. Therefore that's a "large contribution" in my book. I have not said that other contributory factors weren't also "largely responsible". Say 40% causation is "large" in my book. Other factors could well have broken the chain in this case but however you look at it I would far rather something bad happen over the coast than over the Barringtons anytime.
I am reminded of the story of a captain who had been involved in a crash and who was being interrogated by a barrister asking should the captain have done this or that differently. "Sir" answered the captain, "had I known I was going to crash i would not even have gotten out of bed that morning"
It's my opinion that had MDX been permitted to flight plan and track coastal the aircraft would most likely not have crashed say 95% most likely. Therefore that's a "large contribution" in my book. I have not said that other contributory factors weren't also "largely responsible". Say 40% causation is "large" in my book. Other factors could well have broken the chain in this case but however you look at it I would far rather something bad happen over the coast than over the Barringtons anytime.
I am reminded of the story of a captain who had been involved in a crash and who was being interrogated by a barrister asking should the captain have done this or that differently. "Sir" answered the captain, "had I known I was going to crash i would not even have gotten out of bed that morning"
Last edited by Bill Pike; 6th Jun 2014 at 08:21.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We often see time and time again that when one does make it out alive from such an event they often go on to taken themselves out in a more spectacular event later on, be it months or years later. Unfortunately this chap took out a number of others with him the first time... or was it.
Clearance or not, he was destined to take similar risks again in the future and at 3,000+ hours I'm a little surprised.
Clearance or not, he was destined to take similar risks again in the future and at 3,000+ hours I'm a little surprised.
Do you support the contention by Dick Smith that:
If you read my initial posts, you already have my answer to that question.
I think Bill Pike's answer to the same question puts it very well.
Your grandstanding display of exaggerated umbrage is quite funny, really
And so we are quite clear, I fully support Dick's attempts to introduce a bit of sanity into the behavior of the RAAF,( admittedly a thankless task, given the long term record of the RAAF) as far as the vast and unnecessary swathes of airspace they commandeer, to an unnecessary cost to civil Aviation.
What rational reason is there, that I can fly along the whole of the east and west coast of the USA (with the exception of a little bit of Florida, and then only during an actual rocket launch) and never hear the Australian unique phrase:
"Clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace"
Tootle pip!!
PS: The exchange between Bill Pike and Creamie reminds me of many years ago, if my memory serves me correctly, it was in the days of the Rebel Air DC-3/C-47s, and Bill spelling it out loud and clear to a mass meeting (at YSBK??) "If the yanks don't like something (like a new rule) they will fight it, Australians will just ignore it".
Howabout,
Very pleased to hear you have reformed your ways.
Last edited by LeadSled; 6th Jun 2014 at 09:08.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leady,
Obfuscation. The simple question asked was whether you support the contention that:
This is such a simple question that neither you nor Capt Bill will answer.
Do you agree with that statement, or don't you?
It's such a simple question. I am sure that you will agree..
Obfuscation. The simple question asked was whether you support the contention that:
The Royal Australian Air Force sent these people to their deaths
Do you agree with that statement, or don't you?
The Royal Australian Air Force sent these people to their deaths
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Howabout
I decline to play a game according to the rules set by someone cowering behind a pseudonym trying to hurt a man who is trying to make progress against a bureaucracy who harm us all. If that needs any clarification let me know and i will spell it out for you.
Cheers
Bill
I decline to play a game according to the rules set by someone cowering behind a pseudonym trying to hurt a man who is trying to make progress against a bureaucracy who harm us all. If that needs any clarification let me know and i will spell it out for you.
Cheers
Bill
Last edited by Bill Pike; 6th Jun 2014 at 10:17.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The childishness from purported 'adults' on this board sometimes is a real eye opener!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it. The pilot made some major fu$k ups. But and it's a big but would have made it if he could have gone costal from the start. I agree 95% chance to the positive he would have.
But still not one person has come up with a single point that the raaf need this land all to them selfs.
Preventative preventative preventative why can't we work on that. If nothing else at least dick has people talking about it now.
But still not one person has come up with a single point that the raaf need this land all to them selfs.
Preventative preventative preventative why can't we work on that. If nothing else at least dick has people talking about it now.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off Capt Bill, you still refuse to answer the question.
Do you still agree with the statement by Dick that:
Unquestioning acceptance of unsubstantiated innuendo is not worthy of one whose logic and ability was good enough to drive a B744 as a captain.
BTW, the Batman costume and running home to Mum references just don't compute. You do yourself an incredible disservice by resorting to such cheap innuendo.
I thought that you could carry an argument based on fact; apparently not.
Do you still agree with the statement by Dick that:
The Royal Australian Air Force sent these people to their deaths
BTW, the Batman costume and running home to Mum references just don't compute. You do yourself an incredible disservice by resorting to such cheap innuendo.
I thought that you could carry an argument based on fact; apparently not.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Humpty dumpy that's a little rough coming from you isn't it. As usual nothin much to say but have a go at people that have a different opinion to yours how unusual.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill Pike,
I'm not hiding behind a keyboard or pseudonym, I will be on channel 7 on Sunday night talking about the search, and I also would love to know the answer to the question,
Do you still agree with the statement by Dick that:
And a simple yes or no will also be fine for me.
It is not a compound question, a loaded question or a question where there is any answer you give is an admission of a crime, unlike your example.
Just yes or no. It's not a game, there aren't 'rules', it's just a very very simple question of whether you agree with a statement made by someone, or not.
Thanks
I'm not hiding behind a keyboard or pseudonym, I will be on channel 7 on Sunday night talking about the search, and I also would love to know the answer to the question,
Do you still agree with the statement by Dick that:
Quote:
The Royal Australian Air Force sent these people to their deaths
The Royal Australian Air Force sent these people to their deaths
It is not a compound question, a loaded question or a question where there is any answer you give is an admission of a crime, unlike your example.
Just yes or no. It's not a game, there aren't 'rules', it's just a very very simple question of whether you agree with a statement made by someone, or not.
Thanks
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will answer. Yes they did. They did because they have locked up air space that should not be. That's not blaming any one person but the establishment.
Anyone remember how hard it was to fly up Sydney harbour or the Sydney Coast.
Do you except that if he had of gone coastal heirs than likely would have made it ? If you say yes then you yourself would have to agree that the raaf airspace have to have had a large percentage in the accident. If you say no then god only knows how to fly.
I guess it was boeings fault the built a four engine aeroplane as we'll
Cheers
Anyone remember how hard it was to fly up Sydney harbour or the Sydney Coast.
Do you except that if he had of gone coastal heirs than likely would have made it ? If you say yes then you yourself would have to agree that the raaf airspace have to have had a large percentage in the accident. If you say no then god only knows how to fly.
I guess it was boeings fault the built a four engine aeroplane as we'll
Cheers
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you.
Further to your reply,
Please supply your reasoning about how 'locked up' the airspace was, when an almost identical aircraft flew an almost identical route at the same level, with no clearance issues at all, and there was also other traffic inbound to Williamtown.
Thank you for your reply.
Further to your reply,
They did because they have locked up air space
Thank you for your reply.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two question's for those that fly RPT jets into Williamtown;
1. On a visual approach to RWY30 at Willy, what altitude do you cross the coast at ? ie Over the coastal GA Lane ?
2. If Dick got his way and it was Class D at Willy, how long would it take before you got pissed off responding to the TCAS RA on final to RWY30?
1. On a visual approach to RWY30 at Willy, what altitude do you cross the coast at ? ie Over the coastal GA Lane ?
2. If Dick got his way and it was Class D at Willy, how long would it take before you got pissed off responding to the TCAS RA on final to RWY30?
Thread Starter
In 5 flights around the world the only country I have ever heard the terminology. " remain outside controlled airspace " is Australia. I am not saying other countries do not have that terminology but it's clear it is not often used.
On my first flight around the world from Fort Worth to Fort Worth I only got held orbiting in two places. Heading into Darwin for about 6 minutes and at Nobbies just south of Williamtown for nearly 20 minutes. And yes Darwin was run by the RAAF!
I reckon the reason he took the route over tiger country could have been the fear the pilot of MDX would have on the dark Sunday night of a lengthy hold. From my experience in flying through Williamtown for over 30 years is that you just don't know how long the hold could be.
And remember the claims that equipment was already faulty at Cooly may not be factual. It's amazing what people will " remember" after an accident when dead people can't speak.
On my first flight around the world from Fort Worth to Fort Worth I only got held orbiting in two places. Heading into Darwin for about 6 minutes and at Nobbies just south of Williamtown for nearly 20 minutes. And yes Darwin was run by the RAAF!
I reckon the reason he took the route over tiger country could have been the fear the pilot of MDX would have on the dark Sunday night of a lengthy hold. From my experience in flying through Williamtown for over 30 years is that you just don't know how long the hold could be.
And remember the claims that equipment was already faulty at Cooly may not be factual. It's amazing what people will " remember" after an accident when dead people can't speak.
Thread Starter
Can we get one of the ex RAAF controllers who post on this site to comment on the size of the UK and USA military airspace that I have listed earlier on. Why the silence? Are these countries irresponsible or is there another reason for such a huge difference in dimensions?
YR. yes I reckon very likely a safe trip to Bankstown as the WX below 5000 was VMC.
YR. yes I reckon very likely a safe trip to Bankstown as the WX below 5000 was VMC.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Thank you for the acknowledgment that there is nothing certain about faulty equipment on departure from Cooly.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never been in fear of holding on a dark night. I can't say I know of any other pilot I know that has been scared to hold anywhere at night. I have had to hold at YBBN about 1000% more than I have ever held at any military airspace, anywhere, ever.
Thank you for the acknowledgment that there is nothing certain about faulty equipment on departure from Cooly.
The fear the pilot of MDX would have on the dark Sunday night would have been a lengthy hold. From my experience in flying through Williamtown for over 30 years is that you just don't know how long the hold could be.