Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So do you think he would have made it if he went costal ?
The question I repeated was one where an individual was required to answer based on their opinion of a binary statement.
In my opinion, one thing that should hold true was the failure of the vacuum pump, and the subsequent loss of AH/DI. Whether the PIC would have been equipped to deal with such a failure in a different geographical location is purely speculative.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A dc8 or 707 took off out of South America. After the aircraft was washed they failed to remove the tape over the static system. After take off they noticed the problem. Instead of staying in slight of the lights of the city they went off into the dark. Lost all visual reference and ended up in the sea with a total loss of life.
Key word here. VISUAL.
Cheers.
Learn from the past. Prevent before it happens again
Key word here. VISUAL.
Cheers.
Learn from the past. Prevent before it happens again
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you are a little irresponsible sometimes, but surely you don't want to just plow into CTA without a clearance do you??
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A dc8 or 707 took off out of South America. After the aircraft was washed they failed to remove the tape over the static system. After take off they noticed the problem. Instead of staying in slight of the lights of the city they went off into the dark. Lost all visual reference and ended up in the sea with a total loss of life.
Key word here. VISUAL.
Cheers.
Learn from the past. Prevent before it happens again
Key word here. VISUAL.
Cheers.
Learn from the past. Prevent before it happens again
That flight could have ended up different by the use of the phrase "Aviate, navigate, communicate"
But, you suggest that if they could see lights and could stay visual, they would have been fine.
MDX reported on several occasions, that he could see the lights of various towns. That would suggest to me, that he was already visual.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick
I will chime in again.
I have been able to visit and sit in on air traffic control operations in Singapore, Malaysia, the United States (military and civilian) and UK (military and civilian).
I really have no idea what the Hell you are talking about Dick.
Where there are particular kinds of operations occurring, military airspace is locked up tight FOR THE SAFETY OF THE REST OF THE FLYING WORLD FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXERCISE. Then the airspace is released. Same as Australia.
The basic foundations are exactly the same in all of these jurisdictions - they just look different to the UNTRAINED EYE! You are an aviator but never have been an air traffic controller or airspace manager. I've been BOTH!
The policies and procedures are slightly different but one of the major ones I saw (may have changed a lot) was that in Australia I could close airspace and divert aircraft if in my professional opinion that airspace was too dangerous to fly in.
I, and other experienced controllers, have closed RAAF Williamtown well before the Met Man's forecast said we should because of our experience. If we'd have waited until the SigMet hit, a large number of Mirages would have been dumped in the ocean. As it was, they all made it safely to either Sydney or Richmond.
In answer to other ill informed commentary, well trained, motivated and sympathetic controllers are not one of three things useless to a pilot (Runway behind me, airspace above me and air traffic controllers).
I suggest you drill into the "SCARY NEAR MISS STATISTICS" in the USA with their different rules. Their sloppy incident reporting distorts that picture further. I've many friends who fly GA in the USA and they are **** scared near some busy pieces of airspace and would love to have the "positive separation" that our pilots enjoy. Europe is worse!
The untrained and ill informed folk commenting here who want an OPEN ALL HOURS Lane down the Coast just do not get it. I would NOT ALLOW you to fly down a lightie lane whilst fighters were screaming overhead about to drop bombs on a nearby range or fire cannon. What if the fighter fragged himself and had to eject and a wayward jet wobbled through that lane and into the side of your aircraft? Would you be happy? I think not, and you wouldn't be on here saying stupid things about matters you have no knowledge or direct experience of. The rules are there for YOUR SAFETY, not to piss you off or unnecessarily delay you.
I used to clear everyone through ASAP but I would never knowingly put any civil aircraft in the way of POTENTIAL DANGER.
Dick - you have, no matter how you couch it, bad mouthed all of us. The RAAF ATC Officer Corps is tight knit, professional, flexible, open to suggestion and change. But we will NOT, NEVER EVER be dictated to a change where SAFETY is or may be COMPROMISED.. Get that through your seemingly demented head will you.
I have been able to visit and sit in on air traffic control operations in Singapore, Malaysia, the United States (military and civilian) and UK (military and civilian).
I really have no idea what the Hell you are talking about Dick.
Where there are particular kinds of operations occurring, military airspace is locked up tight FOR THE SAFETY OF THE REST OF THE FLYING WORLD FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXERCISE. Then the airspace is released. Same as Australia.
The basic foundations are exactly the same in all of these jurisdictions - they just look different to the UNTRAINED EYE! You are an aviator but never have been an air traffic controller or airspace manager. I've been BOTH!
The policies and procedures are slightly different but one of the major ones I saw (may have changed a lot) was that in Australia I could close airspace and divert aircraft if in my professional opinion that airspace was too dangerous to fly in.
I, and other experienced controllers, have closed RAAF Williamtown well before the Met Man's forecast said we should because of our experience. If we'd have waited until the SigMet hit, a large number of Mirages would have been dumped in the ocean. As it was, they all made it safely to either Sydney or Richmond.
In answer to other ill informed commentary, well trained, motivated and sympathetic controllers are not one of three things useless to a pilot (Runway behind me, airspace above me and air traffic controllers).
I suggest you drill into the "SCARY NEAR MISS STATISTICS" in the USA with their different rules. Their sloppy incident reporting distorts that picture further. I've many friends who fly GA in the USA and they are **** scared near some busy pieces of airspace and would love to have the "positive separation" that our pilots enjoy. Europe is worse!
The untrained and ill informed folk commenting here who want an OPEN ALL HOURS Lane down the Coast just do not get it. I would NOT ALLOW you to fly down a lightie lane whilst fighters were screaming overhead about to drop bombs on a nearby range or fire cannon. What if the fighter fragged himself and had to eject and a wayward jet wobbled through that lane and into the side of your aircraft? Would you be happy? I think not, and you wouldn't be on here saying stupid things about matters you have no knowledge or direct experience of. The rules are there for YOUR SAFETY, not to piss you off or unnecessarily delay you.
I used to clear everyone through ASAP but I would never knowingly put any civil aircraft in the way of POTENTIAL DANGER.
Dick - you have, no matter how you couch it, bad mouthed all of us. The RAAF ATC Officer Corps is tight knit, professional, flexible, open to suggestion and change. But we will NOT, NEVER EVER be dictated to a change where SAFETY is or may be COMPROMISED.. Get that through your seemingly demented head will you.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the fact remains that 90% of the time you are given that phrase its for 'separation assurance', and the other 10% of the time it's for separation, period.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIME OUT!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on;
Well said to the man in the tower. Sums it up perfectly.
I suggest you drill into the "SCARY NEAR MISS STATISTICS" in the USA with their different rules. Their sloppy incident reporting distorts that picture further. I've many friends who fly GA in the USA and they are **** scared near some busy pieces of airspace and would love to have the "positive separation" that our pilots enjoy. Europe is worse!
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AND - WILL YOU PLEASE...
...all of you naysayers, especially Dick, acknowledge that a clearance would have been forthcoming if the PIC hadn't "waved off" in less than one orbit's worth of time and MADE THE DECISION TO GO WHERE HE WENT!
Good Grief folks - this is like arguing with (I was going to put something bad there but fill it in with your own worst nightmare!)...
Watch this and decide will ya?
Mark Gungor - Men's Brain Women's Brain - YouTube
Cheers!
It's late!
Good Grief folks - this is like arguing with (I was going to put something bad there but fill it in with your own worst nightmare!)...
Watch this and decide will ya?
Mark Gungor - Men's Brain Women's Brain - YouTube
Cheers!
It's late!
Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
The RAAF bashing on this thread is becoming outrageous.
Yr right:
Another illiterate, illogical, simplistic and incorrect posting!
It's a pity you don't know what you're talking about, and have selected an example where crew competence (should I say incompetence?) was the issue. How about the Cathay B744 that flew from Xiamin to Hong Kong, IMC (I repeat in IMC, as they had no choice)? You haven't heard of this? Probably because they landed at their destination with a minimum of fuss - unlike your example, they were a competent crew who simply aviated/navigated/communicated.
Your assertion that the key word here is VISUAL is bollocks.
Another illiterate, illogical, simplistic and incorrect posting!
A dc8 or 707 took off out of South America. After the aircraft was washed they failed to remove the tape over the static system. After take off they noticed the problem. Instead of staying in slight of the lights of the city they went off into the dark. Lost all visual reference and ended up in the sea with a total loss of life.
Key word here. VISUAL.
Key word here. VISUAL.
Your assertion that the key word here is VISUAL is bollocks.
Where's a good Moderator when you need one?
Wheelybin? - well he's probably Flathead fishing at the Pin!
Tiddles - its not about the Red Rat so he don't give a flying @#$%!
and
Much Ado - well I guess he's "about nothing"!
Dr
Wheelybin? - well he's probably Flathead fishing at the Pin!
Tiddles - its not about the Red Rat so he don't give a flying @#$%!
and
Much Ado - well I guess he's "about nothing"!
Dr
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the parallel universe-
There is 'the' humour test:-
4" – 6" – 8". Which Shakespearian plays - by the measurements?
WET and DRY. Which Shakespearian plays - by the words?
00 + 0000. Representing which George Bernard Shaw classic?
Much ado about nothing.
As you like it.
The taming of the shrew.
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Loves Labour Lost
and the GBS classic – Man and Superman.
Smile boys....You know you can.
4" – 6" – 8". Which Shakespearian plays - by the measurements?
WET and DRY. Which Shakespearian plays - by the words?
00 + 0000. Representing which George Bernard Shaw classic?
Much ado about nothing.
As you like it.
The taming of the shrew.
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Loves Labour Lost
and the GBS classic – Man and Superman.
Smile boys....You know you can.
Thread Starter
Some of the criticism would stop if the RAAF announced they were going to remove the flight planning prohibition after 31 years since the unnecessary deaths .
Surely that's a better idea than risk a repeat. They only have to give a direct clearance when they want to.
Surely that's a better idea than risk a repeat. They only have to give a direct clearance when they want to.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Jun 2014 at 06:22. Reason: Typos
Yr right:
At the risk of going totally OT, while we're discussing your postings, there's this gem:
As Hempy has already alluded, this demonstrates how your blind anti-RAAF bias influences your opinions totally. One can only wonder why this is so.
But it's so childishly simplistic and demonstrably untrue.
I should stress that I'm civil-trained and have never been a member of the Armed Forces. I spent many years with a major (and notably high-standard) Asian airline where probably 40% of their pilots were ex RAAF, RAF or CAF, and subsequently with a much smaller outfit flying Lears here in Oz, but with a similar proportion of ex-RAAF pilots.
So where are the "many others who won't employ them"?? Discounting you personally employing people (a frightening concept), from my experience the few are usually small chickens**t outfits who generally have the mindset of "we're so good we don't need criticism" or are subconsciously aware of their sub-standard operation and don't want someone picking holes. But wait, could that include you?
Virtually all of these pilots I've found to be highly competent, mostly really good guys and a pleasure to fly/work with. Some remain close friends. Certainly there was the odd d**khead who knew everything/couldn't be told anything, but these guys exist in the civil/civil trained world too, and they're AT LEAST in the same proportion as the ex-service guys.
Take a moment please, to consider if you fit in this category. Or maybe it's your people skills (or lack thereof) at fault here...
At the risk of going totally OT, while we're discussing your postings, there's this gem:
And when these ex military people leave and get into commercial operations they bring there same mentality of there previous service with them. They can't be told instructed anything. They are dangerous period I and many others will not employ them.
But it's so childishly simplistic and demonstrably untrue.
I should stress that I'm civil-trained and have never been a member of the Armed Forces. I spent many years with a major (and notably high-standard) Asian airline where probably 40% of their pilots were ex RAAF, RAF or CAF, and subsequently with a much smaller outfit flying Lears here in Oz, but with a similar proportion of ex-RAAF pilots.
So where are the "many others who won't employ them"?? Discounting you personally employing people (a frightening concept), from my experience the few are usually small chickens**t outfits who generally have the mindset of "we're so good we don't need criticism" or are subconsciously aware of their sub-standard operation and don't want someone picking holes. But wait, could that include you?
Virtually all of these pilots I've found to be highly competent, mostly really good guys and a pleasure to fly/work with. Some remain close friends. Certainly there was the odd d**khead who knew everything/couldn't be told anything, but these guys exist in the civil/civil trained world too, and they're AT LEAST in the same proportion as the ex-service guys.
Take a moment please, to consider if you fit in this category. Or maybe it's your people skills (or lack thereof) at fault here...
Last edited by Dora-9; 7th Jun 2014 at 00:24. Reason: deleted word (negative where none intended).
We keep hearing from guys on here about the brilliance of the US system - "why can't we be like the US?"
I fly a biz jet - I've had one TCAS RA in Asia and about 7 in the US. So the last resort electronic system keeps saving us. All but one were with unidentified GA aircraft in Class E. Leads me to believe that the US system may not be the model to base ourselves on.
And interestingly, when ATC is advised "TCAS RA" they don't actually seem too interested, almost like its no big deal.
Yr right - there's been lots of comments about your spelling and your indecipherable posts. I reckon they're rippers. Deciphering them each time passes 30 minutes nicely and with much mirth - far more fun than Soduku. But can I suggest night school??!! I did HSC physics at night school, it wasn't that bad.
I fly a biz jet - I've had one TCAS RA in Asia and about 7 in the US. So the last resort electronic system keeps saving us. All but one were with unidentified GA aircraft in Class E. Leads me to believe that the US system may not be the model to base ourselves on.
And interestingly, when ATC is advised "TCAS RA" they don't actually seem too interested, almost like its no big deal.
Yr right - there's been lots of comments about your spelling and your indecipherable posts. I reckon they're rippers. Deciphering them each time passes 30 minutes nicely and with much mirth - far more fun than Soduku. But can I suggest night school??!! I did HSC physics at night school, it wasn't that bad.
Some if the criticism would stop if the RAAF announced they were going to remove the flight planning prohibition after 31 years since the unnecessary deaths .
You've gone to the same media school as all the pollies eh Dick? Just keep repeating the core message and eventually it sinks into everyone's subconscious, then a while later when the question arises again it surfaces out of the murk:
"Oh yeah, that Williamtown airspace thing, I don't know much about it but wasn't that caused by nasty RAAF controllers, shouldn't we abolish restrictions?"
Dick (and others),
You might not be aware but if anyone were to identify themselves as active miltary then they would not be allowed to comment on this matter. Same for APS; if you are identified as servng then you can be sacked / suffer administrative consequeces if you offer an opinion. Perhaps that is why some people prefer a pseudonym and don't say exactly what they do right now.
You might not be aware but if anyone were to identify themselves as active miltary then they would not be allowed to comment on this matter. Same for APS; if you are identified as servng then you can be sacked / suffer administrative consequeces if you offer an opinion. Perhaps that is why some people prefer a pseudonym and don't say exactly what they do right now.
In the parallel universe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I repeatedly read here that had MDX waited a minute or completed an orbit he would have received a clearance. Quoting from Harry Howard's letter to Channel 7, that does not appear to be correct, and I would be interested to learn why it is being said.
"0853.19 Sector One controller to FIS 5 "before you go on we are not NVMC so clearance will not be available in controlled area.
"It wont"
"Not in my airspace anyway"
In the above exchange, Sydney FIS 5 asks Sydney Air Traffic Control Sector 1 (S1) for an onwards clearance for MDX to enter the Sydney controlled airspace after the Williamtown transit is complete. S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud). So the clearance issued by Williamtown Tower to Sydney Flight Service was never transmitted to the aircraft due to Sydney Sector 1 involvement. As a result, three minutes later at 0856, MDX, with no clearance issued by FIS 5 through Williamtown airspace, tracked from Taree to Craven then Singleton and into bad weather where some 45 minutes later the aircraft crashed in the Barrington Tops."
In any case if clearance had become available "in a minute or two", MDX had not flown up a one way tunnel. I am sure he would have happily accepted a clearance even after proceeding on his "required' (but not preferred) flight planned track had one been offered. Where is the evidence that a clearance was about to materialize please?
"0853.19 Sector One controller to FIS 5 "before you go on we are not NVMC so clearance will not be available in controlled area.
"It wont"
"Not in my airspace anyway"
In the above exchange, Sydney FIS 5 asks Sydney Air Traffic Control Sector 1 (S1) for an onwards clearance for MDX to enter the Sydney controlled airspace after the Williamtown transit is complete. S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud). So the clearance issued by Williamtown Tower to Sydney Flight Service was never transmitted to the aircraft due to Sydney Sector 1 involvement. As a result, three minutes later at 0856, MDX, with no clearance issued by FIS 5 through Williamtown airspace, tracked from Taree to Craven then Singleton and into bad weather where some 45 minutes later the aircraft crashed in the Barrington Tops."
In any case if clearance had become available "in a minute or two", MDX had not flown up a one way tunnel. I am sure he would have happily accepted a clearance even after proceeding on his "required' (but not preferred) flight planned track had one been offered. Where is the evidence that a clearance was about to materialize please?
Last edited by Bill Pike; 7th Jun 2014 at 01:19. Reason: typos