Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
Dick, are these the CASA documents you are alluding to?
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...town_oct08.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...udy08final.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...town_oct08.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...udy08final.pdf
They use 'sight and maintain separation from such and such an aircraft' quite a lot in Cairns to facilitate the low-level helicopter and light fixed wing traffic around the place, and that's Class C, so there must be ways and means to make it happen.
I agree, holding for the possibility of an overshoot seems a bit over the top if they have the option of granting a see and avoid type restriction.
I agree, holding for the possibility of an overshoot seems a bit over the top if they have the option of granting a see and avoid type restriction.
Hi Avgas,
What Dick actually said that night on the programme was:
That is what gets people so upset about this... not that he wants airspace reform but rather the statements Dick has made in order to try and achieve it.
Like some other people, I believe that because of his tactics he has alienated the very group who could help him achieve his aims, and lost the respect of many other people.
I do not believe Dick ever blamed any Defence personnel on duty that night, rather the system that does not let anyone file a flight plan through the airspace.
The Royal Australian Air Force sent these people to their deaths
Like some other people, I believe that because of his tactics he has alienated the very group who could help him achieve his aims, and lost the respect of many other people.
Thread Starter
But it was the truth. It is the institution of the RAAF which is incapable of learning from errors and also copying the best from all around the world .
On that night if the pilot had been encouraged ( not prohibited ) to flight plan over Williamtown it is obvious that there would have been no need for a clearance delay or holding. The Willy controller would have had prior notice of the route and would have advised Flight Service of the altitude that clearance could be expected.
No competent ATC wants to delay traffic but in this case the controller had no info on the flight until he was called by the FSO.
No wonder there was a delay - and with the pilot nervous that he would enter Controlled Airspace without a clearance ( licence most likely would have been suspended ) decided to go on the route that he had already been forced to plan.
I am now considering running a major Australian Wide campaign recommending that our young people do not consider joining the military until it's clear that the hierarchy are actually listened too and the latest and most modern procedures can be introduced.
I think there will be unecessary deaths under the present system of " never change a rule- no matter if it is decades out of date".
I have had over ten years of " Duchessing" by senior military people who tell me the support and want the change . Yet nothing material happens.
I feel sorry for them and have a feeling that the changes can only come from outside .
Yes. I will get a lot of flack - but that's happened before. In the long term many military people will possibly thank me for fixing some of the "resistance to change" problems.
On that night if the pilot had been encouraged ( not prohibited ) to flight plan over Williamtown it is obvious that there would have been no need for a clearance delay or holding. The Willy controller would have had prior notice of the route and would have advised Flight Service of the altitude that clearance could be expected.
No competent ATC wants to delay traffic but in this case the controller had no info on the flight until he was called by the FSO.
No wonder there was a delay - and with the pilot nervous that he would enter Controlled Airspace without a clearance ( licence most likely would have been suspended ) decided to go on the route that he had already been forced to plan.
I am now considering running a major Australian Wide campaign recommending that our young people do not consider joining the military until it's clear that the hierarchy are actually listened too and the latest and most modern procedures can be introduced.
I think there will be unecessary deaths under the present system of " never change a rule- no matter if it is decades out of date".
I have had over ten years of " Duchessing" by senior military people who tell me the support and want the change . Yet nothing material happens.
I feel sorry for them and have a feeling that the changes can only come from outside .
Yes. I will get a lot of flack - but that's happened before. In the long term many military people will possibly thank me for fixing some of the "resistance to change" problems.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure why there is such virulent opposition to what Dick is saying. Are some of you people, pilots, actually advocating the RAAF's passionate and desperate grasp on large chunks of airspace where it is not just inconvenient to other airspace users, but at times places VFR and GA flights in jeopardy?
I have flown around a few other places and in both the EU ( incl UK) and the USA it is not uncommon to fly routinely very close to front line military bases.
An example is Montgomery field in San Diego where the contra circuits put IFR and VFR GA aircraft almost wingtip to wingtip with the traffic at Mirarmar NAS. They are very close to each other yet seemingly there is an ability to not need massive separation or severe, or ANY restriction to the Montgomery traffic, other than staying the other side of the freeway. Simples!
I recently got airborne out of Anacortes, a tiny airfield in Washington state, where the southern facing stip fires you straight into the airspace of Whidby Island NAS. A quick call as soon as airborne and hey presto! Track as required almost straight over the top at 2500 ft whilst there were formations of F18's in the pattern, and being given traffic of ' a Prop just airborne turning to pass 500 ft below' it was a P3, i saw him before he saw me, but i was more worried about being fried by his radar.
I was not given a 'clearance' per se, but advised my preferred tracking details to Whidby which was immediatly accepted by them, and they then seemlessly fitted me into thier traffic. This was with NO prior flight notification, just a simple call about 30 seconds from their airspace boundary, as my wheels left the ground at Anacortes. It was soooooo easy, and in the crappy weather conditions it allowed me to track safely over land instead of turning hard after takeoff, then staying low over the water in avoidance of their control zone. They were totally accepting of the fact i was a 'pop up' and assisted in every way. Try that at Darwin! Or Willytown.
Although ESL has a huge chuck of victorian airspace, they are ususally very co operative at short notice, though their traffic is hardly overwhelming given the massive airspace and a handful of low performance aircraft.
It is entirely possible for the Australian Military to provide significantly simpler access to transiting GA and other traffic without crowding all these into little low level lanes. The ability to transit on direct track is readily available, even at Edwards Air Force Base, and usually Nellis.
Fancy that PPruners accusing Dick of being emotive, hahahaha Black, Pot, Kettle
I actually agree with Dick WRT having Kiddies on board and orbiting over water. Emotive perhaps, but a very real consideration. Adults can be briefed and take care of themselves to some extent. A HRA that includes kiddies has different mitigation processes than one where the pax are all adults. I would not like to be out over water with all my kids in a single engine aircraft while some neddy is 'processing' my transit request. In US it would be an advisory not a grovelling request for permission.
BTW i do not agree with all Dick says, but he is spot on about this.
HD
I have flown around a few other places and in both the EU ( incl UK) and the USA it is not uncommon to fly routinely very close to front line military bases.
An example is Montgomery field in San Diego where the contra circuits put IFR and VFR GA aircraft almost wingtip to wingtip with the traffic at Mirarmar NAS. They are very close to each other yet seemingly there is an ability to not need massive separation or severe, or ANY restriction to the Montgomery traffic, other than staying the other side of the freeway. Simples!
I recently got airborne out of Anacortes, a tiny airfield in Washington state, where the southern facing stip fires you straight into the airspace of Whidby Island NAS. A quick call as soon as airborne and hey presto! Track as required almost straight over the top at 2500 ft whilst there were formations of F18's in the pattern, and being given traffic of ' a Prop just airborne turning to pass 500 ft below' it was a P3, i saw him before he saw me, but i was more worried about being fried by his radar.
I was not given a 'clearance' per se, but advised my preferred tracking details to Whidby which was immediatly accepted by them, and they then seemlessly fitted me into thier traffic. This was with NO prior flight notification, just a simple call about 30 seconds from their airspace boundary, as my wheels left the ground at Anacortes. It was soooooo easy, and in the crappy weather conditions it allowed me to track safely over land instead of turning hard after takeoff, then staying low over the water in avoidance of their control zone. They were totally accepting of the fact i was a 'pop up' and assisted in every way. Try that at Darwin! Or Willytown.
Although ESL has a huge chuck of victorian airspace, they are ususally very co operative at short notice, though their traffic is hardly overwhelming given the massive airspace and a handful of low performance aircraft.
It is entirely possible for the Australian Military to provide significantly simpler access to transiting GA and other traffic without crowding all these into little low level lanes. The ability to transit on direct track is readily available, even at Edwards Air Force Base, and usually Nellis.
Fancy that PPruners accusing Dick of being emotive, hahahaha Black, Pot, Kettle
I actually agree with Dick WRT having Kiddies on board and orbiting over water. Emotive perhaps, but a very real consideration. Adults can be briefed and take care of themselves to some extent. A HRA that includes kiddies has different mitigation processes than one where the pax are all adults. I would not like to be out over water with all my kids in a single engine aircraft while some neddy is 'processing' my transit request. In US it would be an advisory not a grovelling request for permission.
BTW i do not agree with all Dick says, but he is spot on about this.
HD
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop the press!!
Surely it won't be long until Sluggers budget cuts and penny pinching ensures that military aircraft are grounded indefinitely? I mean if you are a quadriplegic or born with no arms or legs and they take your carers fund away from you then surely we can't afford to have RAAF aircraft flying anymore? What good are the planes when the bureaucrats can't afford to pay for a single bullet let alone fund a war!! Then the bean counters will sell off places like Willy to all the super funds front companies and the Boards and shareholders will reap the benefits? Carparks and retail outlets are the 'new black'! F#ck the military and f#ck the airlines I say, turn every military/civilian aerodrome and all the stand alone military bases into commercial enterprises! Take for instance Amberley. You could probably put 100 000 car parking spaces out there, throw in a Hungry Jacks, some overpriced coffee shops and perhaps a Dick Smith Electronics in there and just sit back and watch them beautiful pennies roll in boys!!
Pffft, airspace and safety, your living in the past boys. Think big. Think outside the square!!
Pffft, airspace and safety, your living in the past boys. Think big. Think outside the square!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PIC would have been unlikely to have been in as much bother VMC coastal.
If the PIC had lost control over lower flatter country he still would have had a greater chance of saving the day.
It's all about playing the odds and keeping them trending the correct way.
How many times has this been repeated so far i wonder? Hand up anyone who doesn't understand?
If the PIC had lost control over lower flatter country he still would have had a greater chance of saving the day.
It's all about playing the odds and keeping them trending the correct way.
How many times has this been repeated so far i wonder? Hand up anyone who doesn't understand?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop the press!!
Surely it won't be long until Sluggers budget cuts and penny pinching ensures that military aircraft are grounded indefinitely? I mean if you are a quadriplegic or born with no arms or legs and they take your carers fund away from you then surely we can't afford to have RAAF aircraft flying anymore? What good are the planes when the bureaucrats can't afford to pay for a single bullet let alone fund a war!! Then the bean counters will sell off places like Willy to all the super funds front companies and the Boards and shareholders will reap the benefits? Carparks and retail outlets are the 'new black'! F#ck the military and f#ck the airlines I say, turn every military/civilian aerodrome and all the stand alone military bases into commercial enterprises! Take for instance Amberley. You could probably put 100 000 car parking spaces out there, throw in a Hungry Jacks, some overpriced coffee shops and perhaps a Dick Smith Electronics in there and just sit back and watch them beautiful pennies roll in boys!!
Surely it won't be long until Sluggers budget cuts and penny pinching ensures that military aircraft are grounded indefinitely? I mean if you are a quadriplegic or born with no arms or legs and they take your carers fund away from you then surely we can't afford to have RAAF aircraft flying anymore? What good are the planes when the bureaucrats can't afford to pay for a single bullet let alone fund a war!! Then the bean counters will sell off places like Willy to all the super funds front companies and the Boards and shareholders will reap the benefits? Carparks and retail outlets are the 'new black'! F#ck the military and f#ck the airlines I say, turn every military/civilian aerodrome and all the stand alone military bases into commercial enterprises! Take for instance Amberley. You could probably put 100 000 car parking spaces out there, throw in a Hungry Jacks, some overpriced coffee shops and perhaps a Dick Smith Electronics in there and just sit back and watch them beautiful pennies roll in boys!!
if you choose to enter a debate at least have something meaningful to add to said debate.
Last edited by Avgas172; 12th Jun 2014 at 08:25. Reason: Added a bit
Waiting on a sane argument on allowing flight plan submission even though YWLM may be active.
Thirty years ago has no bearing on today. The overhead routing was successfully argued into reality after a huge bunfight on this thread more than a few years ago. Why not do the same without the bunfight. What is suggested is a change in the entry in ERSA. Not earth shattering, kids need not worry about joining our military services and occasional GA VFR as well as regular operators can submit a plan, still check availability re-suitable times and just practice bloody good airmanship.
I am not advocating a right to enter, just the ability to flight plan overhead. Change ERSA, plan and then ask for the clearance at the appropriate time. Airmanship means ringing RAAF ATCOs first and planning accordingly...and then when granted, fly the clearance like you flown it every day of your life and do not stuff it up for the rest of us.
EDIT- planning dct ovh means the plan is in the system so ATC can pull it out of the bin as required. Just ring up first if you are afirst timer...I know I will be.
Thirty years ago has no bearing on today. The overhead routing was successfully argued into reality after a huge bunfight on this thread more than a few years ago. Why not do the same without the bunfight. What is suggested is a change in the entry in ERSA. Not earth shattering, kids need not worry about joining our military services and occasional GA VFR as well as regular operators can submit a plan, still check availability re-suitable times and just practice bloody good airmanship.
I am not advocating a right to enter, just the ability to flight plan overhead. Change ERSA, plan and then ask for the clearance at the appropriate time. Airmanship means ringing RAAF ATCOs first and planning accordingly...and then when granted, fly the clearance like you flown it every day of your life and do not stuff it up for the rest of us.
EDIT- planning dct ovh means the plan is in the system so ATC can pull it out of the bin as required. Just ring up first if you are afirst timer...I know I will be.
Thread Starter
Nit picker. I think the PIC should have been a lot tougher in insisting he received a prompt clearance. I spoke today to pilot who was a personal friend of the MDX pilot. This pilot planned the same route about one and a half hours before MDX.
As it was still daylight he could see the clouds and rotor coming of Barrington Tops. He called for a clearance through Willy and was initially refused. He then got quite aggressive and insisted and was given the clearance.
Certainly the pilot could have done better- however he flew safely from Cooly to Taree and very possibly would have got to Bankstown if he had been allowed or even encouraged to flight plan and fly down the coast. After all I understand that there were no military planes flying that night
And OZ. You are correct- just allow the flight plan to go that way!
As it was still daylight he could see the clouds and rotor coming of Barrington Tops. He called for a clearance through Willy and was initially refused. He then got quite aggressive and insisted and was given the clearance.
Certainly the pilot could have done better- however he flew safely from Cooly to Taree and very possibly would have got to Bankstown if he had been allowed or even encouraged to flight plan and fly down the coast. After all I understand that there were no military planes flying that night
And OZ. You are correct- just allow the flight plan to go that way!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 12th Jun 2014 at 11:25.
But it was the truth. It is the institution of the RAAF which is incapable of learning from errors and also copying the best from all around the world .
No wonder there was a delay - and with the pilot nervous that he would enter Controlled Airspace without a clearance ( licence most likely would have been suspended ) decided to go on the route that he had already been forced to plan.
I am now considering running a major Australian Wide campaign recommending that our young people do not consider joining the military until it's clear that the hierarchy are actually listened too and the latest and most modern procedures can be introduced.
I think there will be unecessary deaths under the present system of " never change a rule- no matter if it is decades out of date".
Yes. I will get a lot of flack - but that's happened before. In the long term many military people will possibly thank me for fixing some of the "resistance to change" problems.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waiting on a sane argument on allowing flight plan submission even though YWLM may be active.
Thread Starter
Arm out of the window.
You say I only want to change rules " that fit my own agenda". In fact I want Australia to have a thriving and viable aviation industry while having an Air-force that has as modern a rule system as any in the world. What could be wrong with this?
I feel as if we have not learnt anything from the loss of these five valuable lives.
Yes , the pilot could have landed at Taree or he could have been more assertive and actually requested a clearance like others did that day. (Remember it was the FSO who asked the pilot if he would like a clearance from Williamtown)
Individuals will always make mistakes.
But let's say we had the US or UK military airspace system in place that night.
The pilot would have flown down the coast , over the base, and continued in good VMC to Bankstown at 2500'
The aircraft would have not headed west for over 30 miles, at right angles to the correct track, and had to climb into cloud and icing.
If the vacuum pump had failed at the same time interval the plane would have been near the well lit Gosford with the lights of Sydney in front - ideal conditions for a night VMC flight even without an AI.
Let's try and make sure this won't happen again- let's allow- indeed encourage flight planning that keeps away from that rugged 5000 ' mountain range.
Any supporters ?
I have spent a decade behind the scenes with top military people politely attempting change. I have failed despite many promises that changes will be made.
You say I only want to change rules " that fit my own agenda". In fact I want Australia to have a thriving and viable aviation industry while having an Air-force that has as modern a rule system as any in the world. What could be wrong with this?
I feel as if we have not learnt anything from the loss of these five valuable lives.
Yes , the pilot could have landed at Taree or he could have been more assertive and actually requested a clearance like others did that day. (Remember it was the FSO who asked the pilot if he would like a clearance from Williamtown)
Individuals will always make mistakes.
But let's say we had the US or UK military airspace system in place that night.
The pilot would have flown down the coast , over the base, and continued in good VMC to Bankstown at 2500'
The aircraft would have not headed west for over 30 miles, at right angles to the correct track, and had to climb into cloud and icing.
If the vacuum pump had failed at the same time interval the plane would have been near the well lit Gosford with the lights of Sydney in front - ideal conditions for a night VMC flight even without an AI.
Let's try and make sure this won't happen again- let's allow- indeed encourage flight planning that keeps away from that rugged 5000 ' mountain range.
Any supporters ?
I have spent a decade behind the scenes with top military people politely attempting change. I have failed despite many promises that changes will be made.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it amazing that the raaf can continue this to this day. Yet a ct4 has a problem and they grounded the whole fleet on safety. Clearly there people are worth more than the average Australian that pays there way.
Cheers
Cheers
,
Nit picker. I think the PIC should have been a lot tougher in insisting he received a prompt clearance. I spoke today to pilot who was a personal friend of the MDX pilot. This pilot planned the same route about one and a half hours before MDX.
As it was still daylight he could see the clouds and rotor coming of Barrington Tops. He called for a clearance through Willy and was initially refused. He then got quite aggressive and insisted and was given the clearance.
As it was still daylight he could see the clouds and rotor coming of Barrington Tops. He called for a clearance through Willy and was initially refused. He then got quite aggressive and insisted and was given the clearance.
It had nothing - repeat - NOTHING to do with the military airspace. Why are you not trying to blame Sydney for sending the men to their deaths?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon Evilroy,
Dick isn't misleading anyone and you know it.
RAAF rules precluded Flight Planning through Willy airspace.
There should not have been any question of Flight Planning over the Barringtons.
That restriction should be lifted.
Despite any shortcomings on the part of the pilot (and he has been punished enough) Flight Planning that way should not even be part of the equation.
Dick isn't misleading anyone and you know it.
RAAF rules precluded Flight Planning through Willy airspace.
There should not have been any question of Flight Planning over the Barringtons.
That restriction should be lifted.
Despite any shortcomings on the part of the pilot (and he has been punished enough) Flight Planning that way should not even be part of the equation.