Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
the clearance is not given so the pilot then starts to track towards Craven. Now I ask you – how do you find Craven on a pitch dark night? It’s simply a reporting point and these are the days before GPS.
they expect the aircraft to be tracking between Craven and Singleton, but in fact it is some thirty miles away. Yes, thirty miles away! It has crossed the Range and has actually crossed the Mt Sandon to Singleton track. That means that for over thirty minutes it has headed in exactly the wrong direction and no-one has told the pilot.
Interesting listening to the radio transmissions last night. The PIC referred on a number of occasions to "having a little problem" - electrical issues, vac pump failure, electrical fire, ADF failure, unreliable compass, can't maintain altitude, icing!
Freeing up access to Williamstown airspace is one thing - but leave the MDX mess out of it!
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 2nd Jun 2014 at 04:17.
But should we make Williamtown restricted areas easier to get through?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall a Mooney was refused permission coastal at night through Willy airspace, lost a prop and the pilot died in the forced landing. Nothing new here.
I knew the pilot of MDX and flew with him a few times. He was a navigator retrained as a pilot. Yes he wasn't the most confident or able of pilots and not the sort of guy who would over rule a controller. (I well recall landing at Willy without permission one dark and stormy while the civil controller was busy warning me that "I couldnt land without prior permission". The RAAF could not have been more understanding about it all. But that's me, and indeed that's most of us here. It wasn't the pilot of MDX.)
Yes he could have done many things better. However it is not often mentioned that he, as I recall from the time, asked to flight plan down the coast at the planning stage and was told to "ask for clearance at Taree". That would, as I recall from a short time ago, still be the case today.
Yes many factors contributed, but if the system had hadn't sent a single engine NVMC aircraft out over that country in that weather I believe that the accident would not have happened.
That is Dick's point and I agree with him.
I knew the pilot of MDX and flew with him a few times. He was a navigator retrained as a pilot. Yes he wasn't the most confident or able of pilots and not the sort of guy who would over rule a controller. (I well recall landing at Willy without permission one dark and stormy while the civil controller was busy warning me that "I couldnt land without prior permission". The RAAF could not have been more understanding about it all. But that's me, and indeed that's most of us here. It wasn't the pilot of MDX.)
Yes he could have done many things better. However it is not often mentioned that he, as I recall from the time, asked to flight plan down the coast at the planning stage and was told to "ask for clearance at Taree". That would, as I recall from a short time ago, still be the case today.
Yes many factors contributed, but if the system had hadn't sent a single engine NVMC aircraft out over that country in that weather I believe that the accident would not have happened.
That is Dick's point and I agree with him.
Last edited by Bill Pike; 2nd Jun 2014 at 04:19. Reason: Clarity
Thread Starter
Gorky. If the same flight took place today the pilot would not be forced to remain on the frequency of a radio operator who had no access to radar.
Fortunately I changed that system over a decade ago- but also with great resistance from some on this site who reckoned the existing FS system was safe and radar was not necessary for en route un controlled airspace.
My only aim is to get the restriction from planning over Willy removed.
Then pilots will be able to fly at a lower LSA below potential icing and with less turbulence .
Safer for everyone and the willy controllers will be very proud! As I said on Sunrise this morning from my experience they are as good as any in the world but have lousy rules and airspace.
Fortunately I changed that system over a decade ago- but also with great resistance from some on this site who reckoned the existing FS system was safe and radar was not necessary for en route un controlled airspace.
My only aim is to get the restriction from planning over Willy removed.
Then pilots will be able to fly at a lower LSA below potential icing and with less turbulence .
Safer for everyone and the willy controllers will be very proud! As I said on Sunrise this morning from my experience they are as good as any in the world but have lousy rules and airspace.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignoring the issue
@Dick Smith - your issue with the military airspace is certainly worth considering -but to blame the military for the deaths of those 5 people is not even logical.
If this fact is correct -
- the pilot took off from Cooly with a dicky DI and AH
It appears the pilot's judgement on this night was very poor.
No one in their right mind contemplates flying at night with a questionable AH or DI.
The military did not make the pilot make this decision.
The military are not responsible for the decisions that go on in a cockpit.
The military didn't stop the pilot turning back, declaring an emergency, seeking help or from even staying on the ground.
Many things can contribute to unplanned events, and challenging situation but the pilot of MDX had enough experience to make better decisions than he did.
Say the changes that you'd like to see with airspace in Australia actually happen - you still have to deal with this issue of pilot decision making - because that will still kill people regardless of the airspace design.
Putting a system in place which improves pilot decision making and skills so that pilots can handle challenging situations when they do occur (because they will occur no matter how many improvements occur) is a better use of resources and energy in my opinion.
If this fact is correct -
- the pilot took off from Cooly with a dicky DI and AH
It appears the pilot's judgement on this night was very poor.
No one in their right mind contemplates flying at night with a questionable AH or DI.
The military did not make the pilot make this decision.
The military are not responsible for the decisions that go on in a cockpit.
The military didn't stop the pilot turning back, declaring an emergency, seeking help or from even staying on the ground.
Many things can contribute to unplanned events, and challenging situation but the pilot of MDX had enough experience to make better decisions than he did.
Say the changes that you'd like to see with airspace in Australia actually happen - you still have to deal with this issue of pilot decision making - because that will still kill people regardless of the airspace design.
Putting a system in place which improves pilot decision making and skills so that pilots can handle challenging situations when they do occur (because they will occur no matter how many improvements occur) is a better use of resources and energy in my opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick,
The professional fan-club seems to have gone a bit quiet. I ask whether that's embarrassment by association in respect of the accusations you have made thus far, or whether they are dreading being seen as supporters of worse speculation after Part 2. Just my musings.
No point in revisiting a situation where a PIC should have been just that.
I'm sure the Kardashians of this world will lap up Episode 2.
The professional fan-club seems to have gone a bit quiet. I ask whether that's embarrassment by association in respect of the accusations you have made thus far, or whether they are dreading being seen as supporters of worse speculation after Part 2. Just my musings.
No point in revisiting a situation where a PIC should have been just that.
I'm sure the Kardashians of this world will lap up Episode 2.
Thread Starter
Bog, let's say things had been slightly different. When the pilot asked at the briefing office if he could flight plan over Willy he was told. " yes. Go ahead. That's clearly the safest route for a night VMC flight in these weather conditions"
As he tracked over Taree he was told to call Willy approach as they had a flight strip and new he was coming .A clearance was issued without requiring holding OCTA.
The aircraft remained in VMC. Out of cloud and icing and arrived safely at Bankstown.
I don't say the archaic RAAF regulations are solely to blame for the deaths- just that these people may not have died if a plan over Williamtown was allowed.
And it's no different today. Let's remove that planning restriction and allow pilots to plan on the safest route coastal southbound .
As he tracked over Taree he was told to call Willy approach as they had a flight strip and new he was coming .A clearance was issued without requiring holding OCTA.
The aircraft remained in VMC. Out of cloud and icing and arrived safely at Bankstown.
I don't say the archaic RAAF regulations are solely to blame for the deaths- just that these people may not have died if a plan over Williamtown was allowed.
And it's no different today. Let's remove that planning restriction and allow pilots to plan on the safest route coastal southbound .
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MDX incident
Yes Dick, lets look at the times then.
Unfortunately, I don't have a verbatim tape transcript but from what I now conclude is that it was the SY AACC S1 controller that had control of the controlled airspace beyond 12 nm to the N of WLM. This would have started at FL125 and below that was OCTA being serviced by FIS5. Since he flight planned at A060/A050 (but was flying at A085) just where was he intending to enter controlled airspace with S1/ARR(N) on his original plan? Would a clearance to enter Sydney steps/CTR have been given to him?
The aircraft reported TRE @ [time] 50 with an estimate for SGT of 30. At 19 he reported CRV with an estimate of 30 for SGT. At time 50 (just after TRE) he was asked if he preferred to take a coastal route via WLM. He indicated that WLM route would be acceptable. At time 53 S1 refused him a clearance (via FIS5) to enter controlled airspace. The pilot was not aware of this refusal but after some 'humming and harring', elected (at time 56) to follow his flight planned route via CRV to SGT. Big mistake, that sealed his fate.
In this case it was the [civilian] S1 controller who, as was his right, denied the access of a NVMC flight to have a clearance in his area of responsibility. If you are going to point the finger at anyone, perhaps you should be looking at CIVILIAN procedures in the Sydney terminal area, not the RAAF at WLM.
The aircraft, being OCTA at TRE, could quite easily have continued towards WLM from TRE and obtained a clearance to transit the zone directly from WLM TWR/APP or through FIS5.
I cannot ever recall that I have ever come across a civil or military controller who has withheld an air traffic clearance just for 'bloody-mindedness'. The only time such a clearance is withheld is to provide separation with IFR aircraft.
When I look at the timeframe of the condensed tape transcript, to me it shows that when positively identified, MDX was well off course which is strange given that the actual conditions in that area were westerlies. From that information I believe that the pilot took up a wrong heading from TRE and had no idea just where he was. Without fully serviceable navaids, he had no hope of calculating his CRV position. When he started to get a succession of problems he should have declared a PAN and I have no doubt that he would have been every assistance from ALL agencies.
As I said previously, the flight beyond Coolangatta was an accident waiting to happen and the RAAF airspace and procedures at WLM had nothing to do with the aircraft's eventual fate. I still reckon that you deserve an Oscar for last night's performance.
Unfortunately, I don't have a verbatim tape transcript but from what I now conclude is that it was the SY AACC S1 controller that had control of the controlled airspace beyond 12 nm to the N of WLM. This would have started at FL125 and below that was OCTA being serviced by FIS5. Since he flight planned at A060/A050 (but was flying at A085) just where was he intending to enter controlled airspace with S1/ARR(N) on his original plan? Would a clearance to enter Sydney steps/CTR have been given to him?
The aircraft reported TRE @ [time] 50 with an estimate for SGT of 30. At 19 he reported CRV with an estimate of 30 for SGT. At time 50 (just after TRE) he was asked if he preferred to take a coastal route via WLM. He indicated that WLM route would be acceptable. At time 53 S1 refused him a clearance (via FIS5) to enter controlled airspace. The pilot was not aware of this refusal but after some 'humming and harring', elected (at time 56) to follow his flight planned route via CRV to SGT. Big mistake, that sealed his fate.
In this case it was the [civilian] S1 controller who, as was his right, denied the access of a NVMC flight to have a clearance in his area of responsibility. If you are going to point the finger at anyone, perhaps you should be looking at CIVILIAN procedures in the Sydney terminal area, not the RAAF at WLM.
The aircraft, being OCTA at TRE, could quite easily have continued towards WLM from TRE and obtained a clearance to transit the zone directly from WLM TWR/APP or through FIS5.
I cannot ever recall that I have ever come across a civil or military controller who has withheld an air traffic clearance just for 'bloody-mindedness'. The only time such a clearance is withheld is to provide separation with IFR aircraft.
When I look at the timeframe of the condensed tape transcript, to me it shows that when positively identified, MDX was well off course which is strange given that the actual conditions in that area were westerlies. From that information I believe that the pilot took up a wrong heading from TRE and had no idea just where he was. Without fully serviceable navaids, he had no hope of calculating his CRV position. When he started to get a succession of problems he should have declared a PAN and I have no doubt that he would have been every assistance from ALL agencies.
As I said previously, the flight beyond Coolangatta was an accident waiting to happen and the RAAF airspace and procedures at WLM had nothing to do with the aircraft's eventual fate. I still reckon that you deserve an Oscar for last night's performance.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I asked a couple of questions on the previous page, any chance you could answer them as would be interested to know what the responses from the RAAF were.
Thanks.
I asked a couple of questions on the previous page, any chance you could answer them as would be interested to know what the responses from the RAAF were.
Thanks.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to disagree with you Bill. Dick's aim is to have a go at the RAAF, WLM in particular, something at which I'm rather surprised that you, being ex-RAAF yourself, appear to support.
However, wouldn't it be nice if we had something similar to what has been available in the UK since the '50s - an FIR controller who was able to give a positive reply for a 'Pigeons' request.
However, wouldn't it be nice if we had something similar to what has been available in the UK since the '50s - an FIR controller who was able to give a positive reply for a 'Pigeons' request.
Bog, let's say things had been slightly different. When the pilot asked at the briefing office if he could flight plan over Willy he was told. " yes. Go ahead. That's clearly the safest route for a night VMC flight in these weather conditions"
As he tracked over Taree he was told to call Willy approach as they had a flight strip and new he was coming .A clearance was issued without requiring holding OCTA.
The aircraft remained in VMC. Out of cloud and icing and arrived safely at Bankstown.
As he tracked over Taree he was told to call Willy approach as they had a flight strip and new he was coming .A clearance was issued without requiring holding OCTA.
The aircraft remained in VMC. Out of cloud and icing and arrived safely at Bankstown.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi CWO Geoff, off course we should have a more user friendly system. That's what Dick wants surely?
Yes I am ex RAAF ex airlines ex GA ex all sorts of stuff. I have also been known to ask the Willy controller why he thinks we bought him a radar set after being refused a clearance. I have been cleared VFR through very busy USAF controlled areas. The concept of "see and avoid" causes horror in this aviation backwater.
The Navy owns a great slab of NSW airspace and doesn't own any aircraft worth talking about. It's all insane by international standards
Having seen Ton San Nhut in the sixties I can tell you that Willy airspace is not crowded.
Yes I am ex RAAF ex airlines ex GA ex all sorts of stuff. I have also been known to ask the Willy controller why he thinks we bought him a radar set after being refused a clearance. I have been cleared VFR through very busy USAF controlled areas. The concept of "see and avoid" causes horror in this aviation backwater.
The Navy owns a great slab of NSW airspace and doesn't own any aircraft worth talking about. It's all insane by international standards
Having seen Ton San Nhut in the sixties I can tell you that Willy airspace is not crowded.
Thread Starter
There were no military aircraft flying in the airspace that Sunday night.
No doubt the airspace was active to provide a job for the controller.
If the RAAF airspace was not active that night or not there in the first place it is about 99% likely the pilot would have cruised down the coast in the CAVOK conditions and arrived safely at Bankstown.
And you don't understand who is partially responsible?
No doubt the airspace was active to provide a job for the controller.
If the RAAF airspace was not active that night or not there in the first place it is about 99% likely the pilot would have cruised down the coast in the CAVOK conditions and arrived safely at Bankstown.
And you don't understand who is partially responsible?
Folks,
Far too many of you are spending energy getting stuck into Dick, because that is all you can do!! Give Dick some credit for trying ( as he has done over many years) to do something to improve aviation.
As I have previously posted, and Bill Pike has illustrated, the "dog in a manger" attitude of the Australian military (particularly the RAAF, and more particularly, the long history and custom of Willy) should have ended years ago.
There is (and never was) any justification for the vast swathes of airspace in Australia that is controlled or restricted by the military, particularly the RAAF.
There is more military controlled/restricted airspace in Australia, than the whole of the USA. Indeed, looks like the Chinese have been following Australian precedent in declaring airspace restrictions in international waters, where they have no legal right**.
It also looks like far to many of you have not absorbed much, over the years, about accident causation, remember all the good works of James Reason, Rob Lees etc.
Dick did not say that it was all the RAAF fault, the program acknowledged the actions of the PIC, but THE WHOLE POINT was that a clearance coastal would have almost certainly broken the building chain of events.
It only takes one action to prevent the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up, and the potential accident does not happen. A prompt clearance to track coastal through Willy would almost certainly have been that action.
Despite what some of you are saying, in all these years, and despite new equipment, the Willy situation has not changed, rigid, inflexible and bureaucratic, a metaphor for far too much of Australian aviation, a sclerotic inability to change and advance for the good.
Can any of you actually justify the vast swathed of military airspace in Australia, compared to USA or UK/Europe, or the military disrespect for the entirely legitimate needs of civil aviation??
Good on Dick for at least trying to force change.
Tootle Pip!!
** Australia (like P.R.China "ADIZ" more recently) continues to declare military restricted airspace outside of Australia's territorial limits. Such purported restrictions have absolutely no legal basis, and the DoD, and the A-Gs know it, but the practice continues.
Far too many of you are spending energy getting stuck into Dick, because that is all you can do!! Give Dick some credit for trying ( as he has done over many years) to do something to improve aviation.
As I have previously posted, and Bill Pike has illustrated, the "dog in a manger" attitude of the Australian military (particularly the RAAF, and more particularly, the long history and custom of Willy) should have ended years ago.
There is (and never was) any justification for the vast swathes of airspace in Australia that is controlled or restricted by the military, particularly the RAAF.
There is more military controlled/restricted airspace in Australia, than the whole of the USA. Indeed, looks like the Chinese have been following Australian precedent in declaring airspace restrictions in international waters, where they have no legal right**.
It also looks like far to many of you have not absorbed much, over the years, about accident causation, remember all the good works of James Reason, Rob Lees etc.
Dick did not say that it was all the RAAF fault, the program acknowledged the actions of the PIC, but THE WHOLE POINT was that a clearance coastal would have almost certainly broken the building chain of events.
It only takes one action to prevent the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up, and the potential accident does not happen. A prompt clearance to track coastal through Willy would almost certainly have been that action.
Despite what some of you are saying, in all these years, and despite new equipment, the Willy situation has not changed, rigid, inflexible and bureaucratic, a metaphor for far too much of Australian aviation, a sclerotic inability to change and advance for the good.
Can any of you actually justify the vast swathed of military airspace in Australia, compared to USA or UK/Europe, or the military disrespect for the entirely legitimate needs of civil aviation??
Good on Dick for at least trying to force change.
Tootle Pip!!
** Australia (like P.R.China "ADIZ" more recently) continues to declare military restricted airspace outside of Australia's territorial limits. Such purported restrictions have absolutely no legal basis, and the DoD, and the A-Gs know it, but the practice continues.
RatsoreA
If the aircraft had obtained a clearance via Willy and the airspace south of Williamtown was non-VMC then was there any assurance that a clearance south of Willy would have been available or suitable for NVFR. What was the reported weather enroute via MQD, what was the reported weather at BK?
It then went to Sector 1, who informed them that their sector was non-VMC.