Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Statement from Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO
Contrary to the program’s story, civilian aircraft can and do fly through Williamtown airspace every day. Williamtown Air Traffic Control handles more than 34,000 civilian aircraft movements through the Williamtown airspace each year, including 1.2 million passengers who use the Newcastle airport terminal situated at RAAF Base Williamtown.
For civil aircraft flying visually through Williamtown airspace, Air Force created three specific flight paths that are designed to provide civilian access to Williamtown airspace and to deconflict with military and other civilian aircraft.
Air Force operates a multi-layered air traffic control system which is regulated by a comprehensive regime of independent audits and evaluations and is integrated with Australia’s national Air Traffic Management network
It is routine to restrict access to military airspace for both safety and security reasons. Such restrictions provide separation from hazardous environments including air weapons ranges. In fact, Australia is more generous than many nations, allowing civilian access when requested and whenever safety and security allow; and we operate formal airspace sharing arrangements at Williamtown, Darwin and Townsville.
In an emergency, civil aircraft can access defence airspace and airfields for emergency landings.
For civil aircraft flying visually through Williamtown airspace, Air Force created three specific flight paths that are designed to provide civilian access to Williamtown airspace and to deconflict with military and other civilian aircraft.
Air Force operates a multi-layered air traffic control system which is regulated by a comprehensive regime of independent audits and evaluations and is integrated with Australia’s national Air Traffic Management network
It is routine to restrict access to military airspace for both safety and security reasons. Such restrictions provide separation from hazardous environments including air weapons ranges. In fact, Australia is more generous than many nations, allowing civilian access when requested and whenever safety and security allow; and we operate formal airspace sharing arrangements at Williamtown, Darwin and Townsville.
In an emergency, civil aircraft can access defence airspace and airfields for emergency landings.
"Yeah, no, forget all that. I was wrong and Dick is right"
Attributing this tragedy to the Air Force is sensationalist and incorrect and I note that the program did not seek any comment or clarification from either Air Force or Defence in relation to this incident. It is disappointing that these unsubstantiated claims were aired on national television.
Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO
Chief of Air Force
Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO
Chief of Air Force
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mhayli
I will go one step further and post it,
I would like to reinforce this with the fact the PIC did not execute his duties in many ways where the ADF did.
I am also told by a very credible source that Dick Smith was approached for help in the search effort. Not for money, but help in terms of contacts, resources, advice....anything. But they were fobbed off. What is your take on this?
I will go one step further and post it,
Statement from Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO – Sunday Night (1 June 2014)
2 June 2014 | On the Record
On 1 June, Channel 7’s Sunday Night program aired claims by Dick Smith, incorrectly claiming Royal Australian Air Force contributed to the crash of VH-MDX in 1981.
While the death of the pilot and passengers is tragic, and I hope the search for them will bring closure for their families, Air Force cannot speculate as to why the pilot of VH-MDX chose to not fly through Williamtown airspace, as was done by numerous other civilian aircraft at the time of the accident.
The program acknowledged that the aircraft had mechanical issues and instrument failures, including a failed altitude indicator, automatic direction finder and vacuum pump.
The [then] Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (now the Australian Transport Safety Bureau), which investigated the incident at the time, found no fault with RAAF or military air traffic control. The facts of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation into the VH-MDX accident on 9 August 1981 are available via the National Archives of Australia.
On the evening of the disappearance of VH-MDX, Williamtown Air Traffic Control immediately offered a clearance for VH-MDX at an amended altitude (of 7,000 feet or 9,000 feet) to ensure separation with a preceding civilian aircraft (at 8,000 feet) that was already inside Williamtown airspace. This was done without delay and more than 30 minutes before VH-MDX reported entering bad weather.
It is incorrect to claim that Air Force caused VH-MDX to fly an unsuitable track. The presence of civilian aircraft in Williamtown airspace demonstrates that civilian aircraft were permitted to transit Williamtown airspace.
Contrary to the program’s story, civilian aircraft can and do fly through Williamtown airspace every day. Williamtown Air Traffic Control handles more than 34,000 civilian aircraft movements through the Williamtown airspace each year, including 1.2 million passengers who use the Newcastle airport terminal situated at RAAF Base Williamtown.
For civil aircraft flying visually through Williamtown airspace, Air Force created three specific flight paths that are designed to provide civilian access to Williamtown airspace and to deconflict with military and other civilian aircraft.
Air Force operates a multi-layered air traffic control system which is regulated by a comprehensive regime of independent audits and evaluations and is integrated with Australia’s national Air Traffic Management network
It is routine to restrict access to military airspace for both safety and security reasons. Such restrictions provide separation from hazardous environments including air weapons ranges. In fact, Australia is more generous than many nations, allowing civilian access when requested and whenever safety and security allow; and we operate formal airspace sharing arrangements at Williamtown, Darwin and Townsville.
In an emergency, civil aircraft can access defence airspace and airfields for emergency landings.
The story also implied that VH-MDX was unreasonably requested to hold. Aircraft are routinely required by civilian and military Air Traffic Control to hold or adjust the aircraft’s track, altitude or speed, to ensure separation is maintained with preceding and higher priority military and civilian aircraft. The likelihood of holding is increased for aircraft that do not submit a flight plan because the aircraft’s data needs to be manually entered into the Air Traffic Control system.
Attributing this tragedy to the Air Force is sensationalist and incorrect and I note that the program did not seek any comment or clarification from either Air Force or Defence in relation to this incident. It is disappointing that these unsubstantiated claims were aired on national television.
Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO
Chief of Air Force
2 June 2014 | On the Record
On 1 June, Channel 7’s Sunday Night program aired claims by Dick Smith, incorrectly claiming Royal Australian Air Force contributed to the crash of VH-MDX in 1981.
While the death of the pilot and passengers is tragic, and I hope the search for them will bring closure for their families, Air Force cannot speculate as to why the pilot of VH-MDX chose to not fly through Williamtown airspace, as was done by numerous other civilian aircraft at the time of the accident.
The program acknowledged that the aircraft had mechanical issues and instrument failures, including a failed altitude indicator, automatic direction finder and vacuum pump.
The [then] Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (now the Australian Transport Safety Bureau), which investigated the incident at the time, found no fault with RAAF or military air traffic control. The facts of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation into the VH-MDX accident on 9 August 1981 are available via the National Archives of Australia.
On the evening of the disappearance of VH-MDX, Williamtown Air Traffic Control immediately offered a clearance for VH-MDX at an amended altitude (of 7,000 feet or 9,000 feet) to ensure separation with a preceding civilian aircraft (at 8,000 feet) that was already inside Williamtown airspace. This was done without delay and more than 30 minutes before VH-MDX reported entering bad weather.
It is incorrect to claim that Air Force caused VH-MDX to fly an unsuitable track. The presence of civilian aircraft in Williamtown airspace demonstrates that civilian aircraft were permitted to transit Williamtown airspace.
Contrary to the program’s story, civilian aircraft can and do fly through Williamtown airspace every day. Williamtown Air Traffic Control handles more than 34,000 civilian aircraft movements through the Williamtown airspace each year, including 1.2 million passengers who use the Newcastle airport terminal situated at RAAF Base Williamtown.
For civil aircraft flying visually through Williamtown airspace, Air Force created three specific flight paths that are designed to provide civilian access to Williamtown airspace and to deconflict with military and other civilian aircraft.
Air Force operates a multi-layered air traffic control system which is regulated by a comprehensive regime of independent audits and evaluations and is integrated with Australia’s national Air Traffic Management network
It is routine to restrict access to military airspace for both safety and security reasons. Such restrictions provide separation from hazardous environments including air weapons ranges. In fact, Australia is more generous than many nations, allowing civilian access when requested and whenever safety and security allow; and we operate formal airspace sharing arrangements at Williamtown, Darwin and Townsville.
In an emergency, civil aircraft can access defence airspace and airfields for emergency landings.
The story also implied that VH-MDX was unreasonably requested to hold. Aircraft are routinely required by civilian and military Air Traffic Control to hold or adjust the aircraft’s track, altitude or speed, to ensure separation is maintained with preceding and higher priority military and civilian aircraft. The likelihood of holding is increased for aircraft that do not submit a flight plan because the aircraft’s data needs to be manually entered into the Air Traffic Control system.
Attributing this tragedy to the Air Force is sensationalist and incorrect and I note that the program did not seek any comment or clarification from either Air Force or Defence in relation to this incident. It is disappointing that these unsubstantiated claims were aired on national television.
Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO
Chief of Air Force
I am also told by a very credible source that Dick Smith was approached for help in the search effort. Not for money, but help in terms of contacts, resources, advice....anything. But they were fobbed off. What is your take on this?
Nothing more needs to be said.
Unfortunately it's become obvious now Channel 7 don't give a rats ass about the MDX story, they're running this purely for the ratings generated by headlining unsubstantiated allegations. Not sure why I'm surprised really.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether Mr Smith assisted or not I feel is off topic and making the discussion personal. However, what is apparent is that there are two sides to this story. The one posted by Jabawocky is based on fact and the official accident investigation by professionals in that field. The other is based on unsubstantiated claims by an enthusiast.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just can’t believe what I am reading on this site. It’s amazing – more than thirty-one years later how people still have their minds fixed on rules which are decades out of date.
Let me give you a little bit more of the facts. I am taking them from the excellent publication called, “Operation Phoenix – the Theoretical Search for the Crash Site of Cessna C210 VH-MDX” written and researched by Donald E Readford. It is an excellent publication.
Let me give you a little bit more of the facts. I am taking them from the excellent publication called, “Operation Phoenix – the Theoretical Search for the Crash Site of Cessna C210 VH-MDX” written and researched by Donald E Readford. It is an excellent publication.
Wha? I'm sincerely hoping that is sarcasm because that is the most pants on head retarded publication on the MDX search to date.
If you honestly believe that 'publication' deserves any merit, I have lost whatever faith I had in any and all of your endeavours.
NVFR is an oxymoron but cross country in a light single, is more like a death wish.
Dick, whilst I respect the motive I must take issue with methodology.
As painful as it is, the cause of the accident is clear. I am only saddened by the fact that there was no-one else on board who could smell the impending disaster when clearly the PIC could not. A simple PAN call and direct Willy was all it would have taken.
Over the past 30 years, I have flown into SYD from HKG many times and always get a bit of a chill up my spine at the top of descent. I hope the wreckage is found soon. Maybe this thread will provide another impetus to allow closure.
Dick, whilst I respect the motive I must take issue with methodology.
As painful as it is, the cause of the accident is clear. I am only saddened by the fact that there was no-one else on board who could smell the impending disaster when clearly the PIC could not. A simple PAN call and direct Willy was all it would have taken.
Over the past 30 years, I have flown into SYD from HKG many times and always get a bit of a chill up my spine at the top of descent. I hope the wreckage is found soon. Maybe this thread will provide another impetus to allow closure.
Last edited by VR-HFX; 3rd Jun 2014 at 07:14.
The easiest way for people to establish the facts are to check out the transcripts themselves. Go to the NAA home page:
National Archives of Australia
Select "Search the collection".
On the basic search page, under 'Keywords', enter VH-MDX.
There will be a single result; select "view digital copy".
The first 22 pages are news clippings.
Read the transcripts, from page 241. Particularly pages 244 - 245 (time index 0853 for the inital Willy clearance and Sector 1 saying they could not accept), and page 246 (time index 0853.42 for the initial coastal request to Sydney Approach) to page 248. Pay particular attention to time index 0856.12 where FIS says "Willy says he'd be able to clear him through his area".
Dick, I think you should make a public statement that the RAAF did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact assisted in every way in getting that aircraft a clearance.
National Archives of Australia
Select "Search the collection".
On the basic search page, under 'Keywords', enter VH-MDX.
There will be a single result; select "view digital copy".
The first 22 pages are news clippings.
Read the transcripts, from page 241. Particularly pages 244 - 245 (time index 0853 for the inital Willy clearance and Sector 1 saying they could not accept), and page 246 (time index 0853.42 for the initial coastal request to Sydney Approach) to page 248. Pay particular attention to time index 0856.12 where FIS says "Willy says he'd be able to clear him through his area".
Dick, I think you should make a public statement that the RAAF did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact assisted in every way in getting that aircraft a clearance.
Last edited by evilroy; 2nd Jun 2014 at 22:06. Reason: Corrected link for search page
In response to an earlier post - "this crap does not occur overseas." Oh yes it does. Absolutely - have a look at China. Airways designed all over the place to avoid mil airspace. Try entering China over Urumqi bound for hong Kong. True bearing would be about 120 - you end up heading about 020 for a long time. Often told airway closed, or once we flew HK to Shanghai at around 16,000 ft.
Many times I have been vectored around active mil airspace in the US.
Australia suffers because direct tracks or airways are drawn through mil airspace so the result may mean clearance not available. In many foreign countrys airways are just drawn up around mil airspace so we don't get the delays. We don't actually notice a problem, but we are always flying extra track miles. At least in Oz we get the chance of direct tracking when available
Many times I have been vectored around active mil airspace in the US.
Australia suffers because direct tracks or airways are drawn through mil airspace so the result may mean clearance not available. In many foreign countrys airways are just drawn up around mil airspace so we don't get the delays. We don't actually notice a problem, but we are always flying extra track miles. At least in Oz we get the chance of direct tracking when available
Wha? I'm sincerely hoping that is sarcasm because that is the most pants on head retarded publication on the MDX search to date.
If you honestly believe that 'publication' deserves any merit, I have lost whatever faith I had in any and all of your endeavours.
If you honestly believe that 'publication' deserves any merit, I have lost whatever faith I had in any and all of your endeavours.
Unfortunately I agree, there are assumptions made on the radar / ATC data and aircraft performance that are fundamentally incorrect. These assumptions make it useless for any accurate calculation of the actual crash site, especially when talking about a place as nasty as the Barrington Tops.
Thread Starter
The Air Marshal is clearly ill informed. This is a damning reflection on the advice Air Marshal Brown receives. Let me quote from Air Marshal’s Media Release:
By this, Air Marshal Brown clearly means that pilots should submit a flight plan if they want to fly the safer, more direct route so holding and delays are reduced and safety is improved. However, Air Marshal Brown clearly doesn’t know that it is not possible to file such a flight plan. That is why I stated on the Channel 7 Sunday Night program,
I then went on to say,
Here we have the Air Marshal agreeing with me, i.e.
Air Marshal Brown just happens to omit a slightly important point which I will say again – you can’t file a flight plan over Williamtown when it is active! That clearly means the Willi Controller has no prior knowledge of the aircraft that is about to call for clearance. This is ridiculous in these modern days of technology. Once we remove that restriction from the Enroute Supplement, there will be a clear message that pilots are allowed to fly the safest way possible, i.e. over the low terrain coastal area over Williamtown rather than being forced to the west into the Barrington Top mountains as MDX was thirty years ago and as pilots are today.
Once again, I stand by what I said and that is the only reason MDX did not continue down the coast at a low level in clear weather conditions was because Williamtown was active that night - and I understand there weren’t even any military aircraft flying! It was an outrageous waste of life caused by archaic military rules – and nothing has changed.
Anyone who doesn’t understand this has a real problem.
“The likelihood of holding is increased for aircraft that do not submit a flight plan because the aircraft's data needs to be manually entered into the Air Traffic Control system”.
“The restrictions are still there. You can’t file a flight plan across the top of Williamtown”.
“you can do something with this show if we can get these rules changed, as they will save lives in the future”.
“The likelihood of holding is increased for aircraft that do not submit a flight plan because the aircraft's data needs to be manually entered into the Air Traffic Control system”.
Once again, I stand by what I said and that is the only reason MDX did not continue down the coast at a low level in clear weather conditions was because Williamtown was active that night - and I understand there weren’t even any military aircraft flying! It was an outrageous waste of life caused by archaic military rules – and nothing has changed.
Anyone who doesn’t understand this has a real problem.
Thread Starter
Evilroy – you want me to make a statement that says the RAAF did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact assisted in every way in getting VH-MDX a clearance.
Well, I won’t be making that statement because it would be a lie.
For a start, if the military airspace had not been active that night or had not existed in that location, the pilot would have cruised down the coast in good weather conditions and arrived safely at Bankstown.
The only reason the pilot was forced inland via a point called “Craven” was because the military-enforced regulations at the time stated that pilots could not flight plan over Williamtown. That meant the Willi Controller had no information that MDX was heading in his direction and wanted a clearance. That restriction remains today – that is, no-one is approved to file a flight plan from Coffs Harbour overhead Williamtown if Williamtown is active and that means aircraft today are forced inland towards the Barrington Tops.
Have you noted that the Willi Controller knew that the aircraft desired a clearance, but rather than take the holding the Pilot decided to head via Craven then to Bankstown. Have you noted the Willi Controller did not inform anyone when the aircraft turned to the west and flew at 90 degrees to the required track heading over the Barrington Tops towards Scone?
Yes, I know you will say, “it was nothing to do with the Willi Controller because the aircraft wasn’t in his airspace”. So, just let five people go to their deaths…?
Evilroy, I can tell you I will not give up until I have this ridiculous restriction removed from the Regulations – that is the one that pilots filing a flight plan south of Coffs Harbour are prohibited from flight planning over Williamtown if it is active. This is an outrageous restriction that clearly substantially reduces safety and will lead to yet another similar accident as aircraft are forced to the west into the mountains.
Well, I won’t be making that statement because it would be a lie.
For a start, if the military airspace had not been active that night or had not existed in that location, the pilot would have cruised down the coast in good weather conditions and arrived safely at Bankstown.
The only reason the pilot was forced inland via a point called “Craven” was because the military-enforced regulations at the time stated that pilots could not flight plan over Williamtown. That meant the Willi Controller had no information that MDX was heading in his direction and wanted a clearance. That restriction remains today – that is, no-one is approved to file a flight plan from Coffs Harbour overhead Williamtown if Williamtown is active and that means aircraft today are forced inland towards the Barrington Tops.
Have you noted that the Willi Controller knew that the aircraft desired a clearance, but rather than take the holding the Pilot decided to head via Craven then to Bankstown. Have you noted the Willi Controller did not inform anyone when the aircraft turned to the west and flew at 90 degrees to the required track heading over the Barrington Tops towards Scone?
Yes, I know you will say, “it was nothing to do with the Willi Controller because the aircraft wasn’t in his airspace”. So, just let five people go to their deaths…?
Evilroy, I can tell you I will not give up until I have this ridiculous restriction removed from the Regulations – that is the one that pilots filing a flight plan south of Coffs Harbour are prohibited from flight planning over Williamtown if it is active. This is an outrageous restriction that clearly substantially reduces safety and will lead to yet another similar accident as aircraft are forced to the west into the mountains.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
MDX was not forced in any way to go to the west. He chose that route.
That is also untrue. The only reason he didn't continue down the coast is that he was too impaitent to wait for the clearance. For the sake of one or two orbits, the aircraft was lost. FIS5 was going to ask him if he preferred 7000 or 9000 for his transit, due to preceding traffic (AZC, a slower C206 at the same level, 8000ft, who had no issues securing a clearance to transit Williamtown) but before he could even offer the alternate levels, he made the choice to go via Craven.
Another thing you said on TV was also incorrect, after the uncertainty phase was declared, by FIS5 not a PAN or MAYDAY by MDX, FIS5, Sector 1 and Williamtown did everything they could do to help him out, completely without regard to airspace requirements. They were in fact trying to direct him to come to Williamtown, but he chose to resume his planned track as late as 3 minutes before the aircraft was lost.
Actually, the facts are very clear in this matter, the Williamtown Controller DID assist him in every way possible. It does not even have the remotest shred of doubt attached to it.
He didn't, he spent a large amount of time trying to help a plot that was at the extreme edge of coverage of his radar, and well outside his area of responsibility.
being forced to the west into the Barrington Top mountains as MDX was thirty years ago
the only reason MDX did not continue down the coast at a low level in clear weather conditions was because Williamtown was active that night
Another thing you said on TV was also incorrect, after the uncertainty phase was declared, by FIS5 not a PAN or MAYDAY by MDX, FIS5, Sector 1 and Williamtown did everything they could do to help him out, completely without regard to airspace requirements. They were in fact trying to direct him to come to Williamtown, but he chose to resume his planned track as late as 3 minutes before the aircraft was lost.
Evilroy – you want me to make a statement that says the RAAF did absolutely nothing wrong and in fact assisted in every way in getting VH-MDX a clearance.
Well, I won’t be making that statement because it would be a lie
Well, I won’t be making that statement because it would be a lie
Yes, I know you will say, “it was nothing to do with the Willi Controller because the aircraft wasn’t in his airspace”. So, just let five people go to their deaths…?
Last edited by RatsoreA; 3rd Jun 2014 at 01:50. Reason: Extra info
Thread Starter
Was "going to ask him". Are you now going to confirm he was never actually asked if he wanted 7000 or 9000? Why wasn't he given this option?
You say " to impatient to wait for a clearance". How do you know that he wasn't concerned about how he was going to hold outside an invisible line in the sky?
He had no DME. How would have you held OCTA in that case?
If they did everything they could to help him out why didn't they at any time direct him onto a frequency where the operator actually had a radar screen?
At all times all communication was to a radio operator that had no idea what direction the aircraft was heading.
Did you note that BASI never mentioned this important point? If he had been on a radar frequency the pilot would have been told nearly 30 minutes earlier he was heading in the wrong direction.
Probably still be alive today!
You say " to impatient to wait for a clearance". How do you know that he wasn't concerned about how he was going to hold outside an invisible line in the sky?
He had no DME. How would have you held OCTA in that case?
If they did everything they could to help him out why didn't they at any time direct him onto a frequency where the operator actually had a radar screen?
At all times all communication was to a radio operator that had no idea what direction the aircraft was heading.
Did you note that BASI never mentioned this important point? If he had been on a radar frequency the pilot would have been told nearly 30 minutes earlier he was heading in the wrong direction.
Probably still be alive today!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say " to impatient to wait for a clearance". How do you know that he wasn't concerned about how he was going to hold outside an invisible line in the sky?
He had no DME. How would have you held OCTA in that case?
He had no DME. How would have you held OCTA in that case?
Was "going to ask him". Are you now going to confirm he was never actually asked if he wanted 7000 or 9000? Why wasn't he given this option?
Did you note that BASI never mentioned this important point? If he had been on a radar frequency the pilot would have been told nearly 30 minutes earlier he was heading in the wrong direction.
Where does it say that ATC are responsible for the safe conduct of a flight? I am pretty sure the last time I looked (Someone can probably quote me the reference, I'm to lazy to look myself) it said that the Pilot in Command was the person responsible for safe conduct of the flight, from startup to shut down. He wasn't under positive control, he was being offered advice and information.
Thread Starter
I love your total ego and confidence that you would never make a similar error and therefore not need more modern and safer procedures.
Why don't you comment on the current military restriction on civilian pilots being prevented from planning over Willy?
Why don't you comment on the current military restriction on civilian pilots being prevented from planning over Willy?
Thread Starter
And Rat. Why do you reckon BASI made no recommendation about using the radar more effectively to prevent a repeat of that type of accident?
Could it be fixed views re the existing regs like you have?
Could it be fixed views re the existing regs like you have?