Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
Dick,
You should go and read the transcripts, especially the pages I have mentioned in the previous post. You'll see that the military controllers did everything possible to assist MDX with a swift passage through the WLM airspace.
Your attitude right now suggests you don't have all the facts and are therefore basing your beliefs on false assumptions or incorrect data.
You should go and read the transcripts, especially the pages I have mentioned in the previous post. You'll see that the military controllers did everything possible to assist MDX with a swift passage through the WLM airspace.
Your attitude right now suggests you don't have all the facts and are therefore basing your beliefs on false assumptions or incorrect data.
Last edited by evilroy; 3rd Jun 2014 at 02:55. Reason: Corrected spelling
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love your total ego and confidence that you would never make a similar error and therefore not need more modern and safer procedures.
And in fact, when I was just a little pilot, I did make such an error, and only for good luck, rather than good management did I not end up in exactly the place as MDX, AND if there was good management, it was all on behalf of the ATC on duty that day that saw me land safely in Singleton.
I don't know how you drew that statement out of what I said, but moving on to point 2 -
The CURRENT restriction about planing overhead Williamtown has absolutely no bearing on finding the crash site of MDX. That has been the only thing that the team of people I am working with are interested in. Finding it. The fact that you have hijacked this cause to further your own agenda has angered a considerable amount of people. We were not interested in the politics of why or how, only where the aircraft sits now. You have moved the focus of finding it, to suit your own agenda. We contacted you several times in the last two years asking for any assistance you might have, to be met with either no replies, or "no, not interested".
You have failed to consistently adhere to the facts of the case, overlooking the ones that contradict your viewpoint, and exaggerating those ones that you think you can manipulate to suit your agenda.
Your tirade against the RAAF has not helped us in any way, and in fact, you have probably made it about a million times harder to secure any sort of help in finding the crash site from them, as they would probably, quite understandably, want to distance themselves from this matter.
Evilroy, I have personally emailed Dick a full and complete copy of what is available in the national archives, and an index to go with it that we have created to make referencing certain aspects easier. He is also shown in Sunday Night as actually leafing through that very material.
Last edited by RatsoreA; 3rd Jun 2014 at 02:56. Reason: More info
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: N.S.W.
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your tirade against the RAAF has not helped us in any way, and in fact, you have probably made it about a million times harder to secure any sort of help in finding the crash site from them, as they would probably, quite understandably, want to distance themselves from this matter.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
I've gotta say years ago I felt very uncomfortable when flying a C182RG from PMQ to AF at night. We had planned coastal on a nice clear night at 10k so to at least give us options of both airports and beaches if the fan stopped. After passing CH we were advised that the RAAF had activated Evans Head and our track was not available, and we were re-routed well west over all the tiger country to get back to AF, we ended up negotiating the best we could to avoid the airspace and not the CH-CAS-AF track we were told to fly, CAS-AF track in day light scared the bejesus out of me let alone at night. Yes I could have pulled up stumps and landed at CH but considering I had made a plan based on the info that EVX wasn't active, it certainly was an uncomfortable situation to be thrown, in a twin, no probs but in a single it's a diff story.
Agreed that the pilot made a lot of poor decisions, but I do agree the RAAF does seem very inflexible at times...too many things are continued to be done in aviation because 'thats the way we've always done them'
Agreed that the pilot made a lot of poor decisions, but I do agree the RAAF does seem very inflexible at times...too many things are continued to be done in aviation because 'thats the way we've always done them'
Thread Starter
No. Not better radar coverage. Just a commonsense recommendation to use the existing radar effectively.
You can only do that properly if you have a system where pilots are already on the best radar frequency.
How could the BASI investigator not make such a recommendation when it was obvious that such a system would most likely have the pilot informed within minutes of him heading of in the wrong direction.?
No. Concrete minded investigators who did not have the ability to think laterally and ask and copy the best systems from around the world .
Bit like some if the posters on this site.
And Rats. I have not hijacked this site for any personal advantage. I want the system improved so there is less likely hood of such an accident repeating.
What is wrong with that? I have had a history of making change that is initially resisted. For example giving the responsibility of radar covered airspace to those that are actually qualified to use radar and have a screen in front of them.. Look back on this site and you will find I was simarly abused for such a heresy.
You can only do that properly if you have a system where pilots are already on the best radar frequency.
How could the BASI investigator not make such a recommendation when it was obvious that such a system would most likely have the pilot informed within minutes of him heading of in the wrong direction.?
No. Concrete minded investigators who did not have the ability to think laterally and ask and copy the best systems from around the world .
Bit like some if the posters on this site.
And Rats. I have not hijacked this site for any personal advantage. I want the system improved so there is less likely hood of such an accident repeating.
What is wrong with that? I have had a history of making change that is initially resisted. For example giving the responsibility of radar covered airspace to those that are actually qualified to use radar and have a screen in front of them.. Look back on this site and you will find I was simarly abused for such a heresy.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is you going on endlessly about current Williamtown restrictions bringing us any closer to finding MDX?
I didn't say you hijacked this site, I said you hijacked this investigation to push your own agenda (Again, which I agree that it could be easier and could be changed).
If you really genuinely want to help find MDX and bring it to an end, pull on a pack and a pair of boots and walk a line through the scrub with the rest of us! Get the Augusta out and fast rope some teams of BWRS through the canopy so they can search a larger area in less time without having to spend half a day walking to get to the search area! I work 40 hours a week, and do this in my weekends/spare time/holidays. I take my own time off work to do these things. I have donated many hours, at cost to myself, of my own aircraft so that we may be able to have a better chance at finding the crash site.
The whole point of channel 7 doing that segment was about finding it, and you have done nothing but hijack it and use the oppoutunity go on about the Williamtown airspace, using incorrect and incomplete information to make untrue statements and accuse the RAAF of manslaughter.
I didn't say you hijacked this site, I said you hijacked this investigation to push your own agenda (Again, which I agree that it could be easier and could be changed).
If you really genuinely want to help find MDX and bring it to an end, pull on a pack and a pair of boots and walk a line through the scrub with the rest of us! Get the Augusta out and fast rope some teams of BWRS through the canopy so they can search a larger area in less time without having to spend half a day walking to get to the search area! I work 40 hours a week, and do this in my weekends/spare time/holidays. I take my own time off work to do these things. I have donated many hours, at cost to myself, of my own aircraft so that we may be able to have a better chance at finding the crash site.
The whole point of channel 7 doing that segment was about finding it, and you have done nothing but hijack it and use the oppoutunity go on about the Williamtown airspace, using incorrect and incomplete information to make untrue statements and accuse the RAAF of manslaughter.
Last edited by RatsoreA; 3rd Jun 2014 at 04:13. Reason: Spelling!
Thread Starter
Isn't that good to pay decent wages and share the wealth a bit as we do in Australia ? I made sure any FSO had the opportunity to train as an ATC if they had the abilities and wanted to.
Rats. Great what you are doing. However surely you agree that it's better that we reduce the chance of such an accident happening again ?
I was going to take some advice re the search from Don Readford. But now you say that's not accurate. So where should I be looking and with what group?
Rats. Great what you are doing. However surely you agree that it's better that we reduce the chance of such an accident happening again ?
I was going to take some advice re the search from Don Readford. But now you say that's not accurate. So where should I be looking and with what group?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all unraveling, Dick, and at a spectacular rate of kts.
I suppose you've still got the 'streakers defence' - 'seemed like a good idea at the time.'
This was a screw-up on the part of the PIC. No ifs, no buts. However, no joy taken there. It was a sad, sad tragedy.
Once again, in my opinion, you've used speculation, unsubstantiated innuendo, and press manipulation to drive your personal agenda. Judging by the majority of responses, I think that you've alienated the moderates in the aviation community that were willing to listen to you in times past.
Personally, I think you've lost some of your credibility in a crusade that I can only interpret as vindictive and opportunistic.
Sad, Dick, because I have incredibly good memories of an aviation pioneer that had cred. Your circumnavigation still brings thrills and chills - years afterwards.
That said: Part 2 will, no doubt, add to my disillusionment and disappointment. Sad that you need to resort to cheap shots to push an unsustainable position in order to put the boot in.
I suppose you've still got the 'streakers defence' - 'seemed like a good idea at the time.'
This was a screw-up on the part of the PIC. No ifs, no buts. However, no joy taken there. It was a sad, sad tragedy.
Once again, in my opinion, you've used speculation, unsubstantiated innuendo, and press manipulation to drive your personal agenda. Judging by the majority of responses, I think that you've alienated the moderates in the aviation community that were willing to listen to you in times past.
Personally, I think you've lost some of your credibility in a crusade that I can only interpret as vindictive and opportunistic.
Sad, Dick, because I have incredibly good memories of an aviation pioneer that had cred. Your circumnavigation still brings thrills and chills - years afterwards.
That said: Part 2 will, no doubt, add to my disillusionment and disappointment. Sad that you need to resort to cheap shots to push an unsustainable position in order to put the boot in.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rats. Great what you are doing. However surely you agree that it's better that we reduce the chance of such an accident happening again ?
I sent you several links yesterday, including all the material publicly available to help you determine what is accurate and what is not. I have no doubt you are very busy, and there is A LOT of material to read, and not just read, but comprehend. By all means, read what Readford wrote as well. But until you are armed with all the facts, public comment can be harmful. You of all people should be aware of that! And make sure you watch part 2 next week. Hopefully, they will actually say a bit about the official search being conducted by the NSW Police.
Thread Starter
Howabout – no, I don’t believe it’s unravelling – in fact, quite the opposite. I can see a move towards removing that ridiculous restriction in relation to flight planning over Williamtown.
I thought you might like to see my Media Release:
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 Brown’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 over Williamtown so that delays are reduced and safety is improved.
By flying over Williamtown, Pilots are not forced – as was VH-MDX on that terrible night – to fly to the west of Williamtown into the mountainous area of the Barrington Tops where high winds can turn a plane upside-down.
However, Air Marshal Brown clearly doesn’t know that military enforced regulations mean it is not possible for a civilian pilot to file such a flight plan. That is why I stated on the Channel 7 Sunday Night program,
I then went on to say,
Now, remember on the night of the VH-MDX crash, the pilot was forced by the regulations to file his flight plan to the west of the Williamtown military airspace towards the treacherous country near Barrington Tops.
The regulations of those days remain the same today. It was prohibited then, as it is now, to file a flight plan over Williamtown.
Air Marshal Brown just happens to omit this very important point from his Media Release - so I will say it again – a civilian pilot cannot file a flight plan over Williamtown! That means that the likelihood of holding will always be increased because the Williamtown Controller has no prior knowledge of the aircraft that is about to call for clearance. This is ridiculous in these modern days of technology!
In yet another major error, Air Marshal Brown states that,
In fact, this offer was made by the military Controller to the Sydney Flight Service Operator but it was never passed on to the Pilot! If the Pilot did not know of the offer, how could he possibly accept it?
Once the military remove the restrictions on Australian civilian pilots, there will be a clear message that they are allowed to fly the safest route possible, i.e. over the low terrain coastal area at Williamtown rather than being forced to the west into the Barrington Tops mountains as MDX was thirty years ago and as pilots are today.
I ask Air Marshal Brown to remove this restriction before more lives are lost.
I thought you might like to see my Media Release:
Dick Smith Comments
on
Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown’s Media Release Dated Monday 2 June 2014
Dick Smith says, “AIR MARSHAL BROWN - REMOVE THE CIVILIAN FLIGHT PLANNING RESTRICTION BEFORE MORE LIVES ARE LOST”.
on
Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown’s Media Release Dated Monday 2 June 2014
Dick Smith says, “AIR MARSHAL BROWN - REMOVE THE CIVILIAN FLIGHT PLANNING RESTRICTION BEFORE MORE LIVES ARE LOST”.
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 Brown’s Media Release:
“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”.
By flying over Williamtown, Pilots are not forced – as was VH-MDX on that terrible night – to fly to the west of Williamtown into the mountainous area of the Barrington Tops where high winds can turn a plane upside-down.
However, Air Marshal Brown clearly doesn’t know that military enforced regulations mean it is not possible for a civilian pilot to file such a flight plan. That is why I stated on the Channel 7 Sunday Night program,
“The restrictions are still there. You can’t file a flight plan across the top of Williamtown”.
I then went on to say,
"You can do something with this show if we can get these rules changed, as they will save lives in the future”.
The regulations of those days remain the same today. It was prohibited then, as it is now, to file a flight plan over Williamtown.
Air Marshal Brown just happens to omit this very important point from his Media Release - so I will say it again – a civilian pilot cannot file a flight plan over Williamtown! That means that the likelihood of holding will always be increased because the Williamtown Controller has no prior knowledge of the aircraft that is about to call for clearance. This is ridiculous in these modern days of technology!
In yet another major error, Air Marshal Brown states that,
“Williamtown Air Traffic Control immediately offered a clearance for VH-MDX at an amended altitude (of 7,000 feet or 9,000 feet) …. This was done without delay and more than 30 minutes before VH-MDX reported entering bad weather”.
In fact, this offer was made by the military Controller to the Sydney Flight Service Operator but it was never passed on to the Pilot! If the Pilot did not know of the offer, how could he possibly accept it?
Once the military remove the restrictions on Australian civilian pilots, there will be a clear message that they are allowed to fly the safest route possible, i.e. over the low terrain coastal area at Williamtown rather than being forced to the west into the Barrington Tops mountains as MDX was thirty years ago and as pilots are today.
I ask Air Marshal Brown to remove this restriction before more lives are lost.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preferred route
Surely you can still add a preferred route to a plan can't you? That way ATC at Williamtown or whoever on the PFR would get the info.
That aside perhaps Dick could join ASASI and even attend the conference in Adelaide in October so he could set all us "concrete minded" investigators straight. Perhaps you have a theory on MH370 you could share with us?
That aside perhaps Dick could join ASASI and even attend the conference in Adelaide in October so he could set all us "concrete minded" investigators straight. Perhaps you have a theory on MH370 you could share with us?
0850:31 MDX contacts FIS5; FIS5 asks if they would like clearance through WLM if available. MDX says yes. FIS asks for an estimate overhead WLM. MDX says to stand by.
0851:27 MDX advises FIS of an ETA for overhead WLM at time 20.
0851:47 FIS asks WLM for clearance for MDX.
0852:22 WLM agrees to a clearance. Says 9000 or 7000 due AZC, which estimates WLM at 17.
0853:00 Sydney Sector 1 denies clearance for MDX.
0853:42 FIS ask Sydney Approach if clearance coastal is available; they tell FIS they will check weather and advise.
0854:20 MDX advised that Sydney has denied clearance via WLM, and that a coastal clearance may be available. MDX advises they would prefer coastal route. FIS says they will seek clearance and MDX to remain OCTA. MDX says they are approaching controlled airspace “pretty quick”.
0856:00 MDX advises that rather than wait for clearance, they now wish to track via CRAVEN.
0856:39 Sydney Approach advises that clearance coastal should be available but they need to still check on weather and that route will most likely be inland via WLM and MQD. FIS says that WLM has already cleared MDX through their airspace.
0857:18 MDX advise that clearance coastal not yet available and they may have to remain OCTA to get clearance.
0857:54 MDX says they’ll go via CRAVEN.
0851:27 MDX advises FIS of an ETA for overhead WLM at time 20.
0851:47 FIS asks WLM for clearance for MDX.
0852:22 WLM agrees to a clearance. Says 9000 or 7000 due AZC, which estimates WLM at 17.
0853:00 Sydney Sector 1 denies clearance for MDX.
0853:42 FIS ask Sydney Approach if clearance coastal is available; they tell FIS they will check weather and advise.
0854:20 MDX advised that Sydney has denied clearance via WLM, and that a coastal clearance may be available. MDX advises they would prefer coastal route. FIS says they will seek clearance and MDX to remain OCTA. MDX says they are approaching controlled airspace “pretty quick”.
0856:00 MDX advises that rather than wait for clearance, they now wish to track via CRAVEN.
0856:39 Sydney Approach advises that clearance coastal should be available but they need to still check on weather and that route will most likely be inland via WLM and MQD. FIS says that WLM has already cleared MDX through their airspace.
0857:18 MDX advise that clearance coastal not yet available and they may have to remain OCTA to get clearance.
0857:54 MDX says they’ll go via CRAVEN.
Dick, you are a skeptic; why aren't you applying those critical thinking skills to this matter? Why don't you just admit that although your call for airspace reform may be valid, your implications regarding the RAAF are completely unfounded?
Last edited by evilroy; 3rd Jun 2014 at 08:52.
Thread Starter
Why would a NVMC flight require a clearance from Sydney to fly south of Willy?
I know this was before I introduced a number of airspace changes in 1991 but surely controlled airspace north of Sydney was not that huge.
The military were clearly involved in this problem because then - as today pilots were/are prohibited from planning over Willy. I have never blamed the military ATCs - just out of date rules they are forced to use. And why the almost constant delays for VFR aircraft through Willy these days? Do you blame AsAfor these?
Should be class D airspace! But never ever change anything! Concrete must remain set in the RAAF.!
I know this was before I introduced a number of airspace changes in 1991 but surely controlled airspace north of Sydney was not that huge.
The military were clearly involved in this problem because then - as today pilots were/are prohibited from planning over Willy. I have never blamed the military ATCs - just out of date rules they are forced to use. And why the almost constant delays for VFR aircraft through Willy these days? Do you blame AsAfor these?
Should be class D airspace! But never ever change anything! Concrete must remain set in the RAAF.!