Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
Howabout, Evilroy, amos2 and all your other pilots berating Dick's efforts: Question for you all:
What have you done to reform Aviation in Australia? Nothing no doubt, (just like me) yet you heap ****e on somone who has a go at making change.
Williamstown can be a bloody hassle to get through, struth, I once orbited at Nobbys because a bloody helicopter was about to take off up the beach somewhere. I can fly under Jumbos on Victor 1 without a clearance but not up the beach past Williamstown. Willy airspace is needlessly large and way over regulated. No doubt you blokes never fly it VFR so because you have no problem, there is no problem.
I commend you Dick and any thinking person can put two and two together and realise that MDX would have been safer VFR down the coast.
What have you done to reform Aviation in Australia? Nothing no doubt, (just like me) yet you heap ****e on somone who has a go at making change.
Williamstown can be a bloody hassle to get through, struth, I once orbited at Nobbys because a bloody helicopter was about to take off up the beach somewhere. I can fly under Jumbos on Victor 1 without a clearance but not up the beach past Williamstown. Willy airspace is needlessly large and way over regulated. No doubt you blokes never fly it VFR so because you have no problem, there is no problem.
I commend you Dick and any thinking person can put two and two together and realise that MDX would have been safer VFR down the coast.
...yet you heap ****e on somone who has a go at making change...
If Dick believes that airspace reform is required, then all power to him in his crusade. Just don't be blaming the military for a terrible accident.
What have you done to reform Aviation in Australia? Nothing no doubt, (just like me) yet you heap ****e on somone who has a go at making change.
The point here is Dick is using MDX to drive his own agenda. This was never about airspace reform, this story was supposed to be about finding MDX.
Whether channel 7 originally planned this or decided to ramp up the controversy just before airing this story by including Dick's interview I do not know. However, as RatsoreA has now posted multiple times, this hijack is a kick in the guts to the people on this forum (and elsewhere) who have substantially devoted their time, resources & energy in the search for MDX.
The focus of this story is now continuing to diverge from where it should be, and it's plainly obvious from the comments in this thread that Dick Smith does not give a rats ass about it.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith is possibly correct in his hypothesis that if a transit clearance of WLM airspace was more expeditiously forthcoming, then this accident may not have occurred. However, most professionals in this industry know that the vast majority of major incidents and accidents have several causal factors. They happen when the so called holes in the cheese align. So, this accident probably would not have occurred if:
A WLM transit clearance had been more forthcoming. Does that mean we blame the controllers, the airspace regulators, the airspace architects or government regulations?
The instruments on the aircraft were not faulty. Does that mean we blame the instrument manufacturer or the LAME that maintained them?
The pilot was in less of a hurry and waited for the transit clearance? Does that mean we blame the pilot?
The somewhat high risk flight category of night VFR did not exist. Does that mean we blame the then CAA?
The weather over the Barringtops was not inclement. Does that mean we blame... ummm... God?
Lets put this in context with reference to another disaster. If the KLM crew weren't close to exceeding duty hours, if the KLM aircraft was not blocking the Pan Am aircraft, if the terrorists hadn't detonated a bomb, if KLM didn't refuel when it did, if it wasn't foggy, if the controller wasn't (allegedly) watching the soccer, if the KLM PIC had more line recency rather than simulator recency, if the airport designers had put another parallel taxiway on the other side of the runway, then the deadliest crash in aviation history would probably not have occurred. So who do we blame? Controller, pilot, refueller, terrorist, airport designer, god?
I find it absolutely abhorrent that Mr Smith has singled out one causal factor in the accident of MDX. Where is the discussion about faulty instruments or the validity and safety of night VFR? By his own admission, Mr Smith has been trying to change military airspace regulation and administration for over two decades and is using the tragedy of MDX as a vehicle for this crusade. While I do not necessarily disagree with what he is trying to achieve, using MDX in his campaign is sinking to a new low. Shame Mr Smith, shame.
Edited to add: interesting how Mr Smith's focus is to remove the restrictions on WLM airspace. What about Nowra? Oakey? Richmond? East sale? Amberley? Edinburgh? Pearce? Tindal? Darwin? Or any other military airspace contrained by the same rule? Where do you live again, Dick? Oh right... got it.
A WLM transit clearance had been more forthcoming. Does that mean we blame the controllers, the airspace regulators, the airspace architects or government regulations?
The instruments on the aircraft were not faulty. Does that mean we blame the instrument manufacturer or the LAME that maintained them?
The pilot was in less of a hurry and waited for the transit clearance? Does that mean we blame the pilot?
The somewhat high risk flight category of night VFR did not exist. Does that mean we blame the then CAA?
The weather over the Barringtops was not inclement. Does that mean we blame... ummm... God?
Lets put this in context with reference to another disaster. If the KLM crew weren't close to exceeding duty hours, if the KLM aircraft was not blocking the Pan Am aircraft, if the terrorists hadn't detonated a bomb, if KLM didn't refuel when it did, if it wasn't foggy, if the controller wasn't (allegedly) watching the soccer, if the KLM PIC had more line recency rather than simulator recency, if the airport designers had put another parallel taxiway on the other side of the runway, then the deadliest crash in aviation history would probably not have occurred. So who do we blame? Controller, pilot, refueller, terrorist, airport designer, god?
I find it absolutely abhorrent that Mr Smith has singled out one causal factor in the accident of MDX. Where is the discussion about faulty instruments or the validity and safety of night VFR? By his own admission, Mr Smith has been trying to change military airspace regulation and administration for over two decades and is using the tragedy of MDX as a vehicle for this crusade. While I do not necessarily disagree with what he is trying to achieve, using MDX in his campaign is sinking to a new low. Shame Mr Smith, shame.
Edited to add: interesting how Mr Smith's focus is to remove the restrictions on WLM airspace. What about Nowra? Oakey? Richmond? East sale? Amberley? Edinburgh? Pearce? Tindal? Darwin? Or any other military airspace contrained by the same rule? Where do you live again, Dick? Oh right... got it.
Last edited by Mhayli; 3rd Jun 2014 at 11:14.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The focus of this story is now continuing to diverge from where it should be, and it's plainly obvious from the comments in this thread that Dick Smith does not give a rats ass about it.
A172
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avgas172,
Some far more near and dear to my heart flys that route about once a month, namely, me!! And I get diverted out west to Scone maybe 50% of the time.
I agree that going over Williamtown can be a PITA, and it could do with being changed, but how about starting a different movement/thread/campaign about getting the change, rather than hijacking a topic that has only peripheral meaning to what Dick is trying to achieve.
I can sum up what has gone on here, in the media and between Dick and the RAAF in one phrase -
"Thread drift"
While the search for MDX is commendable to give some closure to the people affected by its disappearance 30 years ago, I feel the saving of lives today is more important, if it was your son/daughter flying that route tomorrow what what be your thoughts?
I agree that going over Williamtown can be a PITA, and it could do with being changed, but how about starting a different movement/thread/campaign about getting the change, rather than hijacking a topic that has only peripheral meaning to what Dick is trying to achieve.
I can sum up what has gone on here, in the media and between Dick and the RAAF in one phrase -
"Thread drift"
I feel the saving of lives today is more important, if it was your son/daughter flying that route tomorrow what what be your thoughts?
What is objectionable and what the issue here is the method being used. If you want to drive airspace reform, save lives, save the dolphins, whatever, that's fine.
But please do so without hijacking other peoples work that has been ongoing for years. This was supposed to finally be the chance of national publicity in the interests of generating further exposure to get this matter solved. Now it's turned into a side show circus that Dick Smith has managed to orchestrate in a matter of a few hours.
Thread Starter
Channel 7 actually came to interview me primarily about my successful search for the Kookaburra aircraft in the Tanami Desert.
However I was always concerned that the BASI report on MDX did not make any recommendations re improving the Willy airspace.
When the presenter kept playing that horrible utube video of the last minutes of MDX I realized that the accident could be repeated tomorrow because pilots still had to flight plan around Williamtown.
I have spent over two decades attempting to get our military airspace modernized so it has some of the advantages of the US system.
After all virtually all of the RAAF aircraft come from the USA- surely that country must know something about modern efficient aviation.
I have offered to pay the cost of sending RAAF ATC decision makers to the USA to see how modern airspace design and procedures can make their jobs easier while saving monetary waste for the civilian aviation industry.
However there appears to be a long term culture in the RAAF of not copying the success of others.
If Williamtown was changed to class D as recommended by CASA a number of years ago the constant holding of VFR transiting aircraft would virtually be eliminated.
I am now selling my place on the north coast so it won't effect me anymore!
However I will never give up on pushing for IFR non pressurized aircraft to be able to flight plan the safest way when going coastal in the area!
However I was always concerned that the BASI report on MDX did not make any recommendations re improving the Willy airspace.
When the presenter kept playing that horrible utube video of the last minutes of MDX I realized that the accident could be repeated tomorrow because pilots still had to flight plan around Williamtown.
I have spent over two decades attempting to get our military airspace modernized so it has some of the advantages of the US system.
After all virtually all of the RAAF aircraft come from the USA- surely that country must know something about modern efficient aviation.
I have offered to pay the cost of sending RAAF ATC decision makers to the USA to see how modern airspace design and procedures can make their jobs easier while saving monetary waste for the civilian aviation industry.
However there appears to be a long term culture in the RAAF of not copying the success of others.
If Williamtown was changed to class D as recommended by CASA a number of years ago the constant holding of VFR transiting aircraft would virtually be eliminated.
I am now selling my place on the north coast so it won't effect me anymore!
However I will never give up on pushing for IFR non pressurized aircraft to be able to flight plan the safest way when going coastal in the area!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick,
I am perplexed.
That is right up there with something like.......if the left main gear tyre had a puncture and required repair the next morning at the Gold Coast, the aircraft would have cruised down the coast in good weather conditions and arrived safely at BK.
I am perplexed.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is right up there with something like.......if the left main gear tyre had a puncture and required repair the next morning at the Gold Coast, the aircraft would have cruised down the coast in good weather conditions and arrived safely at BK.
Thread Starter
No. It is nothing like your example.
Williamtown was opened during the Second World War to protect the steelworks in Newcastle
Who would locate a major air base slap bang in the middle of Australia's busiest air route. Not very sensible in the 21st century.
Especially when there is ocean to the east and high mountains to the west .
Williamtown was opened during the Second World War to protect the steelworks in Newcastle
Who would locate a major air base slap bang in the middle of Australia's busiest air route. Not very sensible in the 21st century.
Especially when there is ocean to the east and high mountains to the west .
Because it has decades and millions of dollars worth of infrastructure and development, and being so close to the coast means that aircraft can fly overwater away from other traffic to condut BFM.
Thread Starter
Junior. Why then the need to put road block airspace between 5000 and 10,000 above the airport?
Have a look at all C and D military airspace in the USA - does not go above 5000 agl
Why not copy the best and most proven?
I know. We designed the Nomad and they only designed the Raptor, the F18 and the 747! What would they know?
Have a look at all C and D military airspace in the USA - does not go above 5000 agl
Why not copy the best and most proven?
I know. We designed the Nomad and they only designed the Raptor, the F18 and the 747! What would they know?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go get em Dick!!!
Wooo Hoooo
The squeaky wheel WILL get the oil.... It's just got 30 years of rust on this one!
Wooo Hoooo
The squeaky wheel WILL get the oil.... It's just got 30 years of rust on this one!
Last edited by Victa Bravo; 4th Jun 2014 at 03:38. Reason: Further inspiration
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'AB' there's nearly 200 posts about this & all that has been achieved is a high level of rock throwing!
Dick has had his moments over the years for sure we all have to some degree but having this very subject brought back into the limelight as I have mentioned b4 here can only be a good thing, brings awareness to all sorts of 'possible' anomalies within our at times ludicrous backwards aviation industry that can be at least looked at & improved. I'd hate to be up there under the spotlight as Dick has been, we Aussies love to cut such people off at the knees, that we are experts at!.
I mean are we all not on the same team here guys fostering aviation & making it safer even though we often have this little sign in our faces due shear stupidity?
.......................relax out there, lets all work towards a common goal here, conquer & divide is not the way to go
Wmk2
Dick has had his moments over the years for sure we all have to some degree but having this very subject brought back into the limelight as I have mentioned b4 here can only be a good thing, brings awareness to all sorts of 'possible' anomalies within our at times ludicrous backwards aviation industry that can be at least looked at & improved. I'd hate to be up there under the spotlight as Dick has been, we Aussies love to cut such people off at the knees, that we are experts at!.
I mean are we all not on the same team here guys fostering aviation & making it safer even though we often have this little sign
in our faces due shear stupidity?.......................relax out there, lets all work towards a common goal here, conquer & divide is not the way to go
Wmk2
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with all the underlying arguments for airspace access is that evidence is used on a selective basis to push an agenda.
Years ago, during NAS, we were told that Australian airspace was 'unique,' that the restrictions happened nowhere else and that we were a bunch of troglodytes.
NZ was held up as the shining example for regulatory reform by the zealots. Leady, are you listening?
In 2002/2004, or thereabouts, the NZ CAA put out an airspace booklet, now offline, that depicted the beloved MOAs with no restrictions on access to civil traffic outside the 12-mile limit - I still have a hard-copy.
It's illegal, isn't it Leady, to deny access outside territorial waters? Let's get this straight to start off with. Because you believe NZ should be our model.
Our military were pilloried at the time by the zealots for having airspace off the coast that is regulated.
Check out page 10 of what was released by the NZ CAA in 2008 and which still stands as regards access to MOAs in international airspace. Read it for yourselves and ask why the NZ CAA changed the rules to regulate access beyond their territorial limits.
Airspace is 2/3 of the way down.
https://www.caa.govt.nz/airspace/airspace2.htm
The zealots will never reveal this stuff as it's an inconvenient truth. It's selective information that doesn't support the agenda.
Also look at Class F airspace off the NE coast of Canada in international airspace that's used by the military. You need a clearance and their AIP is pretty direct on that one.
We are fed less than honest arguments to support less than honest agendas; and the chooks suck it all in.
Years ago, during NAS, we were told that Australian airspace was 'unique,' that the restrictions happened nowhere else and that we were a bunch of troglodytes.
NZ was held up as the shining example for regulatory reform by the zealots. Leady, are you listening?
In 2002/2004, or thereabouts, the NZ CAA put out an airspace booklet, now offline, that depicted the beloved MOAs with no restrictions on access to civil traffic outside the 12-mile limit - I still have a hard-copy.
It's illegal, isn't it Leady, to deny access outside territorial waters? Let's get this straight to start off with. Because you believe NZ should be our model.
Our military were pilloried at the time by the zealots for having airspace off the coast that is regulated.
Check out page 10 of what was released by the NZ CAA in 2008 and which still stands as regards access to MOAs in international airspace. Read it for yourselves and ask why the NZ CAA changed the rules to regulate access beyond their territorial limits.
Airspace is 2/3 of the way down.
https://www.caa.govt.nz/airspace/airspace2.htm
The zealots will never reveal this stuff as it's an inconvenient truth. It's selective information that doesn't support the agenda.
Also look at Class F airspace off the NE coast of Canada in international airspace that's used by the military. You need a clearance and their AIP is pretty direct on that one.
We are fed less than honest arguments to support less than honest agendas; and the chooks suck it all in.
Open Letter to Channel Seven
Dear Channel Seven,
I was very disappointed to watch your interview with Mr. Dick Smith on the Channel Seven Sunday Night production on the flight of aircraft VH-MDX which crashed in the Barrington Tops in August 1981. In the programme, you denigrate the military air traffic controllers at Williamtown and I am left very concerned about an honest, objective and balanced view. Dick Smith stated in the programme that the RAAF ‘sent these five people to their deaths’. On the Channel Seven Sunrise programme on Monday morning, Dick Smith also stated that RAAF Controllers were ‘concrete minded people’.
You should be aware that the whole truth was not told in your programme and you gave neither the Department of Defence nor any former military air traffic controller any opportunity to provide any balance to the story. You will be interested to know that despite Dick Smith’s statements about the failure of Williamtown to facilitate clearance through the Williamtown airspace for VH-MDX, the actual voice transcript of coordination between Sydney Flight Service Unit and Williamtown Tower that evening, indicates that Williamtown Tower approved the transit of MDX through the Williamtown airspace immediately the clearance was requested by Sydney Flight Service. ‘Why not’ was the immediate response from Williamtown when Sydney Flight Service requested an airways clearance.
To confirm my assertion, the actual transcript of audio recordings from the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) records, available to the public in the National Archives is as follows:
In the above exchange, Sydney Flight Service (FIS 5) provides Williamtown Tower (WM) with the full flight details of MDX and asks if he can expect a clearance. Williamtown responds immediately - ‘why not’. A discussion then follows with a possible change of altitude because an earlier aircraft (VH-AZC) has already been cleared to transit Williamtown airspace at 8000 feet tracking from Taree to Williamtown. A confliction is possible so WM offers FIS 5 an alternate altitude for MDX of 9000 feet or 7000 feet to ensure that appropriate separation between MDX and AZC is maintained.
This immediate clearance issued by WM flies in the face of your programme assertion and Dick Smith’s statements that the RAAF ‘sent these five people to their deaths’.
Then:
In the above exchange, Sydney FIS 5 asks Sydney Air Traffic Control Sector 1 (S1) for an onwards clearance for MDX to enter the Sydney controlled airspace after the Williamtown transit is complete. S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud). So the clearance issued by Williamtown Tower to Sydney Flight Service was never transmitted to the aircraft due to Sydney Sector 1 involvement. As a result, three minutes later at 0856, MDX, with no clearance issued by FIS 5 through Williamtown airspace, tracked from Taree to Craven then Singleton and into bad weather where some 45 minutes later the aircraft crashed in the Barrington Tops.
None of this aspect of the MDX flight and Air Traffic Coordination was mentioned by Dick Smith or your programme. You seem to accept the inflammatory comments as the gospel truth however at no stage did you question or challenge the information provided by Dick Smith.
As Dick Smith is portrayed by the general public as a great Australian and an aviation expert, when he speaks, people listen and believe him. So the perception that the public would now have of the Williamtown (RAAF) controllers and (by association) every current Defence and former Defence controllers is that they (the controllers) have no interest in facilitating civil aircraft through military airspace. This is so far from the truth as military controllers at all Defence bases do their utmost to facilitate civil aircraft movements through military airspace.
To illustrate my point, in 1991, 10 years after the MDX accident, as an RAAF Reserve Officer, I was tasked by the Department of Defence in Canberra to travel to Williamtown specifically to collect data about civil aircraft transitting Williamtown airspace. During that task, I quantified the number of civil flights which requested transit clearance through Williamtown military airspace over a period of twelve days and what percentages were actually approved. The result of my research indicated that of 263 transit aircraft:
· 94.68% of civil transits were cleared through the airspace as requested.
· 3.04% of civil transits were cleared through the airspace via an amended clearance.
· 2.28% of civil transits were not cleared due to military traffic.
So, 97.72% of civil aircraft who requested transit of Williamtown airspace received approval. That is a totally different story from the one portrayed in your programme.
A significant public apology from your programme and an acknowledgement of the erroneous information portrayed would be greatly appreciated by many hundreds of current and former military air traffic controllers whose professionalism has been unfairly maligned by your biased programme.
Yours sincerely,
Harry Howard
Former Military Air Traffic Controller
Dear Channel Seven,
I was very disappointed to watch your interview with Mr. Dick Smith on the Channel Seven Sunday Night production on the flight of aircraft VH-MDX which crashed in the Barrington Tops in August 1981. In the programme, you denigrate the military air traffic controllers at Williamtown and I am left very concerned about an honest, objective and balanced view. Dick Smith stated in the programme that the RAAF ‘sent these five people to their deaths’. On the Channel Seven Sunrise programme on Monday morning, Dick Smith also stated that RAAF Controllers were ‘concrete minded people’.
You should be aware that the whole truth was not told in your programme and you gave neither the Department of Defence nor any former military air traffic controller any opportunity to provide any balance to the story. You will be interested to know that despite Dick Smith’s statements about the failure of Williamtown to facilitate clearance through the Williamtown airspace for VH-MDX, the actual voice transcript of coordination between Sydney Flight Service Unit and Williamtown Tower that evening, indicates that Williamtown Tower approved the transit of MDX through the Williamtown airspace immediately the clearance was requested by Sydney Flight Service. ‘Why not’ was the immediate response from Williamtown when Sydney Flight Service requested an airways clearance.
To confirm my assertion, the actual transcript of audio recordings from the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) records, available to the public in the National Archives is as follows:
In the above exchange, Sydney Flight Service (FIS 5) provides Williamtown Tower (WM) with the full flight details of MDX and asks if he can expect a clearance. Williamtown responds immediately - ‘why not’. A discussion then follows with a possible change of altitude because an earlier aircraft (VH-AZC) has already been cleared to transit Williamtown airspace at 8000 feet tracking from Taree to Williamtown. A confliction is possible so WM offers FIS 5 an alternate altitude for MDX of 9000 feet or 7000 feet to ensure that appropriate separation between MDX and AZC is maintained.
This immediate clearance issued by WM flies in the face of your programme assertion and Dick Smith’s statements that the RAAF ‘sent these five people to their deaths’.
Then:
In the above exchange, Sydney FIS 5 asks Sydney Air Traffic Control Sector 1 (S1) for an onwards clearance for MDX to enter the Sydney controlled airspace after the Williamtown transit is complete. S1 responds that the clearance will not be available because Sydney control area is not Night VMC (Night Visual Meteorological Conditions - in other words a pilot must fly visually and clear of cloud). So the clearance issued by Williamtown Tower to Sydney Flight Service was never transmitted to the aircraft due to Sydney Sector 1 involvement. As a result, three minutes later at 0856, MDX, with no clearance issued by FIS 5 through Williamtown airspace, tracked from Taree to Craven then Singleton and into bad weather where some 45 minutes later the aircraft crashed in the Barrington Tops.
None of this aspect of the MDX flight and Air Traffic Coordination was mentioned by Dick Smith or your programme. You seem to accept the inflammatory comments as the gospel truth however at no stage did you question or challenge the information provided by Dick Smith.
As Dick Smith is portrayed by the general public as a great Australian and an aviation expert, when he speaks, people listen and believe him. So the perception that the public would now have of the Williamtown (RAAF) controllers and (by association) every current Defence and former Defence controllers is that they (the controllers) have no interest in facilitating civil aircraft through military airspace. This is so far from the truth as military controllers at all Defence bases do their utmost to facilitate civil aircraft movements through military airspace.
To illustrate my point, in 1991, 10 years after the MDX accident, as an RAAF Reserve Officer, I was tasked by the Department of Defence in Canberra to travel to Williamtown specifically to collect data about civil aircraft transitting Williamtown airspace. During that task, I quantified the number of civil flights which requested transit clearance through Williamtown military airspace over a period of twelve days and what percentages were actually approved. The result of my research indicated that of 263 transit aircraft:
· 94.68% of civil transits were cleared through the airspace as requested.
· 3.04% of civil transits were cleared through the airspace via an amended clearance.
· 2.28% of civil transits were not cleared due to military traffic.
So, 97.72% of civil aircraft who requested transit of Williamtown airspace received approval. That is a totally different story from the one portrayed in your programme.
A significant public apology from your programme and an acknowledgement of the erroneous information portrayed would be greatly appreciated by many hundreds of current and former military air traffic controllers whose professionalism has been unfairly maligned by your biased programme.
Yours sincerely,
Harry Howard
Former Military Air Traffic Controller
