Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
Hi ATO
What bad consequences would flow if, hypothetically, the airspace that is currently R578A, and at and above 5,000’ in R596, were instead Class E or G airspace after the boys and girls in blue have returned to the flight line? (And I realise why R596 is where it is.)
What bad consequences would flow if, hypothetically, the airspace that is currently R578A, and at and above 5,000’ in R596, were instead Class E or G airspace after the boys and girls in blue have returned to the flight line? (And I realise why R596 is where it is.)
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Dick, it is concrete-mindedness. Concrete minded-ness at not accepting the airspace restriction was only one factor in this accident. Concrete-mindedness at not accepting that a change in any one of those factors would probably prevented the accident. Concrete-mindedness at only discussing your airspace concerns in the WLM context.
For at least the third time, why is your passion solely concentrated on airspace? Change any other factor that night, some of which are as 'easy' to change as airspace administration, and the accident probably would not have happened. If your quest is as noble as you make us believe, why no mention of other RA2 airspace, many examples of which are around as inhospitable country as WLM? After all, isn't it about saving lives? Surely a life at East Sale is as important as a life at Williamtown.
For at least the third time, why is your passion solely concentrated on airspace? Change any other factor that night, some of which are as 'easy' to change as airspace administration, and the accident probably would not have happened. If your quest is as noble as you make us believe, why no mention of other RA2 airspace, many examples of which are around as inhospitable country as WLM? After all, isn't it about saving lives? Surely a life at East Sale is as important as a life at Williamtown.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, you've said it a couple of times but nobody seems to be listening mate, but I am. Great idea :-). Class E over the top sounds like a great idea. A VFR lane is also a great idea however with the ad so close to the coast it would prove difficult (unlike East Sale for example), however the class E would need to not be too high to be practical. The solution at Avalon comes to mind. Seems nobody is interested in putting a soliton forward, but rather just slagging Dick for blaming the RAAF.
Thread Starter
Evilroy. So you are saying that the military airspace and the prohibition on flight planning along the coast had no bearing on the accident in any way?
How do you know this?
Don't you believe safety could be improved even so slightly if pilots were encouraged to flight plan down the coast in the winter months?
How do you know this?
Don't you believe safety could be improved even so slightly if pilots were encouraged to flight plan down the coast in the winter months?
Thread Starter
XXX. I have put endless solutions forward over the last 20 years
Then there was the CASA recommendation of class D airspace made 2 years ago.
Then in visual conditions traffic information only has to be given between aircraft flying along the beach and aircraft making an approach to the runway from the west. If it works at Gatwick -it just may work at Williamtown.
But impossible to get even the slightest acceptance that any change like this could ever even be considered let alone implemented.
Imagine the low morale working for such an organisation as the RAAF that is so against innovation!
Then there was the CASA recommendation of class D airspace made 2 years ago.
Then in visual conditions traffic information only has to be given between aircraft flying along the beach and aircraft making an approach to the runway from the west. If it works at Gatwick -it just may work at Williamtown.
But impossible to get even the slightest acceptance that any change like this could ever even be considered let alone implemented.
Imagine the low morale working for such an organisation as the RAAF that is so against innovation!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello "Sheep Guts"
I have said several times that the pilot of MDX could have done a lot better. That is a given. How about we leave off on the pilot and ask
"Who sent him there, and why?"
That is the question.
(I recall asking Dick Smith to address some short haul pilots about airspace issues "way back when". I was staggered to hear one say to another afterwards. "How can we tell the boys we agree with him?".)
It seems to me that Dick has seen how it is done elsewhere, (as I have) and now wonders why this aviation backwater is as it is, (as I do.) I for one am grateful that he keeps striving for change.
I have said several times that the pilot of MDX could have done a lot better. That is a given. How about we leave off on the pilot and ask
"Who sent him there, and why?"
That is the question.
(I recall asking Dick Smith to address some short haul pilots about airspace issues "way back when". I was staggered to hear one say to another afterwards. "How can we tell the boys we agree with him?".)
It seems to me that Dick has seen how it is done elsewhere, (as I have) and now wonders why this aviation backwater is as it is, (as I do.) I for one am grateful that he keeps striving for change.
Evilroy. So you are saying that the military airspace and the prohibition on flight planning along the coast had no bearing on the accident in any way?
How do you know this?
How do you know this?
If we are to apply your logic (or lack of it) then the responsibility for the Tenerife disaster lay with the administrators at Gran Canaria who closed the airport after a terrorist attack. They must have been knowingly sending people to their death since they were forcing aircraft to divert from their flight plans.
Your inability to acknowledge a simple mistaken assertion is quite disturbing.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have stuff all traffic in this country. Stuff all.
I have tracked, in a GA Navajo, direct Nashville to New Orleans ten times the traffic no delays right through very very busy military and civil airspace. So damned simple. Why do we tolerate anything less here? Thank you for at least trying Dick.
Nobody should be required to track out over the Barringtons SE NVMC because of the military, or because of the system. Nobody. Ever.
Hey User Name how can I put this in big print please?
Goodnight all
I have tracked, in a GA Navajo, direct Nashville to New Orleans ten times the traffic no delays right through very very busy military and civil airspace. So damned simple. Why do we tolerate anything less here? Thank you for at least trying Dick.
Nobody should be required to track out over the Barringtons SE NVMC because of the military, or because of the system. Nobody. Ever.
Hey User Name how can I put this in big print please?
Goodnight all
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll clearly vh xxx. We the raaf have been more than good in relation to the amount of free space you the public can have. As you can see by your map you have presented there is a lot of free airspace. We with our hugmungust fleet of super sonic aircraft need more space but we won't go for any more at this stage. That's because we don't have the money to fly them and we may get bugs on the windows.
And atc1 you made one important point. The ability to bang out. Shame them poor blokes could not have banged out hey. The pilot made some wrong decisions however those where brought about by the fact he could not fly where he wonted to fly and where he needed to fly. His position was made worse because of them rescritions. He was at the top of his and most pilots limitations and that couple with every thing else we'll we seen the result.
And when these ex military people leave and get into commercial operations they bring there same mentality of there previous service with them. They can't be told instructed anything. They are dangerous period I and many others will not employ them.
Cheers
And atc1 you made one important point. The ability to bang out. Shame them poor blokes could not have banged out hey. The pilot made some wrong decisions however those where brought about by the fact he could not fly where he wonted to fly and where he needed to fly. His position was made worse because of them rescritions. He was at the top of his and most pilots limitations and that couple with every thing else we'll we seen the result.
And when these ex military people leave and get into commercial operations they bring there same mentality of there previous service with them. They can't be told instructed anything. They are dangerous period I and many others will not employ them.
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yr Right - sorry you are not
1. This tragedy happened back in the Mirage days.
2. At that time we were only talking about a control zone or something a bit larger.
3. Over 97% of requests for clearance for civilian aircraft were approved to cut across or go straight overhead.
4. Sometimes we would have ARMY Operations with MANY aircraft dropping parachutists (100s of them) from Maitland to the Coast from well over 10,000 feet. This type of operation could go on for a few hours. I guess you want the World and training to stop so a civilian aircraft could go straight through a bunch of hapless parachutists?
5. You don't read or absorb! And your English is appalling by the way. This pilot was given a clearance subject to a couple of orbits whilst his path through military airspace was made SAFE for him. The pilot made the decision NOT to orbit and PRESS ON in the dark over really rough territory.
6. The forecasts for his intended landing areas was NON VMC.
7. As has been said before at the first sign of a **** storm in the cockpit - yell bloody murder PAN PAN PAN and then a MAYDAY. No-one is going to give you a hard time over yelling MAYDAY.
8. Williamtown would've identified him on their RADAR and vectored him under MayDay safely to the Base to land there.
9. How do I know this - because I have done it - TWICE! And my arse stung for a week for busting Base SOPs BUT I don't care to this day because I know I did the right thing!
10. Ill informed people who look at large pieces of airspace and go "why do they need that" have NEVER been in the back seat of a Mach 2 fighter in a dog fight or a Hi Lo Hi mission or any other number of training scenarios. Difference is - I have!
11. If I was flying my bug smasher through that airspace I would not like to be confronted by a military jet doing an evasive move at 400+ kts and leaving me flipped and in a spin in its wake. Some things do not mix...
12. In my time there I managed to chat with the airlines in Sydney Ops guys and told them we would co-operate with requests. They requested and in 97% of cases we granted.
Good grief this is getting tedious.
2. At that time we were only talking about a control zone or something a bit larger.
3. Over 97% of requests for clearance for civilian aircraft were approved to cut across or go straight overhead.
4. Sometimes we would have ARMY Operations with MANY aircraft dropping parachutists (100s of them) from Maitland to the Coast from well over 10,000 feet. This type of operation could go on for a few hours. I guess you want the World and training to stop so a civilian aircraft could go straight through a bunch of hapless parachutists?
5. You don't read or absorb! And your English is appalling by the way. This pilot was given a clearance subject to a couple of orbits whilst his path through military airspace was made SAFE for him. The pilot made the decision NOT to orbit and PRESS ON in the dark over really rough territory.
6. The forecasts for his intended landing areas was NON VMC.
7. As has been said before at the first sign of a **** storm in the cockpit - yell bloody murder PAN PAN PAN and then a MAYDAY. No-one is going to give you a hard time over yelling MAYDAY.
8. Williamtown would've identified him on their RADAR and vectored him under MayDay safely to the Base to land there.
9. How do I know this - because I have done it - TWICE! And my arse stung for a week for busting Base SOPs BUT I don't care to this day because I know I did the right thing!
10. Ill informed people who look at large pieces of airspace and go "why do they need that" have NEVER been in the back seat of a Mach 2 fighter in a dog fight or a Hi Lo Hi mission or any other number of training scenarios. Difference is - I have!
11. If I was flying my bug smasher through that airspace I would not like to be confronted by a military jet doing an evasive move at 400+ kts and leaving me flipped and in a spin in its wake. Some things do not mix...
12. In my time there I managed to chat with the airlines in Sydney Ops guys and told them we would co-operate with requests. They requested and in 97% of cases we granted.
Good grief this is getting tedious.
Fark me! You carry on a treat about a once in a blue moon accident but are more than happy to routinely put RPT jets into Avalon in dangerous proximity with multiple unknown bugsmashers every day of the week. Which one has the higher risk of killing hundreds? Not just happy but actually demand it be this way so we can have your beloved US airspace model 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are missing the point. Lawn darts where subsonic as I recall. Yes I can't spell. The area should not have to have a cleareance to run 1 hour out of the largest capital city in Australia. If they won't to play dog flights go west of the range where one you not going to brother anyone.
To get in the **** for helping someone out cause they in the **** in it self shows the problems that we have in our face.
There is no need for the amount of airspace from the coast to the range. Common sense shows that. This inability give is just a normal military situation we are we are we are.
And you say two orbits. Put your self into his shoes. Two orbits may seams a ratiional decesions in the light of day but then I don't think so. As I said had he gone coastal and has been said there was a better than good chance he would have made it.
And now mid way though 2014 and we still have the same thing that may happen we'll it's a disgrace.
Cheers
To get in the **** for helping someone out cause they in the **** in it self shows the problems that we have in our face.
There is no need for the amount of airspace from the coast to the range. Common sense shows that. This inability give is just a normal military situation we are we are we are.
And you say two orbits. Put your self into his shoes. Two orbits may seams a ratiional decesions in the light of day but then I don't think so. As I said had he gone coastal and has been said there was a better than good chance he would have made it.
And now mid way though 2014 and we still have the same thing that may happen we'll it's a disgrace.
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF Williamtown, it's Airspace and it's ATC's IN 1981 had as much influence on MDX crashing as what the pilot had for lunch, how long it took to refuel, or how much traffic there was on the way to the aerodrome. Anyone can draw a bow and connect two as causal factors, but they are all inconsequential to the final decision making of the PIC (despite Dicks claimed ability to look into the pilots head and magically divine why he did what he did..only because 'the Air Force made me do it' suits his agenda though).
If it was inconsequential in 1981, considering all of Dicks wonderful reforms since (notice how he keeps mentioning BASI and recommendations for the use of radar? Thats Dick fishing for compliments..), then surely in 2014 it is completely irrelevant?
Dick knows all this. Dick couldn't care less about MDX, then or now. It just so happens MDX was near Willy one dark stormy night, and crashed.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try this link
Session expired | RecordSearch | National Archives of Australia
type vh mdx in the search box
Theres a good ministerial reply to a letter from a Mr. Little but his letter isn't there its just reply mentions possible aircraft lanes and new navaids NDB and VOR with routings with reduced LSALTs its interesting starts page 177 of the archived file. The minister or spokesman for explained an NDB would cost about 80k and a new VOR about 250k. Ofcourse now you could have an RNAV laneway or something similar, everyone has GPS now right even Unltralights
Looks like the Ministers name was Wallace Fife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal_Fife
Session expired | RecordSearch | National Archives of Australia
type vh mdx in the search box
Theres a good ministerial reply to a letter from a Mr. Little but his letter isn't there its just reply mentions possible aircraft lanes and new navaids NDB and VOR with routings with reduced LSALTs its interesting starts page 177 of the archived file. The minister or spokesman for explained an NDB would cost about 80k and a new VOR about 250k. Ofcourse now you could have an RNAV laneway or something similar, everyone has GPS now right even Unltralights
Looks like the Ministers name was Wallace Fife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal_Fife
Last edited by Sheep Guts; 5th Jun 2014 at 15:10.
What would be different today?
If a similar situation were to happen today (God forbid), what would be different?
The flight being VFR would have left CG and been told 'squawk 1200, services terminated'.
There is no position reporting or flight following
Approaching WLM, if the pilot wanted assistance the controller will have no details.
Radar advisory service is only available subject to work load.
And who championed these changes?
The flight being VFR would have left CG and been told 'squawk 1200, services terminated'.
There is no position reporting or flight following
Approaching WLM, if the pilot wanted assistance the controller will have no details.
Radar advisory service is only available subject to work load.
And who championed these changes?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
le pinguion
Nail on head 
Funny how Dick and Yr right avoid facts and data.
To coin the phrase of Dr W Atkinson, facts and data are no weapon for a deeply held superstition.
Fark me! You carry on a treat about a once in a blue moon accident but are more than happy to routinely put RPT jets into Avalon in dangerous proximity with multiple unknown bugsmashers every day of the week. Which one has the higher risk of killing hundreds? Not just happy but actually demand it be this way so we can have your beloved US airspace model
Funny how Dick and Yr right avoid facts and data.
To coin the phrase of Dr W Atkinson, facts and data are no weapon for a deeply held superstition.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And who championed these changes?
So even today with a more flexible and slightly better system, the risk is just the same. Pilot stupidity is the variable factor.
Can't legislate that can you Dick. It is not the RAAF fault nor ASA (DCA/CAA) but that does not suit the agenda does it?
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
You say that the above and other changes have been asked for, for 30 years.
I asked before, what were the reasons given by the RAAF for NOT changing ?
Then there was the CASA recommendation of class D airspace made 2 years ago.
Then in visual conditions traffic information only has to be given between aircraft flying along the beach and aircraft making an approach to the runway from the west. If it works at Gatwick -it just may work at Williamtown.
But impossible to get even the slightest acceptance that any change like this could ever even be considered let alone implemented.
Then in visual conditions traffic information only has to be given between aircraft flying along the beach and aircraft making an approach to the runway from the west. If it works at Gatwick -it just may work at Williamtown.
But impossible to get even the slightest acceptance that any change like this could ever even be considered let alone implemented.
You say that the above and other changes have been asked for, for 30 years.
I asked before, what were the reasons given by the RAAF for NOT changing ?