Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
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
Cream puff
Yes, agree re not stopping bad guys but denying them overflight rights at least minimises that opportunity.
Hence shy an earlier poster said you wouldn't get a coastal route.
Yes, agree re not stopping bad guys but denying them overflight rights at least minimises that opportunity.
Hence shy an earlier poster said you wouldn't get a coastal route.
Thread Starter
I have never ever been told by an ATC at Williamtown not to take photographs. That would be ridiculous as the Russians take hi definition photographs by satellite of the base all the time.
Nor have I ever hovered near the tower at Williamtown so the whole story is a furphy .
Nor have I ever hovered near the tower at Williamtown so the whole story is a furphy .
Last edited by Dick Smith; 8th Jun 2014 at 07:53.
I have never ever been told by an ATC at Williamtown not to take photographs.
My understanding is that you are prohibited from taking pics at any military base. Certainly there are signs to that effect around the Townsville airport. Once upon a time people used to line the fence on Ingham Rd to take pics of the Hornets when they were in town. Try that now and the RAAF Police will put the skids under you quick-smart!
DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 82
Sketching etc. of fortifications prohibited
(1) If:
(a) a person makes a sketch, drawing, photograph, picture or painting of any defence installation in Australia or of any part of one; and
(b) the person has no lawful authority to do so;
then:
(c) the person is guilty of an offence; and
(d) all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, and paintings, and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs.
(1A) The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection (1) is a fine of $200, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.
(2) If:
(a) a person enters or approaches any defence installation with sketching, drawing, photographing, or painting materials or apparatus in his or her possession; and
(b) the person has no lawful authority for that conduct; and
(c) the person intends to contravene subsection (1);
then:
(d) the person is guilty of an offence; and
(e) all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing or painting found in his or her possession are forfeited and may be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs.
(2A) The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection (2) is a fine of $100.
Taking photos at Williamtown
If you visit the aviation museum at Williamtown, and climb the stairs to the observation deck which overlooks the airport, you will see signs prohibiting the taking of photos. You will also see lots of people taking photos.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread-drift people.
Let's keep an open mind and see what Dick has to say tonight. It's not about security - that's a red-herring thrown in by people (not Dick) that should know better.
This is about a very fundamental issue - did, or did not, the Royal Australian Air Force 'send these people to their deaths?'
The accusation stands and must be backed up. I'm willing to wait a couple of hours to see if the accusation has a scintilla of credibility.
Let's keep an open mind and see what Dick has to say tonight. It's not about security - that's a red-herring thrown in by people (not Dick) that should know better.
This is about a very fundamental issue - did, or did not, the Royal Australian Air Force 'send these people to their deaths?'
The accusation stands and must be backed up. I'm willing to wait a couple of hours to see if the accusation has a scintilla of credibility.
Thread-drift people.
Let's keep an open mind and see what Dick has to say tonight. It's not about security - that's a red-herring thrown in by people (not Dick) that should know better.
This is about a very fundamental issue - did, or did not, the Royal Australian Air Force 'send these people to their deaths?'
The accusation stands and must be backed up. I'm willing to wait a couple of hours to see if the accusation has a scintilla of credibility.
Let's keep an open mind and see what Dick has to say tonight. It's not about security - that's a red-herring thrown in by people (not Dick) that should know better.
This is about a very fundamental issue - did, or did not, the Royal Australian Air Force 'send these people to their deaths?'
The accusation stands and must be backed up. I'm willing to wait a couple of hours to see if the accusation has a scintilla of credibility.
What might have happened if MDX had been granted a coastal transit? MDX would have lost the artificial horizon and his DG / DI (?): would the aircraft have crashed? This becomes very debatable. Were conditions sufficient for the pilot to have maintain safe flight with out reference to some primary flight instruments?
and get him to explain it. I am sure it will make more sense
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ninety per cent of the argument against a higher level coastal corridor can be found here
"Dick has shown over and over again in this thread, he thinks he and his fellow "millionaire businessmen" are a privileged class in Australia and that the rules don't apply to them.
Issues with aircraft instruments or equipment, flight paths, clearances can all just be swept aside by them as "unimportant", and they should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and if as a result of their own actions things go pear shaped, they expect the public to get them out of their mess, or they blame someone else for it.
You can't get in the way of a civilian Jetranger that wants a clear, unimpeded path from Terry Hills to his hobby farm north of Williamtown, when ever it suits the pilot! "
In America. as they say envy translates into effort. Here not so.
"Dick has shown over and over again in this thread, he thinks he and his fellow "millionaire businessmen" are a privileged class in Australia and that the rules don't apply to them.
Issues with aircraft instruments or equipment, flight paths, clearances can all just be swept aside by them as "unimportant", and they should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and if as a result of their own actions things go pear shaped, they expect the public to get them out of their mess, or they blame someone else for it.
You can't get in the way of a civilian Jetranger that wants a clear, unimpeded path from Terry Hills to his hobby farm north of Williamtown, when ever it suits the pilot! "
In America. as they say envy translates into effort. Here not so.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the procedure to hold NVFR (or IFR) when navigating by ADF, presumably away from a navaid? How do you ensure that you can resume the planned track, within the required tolerances?
If the winds were 60 knots as some have suggested, a 2 minute turn would take you 2 miles from your starting point. If you have to hold for 5 minutes (3 turns) you might drift 6 miles from your starting point. Is there a way to ensure you end each orbit back where you started?
If the winds were 60 knots as some have suggested, a 2 minute turn would take you 2 miles from your starting point. If you have to hold for 5 minutes (3 turns) you might drift 6 miles from your starting point. Is there a way to ensure you end each orbit back where you started?
Thread Starter
Andrew. Good point so you will probably be ignored
Evilroy. No need for the gyro as it was CAVOK that would allow visual reference to ground all the way to Bankstown that night.
Prime cause of the accident - RAAF imposed flight planning restrictions that force low time pilots away from the safer low level coastal more direct route and towards the mountains which forced a climb into icing conditions..
I reckon the restriction will be removed soon .
Evilroy. No need for the gyro as it was CAVOK that would allow visual reference to ground all the way to Bankstown that night.
Prime cause of the accident - RAAF imposed flight planning restrictions that force low time pilots away from the safer low level coastal more direct route and towards the mountains which forced a climb into icing conditions..
I reckon the restriction will be removed soon .
Prime cause of the accident - RAAF imposed flight planning restrictions that force low time pilots away from the safer low level coastal more direct route and towards the mountains which forced a climb into icing conditions..
Prime cause of the accident - PIC poor risk management and decision making!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's 'good' about it? MDX was never told to 'hold' in the IFR sense, he was told to 'remain OCTA'. 'Holding' is a procedure that the pilot wasn't asked to perform...if he wanted to wait for a clearance a couple of orbits would have been all that was necessary.
The question is essentially asking 'how is it possible for a NVFR pilot to roll out of a turn onto a compass heading?'
The question is essentially asking 'how is it possible for a NVFR pilot to roll out of a turn onto a compass heading?'
Dick has shown over and over again in this thread, he thinks he and his fellow "millionaire businessmen" are a privileged class in Australia and that the rules don't apply to them.
Your prejudices and the green eyed monster of envy are on show here, and it is all rather pathetic, but Oh! So! predictable from a certain kind of Australia.
This is nothing about "millionaire businessmen" (do you know that, in Australia, you are entitled to start with nothing, as Dick did, and build a number of successful businesses, then you, too, could be a "millionaire" -- ie: successful --- or is that a crime in your eyes) and it is all about the RAAF imposing absolutely unnecessary movement restrictions --- because they can.
I have known Dick a long time (since the Big Bear Neutral Bay carpark days - read it up), Dick is one of the most altruistic people I have ever come across. Sure he has personally benefited from many of his successful reform programs, but only as a member of the aviation community, not because his personal benefit was the motivation.
The Australian aviation community would have had even greater benefits, if it hadn't been for the mindless resistance to change of selected parts of that community, even if the changes had reduced collision risk --- or, as some insist on saying, introducing more safety.
The attitude of a senior union official of a domestic pilot's union, after a trip to the US to see how well it all worked, says it all: "I don't care if it is safer, we are not going to accept that in Australia".
Part of his rational was that "Australian pilots can not be trusted (to use their brains) they must have prescriptive procedures".
This is the same bloke who used to insist (he probably still does) that "perceptions of safety problems" had to be addressed, even when it was show that the problem was not a real risk, it did not exist, it was just a perception.
There is not one of you who are criticizing Dick who have come up with any genuine risk management justification for the restriction, let alone come up with a rational reason to justify why we suffer such restrictions in Australia, compared to the US --- except for "that's the way we have always done it".
What I have seen, and see, time and again, in various meetings, is the fundamental rejection of ICAO risk based airspace designation, in favor of arrangements that can be shown as less safe -- then mitigate that risk of the less safe procedure, by seeking to exclude traffic, rather than having rational procedures to handle the traffic. Civilian and military persons are equally guilty of this irrational approach to rational risk management.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Sale
Age: 64
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revelation
I must admit that not being permitted to plan through Military Controlled (Restricted) Airspace has become a bit of a revelation for me. In my days controlling at RAAF Laverton, if it weren't for the numerous civilian GA flights that planned through RAAF Laverton's Airspace via the Princess Hwy (just about over the top of the Tower), I would have been bored senseless on those low flying days.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity that that 'succinct' () and 'precise' diatribe makes no mention of fact that 5 bodies are still lying somewhere in the hills.
Or is the aircraft itself irrelevant to the argument?
) and 'precise' diatribe makes no mention of fact that 5 bodies are still lying somewhere in the hills.Or is the aircraft itself irrelevant to the argument?
Thread Starter
He had 28 total time in a C210. Pretty low time to me. I will ask again. Did BASI make any safety recommendations?
If not this would appear to be gross incompetence. Or maybe they simply blamed the pilot like many here do. That is nothing else could be learnt like removing the airspace flight plan restriction .
If not this would appear to be gross incompetence. Or maybe they simply blamed the pilot like many here do. That is nothing else could be learnt like removing the airspace flight plan restriction .
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's 'good' about it? MDX was never told to 'hold' in the IFR sense, he was told to 'remain OCTA'. 'Holding' is a procedure that the pilot wasn't asked to perform...if he wanted to wait for a clearance a couple of orbits would have been all that was necessary.
The question is essentially asking 'how is it possible for a NVFR pilot to roll out of a turn onto a compass heading?'
The question is essentially asking 'how is it possible for a NVFR pilot to roll out of a turn onto a compass heading?'
If you can't see a point on the ground to hold over (it's dark) you need some way to come back to the same point after the orbits. That's more than just resuming a heading. If you do a couple of orbits, you are going to drift downwind. How far? Depends on the wind. How do you get back on your track? I don't know (I'm not NVFR rated). It seems to me you would need either a navaid to overfly, or 2 bearings to fix your position, or a radar position.
It appears to me that a couple of orbits might be more difficult than it sounds. IFR holding is designed to keep you in a known position. Without a holding procedure to use, NVFR "waiting" is probably more difficult, not easier.
Is it possible that for navigational reasons he had decided circling and waiting was impractical, and had pre-planned to divert around the airspace if a clearance hadn't been received by a certain point?