MIKE DELTA X-RAY
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: New England NSW
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIKE DELTA X-RAY
There are several threads running in the sister forum to this one regarding the Channel 7 program 'Sunday' and the loss of a light aircraft VH-MDX in August thirty three years ago. I believe it would be better if they were addressed in this forum first.
I am the same person interviewed for that program and I am the same person who was the Industry Complaints Commissioner for CASA. I am also the same person who was a professional pilot and flight instructor. I was on the day MDX was lost , the Air Traffic Services Officer, referred to then as Flight Service Officers, responsible for the airspace in which the aircraft was lost.
There is no issue or debate as far as I am concerned about the matters raised by Channel 7 in terms of the story that they have attempted to convey, it was a tragic loss of life and the airing of the matters is important to a lot of people as it should be to all of us as men and women.
I agreed to do the interview with Channel 7 as a matter of public record, the interview was extensive and covered everything relating to my recollections, now dated of that night and my role in the events. The material was for Channel 7 to use as they saw fit, it was not about me but the loss and continued uncertainty as to the exact whereabouts of the wreckage of the aircraft and its occupants. It is not Australia's only aviation mystery nor its first but nonetheless like all such events they do remain within Australian stories and folklore. A lot of very capable people have devoted a lot of time and effort to find MDX so far without success. I can add no more to the evidence out there other than another opinion.
As many in the industry know I have retired from the aviation industry and felt no need to have any further involvement in the industry, it was a great ride but it was over. My time in the industry gave me the opportunity to express my professional and considered views on a number of industry matters and I did so.
The assertion however of Mr Smith that officers of the Royal Australian Air Force were responsible for the loss of that aircraft and the lives of its occupants is however a view I find deeply offensive; as an aviator as a citizen and as an individual. I have no intention however of engaging in debate on the matters. The view espoused by Mr Smith is, one based on a profound ignorance on range of industry issues; the events on the day the aircraft was lost, the role of military airspace, military aviation activity, sound piloting technique, sound airmanship and the responsibilities of command.
Nor will I support the view of Mr Smith that the men and women of the RAAF would be so callous and indifferent to the welfare of the citizens who employ them that they would on a whim place their lives in jeopardy. To make such a remark is in my view to call one self into ridicule. Everybody did the best they could with the system they had at the time they had it.
I have my views as to the actions of the Captain of the aircraft but in the end there are some times in aviation where fate trumps. Let me say finally that I learnt the lessons of MDX very well and they tempered my flying, my approach to flight instruction, flight and line training and check and training for the rest of my flying career. Lessons learnt.
I do not wish to engage in further discussion to avoid edifying what is an unedifying spectacle and a ridiculous proposition. A lot of families were shattered by the events of that day, I think that is enough.
I am the same person interviewed for that program and I am the same person who was the Industry Complaints Commissioner for CASA. I am also the same person who was a professional pilot and flight instructor. I was on the day MDX was lost , the Air Traffic Services Officer, referred to then as Flight Service Officers, responsible for the airspace in which the aircraft was lost.
There is no issue or debate as far as I am concerned about the matters raised by Channel 7 in terms of the story that they have attempted to convey, it was a tragic loss of life and the airing of the matters is important to a lot of people as it should be to all of us as men and women.
I agreed to do the interview with Channel 7 as a matter of public record, the interview was extensive and covered everything relating to my recollections, now dated of that night and my role in the events. The material was for Channel 7 to use as they saw fit, it was not about me but the loss and continued uncertainty as to the exact whereabouts of the wreckage of the aircraft and its occupants. It is not Australia's only aviation mystery nor its first but nonetheless like all such events they do remain within Australian stories and folklore. A lot of very capable people have devoted a lot of time and effort to find MDX so far without success. I can add no more to the evidence out there other than another opinion.
As many in the industry know I have retired from the aviation industry and felt no need to have any further involvement in the industry, it was a great ride but it was over. My time in the industry gave me the opportunity to express my professional and considered views on a number of industry matters and I did so.
The assertion however of Mr Smith that officers of the Royal Australian Air Force were responsible for the loss of that aircraft and the lives of its occupants is however a view I find deeply offensive; as an aviator as a citizen and as an individual. I have no intention however of engaging in debate on the matters. The view espoused by Mr Smith is, one based on a profound ignorance on range of industry issues; the events on the day the aircraft was lost, the role of military airspace, military aviation activity, sound piloting technique, sound airmanship and the responsibilities of command.
Nor will I support the view of Mr Smith that the men and women of the RAAF would be so callous and indifferent to the welfare of the citizens who employ them that they would on a whim place their lives in jeopardy. To make such a remark is in my view to call one self into ridicule. Everybody did the best they could with the system they had at the time they had it.
I have my views as to the actions of the Captain of the aircraft but in the end there are some times in aviation where fate trumps. Let me say finally that I learnt the lessons of MDX very well and they tempered my flying, my approach to flight instruction, flight and line training and check and training for the rest of my flying career. Lessons learnt.
I do not wish to engage in further discussion to avoid edifying what is an unedifying spectacle and a ridiculous proposition. A lot of families were shattered by the events of that day, I think that is enough.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: AUS
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are not alone in feeling deeply offended by Mr. Smith's remarks, Mike. Your retirement days should not be affected in any way by his comments or the assertions of a section of the media trying to ensure the largest possible audience for their lazy attempt to capitalise on another recent aircraft disappearance.
The vast majority of the industry know the barrow that Mr. Smith has been pushing for so many years in relation to the obtaining of clearances for private flights through controlled and restricted airspace and I for one find it abhorrent that he chooses to denegarate the reputations of good people to achieve his aim.
There was only one person who was in direct control of that flight and who had the final decision to make as to whether it departed from Coolangatta, whether it continued into bad weather and whether it returned to land at a suitable aerodrome.
Enjoy retirement, Mike.
The vast majority of the industry know the barrow that Mr. Smith has been pushing for so many years in relation to the obtaining of clearances for private flights through controlled and restricted airspace and I for one find it abhorrent that he chooses to denegarate the reputations of good people to achieve his aim.
There was only one person who was in direct control of that flight and who had the final decision to make as to whether it departed from Coolangatta, whether it continued into bad weather and whether it returned to land at a suitable aerodrome.
Enjoy retirement, Mike.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike has articulated my feelings about Mr Smith's remarks on the Ch7 'Sunday' program better that I could have myself.
For those that don't know, Mike's impressive career included training RAAF pilots at Tamworth. Therefore his remarks on the RAAF are based on experience.
Predictably, the pig-ignorant non-flying public will have lapped up Mr Smith's unsubstantiated insults of the RAAF. However I'd like to think that those aviators that watched that program would have seen Mr Smith's crocodile tears and theatrics for what it was.
As HSW said, enjoy your retirement Mike.
For those that don't know, Mike's impressive career included training RAAF pilots at Tamworth. Therefore his remarks on the RAAF are based on experience.
Predictably, the pig-ignorant non-flying public will have lapped up Mr Smith's unsubstantiated insults of the RAAF. However I'd like to think that those aviators that watched that program would have seen Mr Smith's crocodile tears and theatrics for what it was.
As HSW said, enjoy your retirement Mike.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denigration of the RAAF
Mike Hart, thank you for your post which clearly identifies what any fair minded person would feel in relation to Mr Smith's remarks about where the blame lies for the loss of VH-MDX.
Might I suggest you make the same posting on the threads which have attracted much comment, i.e. that which is headed "Channel 7 Sunday Night Program about VH-MDX" and one headed simply "VH-MDX".
As a now retired former long term member of the RAAF, PPL and Flight Engineer I share your view that the assertion by Mr Smith that "The RAAF sent five people to their death" is deeply offensive as well as baseless and unfair. I have personally messaged Mr Smith using my real name to express my feelings. Mr Smith has not had the courtesy to respond, which is not surprising given his strident reluctance to retract his comment.
Might I suggest you make the same posting on the threads which have attracted much comment, i.e. that which is headed "Channel 7 Sunday Night Program about VH-MDX" and one headed simply "VH-MDX".
As a now retired former long term member of the RAAF, PPL and Flight Engineer I share your view that the assertion by Mr Smith that "The RAAF sent five people to their death" is deeply offensive as well as baseless and unfair. I have personally messaged Mr Smith using my real name to express my feelings. Mr Smith has not had the courtesy to respond, which is not surprising given his strident reluctance to retract his comment.
Last edited by Old Fella; 9th Jun 2014 at 06:02. Reason: Spelling correction
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike. I can understand your position however I ask a question on behalf of one of the families involved .
Have you considered that if you had a radar screen in front of you that night it would have been obvious that the pilot was heading about 90 degrees off the correct course after leaving the vicinity of CRAVEN.
If you did have access to radar and you had advised the pilot 20 minutes before the crash of a more suitable heading do you think there was say an extra 10% chance you could have prevented the accident?
And if Mike does not wish to answer perhaps another ex FSO could.
Have you considered that if you had a radar screen in front of you that night it would have been obvious that the pilot was heading about 90 degrees off the correct course after leaving the vicinity of CRAVEN.
If you did have access to radar and you had advised the pilot 20 minutes before the crash of a more suitable heading do you think there was say an extra 10% chance you could have prevented the accident?
And if Mike does not wish to answer perhaps another ex FSO could.
And Mike. I have never ever suggested that lives have been placed in jeopardy "on a whim" by the RAAF or anybody.
This flight planning restriction was put in place so long ago that I bet no one today knows who wrote it. I have spoken to retired military ATC's who believe the restriction is no longer necessary and say they would far prefer to have the flight plan details in the system rather than have to key them in at the last moment.
This flight planning restriction was put in place so long ago that I bet no one today knows who wrote it. I have spoken to retired military ATC's who believe the restriction is no longer necessary and say they would far prefer to have the flight plan details in the system rather than have to key them in at the last moment.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
H
Exactly what would that have to do with your claims that "the RAAF were to blame for sending 5 men to their deaths"? You have stated the above that the RAAF WERE TO BLAME.
Now that you have admitted there were other factors involved, maybe you should issue AM Brown, and all the hard working members of the RAAF an apology?
H
ave you considered that if you had a radar screen in front of you that night it would have been obvious that the pilot was heading about 90 degrees off the correct course after leaving the vicinity of CRAVEN.
If you did have access to radar and you had advised the pilot 20 minutes before the crash of a more suitable heading do you think there was say an extra 10% chance you could have prevented the accident?
If you did have access to radar and you had advised the pilot 20 minutes before the crash of a more suitable heading do you think there was say an extra 10% chance you could have prevented the accident?
Now that you have admitted there were other factors involved, maybe you should issue AM Brown, and all the hard working members of the RAAF an apology?
Rats. It's just another part of the holes in the cheese.
When I became Chairman of CAA those in charge of resistance to change were actually proposing a display console for FSO's that worked on flight plan inputs and dead reckoning - yes even for radar covered non controlled airspace.
My Board canned the proposal after some units were produced.
After the original cause of this accident ( forcing the aircraft inland) it may have been prevented if the pilot was informed by someone in front if a radar screen that he was heading in the wrong direction to his doom.
Now before you start abusing me and saying that those with the radar were not permitted to communicate directly to the pilot I ask "why was this so" .
Because of resistance to change I would say.
So can someone answer the question or is the answer to obvious.
When I became Chairman of CAA those in charge of resistance to change were actually proposing a display console for FSO's that worked on flight plan inputs and dead reckoning - yes even for radar covered non controlled airspace.
My Board canned the proposal after some units were produced.
After the original cause of this accident ( forcing the aircraft inland) it may have been prevented if the pilot was informed by someone in front if a radar screen that he was heading in the wrong direction to his doom.
Now before you start abusing me and saying that those with the radar were not permitted to communicate directly to the pilot I ask "why was this so" .
Because of resistance to change I would say.
So can someone answer the question or is the answer to obvious.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raaf and change. It seams they will change when it suits them. Case in point. When a civilian working as contractors on military aircraft and you sign the paper work to say you done the work. However the military have absolutely zero power to prosecute you if something happened. Guess what they change it all so if you do you now may be prosecuted as a civilian. Seams they can change when it suits them.
Many years ago the also purchased some b200 king airs. They where vh rego. Why vh and not military. . Because it was so hard to do mods as they required via the military system they done the via a car 35 EOs. This meant they Had to become lames to work on the aircraft.
Some it seams they can change if it suits them. Trouble is they won't loose face or give up power.
Cheers
Many years ago the also purchased some b200 king airs. They where vh rego. Why vh and not military. . Because it was so hard to do mods as they required via the military system they done the via a car 35 EOs. This meant they Had to become lames to work on the aircraft.
Some it seams they can change if it suits them. Trouble is they won't loose face or give up power.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denigration of the RAAF
In fairness to Mr Smith I now acknowledge a response from him to my private message. That said, one of Mr Smith's problems is his inability to have the rules relating to Williamtown airspace changed. My problem with Mr Smith is of a similar nature, i.e., he will not change his unjustifiable statement that the "RAAF sent five people to their death".
I have nothing more to add to what I have previously posted.
I have nothing more to add to what I have previously posted.
My statement is clearly meant to be provocative to promote discussion and hopefully change.
Watching Four Corner's tonight on the delays in addressing the abuse problems in the military I can understand how it takes so long to remove an outdated flight planning restriction.
Watching Four Corner's tonight on the delays in addressing the abuse problems in the military I can understand how it takes so long to remove an outdated flight planning restriction.
Now now Dick...
Being 'provocative' is one thing. But being clearly wrong, arguably slanderous or libelous about the RAAF and/or it's personnel, and then linking your aim of removing what is, as only one of many opinions, an 'outdated flight planning restriction' with 'delays in addressing the abuse problems in the military' is extraordinarily insensitive.
Society in general has not addressed all it's 'abuse problems' in your lifetime, the issues didn't start in the military, and will inevitably take time to solve if ever. The correlation you try to make, while no doubt borne out of some real personal exasperation, ignores totally every other organisational and/or decision option available to the pilot of MDX.
Greater credibility could be found in greater balance.
Society in general has not addressed all it's 'abuse problems' in your lifetime, the issues didn't start in the military, and will inevitably take time to solve if ever. The correlation you try to make, while no doubt borne out of some real personal exasperation, ignores totally every other organisational and/or decision option available to the pilot of MDX.
Greater credibility could be found in greater balance.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone summarise the rules for crossing that area? Can/could you request clearance before taking off or do/did the rules require you to just turn up and hope you will get it?
When you live....
Devils Advocate
I'm going to put aside the issues of whether WLM should be where it is, whether it's justified in having all that airspace and how restricted access is or should be. Lets just assume that it's justified (or if you can't accept that, accept that it is the status quo for now). I don't think anyone can deny the RAAF the right to control their airspace and make it not available when they need to.
By preventing flight planning via WLM may actually increase safety! (what the.....?) Every VFR or low level IFR/NVFR pilot knows (or should know) that they need to plan elsewhere. If, once airborne, they get a clearance (90% of the time has been quoted) then great. If not, then they should have a plan 'b' ready to be executed without increasing stress levels (which for NVFR or IFR in a single needs very careful thinking about).
If flight planning via WLM were allowed, everyone would do it and consequentially each time (10%?) clearance was refused then you have a pilot who may not have a plan 'b'. That pilot then finds themselves over tiger country at night, in cloud whilst unprepared and needing to exercise command judgement, deal with weather, passengers, failures etc. Its much much harder to turn around and go back than to not take off in the first place.
By preventing the filing through the RAAF airspace, a little (lot?) of risk minimisation is essentially enforced upon pilots as they should then consider if they, their aircraft, the weather etc is actually suitable for the route they may end up flying - via tiger country.
Dick talks about a possible 1 in 50 year event. How many flights in the last 50 years haven't departed YBCG for YSBK because the pilot looked at the route needed to go around WLM and decided to wait for more favourable conditions?
By preventing flight planning via WLM may actually increase safety! (what the.....?) Every VFR or low level IFR/NVFR pilot knows (or should know) that they need to plan elsewhere. If, once airborne, they get a clearance (90% of the time has been quoted) then great. If not, then they should have a plan 'b' ready to be executed without increasing stress levels (which for NVFR or IFR in a single needs very careful thinking about).
If flight planning via WLM were allowed, everyone would do it and consequentially each time (10%?) clearance was refused then you have a pilot who may not have a plan 'b'. That pilot then finds themselves over tiger country at night, in cloud whilst unprepared and needing to exercise command judgement, deal with weather, passengers, failures etc. Its much much harder to turn around and go back than to not take off in the first place.
By preventing the filing through the RAAF airspace, a little (lot?) of risk minimisation is essentially enforced upon pilots as they should then consider if they, their aircraft, the weather etc is actually suitable for the route they may end up flying - via tiger country.
Dick talks about a possible 1 in 50 year event. How many flights in the last 50 years haven't departed YBCG for YSBK because the pilot looked at the route needed to go around WLM and decided to wait for more favourable conditions?
I wonder what Mike Hart is thinking re my question about radar?
He had no control over this so I do not believe he is responsible in any way.
If the person MDX was communicating to that night had a radar screen ( as now) would there have been a lesser chance of five people losing their lives?
I bring this up because just as changing the flight planning restriction is resisted the change in access to radar was also resisted. I am glad that change went ahead despite the abuse at the time.
Let's encourage the RAAF to remove the flight planning restriction Any support?
He had no control over this so I do not believe he is responsible in any way.
If the person MDX was communicating to that night had a radar screen ( as now) would there have been a lesser chance of five people losing their lives?
I bring this up because just as changing the flight planning restriction is resisted the change in access to radar was also resisted. I am glad that change went ahead despite the abuse at the time.
Let's encourage the RAAF to remove the flight planning restriction Any support?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I'm not sure the situation is much different anywhere else.
In the USA, there is a myriad of military areas, including Restricted Areas, MOAs and Warning Areas. The control zones around the associated airports are small, but the adjacent areas are often large (particularly for fighter and warship ops). File any route you like, but be assured of an amended route if planned through any of these areas during published hours. Once airborne, the controller may clear you more direct on their own initiative or on pilot request as long as the airspace is released by the military.
Related, is a recent initiative in the USA to have pilots plan more diligently, because the re-routes are handled manually, adding to controller workload. That program is called File Smart, and it's basically a voluntary program to reduce controller workload. In Australia, a system of mandatory flight planning routes are published to achieve the same end.
My understanding of Williamtown is that you have to plan via the approved route, but can request more direct airborne. In the case of MDX, the clearance was available (the pilot did not know that when he made the decision to track via CRAVEN), but he elected not to wait for it – things weren't as instantaneous back then, especially if you were talking to Flight Service who had to relay from ATC, and anxiety makes every moment seem longer.
Ending up over the Barrington Tops in very rough weather on limited panel is a nightmarish, if not impossible situation to handle, but IMHO it's a pretty big stretch to blame the RAAF.
Radar? I can't see how radar would help the pilot recover from a (likely) spiral dive on limited panel.
In the USA, there is a myriad of military areas, including Restricted Areas, MOAs and Warning Areas. The control zones around the associated airports are small, but the adjacent areas are often large (particularly for fighter and warship ops). File any route you like, but be assured of an amended route if planned through any of these areas during published hours. Once airborne, the controller may clear you more direct on their own initiative or on pilot request as long as the airspace is released by the military.
Related, is a recent initiative in the USA to have pilots plan more diligently, because the re-routes are handled manually, adding to controller workload. That program is called File Smart, and it's basically a voluntary program to reduce controller workload. In Australia, a system of mandatory flight planning routes are published to achieve the same end.
My understanding of Williamtown is that you have to plan via the approved route, but can request more direct airborne. In the case of MDX, the clearance was available (the pilot did not know that when he made the decision to track via CRAVEN), but he elected not to wait for it – things weren't as instantaneous back then, especially if you were talking to Flight Service who had to relay from ATC, and anxiety makes every moment seem longer.
Ending up over the Barrington Tops in very rough weather on limited panel is a nightmarish, if not impossible situation to handle, but IMHO it's a pretty big stretch to blame the RAAF.
Radar? I can't see how radar would help the pilot recover from a (likely) spiral dive on limited panel.
I was somewhat heartened when I read the first post of this new topic.
Here's a guy, who probably more than anyone else on the planet, has relived this one accident in his mind over and over, analysing every tiny detail and trying to get his head around it.
It was articulate, blatantly honest, technically accurate - despite the emotions which can boil over in these situations. And it reads like he has moved on with his life and can calmly separate the wheat from the chaff in the current discussions and media attention.
I felt genuinely relieved and heartened in aviation to read it, and also happy for him.
And then... the childishness continues. We can't even respect someone who wanted to say their piece and be done with it. Before anyone blink, the sh*t slinging and finger pointing and circular arguments start again, when there's already another dedicated thread where people have already said their fair share - and then some.
Pathetic. We live in a society of children.
Mike, I wish you all the best.
Here's a guy, who probably more than anyone else on the planet, has relived this one accident in his mind over and over, analysing every tiny detail and trying to get his head around it.
It was articulate, blatantly honest, technically accurate - despite the emotions which can boil over in these situations. And it reads like he has moved on with his life and can calmly separate the wheat from the chaff in the current discussions and media attention.
I felt genuinely relieved and heartened in aviation to read it, and also happy for him.
And then... the childishness continues. We can't even respect someone who wanted to say their piece and be done with it. Before anyone blink, the sh*t slinging and finger pointing and circular arguments start again, when there's already another dedicated thread where people have already said their fair share - and then some.
Pathetic. We live in a society of children.
Mike, I wish you all the best.
Ok, as an FSO through the 80's, I'll bite.
That's because they were trying to come up with a way of automating the system that provided a service to the 80% of Australian airspace that was not administered by ATC, and mostly didn't have radar coverage. Don't forget, outside radar coverage, ATC in CTA was provided procedurally by using pieces of paper and a map, just like FIS OCTA.
That's because they couldn't get it to work. There were just too many variables OCTA and - shock horror - pilots didn't always do or go where they said they were going. ATC then (and probably still is) was designed to get VH-ABC from A to B along a clearly defined route. Everything else was left OCTA. ATC's system was designed to provide a service to a fixed limit - once that limit was reached, it was "Clearance not available". OCTA, the work was whatever the situation was (ex FSO's will remember the fun of a "full board" and more). The automation of the time could not handle this. Pen and paper and eyes on a map were considerable quicker than data entry into a keyboard.
Radar at the time was pretty basic. "Shrimp boats" were still manually moved along the screen to identify the targets. How they were ever going to get that system to work OCTA was beyond me, and obviously them too. OCTA pilots could and did fly whereever they wanted, that was the whole point, so if radar had been provided to FS, I'm sure the flight following regime would have been substantially different to cope. I'm sure that if every paint that wandered off track had to be queried as to it's intentions the system would have very quickly become unworkable. You would have had one system for CTA, one system for OCTA with radar coverage, and another for OCTA without. It would never have been feasible, and in the end it wasn't.
MDX at the time was OCTA, and noone was responsible for his track keeping and intentions but the pilot.
those in charge......were actually proposing a display console for FSO's that worked on flight plan inputs and dead reckoning
...canned the proposal after some units were produced
Radar at the time was pretty basic. "Shrimp boats" were still manually moved along the screen to identify the targets. How they were ever going to get that system to work OCTA was beyond me, and obviously them too. OCTA pilots could and did fly whereever they wanted, that was the whole point, so if radar had been provided to FS, I'm sure the flight following regime would have been substantially different to cope. I'm sure that if every paint that wandered off track had to be queried as to it's intentions the system would have very quickly become unworkable. You would have had one system for CTA, one system for OCTA with radar coverage, and another for OCTA without. It would never have been feasible, and in the end it wasn't.
MDX at the time was OCTA, and noone was responsible for his track keeping and intentions but the pilot.