New MDX - Five Dead Williamtown Never Found

[RatsoreA]

"hood ornament" risk as a certainty.

Please point out where I said there was no other possibility other than a mid air collision from a clearance being issued at the current level.

VMC but not CAVOK? A pointless point.

How? A pithy remark is hardly something to base something so serious on. Are you saying you that even the slightest smattering of cloud, regardless of density or location renders conditions either CAVOK or IMC, and no other gradation of conditions is possible?

A few minutes? You've already conceded that the PIC didn't know that's all it would take.

Correct. And for the loss of the aircraft, his life and those of his passengers, he couldn't have spared a few minutes to even find out how long the delay might be.

[Lead Balloon]

Please point out where I said there was no other possibility other than a mid air collision from a clearance being issued at the current level.

I would happily go up or down a thousand to avoid getting a nice new 206 shaped hood ornament.

What you meant to say was: "to mitigate the infinitesimally small risk of being unable to see and avoid an aircraft that I know's there and I'm catching up to slowly and who's almost certainly not at exactly the same altitude or on exactly the same track as I am."

And for the loss of the aircraft, his life and those of his passengers, he couldn't have spared a few minutes to even find out.

A completely circular argument. He didn't know what he didn't know, and to find out he may have had to wait a lot longer. I've orbited near Broughton Island wondering whether it's smoko or poet's day in Williamtown. I know that they're actually focusing on the important job of keeping vast distances between me and any other flying machine within the area, but again, that's kinda the point.

What, precisely, is your point about it being VMC but not CAVOK at WLM?

[RatsoreA]

Good try, but no. That in no way says that there is no other possibility that a mid air. But if that's the inference you drew from that, next time, rather than try turn a phrase, I'll spell it out for you in small words in legalese.

He didn't know what he didn't know

Yep, totally right. He didn't. And he didn't either wait around to see what the result was, nor did he ask FIS 5 what the result of his inquiries about and airways clearance was. He had a previous instruction to wait OCTA, which seems pretty self explanatory to me. He never once entered an orbit or held, he just got close to the zone boundary, decided he couldn't be bothered either doing even a single orbit. And rather than ask FIS 5, did he have any further information about the possibility of a clearance, he called up FIS 5 and said, don't worry about it, I will resume my previously planned route, and no more was spoken of it. So, there were many possibilities to find out what he didn't know... Waiting a minute. Asking for more information.

As for the Wx at Williamtown, I don't have the exact file with me (on my other computer back at the room, so If I am wrong, I will cheerfully retract) but, IIRC, there was some scattered cloud in the zone, and strong wind but still VMC. There exists the possibility for a reduction of visibility for the 'See and Avoid' principle.

But, I note you didn't address the most pertinent point, it was the PIC decision to do what he did, when he did it, and without obtaining all relevent information, and not the fault of the RAAF and it's conspiracy to hoard all the airspace it can.

You have also not given one single shred of evidence that supports Dick's position that it was all the RAAF's fault.

[gerry111]

(Allowing time out for Lead Balloon and RatsoreA to apply talc to their boxing gloves..)


"My next plan is to publically warn young Australians in a major campaign not to join an organisation which is so dis functional and so lacks leadership that it can't copy the best from around the world. Even after 30 years."


Please consider that the RAAF currently operates Super Hornets, KC-30's and Wedgetails in a war environment in the Middle East.


(That's the bad guys shooting at them.)


Dick, If that's really your intent then please hand back your 'Companion in the Order of Australia medal' (AC).


For me, you have now achieved a 'beneath contempt' status. You've previously claimed to be an Australian patriot with your Dick Smith Foods.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

You do what you do on the extraordinarily rare occasion it happens OCTA: overtake, in accordance with the rules of the air.

Except that it wasn't OCTA, it was in CTA, so under the system of the day, the clearance was only available at a different level. At the time, there was no emergency situation, it was just a routine request for a transiting clearance, and treated as one, so WM ATC could not offer a faster aircraft the same track at the same level as a just cleared slower one.

Rules of the time, maybe different now, but that's how they were applied. OCTA and CTA were two very different things, with very different service provision and requirements, unlike the alphabet of today.

[donpizmeov]

It was so simple back then. It was controlled or non controlled. You were quadrantal or semi circular. Flight service knew their areas and offered huge assistance, even with ordering the post flight beers and pizza.

Then some clown changed it all. Look at the dysfunctional mess he left behind.

[Dick Smith]

Don. I actually sort of agree with you re the mess.

That's because the NAS reforms were never completed and now have been partially wound back because of ignorance at CASA and the RAAF.

I have said we should go back to the safe but very expensive pre 1990 system or actually complete the proven NAS reforms.

For CASA to mandate ( primarily supported by its ex RAAF personel ) that pilots at non marked aerodromes must give calls on ATC frequencies that are also used for separation purposes is madness. They ignore the advice of every RAPAC in the country.

Gerry. My campaign will be for the sole purpose of saving lives of the pilots you are referring to and others. When an organisation is so lacking in leadership that it can't copy the best from around the world it's clear what is going to happen. All this huge road block airspace is just one example of the incompetence.

I really feel sorry for the RAAF ATCs that they are not allowed to use modern safe procedures and airspace classifications at places like Williamtown.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Dick,

I am tired of your relentless, indiscriminate and gross generalisations about what you did, what they wouldn't let you do and how its all somehow the RAAF's fault. I get that you want to fly wherever you feel like, whenever but with Willy right on the coast thats probably never going to happen unless you lobby hard with the government to shift it. Why must you then continually go on about how the military is to blame? Needless and misguided attacks on the military and individuals aren't gaining you any traction in the quest to fly as you please. If you were so good in your tilt as CASA chairman then you'd still be doing it.

I salute your goal of improving GA's lot in this country but do it without maligning the military and the professionals employed by it. Your campaign on this particular incident deflects responsibility of the safety of the flight from the individual it ultimately rests with, the pilot.

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

Dick,

When will you finally accept that the loss of that aircraft came down to the poor decision-making of the PIC. Many of us have made similar mistakes in our time, but fate showed her kinder side to us, while choosing to punishing the unfortunate occupants of that aircraft.

Whether the RAAF should've allowed him through their airspace is a moot point; if he felt sufficiently concerned, then the PIC should've declared a PAN or a Mayday and he would have been provided with all the help he needed.

Instead, he advised that he would stay west of Newcastle's CTA. You asked earlier in the thread why no one advised him that he was so far off track; why should they have? He advised he was heading in that direction. He chose to stay OCTA. No one had a responsibility, moral or otherwise, to interfere in his chosen plan on the day.

VFR pilots have enough airspace to fly in if they're unwilling to ask for (and occasionally wait for approval) a clearance to fly through CTA, irrespective of whether it's civil or military. There's no need to free up any more CTA than has already been given up.

The real scandal here is that at almost every major-city CTA in this country, airliners with up to 500 passengers are cleared to fly outside of class C airspace while descending towards their destination. Only one domestic carrier that I know of actively discourages their crew from entering class E airspace - which then necessitates higher pilot workload. Why? Just so that VFR pilots can fly more freely in the airspace beneath.

I think for some years now, the aviation environment in this country has become victim to a 'tail wagging the dog' airspace mentality. Perhaps the architects of the pairing-away of CTA some years ago should instead have concentrated on developing systems to permit closer interaction of VFR and IFR RPT in CTA without unnecessarily increasing controller workload. That way all users would have benefited.

Some observers would think that the loss of MDX has become, over time, nothing more than a convenient springboard for the political purposes of some. And therein lies the real tragedy.

[Lead Balloon]

I think for some years now, the aviation environment in this country has become victim to a 'tail wagging the dog' airspace mentality.

And whom, in your view, should be the dog?

I'm tipping that you're going to say, in effect, that individual private citizens in their aircraft are the tail? Pesky citizens presuming to fly around in airspace owned by...now let me think about this...the ADF isn't separate from the Commonwealth so doesn't own anything separate from the Commonwealth...yeah that's it, the airspace is owned by the Commonwealth ... presuming to fly around in airspace owned by the county of which they are a citizen, within an air traffic control and flight service system that's paid for ... now let me think about this ... yeah that's it... paid for by their taxes. (I note here that e.g. QANTAS hasn't paid a cent in corporate tax in years.)

One day you'll wake up and realise that not all the freedoms taken away from and inconveniences imposed on individuals, in the name of "the greater good", are.

Perhaps the architects of the pairing-away of CTA some years ago should instead have concentrated on developing systems to permit closer interaction of VFR and IFR RPT in CTA without unnecessarily increasing controller workload. That way all users would have benefited.

Like the system in the USA, for example?

An airline encouraging pilots not to fly through Class E just goes to show how many people involved in aviation in Australia are almost completely disconnected from real-world risks and real-world risk management.

[Bill Pike]

Is there any dissent here that
1. Australian military have far too much airspace allotted to them, and
2. In very inconvenient places, and
3. Access through this airspace is harder than in say the US, and
4. If the ability to flight plan coastal was available through Willy airspace to MDX the accident most likely would not have happenned?

[RatsoreA]

4. If the ability to flight plan coastal was available through Willy airspace to MDX the accident most likely would not have happenned?

That is the only point of contention, as this is not true.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

paid for by their taxes

Isn't AsA self-funded? If anything, those "pesky private citizens in their aircraft" are flying around in a system predominantly paid for by the passengers sitting in airliners (so it's irrelevent if Qantas does or does not pay corporate tax, as long as it pays it's nav charges. As much as people jump up and down about a Fire Service at Ballina, the ARFFS is paid for from Airline landing charges, so if you wander in in your bugsmasher, I imagine you are getting the Firies for free).

From the ASA website:

Our services are funded through revenue from our airline customers under a five-year pricing agreement

Additionally from the ARFFS site:

Our costs are recovered through a landing charge paid by airlines.

Flying through military airspace and using military facilities, yea, I guess those would be tax-payer funded, but really, how widespread would that be? At the end of the day, I can't drive my car through Puckapunyal or Canungra either (and they don't take the fences down if they are not exercising).

[Bill Pike]

Not true in what respect plse Rats? The requirement was to flight plan via Craven ?

[RatsoreA]

He could have planned through there, just as AZC, the preceding C206 did. The PIC of MDX did not. He planned Taree - Craven - Singleton, and was only offered overhead Williamtown by the controller as he got to Taree.

[RatsoreA]

Bill,

Here is a question for you...

Dick Smith went on a national TV show and said almost exactly the phrase "The RAAF sent those men to their deaths".

In any of the evidence I have furnished you with, is there any way that that phrase can be in any way true?

So you have some background, I will continue to disagree with Dick on this matter. The people searching for the wreck did that show so that awareness could be raised and maybe secure some funding to continue in the search. Then, Dick went on TV, banging on about how it was all the RAAF's fault, and that we should be listening to him about airspace reform around Williamtown, and completely and selfishly hijacked a cause that he didn't care about to suit his own agenda. The message was lost in the subsequent coverage of 'Dick Smith and his war with the RAAF'.

[onetrack]

Perhaps some memories need to be refreshed by examining the original BASI crash report. Particular importance needs to be given to Sec 7, "Relevant Factors" (at the bottom of the report) - which is, in essence, a neat summary of the major reasons for the crash of MDX.

The crash of MDX had nothing to do with the RAAF culture, failures on the part of military ATC, or regulations of the day - but a lot to do with a pilot struggling to control a crippled, iced-up aircraft - after having made some poor decisions, mostly centred around get-home-itis, when he was very aware of numerous problems that seriously impacted the control and flyability of his aircraft - as well as making a decision to fly into known and reported icing conditions, in an aircraft not equipped with airframe de-icing equipment.

One has to keep in mind that more than 90% of aircraft accidents are directly caused by pilot error, and the pilot of MDC could have made some far better decisions.
The crash of MDX was caused purely by a combination of icing, mechanical failure, and multiple poor decisions by the pilot.
It is sad the victims and aircraft have never been found, but to include this fact in the title is aggrandisement at its best. Dick, I expected better from someone of your status.

ATSB - BASI Aircraft Accident Investigation Summary Report - VH-MDX

[Bill Pike]

I am not here to defend Dick. He is a big boy. MDX flight planned inland because... he couldn't swim, right?
What did you expect BASI to say?
Coastal flight plan, coastal track, no iced up out of control aircraft. It is quite simple from my viewpoint. Too much military airspace not enough access.

[RatsoreA]

MDX flight planned inland because... he couldn't swim, right?

Sorry mate, don't quite follow you?

Coastal flight plan, coastal track, no iced up out of control aircraft.

Yes, just like an almost identical flight in an almost identical aircraft separated by only minutes. If AZC was so easily able to do it, that would suggest to me that the airspace wasn't really an issue.

The only difference of consequence in the planning stages of those two flights was the guy holding the map.

[Lead Balloon]

Isn't AsA self-funded? If anything, those "pesky private citizens in their aircraft" are flying around in a system predominantly paid for by the passengers sitting in airliners (so it's irrelevent if Qantas does or does not pay corporate tax, as long as it pays it's nav charges. As much as people jump up and down about a Fire Service at Ballina, the ARFFS is paid for from Airline landing charges, so if you wander in in your bugsmasher, I imagine you are getting the Firies for free).

AsA is monopoly. Therefore, you'd have to be diverted to playing with three dicks before you could manage not to be able to make money out of it.

Those pesky private citizens pay Nav charges and landing charges too. Those pesky private citizens pay Nav charges and landing charges and personal tax. Unlike Qantas.

If the passengers paying for those ARFFS services at Ballina knew what a grotesque misallocation of finite risk mitigation resources that is (with the execs at Airservices naturally skimming their cut as a consequence of having the genius to run a monopoly) things would be different.

But your post, unsurprisingly, reveals the underlying attitude that pervades the Australian culture. Private citizens in their own aircraft should just cop whatever inconveniences are imposed on them, pushed to the back of the line behind the airlines and the military.