New MDX - Five Dead Williamtown Never Found
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sent to their death
It is sad to read the posts of Mr Dick Smith and come to the view that his assertion that the RAAF are to blame for the loss of five lives in VH-MDX is totally unjustified.
For a long time I have admired Mr Smith and what he has contributed to Australia. His refusal to accept that one person, and one person alone, was responsible for the loss of the aircraft and those aboard is difficult to understand.
In my experience I cannot recall any organisation with whom I have been associated, either Military and Civil, which did not stress that the safety of the aircraft and those aboard was the over-riding consideration at all times. No commercial consideration or other reason could justify continuing a flight if safety would be compromised by doing so.
In the case of VH-MDX the PIC had options, including returning to Taree and landing, which could have prevented this tragic accident ever happening. That he chose to continue into severe weather in an aircraft with suspect flight instrumentation and no airframe de-icing equipment is unfathomable to me. It seems clear that the wrong decisions were made by the PIC, possibly under pressure from his passengers to get them home.
For a long time I have admired Mr Smith and what he has contributed to Australia. His refusal to accept that one person, and one person alone, was responsible for the loss of the aircraft and those aboard is difficult to understand.
In my experience I cannot recall any organisation with whom I have been associated, either Military and Civil, which did not stress that the safety of the aircraft and those aboard was the over-riding consideration at all times. No commercial consideration or other reason could justify continuing a flight if safety would be compromised by doing so.
In the case of VH-MDX the PIC had options, including returning to Taree and landing, which could have prevented this tragic accident ever happening. That he chose to continue into severe weather in an aircraft with suspect flight instrumentation and no airframe de-icing equipment is unfathomable to me. It seems clear that the wrong decisions were made by the PIC, possibly under pressure from his passengers to get them home.
What I'm really hoping for is that Bronwyn Bishop is again preselected by the Libs for the seat of Mackellar.
(Dick has previously indicated that if that happens, then he'll stand as an independent against her. And he supposedly has polling to indicate that he'd win the seat.)
If that happened, then I'm sure that some of the public would soon find out that Dick, deep down is pretty shallow. That's my belief anyway.
(Dick has previously indicated that if that happens, then he'll stand as an independent against her. And he supposedly has polling to indicate that he'd win the seat.)
If that happened, then I'm sure that some of the public would soon find out that Dick, deep down is pretty shallow. That's my belief anyway.
Thread Starter
So when further lives are lost because the RAAF hold light aircraft for up to 30 minutes orbiting low over the ocean at Anna Bay you will no doubt say it was the pilots fault .
However if they put in tower airspace and allowed " target resolution" as they do in the US there would rarely be any holding.
More people will be killed at Willy. Just watch. I sold my beautiful property on the coast South of of Coffs because I knew that one day the holding would result in an accident.
And no. I am not blaming the controllers for the fact they are not allowed to use modern proven very safe North American procedures.
Just the concrete minded " iron ring" who stop the modern airspace and procedures being put in.
And old fella. Only one reason the pilot headed inland that night- the giant road block airspace that existed at the time. Remember there was no military traffic at the time.
However if they put in tower airspace and allowed " target resolution" as they do in the US there would rarely be any holding.
More people will be killed at Willy. Just watch. I sold my beautiful property on the coast South of of Coffs because I knew that one day the holding would result in an accident.
And no. I am not blaming the controllers for the fact they are not allowed to use modern proven very safe North American procedures.
Just the concrete minded " iron ring" who stop the modern airspace and procedures being put in.
And old fella. Only one reason the pilot headed inland that night- the giant road block airspace that existed at the time. Remember there was no military traffic at the time.
Thread Starter
Quite simply-luck!
Sometimes you get held at Willy. At other times you get let straight through.
Once the pilot was told by Flight Service there would be a delay but with no information on how long the delay may be he decided to stick to the flight planned route.
It's still in the ERS today that if the Willy areas are active you are prohibited from putting in a flight plan on the safer direct route.
That's a pretty clear message to pilots to keep away!
Sometimes you get held at Willy. At other times you get let straight through.
Once the pilot was told by Flight Service there would be a delay but with no information on how long the delay may be he decided to stick to the flight planned route.
It's still in the ERS today that if the Willy areas are active you are prohibited from putting in a flight plan on the safer direct route.
That's a pretty clear message to pilots to keep away!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only one Reason ???
Mr Smith, you are making an assumption which you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not it is correct. Certainly the PIC of VH-MDX chose to maintain his planned route because of uncertainty about how long, if at all, a clearance through Willy would take.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the PIC had other options. If, as we understand, he was operating NVFR there is no reason being put into a holding pattern whilst awaiting a clearance should have been unsafe. If he chose to he could have back tracked to Taree and landed there. If, as has been stated, the AH and ADI were suspect he should not have flown in IMC and as the aircraft was not equipped with any airframe de-icing system he should not have entered known or suspected icing conditions.
The ultimate responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and those aboard lies squarely with the PIC. To blame the RAAF, as you do, is both wrong and unfair in my opinion. If one is to use your logic we would not allow any PIC to accept holding awaiting onwards clearance as to do so would place the aircraft and occupants at risk.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the PIC had other options. If, as we understand, he was operating NVFR there is no reason being put into a holding pattern whilst awaiting a clearance should have been unsafe. If he chose to he could have back tracked to Taree and landed there. If, as has been stated, the AH and ADI were suspect he should not have flown in IMC and as the aircraft was not equipped with any airframe de-icing system he should not have entered known or suspected icing conditions.
The ultimate responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and those aboard lies squarely with the PIC. To blame the RAAF, as you do, is both wrong and unfair in my opinion. If one is to use your logic we would not allow any PIC to accept holding awaiting onwards clearance as to do so would place the aircraft and occupants at risk.
Sorry Dick, but I too, have to agree with Old Fella. The PIC is ultimately the one and only person responsible for the safety of the flight and his/her passengers.
I don't want to start a debate, but also, the PIC of VH-NGA was ultimately responsible.
When you hop in the left hand seat of a fixed wing plane, you assume so much responsibility, whether it is a C150 or a B747. SAME responsibility.
Sometimes, when airborne, lot of hurdles and unforeseen circumstances arise. It is up to the PIC to take whatever action is required to ensure the safety of flight.
The PIC of VH-AAV should have TOLD ATC what he was going to do. Then ATC should have given him free rein and told the RPT's to buggah off.
I don't want to start a debate, but also, the PIC of VH-NGA was ultimately responsible.
When you hop in the left hand seat of a fixed wing plane, you assume so much responsibility, whether it is a C150 or a B747. SAME responsibility.
Sometimes, when airborne, lot of hurdles and unforeseen circumstances arise. It is up to the PIC to take whatever action is required to ensure the safety of flight.
The PIC of VH-AAV should have TOLD ATC what he was going to do. Then ATC should have given him free rein and told the RPT's to buggah off.
Quite simply-luck!
Sometimes you get held at Willy. At other times you get let straight through.
Once the pilot was told by Flight Service there would be a delay but with no information on how long the delay may be he decided to stick to the flight planned route.
It's still in the ERS today that if the Willy areas are active you are prohibited from putting in a flight plan on the safer direct route.
That's a pretty clear message to pilots to keep away!
Sometimes you get held at Willy. At other times you get let straight through.
Once the pilot was told by Flight Service there would be a delay but with no information on how long the delay may be he decided to stick to the flight planned route.
It's still in the ERS today that if the Willy areas are active you are prohibited from putting in a flight plan on the safer direct route.
That's a pretty clear message to pilots to keep away!
That's a pretty clear message to pilots to keep away!
To me that is just a challenge to ask for the clearance at the earliest opportunity, and have Plan B up my sleeve if it's not forthcoming in a time frame that works for me!
Thread Starter
Forky. It's exactly how I would have thought in business.
Make something appear unfriendly and the customer goes elsewhere. That's what the pilot was attempting to do. That is - keep out of the unfriendly airspace .
It's the same today. I know of pilots in single engined aircraft that fly the inland route to save clearance delays and holding. There are parts of the inland route that you are so close to the ground that a safe forced landing in case of an engine failure would be doubtful.
But in that case we would blame the pilot. Not the airspace design which follows the railway line as it was designed pre GPS in Tiger Moth days and no military person will ever be able to update it as that would require a little leadership.
Make something appear unfriendly and the customer goes elsewhere. That's what the pilot was attempting to do. That is - keep out of the unfriendly airspace .
It's the same today. I know of pilots in single engined aircraft that fly the inland route to save clearance delays and holding. There are parts of the inland route that you are so close to the ground that a safe forced landing in case of an engine failure would be doubtful.
But in that case we would blame the pilot. Not the airspace design which follows the railway line as it was designed pre GPS in Tiger Moth days and no military person will ever be able to update it as that would require a little leadership.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah the biannual 'Dick Smith MDX' thread (aka 'Why can't I get a clearance wherever and whenever I want?').
It's all been said before. Instead of walking on their graves for your own personal soapbox, at least try something a little more original next time. Maybe 'I hate the RAAF because they think they own my airspace' or something.
It's all been said before. Instead of walking on their graves for your own personal soapbox, at least try something a little more original next time. Maybe 'I hate the RAAF because they think they own my airspace' or something.
. . . . not much to be served by comparisons relevant the prime causes of loss of AAV or NGA... then that of MDX
prime causes of the first was hot day probably reduced power take off and no boom mic (given that s/e performance properly and promptly handled after EFAT should have got Kerry round onto 34) . . . . . NGA? well what a can of worms there
howl me down . . but only a kangaroo court would convict either PIC of gross incompetence . . . . (even the best pilot in the world if honest enough will admit to the possibility of overload . . .. . and even though it sounds simplistic to say easy to be wise after the event there will always be a grain of truth in that)
no slur upon the pilot of MDX either . . simply that the circumstances were entirely different unless tossed around in a confusion of hopelessly general terms.
prime causes of the first was hot day probably reduced power take off and no boom mic (given that s/e performance properly and promptly handled after EFAT should have got Kerry round onto 34) . . . . . NGA? well what a can of worms there
howl me down . . but only a kangaroo court would convict either PIC of gross incompetence . . . . (even the best pilot in the world if honest enough will admit to the possibility of overload . . .. . and even though it sounds simplistic to say easy to be wise after the event there will always be a grain of truth in that)
no slur upon the pilot of MDX either . . simply that the circumstances were entirely different unless tossed around in a confusion of hopelessly general terms.
Thread Starter
I don't hate the RAAF. Just feel sorry for their ATCs in the way they are prevented from using the best airspace and procedures from leading aviation countries.
I don't object to holding if there is a safety related reason for it.
In most cases at Willy it's the 1950s airspace design and procedures that are the problem.
Give the tower some class D airspace to the coast and nearly all of the holding at Anna Bay low over the ocean would not be required.
And as I made clear one of the best change agents I ever had working for me at CAA was ex RAAF Ron Cooper.
I don't object to holding if there is a safety related reason for it.
In most cases at Willy it's the 1950s airspace design and procedures that are the problem.
Give the tower some class D airspace to the coast and nearly all of the holding at Anna Bay low over the ocean would not be required.
And as I made clear one of the best change agents I ever had working for me at CAA was ex RAAF Ron Cooper.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 23rd Mar 2016 at 23:14.
Thread Starter
To put it even more simply. There was only one reason the pilot went inland.
That was to get around the huge "road block"military airspace that had no military traffic at all that Sunday night.
If the airspace followed the proven North American design ( derr! Where do most of the RAAF planes come from?) MDX would have tracked over the top in classE airspace and there would not be 5 fatalities.
That was to get around the huge "road block"military airspace that had no military traffic at all that Sunday night.
If the airspace followed the proven North American design ( derr! Where do most of the RAAF planes come from?) MDX would have tracked over the top in classE airspace and there would not be 5 fatalities.
Dick, with all due respect, I do not think you are seeing the full picture.
You seem to be tunnel-visioned on the RAAF airspace.
When you say, "To put it even more simply. There was only one reason the pilot went inland." I would say the only reason is "get-home-itis".
From my limited knowledge of the accident, I believe he had a few options.
When I was advising younger inexperienced pilots, I told them, "the hardest thing you will ever have to do is to say NO to your mates, family and friends".
You seem to be tunnel-visioned on the RAAF airspace.
When you say, "To put it even more simply. There was only one reason the pilot went inland." I would say the only reason is "get-home-itis".
From my limited knowledge of the accident, I believe he had a few options.
When I was advising younger inexperienced pilots, I told them, "the hardest thing you will ever have to do is to say NO to your mates, family and friends".
Thread Starter
Come on. What's wrong in a free country of wanting to fly safely down the coast in good weather?
Yes. He could have cancelled the flight because of the ridiculous military airspace restrictions and that's clearly what he should have done with hindsight .
All Australians should Kowtow to the military at all times? Is that what you are suggesting?
His group are dead. I am attempting to prevent further deaths if other pilots are human and make mistakes.
Best way to do that is get the military to harmonise with proven safe practices from other leading aviation countries which are kinder to people who make human errors!
The ridiculous holding of up to 30 minutes low over the ocean in the coastal lane would then rarely happen.
Yes. He could have cancelled the flight because of the ridiculous military airspace restrictions and that's clearly what he should have done with hindsight .
All Australians should Kowtow to the military at all times? Is that what you are suggesting?
His group are dead. I am attempting to prevent further deaths if other pilots are human and make mistakes.
Best way to do that is get the military to harmonise with proven safe practices from other leading aviation countries which are kinder to people who make human errors!
The ridiculous holding of up to 30 minutes low over the ocean in the coastal lane would then rarely happen.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 24th Mar 2016 at 04:05.
"Come on. What's wrong in a free country of wanting to fly safely down the coast in good weather?"
So I can then go safely down the freeway in perfect conditions with almost zero traffic at 150MPH in a perfectly safe modern car?
C'mon Dick. Sadly obstacles, whether justified or not, are put in our way by bureaucrats every day to stop us doing what we really enjoy.
Somewhere the words from The Serenity Prayer come to mind.
A PIC has a responsibility to gather and assess ALL (weather, airspace, fuel, navaids, the list goes on and on and on) information with regard to his/her flight and must continually update and reassess this information and decisions as the flight progresses.
So I can then go safely down the freeway in perfect conditions with almost zero traffic at 150MPH in a perfectly safe modern car?
C'mon Dick. Sadly obstacles, whether justified or not, are put in our way by bureaucrats every day to stop us doing what we really enjoy.
Somewhere the words from The Serenity Prayer come to mind.
A PIC has a responsibility to gather and assess ALL (weather, airspace, fuel, navaids, the list goes on and on and on) information with regard to his/her flight and must continually update and reassess this information and decisions as the flight progresses.
Thread Starter
Fuji. I would love to claim I was just trying to see who was reading- but can't do that. Thanks.
Dog. I understand all that. But remember the KLM 747 captain who took off without a clearance at Teneriffe North? Anyone can make an error so if you keep the system as simple as possible it could mean less errors.
Dog. I understand all that. But remember the KLM 747 captain who took off without a clearance at Teneriffe North? Anyone can make an error so if you keep the system as simple as possible it could mean less errors.