New MDX - Five Dead Williamtown Never Found
Actually I think that the RPT pax at Ballina would be more than happy to think that the ARFF that they are paying for is there to cover their a#@e, and not being spent on services that they don't use, or even know about.
Sure AsA is a monopoly, so you would want to think it makes money, or at least breaks even, because if it was losing money, who do you think would be paying more? Certainly not the taxpayer.
And yes, private citizens are often at the back of the queue, and not just in aviation. It is seen as just an expensive hobby. Airlines are seen as a little more important. That's what the P for public in RPT is for. That's why you and I can't drive in a bus lane either. The needs of the many are lesser to the few in just about all aspects of life these days.
Sure AsA is a monopoly, so you would want to think it makes money, or at least breaks even, because if it was losing money, who do you think would be paying more? Certainly not the taxpayer.
And yes, private citizens are often at the back of the queue, and not just in aviation. It is seen as just an expensive hobby. Airlines are seen as a little more important. That's what the P for public in RPT is for. That's why you and I can't drive in a bus lane either. The needs of the many are lesser to the few in just about all aspects of life these days.
Whose arse has RFFS ever covered?
Isn't the more significant risk to the passengers that of a mid-air in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G? What help would you anticipate RFFS providing in the event of a mid air in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G, other than hosing fire retardant over the bodies?
I'm not saying it isn't nice to have an RFFS. I'm saying an RFFS isn't the most effective use of the finite risk mitigation resources to mitigate the subtstantial risks.
"Seen as a little more important". A political point, not a safety point, which is precisely my point.
Isn't the more significant risk to the passengers that of a mid-air in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G? What help would you anticipate RFFS providing in the event of a mid air in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G, other than hosing fire retardant over the bodies?
I'm not saying it isn't nice to have an RFFS. I'm saying an RFFS isn't the most effective use of the finite risk mitigation resources to mitigate the subtstantial risks.
"Seen as a little more important". A political point, not a safety point, which is precisely my point.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't any dispute from me that the pilot of MDX should have coped with where he was sent. There isn't also any doubt in my mind that the "inland' route should not have even been considered by the RAAF. Why not coastal? Traffic? Blame the pilot all day, but why was he sent there? Why was it mentioned? I do not want to fly a single engine aircraft at night over tiger country simply because the military want to own half of NSW airspace, and are protective of what they "own".
PS Some figures from memory of a Bureau of Transport Economics paper in the 80's. Formula is lives saved per dollar spent.
Motorcycle Helmets $15,000, Seatbelts $75,000, Life jackets $4,000,000 Life Rafts $12,000,000 RFFS $22,000,000.
PS Some figures from memory of a Bureau of Transport Economics paper in the 80's. Formula is lives saved per dollar spent.
Motorcycle Helmets $15,000, Seatbelts $75,000, Life jackets $4,000,000 Life Rafts $12,000,000 RFFS $22,000,000.
Last edited by Bill Pike; 26th Feb 2016 at 05:25.
Bill, you're claiming that MDX was 'sent' inland by the RAAF. RatsoreA's various posts (particularly #16 and #17) directly contradict this. Are you saying that RatsoreA's information is totally incorrect? This seems to be at the very core of the discussion.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Report - "After departing Coolangatta the flight proceeded without recorded incident to Taree. At this point the pilot reported to Sydney Flight Service Centre that he was cruising at 8000 feet and estimating overhead Singleton at 1930 hours EST.
At the suggestion of Flight Service and with the agreement of the pilot, Flight Service and Sydney Air Traffic Control then began to co-ordinate a clearance to allow the aircraft to continue to track, more directly, via the coast and transit the Williamtown military areas; however this clearance was delayed because of uncertainty regarding the amount of cloud and general weather conditions to the south of Williamtown.
Some 8 minutes after passing Taree the pilot advised that he would continue on his planned track rather than hold to the north of Williamtown pending the issuing of a clearance.
He subsequently reported when passing the Craven position, and advised that the aircraft was experiencing "considerable turbulence now and quite a lot of downdraught". Five minutes later, at 1924 hours EST, the pilot reported that the aircraft had entered cloud. He requested a clearance to climb to 10,000 feet and shortly afterwards advised that the primary flight instruments, i.e. the artificial horizon and the gyroscopically controlled direction indicator had failed.
Search and Rescue procedures were initiated and at 1928 hours the aircraft was identified by radar. At this time the aircraft was near the Barrington Tops, some 58 km north of Singleton, and about 40 km Northwest of the planned track.
This information was relayed to the pilot , who advised that he was having difficulty in climbing to 8500 feet.
At 1934 hours he indicated that the aircraft was no longer in cloud, however it had accumulated "a fair amount of ice".
He continued to report strong turbulence and further ice accretion, and indicated that the aircraft was descending rapidly. The last recorded transmission from the aircraft was at 1939 hours, when the pilot advised the aircraft was at five thousand feet. Radar contact with the aircraft was also lost at this time." (my bold)
Bill, I don't see how you can say that MDX was "sent inland by the RAAF", when the pilot of MDX made his own decision to continue with his planned flight path, and elected not to wait for clearance over Williamtown.
At the suggestion of Flight Service and with the agreement of the pilot, Flight Service and Sydney Air Traffic Control then began to co-ordinate a clearance to allow the aircraft to continue to track, more directly, via the coast and transit the Williamtown military areas; however this clearance was delayed because of uncertainty regarding the amount of cloud and general weather conditions to the south of Williamtown.
Some 8 minutes after passing Taree the pilot advised that he would continue on his planned track rather than hold to the north of Williamtown pending the issuing of a clearance.
He subsequently reported when passing the Craven position, and advised that the aircraft was experiencing "considerable turbulence now and quite a lot of downdraught". Five minutes later, at 1924 hours EST, the pilot reported that the aircraft had entered cloud. He requested a clearance to climb to 10,000 feet and shortly afterwards advised that the primary flight instruments, i.e. the artificial horizon and the gyroscopically controlled direction indicator had failed.
Search and Rescue procedures were initiated and at 1928 hours the aircraft was identified by radar. At this time the aircraft was near the Barrington Tops, some 58 km north of Singleton, and about 40 km Northwest of the planned track.
This information was relayed to the pilot , who advised that he was having difficulty in climbing to 8500 feet.
At 1934 hours he indicated that the aircraft was no longer in cloud, however it had accumulated "a fair amount of ice".
He continued to report strong turbulence and further ice accretion, and indicated that the aircraft was descending rapidly. The last recorded transmission from the aircraft was at 1939 hours, when the pilot advised the aircraft was at five thousand feet. Radar contact with the aircraft was also lost at this time." (my bold)
Bill, I don't see how you can say that MDX was "sent inland by the RAAF", when the pilot of MDX made his own decision to continue with his planned flight path, and elected not to wait for clearance over Williamtown.
most effective use of the finite risk mitigation resources to mitigate the subtstantial risks.
From that it seems that worldwide, 61% of commercial aircraft accidents occur during first or last stages of a flight, so there's a reasonable chance that if it happens, it'll happen at an aerodrome (where the firies are).
From a 2008 CSIRO paper 'Decision Support for Risk Assessment of Mid-air Collisions via Population-based Measures"
Excerpt from Table 5
Individual risk for mid-air collisions in Australia - (1961-2004)
National Individual Risk due to the (entire) air transport sector
7.8 x 10-8
Excerpt from Table 5
Individual risk for mid-air collisions in Australia - (1961-2004)
National Individual Risk due to the (entire) air transport sector
7.8 x 10-8
Now we all know that there are a lot more accidents due other causes than mid airs, so I would say the the money is going where the substantial risk is.
Anyway, this is taking this way off thread.
I suspect a counter argument may be this: How many lives have demonstrably been saved by the aerodrome firies freeing people from pranged GA aeroplanes involved in take off or landing accidents in Australia?
(For simplicity, perhaps over the last thirty years?)
(For simplicity, perhaps over the last thirty years?)
From that it seems that worldwide, 61% of commercial aircraft accidents occur during first or last stages of a flight, so there's a reasonable chance that if it happens, it'll happen at an aerodrome (where the firies are).
There's a "reasonable chance" that it will happen in the vicinity of an aerodrome, not at the aerodrome. There's also a high probability that, if an accident happens, it will be a mid air or something at high speed, as a consequence of which everyone on a disabled aircraft will almost certainly be dead.
This is not to say that it's impossible for a fire to break out or accidents to occur at aerodrome during which lives could be saved by an RFFS. E.g. runway collisions in poor vis might not kill all POB. Nor is it to say that it's fantastic to have firies on standby if someone has e.g. an undercarriage warning that means there could be a problem on landing. But it is to say that those millions could be spent on mitigating risks with greater probabilities.
Thread Starter
One track. He was sent inland because of the road block airspace design
There was no military traffic at the time.
In North Amerca and the U.K. the pilot would have tracked overhead and not even required a clearance from the tower.
Holding OCTA that night without a DME or radar assistance would have been very difficult. The FSO was already concerned that the aircraft was getting close to the boundary .
The RAAF incompetents have prevented any worthwhile modernisation of the airspace for 50 years.
Even CASA said it should be class D like Broome - but these people are incapable of making a leadership decision that could save the industry money and improve safety
There was no military traffic at the time.
In North Amerca and the U.K. the pilot would have tracked overhead and not even required a clearance from the tower.
Holding OCTA that night without a DME or radar assistance would have been very difficult. The FSO was already concerned that the aircraft was getting close to the boundary .
The RAAF incompetents have prevented any worthwhile modernisation of the airspace for 50 years.
Even CASA said it should be class D like Broome - but these people are incapable of making a leadership decision that could save the industry money and improve safety
We should really cut through all this crap and stop playing your game, Dick.
Three new threads, all really about the same thing - safety, no! Rather, your desire to never have to wait for a clearance.
If the moderators are happy to let you keep putting these emotive furphies up, well and good, but if you wanted people to get on your bandwagon, count me out from here on in.
New MDX - Five Dead Williamtown Never Found
Williamtown VFR Flight Planning
Huge Willy Airspace
If the moderators are happy to let you keep putting these emotive furphies up, well and good, but if you wanted people to get on your bandwagon, count me out from here on in.
Lead, emotively I'd agree with you, but statistics and actual probability guide the beancounters who allocate the money. There's another graph by Boeing that shows that 37% of fatal accidents (where more than one dead, but not necessarily all involved) to jets occur during takeoff and landing ie at the drome. Obviously in 100% of accidents everywhere, something went wrong, but the chance of that being a mid air are statistically very small, and in Australia more often involve gliders, or are in the circuit at the major secondary airports.
Thread Starter
I have no problems in waiting for a clearance if a real safety issue is involved.
I am trying to save needless lives lost because we do not use modern procedures that empower air traffic controllers .
Much of the holding ar Williamtown involves single engined aircraft over water. Never seen anything like it in other countries
I am trying to save needless lives lost because we do not use modern procedures that empower air traffic controllers .
Much of the holding ar Williamtown involves single engined aircraft over water. Never seen anything like it in other countries
[S]tatistics and actual probability guide the beancounters who allocate the money.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith Comment
Mr Smith is entitled to his opinions, however if he were to follow through on his threat to conduct the campaign below,
"My next plan is to publicly warn young Australians in a major campaign not to join an organisation which is so disfunctional and so lacks leadership that it can't copy the best from around the world.. Even after 30 years",
one must question his claimed patriotism. Mr Smith is a self made wealthy man with the resources to conduct such a campaign.
As a former member of the RAAF I take exception to the comments of Mr Smith in relationship to the leadership of the RAAF and I might remind Mr smith that all aspects of life has it's share of incompetent "leaders". That does not mean that the whole organisation can fairly be labelled as such.
Certainly make a case for change if you must Mr Smith, but remember that one day it might be your backside the RAAF is out there looking for and, if possible, saving.
"My next plan is to publicly warn young Australians in a major campaign not to join an organisation which is so disfunctional and so lacks leadership that it can't copy the best from around the world.. Even after 30 years",
one must question his claimed patriotism. Mr Smith is a self made wealthy man with the resources to conduct such a campaign.
As a former member of the RAAF I take exception to the comments of Mr Smith in relationship to the leadership of the RAAF and I might remind Mr smith that all aspects of life has it's share of incompetent "leaders". That does not mean that the whole organisation can fairly be labelled as such.
Certainly make a case for change if you must Mr Smith, but remember that one day it might be your backside the RAAF is out there looking for and, if possible, saving.
What, you mean the ADF might condescend to doing what Dick's taxes trained and equipped the ADF to do?
It is an odd aspect of the Australian psyche that the government and its agencies consider their existence to be some kind of immutable fact, with pesky private citizens getting in the way of governments and their agencies getting on with the important work of ... hmmm ... what is the ultimate purpose of the Australian government and its agencies?
Without private citizens creating real wealth, there would be no taxes to pay for the ADF. And the ADF exists to protect the freedom of ... whom? All those companies which pay no company tax?
I repeat: My view is that Dick's scaremongering is inexcusable, as is his attribution of the MDX tragedy to the RAAF. But he's only doing what many of his opponents do when he tries to implement change. There's gunna be mid-airs and aluminium confetti and burnt bodies and every other disaster that plays on the minds of the travelling public. Although I'm pretty sick of Dick on these issues, I'm even sicker of the scaremongering tactics of his opponents.
(And I have zero doubt that the RAAF are consummate professionals in carrying out any and every SAR task imposed on them.)
It is an odd aspect of the Australian psyche that the government and its agencies consider their existence to be some kind of immutable fact, with pesky private citizens getting in the way of governments and their agencies getting on with the important work of ... hmmm ... what is the ultimate purpose of the Australian government and its agencies?
Without private citizens creating real wealth, there would be no taxes to pay for the ADF. And the ADF exists to protect the freedom of ... whom? All those companies which pay no company tax?
I repeat: My view is that Dick's scaremongering is inexcusable, as is his attribution of the MDX tragedy to the RAAF. But he's only doing what many of his opponents do when he tries to implement change. There's gunna be mid-airs and aluminium confetti and burnt bodies and every other disaster that plays on the minds of the travelling public. Although I'm pretty sick of Dick on these issues, I'm even sicker of the scaremongering tactics of his opponents.
(And I have zero doubt that the RAAF are consummate professionals in carrying out any and every SAR task imposed on them.)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scaremongering!!
LB, what aspect of my post is scaremongering? I simply make the point that Mr Smith is entitled to an opinion and the only reason his wealth was mentioned is because he could, if he is of a mind to, afford a campaign aimed at discouraging young men and women from becoming part of the ADF. His statements about the "incompetents" in the RAAF are much too much of a general nature to be creditable. How about naming these "incompetents" Dick? Certainly the ADF has had it's share of less than forward thinkers, but so too does every industry. As for your comment about the "ADF condescending to do what Dick's taxes paid to train and equip them to do" I did not suggest that to be the case. The ADF, in particular the RAAF, have located, and at times saved the lives of, numerous people regardless of their position in society or their affluence. The humanitarian work undertaken by the ADF goes unheralded often simply because it goes with the territory. I suspect that many of the knockers of the RAAF on PPRuNe have either never been in the RAAF, failed their training or failed to gain selection.
My apologies, Old Fella. There was no scaremongering in your post and I did not intend to give the impression that I was accusing you of that. 
one must question his claimed patriotism.
Who was proved to have done what, in what court?
Hopefully you'll never be gaoled without trial or access to an independent judiciary. Pray you have the luck never to find out why the laws of habeus corpus, evidence and separation of powers developed in civilised societies.
The 'crimes' Mr Hicks committed were:
- not to have the ESP to realise the USA's allies one week can be the USA's enemies the next, and
- to be an easy pawn for cravenly self-interested politicians.
Hopefully you'll never be gaoled without trial or access to an independent judiciary. Pray you have the luck never to find out why the laws of habeus corpus, evidence and separation of powers developed in civilised societies.
The 'crimes' Mr Hicks committed were:
- not to have the ESP to realise the USA's allies one week can be the USA's enemies the next, and
- to be an easy pawn for cravenly self-interested politicians.