Misleading Article in Australian Aviation in Relation to Williamtown MDX Accident
but at least be accurate with your assertions.
I daresay that NAS Lemoore, the UK bases you mentioned or any other major military bases don't have RPT A320s, B737s and E jets coming and going at semi-regular intervals
Excuses, excuses to justify the unjustifiable in Australia. Does it ever occur to all you proponents of the status quo that Dick might actually be right.
Tootle pip!!
PS: It ain't radar coverage, small mil. zones where there before widespread radar coverage --- before WW11.
Probably wasn't the reason for the way the airspace was created, but it's definitely the reason that the airspace won't be changed (well not reduced in size anyway).
I think I can speak for all the mindless automatons, cogs in the machine and other arbitrary dudes that you and Dick haven't insulted yet when I say - NOPE!
I think I can speak for all the mindless automatons, cogs in the machine and other arbitrary dudes that you and Dick haven't insulted yet when I say - NOPE!
Last edited by Maggie Island; 30th Jun 2016 at 03:16.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without diving into the whole MDX imbroglio I can say that if these circumstances occurred in a similar situation in the US it would have been sorted immediately and ASSISTANCE not just clearances would have been freely given and I have no doubt that a safe end to the flight would have resulted.
I am unsure why many here take every opportunity to defend an archaic and oft dysfunctional system. While the FSO ATC likely followed PROCEDURES in accordance with their existing manual of standards equivalent therefore cannot be personally culpable, in US the guy at the other end of the radio is safety and assistance focussed and will readily offer advice or clear the way to get someone out of trouble by whatever means.
Likely the pilot would already be on Flight Following which is almost always available in the US to anyone anytime, with or without notification, VFR day or night, experimental, whatever. It is great and in the case of MDX type issues, there would be no issue.
Until you have used the US system ( or UK, or the EU) and become comfortable how simple it is to use and how well it works, you cannot understand how totally fcuked up our super safe system is. And it does not provide the level of safety it claims. Big skies and no planes make it work. We even have to funnel planes into corridors and entry points to get them close enough together to make it sufficiently dangerous to justify towers, but then use procedures rather than radar to stop them hitting each other.
Airspace reform is needed but It will never happen here in the lucky country because most would rather default to tall poppy syndrome than support some force for change. If MDX is the vehicle to keep it on the 'radar' so be it.
Rant mode ON
I'm looking for work overseas at the moment, I'm just so sick of CASA, Avmed, petty little pedantic FOI's who look for enforcement as a first action, who feel free to interpret (ie twist to their tiny narrow world) rules, and then make serious grief when called out. Sick of an overall system that makes arbitrary rules that have reverse safety outcomes, but that will steamroll those who try to actually do the right thing. Petty stupid system, written by lawyers, based on complicated expensive procedures by people on big salaries and super, BUT no initiative, nouse, or fundamental core competencies. People who do not care about aviation, ga or transport, and who will smash anyone based on their facile sanctimoneous enforcement of safety. Stop all the planes, all the operators all the maintainers, the flight crews, the manufacturers, the support industries by making everything SO FCUKING COMPLICATED and manual/process reliant, rather than 'fostering aviation ' which was in the original DCA charter.
No planes=totally safe, mission accomplished. An aviation minister who has NFI in a government with no aviation policy. Redevelop airports as parking and shopping precincts or prime housing developments. Aviation in Australia, who needs it! Bah,
Aviation does not need to be this regulation and process bound, so complicated and time consuming for even simple tasks, it can be fun, enjoyable AND SAFER.
Trying to select rant mode to OFF, but it's jammed .........
HD
I am unsure why many here take every opportunity to defend an archaic and oft dysfunctional system. While the FSO ATC likely followed PROCEDURES in accordance with their existing manual of standards equivalent therefore cannot be personally culpable, in US the guy at the other end of the radio is safety and assistance focussed and will readily offer advice or clear the way to get someone out of trouble by whatever means.
Likely the pilot would already be on Flight Following which is almost always available in the US to anyone anytime, with or without notification, VFR day or night, experimental, whatever. It is great and in the case of MDX type issues, there would be no issue.
Until you have used the US system ( or UK, or the EU) and become comfortable how simple it is to use and how well it works, you cannot understand how totally fcuked up our super safe system is. And it does not provide the level of safety it claims. Big skies and no planes make it work. We even have to funnel planes into corridors and entry points to get them close enough together to make it sufficiently dangerous to justify towers, but then use procedures rather than radar to stop them hitting each other.
Airspace reform is needed but It will never happen here in the lucky country because most would rather default to tall poppy syndrome than support some force for change. If MDX is the vehicle to keep it on the 'radar' so be it.
Rant mode ON
I'm looking for work overseas at the moment, I'm just so sick of CASA, Avmed, petty little pedantic FOI's who look for enforcement as a first action, who feel free to interpret (ie twist to their tiny narrow world) rules, and then make serious grief when called out. Sick of an overall system that makes arbitrary rules that have reverse safety outcomes, but that will steamroll those who try to actually do the right thing. Petty stupid system, written by lawyers, based on complicated expensive procedures by people on big salaries and super, BUT no initiative, nouse, or fundamental core competencies. People who do not care about aviation, ga or transport, and who will smash anyone based on their facile sanctimoneous enforcement of safety. Stop all the planes, all the operators all the maintainers, the flight crews, the manufacturers, the support industries by making everything SO FCUKING COMPLICATED and manual/process reliant, rather than 'fostering aviation ' which was in the original DCA charter.
No planes=totally safe, mission accomplished. An aviation minister who has NFI in a government with no aviation policy. Redevelop airports as parking and shopping precincts or prime housing developments. Aviation in Australia, who needs it! Bah,
Aviation does not need to be this regulation and process bound, so complicated and time consuming for even simple tasks, it can be fun, enjoyable AND SAFER.
Trying to select rant mode to OFF, but it's jammed .........
HD
You asked the wrong question, Leaddie. It's not about individual personalities.
The correct question is:
Does it ever occur to all you proponents of the status quo that the Americans may know a little more than Australia about moving and mixing lots of military, civilian commercial and private aircraft around the sky at levels of safety that are justified by the risks and costs?
No doubt someone will come up with examples of mid-airs in the USA involving various aircraft in this mixture. Which kinda makes the point. Australia seems to be labouring under the misconception that there's such a thing as a risk-free environment that can be achieved at reasonable cost.
The correct question is:
Does it ever occur to all you proponents of the status quo that the Americans may know a little more than Australia about moving and mixing lots of military, civilian commercial and private aircraft around the sky at levels of safety that are justified by the risks and costs?
No doubt someone will come up with examples of mid-airs in the USA involving various aircraft in this mixture. Which kinda makes the point. Australia seems to be labouring under the misconception that there's such a thing as a risk-free environment that can be achieved at reasonable cost.
Lead Balloon,
Well put.
As I an certain you well know, what mid-airs there have been in the US, over the years, have mostly (as you would expect) been around the circuit areas or well used arrival/departure routes --- so, strangely enough, FAA (and most of CA or EEC) concentrate their CNS/ATM resources there --- unlike our apparent policy of "inverse risk management", where (outside of primary airports and a couple of of others) ATC restrictions are roughly inverse --- as the risk decreases, the restrictions increase ---- the illogical aversion to E.
But what would I know, I've only been flying around the world for 50+ years.
Tootle pip!!
Well put.
As I an certain you well know, what mid-airs there have been in the US, over the years, have mostly (as you would expect) been around the circuit areas or well used arrival/departure routes --- so, strangely enough, FAA (and most of CA or EEC) concentrate their CNS/ATM resources there --- unlike our apparent policy of "inverse risk management", where (outside of primary airports and a couple of of others) ATC restrictions are roughly inverse --- as the risk decreases, the restrictions increase ---- the illogical aversion to E.
But what would I know, I've only been flying around the world for 50+ years.
Tootle pip!!
