Can someone explain my predicament here?
We have two disapperance here. VH-MDX and recently MH-370. One gone missing over land(?) over 30 years ago the other only a few months ago over water(?). I would have thought with todays digital technology we could find and aeroplane buried in the mountains with no problems since we can read a newspaper on the ground from outer space (according to NASA). so is it the costs that prevents a powerful satellite to scan the Barrington tops or is it conspiracy all over again?

I'm sure satellites can see many things from space, but I doubt they can see something as small as bits of a C210, through a triple canopy rainforest in a deep, dark valley!

Believe me, we've tried every bit of tech to try and find it...

Whist I find using the tragic fate of MDX as some form of spurious* link to a current day personal agenda repugnant, I don't find it unexpected.

* The events that occurred the night MDX disappeared could not transpire the same way today, so claiming it as a reason to have something done about Williamtown airspace is disingenuous. Civil airspace is now ALL (A, C, E, G) under a TAAATS 'service' - including a SIS to even VFR aircraft (as well as Safety Alerts) in Class G and E inside radar coverage. IFR aircraft receive a full FIS including MSA alerting. Not to mention duty of care. Communications with Williamtown are more streamlined. It goes on.

You need to take your issues with the management of Williamtown airspace up with the Royal Australian Air Force...

Hempy. Done that over a 30 year period. Got nowhere

How many more deaths before the RAAF share their airspace like the military in other countries do.

Don't hold your breath.

How many deaths have there been in total? Even allowing for an incident 30 years ago (which we've already ascertained would transpire much differently in 2014), how many more civilians have been killed by the restrictive management of RAAF Williamtown airspace?

I don't have any problem with your agenda, honestly, I just think that if you are going to use an emotive argument to garner support you really need to back it up with relevant facts. The crash of MDX is NOT relevant to your argument in 2014. Fact.

Without stats mate, like I said, it all just reads as a little unsavory..

Why should they? Civilian aircraft should stay well away from military airspace, especially given that neither the military or small civilian aircraft rarely transmit identifying or location details via ADS-B, which would help them avoid each other.

PJM
"Why should they? Civilian aircraft should stay well away from military airspace, especially given that neither the military or small civilian aircraft rarely transmit identifying or location details via ADS-B, which would help them avoid each other."
Most of the time there are no military aircraft flying in military areas.

I don't know about the RAAF, but the army at YBOK have certainly showed some common sense. They have recently (on Thursday) squared-off the control area to the south, effectively allowing transit from YTWB to the west OCTA. Not sure if this is due to the new Wellcamp airport or not, but certainly is a step foward

Well, well, who's not surprised by yet another pitch based on half-truths and 'expert' speculation to put the boot into the military once again? I'm sure that Channel 7, that paragon of objective reporting, wouldn't be swayed by sensationalism. No way! After all, its audience primarily consists of people that have never read a hard-cover book and hang on every development in the lives of the Kardashians. Can they be swayed by BS? Not a chance! Disappointing, though, that those that should have some discernment on this forum, when it comes to fact, present as a bunch of chooks at feeding time.

Read posts #4 and #9 from the Dr. The PIC has ultimate responsibility for the safety of flight. If the situation was dire, the declaration of an emergency, which never occurred, was mandatory.

The unending sniping to progress the never-ending agenda never surprises.

While all you have written is probably true Howabout, the simple fact remains:

It can be inordinately hard to get a simple clearance through Williamstown sometimes, I don't know why, I am not privy to the military traffic but the general impression I get is they don't give a toss.
Even the coastal lane can be sometimes be a tad difficult to get a clearance through.

Folks,
The big difference between Australia and any other western country is the sheer extent of military controlled and restricted airspace in Australia, particularly given our miniscule military aviation.

If military airspace was designed and operated as it is in US, Canada or throughout UK/NATO, the problem would largely go away.

Using the US example in particular (they having the most military and civilian aircraft, and aviation activity, of any western nation), if Australia operated to the US standards, civilian complaints would cease, and very considerable economic benefits would accrue, both to military and civilian sectors. If we managed to step up our standards, to produce air safety outcomes that at least equaled the US record, that would be a bonus.

The Sydney basin would be transformed, if the Richmond zone was the same size as a NATO (or even better US) military airfield control zone.

The Australian military policy has always been: 'We won WW11, it all belongs to us".

Tootle pip!!

All well and good..

WTF does it have to do with MDX??

Re-read #1

AB, thanks for the considered reply.

There are two distinct issues here. The first is access to airspace, which should always be the aim. The second is sectional interests that cynically blame the military for loss of life to push the barrow regarding the first issue.

From my perspective, the underlying thrust of this thread, from its origination, is that the military caused deaths.

That's a reprehensible proposition that is brought up time and again to support a self-interested agenda. Just my opinion.

I'll watch the program, but I view the inevitable half-truths and the spin as the usual vested interests doing what they do best. I wonder who's going to be the front-man in this charade.

Well said Howabout and Leadsled!:ok:

Me too, but given it is commercial television, I can't help but think "charade" will be the correct term. Hopefully I stand corrected.

Howabout , I just want to get the problem fixed.

I tried for 30 years to get the RAAF to use proven overseas procedures in our airspace to improve safety.

I have failed to get any measurable change.

I have offered to pay for RAAF personel to go overseas to see just how other modern countries share airspace. No luck.

The pilot of MDX said he would like a clearance coastal for obvious reasons.

It was only after he was about to die that he was told to track towards Willy.

You and your mates can cover the truth as much as you like and blame me!

You will not like what I say on the show. I hope it helps bring in change so this accident is not repeated.

Let's look at a VFR trip I have done often, originating near Wilsons Prom and ending at Tyagarah (Byron Bay).

First there is Sale where clearance is sometimes given at 500' up the beach despite arriving at the boundary closer to 4000.

Next comes Nowra where I have to follow a dogleg route in a narrow corridor for no good reason.

Next comes Williamstown where I may have to hold at Nobby's head then follow a beach (again) or if I have no transponder, follow a low level VFR route along a railway line.

Not long after this comes Evans Head airspace, which if active means no clearance at all, regardless of weather.

All for a tiny airforce with few aircraft airborne but with an ego that beats USA hands down.

Dick, I reckon I might just like what you say on the show.

Ratsore. Re post 3

In the situation which exists in other countries the Willy controller equivalent would have had the flight plan details and advised the pilot to expect clearance at a certain level.

Even today the Willy controller gets no details on the plan. I believe our military controllers are as good as any in the world however they are constrained by out of date rules and airspace .

If this doesn't change there is clearly a likely hood of further fatalities in the future

I don't want to say. " I told you so" I want my country to be as good as other countries I have flown in when it comes to modern safe procedures.

That's the problem with debating you Dick.

Your implication, less than rational, is that I 'blame' you for an accident that you had nothing to do with. I stretch my head as to how you could come to such a conclusion.

Where, oh where, did I make the allegation that you are to blame?

No; from my perspective, you run loose with the truth to pursue a personal agenda. That's my central issue - speculation and unsubstantiated accusations unsupported by fact to make an unsustainable argument.

'Me and my mates covering the truth?' That's a pretty serious accusation, Dick. Particularly since they weren't 'my mates.' 'Cover up?' Spare me!

You are on line now and will remain so for the duration of the program, and for some time afterwards, to check the responses. I suppose ego has something to do with that.

I'd ask, in anticipation, how many of your accusations about the military are supported by fact rather than speculation, opinion and baseless innuendo. Let's see.