Channel 7 Sunday Night Program About VH-MDX
 

Participants in this site may have seen the advertisements on Channel Seven that are running for their top rating show, Sunday Night, which is going to air this Sunday 1st June at 7.30pm. The program will cover that terrible VH-MDX Cessna 210 crash in the Barrington Tops area. This is where five people were killed and the crash site has never been discovered. The families of those on board have never had closure and been able to arrange proper burials.

I was extensively interviewed and probably had a different perspective to most. I blame the situation on the military airspace at Williamtown, which is situated right in the centre of one of the busiest air routes in the world. Even today the Enroute Supplement mentions flight limitations on how you cannot flight plan over Williamtown below 10,000 feet.

On the night of the accident (9th August, 1981), the Flight Service Officer even asked the pilot if he wanted to try and get direct tracking over Williamtown. The Pilot agreed, however was quickly told there would be a delay. Imagine holding out there over the mountains in turbulent winds, waiting for however long it would take for the flight details to be sent to Williamtown and for the controller to provide the clearance – it was CAVOK at Willi at the time.

The Pilot decided to take the risk and follow the normal route which diverts around Williamtown but puts an aircraft and its passengers over some of the most rugged country in Australia – if, indeed, the world! Of course, the winds reported that night was up to 70 knots and so there would have been a gigantic rotor. Pilots who have flown in that area in high winds all know just how violent it can be.

Of course, nothing has changed. You can’t file a flight plan across Williamtown if it’s active. I mentioned in my interview that I don’t know anywhere else in the world where such a situation exists. My experience on my flights around the world is that in other countries the military facilitate all traffic through their airspace in every way they can; they don’t use the Australian principle of ‘sterilising’ airspace whenever the airspace is made active – the whole airspace becomes active and others are restricted and can’t file a flight plan through the airspace.

Also, remember in those days - and what’s not in the BASI Report is that the Pilot never, ever spoke to a radar controller - it was all going second and third-hand to the Flight Service Officer. I’m glad I fixed that when I was Chairman of CAA – but I remember the resistance to having airspace that was covered by radar actually then allowing the pilots to talk directly to the radar controller – as it is today.

I have a feeling that this will be a very disturbing program.

Dick, it probably won't lead to anything being changed, just a bunch of people shaking their heads is wonderment and tsk-tsk-ing and changing the channel to watch CSI.

I lost 3 mates as an indirect result of that search, when a RAAF Huey had a problem on that search, and landed. It subsequently crashed while investigating the problem.

I expect there will be the oft-quoted groups of people with their own theories on where MDX is, and good luck if they find it - nearby will be the vertically-buried remains of a couple of Mirages as well.

Some small points
 

Dick,

I certainaly agree with your comments about trying to go through/over/around Williamtown, and certainly share your enthusiasm in trying to bring the story to a close, but I have a few small points about your post -

The controller had just provided a clearance for AZC, a C206 at 8000, the same level as MDX was requesting, and MDX was closing on him. He was offered 7000 or 9000, but declined it. The delay was only a few minutes, and wouldn't require much holding. Any holding that MDX was required to do would have been over the posistion that he was in at the moment, at 8000ft on a line roughly TAREE-NABIAC, practically over the ocean, where conditions were CAVOK and relativly smooth. There was a westerly wind blowing, but well outside of the range of the mountain induced turbulance. The place he finally elected to take up his original planned route was roughly over Nabiac. The decision to take up the original planned track was solely the choice of the PIC. The arguement about risk of SE flight at night or in IMC is for another place! We suspect that he was unaware at this point that his vac pump had failed (or was very nearly about to fail).

Whilst this may be factually correct, it did not contribute to the situation, and communications between Sector 1, FIS 5 and Williamtown Tower were communicated effectivly and promptly. The controller at Williamtown was operating inside the framework and left and right of arcs as dictated to him by policy at the time.

Hopefully we can bring this to a conclusion soon. If you want to discuss it with me at all, feel free to PM me!

Perhaps a contributing factor - but I blame poor risk management and decision making by the PIC!

Dr :8

Yes. But if it had been kept simple with a prompt clearance through Williamtown which was CAVOK they might all be alive today.

RatsoreA

At the present time I am looking at the transcript of the communications and I cannot see at any stage that the MDX pilot was offered 7,000 or 9,000 feet and declined this. In fact, my transcript shows that at 18:53-47 he was told by Sydney Flight Service that the airspace at a high level in Williamtown was non-VMC. He then came back and said,

He was then told to remain outside controlled airspace with the flight service officer saying,

At 18:54-39 he then said,

Sydney FSU said,

Then at 18:55-33 the pilot said to Sydney flight service,

RatsoreA, it is pretty clear to me that the pilot thought he would probably have considerable holding, which is normal at Williamtown, and he didn’t want to do that over tiger country in pitch darkness at night. He possibly had good lights ahead of Williamtown and Newcastle, but pitch black behind him which he would have to turn into if he was going to hold.

Most importantly, I reckon the fact that the pilot was not able to talk directly to a radar controller did contribute to the accident. That was because when the pilot turned away from the correct heading, the flight service officer didn’t tell him because the FSO did not know!

I find it fascinating that BASI made no recommendation about using the radar more effectively.

That's just speculation Dick. May have made it easier to find the wreck.

I think the holes in the Swiss cheese were already starting to line up for that flight when it departed Cooly.

The PIC could also have declared an emergency and gone anywhere he liked!

Dr :8

Dick,

I strongly suspect that you are not in possesion of all the information or the FULL transcript. I am. I have also interviewed personally, at length both the FIS 5 FSO and the Williamtown controller.

The delay between MDX being offered to track via WLMTN is 5 minutes and 29 seconds, 08:50:31 (offered to track over WLTM) to 08:56.00 (turning to Craven).

During that time, there was near constant communications between FIS 5, Sector 1, and Williamtown, to get clearance through the Williamtown zone.

Betwen 08:52.22 and 08:53.00, Williamtown controller said to FIS 5 that 7 or 9 was available. It then went to Sector 1, who informed them that their sector was non-VMC.

I would hardly call the area SWS of Taree 'Tiger country', which it the area he would have had to hold in. Out to the west, over the Tops, certainly. But the area he would be required to hold in, and only for another 30-40 seconds, is quite ok.

MDX was not under radar control, and was outside the area of responsibility of Sector 1 and 2. He was essentially "OCTA" in that area. Also, the Williamtown Radar only operated out to 48nm.

As I said, I suspect that you are operating under not having all the information regarding this. If you like, PM me, and I will share with you everything. It will very much open your eyes about MDX!

What do you mean by that?

Do you mean the maximum range of the radar was 48nm?

Or do you mean the Radar controller’s range of responsibility in the sky ended at 48nm?

It’s the difference between not being on radar at all on the one hand, and being on radar but not within the radar controller’s area of responsibility on the other.

Creampuff -

That!

This -

Was much smaller! In fact, the operator on that night was not yet qualified to rely on radar for separation. He knew how to use, and could use it to assist his situational awareness, but, he was only 'qualified' to use procedural separation for aircraft in his airspace.

And do you believe that the maximum range of the radar was 48nm?

If so, I have some very cheap shares in the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.

Creampuff,

Yes, I do believe, as it is a verifiable fact. You you like me to send you the information about it?

No need to send me any information. I know the answer, from first-hand experience. ;)

Judging from your posts about Brooklyn bridge, I would suggest that you don't.

We may be talking at cross-purposes. To which radar installation at Williamtown, precisely, are you referring?

Have you served any time in the RAAF?

I am specifically referring to the SURAD, that was installed there and was operating in Aug '81. The PPI (Plan position indicator) that the controller had access to, was centred on Williamtown airport, and the outer edge of the PPI was 48nm. The MTI (moving target indicator, for those of you playing along at home, like a filter for clutter) was set at 44nm. There were range rings at every 10nm on the PPI, and a compass rose set around the outside edge. There were permanently displayed 'echoes' between 44 and 48nm that were the Barrington Tops.

There were other radars at Williamtown (and still are) but the only one being used for ATC duties, or even manned, on that night was the one I just described above. Would you like me to send a picture?

As for the last part of your post, you'll have to PM me.

No need for a picture: I know precisely what you’re talking about. ;)

Inclined to agree with Dick regarding military airspace, I never could understand, in a modern day and age of the cruise missile, the strategic sense of having the means of defense parked right next to the means of supply.
On the odd occasion, when they have enough money, or the mood takes them, RAAF willy have been known to put an aircraft into the air thus blocking nearly all the airspace between Willy and Dubbo in the low to mid FL's to civilian traffic.
I guess it never affected the Rat or other airlines to any extent at high levels, but of course GA at mid levels, well they are just the dregs of the industry, not worthy of consideration.
I've come out of Armidale bound for Wagga in a metro, fifteen in the back, very wide eyed, stuck at 7000 ft in the most appalling weather ( One of those days when you scope the radar and go OH sh..T and turn it off) and had to endure the pounding, severe ice, etc. all the way to Mudgee before I could get a climb, because RAAF Willy had a hard on and an F16 practicing steep turns or whatever, over Singleton. Had to do it a few times in a Citation as well.
Always wondered Dick just how many tails are sticking out of the trees on the Barrington's? bet there's more than officially recognized.

Thorny,

I actually agree with the problems getting through Mil airspace. I go back and forth from Sydney and Brisbane, and I get tired of spending the extra fuel to go and see scone from the air! Evans head particularly sh$ts me!!!

But it's not the controllers fault, they are operating inside the rules and framework that is set for them.

And there is quite a few planes in trees! Off the top of my head, there's a skipper, a macchi, a mirage, a Hudson, and Mdx! By no means an exhaustive list, it's been a long week and it's beer o'clock!

Rats, I agree it aint the controllers, its the system. This Cr..P does not occur overseas, Australia is still living in a Second world war time warp.....no a first world war time warp!!!

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.