Dick I’m still a tad confused if they were going to NTL or not. The flight info I saw at the time of posting which was not long after the event, was it was stopping in NTL, this info appears to be gone from online sites. Others are saying it wasn’t stopping. Some are saying it was. Then came reports that they were speaking to the Tower about ditching. This information is somewhat vague and unconfirmed. I understand the media are not getting answers to these basic communication questions out of the Air Force.

The tracking somewhat navigating away from the dunes for a planned ditching lined up with that ditching statement but it appears more likely a loss of control in gusty, wet and miserable IFR conditions I think. Pilot inexperience in such conditions? Well it certainly has not flown much this year.

How far off-shore was it found?

Seems amazing that a SAR aircraft spotted the tail-rotor sinking!

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8e463672c1.jpg

Surprise surprise that a certain someone is here with a torch and pitchfork to blame the RAAF.

Junior. No surprise. Just commonsense.

It is is well known that the RAAF Willy ATCs are often forced to keep VFR aircraft holding at Anna Bay.

This is primarily caused by 1950s procedures that have never been updated!

I wonder why the secrecy about the radio calls?

The delay is not ‘caused’ by aircraft inbound to or outbound from Willy, military or otherwise.

The delay is caused by 1950s procedures that still treat an aircraft miles away from the extended centreline of the Willy runway, at 500’ AGL, as being a material risk to aircraft inbound to or outbound from Willy (military or otherwise).

Someone give me the probabilities of an aircraft inbound or outbound from Willy colliding with an aircraft at 500’ over Stockton Beach.

Hopefully someone will pipe up and say: “Even if it’s a vanishingly remote risk, it can be mitigated by making people hold over 10 nautical miles away”, thus proving the point.

If the clearance limit was Anna Bay the pilot would have most likely had the lights of Newcastle ahead when flying south.
A left turn out over the ocean to hold would result in no visible horizon while in the turn!

Then declare a pan or declare those intentions due to WX. Don't inadvertently fly into IMC for the sake of not breaching a clearance. ATC, even the RAAF ones, exist to facilitate you and keep you safe. If that was a concern the pilot had, why not say that? ATC is not responsible for knowing when you've reached your limit to operate the aircraft in the category you're flying under. That's your job as the pilot. All they can do is apply the rules they have with the category you've agreed to fly under.

None of this is to say the way the airspace is managed is perfect, I don't think anyone thinks it is, I note the current AIC SUP reference WLM's airspace (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...up/a19-h40.pdf). But what you're doing right now is drawing a massive bow, and pre emptively laying blame at people who likely had nothing to do with the tragedy that took place here.

And I have flown through WLM in a GA single, it was a total pain in the ass. I agree it’s not done well, I just don’t think it’s relevant to what’s occurred here.

It’s not about the people implementing 1950s procedures.

It’s about the people in this Galapagos who insist that the 1950s procedures are justified.

At low level he wouldn’t have necessarily had time to broadcast anything. My guess anyway is that no tapes will be forthcoming, given the craven behaviour of ATSB.