Flown the US GG, operated in a danger area under VFR and the airline service happily flew through as well. Would that occur in Oz? Times change and the introduction of technology such as TCAS etc helps. Funny thing though, flew Vietnam which was all VFR and the only mid air I heard of, and saw the results, was between a Porter and Cobra, forget the exact details, but occurred landing/taking off, the wreckage of both lying in the grass not 50 feet from the runway.

Could things in Oz be better? Of course they could, but where does the money come from, what area of the budget do you cut to divert the cash to aviation, or raise taxes? If you cut your cloth according to your situation, you limit what you do to take account of the resources you have is an old saying.

Was the "danger" area military related?

If so I think you will find that the U.S. has a requirement for the authority for such areas to have radar surveillance coverage so they can knock it off in the event of seeing a transit.

Australia is the 15th largest economy in the world with one of the highest per capita incomes yet we keep convincing ourselves that we cant lead in anything. The recent accident on the Sydney - Melbourne train line is just another example. Truth is politicians hate infrastructure. They like things that are cheap, simply and popular not expensive , complex and contentious. They bow to populist campaigns of special interest groups and can't resist pork-barrelling. Think sport rorts.........Public Service entities like the old Department of Aviation have disappeared or been emasculated. So much easier to just keep digging stuff out of the ground. Forty years of cr#p has left Australia with substandard infrastructure pretty well in every sector of transportation. And we put up with it. You get what you deserve. I’ve got a feeling the next 30 years are going to be confronting.........

Quote:

---

You don't have mid airs in the good old USA, with wall to wall radar? F-16 and Cessna in South Carolina 2015 taking two lives in the Cessna and loss of F-16 say otherwise. Get off your high horse. Mid airs, like all other accident causes, will always be with us. The very first was in 1910 in Milan, Italy (non fatal) and the first fatal 1912 in France. Though it was a while ago, who can forget this Cessna 172 collision San Diego, 135 people aboard the 727 and seven people on the ground in houses, including two children, two onboard Cessna killed, nine others on the ground were injured and 22 homes were destroyed or damaged by the impact and debris.

---

High horse? Yeah OK, if that's what you want to think.

Not much has changed in 42 years eh? Have you seen how IFR aircraft are managed in high density areas?

You also don't know what or where my high horse is. I've got a bit of experience in a few jurisdictions.

Quote:

---

Of course they could, but where does the money come from, what area of the budget do you cut to divert the cash to aviation, or raise taxes?

---

One thing the Australian government has done a superb job on is brainwashing you lot into thinking the bucket is perenially empty. 'We'll all be rooned'

It's a pity you didn't listen to old mate Packer a little closer.

+1 to Hoosten and Glass. We used to have first class infrastructure. Nowadays we get wall to wall lazy public servants and greedy private contractors instead trying to tell us that the crap they provide is really rolled gold.


Remove government bullshyte and concentrate on outcomes. I don’t give a flying **** about gender equity, gay rights, diversity, aboriginal considerations, sensitivity training, glass ceilings, lean sigma and all the other crap government departments spend money on. I want to see overworked managers supporting frontline workers, not the other way round. I want to see decisions made by EXPERIENCED PEOPLE USING GOOD DATA, not some business school graduates theory of what “should” happen.

Hoosten, A couple of well loved Australianisms:

"Don't you know who I am?" and "Please explain?"

Instead we could listen to people like Hoosten and glass that want us to spend money based on incidents that we don't know the cause?

Mate some pilots don't want this stuff. Lets just wait to see what the report says.

But again like I said, that's not the pprune way.

You should listen to hoosten, he’s an expert, he even tells you so in his message. Nothing says expert more to me than having to tell people you’re an expert, and slandering people who happen to disagree with your point of view...

So OCTA, do we live in the best possible aviation world where our regulators are the most intelligent, kindest and just leaders in history who have designed, created and administer an aviation earthly paradise in Australia?

One can compare and criticize the outcomes without having to necessarily design a new system yourself.

To put that another way, I’ve flown into LAX, SFO, Sea Tac etc., etc. and just looking out the window you will see more varied aircraft going about their business in ten minutes than all day in Melbourne or Sydney. Heavy jets, business jets, military and GA down to Cessna 172s, all without a care, yet in Australia that is judged impossible, but it can’t be. Why they even have an air national guard! Imagine that! Civilian pilots flying military jets on weekends! The horror! Why they even visit local airports! How can this be without aluminium raining from the sky?

No we don’t live in the best possible aviation world, no one does. Of course there are things to improve and there all ways will be. I have no issue with positive, well thought out improvements to the system, or even civilised, reasonable debate.

What I have an issue with is someone saying they know of several methods that would have prevented an accident without even knowing how the accident occurred. At this point all anyone knows is that two aircraft likely collided. I also have an issue with someone who is so full of their own self importance that they think they are the only one who knows anything about aviation. That their first solution to anyone who disagrees with their point of view is to attack their intelligence, their physique or any other infantile way they can attack that person for having the nerve to disagree with them.

I have no issues with people disagreeing with me, and there is a good chance I’m not right with everything I say. But I am willing to bet hoosten would not talk to people in public the way he does on here so perhaps he should try a little bit of respect.

And there's nothing like a brainwashed Australian ATC posturing and presenting his/her expert opinions, fresh out of the academy, fresh from the 'you are the best ATC's in the world' 'that costs money, nobody wants to pay' 'you control 11% of the earths surface' (wow-wee!)

You can't stand the fact that you control very little air traffic (in movements), that somebody else does it better than you and your global relevance is insignificant when it comes to ATC. I don't see any ANSP taking advice from you on any airspace matters. (Apart from poor South Pacific nations that can afford 0$ advice) You are isolated in your own little backyard, geographically isolated enough to be able to bull**** your domestic 'customers' that 'this is the best system money can buy'

Come one, come all, I could not care in the slightest that you 'don't know who I am.' Put your arguments forward, try an argument without 'but no one wants to pay'

I'd like to read that argument, but none of you user pays apologists has been able to move past that, not one of you.

How many of you experts have used that particular block of airspace?

Quote:

---

What I have an issue with is someone saying they know of several methods that would have prevented an accident without even knowing how the accident occurred.

---

Are you serious? You can't be.

Quote:

---

At this point all anyone knows is that two aircraft likely collided.

---

Is that all that is known, again, are you serious?

Quote:

---

I also have an issue with someone who is so full of their own self importance that they think they are the only one who knows anything about aviation.

---

This is laughable, one look at your post history to see your expert opinions on all matter of subjects. I couldn't care less whether you do this by the way, it's no skin off my back. Again, the only argument you've got is 'no one wants to pay'

Quote:

---

That their first solution to anyone who disagrees with their point of view is to attack their intelligence, their physique or any other infantile way they can attack that person for having the nerve to disagree with them.

---

I'll address one of your other points not quoted here, would I speak to people in person the way I speak here? Yes I would and do. I had a discussion with the person concerned, face to face. He too is not shy of putting his point of view forward. I have more respect for people like him than experts who tell everybody they're not really an expert but they are really, considering their post history. And guess what, if you are an ATC, that kinda does make you an SME. So how about doing what any good SME does and do some research.

Quote:

---

I have no issues with people disagreeing with me, and there is a good chance I’m not right with everything I say.

---

You kind of do, you can't handle that anybody else may have a little more experience than you, in more disciplines than you, in more jurisdictions than you.

Signing off, 'FIGJAM, Don't you know who I am' Hoosten.

Given you seem to have more knowledge on it, what did happen? I am particularly curious about comms if you can shed some light?

Hoosten, I suggest you take your disgraceful, abuseful attitude someplace else. You are the worst of the Internet.

Agree 100%

So, apart form a slur that I apologised for, so sorry, I did lose a a very good friend in this accident, and 3 others lost their lives and the best you lot can come up with is 'nobody wants to pay for it'

Four dead, and more to come. But nobody wants to pay for it, until it's one of yours of course.

You, Sirs, the pair of you, are appologists for the 'lucky country' a 3rd world infrastructure country riding on the back of a resources boom. Without these resources you'd be wallowing in a recession. Keep kidding yourselves that you're 'the best'

You are incapable of analysis, clearly. You are incapable of research, clearly.

User CP > Your Control Panel > Edit Ignore List.

Hoosten if all you've read is that nobody wants to pay for it then you need to step away. It means you're not tuning clearly and missing points.

Here's my take. I'm RA pilot. I don't want mowancta to deal with, and I include E because there's requirements for that airspace I don't always meet. So I also have an agenda. Same as every living person.

So if the pilots were given traffic and one or both of them ignored it and didn't communicate with the other pilot, whos fault is it? Wouldn't the easiest thing be to say hey maybe someone made a mistake and we learn grin it and move on? I know that doesn't fit you're agenda so you'll just ignore me and move on but I've had my say.

Sonething I've noticed in a lot of fatal accidents is that no-one wants to blame the pilots. It's sad, they're good people and just made a couple of mistakes and don't deserve this but it happened (I can give two examples right now). They always want some external blame to cope with their grief.

Quote:

---

Given you seem to have more knowledge on it, what did happen? I am particularly curious about comms if you can shed some light?

---

Mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft.

ATC met all of their responsibility regarding the class of traffic the aircraft were operating in. Not an ATC bash, far from it (well apart from the SME, that doesn't want to be an SME, that is passively being an SME)

This accident would not have happened, had the appropriate class of airspace been in place given the traffic density, given an ANSP that could staff the console, given an airspace regulator that had the gumtion to implement it.

I apologise to the precious petals that 'can't handle the truth'