This Site is dedicated to all those families of the people that have tragically disappeared on flights in and around New Zealand. I  only hope that from all the effort in building this site and from all the effort of those taking part in this venture, that it will bear fruit in bringing ‘closure’ to their memories!
Gavin Grimmer
Find lost aircraft
find lost aircraft links
ZK-CSS Cessna 172
ZK-AJV Tiger Moth
NZ5517 Corsair
NZ5544 Corsair
NZ-WAC Piper Tomahawk
About Myself.
Sighting Reports.
NEWS 31 December 2008.
Additional info. to my book.
NEWS Dec 2009.
 My E-Book Free.
C O N T A C T.
Site Updates.
NZ5544 Corsair
North Head Boeings.
Search Techniques.


15th September 2015


On further reflection on this topic, I came to the conclusion that my plotting of the track of VH-MDX was based on Glenn Strkalj's in depth study of the location of this radar plot, and the accurate location of this spot is critical to the outcome of where I have plotted VH-MDX to have made his last call of "5000".

Glenn in his most excellent article, "Sydney Air Traffic Services and Radar 1981" (can be downloaded ) page 35 concludes from reference to Air Traffic Controller's opinions that the accepted tolerance of the radar plot is +/-2 nm, and I would take this as it could be 1 nm north, or 1 nm south of where he has pin-pointed it.

Page 36 gives the tolerance of the bearing direction as +/- 5° and when you consider this was a direction from Sydney, 5° equates to 10.5 nm!  Page 40 shows that this is the lower tolerances as the extremes could be as much as +/- 5 nm and +/- 10°!

However, seeing as the bearing was related to being just to the west of the Singleton/Sandon track - a track that was depicted on the radar screen, then I would imagine this track position would have been accurately placed on the screen, so I'm guessing that this is not what the controllers are referring to when they are talking "tolerance." I would assume that the 'tolerance' factor would mean the paint position - even though it shows on the screen as a certain position, it could in fact be as much as 10.5 nm miles out either east or west.


7th February 2016


It has been said that I had used others material but had not given the rightful credits to that person, and after much thought there is one main person that does deserve recognition… Nev Dennard. It was he that had the foresight to start a Web blogsite way back in 2007 and he went to a lot of trouble to publish on that site much of the material that set me in motion, not only that he has done over the years many ground searches, so he has put a hell of a lot into this and I guess if we all look back, most of us can trace our interest to Dev’s hard work! Many thanks Dev!

The one other person that I can think of is Martin Dalmazzo. He beavers away in the background holding everything together, but never seems to get much credit for it. Well done Martin. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed!

The rest I feel I have given credits to in my article where they were due, and I am terribly sorry if I have missed anyone else out. I guess there may have been others that have fed me little bits of information over the years that has helped influenced the outcome of my article, and if I have missed you, then you can still feel proud that you have been instrumental in helping the cause out for finding VH-MDX…. And may that day be soon!

I must stress though, that the big breakthrough for me was the release of the Australia National Archive’s file, and most of my sourced information came from that.

I know a lot of what I have written may parallel many of the conclusions of other people, but that doesn’t mean I stole their/your idea… it means exactly that… we both came to the same conclusion, and isn’t that great?

I truly believe the finding of VH-MDX will either be a pure educated guess/fluke, or it will be the result of a correlated sharing of information/ideas, and to this end I now have joined and participate in a Facebook Group:

“The Search for VH-MDX”

I believe it was started by Richard Murray in December 2012… Well done Richard… great site! For me, and I know of others, the most frustrating thing is access to information, yet there is plenty of it out there.

So hence, if you wish to learn more, ask me questions, or put the question out for everyone else’s answers, go to that site and join. There is much great information on that site.


Of course, there is also the BWRS website also that updates information from time to time, so check in there regularly:  

Some of it, I find a little hard to find, but if you hunt around a bit, you will find it.


In my early days of looking for the many missing aircraft in NZ, I was also ‘tight-lipped’ on my hard learned/earned information, and it wasn’t until I eventually opened up and told other interested parties what I knew, that I suddenly found lots more reciprocal information came in. It’s an unwritten fact of life… try it…you will be surprised!


You may note that my predicted crash site changes from time to time, and this is what I call ‘evolution’!

As more information comes in, or at least the more I learn or have time to think it over, the more my opinion changes… in other words it evolves!!! As this happens, I will post it on the Facebook site to open it up to scrutiny. If you disagree, say so… so long as you say why you disagree and have a valid argument. The object is not for me to be right, but to find out the truth and find them! I’m only human like the rest of you and open to making mistakes. I’m more than happy to be proven wrong as then it means we are that much closer to finding them!...

Previous Page.
Previous Page.
Next page.
Next page.

MDX pg 27