Originally Posted by
Rataxes
Did you not listen to the recording? His Mayday declaration is clear as a bell.
I doubt you'll find much support here for a pilot abdicating operational control of the aircraft to someone on the ground. I'm actually amazed you suggested it; maybe it's my fault for presuming you are a qualified pilot if you are in fact not.
There's no "maybe" about it. He landed safely and in minimal time with a level of damage he obviously took into account. He had all the available information to hand at the time; you have almost none of it to hand now. Case closed.
I thought I'd check in here for any developments and began with the last post and worked upward. There's probably much more malarkey in here than the above but by the time I got to those posts I couldn't stomach anymore. I work with pilots of many nationalities and the woeful, infantile standard of discourse in here makes me wary of admitting I'm from Aus. This is why people talk about oztronauts.
You can get the right outcome using the wrong process, so just reciting the outcome is insufficient.
There was a Mayday in the radio call. But for whom? Was he calling Mayday for the other aircraft or for himself? If it was for himself he didn't act like he was in any danger. So what was the Mayday for? It's the ambivalence in his behavior and the ambivalence in the discussion on this forum that concerns me. If he was indeed in danger then why fly over built up areas? If there was no danger why declare a Mayday? And that goes for ATC as well. If it's a Mayday, what's the nature of the danger? And none of this is about blaming anyone. It's about what could be done better between now and when the ATSB report comes out.
Well you can label all this "malarkey" if you like. But I have a feeling you're not really listening. All you're doing is attempting to humiliate the discussion out of existence. Why?