Originally Posted by
WetCompass
Yeah, nah.
How does the pilot sitting in the command seat assess the damage to the wing-spar, or tail section? Do you recall the Embry-Riddle Uni PA-28R that lost a wing during circuits? That flight had an examiner on board, he couldn't tell a fatigue crack was about to break. Why do we attribute super-human abilities of x-ray vision to pilots?
Fact of the matter is, the PIC of DQJ was concerned about something, but never actually stated the nature of his concern on the radio apart from mentioning something late in the flight about the runway needing inspection after landing. The wing had struck another aeroplane and the extent of the damage to the airframe was unknown at the time. There was a suitable airport available that did not require overflying built up areas for a landing and it was not offered up as an alternative by ATC and we don't know yet if it was considered by the crew. But there was mention of Moorabbin by ATC. Why? Well, we'll find out. But for now, not a criticism of the aircrew or ATC, but could we do better if it was us? Well I think so, but we need to think about it clearly on the ground before we embark on our next flight.
How to conduct a controllability check post airframe damage and what signs to look for is taught to every single military student pilot at the beginning of their careers. You keep making an assumption that no effort was made by the PIC to ascertain the status of the airframe, people here keep telling you that is probably not the case.
Of course you could be right and two ex Roueltte CFS instructors both took a heavily damaged jet that was buffeting at VREF home over Melbourne without any discussion or assessment during their emergency handling. Never say never, seems awful unlikely though.