Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

Old 19th Feb 2020, 20:41
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the doghouse
Posts: 495
What needs to be fixed is the media’s approach to sharing images of the scene prior to people being removed. It’s such a blatant disregard for basic respect particularly for concerned friends and family . I’ve unfortunately been on site at two different fatalities over the years, and the media’s tactics on the ground are nothing short of evil.
Homesick-Angel is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 21:29
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 37
Posts: 520
Originally Posted by tio540 View Post
Discussion publically about possibilities, prior to any formal investigation, with a colonial inquest pending, is called subjudice, and also professional ignorance.

This has no place on a professional forum.
Rubbish. Sub Judice - two words, not one - occurs when an investigation or inquiry under the control of a judge is occurring, and where the publishing of material is likely to interfere or affect the investigation/inquiry and/or affect the judicial outcome. It's a very long bow to claim that discussions on Prune, before any inquiry bar the ATSB one, has been announced could affect any legal inquiry!

I don't like or agree with finger-pointing at pilots who aren't here to defend themselves, but, given the delay in any investigation, either ATSB or by a Coroner, discussions here can prove beneficial by raising possibilities and causing others to think about how they operate and could it happen to them. If, by doing so, just one pilot changes their behaviour in a positive way, then the discussions have served their purpose.
KRviator is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 21:43
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Oz
Posts: 36
One of the few things I've agreed with here:

Investigation need to be quicker. There is really no reason for them to take so long

Last edited by iron_jayeh; 19th Feb 2020 at 22:13.
iron_jayeh is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 21:49
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 280
If the aircraft were talking to each other you would have expected the arriving aircraft to maintain 5000 with the outbound one climbing to 4000 until clear of each other.
mates rates is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 21:52
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,885
Investigative need to be quicker. There is really no reason for them to take so long
Indeed - the one on this thread is already done.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 23:02
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 355
As an IFR M/E instructor in a previous life, I have operated at MNG many times in all sorts of WX. If the communications are appropriate then usually all is well. What this thread says in many ways is there is a significant lack of understanding of what the appropriate procedures are in Class G/CTAF. The MULTICOM saga of a year ago showed exactly the same. Many pilots say what they think the other pilot or the controller wants to hear but there is very little instruction on this aspect of radio communications, in fact the last time I looked it is not subject to any examination - just what your instructors teach you (!). In fact there are CFIs about that all have a different idea on what to say and when and then the CASA safety advisors have a different view on it as well. This may only be a small hole in the cheese, but believe me it is a serious one that needs to be addressed with some detailed instruction and some standardisation. As someone said above, if it was IMC and they were talking to each other (??) why did they not provide themselves with at least 1000ft separation?
It should be known that you don't get a clearance on the ground at places like MNG, so why ask? All that is needed is a taxy call to start your SAR and perhaps obtain a SSR code. Every commercial pilot should know that navigation responsibility when OCTA (except in an emergency) is the responsibility of the PIC and that means you will not be radar vectored when OCTA. The appropriate use of 2 Coms is an issue in this event and will no doubt be looked into. It was mentioned that some instructors turn the radio volume down at times - really? You should get another job if you do that.

A very sad event, may they RIP. I hope we can learn from the results of the investigation.
cogwheel is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 23:25
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 28
Posts: 440
I agree. Some of the terminology and discussion in this thread raises alarming concern of people’s understanding of how IFR works in different types of airspace; not withstanding the accident itself and how it came to happen.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 23:30
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Aust
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by cogwheel View Post
.....As someone said above, if it was IMC and they were talking to each other (??) why did they not provide themselves with at least 1000ft separation?
It should be known that you don't get a clearance on the ground at places like MNG, so why ask? All that is needed is a taxy call to start your SAR and perhaps obtain a SSR code. Every commercial pilot should know that navigation responsibility when OCTA (except in an emergency) is the responsibility of the PIC and that means you will not be radar vectored when OCTA. The appropriate use of 2 Coms is an issue in this event and will no doubt be looked into. It was mentioned that some instructors turn the radio volume down at times - really? You should get another job if you do that.

A very sad event, may they RIP. I hope we can learn from the results of the investigation.

Agree 100%
rcoight is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 23:41
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 223
The event itself is truly tragic but if we can learn from this incident and stop similar accidents in the future then it is something we should all benefit from as pilots.

The biggest complaint I have is that this type of investigation could take three or four years for completion and result. This is three or four years that people have to forget about the incident, the new people joining aviation won't know about what happened and so on.

Old news is bad news so the only way pilots can benefit in situations like this is to have a speedy release of factual information and at least keep it in our minds reminding us of the dangers at we CAN be exposed to every time we go flying
mcoates is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 23:55
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,804
Originally Posted by cogwheel View Post
As an IFR M/E instructor in a previous life, I have operated at MNG many times in all sorts of WX. If the communications are appropriate then usually all is well. What this thread says in many ways is there is a significant lack of understanding of what the appropriate procedures are in Class G/CTAF. The MULTICOM saga of a year ago showed exactly the same. Many pilots say what they think the other pilot or the controller wants to hear but there is very little instruction on this aspect of radio communications, in fact the last time I looked it is not subject to any examination - just what your instructors teach you (!). In fact there are CFIs about that all have a different idea on what to say and when and then the CASA safety advisors have a different view on it as well. This may only be a small hole in the cheese, but believe me it is a serious one that needs to be addressed with some detailed instruction and some standardisation. As someone said above, if it was IMC and they were talking to each other (??) why did they not provide themselves with at least 1000ft separation?
It should be known that you don't get a clearance on the ground at places like MNG, so why ask? All that is needed is a taxy call to start your SAR and perhaps obtain a SSR code. Every commercial pilot should know that navigation responsibility when OCTA (except in an emergency) is the responsibility of the PIC and that means you will not be radar vectored when OCTA. The appropriate use of 2 Coms is an issue in this event and will no doubt be looked into. It was mentioned that some instructors turn the radio volume down at times - really? You should get another job if you do that.

A very sad event, may they RIP. I hope we can learn from the results of the investigation.
agree, well said.
ACMS is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 23:55
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 347
KRAviator, clearly your expertise lies with Google.

The coronial investigation is already underway, and rules apply now. Keep Googling!

tio540 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 23:59
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,804
Originally Posted by KRviator View Post
Rubbish. Sub Judice - two words, not one - occurs when an investigation or inquiry under the control of a judge is occurring, and where the publishing of material is likely to interfere or affect the investigation/inquiry and/or affect the judicial outcome. It's a very long bow to claim that discussions on Prune, before any inquiry bar the ATSB one, has been announced could affect any legal inquiry!

I don't like or agree with finger-pointing at pilots who aren't here to defend themselves, but, given the delay in any investigation, either ATSB or by a Coroner, discussions here can prove beneficial by raising possibilities and causing others to think about how they operate and could it happen to them. If, by doing so, just one pilot changes their behaviour in a positive way, then the discussions have served their purpose.
yes very true, I’m sure a lot of IFR guys and girls will have a re think of their OCTA CTAF procedures and separation standards......some from reading this and that’s a good thing.
ACMS is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2020, 00:08
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,164
I don’t think SJ rules apply to coroner’s inquiries. Although it’s a coroner’s court and coroners have quasi-judicial powers and protections, the proceedings are executive rather than judicial.

Are you able to point to anyone held in contempt of a coroner’s court for expressing an opinion on the cause of someone’s death? I heard someone on ABC Radio National this morning stating, categorically, that yesterday’s tragedy in Camp Hill was a murder suicide.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2020, 00:10
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 37
Posts: 520
Originally Posted by tio540 View Post
KRAviator, clearly your expertise lies with Google.

The coronial investigation is already underway, and rules apply now. Keep Googling!
I did - and guess what I found from the Victorian Government solicitors office?

Originally Posted by The Government Solicotor
What is sub judice contempt?
Sub judice contempt is the common law offence of publishing material which has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice while proceedings are sub judice; that is, ‘under a judge’. The rationale for the offence is to avoid a ‘trial by media’ by prohibiting the publication of material which might prejudge issues at stake in particular proceedings, or which might influence or place pressure on persons involved in the proceedings, including jurors, witnesses or potential witnesses, and parties to the proceedings. In deciding whether material is prejudicial, the court will attempt to balance the public interest in free speech with the public interest in ensuring a fair trial.
Fairly similar to what I wrote above based on my understanding of the concept, wouldn't you say? Be interesting to hear your understanding of those "rules" you talk about...
KRviator is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2020, 00:19
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by KRviator View Post
I did - and guess what I found from the Victorian Government solicitors office?



Fairly similar to what I wrote above based on my understanding of the concept, wouldn't you say? Be interesting to hear your understanding of those "rules" you talk about...
If you Google again you could give advice on medicine, as well as law.
tio540 is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2020, 00:52
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,682
Is the Coroner “administering justice” or are they reviewing facts in order to make recommendations and findings?

I also read the words “free speech” in there of which we are all entitled to.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2020, 01:30
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Oz
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
Is the Coroner “administering justice” or are they reviewing facts in order to make recommendations and findings?

I also read the words “free speech” in there of which we are all entitled to.
you're kidding yourself of you think we have free speech. But that's a while different topic
iron_jayeh is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2020, 01:56
  #78 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 186
It seems JQF was a flight test based on media reports.
logansi is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2020, 02:05
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hamilton Island
Posts: 138
I have not been to Mangalore for a few decades. Is the old control tower still in place?
Perhaps the traffic levels justify re-activating the tower?
Office Update is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2020, 02:16
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
Indeed - the one on this thread is already done.
I'm sorry, you say it's done? I've missed the conclusion, could you post it?
Hoosten is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.