S211 Down Port Phillip Bay
WetCompass, you are correct, the mayday call is a little strange. I guess it was a heat of the moment thing and far from rehearsed. If seems like he’s calling mayday for the downed aircraft, but realistically he’s declaring a mayday for the situation that covers both aircraft. What I do personally find a little strange (and again, with a shot of adrenaline thrown in there) is that he mentioned words to the effect of “we can see a splash mark; I don’t know what’s going on down there.” It’s just how he reacted to the situation, but it’s like he didn’t know what happened to the other aircraft.
Yes, there's the heat in the moment. Not blaming the surviving pilot, I might have done the same.
ATC asking him to squawk ident seems to be that ATC wants to locate the suspected crash site for a search of a downed aircraft. There appears to be no mayday action regarding the return flight, and I'm suggesting there should have been. Just like some discussion further up, the returning aircraft has been in a collision that took out one aircraft, it should not be assumed the damage to the returning aircraft is minor.
Take a close look at the image and note the critical component of the aircraft that could potentially come into contact with the leading edge of the other - the aileron. Again, wild speculation. For an aircraft to spectacularly depart controlled flight, short of a stall, it presumably has lost the ability to be controlled, and control comes from the elevator and ailerons.
The following users liked this post:
For an aircraft to spectacularly depart controlled flight, short of a stall, it presumably has lost the ability to be controlled, and control comes from the elevator and ailerons.
The following 3 users liked this post by Lookleft:
Things can go pear shaped pretty quickly in close formation even from seemingly benign scenarios when everyone is not playing to the same script.
https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publicatio...cationFile&v=1
https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publicatio...cationFile&v=1
It makes me wonder how -DQJ sustained only minor damage while -DZJ seemingly became uncontrollable
As to his decision to return to EN, well I would probably have done the same.
Last edited by megan; 25th Nov 2023 at 00:51.
(To be honest though in the heat of the moment I can understand people ignoring letter of the law interpretations).
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Will be answered in good time, depends on where the hits occur. Spaz can tell a story of how a youngster collided with his CO by hitting the underside of the bosses aircraft, the collision occurred to the lower aircrafts cockpit crushing and killing the youngster in the process. Caused a hydraulics failure in the bosses AC and the nose wheel collapsed when he took the arresting gear on landing. Ditto, you make your assessments, controlability, level of known damage etc, talk of possibly crashing the aircraft in the suburbs, breaking news, it's a single engine aircraft and that could occur on any flight.
Excellent accident report here: Skyhawk870-872Crawley.pdf (faaaa.asn.au)
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 25th Nov 2023 at 02:17. Reason: edit poor explaino
Whilst pedants get busy debating the correctness of the distress call (only in Australia 
), the incident pilots were busy collecting their thoughts having likely just witnessed their friends perish, and focussing on getting back on the ground safely. It seemed like ATC knew what was going on so I guess that's the important thing.
), the incident pilots were busy collecting their thoughts having likely just witnessed their friends perish, and focussing on getting back on the ground safely. It seemed like ATC knew what was going on so I guess that's the important thing.
The following 6 users liked this post by Chronic Snoozer:
I have always understood you call mayday for your own aircraft not another. For another aircraft in distress the call would be a pan call. Has that changed or am I remembering this wrongly?
(To be honest though in the heat of the moment I can understand people ignoring letter of the law interpretations).
(To be honest though in the heat of the moment I can understand people ignoring letter of the law interpretations).
e.g. https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...t-emergencies/
So a mayday call by an aircraft for another that may be unable to communicate appears to be appropriate. It sets the level of priority for calls on that frequency. However, in the case of the Vipers, it seems the emergency was focused on the aircraft that crashed in the water. The returning aircraft was treated more like I would have expected for a pan. I suppose it depends on how you perceive the danger following a midair collision. I would have thought you treat it as if an airframe failure or loss of control from the damage is imminent. Seems others on here think of it differently. As if a midair is some sort of minor occurrence.
Whilst pedants get busy debating the correctness of the distress call (only in Australia ), the incident pilots were busy collecting their thoughts having likely just witnessed their friends perish, and focussing on getting back on the ground
safely. It seemed like ATC knew what was going on so I guess that's the important thing.
), the incident pilots were busy collecting their thoughts having likely just witnessed their friends perish, and focussing on getting back on the groundsafely. It seemed like ATC knew what was going on so I guess that's the important thing.
). The distinctions are important. Once upon a time most pilots would have considered dipping into the fixed reserve fuel as a minor incident, probably not even worth any radio call at all. However, the international flying community reviewed it after many incidents and now it has become a Mayday call. We're seeing a gradual change in culture, believe it or not, towards taking safety more seriously. This is what a safety culture looks like.
I have always understood you call mayday for your own aircraft not another. For another aircraft in distress the call would be a pan call
My aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and imminent danger and/or I require immediate assistance
I have an urgent message to transmit concerning the safety of my aircraft, or other vehicle or of some person on board, or within sight, but I do not require immediate assistance
It is also correct to use Pan-Pan if relaying a Mayday call from another aircraft or station that is out of range
I have an urgent message to transmit concerning the safety of my aircraft, or other vehicle or of some person on board, or within sight, but I do not require immediate assistance
It is also correct to use Pan-Pan if relaying a Mayday call from another aircraft or station that is out of range
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Agree. MAYDAY can be downgraded to PAN as circumstances change - I've dunnit. Meanwhile:
Police retrieve wreckage of fatal plane crash from Melbourne's Port Phillip bay
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...ay/ar-AA1kuBsN
Police retrieve wreckage of fatal plane crash from Melbourne's Port Phillip bay
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...ay/ar-AA1kuBsN
The PIC was an ex Roulette and CFS instructor, I suspect his knowledge of how to assess an aircraft’s airworthiness post trading paint might just be more than your own, or mine for that matter. I think you’re probably being a bit naive in thinking that he didn’t assess how the aircraft was handling and make a decision armed with all the information available that would achieve a safe outcome.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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 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.
Wetcompass - Genuine question. Are you a troll? I cant imagine anyone being so wrong so often other than on purpose?
The following 2 users liked this post by heretolearn:
The following users liked this post:
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 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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.