No argument. Just an attempt at an ad-hominem swipe and in the process dragging a professional network down to the level of twitter. Congrats

Exactly my understanding.
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.

That is a most probable scenario. Leading edge damage suggests contact with a control surface. A momentary lapse of concentration or a desire to get some spectacular footage perhaps but a tragic accident nonetheless. As to his decision to return to EN, well I would probably have done the same.

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

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.

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).

Yes an horrific collision during a divisional practice bomb drop (starting from a loose [battle] formation during the start of a pull up for the dive then delayed fan into the dive) from a staggered start at the top of the dive. There is likely online info which I'll search out. The surviving A4G had the engine flameout with a good restart and a fuel leak also IIRC. Excellent airmanship on the part of the CO to recover his aircraft to a short field arrest etc.

Excellent accident report here: Skyhawk870-872Crawley.pdf (faaaa.asn.au)

Whilst pedants get busy debating the correctness of the distress call (only in Australia :ugh:), 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.

Mayday is for imminent danger, an immediate threat to the vehicle or life. Pan is an urgency call for assistance that is not an immediate threat or danger.
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.

Ummmm, no. It is not pedantic to review how we should use radio distress calls (and this is not just an Australian issue :ugh:). 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 guess it's a matter of interpretation jonkster, pertinent sentences fromCASA for panThe crashed aircraft never put out a mayday so it was not a relay, the pilots correct (my judgement) use of mayday signaled the gravity of the situation as he had no idea if the crew had survived the entry into the water, were injured etc and needed rescue or medical attention, also at the time of transmission he probably had not had time to assess his own state. Nothing wrong with calling mayday, you can always downgrade. From the ATC transmission he was aware of what might had happened and was promptly answered "Yes they're in the water". Obviously he, ATC, would then have called upon rescue services.

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

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.

Yeah, it's all about the CV, no need to consider the argument. It's just all ad-hominem attacks...

Wetcompass - Genuine question. Are you a troll? I cant imagine anyone being so wrong so often other than on purpose?

Where exactly are they wrong, which statement(s)?

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.

Ofcourse they could have done a controllability check post airframe damage. The PIC still had concerns about his airframe (checking for debris on the runway), and there was still a suitable airport that did not require overflying built up areas.