Close shave for Jet Airways flight after ATC spots tractor on Mangaluru runway

Agencies
January 11, 2018

A massive disaster was barely averted on Thursday when the Air Traffic Control at the Mangaluru Airport spotted a vacant tractor parked on the runway just as a Mumbai-bound Jet Airways flight was about to takeoff.

According to news agency ANI, the tractor - used for cutting grass beside the runway, was parked at the end of the runway without anyone inside. A Jet Airways flight had taxied to the other end of the runway and was all set to take off before being issued urgent instructions to abort by the ATC.

Sources in the ATC reportedly said that the unmanned tractor was spotted at the last minute and while planes do not usually make full use of a runway, a parked vehicle here is nonetheless a massive breach of safety protocol. Besides, the Mangaluru airport is referred to as having a table-top runway in aviation circles. In 2010, an Air India Express plane had overshot the runway here and fallen off the cliff - killing 158 people on board.

Also Read: Mangaluru airport director rubbishes media reports, says there was no vehicle on runway

Comments

Imran
 - 
Thursday, 11 Jan 2018

Band malpule marre airportunu....

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 26,2020

Mangaluru, Mar 26: About 2,771 people are home-quarantined in the wake of the novel coronavirus in Dakshina Kannada district here, Deputy Commissioner said on Wednesday.

"Meanwhile, about 20 people have completed the mandated 28 days of quarantine, DC Sindhu B Rupesh said in a statement here.

More than 38,000 people from the district have been screened and seven are admitted and are under observation, he added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 2,2020

Mount Maunganui, Feb 2: India registered a rare 5-0 whitewash against New Zealand after notching up a seven-run win in the fifth and final T20 International at Bay Oval here on Sunday.

Electing to bat, India posted 163 for three, riding on Rohit Sharma's 60 off 41 balls and a 33-ball 45 from K L Rahul.

The visitors then restricted the hosts to 156 for nine with Jasprit Bumrah claiming three wickets for 12 runs.

Chasing the target, the Black Caps were tottering at 17 for three in 3.2 overs.

Tim Seifert (50) and Ross Taylor (53) then added 99 runs for the fourth wicket as New Zealand recovered to 116.

Seifert clobbered a 30-ball 50 studded with five fours and three sixes, while Ross Taylor hit two sixes and five fours in his 47-ball 53-run innings.

However, once Seifert was dismissed in the 13th over, the hosts suffered a collapse, losing five wickets, including Taylor, for 25 runs to loss the plot in the end.

Brief Score:

India: 163 for 3 in 20 overs (Rohit Sharma 60; S Kuggeleijn 2/25)    

New Zealand: 156 for 9 in 20 overs (Ross Taylor 53, Tim Seifert 50; Jasprit Bumrah 3/12).

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
March 14,2020

In the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) UN High Commissioner, Michele Bachelet, has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, as she is critical of CAA. Responding to her, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jai Shanker strongly rebutted her criticism, saying that the body (UNHCR) has been wrong and is blind to the problem of cross border terrorism. The issue on hand is the possibility of scores of people, mainly Muslims, being declared as stateless. The problem at hand is the massive exercise of going through the responses/documents from over 120 crore of Indian population and screening documents, which as seen in Assam, yield result which are far from truthful or necessary.

The issue of CAA has been extensively debated and despite heavy critique of the same by large number of groups and despite the biggest mass opposition ever to any move in Independent India, the Government is determined on going ahead with an exercise which is reminiscent of the dreaded regimes which are sectarian and heartless to its citizens, which have indulged in extinction of large mass of people on grounds of citizenship, race etc. The Foreign minister’s assertion is that it is a matter internal to India, where India’s sovereignty is all that matters! As far as sovereignty is concerned we should be clear that in current times any sovereign power has to consider the need to uphold the citizenship as per the principle of non-discrimination which is stipulated in Art.26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights.

Can such policies, which affect large number of people and are likely to affect their citizenship be purely regarded as ‘internal’? With the World turning into a global village, some global norms have been formulated during last few decades. The norms relate to Human rights and migrations have been codified. India is also signatory to many such covenants in including ICCPR, which deals with the norms for dealing with refugees from other countries. One is not talking of Chicago speech of Swami Vivekanand, which said that India’s greatness has been in giving shelter to people from different parts of the World; one is also not talking of the Tattariaya Upanishad’s ‘Atithi Devovhav’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam’ from Mahaupanishad today.

What are being talked about are the values and opinions of organizations which want to ensure to preserve of Human rights of all people Worldwide. In this matter India is calling United Nations body as ‘foreign party’; having no locus standi in the case as it pertains to India’s sovereignty. The truth is that since various countries are signatories to UN covenants, UN bodies have been monitoring the moves of different states and intervening at legal level as Amicus (Friend of the Court) to the courts in different countries and different global bodies. Just to mention some of these, UN and High Commissioner for Human Rights has often submitted amicus briefs in different judicial platforms. Some examples are their intervention in US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These are meant to help the Courts in areas where UN bodies have expertise.

 Expertise on this has been jointly formulated by various nations. These interventions also remind the nations as to what global norms have been evolved and what are the obligations of individual states to the values which have evolved over a period of time. Arvind Narrain draws our attention to the fact that, “commission has intervened in the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving Spain and Italy to underscore the principle of non-refoulement, which bars compulsory expulsion of illegal migrants… Similarly, the UN has intervened in the International Criminal Court in a case against the Central African Republic to explicate on the international jurisprudence on rape as a war crime.”

From time to time organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been monitoring the status of Human rights of different countries. This puts those countries in uncomfortable situation and is not welcome by those establishments. How should this contradiction between ‘internal matter’, ‘sovereignty’ and the norms for Human rights be resolved? This is a tough question at the time when the freedom indices and democratic ethos are sliding downwards all over the world. In India too has slid down on the scale of these norms.

In India we can look at the intervention of UN body from the angle of equality and non discrimination. Democratic spirit should encourage us to have a rethink on the matters which have been decided by the state. In the face of the greatest mass movement of Shaheen bagh, the state does need to look inwards and give a thought to international morality, the spirit of global family to state the least.

The popular perception is that when Christians were being persecuted in Kandhmal the global Christian community’s voice was not strong enough. Currently in the face of Delhi carnage many a Muslim majority countries have spoken. While Mr. Modi claims that his good relations with Muslim countries are a matter of heartburn to the parties like Congress, he needs to relook at his self gloating. Currently Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia and many Muslim majority countries have spoken against what Modi regime is unleashing in India. Bangladesh, our neighbor, has also seen various protests against the plight of Muslims in India. More than the ‘internal matter’ etc. what needs to be thought out is the moral aspect of the whole issue. We pride ourselves in treading the path of morality. What does that say in present context when while large section of local media is servile to the state, section of global media has strongly brought forward what is happening to minorities in India.   

The hope is that Indian Government wakes up to its International obligations, to the worsening of India’s image in the World due to CAA and the horrific violence witnessed in Delhi.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.