Military Flight Safety

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 04 Apr 2014 22:08

tsarkar wrote:No, technology has not reached - and will never reach - the level of maturity to be a panacea for all problems. Terrain following systems do provide a level of safety, but not completely.

I don't know about all problems, but being able to fly completely autonomously in pretty much any flight profile will be achieved just as surely as driving has been.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Apr 2014 22:55

The F-111 acquired the technology to fly consistently as low as 200', @ 600 mph, in pretty much any weather, in early 1970s. It solved the problem with a forward looking radar. Cannot speak to about transmission wires, but you can see vids on youtube of a F-111 TF capability, including one where the plane rises as it approaches a dam and another flying through banks of either fog or cloud. I think today they also get an assist from digital terrain maps, it would be a travesty if they did not.

The B-1s have this capability too.

I would think IAF Jags have similar capability. ???? M2Ks?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Apr 2014 00:20

There is a hillock right behind the crash. One can see it in a picture on CNN web site:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/world/gal ... ?hpt=hp_c3

And, the 14th picture.

OK, here, on the left, of this composite picture:

Kannan · Post by **Kannan** » 05 Apr 2014 01:31

vasu raya wrote: tsarkar, if terrain hugging flights are such unreliable means, we should be seeing many cruise missiles crashing into obstructions in terrain, never heard about CFIT of a cruise missile while en-route, given there is route selection during mission planning.

Do you really think they announce CFIT of missiles? Accidents happen, especially with regards to demanding operations. RIP to the crew.

Accidents happen.

Prabu wrote:They will make sure that we will never know the exact root cause for the crash !

People typically want to keep their customers and stockholders happy.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Apr 2014 04:39

NRao wrote:There is a hillock right behind the crash. ...
OK, here, on the left, of this composite picture:

Oh! the proximity of that hillock! If that is the hillock they clipped, all my theories go out.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Apr 2014 05:12

Big IF.

However, I suspect what really clipped (the hillock?) is the bottom of the fuselage, where the rear door hinges. The tail is way above that and I doubt that the tail itself touched the hillock. The second picture could provide clues. Speculation on my part.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 05 Apr 2014 21:45

Kannan, agree with you on the generalization, since cruise missile capabilities are a spectrum across nations, it all depends on who we benchmark against or when, maybe everybody have their set of issues

if it was with TFR + terrain maps, what went wrong since the area they were flying doesn't have any morphing features either such as desert sands or snowy peaks

Being an American product, the terrain maps may not be cross platform compatible so how can they be validated? neither can India generated maps be uploaded, if yes maybe they could be compared.

NRao, the Jags didn't have a radar until recently let alone doubling it as a TFR, they were flying nape of earth flights all manual perhaps just with an altimeter. Now, they upgraded the engines.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Apr 2014 22:20

Super Hercules crash casts shadow on deployment in eastern sector

KOLKATA: The crash of the Indian Air Force's C-130J Super Hercules near Gwalior on Friday has cast a shadow on upgradation of infrastructure in the eastern sector. As part of India's security build-up in the east, six C-130Js were to be stationed at the Panagarh Air Force base in West Bengal.

These aircrafts were to be used for the movement of strike formations to forward areas along the line of actual control (LAC) as and when required.

"The deployment of these aircraft at Panagarh is likely to get delayed till investigations into the crash are completed. If it is established that there was something wrong with the on-board equipment used during manufacture, there will be further delay. The C-130J was considered one of the safest aircraft of its class in the world. The crash has upset this record. The Cabinet committee on security has cleared the raising of a mountain strike corps and independent brigades in the eastern sector for better defence of the LAC. By the end of this year, some of the new Army formations will have been raised. The C-130J strategic transport aircraft is to be a key link in the scheme of things," a senior official said.

The headquarters of the Mountain Strike Corps will be at Panagarh. With the transport aircraft based at Panagarh, coordination will be better between the Army and the IAF, it was felt. Preparations were already underway and C-130Js had already practiced touch-downs at advanced landing grounds (ALGs) near the LAC in Arunachal Pradesh. The aircraft had also practiced night landing and paradrop operations in the dark in adverse terrain.

"Till the matter is resolved and we get the Super Hercules, practices will continue in the An-32 transport aircraft. These are old aircraft that have operated extensively in the northeast. They continue to operate at the ALGs and have a good record. The C-130Js are much more advanced though and are primarily meant for strategic operations and the quick deployment of troops and equipment. These aircraft can fly at extremely low altitudes during such operations to evade detection by enemy radar. If the need arises, aircraft from the Veiled Viper squadron based at Hindon can be deployed to this sector but it would be better to have a dedicated unit of Super Hercules for the east. We can only hope that the matter is resolved soon," the official added.

srin · Post by **srin** » 06 Apr 2014 11:59

I think we paid extra for the super-hercs because they were for special forces. But using them as military transport sort of doesn't make sense.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Apr 2014 03:44

remember all those NASA super duper failures are all cause of simple protocol issue or sensor data feed issue. there was one with brits cooperating with doing everything in metric system while massans were following English system of measurements.. then the altitude sensor was fixed facing away from the planet mars and it crashed, etc.

similarly terrain avoidance algorithm could have some gotchas that they are specific to indic terrains. who knows? the algos failed! perhaps, replaced by non mil (non-standard hardware changes) to due international sale.. a sensor failure is enough reason for safety analysis.

wrong measurements to wrong inputs, errors induced by progression logic (will compound the error tolerance value), and thus a 90ft altitude can be sensed as 900ft wala. especially bad for night flights.

all the more reason, all international purchase must be on lease for some fixed period of time.. take measurements, and failure data. only buy that suruve indic terrain and weather for some x period of time, at least 3 years or x number of flying hours imho

prashantsharma · Post by **prashantsharma** » 08 Apr 2014 03:38

Was randomly searching on youtube and came across this... very saddening ... not difficult to identify
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Z2OPh9FvI
Should someone get court-martialed for leaking this??!!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2014 03:54

mmm.. only russians hide failures. why court martial someone on failures?

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 08 Apr 2014 07:08

prashantsharma wrote:Was randomly searching on youtube and came across this... very saddening ... not difficult to identify
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Z2OPh9FvI
Should someone get court-martialed for leaking this??!!!

Holy c***. what a tragic video.. the ladys accent sounded definitely Indian (maybe south indian)..and the last radio transmission left no doubt "wg cdr oswald"

http://oheraldo.in/news/main%20page%20n ... 33624.html

prashantsharma · Post by **prashantsharma** » 08 Apr 2014 07:43

Yes, Jagan.... very tragic.... no doubt which accident this was... even the visuals can be matched to Hashimara... and the video was clearly taken from the ATC (would appear that IAF ATCs now video record all takeoffs and landings) ... the person (Garag22) on whose page it is posted appears (or wants to appear?) to be Russian... I am definitely curious to find out how he got hold of it.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 08 Apr 2014 07:47

It could have been given to the Russian manufacturer for analysis - and leaked from there. I have seen recent photos of the MI-26 and an AN-32 crash appear on a russian site that usually is not public info in India.. i can only guess ...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Apr 2014 08:07

Why didn't he eject?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Apr 2014 08:45

I thought of the same question.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Apr 2014 08:54

http://oheraldo.in/news/main%20page%20n ... 33624.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Apr 2014 09:31

NRao wrote:I thought of the same question.

Ejection seat not designed to handle zero altitude ejection??? I could find no info.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2014 09:51

Shiv , it depends if the aircraft have zero zero ejection seat and what was the pilot trying to achieve at that point in time.

There are cases where aircraft flying at high altitude has been found with pilot in crashed cockpit intact ...... pilot have the tendencies to save their aircraft and if they dont take the right decision at right time they dont get the chance to eject which can be split second decision or if panic sets in and they fail to eject.

IIRC there are cases of IAF pilot trying to save the aircraft falling in populated areas and end up failing to eject in the process.

We would never know what caused the Mig-27 pilot to fail to eject unless IAF makes court of inquiry in the crash open to public.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2014 10:09

Came across this website which documents ejection by pilots

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Coun ... /India.htm

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Apr 2014 18:20

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:I thought of the same question.
Ejection seat not designed to handle zero altitude ejection??? I could find no info.

Wiki states that a SL pilot (from Ukraine?) ejected without issues. I am sure this plane has that capability. Perhaps he was trying to reignite the engine and did not have enough time to go through his sequence, or was confident that he could recover without loss of asset. ?????

prashantsharma · Post by **prashantsharma** » 08 Apr 2014 20:23

One site says the KM-1M ejection seat is safe for 0 feet/130 km/h. At unstick, a Mig-27 is around 340-350 km/h. Also, this was more likely a case of the turbine disintegrating, and not a fuel fire to begin with. The pilot would have done what he felt was best in the given situation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Apr 2014 20:30

To me it looked like a bird ingestion or foreign body in turbine - but relight is not possible without altitude. No pilot can relight unless he has altitude, which buys him time. In this case there was no time to relight. But there seemed to be time to eject. As regards the 0 feet/130 kmph - I think the 130 kmph is the minimum value. A zero zero ejection seat is supposed to work at zero speed and altitude. But in this case I suspect it is a minimum speed of 130 kmph. A higher speed should not matter.

prashantsharma · Post by **prashantsharma** » 08 Apr 2014 20:47

After this accident the IAF grounded the Mig-27 fleet for some time, indicating that it wasn't a bird strike. The KM-1M is not a zero-zero seat. The minimum speed at 0 altitude, like was the case here, is 130 km/h.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Apr 2014 20:50

prashantsharma wrote:After this accident the IAF grounded the Mig-27 fleet for some time, indicating that it wasn't a bird strike. The KM-1M is not a zero-zero seat. The minimum speed at 0 altitude, like was the case here, is 130 km/h.

Question is, could the grounding have been because of a failure of ejection seat? IOW did the pilot try to eject but it failed?

prashantsharma · Post by **prashantsharma** » 08 Apr 2014 20:54

Even assuming it was a bird strike, the engine is permanently wrecked and so relight is irrelevant and impossible.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Apr 2014 21:01

Yes and the pilot would have felt the loss of acceleration and seen the loss of RPM. The engine clearly vomits fire, slows down but keeps climbing for a brief time before it starts descending. That was the point to eject and it did not happen.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 08 Apr 2014 22:09

Really sad video.

The news article shows how much gets modified in reporting an incident.

According to reports, the aircraft had taken off from Hashimara and within a few minutes, he reported fire in the engines before it crashed within the airbase at about 2.15 pm.

Most people reading this would assume the aircraft had taken off safely and flown for a 'few minutes'. In reality it all happened in seconds.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Apr 2014 22:44

The engine starts giving off the long flame at just about when wheels leave ground and the a/c crashed 9 second after this....the a/c maintains the altitude and somewhat flat trajectory before diving nose first and hitting the ground.

BTW - this report from 2010 talks about the incident and grounding of the fleet:

http://www.brahmand.com/news/IAF-verify ... /1/12.html

NEW DELHI (PTI): Over a month after they were grounded, a major chunk of Indian Air Force's MiG-27 fighter aircraft fleet was still not flying as only the trainer version of the aircraft have been cleared for operations, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik said here.

"As far as MiG-27s are concerned, the trainer version is still flying as it has a different engine. As far as other engines are concerned, we are going into more details as whether any more checks are required or it is ready to fly," he told reporters here.

The IAF had grounded its entire MiG-27 aircraft fleet for checks following a crash near Hashimara in February, 2010 in which an ace fighter pilot was killed.

It had also ordered examination of the aircraft following preliminary report of the Court of Inquiry suggesting that the mishap could have taken place due to failure of "low pressure turbine blades", a problem tackled only at the overhaul or fourth line servicing stage.

The IAF flies around 160 MiG-27 swing-wing aircraft, used for both air-to-air and ground attacks in eight of the existing 33.5 squadrons.

Asked if there was a need to increase the patrolling in the Gulf of Aden in view of increased incidents of piracy there, the Air Force Chief said, "We should protect our assets. At what scale, that we have to sit and decide.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 09 Apr 2014 03:57

shiv wrote:Yes and the pilot would have felt the loss of acceleration and seen the loss of RPM. The engine clearly vomits fire, slows down but keeps climbing for a brief time before it starts descending. That was the point to eject and it did not happen.

We dont see it in the video - but an experienced ATC Officer would have given a call for ejection - that usually orients a pilot in a stricken aircraft to pull that handle. Only the insiders will know if the ATC call went out for the pilot.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Apr 2014 04:09

possibly failed to eject as the pilot 99.99% would have pressed the eject button. is there a connection to power-supply for such ejection controls that is driven out of the turbines on Mig27s? the reason I am asking this question, is the engine failed!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Apr 2014 05:39

SaiK wrote:possibly failed to eject as the pilot 99.99% would have pressed the eject button. is there a connection to power-supply for such ejection controls that is driven out of the turbines on Mig27s? the reason I am asking this question, is the engine failed!

I am not the expert here but most often it is not a button but a lever and a mechanism that does not depend on the plane's electrics.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Apr 2014 05:57

shiv wrote:
SaiK wrote:possibly failed to eject as the pilot 99.99% would have pressed the eject button. is there a connection to power-supply for such ejection controls that is driven out of the turbines on Mig27s? the reason I am asking this question, is the engine failed!
I am not the expert here but most often it is not a button but a lever and a mechanism that does not depend on the plane's electrics.

I think it is a sequence of 2-3 events, so one does not accidentally trigger the system. Was it not a child at an air show that triggered one? IIRC. ??????

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 09 Apr 2014 09:09

Never heard of a button triggerred ejection other than in that james bond movie

.. it is always a pull down blind/handle at the top of the seat or between the legs.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 09 Apr 2014 16:58

At 3:40 he pulls the lever between his legs to eject, I guess it'll be same in all other planes too?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Apr 2014 20:23

Jagan wrote:Never heard of a button triggerred ejection other than in that james bond movie .. it is always a pull down blind/handle at the top of the seat or between the legs.

moi thinking ahead and bonding with bond perhaps. but then is it all mechanical or electro-mechanical was the question?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Apr 2014 10:39

This is what I had speculated earlier.

shiv wrote: If the crashed plane was following - wake turbulence from the aircraft ahead could have caused an accident.

Now IDRW says:
http://idrw.org/?p=36599#more-36599

Preliminary findings suggest that the plane encountered wake turbulence generated by the leading aircraft. It seems the aircraft was flying too close to the plane ahead of it.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 23 Apr 2014 13:59

shiv wrote:This is what I had speculated earlier.
shiv wrote: If the crashed plane was following - wake turbulence from the aircraft ahead could have caused an accident.
Now IDRW says:
http://idrw.org/?p=36599#more-36599
Preliminary findings suggest that the plane encountered wake turbulence generated by the leading aircraft. It seems the aircraft was flying too close to the plane ahead of it.

So a TFTA aircraft cannot handle wake turbulence and mofo so-called defence journalists will pounce on SDRE aircraft for even the smallest flaw?

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 23 Apr 2014 19:48

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... aft-crash/

The shocking crash last month of the IAF’s special operations C-130 J aircraft is believed to have been caused by the transporter inadvertently flying into the wake of the lead plane during the tactical training mission, leading to a loss of control at low altitude and the accident that killed all five crew members.
Preliminary findings of the detailed inquiry under way point to a “wake turbulence” incident in which the C-130 J, which was part of a two-aircraft formation practising insertion of paratroopers, stalled at a low level after hitting the wake of the lead aircraft.
The findings have ruled out any technical fault and suggested that the aircraft failed to adopt a flight path to avoid the massive wake generated by the four engines of the lead C-130 J. An error of judgement by the pilot could have contributed to the incident, the findings suggest.
The probability of such a loss of control is particularly high when heavy aircraft are conducting manoeuvres close to the ground. In this case, both aircraft were flying at 300 feet above ground level and had to climb to 1,000 feet when the accident occurred.
While the lead aircraft of the formation successfully climbed to 1,000 feet after the simulated “drop”, the second aircraft crashed into a river bed without any warning or distress signal.
This, sources said, suggests a sudden, drastic loss of control due to the turbulence generated by the lead C-130 J and is being corroborated by the air crash investigators with data from the flight recorders.
Once the inquiry findings are finalised, new safety directives are likely to be generated within the air force to avoid such accidents. The air force had also sought the help of the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, to decipher the voice recorder as well as the flight data recorder.
The loss of the air force’s most modern special operations C-130 J aircraft on March 28 was particularly shocking given that the plane had been inducted into the air force in 2010 and was commanded by Wing Commander Prashant Joshi, an experienced pilot and the second in command of the 77 ‘Veiled Vipers’ squadron.
Hours after taking off as part of a two-aircraft formation from Agra to carry out low-level flying training, the aircraft had apparently grazed a hillock before crashing 116 km west of Gwalior on the Rajasthan-Madhya Pradesh border.