rohit, I disagree. the question was not about the Wing Commander was properly trained. but whether he got back upto speed after he returned from a long hiatus from flying. It is SOP that anyone coming back from a long leave doesnt directly jump into the cockpit and starts flying missions. there will be a period of re-familiariation before you are sent off on your own. I would be very surprised to learn if a pilot who comes back from 60 days gap in flying will be sent to captain a passenger flight in any of the civilian airlines without a proper checkride or two. no reason why it shouldnt be the same in the AF. I dont find fault in the point that there is a procedural lapse on behalf of those in the chain of command, and it could have been a contributing factor to the accident.
What was not reported correctly was that everyone knew that primary cause of the the Sukhoi-30 accident was pilot error. So there is no question of it being "Randomly" picked by Anthony to be evaluated.
Jagan, I disagree with the above assertion. Having said that, I do not claim familiarity with procedures for getting pilots/captains upto speed post leave*. But I have seen Air Maintenance operations up-close on NE.
The news item talks only about the leave part and not the duration of the leave. We do not know whether it was one of the long annual leave or short 7-10 day stint. Also, where did the 60 day gap in flying come from? From what I was able to infer, the "status" of the pilot - in terms of his ability to continue operations in the said environment is reviewed every fixed time frame - 60days in this case. IMO, this is something like the Category the pilots receive - and which are tested in a periodic manner.
So, to derive the conclusion that the accident occured because of lack of review is incorrect, IMO. THe report talks about lack of situational awareness as cause of the accident.Moderators - I came across a very informative article which is based on detailed study of causes of air crashes in IAF. I recommend that the same be appended in the beginning of this threat for general information. The paper throws up very interesting information and is a must read for any aviation enthusiast
Please see the link:http:http://medind.nic.in/iab/t03/i1/iabt03i1p30.pdf
I suggest it be saved/stored on BRF as link may not work in future.
Human error causes more than half of all aviation accidents. Records of all the fatal human error accidents available at Dte. of Flight Safety from 01 Apr 1996 to 01 May 2001 were analysed for various factors such as age of the Pilot, total flying hours, type of aircraft and rating of the Pilot. Human factors were analysed in detail for factors such as inexperience, breach of discipline and lack of situational awareness. Pilot error accounted for 68% of all fatal aircraft accidents followed by Technical defect 22.9%. Mig–21 is the commonest aircraft involved and accounted for 50% of all accidents. Nearly 50% of the aircrew were aged between 24 – 26 years with mean service flying hours of 900 hours and 200 hours on type
with Ops/White instrument rating. Among the human factors incorrect decision accounted for 48.6% of all accidents followed by lack of situational awareness (40%) and Poor Skills (36%). Weather accounts for 10% of all fatal aircraft accidents.
Last leave period : Period of absence from flying was noted (in terms of months) since aircrew availed his last leave.
It is clearly seen from above that most frequently involved aircrew in terms of category are Ops White / D - White.
Last leave in correlation with the accident showed that 24 aircrew had taken leave beyond six months and 7 had availed leave less than six months. Break in Flying Analysis showed that only 3 out of 32 had break in flying.
Past history of accident only one Aircrew had a past history of ejection. Flying condition total number of aircrew on VMC and IMC was 26 and 6 respectively.