This is the *exact* text from your article:
The loss of yet another aircraft and indeed the loss of innocent
lives on the ground is another embarrassment for the Indian Air
Force which has a reputation of having some of the highest crash
rates in the world.
High crash rates with relation to whom?And under what conditions?
If you use the crashes/10,000 flying hrs norm:
a)The IAF crash rate or rather attrition rate is *below* that of the PAF.The PAF is at 2 per/10,000 hrs as admitted by the ACM,Mushaf Mir this year.
The IAF ones have never touched the mark.In fact attrition has "swung" between 0.45(postulated)to o.83 per 10,000 flying hours.So wheres the issue of comparison?
Read this article for further information/statistics: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE2-4/rupak.html
If you wish,ACM Mirs article can also be dug wrt his admission of 2/10000 hrs.
b)The PLAAF attrition is never quantified.But its agreed that flying hours remain low and apart from the elite Su and some J7/8 squadrons,training has a long way to go.
c)Comparing IAF attrition to any other "western" AF's is plain bonkers.
The USAF flying hours are huge because of the amounts they fly in relation to getting "free airspace" and having various conditions wherein their birds remain in the air much longer,till crowded airspace corridors have "windows" for them.Sortie wise and experience gained,the IAF compares favourably with any of their training methodologies.This apart from the fact they operate no aircraft in our timeframe -F16'S,F15's.All these a/c come with LRU's and BITE.Easing maintenance and reducing downtime.
If that werent enough,when was the last time you heard of any USAF single seat strike a/c skimming at 100-200 feet,calculating ordinance delivery and strike routes?They have moved to the 10,000-15,000 ft level and function as bomb trucks,moreorless with JDAM's and extensive numbers of similar PGM's.
The IAF remains wedded ,in part,to the low level strike envelope.Which other AF in the world does this,day in and day out,pray?
Does the USAF fly strike sorties at low levels at Kargilesque heights?Or MIg27's in the fog filled valleys of the NE?
So wheres the logic and any reason in comparing apples to oranges?
The Jaguar Crash rates of the RAF have also been posted above.Are they noticeably *lesser* than that of the IAF??Do tell.
The IAF is flying hours exceeding NATO flying hours of some nations and in harder mission profiles and climes.Yes."Exceeding".Nato flying hours are generically referred to as the 180 hr benchmark.IAF pilots routinely do more than that.
So wheres the "reputation" of having the highest crash rates in the world?"
That reputation,if any, is based on a plain misreading of facts and plain bunkum.
Serves us well,to keep propogating that myth?
You may argue that your "internet edition" didnt come out well.Fine.
But as it *has* come out,its plain bad and sensational reportage.
The title for example: Jaguar crash embarrasses IAF, Fernandes calls meet
We never would have guessed that an a/c crash "embarasses" the IAF and the embarassment causes a meet by Shri Fernandes.
In fact we assumed that a loss of an a/c and the loss of lives that do occur do more than "embarass" the AIr Force.They bring tragedy to service and civvie families and reduce force levels by attrition.
Perhaps we were wrong.
Thanks for telling the "jingos" about the Gift box in the rear seat story again (pray what exactly *is* its relevance to the present situation,before even the IAF completes its report on Rehani's incident?So that the average Joe can say "huh" -might have been this...the Jags dont have engine problems the pilot must have screwed up.Because thats what the entire passage reads like.).The context in which it is placed again reinforcing a stereotype of pilot neglect .
Everyone knows the seriousness of attrition.There are members on this board with serving relatives in the forces who face the prospect of being "embarassed".What we dont need,is an article that,as its been published focuses on "embarassment" rather than address the issue at hand.
If you say:Once again ... it is a deep embarrassment to all people concerned that the IAF has high crash rates ... For the few of us deeply interested in aviation ... I personally believe it is crucial to accept that there is a very serious problem and look at ways in which the IAF is dealing with the problem and how there are issues beyond what the Air Force can handle
May i ask where did your reportage mention *any* of these issues?(ie bird strikes,operational hazards,climes,mission profiles,a/c types in service and type of misisons flown?)
Your belief is fine and all of us share that belief,but a misleading title and incorrect assumptions are hardly nuanced.