Hawk crashes

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Post by Kartik »

swapna wrote:We would be buying second hand stuff from US as wel most likely if we go for the 126 fighter aircraft contract. They are set to retire f-16 an f-18
by 2020 and its a nice way to retire aircraft . Sell to India with new paint.
can easily happen for real..remember what happened to Algeria with its MiG-29SMTs? they were sold old refurbished airframes that had been kept in storage for a while instead of brand new jets that Algeria paid and contracted for.
Last edited by Kartik on 01 May 2008 21:29, edited 1 time in total.
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Post by sunilUpa »

Kartik wrote:
swapna wrote:We would be buying second hand stuff from US as wel most likely if we go for the 126 fighter aircraft contract. They are set to retire f-16 an f-18
by 2020 and its a nice way to retire aircraft . Sell to India with new paint.
can easily happen for real..remember what happened to Algeria with its MiG-29SMTs? they were sold old refurbished airframes that had been kept in storage for a while instead of brand new jets that Algeria paid and contracted for.
No new Mig-29 SMT are being manufactured. Algerian contract specified using air frames kept in storage, updated to SMT standard. There is lot of politics behind Algerian fiasco - French variety.
sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Post by sanjaychoudhry »

there was a report in HAL's own journal about how a Royal Nepal Army pilot had initially had reservations about the Dhruv, but after flying it, claimed that it was the most wonderful helo he'd flown ever.
I think you are referring to this report.

http://mail.hal-india.com/mps/msm/Minsk ... ssue42.pdf
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Second hand spares in Military contracts are as real as kickbacks in military purchases, the are saimese twins joined at the hip.

Remember the days of MiG21 crashes? We used to buy used spares from Poland, Rumania, Czech, solovakia you name we had it. Even ak-47s were imported and its ammo too!!!

If it is not desi and is videsi, its second hand for sure.
Instead of training pilots in simulated crashes and how over come them, second hand spare make it real!

We knew whenwe were looking at Alpha jet or Hawks we will get dated material. Like the way they sell Certified pre owned M Benz or Lexus.

These are certfied pre owned spares not second hand please!
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Post by Kartik »

yup that report. second last para of that article where he says that personally he feels that the Dhruv is the most wonderful helo he's ever flown.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

[quote="rakall"][quote="sum"]Slowly, the dirt starts coming out from behind the curtains...
[quote]“A number of small issues have arisen with the Hawks that have been delivered and are in service with the Indian Air Force. We take resolution of these issues very seriously and are working closely with the IAF to resolve these, to both their and our satisfaction,â€
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

Arun_S,

Pioneer seems to be defying the dark lords.
Junk from Britain

The Pioneer Edit Desk

Why did India buy second-rate Hawks?

Three months since they were inducted into the Indian Air Force, the British-made Hawk fighter-trainers have been grounded for a second time. The most recent episode comes after a Hawk plane crashed in Bidar, Karnataka. Investigations have suggested that some of the components of the plane were old and rusted. The Hawks have also been reported for technical snags and shortage of spare parts. While only 10 of the 66 planes India has agreed to buy have arrived, IAF circles are already wondering if they have been led into a Rs 8,000-crore dud deal. It is astonishing that the British company that won the contract after hectic lobbying has supplied faulty planes. It is even more astonishing that the technical checks that the IAF, the Defence Ministry and other Government agencies were required to make cleared these shoddy and accident-prone planes and actually permitted Indian pilots to fly them. It is not surprising that cynical Indians should smell a scandal. Indeed, Congress Governments and British defence and aviation deals have a dubious past. India's first defence swindle was the Jeep purchase of 1948. The country paid for first-rate vehicles for use by the Army in the war against Pakistan. What eventually arrived were World War II discards, some of which could not be driven out of the port because there was no engine inside. If the Jeep scandal was India's first introduction to the infamous and Mephistophelean VK Krishna Menon, the Westland helicopter deal anticipated the Bofors mess that eventually formed the most salient memory of the Rajiv Gandhi Government. In 1986, the then Prime Minister forced the public sector Pawan Hans Corporation to buy 21 helicopters from a British company that was shutting down. A series of technical faults and crashes followed. The helicopters were eventually discarded as junk and lined up at an unused airport in Mumbai. Needless to say, kickbacks and sweetheart transactions were alleged in both the Jeep and Westland affairs. Is the Hawk following in their footsteps?

There is reason to be suspicious and cautious. This is an election year and one in which the UPA Government is promising to commit to some of the largest defence purchases in Indian history. Over the past four years, wherever else it may have surrendered to its allies, the Congress has kept the Defence portfolio with itself and packed the upper echelons of the Ministry with civil servants of decidedly partisan credentials. After the Hawk failures, it is impossible to trust the defence establishment and ignore the discomforting feeling that political rather than professional considerations played their part. Mr Manmohan Singh has been seen as a weak and ineffective Prime Minister but even his critics have not questioned his honesty. Given the contested and contentious nature and history of arms deals in Indian politics, it would be best for him, and for his personal legacy, to institute a thorough and transparent inquiry into the Hawk embarrassment. British authorities, commercial and governmental, must be forced to collaborate, if necessary under threat of cancellation of the rest of the contract. Accounts of their Indian interlocutors, where these don't impinge upon national security, should be made public. The Prime Minister must realise that when it comes to defence deals, Congress Governments are guilty until proven otherwise.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Post by Kartik »

sunilUpa wrote:
Kartik wrote: can easily happen for real..remember what happened to Algeria with its MiG-29SMTs? they were sold old refurbished airframes that had been kept in storage for a while instead of brand new jets that Algeria paid and contracted for.
No new Mig-29 SMT are being manufactured. Algerian contract specified using air frames kept in storage, updated to SMT standard. There is lot of politics behind Algerian fiasco - French variety.
thanks for the clarification sunil. I found this article that explained it a bit.

link
Russia long insisted that the claims were ungrounded. “The bodies of the planes were produced in the 1990s, but that was stipulated in the contract, and everything inside them, all the equipment, was new,â€
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Post by putnanja »

satyarthi wrote:Arun_S,

Pioneer seems to be defying the dark lords.
Junk from Britain

Indeed, Congress Governments and British defence and aviation deals have a dubious past. India's first defence swindle was the Jeep purchase of 1948. The country paid for first-rate vehicles for use by the Army in the war against Pakistan. What eventually arrived were World War II discards, some of which could not be driven out of the port because there was no engine inside.
I thought the hawk deal was signed by NDA govt in 2004, and not by UPA.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Deafening silence!! :wink:
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Post by Philip »

The Hawk has proved itself worldwide,with India being perhaps the last country to see its virtue,that too after 2+ decades of evaluation.It is in service with the USN as the Goshawk too.The reasons for this accident must be found out and then we can "stone the devil"! There will always be a story behind every defence deal.
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

RaviBg wrote: I thought the hawk deal was signed by NDA govt in 2004, and not by UPA.
Yes, the MOU was signed by Vajpayee govt.
> The UK government will confirm standards of construction and quality employed by British Aerospace Systems to address Indian concerns of safety.
So the original MOU, expectedly, covered standards and safety.

The question is why did BAE think that it could pass off old parts for AJT Hawk. And what is the present govt going to do about it.

It is reassuring in some way if foreign products also feel the heat of DDM dorkiness. It is disconcerting only when DDM dorkiness is directed only towards Indian products.
soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Post by soutikghosh »

Was the Hawk that crashed insured. I mean since the Hawk was new is there any agreement with Bae that it will replace any Hawk that crashes or meets with accident within i year of purchase.
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3113
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Post by JTull »

[url=
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?z14 ... =950240351]Indian Air Force Hawk Takeoff Crash[/url]

[quote]“One pilot ejected, while the other came down with the aircraft. Fortunately, none of them was seriously injured.â€
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Post by Kartik »

actually, did'nt something similar to this happen when we got the Jaguars as well? out of the first few that were on loan from the British (and then returned), a couple had crashed.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

[quote="JTull"][url=
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?z14 ... =950240351]Indian Air Force Hawk Takeoff Crash[/url]

[quote]“One pilot ejected, while the other came down with the aircraft. Fortunately, none of them was seriously injured.â€
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Post by negi »

^^

Yes and perhaps that is why in low altitude bail out incidents there have been occassions where the pilot who bails out first has more chances of escaping unhurt.

There have been cases with IN Harriers 2 seaters where only one of the pilots bailed out safely but the other could not.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

I think the pitot tube in the aircraft failed.
It was giving incorrect air speed for the pilot to take off, it must have been under reporting the air speed, making the trainee to increase the speed of taxing and thereby coming to the point of take off but not able to do so. The ejected pilot must have been the HM subject, where as the pilot still trying to cope with a/c must be the young IAF chap.

( Its analogous to me ready to bail out while I was teaching my daughter to drive during her high school years, as to the twin ejection system, my car too had two independent air bags that could deploy at time, hope they would have luckily I did see that eventuality).
all this is conjecture, only court of inquiry can reveal, as to the rusted part I am asuming the Pitot-Static (Prandtl) Tube (prandtl assembly has one part heated to keep ice clogging hence could have corroded).

Anyways read on here
According to an investigation by Argentine and Uruguayan Air Forces, the pitot tube - the primary instrument for measuring the aircraft's airspeed - froze when the aicraft passed through a cloud, blocking the instrument and causing it to give a false reading. Compounding this problem was the failure of the alarm designed to report such a malfunction (raising serious questions about inspection irregularities by the Argentine Air Force). Thinking that the aircraft was flying at dangerously low speeds, the pilots increased power to the engines. Far from flying at the low speed reported by the instruments however, the aircraft was actually flying well outside its safe cruising speed, and far above a safe speed for deploying slats. During the deployment of the slats, one was ripped off by the force of the high speed airflow travelling over the wing, which caused the plane to become unflyable and enter a steep descent.

During the descent, the black box recorded an increase in the plane's speed from 300 to 800 km/h in three seconds, which could only signify the sudden unfreezing of the pitot tube. Specialists predicted that the plane crashed perpendicularly to the ground at a speed of 1200 km/h, leaving a crater 70 metres wide and 10 deep
Airspeed is a measurement of the plane's speed relative to the air around it. The pitot (pronounced pee-toe) static tube system is an ingenious device used by airplanes and boats for measuring forward speed. The device is really a differential pressure gauge and was invented by Henri Pitot in 1732. An example of an air pressure gauge is a tire pressure gauge.
The open end of the pitot tube, usually mounted on a wing, faces toward the flow of air or water. The air speed indicator actually measures the difference between a static sensor not in the air stream and a sensor (pitot tube) in the air stream. When the airplane is standing still, the pressure in each tube is equal and the air speed indicator shows zero. The rush of air in flight causes a pressure differential between the static tube and the pitot tube. The pressure differential makes the pointer on the air speed indicator move. An increase in forward speed raises the pressure at the end of the pitot tube. In turn, the air pressure pushes against a flexible diaphragm that moves a connected mechanical pointer on the face of the indicator. The indicator is calibrated to compensate for winds in the air or the speed of the opposing current in the water. In airplanes, electronics also compensate for altitude and air temperature to make the air speed measurement accurate.
I could be totally wrong
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3113
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Post by JTull »

[quote="Arun_S"][quote="JTull"][url=
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?z14 ... =950240351]Indian Air Force Hawk Takeoff Crash[/url]

[quote]“One pilot ejected, while the other came down with the aircraft. Fortunately, none of them was seriously injured.â€
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Post by Kartik »

Indian air force grounds Hawk fleet following first crash
By Craig Hoyle

The Indian air force has temporarily grounded its fleet of BAE Systems Hawk 132 advanced jet trainers, following the first crash involving the newly inducted type.

One of 10 BAE-manufactured Hawks to have been put into service at Bidar air base in February, the aircraft suffered extensive damage following an aborted take-off on 29 April, according to air force sources quoted in the Indian media. One crew member ejected from the aircraft, while the other escaped after it came to a rest on the runway, according to a Times of India report.


link

So, this hopefully might not have been a Category 1 crash and the aircraft may be repaired.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Kartik: God knows but when aircraft has one seat eject event the touchdown will be very very hard. IMHO it is given that the undercarriage is sheared and torn apart the fuselage integrity is questionable till goes a full body X-ray (they don't have that in India) and sending the airframe to UK will push the repair cost closer to Cat-3 write-off.

One may compare a similar crash of IJT Sitara at Aero India, that was a lucky but controlled crash landing, and the damage was sever. Anyone knows if they Cat-3 that airframe or salvaged it?

BTW what is the cost threshold currently in force in IAF for Cat-1, Cat2, Cat-3?

Oh BTW that pilot who stayed in cockpit should be recognized and given a medal to not abandon ship and try to save the plane at grave peril to his own life.
3 Cheers for the brave pilot.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Post by Kartik »

Arun_S wrote:Kartik: God knows but when aircraft has one seat eject event the touchdown will be very very hard. IMHO it is given that the undercarriage is sheared and torn apart the fuselage integrity is questionable till goes a full body X-ray (they don't have that in India) and sending the airframe to UK will push the repair cost closer to Cat-3 write-off.

One may compare a similar crash of IJT Sitara at Aero India, that was a lucky but controlled crash landing, and the damage was sever. Anyone knows if they Cat-3 that airframe or salvaged it?

BTW what is the cost threshold currently in force in IAF for Cat-1, Cat2, Cat-3?

Oh BTW that pilot who stayed in cockpit should be recognized and given a medal to not abandon ship and try to save the plane at grave peril to his own life.
3 Cheers for the brave pilot.
Shiv Aroor's blog says that the aircraft was completely destroyed. :(
link

the Sitara was restored though.
link
Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Post by Jagan »

The IJT prang at Aero India would be a write off in any other place, but with the manufacturing muscle of HAL behind it, my guess would be that it will be salvaged. But if it had happened in AF service, it would surely be a write off (seen ac written off on bumpy landings and nose gear collapses).

Also the pilot who didnt eject - there could be many reasons for it . 1) he genuinely tried to save the ac 2) he doesnt have much faith in ejection seats. 3) he didnt have the time to eject 4) he was fairly experienced enough to recognise that going thru the wall will not kill him. 5) many other reasons which we dont have an idea about. My guess is it is premature to do both - both to condemn them or to call for medals for them.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Jagan wrote:Also the pilot who didnt eject - there could be many reasons for it . 1) he genuinely tried to save the ac 2) he doesnt have much faith in ejection seats. 3) he didnt have the time to eject 4) he was fairly experienced enough to recognise that going thru the wall will not kill him. 5) many other reasons which we dont have an idea about.
Humm ..... never heard that.
Did this ever happen in IAF?
Last edited by Arun_S on 03 May 2008 07:14, edited 1 time in total.
Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Post by Jagan »

gopal.suri wrote:Actually since the gora did not die, you can close this tread. No fun!
Gopal - that is in very poor taste. When the 'goras' post photos on the UK sites, or share information, it is okay to go ga-ga - but when one of them has a near death experience - you think it is 'no-fun'? What exactly did that poor UK pilot do to you that you wish for his death to have fun? Lets have some respect for the flying community.
Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Post by Jagan »

Arun_S wrote:
Jagan wrote:Also the pilot who didnt eject - there could be many reasons for it . 1) he genuinely tried to save the ac 2) he doesnt have much faith in ejection seats. 3) he didnt have the time to eject 4) he was fairly experienced enough to recognise that going thru the wall will not kill him. 5) many other reasons which we dont have an idea about.
Humm ..... never heard that.
Did this ever happen in IAF?
plenty of times - Pilots tend to have more faith in thier flying and handling skills rather than in the ejection seats. You can call it overconfidence to an extent. It also has something to with the false sense of security that being seated in the cockpit environment gives to a pilot. This has nothing to do with any faults in the ejection seats. the MB ejection seat for the hawk would be next to nothing in terms of reliability. But no system is fail safe . There is a high chance of success if the ac is flying level above the ground at a safe altitude and attitude - they know that. But what if it is skidding and careering out of control on the runway, with a collapsed u/c and at an angle - would the pilot have the same degree of confidence? he may not.

[added a bit more explanation]
Ved
BRFite
Posts: 154
Joined: 08 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by Ved »

Jagan wrote:[.....plenty of times - Pilots tend to have more faith in thier flying and handling skills rather than in the ejection seats. You can call it overconfidence to an extent. It also has something to with the false sense of security that being seated in the cockpit environment gives to a pilot. ....
What you refer to is the reluctance to leave a safe, known and familiar environment, when one has plenty of time to dwell on these things, like a planned ejection due to problems like undercarriage in unsafe position or fuel starvation. But this was an 'act' emergency, and one would have had no time. Also, there may have been a lot of jolting around which could have prevented the pilot from pulling the handle.

Arun, you also referred earlier to what is known as 'Command ejection', when both seats go when any is activated. That is there in most fighters like the MIG series and the Kiran. A great idea, but I dont know about this case.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Post by negi »

Jagan wrote: Also the pilot who didnt eject - there could be many reasons for it . 1) he genuinely tried to save the ac 2) he doesnt have much faith in ejection seats. 3) he didnt have the time to eject 4) he was fairly experienced enough to recognise that going thru the wall will not kill him. 5) many other reasons which we dont have an idea about. My guess is it is premature to do both - both to condemn them or to call for medals for them.
Sir.. I don't know how true this is but..have heard that in cases involving an incident with a jet trainer the instructor usually asks
the trainee pilot to bail out first . Now in an incident such as this where one is talking about ejecting virtually on ground at about say what 200 km/hr or so if pilot ejects then the second one will not even get a chance to pull the chord.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

for jet "trainers" for certain type of situations, is it possible to have the jet, shut off just after the button is pressed for ejection by pilot, and then just like the pilot comes escapes, the jet could also escape crash landing by deploying a chute? i know this sounds weird, but it would help a lot in investigations.. may be the industries dont want to get them assed up, and they would not venture into such advanced saving devices for inspections.
sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Post by sanjaychoudhry »

SaiK wrote:for jet "trainers" for certain type of situations, is it possible to have the jet, shut off just after the button is pressed for ejection by pilot, and then just like the pilot comes escapes, the jet could also escape crash landing by deploying a chute? i know this sounds weird, but it would help a lot in investigations.. may be the industries dont want to get them assed up, and they would not venture into such advanced saving devices for inspections.
Parachute system can save small planes

The company's most advanced parachute right now can accommodate nearly 4,000 pounds. While small planes can weigh up to 2,000 pounds and cruise about 175 miles per hour, regional jets weigh 80,000 pounds and fly at more than 600 miles per hour.

That's why Ballistic Recovery Systems is working with NASA — which gave it $670,000 for research — to design a new generation of emergency parachutes that would work on small jets and could be steered by pilots as they drift to the ground.

Some pilots insist they'll never fly without a parachute. "People are crazy not to fly with them," said William Graham of San Diego, an instructor pilot whose plane landed beneath a parachute this spring near Stockton, Calif., after it unexpectedly flipped upside down at 16,000 feet. Graham, who was flying with his wife, Barbara, said they drifted onto a farm field so gently the landing didn't break fragile Christmas ornaments and glass bottles aboard the plane.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6749412/
Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Post by Jagan »

Ved wrote:the reluctance to leave a safe, known and familiar environment .
That was the phrase i was looking for!
Ved
BRFite
Posts: 154
Joined: 08 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by Ved »

[quote="Arun_S"][quote="rakall"][quote="sum"]Slowly, the dirt starts coming out from behind the curtains...But IAF says that ever since their induction, the trainers have enjoyed a low serviceability rate of 40 per cent. .....“The Hawks are not flying around much as they have a low serviceability rate. ... presided over by Defence Minister A K Antony, after the IAF “barely managedâ€
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Ved sir, the above are not my words. :cry:
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

" I inform everyone that the Hawk's poor servicability in the IAF is NOT due to operational defects in the machine, but could be due to poor contract management, spares inventory or other support factors. Talk about kangaroo courts! "
That brings us to the question,
1) Service schedules were not followed by IAF

a) components that need to be serviced were not
b) components were not stocked to replace those that need to be.
c) improper training


2) If above is true then its derliction of duty.

3) If the above is true IAF engineering branch screwed up again.

4) Is this organizational problem so that MiG21, Jaguars Hawks are treated equally!

So its more man problem than Manufacturing or Machine problem?

If the trainer is built like this and the same standards are applied to airbus or boeing passenger aircraft, then imagine....
Ved
BRFite
Posts: 154
Joined: 08 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by Ved »

Arun_S wrote:Ved sir, the above are not my words. :cry:
My apologies - I screwed up there!
Ved
BRFite
Posts: 154
Joined: 08 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by Ved »

[quote="John Snow
That brings us to the question,
1) Service schedules were not followed by IAF

a) components that need to be serviced were not
b) components were not stocked to replace those that need to be.
c) improper training


2) If above is true then its derliction of duty.

3) If the above is true IAF engineering branch screwed up again.
..[/quote]

Whoa....! A parrallel kangaroo court!! Tell me, guys.... anything against avoiding conclusions, outlining possibilities WORTH CONSIDERING, and awaiting real investigations?!!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Ved wrote:[quote="John Snow
That brings us to the question,
1) Service schedules were not followed by IAF

a) components that need to be serviced were not
b) components were not stocked to replace those that need to be.
c) improper training


2) If above is true then its derliction of duty.

3) If the above is true IAF engineering branch screwed up again.


Whoa....! A parrallel kangaroo court!! Tell me, guys.... anything against avoiding conclusions, outlining possibilities WORTH CONSIDERING, and awaiting real investigations?!!
Ved - hold on ...

If it's Indian - curse first. Think later.Or don't even think. Just curse.

If it's Chinese - bow down and admire.

If its American - the crash was a preplanned test and proves survivability. :eek: :roll:
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

The point is it better be manufacturing defect else we have a bigger problem thats what was suggested.

The original report suggested used, oops certfied pre owned parts and rusting etc,. if thats true then its much simpler problem... else, its a can of worms.

The possibilities were enumerated not pronounced, if you ever so kindly note. No judgement at all

"experience comes from poor judgement, judgement comes from poor experience"
cbelwal

Post by cbelwal »

All military and commercial aircraft have more than one pitot tube for redundancy. the tube is also responsible for altimeter readings. Usually pre - flight check and after a run up check can show problems. Also all take offs are at full throttle ( no pilot will take off at less than full power ),
so if the runway length is adequate the plane will reach takeoff speed. even a 1 degree rotation will make the plane airborne. Hence IMO malfunctioning pitot tubes cannot be the reason for takeoff aborts. however the following can be valid causes:

1) Engine malfunction - Refused to give full power. This should show in oil pressure and other engine parameters and could lead to aborted takeoff.

2) Extremely Hot Day - This will make the air less dense and the aircraft is too heavy to takeoff on the assigned length of the runway. Many years ago there was an Indian Airlines crash in Ahmedabad because of this. However liltary airfields are usually 6000 feet+, so this is doubtful

3) Controlling Surface failure - the ailerons failed to respond, very rare

4) Foreign Object Damage - during takeoff something went inside the jet intake damaging the engine and reducing thrust.

5) Some other mechanical problem.


John Snow wrote:I think the pitot tube in the aircraft failed.
It was giving incorrect air speed for the pilot to take off, it must have been under reporting the air speed, making the trainee to increase the speed of taxing and thereby coming to the point of take off but not able to do so. The ejected pilot must have been the HM subject, where as the pilot still trying to cope with a/c must be the young IAF chap.
shetty
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 17:09

Post by shetty »

Locked