Military Flight Safety

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby ramana » 25 Oct 2011 23:54

tsarkar also warned for calling names to the other member.

Guys cool it. Its not end of the world to call each other names. We need you all.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Karan M » 25 Oct 2011 23:58

Vasu Ray, the basic point is that as Abhibhushan said the cumulative error probabilities throughout the process make this system of limited use in the Himalayan terrain. Yes, you may use terms like + and ++, but I'd just point out that 2-3 years back, in a TERPROM presentation made at a public event, they only showed a very flat sort of terrain and a modest hill against which the system was tested. It was not at all similar to the terrain in the pics posted by Jai (for e.g.). Yes, technology may have an answer someday, and we should explore it, but its clear (at least to me) that today, the tech to prevent such sort of incidents does not exist. Not that we know of at least. Low flying remains hazardous.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Karan M » 26 Oct 2011 00:09

I will see if I have a copy someplace and post it. But it said something like 20-30 mtrs error possible horizontally and 1-5 in the vertical. Add issues of lag, control inputs to FBW etc, and I can see it being an issue. As I recall, the video showed a modest test, but it has been used for low flying over wooded terrain, in other areas etc.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 26 Oct 2011 06:11

TERPROM is , as far as I can tell, a brand name of a system now owned by a company called Goodrich. We are pushing for the product of one company and that private company, which needs to make a healthy profit for its shareholders and directors, has released only so much info about its product into the public domain. This is like asking Microsoft to say what's wrong with Windows.

TERPROM may be the best thing since America and the apple pie, but the question to my mind is that TERPROM depends on two key elements

1. A detailed database of terrain (let us assume that this is available)
2. An accurate method of measuring altitude.

The question is how is that altitude measured? AFAIK it has to be either using radar or by communicating with a satellite. When you have a plane flying really low in the Himalayan valleys the radar signal has to reflect off trees, water, rocks and snow. This would create a series of continuous errors in the reading. It should be reasonably easy to "adjust for such errors" and fly at a higher altitude - that is to introduce a correction in the software that starts giving a warning at a higher altitude simply because higher is safer.

There is absolutely no publicly available information to say that low and fast fighter in flying in the Himalayas has been proven using TERPROM at the speeds and heights required by the IAF. Now if an IAF man comes to BRF and say that there is a problem with the current level of technology, why do BRFites have such a problem swallowing that? Would a private company such as Goodrich ever admit that there is any weakness in their product? But I see a whole lot of Indians here stand up eagerly and wave both arms to say that there are deficiencies in the IAF for not investing in the product of a privately owned company that naturally recycles its profits into advertising. What is wrong with us as a nation? Or maybe we don't all belong to the same nation?

I am NOT saying TERPROM is no good or that it cannot or should not be used (which is an accusation that is sure to be levelled at me the next time, mark my words) . Ask what the IAF thinks. They are the guys who have to do the flying. Guess how many MiG 21 sorties might have been flown by the IAF in the last 2-3 days as we have been singing paeans to Goodrich? In each of those sorties a young man has strapped himself into a cockpit, taken off, done some flying which may have been in hazardous conditions and landed safely. In each sortie there have been dozens people on the ground in the air base including air controller, technicians and commanding officer and colleagues either monitoring him or waiting for him to return, apart from his family. When we don't know about this, the iAF is stupid. It does not care.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby wig » 26 Oct 2011 07:30

the weather in inhospitable and it is snowing in the area where the machine's flight ended. it seems the pilot has a radio locator beacon installed in the seat- which he is expected to activate post ejection. as far i i know the assumption is he ejects safely and then can locate the seat which will have seperted from him post ejection when the parachute opens. in hindsight, i feel it is asking too much of the pilot once the machine malfunctions. and post successful ejection, post successful landing it is bound to be extremely difficult for the pilot to locate the seat in terrain such as this in order to swithc on the gadget. excerpts from a news item in the tribune

The plane crashed over an inhospitable snow-bound area on October 18. The MiG-29 is not fitted with a locater beacon which, after a crash, activates automatically to transmit a radio signal indicating the location of the plane making it easier to spot a crash.


and
Sources confirmed that Tomar’s personal rescue beacon has not emitted any signal to show where the pilot could be. They said in case of the MiG-29, the pilots personal rescue beacon is located under the seat of the pilot. On ejection, in case of a crash, the seat ejects with the pilot.

After parachuting down on land, the pilot has to himself activate the beacon.

“It is a simple process but the pilot has do the activation on his own after locating the seat,” said a senior pilot, adding that in another make of fighters, the pilots carry their personal locater beacon in their flight suit. In case of Squadron Leader Tomar, the difficulty in locating his personal beacon in the dead of the night on a snow-clad mountain can be well imagined. This in case he successfully ejected.

Meanwhile, sources in the IAF said the small pieces of wreckage located by the sarpanch of village Thirot are parts of the MiG-29.

“Nothing can be said with certainty at this stage until the crash site is conclusively identified and flight data recorder (black box) is recovered and analysed,” IAF spokesman Wing Commander Gerald Galway said tonight.


Meanwhile, the joint IAF-Army rescue team today intensified its operations roping in seven Sherpas from Darjeeling, who would assist team members from the two base camps that have been set up at the base of 13,000-ft-high and 15,000-ft-high Lote mountains to make a concerted bid to rescue the missing pilot and the wreckage site of the MiG-29 that crashed into the Lote mountains in Udaipur sub-division in Lahaul-Spiti district on October 17 at around 8.30pm


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/201110 ... chal.htm#6

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby vasu_ray » 27 Oct 2011 08:31

Thanks Karan, you summed it up well, the reason those terms came up was different issues were being focused on, however amateurish that sounded

a) in relatively normal terrain, a low level flying Jaguar entered a roll inadvertently and crashed

b) in a difficult terrain a low flying Mig-29 crashed during a night sortie

Shiv, humbly let me say, neither this is about promoting goodrich nor about judging IAF, those views are all extraneous to what is being asked, can these CFIT crashes be averted? what technology exists that comes close.

In that context, studying TERPROM/GCAS systems both of which use terrain maps, on the low side a fighter's position can be cross referenced with the terrain data at all times and the flight path can be projected out to see if it has an impending collision and warn the pilot by squawking

On the higher side, this projection is directly integrated into the FCS so the pilot is given error recovery modes, this is the sketchy part

so far the discussion was about low flying in difficult terrain, which impacts the projection capability, then what about situation a)? there was no tough terrain, the pilot just didn't have a chance to recover, can FCS take into account normal terrain via a terrain avoidance system and provide flight envelop protection to the pilot?

For situation b) we will start with the common ground that accuracy of sensors is not where it should be for any technology to be useful in Himalayan terrain, can we find an answer in the advanced navigation systems that the missile program is developing, one of them is the Ring Laser Gyro used as their INS and no radar altimeter. RLG went into the Tejas and the MKI. Terrain data is probably getting ready

RLG as the INS
high precision GPS/Glonass/IRNSS signal will be an improvement
auto-pilot inertia - FBW driven fighters are more agile

are these factors any good in improving on the system's accuracy as required in the tough terrain

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2011 08:50

vasu_ray wrote:a) in relatively normal terrain, a low level flying Jaguar entered a roll inadvertently and crashed

b) in a difficult terrain a low flying Mig-29 crashed during a night sortie

Shiv, humbly let me say, neither this is about promoting goodrich



Wrong.

Do you know why that Jaguar went down? What is the final accident report?

Do you know why the MiG 29 crashed? Where is the final accident investigation report?

If you don't know why those planes went down and do not have a detailed knowledge of the accident investigation reports what the hell is Goodrich's TERPROM going to do? You are assuming a cause and providing Goodrich's solution without even knowing what caused the accidents. Why the heck are we even talking about it? The topic is a bogey. A strawman. Absolute rubbish.

I must use a medical analogy. I get patients who bleed from their anus who come to me saying "Doctor I ate some hot stuff - chicken and tomato that is causing bleeding. Please give me an antidote." And the patient may actually have a dozen serious diseases that will cause that bleeding. He does not know. He does not even know of their existence. He thinks "hot foods" are causing him to bleed.

This is what we are doing on here. We are assuming some cause for accidents and demanding a solution that we think is correct which may be complete nonsense. If a patient demanded that he knew what was wrong and that I need not check his bottom and treat him for chicken and tomato eating instead, I would kick him out of my consulting room. But on here we are allowed to advise the air force and tell them to use TERPROM without having any damn clue about what is actually happening.

It pisses me off to see absolute ignorance being covered up by a veneer of internet derived knowledge.

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 08:56

The plane crashed over an inhospitable snow-bound area on October 18. The MiG-29 is not fitted with a locater beacon which, after a crash, activates automatically to transmit a radio signal indicating the location of the plane making it easier to spot a crash.


and
Sources confirmed that Tomar’s personal rescue beacon has not emitted any signal to show where the pilot could be. They said in case of the MiG-29, the pilots personal rescue beacon is located under the seat of the pilot. On ejection, in case of a crash, the seat ejects with the pilot.

After parachuting down on land, the pilot has to himself activate the beacon.

“It is a simple process but the pilot has do the activation on his own after locating the seat,” said a senior pilot, adding that in another make of fighters, the pilots carry their personal locater beacon in their flight suit. In case of Squadron Leader Tomar, the difficulty in locating his personal beacon in the dead of the night on a snow-clad mountain can be well imagined. This in case he successfully ejected.



this seems incredible.. in a completely dark night even if the pilot ejects .. he might be injured.. ..asking him to first locate the seat and then activate the beacon is just beyond my reasoning.. is it too difficult to make it activated as soon as pilot ejects by default..
this will also give an idea whether he managed to eject at all or not?
I have gone to Everest Base Camp and done some night trekking during last two phases ... unless you have sufficient moonlight this task of finding the seat and activating the beacon at that altitude and terrain is close to impossible..

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 09:00

shiv wrote:
vasu_ray wrote:a) in relatively normal terrain, a low level flying Jaguar entered a roll inadvertently and crashed

b) in a difficult terrain a low flying Mig-29 crashed during a night sortie

Shiv, humbly let me say, neither this is about promoting goodrich



Wrong.

Do you know why that Jaguar went down? What is the final accident report?

Do you know why the MiG 29 crashed? Where is the final accident investigation report?

If you don't know why those planes went down and do not have a detailed knowledge of the accident investigation reports what the hell is Goodrich's TERPROM going to do? You are assuming a cause and providing Goodrich's solution without even knowing what caused the accidents. Why the heck are we even talking about it? The topic is a bogey. A strawman. Absolute rubbish.

I must use a medical analogy. I get patients who bleed from their anus who come to me saying "Doctor I ate some hot stuff - chicken and tomato that is causing bleeding. Please give me an antidote." And the patient may actually have a dozen serious diseases that will cause that bleeding. He does not know. He does not even know of their existence. He thinks "hot foods" are causing him to bleed.

This is what we are doing on here. We are assuming some cause for accidents and demanding a solution that we think is correct which may be complete nonsense. If a patient demanded that he knew what was wrong and that I need not check his bottom and treat him for chicken and tomato eating instead, I would kick him out of my consulting room. But on here we are allowed to advise the air force and tell them to use TERPROM without having any damn clue about what is actually happening.

It pisses me off to see absolute ignorance being covered up by a veneer of internet derived knowledge.


so what is the deal.. we should stop discussing potential solutions till the accident reports come out and available in full detail in public domain..and just pray right now for the pilot?

and also why hate internet derived knowledge.. ? how many of civilians like us really have access to the actual experience of flying and technology and constrains around it? Are we then supposed to just fed by only people who have real experience? this forum itself is a derivative of internet.. collaboration no? should we not express judgement on anything until someone validates whether it is correct or not.. but then unless someone post it first how do we know whether it is valid or not.. ? :-? :-? .

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2011 09:17

prithvi wrote: is it too difficult to make it activated as soon as pilot ejects by default..


In fact this is the question I had when I was Googling for information about radioilocation beacons.

The information I got is as follows

There are two types of beacons
A. The type that is fixed on an aircraft that automatically switches on if the aircraft crashes.
B. The "personal" type carried by pilots, boat owners and mountaineers, explorers that need to be turned on manually

The is a very good reason for having a device that is turned on manually. These beacons are taken very seriously. They are linked to police and military rescue systems so that the minute the system is alerted the rescue teams take off to locate its source. The reason stated is that chances of survival are best in the first six hours and fade almost to zero after 24 hours. Since a massive and expensive rescue effort is started, false alarms are very costly and may divert rescue teams from situations where they really are needed and anyone who sets off a false alarm and does not call a toll free number after setting it off may be penalized.

That is the reason for making it manually operated. A man who has ejected and is alive needs to set it off. A mountaineer who is stuck needs to set it off. A boat lost at sea without power needs to set it off. Anything less and you start getting cranks who wander off into a desert thinking that they will get rescued and all they need to do is set off the satellite linked alarm. In the case of fighter - the fact that the fighter has not returned to base at the designated time, or loss from radar will indicate that something is wrong. If the pilot activates the rescue beacon manually, they can find him.

I have already stated in an earlier post why military aircraft probably do not carry automatic locator beacons, unlike civilian aircraft. However naval aircraft and aircraft required to fly over water are probably better equipped with such beacons. But even then there are two types of beacons. One is the fixed beacon that goes down with the aircraft or the ejectable beacon which is ejected from the aircraft. Each of these beacons is wired up to various parts of the aircraft such as ailerons and there are accelerometers that decide that the aircraft has crashed or is crashing and that the beacon needs to be ejected or to be set off. The ejectable beacons are said to be better although they may float away in water from the area where the aircraft has actually gone down.

All this info is available via my Unkal Googal and i have read this in the last 1 week. We live to learn.
Last edited by shiv on 27 Oct 2011 09:22, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2011 09:18

prithvi wrote:so what is the deal.. we should stop discussing potential solutions till the accident reports come out and available in full detail in public domain..and just pray right now for the pilot?

and also why hate internet derived knowledge.. ? how many of civilians like us really have access to the actual experience of flying and technology and constrains around it? Are we then supposed to just fed by only people who have real experience? this forum itself is a derivative of internet.. collaboration no? should we not express judgement on anything until someone validates whether it is correct or not.. but then unless someone post it first how do we know whether it is valid or not.. ? :-? :-? .


Boss by all means discuss any crap you want. But be ready to get blasted when you talk crap. And learn to use the internet. It's there for that. Please see my previous message.

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 09:20

shiv wrote:
prithvi wrote:so what is the deal.. we should stop discussing potential solutions till the accident reports come out and available in full detail in public domain..and just pray right now for the pilot?

and also why hate internet derived knowledge.. ? how many of civilians like us really have access to the actual experience of flying and technology and constrains around it? Are we then supposed to just fed by only people who have real experience? this forum itself is a derivative of internet.. collaboration no? should we not express judgement on anything until someone validates whether it is correct or not.. but then unless someone post it first how do we know whether it is valid or not.. ? :-? :-? .


Boss by all means discuss any crap you want. But be ready to get blasted when you talk crap. And learn to use the internet. It's there for that. Please see my previous message.


yes.. agree .. we should discuss all including occasional crap and be ready to face the blast when we fail....

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Sid » 27 Oct 2011 09:26

prithvi wrote:
this seems incredible.. in a completely dark night even if the pilot ejects .. he might be injured.. ..asking him to first locate the seat and then activate the beacon is just beyond my reasoning.. is it too difficult to make it activated as soon as pilot ejects by default..
this will also give an idea whether he managed to eject at all or not?
I have gone to Everest Base Camp and done some night trekking during last two phases ... unless you have sufficient moonlight this task of finding the seat and activating the beacon at that altitude and terrain is close to impossible..


sir ji.. if it was that simple they would have already done it.

AFAIK an emergency beacon can be heard by both enemy and friends. If you fall behind the enemy line with your beacon "on" (automatically) you can very well imagine what will happen.

Mig 29s are top of the line and everything in there is for some reason.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2989
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby tsarkar » 27 Oct 2011 09:28

prithvi wrote:and also why hate internet derived knowledge.. ? how many of civilians like us really have access to the actual experience of flying and technology and constrains around it? Are we then supposed to just fed by only people who have real experience? this forum itself is a derivative of internet.. collaboration no? should we not express judgement on anything until someone validates whether it is correct or not.. but then unless someone post it first how do we know whether it is valid or not.. ? :-? :-? .


Prithvi,

Flyers, maintainers, ground control, Met staff, and host of other people spend their lifetime training and trying to find better ways of doing the job. Scientists and technicians too spend their careers trying to find solutions.

Suddenly a burger-eating, mall-hopping chap comes up, spends a week at Everest base camp, drops in couple of big words picked up glossing the internet without having a clue on how things work and pretends he knows the answer, then that is highly disrespectful to those who're on the job, both in the flying side and on the R&D side.

Learn. Then learn more. Better your knowledge. Learn in depth how things work.

You dont have to be a pilot to know everything, you can learn. But you need patience and attitude for that. Its not that 2 minutes googling, then lose interest and go to facebook, then go to the mall.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so think before opening your mouth.

First obey then command. This holds true for life as well

Democracy doesnt give the right to do anything and everying. There are fundamental rights but that go hand in hand with constitutional duties. And one of every Indian's constitutional duties is to inculcate a scientific temper.

That in plain and simple words means learn and understand before opening the mouth.
Last edited by tsarkar on 27 Oct 2011 09:38, edited 1 time in total.

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 09:35

tsarkar wrote:
Prithvi,

Flyers, maintainers, ground control, Met staff, and host of other people spend their lifetime training and trying to find better ways of doing the job. Scientists and technicians too spend their careers trying to find solutions.

Suddenly a burger eating mall hopping chap comes up, spends a week at Everest base camp, drops in couple of big words picked up glossing the internet without having a clue on how things work and pretends he knows the answer, then that is highly disrespectful to those who're on the job, both in the flying side and on the R&D side.


Learn. Then learn more. Better your knowledge.

You dont have to be a pilot to know everything, you can learn. But you need patience and attitude for that.

Its not that 2 minutes googling, then lose interest and go to facebook, then go to the mall.

First obey then command. This holds true for life as well

Democracy doesnt give the right to do anything and everying. There are fundamental rights but that go hand in hand with constitutional duties.



who is a burger eating champ spending time in Everest ?...do you balls to go up there and spend 14 days.. ? if you respect experience of the armed forces..and others including you why don't you respect folks who might love their country and its armed forces but not as "knowledgeable" as you..and then why do call out people like this..? this is the best you can do to teach me on etiquette on a forum...? who has pretend to know the answer...? instead of making idiotic accusation can you be absolutely precise in which post find my post being disrespectful to others?

do you want this to be a super exclusive club .. like the rich Republicans being naked and hugging giant redwood trees?
go and learn some humility yourself before teaching others and yes you should contribute to have an entrance test to qualify for posting right in BRF then..

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2989
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby tsarkar » 27 Oct 2011 09:41

prithvi wrote:...do you balls to go up there and spend 14 days..?
20 years

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 09:45

tsarkar wrote:
prithvi wrote:...do you balls to go up there and spend 14 days..?
20 years


sadly that experience should have taught you some humility which I see in almost all people from mountains...

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2989
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby tsarkar » 27 Oct 2011 09:57

prithvi wrote:sadly that experience should have taught you some humility which I see in almost all people from mountains...
You know nothing of the mountains or the seas. You only think you know.

I have only given a reflection in my post, with no offence intended.

Respect has to be earned and you've done nothing to earn it. And your attitude doesnt help either.
Last edited by tsarkar on 27 Oct 2011 09:58, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 27 Oct 2011 09:58

@ prithvi and vasu_ray, ignorance and arrogance can't go hand in hand. put a stop to this line of posting. you DO NOT become experts by googling, you can learn something but there are still 100's of real life factors laymen like us have no idea about.


>> do you want this to be a super exclusive club .. like the rich Republicans being naked and hugging giant redwood trees?

BR is not even a subpar exclusive club, just a place where people are expected to use a bit of common sense beyond the gyan imparted via natgeo. but it won't become a dumbed down fanboy forum either.

>> so what is the deal.. we should stop discussing potential solutions till the accident reports come out and available in full detail in public domain..and just pray right now for the pilot?

discuss potential solutions by all means but do not claim that it is a panacea, you cannot know that.
accusing senior IAF personnel of callousness, without even a modicum of proof is even less wise. I can't help wonder, what is your authority to make these judgement calls ?

p.s. most of us armchair experts on BR started off in the same way, being blinded by techno-bling. question is are you willing to learn and to change your views if your knowledge demands so ?

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 10:08

Rahul M wrote:@ prithvi and vasu_ray, ignorance and arrogance can't go hand in hand. put a stop to this line of posting. you DO NOT become experts by googling, you can learn something but there are still 100's of real life factors laymen like us have no idea about.

it's not even a subpar exclusive club, just a place where people are expected to use a bit of common sense beyond the gyan imparted via natgeo.

>> so what is the deal.. we should stop discussing potential solutions till the accident reports come out and available in full detail in public domain..and just pray right now for the pilot?

discuss potential solutions by all means but do not claim that it is a panacea, you cannot know that.
accusing senior IAF personnel of callousness, without even a modicum of proof is even less wise. I can't help wonder, what is your authority to make these judgement calls ?

p.s. most of us armchair experts on BR started off in the same way, being blinded by techno-bling. question is are you willing to learn and to change your views if your knowledge demands so ?


hi Rahul..
not sure why I am being dragged into this ongoing "tussle" between.. Basu-Ray and Shiv and others.. I completely get your point..



my comments on the following issues are below in this thread..


prithvi wrote:no technology is 100% proof to solve any problems.. we learn from mistakes and make corrective actions.. every time a major air disasters happen a whole new bunch of guidelines are issued based on a proper fact finding mission..

1. Challenger and Columbia Disaster

2. TWA, Tenerife, Air France

3. Fukushima...

Every disaster leads to more stringent regulations and technology upgrade...

as long as the same is done in this case the life of the martyr is not gone waste...



prithvi wrote:this seems incredible.. in a completely dark night even if the pilot ejects .. he might be injured.. ..asking him to first locate the seat and then activate the beacon is just beyond my reasoning.. is it too difficult to make it activated as soon as pilot ejects by default..
this will also give an idea whether he managed to eject at all or not? [A Set of questions.. not pretending that it is the solution
I have gone to Everest Base Camp and done some night trekking during last two phases ... unless you have sufficient moonlight this task of finding the seat and activating the beacon at that altitude and terrain is close to impossible.[Trying to quote from personal experience .. not pretending I am an expert mountaineer or know everything of mountains.. .


however I was little surprised by Shiv's comment on internet derived knowledge.. which we all know has limitations but we have no alternatives either.. .. I did not support any other actions by anyone else.. in this forum.. and also unfortunately did not have time to read through all the posts
Last edited by prithvi on 27 Oct 2011 10:15, edited 1 time in total.

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 10:13

tsarkar wrote:
prithvi wrote:sadly that experience should have taught you some humility which I see in almost all people from mountains...
You know nothing of the mountains or the seas. You only think you know.

I have only given a reflection in my post, with no offence intended.

Respect has to be earned and you've done nothing to earn it. And your attitude doesnt help either.


Paa er dhulo deben dada-ra.. and maaf korben .. kono bhul.. jadi hoye thake.. tobe i know mountains.. :mrgreen: and I know it makes people humble.. may be we both lost touch with it

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2011 10:19

prithvi wrote:however I was little surprised by Shiv's comment on internet derived knowledge.. which we all know has limitations but we have no alternatives either.. .. I did not support any other actions by anyone else.. in this forum.. and also unfortunately did not have time to read through all the posts

uh oh! Stop making excuses that you have no alternatives. That is ass covering and downhill skiing at the same time. You don't have the time to read posts. How then do you get time to use the internet for information? You can ask no? Ask before you reach judgement. There is a newbie thread for that

Do not advise the IAF to use TERPROM. Explain to ignorant fellow BRFites what TERPROM means and why you think it is useful. If you don't have answers to either, just ask and let some moron who has time to use the internet to say what he found on the same goddam internet which you think is useful but you don't have enough time.

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 10:27

shiv wrote:
prithvi wrote:however I was little surprised by Shiv's comment on internet derived knowledge.. which we all know has limitations but we have no alternatives either.. .. I did not support any other actions by anyone else.. in this forum.. and also unfortunately did not have time to read through all the posts

uh oh! Stop making excuses that you have no alternatives. That is ass covering and downhill skiing at the same time. You don't have the time to read posts. How then do you get time to use the internet for information? You can ask no? Ask before you reach judgement. There is a newbie thread for that

Do not advise the IAF to use TERPROM. Explain to ignorant fellow BRFites what TERPROM means and why you think it is useful. If you don't have answers to either, just ask and let some moron who has time to use the internet to say what he found on the same goddam internet which you think is useful but you don't have enough time.


1. why cant you just relax a little bit. ... I have no connection with TERPROM.. I did not post it and commented on it..
2. You can not make a general comment on usage of internet knowledge because even if it is flawed to an extent.. it will not be 100% flawed.. and gives basic foundation for more accurate discussion
3. I don't have time read all the posts as I am not retired and have other work
4. Your comment on not agreeing on any plain-speak unless we know the entire truth (Real cause of accidents etc.) is hard to comprehend as no one have access to it.
5. I did not accuse any IAF officers or for that matter anyone from defense forces. I might not be lucky enough but I also have family members serving....

again just relax a bit .. you remind me of my hostel warden .. always on the lookout for mischief by the students and giving them tight slaps whenever getting caught ..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2011 10:42

prithvi wrote:1. why cant you just relax a little bit. ... I have no connection with TERPROM.. I did not post it and commented on it..
2. You can not make a general comment on usage of internet knowledge because even if it is flawed to an extent.. it will not be 100% flawed.. and gives basic foundation for more accurate discussion
3. I don't have time read all the posts as I am not retired and have other work
4. Your comment on not agreeing on any plain-speak unless we know the entire truth (Real cause of accidents etc.) is hard to comprehend as no one have access to it.
5. I did not accuse any IAF officers or for that matter anyone from defense forces. I might not be lucky enough but I also have family members serving....

again just relax a bit .. you remind me of my hostel warden .. always on the lookout for mischief by the students and giving them tight slaps whenever getting caught ..


If YOU did not do anything why are you asking me to relax? Your faux concern about my state of relaxation is like the faux concern being shown by people on this thread for IAF pilots. The "concern" is used as an excuse to be scathingly critical without any knowledge. if you belong to that group I have no intention of being relaxed. I really don't give a damn whether I remind you of your hostel warden or your girlfriend. Your fantasies are your fantasies alone.

prithvi

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby prithvi » 27 Oct 2011 10:51

shiv wrote:
prithvi wrote:1. why cant you just relax a little bit. ... I have no connection with TERPROM.. I did not post it and commented on it..
2. You can not make a general comment on usage of internet knowledge because even if it is flawed to an extent.. it will not be 100% flawed.. and gives basic foundation for more accurate discussion
3. I don't have time read all the posts as I am not retired and have other work
4. Your comment on not agreeing on any plain-speak unless we know the entire truth (Real cause of accidents etc.) is hard to comprehend as no one have access to it.
5. I did not accuse any IAF officers or for that matter anyone from defense forces. I might not be lucky enough but I also have family members serving....

again just relax a bit .. you remind me of my hostel warden .. always on the lookout for mischief by the students and giving them tight slaps whenever getting caught ..


If YOU did not do anything why are you asking me to relax? Your faux concern about my state of relaxation is like the faux concern being shown by people on this thread for IAF pilots. The "concern" is used as an excuse to be scathingly critical without any knowledge. if you belong to that group I have no intention of being relaxed. I really don't give a damn whether I remind you of your hostel warden or your girlfriend. Your fantasies are your fantasies alone.


gawd.. ok.. I am very scared and enlightened ... closing the loop from my side.. if mod wants.. they can delete my useless "concerns" etc. .. whatever.. .. enough of being a punching bag for nothing...

nitinr
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 17:35

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby nitinr » 27 Oct 2011 14:26

a newbie pooch related to above
1. is it technically possible to activate beacons as above through satellites. I mean like as soon as beacon receives a ping, it activates itself and ping back useful data. (i understand that in some cases its difficult to get satellite signals to do same but just as a technology is it possible to do this)
2. is it technically / physically possible to have a small enough beacon which can be carried by pilot himself. I am assuming that pilots survial kit is on his person and this kit might include this kind of beacon if possible. Reason being its easy to activate a beacon which is on your pesron rather than having it on a ejection seat which might have fallen some way off.
Thanks. Mods if you feel it doesnt belong here then please move to appropriate thread.

saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby saps » 27 Oct 2011 15:26

Its good to see the discussion still alive, after my brief disappearance.

Please educate me on how to post images, text from pdf files and data from web pages.

Would drop in some real not so available gen, about TERPROM and stuff.

Educate please..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2011 15:30

saps wrote:Please educate me on how to post images, text from pdf files and data from web pages.

Educate please..


Lesson number 1. Post this question in the newbie thread.

saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby saps » 27 Oct 2011 15:31

the more curious ones can request me on the AGARD Aerospace nav systems volume. Its only 500 pages of sheer tech data, all doubts here about speed and computational requirements would get sorted out in perspective.

Hope a search for this book would satisfy some requirements of authenticity.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Lalmohan » 27 Oct 2011 15:31

there are already a number of beacons available on the market - most tend to be radio frequency - satcom links are generally more expensive
the problem with military pilots is that if they come down behind enemy lines - they don't need to be found, so a general beacon is not of much use - a secure beacon or one that is useable in friendly territory is always possible
there used to be quite large ones for maritime rescue before, the technology exists, not sure that they have been applied

saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby saps » 27 Oct 2011 15:33

Forget it, i thought that there would be some sense in dropping in what i know, i am not interested in giving out anything. Good to read out stuff.

All the best for your internetting discussion with open source information.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2011 15:42

nitinr wrote:a newbie pooch related to above
1. is it technically possible to activate beacons as above through satellites. I mean like as soon as beacon receives a ping, it activates itself and ping back useful data. (i understand that in some cases its difficult to get satellite signals to do same but just as a technology is it possible to do this)
2. is it technically / physically possible to have a small enough beacon which can be carried by pilot himself. I am assuming that pilots survial kit is on his person and this kit might include this kind of beacon if possible. Reason being its easy to activate a beacon which is on your pesron rather than having it on a ejection seat which might have fallen some way off.
Thanks. Mods if you feel it doesnt belong here then please move to appropriate thread.


I am sure it is possible to do that. But think how many air forces would want their pilots/planes to carry a device that constantly reveals where the plane is located?

jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby jai » 27 Oct 2011 16:24

Times now is reporting that the wreckage of the Mig 29 has been found burried under snow in Chokhang area. No news of the pilot yet.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2011 17:02

Article from 2003 on BR
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today ... ewoor.html
The nation must be aware that at Tezpur in Assam, where young pilots are given Operational training, the MiG21 flies close to 10,000 hours in one year. Every day, right across the Indian skies, MiG21s fly day and night.


Environment also means the attitude of the intelligentsia, policy makers, analysts, and of course the media, both print and electronic. They too are hostile towards the Defence Forces. A little noise here and thereabout Kargil, and Hillkaka is not what is needed to make flying safe. A structured and well illustrated campaign on Flight Safety and Flying Training in the Indian Air Force needs to be broadcast on TV. The same channels that report so disparagingly about MiGs,and lack of concern for life of pilots, and the 'unforgiving' aircraft, and so on, should take up this cause and refurbish the faith of their viewers in the Air Force, its aircraft and pilots. A great disservice has been done, and it has to be remedied by the very people and organizations that did the disservice. Every city that has an airport or Air Force Station also has a local Cable TV supplier. The environment for safer flying can be easily boosted through Cable TV education for as little as a one minute programme every evening.

saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby saps » 27 Oct 2011 18:05


saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby saps » 27 Oct 2011 18:07

the previous post is for terrain referenced navigation. learning from hidden archives, just did so for images. Trying to figure out how to add pdf reference, any help welcome !!

saps
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 18:16
Location: Poor mans Ooty...

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby saps » 27 Oct 2011 18:13

[IMG]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/1571/80478493.jpg[/IMG]
Shot at 2011-10-27

a basic diagram of TRN, looking for better one though.

bodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 02 Dec 2009 09:25

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby bodhi » 27 Oct 2011 18:21

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=16282

Crash site located. Its the same place which the villagers had reported about.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby vasu_ray » 28 Oct 2011 05:41

@Rahul M
say System XYZ helps low level flights, (even if it is tech bling)

operationals are buying fighters equipped with this, advocating for it to be used in the existing fleet by drawing a baseline on the current capability somehow translates into insulting the operationals since it amounts to accusing them that they don't know their job

operationals are paying top dollar for the TOT package and would like to have the MMRCA in service soon enough, local development of a similar system can take time, so getting it off the shelf as part of TOT will help in what can be fielded in 2020 can be made available in 2015, so in a blinkered perception this is accused as insulting the local R&D guys as well and not as pragmatic, references to RLG tell one where my loyalties are

@saps, Please post pertinent stuff about TRN and how it relates to the FCS, TIA

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby ramana » 28 Oct 2011 21:32

bodhi wrote:http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=16282

Crash site located. Its the same place which the villagers had reported about.



The Search Task Force leader is the same one who earlier got the VM for rescuing people with a helicopter.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: k prasad, MeshaVishwas, Suresh S, suryag, Vivek K and 38 guests