Military Flight Safety

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 27 Jun 2009 14:16

chetak wrote:
What were such former SU pilots doing when they were flying?
Did they not see this problem in over a decade of SU operation then?

totally agree... a wing commander who has hundreds of hours of experience on MKI, switches off master computer by mistake!!!

looks to me he was only trying to revive the system after it failed as a last ditch effort.

and even if thats the actual cause of crash, then IAF needs to update its training manuals to add information about such kill switch.

also that doesn't add why material failure occurred on ejection? prolonged exposure to heat? ain't all parked MKI are covered to protect their electronics. That also highlights lack of shelters for these birds.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Jun 2009 20:59

chetak wrote:
The concerned switches are "guarded", meaning that they have an additional cover over the switch so that the operation of the guarded switch is a deliberate and considered action.

Chetak, I wasn't just talking about guarded covers. The circuit itself can be disabled once the aircraft attains a particular speed for e.g, so that even if someone tries to switch it on, it might be a no-op. I believe some of Airbus switches are designed this way. Not saying that is the only way to go, but just throwing out options.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jun 2009 23:13

RaviBg wrote:
chetak wrote:
The concerned switches are "guarded", meaning that they have an additional cover over the switch so that the operation of the guarded switch is a deliberate and considered action.
Chetak, I wasn't just talking about guarded covers. The circuit itself can be disabled once the aircraft attains a particular speed for e.g, so that even if someone tries to switch it on, it might be a no-op. I believe some of Airbus switches are designed this way. Not saying that is the only way to go, but just throwing out options.

Well, guarded switches are the way these guys have gone.

Many critical circuits are enabled by the weight on wheels switch meaning that the concerned circuits operate only when the aircraft is firmly off the ground.

Armament circuits, undercarriage retraction circuits are some examples. Obviously the SU-30 MKI FBW switches would be a very obvious candidate to disable once the aeroplane is airborne.

There has been some scuttlebutt for quite sometime about Su pilots often flying the aeroplane beyond the recommended envelope.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Jun 2009 13:59

A question from a complete novice in aviation or related technical stuff:We have two explanations been given for the MKI crash:

1. Inadvertent switching off of the FCS Controls leading to loss of control and hence the crash

As for this explanation, its understandable that since the a/c is unstable, it will crash due to the FCS being switched off. But then, if the location of FCS switches is so bad ( as to getting switched off by mistake), something like this could have happened much earlier also when the a/c was being inducted and Sqns were being raised with all the flying and conversion taking place. I do not think it was freak accident where the FCS was switched off by mistake. If a seasoned Wing Co can make such a mistake, what to speak of a new Flg Officer transitoning on to the MKI

2. The explanation posted in the link above by Chetak from the forum which is haraam on BRF.

Sirs, is it actually possible to push the FCS to a limit where the a/c becomes unstable and the FCS cannot ecover the a/c? Is the flight envelope of an a/c similar to flight envelope of a FCS? Isn't FCS a limiting factor to the envelope of an a/c? IIRC, the Cobra maneuvre can be attempted only after killing the FCS switch? So, a MKI can achieve more but the FCS limits it to safe/acceptable levels of flight envelope. So how can the pilots push the FCS to limit whereby it gives way? And is there something like "non-prescribed" usage of FCS envelope? If there is, why is such thing in the FCS envelope in the first place? The whole explanation seems like pushing the usual "holier than thou" attitude of the Russians when it comes to their stuff. Its us SDREs whoe do not know how to use their "superior" stuff.

Thanks for the patience

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 28 Jun 2009 18:03

Sid wrote:
chetak wrote:
What were such former SU pilots doing when they were flying?
Did they not see this problem in over a decade of SU operation then?
totally agree... a wing commander who has hundreds of hours of experience on MKI, switches off master computer by mistake!!! looks to me he was only trying to revive the system after it failed as a last ditch effort.
.

DASI inspections are supposed to be a stressful period for any squadron. The pilot would have been under some pressure with the inspector in the rear seat and the armament glitch happening etc.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Jun 2009 18:17

Jagan wrote:
Sid wrote:quote="chetak"

What were such former SU pilots doing when they were flying?
Did they not see this problem in over a decade of SU operation then?
totally agree... a wing commander who has hundreds of hours of experience on MKI, switches off master computer by mistake!!! looks to me he was only trying to revive the system after it failed as a last ditch effort.
.

DASI inspections are supposed to be a stressful period for any squadron. The pilot would have been under some pressure with the inspector in the rear seat and the armament glitch happening etc.[/quote]

Very true Jagan sir. I had a dear childhood friend who did not return from a DASI sortie and for the very reason you mentioned.

That said, the proximity of the FCS and armament switches is bad cockpit ergonomics and should have been picked up very much earlier in the decade long SU-30 operational experience just to prevent such a drastic situation from coming to pass.

We are into cockpit design for the LCA and what not and surely the IAF does not lack the expertise to scrutinize such issues.

Blood flight safety still rules.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 29 Jun 2009 20:02

I agree with what Shiv said about the stress. IIRC during the Golden Eagle exercise one of our Mirage 2000's landed with its gear up. Thankfully the aircraft and pilot were both saved. But thats why such incidents are called accidents. It happens even on the most routine of things. Hence the best outcome from this is to learn, improve and try our best to avoid a recurrance.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jun 2009 21:06

IAF mountaineers retrieve crashed AN-32's black box

New Delhi (PTI): A team of Air Force mountaineers have retrieved the black box of the AN-32 aircraft that crashed near Menchuka air base in Arunachal Pradesh on June 9, killing seven IAF and six Army personnel on board.

"IAF used the expertise of its adventure-loving air warriors to retrieve the most vital element sought after any air crash...the Flight Data Recorder (FDR)-cum-Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or black box in common parlance...to help provide clues to the air crash," IAF spokesperson Wg Cdr T K Singha said here.

Four ace mountaineers from the IAF led by Squadron Leader Namit Rawat, a summiteer for the last 12 years, had went on a search of the FDR-CVR and located it on June 16, a week after the crash.

The other members of the team were Warrant Officer Nizammudin, Junior Warrant Officers Narendra Kumar and N R Choudhry, a former Mount Everest conquerer.

"For the first time, adventure was used in an operational field. It just proves that adventure is not only fun, but can also be used in other productive fields, especially when life of IAF personnel and assets are involved that will help find facts to help reduce future accidents," Mr. Rawat said.

The debris of the AN-32 aircraft were located on June 10, a day after the crash by a team comprising Army, ITBP and Arunachal Pradesh police personnel guided by a local eye-witness in the hilly tracts of Tato near Menchuka.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 29 Jun 2009 21:29

^^ Kudos to these guys! We should be proud to have such multi-faceted men in our defence forces.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 04 Jul 2009 03:04

Thread Split - Civilian Vs Military

Meanwhile - across the border - http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... orakzai-05

Helicopter crash kills 41 security personnel Bureau Report

Those killed included 19 personnel of the paramilitary Frontier Crops, 18 regulars from the army and four crew members, the sources said. However, officials said that 26 personnel had been killed.

The army spokesman was not available for comment, but a government official said the Russian-made M-17 transport helicopter had crashed in a mountainous area, some 20km from Peshawar, on the border between Khyber and Orakzai because of some technical fault.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2009 07:00

Jagan wrote: Meanwhile - across the border - http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... orakzai-05

Helicopter crash kills 41 security personnel Bureau Report

‘The copter might have come down because of overloading,’

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 04 Jul 2009 08:47

That report gives 4 different possibilities. Technical fault, bad weather, overloading and millitant fire.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2009 09:18

shameekg wrote:That report gives 4 different possibilities. Technical fault, bad weather, overloading and millitant fire.

I can accept that. Overloading in bad weather followed by militant fire led to a technical fault perhaps?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 04 Jul 2009 09:25

shiv wrote:I can accept that. Overloading in bad weather followed by militant fire led to a technical fault perhaps?

You may have a point there. It does mention flying low. So overloading didnt allow it to fly high, and then your sequence of events!

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 04 Jul 2009 22:33

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23080

The Darra Adamkhel-based Taliban militants led by commander Tariq Afridi claimed responsibility for shooting down the military chopper and said their fighters later killed most of the injured soldiers when the chopper crashed in the mountains.

Pakistan Army spokesman Maj-Gen Athar Abbas, when reached by telephone, said the MI-17 military chopper crashed due to a technical fault. He rejected the militants’ claim of shooting the chopper down.

Military officials said the ill-fated 37 soldiers, who had boarded the chopper from Parachinar, included Subedar Sher Zaman, Naib Subedar Javed Khattak, Havaldar Fareedur Rahman Khattak, Havaldar Sher Mohammad Raneezai, Naik Taj Hussain Orakzai, Naik Shahid Rahman Mahsud, Lance Naik Nasirullah Afridi, Lance Naik Aziz Khan Afridi, Lance Naik Najab Ali Turi, Lance Naik Mohammad Idrees Orakzai, Lance Naik Naseeb Hussain Bangash, Sepoy Inamullah Khattak, Havaldar Nazar Ali Turi, Sepoy Jabir Hassan Turi Lance Naik Ghayur Hussain Turi, Sepoy Izzat Ali Turi, Sepoy Sadiq Hussain Turi, Sepoy Mir Hasan Turi, Sepoy Noor Alam Turi, Sepoy Syed Hidayat Hussain Azizur Rahman, Sepoy Manzar Hussain, Sepoy Sarfaraz Hussain Turi, Sajid Aqeel, Sohail Rana, Ali Hassan, Nazar Abbas, Tanveer, Sabir Hussain, Aslam Sher, Maad Ali, Khalid, Muddasir Hussain, Ghaniullah, Lal Rahman, Zubair, and Tahir Mahmood.

However, they were not sure whether all of them were flown to Peshawar or some of them were dropped at the Thall military camp. A senior military official, on condition of not being named, told The News that all the 37 soldiers on board had been killed in the incident. “It’s a big loss for the armed forces. We lost all the soldiers on board,” a military officer remarked when approached by The News. He wished not to be named.

its 37 soldiers + 4 officers. certainly looks like overloading to me. and at that heavy wt, any tech failure or damage from small arms fire may have been catastrophic. the chopper would have been too heavy

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2009 09:27

http://www.safeskycorporation.com/mi-17.html

The construction and dimensions of the Mi-17 cargo cabin provide the possibility of:

Transportation of cargo (weight: up to 4,000 kg; volume: up to 27m3);
Transportation of personnel with personal equipment (up to 36 persons);
Transportation of casualties (up to 12 persons);
Installation of additional fuel tanks inside the cabin (up to 4 tanks);
Transportation of long objects inside the cabin;
Facilitating of wheeled machinery loading;
The cargo cabin floor can also be fitted with mountings for cargo attaching.

41 is certainly an overload I guess - especially at altitude.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Jul 2009 09:34

Speaking of overloading Mi-17s, the following is worth revisiting

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/1980s-OpPaw ... cle01.html

The pilot carried out all the checks for single engine configuration and thereafter tried to pick up the aircraft. Both the engines were at Max power setting but the helicopter refused to life from the runway. The Dett Cdr took it as a matter of prestige. He decided to carry out a roller take-off. He commenced the procedure and built up speed on the R/W itself. The helicopter was seen moving up and away from Trincomalee airfield, though very slowly

On approaching the helipad, the pilot decided to carry out a steep approach and no hover touchdown. The helicopter turned finals and commenced the steep approach procedure. At short finals, when the Captain raised the collective lever, the rate of descent could not be arrested. On short finals, full power was used to arrest the rate of descent. However in the bargain, the main rotor RPM reduced to minimum permissible in flight and the helicopter dropped from a height of approximately two meters. Fortunately, there was no visible damage to the aircraft.

I, then apprised him that he had carried more than 7000 Kg payload instead of 4000 Kg. He narrated the whole incident and said that he had set a record of carrying 7000 Kg payload in the Mi-17 helicopter.

Since the MGB had been loaded beyond its limits 'CHIPS IN MGB' warning light came ON during the next sortie. The helicopter was flown to the mainland from Trincomalee for further investigation. No cracks were found in the MGB. The MGB oil was flushed out and the helicopter was sent for forward area commitments after remedial precautions.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Jul 2009 09:36

shiv wrote:http://www.safeskycorporation.com/mi-17.html

The construction and dimensions of the Mi-17 cargo cabin provide the possibility of:

Transportation of cargo (weight: up to 4,000 kg; volume: up to 27m3);
Transportation of personnel with personal equipment (up to 36 persons);
Transportation of casualties (up to 12 persons);
Installation of additional fuel tanks inside the cabin (up to 4 tanks);
Transportation of long objects inside the cabin;
Facilitating of wheeled machinery loading;
The cargo cabin floor can also be fitted with mountings for cargo attaching.
41 is certainly an overload I guess - especially at altitude.

Shiv,

41 malnourished and lightweight porkis may not be equal in weight to 36 hatta khatta goras plus equipment. Even if each of the porkis + baggage weighed 97 kilos, they would be within the cargo weight carrying capacity specified.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jul 2009 10:01

chetak wrote:
41 malnourished and lightweight porkis may not be equal in weight to 36 hatta khatta goras plus equipment. Even if each of the porkis + baggage weighed 97 kilos, they would be within the cargo weight carrying capacity specified.

Yes but a 55 Kg porki each carrying a 50 Kg bale of hashish/opium would surely be too heavy, going by the "standard porki" algorithm

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 05 Jul 2009 10:12

shiv wrote:
chetak wrote:
41 malnourished and lightweight porkis may not be equal in weight to 36 hatta khatta goras plus equipment. Even if each of the porkis + baggage weighed 97 kilos, they would be within the cargo weight carrying capacity specified.
Yes but a 55 Kg porki each carrying a 50 Kg bale of hashish/opium would surely be too heavy, going by the "standard porki" algorithm

Kya shiv ji, khol diya tisra netra.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 13 Jul 2009 12:21

IAF's microlight aircraft makes emergency landing

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 15 Jul 2009 08:56

56 military aircraft lost in past 3.5 years

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 15 Jul 2009 10:58

shameekg wrote:56 military aircraft lost in past 3.5 years

That is a loss of 1.3 ac per month. How can that be justified by the armed forces.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 19 Jul 2009 17:15

Another helicopter not shot down.

July 19th, 2009
NATO: Afghan helicopter crash kills 16
... crashed during takeoff from Kandahar airfield .. “civilian contracted” helicopter, not a military one,

The helicopter was not shot down, ..exact cause ..not known.

That comes 2 days after an F-15 was not shot down, killing both crew. Now why would they not have been able to eject? The F-15 fleet was checked some time back for the possibility of the airframe breaking up in flight - which may subject the crew to knock-out accelerations before they can eject. Or the trouble may have happened at takeoff with no warning, which raises a few questions.

Have the Pakiban acquired sophisticated SA weapons, I wonder.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2009 17:45

For information on IAF's accidents, Jagan's warbirds page is the best
http://www.warbirdsofindia.com/Crashes/india.php

But this thread is not too bad

On page 1 we have this

Jagan wrote:Some statistics (official figures that include fighters, Helis, transports etc) of major accidents (but it does not include navy and army)
Code: Select all
Year 	Official 	 
1989-1990 	31 	
1990-1991 	23 	
1991-1992 	32 	
1992-1993 	-NA- 	18+ 	 
1993-1994 	22 	
1994-1995 	25 	
1995-1996 	28 	
1996-1997 	20 	
1997-1998 	17 	
1998-1999 	23 	
1999-2000 	27 	
2000-2001 	26 	
2001-2002 	20 	
2002-2003 	21 	
2003-2004 	15 	
2004-2005 	17 	

Two pages later we have

Jagan wrote:Updated list for 2005

Code: Select all

AIRFORCE
04-Jan-05	MiG-21Bis	Sqn Ldr	Kaila	
04-Mar-05	Deepak HPT-32	Flt Cdt	Sparsh Rana*	AFA
08-Mar-05	MiG-21Bis	Fg Offr	Tushar Chavan*	
11-May-05	Jaguar IS	Flt Lt	Amit Singh*	16
07-Oct-05	Jaguar IS	Sqn Ldr	Vishal Gupta	
26-Oct-05	MiG-21UM	Sqn Ldr	K R Murthy*	ASTE
13-Dec-05	MiG-21	Sqn Ldr	Bansal	
19-Dec-05	Canberra PR57	Sqn Ldr	Sanjeev Bedi*	106
27-Dec-05	Kiran HJT-16	Wg Cdr	Rahul Bapat	ASTE
				
01-Feb-05	Chetak			
18-Feb-05	Cheetah SA-315			
22-May-05	Mil Mi-8			
21-Jun-05	Mil Mi-17	Gp Capt	Shankar	
19-Oct-05	Cheetah SA-315			

Airforce Combat Ac: 7 
Trainers : 2
Choppers: 5

NAVY
21-Feb-05	Chetak			NAVY
06-May-05	Chetak	Lt Cdr	D Poddar*	NAVY
17-May-05	Sea Harrier			300
19-Aug-05	Kamov 28	Lt Cdr	O Sherawat*	
07-Sep-05	Chetak			NAVY
05-Dec-05	Sea Harrier	Lt Cdr	H S Pannu*	551

HAL
29-Nov-05	HAL Dhruv	Wg Cdr	Krishna	HAL

And now the news that the IAF has had 56 crashes in three and a half years - an accident rate that is still better than the decade 1989 to 1999.

Some of the crashed since 2005 have been recorded in this thread. Spectacular among these have been the Suryakiran crash in Bidar, the ALH crash in Yelahanka, and IJT that was pranged, the Saras and the Sukhoi crash. But we have missed many.

I have no idea whether the news includes UAVs or not. Don't know if Saras and IJT were "IAF" crashes. - just re read the news

But it was understood that the aircraft were from all the three armed forces and the coast guard. “

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 19 Jul 2009 20:07

^ Thanks for posting that Shiv. Most people (media) take bad news at face value and then blow it out of proportion. I am glad someone is trying to find some sanity instead of just chest beating.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 19 Jul 2009 20:09

In recent months I have added the following two pages - these my be interesting as well

http://www.warbirdsofindia.com/Crashes/count.php

http://www.warbirdsofindia.com/Crashes/typecount.php

For the IAF

MiG-21 Accidents (FYs - Financial Years)

The first number is an official disclosure - which is not available for the last three years.

1998-1999 WoI = 10
1999-2000 12 WoI = 14 (1 combat, 1 joint acc for 2 ac)
2000-2001 11 WoI = 12 (1 MAC - so counted as 1)
2001-2002 8 WoI = 8
2002-2003 12 WoI = 12
2003-2004 5 WoI = 5
2004-2005 3 WoI = 3
2005-2006 4 WoI = 4

2006-2007 WoI = 1
2007-2008 WoI = 2
2008-2009 WoI = 2
2009-2010 2 (Till Date)

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Jul 2009 17:44

Pakiban sure seem to have got hold of missiles.

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A fighter jet crashed in southern Afghanistan on Monday, in the fourth wreck in three days, authorities said.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 20 Jul 2009 19:47

From the above report -

Authorities were looking into why the plane went down during takeoff from Kandahar airfield Monday morning, but the role of insurgents had been ruled out, said Lt. Col. Paul Kolken, the spokesman at the airfield.

You think they are not telling us the whole story?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 23 Jul 2009 20:48

Su-30 crash - Fault in FBW control

The government’s first official clarification on the reason behind the crash flies in the face of reports that the accident was caused due to a human error when the pilot of the fighter incorrectly pulled a switch that sent the aircraft into an uncontrollable spin.

So much for all the discussion on the pilot flipping the wrong switch.

Sources said while the Russian team, which was called in to help with the investigations, was quick to give the aircraft a clean chit and put the blame on human failure, deeper investigations pointed to a fault in the flight control system.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 30 Jul 2009 05:22

Accidents of MIG Fighter Planes

A total number of 32 MiG aircraft have met with accident during the last five years (from April 01, 2004 till date). A total number of eight pilots have lost their lives in these accidents.

Each accident in the Indian Air Force is investigated through a Court of Inquiry and remedial measures are undertaken accordingly. The fleet strength of the Indian Air Force is reviewed from time to time and necessary action is taken as per the operational requirement.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Om Prakash Mathur in Rajya Sabha today.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 31 Jul 2009 03:44

From Suman Sharmas blog

Irkut clarifies Antony's statement in Parliament about Sukhoi crash

In response to Defence Minister A K Antony's statement in Rajya Sabha dated July 22, 2009, that the reason of the IAF Sukhoi-30MKI crash of April 30 this year is the failure of the fly-by-wire system, as per preliminary inquiry. While agency reports pointed out towards human error, which were not confirmed by the MoD.

Antony in Rajya Sabha, "The preliminary investigation into the accident reveal that the reason for the crash of the Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force, is likely failure of the Fly-by-Wire system. There is no indication of any serious problem in maintenance of aircraft by the IAF or any short supply of hardware as the cause of the crash.

Irkut Sukhoi replies to Chindits,"It was a pilot's awkward action in the cockpit that switched the FBW off completely (it cannot fail, it is 4-fold redudndant).

Warranty is a very complicated procedure, involves many conditions. To know for sure one need to study the original Contract clause. This can only happen it is proven that the loss of aircraft was due to the faulty manufacturing by OEM. If the loss was due to technical servicing, then it's different because pre-flight servicing and checks are done by IAF technicians. And the aircraft was recently upgraded at Nasik. "

dipayan · Post by **dipayan** » 31 Jul 2009 13:55

Indian air force plane crashes; pilots killed
Posted: 02:27 AM ET

By Harmeet Shah Singh
CNN

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) — An air force plane crashed in southern India on Friday, killing both its pilots, authorities said.

The trainer aircraft came down apparently because of an “engine problem,” air force spokesman T.K. Singha told CNN. The crash occurred near an air force academy in Andhra Pradesh state, he said.

An investigation will be conducted, Singha said.

ovein · Post by **ovein** » 31 Jul 2009 14:15

X posting from the military aviation. below are the news URLS

Another Crash. this time its a HPT 32

http://ptinews.com/news/204642_Trainee- ... two-killed
http://www.zeenews.com/news551738.html

George J · Post by **George J** » 01 Aug 2009 11:09

I just heard about this crash on my Zee New recording.

Is the instructor RITIN or NITIN Jain. Other sources are reporting Nitin Jain.

Is this Sq. Ldr. Nitin Jain from the No.30 ?

Could someone please clarify ASAP?

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 01 Aug 2009 15:56

regrettable loss of lives. I hope it is not due to the condition of the aircraft. Time is ripe for a replacement of HPT-32.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 09 Aug 2009 20:15

Link contains a 33 page report on the latest Raptor crash.

G-LOC blamed for latest F-22 crash

Report states the pilot did not NOT experience a "total G-LOC", but suffered a condition called "almost G-LOC". Basically, the pilot struggled to maintain consciousness trying to recover from high-G maneuver, but realized too late -- at about 5,000ft above the ground -- that recovery was impossible. The pilot ejected 165kts above minimum safe airspeed. The pilot, Lockheed employee David Cooley, was killed by the force of the windblast after ejection.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 10 Aug 2009 23:51

^^ Very detailed report. Is it normal to have this in the public domain? Do we have something similar in public domain for mishaps in India? If so it could reduce a lot of speculations on our part.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Aug 2009 17:11

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=11181

An Indian Naval fighter aircraft crashed off the Goa [ Images ] coast on Friday, killing the pilot.

Ranjan · Post by **Ranjan** » 21 Aug 2009 17:32

He was a very dear friend of mine. A graduate of RIMC Dehradun and NDA Khadakvasla he excelled as one of the top ten guys in NDA when he passed out from NDA in 1997. His loss is a big one for the IN and an even bigger one for our group. I will always remember his smile and his jovial nature. I pray to god to give strength to his family to bear the loss and peace to his soul. In the best traditions of the navy he lies buried in the sea though not how he would have wanted to...SAURAV TO YOU---- IF I DIE BEFORE I PROVE MY BLOOD PLEASE GOD LET ME KILL DEATH...