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

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 03 Dec 2009 17:16

yossarian wrote:Shiv,

This is becoming a mountain of a mole hill. No one challenges your knowledge or your support to any organization. But a view that is slightly divergent from yours cannot be squashed in the way you do. Its the tone I don't appreciate (the tone which says I have been here longer, its my way or the highway, it not others fault you were born a wee bit earlier than them :)). .


No such tone has been used sir. You are assuming that I support some organization.

All I am asking for is that blame should not be apportioned without knowing the truth.

I once heard a story about a helicopter that burned down in an air base. There was no clue as to what had happened. Eventually the squadron commander promised that nobody would be punished if he could help bring out the truth. One mechanic came up (in private) and admitted that he had smoked a cigarette in a strict no smoking zone. It would not be right to blame the entire IAF for not managing to keep helos away from fire.

Accidents are terrible things. Nobody is happy about them. There is no reason to start a blame game or smearing anyone from the word go.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1125
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby RKumar » 03 Dec 2009 17:36

^^ Waste of time reading these useless posts ... Mods either please delete or lock this thread for a day.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 763
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Shameek » 03 Dec 2009 20:06

RKumar wrote:^^ Waste of time reading these useless posts ... Mods either please delete or lock this thread for a day.


You always have the option of not reading. :D And there are some good points brought up. Accidents do happen due to seemingly trivial causes at times. I remember reading about a Jag I think that crashed due to a box the pilot carried in the cockpit against orders. So we can guess and guess, but we may be completely off. Does not mean we should not discuss.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby SaiK » 03 Dec 2009 20:59

HAL needs CMM-Level 5.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby putnanja » 03 Dec 2009 23:57

shiv wrote:No such tone has been used sir. You are assuming that I support some organization.

All I am asking for is that blame should not be apportioned without knowing the truth.

I once heard a story about a helicopter that burned down in an air base. There was no clue as to what had happened. Eventually the squadron commander promised that nobody would be punished if he could help bring out the truth. One mechanic came up (in private) and admitted that he had smoked a cigarette in a strict no smoking zone. It would not be right to blame the entire IAF for not managing to keep helos away from fire.

Accidents are terrible things. Nobody is happy about them. There is no reason to start a blame game or smearing anyone from the word go.


Well said Shiv. I have trying to say the same thing in a few posts earlier too. Everyone wants to link the previous crash to the current one. They bring in all sorts of issues like IAF's maintenance, HAL's assembly etc without understanding that till we know what exactly caused the recent crash, we can't pinpoint any blame. Even after pointing out the previous crash investigation results ( which are in this very thread), people still try to brush it off saying it was either a cover-up or that full facts weren't released. But they should have the freedom to say that since two SU-30MKIs crashed within a year, it is because IAF/HAL/PSUs are incompetent/shoddy maintenance/shoddy assembly etc! :roll:

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2144
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Vivek K » 04 Dec 2009 00:06

The MKI has probably one of the best safety records in the world. Also, 3 of the 4 pilots in the ill-fated craft survived. I wish it could have been 4 out of 4, still that is a good record. Even with this great record, it is prudent to study the causes and to take the overall record a notch higher.

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

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby vasu_ray » 04 Dec 2009 01:48

it would be interesting to know what went wrong with the MKI engines, hopefully this helps if they ever want to test the Kaveri in a twin engined fighter aircraft

wrt the Dhruv's Equador crash was there a safe operating envelope that the onboard control system wouldn't let a pilot exceed unless overridden?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Kartik » 04 Dec 2009 02:00

shiv wrote:Correct. This is a national habit. If we do it, we cannot blame another BRF member for doing it. And if we and other BRFites and other Indians do it why should we blame the IAF or HAL for being as hasty and shoddy. They are acting like us and we are acting like them.

We need to judge ourselves by the same standards. When it is OK for us to reach hasty and possibly erroneous judgements it is absolutely fine for the IAF and HAL to do exactly the same thing no?

As for me - I have been told that it takes time to investigate such an accident and that we have to wait. But I am an Indian and I insist that the IAF and HAL are full of liars and incompetents. Do you believe that there is anything wrong with my judgement?


we Indians are like that onlee, saar..every public service in India is sub-standard compared to International standards, our infrastructure is sub-standard, our vehicles are sub-standard, our buses, our trains, everything..any international airport in India (including the brand new one at B'lore) is lousy compared to international airports in the developed world..and all our junta log make do with it, cribbing here and there but even those in public service are aam junta types onlee, so its a reflection in general of what the Indian mindset is. and most people will adjust to the sub-standard products and service (including me of course) because we don't see anything better or don't expect any better from the sarkaar and that resignation, I guess, tends to filter down into the work ethic too.

but jingos expect that the only thing that is worth taking pride in, our Armed Forces and their equipment, should be top-notch, on par with international standards. anything less is considered to be unacceptable. that’s why the LCA and ALH will be compared to the best in the world, whereas our own "indigenous" cars are so far below any international standard that they are only competitive in African markets, but hey who cares ?

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

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 04 Dec 2009 07:16

vasu_ray wrote:it would be interesting to know what went wrong with the MKI engines,


vasuray - if you go back through the news items - all that we know is that red lights indicating fire in the engines came on. We know nothing else. It is possible to infer that the pilots probably would not have ejected if there was no other reason to do so - in the sense that if the fire warning lights come on but the plane is flying absolutely normally (assuming it has altitude as well to allow other a/c to do a visual check about fire the pilots would not have ejected. They must have had a loss of thrust as well, or at least they must have faced the need to shut off both engines which amounts to the same thing.

I am no specialist in engines - but I do know that all jet engines have fire inside them at temperatures higher than what my kitchen stove achieves. And afterburner pipes and nozzles are about fire alone. So we don't even know what "fire in the engines" means.

If there was "fire in BOTH engines" in an area where there should have been no fire (as opposed to fire in one engine only) one might also look at common systems (perhaps outside the actual engines) that can affect both engines. Although I have never seen it being discussed on here I am quite sure that the Su 30 can fly after shutting down one engine if a fire warning light comes on.

Long long ago I got interested in "expert systems" while talking about flight safety with my late cousin Suresh at a time when he was building up a flight accident database in HAL after he retired from Vayu Sena. The reason I was so fascinated was that the logic used in arriving at causes of flight accidents is very similar to the logic used by doctors in arriving at a medical diagnosis. Fresh into computers - I had designed and written an expert system to diagnose surgical causes of abdominal pain, and I was hoping to adapt that to aircraft accident investigation. Of course as an outsider I had no info to do that and it never went ahead although Gp. Capt Kapil Bhargava gave me some useful books on the subject of expert systems.

The media only talk about the FDRs - which are obviously important as are verbal accounts from the pilot/s. But that is not all. Every single piece of wreckage has to be picked up, examined to assess what sort of forces might have damaged them to see if it is possible to understand whether the damage occurred due to the impact/fire after crash or before that. For those who followed the investigation, this is exactly what was done with the Lockerbie Pan Am incident. That plane would have blown up over where I was if the bomb had exploded 5 minutes earlier.

For the third or fourth time on BRF let me relate a story I heard about a MiG 21 accident on one occasion when the plane just fell out of the sky. A detailed investigation turned up nothing until some unusual stains were noticed within the wreckage of the engine. The stains were scraped and sent to IISc (incidentally to another person whom I know well) who ran tests on the stuff and found the stains to contain amounts of Calcium and Phosphorus in the ratios that are found only in animal bones. The stains had come from a bird hit.

Even fragments of the engines will need to be examined in detail along with every other fragment. There is no alternative to waiting and letting people get on with their work. Till then we won't even know if it was the engines at fault or something else.

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

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 04 Dec 2009 07:23

vasu_ray wrote:wrt the Dhruv's Equador crash was there a safe operating envelope that the onboard control system wouldn't let a pilot exceed unless overridden?


AFAIK such a control system exists only for "fly-by-wire" aircraft and the Dhruv is not one. Of course I think FADEC engines is FBW of a type, but I really don't know if there is anything called a FBW helicopter and would appreciate being educated here.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby vina » 04 Dec 2009 11:50

I am no specialist in engines - but I do know that all jet engines have fire inside them at temperatures higher than what my kitchen stove achieves


Just a niggle Shivji. I would think that the kitchen gas stove produces a flame lot hotter than what is there in the combustion chambers of the best jet engine in terms of TeT there is.

The kitchen gas stove burns at close to a stoichiometric ratio, while no jet engine in the world will have combustion mixtures anywhere close . The will either run rich (like Mig 29 and give out a sooty flame) or lean (excess air, like more civilized engines) and hence have lower temperature than the max possible. If they didnt, the turbines will melt into a blob.

Ref discussions with Abdul Enqyoob Faisalabadi in Kaveri Injin dhaaga.

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

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby vasu_ray » 04 Dec 2009 12:58

Shiv, not that knowledgeable, AFAIK, if the pilots controls and the corresponding actuators are linked by a computer system rather than by direct means, it is FBW and you have control to modulate through the computer system

read sometime back that the US did develop a FBW for Heli as well, most likely a Heli UAV

what puzzles me is that even for a particular type, why FBW cannot be kinda generically written that can then be adapted for a particular aircraft? if we take the airplane type, in that the four engined class, the number of control surfaces and thrust sources that can vary in configuration is not huge

a simple analogy would be a cell phone OS that serves different phone models, and they do this by abstractions

an FBW even if it took time to develop like in the case of LCA, if generic can then be branded by ADA either to sell or all future aircraft development by that company utilizes adaptations of this software. All major aircraft developers have their own brand FBW today

likewise , Helis, Ospreys etc are different types which require their own development cycles

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

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby vasu_ray » 04 Dec 2009 13:18

when the first crash of MKI happened, it was the failure of FBW and the aircraft couldn't be controlled by manual piloting

yet for Tejas the manual controls exist in addition to the FBW, will the pilot be able to save the plane if the FBW were to fail?

Prasanth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 69
Joined: 30 Aug 2009 09:22

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Prasanth » 04 Dec 2009 13:24

posting a frothing in the mouth propaganda piece from a TSP blog constitutes trolling.
you know that well.

IAF has got the highest attrition rate on earth, even poorly trained ChiniCommie air force has got a lower rate.

oh really ? you have the accurate figures ? please post in china military thread and leave this thread alone.
Last edited by Rahul M on 04 Dec 2009 14:15, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: edit.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Kartik » 05 Dec 2009 07:23

vasu_ray wrote:when the first crash of MKI happened, it was the failure of FBW and the aircraft couldn't be controlled by manual piloting

yet for Tejas the manual controls exist in addition to the FBW, will the pilot be able to save the plane if the FBW were to fail?
Who told u that the Tejas can be flown with manual controls or that it has manual controls in addition to it's FBW? If the FCS is switched off inadvertently or power is lost, the Tejas will be uncontrollable.

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

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 05 Dec 2009 07:25

vasu_ray wrote:when the first crash of MKI happened, it was the failure of FBW and the aircraft couldn't be controlled by manual piloting

yet for Tejas the manual controls exist in addition to the FBW, will the pilot be able to save the plane if the FBW were to fail?


reply in newbie thread - OT here

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Juggi G » 05 Dec 2009 21:39


Jamal K. Malik
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 27 Mar 2009 23:03

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Jamal K. Malik » 07 Dec 2009 14:39


Jamal K. Malik
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 27 Mar 2009 23:03

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Jamal K. Malik » 07 Dec 2009 19:41


Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2567
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Katare » 08 Dec 2009 00:49

vina wrote:
I am no specialist in engines - but I do know that all jet engines have fire inside them at temperatures higher than what my kitchen stove achieves


Just a niggle Shivji. I would think that the kitchen gas stove produces a flame lot hotter than what is there in the combustion chambers of the best jet engine in terms of TeT there is.

The kitchen gas stove burns at close to a stoichiometric ratio, while no jet engine in the world will have combustion mixtures anywhere close . The will either run rich (like Mig 29 and give out a sooty flame) or lean (excess air, like more civilized engines) and hence have lower temperature than the max possible. If they didnt, the turbines will melt into a blob.

Ref discussions with Abdul Enqyoob Faisalabadi in Kaveri Injin dhaaga.


:mrgreen:

Dr sahib is right! Jet engines have a lot of fire in their belly and at a lot more temperature than gas stoves can ever dream of.

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 742
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rishi » 09 Dec 2009 18:32

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=55536

The number of Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft which crashed since January, 2009 till November 30th, 2009 and their make.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 763
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Shameek » 09 Dec 2009 18:36

^^ From that article:

This information cannot be divulged in the interest of national security.


Which information?

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 742
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rishi » 09 Dec 2009 18:43

shameekg wrote:^^ From that article:

This information cannot be divulged in the interest of national security.


Which information?

Damages caused by crash of I.A.F.
aircrafts
2197. SHRI VARINDER SINGH
BAJWA: Will the Minister of DEFENCE
be pleased to state:
(a) the number of I.A.F. aircraft which
were destroyed due to accidents during
2009, category-wise and the number of
I.A.F. personnel who lost their lives due to
these accidents;
(b) the present strength of the I.A.F.
aircraft as on 1st November, 2009 as against
the sanctioned strength, category-wise;
and
(c) the loss caused to civilian property
and the number of civilians who lost
their lives due to these accidents during
2009?


http://164.100.47.5/EDAILYQUESTIONS/ses ... 4961RS.pdf

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 763
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Shameek » 09 Dec 2009 18:47

Thanks Rishi!

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Craig Alpert » 10 Dec 2009 00:38

Let the blame games begin...
Three blades of the 16-seater helicopter struck the shed, uprooting its asbestos roof; all the blades bent under the impact.Though the chopper carrying her landed in falling-light conditions, it was a safe landing by all accounts. But when it took a 360-degree turn while taxiing, the pilot apparently did not realise the aircraft was too close to an abandoned building next to the runway. That this could happen after two dry runs before the final flight, is perplexing and disturbing

A high-level inquiry was ordered as soon as the Secretary to the President called up the Defence Secretary. The inquiry, likely to be taken up by the Indian Air Force will look into the circumstances including pilot error, visibility factor, failure of airport authorities to provide a risk-free runway for VVIP landings, and the role of the marshalling staff that piloted the aircraft during the taxiing operation.

Question - Wouldn't a SAR radar provide adequate details in terms of avoidances?? I thought the President's chopper had (or atleast SHOULD have) all these capabilities (a terrain mapping and avoidance radar) to say the least??

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby tsarkar » 10 Dec 2009 15:06

No, there are no such radars, not even in POTUS’s Marine One choppers, that can assist parking.

There are radars that see through weather, but not in close proximity

There are radars that see through sand (brown outs , but not in close proximity

For SAR, the “synthetic aperture” needs to be much larger, that means distances much larger than the length of the aircraft.

Google synthetic aperture radar for more info.

Maybe the car parking assist sensor could help in such cases.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 10 Dec 2009 15:16

Craig Alpert wrote:Question - Wouldn't a SAR radar provide adequate details in terms of avoidances?? I thought the President's chopper had (or atleast SHOULD have) all these capabilities (a terrain mapping and avoidance radar) to say the least??

craig, no. eyeball Mk1 is the only one that works in such cases. the nearest thing is a 'ground collision avoidance system' (then again only for obstacles underneath unlike this) but clearly that can't be on during landing.

in this case the airfield was at fault, the construction was at a position where it should not have been.(according to TV reports)

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby ASPuar » 10 Dec 2009 15:17

As far as I know, it is the job of the ground control to manipulate where the aircraft is going, through the use of proper signalling technique, and tow-tractors. A pilot does not have 360 degree vision.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 10 Dec 2009 15:20

exactly, in this case ground control (ATC) should have mentioned that there was an abnormal structure around landing path.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20550
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby chetak » 10 Dec 2009 20:25

Rahul M wrote:exactly, in this case ground control (ATC) should have mentioned that there was an abnormal structure around landing path.


The VIP pilots had already completed two very expensive dry runs and knew exactly where the obstructions were.

They would have practiced the landing and taxi as it was to be executed on the day of the actual presidential movement.

There is generally no one marshaling aircraft on a taxi track.

It is for the pilot in command to take all required precautions even to the extent, if required, to switch off on the runway and call for the VIP and security vehicles to disembark the President.

How is the ATC responsible to warn the pilot of any obstructions especially when multiple dry runs have been carried out and both the pilots in the cockpit are VIP qualified? VIP pilots would not appreciate unnecessary chatter from the ATC.

The pilot is squarely at fault, no ifs and buts.

Unless of course someone had moved the building in the meanwhile. :)

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 10 Dec 2009 20:29

I wasn't aware of those details !

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby negi » 10 Dec 2009 20:59

This is not the first time President's chopper has been found to be on the wrong side of the news.

Once the AC is on ground the ground controllers usually take over , I mean at least the chaps on the airstrip and taxi ways with colored batons guide the AC to correct parking area it is imperative that for the President's AC such arrangements were made .

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Craig Alpert » 10 Dec 2009 21:14

hmm.. intersting.. fome some weird reason, I thought that a SAR with a 360 coverage, would have displayed that building.. I know first hand that an ultra wide band SAR with a pulse based radar sys, allows great accuracy in measurement over distances, however the downside is the huge power requirements, but I guess Sarkar saab thought otherwise..I know that LM TARS SAR has this sort of capbilites, and the marine one (instead of using PODS) WOULD HAVE It intergated like the F-16's do is well something that we'll never know...

BTW, the pilots did do two dry runs so I would blame the Pilots more than the ATC here, but fortunately MY decision doesn't matter :D as it's the IAF who makes the ultimate call..

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20550
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby chetak » 10 Dec 2009 21:20

negi wrote:This is not the first time President's chopper has been found to be on the wrong side of the news.

Once the AC is on ground the ground controllers usually take over , I mean at least the chaps on the airstrip and taxi ways with colored batons guide the AC to correct parking area it is imperative that for the President's AC such arrangements were made .


The VIP helo will usually land close to the point of disembarkation so that minimum taxying has to be done. A chopper can not taxy as fast as a fixed wing.

A larger airport will usually provide a " follow me " jeep to guide the fixed wing VIP aircraft to its parking slot by the shortest and safest route.

A VIP helo invariably lands close to its intended slot as the reception committee is already pre assembled and ready to receive the honored guest.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20550
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby chetak » 10 Dec 2009 21:34

Craig Alpert wrote:hmm.. intersting.. fome some weird reason, I thought that a SAR with a 360 coverage, would have displayed that building.. I know first hand that an ultra wide band SAR with a pulse based radar sys, allows great accuracy in measurement over distances, however the downside is the huge power requirements, but I guess Sarkar saab thought otherwise..I know that LM TARS SAR has this sort of capbilites, and the marine one (instead of using PODS) WOULD HAVE It intergated like the F-16's do is well something that we'll never know...

BTW, the pilots did do two dry runs so I would blame the Pilots more than the ATC here, but fortunately MY decision doesn't matter :D as it's the IAF who makes the ultimate call..



Radar transmissions on the ground are dangerous and unwise.

These high power transmissions at short range can actually cook your eyeballs not to mention your testicles.

Indian airports have many support staff near taxi tracks to ward off birds and dogs!!

Normally in a military aircraft the WOW switch would inhibit a radar from transmitting on the ground.

Anoop. A.
BRFite
Posts: 102
Joined: 22 Nov 2009 15:12
Location: City of the snake with 1000 heads

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Anoop. A. » 12 Dec 2009 21:45

Rahul M wrote: is there any other way ?
I know what you are saying and I'm saying it is still wrong. please compare with the attrition rates of other air forces, including the USAF.
factor in the attrition rates of fighters belonging to the same gen as the bulk of IAF fleet and then tell me if you were correct.
also, have a look at this : http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today ... ition.html
regards.

Rahul M wrote:please do a break up of the cause of accident and then tell us how many were due to "poor service and maintenance".
IAF may not be at war but it still routinely operates in an extremely hazardous environment.

Sir,
First of all, sorry for the delay as I have been kept out of the internet due to exams.

I went through the link you have posted and yes it is true that an accident happening on the nation with the second largest population in the world cannot be hidden and also that other countries can go on by withholding the crash news.

I would like to point out to an article in the Wikipedia regarding Mig 21 “Flying coffin” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMRCA)remarks. It is clearly stated that this was partly because of low-quality spares used, insufficient pilot training and inefficient aircraft health appraisals. There were steps initiated to rectify the situation which finally resulted in reduction of the number of Mig 21 crashes per year. But post 2008, crashes have again risen. Even though this article describes the situation of the Mig 21 family of fighters, the same situation can arise with the other operational jets also.

In your previous post you have asked me to a breakup of the cause of accidents and then tell you how many were due to "poor service and maintenance". I do not have all the published articles regarding the different crashes, but I do remember reading about maintenance problems in a local daily, about 8 months back. I will try to get a copy of the article posted when I find it.

You have also mentioned that IAF may not be at war but it still routinely operates in an extremely hazardous environment. Well, it’s true, but then again that condition does not apply to the IAF alone, any Nation with a fully operational Air Force operates in a hazardous environment.

It is my understanding after reading the link posted by you that the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India provide detailed audits of the IAF’s operations which cover everything from attrition to procurement decisions. The auditors’ reports are unclassified and available to anyone interested. I believe, the CAG report would contain most credible details regarding the matter in question. Does anyone in the BRF have this report? If not, then I would like to know the procedure to apply for this report. Would an application via the Right to Information Act be enough?

shiv wrote:Design problem is unlikely. Fires have been caused by simple things like a maintenance error when a 5 Rupee spring clip used to close a fuel hose has not been replaced causing fuel leakage on a hot area, or a fuel pipe that gets worn out by friction against a vibrating surface or a short circuit.

Incidentally my car had short circuits from a squirrel chewing wire.


I believe Shiv ji is of the opinion that service/maintenance problems can occur…

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 12 Dec 2009 23:49

anoop, first of all, no need for sir. rahul will do nicely.

secondly, wikipedia is not a primary source, I can edit that page now to say something completely different (aliens were responsible, say :wink: )

even the points you mentioned, DO NOT point towards "poor service and maintenance" in any way.
It is clearly stated that this was partly because of low-quality spares used {with the break up of SU it was impossible to find spares from OEMs and oftentimes spares were bought from shady sources in order to keep the fleet in the air. what was the alternative, ground the IAF ? how is it the IAF's fault anyway ?}, insufficient pilot training {that's a half-truth really, if the context is not presented. the context being that AJTs were asked for in 1982-83 as the hunters were being retired (committee headed by then Air Marshal La Fontaine). the mig-21 isn't considered ideal for training rookie pilots. please check when the hawk AJT finally arrived in India} and inefficient aircraft health appraisals.


only way to say if an AF has poor standards is to get hold of crash/flight hours data and compare with other air forces. and in that IAF doesn't do poorly AT ALL, considering the generations of fighters it uses.

please, hunt a little on google and check what the crash rates (not just numbers) are for aircrafts of the Mig-21 generation like the starfighter.
what do you think the original "widowmaker" epithet was for ? it was the mig-21's contemporary, the f-104 starfighter. even the vaunted USAF's F-16s are called 'lawn darts' by its pilots.

the lesson is, every air force that flies has to accept some accidents and crashes. while we should do everything to minimise such events, giving them a bad name on incomplete info (or even worse, half-baked info peddled by DDM) is hugely counter-productive.

Even though this article describes the situation of the Mig 21 family of fighters, the same situation can arise with the other operational jets also.

yes, they can IF this article is true. IAF has an excellent record with the mirage-2000, a moderately good one with the mig-29 and a pretty good one with the mki till now.
so the same situation hasn't arisen and we can therefore conclude that the article is wrong ?

fact remains that the mig-21 is of a generation which crashed more often and considering that it constituted about 50% of IAF fleet, due to obvious reasons the bulk of crashed fighters were 'mig' fighters.

I do not have all the published articles regarding the different crashes, but I do remember reading about maintenance problems in a local daily

that by itself does not prove the IAF has poor maintenance records. *each* and *every* air force has maintenance problems. the only exception is the air force of the vatican and I think you know why ?!

You have also mentioned that IAF may not be at war but it still routinely operates in an extremely hazardous environment. Well, it’s true, but then again that condition does not apply to the IAF alone, any Nation with a fully operational Air Force operates in a hazardous environment.

the condition ABSOLUTELY applies to the IAF as an unique case, if not the only case.
consider, IAF flies from the deserts in rajasthan to the 10000 feet above MSL and higher mountain peaks in the high himalayas to the absolute tropical environment in NE where visibility is often very poor. and then frequently the landing is on tiny dirt strips with no modern facilities.
only the USAF can claim to operate in a similar variety of environments and even they don't operate in the extremely demanding high altitude environment where IAF and AAC regularly operate at a significant tempo.

then again, few air forces have to contend with absolute callousness on the part of civilian authorities like giving permission to setting up abattoirs beside air bases leading to high incidences of bird hits, a significant cause of crashes in the 90's.
then consider the recent case of un-permitted wire bridge across the river in J&K that led to the loss of a helo. it was not the first such incidence either.

which other air force has to deal with such nonsense ? you remove these from the crash list and the IAF attrition rate is only as bad as any other, certainly not any worse.

Anoop. A.
BRFite
Posts: 102
Joined: 22 Nov 2009 15:12
Location: City of the snake with 1000 heads

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Anoop. A. » 13 Dec 2009 02:44

Rahul ji,

I am aware that any "Registered alien" in the wikipedia can change it's content. The links which correspond to what i wanted to post (which are shown in the reference section), no longer works. I did not want to post dead links and hence, i was forced to refer directly to wikipedia.

The varying terrain is encountered not only by us, but other countries like Soviet Union/Russia, china to name a few. Though, I have no doubt that illegal wire bridges and slaughter houses are situations most unique to our own country.

The best(/only) source of information available on defense related events for civilians like me are the newsprint, news channels and the internet. so, when you ask to disregard (no conclusive enough) news reports, Unless media are publishing incorrect views and figures, I lose the main basis of information, from which questions and comments are born. It is not to infer that what ever they print/show is gulped down as it is, but reading/viewing more than one paper/news report can give a general concensus/inference on what had happened.

I dont know if the IAF declassifies and publishes every air crash investigation report. However, there is still the CAG report, which according to the media, contains some statements on IAF's service & maintainance records. I have never seen the actual reports, rather only the reference to the same by the media. Infact, I did not know that CAG report was available for the public untill you had posted the link refering to attrition levels. Taking into faith that the review by the CAG is a sincere representation of facts, I believe the contents of the report can reveal some of the true state of affairs regarding the crashes of IAF planes.

No more 'sir', will be careful next time... :wink:
Regards

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

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 13 Dec 2009 06:45

Anoop. A. wrote:The varying terrain is encountered not only by us, but other countries like Soviet Union/Russia, china to name a few.


Anoop, could you name all the countries in which the same aircraft has to fly missions over 20,000 foot mountains in summer on one day, and may have to take off in a desert at 50 degrees centigrade the next. The words "hot and high" were coined for India. Or a country in which a flight may have to land at an airfield at -20 deg C and 3000 plus meters one winter morning - and later that week fly across to an airfield close to the equator that is cooking at a humid 38 deg C?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 13 Dec 2009 11:21

The links which correspond to what i wanted to post (which are shown in the reference section), no longer works. I did not want to post dead links and hence, i was forced to refer directly to wikipedia.

which means there is no way to verify if at all the links said what the article claims they did, IOW unreliable. that is most certainly not an acceptable source of information.
forget dead links, I've read enough wiki articles with alive and kicking links that have no connection to the statement made in the article and are presented as false evidence to make the article look well referenced.

The varying terrain is encountered not only by us, but other countries like Soviet Union/Russia, china to name a few.

china ? russia ? varying terrain ? hardly !
just having a temperate or artic climate does not automatically make it varied. what are the 'variations' in the aforementioned countries, please let us know.
PLAAF operates almost exclusively from the coastal areas in south south-eastern china, all around sea level, same for russia.

have you any idea how difficult it is to operate in a dusty environment like ours ?
I hear that very recently in the ongoing MMRCA competition one of the 'hi-tech' fighters faced very serious problems when sand got into the aircraft. and this is an aircraft that has operated virtually in every other terrain.

The best(/only) source of information available on defense related events for civilians like me are the newsprint, news channels and the internet. so, when you ask to disregard (no conclusive enough) news reports, Unless media are publishing incorrect views and figures, I lose the main basis of information, from which questions and comments are born. It is not to infer that what ever they print/show is gulped down as it is, but reading/viewing more than one paper/news report can give a general concensus/inference on what had happened.

it is the same for civilians like me too. the trick is to filter the information/misinformation that DDM provides.
what's absolutely reliable
a) CAG/MOD reports (with the caveat that CAG reports are anything betweem 2-3 years late on the information it provides. so the report in 2009 is actually from 2006-2007), statements by ministers in parliament, news reports explicitly quoting IAF officers
b) reports by the handful of usually reliable defence journalists, they are also good enough to mention the original sources.

*anything* else is opinion passed off as fact and should be chucked into the nearest drain.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dennis, Shakthi and 50 guests