Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5411
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Indranil » 21 Dec 2015 03:41

I feel so bad for the pilot. I don't know what initiated the stall, but after that point onwards, the pilot did everything he could to save his plane and co-pilot. He likely entered an inverted flat spin a few thousand feet above the ground. You can see the first spiral is very tight signalling a flat spin. But immediately afterwards, the pilot must have pointed the nose down to exit the stall. He gets back control, turns the plane right side up, and tries to pull up the best he can. If only he had a few hundred more feet, he would have returned to his family. He was a damn good pilot to have kept his senses about him when he stalled so close to the ground.

Reminds me of the Sagar Pawan crash. There, Commander S.K. Maurya found himself in a similar situation and almost gained back control. Just enough to get the co-pilot a chance to eject. Unfortunately, that was too close to the ground.

I don't know what connects me to these brave men, but rarely do I find myself shedding tears. R.I.P. brothers. Bravest of the brave.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Shreeman » 21 Dec 2015 09:12

May be its the wing stiffness? Stall characteristics not well defined -- HAL quality product from koreans? Wonder if people have shut down their training programs while the inquiry finishes into this widow maker.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 21 Dec 2015 13:23

^^ :D

Why didn't they eject? Seems like they had plenty of time.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5411
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Indranil » 21 Dec 2015 22:01

He was headed towards a crowded spot. Watch from 3:40 onwards. He tried to pull the plane up till the last moment.


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 22 Dec 2015 07:01

indranilroy wrote:He was headed towards a crowded spot. Watch from 3:40 onwards. He tried to pull the plane up till the last moment.


Nice agile aircraft. I get the impression that the display was being conducted at a rather low level. The manoeuvre that caused the crash did not look (to my non flyer's eyes) as unrecoverable - but he simply did not have the altitude.

BharadwajV
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby BharadwajV » 22 Dec 2015 09:52

New Delhi: A Border Security Force (BSF) aircraft carrying technicians crashed in Delhi's Dwarka on Tuesday.

Two people have been killed in the incident that took place in Sector-8 Dwarka, says a report.

An ANI tweet said the Ranchi-bound BSF Superking aircraft had around 5-7 people onboard. Eyewitnesses said the plane lost its control after hitting the wall and crashed.

Fifteen fire tenders have reached at the spot.

More details are awaited.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/border-security-force-chartered-plane-crashes-in-delhis-dwarka-2-killed_1837143.html
May the souls of the fallen, rest in Peace.

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 320
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Bob V » 22 Dec 2015 11:10


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5411
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Indranil » 22 Dec 2015 11:22

shiv wrote:
indranilroy wrote:He was headed towards a crowded spot. Watch from 3:40 onwards. He tried to pull the plane up till the last moment.


Nice agile aircraft. I get the impression that the display was being conducted at a rather low level. The manoeuvre that caused the crash did not look (to my non flyer's eyes) as unrecoverable - but he simply did not have the altitude.

I can tell you for sure that he stalled and spun. What I am speculating is that he probably entered the loop a little slower than he should have and that the clouds at the top of the loop had a role to play. What looks like manouevres, his him trying to get out of the spin, managing the same and then trying to pull up. He could have ejected whenever he wanted, especially when he had regained control, he had 2-3 seconds to do so. He decided to stay with the plane.

Added later: There can be one another extremely unlikely description: both the pilot and the co-pilot blacked-out. The T-50 has the AGCAS system from Lockheed which detected the GLOC and tried to auto-correct the plane till the end. But, there was simply not enough altitude to recover. That is one explanation for the near perfect recovery and the pilot/co-pilot not punching out.

Oh well! Have to wait for the report.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shaun » 23 Dec 2015 09:33


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16769
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Philip » 23 Dec 2015 10:25

Media reports say that the pilot didn't want to fly due to a tech problem but was waved on.Tragic. Our attitude towards maintenance is so sloppy all round. We have too many crashes with aircraft and helos belonging to the paras,Pawan Hans,small civil operators,etc. The DGCA should be exceptionally strict on this issue.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Shreeman » 31 Dec 2015 10:57

datapoint: lawn ornament, not a widow maker.

From elsewhere wrote:A coalition F-16 of the Royal Bahrain Air Force crashed near southern Saudi borders. Pilot ejected.

Short clip of its fall in this link: https://twitter.com/Militaryaffair7/sta ... 2169751552

Pictures:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXdZoslWYAAFrrk.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXdZovEWcAA8llB.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXdQz5qWcAA4kAO.jpg

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 22 Jan 2016 13:48

Zynda wrote:Tragic video of a Tu-95 exploding during take-off in Rus. So unpredictable...the pilots didn't even have a chance of escape.



But why? Why would an engine/wing explode with such intensity? Or was it a failed munition that predetonated? Does the Tu 95 even carry munitions on its wings?

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1151
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Zynda » 22 Jan 2016 13:55

shiv wrote:Does the Tu 95 even carry munitions on its wings?


Yes. Per this image

Image

Source: Ausairpower.net

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 22 Jan 2016 14:29

^^Thanks. That is not a fuel or "engine explosion". That is a bomb going off

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3303
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby deejay » 25 Jan 2016 22:18

Another Russian aircraft crash but thankfully non fatal

https://www.rt.com/news/330065-mig31-crash-siberia-pilots/

MiG-31 fighter jet crashes in Siberia, pilots eject safely
Published time: 25 Jan, 2016 14:43

A Russian MiG-31 fighter jet has crashed in the Krasnoyarsk region in Siberia, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. The pilots were able to eject safely and no casualties have been reported.
The war plane was not carrying any missiles and did not cause any damage on the ground when it crashed. Preliminary reports say that a technical failure was responsible for the plane going down.

The Defense Ministry confirmed that the pilots were able to eject from the plane safely, and once they landed they were in radio contact.

An investigation team from the ministry is heading towards the crash site to try and find out what caused the plane to crash.

The Mikoyan MiG-31 (NATO code name ‘Foxhound’) is a Soviet-design supersonic interceptor and is one of the world’s fastest aircraft. MiG-31 production was suspended in 1994 and a program is underway to modernize all of the planes of this type that are operated by the Russian Air Force.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1479
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Sid » 25 Jan 2016 22:26

Whenever this thread goes active, I dread to read the last post.

Its always either life or material loss.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Shreeman » 02 Feb 2016 03:16


Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Shreeman » 19 Feb 2016 10:58

interesting datapoint. just like that ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTTGlqZDx0

bad day for many people.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3303
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby deejay » 19 Feb 2016 11:24

Latest - bestest but the human in the chain

http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2016/02/as-you-wish-my-lord/

...
The AW 139 is such a machine—it featured on the popular ‘Mega Factories’ television program along side other ‘super-machines’ such as the Lamborghini Murcielago, the Corvette ZR1 and the Maserati GranTurismo. Among such hype, it’s easy to see how one might feel that the machine’s power, speed and tech make an accident … well, almost irrelevant. But tech, even super-tech, has not eradicated the devastation of an accident. This was true when a certain ‘unsinkable’ super-ship and an unsophisticated iceberg met in frigid seas a hundred years ago. It was still true in this accident, when an AW139 met its lethal end in the damp soil of Norfolk, killing four people including a British aristocrat.

Edward Haughey, known as Lord Ballyedmond, had purchased the AW139 and registered it with the personalised tag G-LBAL because of its much-vaunted capabilities. As a millionaire entrepreneur and member of the House of Lords, he wanted the best helicopter money could buy. He would not have wanted what happened next. Having been delayed beyond sundown, Lord Ballyedmond’s pilots were growing increasingly nervous about the darkness and a thickening layer of fog. The cockpit voice recording, of the minutes before engine-start, captures their concern:

Co-pilot: ‘[unintelligible] I don’t mind telling you I’m not **** very happy about lifting out of here’.

Pilot in command (PIC): ‘It should be okay it’s… I don’t think it is… because you can still see the moon…’

It would not be ok. After the two passengers had been ushered quickly into the waiting machine, the engines were started and the helicopter manoeuvred to the centre of the field. By now the fog had thickened into what locals would later describe as a classic ‘pea-souper’. The PIC, the pilot on the controls, briefed the co-pilot in one sentence that he would be departing vertically and to make sure the heading bug was central. With that, power was applied and the aircraft began to climb rapidly into darkness and fog.

For a few brief moments all was well, and the aircraft climbed vertically maintaining its hover attitude. In helicopters, at least in nil wind, the hover attitude is a non-accelerative, speed-stable attitude and so the first thirty feet of the climb was uneventful.

However, as the AW139’s altitude increased, the visual cues available to the pilots decreased. At about 30 ft above ground level (AGL) and with the PIC probably being deceived by proprioceptive cues (known colloquially as ‘using the force’ rather than the instruments), the nose of the aircraft began pitching down. By 120 ft AGL, the nose of the aircraft had pitched to 15 degrees below the horizon, causing the aircraft to accelerate forward rapidly. The co-pilot declared to the PIC ‘nose down [commanders name]’ but the nose only lowered further until it reached a peak down-value of 35 degrees—extreme, even for a visual departure.

With the disc vectors all wrong, that is, with more forward thrust than upward thrust, the super-engines of the AW139 were now working against the crew and the aircraft accelerated—still dangerously pitched down—towards the unforgiving ground. The co-pilot again declared ‘nose down’ but the only response was an increase in collective, which increased the engine torques to their limits. With the excessive pitch-down attitude, the aircraft’s speed and rate of descent increased even further.

The AW139, exquisitely engineered—‘bigger, better and faster’—impacted violently with a line of large hay bales at 90 kt and 2400 ft per minute. With engine torques maxed out at 142 and 158 per cent and rotor speed drooped to 93 per cent, the helicopter tilted up violently on its nose and planted its rotor blades into the dirt.

As the blades broke apart, the aircraft’s inertia caused the fuselage to bounce and become airborne spinning through 180 degrees, shedding blades and tail-boom pieces, before finally coming to a mangled and unsurvivable stop at the far end of the field.

...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 19 Feb 2016 19:34

deejay wrote:Latest - bestest but the human in the chain

http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2016/02/as-you-wish-my-lord/

...
The PIC, the pilot on the controls, briefed the co-pilot in one sentence that he would be departing vertically and to make sure the heading bug was central. With that, power was applied and the aircraft began to climb rapidly into darkness and fog.

For a few brief moments all was well, and the aircraft climbed vertically maintaining its hover attitude. In helicopters, at least in nil wind, the hover attitude is a non-accelerative, speed-stable attitude and so the first thirty feet of the climb was uneventful.

However, as the AW139’s altitude increased, the visual cues available to the pilots decreased. At about 30 ft above ground level (AGL) and with the PIC probably being deceived by proprioceptive cues (known colloquially as ‘using the force’ rather than the instruments), the nose of the aircraft began pitching down. By 120 ft AGL, the nose of the aircraft had pitched to 15 degrees below the horizon, causing the aircraft to accelerate forward rapidly. The co-pilot declared to the PIC ‘nose down [commanders name]’ but the nose only lowered further until it reached a peak down-value of 35 degrees—extreme, even for a visual departure.

...


Deejay, when the co-pilot warned that the nose was down, would he have got that input from the "heading bug"? Presumably the pilot should have paid attention and done something with the what is it called - the differential? Should that have increased blade pitch in front and decreased it at the back?

Does this also mean that the AW139 has no "fly by wire" type system to command the helo to stay vertical - do such systems exist at all?

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3303
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby deejay » 19 Feb 2016 19:59

shiv wrote:...

Deejay, when the co-pilot warned that the nose was down, would he have got that input from the "heading bug"? Presumably the pilot should have paid attention and done something with the what is it called - the differential? Should that have increased blade pitch in front and decreased it at the back?

Does this also mean that the AW139 has no "fly by wire" type system to command the helo to stay vertical - do such systems exist at all?


The Captains response to Co Pilots's warning was to raise collective and draw out max possible power and at the same time he was at max nose down. It was an incorrect response. Your suggestion is correct. It is done by moving the Cyclic back and raising the nose of the helicopter to level flight or gentle climb.

Why, the Captain did what he did? Three possibilities:

a) He was disoriented.
b) He panicked and applied wrong corrections at max limits once it was clear that all is not well.
c) Both a) and b)

What should have been done:

a) Visibility was below minima by all accounts. Mission should have been aborted.
b) Since they went ahead with the mission, to avoid any disorientation, complete instrument flying should have been resorted to by the Captain, till such time Co Pilot called out Visual Flight conditions. Lack of focus / trust on instruments and looking out for visual cues can cause severe disorientation ( a medically proven condition) specially when there are no/ little visual clues. Disorientation causes poor judgement which leads to incorrect control inputs often to correct errors which never existed.

In this case there was a correction required when the Co Pilot initially reported 'nose down' but the Captain applied wrong control inputs.

However, as the AW139’s altitude increased, the visual cues available to the pilots decreased. At about 30 ft above ground level (AGL) and with the PIC probably being deceived by proprioceptive cues (known colloquially as ‘using the force’ rather than the instruments), the nose of the aircraft began pitching down. By 120 ft AGL, the nose of the aircraft had pitched to 15 degrees below the horizon, causing the aircraft to accelerate forward rapidly. The co-pilot declared to the PIC ‘nose down [commanders name]’ but the nose only lowered further until it reached a peak down-value of 35 degrees—extreme, even for a visual departure.

With the disc vectors all wrong, that is, with more forward thrust than upward thrust, the super-engines of the AW139 were now working against the crew and the aircraft accelerated—still dangerously pitched down—towards the unforgiving ground. The co-pilot again declared ‘nose down’ but the only response was an increase in collective, which increased the engine torques to their limits. With the excessive pitch-down attitude, the aircraft’s speed and rate of descent increased even further.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1151
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Zynda » 04 Jun 2016 12:38

Blue Angels pilot killed in Tennessee crash, Thunderbird F-16 crash

The pilot of a Blue Angels jet was killed Thursday during practice for a weekend air show, hours after a Thunderbirds F-16 crashed following a flyover at the U.S. Air Force Academy commencement ceremony attended by the President, officials said.

The Navy said the Blue Angels pilot died from injuries suffered in the crash in Tennessee.

The Thunderbirds pilot safely ejected before the plane went down in Colorado, officials said.


Image

Amateur video capture of fireball after the crash:
[youtube]IBGIkvamYQI&list=PL5EPdzMVt9KyYWFEMfOG1s3BAM0IR8WfM[/youtube]

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 11 Jun 2016 05:40


V J
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby V J » 13 Jun 2016 11:21

Image
photos from twitter
Image

Image


MiG-27 reg TU657 down in Jodhpur, pilot safe

I looked-up the reg, IAF MiG-27UPG No.29 Squadron Scorpions based @ Jodhpur

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby brar_w » 13 Jun 2016 21:24

Recent U.S. Military Flight Accidents Raise Alarms

Source: awin




With the loss of six military jets and one pilot since the end of May, U.S. Navy and Air Force officials are searching for explanations and trying to restore a greater sense of safety.

On June 7, two South Carolina Air National Guard 169th Fighter Wing F-16 pilots ejected safely after their aircraft collided during routine nighttime flight operations near Jefferson County, Georgia.

A week earlier, another Air Force pilot—flying a Thunderbird—ejected safely before his F-16 crashed near Peterson AFB in Colorado after a graduation ceremony flyover.

That same day, during a late-afternoon Blue Angels practice, U.S. Marine Capt. Jeff Kuss died when his F/A-18CHornet crashed shortly after takeoff about 2 mi. from the runway of the Smyrna, Tennessee, airport.

The fatal Blue Angels crash came in the wake of a May 29 hard landing of an EA-18G Growler on a carrier that “caused extensive damage to the aircraft,” the Naval Safety Center says.

And only three days prior to that accident, two F/A-18F Super Hornets assigned to Strike Fighter Sqdn. 211 based at NAS Oceana collided off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The air crews ejected safely and were recovered.

The Navy does not attribute the rash of accidents to one specific safety issue, or lack of resources or readiness, despite ongoing service complaints about limited flight hours. And an Aviation Week analysis of safety data going back to 2009 supports that conclusion: The data do not indicate any overall rising or declining trend in safety for the aircraft.

Still, the accidents are racking up sizable bills for the sea service. The May 26 collision is the costliest mishap for the Navy so far this decade. Combined with the fatal Blue Angels crash, the service is on pace for the most expensive year for incidents since 2009, an Aviation Week analysis of Naval Safety Center records shows.

Altogether, the Navy has racked up about 1,400 mishaps, for about $4.4 billion in damages, since fiscal 2009, the analysis shows. From Oct. 1, 2014 to June 2, 2016, the Navy has reported 29 mishaps and about $1.2 billion in damages.

The service’s mishap rates—accidents per 100,000 flights per year—have seesawed during the past decade from 1.76 in 2002 to 1.05 last year. It has been much the same for Air Force F-16s—with reported Class A rates ranging from 1.9 in fiscal 2002 to zero in fiscal 2014 then up to 2.84 a year later.

The most common mishaps recently for the Super Hornets—and all F/A-18s—involve ground handling, maintenance and, specifically, foreign object debris (FOD), the analysis shows. Indeed, maintenance-related ones account for about 7.8% of all F/A-18 accidents, second only to FOD, about 9.5% of the total in cases where the type was identified.

Ground handling accounted for about 220 of them, the single-most identifiable incident “characterization” for all Navy aircraft mishaps since fiscal 2009, the analysis shows.

Whatever the reason for the recent crashes, Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, commander of Naval Air Forces, wants to reverse the trend. “Last week was a difficult week for naval aviation, culminating with the loss of Blue Angel #6, Marine Capt. Jeff ‘Kooch’ Kuss,” he writes in a blog.

“That loss was the third Class A flight mishap in an eight-day period,” he writes. “At this time, there is no indication that these three incidents have a common thread, nor a direct connection to any readiness or resourcing issues. Regardless of trends or causal factors, three mishaps in just over a week warrants awareness, attention and leadership focus.”


nits
BRFite
Posts: 848
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby nits » 16 Jun 2016 16:19

^^ Pitty that as F-16/18 is West no one will dare to call it Flying Coffin

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2016 16:25

nits wrote:^^ Pitty that as F-16/18 is West no one will dare to call it Flying Coffin

The West has its share of flying coffins - the F-104 is an example, but our media are English educated and learn English expressions but do not read or know that accidents occur in all air forces and blindly use the term to show how clever and well informed they are and to attract eyeballs to the media that is paying them to continue a lifetime of ignorant stupidity.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5526
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby brar_w » 16 Jun 2016 18:34

nits wrote:^^ Pitty that as F-16/18 is West no one will dare to call it Flying Coffin



As Shiv has pointed out, the Germans gave that name to the F104. With the F-16 and F/A-18, despite some recent high profile incidents the rate patterns have pretty much remained steady or has fluctuated within a range as the article describes.

.And an Aviation Week analysis of safety data going back to 2009 supports that conclusion: The data do not indicate any overall rising or declining trend in safety for the aircraft.

The service’s mishap rates—accidents per 100,000 flights per year—have seesawed during the past decade from 1.76 in 2002 to 1.05 last year. It has been much the same for Air Force F-16s—with reported Class A rates ranging from 1.9 in fiscal 2002 to zero in fiscal 2014 then up to 2.84 a year later.

The most common mishaps recently for the Super Hornets—and all F/A-18s—involve ground handling, maintenance and, specifically, foreign object debris (FOD), the analysis shows. Indeed, maintenance-related ones account for about 7.8% of all F/A-18 accidents, second only to FOD, about 9.5% of the total in cases where the type was identified.



http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 20-025.pdf



F-16 Flight Mishap History (and rates)



http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 20-026.pdf



F-15 Flight Mishap History (and rates)



http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 20-025.pdf

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby sudeepj » 16 Jun 2016 20:10

What surprised me was the little reported fact that this was only the second crash this year! And the summer is nearly over!

Given that there are no reports of IAF flying hours reducing, this seems to be a huge change from the days when there were 14-15 crashes per year!

And we are still flying the same types.. Plenty of single engine Mig27s, 21s.. What changed? More aggressive maintenance?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1479
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Sid » 16 Jun 2016 22:14

^^don't jinx it dude. nezar naa legao.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby sudeepj » 17 Jun 2016 02:20

This is the first Mig crash since Aug of 2015, if one goes by this report! That is a pretty awesome turnaround!

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... s-2850234/
"Here are the previous crashes of the MiG fighter aircraft:
August 24, 2015: A MiG-21 Bison aircraft of the Indian Air Force crashed near a village in Budgam district of Jammu and Kashmir. The pilot managed to safely eject from the aircraft. No injuries were reported.

May 8, 2015: MiG-27 aircraft of the Indian Air Force (IAF) crashed in West Bengal’s Tantipara area. The aircraft crashed within ten minutes of taking off. This crash killed two civilians on the ground. The pilot, however, managed to eject safely.

January 31, 2015: A MiG-21 aircraft crashed west of Jamnagar city on into a mangrove forest. Pilot managed to eject before the crash and landed safely.

May 27, 2014: A MIG-21 fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force crashed in Bijbehara area of Anantnag district in Kashmir. The pilot was killed in the crash.

November 8, 2013: A MiG-29 aircraft of the Indian Air Force (IAF) crashed near Jamnagar minutes after it took off from an airbase for a routine flying training sortie. The pilot escaped safely.

July 15, 2013: A MiG-21 Bison fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force crashed today while landing at Uttarlai airbase in Rajasthan’s Barmer district,killing the pilot."

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 17 Jun 2016 06:59

We had some of these discussions earlier in this very thread. The normally used parameter for flying accidents is the number of accidents per 10,000 flying hours. The IAF had an accident rate per 10,000 flying hours that was greater than western air forces. Air forces like Pakistan or China do not even publish statistics, but our media and amateur enthusiasts like us feel hurt by the mocking of the IAF that goes on.

The explanations that were given by the IAF were technical ones that no one wants to hear. As usual the attitude was "What doe the IAF know. The USAF and PLAAF (which has nearly zero accidents) should know

For what it is worth I will repost what has been discussed many times before:

1. Forget China. They hide accidents and we have no stats.
2. The USAF flies in extremely crowded airspace. That means that US fighters on routine training exercises often fly long distance with refuelling to reach the exercise area and even on return they need to stay in the air in a holding pattern while they get their landing slot. In other words every USAF sortie tends to be a long one compared to the short 30-45 minute MiG 21 sorties that the IAF flies. How does this make a difference? The difference lies in the fact that the majority of accidents take place soon after take-off or during landing. If you have shorter sorties you have more takeoffs and landings for a given number of flying hours.
3. Indian environmental conditions really are different from US/Europe. Crowded residential areas outside air bases increase bird hit risk.The Himalayas are totally treacherous and offer conditions that no Western air force has to deal with on a routine hour by hour basis.

Why has it become better? I guess maintenance is one thing. Better weather forecasts and better radar may also be a factor. The arrival of the AJT/Hawk I am sure has made a difference. Also the increasing numbers of Su 30s (twin engine) has made sure that engine failure does not necessarily lead to a crash. But we have seen how high the failure rate is - which means that either aircraft remain on the ground longer and/or there have to be more spare engines to compensate. But thankfully no crashes.

Finally the retirement of the MiG 23 must have made a difference. the MiG 23 had IIRC the worst accident rate of all the MiGs. MiG 21 got a bad name because 50% of the IAF was MiG 21 and lack of AJT meant that pilots were getting trained on a hi performance warplane leading to pilot error.

There is an article written by my late cousin Suresh about why pilot error could occur with MiG 21s. In some manoeuvres the plane could enter into an unsafe situation but the pilot would have no warning like shaking/juddering etc that other planes might give before stalling - so in the middle of hi-G manoeuvres the pilot would have to keep one eye on his instruments to make sure that the unsafe flying regime was not reached. With the AJT, and now FBW and FADEC (eg Mirage/Tejas) the chances of this happening are reduced.

In future I hope to see terrain mapping and terrain following radar on all IAF a/c to aid nap of the earth flying over the Himalayas

BharadwajV
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby BharadwajV » 17 Jun 2016 09:23

Shiv Saar,
Most IAF fighters that have undergone upgrades have good resolution SAR modes on their Radars, this will help in flying low.
Even our newest Mi17s have a Weather Radar for the sudden and freak changes in weather patterns over mountains, IIRC. (They also have terrain avoidance systems)

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5781
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby nachiket » 18 Jun 2016 02:16

shiv wrote:Finally the retirement of the MiG 23 must have made a difference. the MiG 23 had IIRC the worst accident rate of all the MiGs. MiG 21 got a bad name because 50% of the IAF was MiG 21 and lack of AJT meant that pilots were getting trained on a hi performance warplane leading to pilot error.

There is an article written by my late cousin Suresh about why pilot error could occur with MiG 21s. In some manoeuvres the plane could enter into an unsafe situation but the pilot would have no warning like shaking/juddering etc that other planes might give before stalling - so in the middle of hi-G manoeuvres the pilot would have to keep one eye on his instruments to make sure that the unsafe flying regime was not reached. With the AJT, and now FBW and FADEC (eg Mirage/Tejas) the chances of this happening are reduced.

Furthermore, many of the "MiG"crashes got incorrectly counted as Mig-21's by our DDM who did not bother to know that the IAF operated several varieties of MiGs and the actual aircraft which crashed was a Mig-23 or 27. They would see "MiG" and scream "Flying Coffin" since that was the buzzword and everybody wanted to use it.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7475
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Gerard » 10 Aug 2016 06:13

...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 15 Aug 2016 05:19

From Aug 4 when forum was down

Hawk crash
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... y-2953918/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32914
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby shiv » 15 Aug 2016 08:19

http://www.firstpost.com/india/missing- ... 51850.html
There are "unlikely" to be any survivors on board the AN-32 aircraft that went missing over the Bay of Bengal on 22 July, the government said in Lok Sabha on Friday. This is perhaps the first categorical statement by the government on the fate of the 29 people on board the IAF workhorse.

Minister of State for Defence Subhash Ramrao Bhamre said during Question Hour that it is "unlikely" that there are any survivors after so many days of the incident. He was responding to a question by Deputy Speaker M Thambi Durai, also an AIADMK member, who insisted that the search for the missing transport aircraft will not stop till its wreckage is found.

The Minister said a variety of aircraft, including helicopters of the air force and coast guard, have been pressed into service to locate the plane. Merchant vessels and the fishermen community have also been requested to look out for debris.

30 floating objects were located but no "concrete" evidence has yet been found.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1984
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby JTull » 15 Aug 2016 14:20

Hope there's some news soon for the sake of the families.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15343
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby chetak » 15 Aug 2016 14:24

shiv wrote:http://www.firstpost.com/india/missing-iaf-an-32-aircraft-survivors-unlikely-govt-tells-lok-sabha-2951850.html
There are "unlikely" to be any survivors on board the AN-32 aircraft that went missing over the Bay of Bengal on 22 July, the government said in Lok Sabha on Friday. This is perhaps the first categorical statement by the government on the fate of the 29 people on board the IAF workhorse.

Minister of State for Defence Subhash Ramrao Bhamre said during Question Hour that it is "unlikely" that there are any survivors after so many days of the incident. He was responding to a question by Deputy Speaker M Thambi Durai, also an AIADMK member, who insisted that the search for the missing transport aircraft will not stop till its wreckage is found.

The Minister said a variety of aircraft, including helicopters of the air force and coast guard, have been pressed into service to locate the plane. Merchant vessels and the fishermen community have also been requested to look out for debris.

30 floating objects were located but no "concrete" evidence has yet been found.



Hard to understand why the aircraft was being operated over water without a sonar locator beacon installed.

V J
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby V J » 10 Sep 2016 13:02

MiG 21 down in Barmer, Pilot Safe


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arunsrinivasan, brar_w, Cain Marko, Kakarat, UlanBatori and 32 guests