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.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby nam » 30 Mar 2019 18:10


chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19141
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby chetak » 30 Mar 2019 18:20

ramana wrote:
Prasad wrote:Only thing worth using from that mess of an article is that there possibly was some sensor issue triggering a pitch down action. Everything else is masala, to target HAL. M2k upgrade doesn't touch fcs iirc.


That's was what caught my attention. The most likely cause is in this branch of the fault tree.

Pilot Error was ruled out.
Also HAL screwing up undercarriage also ruled out.

Now going by Dileep's post it could be a field repair of a sensor/box.
I hope there were no FCS software upgrades.

Waiting for Abhibhushan sir to weigh in on the COI process.



I don't think that anyone will open their mouth.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19141
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby chetak » 30 Mar 2019 18:48

Rahul M wrote:continuing from viewtopic.php?p=2338631#p2338631

civilian black-boxes have a transmitter usually, do military ones have those as well ?


Most black-boxes, especially those on aircraft operating over water usually have a sonar locator beacon to enable location underwater.

There is also an ELT (Emergency locator transmitter) on most of these aircraft which activates on distress frequency and can be picked up by satellite but it has to be activated manually. AFAIK, most of them activate automatically only after they exceed (= or >) 11G impact.

These days almost all of our military aircraft have the sonar locator beacons with salt water activated batteries, apart from the ELT.

By our regulations, even 25 NM inland from the coastline is considered "over water" so mil aircraft operating in this zone will carry both an Emergency locator transmitter as well as a sonar locator beacon. All of them may not carry/be fitted with a FDR though.

The newer ameriki ones used by the IAF/IN like the C-130, P-8I and the C-17 will very likely have the FDR with the sonar beacon.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16761
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 30 Mar 2019 21:38

what are the chances that a chopper crash would experience 11G impact ? can't that be changed when these are installed on choppers ?

I am guessing it depends on whether the main rotors were intact and mitigated the descent speed.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 214
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby gaurav.p » 31 Mar 2019 13:22

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1112251594186387456
Today morning a MiG 27 UPG aircraft on a routine mission from Jodhpur, crashed. Further details awaited.

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1112254289219604480
Visuals from Rajasthan's Jodhpur where a MiG 27 UPG aircraft on a routine mission from Jodhpur, crashed this morning.


Rather than clamour over more rafale, the clamour for more tejas should increase!

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 261
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby pushkar.bhat » 31 Mar 2019 13:30

Twitter says pilot is safe. Awaiting formal confirmation.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19141
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby chetak » 31 Mar 2019 14:10

Rahul M wrote:what are the chances that a chopper crash would experience 11G impact ? can't that be changed when these are installed on choppers ?

I am guessing it depends on whether the main rotors were intact and mitigated the descent speed.


If someone survives the crash, he/she will be able to activate the system manually too.

The 11 g impact is required only for the merest fraction of a second to activate the system.

A chopper will usually try and autorotate to minimize the force of impact and also to try to make a landing, which may be a lot harder to do in difficult terrain.

All depends on karma onlee.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby negi » 31 Mar 2019 14:53

Our media and even public at large is incapable and not matured enough to handle the ugly truth ; the great military industrial complex of likes of USA and RU was only possible after many perished at controls or even test rigs trying to experiment and innovate . The CoI's objective and intent is to find the root cause dispassionately not to pin blame there is no reason for any of this to be in media ; however once the dust settles down it makes sense to publish the findings .

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66428
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Singha » 31 Mar 2019 15:26

lay public wants punishment of enemies but with zero losses and without bearing the cost of high defence r&d funding.

ours hovers around 2% and we are manpower heavy as we encounter two large enemies on a 4000km of front 24x7 while EU can afford to lean manpower and focus on CAPEX.

Image

ie what they want is a indo-china or indo-pak ODI match where indian victory is bloodless and only the ball gets hammered.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Austin » 31 Mar 2019 15:51

Mig-27 UPG crashes in Rajasthan , pilot safe

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66428
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Singha » 31 Mar 2019 16:31

TSPAF has faced the similar obsolescence issues with its large F7 and MirageIII/V fleet that we are facing with the Bison and Mig27. they plan to start phasing out these obsolete types whatever is still flyable in favour of more bandars starting 2020. this is perhaps by ramping up the local production rate or using a final assembly line in chengdu also.

I think most of the Mig27 are gone - google maps of hashimara shows 22 chassis lying derelict in a heap - so that sqdn is waiting for rafale. since only some 40 Mig27 were UPG, does it mean we only have 2 squadrons in active service ?

the Bisons started off around 125...accounting for slow cannibalization and a few mishaps, could be around 100 now.

the Jaguars are durable and seem to be holding up better, but in 10 years time surely they cannot soldier on anymore. these are around 100 airframes.

there is no way in hell we can afford to buy 250 nos of this so called "SEF" from abroad. Tejas is the only option and its production goal needs to be upped to around 24 minimum preferably 30 per annum to permit phased retirement of these 250 airframes within the next decade. the initial lots can be Mk1, Mk2, the last 100 or so may be the MEF.

PMO has to take a call, either expand the final assembly Tejas plant in BLR to twice its size, with attendant needs of manpower and suppliers or permit a Pvt firm to run another final assembly line if there are any willing. in either case, tons of money needed to be paid into supplier network to permit them to scale up and fill the pipeline ... atleast a 2-3 year process because they too need to build scale and train more people.

there is no other way forward.
Tejas will need to replace all of the Mig27, Bisons and Jags
Rafale 36 we can say will replace the Mig29 UPG as they age out - not known as a durable airframe
all the SU30, 270 of them will get MLUed and serve another 30 years till 2050.
lastly I fully expect the M2K-UPG to serve us another 20 years - indestructible airframe , yama himself got scared and sent them back to earth. -- when AMCA comes they can replace.

speed up Tejas induction @ any cost and relegate the elderly bisons and mig27 to training duties only.

also investment in more AWACS and ground based radars will lessen the need for speculative border patrols. OTH radars are needed so that anytime activity from quetta or peshwar , it will be known.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 214
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby gaurav.p » 31 Mar 2019 16:55

^^ saar but where are the fabled tejas orders. The product is ready to be sold.
can't imagine 16/yr given that there is hardly any orders placed.

Nothing will move just as elections are round the corner. :(

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1825
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Manish_P » 31 Mar 2019 17:39

Austin wrote:Mig-27 UPG crashes in Rajasthan , pilot safe


Whew. Thank heavens (and good pilot training)

Been a tough year.

esommuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 05 Mar 2019 21:09

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby esommuk » 31 Mar 2019 20:43

Blimey ... friendly fire brought down Mi17???

https://www.firstpost.com/india/iaf-pro ... 60971.html

esommuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 05 Mar 2019 21:09

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby esommuk » 31 Mar 2019 20:50

In a truly network centric environment, air defence command and control nodes should have enhanced situational awareness fed by real-time analytics of track data and other sensor data. Old school RT calls do not work well anymore it seems if this friendly fire incident is true

esommuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 05 Mar 2019 21:09

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby esommuk » 31 Mar 2019 20:57

Singha wrote:TSPAF has faced the similar obsolescence issues with its large F7 and MirageIII/V fleet that we are facing with the Bison and Mig27. they plan to start phasing out these obsolete types whatever is still flyable in favour of more bandars starting 2020. this is perhaps by ramping up the local production rate or using a final assembly line in chengdu also.

I think most of the Mig27 are gone - google maps of hashimara shows 22 chassis lying derelict in a heap - so that sqdn is waiting for rafale. since only some 40 Mig27 were UPG, does it mean we only have 2 squadrons in active service ?

the Bisons started off around 125...accounting for slow cannibalization and a few mishaps, could be around 100 now.

the Jaguars are durable and seem to be holding up better, but in 10 years time surely they cannot soldier on anymore. these are around 100 airframes.

there is no way in hell we can afford to buy 250 nos of this so called "SEF" from abroad. Tejas is the only option and its production goal needs to be upped to around 24 minimum preferably 30 per annum to permit phased retirement of these 250 airframes within the next decade. the initial lots can be Mk1, Mk2, the last 100 or so may be the MEF.

PMO has to take a call, either expand the final assembly Tejas plant in BLR to twice its size, with attendant needs of manpower and suppliers or permit a Pvt firm to run another final assembly line if there are any willing. in either case, tons of money needed to be paid into supplier network to permit them to scale up and fill the pipeline ... atleast a 2-3 year process because they too need to build scale and train more people.

there is no other way forward.
Tejas will need to replace all of the Mig27, Bisons and Jags
Rafale 36 we can say will replace the Mig29 UPG as they age out - not known as a durable airframe
all the SU30, 270 of them will get MLUed and serve another 30 years till 2050.
lastly I fully expect the M2K-UPG to serve us another 20 years - indestructible airframe , yama himself got scared and sent them back to earth. -- when AMCA comes they can replace.

speed up Tejas induction @ any cost and relegate the elderly bisons and mig27 to training duties only.

also investment in more AWACS and ground based radars will lessen the need for speculative border patrols. OTH radars are needed so that anytime activity from quetta or peshwar , it will be known.


Sir why can't HAL allow licensed production of Tejas to private players in India. In fact the production lines for Tejas should be spread all across the country in all four regions so that local vendor/supply chain ecosystem grows. It seems there is some conservative mindset in restricting vendor ecosystem to few hands only. HAL can impose stringent QC across all production lines and suppliers/vendors to maintain consistency and quality! In West Bengal there are abandoned airbases of WW2 era (with nearby railhead and road connectivity) with huge tracts of land under MOD jurisdiction available for instance.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17890
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Karan M » 01 Apr 2019 01:24

Wrong thread for this discussion.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16761
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 27 Apr 2019 10:45

Ajai Shukla caught lying about the Mi-17 crash.

@IAF_MCC
5m5 minutes ago

Today in an article written by Ajai Shukla he has incorrectly speculated that the IAF Court of Inquiry constituted to investigate the Mi-17 V5 crash at Srinagar on 27 Feb has been put on hold. This is his imagination and IAF categorically denies this.1/2
============================
@IAF_MCC
6m6 minutes ago

CoI of aircraft accidents are meticulous & time consuming. All past inquiries of aircraft accidents bear testimony to this. Proceedings of a CoI are not commented upon by IAF till completion of the inquiry in all cases.There is no connection between elections & completion of CoI.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17890
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Karan M » 27 Apr 2019 11:10

Shukla has gone insane with his rants about Indian security forces and IAF just because the deracinated twit hates the current GOI.

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 418
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby mmasand » 08 May 2019 09:04

IAF AN-32 over shot runway 27 at BOM just before midnight. Heavies diverted or returned to origin.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7310
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rakesh » 08 May 2019 09:18

No one is injured. Thank Goodness!

IAF's An-32 overruns runway in Mumbai, no injuries reported
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/arti ... ted/414732

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10693
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Aditya_V » 08 May 2019 11:10

Rakesh wrote:No one is injured. Thank Goodness!

IAF's An-32 overruns runway in Mumbai, no injuries reported
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/arti ... ted/414732


Any idea if this was due to Tyre burst or engine failure or some special heavy Payload was being flown from Mumbai to Bengaluru?

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby MeshaVishwas » 21 May 2019 07:48

MeshaVishwas wrote:Copter crash ‘self-hit’, IAF commander out-Ajay Banerjee, The Tribune.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/nation/copter-crash-self-hit--iaf-commander-out/775881.html

Even as an inquiry into the February 27 crash of an Mi-17 helicopter at Budgam near Srinagar nears completion, the Indian Air Force has removed the Air Officer Commanding (AOC) of the Srinagar air base — a move to show that procedural lapses will not go unpunished.

All six airmen on board the helicopter and a civilian on ground were killed. The helicopter was downed by a surface-to-air missile (SAM) of IAF, which assumed the helicopter to be a hostile platform.

The Russian-made copter crashed at 10.05 am — around the same time as Indian and Pakistani fighters were engaging each other over Nowshera in Jammu and Kashmir. Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman’s jet was downed around 10.30 am.

The AOC of IAF base is the seniormost officer.

An ongoing inquiry into the accident has indicated lapses leading to the accident. The Air Traffic Control had called back the helicopter as an air duel between Indian and Pakistani jets escalated. This is being seen as a lapse as the helicopter should have been sent away to a safer zone instead of being called back to Srinagar. Also, as the copter was returning, it should have been made to land at the designated safe spot.

On ground, the missile system and air defence guns fire away at aircraft or helicopters which can’t be identified.

The crucial identification or the Friend or Foe (IFF) system on the Mi-17 helicopter was switched off, which was against laid down procedures. The IFF is a system on board a helicopter or plane that automatically transmits a unique identification signal.

That the IFF would remain mandatorily switched on was a decision taken last year after a near mid-air accident between a Sukhoi-30 fighter jet and a transport plane of the IAF. Though the IAF issued instructions that the IFF system should be switched on, the Srinagar air base had issued contradictory orders.

Sources said the IAF could consider criminal charges against those found having committed lapses.

:eek:
Damning report if correct.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1633
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Sid » 21 May 2019 09:30

Military aircrafts do fly with their transponders off, and IFF is a transponder.

This story about that Heli didn’t had it’s IFF on, then it’s missing black box, and now stating that Srinagar AFB issues orders to keep aircraft IFF smells like BS. This article has no access to what inquiry has found yet.

An air defense unit must have relied on other equipment then just an IFF interrogation, what about a radio contact? There were AWAC and active GC who must have worked on identifying it.

Blue on Blue happens, and someone fcuked up. But this line of reasoning seems to be blaming the victim here.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby MeshaVishwas » 21 May 2019 09:59

Sid wrote:Military aircrafts do fly with their transponders off, and IFF is a transponder.

This story about that Heli didn’t had it’s IFF on, then it’s missing black box, and now stating that Srinagar AFB issues orders to keep aircraft IFF smells like BS. This article has no access to what inquiry has found yet.

An air defense unit must have relied on other equipment then just an IFF interrogation, what about a radio contact? There were AWAC and active GC who must have worked on identifying it.

Blue on Blue happens, and someone fcuked up. But this line of reasoning seems to be blaming the victim here.

Sudhi Ranjan Sen also reporting along similar lines so multiple sources confirm a friendly fire caused by alleged negligence of SOPs.
But Ajay's report mentions a near miss between an An-32 and a Rambha while Sudhi mentions a near miss between the Super Herc and the Rambha(more likely IMO)

The preliminary inquiry into the accident has allegedly indicated several lapses leading to the tragic accident. For instance, the air traffic control called the helicopter back even as air engagement between Indian and Pakistani fighters intensified. “Ideally, the helicopter should have been sent away to safer zone instead of it being called back to the base,” said a second senior defence ministry official who did not want to be named. “The incoming helicopter should have been vectored into the pre-designated zone meant for friendly aircraft to hold till the alert was called off,” the official added.
All bases have designated airspace for friendly aircraft in case of an air-defence-alert. “Air defence platforms such as missile systems, air defence guns etc. are kept free; they are free to engage any aircraft which doesn’t identify itself as a “friendly” either through the IFF or by remaining confined to the airspace designated for friendly aircraft,” the second senior officer added.

In this case, the Identification of Friend or Foe (IFF) – a transponder-based identification system that informs the air defence radars whether incoming aircraft is friendly – was switched off, against the laid down protocol.

After a “near-air-miss” incident in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018 between a C-130 J, a US-made transport aircraft, and a Russian-made Su-30 fighter aircraft, IAF Headquarters directed all aircraft coming into land to have their IFF systems on. Surprisingly, the Srinagar Air Base had issued contradictory orders. “Had the IFF system been on, air defence radars would have at least identified Helicopter as a friendly aircraft,” the second senior defence ministry official said.


https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/senior-officer-moved-over-lapses-in-iaf-chopper-friendly-fire-case/story-3oK8lQdQucGo3mmHnUBazO_amp.html

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52377
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby ramana » 21 May 2019 21:10

Lets discuss in the IAF thread as its now subject to Court of Inquiry.(COI)

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4421
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby putnanja » 29 May 2019 07:45

Mirage probe puts spotlight on Dassault's flight computer's behaviour

On February 1, two experienced Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots died when their newly upgraded Mirage 2000-I fighter crashed while taking-off in Bengaluru. A Court of Inquiry (CoI) investigating the accident is now confronting the worrying possibility of a glitch in the Mirage 2000’s flight computer that kicks in without warning, causing the aircraft to behave unpredictably.

IAF flight records examined by the CoI have revealed at least four such incidents in the past. In each of these, a flying Mirage 2000 has, suddenly and without command from the pilot, jerked its nose towards the ground. Then, as spontaneously, the nose was jerked upwards. Each time, the aircraft has continued this up-and-down jerking — termed “pitch oscillations” — for several seconds before resuming normal flight.

Members of the CoI from the IAF, Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL), the National Aeronautics Laboratory (NAL) and the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) are veering round to the belief that such an incident caused the February 1 crash.
...
...

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby MeshaVishwas » 29 May 2019 11:21



VikramA
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 29 Aug 2018 15:41

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby VikramA » 29 May 2019 22:10

^^^^^ why do i get the impression that after rafale "scam" narrative did not work and BJP is back, the presstitute and defence dalals like shukla have started new tamasha to spread negative image of dassault and pressure govt to not purchase more rafale and instead opt for f-16s
Last edited by VikramA on 29 May 2019 22:33, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7390
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Indranil » 29 May 2019 22:29

But, can you refute the data that he has produced. Seems pretty logical.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52377
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby ramana » 29 May 2019 22:40

VikramA wrote:^^^^^ why do i get the impression that after rafale "scam" narrative did not work and BJP is back, the presstitute and defence dalals like shukla have started new tamasha to spread negative image of dassault and pressure govt to not purchase more rafale and instead opt for f-16s

Wait a minute he is reporting what he was told by the COI of past occurrences of pitch oscillations.
We should discuss this in the Military Safety thread for completeness.

Also have you read about a term Phugoid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phugoid

I read about this long ago at IITM madrasa.
Thats what could have happened.
anti phugoid mode software kicked in the FCS before its time.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52377
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby ramana » 29 May 2019 22:50

putnanja, There is mode of aircraft flight due to negative feedback called phugoid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phugoid

Its possible the glitch kicked in the anti-phugoid mode routine in the FCS inadvertently.


Also please post full article as it could be germane.

MV, The three pilots are talking about after the incident not about the incident.
Crash barrier comes into affect after the crash.
COI is looking at root cause of the crash
Root cause is that cause which if correct would have prevented the accident.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52377
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby ramana » 29 May 2019 22:53

ramana wrote:The key is was this a hidden fault in the FCS suite ?

I have dealt with cracked resistors due to excessive force in the pick and place calipers!!!
At the right environment it opens up.

---
When the first Anglo-Orient College was opened in Calcutta there was derision and fear.
The Indian leaders said they wanted the students to be exposed to Western education and they would separate the milk from the water.
I was always struck by that sentiment and keep my mind open.



I posted this in March 2019.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7310
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rakesh » 29 May 2019 23:00

VikramA wrote:^^^^^ why do i get the impression that after rafale "scam" narrative did not work and BJP is back, the presstitute and defence dalals like shukla have started new tamasha to spread negative image of dassault and pressure govt to not purchase more rafale and instead opt for f-16s

Indranil wrote:But, can you refute the data that he has produced. Seems pretty logical.

IR Saar, I will echo VikramA. While the data is logical, I am questioning the impartiality of the author. His so-called Rafale scam farticles have turned out to be a downer. The Prime Minister has won a resounding second term. So now it is time to try a different strategy. Anything to not induct the Rafale from Sept 2019.

* No money trail in the so-called Rafale Scam, unlike Bofors.

* CAG has stated that the deal is cheaper than the UPA deal. Tauba, Tauba! Sacrilege!

* 36 Rafales will now arrive with the resounding election win. Causing lot of takleef and heartburn.

* No 30,000 crore given to Anil Ambani. If truly given, why is Anil Ambani broke then? Why did Mota Bhai have to bail him out?

So what is left? Blame the organization that produced the Mirage 2000. The logic is this ---> Mirage 2000 is bad and so will be Rafale. Buy American F-16 and F-18 and even malnutrition among children will be resolved in India :roll:

The question that needs to be probed, what measures were taken after the first three examples of pitch oscillations? As per the author's own admission, the first appeared in 1989....30 years ago! What remedial measures - if any - were taken then? Then 10 years later, in 1999 another incident. What remedial measures, if any, were taken then? Then in 2014, a third incident. Why did the author not ask the IAF what happened after each of those incidents?

Rather he simply states, "In all three cases, the altitude allowed the aircraft time to recover itself." Did the pilots not report it? If so, why not? If they did, what steps did the IAF take? After the tragic Feb 01 crash, the author states another Mirage 2000 did the exact same thing. The author has given detailed info on serial numbers and dates, but is surprisingly silent on the resolutions in each of those incidents. Obviously he got those serial numbers and dates from the IAF. He did not bother to ask the IAF what safety measures were taken? What kind of a journalist is he? And safety measures are not classified information.

I agree with VikramA. I too am questioning the messenger and the timing of the article.

Anil Chopra Sir, Sameer Joshi and Anshuman Mainkar have all debunked his farticle. See below.

MeshaVishwas wrote:Veterans are poking holes in Shook-Law's farticle.
Former MiG 27 Driver:
https://twitter.com/anshumig/status/113 ... 22144?s=19
Former Mirage Drivers:
https://twitter.com/joe_sameer/status/1 ... 03521?s=19
https://twitter.com/Chopsyturvey/status ... 20736?s=19

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7390
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Indranil » 30 May 2019 00:42

Ramana Garu,

Honeywell wanted to do more than just engine upgrade and was ready to provide warranty for the parts that it was taking charge of changing/adding. But the price was too high (same like Brahmos integration on Su-30). HAL/MoD/Honeywell haggled about it for a long time. The price never came to a point where all parties could agree.

So, next step was HAL taking on more of the workload. Obviously, the gravy got thicker for HAL, but Honeywell was starting to lose profit margins and thereby interest. Fatigue was setting in.

The negotiations continued and HAL reached a point of "we will do everything ourselves" and Honeywell was to supply the engines only. That was not fair to Honeywell because they had invested in integrating the engines to the airframe and making sure that everything works. We were getting that expensive information for free. The only way for Honeywell was to jack up the unit price of engine to increase the margins.

Now, the engines have become prohibitively expensive. That is the impasse.

Rakesh,

I am aware of Shuklaji's bias. I only care for the information. The information looks very very plausible. It is a known problem for FCS. Also, it is true that Mirage's flight computer is a blackbox to HAL. Dassault has kept it that way.

P.S. I looked at the rebuttals. Most of them are: but why did the arrester barrier fail? I don't find those commentators unbiased either. If this report had put HAL under the bus, make no mistake, this same commentators would have come with dhol and nagaras!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16761
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 30 May 2019 01:09

Indranil, is this a case of pilot induced oscillation, as happened in some early FBW incidents ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52377
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby ramana » 30 May 2019 01:17

Indranil, Thanks about the Honeywell engine. I stand corrected. So some sort of equitable adjustment is needed as Jaguars do need engine upgrade to be relevant and RR has stopped making their engines.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7390
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Indranil » 30 May 2019 01:17

Rahul da,

This one is not pilot induced. Pilot induced is when the pilot and the FCS inputs are out of sync and their mutual inputs lead to amplification rather than mitigation from the deviation. That causes the oscillations. In this case, there is no pilot input. The FCS reacts in an undesirable manner under a set of very rare combination of sensor readings.

Also, I don't agree with Anil Chopra sirs rebuttal. That he did not face the problem in 1400 hours of flying is not the issue. Of the hundred of thousands of hours that the MAX has flown, the FCS problem reared its head only a handful of times.

I will say no more on this. I want to wait for the CoI to come out. I wish Ajai Shukla did too.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16761
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Rahul M » 30 May 2019 01:23

okay, so in a rare case if the wind speed, AOA indicator etc and the FCS are not in sync, the aircraft gets stuck in a loop ?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shivaji and 50 guests