Military Flight Safety

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Oct 2011 10:55

Why am I reminded of Hollywood flick 'stealth' after reading some of the posts on TERPROM ?

The key point to note is human reaction time has not changed much ever since the man took to air , one can do a rough calculation as to what kind of tolerances we are talking about given the avg. human reaction time + lag between the control input to the stick and the actual change in direction of the AC . Even if this window is say 1 second a modern fighter AC would have travelled at least a couple of hundred meters in that one second .

saps · Post by **saps** » 23 Oct 2011 12:25

negi wrote:Why am I reminded of Hollywood flick 'stealth' after reading some of the posts on TERPROM ?
The key point to note is human reaction time has not changed much ever since the man took to air , one can do a rough calculation as to what kind of tolerances we are talking about given the avg. human reaction time + lag between the control input to the stick and the actual change in direction of the AC . Even if this window is say 1 second a modern fighter AC would have travelled at least a couple of hundred meters in that one second .

simple maths says.....
840 G/S means 250 m/s.....900 G/S gives 300 m/s

But this is not all in vertical channel.....there would be threshold set in terms of max ROD / Bank angle / altitude to fly beyond which autopilot would not be of any help...

So how can this problem be overcome...thinking aloud.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2011 14:29

For every BRF jingo who is enamored of automated this and hands off that, I post a video whose link was originally sent to me by Air Marshal (retd) Philip Rajkumar who was a test pilot and the leader of the test pilots team who saw the LCA program through to its first fight - a team that has maintained a 100% accident free record till IOC and beyond. I guess he should know a couple of things about flight safety.

The video is about what caused the Airbus A-330 of Air France's Flight 447 to stall at 35,000 feet and crash. The immediate event was blockage of the pitot tubes by icing that caused the airspeed indicators to fail. But later events led to a stall and the pilots were unable to recover from the stall. It is thought that pilots who are taught to fly "safe" fly by wire planes where difficult situations are not encountered do not get the experience of recovering from difficult situations. This is the 4th of four videos and is gripping and relevant. Be sure to watch it at least up to 8 minutes. Preferably to the end - i.e 13 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaXPxSElZuA

wig · Post by **wig** » 23 Oct 2011 17:25

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/201110 ... chal.htm#3

sadly there seems to be no sucess in locating MiG 29 wreckage

all efforts to locate the pilot and wreckage of the ill-fated MiG 29 fighter jet, which had crashed in the Lahaul Spiti area of the state, proved futile as rescue teams, comprising Indian Air Force (IAF), Army and police personnel, scanned the Chokang area in the Thirot region where some parts of it had been found two days back.

Planes of the IAF also undertook an aerial search operation till afternoon but with little success. The search teams, accompanied by villagers, scanned the area at a height of about 14,000 feet with the weather turning inclement towards the afternoon and the higher peaks experiencing snowfall.

“We searched the entire area, but no fresh evidence about the main wreckage or the pilot were found today,” said DSP Khajana Ram. He said IAF planes had also undertaken an aerial recce till afternoon, but no fresh wreckage was found.

MiG-29 had crashed on Tuesday night and some villagers had been able to locate some small parts of the plane two days later, which led to an intensive scanning of the entire area by IAF, Army and police personnel.

Search operations will continue tomorrow to locate the pilot in case he managed to eject before the crash.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 23 Oct 2011 22:18

looks like the message got garbled,

TERPROM as it is today would help in terrain navigation in normal terrain, the MMRCA's have it and possibly we might get it as part of the TOT

the fiction part, TERPROM+ is when the same system is improved on to let the flight's pilot know when he is running the CFIT risk, not by sqawking but by controlling the auto pilot which is the only system other than the pilot that can fly the plane, now this doesn't mean that the autopilot is actually flying the plane in its conventional way, its just limiting the pilot's input; for instance, the FBW is used to fly the plane even though its the pilot who is giving the input via the stick, without the FBW the plane is not flyable as seen in the first MKI crash, does the FBW on its own know where to go? no, so if the FBW takes input from the TERPROM+ system, the pilot is still flying the plane, this is different from the perception of star trek stuff where the auto pilot is making all the decisions etc., where there is no FBW, the auto pilot is used to supplant by shadowing the pilot's actions

this system could have avoided the Jaguar crash since it never lets the pilot get into a roll at that altitude knowing that its a dead end, hope that clarifies what is being asked

TERPROM++ is when the sensors and maps are accurate enough for the pilot to safely fly in the mountainous terrain, we have Himalayas so a western avionics maker will not have addressed such a scenario, only we have the requirement so we need to build it

Abhibushan is probably referring to this and its not yet available and again the auto pilot is assisting the pilot in flying and not making combat maneuver decisions, so the chase flight from Karan's scenario is not in automated flying mode either

the reference to no escape zone was to calculate the size of the 3d space in which the flight can maneuver in 5 secs, that determines the computational cost, simply saying its computational intensive is being penny wise and pound foolish, having the terrain maps show on the HUD, again a computationally intensive task and at the same time that
greatly increases situational awareness

Himalayas see snow fall which is where a second system such as SAR real time imaging for all weather flying serve as backup with higher error thresholds on the part of the TERPROM system this is where there is a chance that the Mig-29 type of CFIT in the mountains crash could be averted

we claim avionics is one of our strong points, lets see if we can save our pilots from CFIT

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 23 Oct 2011 22:36

vasu_ray wrote:TERPROM, why is it applicable only for strike missions?

It is useful in some strike missions, where mission planning can map and feed routes.

You're utterly failing to comprehend that not every square meter of India, Pakistan or Himalayas can be 3-D mapped, stored and analysed in real time.

Only civil air traffic national and international airways are mapped. These airways contain VOR/NDB and nav-aids. The rest of the landmass is unmapped and without nav aids except airfields and some other areas. Its prohibitively expensive to make every bit of airspace navigable. Percentage wise, it is 1% of the total area of India or even the Himalayas.

In the cozy US and NATO bullying strike missions, the static targets are chosen in leisure and mission planning maps the route.

Unfortunately in real world strike missions, like Longewala, Tiger Hill and Muntho Dhalo, sorties have to be mounted at short notice, without the luxury of elaborate mission planning. Just a recce flight marking visual and GPS waypoints and the sortie is mounted. At Longewala, an AAC AOP under then-Major Atma Singh guided the Hunters, who would otherwise be clueless where to find the tanks in the vast expanses.

If the planned strike mission is attacked by enemy fighters and is forced off its pre-planned route, then despite the fancy gizmos, they're equally vulnerable.

TERPROM will be useful in less than 1% of the sorties flown by a combat fighter over its lifetime, because India's enemies do not print invitation card with the time and place of combat and that place might not be accurately mapped at that time, to be fed into the TERPROM system., and the bloody TERPROM system cannot carry 3-D maps of all of India's borders. Try storing Google Maps of J&K and HP on your mobile phone and you'll get a clue of the storage requirement.

vasu_ray wrote:its not just meant for preplanned flight paths, why can't it be a navigation aid in the chase flight

Because one doesnt know where the melee might drift.

vasu_ray wrote:and an improvement would be when in cases where verbal warnings do not give sufficient response time to the pilot attempts to correct are directed through the auto pilot

When the response time is not sufficient, how will the autopilot react faster than the pilot? What makes you think the autopilot has faster responses and reaction time than humans. Or the auto-pilot can figure out the correct course of action vis-a-vis human mind. Put some facts where your mouth is, and cite some examples of 1. autopilot / flight computers that react faster than humans 2. autopilot / flight computers that take correct decisions 100% of the time.

Computing has NOT reached that maturity. Otherwise UAV's wouldnt be crashing all the time and would be operating autonomously rather than use human operators

Someone gave an example of how in GW1 a US F111 flew low using gizmos and successfully evaded the Iraqis. In the same war after a few days, the same aircraft type crashed http://www.f-111.net/F-111A/combat-ops.htm

EF-111A 66-0023 13 Feb 91. Saudi Arabia. Capt. Douglas L. Bradt and Capt. Paul R. Eichenlaub. Callsign RATCHET 75. Speculation of flight into terrain at night avoiding air to air threat displayed on the threat radar warning receiver upon entering Iraqi airspace. An ejection was attempted. It has been reported that F-15s in the vicinity witnessed the EF-111A manourvering and dispensing countermeasures immediately prior to terrain impact.

SAR - another big word! What is the guarantee of the enemy not picking up SAR transmissions to track and popping IR Anzas/Stingers & laser guided RBS-70s?

Technology is useful, but not all the time and under all circumstances.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 23 Oct 2011 22:48

shiv wrote:For every BRF jingo who is enamored of automated this and hands off that, I post a video whose link was originally sent to me by Air Marshal (retd) Philip Rajkumar who was a test pilot and the leader of the test pilots team who saw the LCA program through to its first fight - a team that has maintained a 100% accident free record till IOC and beyond. I guess he should know a couple of things about flight safety.

The video is about what caused the Airbus A-330 of Air France's Flight 447 to stall at 35,000 feet and crash. The immediate event was blockage of the pitot tubes by icing that caused the airspeed indicators to fail. But later events led to a stall and the pilots were unable to recover from the stall. It is thought that pilots who are taught to fly "safe" fly by wire planes where difficult situations are not encountered do not get the experience of recovering from difficult situations. This is the 4th of four videos and is gripping and relevant. Be sure to watch it at least up to 8 minutes. Preferably to the end - i.e 13 minutes

Seems like this video was made before the black box was found. There is speculation and assumptions made on what caused the problems. The black box and CVR were found several months ago and the cause(s) is known in more or less certain terms (atleast, the sequence of events is known clearly).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France ... a_recorder

But a couple of things are not clear.... why did the pitot tubes ice up, why it happened in this case alone (planes have flown in rain/storms at 40,000 ft before). Another thing not clear: the plane's electronic equipment had sent automatic signals (of malfunction/trouble) to computers at Airbus HeadQuarters. I have not seen an explanation of why that was so.

saps · Post by **saps** » 23 Oct 2011 23:00

tsarkar wrote:
vasu_ray wrote:TERPROM, why is it applicable only for strike missions?
It is useful in some strike missions, where mission planning can map and feed routes.

You're utterly failing to comprehend that not every square meter of India, Pakistan or Himalayas can be 3-D mapped, stored and analysed in real time.

TERPROM will be useful in less than 1% of the sorties flown by a combat fighter, because India's enemies do not print invitation card with the time and place of combat and that place might not be accurately mapped at that time, to be fed into the TERPROM system., and the bloody TERPROM system cannot carry 3-D maps of all of India's borders. Try storing Google Maps of J&K and HP on your mobile phone and you'll get a clue of the storage requirement.

vasu_ray wrote:its not just meant for preplanned flight paths, why can't it be a navigation aid in the chase flight
Because one doesnt know where the melee might drift.

vasu_ray wrote:Put some facts where your mouth is, and cite some examples of 1. autopilot / flight computers that react faster than humans 2. autopilot / flight computers that take correct decisions 100% of the time.

Computing has NOT reached that maturity. Otherwise UAV's wouldnt be crashing all the time and would be operating autonomously rather than use human operators

Technology is useful, but not all the time and under all circumstances.

The audacity of reply is amazing.....

how many time have you flown in terrain like himalayas.....

what exposure do you have in terms of assessing the response of autopilot coupled recovery modes....

UAV's crash when they are out of data link...not because they dont know where or what they are doing.... they are pre programmed to get home....in case of loss of data links..

3D maps with terrain data base are available....full stop.....especially in the friendly neighborhood...

you can get an GIS mapped database of any area...with inbuilt database inaccuracies .... for well know reasons off the shelf....

There is no real time requirement of everything done by the systems.... they are there to supplement the mental database....and to assist and enhance the decision making matix in that poor soul mind....who is processing information on priority basis....

Try and looking situational overload....or SITOL as it is called.....

Sir....you seem to be convinced that there is nothing wrong and more importantly your tone and tenor suggest that you are open to no such IDEA.... open you mind ..... please....

Tech employed with proper direction and implementation would do wonders and this is where effort is lacking in the system.....

open to attacks from one and all....

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 23 Oct 2011 23:20

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

1. Challenger and Columbia Disaster

2. TWA, Tenerife, Air France

3. Fukushima...

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

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

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 23 Oct 2011 23:21

SriKumar wrote: Seems like this video was made before the black box was found. There is speculation and assumptions made on what caused the problems. The black box and CVR were found several months ago and the cause(s) is known in more or less certain terms (atleast, the sequence of events is known clearly).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France ... a_recorder

But a couple of things are not clear.... why did the pitot tubes ice up, why it happened in this case alone (planes have flown in rain/storms at 40,000 ft before). Another thing not clear: the plane's electronic equipment had sent automatic signals (of malfunction/trouble) to computers at Airbus HeadQuarters. I have not seen an explanation of why that was so.

Yes the video is an old BBC Nova one. It fails to realize the environmental aspects of the accident. Accident occurred at night over sea with no visual reference and on top of that the weather was bad with thunderstorms and turbulence. The narrator mentions about maintaining a safe speed with 85% thrust and 5% pitch

. A line pilot says what thrust and what pitch, you can't read any display in bad turbulence because nothing stays within your focus for long enough to read.

The same video mentions that there were other instances of A330/A340 with frozen pitot tubes and ADR faults. IIRC there was another A330 which underwent a similar situation but the aircraft was saved because it happened during daytime.

ACARS messages are generally sent between the aircraft and the airline and not to Airbus. These are routine service messages sent via SATCOM/VHF to a DSP, which then relays it to appropriate recipient.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 23 Oct 2011 23:43

saps wrote:UAV's crash when they are out of data link...not because they dont know where or what they are doing.... they are pre programmed to get home....in case of loss of data links..

Saps - please explain the following bolded parts of your post -

1. If they are pre programmed to get home....in case of loss of data links.. then why do UAV's crash when they are out of data link?

2. If...not because they dont know where or what they are doing...., then why do they need a datalink in the first place?

You're trolling since you cant provide an iota of fact to support your posts. Post a comment if you've any useful information to provide, dont vomit big words followed by five full-stops without understanding what they mean in the real world.

Nothing I've written remotely suggests that you seem to be convinced that there is nothing wrong, what is grossly irritating me is your attitude that you have an answer by tapping big words followed by five full-stops.

saps · Post by **saps** » 23 Oct 2011 23:53

tsarkar wrote:
saps wrote:UAV's crash when they are out of data link...not because they dont know where or what they are doing.... they are pre programmed to get home....in case of loss of data links..
Saps - please explain the following bolded parts of your post -

1. If they are pre programmed to get home....in case of loss of data links.. then why do UAV's crash when they are out of data link?

2. If...not because they dont know where or what they are doing...., then why do they need a datalink in the first place?

You're trolling since you cant provide an iota of fact to support your posts.

Well.............

its because they are pre programmed to follow profile back home.....

however when they are lost......in not so usual terrain....

they follow the pre programmed data....to return back....but you would agree that it would differ grossly when they are lost.....naturally........

gather data on how many of UAV's are lost when they are the ATOL types...

automatic take and landing.... once they are back to their...home base redundancy takes over....

but for the guys lost on terrain not as well mapped or charted....they are bound to be lost...

especially when out of radio link and on the edges of flight envelope....

Dont you agree sir....

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 23 Oct 2011 23:55

Saps,

un-click "Disable BBCode" check box at the bottom of the text box, that will give proper format to your posts.

I suggest you further read up. These days one doesnt need to spend money and time searching for books, the internet is a vast wealth of information.

I suggest you read your own posts after spending 3-6 months reading up on these matters.

Wish you a successful journey of discovery.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 23 Oct 2011 23:57

Guys what happened to the pilot Sqn.Ldr Tomar ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2011 05:21

saps wrote: however when they are lost......in not so usual terrain....

they follow the pre programmed data....to return back....but you would agree that it would differ grossly when they are lost.....naturally........

Nonsense. Please post one link to support this statement about UAVs in "not so usual terrain" and behavior of UAVs when "they are lost". The commonest cause of loss of UAVs is loss of datalink. After that its weather.

The BRF newbie graph is perfect here. Confident on jargon. Low on gyan.

jagbani · Post by **jagbani** » 24 Oct 2011 15:19

A day after snowfall, the search for an Indian Air Force (IAF) MiG-29 combat jet that crashed last week resumed in Himachal Pradesh's Lahaul Valley as the sky cleared Monday. The pilot's fate is still not known.

Read here:- http://www.punjabkesari.in/punjab/fulls ... 88_148961-

On reaching Keylong, the missing pilot’s parents contacted Lahaul-Spiti deputy commissioner Rajeev Shankar on Sunday. Shankar said, “His parents have requested the locals to help them search their son. They have announced reward of Rs 50,000 to those who will find him.”

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Oct 2011 15:54

shiv wrote:
saps wrote: however when they are lost......in not so usual terrain....

they follow the pre programmed data....to return back....but you would agree that it would differ grossly when they are lost.....naturally........

Nonsense. Please post one link to support this statement about UAVs in "not so usual terrain" and behavior of UAVs when "they are lost". The commonest cause of loss of UAVs is loss of datalink. After that its weather.

The terrain has very little to do with the UAV getting home. We are assuming that it is not at some ridiculously low height which by itself would cause the loss of link.

The auto pilot senses the loss of data link and the UAV is forced by the autopilot to set course for the airfield from where it was launched and at a height where it will be safe from ground fire etc. This is usually set to the safest height considering the highest obstacle in the flight path and a safety margin. Normally set to about 10,000 ft in Indian (Navy) conditions for operations on the mainland, ship and islands. Have no personal experience of insurgency or army operations.

Normally a good UAV can also be controlled via relay. For instance, if the data link can control the UAV at 500kms, a second airborne UAV can control the first one at almost double the distance ie 1000 kms and clearly transmit relevant video data if required.

The LCA also has a "get you home" panel which will get the aircraft home in case of loss of navigational instruments for any reason.

This is just a fail safe mechanism for positive recovery in case of a damaged machine.

Disclaimer.

Not talking of basic or rudimentary UAVs. Cannot post a link but have operated such UAVs in the past.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Oct 2011 18:50

I would suggest curtailing all criticism etc - till we find out what happened to the pilot. hopefully he will be fine.

right now thats the only concern

Samurai · Post by **Samurai** » 24 Oct 2011 20:27

Came across this video about AGCAS(Auto. Ground Collision Avoidance System-a joint project between NASA and US DoD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEWbj4FTQ8

A brief about the project
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/rese ... index.html

Excerpts:
"The joint U.S. Air Force/NASA F-16D Automatic Collision Avoidance Technology, or ACAT, project phase led by NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center concluded with completion of the Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto GCAS) flight testing in August 2010. The project has now transitioned to the Air Force Flight test Center’s 416th Flight Test Squadron for production testing of the Auto GCAS software, with an anticipated in-service fielding date of 2014.

The Fighter Risk Reduction Project is the first flight research effort being conducted under the Automatic Collision Avoidance Technology program of the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Actual test flights of the system began in the fall of 2009."

A clip - F-16 flying with the system
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d2d_1176430202

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 25 Oct 2011 04:20

^^^

Thanks Samurai, this lead led me to search more and found

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 243531.xml

"The following test consisted of low- and high-speed runs against the 1,200-ft.-high Fremont Peak near Edwards dubbed GCAS Mountain by the test team. A 1,300-ft. buffer was built into the test, giving Auto-GCAS the illusion we were flying against a larger mountain."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article8.html

computing power?

http://www.uasvision.com/2011/10/19/nas ... phone-app/

if only one really wants to see

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Oct 2011 09:00

chetak wrote:
The auto pilot senses the loss of data link and the UAV is forced by the autopilot to set course for the airfield from where it was launched and at a height where it will be safe from ground fire etc. This is usually set to the safest height considering the highest obstacle in the flight path and a safety margin. Normally set to about 10,000 ft in Indian (Navy) conditions for operations on the mainland, ship and islands.

Chetak I would have thought that a UAV that loses its datalink could navigate for "home" only under the following circumstances.

A. The UAV has some way of knowing where it is at the moment of loss of datalink.
B. Some mechanism of navigating from that set of coordinates to another set of coordinates called "home"

To my knowledge there are only three ways of doing this
1. Carrying an Inertial Navigation system on board
2. GPS communication and autnomous "get you home" navigation based on that - but that means that the "loss of datalink" is only with the controller ("pilot") of the UAV and not loss of GPS datalink. That is that all datalinks are not totally gone.
3. Having a rudimentary system where the system has flown 10 minutes south, 4 minutes east, 7 minutes north - which means that the system is an "autonomous" drone. Such a system does not require a datalink.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Oct 2011 09:49

vasu_ray wrote:"The following test consisted of low- and high-speed runs against the 1,200-ft.-high Fremont Peak near Edwards dubbed GCAS Mountain by the test team. A 1,300-ft. buffer was built into the test, giving Auto-GCAS the illusion we were flying against a larger mountain."

Is this a bloody joke? 1200 ft = 365 meters. Before posting it, did you even compare it in the Indian context?

Indian grandmothers with osteoporosis and arthritis do more "rigourous testing" and climb more than 1200 ft to Vaishnodevi and back in a single day.

The shrine is at an altitude of 5200 feet and a distance of approximately 14 kilometres (8.7 mi) from Katra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_Glacier[quote]The crest of the Saltoro Ridge's altitudes range from 5,450 to 7,720 m (17,880 to 25,330 feet). The major passes on this ridge are, from north to south, Sia La at 5,589 m (18,336 ft), Bilafond La at 5,450 m (17,880 ft), and Gyong La at 5,689 m (18,665 ft).[/quote]Those with understanding of basic geography with comprehend that passes are the lowest parts of the ridge used by humans to traverse.

http://hplahaulspiti.nic.in/fact_file.h ... ][b]Ranges lies between 5,480 meters and 6,400 meters[/b][/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahaul_and ... ote]Kunzum la or the Kunzum Pass (altitude 4,551 m; 14,931 ft) is the entrance pass to the Spiti Valley from Lahaul...Spiti is more barren and difficult to cross, with an average elevation of the valley floor of 4,270 m (14,009 ft). It is enclosed between lofty ranges, with the Spiti river rushing out of a gorge in the southeast to meet the Sutlej River.[/quote]
Now, if one added a buffer of 1300 ft = 396 meters in the Himalayas, fighters will run out of aerospace to fly.

One can set autopilot to fly at 10,000 meters, but unfortunately Chinese & Pakistanis wont build sangars in the sky. And when one has to fly low level in the mountains to dogfight or strike, such technology doesn't help much.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Oct 2011 09:54

about an earlier accident in spiti valley, as recounted by an IAF pilot who took part in the search attempt. might help people understand the geography better.

http://cyclicstories.blogspot.com/2011/ ... alley.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Oct 2011 15:20

I think people are confusing a few issues here.

First, it is true that 90% or more of flying in all Air Forces is peacetime flying. They have to do that even if hot war occurs only for 5 days in 20 years.

Preparing for war requires preparation (training) in realistic conditions that mean emergencies, malfunction of crucial equipment, damage to aircraft, low flying through mountain ranges to avoid radar, flying through bad weather, landing and taking off in unfamiliar surroundings at suboptimal time, crew tiredness and disorientation from extreme emergency maneuvers.

Every competent Air Force seeks to minimize peacetime accidents that can occur when hazardous training flying is done. All the automated systems discussed here are designed to minimize such peacetime accidents. But, as the USAF pilot in the Air France flight 447 video linked above says, fighter pilots have to train without those safety systems at least some of the time because they need to learn to cope with situations where few systems or no systems are available.

In this regard the training requirements for the IAF and USAF are completely different. The USAF has a magnificent war machine. But no matter how much we admire the US, the US does not have a Himalayan mountains to train in and to fight an enemy entrenched in the Himalayas. The IAF is definitely flying and training in a more risky environment. I say this because I have heard IAF people tell me that. Whenever I say this on the forum I am usually ticked off by a rahrah American who tells me that the USAF is a worldwide force that trains to fight in every environment including the Himalayas. That is simply not true. I once pointed out what many IAF pilots have told me - that Indian skies are hazy compared with Europe or the USA. . I was ticked off instantly by someone who told me right on here "Hey Middle East is dusty and the USAF flies there." A few weeks later I saw an article (in Vayu I think) about an exercise in Oman where the IAF pilot marvelled at how clear the skies were there. No one wants to believe something that an Indian says. We are incompetent loser surrender monkeys. We say so ourselves. What is the matter with Indians?

I am not trying to make excuses for the IAF - which is the next accusation that is levelled against me for even suggesting that the IAF has a different problem from the USAF. And if we are going to train pilots to fly in the especially hazardous environment that the IAF flies in we are going to need every extra precaution we can take to avoid accidents. It is shameful to hear people saying that he IAF is not doing that. They do that within the constraints of the fact that we have certain legacy equipment that dates back to out "Soviet ally"

" days combined with a "Hindu growth rate" up to the early 1990s. Remember that the "economic boom" started just about 15 years ago, and took off barely a decade ago. Even in 1995 - the only cars available in India were Fiat(Padmini/118), Ambassador, Maruti Esteem/Maruti 800. (I was asked to pay in US$ in 1995 to get a quick delivery of an Esteem) If the Air Force has spent a decade or more refining tactics using one type of aircraft like the MiG 21 - it cannot suddenly be removed and replaced. Third rate but wealthy Air Forces like gulf nations might do that, but the IAF with Pakhana and China next door can't do that.

There is an Indian tendency to first be critical of Indians - imagining that the air force are a bunch of uncaring dunderheads. The Air Chief "wants to send untrained pilots because no skin off his ass" That is ignorant and unfair. And as you can see from recent conversations here people tend to pick up titbits from the net or from company sponsored TV programs or other things that may be used by the US and posted on here as if magic is being used in the US and Indians are ignorant and apathetic to not be like the US that uses all this blah blah blah. Across this forum you find that if the US is mentioned, it is mentioned as "victorious", "capable" and "great". And if the US is assumed to have something - it is stated as if the entire world has moved to that standard and only India is lagging. There are layers of bluff here. For example ground collision avoidance systems are NOT standard on all USAF planes - but was touted as something the "entire world" has adopted except the IAF which might not even be "thinking about it". Therefore the IAF must learn from the US. As if the IAF does not have its own operating procedures, demands and pressures.

We (educated Indians on the internet) are a problem community. We are the new generation of Macaulay where we no longer admire the Brits. We have shifted our admiration to America. Only the contempt for India remains. And we make statements condemning the IAF, but if criticized, we go into defensive ass covering mode and say "I have my heart in the right place". How about holding one's tongue in check then?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 25 Oct 2011 15:34

shiv wrote:
chetak wrote:
The auto pilot senses the loss of data link and the UAV is forced by the autopilot to set course for the airfield from where it was launched and at a height where it will be safe from ground fire etc. This is usually set to the safest height considering the highest obstacle in the flight path and a safety margin. Normally set to about 10,000 ft in Indian (Navy) conditions for operations on the mainland, ship and islands.
Chetak I would have thought that a UAV that loses its datalink could navigate for "home" only under the following circumstances.

A. The UAV has some way of knowing where it is at the moment of loss of datalink.
B. Some mechanism of navigating from that set of coordinates to another set of coordinates called "home"

To my knowledge there are only three ways of doing this
1. Carrying an Inertial Navigation system on board
2. GPS communication and autnomous "get you home" navigation based on that - but that means that the "loss of datalink" is only with the controller ("pilot") of the UAV and not loss of GPS datalink. That is that all datalinks are not totally gone.
3. Having a rudimentary system where the system has flown 10 minutes south, 4 minutes east, 7 minutes north - which means that the system is an "autonomous" drone. Such a system does not require a datalink.

Hakim ji,

The system that I handled had an INS-GPS system combined. The GPS synchronized the INS when the INS woke up and initialized.

The GPS made the INS system "intelligent" because the INS always knew the position where it woke up.

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 25 Oct 2011 17:12

Chetak said:

The system that I handled had an INS-GPS system combined. The GPS synchronized the INS when the INS woke up and initialized.

The GPS made the INS system "intelligent" because the INS always knew the position where it woke up.

Chetak

At the risk of repeating myself may I say that total error probability of INS x GPS x in-flight computation x in-flight sensor inputs x auto-pilot inertia makes the actual ground clearance available inside Himalayan valleys inadequate for use of such systems available to us with safety and confidence. Perhaps some day the situation will change and we shall be better capable.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 25 Oct 2011 17:22

shiv wrote:And we make statements condemning the IAF, but if criticized, we go into defensive ass covering mode and say "I have my heart in the right place". How about holding one's tongue in check then?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Oct 2011 17:55

shiv wrote: <SNIP> We (educated Indians on the internet) are a problem community. We are the new generation of Macaulay where we no longer admire the Brits. We have shifted our admiration to America. Only the contempt for India remains. And we make statements condemning the IAF, but if criticized, we go into defensive ass covering mode and say "I have my heart in the right place". How about holding one's tongue in check then?

I say, 1000 shtribhes to the hakim sahab for saying such intelligent and common sensical thing...tauba tuaba...hakim sahib is getting old, I tell you and has gone over to the dark side!!!

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 25 Oct 2011 19:10

so far the objections have been,

1) the Jaguar pilot getting into an accidental roll, and nothin can be done about it

2) TERPROM is a joke

3) insufficient computing power

4) Himalayan terrain is unique

5) relying on automated systems leads to pilot under training in emergencies, Mig-29 crash is in spite of our best efforts

6) tidbits from the internet do not count

instead of repeating answers to the same issues in different forms, we will close some of them for good,

1) FBW works faster than a pilot in the region of milliseconds, so in its absence the auto pilot plays the observer role for the pilot and has input from the terain avoidance system and will not let the pilot get into a roll

2) TERPROM exists and such systems are available on the MMRCA's, IAF considers them 5th generation fighters

3) Again take the example of Tejas, FBW trades processing power with lookup tables reaching optimizations, system on chip concept is improving and engine power is increasing too; this is not a tenable argument

4) This is still open and in the unofficial classification falls in the TERPROM++ class, not yet available any where. However Gripen is a participant of the GCAS program which approaches TERPROM+ and Sweden has its share of mountains so they are planning for it, are we? in my view, the sensors will improve and playing catchup then is not a wise strategy

5) That would hold true if the Mig-29 had such a safety system and the pilot was doing the training after overriding it and that too in the night; Then again the GCAS program clearly brings out the non-intrusive nature of the system, and only when the system is frequently being invoked, one could conclude pilot training is lacking.

6) we rounded off the discussion with TERPROM and GCAS systems and not random facts

Get the TERPROM as part of the TOT from the MMRCA program, improve on it using the Tejas as the test bed applying to our conditions, upgrade the fleets that will be there with IAF when the program matures

The returns on this investment would be significant considering the men and machines saved and the terrain they operate

According to the GCAS program F-16 Block 40 onwards will carry it in the future, so we may have TSP holding that fleet soon if Uncle chooses

some people have their sensitivities hurt at the very mention of Uncle, we talked about TERPROM and GCAS is referred to in the same context, nothing more

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Oct 2011 19:25

vasu_ray wrote: some people have their sensitivities hurt at the very mention of Uncle, we talked about TERPROM and GCAS is referred to in the same context, nothing more

My sensitivities are hurt when uncle is used as the sole example for the iAF to follow. As long as you did not do that you are outside the scope of my criticism. If you are a rahrah fanboy I will get you sooner or later.

No one has said anywhere that TERPROM should not be used. But it would be an erroneous conclusion to say that crashes would not occur without TERPROM or that TERPROM would solve the problems of flying in difficult terrain. You did not say that and you have not posted a chirp on the weaknesses and limitations of TERPROM. Oh but you certainly go on the defensive even as you enthusiastically moot the use of TERPROM.

How about telling us what you know about TERPROM that makes you such a huge fan. I put it to you that you know nothing about the limitations of TERPROM and you are gassing. Prove me wrong and I will post an abject apology.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Oct 2011 20:25

vasu_ray wrote:TERPROM exists and such systems are available on the MMRCA's, IAF considers them 5th generation fighters

Please prove that TERPROM works under 1. every flight circumstance 2. Atleast 90% of flight circumstances 3. Atleast 60% of flight circumstances 4. Atleast 30% of flight circumstances 5. less than 10% of flight circumstances

Show some test results better than 1200 ft 365 meters, that is a pothole in aviation terms, and that a MiG29 with climb rate of 330 meters/second can cover in one second. Show me test results where a 3000 meters / 10,000 feet massif has been negotiated automatically by a smart autopilot. Otherwise stop shitting in public. None of your points has been proven beyond very limited situations that a pilot encounters.

vasu_ray wrote:FBW works faster than a pilot in the region of milliseconds

FBW doesnt work faster than a pilot, it works faster than a conventional control cables based control system that FBW replaces. That makes a plane more responsive and agile. But you are too prize an idiot to understand that.

The control inputs still come from the pilot via flight computer, and the computer doesnt let the pilot give inputs beyond the aircraft capabilities. However, the flight computer isnt sufficiently smart enough to analyse every situation or even 90% of the situations and have a solution for it.

vasu_ray wrote:FBW trades processing power with lookup tables reaching optimizations

Wow, we're dazzled by your big words meaning nothing like the emperor's new clothes. How does this make the autopilot sufficiently intelligent to negotiate steep peaks and valleys?

vasu_ray wrote:MMRCA's, IAF considers them 5th generation fighters

Since when did IAF start considering MMRCA's as fifth generation? Your bullshit keeps getting absurd. You thought throwing the word "fifth generation" will make the computer smart enough to have a solution for every flight regime.

vasu_ray wrote:tidbits from the internet do not count

You're the **** who came up with 1200 ft from the internet without explaining to members how relevant the system would be in terrain with 6000 meters peaks and 4000 meter valleys. And despite not answering this, you want to be taken seriously?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 25 Oct 2011 20:49

some of the limitations of TERPROM, GCAS:

TERPROM resorts to sqawking and at fighter speeds doesn't help always

Nothing on the G-loc situation except floating like a zombie, still works in peace time

The error recovery modes of GCAS is to do a fly up exposing the plane, rudimentary in a way but safe in peacetime, they are doing more R&D

a flight's state is determined by a n-dimensional space (n > 3), the FCS (FBW or Auto pilot) manages this, however terrain is mapped in the 3 dimensions and possibly time too, doing the transformations between these two worlds is all the math in real time, weird stuff

5 secs of look ahead is not always sufficient in Himalayan territory directly impinging on the computational requirements

Cueing a safe navigation path to the pilot is approaching the AI domain, some call it star trek

In the absence of radio communication, a group of flights in formation are in the danger of collision if the TERPROM+ system makes moves ahead of the reaction of a pilot

now, according to the board's penal code (non-existent) these arguments shouldn't be turned against me

but in the typical desi style of argument diss them as trivial since they are from an 'opponent'?

anyways, my only contention is lets do the technology seeding with the arrival of the 5th generation systems and let it evolve

tsarkar, I still don't know why with your proven abusive attitude the mods let you stay, I am reporting you

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Oct 2011 20:57

No no no Vasu Ray. You have got me wrong. You need to get to basics. Not technical mumbo-jumbo. What is TERPROM ? How does TERPROM work? The weaknesses I am referring to are intimately related to that. Please start with what TERPROM stands for. What does it mean? I am serious. I have already posted some stuff and I have read whatever information I could find. Please show me that I have not found enough and that you know more.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Oct 2011 21:29

Vasu_Ray, sure, do that.

The abuses are because you're insinuating the IAF isnt serious, planes not equipped, ToT not availed, etc. and you patronizingly have a solution to the IAF's CFIT woes. Maybe the IAF hasnt purchased it because the technology hasnt sufficiently matured, that brochure-dazzled you hasnt realized.

The abuses are also because you obstinately, flippantly & ignorantly use terms like TERPROM+ & ++, FBW is faster than pilot, autopilot in combat situation predicts flights in all terrains using 3-D maps and lots of stuff that are meaningless.

We've attempted to patiently clarify your understanding, but you keep regurgitating same big words and meaningless stuff. Hence the you're getting the treatment you deserve.

Ofcourse, you're now changing your tune to "technology seeding", to save your H&D. But you still havent explained how FBW is faster than pilot, and how something tested for 365 meters works in terrain undulations between 4000 to 6000 meters.

If you keep insisting TERPROM+ despite our patient explanations, like -

vasu_ray wrote:In the absence of radio communication, a group of flights in formation are in the danger of collision if the TERPROM+ system makes moves ahead of the reaction of a pilot

vasu_ray wrote:doing the transformations between these two worlds is all the math in real time, weird stuff

then you've proven yourself to be a worthless piece of shit and deserve more than what has been dished out to you, for spoiling the forum and insulting the meagre intelligence of other forum members.

This is not a fantasy forum where one raves and rants "Govt should garibi hatao". If you have any meaningful views and suggestion, others would appreciate it. But if you patronizingly rave "TERPROM+ could have saved the plane", "IAF should have purchased it", "stupid desi not implementing fab tech", then you deserve to be called a prize idiot and a worthless piece of shit.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 25 Oct 2011 21:48

Just 1 more thing to add regarding the TERPROM and whatever else..
We got to see teh feasibility also if such things can be integrated into the system we are talking about and if it makes any financial / operational sense to do such a task. Its not like a simple plug n play. We can have all the gadgets and gizmos and may have all the pros and cons of them but does it makes sense to fit them also counts. Just to say because of lack of such n such an accident happened is ignorant.
Just my 2 cents.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 25 Oct 2011 21:57

Abhibhushan wrote:Chetak said:
The system that I handled had an INS-GPS system combined. The GPS synchronized the INS when the INS woke up and initialized.

The GPS made the INS system "intelligent" because the INS always knew the position where it woke up.
Chetak

At the risk of repeating myself may I say that total error probability of INS x GPS x in-flight computation x in-flight sensor inputs x auto-pilot inertia makes the actual ground clearance available inside Himalayan valleys inadequate for use of such systems available to us with safety and confidence. Perhaps some day the situation will change and we shall be better capable.

Sirjee,

All this is really theoretical when the target you are aiming for is many thousands of acres that normally comprises the standard military airfield.

In the himalayan region, these birds are flown well within the Indian airspace in peacetime and may well cross the border in times of requirement. In case of loss of link, they are pre programmed to turn further into Indian territory and away from the international border.

They normally are programmed to climb a bit because the controllers will always seek to re establish the lost radio link at the earliest. This height will be decided by the tactical situation and the proximity of the non friendlies.

They will never descend into any valley as their optics, TV, infrared cameras
or radar give them a very good stand off range and height. They will always remain within the line of sight of their controlling links which is why they will usually climb higher the farther away they operate.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 25 Oct 2011 22:00

Shiv, all the previous posts give out what I think about TERPROM's likely principles, no, I don't have a manual on it. I would like to know your understanding of it before a comparison can be made on the conclusions

At the basic level, its a GPS assisted INS that uses terrain map database to avoid flying into the terrain, no shades on how difficult the terrain is, operational procedures of employing it etc., the article on GCAS gives out in more detail how a similar system is employed and cleared for production

In general, talking about technology or its utility does not amount to judging IAF, making that connection by default is erroneous and for the nth time, TERPROM as it is today would not have saved pilots in the last 2 crashes, but it has potential

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Oct 2011 23:03

vasu_ray wrote:In general, talking about technology or its utility does not amount to judging IAF, making that connection by default is erroneous and for the nth time, TERPROM as it is today would not have saved pilots in the last 2 crashes, but it has potential

None but you yourself made the connection by default

vasu_ray wrote:btw, the technology for TERPROM was available a decade before

vasu_ray wrote:unfortunately IAF versions may not have it yet

vasu_ray wrote:back to the Mig-29 crash, if the pilot sees the prebuilt terrain map on his HUD relative to his position even when he is traversing the valleys in the night...

Anyways, you can certainly discuss technology and its potential realistically without getting into + & ++ modes in the R&D thread.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 25 Oct 2011 23:14

---
Edited. User warned for calling names.

ramana

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 25 Oct 2011 23:39

Edited.....