Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

[Indranil]

I am not speculating. Fell free to speak to anybody in the know. If you find something else, please let me know.

[Shreeman]

I am not speculating. Fell free to speak to anybody in the know. If you find something else, please let me know.

Then you know more than me.

I can only speak to open source material. Have no desire for anything "classified".

The philosophy outlined is sound, subject to something that only you(or those on the know) have access to.

[Indranil]

There is nothing classified in this. Just talk to people who have undergone military flight training on why they have to get trained in the same aspects of flying on every trainer on their way up to graduation. They will tell you. It is because they are all individual beasts. You graduate to the next, only when you have tamed the previous one in all aspects. Anyways, if it is difficult to take it from me, take it from whoever you feel more comfortable with.

[Thakur_B]

Incompetence is a disease Shreeman, you have to contain it at it's first symptom. We already have a bad experience with HPT-32 turning trainee pilots into human kebab and chutney with problems that seemed trivial at the beginning. Induct HJT-36 only when it is safe to fly. The safety record of HJT-36 in development is nothing spectacular.

Thakur ji,

You are a pilot. You will understand. The perils of any flying, commercial, freight, or combat casn not be understated. A bird can give you a bad day, asnd so can a cloud.

No I am not. I don't know where this rumour popped up from

I am just saying that Indigenous platforms should not be only inducted because they are indigenous but when:
a) they meet our requirements.
b) are safe to the user.

IJT project is yet to achieve those benchmarks. I'd rather have it wait another year than be given 'grace' to pass.

[Gyan]

Why does each trainer aircraft need to spin? Can spin training not be done on Pilatus and Hawk? Till HTT-40, IJT, AJT-LCA become more mature? In any case HTT-40 can be used as fall back for failure/limitations of HJT-16.

[rohitvats]

Rohit, my comments cannot be classified as personal. I find it amusing that cheering for Indian products can gt me a warning while blatant, biased attacks on Indian products don't get the same treatment.

You can drop this holy-than-thou attitude. And stop making this as black and white debate. Please bear the same in mind next time.

[Raman]

Indranil,

The syllabus is not online. So this is all speculation on your part and mine.

This is not IAF, but unless you think the IAF's syllabus is drastically different than the US Navy:
T-45 COMBINED MULTI-SERVICE PILOT TRAINING SYSTEM

CNATRA INSTRUCTION 1542.167
CNATRAINST 1542.167
N715
18 Sep 10
SUbj: T-45 COMBINED MULTI-SERVICE PILOT TRAINING SYSTEM
1. Purpose. To publish the curriculum for training Student
Military Aviators (SMA) in the Intermediate Jet, Advanced Strike
and Intermediate E-2/C 2 phases of training.
...

Kindly peruse - you will find it enlightening.

Let me give you a concrete example where the syllabus and exams for certification are publicly available. The most basic aviation license in the US is the VFR single engine. Students are supposed to know of full power/idle stalls. They are not supposed to demonstrate them. Many schools never actually stall/spine their training aircraft even when the instructor is in tandem. Stall warning sounds? Make the plane fly again. And that is all you demostrate in your checkride.

These may be 100,000s of individuals who fly around in their own propeller planes and have never spun.

It is a red herring.

I'm having a hard time following your argument, which seems to be something like the following: There are millions of drivers who never experience oversteer or understeer, so drivers who are learning to drive race cars don't have to experience them or actually practice recovery - they can just read about the theory of imperfect steering response until they drive Formula 1 race cars.

Pray, what does civilian VFR ops have to do with military intermediate jet training operations? Military pilots flying high performance jets at 600+ knots do not follow the same syllabus as civvies ambling around in a Cessna 172 at 100 knots. Simple situations can escalate extremely quickly at those speeds, and recovery from stalls and unusual attitudes are a must.

[Akshay Kapoor]

Shreeman, if you want open source info please see the movie Vijeta....stall/spin recovery is a must before graduating to next level.

[vaibhav.n]

This is like teaching a cadet how to fire his rifle, but not how to clear the weapon incase a malfunction occurs.

Sheesh!! The plebian can figure this humdrum shit under enemy fire.

Waah what logic!!

[shiv]

Why does each trainer aircraft need to spin? Can spin training not be done on Pilatus and Hawk? Till HTT-40, IJT, AJT-LCA become more mature? In any case HTT-40 can be used as fall back for failure/limitations of HJT-16.

I don't know the answer to this, but let me guess. The following is pure guesswork

Spin is frightening and disorientating, and fighter pilots in combat have to put aircraft through manoeuvres that may lead to stall and spin, so they must all know how to keep calm and do things to recover.

As aircraft become more complex - there are more things for the pilot to do - eg jet engine management, and the stresses and G forces are higher because things happen at higher speeds. So a pilot in a high performance jet (even a trainer) who experiences spin for the first time may simply not cope. He must have experience of spin in a low speed aircraft. I am also guessing (pure guesswork here) that prop driven aircraft have engines that are much less prone to packing up and flaming out in a stall, unlike jets - so that adds an additional layer of complexity for teaching spin recovery for the first time in a jet.

This is pure guesswork. The only things I have ever flown are kites.

[Viv S]

As aircraft become more complex - there are more things for the pilot to do - eg jet engine management, and the stresses and G forces are higher because things happen at higher speeds. So a pilot in a high performance jet (even a trainer) who experiences spin for the first time may simply not cope. He must have experience of spin in a low speed aircraft. I am also guessing (pure guesswork here) that prop driven aircraft have engines that are much less prone to packing up and flaming out in a stall, unlike jets - so that adds an additional layer of complexity for teaching spin recovery for the first time in a jet.

Fact is, the vast majority of air forces out there use an AJT for spin training (^ the US Navy's T-45 is based on the BAE Hawk). There's no technical requirement that an imported IJT would meet that can't be met by additional Hawks delivered from the already mature production line at HAL. Or even better divert Hawks for intermediate/Stage II training and employ the Tejas trainer for the LIFT role. And for the SKAT.

[Victor]

On the other hand, our engineers, scientists and managers are ridiculed for dreaming to build something. And every damn generation has to go through it! .

No, not "our engineers, scientists and managers" but only PSU engineers, scientists and managers. I have kept repeating that "India" does not translate to HAL/DRDO/OFB because this leaves out the majority of our engineers, scientists and managers who are among the best of their kind in the world. Why can't we see this? Besides, if screwing up after 60 years of building airplanes (when airplanes went from aircraft went from Spitfire to Raptor) isn't solid grounds for ridicule, I don't know what is. At what point do we wake up to reality?

[shiv]

This is the RAF basic flying training course
http://www.raf.mod.uk/idtraf/courses/6121.cfm

Outline Of Syllabus

Aeromedical course. Ground School Phase to include Theory of Flight, Meteorology, Aircraft Operations and Flight Planning, Aircraft Technical, Principles of Navigation, Science, General Service Flying. Flying Phase including Basic Handling Phase, Effects of controls, Straight and Level, Turning, Aerobatics, Stalling and Spinning, Practice Forced Landings, Circuits, Instrument Flying, VFR Navigation, Formation, Advanced Aerobatics, Advanced Turns, Handling of Emergencies. 62 Flying Hours on the Tutor Aircraft. The course is conducted at No 1 Elementary Flying Training School.

I think the Grob G 115 is used.

The US starts its flying training on the T 37

[shiv]

Fact is, the vast majority of air forces out there use an AJT for spin training

Any examples and links of the "majority" and whether they use props at all for basic training?

[Victor]

Strangely enough (or maybe not), our current training aircraft are exactly the same as US Navy and Marines and very close to the US airforce. Their cadets are introduced to flying at Air Force/Naval Academy in Diamond trainers, ours at NDA with the same. Their basic and advanced training are done by Pilatus PC-9 (Texan II), Talon T-38 (airforce) and Goshawk (navy/marines), ours by Pilatus PC-7 and Hawk which is the same as Goshawk. They don't have an intermediate trainer as they go from "primary" to "advanced". I suspect that what we call "intermediate" is covered by the PC-9 and Goshawk or PC-9 and Talon between them.

[Victor]

The US starts its flying training on the T 37

T-37 Tweet replaced by Texan II/Pilatus PC-9.

[Indranil]

On the other hand, our engineers, scientists and managers are ridiculed for dreaming to build something. And every damn generation has to go through it! .

No, not "our engineers, scientists and managers" but only PSU engineers, scientists and managers. I have kept repeating that "India" does ... the world. Why can't we see this? Besides, if screwing up after 60 years of building airplanes (when airplanes went from aircraft went from Spitfire to Raptor) isn't solid grounds for ridicule, I don't know what is. At what point do we wake up to reality?

Okay, let me go by your blanket-dislike for all PSUs and PSU-employees. Nikamme saale, we need a BTA and a IJT, they can't even give us that. Let us look towards the world-class private sector. They can certainly give us one. But, wait ....

Reliance, best in the world. They can build Rafales from day 1, can't they build BTAs and IJTs when the country desperately needs them! No. Because not enough profit to be made. Just like in the Avro-replacement case. Hefty ToT fees hazam karne ka chance nahi hai na, Isliye!

[member_23694]

found one link which provides some consolidated info
http://www.indiaspend.com/sectors/india ... c-monopoly

It was started in 1st October, 1964 and currently has over 19 production units and 10 Design and Research centres across 8 locations in India. Till now HAL claims to have manufactured 3,658 Helicopters/Aircrafts, 4,178 Engines, upgraded 272 aircraft and examined and repaired 9,643 aircraft 29,775 engines.

Damn, what's the problem with IJT with so much experience. OK we have to be hopeful. And also for Tejas Mk.1 / Mk.2 and yes and sometime later in the century they will make AMCA too.

HAL’s revenue for in 2010-2011 stood at Rs 13,116 crore and it 90% of its sales is to the Indian Defence Services.
HAL’s profit was Rs 2,840 crore.

So much for the selfless work .. nearly 3000 crore profit and to add 987 crore spent in R&D in 2010-11.

Point is Reliance is the best in what it is doing. At least the results shows in terms of turnover of nearly 450000 crore. HAL with a captive market and 50 years of experience is still struggling with IJT and wants to make BTA as part of some non-profit activity.

[Victor]

Reliance, best in the world. They can build Rafales from day 1, can't they build BTAs and IJTs when the country desperately needs them!

This is the crux of the problem. Are you suggesting that a company like Reliance, Tata, Mahindra, L&T cannot develop a trainer if it is given the same taxpayer money to develop it that is given to HAL? I am convinced that they not only can but will deliver a better product in less time and this holds true for any weapons system, not just aircraft. Anything HAL can do, Tata can do 100 times better. The facts are staring us in the face but somehow we simply don't see it.

..not enoutgh profit...

Almost every single innovation has resulted from a powerful incentive, and profit is the main incentive in private industry. Without incentives/disincentives, there is no forward movement, case in point being our PSUs. This is not to say that private companies are not "patriotic". I would venture to say that companies like Kalyani, Tata and Mahindra are more patriotic than HAL because they have used their own capital to produce weapons while the PSUs use taxpayer money. Again, please note that I am not disparaging the PSU employees but just the system. Most of them would be 100 times more productive working for a Tata or Mahindra.

I think the only reason that MoD and IA have not jumped on the Kalyani and Tata guns immediately is the realization in GoI that all the PSUs will become extinct overnight and their employees jobless. This is of course a huge problem but I sense that it will be tackled now. Gradually but eventually, I full expect to see the likes of Mahindra L&T and Tata produce tanks, aircraft and submarines. Such a regime may throw up a whole raft of new companies that may eclipse Tata and Mahindra, who knows. That's the India I hope to see in my lifetime..

[Shreeman]

Thank you all for the vibrant discussion. Now:

Here I go shooting myself in the foot quoting Kopp, but they are simple facts:

My initial impression was very favourable, as the aircraft has very light and responsive controls yet is very stable and feels very predictable. Rolling out of turns, it has no detectable undershoot or overshoot, this perception was further reinforced throughout the flight. We commenced the handling demonstration with a power off stall. PCL to idle and increasing backstick, the aircraft feels very stable until just prior to the onset of the stall, where the effectiveness of the controls begins to suffer. The stall occurs clean at 75 KIAS and is evident from slight buffet. Stall recovery is conventional, with sufficient forward stick to unstall the wing while the PCL is advanced to full power. Beware those late with rudder, when the PT-6 bites, it bites, the acceleration is very rapid and again generous right pedal is required until the rudder is trimmed. The rudder trim on the PCL is well located and comfortable to use, although my opinion is that gearing it a bit faster wouldn't hurt.

As an example, the PC-9 can perform four spins per training sortie as against only one in the Macchi, a function of the PC-S's greater rate of climb and the fact its lower limit for that exercise is 6,000 feet compared to the Macchi's 12,000 feet.

and things like: http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-545871.html
and here is some technically formatted material:
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS20 ... RS/485.PDF

Re. Hawk at source (UK) rather than the US syllabus. The T45 does seem to still ae stall resistance that concerns that Navy ( http://www.bihrle.com/services_lst_d_success1.html) which would kind of qustion the Hawk acquisition more than anything else.

It is highly spin resistant, requiring full rudder to initiate and maintain a spin and recovering in one turn after centralising the flying controls. Stall characteristics are predictable and progressive.

and things like

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-318296.html

that seem to confirm a one turn spin and practically doing anything will recover it.

You also have technical publications as references:
http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Publ ... tchell.pdf

Long story short, the PC9 and derivatives appear to spin fine. A spin at sufficient altitude (5K or greater) in a kind aircraft is not the end of the world. There is nothing wrong with spinning just the PC9. Not emphasizing the Hawk also doesnt play nice with spins is a major ommission.

The proposed philosophy stands as outlined re. the IJT.

[Shreeman]

Indranil,

Deep breaths, please. Language is deteriorating.

[Indranil]

Shreeman ji, sorry for the language. But seriously, the level of discussion on this forum has taken a nose-dive. Proponents and Opponents of HTT-40/IJT make such naive and biased comments, that I have done quite a few facepalms already. The sad part is that both sides think they know best: Better than the designers at HAL, and instructors at IAF. And hence they have decided, that they don't need to listen or learn anything other than things that justify their viewpoint. A couple of years back, I had decided to bow out of such discussions. But as a moderator now, I wanted to coax posters to read and learn from the other side. A huge mistake considering that I am speaking to grown men with well-formed notions.

For you specifically:
Again, trainers of all levels need to resist flat spin, but should be able to be put into one deliberately. Because all trainees need to learn to recover BTA from flat-spin. Once they have learnt how to recover a plane of BTA's complexity, they need to learn how to recover a plane of IJT's complexity. Once they have to learnt to recover a plane of IJT's complexity, they need to learn how to recover a plane of AJT's complexity. Once they have to learnt to recover a plane of AJT's complexity, they need to learn how to recover a plane of a type-trainer's complexity.

There is a requirement for this step-wise training, because as the complexity of the plane grows, so does the complexity of ways in which you can control, and then recover it back. As Raman sir rightly points out, it is like learning to drive an F1 car. If I give you a sedan and teach you the racing line across the cichane, you will do it. Then I give you a sports car and teach you everything except negotiating a cichane. And then I give you a F1 car and tell you to go around the track, you will crash at the cichane.

If you don't believe this, you think differently from all major airforces of the world. I rest my case.

[Shreeman]

Indranil,

No contest on the need for spinning something in addition to PC9. But no strong argument has emerged on how the last decade+ has gone without a platform, and why another two years would be a disaster.
What are they spinning right now?

What I learnt is that one of the IJT/AJT needs to spin. The Hawk is practically useless in the role, thus IJT must be benign in this role. In putting down the IJT, only half the story is described. Instead of taking on the whole load, maybe the kirans can serve in a stall/spin role only.

I learnt a thing or two. Doesnt happen often these days. The basic philosophy is sound, it is the hawk that is deficient, and the IJT must be mature as a consequence. The kirans are in stock and will take the full IJT load in the absence of IJT.

I too rest.

[Indranil]

Victor sahab,

I know that it appears that I am defending HAL. But God knows how much I would love the Tatas and Mahindras to come up and challenge them. And I am glad that they are finally starting to. But the fact is that today, the Tatas, Mahindras and much less Reliance can develop a BTA on their own. You probably do not fathom the complexity of building a military BTA/IJT. For example, HTT-40 is 1.5 times heaveier than the 10-seater GA-10 that Mahindra is now certifying and 2.5 times more powerful! Forget the complexity of the sub-components. IJT's equipments alone weigh 2.5 times the GA-10. There not too many successful BTAs and IJTs around the world.

TASL is a trailblazer, and they can make parts to the blueprint better than most in the world. But, they don't have design knowhow and test infrastructure. They are not expected to have it for at least the next decade. Which is perfectly okay, because they are on the right path. If Tata would have come forward to build Rafales, I would be up in arms to support them. But that was not the case, and rightly so, because they can't absorb the ToT to the level that HAL can. This is exactly what Dassault doesn't want to part with. Reliance was abetting them on this plan. Not entirely patriotic, is it. They would have assembled plane after plane, and gobbled up the ToT money. Very little technology would have flown into this country.

I have much of a bone to pick with HAL, but not on the points that you are bringing forward. That's for another day. Right now, it is HAL's IJT/HTT-40 or direct imports. Guess, whom I am supporting.

[Indranil]

Shreemanji,

What happens if a student stalls the IJT during some other training routine. Stall warnings exists on almost all planes. Yet seasoned pilots have put planes in deep stalls and have not been able to recover it till it was too late. And here you have rookies learning extremely fast maneuvers.

[Shreeman]

Let us let the matter rest indranil. The IJT must come, sooner rather than later.

The IJT may stall vs the Kiran may fall apart. Cutting thrust will make any plane out of the air. And sometimes they do. A benign Mk-1 IJT syllabus will make the Kirans last longer.

There is not a great safety advantage in not using the IJTs for somethings, and there are some benefits. There are screw ups at each stage, the HPT (no development for decades), the Kiran (no development for decades, decade long IJT delays), the Mk132 (imperfect stall/spin characteristics - the M346 types would have been superior).

Not creating the production/delivery/support chain will delay the IJT longer even when it is ready.

I see your argument, but in an imperfect world, you must see these issues too.

ps- Tarmak has posted stores trials in goa. So many things are proceeding even if this one aspect remains stubbornly stuck. The IJT has a role it can fill.

[Kakkaji]

Victor sahab,

I know that it appears that I am defending HAL. But God knows how much I would love the Tatas and Mahindras to come up and challenge them. And I am glad that they are finally starting to. But the fact is that today, the Tatas, Mahindras and much less Reliance can develop a BTA on their own. You probably do not fathom the complexity of building a military BTA/IJT.

Roy Saheb:

I agree that none of these companies can develop a BTA or IJT on their own. But I think the plan is to have one of them make the Pilatus BTA under the "Make in India" plan. I think that is a good option right now. Let HAL focus on the LCA and the IJT. We need them ASAP.

[shiv]

Here is an article by Air Marshal Rajkumar about spinning the Hawk and Alpha jet during test flying
http://vayuaerospace.in/images1/Advanced_Jet.pdf

[rohitvats]

No contest on the need for spinning something in addition to PC9. But no strong argument has emerged on how the last decade+ has gone without a platform, and why another two years would be a disaster. What are they spinning right now?

What I learnt is that one of the IJT/AJT needs to spin. The Hawk is practically useless in the role, thus IJT must be benign in this role. In putting down the IJT, only half the story is described. Instead of taking on the whole load, maybe the kirans can serve in a stall/spin role only.

I learnt a thing or two. Doesnt happen often these days. The basic philosophy is sound, it is the hawk that is deficient, and the IJT must be mature as a consequence. The kirans are in stock and will take the full IJT load in the absence of IJT.

I too rest.

You're making too many assumption and incorrect conclusions here.

First - who said Hawk is 'practically useless' in spin role? It is a trainer and having proper spin characteristics is part of the DNA. Please read the article linked by Shiv on evaluation trials of Alpha Jet and Hawk. While the former was superlative in it's spin characteristics, the latter is not a slouch either. If anything, that article proves that having spin characteristics is a sine qua non when it comes to AJT. Especially, when most air forces have only 2-step training process comprising with rookie pilots graduating from propeller driver trainers to AJT like HAWK.

To those like RAF who have HAWK as AJT, if it is 'practically useless' for spin training, then pilots are graduating to high performance jets w/o getting hang of this important training aspect!

Secondly, Kiran MkI and MKII are the ones used for Stage II training and have no known issue with spin aspect of flight training. There life has already been extended by couple of years because of IJT delay which itself is coming to end.

Finally - it is one thing to say that IJT is not a good platform for spin training but completely different if it CANNOT recover from a spin. No air force in the world will send rookie pilots in air in an aircraft which cannot recover from a spin.

It is the point immediately above which requires to be addressed.

[Shreeman]

shiv, rohit,

The article says essentially the same thing. Hawk is not easy to spin.

The Hawk did not want to spin and one had to sit with pro spin controls applied for several seconds before she dipped the nose and settled into what appeared to be a steep nose down corkscrew motion. Standard application of anti spin controls ensured quick recovery. After the Alpha Jet experience this was an unimpressive spin.

The IJT characteristics are not public. So we could well be speculatively maligning it as "not being able to recover".

The reason I felt we had reached the end of debate with indranil's point of view is the same. There is no official document outlining what can and can not be done with IJT as it is today.

You say its not ready, I see it plenty useful. All a matter of opinion. Lets wait another two-three years (some kirans may crash and malign that aircraft's good name too), then setup a 6-12/year production line, deliver some day, yadayada. New elections, who knows may be congress this time. Import something instead. Could happen.

[Kartik]

shiv, rohit,

The article says essentially the same thing. Hawk is not easy to spin.

Which is a good thing. Rookie pilots won't inadvertently put thr Hawk into a spin. However as AM Rajkumar mentioned, once pro spin controls were applied for several seconds, the Hawk did go into a spin. And most importantly, the Hawk recovered from the spin..That is most important aspect of a trainer.

The IJT characteristics are not public. So we could well be speculatively maligning it as "not being able to recover".

The reason I felt we had reached the end of debate with indranil's point of view is the same. There is no official document outlining what can and can not be done with IJT as it is today.

You say its not ready, I see it plenty useful. All a matter of opinion. Lets wait another two-three years (some kirans may crash and malign that aircraft's good name too), then setup a 6-12/year production line, deliver some day, yadayada. New elections, who knows may be congress this time. Import something instead. Could happen.

True. That we don't know exactly what the precise issues are. Yet, it cannot be inducted till it is certified as being safe for all the types of spins that the IAF intends for its cadets to be taught to handle.

[deejay]

shiv, rohit,

The article says essentially the same thing. Hawk is not easy to spin.

Which is a good thing. Rookie pilots won't inadvertently put thr Hawk into a spin. However as AM Rajkumar mentioned, once pro spin controls were applied for several seconds, the Hawk did go into a spin. And most importantly, the Hawk recovered from the spin..That is most important aspect of a trainer.

Just a small nitpick... By the time one flies the Hawk there are more than 100 hrs under the belt and the Hawk is the third type to be flown by the pilot. So "Rookie" pilot not really, "Rookie Fighter Pilot" - definitely.

[Shreeman]

^^^Kartik,

This discussion has converged and should be allowed to rest, and provide a reference to future readers. To me, the summary is as follows:
-- Those who have not been in spins, should not emphasize its value (my disclosure: have spun, but not in a jet but what is considered a trainer by some minor airforces).

-- Secrecy around IJT (10+ years!!) is hurting it, with folks imagining deficiencies which may or may not be relevant.

-- A head to head comparison of Hawk vs IJT vs Kiran vs vs PC9 is not available and no one is demanding it.
-- Supposed endangering of trainee lives trumps all other benefits (Note: supposed vs alleged).

-- The kirans are old in the tooth and carrying a LOT of training load.

For some reason the syllabus and test of stage 1/stage 2 /stage 3 training is a state secret and can not be published. We are blind men feeling the length of an elephant's richard in the absence of firm facts.

Please feel free to edit as you see the highly emotional discussion over last several pages. I do, really, rest this time. So pleast dont feel any post is being ignored.

ps -- the number of hours dont matter much in training, the syllabus does. You can burn fuel for 100 hours in a trimmed aircraft doing you know what for all it mastters. Just saying.

[Shreeman]

shiv, rohit,

The article says essentially the same thing. Hawk is not easy to spin.

Which is a good thing. Rookie pilots won't inadvertently put thr Hawk into a spin. However as AM Rajkumar mentioned, once pro spin controls were applied for several seconds, the Hawk did go into a spin. And most importantly, the Hawk recovered from the spin..That is most important aspect of a trainer.

Just a small nitpick... By the time one flies the Hawk there are more than 100 hrs under the belt and the Hawk is the third type to be flown by the pilot. So "Rookie" pilot not really, "Rookie Fighter Pilot" - definitely.

Deejay,

Spin is still tricky for what it is. Sitting on the controls (and they were likely hydraulic/electromechanical for AM Rajkumar) is a terror in itself waiting for the corkscrew to start. That is not really comforting. The easy recovery is the comforting part. But if you do stall, and panic, strange things will happen even in the most docile craft. Inadequate power stall/spins are just as dangerous in the hawk for the rookies as they will be in the mature IJT. Under 5000 feet, there will not be a lot of time. Also 100 hours is not a lot (probably several hundred counting pre/post flight) but still only a few months of training. The new trainee smell/jitters wont have worn off, especially in a new type.

[deejay]

^^^ Shreeman ji, All spins I undertook on the piston engine was min 2.2 km height (2 turns & higher for more) in a piston and more than 16000 ft height (02 turns & higher for more) in the Kiran. The HPT 32 spin was docile but then I knew it was docile only after I spun the Kiran. But it is fun once you got in the 'habit'.

I drafted a post describing the IAF syllabus yesterday but then deleted it wondering if it really is off public consumption. Plus I believe the flying hours have presently been curtailed due many reasons. Sans the syllabus of the IAF - the understanding that military flying training is similar to civilian flying training programme is erroneous.

To give you an idea less than 10 hrs is slotted for going solo. Rest is split in Aeros & General Handling, Navigation, Close Formation, Tail Chase, Night Flying, etc. Stall and Spin is only and definitely practiced before undertaking aeros. These training periods are the only time one does structured aeros and the only other opportunity in IAF (AFAIK) is in FAT and if you qualify as an Instructor.

[Victor]

To the best of my knowledge, no other major air force uses a dedicated "intermediate" trainer. They just go from primary to basic to advanced whereas we go from primary to basic to intermediate to advanced. The Israeli AF uses the Grob G120 as primary which is the same class as our Super Dimona at NDA, the AT-6 Texan II which is identical to our PC-7 and then the M-346 which is the same class as Hawk. They have nothing in what we call the "intermediate" class.

My understanding is that both the PC-7 and Hawk have controls that can mimic a range of flight characteristics (more docile, less docile etc) and most if not all of what we call intermediate training can be and is handled by basic and advanced trainers in the other air forces. IIRC the additional stage became a necessity when trainees had a hard time adjusting to the MiG-21 directly after learning to fly the Kiran but why the IAF has this requirement for an additional aircraft today when we have the Hawk I don't know. An additional aircraft is a pretty expensive item in the overall scheme of things.

[deejay]

^^^ Victor Saar - The Super Dimona flying in NDA is just 02 hours. It has no professional relevance. It is just 'Air Experience'. It is not Basic Stage.

[Victor]

^ I assume that's the same role the Grob plays in IsAF (and Diamond--same as Super Dimona--plays in USAF) since next for all three is AT-6 (same acft as our PC-7). BTW, 2 hrs is a lot of flying for someone who never has before. It prepares one for the much more powerful Pilatus.

[deejay]

^^^ No Victor Ji, it is 02 hrs of Air Experience. And 02 hrs is stretching it. NDA flying is ... well... inconsequential. Those who come to AFA directly, the CDS types do not have this 02 hrs on the Super Dimona and the course split between NDA and CDS types are generally 60:40. So there are many who commence flying without the Dimona experience.

NDA earlier had the Ardhra glider. Cadets would get 33 launches. No advantage was felt or acquired by flying the gliders (personal and shared experience). The flying training would start on the HPT 32 (in our times) but it is the Pilatus now.

[Victor]

That's great. What does the Kiran do that the Pilatus and Hawk can't?