Indranil wrote:I did not expect a seasoned poster like yourself to use this senseless news item just to win an argument.
I measure my words very carefully before speaking or writing. I research extensively. Even when I learn from authoritative sources, I research to corroborate. I strongly believe in the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no wrong".
Let me explain below
Indranil wrote:Do you not know that Tejas has gone through intense testing for water seepage. And it is not about a wet seat and a cockpit. The old radome did not pass the seepage test. It was changed. Every panels, ram and ECU air intake has been tested as an unit and then on the plane as a whole against allowable amount of water ingress. And yes torrential downpour has been simulated even on the prototypes. Because nobody wants to lose the test article or their pilots. The entire fleet has been grounded numerous times at the slightest hint of a risk. Yes the product is late, but you can be damn sure that it has passed all tests that any IAF fighter has been put through and more.
There is a slight correction to what you wrote here. NOT every Tejas PV & LSP has undergone the rain testing described by you.
Only the article that was used for all weather testing, viz, LSP-7 and thereafter SP aircraft built to IOC SoP are all-weather (Source: Page 48 CAG Report)Trainers PV-5 (1st flight Nov 2009) and PV-6 (1st flight Nov 2014) WERE NEVER BUILT TO IOC SoP.
And which is precisely what I wrote earlier.
tsarkar wrote:Tejas PV-6 (tail number KH-T-2010) made its maiden flight on 8 November 2014, after IOC-2. However, because its build started before IOC-2, it was not built to all-weather-standards. It was inducted in No 45 squadron in July 2016.
For normal squadron operations, one needs Operational Conversion Trainers built to IOC SoP.
However, No 45 Squadron has to use prototype vehicles for conversion.I very deliberately used this example of IAF inducting prototypes into operational units - because trainers built to IOC SoP aren’t around and wont be around for quite some time
What I wrote is adequately covered in CAG report 2015 Page 14, 42 & 48.
And the Bhopal Incident in 2016 is COMPLETELY inline with CAG findings in 2015.
Indranil wrote:I can understand an ignorant reporter in Bhopal having no idea of fighter aircraft testing, drawing his own conclusions and sensationalizing a breaking news.
I started responding precisely because of statements like this.
If facts go against cherished beliefs, cognitive dissonance sets in, and there is a tendency to -
1. Shoot the messenger
2. Assassinate messenger’s character
3. Find conspiracy theories
4. Bury the facts
5. Distort the facts
6. Outright Lie
People in small town are incredibly more patriotic. The photo posted by me was from a vernacular report whose headline says “Tejas faster than JF-17 Thunder”
Check the embedded video where the pilot praises the city of Bhopal http://www.patrika.com/news/bhopal/indi ... t-1371899/
Secondly, the journalist, while ignorant, has very plainly noted his observations, including the colour of tarpaulinhttp://www.hindustantimes.com/bhopal/te ... XRlrO.html
The airport ground staff and some IAF men immediately rushed to the aircraft and tried to cover the cockpit with a yellow tarpaulin.
The two pilots insisted on another layer of tarpaulin to cover the cockpit.
Later, another dark green tarpaulin was placed over it
The photos taken corroborate that.What do you get by character assassination of the poor journalist when CAG had published a report highlighting these very issues in 2015?
I deliberately did not post the CAG report a day back to bring out this cognitive dissonance exhibited here.
Think about it - a CAG report published 2015 and an ignorant reporter from Bhopal in 2016 observe the same thing.
Its a very deep CAG-Natasha-Bhopal Journalist conspiracy. Or just the plain truth.
Kartik wrote:ATC did not give permission to take off, due to bad weather. Not that the Tejas could not take off in bad weather.
So why did ATC not give permission?
I checked the weather forecast - there was no cyclone over Bhopal that day.
I checked the civil aviation flights that day from Bhopal - all scheduled airlines civil aviation flights flew
What is the reason Boeing 737 & Airbus A-320 can fly that day but Tejas PV-6 cannot?
Cybaru wrote:And yes, when you do enter and exit a cockpit in rain, if you are not under a canopy or hangar, rain water does seep in. The tarp was probably provided because the canopy couldn't be closed or something and it started raining.
As the pictures posted earlier show, the cockpit was fully closed and the pilots outside when the tarpaulins were being put. What is the "something" being referred to?
My apologies to everyone for hurting cherished beliefs - but its important to stay factual and truthful.
This example was just to show that IAF is going out of its way to induct the Tejas using prototype trainers to train pilots