Military Flight Safety

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 10 Jun 2009 16:07

RahulM
Sorry I dont remember the exact details but have a recollection that they were lost over water(Arabian Sea ??).Also both were lost in a short span.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Jun 2009 16:54

Rahul M wrote:do you remember the place time etc ? any details will be welcome.
thanks.

One crashed in Palam about 10 years ago killing 21.

I seem to remember one more that crashed in the mid eighties after take off from a gulf country stopover during the ferry of a new aircraft from russia.

Rumor then had it that it was a mid air between a us navy aircraft and the IAF AN-32 as the us navy was out in force searching the same area without revealing why.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 10 Jun 2009 18:07

Two AN-32's had crashed during ferrying from Russia, both in Gulf.

added later...here is the list of An-32 crashes...I waswrong about two being lost during ferrying, the first two crashed occured within days of each other, hence my confusion.

CHANDIGARH, March 7 — The month of March continues to be unlucky for AN-32 aircraft of Indian Air Force. Of the seven major accidents in which these transport aircraft have been involved since 1986, four took place in March and one in April .

The first major air crash involving the AN-32 took place on March 22 in 1986 in Jammu and Kashmir area followed by another, three days later, when an AN-32 on its way to Jamnagar from Muscat was lost in the Arabian Sea. Its wreckage, in spite of best of efforts, could not be located.

The third accident involving the similar aircraft took place six years later. It was on March 25 in 1992 when an aircraft was lost in Jorhat hills. The worst of the accidents took place on April 1, 1992, when an AN 32 was involved in a mid-air collision near Khanna. It was in this accident that Wg Cdr Makol was among those killed.

In between, there have been two other accidents involving AN-32 aircraft. One of these probably took place in October, 1988, near Kanpur while the second occurred near Trivandrum during the monsoon either in 1991 or 1992. The ill-fated aircraft in the last mentioned case had taken off from Tambaram.

The latest accident, which took place this morning at Indira Gandhi International Airport, was perhaps the worst in which 2 people, including several officers were killed.

March unlucky for AN-32

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Jun 2009 18:13

One crashed in Palam about 10 years ago killing 21.

IIRC, this was the last recorded An-32 crash till yesterday

Sterling record to remain crash free for 10 years despite the flogging the aircraft receives and the hostile conditions it flies in...

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 10 Jun 2009 18:58

Rahul M wrote:is this the first An-32 crash ? Jagan ?

Unfortunately its atleast the 9th.

http://www.warbirds.in/Crashes/crpage.p ... atesall=ON

In addition to the eight listed above, and the one that happend yesterday, there may have been two to three more 'write offs' as various wrecks have been observed in different places.

PS: This link is useful for anyone to keep track
http://www.warbirds.in/Crashes/typecount.php

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Jun 2009 19:16

IIRC An-32 was also involved in a freak accident during the mid 90s. There was case of the navigator getting sucked out when his bubble window gave way. As the navigator wasn't wearing the chute (case in most of tpt a/c), it resulted in the fatality. This was when the a/c was enroute to Leh from Chandigargh.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 10 Jun 2009 20:11

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Wrec ... 640407.cms

Wreckage of missing IAF AN-32 aircraft found
10 Jun 2009, 1650 hrs IST, PTI

ITANAGAR: The wreckage of the IAF AN-32 transport aircraft, carrying 13 defence personnel, was found on Wednesday at a village in West Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh, a day after it went missing, police said. ( Watch )

The defence personnel were feared to have died when the aircraft crashed over Rinchi hill above Heyo village, 60 km from Mechuka in the district, located closed to China border, they said.

Though a wireless message, received at the SP's office at district headquarters Aalo, confirmed the recovery of the wreckage, there was no word about any recovery of human remains.

The aircraft was on a routine food supply sortie and was carrying seven IAF personnel and six army personnel, an IAF spokesman said.

The message, sent by the officer in-charge of Mechuka police station, said two search parties of the Army and the border guarding paramilitary force, ITBP, left for the village this morning.

The police quoted some local people saying that they saw smoke billowing after a very loud sound from the distant hills.

Among the IAF men on board were two wing commanders, two squadron leaders and a flight lieutenant.

The plane had taken off from the Mechuka Advanced Landing Ground (ALG) in West Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh to Jorhat in Assam at around 2 pm on Tuesday after which it went

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 10 Jun 2009 20:27

http://twitter.com/livefist wrote:An-32 crash deceased from IAF:
Wg Cdr GS Butalia,
Wing Commander PK Saji,
Sqn Ldr P. Siddharth,
Sqn Ldr Manas Mishra
Flt Lt Varun Kumar,
Master Warrant Ramesh
Aircraftsman S Kumar.

Rest in peace.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Jun 2009 21:08

I am saddened. Resupplying forward army positions is a vital operation mission for IAF and no different from operations during hostilities.

My salute to the fallen airmen.

An-32 crash deceased from IAF:
Wg Cdr GS Butalia,
Wing Cdr PK Saji,
Sqn Ldr P. Siddharth,
Sqn Ldr Manas Mishra
Flt Lt Varun Kumar,
Master Warrant Officer Ramesh
Aircraftsman S Kumar.

I wish the following to be true, knowing fully well it is not true in present day India:

Shaheed-o ki mazarron pay lagayingay har baras maylay |
Watan pay marney walon ka yahi baaki nisha hoga ||

Poor english translation:

Graves of the martyrs will draw every year festive/gala fair in their memory|
Those who die for the country that will be the only imprint left on earth ||

In my living memory there have been not ONE mela on the punya-sthal of a warrior who died for Indian republic, or to even once recognize the shahaadat of Indian soldier

India gets what it deserves.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 11 Jun 2009 05:47

IAF pilot dies living his cherished dream

Plane remains found in Siang

Among the 13 killed — initially, the Indian Air Force had said there were 12 on board — were seven from the Air Force, identified as wing commanders G.S. Butalia and P.K. Saji, squadron leaders P. Siddharth and Manas Mishra, flight lieutenant Varun Kumar, master warrant officer Ramesh and airman Sanjay Kumar. The army personnel killed were gunners K. Kumar, Sunil Kumar and V. Kumar and sepoys A.K. Tirki, Ringchin Wanchuk and Nawhegh. All the 13 were posted in Assam.

All contact with the aircraft were lost shortly after the aircraft took off from Mechuka at 2pm.

City loses Wing Commander to AN-32 crash

Among 13 dead in IAF crash: pilot back from vacation, 24-yr-old on his first posting

IAF aircraft wreckage, bodies recovered

atma · Post by **atma** » 11 Jun 2009 07:55

The AN-32 called for 5 Air crew members. Some others were lost. Tragic indeed. I always believe some thing good happens out of a tragedy, at least for the long term. In asmuch I mourn the lost airmen, perhaps we will will learn from the tragedy, and be further emboldended to protect our remote zones.

I shall light a diva and ask my mom to start incantations to pray not only for their souls, but pray for improved outreach and safety for our forces in those areas.

Jai Hind.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 11 Jun 2009 09:50

This flight was too close to the border with the enemy probably in an area claimed by the enemy has his. Villagers who witnessed the last moments of the airplane claim that it exploded in the air.

What does the esteemed board members think of this? Is there a possibility of enemy action behind this? After having conducted the Olympics, the enemy is acting in a very arrogant manner. Even though I dont think they would venture this far, the location and the witness account create a doubt in my mind.

If that be the case, India's response should be strong and punitive.

Moderator: By mistake, instead of replying to this thread, I posted this message in a new thread. I hope this newbie mistake is forgiven.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 16 Jun 2009 20:09

Sukhois are Safe

"The pilot of the aircraft is said to have inadvertently switched off the flight controls in the cockpit that apparently caused the crash," officials said.

Can any experts comment on this. Is it as simple as they make it sound?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Jun 2009 20:45

shameekg wrote:Sukhois are Safe

"The pilot of the aircraft is said to have inadvertently switched off the flight controls in the cockpit that apparently caused the crash," officials said.
Can any experts comment on this. Is it as simple as they make it sound?

A very wild guess. There was a report which mentioned that this sukhoi was outside the theoritical planned flight envelope. So can I add 2+2 to say that we were trying to test the extremes of the machines?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jun 2009 21:15

interesting, I remember a report by vishnu which pointed out that the su-27 had a manual override of the FBW controls to conduct the 'cobra'.
what do the su experts like GJ man say ? do production sukhois have that feature ?

I wonder if all a/c have such an override option and when, if at all these are used. what about non-russi birds.

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 16 Jun 2009 21:34

Its my understanding as well that the MKi has a manual override switch . However it is said you cannot fly for long with that override on as teh airplane will become unstable and depart controlled flight.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jun 2009 21:40

in fact, most (or all) modern fighters are supposedly inherently unstable and require computer control to be flown for any reasonable amount of time.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Jun 2009 22:27

Su-30 aerodynamic configuration is an unstable longitudinal triplane.
The aircraft has a fly by wire (FBW) with quadruple redundancy. This is essentially required for flight. There is a switch that shuts down the FBW system, used only for maintenance on ground. There has to be interlocks to activate this switch. Current reports are somewhat confusing.

The aircraft may have been stressed beyond its negative g limits and the crew also would have been in some great difficulty due to this negative g condition. The human body tolerates + g very much better than - g

In case the aircraft flight control has been switched off ( in some way),it becomes unflyable and by default may pitch down. This may explain the violent bunt.

Incidentally, some doubts have also been cast on the seat harness that may have given way during ejection resulting in the fatality.

This may call attention to the long term effects of parking of the Su under the sun.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Jun 2009 23:19

Looks like you can switch off some things in the Sukhoi FBW in flight.

Can some guru imagine a scenario where the entire system FBW would be required to be switched off or atleast the availability of such an option thereof available in flight?

The cobra and it's horizontal counterpart, "the hook", are performed by the pilot disabling the angle of attack (alpha) limiter on the flight control system just prior to the pitch up. The fly-by-wire FLCS normally limits the aircraft to 35 degrees alpha, but by disabling the alpha limiter, the pilot can generate up to 110 degrees alpha in the single seat aircraft, while the two seater seem to stop at around 90. Neither aircraft has vectored thrust and this is simply a demonstration of the aircraft's ability to generate a tremendous pitch rate, without changing the vector of flight.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jun 2009 06:15

Some info about the Su 30 flight controls from another list

The designers of Su-30MKI have overcome the debate on whether to allow
the pilot to have the ultimate control on his aircraft (albeit for a
fighter/bomber type) by ensuring that in the normal mode of operation
the quadruplicated FBW has full control of the aircraft, with alternate
failure modes. However, recognising that in some instances (eg in
combat) the aircrew may wish to fly the aircraft beyond the envelope to
which the FBW is restricted, a switch is provided on the control column
which allows the pilot to override the FBW for short periods.

Of course, the danger is that since FBW aircraft are often designed with
relaxed or even negative dynamic stability, overriding the FBW could
lead to PIO, overstressing the airframe or even complete loss of
control. So its not prudent to override the FBW unless its a very
unusual situation. On the other hand such a facility can be a life
saver : I am given to understand that **** who died during an ***
low level aerobatic display, _may_ have been able to save himself
had the M-2000 allowed him to exceed the G limit briefly in order to
pull out more sharply than the FBW control laws permitted.

The Su30 FBW system needs to be fully understood before using the override
switch even for short periods.

The static (not dynamic) longitudinal stability of these type of aircraft
are NEGATIVE because the C of P is placed ahead of the C of G in an effort
to reduce trim drag. Put in undisguised terms, the a/c is basically
unstable in the pitching plane. (In passing, it needs to be mentioned that
the 1st aircraft designed and flown by the Wright brothers also had the same
configuration. When the aircraft subsequently crashed due to this, the
design was quickly changed).

Now what happens when the static longitudinal stability of the aircraft is
negative? To pitch up, the stick needs to be brought back, but as soon as
the pitch commences, the stick will now need to pushed FORWARD to prevent
the rate of pitch from increasing and the aircraft "diverging" out of hand.
It will be EXTREMELY difficult to control the aircraft in the pitching plane
and is a most un natural way of flying the aircraft.

The designers have called this "relaxed" longitudinal stability but don't
get fooled by the word relaxed. The a/c is longitudinally UNSTABLE (static
not dynamic). The designers don't want to alarm the buyer/user by using the
word "unstable" so they have replaced it with "relaxed". But don't get
fooled by the misnomer.

**** may have been able to avoid mushing into the ground (by using the
over ride switch) but it is quite likely the a/c would have quickly
"diverged" out of hand and broken up in the air.

(Note that the second quote refers to the M2000 accident and not the Su 30 incident)

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 17 Jun 2009 13:17

AFAIK, the negative static margin of the Su-30 would mean that disabling FBW will make the aircraft pitch up violently (e.g., a cobra) as opposed to pitch down (a bunt). It must have been a combination of disabling FBW + some other pilot actions that resulted in the airplane departing from controlled flight.

Viv Sreenivasan · Post by **Viv Sreenivasan** » 17 Jun 2009 16:43

Wow 4 crashes of 4 different airframes in a short period. Its not like the saras where the aircraft was still under development and therefore the likelihood of problems occurring were higher. These 4 aircraft that have crashed are proven airframes. The An-32 crash is especially devastating losing so many higher ranks of pilots. How long in terms of investment and time does it take to replace the 2 Wing commanders and squadron leaders who died. What a waste.

No more excuses India has to improve its flight safety record. Its pathetic.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Jun 2009 16:53

Raman wrote:AFAIK, the negative static margin of the Su-30 would mean that disabling FBW will make the aircraft pitch up violently (e.g., a cobra) as opposed to pitch down (a bunt). It must have been a combination of disabling FBW + some other pilot actions that resulted in the airplane departing from controlled flight.

The aircraft seems to have pulled in excess of negative 7.5g during the bunt.

I cannot understand why such a switch ( to kill all the FBW channels simultaneously ) was accessible to the pilot. It should have been guarded or locked or otherwise made safe.

This switch is reportedly for maintenance functions and strictly for ground use only.

Some of the cockpit ergonomics on russian designs including their helos are inexplicable. In the kamov,the engine fuel switches for the individual engine fuel systems and the auxillary fuel switch for the aircraft fuel system are identical and mounted inline.

For the single pilot on the kamov, in a developing single engine situation and high pilot workload conditions it is very possible to Kill the wrong engine.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Jun 2009 16:59

something's definitely pathetic. I'm not certain it's the flight safety record.
____________________

jag, sunil, chetak and a sharma, thanks for the information.

so they had almost 10 years of fatality free flying !

considering how they are flogged by IAF and the conditions these operate in, that is an unbelievable statistic !

Jagan wrote:........

PS: This link is useful for anyone to keep track
http://www.warbirds.in/Crashes/typecount.php

you need to add the su-30 crash.

btw, was its(the su bird's) number mentioned anywhere ?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Jun 2009 17:09

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:Wow 4 crashes of 4 different airframes in a short period. Its not like the saras where the aircraft was still under development and therefore the likelihood of problems occurring were higher. These 4 aircraft that have crashed are proven airframes. The An-32 crash is especially devastating losing so many higher ranks of pilots. How long in terms of investment and time does it take to replace the 2 Wing commanders and squadron leaders who died. What a waste.

No more excuses India has to improve its flight safety record. Its pathetic.

Dude,

This last AN-32 accident was one where the weather developed very quickly and in extremely bad terrain.

Added to all this, it was also an essential re supply run.

Sometimes military flying is hairy and so are the consequences.

No need to go off the deep end regarding "flight safety record. Its pathetic."

Shit happens.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 17 Jun 2009 20:57

^^ I second that. There is no reason to think that a proven airframe will not crash given an unlucky combination of factors. At the cost of going off topic, see the recent Air France crash as an example.
Do not go with the press brouhaha that follows a crash. They only go for sensationalism and leave it at that. So the Su-30 being a 'high profile' fighter got lot of coverage but they dont ever bother to follow up on any other of the crashes. Case in point the MiG 21 or the MiG 27. Hence most people just hear about "Another IAF jet goes down..." but never the true cause behind it. And then people complain about taxpayer money etc. without giving a thought to the men who lay their lives down to protect us.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2009 06:13

Viv Sreenivasan wrote: No more excuses India has to improve its flight safety record. Its pathetic.

Do you have a comparison with some other air force to validate this emotional outburst.

Please compare with the figures for the following air forces in the last 5 years

1) USAF
2) Ru AF
3) PLAAF
4) PAF

Since most people who visit this thread know what I am talking about, I assume you do too.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 18 Jun 2009 06:14

Autopsies suggest Air France jet broke up in sky

Autopsies have revealed fractures in the legs, hips and arms of Air France disaster victims, injuries that — along with the large pieces of wreckage pulled from the Atlantic — strongly suggest the plane broke up in the air, experts said Wednesday.

"Getting ejected into that kind of windstream is like hitting a brick wall — even if they stay in their seats, it is a crushing effect," Casey said. "Most of them were long dead before they hit the water would be my guess."

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 18 Jun 2009 08:16

^^ Before the admins do, let me tell you this is a forum for Indian military flight safety. I was OT'd a couple of weeks back.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Jun 2009 12:35

Cumulonimbus are dangerous.

Viv Sreenivasan · Post by **Viv Sreenivasan** » 18 Jun 2009 13:16

How about this site.

http://rupeenews.com/2009/05/12/the-ind ... the-world/

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Jun 2009 13:26

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:How about this site.

http://rupeenews.com/2009/05/12/the-ind ... the-world/

so your source is that rupeenews? It is an out and out BS pakistani propaganda site. If you want to really cringe, just read some articles on it.

Hint hint: if you want to know their level of BS, there is a link to an article on mayawati and gandhi right now. Just tell me if you could complete the article? Now decide whether you want to still link to that website?

Viv Sreenivasan · Post by **Viv Sreenivasan** » 18 Jun 2009 13:58

I am a massive fan of the IAF and the crucial role that it plays in Defence of India but some guys here are unwilling to admit that the IAF has a problem with flight safety in the mistaken belief that this tarnishs its reputation irrecovably. What would tarnish the reputation irrecovably is to not address this issue. I mean cmon we have had 5 crashes of 5 differnt airframes in the last 3 months and dozens of airforce personnel killed. Its a wake up call.

Viv Sreenivasan · Post by **Viv Sreenivasan** » 18 Jun 2009 14:01

I am thankful for at least one thing-that we have that HAWK ajts in operation. Training newbies on the unforgiving supersonic Mig-21 was very risky and resulted in countless number of crashes and lives lost.

Viv Sreenivasan · Post by **Viv Sreenivasan** » 18 Jun 2009 14:03

SHIV the past 5 years have been good with regard to flight safety but how about the past 3 MONTHS?

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 18 Jun 2009 14:05

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:I am a massive fan of the IAF and the crucial role that it plays in Defence of India but some guys here are unwilling to admit that the IAF has a problem with flight safety in the mistaken belief that this tarnishs its reputation irrecovably. What would tarnish the reputation irrecovably is to not address this issue. I mean cmon we have had 5 crashes of 5 differnt airframes in the last 3 months and dozens of airforce personnel killed. Its a wake up call.

i really appreciate your thoughts but please remember once a problem occurs in air the aircraft has nowhere to go but down.....now i am being sarcastic .....lets check how many army trucks tanks ,etc developed problems ,on land you can put the vehicle aside ,leave it there for some time and later do something about it ....lets face it how much ever cautious the IAF is there are bound to be some errors

thank you

Vishal_Bhatia · Post by **Vishal_Bhatia** » 18 Jun 2009 14:10

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:SHIV the past 5 years have been good with regard to flight safety but how about the past 3 MONTHS?

So, the IAF was doing all well for the past 5 years and seem to have lost its way in the past 3 months... indeed that is plausible.

IAF should immediately wake up.

OR

It could be that Murphy had more orgasms...

Viv Sreenivasan · Post by **Viv Sreenivasan** » 18 Jun 2009 14:16

Why does that seem so inplausible? Losing 5 different aircraft in the last 3 months is either some kind of weird freaky thing to happen or there are issues in flight safety that need to be addressed. What are you proposing that the IAF wait till it has lost another 5 aircraft and dozens more flight personnel before it does anything?

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 18 Jun 2009 14:20

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:Why does that seem so inplausible? Losing 5 different aircraft in the last 3 months is either some kind of weird freaky thing to happen or there are issues in flight safety that need to be addressed. What are you proposing that the IAF wait till it has lost another 5 aircraft and dozens more flight personnel before it does anything?

i presume IAF to be a highly professional force and they are doing all that is possible and is within their control ...i would say it is bad bad situation but there is no harm in being extra cautious

Vishal_Bhatia · Post by **Vishal_Bhatia** » 18 Jun 2009 14:30

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:Why does that seem so inplausible?

Cause the IAF cares for its personnel?

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:Losing 5 different aircraft in the last 3 months is either some kind of weird freaky thing to happen or there are issues in flight safety that need to be addressed.

First, the 5 aircrafts were lost in different conditions and in different locations. Second, going by your premise, the IAF did very well for the past 5 years. So, isn't it plausible that these are a series of co-incidinces? Or perhaps IAF did make some not-so-frequent errors within a short time frame? And you still haven't explained how IAF's flight combat record is worse than that of comparative countries' air forces?

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:What are you proposing that the IAF wait till it has lost another 5 aircraft and dozens more flight personnel before it does anything?

No... IAF should (and it would) learn its lessons from these crashes.

What I'm proposing is that you stop sensationalizing stuff, stop hinting that the IAF is sleeping, and (if plausible) stop pretending to know it all or running from the argument.