Military Flight Safety

Viv Sreenivasan · Post by **Viv Sreenivasan** » 18 Jun 2009 14:38

Im sure the IAF is going to learn its lessons. Im just bemused at the heads in the sand attitude of some people here who think that 5 crashes of 5 different airframes in 3 months is run of the mill.

Vishal_Bhatia · Post by **Vishal_Bhatia** » 18 Jun 2009 14:45

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:Im sure the IAF is going to learn its lessons. Im just bemused at the heads in the sand attitude of some people here who think that 5 crashes of 5 different airframes in 3 months is run of the mill.

No body thinks that this is run of the mill. But to jump the gun like you did is certainly not acceptable.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 18 Jun 2009 15:29

MiG crashes in Upper Assam, pilot safe
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 671279.cms

The MiG-21 crash on Thursday is the sixth mishap this year. The IAF had lost a Kiran MK-II trainer aircraft of its Surya Kiran aerobatics team on Januray 21, a Sukhoi on April 30, a MiG-27 on May 15, a MiG-21 Byson on May 27, and an AN-32 on June 9.

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 18 Jun 2009 15:36

^^ happy to know the pilot is safe ,6 and counting

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 18 Jun 2009 19:10

It says it is a Type-77 - then its 60s/70s vintage. old airframe, old engine, new trainee pilot. recipe for accident. its actually a wonder we didnt have too many of these in recent days. They were supposed to be retired by now arent they?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2009 19:29

HariC wrote:It says it is a Type-77 - then its 60s/70s vintage. old airframe, old engine, new trainee pilot. recipe for accident. its actually a wonder we didnt have too many of these in recent days. They were supposed to be retired by now arent they?

TV news reported that the pilot called out that he had trouble soon after takeoff. Bird hit?

Having said that - in the "bad old days" there were other issues including spares and maintenance - and I am sure the entire service history of this a/c will be studied in detail if it wasn't a bird hit. But sometimes - it is difficult to prove or disprove a bird hit from a mass of mangled metal and burned parts. But is has been done - finding traces of feathers/bones etc.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 18 Jun 2009 20:49

An 32 Black Box found

"The Black Box which was recovered last night, has been taken to Jorhat airbase in Assam for carrying out analysis," IAF sources said here.

"If the analysis facility in Jorhat is not able to decode the Black Box, it will then be taken to the nearest base repair depot where the process will be carried out," sources added.

The report ends with.

An AN-32 had crashed in February 2000 at the Vijaynagar advanced landing ground in Arunachal Pradesh.
Another aircraft of this type went down near Palam airport here in March 1999 killing 21 personnel on board.
In 1992, two AN-32 transport aircraft collided mid air during formation flying.

Now was this part really necessary?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Jun 2009 22:15

shameekg wrote:An 32 Black Box found

"The Black Box which was recovered last night, has been taken to Jorhat airbase in Assam for carrying out analysis," IAF sources said here.

"If the analysis facility in Jorhat is not able to decode the Black Box, it will then be taken to the nearest base repair depot where the process will be carried out," sources added.
The report ends with.

An AN-32 had crashed in February 2000 at the Vijaynagar advanced landing ground in Arunachal Pradesh.
Another aircraft of this type went down near Palam airport here in March 1999 killing 21 personnel on board.
In 1992, two AN-32 transport aircraft collided mid air during formation flying.

Now was this part really necessary?

The americans and other goras are in town peddling their aircraft.

It generally takes less than a bottle of johnnie walker red to buy or plant such articles in our DDM.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 18 Jun 2009 22:47

HariC wrote:It says it is a Type-77 - then its 60s/70s vintage. old airframe, old engine, new trainee pilot. recipe for accident. its actually a wonder we didnt have too many of these in recent days. They were supposed to be retired by now arent they?

very ,uch so , the sooner we replace the mig-21 and 27's . the better it is for us and our air warriors.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 18 Jun 2009 23:32

To all those doubting that the IAF does not learn and should be embarrassed etc. consider this. The USAF had 16 accidents in 2006. It went up to 28 in 2007. And then 26 in 2008. That was a jump of 12 in an year and even those smart and professional guys could not bring it down after a year. So what chance does our 'desi' IAF have huh?

On a side note, they had 5 accidents in Apr 2008 and 4 in May 2008. Thats 9 in 2 months. How embarrased should they be?

Source: http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/doc ... 19-068.txt

Please give the IAF a chance before going into doom and gloom scenarios. None of us at BRF are happy about the crashes, but we will surely learn from these and prevent the same in the future.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 19 Jun 2009 02:11

shameekg wrote:To all those doubting that the IAF does not learn and should be embarrassed etc. consider this. The USAF had 16 accidents in 2006. It went up to 28 in 2007. And then 26 in 2008. That was a jump of 12 in an year and even those smart and professional guys could not bring it down after a year. So what chance does our 'desi' IAF have huh?

On a side note, they had 5 accidents in Apr 2008 and 4 in May 2008. Thats 9 in 2 months. How embarrased should they be?

Source: http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/doc ... 19-068.txt

Please give the IAF a chance before going into doom and gloom scenarios. None of us at BRF are happy about the crashes, but we will surely learn from these and prevent the same in the future.

Shameek, although I agree with your assertion in spirit, the difference is US is currently in war and as such the attrition is not that bad for them and for us its a different game. IN whatever way we look at it, 6 accidents in the last two months with 20 + lives lost does not give confidence to the taxpayers.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Jun 2009 02:20

US might be at war, but who has been shooting at them??? Not one of their aircraft has been shot down by enemy fire last year.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 19 Jun 2009 02:37

RaviBg wrote:US might be at war, but who has been shooting at them??? Not one of their aircraft has been shot down by enemy fire last year.

But no one's been shooting at us either, right? Perhaps I missed your point.

Anyway, the bigger question in my mind is not whether the annual attrition rate is higher than it could be, whether it has anything to do with age of the air-frame or the pilot, or whether Indian runways have more birds around them than runways in other countries. All of those points may or may not be true. The bigger question is what the lowest count of airworthy aircraft will be at the typical attrition rate for fighters / interceptors in the IAF before we see the arrival of the MRCA or LCA, given realistic time frames for both - MRCA and LCA?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 19 Jun 2009 02:47

Stan_Savljevic wrote:MiG crashes in Upper Assam, pilot safe
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 671279.cms
The MiG-21 crash on Thursday is the sixth mishap this year. The IAF had lost a Kiran MK-II trainer aircraft of its Surya Kiran aerobatics team on Januray 21, a Sukhoi on April 30, a MiG-27 on May 15, a MiG-21 Byson on May 27, and an AN-32 on June 9.

Pilot is alive

.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 19 Jun 2009 02:48

Jay wrote:Shameek, although I agree with your assertion in spirit, the difference is US is currently in war and as such the attrition is not that bad for them and for us its a different game. IN whatever way we look at it, 6 accidents in the last two months with 20 + lives lost does not give confidence to the taxpayers.

It's not 6 accidents in 2 months. It's 6 this year. And like a few others mentioned the USAF numbers are not war attrition. I am in no way saying its fine to have 6 aircraft crash and lose lives. But I would like us to avoid us going into the spiral that suddenly all is bad with the IAF. Soon the facts get blurred and all that remains is a lot of finger pointing. If you read some of the posts above there are people wondering why so many different airframes crashed. Would it be better if we lost 6 of the same aircraft instead? No one in the media actually follows up on the real reasons and whether they are mitigated. I dont have any inside information. But thats why I am here on BRF to try and get something more than just the usual rhetoric that our mainstream media dishes out.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Jun 2009 02:56

PratikDas wrote:
RaviBg wrote:US might be at war, but who has been shooting at them??? Not one of their aircraft has been shot down by enemy fire last year.
But no one's been shooting at us either, right? Perhaps I missed your point.

I was responding to the post above by Jay who claimed that US was at war and so their losses were understandable.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Jun 2009 02:59

The Late Wg Cmdr Suresh (retd) has written a good article which is available on BR itself. It clearly illustrates that the IAF Is no slouch when it comes to safety and they investigate every accident fully and take atmost care of their machines and men.

A TALE OF TWO HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS

Please stop posting about how embarassed and ashamed people are of all these crashes. There are lot of reasons why crashes might occur and there may be issues which are out of control of IAF like birds, weather etc. Please stop this chest beating and wailing.

IAF's record on attrition is comparable to major developed nations and there is no reason for gloom and doom.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 19 Jun 2009 03:09

[quote="RaviBgI was responding to the post above by Jay who claimed that US was at war and so their losses were understandable.[/quote]

Tell me,do airforces operates their craft in a similar manner in a combat and non combat enviornment?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 19 Jun 2009 06:22

Why do we have to still make do with MiGs?

Vidio from NDTV

http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=1127501

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Jun 2009 08:00

Jay wrote:
RaviBg wrote:I was responding to the post above by Jay who claimed that US was at war and so their losses were understandable.
Tell me,do airforces operates their craft in a similar manner in a combat and non combat enviornment?

Er, most of the aircraft losses happened on US mainland, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it was no combat environment. Why do you assume things instead of just searching on the web?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 19 Jun 2009 08:54

shameekg wrote:To all those doubting that the IAF does not learn and should be embarrassed etc. consider this. The USAF had 16 accidents in 2006. It went up to 28 in 2007. And then 26 in 2008. That was a jump of 12 in an year and even those smart and professional guys could not bring it down after a year. So what chance does our 'desi' IAF have huh?

Just to clarify some points, those are indeed accidents where more than $1 million in damage occurred.

However, that does not necessarily mean the plane was lost. For instance, in this incident (http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/F-22A_Nellis_2Nov07.pdf) an F-22 ate some of its stealth coating. "After a momentary performance dip, the right engine recovered and continued to perform throughout the remained of the flight, with no observed reduction in performance . . . Visible damage is extensive, affecting every stage of the compressor section and is estimated at $1,198,150.00"

What you might find more comparable is the 'DEST AIRCRAFT' which counts the number of destroyed aircraft.

The other thing to consider is that this includes drones. For instance, if you look at the FY08 incidents

http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/indexFY08.html

You will see that 8 involved drones and 2 involved missiles

As far as comparing rates between the USAF and IAF, that is difficult. You would need to compare loss rate per hours flown.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 19 Jun 2009 09:32

^^ I don't dispute that. Neither am I trying to slur the USAF or the IAF. All I am trying to say is that military flying is inherently dangerous and accidents can and do happen with even the best training and equipment. We armchair pilots should not be quick to point fingers and draw conclusions when such an unfortunate streak hits us.

VinodTK wrote:Why do we have to still make do with MiGs?

We dont make do. We chose to have them as part of our force. And you cant just stop flying half your fleet one fine day right?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 19 Jun 2009 11:05

http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/doc ... 19-068.txt

The mishap rate is reported in accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

2008: 1.27
2007: 1.37

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 672462.cms

the IAF flight-safety record, which had dramatically improved in recent years with the crash rate coming down to around 0.27 accidents per 10,000 hours of flying

Converting to accidents per 100,000 hours gives:

IAF: 2.7

It's still not clear that 'accidents' mean the same thing between reports, but regardless IAF's safety record has improved dramatically

From 1971-72 to 2003-04, IAF's consolidated average rate stood at 1.09 accidents per 10,000 hours of flying

Which is 10.9 per 100,000 hours.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 19 Jun 2009 11:47

I dont get IAF's decision to still operate these aircrafts, not to mention putting inexperienced fighter pilots on them. We can not obviously avoid "accidents" but cant we deicide to stop using them for training?

After all, once they get graduate to actual service, they may only be operating the Bisons, mig-29 or better. Using something just because we have it, putting lives at risk during peace time, is not my cup of tea. Akin to a cricketer, we should retire an aircraft when it is still performing at its best.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 19 Jun 2009 14:55

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

I'm sure that there will be some engineering or statisticians name for this phenomenon, but we need to understand that every single system of every type has a lifespan and a failure rate. In complex systems like aircraft, there are many possible failures, all of which lead to a single outcome - crash.

To solve this requires extensive maintenance & checks, which have been carried out painstakingly by IAF since the last round of Mig-21 crashes. This is evident from the high serviceability & low attrition rate we've had for the past few years.

For a force that flies so many different types of aircraft, most of which are past their Mid-life, the IAF has an excellent safety rate. It would be hard to name another force of this size, that flies so many different types of aircraft (most over 10-15 years old) so regularly, and has such a good record.

Still, no amount of maintenance can stop death. If i may be excused in using a 'budiya' analogy, you can place a very old person on life support, extensive operations, 'transplants', but age and death eventually catch up. Unfortunately, unlike in living beings, planes don't show wrinkles, nor do they give warning before failure.

Identifying these faults thus becomes crucial. This is why the newer aircraft have included extensive Built in tests, and make it easy to physically verify safety. However, given that even this is at a very primitive level, you can imagine how difficult that task must be for older aircraft types.

Now, coming to the statistics part, we have had an almost zero attrition rate. Any system has a probability of failing - in older systems, this increases. If there is a period in which no crashes/errors occurs, statistically, it is seen that this leads to a bunching up of the probability of failure, which is usually followed inevitably by a near-simultaneous failure of multiple units. Its just maths and chance. We can drive down the average over a period, but the overall average is higher than this streak... the only explanation is that there has to be a period with above-average number of failures.

If anything I've said is wrong, I'm more than happy to be corrected, especially since I'm not an expert in any of the things i said above...

A few random points:

1. Generally, low accident rate may lead to complacency... this is something that the IAF has generally bucked admirably, but it is definitely extremely hard to defeat completely.

2. Indian airbases are usually in more thickly populated areas than the US bases... leads to more birds, and greater chance of birdhits.

3. USAF doesn't fly in areas and terrain that compare even remotely with what our pilots face in the North and NE. And they certainly don't do that as regularly as our birds do.

4. What is the average age of US combat aircraft in regular flying?? I think a type-by-type comparison would point out why our accident rate is somewhat higher than theirs.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 19 Jun 2009 15:49

This once again brings up the question of reducing the number types of planes that we fly to a more manageable level. Also faster procurement or development of our own weapon systems to replace the obsolete platforms should be of prime importance.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 19 Jun 2009 16:40

[quote="RaviBg"]
Er, most of the aircraft losses happened on US mainland, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it was no combat environment. Why do you assume things instead of just searching on the web?[/quote="RaviBg"]

The point is US & India operate their craft in differing enviornments and training philosophies. Stop bracketing India with US in terms of crashes and I did not meant US losses were excusable while we vilify ours. Do not assume that a nation at war will use the same training procedures as a nation which is not at war.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 19 Jun 2009 16:41

RaviBg wrote: Er, most of the aircraft losses happened on US mainland, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it was no combat environment. Why do you assume things instead of just searching on the web?

The point is US & India operate their craft in differing enviornments and training philosophies. Stop bracketing India with US in terms of crashes and I did not meant US losses were excusable while we vilify ours. Do not assume that a nation at war will use the same training procedures as a nation which is not at war.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 19 Jun 2009 18:58

I repeat. The point is not to bracket India or compare with the US. It is rather to accept that such things can happen. All the people who are suddenly clamouring for not flying this type and that type were silent all this while. So flight safety is only a concern when a crash happens? Why were'nt the same people bringing up these points about safety when each and every deal gets delayed and postponed? We are prone to be reactive. I am very sure the IAF does not send men up in aircraft knowing they will crash.

Kailash wrote:After all, once they get graduate to actual service, they may only be operating the Bisons, mig-29 or better. Using something just because we have it, putting lives at risk during peace time, is not my cup of tea. Akin to a cricketer, we should retire an aircraft when it is still performing at its best.

What is actual service? Everytime a pilot goes up it is an 'actual' service. And it is this peacetime flying that prepares you for war. Would you rather we found out these problems when they are on a wartime sortie? And by that logic why fly Bisons or MiG 29's either. Some of them have crashed too. In fact this year we have had 6 different types crash. Might as well stop flying all right?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Jun 2009 21:34

Jay wrote:
RaviBg wrote: Er, most of the aircraft losses happened on US mainland, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it was no combat environment. Why do you assume things instead of just searching on the web?
The point is US & India operate their craft in differing enviornments and training philosophies. Stop bracketing India with US in terms of crashes and I did not meant US losses were excusable while we vilify ours. Do not assume that a nation at war will use the same training procedures as a nation which is not at war.

Each airforce has its own training philosophies. I am not bracketing India with US, but just pointing out that accidents are nothing to be embarassed about as it happens in all airforces.

And all air forces train for war. They are not going to train differently just because they are not at war. If they are at war and have learnt something from the operations so far, they include that in their training. All air forces train for same objective, that is to win the war.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jun 2009 20:23

missed this? dated Jun 11

http://twitter.com/livefist/statuses/2115260875

Top IAF sources -- An-32 crashed into a mountain top in extremely poor visibility, in marginal weather conditions. No airspace violation.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 22 Jun 2009 20:39

shiv wrote:missed this? dated Jun 11

http://twitter.com/livefist/statuses/2115260875
Top IAF sources -- An-32 crashed into a mountain top in extremely poor visibility, in marginal weather conditions. No airspace violation.

Sorry - no access to twitter where I am. Does it say why it was flying in such poor conditions or if the weather changed very suddenly? Would have thought that the first rule of flight safety in the NE / Arunachal would be to not fly in ropey weather conditions

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 23 Jun 2009 01:42

^^ It's still only speculation. I am sure they did not knowingly send the aircraft to crash in bad weather. There were also reports on the same day which said locals had observed the aircraft actually blow up before crashing.

Source: Technical snag in An 32 crash

Lets wait till they decode the black box. Of course, we may never know the results.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Jun 2009 02:02

locals always see things blow up - be it mig 21s or whatver

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jun 2009 17:27

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:Im sure the IAF is going to learn its lessons. Im just bemused at the heads in the sand attitude of some people here who think that 5 crashes of 5 different airframes in 3 months is run of the mill.

vivek, try to understand how these issues are considered before passing a judgement.

3 months is way too small a time to gauge the accident rate of an AF.
statistically, corresponding to the "spike" in the crash rate during the said 3 months there would be similar times with very low crash rates which evens the whole thing out and both of these contribute to the final yearly crash rate.
passing judgement on the basis of a 3 month spike is simply unscientific.

putting it in simpler words, if sachin gets 2 poor scores out of three matches in a series, you can't automatically say he has become a bad player, you need to wait and see the trend over a period of time, say 10-15 matches. hope you get it !

coming to USAF and IAF,
without taking away one bit from the professionalism of the USAF, we have to keep in mind :

a) IAF continues to operate a large number of 2.5 to 3.5 gen a/c while the US a/c are 4th gen and beyond.
A comparison of the crash rate of other 2nd gen a/c like the mig-21's contemporary, the starfighter might be instructive.

b) USAF gets the support of their immense MIC. The Indian counterpart doesn't even bear comparison for the most part.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 26 Jun 2009 08:15

Have there been any updates on the accident investigations? I have been checking online and have not seen anything. If there is anything in local newspapers please do post.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Jun 2009 01:59

I am posting this article in full as it contains many details not known till now.

IAF taking steps to prevent another SU-30MKI crash

IAF taking steps to prevent another SU-30MKI crash

Ravi Sharma

Crash in April resulted in the entire fleet being grounded

Aircraft needs to be better covered to prevent heat soak due to exposure to sun

There are calls for design change including wire-locking the switches in cockpit

BANGALORE: The Indian Air Force is initiating steps aimed at preventing another SU-30MKI crash like the one that occurred near Jaisalmer in April during a routine air exercise, killing the co-pilot and destroying a Rs. 200-crore fighter aircraft.

Highly placed sources in the Ministry of Defence told The Hindu that a joint probe by Indian and Russian Defence and flight engineers zeroed-in on the causes for the crash and suggested remedial action.

While one step will involve better covering of the aircraft when they are parked on the tarmac under to prevent heat soak, the other calls for design change, including wire-locking the switches in the cockpit that control power supply to the aircraft’s flight control computer.

The crash of the long range, high endurance SU-30MKI, the Indian Air Force’s most modern and lethal fighter, sent both the IAF and the aircraft designers, Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau, into a tizzy given the fighter’s exceptional and unrivalled flight safety record. The crash also forced the IAF to ground its entire Sukhoi fleet temporarily, compromising the country’s airpower.

The Court of Inquiry (CoI) that went into the crash found that the pilot, Wing Commander S. V. Munje, inadvertently switched-off the four switches that control the power supply to the computer. Switching-off the power not only cuts off the power supply to the computer, but is also irreversible. Switching them on does not ‘power on’ the all important unit.

The aircraft went into a forward bunt, lost control and crashed, killing Wing Commander P. S. Nara, an officer from the IAF’s Directorate of Air Staff Inspection (DASI).

During the flight, the aircraft is said to have experienced a technical glitch after a round of firing practice. The pilot, who was also under routine inspection by the DASI, is said to have then tried to switch-off the armament master switches, which are located just behind the pilot’s seat and in close proximity to the switches that control power to the flight control computer.

Though the CoI’s conclusion was that the crash occurred due to pilot error, a number of officials are questioning the placing of critical switches that are not to be used during in flight and only for power on when the aircraft is on theground in the cockpit and also, the inadequate in-built safety mechanisms like a wire lock or even a covering flap.

Said a former SU-30MKI pilot: “It is unpardonable and a poor design to have such critical switches, which are not to be used by the pilot in such an accessible manner. The Air Force should insist on design changes.”

The probe also revealed that the ejection seat’s harness had broken, leading to the death of Wing Commander Nara.

The reason for the breaking is being attributed to material failure of the harness due to exposure to the sun. The IAF has taken steps to have the aircraft more adequately covered.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2009 07:37

RaviBg wrote:I am posting this article in full as it contains many details not known till now.

IAF taking steps to prevent another SU-30MKI crash

Thanks for posting.

One of the things we have not done on BRF as a forum is an audit/postmortem of our own reactions to an accident after the details come out. For those who are interested - you can go back to the breaking news of this Su 30 accident and check out who was feeling and saying what. Perhaps there are lessons for us too as enthusiasts and jingos here.

Here is the post where the news broke..

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 23#p661423

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 27 Jun 2009 08:22

^^ Good point there. And looking back, No. 4 of your possible reasons unfortunately comes the closest. But hopefully something good will come out of the findings.

Also lets not forget the other aircraft. The media may not concentrate much on the others as they are not 'high profile' aircraft, but the least we can do is try and keep track.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jun 2009 10:32

RaviBg wrote:I was reading on one other forum about the Air France crash, and they were mentioning that some switches can be operated only on the ground, and it is not able to be turned on once in air. Given that SU-30MKI is unstable in one axis and requires the computer to be on all times during flight, I wonder how difficult it would be to lock those switches once they are in air.

The concerned switches are "guarded", meaning that they have an additional cover over the switch so that the operation of the guarded switch is a deliberate and considered action.

It may be possible that the proximity of these guarded FBW power switches to the similarly guarded armament master switches may be a major issue.

Said a former SU-30MKI pilot: “It is unpardonable and a poor design to have such critical switches, which are not to be used by the pilot in such an accessible manner. The Air Force should insist on design changes.”

What were such former SU pilots doing when they were flying?
Did they not see this problem in over a decade of SU operation then?