Military Flight Safety

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Sep 2009 21:15

Its rarely an explosion in the air - thats a standard ddm \eyewitness inability to articulate

Most times - something goes wrong and the young pilot spends time trying to recover\correct or sometimes does not even realise it has gone worng (CFT).

Its a fine margin and by the time you decide to eject its too late.

In this case it looks like the worst scenario - losing power at take off which really gives very little time.

Remember a young Jag pilot who lost his life a few years ago in a similar situation.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Sep 2009 23:09

Even if an ejection seat is "zero-zero", a multiple of dynamic factors
like safe envelope, height, rate of descent, bank angle etc play a major part in the pilot living to tell the tale.

Check out the link below

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache%3A ... l=en&gl=in

Quote from another source

However, the KM-1 ejection seat is used in MiG-21PFM, M, MF. The MiG-21F, F-13, PF and some PFMs have the not so good SK seat which basically can't be used on the ground , on takeoff up to (about) 170m (550 ft) and on landig below 200m (600ft) depending upon speed and pitch angle. The MiG-21 BIS uses a slightly improved KM-1M which has a different leg restrain mechanism.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 Sep 2009 23:46

A tragic loss! RIP Brave patriot!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Sep 2009 07:01

Most people tend to view ejection seats as life savers - which is what they are. But this rosy view does not take into account the fact that ejection seats cannot work under certain circumstances.

If you have ever jumped off a running bus in a direction opposite to the direction of movement of the bus you will know the meaning of ejection while a plane is descending. The bus is moving forwards at 20 kmph and you launch yourself out the door towards the back of the bus at 5 kmph. You spend a blissful 0.1 seconds in the air when you are actually flying backwards at (20-5)=15 kmph until your feet hit the ground and you discover yourself running backwards at 15 kmph for another 0.5 seconds before you fall and the back of your head smashes against the road.

If an aircraft already at a low altitude is descending rapidly (as might happen after a catastrophic loss of power such as a bird hit during a landing approach) - the ejection seat has to fire a pilot upwards to save him. The downward acceleration of the plane cancels out some of the upward acceleration of the ejection seat and depending on how fast the plane is descending the ejection seat may not have the minimum parameters required to save the pilot.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 12 Sep 2009 08:31

RIP.

Based on reports so far it is not possible to say if he ejected too late or he was not able to eject at all. Is there any clarification in the television news? Tragic loss of a brave aviator. They always put their duty first and try to save the aircraft and civilians on the ground. Great warriors!

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 15 Sep 2009 19:22

OK, first things first. Nobody died. And no plane is lost.

IAF orders probe as bomb falls off jet near Jaisalmer

The Indian Air Force (IAF) began an enquiry into a troubling incident in Rajasthan, wherein one of its Mirage-2000 fighter jets accidentally dropped a lethal bomb near a civilian area about 80 km from Jaisalmer.

The air force sources told Headlines Today that the aircraft, which took off from its base in Gwalior, was on a routine training mission at the air-to-ground firing range in Pokhran.

The pilot was to test the efficacy of a free-fall bombing mission, but the bomb's free-fall trajectory took it well outside the perimeter of the bombing range, causing a measure of damage on the ground.

Fortunately, there was no casualty in the air force's bizarre bomb-dropping accident.

Following the incident, the air force's South Western Command set up an inquiry to find out what went wrong. It was not the first time that bombs or ammunition were deployed outside the two large exercise ranges in Rajasthan.

Expect the CAG to come out with a report on how outdated our free fall bombs are.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 15 Sep 2009 19:29

Do we have the final report on the Saras' crash ?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Sep 2009 19:51

Dmurphy I am ready to shoot you

Gave me a stroke.

But it does fall under the thread - so you are safe (would have used smiley but not appropriate for this thread)

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 16 Sep 2009 02:51

Following the incident, the air force's South Western Command set up an inquiry to find out what went wrong. It was not the first time that bombs or ammunition were deployed outside the two large exercise ranges in Rajasthan.

What does that mean? They were not deployed outside the range! It was an accident.

Also notice how it says 'lethal' bomb. Sounds impressive and deadly. Did not know there were non-lethal bombs.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 16 Sep 2009 02:59

IAF's Mirage almost bombs Indira Gandhi Canal

Stats about the bomb from this report -
100 pound weight, capable of damaging in a 200 feet radius. It created a 25 feet wide crater in this particular instance.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Sep 2009 22:24

suryag wrote:Do we have the final report on the Saras' crash ?

Such a simple and matter of fact explanation.

Hides the gratuitous decimation of valuable lives and the destruction of families.

The concerned idiots should be shot or terminated at the very least.

Reports of strained relations between the test pilot / engg community and NAL have been doing the rounds for some time now.

' “Wrong relight drills caused Saras crash” ’

Ravi Sharma

Tuesday, Jul 21, 2009

BANGALORE: The board of inquiry constituted by the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has completed its investigation into the March 6 crash of the Light Transport Aircraft Saras near Bidadi in Karnataka.

Two pilots and an engineer, all from the Indian Air Force’s Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment, were killed in the crash of the Prototype Two (PT2).

An official of the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), designers of the Saras, said the DGCA had promised to make the report available before month-end.

The Hindu has learnt from officials connected with the board of inquiry that the engine relight (engine restart) drills given by the designers and followed by the pilots were wrong.

The two test pilots were for the first time on the Saras, attempting to switch off and relight in midair one of the two Pratt and Whitney (PT6A-67) engines. The test is a mandatory requirement of the flight development programme. The aircraft had reached its designated height of 9,000 feet and the left engine switched off. After one minute, the crew attempted to relight the engine, and this was communicated to the ground crew. But soon after radio communication was lost, the aircraft started losing height and crashed. “Prior to the flight, the pilots were briefed by the designers about the drills to be followed during relight, and they followed it. But the relight drills were incorrect. With each aero engine having its own unique set of procedures to be adhered to during relight (like at what speed, airflow, where the propellers stop, etc), the pilots just followed the designer’s briefings. Errors occurred; the aircraft went out of control and crashed,” an official explained.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 17 Sep 2009 23:02

doesn't the 2nd engine (running) help to atleast crash land, or the balance of the aircraft is too skewed? thats where the test pilots come in ...

why would radio comm. be lost at 9000ft? is that not a routine circuit?

anyways, its futile trying to control a domino reaction

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Sep 2009 23:10

vasu_ray wrote:doesn't the 2nd engine (running) help to atleast crash land, or the balance of the aircraft is too skewed? thats where the test pilots come in ...

why would radio comm. be lost at 9000ft? is that not a routine circuit?

You are right there.

Ultimately they ran out of adequate control.

It is increasingly beginning to look like the existing control surfaces were not enough to manage the airplane on the single engine. (The new installed engines had considerably more power and also had an increased propeller diameter as compared to the engines used on the earlier Saras prototype.)

The radio would have worked but the pilots would have been far too busy managing the emergency for any extended radio chatter.

In any case, the telemetry data was being downloaded and recorded in real time at multiple ground locations. The FDR would further help to amplify and clearly corelate and confirm vital info in this particular case.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 17 Sep 2009 23:37

chetak wrote:It is increasingly beginning to look like the existing control surfaces were not enough to manage the airplane on the single engine. (The new installed engines had considerably more power and also had an increased propeller diameter as compared to the engines used on the earlier Saras prototype.)

that only points to one thing, delay (of Saras development), probably the most hated word in the Indian R&D context

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Sep 2009 23:45

vasu_ray wrote:
chetak wrote:It is increasingly beginning to look like the existing control surfaces were not enough to manage the airplane on the single engine. (The new installed engines had considerably more power and also had an increased propeller diameter as compared to the engines used on the earlier Saras prototype.)
that only points to one thing, delay (of Saras development), probably the most hated word in the Indian R&D context

I remember reading about some gora chap who did some sort of peer review thing with the Saras design and pointed out the inadequacy of the control surfaces vis-a-vis the new and more powerful engines much before the accident.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 17 Sep 2009 23:51

chetak wrote:the inadequacy of the control surfaces vis-a-vis the new and more powerful engines much before the accident.

would you think there was a chance of survival if they had reduced the power on the remaining engine so as to match the control surfaces capacity? that might seem counter-intuitive in the heat of the moment

Also, they flew for a full minute after the left engine was switched off, only when they couldn't relight the engine did they panic? and as one descends to control the rate of descent, one has to adjust the power and they lost control during this process ...

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Sep 2009 23:09

vasu_ray wrote:
chetak wrote:the inadequacy of the control surfaces vis-a-vis the new and more powerful engines much before the accident.
would you think there was a chance of survival if they had reduced the power on the remaining engine so as to match the control surfaces capacity? that might seem counter-intuitive in the heat of the moment

Also, they flew for a full minute after the left engine was switched off, only when they couldn't relight the engine did they panic? and as one descends to control the rate of descent, one has to adjust the power and they lost control during this process ...

Reducing power on the live engine would probably have been the first thing that they would have tried. As the life threatening situation continued to develop rapidly, the crew may not have had too much time for experimentation.

I strongly suspect that the shut down engine may not have feathered properly and continued to windmill as the blade angles may have got frozen in some random intermediate position causing additional drag.

The combination of forces from the drag of the windmilling shut down engine and power on the live engine would have would reinforced each other and would have caused a fairly vicious yaw in the same direction (Guessing that they could not have reduced power below flight idle, though I don't have specific knowledge on the 1200 HP P&W engine used on the ill fated prototype. )

Eyewitnesses were very clear about a corkscrew motion of the aircraft and the steep angle at which it hit the ground. The debris field also bears out the steep angle at which the impact took place.

The differential airflow over the wings caused by one live engine and the other dead but windmilling engine would additionally and possibly caused the airplane to also roll. Hence the corkscrew motion as described by the eyewitnesses.

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/03/26/stor ... 101600.htm

Expert highlights deficiencies in Saras flight control system

Ravi Sharma

Thursday, Mar 26, 2009

DGCA board to probe into aircraft crash

The prototype went down as its IAF crew were verifying an engine relight

Tunnel tests by NAL establish shortcomings in flight control

BANGALORE: Did the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), the designers of the indigenous Saras light transport aircraft — a prototype of which crashed on March 6 killing its three-man Indian Air Force (IAF) crew — err in flying the aircraft?

A senior NAL official told The Hindu that an independent, but a brief review in last December of the design aspects, including the Saras’ flight control system by an aviation specialist from Germany, had brought out deficiencies in the aircraft’s existing controls and “recommended modifications, changes and further reviews to address existing problems.”
Rudder control

On the aircraft’s rudder control, the specialist had even gone as far as stating: “On one of the quadrants in the empennage of the Saras, the cable guard limits the rotation of the quadrant. By rotating the quadrant, the cable will be stretched and it causes a load increase in the cable tension and may limit deflection angle of the control surface. In addition, this changes the kinematics. This should be investigated and corrected prior [to] next flight.”

During his four-day visit, the expert had discussed with officials connected with the Saras programme, “aerodynamic issues, especially on the balanced and trim tab, control forces in the rudder control system during single engine operation, centring of the aileron control [and] loads on the flap system.”
Investigation required

The expert then provided NAL with an executive summary of the individual issues which were discussed, explaining that while in some areas recommendations could directly be given, in other fields more detailed investigations would have to be performed.

Official sources close to the Saras programme also told The Hindu that wind tunnel tests carried out by NAL had established that there were shortcomings in the aircraft’s flight controls.
Prototype goes down

The twin-engine prototype went down as its IAF test crew were involved in verifying for the first time on the Saras an engine relight (shutting off and restarting, in sequence the engines in mid air).

The ill-fated prototype was fitted with new Pratt and Whitney engines that were not only larger in size, demanding modifications to the aircraft’s stub wings and the strengthening of the rear fuselage, but also produced a higher thrust (1,200 shaft horsepower) compared to the engines (850 shaft horsepower) that are flying the Saras’ first prototype.
Officials tight-lipped

Though they acknowledge the German expert’s findings, NAL officials were tight-lipped on whether the highlighted design deficiencies were investigated or corrected.

All that a senior official with the programme would say was that “the report was only a first information report on the aircraft and it would be incorrect to go by the spirit of the report.”

He also added that it would be incorrect to say that the prototype was not fit to fly.

NAL Director A.R. Upadhya declined to comment.

The recently constituted board of inquiry of the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation, which will look into what went wrong when the prototype crashed, will start functioning from Monday.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Sep 2009 21:10

TV flashing news.

IAF grounds basic trainer HPT-32 because of engine and fuel system issues.

We seem to be lurching from event to event.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Sep 2009 21:13

this is old news I think. you even answered a question I asked in reaction to this news !

(outsourcing primary training to pvt flying clubs)

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Sep 2009 21:17

Rahul M wrote:this is old news I think. you even answered a question I asked in reaction to this news !
(outsourcing primary training to pvt flying clubs)

I Know saar.

The DDM seems to be raking it up again.

Must have been pay day for someone again!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2009 18:45

TV text news

MiG 27 accident at Jalpaiguri. Pilot apparently OK

Added later
http://www.timesnow.tv/Pilot-safe-as-MI ... 330317.cms

Pilot safe as MIG-27 crashes
23 Oct 2009, 1546 hrs IST, AGENCIES
A MiG-27 fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force crashed in a tea garden near New Jalpaiguri in West Bengal on Friday (October 23) but the pilot managed to eject safely.

"The aircraft was on a routine training sortie from the Hashimara airbase and crashed at around 1310 hours, nearly 15 kilometres from its take off base near near New Jalpaiguri," IAF officials said.

The pilot, Flight Lieutenant Gautam managed to bailout safely before the aircraft crashed, they said.

The IAF has ordered a Court of Inquiry to investigate the causes behind the crash, they said. This was the ninth accident involving an IAF aircraft this year.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 23 Oct 2009 19:00

Phew! Thankfully the pilot is okay. My heart always skips a beat when I see this thread at the top.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Oct 2009 23:37

shiv wrote:TV text news

MiG 27 accident at Jalpaiguri. Pilot apparently OK

Added later
http://www.timesnow.tv/Pilot-safe-as-MI ... 330317.cms
Pilot safe as MIG-27 crashes
23 Oct 2009, 1546 hrs IST, AGENCIES

The IAF has ordered a Court of Inquiry to investigate the causes behind the crash, they said. This was the ninth accident involving an IAF aircraft this year.

I always loved the last sentence in these inquiry reports.

The one that said " Loss to be borne by the state "

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 08:32

Dhruv crashes in Ecuador
http://momento24.com/en/2009/10/27/ecua ... -ceremony/
At 31 seconds in the video the helo can be seen in the background banked to the left and very low just before it hits the ground. I can see no fire before it hits. If it was at 13,000 feet - phew that is seriously high up for aerobatics. Even a simple bank and turn will be more risky near ground at 13,000 feet.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 08:48

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... uador.html

The helicopter, an Indian-made Dhruv, had been bought this year.
According to media reports, three helicopters were flying around the base at the time of the accident.
The troubled aircraft apparently swung 90 degrees and was unable to regain its position. That reportedly caused the crash onto the runway.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Oct 2009 08:57

Looks like the engine or the Tail rotor drive shaft area catching fire. The news reports talks of there being a fire in the rear of the chopper with the chopper spinning 90 degrees. This looks like a tail rotor drive area.

The dhruv made for the Jharkhand government had landed in a field because of problems with the tail rotor assembly. This was rectified and all the choppers in service in India had some parts replaced and were certified.

The crash looks horrible, yet the pilots managed to walk away with minor injuries !!!
This itself has something to say for the crew safety features that are built into the chopper. A mechanical failure can happen in a flying machine, the safety features and design are the ones which save the lives.

The crash investigation should shed some more light on the cause.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Oct 2009 09:12

Drawing of the Area of fire: Depiction of the area of fire.

The Dhruv (Just like the LCA) has been done in 3D too!!!
http://aego-prod.fr/portfolio.html

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Oct 2009 09:20

The chopper is total:

This sounds like some kind of mechanical failure I think. The choppers are shown flying in a straight line in formation, and suddenly one of them veers off at a 90 degree. Seems to be like one of those tail rotor things.

Does the chopper have a black box?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 14:31

Gagan wrote:Drawing of the Area of fire: Depiction of the area of fire.

Gagan at least one image of the Dhruv during Aero India 2009 showed "fire" in exactly that spot. That "fire" was actually the tail end of the canister that produces smoke for a display. The image probably still exists om BR and I may even have video clips.

Looking that the video - no fire is visible and the bank angle seems too high. When a helo banks it loses altitude and no amount of power can rescue a helo beyond a particular angle of bank if it does not have altitude to begin with. The helo is seen hitting the ground in that same banked attitude (the "90 degree turn"). If the tail rotor went it would be spinning.

Just my guess.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 28 Oct 2009 16:56

From the video
It looks like the fire was from the engine that too after the crash

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 28 Oct 2009 17:12

Looking that the video - no fire is visible and the bank angle seems too high. When a helo banks it loses altitude and no amount of power can rescue a helo beyond a particular angle of bank if it does not have altitude to begin with. The helo is seen hitting the ground in that same banked attitude (the "90 degree turn"). If the tail rotor went it would be spinning.

I second that. That is what I am thinking too. Had the tail rotor malfunctioned, helo would go into an uncontrollable spin in the opp direction to the rotation of main rotor. However, in this case banking angle of the chopper seems to be high and so lost its power.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 28 Oct 2009 17:34

More Photos Of Crashed Dhruv, Ecuador's Air Chief Says Pilot Error - Livefist

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 17:40

There were at least 3 helos in the flypast. The first one veers away to the left and was probably not the one that crashed. The second/third may have tried to follow the first by peeling left and crashed - but can't be sure. Here is yet another video showing the helo in an attitude of almost 90 deg left bank and nose down almost hanging in the air just above the tarmac before it hits. Watch the end of the video - last 4-5 secs secs- there is another helo in the air in the distance

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Oct 2009 18:59

The tail rotor doesn't just stop functioning all at once, it slows down and loses power. The first thing that happens is that the aircraft loses control of its direction. The uncontrollable spin follows.
Here the choppers was too low for any uncontrollable spin to take place, and was not in the air at all. All this is what I assume happens when the tail rotor fails.

Here, I guess shiv's explanation is more near the truth, and as the ecudorian chief said, it seems that the pilot banked too much and the aircraft lost its levitation from the main rotor. But it is amazing that the two pilots walked away after the crash. The thing must have been like 200-300 meters in the air, and must have fallen at ~ 200-300 Kmph!

IIRC, the cockpit and crew cabin on the dhruv is reinforced carbon composite?? specifically designed crash resistant seats - all these safety features meant to ensure that the crew survives such a crash. I see this as a vindication of HAL's design.

Shiv saar here is that pic:

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Oct 2009 19:40

^^
this picture was from a le bourget IIRC.

at that low height one small error can go catastrophically wrong pretty quickly. it is still a testament to the crash resistant safety features on the helo.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 28 Oct 2009 19:53

X Posting from Indian Military Aviation:

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Eyewitnesses said the aircraft was flying in military formation when a fire began in the back portion of the helicopter and it started to spiral toward the ground. Firemen arrived at the scene immediately and extinguished the flames.
Can anybody ID any sign of a fire or something burning here??? If any thing was burning i assume we'd find a flame flicker or smoke trail or something.. can't see anything in these photos or for that matter even those posted in military photos forum...

Check this video out http://www.confirmado.net/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=28

At 3:48 flames can be seen coming from the two engines due to FOD. In all probability the "EYEWITNESSES" are reffering to this as fire in the back portion.

From the video, it seems, the chopper lost altitude rapidly when it was in a banked turn. The pilot tried to reduce the descent rate by pitching up the chopper but still it kept on loosing altitude. At the last moment just before the crash, the pilot yawed the chopper 180 degrees to prevent ploughing through the commercial aircraft and parading soldiers in front of it.

Another video:

Cheers....

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Oct 2009 20:27

What is amazing is that the Pilots survived and a lot of the helo body survived too. Has Ecuador removed the grounding?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2009 21:05

I have enlarged, rotated and changed the brightness/contrast of the pic posted by Gagan above. The flames are coming from exactly what i stated earlier. There is a colored smoke generator strapped to the port skid. Will put up the photo later - I am unable to log in to my Photobucket account

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Oct 2009 21:27

are they powered by turbomeca or the new improved shakti engines?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 28 Oct 2009 23:18

LIVEFIST: What happened to the Dhruv in Ecuador?
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/10/wh ... uador.html

Shiv Aroor also reports the Ecudorian Air Chief as saying that it was 'human error'. So I guess the doubt about 'fire' is invalid.