Military Flight Safety

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 29 Oct 2009 02:52

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2009 19:30

Those who saw wth footage of the crash will be most relieved to hear that the pilots escaped with minor injuries.Whatever the reason,it is an acute embarrassment for the manufacturers,HAL,especially as this product was their star export.Other faults with Dhruv,which have appeared from time to time,should be rexamined in the light of this crash.I don't know how a "fire" could be attributed to "pilot error".Even if there was some such technical error,such an event should not have taken place.The IN's rel;uctance to buy Dhruv is another worrying fact.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Oct 2009 20:44

I think Dhruv just does not meet the Navy's specs that's all. HAL guys ..well - that's a good one Pandyan..

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 29 Oct 2009 22:16

Livefist Update on Dhruv Crash

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 30 Oct 2009 00:32

Philip wrote:Those who saw wth footage of the crash will be most relieved to hear that the pilots escaped with minor injuries.Whatever the reason,it is an acute embarrassment for the manufacturers,HAL,especially as this product was their star export.Other faults with Dhruv,which have appeared from time to time,should be rexamined in the light of this crash.I don't know how a "fire" could be attributed to "pilot error".Even if there was some such technical error,such an event should not have taken place.The IN's rel;uctance to buy Dhruv is another worrying fact.

Not sure what footage you ended up seeing, but the ones posted earlier in BR and on Youtube, clearly shows that there is no FIRE in Dhruv, BEFORE IT HITS THE GROUND. The fire starts AFTER taking damage probably from the spark of the rotor blades hitting the ground and then the tail end goes on fire. so this so called "fire" is NOT attributed to PILOT ERROR.
Pilot Error happened first (@ least according to the EAF Chief, which makes sense as so far DHRUV seems to have a great record - Knock on wood), so it is highly doubtful that HAL designed something that has technological faults, as the IAF would NEVER accept it. everyone knows how stringet the IAF and IA is when they procure anything INDIAN.

On a side note -

Just because Dhruv crashed doesn't make HAL the culprit here. We outta be proud that this thing is an achievement. TWO things that Indians should be proud of Tata NANO and HAL Dhruv. Sure 3 nano's caught itself on fire, but it is being looked into and they'll fix it. The same should be the case with Druv. HAVE FAITH.. When you build something from the ground up for the first time, you will never have 100 % relailbilty. If things don't go wrong, you never learn from your mistakes... HAL/TATA has LEARNED to CRAWL and is currently WALKING.. a year or 2 from now they will be RUNNING..

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 30 Oct 2009 01:17

Second Craig!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 30 Oct 2009 02:01

DHRUV CRASH UPDATE FROM LIVEFIST- FIRE RULED OUT

Posting in full:

According to the latest information coming in from my sources in Ecuador, there was absolutely no fire that broke out in the tail of the ALH Dhruv that crashed in the country on Tuesday. A careful study by experts, involving both visual analysis of footage as well as prima facie analysis of the wreckage, has unequivocally ruled out that there was any fire as suggested by certain eye-witness accounts. As a matter of fact, there was no post-crash fire either.

LiveFist has learnt from sources concerned with the investigation that on impact, the Dhruv's engines surged, and hence the visible flame emerging from the exhaust (see the part between the 3rd and 4th second in this video). Soon thereafter, the engines shut down due to fuel starvation. Indeed, according to experts, the fact that there was no fire post-impact once again demonstrates and establishes the crashworthiness of the Dhruv platform, where the fuel tanks have maintained their integrity and the fuel has been shut off automatically.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 30 Oct 2009 02:04

So there you go Phillip. Chest beating does not help. Stand behind HAL and the Dhruv. Be proud that the machine protected the lives of its occupants. The Dhruv has made me very proud today. How many other helos operational in the world can perform similarly?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Oct 2009 02:14

Vivek K wrote:So there you go Phillip. Chest beating does not help. Stand behind HAL and the Dhruv. Be proud that the machine protected the lives of its occupants. The Dhruv has made me very proud today. How many other helos operational in the world can perform similarly?

And what of the Dhruv that had a fatal just before the last Bangalore airshow?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Oct 2009 02:22

what about it?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Oct 2009 02:32

SaiK wrote:what about it?

The Ecuador crew were just plain lucky.

The aircraft per se had little to do with their walking away from the crash.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Oct 2009 02:54

chetak wrote:
SaiK wrote:what about it?

The Ecuador crew were just plain lucky.

The aircraft per se had little to do with their walking away from the crash.

How did you come to that conclusion?
It would have to be some luck, my friend, for no causality to happen in a crash that damaged the heli beyond any repair.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 30 Oct 2009 03:30

chetak wrote:And what of the Dhruv that had a fatal just before the last Bangalore airshow?

I agree that the co pilot was killed. However, we must also remember that the pilot escaped this crash.

There is no helicopter in the world that can guarantee crew safety in 100% of the accidents. In case of an accident, casualties should not come as a surprise to us. Infact, what must surprise us is the survival of the members on board. A holistic look at the survival rate of Dhruv's crew is more than enough to prove its crash worthiness.

chetak wrote:The Ecuador crew were just plain lucky.
The aircraft per se had little to do with their walking away from the crash.

Since 2004, Dhruv has witnessed 2 crashes and 2 hard landings with only one casualty. In my humble opinion, one can get lucky once but not all the times. After all, lightening does not strike the same place twice.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Oct 2009 03:51

Gaur wrote: quote="chetak" quote="SaiK" what about it?

The Ecuador crew were just plain lucky.

The aircraft per se had little to do with their walking away from the crash.

How did you come to that conclusion?
It would have to be some luck, my friend, for no causality to happen in a crash that damaged the heli beyond any repair.

I have seen survivors from quite a few totaled helos, as also fatalities. I have yet to find a solid and logical explanation as to why some one died in a particular crash or why some one else survived on a similar type of helo under somewhat similar circumstances. This is despite talking to eyewitnesses and the survivors.

I now simply thank the gentlemen upstairs and put it down to karma.

By the way, all aircraft have to be crash worthy to a rigid set of applicable specifications. The impact g loads are specified in all the three axes.

No designer will over engineer the airframe beyond these specs.
The weight people simply will not permit him do so.

To appreciably increase " crash worthiness " in isolation, ( as a USP, for instance ) would incur an unacceptably heavy weight penalty.

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Oct 2009 06:44

By the way, all aircraft have to be crash worthy to a rigid set of applicable specifications. The impact g loads are specified in all the three axes

True. But the IAF put in some pretty stringent specs wrt crash worthiness and the Dhruv was designed for that. The civilian copters (Dhruv is a civilian is a derivative really) and even miliatry copters from other countries are not designed to that level of crash worthiness. Notice the quite high percentage of composites in the Dhruv to keep the weight in check. So all in all, the Indian structural composite initiavite which went into Dhruv and LCA seems to be a great success.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Oct 2009 07:05

vinaji: It landed right side up, hitting the bottom first on a flat surface. There is presumably a lot of composite sandwich structure below the seats that absorbs a great deal of energy. This is about the only condition where the crash-worthiness can be expected to work. If it hit upside down or nose-first, or on a jagged/rocky surface, or somewhat harder, no such survival can be expected.

The pilot must be credited with achieving a controlled crash. ( I didn't watch the video, only saw the end result with the craft smoking).

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 30 Oct 2009 07:21

FAE halla anomalías en contrato con HAL
From Google translate.

After the accident the Dhruv helicopter, registered on Tuesday, authorities in the FAE and observed under contract with the company Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) of India to Ecuador to deliver aircraft with engines that were not model 2008, in his entirety.

Accompanied by Secretary of Air Transport and Airports, Guillermo Bernal, and the director general of Civil Aviation (DAC), Fernando Guerrero, the overall commander of the SAF, Rodrigo Bohorquez, acknowledged that not all engines of the five helicopters are 2008 model but 2005, 2006 and 2007.

He insisted that when the aircraft arrived, they realized the problem and made the call to HAL, which presented a certificate of guarantee of the French company Turbomeca engine manufacturer.

According to the Commander, the French company justified the quality of their engines, indicating that although they are models before 2008, have zero hours, and 15 years of life. But he added that the contract signed with HAL provides that the entire architecture of the spacecraft must be 2008. Therefore, the armed forces to fully claim the fulfillment of the contract. The military authorities said that four engines are 2007, one 2005 and another in 2006.

"I think there is fraud, we expect the engines reach 2008. Where not to send, then the contract will end because the armed forces are not going to accept, "he said.

Bohorquez said that the helicopter engines were damaged in 2008 while the helicopter adapted for the use of the President are 2007.

The commander said the HAL Ecuador gave an Act of Validation of Dhruv, which was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aeronautics of Chile, which have the same validity as those issued by the U.S. Air Force. With these security certifications are endorsed for operation of aircraft. But the DAC is not responsible for the safety of helicopters, acquired in February.

Bernal, Assistant Secretary of Air Transportation, said he made recommendations to the Presidency of the Republic and the Armed Forces on the type of aircraft required for the transfer of the president. Such suggestions are made based on the stock of existing helicopters in the country as the Super Puma and MI-17, but not on the Dhruv, because in no time the military asked him his opinion and that is not within its competence

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 30 Oct 2009 11:36

Ecuador may return choppers to HAL

Ecuador could return six helicopters recently bought from an Indian company after one of the aircraft crashed at an air show last week, the Unverso newspaper reported on Thursday.

what could "could" mean? they have the terms in the contract to return them or they are actually planning to return them?

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 30 Oct 2009 14:34

I was at the crash site of the Sarang chopper in Bangalore, a few hours after the incident. I must second the opinion that the Dhruv is one tough bird. While trying to pull up after a loop, the Sarang chopper plowed into the ground. It was at the extremes of any design for crashworthiness. The impact was nose first. Unfortunately the pilot was killed but the co-pilot survived with severe spinal injuries. But importantly there was no fire and the fuel cells stayed intact. Better still, the passenger/cargo space was unscathed. Anyone properly strapped in inside would have survived, albeit with injuries.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 30 Oct 2009 14:43

IAF chopper crashes in Doda, J&K
Jammu, October 30, 2009

An MI-17 helicopter crashed into Chenab river near Assar in Doda district of Jammu and Kashmir on Friday. At least one person died in the crash.

It was still not clear how many people were there on board the air force helicopter, but one body was already recovered while rescue operation was on jointly by the army and the local police in search of other personnel on the aircraft.

The incident took place as an air force exercise in Jammu went awry. The exercise was being conducted using two MI-17 helicopters.

The crashed chopper was reportedly flying low over the river when it got caught in a cable wire of a bridge. It crashed into Baglihar reservoir and sunk.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Oct 2009 20:28

vina wrote:
By the way, all aircraft have to be crash worthy to a rigid set of applicable specifications. The impact g loads are specified in all the three axes
True. But the IAF put in some pretty stringent specs wrt crash worthiness and the Dhruv was designed for that. The civilian copters (Dhruv is a civilian is a derivative really) and even miliatry copters from other countries are not designed to that level of crash worthiness. Notice the quite high percentage of composites in the Dhruv to keep the weight in check. So all in all, the Indian structural composite initiavite which went into Dhruv and LCA seems to be a great success.

There are no special specs given by the IAF for the crash worthiness of the Dhruv. Why would any Indian designed helo be more crash worthy than required? Do we crash more often?

There is essentially no airframe difference between the civilian and military versions of the Dhruv except for the wheels fitted on the civilian ( and also Navy & Coast Guard ) version and the skid fitted on the Army and Air Force versions. Other differences are engines and the equipment suite.

The Shakti may not be available on civilian versions.

Composites notwithstanding, the Navy baulked at accepting the Dhruv because primarily it was very much heavier than promised and having a short range bird at sea is a big time liability. This translates to less loiter and weapon carrying capacity. This also puts the ship at great risk because she will have to stay exposed longer in submarine infested waters.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Oct 2009 21:40

chetak wrote:
There are no special specs given by the IAF for the crash worthiness of the Dhruv. Why would any Indian designed helo be more crash worthy than required? Do we crash more often?

Chetak now that this discussion is happening - I recall a conversation I was having (about 4-5 years ago) with a retired IAF Air Cmdre who lives near my house. He was, in general, derisive of the ALH. He specifically mentioned crash worthiness and the quality of the gears. And I think HAL (like Avadi with the Arjun) hav had to go that extra mile to make things work.

It seems to me that while the IAF has not laid down these conditions - they have used every nuance and hint in the book to suggest that whet the can get from abroad is better and the local maal does not meet specs. I think this goes back to decades of mistrust of the IAF for India manufacture and similar decades of lack of concern for the user by HAL.

There is no smoke without fire in this case. relations between manufacturer and user have begun to get better only in recent years - i.e less than a decade in my view. The army and air force, unlike the navy have eben relatively cash rich and their equipment is of the type that can be acquired with a shorter time lag than the navy. And the attitudes used to show. I have mentioned time and again here about a (now senior) IAF officer who called LCA "Khadi Gramodyog" technology.

A lot of work needs to be put in to change attitudes IMO.

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 30 Oct 2009 21:54

Ecuador is at best a banana republic.Now its quite good that HAL managed to sell them something which could well have been something from Bell or Skirosky.

The US arms lobby is too strong to let go of this golden opportunity to malign HAL.The best HAL could do is to prevent any grounding of choppers by the IA,IAF and the IN.

Its similar to blaming France for the crash of a Mirage -2000 at Hindon in 1989 when a wing commander ran an extra loop ,hit electrical wires and crashed on spanking new IAF buses.

Now the French were'nt to be blamed for the crash nor were the Mirages returned...similarly goes the case of BAe Hawks.

All this gibberish shouldn't worry us nor should the HAL fall on its toes in appeasement.If the south american monkeys can't fly choppers...to hell with them!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2009 22:14

Is this related?

Ecuador-Russia: Update. Russian President Medvedev and Ecuadorian President Correa signed a $22 million military deal and other energy and trade agreements in Moscow on 29 October, The Associated Press reported. Under the deal, Russia will provide two Mi-17 helicopters to Ecuador. Medvedev said the deal was just a beginning as Moscow has renewed ties with countries in Latin America.

This looks like a good deal except it is with the Russians.

During the 50s Latin America was stomping ground for the agencies as commercial vanguard. So could be persuasion to buy more.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Oct 2009 22:20

chetak wrote: Composites notwithstanding, the Navy baulked at accepting the Dhruv because primarily it was very much heavier than promised and having a short range bird at sea is a big time liability. This translates to less loiter and weapon carrying capacity. This also puts the ship at great risk because she will have to stay exposed longer in submarine infested waters.

the reason publicly provided, via ajai shukla, was problems with folding the rotor blades (due to the hingeless design) and range. weight wasn't mentioned.

the range problem mentioned still baffles me a bit, from most public information, dhruv should have a larger range than your namesake helicopter, which it should ideally replace.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 30 Oct 2009 22:26

I think Ajai said "Dhruv fell between two stools" too big to replace Chetak and too small for anti sub operations. For utility roll IN needs 2-3 ton chopper and for anti sub it needs 10ton chopeer, Dhruv with 5-6 ton falls in the middle, it also had vibration issues which were interfering with radar/electronics. Those may have been solved later.....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Oct 2009 22:37

vibration issues have been reportedly solved.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Oct 2009 23:17

shiv wrote:
chetak wrote:
There are no special specs given by the IAF for the crash worthiness of the Dhruv. Why would any Indian designed helo be more crash worthy than required? Do we crash more often?
Chetak now that this discussion is happening - I recall a conversation I was having (about 4-5 years ago) with a retired IAF Air Cmdre who lives near my house. He was, in general, derisive of the ALH. He specifically mentioned crash worthiness and the quality of the gears. And I think HAL (like Avadi with the Arjun) hav had to go that extra mile to make things work.

It seems to me that while the IAF has not laid down these conditions - they have used every nuance and hint in the book to suggest that whet the can get from abroad is better and the local maal does not meet specs. I think this goes back to decades of mistrust of the IAF for India manufacture and similar decades of lack of concern for the user by HAL.

There is no smoke without fire in this case. relations between manufacturer and user have begun to get better only in recent years - i.e less than a decade in my view. The army and air force, unlike the navy have eben relatively cash rich and their equipment is of the type that can be acquired with a shorter time lag than the navy. And the attitudes used to show. I have mentioned time and again here about a (now senior) IAF officer who called LCA "Khadi Gramodyog" technology.

A lot of work needs to be put in to change attitudes IMO.

Shiv, nice to see you perched on the mons veneris. Good view?

The Naval Aviation generally imports the fastest and with the least hassles.

This is because of the small quantities involved and no complications of production in India.

Of course, times have changed and things have got complicated. It is generally the Navy that participates with finance in many DRDO and PSU projects.

It was the Coast Guard that benefited first from the Navy funded Dhruv. This is another happy customer.

The basic airframe design was done by MBB in Bangalore. This has essentially remained unchanged since then. They had a large design office and an all german staff including the secretaries. I used meet some of the german staff on my frequent visits to HAL. They had their own tales to tell. Due to the prevalent cocky politics and a huge over confidence, HAL did not renew the design contract. IMHO, it was the premature departure of the MBB team and the relative inexperience of the then HAL design team that resulted in unsavory customer opinions being bandied about. What you said about the Air Cmde is a commonly held opinion even today and the inevitable fallout of much bumbling during the change over period. Very soon the bumblers realized that they had bitten off much more than they could deliver.

Enter the usual Indian mentality of over promise and under delivery
that further eroded the confidence of the Air force types. When Air HQ makes strategic plans for systems induction, they pow wow with the manufacturers and get a firm commitment on delivery dates.
If these dates are repeatedly not forth coming, then some one's ( Air Force ) ass is grass. This is genesis of the kadhi gramudyog type comments. I really don't blame them.

HAL did the major work on the power train and the gearbox. and herein lies a majority of the problems. There are higher than normal vibrations that continue to plague the Dhruv. The main gearbox is unique in that it flies on no other helo in the world. I have seen and continue to see a lot of cowboys here. I am unable to discuss anything further on an open forum.

The shift in focus came with the Army.

These guys saw only good in the ALH. For them the Dhruv was like a SU 30 upgrade. They had never seen anything like it, let alone fly something like it. They remain super gungho about the Dhruv.

The recent performance trials at the glacier has borne them out. They are very happy.

The ALH is a fairly basic helo, sarang notwithstanding. When used in fairly staid roles of troop carrying, communications, resupply and general workhorse, its adequate. To hype it up to anything beyond this is not being fair because high expectations invariably lead to big disappointments.

Finally, you have PSU type management and PSU type workers on the Dhruv shop floor. You do the math.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 30 Oct 2009 23:22

chetak wrote:............

Great analysis IMHO

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Oct 2009 23:33

Rahul M wrote:
chetak wrote: Composites notwithstanding, the Navy baulked at accepting the Dhruv because primarily it was very much heavier than promised and having a short range bird at sea is a big time liability. This translates to less loiter and weapon carrying capacity. This also puts the ship at great risk because she will have to stay exposed longer in submarine infested waters.
the reason publicly provided, via ajai shukla, was problems with folding the rotor blades (due to the hingeless design) and range. weight wasn't mentioned.

the range problem mentioned still baffles me a bit, from most public information, dhruv should have a larger range than your namesake helicopter, which it should ideally replace.

I do not hold with much of what shukla says. However, range does directly translate to weight.

The Navy needs a ten ton helo. It was pitched is a replacement for the Seaking by HAL and DRDO. As a replacement for the Chetak, it would indeed do a remarkable job.

The problem was that they tried to cram all the ( ten ton) Seaking equipment into the (five ton) Dhruv.

When carrying its full complement of equipment, as any self respecting Navy ASW helo should do, it has very short legs. Its either limited equipment and some fuel, or comfortable fuel and very limited equipment.

Most ship's Commanding Officers would rather carry the versatile Chetak.

The vibration problems continue but HAL is now seriously on the job.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 31 Oct 2009 01:02

From HAL - Official release statement on DHRUV crash in Ecuador

HAL Statement on Dhruv Crash: As a matter of principle, HAL would not like to speculate on the causes of the incident based on the media reports available in public domain. The HAL team, which was already in Ecuador providing maintenance support, is assisting the Ecuadorian Air Force in its investigations. In addition, a three member team of senior specialists including HAL’s Chief Test Pilot is reaching Ecuador to provide all necessary assistance in the investigation. Dhruv helicopter has been designed for excellent handling qualities and crash worthiness and manufactured with advanced technologies. The helicopter has several safety features such as twin engines, dual flight control, redundancy in critical systems, self sealing fuel tanks, modern fire protection devices and a structure designed to ensure crashworthiness. These features ensure safety of crew and occupants.

Dhruv has been extensively flight tested throughout its flight envelope by highly experienced HAL test pilots & has been evaluated by Customer pilots from IAF/Army prior to certification by Military & civil regulatory authorities. After certification, Dhruv has flown nearly 39,000 Hrs as a fleet, with more than 80 Dhruvs flown by various users. These flights were all flown carrying out difficult missions such as high altitude operations in Siachen glacier in extremely inhospitable weather conditions, Search & Rescue in all terrains, flood relief and casualty evacuation. As many as seven lead helicopters have flown close to 1000 Hrs each safely in similar missions.

DHRUV’s capability has been amply demonstrated in several challenging terrains and missions. The role of DHRUV in the relief missions in post Tsunami operations and during Gujarat floods and the high altitude rescue at Pin Parbati Pass stand testimony to DHRUV’s versatility of operations. “Sarang” – the Aerobatic Display team of Indian Air Force has displayed DHRUV’s capabilities in several international air shows.

Ecuadorian pilots have undergone extensive flying training on DHRUV at HAL’s facilities and had expressed happiness with the handling qualities , advanced avionics and safety features of Dhruv during interactions with HAL instructors who flew training missions with them in India and Ecuador, Ecuadorian Air Force has successfully carried out several missions in their DHRUVs in their difficult terrains and has logged 860 hours. It appears from the reported statements attributed to the top officials of the Ecuadorian Air force that the helicopter may have been maneuvered excessively. The built in safety features have ensured that both the pilots walked away to safety without any major injuries. HAL is committed to provide products of high quality & value to its customers backed up by professional and dedicated service.

The last line is the ICING on the cake for me

http://www.hal-india.com and/or http://www.livefist.blogspot.com

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 31 Oct 2009 03:01

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/09oct31/news.htm#1

MI-17 falls in Chenab after crash, 3 bodies missing
4 IAF personnel killed in chopper crash

By Mohinder Verma

JAMMU, Oct 30: Four Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel were killed when a helicopter crashed in Doda district this afternoon and fell into mighty River Chenab leading to ‘washing away’ of bodies of three crew members. Official sources said that a MI-17 helicopter took off from Jammu Air Base for routine exercise in the Doda district and at around 1315 hours, all of a sudden it crashed at Tringal Assar and fell into River Chenab after catching fire.

On the receipt of information about the incident, Army, Police and Civil officers immediately rushed to Assar alongwith their teams and started search and rescue operations. Even some small size choppers of IAF were also deployed to locate and rescue crew members of the ill-fated MI-17 from Chenab.

After hectic efforts, body of one crew member was recovered from the river in mutiliated condition. However, the other three members of crashed helicopter remained untraced till late this evening when the rescue and search operation was called off in view of darkness.

The body was, later, identified as that of Wing Commander S K Garg. The missing IAF personnel include Co-pilot Flt Lt S Tomar, a technician and a crew member.

The current of river water was so strong that only few parts of the chopper were found while the rest either swept away or got landed at bottom of the river.

Confirming the incident, Ministry of Defence Spokesman, Lt Colonel Biplab Nath said that chopper with four crew members including a Wing Commander and a Flight Lieutenant was on routine exercise when it crashed, adding only body of one crew member could be recovered from the river after several hours long operation.

He said that a Court of Inquiry has been ordered to ascertain the cause(s) which led to the crash.

When contacted, Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Doda Range, Deepak Kumar, who too rushed to the spot on getting information about the incident, said that apparentely the chopper crashed after it got entangled with a ropeway across the river, which was being used by inhabitants of some villages to reach their homes.

"We found the ropeway damaged with some of its portion floating on the river just near the place where the chopper fell down", he said, adding "the exact cause which led to the crash can only be confirmed by the IAF officers".

To a question, he said, "if we look at the site of crash from the road level it seems that the chopper was flying low but from the river bed, the height of the chopper was appearing low", adding "the clear picture will emerge only during the court of enquiry initiated by IAF".

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Oct 2009 03:13

Those who saw wth footage of the crash will be most relieved to hear that the pilots escaped with minor injuries.Whatever the reason,it is an acute embarrassment for the manufacturers,HAL,especially as this product was their star export.Other faults with Dhruv,which have appeared from time to time,should be rexamined in the light of this crash.I don't know how a "fire" could be attributed to "pilot error".Even if there was some such technical error,such an event should not have taken place.The IN's rel;uctance to buy Dhruv is another worrying fact.

those who saw the footage (I'm betting you yourself didn't see, or you'd know that there was no fire) would know that there was no fire, not before the crash and not even afterwards, which actually is a tribute to how safe the self-sealing fuel tanks are, something I don't expect your ilk to ever praise. don't blame HAL when its not yet clear whether it was a technical fault with the Dhruv or pilot error. I know that you love to bait any indigenous entity and especially DRDO units, but your diatribes against the Dhruv are really taking things too far. why don't you jump around talking about "acute embarassment" for the MiG bureau every time a MiG crashes ? you actually love to talk about peddling MiGs for the IAF even today despite the media touting about nearly 330 MiG-21s having crashed over the service history of the fighter..talking about embarrassment, if MiG took your cue, they'd have died of shame. everyone knows how many Russian fighters, including MiG-29s and Su-27 and Su-30s have crashed at air-shows-(and going by your logic, its thanks to those who design them surely, not pilot error right ?? How come we never heard so much as peep coming from you blaming Sukhoi, or talking about "acute embarrassment" when their "star export" the MKI crashed ? a Hawk crashed soon after induction, so surely its BAE's fault, couldn't possibly be pilot error !

as for the IN's refusal to use the Dhruv in an anti-submarine warfare role, its mostly due to the lack of space and volume to fit the required avionics. all vibration related issues were taken care of long back. these two issues- that of the crash and the IN's non-acceptance for anti-submarine warfare roles are totally unrelated and the point is simply absurd !

besides, the fact that the international tender was sent to larger helicopters in the NH90, MH60R and EH101 class is ample testimony of the fact that they wanted a helicopter with larger endurance, range, payload and space for avionics- why would'nt they have gone in for an international helicopter in the 5-6 ton class if the fault lay with the Dhruv itself ?

My cousin is an Army Aviation pilot and from what I've heard from him, IA pilots (he previously flew the Chetak in Rajasthan) love the Dhruv. Please refrain from your attempts to malign it.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Oct 2009 03:35

Craig Alpert wrote:Not sure what footage you ended up seeing, but the ones posted earlier in BR and on Youtube, clearly shows that there is no FIRE in Dhruv, BEFORE IT HITS THE GROUND. The fire starts AFTER taking damage probably from the spark of the rotor blades hitting the ground and then the tail end goes on fire. so this so called "fire" is NOT attributed to PILOT ERROR.

exactly ! the whole sham of "eye witness accounts" describing a fire before it crashed was just BS. goes to show what credibility "eye witness accounts" have..

and of course one of our resident Russophile simply gobbled it up without so much as bothering to see the footage or the very clear pics himself and went about doing what he always does. But you're talking to a person who is a well-known desi-products baiter. his posts in the past are also pretty much on the same line, so it should be of no surprise to you.

look at this nonsensical statement "even if there was technical error such a thing should not have taken place"- they're machines, not birds. if they have technical failures, they fall. that is if the Dhruv actually had a technical issue- and look at this week's helicopter attrition- nearly 5-6 operational helicopters have crashed (3 in Afghanistan, 1 in Kashmir and sometime back a PA Mi-17 crashed) and considering that 80 Dhruvs have flown over 36,000 hours in service with 3 crashes, that is a pretty good service record. just for comparison, check out how many helicopters have been lost in Iraq (and I'm not talking of hostile fire). his attitude simply reeks of a massive sense of inferiority at everything Indian.

Pilot Error happened first (@ least according to the EAF Chief, which makes sense as so far DHRUV seems to have a great record - Knock on wood), so it is highly doubtful that HAL designed something that has technological faults, as the IAF would NEVER accept it. everyone knows how stringet the IAF and IA is when they procure anything INDIAN.

you must be kidding me right ?! its Indian, so it must be crappy !

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Oct 2009 03:40

need more investigation on the pilots.. who they contacted earlier for a period of time, bank transactions/or suitecase, etc.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 31 Oct 2009 03:47

Kartik wrote:My cousin is an Army Aviation pilot and from what I've heard from him, IA pilots (he previously flew the Chetak in Rajasthan) love the Dhruv. Please refrain from your attempts to malign it.

I second this statement. Even I know someone who has flown Dhruv and another who has sat in it. Both of them gave their thumbs up for Dhruv.

Infact before the crash, even Ecuador seemed to be pretty happy with Dhruv. We need to understand that crashes would continue to be a harsh reality till the time we would have machines flying in the air. So there is no point in going overboard with our criticism. Dhruv is a proven copter and its absolutely incorrect to doubt its quality on the basis of the latest turn of events.

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 31 Oct 2009 03:52

SaiK wrote:need more investigation on the pilots.. who they contacted earlier for a period of time, bank transactions/or suitecase, etc.

Are you suggesting they put their lives in danger for money?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Oct 2009 03:53

chetak wrote:
SaiK wrote:what about it?

The Ecuador crew were just plain lucky.

The aircraft per se had little to do with their walking away from the crash.

they were lucky for sure- but that doesn't mean that the Dhruv didn't play its part- why ? because the Dhruv was designed to stringent standards of how many g's the landing gear and crew seats would need to withstand as part of its crashworthiness requirements for whatever FAR regulations it's specifications were designed to- no airframe designer can do more than that. I don't care if they're European, Indian, Russian or American. even if it had landed on its skids instead of the rotor absorbing some impact, they would've survived for sure, because the impact would've been within the crashworthiness parameters of g load. had they fallen from a higher height and had the impact force been higher, no helicopter would have been able to withstand the impact, not just the Dhruv. In fact, on Shiv Aroor's blog, one poster who wrote a comment said that he was there at the scene of the previous Sarang Dhruv crash in B'lore. he said the airframe was remarkably intact, but that the Dhruv hit the ground nose first, and the pilot was thrown out of the seat due to the resulting instantaneous deceleration, which killed him. the co-pilot did survive. in the pilot's case, its likely that the forward gs would've exceeded the designed g loads for the seat and seatbelt constraints.

the same is true of car accidents as well. as an automotive crash engineer, I had to work on structural components that could sustain upto a certain speed of impact- if I met it, the car was certified. beyond that, if I did it, the weight of the structure would be unacceptable and it was beyond the requirements of the NHTSA guidelines. you cannot design a fail-safe design in case of crashworthiness designs because the trade-off in weight, cost, etc. is simply not acceptable. that’s the reason why there is no car in the world that can say that its driver will never die come what may in terms of accidents. of course, with flying machines, there is even less flab that they can carry, so the restrictions are even higher and even exceeding the laid down guidelines by a few g more load will mean extra kilos of structural weight, and that means less fuel or less payload. unacceptable.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Oct 2009 04:01

enqyoob wrote:vinaji: It landed right side up, hitting the bottom first on a flat surface. There is presumably a lot of composite sandwich structure below the seats that absorbs a great deal of energy. This is about the only condition where the crash-worthiness can be expected to work. If it hit upside down or nose-first, or on a jagged/rocky surface, or somewhat harder, no such survival can be expected.

The pilot must be credited with achieving a controlled crash. ( I didn't watch the video, only saw the end result with the craft smoking).

I don't quite agree enqyoob. had the pilots crash-landed on the landing gear, it would've absorbed more of the impact and transferred it to the airframe because it is designed to do so- for heavy landings, its supposed to do that without even breaking up. if I recall, its designed to withstand 12g's impact loading. the pilots banked nearly 60-70 degs at the last minute extremely close to the ground, and the rotor impacted the ground first, which in a way also absorbed the force of the impact as the rotor was being destroyed before the airframe itself impacted the ground.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 31 Oct 2009 06:49

http://translate.google.com/translate?p ... ry_state0=

eff HAL.. Indian embassy in equador decides to stick it to the pilot

Through a press release, the Indian Embassy in Ecuador, defended the undertaking Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), to which the Ecuadorian government bought seven Dhruv helicopters.

The statement said the crash of one of the above aircraft occurred during a demonstration held in commemoration of the 89th anniversary of the Ecuadorian Air Force (FAE), in recent days, was due to a maneuver by the pilot improvised Ecuador.