Military Flight Safety

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 11 Nov 2009 06:41

^^ HAL just disbanded their PR team for ever. The IIM's can only provide what they are asked for. And it does not need an IIM grad to figure out the damage this is causing to our reputation.

This is going OT for this thread.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 11 Nov 2009 06:53

shameekg wrote:^^ HAL just disbanded their PR team for ever. The IIM's can only provide what they are asked for. And it does not need an IIM grad to figure out the damage this is causing to our reputation.

This is going OT for this thread.

ya think?? IIM's can provide A LOT MORE than just what they are asked for.. there is a reason why their grads get paid 1cr Rs/year by foreign firms and that's precisely bcoz THEY THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.. HAL apparently is head deep in it's ass that it needs some serious management skills and clearly they need someone from the great IIM to come show them how programs and PR should be managed...unfortunately HAL still thinks everything is hunky dory and needs a reality check which will only happen after a right man/woman steps up for the job...
but as you so rightfully pointed out - this is OT for this thread

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 11 Nov 2009 10:21

Craig Alpert wrote:ya think?? IIM's can provide A LOT MORE than just what they are asked for.

I meant the IIM's or anyone for that matter can provide help only when asked for. HAL is closing up channels here, forget getting new talent.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 11 Nov 2009 18:41

HAL would need someone who has specialised in Operations Management. Whereas the favourite areas of the creamy layer of IIMs are Finance and Marketing. Moreover, not every IIMite is a ready made good manager. Many of them have not even seen the corporate world. When they first come out of their institutes, they are like raw diamonds with loads of potential but absolutely unfinished & unpolished. They learn the tricks of the trade and get polished by the means of 'organisational socialisation'.

Am not very sure whether the Red Tapism & bureaucratic setup of HAL will provide them the right organisational socialisation, enabling them to hone their skills and become good managers.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 15 Nov 2009 02:00

chetak wrote:
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.

after reading the discussion on C-17B, did Saras pass the test case where it had shut off one engine before reaching VMCG during takeoff before
doing that test case in flight

the reason I say this is the crash could be due to Saras simulating engine failure, the rudder and flaps couldn't compensate the asymmetric thrust, reducing thrust on the remaining engine the plane started to descend and when speed reduced close to V2 the rudder lost enough airflow around it and the plane went into a spin and crashed, would the plane have glided at least if the remaining engine is also shut down before slowing down to V2?

if the test case passed at takeoff, the control surfaces can be viewed as sufficient, anyways, Engine out control system (EOCS) seems critical for twin engines planes

one can only imagine the cross wind landing/take-off limits on this one, as most of our airports have single runways

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Nov 2009 10:02

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/803 ... built.html
Saras prototype 3 to fly 2010

IAF to induct 15 indigenously-built Saras aircraft
...
Engineers at NAL are now building another prototype which is expected to be flight tested next year. NAL expected the aircraft to be certified by 2010.
Saras is only the second plane after Hansa, a two-seater trainer aircraft, that is being developed indigenously.
NAL is also working on designing a 70-seat passenger aircraft called the RTA-70 for regional transport.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Nov 2009 10:46

vasu_ray wrote:

after reading the discussion on C-17B, did Saras pass the test case where it had shut off one engine before reaching VMCG during takeoff before
doing that test case in flight

the reason I say this is the crash could be due to Saras simulating engine failure, the rudder and flaps couldn't compensate the asymmetric thrust, reducing thrust on the remaining engine the plane started to descend and when speed reduced close to V2 the rudder lost enough airflow around it and the plane went into a spin and crashed, would the plane have glided at least if the remaining engine is also shut down before slowing down to V2?

if the test case passed at takeoff, the control surfaces can be viewed as sufficient, anyways, Engine out control system (EOCS) seems critical for twin engines planes

one can only imagine the cross wind landing/take-off limits on this one, as most of our airports have single runways

This was one of the most likely of reasons for the crash

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

Expert highlights deficiencies in Saras flight control system
Ravi Sharma

DGCA board to probe into aircraft crash
Thursday, Mar 26, 2009
..........
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.”
...........
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.”
........
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.

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).
..............
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.
.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 17 Nov 2009 01:58

Dhruv Flights Resume In Ecuador ~ pic courtsey LiveFist

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 18 Nov 2009 21:05

Dhruv's best in their class no question -- Livefist

There is no reason to return the machines. There was a very clear decision that this was the best choice and the best offer. The helicopters will be back to full operational status after Accident Investigation Board delivers its report on November 26," he said

NOV 26 - HAPPY THANKSGIVING INDEED!!

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 29 Nov 2009 22:20

Observing these 3 scenarios,

1) Saras prototype goes down when the pilots turns off one engine and unable to re-light it, neither they could turn off the 2nd engine (to avoid the asymmetric thrust) probably knowing that they would crash without any engine power

2) the HPT-32, due to fuel system problems, the engine is shut down, even with a trainer on board the flight crashed

3) and then the Rustom prototype crashed after the operator turned off the engine by misjudging the altitude

the question is, why wouldn't an aircraft glide land when powered down in flight? aren't there established glide ratios that help these planes atleast crash land? neither are these supersonic flights

is it a coincidence that all are designs from NAL?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Nov 2009 07:48

vasu_ray wrote:Observing these 3 scenarios,

1) Saras prototype goes down when the pilots turns off one engine and unable to re-light it, neither they could turn off the 2nd engine (to avoid the asymmetric thrust) probably knowing that they would crash without any engine power

2) the HPT-32, due to fuel system problems, the engine is shut down, even with a trainer on board the flight crashed

3) and then the Rustom prototype crashed after the operator turned off the engine by misjudging the altitude

the question is, why wouldn't an aircraft glide land when powered down in flight? aren't there established glide ratios that help these planes atleast crash land? neither are these supersonic flights

is it a coincidence that all are designs from NAL?

My replies are posted as a non flying armchair enthusiast.

The Saras probelm was I think that the asymmetric thrust sent the plane into an uncontrollable maneuver and there was not enough altitude to recover

HPT 32. Engine off and not enough altitude - the plane crashes

UAV - engine off. The UAV starts gliding down. Finds palm tree in way. Blows horn. Palm tree does not move. UAV and tree embrace.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 30 Nov 2009 13:00

shiv wrote:The Saras probelm was I think that the asymmetric thrust sent the plane into an uncontrollable maneuver and there was not enough altitude to recover

HPT 32. Engine off and not enough altitude - the plane crashes

UAV - engine off. The UAV starts gliding down. Finds palm tree in way. Blows horn. Palm tree does not move. UAV and tree embrace.

Saras pilots were seen circling for a landing space, they had enough time before entering a spin n crash, they survived but burning fuel killed them

HPT-32, altitude shouldn't affect glide ratio to the point of crashing, anyways, Dhruv crashed from a low altitude and the pilots stepped out unharmed

Rustom, no pilots are dead so not an issue, however, not sure whether glide ratio was decent

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Nov 2009 17:13

vasu_ray wrote:[
Saras pilots were seen circling for a landing space, they had enough time before entering a spin n crash, they survived but burning fuel killed them

I don;t think this is correct - this is not what I recall reading. I don't think they had time for that - but I think the pilot just tried to avoid hitting a populated area.

HPT 32 I don't know the circumstances.

caesar · Post by **caesar** » 30 Nov 2009 18:37

Just heard in the news that a SU30 crashed at chandanpur in pokharan ,both pilots ejected safely.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 18:43

sukhoi crashes, both pilots SAFE.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... +safe.html

An Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter plane crashed near Jaisalmer on Monday, but both the pilots were safe.

The Sukhoi crashed near Jathegaon, about 40 km from Jaisalmer. The pilots ejected to safety.

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 30 Nov 2009 19:08

Rahul M wrote:sukhoi crashes, both pilots SAFE.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... +safe.html

An Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter plane crashed near Jaisalmer on Monday, but both the pilots were safe.

The Sukhoi crashed near Jathegaon, about 40 km from Jaisalmer. The pilots ejected to safety.

My hearts aches a little whenever I see this thread on top. That bad news! Thank God both pilots are safe.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 30 Nov 2009 19:14

SU-30 MK I AIRCRAFT CRASH

New Delhi: November 30, 2009

One SU 30 MK I aircraft of IAF crashed near south-west of Pokhran on 30 Nov 09 at about 1730 hrs. The aircraft had airborne from Jodhpur on a routine flying training sortie. The pilot and the navigator ejected safely. There is no reported damage to civil life or property. A Court of Inquiry has been ordered to investigate into the cause of the accident.

PJ/VJ

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2009 19:24

this is gonna hurt!.. i can't visualize grounding news..

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 30 Nov 2009 19:26

The Sukhois are worrying me a bit offlate. Two crashes in one year is not that good for a twin engined fighter. I hope they ground the fleet and do a proper investigation, this should not have occured after the first crash.

230-2 and counting

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 30 Nov 2009 19:52

johnny_m wrote:The Sukhois are worrying me a bit offlate. Two crashes in one year is not that good for a twin engined fighter. I hope they ground the fleet and do a proper investigation, this should not have occured after the first crash.

230-2 and counting

Please do not assume the cause is the same and nothing was done after the previous crash. The crash is bad enough without rumours ruining the reputation of our frontline fighter. Lets hold our horses till the details are clear.
Thankfully our pilots are safe.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 30 Nov 2009 20:07

Another report.
http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/76877.htm

The aircraft, which took off from Bareilly airbase, was participating in a fire power demonstration.
“The aircraft crashed during an ongoing exercise. Both the pilot and the co-pilot are safe,” an IAF official told IANS, requesting anonymity.
The official refused to divulge more information.
This was the second crash of the Sukhoi combat jet since its induction 12 years ago. In April, a Sukhoi had crashed in Rajasthan due to the failure of its sophisticated fly-by-wire system. The pilot, Wing Commander S.V. Munje, and the co-pilot, Wing Commander P.S. Narah, had managed to bail out in time but the latter was killed after being apparently hit by the falling debris of the aircraft.

Anyone remember reading this as the cause of his death?

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Nov 2009 20:48

Really sad to hear another one bites the dust......

Not speculating, but IAF has a poor record when it comes to service & maintainance.

Kapil · Post by **Kapil** » 30 Nov 2009 21:02

I am hearing it was the CO of 31 Sqn.
Guess he must be practising for the mini FPD.

N Jhawar · Post by **N Jhawar** » 30 Nov 2009 21:11

Anoop. A. wrote:Really sad to hear another one bites the dust......

Not speculating, but IAF has a poor record when it comes to service & maintainance.

That's one hell of an insightful remark!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2009 21:18

N Jhawar wrote:
Anoop. A. wrote:Really sad to hear another one bites the dust......

Not speculating, but IAF has a poor record when it comes to service & maintainance.
That's one hell of an insightful remark!

perhaps if you can give details.. we could ask them to look into this right from allocation of funds for such activities. i am sure, they wont escape from such candid exposures to become a vital security hole.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Nov 2009 21:30

This has been very unfortunate year for IAF, thank god pilots are safe!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 22:03

Anoop. A. wrote:Really sad to hear another one bites the dust......

Not speculating, but IAF has a poor record when it comes to service & maintainance.

anoop, kindly don't shoot off your mouth, especially when you are wrong.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 30 Nov 2009 22:15

this is very sad thing indeed but moreover it is surprising as well!! After an unmatched record for 12 yr ... what went wrong !!! 2 crashes in a year !!!

Few questions
If both the fighters are from same lot ? Does they belong to same sqd? Who produced it HAL or Russians ? How old are those are fighters? Was the previous crash investigation was done properly (I hope that wasn't a cover up)?

any idea ...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Nov 2009 22:22

SanjibGhosh wrote:this is very sad thing indeed but moreover it is surprising as well!! After an unmatched record for 12 yr ... what went wrong !!! 2 crashes in a year !!!

Few questions
If both the fighters are from same lot ? Does they belong to same sqd? Who produced it HAL or Russians ? How old are those are fighters? Was the previous crash investigation was done properly (I hope that wasn't a cover up)?

any idea ...

Please search on BR for the previous discussion. It is not that hard. The cause for the previous crash was identified and perhaps has already been fixed. All your questions can be answered if you look on BR or on the web about the previous crash.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 30 Nov 2009 22:29

SanjibGhosh wrote:this is very sad thing indeed but moreover it is surprising as well!! After an unmatched record for 12 yr ... what went wrong !!! 2 crashes in a year !!!

It is not surprising or unmatached by any standards. You have to get up to come down.

It is only now in very recent times that the IAF finally has had a decent number of flight hours produced on MKI's.

I always found it silly to be proud over a clean safety record based on so few flights. Put 500Fh each on 200+ jets and then we can talk. Same story with the French and their Rafale. They have had few flight hours and very slow delivery rates into service. Now that they fly more they also crash more.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 22:33

dorai, do you have a number for the hours that IAF has put on the mki airframes or is this simply a wild guess ?

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Nov 2009 22:41

Rahul M wrote:
Anoop. A. wrote:Really sad to hear another one bites the dust......

Not speculating, but IAF has a poor record when it comes to service & maintainance.
anoop, kindly don't shoot off your mouth, especially when you are wrong.

Sir,

Ofcourse, At this point of time, we have no clear data on what happened, could be due to any number of reasons, i was implying in comparison to other forces, that's all.

and i left out something earlier - Glad both pilots are ok and even more relieved that no was hurt by the falling debris.

Regards.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Nov 2009 22:45

Anoop. A. wrote:Sir,

Ofcourse, At this point of time, we have no clear data on what happened, could be due to any number of reasons, i was implying in comparison to other forces, that's all.

Can you please post proof in support of your assertion that in comparision to other forces, IAF's maintainence is bad?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 30 Nov 2009 22:47

Anoop. A. wrote:Sir,

Ofcourse, At this point of time, we have no clear data on what happened, could be due to any number of reasons, i was implying in comparison to other forces, that's all.

and i left out something earlier - Glad both pilots are ok and even more relieved that no was hurt by the falling debris.

Regards.

is there is source you used for coming to this conclusion? I am interested.

TIA.

edit: saw RaviBg's post.

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Nov 2009 22:50

We do not use any of our Frontline fighters in direct combat operations. But this is IAF's 13th crash of year 2009, 8th for a fighter jet.
http://www.zeenews.com/news583429.html

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 23:00

Anoop. A. wrote:
Anoop. A. wrote:Really sad to hear another one bites the dust......

Not speculating, but IAF has a poor record when it comes to service & maintainance.
Sir,

Ofcourse, At this point of time, we have no clear data on what happened, could be due to any number of reasons, i was implying in comparison to other forces, that's all.

is there any other way ?
I know what you are saying and I'm saying it is still wrong. please compare with the attrition rates of other air forces, including the USAF.
factor in the attrition rates of fighters belonging to the same gen as the bulk of IAF fleet and then tell me if you were correct.
also, have a look at this : http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today ... ition.html
regards.

p.s no need for sir.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 23:05

Anoop. A. wrote:We do not use any of our Frontline fighters in direct combat operations. But this is IAF's 13th crash of year 2009, 8th for a fighter jet.
http://www.zeenews.com/news583429.html

please do a break up of the cause of accident and then tell us how many were due to "poor service and maintenance".

IAF may not be at war but it still routinely operates in an extremely hazardous environment.

David Saenz · Post by **David Saenz** » 01 Dec 2009 01:43

Sukhoi crashes in Rajasthan, Pilots safe
Too bad, but thankfully the pilots are safe.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Dec 2009 03:28

dorai wrote:It is not surprising or unmatached by any standards. You have to get up to come down.

It is only now in very recent times that the IAF finally has had a decent number of flight hours produced on MKI's.

I always found it silly to be proud over a clean safety record based on so few flights. Put 500Fh each on 200+ jets and then we can talk. Same story with the French and their Rafale. They have had few flight hours and very slow delivery rates into service. Now that they fly more they also crash more.

what nonsense..the 18 Su-30MK and Ks were flogged to a level that they were left with about 30% of their service life intact by the time the IAF decided to replace them with new-build MKIs..even if these didn't have the 6000 hours of the MKI airframe, the regular Su-30 has 3000 hours total technical life. within no time the IAF came around to using it up..

and the rate of induction of the MKI in the IAF is about 13 per year, and is now at 100+..you think that when the IAF had 15 or 30 or 45 or 60 or 75 MKIs, that they were basically sitting on the ground with sparse flying ? that number alone is more than the total number of Mirages and MiG-29s that the IAF has operated..when the Jaguar was just being inducted and the IAF was using loaned RAF Jags, they had a couple of accidents within the first couple of years itself..

another fact- the IAF MKI pilots get the most number of hours of all the pilots in the IAF. they get NATO standard 200+ hours per year. even if its with 2 pilots per sortie, the fleet is getting utilised heavily. the CO of the No.31 Rhinos is Wing Commander S Sajan with more than 3200 hours of flight under his belt, 1500 hours of it on the Su-30 variants. He only got commissioned into the IAF in 1992..thats nearly 188 hours per year, assuming he was fully flight certified in the first year of joining itself, which of course is not true.

produce some source with some figures to back your claims on "only now in very recent times that the IAF finally has had a decent number of flight hours produced on MKI's" or cut the crap.

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 01 Dec 2009 05:23

Sad News! Which Squadron does this plane belong too. I could not find the name. The newer squadrons getting into sukhoi might be a reason. The Pilot is a wing commander, don't know how many hours he has done on Sukhoi.

Both the plane went down over Rajasthan. Might be dust and heat has something to do with it. Just Guessing