LCA News and Discussions

[Sagar G]

IAF is always ready to take responsibilities, please place ADA/HAL under IAF. Otherwise, all the responsibilities bizness is hot air.

IAF is not responsible for documentation. Those responsible have failed to deliver. Its that simple.

I bow down to your thread wrecking capabilities your highness, if you don't want to read and understand what has been posted then fine by me but please don't quote me then.

[NRao]

I heard that the problem with the documentation was that it was written, unfortunately, in English. Then language of choice, I was told, is Russian. They have gone to find good translators.

[SaiK]

I think the finger pointing must stop within this thread.. (especially when information and knowledge is based on DDM) then we can expect similar traits outside the thread. There is no two opinion about documentation. Is this hard to understand?

[ravar]

I am confused by the numbers quoted in the article-

Engines manufactured by US-based General Electric Aviation would be powering these indigenously manufactured LCAs after the global giant won the contract in 2010. After the initial supply of 99 engines (GE F-404 and GE F-414) for IAF and Indian Navy, the rest shall be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in India after obtaining a licence under a transfer of technology agreement. HAL will than manufacture 40 GE F-404 engines in two lots of 20 each for Tejas Mk-I and another 100 GE F-414 engines for Tejas Mk-II.

To summarize-

Outright purchase of 99 engines including GE 404 and GE 414
The rest after obtaining ToT will be manufactured and the types include 40 nos of GE 404

IIRC IAF has ordered only 40 Mk1. Why should more GE 404s be manufactured?

[member_27444]

Technical documentation typically takes about two years (specific to maintenance procedures) and is usually done in synch with the setting up of the production equipment (since there are typically changes that come about during the initial production run - in this case, the Limited Series Production). The drafts however would be ready during the production of the prototypes and ideally would be refreshed each quarter for the changes introduced for each subsequent model leading to the LSP. Not sure who has been given the contract, but there are quite a few companies in Bangalore that can comfortably handle such tasks (i.e. limited to tech documentation).

Not always true, manufacturing methods and assembly sequence are entirely different from field maintenance point of view.

Usually the jigs fixtures that are at production site are not there in field shops. its impossible to replicate.

Also most of the time its LIFO

Try replacing a CV joint without a hydraulic (complete) lift with just a ramp or a screw Jack in a SUV...

Unless during design phase every aspect of maintenance is taken into account field maitenance is very creative job and most often extremely difficult due to time constraints and spare tolernces.

Imagine a recirculation ball and screw mechanism for aileron or a hydraulic actuator replacements in the field, you need to caliberate them as well.
Unless careful planning goes into gauges, templates, fixtures etc for field maintenance it is hell of job on the IAF technicians...

[SaiK]

it would depend on how much of the operational area instructions is common with assembly or LRU manufacturing/assembly process. most likely, ops would deal only with LRUs and nothing below that, so operational jigs could be different from assembly line.

how much of the birds-eye view level analysis is done for documentation consitency between LRU ops maintenance and LRU assembly matters. so, if we are talking very similar documentation, then we are on par or better than Gripen LRU ops time scale in terms of how fast and quick LRUs can be replaced and serviced.

a comparison with Gripen for LCA ops times would be really really interesting to discuss.

[Sanku]

IAF is always ready to take responsibilities, please place ADA/HAL under IAF. Otherwise, all the responsibilities bizness is hot air.

IAF is not responsible for documentation. Those responsible have failed to deliver. Its that simple.

I bow down to your thread wrecking capabilities your highness, if you don't want to read and understand what has been posted then fine by me but please don't quote me then.

Lets discuss the topic shall we?

[Kartik]

Did the IAF reject the Su-30MKI because there were maintenance manuals given in Russian that had to be translated into English and because pilot manuals had to be created by the IAF since even the RuAF didn't operate the Su-30MKI? Malaysia piggy backed on the IAF's hard work on both the translations as well as the manuals for the numerous parts and sub-systems that were sourced from non-Russian vendors.

Just asking.

Another case of the IAF simply asking for things to be given, rather than acting as a program partner with a stake in the success of the LCA project. Besides which, the NFTC will have to be the nodal agency for pilot manuals. HAL has few test pilots and their job is not to create pilot manuals but to test and check airplanes that HAL will be supplying to its customer.

[Sanku]

Did the IAF reject the Su-30MKI because there were maintenance manuals given in Russian that had to be translated into English.

And I suppose translations and creating the manual are the same thing?

Or that IAF started flying with manuals still in Russian? BTW, this is the case when, many IAF personnel know Russian, since they have spent huge time in Russia undergoing training on the type, and the original ones are still directly used by many who prefer it.

In case of Russian products Russian MIC significantly hand holds the IAF. In case of India, IAF hand holds Indian MIC which spend its time biting and kicking that hand.

[Kartik]

the IAF had to create pilot manuals. They didn't exist when the Su-30MKI was envisioned or even delivered. Maintenance manuals were translated. Even that is a task that the IAF did without fuss or complaint. But of course, if Sukhoi doesn't do what it should have done, its one thing, if the much hated DPSUs falter, we might as well contemplate throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Sanku]

Besides which, the NFTC will have to be the nodal agency for pilot manuals.

HAL has few test pilots and their job is not to create pilot manuals but to test and check airplanes that HAL will be supplying to its customer.

So who is responsible for the alphabet soup? Designer in own world with flight testing, manufacturer in another world.

IAF is supposed to run from pillar to post trying to figure out like a pensioner which window is going to give him which thappa?

[Sanku]

the IAF had to create pilot manuals. They didn't exist when the Su-30MKI was envisioned or even delivered. Maintenance manuals were translated. Even that is a task that the IAF did without fuss or complaint. But of course, if Sukhoi doesn't do what it should have done, its one thing, if the much hated DPSUs falter, we might as well contemplate throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

IAF had to create pilot manuals? Can you share a link which says that?

[Sanku]

the IAF had to create pilot manuals. They didn't exist when the Su-30MKI was envisioned or even delivered. Maintenance manuals were translated. Even that is a task that the IAF did without fuss or complaint. But of course, if Sukhoi doesn't do what it should have done, its one thing, if the much hated DPSUs falter, we might as well contemplate throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is a world of difference is not supplying the manual in english and not supplying the manual at all.

Even in case of DPSUs the force go the extra mile. The definition of mile seems different for DPSU though.

[vishvak]

It is indeed strange how IAF is now not selective about manuals. Should have translated in as many languages since Tajas is domestic project.

[Sanku]

<Edited out the parts which will lead to more fruitless conversation>
Experienced folks who have dealt with the IAF would know better,

Which is not the case now because?

It is indeed strange how IAF is now not selective about manuals. Should have translated in as many languages since Tajas is domestic project.

Huh what?

[Kartik]

the IAF had to create pilot manuals. They didn't exist when the Su-30MKI was envisioned or even delivered. Maintenance manuals were translated. Even that is a task that the IAF did without fuss or complaint. But of course, if Sukhoi doesn't do what it should have done, its one thing, if the much hated DPSUs falter, we might as well contemplate throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is a world of difference is not supplying the manual in english and not supplying the manual at all.

Even in case of DPSUs the force go the extra mile. The definition of mile seems different for DPSU though.

Did HAL or ADA say that they'd not supply manuals at all? There have been delays with writing the manuals and i'm not going to offer excuses for that, but the truth of the matter is that these things take a bit of time. I know because I've written Structural Repair Manuals and it can't be handed off to a non-technical writer to just write up. It requires structural analysis of each part or access to the Structural Analyiss reports of the parts and then a good understanding of manufacturing and repair techniques. Had they already done their SRMs, they'd need to finally revise them to the SP-1 or LSP-8 SOP.

Someone mentioned that there are companies in Bangalore that could do such a job and they're right. Aerospace OEMs do offshore some technical writing work, but the bulk of the repair manuals are written by the OEM itself.

The Russians' attitude in this respect had caused a lot of consternation even with the RMAF on the Su-30MKM. Much of what the RMAF used for its maintenance manuals was taken from the IAF since the non-trivial task of translation was already done but the IAF couldn't help them write pilot manuals since they were themselves short staffed for that job.

Of course, you conveniently overlook the fact that the Russians DID NOT SUPPLY PILOT MANUALS AT ALL. Those had to be written by IAF flight crew. Not a trivial task, considering that the MKI uses TVC controls that were totally new and no flight crew around the world had developed manuals for.

HAL will be the responsible agency for maintenance manuals and my guess is ADA and NFTC will have to team up for the pilot manuals along with the first IAF squadron that evalutes the Tejas. That is the primary purpose of the squadron that evaluates the aircraft before induction. Its not something that is specific to the Tejas alone. Test and Evaluation squadrons in the USAF too perform similar tasks.

[vina]

I know because I've written Structural Repair Manuals

Save your breath. You are wasting it by arguing with someone who argues by tautology and circular logic and is driven by pet fetishes (like putting smooth bore cannons everywhere and insisting that BW reactors are more "unsafe" than a PWR not because of scientific reasons, because Fukushima = = Chernobyl and the Americans are trying to "coverup")

The best topic to engage such dudes are in Politics and Elections threads and Narendra Modi thread whatever his pet peeve his. Arguing with him here on engineering and basic science is a one way street to flushing whatever sanity remains in a sane thread down Pakistan.

[SaiK]

IAF would definitely like to have repair hangars for LRU replacement at every base it has for LCA. That is an operational capability with highest priority requirement. Without training and support, without SOP documents, especially specific to LCA, we have a gap. Now, there is nothing big about to understand this for pages of discussion.

What you all should reflect from this tussle is the hidden message.. LCA is bringing in new capabilities.. and hence IAF has some new capabilities, it is trying to familiarize. I would definitely think for MKI, there is a larger gap in terms of what can be serviced, what can be replaced, and what can be imported.

For LCA, we can have many regional and base based facilities. Think from a capability POV.

[mody]

......
With regards to the documentation, it was always going to be a short coming. Given that this is our first aircraft development effort, to expect ADA and HAL to be able to come up with the full operation and maintenance manual and pilot training manual, at the time of IOC, is foolhardy. Also the IAF seems to be forgetting its own role in this project. While accusing the HAL of giving the LCA a step motherly treatment and not treating it as its own baby, the IAF should also realize that they too have to treat the LCA as its own baby and not just a product that it intends to buy.

The pilot training manual for the LCA, will have to be and should be a collaborative effort between the ADA and the NFTC/IAF.
The operation and maintenance manual for the LCA will also have to be separate project, that would have to be taken up between the IOC and FOC timelines and would have to be collaborative effort between the ADA, HAL and the IAF.

Most imported aircrafts also do not come with up to the mark documentation and the pilot training manual for all imported aircraft's, has also been worked on a tweaked by the IAF, over the life of the aircraft in IAF inventory.

I never said that IAF should not expect any documentation. All I said was that if the IAF is complaining about lack of documentation at this stage and feel that complete documentation would be available to them, prior to or at the time of IOC-II, then I feel they are expecting too much and going to be in for a disappointment. Realistically, as I suggested, the Maintenance and service manual should be prepared by a collaborative effort between ADA, HAL and the service wing of the IAF, between the IOC-II and FOC timelines. The IAF involvement in this effort would be more to understand and absorb the documentation being prepared by ADA and HAL and offer feedback based on their practical experience of having serviced and operated aircrafts for so many years.

The Pilot manual would be prepared also between the IOC-II and FOC timelines and would have to be collaborative effort between ADA, NFTC/IAF. HAL being just a production agency would not have much to offer in terms of pilot manuals.
Also I suppose the pilot manual in this case would be something like the first edition. The same would be updated and changed, over the years, as the IAF starts to use and understand the plane and its characteristics and capabilities.
Also for all aircrafts that the IAF operates, the pilot manuals have always been revised and tweaked, as per IAFs experience and feedback from IAF pilots from ASTE, MIGOFTU, NFTC etc.

Not accepting the LCA for lack of documentation, at the IOC-II stage would be wrong on the part of IAF. It would just go to show, how much they really want the plane. Hope that's not the case. Complaining publicly about it, even before the IOC-II stage, seems immature at best. In private they can take up the issue, with all concerned.
Complete set of service and maintenance manual and pilot training manual edition-I, should be made available by FOC timeline and the efforts in this direction should be going on....I hope.

[SaiK]

draft documents can be created in a jiffy.. all you need to know is ops procedure and the product to be used to various missions. mission specific documents can be created ahead.. whatever missions LCA is now capable, those can be done so easily. what is the hassle here?

i don't see any ddm words that should cause an alarm here.

[member_27444]

Russians follow GOST standards
Germans DIN standards

Indian Aircraft will follow which standards. ISI?

[Sagar G]

Lets discuss the topic shall we?

Hain You are interested in "discussion" !!!!! Since when ???

Discuss what exactly ??? I have posted a direct quote from a CEMILAC guy (which you obviously didn't read or even care to read or even care to understand even if by chance you read it) who has said that the IAF's very own organization i.e. Central Servicing Development Organisation (CSDO),Bangalore is involved in the required documentation process. So when an IAF organization itself is involved in the process what is there to "discuss" ??? If by discussion you mean bitching,lying and flogging dead horse then spare me your "discussion" drama.

[SaiK]

Russians follow GOST standards
Germans DIN standards

Indian Aircraft will follow which standards. ISI?

for ops? or for product quality metrics?

I would think ISO. and SoP is IAF specific anyways.

[NRao]

Hain You are interested in "discussion" !!!!! Since when ???

Discuss what exactly ??? I have posted a direct quote from a CEMILAC guy (which you obviously didn't read or even care to read or even care to understand even if by chance you read it) who has said that the IAF's very own organization i.e. Central Servicing Development Organisation (CSDO),Bangalore is involved in the required documentation process. So when an IAF organization itself is involved in the process what is there to "discuss" ??? If by discussion you mean bitching,lying and flogging dead horse then spare me your "discussion" drama.

To some "discuss" has a totally different meaning.

So does "read" or "reading".

Not what you think it to be. Ignore button is best.

[Prem Kumar]

HAL will be the responsible agency for maintenance manuals and my guess is ADA and NFTC will have to team up for the pilot manuals along with the first IAF squadron that evalutes the Tejas. That is the primary purpose of the squadron that evaluates the aircraft before induction. Its not something that is specific to the Tejas alone. Test and Evaluation squadrons in the USAF too perform similar tasks.

To give an analogy from the IT-vity world, this is exactly the best practice that mature companies do when they implement a complex system. We develop procurement software whose implementations last several months. We have consistently noticed that the customers who get the most value out of the system are the ones who:

a) Actively champion the cause within their organization. They have executive sponsors & the project is backed from the CEO level
b) Are involved at every stage of the project from vendor evaluation, contract signature, kick-off, implementation, go-live, post-go-live support and day to day maintenance
c) Remove internal bottlenecks, sort out political/turf battles
d) Set goals that they want to achieve and constantly track their progress towards it
e) Engage heavily with the vendor (to the point of being annoying/micromanaging). They DO NOT accept a "throw it over the wall" approach.

We have seen such successful customers write their own training manuals (derived from ours) because they know their organization/culture the best. They even write manuals for their business partners, instructing them how to conduct business with them using our software. They keep these manuals up to date because we release new versions of our product.

It is "high touch" and takes a lot of commitment from the customer. But the results will speak for themselves.

If this is what it takes for software where life & death is not an issue, I can see how this applies 10x in the case of inducting a complex fighter aircraft.

If the IAF wants to truly benefit from the Tejas, they have to embed themselves into what comes out of the ADA/HAL stables.

[Sanku]

Did HAL or ADA say that they'd not supply manuals at all?

Did I say they did? The issue is that people don't want IAF to wait for the manuals, that is apparently not a good enough reason. I am merely trying to highlight that a operational deployment is not possible without manuals.

There have been delays with writing the manuals and i'm not going to offer excuses for that, but the truth of the matter is that these things take a bit of time.

The above is contradictory to my mind., "things like these happen" to my mind does not gel with "not going to offer excuses" -- writing manuals is certainly not a exercise in R&D, of restricted access to technology etc etc. Its a simple project planning issue, which is at the root of most issues in Indian MIC frankly -- and in any case, if such things "happen" -- the induction delay is something which will "happen".

Why is IAF being castigated for that?

Of course, you conveniently overlook the fact that the Russians DID NOT SUPPLY PILOT MANUALS AT ALL.

Err how did I "overlook" that? I have asked you to share any links or reports to that being the case. I would certainly like to know, and if true (pardon the sceptisim) how IAF wrote the manuals. It is not a trivial exercise. Especially if you are not a test pilot associated with manufacture but a user.

HAL will be the responsible agency for maintenance manuals and my guess is ADA and NFTC .

NFTC is part of ADA if I am not wrong. The pilot manuals should be written by the test pilots in association with HAL. That is how it is done.

[SaiK]

manuals and documents are for reference after training. so, get that aspect cleared for IAF. it is not that LCA training begins tomorrow.

[Sagar G]

To some "discuss" has a totally different meaning.

So does "read" or "reading".

Not what you think it to be. Ignore button is best.

Ignoring them would make them more bolder and carry out the tripe that they indulge in and given the no. of eyeballs this site receives that won't leave a good impression on a lot of them and hence would produce more photocopies of such geniuses in the process i.e. fact noode, logic noode and sense noode. Hence from time to time such "noode" people have to be administered a highly concentrated dosage of their own medicine.

[Sanku]

Lets discuss the topic shall we?

Hain You are interested in "discussion" !!!!! Since when ???

Discuss what exactly ??? I have posted a direct quote from a CEMILAC guy (which you obviously didn't read or even care to read or even care to understand even if by chance you read it) who has said that the IAF's very own organization i.e. Central Servicing Development Organisation (CSDO),Bangalore is involved in the required documentation process. So when an IAF organization itself is involved in the process what is there to "discuss" ??? If by discussion you mean bitching,lying and flogging dead horse then spare me your "discussion" drama.

Do you have a point? If so make it clearly, because right now, it comes across as nothing but a personal attack.

[Sanku]

If the IAF wants to truly benefit from the Tejas, they have to embed themselves into what comes out of the ADA/HAL stables.

Here is NFTC

http://www.ada.gov.in/nftc.htm


1. Wg Cdr (Retd) PK Raveendran (GD[FT])
2. Ms. Revathy Vivekanandan, (Sc/Engr 'F')
3. Shri.B Umashankar, (Sc/Engr 'F')
4. Wg Cdr. Prabhu. M [FLT TEST ENGR ]
5. Cmde.(IN) Maolankar JA [Test Pilot]
6. Wg. Cdr. A Kabadwal [FLT Test Engr ]
7. Wg. Cdr Ajay Kumar Lohany [FLT Test Engr]
8. Gp. Capt. Ashish Srivastava[FLT Test Engr]
9. Cdr. S Dahiya(IN)[Test Pilot]
10. Cdr. JD Raturi [Flight Test Engineer]
11. Gp.Capt.[Retd] R R Tyagi [Test Pilot]
12. Gp.Capt.K K Venugopal [Test Pilot]
13. Gp. Capt.(Retd) Suneet Krishna [Test Pilot]

So IAF embedding. Check.

[Sanku]

To some "discuss" has a totally different meaning.

So does "read" or "reading".

Not what you think it to be. Ignore button is best.

Ignoring them would make them more bolder and carry out the tripe that they indulge in and given the no. of eyeballs this site receives that won't leave a good impression on a lot of them and hence would produce more photocopies of such geniuses in the process i.e. fact noode, logic noode and sense noode. Hence from time to time such "noode" people have to be administered a highly concentrated dosage of their own medicine.

I think some people in the forum need to understand that personal attacks do not substitute for lack of meat on their posts.

[Sagar G]

Do you have a point? If so make it clearly, because right now, it comes across as nothing but a personal attack.

I think some people in the forum need to understand that personal attacks do not substitute for lack of meat on their posts.

Ohhh the high moral road card !!!!! What a cliché !!!!

You yourself don't have any kind of knowledge about the thing that you are trying to "discuss" but have the galls of lecturing others what they should be doing or not. A simple question to you, did you understood what the CEMILAC guy said in response to the documentation question ???

[Sanku]

A simple question to you, did you understood what the CEMILAC guy said in response to the documentation question ???

Yes, but you did not, going by the hyperventilation that you indulging in.

BTW, cut out the personal attacks. Not that those have any meaning, but its a nuisance to wade through tons of nonsense to figure out what is being said or not said.

[Sagar G]

Yes, but you did not, going by the hyperventilation that you indulging in.

Haai re iron-E

BTW, cut out the personal attacks. Not that those have any meaning, but its a nuisance to wade through tons of nonsense to figure out what is being said or not said.

See Sanku that's why you must not read your own posts, now pay attention like a good boy.

[SaiK]

STOP!

[RKumar]

Flight update

From
LCA-Tejas has completed 2298 Test Flights Successfully. (24-Aug-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-368,LSP1-74,LSP2-281,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-93,LSP5-209,LSP7-51,NP1-4,LSP8-23)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2305 Test Flights Successfully. (03-Sep-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-281,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-210,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-25)

Congrats on crossing 2300 mark.

Hope following milestone soon achive
- Further flights of NLCA
- Complete IOC-II

[pushkar.bhat]

I think there is a fundamental problem with the LCA Project right now Not with the aircraft though!! The problem is that every single LCA as we know it is different. Even the LSP's are not replica of each other. So if there is no standardization then it is very difficult to write any documentation. I think once the configuration standardization happens then you can write down things like press the button and turn the lever to right. Till then it will be a complex if LSP=LSP8 then ...

Just my 2 cents to the thread..

[member_27444]

Stop fratricide please sagar ji and sanku ji don't stoop to conquer

Which you are not doing but let's not slip

[Kartik]

HAL will be the responsible agency for maintenance manuals and my guess is ADA and NFTC will have to team up for the pilot manuals along with the first IAF squadron that evalutes the Tejas. That is the primary purpose of the squadron that evaluates the aircraft before induction. Its not something that is specific to the Tejas alone. Test and Evaluation squadrons in the USAF too perform similar tasks.

To give an analogy from the IT-vity world, this is exactly the best practice that mature companies do when they implement a complex system. We develop procurement software whose implementations last several months. We have consistently noticed that the customers who get the most value out of the system are the ones who:

a) Actively champion the cause within their organization. They have executive sponsors & the project is backed from the CEO level
b) Are involved at every stage of the project from vendor evaluation, contract signature, kick-off, implementation, go-live, post-go-live support and day to day maintenance
c) Remove internal bottlenecks, sort out political/turf battles
d) Set goals that they want to achieve and constantly track their progress towards it
e) Engage heavily with the vendor (to the point of being annoying/micromanaging). They DO NOT accept a "throw it over the wall" approach.

We have seen such successful customers write their own training manuals (derived from ours) because they know their organization/culture the best. They even write manuals for their business partners, instructing them how to conduct business with them using our software. They keep these manuals up to date because we release new versions of our product.

It is "high touch" and takes a lot of commitment from the customer. But the results will speak for themselves.

If this is what it takes for software where life & death is not an issue, I can see how this applies 10x in the case of inducting a complex fighter aircraft.

If the IAF wants to truly benefit from the Tejas, they have to embed themselves into what comes out of the ADA/HAL stables.

Agree totally.

[Kartik]

Did I say they did? The issue is that people don't want IAF to wait for the manuals, that is apparently not a good enough reason. I am merely trying to highlight that a operational deployment is not possible without manuals.

You implied exactly that when you said that there is a difference in supplying manuals in Russian and not supplying manuals at all. Those Russian manuals would be a severe overhead since translation would be required for the average IAF maintenance tech or pilot.

The above is contradictory to my mind., "things like these happen" to my mind does not gel with "not going to offer excuses" -- writing manuals is certainly not a exercise in R&D, of restricted access to technology etc etc. Its a simple project planning issue, which is at the root of most issues in Indian MIC frankly -- and in any case, if such things "happen" -- the induction delay is something which will "happen".

I'm not going to offer excuses because I don't have the facts on what led to the delays. Some times there are genuine reasons for delays and some times there aren't. Without those facts, to castigate HAL is not fair. to be fair, the IAF HQ is not the world's most efficient either, as we've seen with the inordinate delays that are always seen with their RFP and RFQ releases.

Err how did I "overlook" that? I have asked you to share any links or reports to that being the case. I would certainly like to know, and if true (pardon the sceptisim) how IAF wrote the manuals. It is not a trivial exercise. Especially if you are not a test pilot associated with manufacture but a user.

The source is a reliable poster who was discussing about the issues the RMAF had with the Su-30MKM where Sukhoi did not supply pilot manuals and the RMAF had to approach the IAF, which had to do those on its own. This info was based on that poster's interaction with IAF personnel deputed to RMAF for training activities.

Thank you for at least accepting that this was not a trivial exercise, but the IAF did that and you won't even hear a whimper about it on any article. Because they didn't complain. Now with the Tejas, the complaints start.

NFTC is part of ADA if I am not wrong. The pilot manuals should be written by the test pilots in association with HAL. That is how it is done.

Why HAL? and what do you mean by that is how its done? HAL is the prime production agency, not the nodal agency. Its not HAL test pilots that fly the Tejas, but NFTC pilots. the Dhruv was a different case and was purely a HAL product. the Tejas pilot manuals will IMO be written by NFTC and ADA folks with the IAF's first Test and Evaluation squadron providing inputs. NFTC pilots have been flying it for years now, and safely. They must have their own internal manuals for sure, to bring new TPs upto speed on the platform's performance.

What people are forgetting is that this is not an import of an in-service foreign fighter. The IAF has to be involved in the exercise of maturing the Tejas, not just expect a fully mature fighter to be dropped into its lap, ready for combat the next day.