<P> 2. Either way it looks like PIADS had actually got that article from <A HREF="http://www.defencejournal.com/aug98/contentsaug98.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.defencejournal.com/aug98/con ... g98.htm</A> - August 98 issue of defencejournal.com . This issue has the article plus a photo graph of the Air Marshal.<P> 3. The same article mentions that 60% of PAF accidents are f-6 related.<P> 4. The same issue of defence journal has an interview with serving AVM Niaz Husain, DCAS(ENGG), PAF. In which he says <I> Our continuous efforts are aimed at reducing our accident rate from the present figure of 1.37 to 1, or below, per 10,000 flying hours. </I><P> Now his figure of 1.37 per 10000 flying hours tallies with your calculation namely<P><I> Unfortunately, Air Marshal Khan doesn’t provide a breakdown of the actual number of accidents and flying hours for each of these years. Since we have no information with which to assign weights to the annual averages in order to come up with a figure for the period 1991-1997, we are forced to use a simple average. This works out to an attrition rate of 1.37 per 10,000 hours over the entire period. </I><P><BR>You might want to update your article with AVM Niaz Husain, DCAS(ENGG), PAF's statement.<P><BR><p>[This message has been edited by bishwa (edited 26-06-2000).]Attrition in the IAF and PAF
Attrition in the IAF and PAF
Rupak,<BR> W.r.t the monitor article <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... rupak.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... ak.html</A> <P><BR> Please note that<P> 1. PIADS has removed the article " Air Accidents Inspite of High Efficiency" By Air Marshal (Retd.) Ayaz Ahmad Khan (PAF) and all previous attrition figures from their web site. Wonder why ? <P> 2. Either way it looks like PIADS had actually got that article from <A HREF="http://www.defencejournal.com/aug98/contentsaug98.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.defencejournal.com/aug98/con ... g98.htm</A> - August 98 issue of defencejournal.com . This issue has the article plus a photo graph of the Air Marshal.<P> 3. The same article mentions that 60% of PAF accidents are f-6 related.<P> 4. The same issue of defence journal has an interview with serving AVM Niaz Husain, DCAS(ENGG), PAF. In which he says <I> Our continuous efforts are aimed at reducing our accident rate from the present figure of 1.37 to 1, or below, per 10,000 flying hours. </I><P> Now his figure of 1.37 per 10000 flying hours tallies with your calculation namely<P><I> Unfortunately, Air Marshal Khan doesn’t provide a breakdown of the actual number of accidents and flying hours for each of these years. Since we have no information with which to assign weights to the annual averages in order to come up with a figure for the period 1991-1997, we are forced to use a simple average. This works out to an attrition rate of 1.37 per 10,000 hours over the entire period. </I><P><BR>You might want to update your article with AVM Niaz Husain, DCAS(ENGG), PAF's statement.<P><BR><p>[This message has been edited by bishwa (edited 26-06-2000).]
<P> 2. Either way it looks like PIADS had actually got that article from <A HREF="http://www.defencejournal.com/aug98/contentsaug98.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.defencejournal.com/aug98/con ... g98.htm</A> - August 98 issue of defencejournal.com . This issue has the article plus a photo graph of the Air Marshal.<P> 3. The same article mentions that 60% of PAF accidents are f-6 related.<P> 4. The same issue of defence journal has an interview with serving AVM Niaz Husain, DCAS(ENGG), PAF. In which he says <I> Our continuous efforts are aimed at reducing our accident rate from the present figure of 1.37 to 1, or below, per 10,000 flying hours. </I><P> Now his figure of 1.37 per 10000 flying hours tallies with your calculation namely<P><I> Unfortunately, Air Marshal Khan doesn’t provide a breakdown of the actual number of accidents and flying hours for each of these years. Since we have no information with which to assign weights to the annual averages in order to come up with a figure for the period 1991-1997, we are forced to use a simple average. This works out to an attrition rate of 1.37 per 10,000 hours over the entire period. </I><P><BR>You might want to update your article with AVM Niaz Husain, DCAS(ENGG), PAF's statement.<P><BR><p>[This message has been edited by bishwa (edited 26-06-2000).]Re: Attrition in the IAF and PAF
<BR> Messers Sairam & Co,<BR> Please note the description of the "superior training" the PAF Engineering branch receives in<BR> <A HREF="http://www.defencejournal.com/aug98/niazhussain.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.defencejournal.com/aug98/niazhussain.htm</A> which I am reproducing for your kind perusal<BR> and consideration.<P> You will also note that this "superior training" results in a attrition rate of 1.37 for the PAF vs 1.07 for<BR> the IAF. In case you are not aware here the lower the figure the better unfortunately.<P> 1. All officers in the engineering branch are graduates of the College of Aeronautical<BR> Engineering at the PAF Academy, Risalpur, which is affiliated to the National University of Science and<BR> Technology (NUST). They undergo a 31/2 years degree course, on successful completion of which<BR> they are awarded a Bachelor’s degree of engineering either in the field of avionics or aerospace.<P> 2. After commissioning officers go through a specific training programme lasting one year. This<BR> training programme consists of specialised education, at Field Training Detachments (FTDs) on a<BR> particular weapon system of the PAF, either at an operational flying Base or at the Air Defence<BR> School. <P> 3. Weapon system specialization at the FTDs (approx. three months) is followed by ‘On the Job<BR> Training’ (OJT) on the weapon system for another nine months. During this latter phase the<BR> engineering officer works under supervision and is coached on all aspects of maintenance and repair<BR> activities of that particular equipment or weapon systems. Additionally, officers are groomed in<BR> Management techniques through specialist courses and seminars conducted at leading institutions in<BR> the country like PIM, LUMS, PIQC, and our own CAE. Deployment on any weapon system mandatorily<BR> requires pre-qualification through that weapon system FTD. As a rule of thumb, officer will do<BR> engineering duties at a maximum of two different types of weapon before promotion to senior ranks -<BR> an engineering officer specialises in his particular field.<P> 4. Approx. 10% of all engineer officers undergo higher studies leading to postgraduate degrees.<BR> Officers are sent for MS and Ph.D courses at universities in the UK, USA, China and now at NUST<BR> colleges in-country. <P> 5. A technician is restricted to only one weapon system. During the course of his career the<BR> technician will also regularly undergo ‘continuation’ and ‘refresher’ training. The idea is that every<BR> year each technician would have spent at least 3% of his available manhours on refresher training.<BR> During his career the technician undergoes other specialist training courses peculiar to his task, like<BR> non-destructive inspections, PME, structural repairs, etc.
Re: Attrition in the IAF and PAF
Bishwa<P>Many thanks for the link. I will add a link directly from the Defence Journal.<P>I am quite surprised (pleasantly) at how even the PAF's distribution of crashes is. <P>Nothing like the PAF itself confirming this. This thread is defiantely one for the archives