MountainThere we others earlier in the thread, but just off the bat:
On another note:
I did not see this before. Wtf??
Between this and “impure” fuel….
Thanks
MountainInvolves assumptions. The availability could have been lower than norm, but if you start number crunching you will see what I mean, e.g. 100 machines doing only 100 hours each (very conservative), that’s 10000 hours. Over the 5 yrs that’s 50000 hours. 3 crashes over 5 yrs is darn good.
To put this crash rate into perspective , the USAF’s worst year for F-16 crashes was 3.85 per 100,000 hours, and they were deployed globally and some on combat missions. That puts into perspective just how bad the IAF SU-30 crash rate you just described as “darn good” actually is….
MountainIt was right under 50% about a year and a half ago IIRC, and went up to ~57% in that time. That was before the local overhaul facility was completed, so it should be creeping north of 60% by now.
I think even a 10% or so increase in availability of a 205-215 sized fleet could lead to some tangible flight hour gains.
Source?
MountainThe MiG-29 has similar availability to the Mirage-2000.
Their Su-30 availability has been creeping up over the past year, and given the size of the fleet, would probably increase the overall flight hours considerably.
Last I heard it was 50-60% according to reports.do you have a source to say this has improved?
MountainInvolves assumptions. The availability could have been lower than norm, but if you start number crunching you will see what I mean, e.g. 100 machines doing only 100 hours each (very conservative), that’s 10000 hours. Over the 5 yrs that’s 50000 hours. 3 crashes over 5 yrs is darn good.
6 crashes per 100,000 hours is not good.
MountainFleet size is not as important as the number of hours the fleet is doing. If one has those figures available, a better comparison is possible. And I have no reason not to believe that IAF pilots are also getting more annual hours like many other contemporary forces.
Agreed, and according to the latest info we have to hand fleet availability (especially amongst the SU and MIG types) is very poor, so could mean IAF pilots are getting much fewer hours, which ironically could have something to do with more human error in accidents. “Simple logic dictates” to use a term you like to
MountainSimple logic dictates that older aircrafts r more difficult to operate in various situations and hence pilots are more prone to making mistakes when flying those. Compare the cockpit of a bis with that of LCA, the concept of HOTAS in modern jets against what a pilot has to go through when flying an older machine and you will know what causes higher probability of HE in older machines.
So no surprises there.
How does that explain the Jaguar and SU-30 accidents? Also, as IAF squadron size has signifcantly decreased once would expect total number of accidents to go down, that has not been the case, total numbers crashing have actually gone up (despite retiring older types)
MountainThing is J-20 is probably also the least mature 5th Gen airframe, so comparing it to more mature models is slightly unfair, especially comparing it to the very latest versions of the original SU-27.
In all likelyhood, and what is the most important, is what plane finally enters PLAAF service. This will probably be very advanced version of the J-20 and may well have a different engine. As you know, the latest SU-35 is way ahead of the original SU-27, of comparing the F-16A Block 15 with the early versions of the F-16C.
Always the danger with these threads
MountainHuman Error becoming an increasing source of IAF accidents
20 Fighter Plane Crashes In 5 Years. Did Indian Air Force Train Pilots Poorly?
A number of aircraft belonging to the Indian Air Force (IAF) have crashed in recent years, and sources in the IAF have hinted that pilots’ training may have been compromised, leading to these incidents.
Yes, “pilot training was compromised”
india iaf crash fighter jet
bccl
“Due to nonavailability of basic trainer aircraft, intermediate jet trainer and full complement of advance jet simulators, pilot training was compromised. Considering these things, it’s an alarming trend we have seen in recent years,” said a senior IAF officer, wishing to stay anonymous.
According to Ministry of Defence (MoD) data, 20 fighter aircraft (3 Sukhoi, 12 MiG and 5 Jaguar) have crashed in the last three years. When asked why instances of MiG aircraft crashes are significantly higher, the officer said, “MiG 21s and 27s were brought in from Russia in the 60s and 70s. Considering the rise in MiG accidents, three squadrons of the ageing MiG 21 and 27 fighter jets are set to be phased out this year. Three squadrons of 18 aircraft each will be pulled out due to the end of their life cycle.”
Increasing human error accidents
india fighter jet crash india
bccl
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that accidents involving human error (HE) increased from 41 per cent in 1991-97 to 51 per cent in 2010-13. HE comprises errors made by aircrew on flying duty or ground duty or both.
“Various preventive measures like invigoration of aviation safety measures, streamlining of accident reporting procedure, analytical studies and quality audits of the aircraft fleet have been undertaken to reduce accidents. The IAF has also constituted a special committee to investigate reasons behind the accidents and accordingly make changes in pilots’ training,” said wing commander SS Birdi, IAF spokesperson from Delhi.
“If you check statistics over the last few decades, there has been a steady decrease in the number of accidents,” he pointed out. In 1971-80, 29 accidents were recorded, while the corresponding figures for 1981-90 were 31. It then reduced to 27 in 1991-2000 and again to 17 from 2001-10. However, the last five years of this decade have already seen 20 crashes.
The old MiG problem?
Former air chief PV Naik added, “In the 60s, we weren’t used to MiG aircraft. Due to the delta wing, MiG aircraft had a high inertia and this led to accidents. Over time, we overcame this issue. The MiG aircraft uses old technology and, of late, this is contributing to the crashes. As far as HE is concerned, there are various contributing factors involved, but in order to reduce percentage of HE, sophisticated simulators and availability of trainers can play a pivotal role.”
Mountain“Mountain” … I suppose the previous poster was correct when he stated you have some sort of grudge. You quite clearly do. And this is now degenerating into territory I don’t want to enter. You quite clearly have either no understanding or no willingness to understand what I have explained. An elementary google search reveals that there are articles out there on the Indradhanush exercises that don’t quote the IAF either while others have no quotes at all. How are those fair while my piece reflects some sort of bias? By cherry-picking random arguments to suit your argument, you reveal what the previous poster clearly identified … an anti-IAF bias. I wonder why.
So, you can believe what you want but kindly refrain from questioning my intentions in publishing my article.
Fondly, the reporter you refer to as “Chap.” :rolleyes:
Yawn. Yes, as usual, if you disagree or debate then one is “anti-IAF”, please play another record and debate, as opposed to sounding like a jingoistic poster (of which we have many) and not a journalist. Anyone can see the agenda behind your article, lets not pretend this was a proper fair scrutiny of a joint exercise.
MountainJ-7 has to be the worst jet to operate. MiG-21bis is a superior jet that enjoys multitudes of hours between major work over J-7. An old MiG-21bis is probably still easier to maintain than a new J-7, which is why China exports so few.
Firstly anyone would take a brand new F-7PG over a bis. Manoeuvrability and radar/avionics are much improved. China no longer produces F-7 so no longer exporting.
Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your posts….
MountainWhy, were all PAF F-16A/Bs MLUed?
Yes
MountainI am who I am … you can email me as well at [email]vishnu@ndtv.com[/email]. I don’t hide behind names like Mountain. I post with my real name. I have offered a cogent explanation of why the RAF was not asked. Some of the best journalists I know have complemented me on the article …so I am not sure what you mean. In any event, I do not need any lectures on good journalism – have been in this business for too long. The point is that the Contingent Commander … a man fully aware of the conduct of his side in JOINT EXERCISES .. spoke about how he saw the exercises going. You can disagree with what he says but in doing so, don’t shoot me and don’t deflect from the issue at hand. I repeat, shooting the messenger is all too easy. Instead, do go out and get the RAF to give you its scoreline with detail on how they assessed the performance of the IAF’s Flankers. Till such time, I stick to my article.
Thanks
We all hide behind names here chap, it’s an aviation forum, not a chapter of the KKK.
You have offered absolutely not explanation for why you just took one side of the story and did not even bother to do your home work and just absolutely trust what you were told. Regarding some of the best journalists complimenting you (and the extreme modesty you show), I would be rather surprised if Woodward and Bernstein were buying you a drink.
What this article does came across as is a crass sycophantic piece written by you for an air force that must suffer from some sort of inferiority complex regarding foreign air forces.
The RAF did in fact gives its side of the story (that you of course had no interest in hearing in your original article) and they completly contradicted you, going so far as to diplomatically hint that the IAF commander was actually lying
“Comical” and “”clouded recollection on flights back to India”.
You may do well reading the above article by Jamie Merrill. He gives a balanced back ground and takes Indian, British and Indian sources. Something your article spectacularly failed to do.
Mountain1. Mountain, I am not sure who you are, but its a first in 20 odd years for me to be accused of lazy journalism. Still, let me clarify in the hope that this doesn’t turn out to be your agenda-driven troll attack.
Firstly, all information in the article was provided to me on the basis of an interview in the office of the Public Relations Officer of the Indian Air Force at the Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. As always, I have copious notes of this. The detail on the 12-0 scoreline was given by the IAF’s Indradhanush Contingent Commander. I could easily have quoted him on that as well. Instead, I chose to use that piece of information in the article and quote him on other aspects of the story. This was my prerogative. Hoping to wish away the story I have reported, you will resort to looking for imagined holes in the report. Shooting the messenger is an old tactic, one I am all too familiar with.
2. The IAF does NOT for a moment deny what you refer to as the “implication” of my story. Read the IAF statement carefully. They do NOT deny the 12-0 scoreline. Not once. Yes, they do try to play down the significance of what happened because, quite clearly, it resulted in a bit of a PR mess for them.
3. The interview conducted here was of the IAF’s Contingent Commander involved in the conduct of JOINT exercises with the RAF. He was a responsible authority fully aware of all that transpired in the UK. I didn’t at all feel the need to get a reaction from the RAF since I didn’t believe there was any reason to question the competence of the man who gave me the interview. Nor did I believe he was lying. When I interview Prime Ministers or Presidents of countries, I do not ask for reactions from their opposite numbers in countries that they have problems with. Why? Because they represent a point of view and there is credibility based on the position that they hold. And often in what they say. This was not a murder-mystery type of news story where I report a he said, she said sort of scenario thereby ensuring that I had the views of both parties. I should also add that I cross-checked the veracity of the claims being made in the interview with my sources, folks who would not come on record on the story.
4. If and when there is specific information (i.e alternate scorelines) to suggest that the IAF’s claims were incorrect, I will certainly report it. However, I know, because I have been told, that neither the IAF nor the RAF want to raise this issue any further.
5. I have fighter jet pictures in my twitter feed so, therefore, I am the PR department of the IAF ? Sorry, but thats just bizarre.
Thanks
Thanks for your reply.
” I didn’t at all feel the need to get a reaction from the RAF since I didn’t believe there was any reason to question the competence of the man who gave me the interview. Nor did I believe he was lying. When I interview Prime Ministers or Presidents of countries, I do not ask for reactions from their opposite numbers in countries that they have problems with. Why? Because they represent a point of view and there is credibility based on the position that they hold.”
I’ll be very honest with you, the best journalists in the world, and I assume you should know this, would never ever agree with the above statement. Journalists, the good ones anyway, always question things, otherwise they are simply PR mouth pieces surely?
If you really are who you say you are, I would say that is a really shoddy piece of journalism. Now rather then accuse me of being a troll you can try playing the ball instead of the man?
MountainAnd you like to talk about -“getting both side of the story right”!
LMAO
You have nothing but contempt for IAF, so why don’t you go back to the IAF thread and continue with what you do best there.. which is posting contempt for IAF.
Constructive contribution to the debate. Nice.
Sign In
