|
|
Originally Posted by AJITHAAA
(Post 4540482)
Since he is from that organization, he is duty bound to do so and all he has done is stated facts. |
|
Originally Posted by AJITHAAA
(Post 4540482)
Comments here are as if every other day an HAL serviced plane is crashing. After all this hoopla imagine if HAL is absolved of any wrong doing, what then. |
|
Originally Posted by A350XWB
(Post 4540631)
The sentence I've marked in bold, summarizes what I wanted to say. An employee's word should be taken in, with a bit of skepticism, as with the rumors, because of the simple fact that "he's bound to defend his organization". I'd rather wait for the official report :) In any aviation accident or any accident for that matter, you get hundreds of opinion on who's fault it was. The recent Lion air 737MAX accident also is similar. As it happened in Asia, many people in the West immediately started blaming it on pilots and maintenance. Happens all the time. One of my classmates and good friends is an employee of HAL (about 14 years now) and we get to discuss things about HAL, both good and bad. But I don't believe that we should bring it out and discuss in public. Let's wait for the report and ignore news which comes out of uninformed sources :thumbs up |
|
Originally Posted by PGA
(Post 4542088)
https://epaper.tribuneindia.com/m5/2...2019#page/13/1 Two balanced viewpoints from very qualified individuals. |
|
Originally Posted by V.Narayan
(Post 4542098)
PGA, The link doesn't see to work. Could you copy-paste the contents if it is not too much of trouble. Many thanks in advance. |
|
Originally Posted by PGA
(Post 4542139)
https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/ne...ny/726725.html https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/ne...at/726728.html https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/ne...et/726731.html Please try on these links, they should work. These are articles in today's The Tribune newspaper, Chandigarh edition. |
| On social media, there are messages claiming to be from HAL test pilots saying they had flown six sorties of the plane that crashed. Test pilots of HAL and the IAF are a close-knit community. These professionals are given different tasks and responsibilities. A set of test pilots at HAL are assigned to test fly production aircraft that come out after repair or upgrade. Once they clear it, another set of test pilots flies these for acceptance by the IAF. I understand that the aircraft that crashed was under acceptance testing. Who is responsible for speed and quality of production? The government and the Ministry of Defence production, in particular, are responsible for quality and pace of indigenous production. Normally, faster production should help to make more money. But, it is not true in the current scenario. HAL gets paid the cost plus an assured profit. The longer it takes to produce, more money it would make! There is no incentive to produce. To a world standard, our industry is over-manned. Successive IAF chiefs have said HAL is slow in production. Do you agree? Air chiefs have shown some impatience over delays and escalation of cost. It is not the responsibility of the Air Force to keep HAL floating. The IAF is pushed to the wall to extend existing production line to ensure HAL has adequate work. This approach should change. HAL must design own aircraft and helicopters and export these. It should offer products and services for export. A world-class aerospace industry cannot thrive only on the IAF alone. Who is responsible for speed and quality of production? The government and the Ministry of Defence production, in particular, are responsible for quality and pace of indigenous production. Normally, faster production should help to make more money. But, it is not true in the current scenario. HAL gets paid the cost plus an assured profit. The longer it takes to produce, more money it would make! There is no incentive to produce. To a world standard, our industry is over-manned. How long does it take to go from eight to 12 Tejas per annum to 25 per year? Maybe Boeing or BAE can expand capacity quickly as they have the infrastructure and trained manpower. We need to plan carefully, invest in a big way and proceed. The industry would need the best possible leadership and managers. So what is holding it back? What is lacking is the hunger to improve and passion for aeronautics, coupled with the fear to innovate. Successive IAF chiefs have said HAL is slow in production. Do you agree? Air chiefs have shown some impatience over delays and escalation of cost. It is not the responsibility of the Air Force to keep HAL floating. The IAF is pushed to the wall to extend existing production line to ensure HAL has adequate work. This approach should change. HAL must design own aircraft and helicopters and export these. It should offer products and services for export. A world-class aerospace industry cannot thrive only on the IAF alone. Is the IAF worried? The IAF is expected to win a war every time. It has the manpower and skill set, but not enough planes. We must develop these indigenously. Continuing to import is not the answer. Look at the Chinese, they show discipline, commitment and innovation. Aeronautics in India is yet to get due importance. |
| In January this year, the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Defence revealed that the existing strength of the IAF’s trainer aircraft fleet is 310 against the sanctioned strength of 432. The IAF has a requirement of 183 basic trainer aircraft (BTA). At present, it has 75 Swiss-made PC-7 Mk-II, with a case for buying another 38 aircraft underway. Seventy BTA are to be manufactured by HAL. As far as the intermediate jet trainer (IJT) is concerned, the role is being fulfilled by HAL-made Kiran, which is to be replaced by the IJT, also by HAL. The committee noted that HAL’s BTA, the HTT-40, has not obtained certification even two years after first flight of the prototype in 2016. The committee observed that theHAL’s IJT project was sanctioned in 1999. A contract was signed for delivering 12 limited series production aircraft in 2005 and 73 series production aircraft in 2010. However, the company is yet to complete IJT’s design and development. The committee was “perturbed” that owing to the non-availability of the IJT, the IAF had to modify its training programme to a “two aircraft type flying training pattern” instead of the normally followed “three aircraft type flying training pattern”, progressing from the BTA to the IJT and then to the advance jet trainer. The IAF has now reportedly reverted to the three-aircraft pattern. A few days ago, Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa, came down heavily on HAL and said the IAF’s association with HAL had compromised its fighting capability. Inordinate delays in development, time and cost overruns in fleet upgrade works and quality issues are among reasons cited for the IAF’s unhappiness. Though HAL, as a public sector entity, faces a myriad of problems that most state-owned companies suffer — political interference, bureaucratic inertia, mismanagement of resources, job reservations and corruption, it has produced some success stories also. |
|
Originally Posted by AJITHAAA
(Post 4542013)
I would like to state that you are wrong, especially in the case of aircrafts, there are strict guidelines layed out for testing and accreditation. Nobody can just say that I flew the aircraft so it is safe. Consider the aircraft, it's service history various other aspects before pointing fingers. |
| "Before an aircraft goes to the IAF, its standards are good enough for me to bet my life on it." "Remember, every pilot in the IAF is also betting his life on my judgement." Strong words from a senior Hindustan Aeronautics Limited test pilot who flew and handed over the very same Mirage 2000 fighter that crashed on its take-off run on Friday in Bengaluru. |
| It wasn’t pilot error but a possible lapse during the aircraft upgrade process that led to the 1 February Mirage 2000 crash at the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) airport in Bengaluru, the court of inquiry (CoI) has found. According to the CoI, the crash was caused by an “uninitiated control input” — or a software glitch — during the jet’s user acceptance trial. “Even the soldering done on the hardware can actually send wrong signals to the software, which acts accordingly,” one source explained. The entire sequence of the crash has been caught on video. The video shows the start of the trial, as the aircraft’s brakes are released and the flight is accelerated. At about 13 seconds from wheel roll, the sources said, the nose wheel is seen lifting off the ground with the plane taking off seven seconds later. When the aircraft is about five metres from the ground, the sources added, its nose pitches sharply downwards, with the jet then hitting the runway on its main wheels and tail |
|
Originally Posted by SmartCat
(Post 4562237)
“Even the soldering done on the hardware can actually send wrong signals to the software, which acts accordingly,” one source explained |
|
Originally Posted by vharihar
(Post 4562296)
Geez, such a generic statement. Totally lacks thoroughness/detail/professionalism. Looks like a statement made by a man on the street. |
|
Originally Posted by Jeroen
(Post 4562303)
Technically speaking it is entirely correct. Not sure how many people on the street would appreciate that? Whether it played a role in this particular accident I do not know. But if you want to illustrate how thorough you need to design, build, verify test any component it is not a bad example Jeroen |
|
Originally Posted by vharihar
(Post 4562373)
My point is, everyone even with a little bit of technical competence knows what he is saying. But I don't expect that coming from a CoI! I expect details (like how NTSB gives), like say: "The soldering of one of the replaced surface mount voltage-regulation-module chips appears to have not been done well". |
| All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 19:18. |