Centre blames HAL for failed fighter jet that left pilot with lifelong spin

[sudhir007]

Centre blames HAL for failed fighter jet that left pilot with lifelong spinal injuries | Mail Online

That the workhorses of the Indian Air Force are falling out of the sky at an alarming rate does not seem to worry the Centre.

After all, it's not the government's fault; poor Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) workmanship is to blame, it says - never mind that the local manufacturer of the Soviet-era fighter jet is a Public Sector Unit.

Naturally, HAL won't agree. That's just what the Centre has said in a sworn affidavit to the Delhi High Court during a hearing in a case about the MiG-21 initiated by a serving IAF wing commander earlier this year.

Wing Commander Sanjeet Singh Kaila, severely injured for life by an ejection from a malfunctioning MiG in 2005, had approached the court saying that flying the MiG-21 amounted to a violation of his Fundamental Right to Life and to work in a safe environment due to frequent accidents.

In its counter-affidavit submitted before the High Court on Wednesday, the Centre submitted that the accident was caused due to manufacturing defects on part of HAL, a claim that has been denied.

The HAL counsel instead told the court that it only manufactures MiG-21 fighter jets as per orders placed by the government and that it follows all prescribed standards for manufacturing.

Kaila was posted at Naal Air Force Station in Rajasthan in 2005. On January 4, then Squadron Leader Kaila took off on a regular exercise with three other pilots.
Soon after take-off, Kaila's MiG began listing dangerously. Within moments, the pilot next to Kaila told him the MiG was on fire, and near-complete engine and control failure followed.

Kaila did not eject immediately even though he was well within his rights to because he was above a populated village at that point.

Kaila managed to pull away before ejecting. The ejection, however, left Kaila with severe neck and spinal injuries, and unfit to fly.

In May this year, he approached the Delhi High Court seeking attribution of responsibility for the accident. Notices were then issued to the Centre and HAL.

On Thursday, the Centre and HAL further submitted before HC that they could not be blamed for infringing upon the petitioner's Fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 since it is known that an IAF pilot's job involves calculated risks and certain professional hazards.

The counsel for the Union of India submitted that following the accident, a court of inquiry was conducted at Subroto Park in Delhi on July 13, 2005.

Besides IAF officials, including the Air Chief, two representatives of HAL were also present at the inquiry that revealed the accident had been caused due to a failed nozzle, itself the result of a manufacturing defect.

HAL, the Centre said, has accepted this.

"The inquiry reveals that sub-par workmanship on the afterburner manifold at HAL during production was a probable cause of the accident. HAL also validated the finding in its final Defect Investigation Report.

"The sortie began at 10.30 a.m. on January 4, 2005 and no abnormality was observed till line up and on takeoff roll. The inquiry further established that inadequate workmanship at HAL during welding the nozzle onto the after burner had a causation impact. X-ray checks carried out after welding at HAL failed to detect the abnormality," the Centre said.

It also submitted that following the court of inquiry, "remedial measures have also been initiated to prevent recurrence of such accidents."

 

[neehar]

its unfortunate..and our organizations must be more careful in what they do..but i think any evolving organization faces this problem..but amounted to a violation of his Fundamental Right to Life and to work in a safe environment due to frequent accidents. is this right available to a fighter pilot??

 

[Liquidmetal]

its unfortunate..and our organizations must be more careful in what they do..but i think any evolving organization faces this problem..but amounted to a violation of his Fundamental Right to Life and to work in a safe environment due to frequent accidents. is this right available to a fighter pilot??

The right to life is sacrcosanct and even in war the right for a soldier to be protected from unreasonable death is a fundamental right. In other words, don't go to war against an enemy armed with a tank when you have a only a pea shooter. Thus the battle of the Somme and the forced march of men into No Mans Land under blistering fire would be a violation of that fundamental right to life. It is the same for our troops sent to Dir etc in open top trucks - sitting ducks for the TTP high up in the hills, thus these men can and must demand proper equipment for this vital war.

 

[neehar]

The right to life is sacrcosanct and even in war the right for a soldier to be protected from unreasonable death is a fundamental right. In other words, don't go to war against an enemy armed with a tank when you have a only a pea shooter. Thus the battle of the Somme and the forced march of men into No Mans Land under blistering fire would be a violation of that fundamental right to life. It is the same for our troops sent to Dir etc in open top trucks - sitting ducks for the TTP high up in the hills, thus these men can and must demand proper equipment for this vital war.

thats all again strategical issues in the field but in general i dont think defence personnel do have certain rights.and they have to give certain declaration before joining the force

 

[janon]

The right to life is sacrcosanct and even in war the right for a soldier to be protected from unreasonable death is a fundamental right. In other words, don't go to war against an enemy armed with a tank when you have a only a pea shooter. Thus the battle of the Somme and the forced march of men into No Mans Land under blistering fire would be a violation of that fundamental right to life. It is the same for our troops sent to Dir etc in open top trucks - sitting ducks for the TTP high up in the hills, thus these men can and must demand proper equipment for this vital war.

While I agree in principle, I don't think the argument will hold water in a court of law. Can the Pakistani troops who were sent ill equipped to Taliban strongholds file a case in court? I wish that were possible - but unfortunately, in the subcontinent, lives are not as sacrosanct in practice as in theory.

In my personal opinion, I agree that the under equipped Pakistani soldiers in Dir, and the IAF pilots who have to fly jets older than themselves should be able to take their parent organizations to court for that.

 

[Liquidmetal]

While I agree in principle, I don't think the argument will hold water in a court of law. Can the Pakistani troops who were sent ill equipped to Taliban strongholds file a case in court? I wish that were possible - but unfortunately, in the subcontinent, lives are not as sacrosanct in practice as in theory.

In my personal opinion, I agree that the under equipped Pakistani soldiers in Dir, and the IAF pilots who have to fly jets older than themselves should be able to take their parent organizations to court for that.

It is one thing to ignore rights that is for the concious of the state the leaders of the country but as a fundamental right it is sacrosanct, even in war life MUST be protected, of course war is about death - killing on a massive scale and legalised, however every person must expect his own side to give him as much protection to his life as is possible. Hence to keep sending men in flying coffins was a dereliction of that duty. It is the same for our men too, they are sent into harms way without adequate protection and a soldier must and we on his behalf must demand that the state provide the means to best protect this right.

 

[Shankranthi]

Strangely enough 'right to life' is not part of our Fundamental Rights in the constitution. You have everything else except right to life.

 

[neehar]

Strangely enough 'right to life' is not part of our Fundamental Rights in the constitution. You have everything else except right to life.

it is a fundamental right.under article 21 protection of life and personal liberty is a fundamental liberty.further supereme court
has interpreted that several times it has changed several clauses from "procedure established by law" to "due process of law".further it has interpreted that right to life is not just living mechanically.every person has the right to live with dignity .a complete worthful and meaning life and included education under this article.so the givt formed right to education act under article 21a.right to life contains 26 such conditions which have to be ensured.

that said i dont think all the rights are applicable to the defence personnel.they have to sign certain declarations ans abide by them as long as they are under the oath. i think perhaps @Abingdonboy can clarify on this.

 

[jhungary]

Lets look at it this way.
Right of life and war. In order for you to not die in war, you must not take any risk.

However, in war, everything you do is taking risk. How do you preserve the right of life in war?

Simple answer is, you can't...

War/Battle happened whenever they do, you don't pick the time and place to do that.

If you were ordered to march into a machine gun pit armed with only a pistol. If you only have a pistol or nothing else, you will do it. You fight a war with the equipment you have at hand. Not the stuff you SHOULD have

However, in war ,a soldier can refuse an order if the order deemed unnecessary and unsafe to follow, but that is a fine line.

 

[Cherokee]

This always reminds me of this song

 

[Pakistanisage]

Aircrafts are not perfect machines and accidents happen. Pilots assume certain amount of risk when they sign up for such hazardous duties. Question is did the neck and back injuries occur during Ejection sequence and whether the Pilot contributed to these injuries by not adopting the recommended posture immediately before ejection. Most ejections result in compression of last few vertebras even with the correct posture because of excessive G forces in a fraction of a second, but such injuries usually are temporary in nature and the healing takes place with passage of time.

Such injuries are also more strident in older Pilots as well as Pilots not in good Physical condition i.e. overweight Pilots.

 

[janon]

Lets look at it this way.
Right of life and war. In order for you to not die in war, you must not take any risk.

However, in war, everything you do is taking risk. How do you preserve the right of life in war?

Simple answer is, you can't...

War/Battle happened whenever they do, you don't pick the time and place to do that.

If you were ordered to march into a machine gun pit armed with only a pistol. If you only have a pistol or nothing else, you will do it. You fight a war with the equipment you have at hand. Not the stuff you SHOULD have

However, in war ,a soldier can refuse an order if the order deemed unnecessary and unsafe to follow, but that is a fine line.

The troubling issue here is the sort of risks that Indian pilots are expected to take during peacetime, flying ancient jets that are barely holding together. Why should some pilots risk their lives everyday by flying mig-21 sorties, when tankmen or helo pilots or even Sukhoi/mirage pilots don't face such risks? Facing risks in war is one thing, but facing extreme risk everyday in peacetime...is it right to expect a pilot to face that, or is that a violation of his right to life? That is the question here.

 

[Donatello]

No wonder Dassault is reluctant to take responsibility for the Rafale made by HAL. Give them F-35/F-22 to make and they will manage to crash those as well.

 

[jhungary]

The troubling issue here is the sort of risks that Indian pilots are expected to take during peacetime, flying ancient jets that are barely holding together. Why should some pilots risk their lives everyday by flying mig-21 sorties, when tankmen or helo pilots or even Sukhoi/mirage pilots don't face such risks? Facing risks in war is one thing, but facing extreme risk everyday in peacetime...is it right to expect a pilot to face that, or is that a violation of his right to life? That is the question here.

The job of the military is fight a war

Indeed, we expect some sort of quality life in peacetime, even if you were in the military.

However, there is always a term that you cannot expect much out of nothing. Problem Oswego each have our order, be it manning a state of the art equipment or a 50 years old relic junk. Important thing was people do hurt or died in all sort of training accident

Plane fall out of the sky, it's people right mind that try to pin the responsibility to anyone who is responsible, it is very logical if we are in civilian world, not so much when you are in the military

Military is a different place, risk involve in a combat situation and a training scenario is almost the same. You can't just say because we are now peace time (Actually it's not in some part of India) and our stance should be relaxed.

Duty of care does not apply to military most of time, that is because you know it is the equal risk to sit in that cockpit for a bomb run or training flight. The risk are the same. You would know that

Some training even include member to take calculated risk, take top gun for instant

 

[janon]

No wonder Dassault is reluctant to take responsibility for the Rafale made by HAL. Give them F-35/F-22 to make and they will manage to crash those as well.

What about the huge fleet of jaguars that HAL has built, and have an excellent service record? Or the MKIs, the pride of the IAF?

The mig-21s are the only ones crashing, and that too, only since the late 90s/2000s, when they all became too old to be flown. Remember, these machines used to be our frontline fighter at one time, and have been put through a helluva lot of stress, not to mention they also served as a LIFT for rookie pilots.