You are still avoiding the issue, talking about a helicopter crash and the number of passengers, not about pilot deaths; the number of helicopter crashes, considering the difficult and dangerous conditions, is in no way worth mentioning unless someone wishes to distract attention by mentioning an incident.
That has been the pattern of your replies; to avoid the main issue and talk about irrelevant incidentals. I don't have to summarise India's failures by saying China conceals information; Indian aircraft casualty figures are published openly, and you repeatedly run away from this point, and the corollary that Chinese figures are not published openly.
It is quite another thing that you examine each crash internally, and seek to improve from examination of the results. The point, again, is that these investigations are secret and confidential. You say, which is not relevant, that Chinese investigations are done to improve the build quality. Obviously. When you do not have access to the technology behind the plane and you are trying to reverse engineer, there will be failures, dangerous failures, quite apart from the loss of performance potential due to an inability to achieve a complete duplication. The performance figures of your reverse engineered marvels have been widely reported to have been behind those of the originals. There is every reason for you to agonise over every crash. The point, again, is that none of these crashes are revealed. And, again, the point is not that Indian crashes are not examined and investigated thoroughly. There are even public reports, available for those who use the net not to write your kind of speculative fiction but to explore and to discover.
You say that India does not do these investigations because India does not need them. That India needs only to improve the training of its pilots and of HAL. As it happens, I live outside Hakimpet Air Force Base today; most of my professional life since 1998 has been involved with the aircraft industry, even after I turned to education and to teaching, and I have seen first-hand, not through your type of speculation, what amount of effort goes into training. If you want to check neutral sources instead of sifting through the garbage for clues, try US accounts of joint exercises with Indian pilots. But you probably have that information with you, and are ignoring that merely to make a superficial case.
As for HAL, I was at a professional position that allowed me close views of HAL, its staffing, its procedures and its results. The results of our experience with the MiG 21, that you copied and passed off as your own, have not been good. When you look at that experience, you also have to look at the hard fact that the aircraft was designed to fly a strictly limited number of hours; Indian maintenance has boosted that figure to more than ten times the designed life. AND with that extremely demanding extension effort, we have never concealed facts and figures; we have never pretended that our efforts were perfect. Data is public, our media faithfully track every minor incident, to the extent that the contrast to your completely opaque position could not be more stark.
In a discussion on opacity of data, you bring in your fanciful ideas about the LCA being Dassault design. Really? How is that relevant? Is that merely a riposte to being told that all your planes are reverse-engineered, either from Russian designs, or from stolen American designs?
Mentioning a vague suspicion that the Tejas was derived from Dassault is futile; that race is over, it has been discussed over and over and over again, and nobody has presented any convincing proof, besides the delta design, not just a Dassault implementation, but used widely, world-wide, by the Americans, the British and - surprise, surprise - the Russians. Our flight control software had to be developed twice; the first time, our engineers had to leave even their own notes and development work behind and abandon their office spaces when the US embargoed our defence industry. The current implementation is entirely our own, done as a creation from the ground up, literally, in ADA in Bangalore. The design is entirely our own, achieved by joint teams sitting right in Bangalore, in front of us, by people who were interacting with HAL every day, when they were not ex-HAL themselves. We failed to develop an engine - that should remind you of your own industry, that has made thousands of aircraft, according to your distracting efforts, but is still struggling to make good engines - we also failed to make an airborne AESA, although a ground version is ready and proven through extensive testing. We outsourced these, just as your exported varieties of the reverse-engineered and illegally manufactured Chinese copies fly with western or Israeli instrumentation.
You mentioned that India crashed 1000 aircraft in 70 years; that is precisely the point. How many planes crashed in India is known, painfully well known. China made several thousand more planes, all without the benefit of proper drawings or complete access to technology, many using badly designed and incrementally improved home-made substitutes for the originals; are you telling me that there were no casualties, no crashes? I am telling you, and am safe in doing so, that you had very many incidents and that these are all concealed and kept unknown.
This is quite unlike the Indian situation. You mentioned, not knowing a thing about Indian conditions and interrelationships between the bureaucracy, the manufacturing plants and the user services, that many things might still be concealed from the bureaucracy. By whom? If there are defects or if there is poor maintenance, and there is a crash, either the user service or the manufacturing plant is sure to get to the bottom of things (investigations are done jointly, since you don't seem to know) and a full report goes to the ministry. It is about checks and balances; the Air Force is unlikely to allow HAL to get away with mistakes that cost pilot lives, HAL is unlikely to allow the Air Force to gloss over its bad training and pin the donkey's tail onto HAL.
China may be able to 'make' and improve it (you seem to forget that except a very few, all aircraft used by India are 'made' in India, just as they are 'made' in China), but there seems to be a pathological need to conceal the accident figures; why they need to do that must go into the thread that is not there, the thread on why China obsessively keeps many things secret. That is not a thread of interest to me, whether there or hypothetical. I am not interested in making a charge sheet about China or the Chinese; just in correcting impertinent and stupid, spiteful pieces posted without thought.
