Safety – IAF Records Lowest Ever Accident Rate

[Abingdonboy]

Okay.. so, with a crash rate of 0.22 aircraft per 10,000 flying hours ... 1 aircraft crash per 45,000 flying hours.

One fighter pilot does 250 hours per year .. let's say he flies for 20 years .. so 5000 hours in the lifetime.

So, 9 pilots fly 45,000 hours during their lifetimes .... and one of them will face a crash, once during his lifetime.

1 out of every 9 pilots will face an aircrash. Thank goodness, that doesn't mean 1 in every 9 pilots ends his life in that one crash. Thanks to ejection.

Next question: What is the reliability of successful ejections, per attempt.

>> If 50% of the ejections succeed in saving the pilot .... 1 in every 18 pilots will lose his life in a crash.

>> If 75% of the ejections succeed in saving the pilot .... 1 in every 36 pilots will lose his life in a crash.

>> If 90% of the ejections succeed in saving the pilot .... 1 in every 90 pilots will lose his life in a crash.

Last one means .. about 1.11% fatality rate for someone who chooses his profession to be a fighter pilot.

I don't know, but is IAFs successful ejection rate = 90%. It so, then it sounds quite reasonable for someone to choose his profession as a fighter pilot.

On the other hand, if IAFs successful ejection rate =0%, there is a nearly 11% chance that anyone who chooses to be a fighter pilot will die in a crash .. (.. that would be rather too risky, IMO).

Hence, my interest in what is the successful ejection rate for IAF !!!!

Again such info is not publicly available and given there plethora of different fighters and trainers in IAF service many with different ejection seats it makes sense not to generalise. As one could say a pilot who ends up flying a Mig-21/7 is x times more likely to die in a plane crash than a pilot who flies a MKI or Rafale. Additionally there are more variables to take into account than just successful ejection rate ie the cause behind every single crash and then the cause behind every single fatality of a pilot. As you are assuming that every fatality of a pilot is caused by a failure of the air craft's ejection system when there are other factors to consider ie I can think of many of occasions when a pilot has ejected too late because they were steering their stricken machine into clear ground so as not to cause Civilain casualties on the ground.


It is going to be a very complex and near impossible calculation to get a pilot fatality rate or anything like that.

 

[3Idiots]

How many hours does an Su-30 MKI flies during its entire service life...?

Again such info is not publicly available and given there plethora of different fighters and trainers in IAF service many with different ejection seats it makes sense not to generalise. As one could say a pilot who ends up flying a Mig-21/7 is x times more likely to die in a plane crash than a pilot who flies a MKI or Rafale. Additionally there are more variables to take into account than just successful ejection rate ie the cause behind every single crash and then the cause behind every single fatality of a pilot. As you are assuming that every fatality of a pilot is caused by a failure of the air craft's ejection system when there are other factors to consider ie I can think of many of occasions when a pilot has ejected too late because they were steering their stricken machine into clear ground so as not to cause Civilain casualties on the ground.


It is going to be a very complex and near impossible calculation to get a pilot fatality rate or anything like that.

Ya.. my calculations are rather crude .. perhaps, more like an upper bound.

(I assume each of those 0.22 crashes in 10,000 hours of flying with mean that the aircraft will smash into the ground destroying itself completely. Ony way to safety in those 0.22 crashes per 10K hrs, is to eject out... else the pilot is dead).

 

[janon]

Ok, with 3000 hours,

It means that 1 in 15 pilots faces a crash in his lifetime.

About 7% fatality, if ejection never works.

And about 3.5% fatality, if ejection works on 50% of the times.

Again, 3000 hours is what the most veteran pilots clock. (The previous air chief also flew about 3000 hours.) The number of hours put in by a pilot on an average has to be far lower. It is not possible that every pilot flies as many hours as somebody who served so long and in such distinguished roles, like TACDE instructor. Only the cream of the crop fly that many hours.

I'm pretty sure you can halve those numbers.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The flight hours recorded by even the most senior and veteran officers are usually in the 3,000 range. Norman Browne (the current air force chief) had logged 3,100 hours - and he was an instructor at TACDE, and is about 62 years old.

N.A.K. Browne next Air Chief - The Hindu



We can safely take that as a reasonable MAXIMUM for any pilot, since on an average nobody serves that long, and don't become instructors at TACDE. It is reasonable to assume that the average hours logged by a pilot in his lifetime would be lower than 3000 for sure. So the crash probability in your stats are a dramatic overestimation. The fatality probability would be at least less than half of what you estimated, probably still lower.

Actually @janon this is not true. IIRC the IAF had limited the hours its pilots could fly on the Mig-21s, 23s and -27s in the mid-90s to ~120-140 a year whilst at the same time M2K pilots were going 180-200 hours a year and Jag pilots only slightly less. It has only been with the introduction of the MKI the IAF has started to mandate 250-300 flight hours (with sim) a year. Similarly mandatory flight hours for Mig-29UPG and Jag pilots is increasing and the Rafales will have high annual flight hours too. As such the total number of career flight hours completed by veteran pilots will vary from generation to generation and type to type. With the next generation of fighter pilots coming into the fighter stream it won't be unusual to start seeing regular pilots retiring with 4-5,000 other hours under their belt with instructor, Test and TACDE pilots with signifcantly more.


Wrt specifically ACM Browne look at his flight record- Hunters, Mig-21s and Jags all planes with relatively low mandatory annual flight hours. The Su-30s he flew would have been right at the twilight of his career so wouldn't have factored all that much in his total.


It is only relatively recently that the IAF's annual flight hours for every pilot (excluding Mig pilots) has started to ramp-up across the board.

 

[3Idiots]

Again, 3000 hours is what the most veteran pilots clock. (The previous air chief also flew about 3000 hours.) The number of hours put in by a pilot on an average has to be far lower. It is not possible that every pilot flies as many hours as somebody who served so long and in such distinguished roles, like TACDE instructor. Only the cream of the crop fly that many hours.

I'm pretty sure you can halve those numbers.

If the actual fatality rate of fighter pilots gets to something 1% ... then its not too far from the what life insurance companies charge something life myself .. having a sedentary office job !!!!

Life insurance companies assume than I have a 1% chance of being dead in the next 10 years.. off course, they are looting me by including their "profit margin".

But still ... if fatality rate of fighter pilots approaches 1% .. they are quite insurable at premiums comparable to what I pay.

 

[Screambowl]

self deleted

 

[Abingdonboy]

If the actual fatality rate of fighter pilots gets to something 1% ... then its not too far from the what life insurance companies charge something life myself .. having a sedentary office job !!!!

Life insurance companies assume than I have a 1% chance of being dead in the next 10 years.. off course, they are looting me by including their "profit margin".

But still ... if fatality rate of fighter pilots approaches 1% .. they are quite insurable at premiums comparable to what I pay.

I don't think it is all that likely a fighter pilot's fatality rate will ever get close to "ordinary" levels faced by us civilians as their job is inherently dangerous and there's only so much technology can do to mitigate the risks. Leaving aside the combat element of heir jobs, operating such supersonic high-performance machines with next to no room for error is just plain dangerous- no two ways about it.

 

[Matrixx]

I dont see any Pakistani and Chinese here....what are their numbers

 

[janon]

I dont see any Pakistani and Chinese here....what are their numbers

Please don't start a measuring contest and invite the trolls. Let's stick to the topic, which is the IAF.

 

[Cyberian]

So basically, if you fly less you will get less crashes? Using that logic, maybe the Indian Air Force should ground all aircrafts then there'll be zero crashes.

 

[3Idiots]

I don't think it is all that likely a fighter pilot's fatality rate will ever get close to "ordinary" levels faced by us civilians as their job is inherently dangerous and there's only so much technology can do to mitigate the risks. Leaving aside the combat element of heir jobs, operating such supersonic high-performance machines with next to no room for error is just plain dangerous- no two ways about it.

Although, I do feel scared if someone tells me that.. out of 100 people working in my office, 1 of us will be dead in the next 10 years.

I would like to think .. that its the greedy insurance companies who are terrorizing me ... my fatality rate may be like 0.001% ..uhh .. lesser

I have actually no plans to die in the next ten years.

 

[janon]

So basically, if you fly less you will get less crashes? Using that logic, maybe the Indian Air Force should ground all aircrafts then there'll be zero crashes.

If you had the ability to read and comprehend the thread, you would have learnt that IAF is flying a lot more hours now than in the 90s or early 2000s.

You didn't bother to read the article, and since I don't expect such abilities from you, let me quote the reasons for the lower crash rate, as mentioned in the article. Nowhere do they say that it is because of flying less. (Actually flying hours have only increased.)

strengthening ofinitial basic training, review of flying training syllabi, especially of inexperienced air crew, enhanced aircraft and system serviceability through better resource management as also renewed focus on technical supervision and maintenance practices.

Rigorous quality assurance standards and specifications as laid down by the OEM have to be ensured during licensed production. To reduce accidents on account of technical defects, the IAF has initiated joint quality audits along with HAL on the different fleets.

Those are the reasons stated for the reduced accident rate. Can you go through those bits, or is it still too long for you to read and understand?

 

[Abingdonboy]

So basically, if you fly less you will get less crashes? Using that logic, maybe the Indian Air Force should ground all aircrafts then there'll be zero crashes.

Not at all mate. There is an element of this for sure- the IAF has grounded the Deepak BTT fleet and is flying Mig-21s and -27s as little as possible. But more to the point the IAF is replacing such crash prone a/c with the latest and safest machines as such MKIs are replacing Mig-21s, Deepaks are baing replaced by PC-7 Mk.2 and within the next few years all such "crash-prone" a/c will be gone and the IAF's fleet will be cutting-edge and very safe. Additionally the IAF is upgrading certain a/c like their mig-29s, Jags and M2Ks and these upgrades will inherently make these machines safer.


As such the total fleet hours if the IAF's fighter fleet will begin to start increasing signifcantly in the near future across each and every platform.

The IAF hasn't taken a short-term fix but instead have opted for a long-term painful solution that will pay divends to the IAF.