Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
Air force safety
Brian Cloughley
Saturday, December 15, 2012
From Print Edition
Publications in Pakistan and overseas have claimed that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has grave problems with its aircraft. The Hindustan Times copied the story of Time magazine (now, alas, a pale shadow of its former sparkling self) that over a dozen Pakistani air force planes have crashed in roughly the past 18 months, raising concerns about the health of an aging fleet that officials are struggling to upgrade because of a lack of funds. In its heyday, Time would never have used phrases like over a dozen or roughly 18 months. After attentive editing, both numbers would have been precise. Alas, no longer. But it is right about the lack of funds, if nothing else.
Of course the PAF lacks funds. All air force (and army and navy) chiefs around the world are always on the lookout for cash, because there are always more demands being placed on their allocations and assets. In Pakistans case, the aerial requirements of combating militants in the west include strikes on insurgents by fixed-wing combat aircraft of the PAF, and these are challenging in aircrew professionalism and commitment of technical resources and financially. It should be noted that no aircraft has crashed during such operations, which are conducted most effectively.
So just which aircraft have crashed, and why has the loss of 11 planes in 13 months caused so much concern? And is that concern genuine?
Three Mirage jets crashed because of technical problems. In one of them a year ago the pilot, Sqr Ldr Hussain (an outstanding officer), was killed, which was a tragedy, but hardly indication of a crumbling air force. Nobody died in the other accidents. Of course, most of us would prefer that there should be no crashes at all, but they are indeed an elderly aircraft (I was involved in coordinating acquisition of some of them from Australia in 1990), and are being phased out as more JF-17 Thunders enter service. (The Thunder was developed jointly with China, and 200 are being built in Pakistan.) Acquisition of the Chinese J-10 will go further in reducing the number of older combat aircraft, with the intention of complete replacement of the 150 Mirages in service. Plans for acquiring JF-17s and J-10s were put in place years ago as part of normal air force development. It is rarely acknowledged that most armed services around the world have some pretty skilled people who are capable of gauging requirements for decades to come. They can produce good plans and recommendations for force structure and equipment that work if money and political will are forthcoming, of course.
Although all aircraft crashes are grim events, the loss of three PAF Mirages is hardly replication of the Indian air forces decades long catastrophe with its MiG-21 fleet, concerning which, on August 3 last year a day after yet another MiG-21 crash, which killed the pilot Indias Parliamentary Committee on Defence recommended the phasing out of the aircraft as early as possible. But the Indian Air Force (IAF) had made plans for this over many years. Its pilots were dying, and that wasnt exactly what was intended. Their problem was that Delhis politicians and civil servants couldnt and still cant agree on the IAFs well-designed strategy for the future.
The next PAF crash was that of a US-origin T-37 trainer in Turkey on January 17. This was a pure mishap. The instructor, from Pakistan air force, and his Turkish pupil were killed. Again, extremely sad; but, alas, these accidents happen during training. Another loss was that of a similar training aircraft, FT-7, in Mianwali a week later. There were no casualties, but it involved technical failure, which is certainly reprehensible, as was that causing the loss of a further F-7 on February 8 that killed the pilot. And then a retired PAF officer was reported internationally as saying that I think the repeated aircraft crash incidents are a result of the poor technical and engineering oversight, and that details of accident investigations always remain a mystery for everyone else outside the air force in which he had served.
But can anyone suppose for an instant that investigation findings by any countrys air force concerning a disclosed technical fault would not result in instant remedial action? Its unthinkable that an air force would ignore the findings of a crash investigation and carry on flying a certain type of plane without rectifying technical deficiencies or servicing errors. Members of air accident boards of inquiry include pilots who are hardly going to endorse findings that might hazard the lives of their colleagues.
So far we have looked at six of the 11 losses, but well ignore the hangar fire that destroyed an F-7 aircraft at Samungli in Quetta, which was hardly poor technical oversight, and consider the cases of four Mushaq propeller-driven trainers, the collision of two of which on May 17 caused four deaths but did not involve technical failure. This was an awful accident: end of message. The other two Mushaq crashes, in August and November neither involving casualties are still being investigated. But whatever the findings of the inquiries may be, their loss can hardly be described as indication that there is poor technical and engineering oversight throughout the PAF.
The declaration that over a dozen Pakistani air force planes have crashed in roughly the past 18 months, raising concerns about the health of an aging fleet that officials are struggling to upgrade because of a lack of funds, is misguided sensationalism. Pakistans citizens can be proud of their air force, whose pilots and technicians are acknowledged as world-class, and can be sure that there is value for money although the PAF would always like more, of course.
Air force safety - Brian Cloughley
Brian Cloughley
Saturday, December 15, 2012
From Print Edition
Publications in Pakistan and overseas have claimed that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has grave problems with its aircraft. The Hindustan Times copied the story of Time magazine (now, alas, a pale shadow of its former sparkling self) that over a dozen Pakistani air force planes have crashed in roughly the past 18 months, raising concerns about the health of an aging fleet that officials are struggling to upgrade because of a lack of funds. In its heyday, Time would never have used phrases like over a dozen or roughly 18 months. After attentive editing, both numbers would have been precise. Alas, no longer. But it is right about the lack of funds, if nothing else.
Of course the PAF lacks funds. All air force (and army and navy) chiefs around the world are always on the lookout for cash, because there are always more demands being placed on their allocations and assets. In Pakistans case, the aerial requirements of combating militants in the west include strikes on insurgents by fixed-wing combat aircraft of the PAF, and these are challenging in aircrew professionalism and commitment of technical resources and financially. It should be noted that no aircraft has crashed during such operations, which are conducted most effectively.
So just which aircraft have crashed, and why has the loss of 11 planes in 13 months caused so much concern? And is that concern genuine?
Three Mirage jets crashed because of technical problems. In one of them a year ago the pilot, Sqr Ldr Hussain (an outstanding officer), was killed, which was a tragedy, but hardly indication of a crumbling air force. Nobody died in the other accidents. Of course, most of us would prefer that there should be no crashes at all, but they are indeed an elderly aircraft (I was involved in coordinating acquisition of some of them from Australia in 1990), and are being phased out as more JF-17 Thunders enter service. (The Thunder was developed jointly with China, and 200 are being built in Pakistan.) Acquisition of the Chinese J-10 will go further in reducing the number of older combat aircraft, with the intention of complete replacement of the 150 Mirages in service. Plans for acquiring JF-17s and J-10s were put in place years ago as part of normal air force development. It is rarely acknowledged that most armed services around the world have some pretty skilled people who are capable of gauging requirements for decades to come. They can produce good plans and recommendations for force structure and equipment that work if money and political will are forthcoming, of course.
Although all aircraft crashes are grim events, the loss of three PAF Mirages is hardly replication of the Indian air forces decades long catastrophe with its MiG-21 fleet, concerning which, on August 3 last year a day after yet another MiG-21 crash, which killed the pilot Indias Parliamentary Committee on Defence recommended the phasing out of the aircraft as early as possible. But the Indian Air Force (IAF) had made plans for this over many years. Its pilots were dying, and that wasnt exactly what was intended. Their problem was that Delhis politicians and civil servants couldnt and still cant agree on the IAFs well-designed strategy for the future.
The next PAF crash was that of a US-origin T-37 trainer in Turkey on January 17. This was a pure mishap. The instructor, from Pakistan air force, and his Turkish pupil were killed. Again, extremely sad; but, alas, these accidents happen during training. Another loss was that of a similar training aircraft, FT-7, in Mianwali a week later. There were no casualties, but it involved technical failure, which is certainly reprehensible, as was that causing the loss of a further F-7 on February 8 that killed the pilot. And then a retired PAF officer was reported internationally as saying that I think the repeated aircraft crash incidents are a result of the poor technical and engineering oversight, and that details of accident investigations always remain a mystery for everyone else outside the air force in which he had served.
But can anyone suppose for an instant that investigation findings by any countrys air force concerning a disclosed technical fault would not result in instant remedial action? Its unthinkable that an air force would ignore the findings of a crash investigation and carry on flying a certain type of plane without rectifying technical deficiencies or servicing errors. Members of air accident boards of inquiry include pilots who are hardly going to endorse findings that might hazard the lives of their colleagues.
So far we have looked at six of the 11 losses, but well ignore the hangar fire that destroyed an F-7 aircraft at Samungli in Quetta, which was hardly poor technical oversight, and consider the cases of four Mushaq propeller-driven trainers, the collision of two of which on May 17 caused four deaths but did not involve technical failure. This was an awful accident: end of message. The other two Mushaq crashes, in August and November neither involving casualties are still being investigated. But whatever the findings of the inquiries may be, their loss can hardly be described as indication that there is poor technical and engineering oversight throughout the PAF.
The declaration that over a dozen Pakistani air force planes have crashed in roughly the past 18 months, raising concerns about the health of an aging fleet that officials are struggling to upgrade because of a lack of funds, is misguided sensationalism. Pakistans citizens can be proud of their air force, whose pilots and technicians are acknowledged as world-class, and can be sure that there is value for money although the PAF would always like more, of course.
Air force safety - Brian Cloughley
