ouiouiouiouiouioui
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 0
some people are happy.....but facts have to be digested ......there is still a chopper.....somewhere which is still flying..........
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
New Recruit
lets just say that international business dosen't work the way HAL does
A cartoon of the DHRUV was printed in an ecuadorian newspaper
here is the link
LiveFist - The Best of Indian Defence: Dhruv Cartoon In Ecuadorian Newspaper
Anyways.. As far as international defence business is concerned, even F-16s have run into accidents.. Does that stop your government from drooling over every chance to acquiring more??.. Every Aircrafts (Yes helis are also aircrafts) meet with accidents(until and unless its a flying carpet).. And accidents are not one and all of the factors which determine an aircrafts acquision.. Quality and safety do..
New Recruit
The first part of your post is complete bull, so I won't reply to that.
The second part is interesting in that you have compared a relatively new, low-cost, untested helicopter, designed by a company with relatively little experience in the sector, with one of the most successful aircraft designs, proven by combat experience and years of development, ever produced.
You're not the only one to do so, others have done so as well. And then you guys all claim to be experts in how the "defence industry works". Well, I'm not an expert, but let me tell you how it works from personal experience.
The Aerospace industry, particularly defence and space related applications, have very high self-imposed standards and procedures (at least in North America and Europe), which is why you don't see any Russian or Chinese commercial aircraft in service in the West. These standards are there to ensure that accidents such as these do not happen, period. Systems that are critical for the aircraft to stay in the air are termed "Type A" systems in North America, and they undergo Verification & Validation of the most extreme nature. This includes layers upon layers of internal and external testing, reviews, analysis, audits, and so on. For a Type A system to fail, and cause the aircraft to crash, is an extremely big deal. I can't stress this enough, Aerospace engineers don't even like saying the word "crash". So please, stop downplaying the importance of this incident.
I did not want to engage in speculation, not because I am afraid of being flamed by those who know little about the procedures, but because it would be unfair to your engineers. However, all this hooting and hollering about "great design! pilots safe! no fire! let's call it a day!" has forced me to speculate.
Eye-witness accounts say that flames were seen coming from the engine bay. Pilot error cannot be blamed for flames emanating from the engine. Maybe this was caused, somehow, due to the steep banking at low level (FOD maybe?),
but whatever it was, I am certain Ecuador and all other potential customers would want it to be rectified ASAP.
Dhruv fleet will be grounded, no doubt,
until it is determined, without a shadow of a doubt, that aircraft system(s) had nothing to do with the crash. For a new helicopter trying to make it into a new market, this is bad publicity. This is nothing like an F-16 crash in 2009, the F-16 has earned its trust over many years, the Dhruv hasn't. HAL engineers will have no such fantasies, I can assure you.
well let me update you
after the crash the ecuadorians have gone for 2 new Mi-17Es, instead of 2 new DHRUVs
the link in my first post says it all