Flying MiG violates right to life: Officer

[skysthelimit]

Where's LCA and MMRCA?

Flying MiG violates right to life: Officer
Jul 17, 2013, 12.41 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Flying a MiG-21 amounted to "violation of his fundamental right to life", a serving Wing Commander has told the Delhi high court, seeking redressal after a regular flight exercise in 2005 went awry, leaving him with debilitating neck and back pain that has rendered him unfit for flying and even day-to-day tasks.


The court on Tuesday directed the Centre to provide a list of MiG-21 crashes that have taken place till date and posted the matter for October 10, 2013.

The petition was filed by Sanjeet Singh Kaila, a serving officer in the Indian Air Force, who cited "violation of his fundamental right to life, especially the right to work in a safe environment" under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In his plea, Kaila said he was posted at Air Force Station Nal in Rajasthan as a Squadron Leader in 2005. On January 4 that year, he embarked on a regular flight exercise along with three other pilots. "Immediately after take-off, the petitioner experienced a drift to the left side of the aircraft. Simultaneously, the petitioner was informed by the other pilot flying the second aircraft, of a fire at the rear end of his aircraft. Assessing the emergency, the petitioner promptly carried out all the essential directives and got the tyres of the aircraft down for a landing," the petition said.

"The petitioner performed all the aforementioned actions despite the rear of the aircraft being engulfed in thick fire. Despite a near-complete engine/control failure and at grave risk to his own life, the petitioner continued to stay put in an almost uncontrollable aircraft so as to steer it away to safety from a nearby village... To save human life, the petitioner ejected only seconds before the crash of the aircraft."

Kaila said following the incident, he was injured and later forced to discontinue flying after a comprehensive medical examination showed he was suffering from cervicalgia and disc bulges of vertebrae (cervical spine). "The medical report also clearly mentions that the petitioner was rendered unfit for flying duties because of the incident. He was additionally instructed and advised by the doctors to even refrain from performing even day-to-day tasks," it said.

The petition further alleged that a reply to his RTI application revealed that the incident was caused due to a manufacturing defect and poor workmanship at HAL's facility. Kaila claimed that despite sending a representation to the government on December 25, 2012, seeking justice by compensating him for the loss suffered by as a result of the air crash, no response was given by the government.

The matter was filed before the court in May 2013. On May 22, a bench of justices Geeta Mittal and Deepa Sharma had issued notice to the government and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), respondents in the petition, seeking their response. On Tuesday, while HAL appeared through its counsel, no reply was filed by the Centre.

Flying MiG violates right to life: Officer - The Times of India

 

[Genesis]

Where's LCA and MMRCA?



Flying MiG violates right to life: Officer - The Times of India

Oh come on, you put on that uniform you take risks. Did this person think working as a pilot is going to be a cake walk. It's part of the job.

Besides, you guys are getting more orders from your own industry, France, and Russia, a flanker variant, if I'm not mistaken. As well as the new MIG-29 or something?

Problem solved.

 

[gslv]

Oh come on, you put on that uniform you take risks. Did this person think working as a pilot is going to be a cake walk. It's part of the job.

Besides, you guys are getting more orders from your own industry, France, and Russia, a flanker variant, if I'm not mistaken. As well as the new MIG-29 or something?

Problem solved.

so if you buy a car and it crashes bcoz of manufacturing defect in it wont you sue the company. the plane crashed not bcoz of incompentence but bcoz of negligence by HAL. heads must roll.

 

[Genesis]

so if you buy a car and it crashes bcoz of manufacturing defect in it wont you sue the company. the plane crashed not bcoz of incompentence but bcoz of negligence by HAL. heads must roll.

if you buy a car, you are a customer. If you put on a uniform you are a soldier. How is this the same. One expects good product and service the other is to die protecting country.

Wearing that uniform is voluntary, you know the risks. It's not like they tricked you into signing up and becoming a pilot. It takes years of training and all kinds of requirements, I'm sure by the time they started to fly they know what they are getting into.

If you must, sue Russia, cause they made a plane that keeps on crashing.

 

[MilSpec]

so if you buy a car and it crashes bcoz of manufacturing defect in it wont you sue the company. the plane crashed not bcoz of incompentence but bcoz of negligence by HAL. heads must roll.

and who told you about the negligence of HAL??

 

[SRP]

This shows how incompetent HAL is. They even can not assemble an aircraft properly.

 

[janon]

In a way, IMO this officer is right (although he may not be on legally solid ground). As @Genesis says, soldiers are expected to take risks. They are supposed to brave bullets (or other dangers) to ensure the success of a mission.

However, is it OK for the IAF, as an employer, to ask its employees day after day to do life risking duties every day during peace time? Mig-21 pilots have to fly that "flying coffin" every day, and each sortie is a life risking endeavor. Can any employer, including the armed forces, demand such a risk from its employees? Sailors and cavalry officers don't undertake such risks every day. Why is such a sacrifice demanded of mig-21 pilots, that they have to fly half a century old fighters every day? They signed up to defend the nation, not to put their lives in danger every day simply because their bosses take too long to finalize a contract for a newer aircraft.

Unfortunately though, I'm afraid that the law will not be on the petitioner's side.

 

[MilSpec]

This shows how incompetent HAL is. They even can not assemble an aircraft properly.

First,Hal did not assemble but manufactured Mig 21's from scratch. Next there is nothing that points towards any negligence from HAL in this incident. Please learn about HAL before you draw conclusions out of thin air.
thanks

In a way, IMO this officer is right (although he may not be on legally solid ground). As @Genesis says, soldiers are expected to take risks. They are supposed to brave bullets (or other dangers) to ensure the success of a mission.

However, is it OK for the IAF, as an employer, to ask its employees day after day to do life risking duties every day during peace time? Mig-21 pilots have to fly that "flying coffin" every day, and each sortie is a life risking endeavor. Can any employer, including the armed forces, demand such a risk from its employees? Sailors and cavalry officers don't undertake such risks every day. Why is such a sacrifice demanded of mig-21 pilots, that they have to fly half a century old fighters every day? They signed up to defend the nation, not to put their lives in danger every day simply because their bosses take too long to finalize a contract for a newer aircraft.

Unfortunately though, I'm afraid that the law will not be on the petitioner's side.

It is IAF's responsibility to inspect and send suspect airframes back to HAL for overhaul, this is AFS base repair depot's negligence. On an bigger picture, If LCA was going to face delays, IAF should/could have ordered m2k or m29 as interim solution which they didn't.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

So much for the hyped BISON!

 

[MilSpec]

So much for the hyped BISON!

missed the bison part in the article, does it state the craft being a bison???

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

missed the bison part in the article, does it state the craft being a bison???

Bison is just an upgrade not another aircraft.

 

[MilSpec]

Bison is just an upgrade not another aircraft.

Dude... I used to work on Bison overhauls and you are trying to teach me what bison is... will it be fair to attribute that f7PG is junk when a F7 crashes or Blk 52 is crap when a blk16 crashes?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Dude... I used to work on Bison overhauls and you are trying to teach me what bison is... will it be fair to attribute that f7PG is junk when a F7 crashes or Blk 52 is crap when a blk16 crashes?

Pa ji looking at the history of iaf crashes... its either bad pilots or really bad jets....

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

So much for the hyped BISON!

The issue is age of airframes,not quality of it.Bison is quite capable of easily dealing with f-7,its primary designated threat type.
Incase u didn't notice some of ur older airframes have also started to crash and burn.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Pa ji looking at the history of iaf crashes... its either bad pilots or really bad jets....

IAF has policy stated by ex air force chief-
''i would rather lose pilots in peace than in war''.
This means IAF continues to clock high flight hours [180-230 for normal,250+ for sukhoi top guns] with older platforms that have been stretched waaay beyond there service lives.This is a risk taken knowingly by IAF command knowing there is a price,but pilot quality doesn't drop due to high flying hrs.
Other causes of crashes are birdstrikes,spares issue[either bad russian spares or faulty HAL engeering..though this issue has mostly been solved lately] and FBW system malfunction[cause of MKI crashes]