Flying is risky

The grim tragedy of two naval aircraft going down, resulting in the death of 12 experienced naval personnel and three labourers on the ground, needs to be seen in its proper context. There is an old saying that if God wanted mankind to fly He would have given them wings! What we on the ground so often forget, therefore, is that flying aeroplanes is inherently risky, and military aviation even more so even if it represents the triumph of man over machine and nature. But we need to remember that air power has proved to be the most crucial war-winning factor during the past century. We have one of the most professional military aviation forces in the world; and this does not come overnight or without costs. The challenge to our defence forces has been how to maintain the highest standards of combat capabilities and professionalism while ensuring that accidents are reduced to the irreducible minimum. And 30,000 accident-free flying hours speak volumes for the professionalism of the Il-38 squadron which lost men and machines last Tuesday.

It would be natural to ask why we undertake demonstration flights like the one that the two Il-38 aircraft were carrying out. Contrary to conventional wisdom in some quarters, flypasts, aerobatic shows and formation flying are an intrinsic part of flying training practices so vital for combat readiness. All professional air forces do it regularly. Skill levels, for what has been referred to as ‘complex’ manoeuvres by some, are intrinsic to building quality flying. These are undoubtedly highly demanding in terms of judgement, skill and team spirit. But these are also the very qualities that make the difference between winning and losing a war. Taking the aeroplanes and their crews to the limits of their capabilities is the core of realistic training and hence the very foundation of combat-effective capabilities.

A court of inquiry will now look deeply into the most likely cause of the tragic crash and recommend remedial measures. This is standard procedure. And no one is more deeply interested in preventing flying accidents than the defence services in general and the flying community in particular, since they and their families are the people most directly affected. But even without the benefit of such an inquiry it needs to be stated that it would be too simplistic to view accidents in terms of only old aeroplanes or ‘pilot errors’. Accidents are caused by the convergence of a multiple sets of factors, often occurring within the fraction of a second. Very often the reasons for failure to cope with precision flying or flying the aeroplane to its limits could simply emanate from inadequate practice in such manoeuvres for fear of the risk involved. We need to remember that even pressures to avoid accidents can undermine the quality of realistic training without reducing accidents but lowering combat-worthiness.