L410 crash Russia
Thread Starter
Moderator
LET 410 crash in Russia
It's reported that a LET 410 carrying jumpers crashed in Russia, with many fatalities. The report includes speculation of an engine failure.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia...rash-1.6206720
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia...rash-1.6206720
Ex-jumper here
I don't recall a pilot ever getting paid. They were there for the hours building at no cost. One in particular used to drive 150 miles from his home on a Sunday just to get the hours in on a C206.
The operating procedures are different to what you might be used to. Ran with as many jumpers as could be fitted in, to maximise the revenue for the club owner per aircraft hour. You also ran the aircraft with minimum fuel, which is always my first thought with an engine-led accident. Despite the heavy payload you want to be as light as possible to minimise climb time to altitude, so rather than fuelling for the days' missions you try for minimum fuel, and refuel (minimally) every one or two lifts. Pilots seemed to rely on calculation rather than getting out to dip the tanks each time. Fuel load made a significant climb performance difference, particularly at upper levels, and of course minimised the hourly aircraft hire charges if climb performance was enhanced. Turbine engine, aircraft costs more per hour, but climbs much better. Then there's the engine cycle. Full power up. Idle descent down. Full power up. Idle descent down. Given that I don't think I ever jumped out of anything less than 20 years old, that's a very arduous heating and cooling cycle, and I used to wonder if the manufacturers' test pilots had done it. Outside the summer we even used to get airframe icing at altitude.
Had a good procedure, and briefed everyone, for how to dump the jumpers very rapidly in the case of an engine failure, but not every club went through that.
I don't recall a pilot ever getting paid. They were there for the hours building at no cost. One in particular used to drive 150 miles from his home on a Sunday just to get the hours in on a C206.
The operating procedures are different to what you might be used to. Ran with as many jumpers as could be fitted in, to maximise the revenue for the club owner per aircraft hour. You also ran the aircraft with minimum fuel, which is always my first thought with an engine-led accident. Despite the heavy payload you want to be as light as possible to minimise climb time to altitude, so rather than fuelling for the days' missions you try for minimum fuel, and refuel (minimally) every one or two lifts. Pilots seemed to rely on calculation rather than getting out to dip the tanks each time. Fuel load made a significant climb performance difference, particularly at upper levels, and of course minimised the hourly aircraft hire charges if climb performance was enhanced. Turbine engine, aircraft costs more per hour, but climbs much better. Then there's the engine cycle. Full power up. Idle descent down. Full power up. Idle descent down. Given that I don't think I ever jumped out of anything less than 20 years old, that's a very arduous heating and cooling cycle, and I used to wonder if the manufacturers' test pilots had done it. Outside the summer we even used to get airframe icing at altitude.
Had a good procedure, and briefed everyone, for how to dump the jumpers very rapidly in the case of an engine failure, but not every club went through that.
Drain Bamaged
I flew jumpers some time ago, I was somehow paid and using dip tanks when refuelling (Never trusted those Cessna or Beech-18 Mickey mouse fuel gauges)
Part of the brief given was:
"Your parachute is just an excess luggage below 500 feet"
You can probably lower that number to 200 feet, reserve chutes are pretty efficient now.
Part of the brief given was:
"Your parachute is just an excess luggage below 500 feet"
You can probably lower that number to 200 feet, reserve chutes are pretty efficient now.
