Risky IL-76 Take-off Captured on Video

[clay ramback]

The take-off uses all (and I mean all) of RWY 30 (1679 M) at Canberra, Australia, obviously shot from within the TWR.

The commentary is priceless! :)


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=aWtdtuspnoM

[hetfield]

Oh my God......:sad:

Vodka burner

:D:D:D

[morbos]

nice vid. I suppose a RTO would have been consummated in the hedgerow somewhere.

[MungoP]

Compared to the Ant 12 and 24s we see in Africa that was an F18... mostly they rely on the curvature of the earth to gain altitude.

[CargoOne]

Not really overweight (rate of climb seems reasonable), it is rather 1679m runway is a bit short for IL76... They normally looking for 2500m+

[Hempy]

Firies would have got all excited

[fox niner]

Nah...He was probably using the extra runway length for "improved climb performance".
What about the 35 foot screen height at the end of the runway if he had an engine failure?

[Pugilistic Animus]

Sometimes--- on some types--- the OEI climb requires less distance than the AEO case because of less acceleration on one engine [i.e less distance covered] and therefore OEI distance [first and second segment distance] will be within the AEO TORA. i.e the AEO safety factor is exploited OEI---but, this guy definitely didn't cross the screen at 35'--- so I'd say:eek:

[speed787]

rejected T/O??

[Caudillo]

rejected T/O??

No. No reject - departed uneventfully

[electricdeathjet]

Most likely a reduced power takeoff to save the engines, and noise.... dont want to scare the koala bears.

[John Farley]

Kids use photoshop real men just play the crowd

[Hempy]

YCCB Rwy 12/30 1679M
Rwy 17/35 3283M

Good choice Captn :ouch:

[misd-agin]

Thank goodness they'd cut the grass. :ooh:

[littco]

Take it by the fact it was in AUS that it was fairly hot on that too that probably added to it.

[Clarence Oveur]

We should be thankful not everybody is perfect. How else could we feel superior.

[papazulu]

YCCB Rwy 12/30 1679M
Rwy 17/35 3283M

Good choice Captn

Do you have a METAR for their TO time? 50° off between the 2 RWY you mentioned and I am pretty sure you are well aware of the Il-76 X-Wind limits, aren't you?

Too many chiefs, not enough indians even downunder...:E

PZ :ok:

[The Baron]

Just to correct an important point...
I was in Canberra 2 days ago and go there pretty regularly.
That takeoff is on runway 17 which has 2683m plus another odd 600m overun/stopway. If you look at the video the terminal is to the right of the intersection and south of the short crossing runway 12/30. I have never seen anything bigger than a DHC8-400 use 12/30.

[Capn Bloggs]

The take-off uses all (and I mean all) of RWY 30 (1679 M) at Canberra, Australia, obviously shot from within the TWR.
That takeoff WAS from runway 17 (2683m), not 12. :sad:

[Avtrician]

Not an uncommon sight in the west of Oz (Pearce) they seem to take for ever to get off. Im glad I dont live under the take off path, it must make the plates n cups rattle a bit. :{

[GLENO]

Love the commentary!! 321 Smirnoff............pissed myself laughing!!!:}

[Capn Bloggs]

Interstingly, Jepp shows the TORA for 17 as 2683, with a TODA of 3273. As these guys lifted off at the threshold, it seems to me that they were on the ground for about 600m of roll (past the end of the TORA) when they shouldn't have been.

[Flight Detent]

Also...

You may want to note the airfield altitude....

Cheers..FD :zzz:

[Earl]

Ever do one of these return haj flights out of Jeddah or Medina?
Everyday event during this time.

[speed787]

by rejected T/O, i mean shouldnt the PIC commence a RTO??

[Capn Bloggs]

I wonder if the charterer of this operation saw this?

[Hempy]

Do you have a METAR for their TO time? 50° off between the 2 RWY you mentioned and I am pretty sure you are well aware of the Il-76 X-Wind limits, aren't you?

Of course, thats it! If I don't want/can't take a crosswind departure I'll just choose a runway thats 5 or 6 hundred meters too short...



OR stay at home til I can take the long one.

[punkalouver]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just ban them(CIS operators) from western airspace. They have been endangering our lives for years. Heard an unusual jet noise the other day over my house and turned on the aircraft band radio for the first time in years. Turned out to be the Russians in town(a later check on the internet showed Antonov Design Bureau). First call I heard from ATC to the 124 was about a navigation error.

[Bindook]

That take-off was on Runway 17 at Canberra.
The length of Runway 35/17 is now 3283m with a displaced threshold on Runway 35 "unless operationally required".
However it was only about a year ago that the length was extended from 2683m to 3283m.
Judging from the runway markings in the picture I think it was probably taken a couple of years ago.

Judging from the windsock in the picture it looks like a light crosswind which did not favour one runway over the other.

However there are hills to the north of Runway 35 so I can see why they chose to use Runway 17.

[Earl]

Really funny to read these things here.
This is normal ops in most of the 3rd world operators.
Is it correct, not in many ways.
Is there anything that can be done to correct it, not likely. now or ever.
Money talks!
This is the new operations that we have to deal with.
When it comes to saving money all options are off the table
Would you expect the Russians, Turks or any other 3rd world country to operate correctly?
Overweight takeoffs, the new third world operations , surprised this is the first time for you.
Sure you will see more of this to come.
Doubt it will stop anytime soon.

[Brian Abraham]

Sure you will see more of this to come.
Doubt it will stop anytime soon.

Coming to an airline near you soon? Western bean counters probably have the tape measure running over this to maximise bonus... err, productivity as we speak. :E

[Jet_A_Knight]

I wonder how many tonnes were 'unmanifested' on that one:uhoh:

Incidently, wasn't it an IL76 that took off runway end lights at Richmond a year or so ago....its tyre tracks spotted by the safety officer some time after it had departed??

[mighluss]

Have anybody seen the movie "Darwin's Nightmare"?

It's about the fish factories and freight from Mwanza, and in the very last seconds of the movie, there's a cargo 707 taking off in the last inches of the rwy, and climbing as the earth rounds down... Scary!

[jackharr]

Surprising ATC didn't initiate the crash alarm, but I don't know exactly what their rules are.

I am reminded of an incident over 40 years ago. I was a captain on 105 Squadron RAF flying Argosies. There was some military goings-on in southern Africa and we were authorised to operate from Matsapa, Swaziland using "tactical performance". Mataspa's runway was short in those days. Rotate speed could be lower than normal, none of that pansy 35 feet screen height and as for V1.....

One day, we were particularly heavy and the loading officer also shared doubts about the weight calculations. I briefed my crew that I would not necessarily rotate at Vtactical but would do so somewhere between Vtac and the normal VR - or at the end of the runway if that was reached first. Matsapa is on the top of a hill, so the plan after rotate, was get speed as quickly as possible. For those who are not pilots, an engine failure in the air below a certain speed spells trouble (The Argosy was not over-endowed with power despite its 4 RR Dart engines). So I would let the beast flop off the end of the runway and gain speed in the valley. My crew seemed very happy with the logic.

So off we went without problem disappeared from sight from the airfield. I must confess that I slightly (?) overdid the need for speed (well - I did take the opportunity for a bit of low-level sightseeing!) and re-appeared some two or three miles further on at not far short of Vne. Apparently the loading officer - still unsure about his calculations - was on tiptoe and nearly collapsed with relief when we finally re-appeared.

Jack Harrison

[Torquelink]

What I don't understand about these situations is that the crew must know, if something goes wrong, they're dead. What imbues "trained" individuals with such a fatalist attitude? I'm sure that in certain third world countries getting a flying job might be difficult but, if the choice was between flying a clapped-out, under-maintained, overweight An12 / Il76 with a high probability of being involved in a serious accident and dying or becoming e.g. a cab driver and living . . .?

:confused:

[fox niner]

Well, good point torquelink.

But the difference is that the third world has other realities, other problems to worry about.
According to 3rd world standards, that takeoff was textbook! It got off the ground, right? No crash, no problem.
We could start by banning these airlines/airplanes/flight techniques from our FIRs.
What was that plane doing in Australia? couldn't they charter a better plane with more responsible pilots to do the job? Probably costs more, but hey, you'll be sure they reach more than 35ft at the end of the runway!

[Torquelink]

Fox Niner - If the charterers were held liable for any consequential damages caused by the dodgy aircraft they chartered, they might indeed look for better quality alternatives. I can understand the charterers mentality - cheapest rate for the job - but I still can't get my head around why the crews would play what's hardly any better than Russian roulette with their own lives. I've lost track of how many An12s and An24s etc have ploughed in in Africa over the last few months.

[The SSK]

I've travelled pax on Tu-154s which had a similar climb-out. Could still read the house numbers five miles out.

[training wheels]

Is it just me or did I see two aircraft holding short of runway 35 in the video? If so, that may suggest some downwind on runway 17 during takeoff?

[Hotel Tango]

Other than having video evidence, not all that unusual with IL-76s. Saw it quite a few times at our local airport. They were eventually banned as a consequence of regular damage to roof tops from the jet blast! :eek:

Torquelink, have you ever driven a taxi in a third world country? Flying an overweight clapped out IL-76 is much much safer ;)

[Taildragger67]

Once saw one getting off 03L at Jo'burg - one of the longest runways anywhere - and he used THE LOT. Then again, we were at the hold and for much of the run all we could see was a pall of smoke, so the only reason I know he used so much was when we finally saw him emerge from the self-induced cloud... Not a hot day, late-June, but still at 5500'AMSL he needed most of the 14500' available!

Another Ilyushin leaving little room for error...

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Domodedovo-Airlines/Domodedovo-Airlines/0321482

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Domodedovo-Airlines/Domodedovo-Airlines/0312682

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Vaso-Airlines/Vaso-Airlines/0995911&photo_nr=24&prev_id=0996584&next_id=0990664

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Atlant-Soyuz-Airlines/Atlant-Soyuz-Airlines/0996987&photo_nr=21&prev_id=0999103&next_id=0996585

[Torquelink]

You may indeed have a point Hotel Tango!

[ImpairedHearing]

Not the first time really, PIA out of MAN, countless Ilyushins out of HKT - not to mention the odd EK A340 in Jo'burg a while ago :eek:

[Hempy]

Not the first time really, PIA out of MAN, countless Ilyushins out of HKT - not to mention the odd EK A340 in Jo'burg a while ago

I don't think it's all that uncommon, especially in hotter climes (I've seen it myself with an Olympic 747). You can watch it over and over with a video though (and cringe every time :bored:)

[Minorite invisible]

That video was filmed in Feb 2001, before the runway was extended to its present length, which still does not explain the 2600+ ground roll.

[perkin]

I've just remembered seeing a video of the first pax carrying 747 out of Bournemouth...a spectator in the background can be heard saying something along the lines of 'oh my god, its not gonna make it'! Not quite as tight as the Il-76, but impressive nonetheless :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feGZ4l5fk4Q

[countbat]

Perkin let me remind you that was an western aircraft. We are allowed to crash them. Different rules for us. We are so "perfect" that we are allowed to screw everything and use any excuse.:ok:

[TSHEKUDU]

Thats what i experience in the A340/300 everytime we close to max take off weights.:ugh: Thinking the IL76 has a better chance of survival as he has no computers that restrict the amount of movement of the flying surfaces:}

[TotalBeginner]

CUTTING IT FINE (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Vaso-Airlines/Vaso-Airlines/0995911/L/) seems to be the way with these aircraft :uhoh::uhoh:

[perkin]

Yes, I just realised that I'd posted a vid of a western aircraft doing a very similar thing to the IL-76, thus blowing the Russian 'cowboy' sentiment out of the water to some extent! I guess as it was a western aircraft operating from a UK airport, it was just a well calculated take-off...! It does look quite scary though, it just keeps coming and coming until it finally lifts off... :eek: At least the IL-76 wasnt stuffed full of pax...

[old,not bold]

Interstingly, Jepp shows the TORA for 17 as 2683, with a TODA of 3273. As these guys lifted off at the threshold, it seems to me that they were on the ground for about 600m of roll (past the end of the TORA) when they shouldn't have been.

As I recall it TODA isn't necessarily all on the ground...bit of clearway, anyone?

I don't know how it stacks up on the runway in question, though. General observation.

[scooby79]

Not trying to justify that t/o as it was pretty bad but I am doing exams at the moment and thought that you had to be halfway to the screen height by the end of the TORA according to ICAO. Is that right or am I going to fail my exams?

[Pugilistic Animus]

scooby79, no you wont fail:

"TORA=Takeoff runway the aircraft must be airborne at V2 [for the accelerate-go] at 35' above the end of the TORA with one engine inoperative: for all engines the FAR TORA includes a safety factor of [half the airborne distance to 35' plus 15%"

but, in post #9--- I described a scenario possible with older types

[Slezy9]

The extension at YSCB is has only been completed in the last couple of years or so. By looking at it I think that this was before it was done. Back then TORA and TODA were the same.

[pasoundman]

This one had passengers !


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=feGZ4l5fk4Q

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Why do you think we bought the C-17s??? :hmm::ok:

[perkin]

This one had passengers !


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=feGZ4l5fk4Q


Beat you to it about 5 hrs ago...read back through the thread! :ugh:

[er340790]

Well, if you're paying for the whole runway, you might as well use it!:oh:

[Minorite invisible]

Why do you think we bought the C-17s???

To kiss American ass, same reason Canada bought some.

[Luc Lion]

This one had passengers !


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=feGZ4l5fk4Q
For this video, estimating the distances is difficult due to the zooming.
If I am not mistaken, rotation happens at the level of the TDZ markings next to the aiming point and lift off is at the aiming point markings, thus 1500 ft and 1000 ft before the threshhold.

[xxgunnerxx]

Can somebody please explain what is wrong? The pilot took off from the piano keys, so what? I'm sure he/she calculated their V-speeds and based on them performed the takeoff. If they weren't up to standard then they would not be flying to a place like New Zealand...

[thewarintheair]

When approaching performance limiting weights it is important to "fly by the numbers" for safety reasons. It seems the crew did exactly that, line up on the numbers on one end of the runway, apply max chat, rotate on numbers at other end of runway. They are to be congratulated for their professionalism under exacting conditions. Well done, pass me another bottle.

[Minorite invisible]

Remember that balanced field length requires to be able to clear the far end at 35 feet in case of critical engine failure. A four engine aircraft is that looses one engine (25% of thrust) is able to do that farther down the runway than a 2 engine that looses 50% of power in case of engine failure.

[old,not bold]

Depends on your definition of the "far end", doesn't it?

In any case, what none of us in our armchairs can know is at what point the aircraft passed V1.

Unless shown otherwise, I would assume that there was sufficient runway plus stopway in front of that aircraft at that point (V1) to bring it to a safe halt with 1 engine inop, instead of heaving it off the ground with them all working. In short, I assume that that it was all properly calculated by the crew or dispatcher.

In the 1980s, DC8 departures from Exeter used to be similarly exciting on 26, but 26 had, at that time, a TODA of 150% of the TORA.

At a risk of thread drift, the problem in these cases is whether or not the stopway really is up to the job. Some are not, if they go beyond the paved surface so as to engineer a longer TORA.

[jackharr]

Some years ago at Amsterdam.
Tower: "KLM 123. Will you be taking off from the end of Runway 01 Left?"
"No sir. I'll be taking off from the beginning."

Jack Harrison

[pontifex]

Ah! The luxury of always using balanced field. When I was a lad we had Vgo and Vstop. If you were lucky the former came before the latter; if the other way round it was called "The area of service risk". In this case you just made sure that the TOR was no more than 90% of TORA. On a calm day at Masirah or Gan the temperature above the black runway was inevitably much more than in the met man's little gizmo with predictable results. When I was a copilot we once used a bit of desert beyond the end of the El Adem runway even though I had done my sums and expressed strong doubts (Pre CRM of course). Thank heaven for large, low pressure tires. When Mk1 Victor Tankers took off from such airfields it seemed as though most of the station personnel would gather at the far end to watch the fun.

[corsair]

Some years ago at Amsterdam.
Tower: "KLM 123. Will you be taking off from the end of Runway 01 Left?"
"No sir. I'll be taking off from the beginning."

Jack Harrison

:D In the end I imagine, he took off from the middle somewhere! Unlike our friend. Oldbutnotbold's point is fair. Maybe he did hold it down after V1. But some of the comments here indicated that using all or most of the runway is not uncommon among certain ad hoc operators. So the jury is still out on the subject.

I think the video neatly indicates the difference between what an individual aeroplane is capable of on a given day if all goes well and what is best practice on a daily basis spread over a worldwide fleet of thousands.

[Dutch1911]

Surprising ATC didn't initiate the crash alarm, but I don't know exactly what their rules are.


Somehow I think that the people in the tower knew this was going to happen. They were filming, they were making funny remarks, and at the end one chap remarks that he would have not believed it if he hadn't seen it. They probably see this all the time with this operator, so one day they decided to film it.

[Loki]

Dutch1911

They were probably filming it because of the unusual nature of the flight...I don`t suppose there would be many Il76 movements at Canberra?

If I were the tower controller, I would have at least had one eye on the crash button (mental checklist; anything between me and it, like a cup of coffee....happened to me once) as soon as it started to look out of the ordinary.

[gengis]

Seems like maybe the russians don't do performance calculations with the same criteria or in the same way that we do. It reminds me of another russian airplane - IL96 methinks??? - doing precisely the same thing as this bugger..... basically getting unsticked on the piano keys.... at Phuket runway 27

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Vaso-Airlines/Vaso-Airlines/0995911&photo_nr=25&prev_id=0252881&next_id=0632272

Maybe they don't consider the engine out case at all??????? :ugh:

[Glonass]

Just blame it on the copilot! He probably forgot the "ROTATE" callout. :E

[Super VC-10]

Re the Il-86

Note the comment about it saying "GO" at the end of the runway! :D

[Ivor_Novello]

They need to get this feet / meters conversion sorted or one day someone will get hurt :)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Sounds to me like quite a of you know little of aircraft performance in limiting cases, particularly say, US aircraft certified to SFAR 422B, or early versions of FAR 25.

A QANTAS 707-338C, departing the old Brisbane Eagle Farm, at WAT limits, would only have the squat switches release (you could hear the landing gear lever latch release) as the threshold markers passed your peripheral vision out the side cockpit windows.

Likewise a B747-238 with a water injection take-off at Cairns, tailwind component on 33, or the old Athens on a hot night ---- where QF paid to have a couple of trees cut down --- they were below the gradient envelope --- but just in case. In the Cairns case, viewed from the Bushie's Bar, it was quite a sight, lots of red dust blown up beyond the end of 33 --- 15 being out of the question due obstacles.

No early generation jet, east of west, had the performance margins of current certification.

Tootle pip!!

PS: And don't forget "overspeed" Vr for improved second segment climb, then common, not often now needed, even in hot and high conditions.

[luvly jubbly]

Led sled just beat me to it. Nobody here ever used "Improved climb" performance?? By the looks of that high ground ahead they might have been doing a standard company procedure. V1 is called as usual for the rwy length, but it then seems like forever before reaching Vr. It's quite normal to see the rwy end coming up fast!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Is it not the case that the TORR for the all engine case is not that significantly different from the OEI on a 4 holer rather than a twin. And before anybody jumps down my throat, unless you work for the manufacturer you dont get to see the data

Could that difference be exagerrated by a take off technique different to that in testing. Slow rotate?

Clearway anyone?

[fox niner]

Improved climb performance is fine. And legal as well.
But you will still need to meet the requirement of a 35 foot clearance height over the threshold with one engine out. And therefore an even higher clearance over the threshold with all engines running! In no way should an airplane cross the threshold at such a low height.

The takeoff of the 747 in bournemouth may look "low", but actually it does cross the threshold at a greater height than 35 ft. It's just that the 747 is so big that it fools the observer in thinking it is too low.

The phuket takeoff photo is just crazy. and so is this one in canberra.

[Expressflight]

I thought that the "35 feet height at the far end" relates to the end of the TODA, not the TORA. A 'balanced field length' is simply the definition of when the TORA and TODA correspond at a particular airfield is it not?

In this case as the TODA is far greater than the TORA, rotation very near the end of TORA is not particularly surprising.

[nojwod]

From the look of the buildings in the background where the GA area is relatively sparsely built up, and the two Chinooks in the foreground I think the footage must date from quite a few years ago, perhaps during the 1990's?

Haven't seen Chinooks around Canberra for quite a few years, even for display purposes.

[PLovett]

Some of the present day departures from Alice Springs can be interesting, especially in mid-summer. 2,438 metres long, 40 degrees Centigrade plus, 1,789' elevation, little or nil wind or worse fluctuating between ends.

I have watched quite a few 737, 717 and other assorted aircraft fast approaching the departure end before rotating.

On one ocassion I was taxying in listening to a 737 asking about whether the temp had decreased. They needed another two degrees reduction otherwise it was bag chucking time.:uhoh:

[BerksFlyer]

How did I know then next words after 'lift her up anytime you like Captain' would be 'Jesus Christ!'?

[mmciau]

PLovett,

Yes, seen quite a few DC-9s use up all the runway at Alice Springs and leave a black exhaust trail visually close to the horizon for a long time after leaving the runway!!

IIRC, the DC-9 was very marginal on hot days.

Mike

[lestump]

Not a bad guess on your part.... February 2001. Been a lot of changes since then, mostly outside the perimeter fence but we do have an extra 600 metres for runway 35 now. This guy could have done with that extra!

[ARINC]

Led sled just beat me to it. Nobody here ever used "Improved climb" performance?? By the looks of that high ground ahead they might have been doing a standard company procedure. V1 is called as usual for the rwy length, but it then seems like forever before reaching Vr. It's quite normal to see the rwy end coming up fast!

Just out of interest what does one do in the event of a limiting failure prior to rotation ?

Apart from pull back anyway...:}

[Kieran Smith]

Wow! That's spectacular.

It's one of those you see and think "there's no way he's gonna leave it that late" and he did!

Excellent. :)

[JayEmKay]

That reminds me of a story from the VC10 days...
Out of Nairobi, 3H take off. (Hot, High & Heavy)
F/O "Did you see those red lights go under the nose at the end of the runway?"
Flt Eng "Yes, they had 'Philips 600W' written on them"

[The777dream]

ha ha typical russian IL 76 take off !!!
the comments by the camera man are more funny though !!
wounder what the navigator was thinking sitting in the bottom ??

i some how doubt it was a reduced power take off if he rotated where he did, and if it was the shorter of the 2 runways like someone mentioned !!

but by african standard that climb profile looked pretty impressive !!! i ve seen some IL76 in africa not even climb 500 ft before they are nearly out of sight ! and wouldnt have believed it if i hadnt seen it my self !!

nice video :} nice find :D

["Taylor"]

Wow crazy! Bet he needed a change of underwear after that take off! :ooh:

[grundyhead]

Risky take off versus risky landing. Check out the landing of this IL 62. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukHULbHqW4Q

[Richard Taylor]

IL62 landing at its static display site, who needs asphalt?

[grundyhead]

TNT 737 tried that at EMA!!!

[lambo_guy08]

if an aircraft is that heavy 'geared up for an 11 hour flight' and the runway is that short -roughly1600m-should it be allowed to take off?:confused:

[rak64]

I think the tower crew is even worser than the IL-76 crew. They didn't anything to maintain the safety of their airport.
The only way to deal with such dangerous kind of ops, making copies from all of their paperwork, licence, medical, insurance, techlog, aoc, flightlog, weight-calculations and rwy-calculation. Remind them about the normal airline operation. An russia is not 3. worl. I know a little the russians, they saying, such operation would never be allowed in the aeroflot.

[Hempy]

I think the tower crew is even worser than the IL-76 crew. They didn't anything to maintain the safety of their airport.
The only way to deal with such dangerous kind of ops, making copies from all of their paperwork, licence, medical, insurance, techlog, aoc, flightlog, weight-calculations and rwy-calculation. Remind them about the normal airline operation.

That would be one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read on Pprune. ATC's are there primarily to stop aircraft hitting each other, it is generally assumed that an ATPL doesn't (or shouldn't) need reminding about "normal airline operation". How do you know that an incident report of some kind wasn't filled out? Was one required?

"Excuse me Captain, I think you look like you are about to perform a dodgy take off, could I please see your weight and balance calculations? Oh, and please include copies of your licence, log, medical etc etc prior to airways clearance" :ugh::ugh:

[Minorite invisible]

An russia is not 3. worl. I know a little the russians, they saying, such operation would never be allowed in the aeroflot.

What makes you think this aircraft and its crew were Russians? This aircraft type is operated by 30 to 40 countries at least.

Here is a picture of an aircraft that has the same trim:
www.airliners.net/photo/Azerbaijan-Airlines/Ilyushin-Il-76TD/0228375/L/

Azerbaijan Airlines, from Baku.

[gengis]

rak64: ATC does not know the performance capabilities of each and every airplane. And even if they did, operational decisions of the kind that we are discussing are outside of their area. ATC is not qualified to say if an airplane is too heavy, what his takeoff crosswind limit is, what his landing minimums should be or if his takeoff fuel is sufficient.

If an error of judgment has taken place, deal with the pilot/operator, but do not push it to un-qualified people/departments. That is a dereliction of duty. Besides, too many cooks spoil the broth....

[lestump]

Minorite invisible Quote:
An russia is not 3. worl. I know a little the russians, they saying, such operation would never be allowed in the aeroflot.

What makes you think this aircraft and its crew were Russians? This aircraft type is operated by 30 to 40 countries at least.

Here is a picture of an aircraft that has the same trim:
www.airliners.net/photo/Azerbaijan-Airlines/Ilyushin-Il-76TD/0228375/L/

Azerbaijan Airlines, from Baku.


I have checked the full version of my video and the aircraft is the exact same one featured in the link given by "Minorite invisible".

[Envoy604]

It's off RW 17 not 30. Also has a lower climb gradient to MSA. 4.4% from memory as opposed to 6.6% off 35. He was assigned hdg 180 on departure if you listen to the audio. Notwithstanding the longer runway, still impressive don't you think!!

[charter man]

The controller is referring to an AHC callsign, which would make this an Azal Cargo (based in Baku) flight, probably on behalf of the Australian Defence Force. It is quite normal for the military to supply free fuel for these types of flights, which could explain the slightly high take-off weight?

[kontrolor]

we pay all runway, we use all runway

[Ranger 1]

They were just making sure of it :E

[Roger Standby]

Ban them form western FIR's?

I'd put money on it that it was a government charter!

[Pugilistic Animus]

In light of reporting the BOTH a TODA and a TORA, I will conjecture that the TO may have been perfectly OK...depending upon what was the limiting case AEO/OEI and the size of the TODA [remembering that this is a quad---for first segment considerations of the OEI case] ----and also observing that Vlof was achieved by the end of the runway then

--either---
1. the margin on the AEO case was contained within the clearway
2. the OEI case was predicated on a clearway---but at the end of the TODA ---but how much of the APRT boundaries were declared a clearway?

we simply don't have enough information to conclude anything regarding the legalities of that TO other than that it looked interesting!

[HurryUp&Retire]

you guys need to drop the whole russian 3rd world country poor ops. Thats just BS. Only a fool would say russia is a 3rd world country.

anyways check this out

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1047429730476247520&q=737+take+off+air+china&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[Best foot forward]

So if it took all the runway on four engines to accelerate to Vlof, would it have been able to do the same had it lost one engine at V1?

[Lee_Strong]

Very lucky pilot.

[Pugilistic Animus]

"So if it took all the runway on four engines to accelerate to Vlof, would it have been able to do the same had it lost one engine at V1?"

Best foot forward: Sometimes the all engine acceleration is more limiting due to the greater distance traveled with all four donks turning, also the all engin speeds [V3 and V4] are greater perhaps creating further distance or climb gradient limitations---

[wingman863]

I'm unsure about what exactly the whole 3rd world thing actually means but one thing is for sure; a huge proportion of the russian population are very poor indeed. It's a country where bribery gets you by, the press are tightly controlled by the government (a few journalists with a habbit of publishing embarassing stories have a funny habit of getting bumped off), and democracy is virtually a sham.

I'm unsure what implications all this has on Russian aviation but it can't be positive thats for sure.

[Hempy]

we pay all runway, we use all runway

I giggled :ok:

[CAR256]

There are a few Russian comments in this video :}, which one of the others linked me to... I did like the first high speed pass, but the Go-arounds??????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCF04ixE5ks

Unsure of the aircraft or airline though... Maybe someone can help?

So, back to the original thread, Am I right that, by looking at the climb performance (marginal). The pilot could have calculated correctly, as he only had to achieve only half of the air distance to 35' by the end of the runway, muliplied by 1.15(may have forgotton this) ((unsure of the 1.15 for this type))

Looked pretty exciting either way!!! :O

[Minorite invisible]

Unsure of the aircraft or airline though... Maybe someone can help?

This is a TAP (Air Portugal) Airbus 310-300 in Lisbon. The Chief pilot was at the controls. I landed there not too long after this video was taken last summer and I was handled by a TAP mechanic. He explained to me that the airport is 300 feet AMSL and that right off the far end of the runway, the terrain slopes down steeply toward the bay which is just a short distance away. From where the cameraman stood, it looked like the A-310 was much closer to the ground when he banked away because he had not yet climbed away, but the ground had lowered below him. He was low, but no where as low as the video lets you think. That low downwind leg was over the ocean which cannot be seen in the video.

[CAR256]

Thanks Minorite... I thought that it was some sort of Airbus..

Looking at the video again, you can see that the wing does not go close to the ground I originally thought... It was still very low.

[fromTheShadows]

Thanks Minorite... I thought that it was some sort of Airbus..

Looking at the video again, you can see that the wing does not go close to the ground I originally thought... It was still very low.You might be interested in this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292517&) thread for some different opinions, if you can manage to read it all without losing the will to live.

[Check Airman]

Talk about needing the full length:eek:

I'd love to see their numbers for that takeoff!

[Hydroman400]

bloody love the Oz humour :ok:

[John Farley]

I am a little surprised that nobody seems to have considered that the crew deliberately did not rotate until the end of the runway - from what I know of one or two Russian pilots that would have appealed to their sense of humour.

If they actually were running out of runway and dragged it off in desperation at the end I would have expected a faster rotation to a higher nose attitude.

There are wind up merchants out there in real life not just on the internet.

[FullWings]

Sometimes the all engine acceleration is more limiting due to the greater distance traveled with all four donks turning, also the all engin speeds [V3 and V4] are greater perhaps creating further distance or climb gradient limitations---
:confused: Errmm, any examples of this phenomenon? Just interested...

[jb5000]

Isn't the all engine case sometimes more limiting as you have to add a safety factor to it? (As the all engine case is so likely, and the OEI case very unlikely)

The engine out case can just be the net performance if I remember correctly (and I probably can't).

i.e.

4 engine TOD required = 1000m
3 engine TOD required = 1100m

1,000m x 1.15 = 1150m, more limiting than the engine out case.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Fullwings, If I dig out my old 707 AFM perhaps I can find A few cases where AEO limits TOD instead of OEI as this phenomenon was a common occurrence in older type

Jb5000,the TOD listed in the AFM already accounts for the 15% margin on the most limiting case

so, if TODR =1000m then TOD =1000m and the TODA must be at least 1000

[reynoldsno1]

I have watched a couple of IL76s take-off from Amman(Marka) - runway 24looks like a ski slope - and the video has pretty much the same profile. The only difference at Marka is about 8 miles of dense housing in front of and beneath you.....:mad:

[FullWings]

Fullwings, If I dig out my old 707 AFM perhaps I can find A few cases where AEO limits TOD instead of OEI as this phenomenon was a common occurrence in older type
No, I believe you... I suppose I was looking at it from the purely physical point-of-view rather than having different margins applied in special circumstances. It must be a bit like being able (under certain narrow conditions) to lift more weight from a wet runway than a dry one, despite that being rather counter-intuitive.

[plt_aeroeng]

I've watched this video and the thread with a chuckle and some interest.

As a comparison, many years ago I was in Gibraltar, and one day watched a Nimrod depart for a 10 hour mission. The runway is 6000 ft. long, and he rotated well beyond the 1000 ft to go marker, then climbed away at about the climb angle in the IL76 video.

In the mess the next night, I encountered the pilot and allowed as to how we would likely have gotten wet if he had suffered an engine failure.

He responded "Not at all, old chap. We are using reduced thrust departures to save engine life. Upon failure of an engine, we would simply have firewalled the other three."

I still thought it was a slightly sporty departure, but those Nimrod crews were always aggressive.

[Airbrake]

With an engine failure on a reduced thrust t/o the whole point is that you don't have to touch the throttles to acheive the necessary climb gradient. Also, if there is a difference between V1 and Vr there wont be any hands on the throttles to push them forward after V1.

Somebody does not know what they are talking about.

[Capn Bloggs]

With an engine failure on a reduced thrust t/o the whole point is that you don't have to touch the throttles to acheive the necessary climb gradient
Perhpas the Nimrod operation doesn't use civil certification rules?

difference between V1 and Vr there wont be any hands on the throttles to push them forward after V1.
But there may well be after the "selected" call for the gear. And you'd be a dill if you didn't push em up to Max.

[Minorite invisible]

Well its a fact that in the plane I fly, which is an Airbus twin, we don't have to push the remaining throttle forward if we loose one after V1. The Flex Take-off thrust on the remaining engine is sufficient make all required gradients.

[Airbrake]

Capn Bloggs.

With a V1 cut nowhere does it say push the other one to the max! On the contrary the other engine may be already at max rated thrust and firewalling your possibly one remaining good engine is only for use as a last (desparate) measure. Your one good engine should be reduced to MCT (Maximum Continuous Thrust) as soon as possible when aircraft config and performance requirements allow.

Pushing throttles to the max is for Hollywood and life preservation GPWS/Windshear etc. If you have to do it for an engine failure you have porked something up!

[SOPS]

yes...just like Boeing..all Boeings:)

[CEJM]

Airbrake,

Don't really agree with you that pushing the throttles to max is only done when you porked it up or to be used by Hollywood.

The SOP's my colleagues and I operate to require us to select TOGA after an engine failure on take-off. This is one of the first steps the PNF does when this emergency arises.

The aircraft involved are both the minibus and the bigbus and even without selecting TOGA on the remaining engine we still make the requirements. However it gives you just a bit more performance.

And firewalling the engine is no big deal as (with no failures in the system) the FADEC looks nicely after the engine and prevents any excedance's.

[Airbrake]

I am not familiar with the Bus but as you say pressing TOGA is belt and braces and not necessary to meet perf A requirements. Particularly as I assume it will do nothing if you are already using full thrust and pressed TOGA at the start of the t/o roll.

FADEC may well protect engine limitations but firewalling an engine is unnecessary and a somewhat agricultural way of going about things!

[Chris Scott]

Have read with interest the discussion re. "firewalling the throttles" after an engine failure on a Flex-Thrust take-off.

Starting with the Nimrod out of Gibraltar -
1) Yes, being military they might not have been complying with Performance A rules.
2) You twin-engine guys have to remember that, on 4-engine types, the loss of one engine makes much less difference to the performance after V1. On the B707-320C, V1 was often uncomfortably close to VR (God knows how we would have stopped sometimes), so the lift-off point wouldn't have changed enormously.
3) The RR Spey, being a British engine, does permit the throttles to be "fire-walled" without over-boosting the engine (think of the BAC1-11).

On the general topic of what you should do after an engine failure with Flex Thrust, there is absolutely no doubt that, subject to your company's SOPs, you have a choice of sticking with Flex Thrust; or selecting 'TOGA'; the performance is based on Flex being maintained. In this age of FADEC/EEC, the pilot can generally push the thrust lever fully forward without over-boosting, even on an American engine. I remember a discussion in 1987 on the Franco-American CFM-56 for the A320. Air France (I think) insisted that it should be possible to exceed TOGA in a dire emergency. They wanted the throttles to have an extra gate, beyond TOGA. This would have been "firewalling" in the true sense. The rest of us considered TOGA was sufficient.

[For those of you who haven't been there already, you might take a look at the De-Rated Thrust thread in Tech Log. It also covers Flex Thrust.]

[Pugilistic Animus]

I hope everyone considering firewalling the TL's during EFATO events is heeding the Vmc[a,g] limitations at low RTOWs whilst applying derates;)

During a reduced thrust TO remember that while the assumes temperature method allows for max thrust, as was determined at a particular Vmc

A Vmcg that was scheduled according to a particular derate

..but follow SOPS/AFM guidance and this is very type/Co specific stuff that I wont get in to

I apologize for being slightly off topic

[CEJM]

Airbrake,

We normally do a reduced thrust take-off (Flex) and during the engine failure (on take-off) the PNF selects TOGA. Giving us all the thrust available.

Nearly all our take-offs are at, or close to, MTOW and every extra bit of thrust you can get is more than welcome.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Pugilistic Animus,

You are, I think, correct for the De-Rated thrust case, where new VMCG and VMCA would (other posters say) be calculated for the De-Rate.

But the rules for Flex Thrust (the one which uses the so-called "Assumed Temperature" method) are different, and the rated Thrust VMCG and VMCA are retained.

Join us on the "De-Rated power settings question" thread in the Tech Log forum? Not much to do with the IL-76, perhaps...

PS
By the way, I think jb5000 [Feb20/1606z & Feb21/1606z] was right about the 4-engine case RULES sometimesbeing more limiting than the 3-engine case, because of the extra margin required. We sometimes had that situation on the B707-320C.

[Tin-Bullet]

These OLD NOISY SMOKEY & UNDER-PERFORMING Aircraft NEED TO BE BANNED from Major Airports, at once!!

And this includes more of the remaining Russian Junk of Metal still flying around, waiting for SOMETHING SERIOUS TO HAPPEN!:(

[Midland 331]

...and let's ban wars, disease, Monday mornings, and those people who don't queue properly at Starbucks (and take too long to order)...

r

[Wombat35]

Starts with :}:} 2001 and ends with...:{:{ 2003

DILI (Reuters) - A cargo plane crashed into mountains while
approaching an airfield in East Timor on Friday, killing all six Russian
crew, officials said. They said the Russian Ilyushin-76 aircraft
crashed in the middle of the afternoon in thick fog near Baucau
airfield, about 60 miles east of the capital Dili. "Six people were
killed and all were Russian,"

as an example... I used to just shake my head at the East Timor goings on...

[jonny_boy]

If the plane doesn't take off at the end of the runway, shouldn't the runway be cracked down to forbid the aircraft to take off? Isn't that a normal design practise for all runway?

[reynoldsno1]

As a comparison, many years ago I was in Gibraltar, and one day watched a Nimrod depart for a 10 hour mission. The runway is 6000 ft. long, and he rotated well beyond the 1000 ft to go marker, then climbed away at about the climb angle in the IL76 video.

....errrrr, I may well have been on that one, mind you, everything at Gibraltar was always rather sporty ....:uhoh:

[411A]

Fullwings, If I dig out my old 707 AFM perhaps I can find A few cases where AEO limits TOD instead of OEI as this phenomenon was a common occurrence in older type



You remember well.
This was common on the old straight-pipe intercontinental models....up close and personal with the far end of the runway at heavy weights was also common.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Hi Chris,

I have updated my viewing of the derate/RT thread and saw the point about Vmcg, that thread a very interesting confluence of the 'heavy weights' I have been reading ever since with keen interest

I thought the TODR accounted for the most limiting conditions, with the first segment occurring over clearway and the screen/ fence at the end of the TODA if OEI limits, or with [CAA-rules] all engines the clearway can be overflown for the 15% margins but with AEO screen speeds/heights so the TODR would have to account for what ever is limiting...

I like perf A stuff because the FAR TORA can leave a lot to be desired especially when dealing with RWY contamination,....


Also thanks for the additional performance info concerning airbus types!

PA


411A, thanks

I knew I wasn't crazy [yet]:}

[Bumpfoh]

Quite a few years back a Russian? reg IL-86 I think from memory did a similar effort MNL-MEL and took out the approach lights and gashed the fuselage considerably.

Any problems captain?? Nyet, no problm. :}

Errr, you might like to take a look outside when you have a minute.:uhoh:

[CargoOne]

FYI:
IL76, like most of other Soviet-built aircraft, do not have any provisions and procedures for de-rated (or flex) take-off power. It is always the same thrust setting, doesn't matter what runway or weight.

[Madbob]

After much talk on this thread - nobody seems to have considered what the ground speed might have been at the end of what looked like a pretty extended ground roll.

What sort of performance limitation would there be on max T/O performance in a hot/high/heavy situation with an IL76 caused by tyre (tire) limiting speeds?

MB

[Look For The Rainbow]

Hi People! First of all wish you all safe take offs and landings always. I have a small question unrelated to the IL76 take off, it is my first time on PPRuNe, and forgive me for intruding in like this. I am a new upgraded captain, and a while a go on a certain airfield I did 2 missed approaches and on my third attempt I landed. Required vis for landing was 1200m, tower reported it at 4000m, so did ATIS, but during the first approach tower said it was 600m. No problem, we continued to the approach ban, at which I saw at least 2000-3000m vis! I requested to do the approach to the MDA, and that was followed by a go arround. Another appraoch was attempted (fuel not being a factor, and CRM not an issue, my F/O and I knew we could do it on the second attempt), which was also preceded by a go around. Went into holding for half an hour, vis improved and we landed uneventful. My question is, would this demote me to an F/O or terminate my employment? Had something like this happened in anyones airline where a Captain got demoted or fired? Right now I am gounded and I am waiting for the Investigation to end, but just worried. Someone please advise, now matter how harsh, thank you.

[A4]

Hello LFTRainbow,

From your description of events, it looks like you continued beyond the approach ban point despite the required viz being below limits := . Visibility can be very deceptive - I too have been in the hold with a great view of the runway... but RVR's of less lan 550m being reported. The problems can occur in very short final when the slant viz can reduce suddenly and dramtically - possibly it did with you, hence your go around.

At the very least I hope you have learned from the experience and will consider it in the future. Perhaps your CP will take a similar attitude...perhaps not. If you are demoted, you won't be the first (or last) - although it's not that common. Just remember, if you are ever thinking of bending a rule, try practicing your reasons for doing so in your best "courtroom" voice - that's usually sufficient to bring most people to their senses!

I was told when you get a Command you have two bags. One is empty and the other is full of luck. The idea is that you fill the empty one with experience before you empty the other!

A4

[Look For The Rainbow]

Thanks for the reply and advise A4, I have learned from that experiance. I guess I will have to wait for Just Culture to take its course. I can't really blame the mangement for grounding me, just that I am anxious for this waiting game to finish. Any how, take care and thanks again.

[JanetFlight]

wonder how many tonnes were 'unmanifested' on that one

Incidently, wasn't it an IL76 that took off runway end lights at Richmond a year or so ago....its tyre tracks spotted by the safety officer some time after it had departed??

Yeap...it seems those old 76'ers have something special with Aussie Fields »»»
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/AAIR/pdf/aair200607054_001.pdf

And BTW, here it is also the Final Report of the Laos IL76 crashed in East Timor some years ago..:rolleyes:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2003/AAIR/pdf/aair200300263_001.pdf

[Minorite invisible]

wonder how many tonnes were 'unmanifested' on that one

Incidently, wasn't it an IL76 that took off runway end lights at Richmond a year or so ago....its tyre tracks spotted by the safety officer some time after it had departed??

The Australian report states black on white that the tyre tracks found in the overrun area by the Safety Officer did not match those of the IL-76. There is even a picture provided of a single tyre mark whereas the IL-76s have a series of double boggies, even on the nose wheel. Plus, since when do aircraft taking-off leave tyre marks in the asphalt unless maybe in case of a reject?

It is true that in many Third World countries, underpaid crews often load un-manifested cargo for which they collect cargo fees themselves, which is split up by the crew, but this is only possible on their regular routes, where they have contacts, since it requires the cooperation of many similarly underpaid people on the ground (customs, cargo handling employees, etc) with whom they share the proceeds of that cargo. I have talked to ex-Aeroflot crew members who told me that this is how they rounded off their ridiculous pay checks in Soviet Union times. I am certain this still goes on in many places. These days however, an IL-76 captain, even in places like Russia, makes several thousand US dollars per month and will not risk his job to make 500$ on the side. A North Korean IL-76 pilot, who still earns peanuts, might.

I checked and found that Azerbaijan Airlines, Azal, and Silk Air, which is all one and the same (they all have the same head office address), lost several IL-76s in accidents.