Heavy casualties reported in Algerian IL78 crash

[captplaystation]

According to initial report (from the Sun mind you ) as many as 200.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6023111/algeria-plane-crash-boufarik-airport-death-toll-latest/


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/algeria-military-plane-crashes-boufarik-airport-reports-180411081014559.html


Just googling it seems the 78 is mainly a tanker, and that it is likely a 76 (which is what Algerian military operate ) but, of no consequence in this tragedy.

[DaveReidUK]

According to initial report (from the Sun mind you ) as many as 200.

Just googling it seems the 78 is mainly a tanker, and that it is likely a 76 (which is what Algerian military operate ) but, of no consequence in this tragedy.

The Al Jazeera link correctly identifies it as an Il-76. The narrative and photos of the crash site in open farmland don't really square with the "as many as 200 dead" report in the Sun, though clearly all on board perished.

[StormyKnight]

Video Grab: Scene outside Boufarik airport after Algerian military plane crash
Shows tail of aircraft with left horizontal stabilizer in the vertical position.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dafc_V8XcAI4K28.jpg

Video can be seen on this page
BREAKING Algerian Military plane with about 100 people onboard crashed near Boufarik airbase | AIRLIVE.net (http://www.airlive.net/breaking-algerian-military-plane-with-about-100-people-onboard-crashed-near-boufarik-military-airport/)

[Officer Kite]

Algerian Ennahar tv reporting 300 onboard with 247 confirmed dead so far.

Edit to add just gone up to 257

[rcsa]

Il-76 payload = 17,500Kg. 300 pax + bags = 30,000kgs.

Plane crashed just after take-off.

Oops.

[StormyKnight]

Il-76 payload = 17,500Kg. 300 pax + bags = 30,000kgs.

Plane crashed just after take-off.

Oops.

I hope it's not the error of using the average person weight for the load calculation instead of the real weight of serviceman & kit.

If so it's not the first time this has happened.

[StopStart]

IL76MD, a variant the Algerians have, can lift approx 40T of payload.

[CargoOne]

Il-76 payload = 17,500Kg. 300 pax + bags = 30,000kgs.

Plane crashed just after take-off.

Oops.

Il76 payload depending of a model is 40 to 50 tons. Nevertheless the normal troops capacity is around 150 or so...

[atakacs]

At least 257 on board... That sounds like a fairly significant overload!

[andrasz]

Al Watan (the most reliable Algerian news source) also reports 257 casualties, 10 crew the rest military personnel and their families.

Weight wise not an issue (some Il-76 variants can take as much as 60 tons payload) but how on earth did they manage to cram that many into that space (perhaps some fold-down double-decker config, like it was in the C-124 ?)

[Karel_x]

Weight wise not an issue (some Il-76 variants can take as much as 60 tons payload) but how on earth did they manage to cram that many into that space

Balance issue?

[Carbon Bootprint]

According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43724941), the 257 aboard consisted of not only troops but also their families, so conceivably there may be many small children among them. There are also 10 crew believed killed, presumably included in the number being cited. A massive tragedy for the Algerians.

[TylerMonkey]

https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/11/94/64/62/bcc42b10.jpg

Hold size 728x135” = 682 sq ft

For 250 passengers each would have 2.73 sq ft or a 1.6x1.6 ft space on the floor.

Tight !

[CargoOne]

There is a double-decker config for IL76 making it aprox 250 troops capacity but I am not sure how often/widely it used these days...

http://milaremina.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/il-76md-podvesnaya-vtoraya-paluba.jpg

[flash8]

Possible Engine failure with MTOW exceeded... nightmare scenario.

[CargoOne]

Possible Engine failure with MTOW exceeded... nightmare scenario.

You cant exceed MTOW on IL76 with just 250 pax and fuelled for Algerian domestic flight

[andrasz]

There is a double-decker config for IL76

That's the one I was thinking of, thanks. Read about it somewhere but could not find a photo anywhere.

You cant exceed MTOW on IL76 with just 250 pax and fuelled for Algerian domestic flight

Completely agree, the load while unusual is well within aircraft capabilities, and may be easily accommodated with the kit shown above. Any number of things (or more likely their combination) could have gone wrong here (bird strike, incorrect flaps/slats, thrust, W/B just to name a few), at this stage there is nothing to go on. El Watan reports that the accident happened right on the airport perimeter (and is also confirmed by the released photos & videos, there are built up areas further along the extended centreline in both directions) so whatever happened occurred just around liftoff.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Il-76 payload = 17,500Kg. 300 pax + bags = 30,000kgs.

Plane crashed just after take-off.

Oops.

The Algerian Air Force operates both Il-76 and Il-78. This could be either. There are different models with different weights, but on average, their empty weight is about 92 tonnes and their Zero Fuel Weights are 139.5. So on average, they can haul a payload of about 47 tonnes, although I find that on the internet, most indicate a payload of 42 tonnes.

[andrasz]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5305425,2.8579581,374m/data=!3m1!1e3

Clearly identifiable from videos/photos posted on news sites and social media, in fields between A1 highway and the end of RWY 22. The airport perimeter guard towers appear clearly in some photos.

[Rob Bamber]

(bird strike, incorrect flaps/slats, thrust, W/B just to name a few)Fairly intact tail section resting close to engines and fuel tanks, together with the proximity to the end of runway suggest a stall to me.

Condolences to all involved.

[guadaMB]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5305425,2.8579581,374m/data=!3m1!1e3

Clearly identifiable from videos/photos posted on news sites and social media, in fields between A1 highway and the end of RWY 22. The airport perimeter guard towers appear clearly in some photos.

And an IL-76 squadron of eight ACs...:cool: and one close to the apron & another one taxiing...at the moment of the satellite pass-pic

[WHBM]

Whatever is a supposedly more civilised country which is a major oil/gas producer doing transporting civilians and children in those conditions ?

[guadaMB]

Whatever is a supposedly more civilised country which is a major oil/gas producer doing transporting civilians and children in those conditions ?

Well, it's not clear if there were children or not.
News agencies tell about "military and relatives".

And, yes, Algeria is an oil&gas producer but also a corruption permissive country. All Africa is. It's a common pic to see military ACs debarking civilians "related" to military men & women (and politicians).

There's one thing that makes me think: it's not too common these days to see a death toll that high (all deceased) in a close to take-off accident (the plane's been aloft a little while to come to crash inside the airport boundaries). If that's real, safety conditions on board had to be...nil.
Poor people.

[Officer Kite]

Whatever is a supposedly more civilised country which is a major oil/gas producer doing transporting civilians and children in those conditions ?

I've just checked back again with ennahar and yes unfortunately at least 2 full families with young children have perished. Obviously the body count and identification is still ongoing.

It's important to note that this is the 6th such accident of this type in Algeria since 2003.

It's understandably gripped the nation and will do for sometime, however if there's one thing I'm noticing, it's the anger on social media within Algeria. You get a sense of 'enough is enough' for them and these types of incidents. However knowing the country, it's unlikely anything will change.

[guadaMB]

It's important to note that this is the 6th such accident of this type in Algeria since 2003.

.

My source is wiki, so take it with a grane of salt...

Algeria's Il-76 fleet is:
Il-76 MD ----> 3 and Il-76 TD ----> 8

Really had they SIX SERIOUS accidents within this type?
In a fleet of 11 units?

That's a very bad stats figure...

[Officer Kite]

My source is wiki, so take it with a grane of salt...

Algeria's Il-76 fleet is:
Il-76 MD ----> 3 and Il-76 TD ----> 8

Really had they SIX SERIOUS accidents within this type?
In a fleet of 11 units?

That's a very bad stats figure...

When i said "type" I didn't mean aircraft type, I meant a crash involving the Algerian Air Force conducting one operation or another, usually transporting soldiers and their families too for some strange reason.

My source again is ennahar. They made a table of all crashes, the most recent being 102 deaths in a large transporter in 2014 (similar to today but can't remember exact aircraft). The thread on that crash is here somewhere.

I've tried uploading it here but it wants a URL, I saw it on their Facebook page my via the app so can't upload it for now cos I'm on the mobile. It's in Arabic (as are all their publications) though so perhaps not of much use to most here.

[guadaMB]

When i said "type" I didn't mean aircraft type, I meant a crash involving the Algerian Air Force conducting one operation or another, usually transporting soldiers and their families too for some strange reason.

My source again is ennahar. They made a table of all crashes, the most recent being 102 deaths in a large transporter in 2014 (similar to today but can't remember exact aircraft). The thread on that crash is here somewhere.

I've tried uploading it here but it wants a URL, I saw it on their Facebook page my via the app so can't upload it for now cos I'm on the mobile. It's in Arabic (as are all their publications) though so perhaps not of much use to most here.

I'm so sorry for the misunderstanding, my apologies...

The accident you mention in your 2nd paragraph was an Hercules C-130 (more than 100 deceased, as I recall).

Algeria's Air Force is a big one (more than 350 ACs -all types- and more than 250 choppers) and it had to be deeply studied if those six accidents are (or not) within certain margins of acceptance. The last sentence doesen't refer to death toll but the relation between nº of ACs, flights (operations) and accidents.

[WHBM]

There's one thing that makes me think: it's not too common these days to see a death toll that high (all deceased) in a close to take-off accident (the plane's been aloft a little while to come to crash inside the airport boundaries). If that's real, safety conditions on board had to be...nil.
Poor people.
Do those side-facing double-deck seats in the photo above have seat belts ? Are they not just intended for paratroops ?

Conventional seats, whether forward or rear-facing, provide significant deceleration protection, the forward-facing ones from the seat unit directly ahead, in addition to the harnesses. Side-facing cannot provide the first, and if there are no harnesses not the second either.

[Officer Kite]

it had to be deeply studied if those six accidents are (or not) within certain margins of acceptance. The last sentence doesen't refer to death toll but the relation between nº of ACs, flights (operations) and accidents.

An investigation of that type is beyond my pay grade, but what people are asking is why it's them so often. And from an aviation perspective it may be number of accidents, but from a public opinion perspective, number of deaths are what trigger angry responses. 359 deaths in 4 yrs has provoked a pretty angry response so far.

[guadaMB]

Do those side-facing double-deck seats in the photo above have seat belts ? Are they not just intended for paratroops ?

Conventional seats, whether forward or rear-facing, provide significant deceleration protection, the forward-facing ones from the seat unit directly ahead, in addition to the harnesses. Side-facing cannot provide the first, and if there are no harnesses not the second either.

It's not yet known if the crashed AC was equiped with those facing "seats" or conventional ones or a mix.
In an agency report I read about "military men, their families and equipment" and this phrase may mean a lot of different possibilities. With no specific references we cannot make conjectures about what could happen.
And being Algeria, forget to have CERTAIN data about what happened...

[guadaMB]

An investigation of that type is beyond my pay grade, but what people are asking is why it's them so often. And from an aviation perspective it may be number of accidents, but from a public opinion perspective, number of deaths are what trigger angry responses. 359 deaths in 4 yrs has provoked a pretty angry response so far.

I understand the real sense of your words, but the analytic of accidents against operational activities cannot be made considering the death toll.
Fatalities are HUMAN and stats are FIGURES.

An Air Force (the Algerian) of about 600 ACs is just a "number" but if we confront that number with the total operational activity (unknown for myself) we could have a third figure of "issues average" that cannot be related to the death toll. In a 600+ fleet may have a disastrous accident figures with very little deceased people (or the contrary).

The confrontation of flights vs fatalities could be made studying commercial airlines, not military air forces.

[Super VC-10]

I've tried uploading it here but it wants a URL, I saw it on their Facebook page my via the app so can't upload it for now cos I'm on the mobile. It's in Arabic (as are all their publications) though so perhaps not of much use to most here.


Google Translate does a reasonable job with Arabic websites, so not as useless as one might first think.

[guadaMB]

Google Translate does a reasonable job with Arabic websites, so not as useless as one might first think.

Yes, it's true!!
Arabic to English. Much better than other translations (German to Spanish, Romanian to English, i.e.)

The problem, talking about this accident, is THE AVAILABLE INFO IN ALGERIAN NEWSPAPERS, web sites and on-line TV servers.
If I continue, the mods will do their job, but I think it's all clear in my words.

[WHBM]

It's not yet known if the crashed AC was equiped with those facing "seats" or conventional ones or a mix.
It is difficult to see how this number on board could have been carried without such jury-rig accommodation. The IL-76 is not a large aircraft; it's not a widebody. The cabin is smaller than a 757. It is most commonly used for cargo, or with a small passenger compartment separated from this. It does not have cabin windows.

[guadaMB]

It is difficult to see how this number on board could have been carried without such jury-rig accommodation. The IL-76 is not a large aircraft; it's not a widebody. The cabin is smaller than a 757. It is most commonly used for cargo, or with a small passenger compartment separated from this. It does not have cabin windows.

I agree. The IL-76 was designed and configured for cargo, tank, fire-fighting, surveillance but no evidence of pax accomodation. The lack of cabin windows may be not a big problem in a case of an extreme evac procedure because the cargo hall is totally pressurized.

Now going into the 250+ people on board: I sincerely don't understand how could all those bodies come into that AC, even if the "double littered deck" was installed.
Those persons were cargoed like cattle. Cannot imagine how could it be programmed...:*

[mini]

[QUOTE][however if there's one thing I'm noticing, it's the anger on social media/QUOTE]

"social media" seems to thrive on outrage and anger, often in advance of factual findings.

I worry for future generations.

- sorry for the drift.

[CargoOne]

Now going into the 250+ people on board: I sincerely don't understand how could all those bodies come into that AC, even if the "double littered deck" was installed.
Those persons were cargoed like cattle. Cannot imagine how could it be programmed...:*

IL76 is not a pax aircraft. Neither C130 or C17 are. Nevertheless all of them are perfectly capable of carrying troops using a very similar bench arrangement. The question of comfort is not a priority.
IL76 has basically 3 configs for the troops - paradropping mission config carrying ca 120, single deck transport very similar to paradropping ca 150 and double decker transport ca 230-250. All with the seat belts and even an emergency oxygen supply. Why would anyone use it to transport civilians is a question which has nothing to do with aircraft design.
On my memory the only IL76 which was fitted with full cabin of front facing "normal" passenger seats was Iraqi Airways one, don't know how many seats it was. There are also some special configurations to carry 3/4 star generals featuring separately pressurised modules loaded onto main deck but it is not common to see in actual operations with any AF.

[PastTense]

Three witnesses said they saw flames coming from one of the plane's engines as it took off around 8 a.m. The Russian-made Ilyushin-76 transport plane appeared to swerve to the right to avoid a populated area before it crashed in an empty agricultural field, several people said.
At least 257 killed when military transport jet crashes on takeoff in Algeria (http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-algeria-plane-crash-20180411-story.html)

[sitigeltfel]

Video.. https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9W4Iv_1523451443

Fake...that video is from the 2010 C-17 crash at Elmendorf, Alaska.

[krismiler]

Witness reports of a wing catching fire shortly after take off, catastrophic engine failure perhaps ? However witness reports of fire prior to an accident which later prove to be wrong aren’t uncommon as the post impact fire is traumatic and affects the memory.

[andrasz]

Why would anyone use it to transport civilians...

It is pefectly normal practice with air forces / military around the world to offer free flights to servicemen and dependents on a space-available basis - it is one of the perks of the job, just like for airline staff (only our seats are a bit better...). The US military has a whole (unofficial) website set up for this purpose, with detailed description on what to expect on various aircraft types (Spacea.net (http://www.spacea.net/faqs/flight-preparation)). As mentioned earlier, the IL-76 double decker seat kit (which I'm sure was used, there is no way 247 pax could have been accommodated otherwise), while perhaps not the most comfortable, is perfectly adequate for the purpose. However military operations by their nature do conform to different safety standards than civilian ones, priorities are elsewhere.

[Old Fella]

The YouTube link below shows a take-off from Canberra which could easily have
had a similar fate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O20fo-WqRmc

[Rwy in Sight]

It is perfectly normal practice with air forces / military around the world to offer free flights to servicemen and dependents on a space-available basis -(...) while perhaps not the most comfortable, is perfectly adequate for the purpose. 1

In the NATO Air Force I served with the Space Available term was used specifically in the relevant documents. One of the things I still remember from assisting to run the operation in my base is that we never left a pax (staff or relative) behind.

When I was flying on those flights it was few months after having flow on recently defunct Charter carrier of UK origin and I seem to remember the seats were more comfortable on the C-130.

[Kulwin Park]

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/soldiers-arrived-from-afghanistan-sit-inside-a-plane-at-the-us-30-km-picture-id120810128

[WHBM]

On my memory the only IL76 which was fitted with full cabin of front facing "normal" passenger seats was Iraqi Airways one, don't know how many seats it was.
Here's one normally seated, used by a Belarussian operator from Cape Town down to Antarctica where it lands on hard packed snow.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ilyushin+76+antarctica+picture&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2yoeww7TaAhVQSsAKHZK6BZsQ7AkIQA&biw=1366&bih=651#imgrc=hV6tNRnoXbttOM:&spf=1523528893370

[andrasz]

...where it lands on hard packed snow...

Wrong. All IL76 operating to Antarctica land on cleared blue ice runways (solid sea ice of several metres thickness). The runway at South Pole Station is indeed hard-packed snow, only ski-equipped aircraft can operate there (C-130/DC-3)

Apologies for being OT.

[Fly.Buy]

KP, thanks for the photo, all I can say is Jesus! Never will I complain again in economy!!

[pax britanica]

Alex Cruz vision for the future at BA

[EDLB]

KP, thanks for the photo, all I can say is Jesus! Never will I complain again in economy!!

Yes,

they offload them into a more hostile environment than US immigrations....

[ATC Watcher]

Algerian television this evening : mentions one engine on fire (numerous witnesses but we know that means ),eventual bird strike , possible stall due hard turn , explained by an "heroic "pilot who wanted to avoid the nearby town, etc..but all speculation .
Type of statements made : pilot extremely experienced, problem right after take off, so it cannot be pilot error (sic)
One thing as fact : it was stated that it was a military plane, so the investigation will be only done by the military , and communication also only coming from the military.
No comment.

[Bobman84]

An Il-76 crashed in 2003 with 275 fatalities but appeared to be not caused by payload.

[sandiego89]

I would not be surprised at all if Loady put the poor skinny ones in the middle seats, but I also think a wide angle/fished lens was used, thus making objects on the sides look wider- but "Sarge" does look large.

[RAT 5]

"And don't forget the nearest emergency exit may be behind you."

[Cynical Sid]

2.bp.********.com/-ItZ9GEvfnW4/UrRld7MsX5I/AAAAAAAAEiU/-l-K23qDXCM/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/South+Sudan.jpg

This is the densified version. RAF C17 out of South Sudan in December 2013. It was either 270+ or 290+. I was told it was a record at the time. No seats. Evacuees were held in place with long cargo straps from side to side.

With less than 10 posts, I cannot post the URL properly. So if someone with the right privileges can edit this... The starred bit is an image sharing site that sounds like frogspot

[DaveReidUK]

With less than 10 posts, I cannot post the URL properly. So if someone with the right privileges can edit this... The starred bit is an image sharing site that sounds like frogspot

However many posts you have made, you won't be able to post links to that particular website, for reasons best known to PPRuNe.