Russian Il-76 crashed near Ivanovo

[StephanKoelliker]

Russian Telegram channels report that an aircraft caught fire in Russian Ivanovo airfield and sharply began to descend. Black smoke is coming from the crash site, locals report.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1767496377477496980

[NutLoose]

More clips, one looks like it shed and engine?

https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1767506907994972475?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1767506907994972475?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

[Nil by mouth]

At 0:03 watching https://t.me/bazabazon/25784 (https://t.co/I8f3vZOxWz) something fell or was jettisoned.

[TOMCAT22]

Can’t understand how one engine failure can cause a fatal crash🤔🤔🤔

[procede]

Can’t understand how one engine failure can cause a fatal crash🤔🤔🤔
El Al 1862...

[grizzled]

Can’t understand how one engine failure can cause a fatal crash🤔🤔🤔

And, in addition to the EL Al, an eerily similar IL-76 crash just 2 years ago. So yes, it can and does happen.

[TOMCAT22]

That lost two engines I believe,not one.🤔

[DouglasFlyer]

El Al 1862...

According my knowledge at this accident the number 3 engine broke off and turned right to brake off the number 4 engine - two engines gone!

[xetroV]

According my knowledge at this accident the number 3 engine broke off and turned right to brake off the number 4 engine - two engines gone!
Two engines and a big chunk of the leading edge.

[meleagertoo]

Looks very much like a double-engine event, as right from the start of the https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1767506907994972475/video/1 vid while #4 is burning vigorously (both above and below the wing - !!!) there is a visible white trail apparently coming from #3 which intensifies as the video goes on.

Leaving one less for tomorrow...

[capricorn23]

El Al 1862...
Actually it lost 2 engines!... N.3 detached and hit N.4 which also detached. The right wing lost all hydraulic systems, so when they extended the flap for the immediate landing back to Schipol, the extra lift on the left wing was not compensated on the right one as those flap did not extend so it was lost control of aircraft which banked continuously on the right then the crash... 😪

[Chiefttp]

I flew C-141’s which is very similar to an IL-76. We REGULARLY PRACTICED NO-flap landings and were proficient and comfortable flying them. We also flew 2 engine inoperative scenarios in the simulator, but much less frequently. The 2 engine inoperative procedure included extending partial flaps to land. A few smart pilots in the squadron realized, it was advantageous to fly a two engine failure scenario using our No-Flap procedure instead. The advantages were,



1. We were all familiar and proficient flying no-Flap approaches
2. Much Less drag from zero flaps, as opposed to partial flap in an already thrust deficient situation (2 engines inop)
3. Less moving parts (flaps) on a wing that is possibly already damaged.

Food for thought.

[capricorn23]

I flew C-141’s which is very similar to an IL-76. We REGULARLY PRACTICED NO-flap landings and were proficient and comfortable flying them. We also flew 2 engine inoperative scenarios in the simulator, but much less frequently. The 2 engine inoperative procedure included extending partial flaps to land. A few smart pilots in the squadron realized, it was advantageous to fly a two engine failure scenario using our No-Flap procedure instead. The advantages were,



1. We were all familiar and proficient flying no-Flap approaches
2. Much Less drag from zero flaps, as opposed to partial flap in an already thrust deficient situation (2 engines inop)
3. Less moving parts (flaps) on a wing that is possibly already damaged.

Food for thought.
I also flew a 4-engined aircraft for 15 years (B744) and practised a 2-eng approach at sim... without other failures together... in that case (El Al) they lost 2 engines on the right wing and all the hydraulics moving the relevant lift devices... it's a "quite complicated scenario"... they had also the flight engineer... unfortunately no one realised the relationship between the loss of hydraulics on one side and the asymmetric lift situation which led them to lose control...

[Qbix]

nicely performed sabotage 👍👍

[Liffy 1M]

In this video it looks like No. 4 breaks off but No. 3 remains in place - hard to be certain, of course. https://t.me/breakingmash/52328

[capricorn23]

nicely performed sabotage 👍👍

Actually there was no sabotage here even if it might look odd... here are the details 👇

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862

[GregAmy]

I recall (from memory) two 707s departed both engines one side, one in a KC-135 (wake turbulence in formation) and one civvy (Trans Air...?) Both made it home safe.

I also recall a Boeing pre-delivery 707 that departed three engines after doing Dutch rolls; they got it on the ground, but there were fatalities.

So it's not unprecedented.

[Liffy 1M]

I recall (from memory) two 707s departed both engines one side, one in a KC-135 (wake turbulence in formation) and one civvy (Trans Air...?) Both made it home safe.

I also recall a Boeing pre-delivery 707 that departed three engines after doing Dutch rolls; they got it on the ground, but there were fatalities.

So it's not unprecedented.
The Trans-Air incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Air_Service_Flight_671

[NutLoose]

The final seconds as it goes into the forest.

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1767923508217077851

​​​​​​​https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1767923508217077851

[TURIN]

I also flew a 4-engined aircraft for 15 years (B744) and practised a 2-eng approach at sim... without other failures together... in that case (El Al) they lost 2 engines on the right wing and all the hydraulics moving the relevant lift devices... it's a "quite complicated scenario"... they had also the flight engineer... unfortunately no one realised the relationship between the loss of hydraulics on one side and the asymmetric lift situation which led them to lose control...
It's been a long time since I worked on the 747 but I thought the high lift devices were linked mechanically so how does the loss of one or even two hydraulics systems cause assymmetrical deployment of flaps/flaps?

[exeng]

I thought the high lift devices were linked mechanically

Not so at all on the 747, or any other Boeing airliners as far as I know.

The inboard trailing edge flaps are powered by No 1 hydraulic system, and the outboard trailing edge flaps are powered by the No 4 hydraulic system. If either of these hyd systems are lost then the corresponding inboard or outboard traling edge flaps on both sides of the aircraft will not operate unless the electrical alternate system is used. When the alternate electrical backup is used all flaps, inner and outer on both sides, operate electrically with bypass valves isolating the hydraulic systems from the flaps.

As for leading edge flaps and slats, they are also completely independent from each other and operated pneumatically - again with electrical back up.


Kind regards
Exeng

[NutLoose]

Apologies, a slight thread slip there which I have rectified.

[tdracer]

I also recall a Boeing pre-delivery 707 that departed three engines after doing Dutch rolls; they got it on the ground, but there were fatalities.

Not sure I'd say "they got it on the ground" - all aircraft end up on the ground eventually. They were unable to maintain level flight with only one engine and were unable to make it to an airfield - crash landed in a riverbed north of Seattle.
It was a pre-delivery test flight - knowing that it was probably going to be pretty bad, those not involved in actually flying the aircraft went to the very back - they all survived the crash. Those on the flightdeck all perished.

[capricorn23]

Not so at all on the 747, or any other Boeing airliners as far as I know.

The inboard trailing edge flaps are powered by No 1 hydraulic system, and the outboard trailing edge flaps are powered by the No 4 hydraulic system. If either of these hyd systems are lost then the corresponding inboard or outboard traling edge flaps on both sides of the aircraft will not operate unless the electrical alternate system is used. When the alternate electrical backup is used all flaps, inner and outer on both sides, operate electrically with bypass valves isolating the hydraulic systems from the flaps.

As for leading edge flaps and slats, they are also completely independent from each other and operated pneumatically - again with electrical back up.


Kind regards
Exeng


Thank you for pointing out these details. My goal was to emphasise the end result of the damages created by the two engines detachments... loss of control due to asymmetric lift available. Actually, the right L.E. flaps were mechanically destroyed by the collision of one or both engines flown away. Anyway, with pneumatic, electric and hydraulic system failures (on the right side) the consequences were poor control by "flight control devices" (ailerons and spoilers) plus the Outer T.E. flaps.
That wanted to be just a quick answer to the "sabotage case".

[DogTailRed2]

Assuming this was caused by a drone entering the engine and as there was no large bang, so the drone didn't have a warhead, presumably the drone would cause that engine to start shedding bits. So it's likely there was a lot more damaged, controls, wires, hydraulics etc that would have contributed to the crash. We also don't know the experience or competence of the crew. There is a war on and they are loosing crews at a rate of nots. So possibly an inexperienced crew facing a major complex failure in a large, complex and seriously damaged aircraft. There's also the fog of war aspect. They may have assumed they were hit by a missile and more damaged than they actually were. Everything coming together in a perfect storm to bring the aircraft down.

[aeromech3]

It's been a long time since I worked on the 747 but I thought the high lift devices were linked mechanically so how does the loss of one or even two hydraulics systems cause asymmetrical deployment of flaps/flaps?
Your are correct TURIN, but I think some contradictions are misleading, as indeed they are mechanically connected by the drive shaft system: the inner
T/E flaps are driven by torque shafts to port and starboard sides through gear boxes etc; same with outer T/E flaps in a separate drive torque shaft layout.
Similar with L/E devices.
In my type rating cover, only the BAC1-11 had a back up drive train, a secondary drive shaft system which rotated with the main, but had a lost motion coupling, if and only if a main shaft was sheared/ disconnected, say anywhere along its length, this second drive would catch up driving from the outer wing inwards.
Lot of maintenance items, lubrication needed.

[exeng]

Aeromech3,

Thanks for politely pointing out the error in my post. The inboard TE flaps are mechanically linked via the torque drives from the power unit, as indeed so are the outboard TE flaps.
Apologies to TURIN if my post was misleading.


Kind regards
Exeng

[Teddy Robinson]

Assuming this was caused by a drone entering the engine and as there was no large bang, so the drone didn't have a warhead, presumably the drone would cause that engine to start shedding bits. So it's likely there was a lot more damaged, controls, wires, hydraulics etc that would have contributed to the crash. We also don't know the experience or competence of the crew. There is a war on and they are loosing crews at a rate of nots. So possibly an inexperienced crew facing a major complex failure in a large, complex and seriously damaged aircraft. There's also the fog of war aspect. They may have assumed they were hit by a missile and more damaged than they actually were. Everything coming together in a perfect storm to bring the aircraft down.

Where does this assumption come from ?

From the videos, the fire was eventually extinguished, engine 4 subsequently departed the airframe, engine 3 appeared to be compromised as well.
Finally, the aircraft rolls towards the failed / missing / compromised power-plants.
Possible explanations ? a straightforward Vmca departure, structural failure of the SBD wing, or perhaps some flap / slat asymmetry on deployment or as an aggravating factor

[DogTailRed2]

Where does this assumption come from ?

From the videos, the fire was eventually extinguished, engine 4 subsequently departed the airframe, engine 3 appeared to be compromised as well.
Finally, the aircraft rolls towards the failed / missing / compromised power-plants.
Possible explanations ? a straightforward Vmca departure, structural failure of the SBD wing, or perhaps some flap / slat asymmetry on deployment or as an aggravating factor
Yes but the question therefore is why couldn't a competent crew deal with a simple engine failure, on a multi-engine aircraft where the loss one one engine is not significant, without everyone being killed? I'm suggesting the reasons why.

[alf5071h]

DTR2, et al

The assumption is that the design and certification standard of the Russian aircraft matched those of comparable western types; this may not be so.

A very enlightening 2 weeks flying with a Russian test pilot, to approve a western 4 engined aircraft for their use, identified significant differences in standards.
The test pilot had been involved with the IL-76 and a comprehensive range of large Russian aircraft, but had not flown other western types (the test engineer had). Questioning the western type revealed surprising features of the IL-76; how fast can engine power be changed, how to alleviate foot forces with bank, can flaps be moved during a turn, can altitude be maintained on 3 engines after takeoff.

On top of which, consider the training required and crew experience in this particular situation.

[jolihokistix]

Just a quick question, but in the video clip that we all watched, has if been established that that object we saw was an engine falling from the right wing?