Yak42 crash, Russia
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the basic design and the actual pax, overweight seems awfully unlikely.
Jammed elevator? Gross mistrim? Both might cause failure to rotate.
Crew incapacitation at VR? Seems massively improbable, but ...?
Jammed elevator? Gross mistrim? Both might cause failure to rotate.
Crew incapacitation at VR? Seems massively improbable, but ...?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Russian deputy minister of transport they started their take-off roll 150 from threshold,thus giving 2850m of runway left. It's actually twice a distance required given their load.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did they actually rotate and achieve and kind of pos-rate? If not dare I suggest gust locks? It has happened before and will happen again.
edit - Although in hindsight after reading that, surely upon realisation that the elevators were 'jammed' by such, an RTO would have been performed so I'm most likely miles off the mark.
edit - Although in hindsight after reading that, surely upon realisation that the elevators were 'jammed' by such, an RTO would have been performed so I'm most likely miles off the mark.
Last edited by RingwayWrench; 9th Sep 2011 at 06:00. Reason: missed my point!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this routine take off ?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Age: 72
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Age: 72
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
associated news comin live
Hi
Here is a news board with associated news
coming in more or less live ;
News Feed: Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Plane Crash | News | The Moscow Times
Here is a news board with associated news
coming in more or less live ;
News Feed: Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Plane Crash | News | The Moscow Times
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 64
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps and stabilizer set, investigators confirm: Crashed Yak-42 had flaps deployed and functioning engines
****
this pretty much takes care of all the prevailing theories floating around so far. Time to make new ones
****
this pretty much takes care of all the prevailing theories floating around so far. Time to make new ones
Exact statement from MAK website:
CVR/FDR reading in progress.
By process of elimination, if aircraft was configured properly and weights were within limits, the only remaining reasons why it would fail to accelerate sufficiently would be either insufficient thrust or set brakes... Working engines in my reading translates to all engines producing power at impact. Exactly how much power remains to be determined.
...before takeoff, the stabilizer was set to 8.7 degrees "pitch up" and the flaps were installed in the aircraft take-off position - 20 degrees. The engines worked until the moment of collision with obstacles...
By process of elimination, if aircraft was configured properly and weights were within limits, the only remaining reasons why it would fail to accelerate sufficiently would be either insufficient thrust or set brakes... Working engines in my reading translates to all engines producing power at impact. Exactly how much power remains to be determined.
Originally Posted by azalea
...the question is if the slats were set correctly, too?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post 38 (CargonOne) states that derated take-offs are not an option on the Yak-42, assuming this to be true, why?
Can't see why a derated take-off can't be done with enough runway/low AUW, does the Yak-42 have a configuration that puts it in the bucket if you rotate at less than a given thrust?
Can't see why a derated take-off can't be done with enough runway/low AUW, does the Yak-42 have a configuration that puts it in the bucket if you rotate at less than a given thrust?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Russian media the authorities disallowed refuling local fuel at Yaroslavl airport until further notice. The fuel is being transported from other regional airports by road tankers. There is seems to be a rumor that crashed Yak42 was refueled with contaminated fuel.
Working engines in my reading translates to all engines producing power at impact.
Make that .... able to produce power
Most early releases of on-scene investigation will not have the fidelity to say how much power. The fidelity is at best something above idle. More detailed examination in a strip teardown increases the fidelity.
I simply infer from the press release that there were no outward signs of broken engine parts
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: 40 North 75 West
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Where Was This Camera Located
First time poster, an SLF.
The head-on camera view at the end of the video on post #51 is intriguing. It appears the camera was not at ground level but elevated about 4 feet (just an estimate ???). Looking at the fenceline to the left adds to that impression. The foreground also appears like a grassy unprepared surface. Was this camera located on the extended runway centerline past the end of the runway or perhaps off to the side?
Also, if you look closely at the video, at about the 22 -23 second mark the aircraft lights appear to suddenly dip. Was that the moment the aircraft left the prepared surface and continued to roll out on the grass? The nose gear is clearly off the ground, viewed directly and by it's shadow on the ground but the main gear are still on the ground (or grass).
Just a few thoughts. Thanks for reading - any comments are encouraged.
The head-on camera view at the end of the video on post #51 is intriguing. It appears the camera was not at ground level but elevated about 4 feet (just an estimate ???). Looking at the fenceline to the left adds to that impression. The foreground also appears like a grassy unprepared surface. Was this camera located on the extended runway centerline past the end of the runway or perhaps off to the side?
Also, if you look closely at the video, at about the 22 -23 second mark the aircraft lights appear to suddenly dip. Was that the moment the aircraft left the prepared surface and continued to roll out on the grass? The nose gear is clearly off the ground, viewed directly and by it's shadow on the ground but the main gear are still on the ground (or grass).
Just a few thoughts. Thanks for reading - any comments are encouraged.