Risky IL-76 Take-off Captured on Video
 

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

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

:D:D:D

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

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.

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

Firies would have got all excited

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?

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:

rejected T/O??

No. No reject - departed uneventfully

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

Kids use photoshop real men just play the crowd

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

Good choice Captn :ouch:

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

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

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

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:

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.

That takeoff WAS from runway 17 (2683m), not 12. :sad:

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. :{

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

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.

Also...

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

Cheers..FD :zzz:

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

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

I wonder if the charterer of this operation saw this?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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??

darwin's nightmare
 

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!

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

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:

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!

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.

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

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?

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 ;)