@Kulverstukas

How old is that photo of the runway you posted? There is something...odd...about it.

Two pictures, unfortunately do not know the date.

Could you please elaborate MB?

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/...Dep/Avia01.jpg

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/...p/tunoshna.jpg

@RegDep

Thanks.

If you look at the end of the runway near the ILS in the photo you posted you see very clearly that the gap between the runway and the ILS is dirt as opposed to the photo by Kulverstukas where it is grass. The simulation of accident as described in the video from the "custom official" also indicates the surface was dirt.

But if you look at the initial video posted by ErwinS it certainly looks like grass to me at the end. Especially so when you compare the side shot with the end shot as posted by Kulverstukas in post #51. But the videos are grainy and it's hard to to say with certainty.

MountainBear, Kulverstukas' is a picture that appeared in several Russian forums after the accident (so are mine, but they look older to me, the second one clearly so). I am sure he will explain it tomorrow; not it is well past midnight in his location.

Edit to say that according to the picture information in the file, it was taken on 2010:05:30 at 10:54:56.
Reg

Agree JCJ, no sign of heat or smoke, and it would be that r/h maingear pulling them off that side of the runway, no ?

EXIF
Make: Canon
Model: Canon PowerShot SX200 IS
Exposure: 1/200
Aperture: f/4.5
Focal lenght: 24mm
ISO: 80
EV comp: 0 eV
Taken: 30 May 2010, 10:54

Photo by pilo6986 at Yandex.Fotki

You can ask pilo6986 directly.

I wasn't really convinced by my notion on the first page - just extreme lateral thinking, but for the moment other possibilities seem thin on the ground.

I still can't get clear where these huge pre-crash flames were coming from. It may be it was just confused reporting. (The particular Beeb 'Headlines' item has time-expired on my FFox.)

Estimating Rollout Speed from Videos
 

Having 2 video views of the aircraft rolling out allows estimating the speed of the aircraft based on a number of measurements (assumptions) - first order estimates at the very best. Of course the final accurate answer will hopefully come from the recovered FDR. I offer this as just an exercise and NOT in any way a definitive estimate of speed of the accident aircraft.
From the end view video, it appears the aircraft lights dip noticeably at about 22 seconds (post # 51 video) and collides with the camera assumed to be mounted on the ILS localizer tower at 27 seconds. The map view of the runway shows a culvert just past the runway, likely draining into the river. Assuming the apparent dip of the aircraft (main gear still on the ground) was caused by rolling over this depression, and knowing the time interval AND distance between the culvert and ILS tower would give the speed of the aircraft. From the scale on the map I measure 413 meters (+/- ???). Traveling 413 meters in 5 seconds would give an 'average interval' speed of 161 knots. NB The time period (5 seconds) is the weakest assumption and likely largest source of error here.
From the side view video what's needed is the frame rate of the camera (frames per second). The scale could be determined by using the published length of the aircraft (YAK-42D ??? 36.4 meters) and measure the displacement frame to frame of the aircraft measured in length units of the plane on the screen. For example if the frame rate is 4 per second (0.25 second) a 36.4 meter long aircraft traveling at twice its length per second (72.8m/sec = 142 knots) should be displaced by half its length per frame.
What's needed is better video processing software with better time resolution on both videos - I don't own any, so I make no estimate here. Someone who does with some time to kill, might want to carry this exercise further with possibly a bit more accuracy. Use the last 2 or 3 frames as the aircraft goes off screen left because the camera view there is more perpendicular to the runway - less perspective error.
Again I offer this as only an excersie or a template for analysis and make no claim of accuracy for the limitations I stated. We of course await the actual numbers from MAK and the FDR.
Thanks.

don't you mean extreme longitudinal reasoning :rolleyes:

Galimov did not make it
 

Sadly Alexander Galimov did not recover from the burns suffered in the crash

BBC News - Russian plane crash: Last ice hockey team member dies

Hi,

Another audit needed for add some corrections ?
AuditReports3-CSA

Voice of Russia - Afterburner not lit
 

A wrongly chosen engine operating condition may have been the likely cause of the recent crash of a YAK-42 airliner near Yaroslavl on the 7th of this month, a crash that claimed the lives of the local Lokomotiv hockey club team.
This came in a statement for the Interfax news agency by a source in the law enforcement bodies.
A lead is now being followed up whereby the pilots may have failed to light the afterburner during the take-off run.
As a result, the plane failed to pick up the required speed due to insufficient thrust to gain height during the take-off.
The lead is proved by the fact that the pilots, when still on the runway, failed to report any technical problem to the flight traffic controllers.

Wrong engine operating condition is likely cause of Yaroslavl air crash : Voice of Russia

Light the afterburner? :ugh: Maybe there wasn't enough steam pressure in the catapult too... :rolleyes:

Lost in Saigon, give the man a break. It is just problem of getting lost in translation, no misinformation. They write better English than most of us do in Russian.

Anyone else notice if the right wing seems to be taking out some fence poles during the rotation, in the oncoming video???

Jetjock330, I don't think so. See the shadows. The sun is on the right in the video, making the shadow of the aircraft be a bit left (in the video). Yet the wing tip shadow is well clear of the fence line (the actual tip being more). Or did I watch a different video than you?

They are talking about takeoff power vs maximum continuous power, I hope this terminology makes more sense.

Anodina (MAK head) said Interfax today, that no technical malfunction was recorded on FDR, plane was set and weigted correctly for takeoff (but omitted info about weigt distribution) and suggested that they will need simulation flight to make. CVR and recording from tower are still decoded.

Brief translation from MAK web site 12-Sep.

1. Yak 42 ,reg.42434, was produced in 1993, had a total of 6500 hours,which is almost twice less it's specified life of 12000 hours.
2. Take off mass was below MTOW.
3. According to FDR data there were 14t of fuel, 8 of which were fuelled in Yaroslavl.( Quality check is still under investigation)
4. Before take off crew made Flight control check, all control surfaces deflected as required.
5. Weather at the airport including crosswind wasn't a factor influencing take off.
6. Engines were operating until impact.
7. Stabilizer and flaps were in take off position before take off.
8. There were no aircraft system failures recorded on FDR.

6500 hrs in 18 years? Average app. 360 hrs per year?