Yak42 crash, Russia
 

Just broke the news. Appears most of the team perished:

CBC News - Russian plane carrying hockey team crashes

RA-42434

http://russianplanes.net/REGS/RA-42434

Apparently went down two kilometers from the airport. Several eyewitnesses say the aircraft was on fire while still in the air. Now reported 42 out of 44 on board deceased. One of the survivors believed being one of the FAs.

Well aware that any news reports at this point should be truly taken with a grain of salt, CNN is now reporting that the aeroplane collided with the "antenna of the airport beacon" as it took off from Yaroslavl.

Source article.

ILS localiser?

May be flaps? Seems to be similiar to Spanair in Madrid...

Three of our players as well :(

One heck of a non-rotation with such a low passenger count.

Flames 9 stories high. When? Beeb said something about it being before the crash.

I suppose there's the remotest chance there was an horrific fire in the rear, and a frantic scurry forward by 40 very nimble guys.

Now operating (for a little while longer) in this part of the world.
I have always said, the day I come to an airport to position & I see a former CCCP machine awaiting me on the apron , is the day I ask for a rail ticket or a rental voucher ( & a long drive) with Hertz.
I have yet to see any evidence that I am not applying common sense here.
Not Russian bashing, but jeez, just look at the statistics, for 1 year/2 years/ whatever period you choose.
Whether by bad operation/design/maintenance/piloting technique. . . death traps.
Sorry to be so blunt, and condolences for anyone whose Company/Team Boss books you on one of these things.
Me, I lose my job in preference to climbing aboard, 100% sure.

Well, that thought is more and more stupid to me!

No matter in which aircraft are you, when something goes wrong, neither Mr.Boeing, Mr.Airbus or Mr.Yakovlev would not be there to help you!

I must fly on soviet aircraft`s from time to time because of my job...and what to do!? Well I just do my prayer to God like in every flight, with western or eastern aircraft it doesn`t matter...and go...

p.s. and what about Domodedovo Tu154 ruggedness which saved many lives!?

I am neither a statistician, nor (thank god !) an accountant, but well, sometimes we can learn from statistics.
Time to get someone else to take care of your flight reservations I think.

>but well, sometimes we can learn from statistics.

In modern times more than often you can see this, statistics = politics (or shall we call it dirty economy)!

So maybe is time for you to think about your fears!

Yeah, coz the huge air crash rate in the former soviet union is just western propaganda and lies.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

in flight fire?
 

back to the speculation, please! Statistics in a rumours forum?
Seriously, don't those pictures of wreckage in the water look like the fire was in-flight vs in the river?

Such a sad event in any case.
The problem that Russian aviation faces now is a huge shortage of pilots. This leads to poorly trained pilots (that may get away with poor flying skills in an Airbus/Boeing) who are flying Russian aircraft which demand much more.
I believe the last TU-134 that crashed was because the pilot was a retrained helicopter pilot who has not developed instrument flying skills.

The country has 2 flight schools in which the students may flying 150 hours over the course of several years and the amount of pilots retiring exceeds the number replacing them.

First of all my condolences to all involved in this tragic accident.

I am not a professional pilot but I have flown extensively in the FSU on all the common commercial aircraft types that operate in that region. Believe whatever you want to believe about Russian aircraft but in my opinion they are no less safe that their western built equivalents.

If you want to compare fatal hull loss accidents in commercial service between Russian and western aircraft then go ahead but you will find that there are no clear correlations eg. Boeing 727 - 112 losses from 1831 aircraft built = 6.1%. Tupolev 154 - 39 from 1025 = 3.8%. Boeing 747 - 49 from 1418 = 3.5%, Ilyushin 86 - 0 from 108 = 0%. This does not take into account flight hours, there are many more ways of comparing but none are conclusive.

The biggest single factor in the majority of accidents remains pilot error in one form or another. The operating conditions in Russia and many other FSU countries are arguably more demanding than elsewhere and perhaps this is reflected in the accident statistics. It is not the aircraft that are at fault, indeed many incidents involving western built aircraft have also occurred in the FSU over the last 10 years.

>Yeah, coz the huge air crash rate in the former soviet union is just western propaganda and lies.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Propaganda yes, but not lies...when some russian aircraft crash is happened than all western media tell us about their poor quality, awful maintance, drunken pilots and similar rubbish...but when some western aircraft fall than max you can see is "well, **** happens"

There is no need for that kind of words, that is mix of "cold war" retorics and modern capitalism dirty economy

Please, lets talk in good manner and about concrete accident

p.s. regarding other western media, yes, there is much more lies than you think...just remember lies about nuclear weapons in Iraq before war or similar lies...we all know that western politics (dirty economy) is behind that!

" Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. "

Still a sad event.

I was surprised that Yaroslavl had a civil airport, as it certainly didn't when I was there for 3 months in 1992. However a trip to Wiki reveals that this is a former Soviet Air Force Mig 23 base, which has now obviously become the regional airport for the city. I see from the local weather reports that there was a 7 knot wind from the North, which would give a slight tailwind component on that runway for takeoff (assuming that weather report is accurate), although I doubt if that is particularly significant.

PlayStation Can't rent Hertz to go Mos/Eur???
 

When I travlled from Fla to my summer house in Riga, Latvia, I had many occasions to fly with Aeroflot. In fact, twice I flew JFK/MOScow on them in a B-767...

My favorite part of the trip was always Moscow/Riga on a TU-154...

Very professional experience every step of the way...I'd rather fly Aeroflot than Air France...

Just my opinion, based on years of experience of Transatlantic flying/paxing...

Hey Goldminer
 

Goldminer maybe you have forgotten a few other Russian aircraft like the IL76 and AN24/26/72 of which there are too numerous to mention, crashes dotted all over Africa & Afghanistan which ARE NOT shot down !
Yes the Russian crews drink Vodka/Gin/any thing they can get their hands on before/during/after flights and this I have witnessed with my own eyes.They constantly lie about there radials/heights/distances in non radar environments to get a slot before you and yes once again I have witnessed all these acts.
I for one would not risk my ass on any such aircraft mentioned in this thread.
My condolences to all envolved in this incident ( I would not say accident ) as more than likely a factor of "technical problems " coupled by inexperience or poorly trained crew & a Macho attitude will surface as the root causes...it always does surrounding these antiquated and poorly financed aircraft.

Russian news agency RIAN, citing a government source, reports the focus is on whether there was an engine failure or low quality jet fuel.

YAK 42D production models built 125 number crashed 6 - 4.8%

Aircraft was never a great performer. It was a Soviet copy of a 727/Trident. Only a 193 airframes were produced of all models including prototypes, compared around a 1000 of the 154 that it was supposed to replace.

Yak-42 was not intended to replace the Tu-154, she was a replacement for the Tu-134 and for sure she is not a Trident/727 clone.

Very sad that this happend.

Here is excerpt from Russian Media:

English translation:

An acceleration/thrust shortfall where V1 itself becomes somewhat meaningless then ?

>Yes the Russian crews drink Vodka/Gin/any thing they can get their hands on >before/during/after flights and this I have witnessed with my own eyes.They constantly >lie about there radials/heights/distances in non radar environments to get a slot before >you and yes once again I have witnessed all these acts.

Nothing more than average western pilot, just to mention that western pilots take more medicaments

> as more >than likely a factor of "technical problems " coupled by inexperience or >poorly trained >crew & a Macho attitude will surface as the root causes...it always >does surrounding >these antiquated and poorly financed aircraft.

Ohhh you are such a good liar for "poorly trained" qualification of Russian pilots! I have friend in this sector and can assure you from first hand there is everything normal like everywhere.

Regarding "Macho attitude" and "poorly financed" aircrafts it is more common for some western countries like US...there was already couple of crashes involved with mooney cutting in maintance sector.

Obviously you are writing about african aviation

Regarding Russia we must stay on concrete accident!

p.s. this is classic politics (dirty economy) influence. Everything on other side (potential competition with Sukhoi super jet for example) is worse than ours...this is very insidious!

2 Flight Costing:
Actually one Il-86 has been lost near Moscow during ferry flight due to "MUCHO" style takeoff - they've set the stab trim too much nose up to make a show - then could not level off fast and lost the speed.....

About Yak-42 - I've got some experience with it 20 years ago.... IMHO one of the reasons could be the following:
1. Stab not in T/O range or
2. Flaps/slats not in T/O range (that's why they were running too long time, awaiting for proper setting) or
3. At least two engines problem. One engine lost can not lead to a crash with so low load (about 30% from max).

Runway photo
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/pilo698...302833/?page=7

Runway is 3000m long but on Russian aviation site they are speculating that aircraft start takeoff roll some 500m after threshold and than use approx 400m od grass behind other threshold. According to ATC worker thay gain not more than couple of meters in altitude...

They found that fuel quality and Flaps position was normal...

Meaningless statistics
 

To those posting % numbers of hulls built, this is a meaningless statistic.

I built 10 aircraft of type A and fly them 1 time per year for 10 years.... 1 crashes.

I built 10 aircraft of type B and fly them once every day for 10 years..... 1 crashes.

Which one is safer?

There are perhaps 2 meaningful statistics:

- hull loses per million miles flown
- hull loses per flight segment

Take your pick, but a crude % lost from hulls built is a useless number.

- GY

Agree with the previous poster & would like to add a few points:

First, there is no such thing as a "Russian" aircraft. They are Soviet aircraft, designed 20+ (more likely 30+ or more) years ago and hopelessly obsolete compared to any common western brand like A or B. I am not saying this is good, but it is not fair to compare the safety of old aircraft to new models.

Second, whether you like it or not, disregard to safety is a Russian national trait of character. Whoever doubts it, welcome to Moscow and try to drive a car here and you will understand. Obviously aircraft are not flown the same way but you get the point.

Third, and probably most important, Russia has many small air carriers that just privatized parts of Soviet Aeroflot and have been flying the same soviet aircraft ever since, without proper maintenance, with no hope of buying/leasing new ones (at best, buy some similarly old imported models...). So they fly those old plane like there's no tomorrow. Eventually the day comes when there is really NO tomorrow...

Thanks Kulverstukas. At least one fact of this flight seems to be that the flaps were extended…..

Not having Russian aero charts at the ready, is this the right airfield?

S. bank of the Volga, 15 km SE of Yaroslavl (57.560,40.160), single rw 06-24?

My guess is this is right, since the YAK42 appears in photos to have wound up on the river bank near the island.

Thats the one barit1 - former Soviet AF fighter base

Whats the old saying about there's nothing more useless than runway behind you at start of roll?

The description of the plane failing to gain enough speed, running out of runway, and then striking a navigation antenna as it tried to lift off, seems reminiscent of the Melbourne tail-strike incident in 2009 involving an Emirates A340. As I recall, that even later was attributed to a typing error by the flight crew when entering the plane's estimated weight (and calculating takeoff speeds and thrust required).

Is the Yak-42 suspectible to a similar error?

Passenger 389

There is no such thing as flex or derated takeoff on Yak42

So the engines were not delivering enough thrust, or the aircraft was overweight.

You forgot to include locked brakes etc.