It is pefectly normal practice with air forces / military around the world to offer free flights to servicemen and dependents on a space-available basis - it is one of the perks of the job, just like for airline staff (only our seats are a bit better...). The US military has a whole (unofficial) website set up for this purpose, with detailed description on what to expect on various aircraft types (Spacea.net). As mentioned earlier, the IL-76 double decker seat kit (which I'm sure was used, there is no way 247 pax could have been accommodated otherwise), while perhaps not the most comfortable, is perfectly adequate for the purpose. However military operations by their nature do conform to different safety standards than civilian ones, priorities are elsewhere.

IL-76 Take-off Canberra
 

The YouTube link below shows a take-off from Canberra which could easily have
had a similar fate:

1

In the NATO Air Force I served with the Space Available term was used specifically in the relevant documents. One of the things I still remember from assisting to run the operation in my base is that we never left a pax (staff or relative) behind.

When I was flying on those flights it was few months after having flow on recently defunct Charter carrier of UK origin and I seem to remember the seats were more comfortable on the C-130.

250 crammed in like this - but double decker maybe
 

Here's one normally seated, used by a Belarussian operator from Cape Town down to Antarctica where it lands on hard packed snow.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=il...=1523528893370

Wrong. All IL76 operating to Antarctica land on cleared blue ice runways (solid sea ice of several metres thickness). The runway at South Pole Station is indeed hard-packed snow, only ski-equipped aircraft can operate there (C-130/DC-3)

Apologies for being OT.

KP, thanks for the photo, all I can say is Jesus! Never will I complain again in economy!!

Alex Cruz vision for the future at BA

Yes,

they offload them into a more hostile environment than US immigrations....

Algerian television this evening : mentions one engine on fire (numerous witnesses but we know that means ),eventual bird strike , possible stall due hard turn , explained by an "heroic "pilot who wanted to avoid the nearby town, etc..but all speculation .
Type of statements made : pilot extremely experienced, problem right after take off, so it cannot be pilot error (sic)
One thing as fact : it was stated that it was a military plane, so the investigation will be only done by the military , and communication also only coming from the military.
No comment.

An Il-76 crashed in 2003 with 275 fatalities but appeared to be not caused by payload.

I would not be surprised at all if Loady put the poor skinny ones in the middle seats, but I also think a wide angle/fished lens was used, thus making objects on the sides look wider- but "Sarge" does look large.

"And don't forget the nearest emergency exit may be behind you."

2.bp.********.com/-ItZ9GEvfnW4/UrRld7MsX5I/AAAAAAAAEiU/-l-K23qDXCM/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/South+Sudan.jpg

This is the densified version. RAF C17 out of South Sudan in December 2013. It was either 270+ or 290+. I was told it was a record at the time. No seats. Evacuees were held in place with long cargo straps from side to side.

With less than 10 posts, I cannot post the URL properly. So if someone with the right privileges can edit this... The starred bit is an image sharing site that sounds like frogspot

However many posts you have made, you won't be able to post links to that particular website, for reasons best known to PPRuNe.