Top KHL Squad killed in Russian plane crash.

[rsandor]

that's assuming they are already at mtow with as much fuel as possible. I too am unfamiliar with 705 ops these days, but is it common to top up the airplane with as much fuel as possible even if it's not needed? I would assume that if the real pax weights vs the standard rates are enough to put the a/c over mtow, that would be grounds to run less fuel, no? I would assume that extra fuel in the plane makes it more expensive to run the flight, so the operator would want as little fuel as needed in the ac for that trip, no?

[pika]

Actually I fly at a 705 company with rampies, fuelers, and a crew more than 100 pilots deep. I run the numbers every day, every flight, and they always work, every time. If I'm ramp checked I will pass.
All I have to do though is look behind me at the 19 seats filled with people, and down at the paperwork that tells me they are 187lbs, and 152lbs a piece to realize I'm overweight. Not one of those females looks under 200lbs over the age of 20, and the males are on average about 250lbs (multiply that number by 19). Not to mention how the fuel gauge from every Captain I fly with routinely reads a couple hundred pounds over the flight plan (must be a gauge fluctuation or its just slightly out from the way the airplane sits on this incline).
Its not a hard concept.
I don't have to take "granny gas" anymore, but it saved my life more than once out in the bush that extra 50lbs or 100lbs.
Learning that standard weights have limitations to their functionality might serve you well.

What if...

You load up and shut the door and complete the numbers and they work as they always do. Just then TC shows up with a scale. Passengers and bags are weighed and the tanks are dipped. What's your defence? I'd suggest "standard weights" won't help much.

You've given enough information about your employer that it wouldn't be difficult to fill in the blanks and come up with a name for anybody so inclined.

[into the blue]

In Russia, the balanced field takeoff and monitoring of takeoff performance appear to be alien concepts. Accoring to the latest reports in the Russian press, the airplane became airborne past the departure end of the runway and, apparently, was unable to climb out of ground effect, subsequently striking an antenna on the departure path. I now have a feeling it had nothing to do with W&B.

[coreydotcom]

TSN (yes, The Sports Network, so take it with a grain of salt) is reporting that Russian officials (no word on which ones) are focusing on possible causes being losing an engine and contaminated fuel.

I guess that's not saying much because those causes would probably always be checked. Without knowing much about the type, it has 3 engines... shouldn't it be able to climb on 2?

Then TSN went on with a bit interviewing ex-KHL players / coaches (Yann Danis, Dave King) and both said they felt extremely sketched out when they flew in Russia because the planes were so old... old for them = bad, apparently. I don't think the problem is so much the age of the aircraft as it is the maintenance and other standards not being upheld.

[aurora]

http://avherald.com/h?article=4428da13&opt=1024

My mistake, the plate is in meters not feet. I looked it up on the link originally, I read Canadian plates and just assumed its in feet like ours lol.
sorry. BTW I read the plane was a newer one, can't find the link though.

[aurora]

What if...

You load up and shut the door and complete the numbers and they work as they always do. Just then TC shows up with a scale. Passengers and bags are weighed and the tanks are dipped. What's your defence? I'd suggest "standard weights" won't help much.

You've given enough information about your employer that it wouldn't be difficult to fill in the blanks and come up with a name for anybody so inclined.

Has this what this forum has turned into? Childish finger pointing, and witch hunts? I pass my ramp checks every time.
Have a good day sir.

[pika]

It's your licence, good luck.

ps. Why did you edit the part about where you don't have to justify anything to me because I still dip my tanks?

[The Hammer]

I take a little granny gas because I know and understand what the certification requirements and manufacturers maintenance schedule are for fuel qty indication systems as per the 500 series of the CARs for air taxi and commuter aircraft.

They remind me of the minimum requirements to pass a PPC (legal but not necessarily safe)

This do not leave me the confidence rely solely on the gauge accuracy.

Based on the number of fuel qty indication problems a certain manufacturer has, I will take my chances.

[sky's the limit]

I take a little granny gas because I know and understand what the certification requirements and manufacturers maintenance schedule are for fuel qty indication systems as per the 500 series of the CARs for air taxi and commuter aircraft.

They remind me of the minimum requirements to pass a PPC (legal but not necessarily safe)

This do not leave me the confidence rely solely on the gauge accuracy.

Based on the number of fuel qty indication problems a certain manufacturer has, I will take my chances.

I honestly don't know what to say to you guys.

"Granny Gas," the definition of which is to me fuel above and beyond what has been calculated to complete the flight legally. It DOES NOT mean flying over gross weight! Do I pack extra fuel around? Yes, all the time when I can afford the weight, but never, ever, to the point where it puts me over gross. If I feel the need to plan for more fuel, then payload is reduced. Ask Bill Yearwood what happens at an accident site: pilot certification is checked, and the a/c is weighed...

You're talking about light aircraft that have dodgy fuel indication - we have all flown them - make yourself a dipstick and start doing some math, it really is not that hard. I'm getting the distinct impression that several of you do not understand what environment your careers are taking place in these days, legally speaking. The liability involved now is at an all-time high, litigation is the main course of action in many cases, and you are very, very, exposed should something go wrong.

It leaves me deeply troubled reading these two threads.

stl

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am as puzzled as you STL reading this stuff.....here is a post I just made on the other thread about flying over weight.

How do we get people in aviation that end up flying the public from A to B that can not grasp the meaning of gross allowable weight?

What other subjects are they ignorant of?

[pika]

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=76333&p=716348#p716348

It happens all the time, from subtle messages, to outright threats from employers, I've heard it all and I'm barely over a 1000hrs.
I fly overweight for my own reasons, most of the time its due to hauling granny gas on board the airplane as to avoid VFR/IFR min fuel requirements.

Looks like aurora has a different definition than you about granny gas.

[whipline]

I'm speechless. Follow the bouncing ball. Over gross weight, no C of A, no insurance. Besides the fact it's utterly fucking stupid. Can you please tell us your names so one, we never fly on your airplane and two your never hired anywhere else. If you want to push the laws of physics do it by yourself and leave the traveling public out of it.

[Gogona]

Accoring to the latest reports in the Russian press, the airplane became airborne past the departure end of the runway and, apparently, was unable to climb out of ground effect

Bingo! I was going to mention exactly the same detail, but you forestalled me, thank you.

So, Yak-42 overran the runway and took off from the soft field in the end of it (that what the air traffic controller told to the local media). Here is the point. This accident was completely avoidable by simple take-off abortion, but they kept on moving.

I now have a feeling it had nothing to do with W&B.

Absolutely.

[aurora]

flap setting?

[Big Pratt]

Very sobering video from what I gather taken from the Wx station.
http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/238742/

It could be a number of things (mistrimmed, runaway trim, dragging brakes, spoilers extended, aborted abort, wrong intersection, multiple hydraulic failures, bird ingestion, mismanaged fuel, engine bleedoff, etc...)
It makes me smile while I hear the media mention old airplanes... most teams travel on wings older than this 1993 Yak.
The truth being that it all comes down to how it is maintained and operated.
I guess we'll know soon enough, blaming it on soviet technology or mentality at this point just shows your close-mindedness...

Imagine if this happened to an NHL team.

You have no idea how eerily close it came to be true in January of 2001...
BP

That sounds like an interesting story........can you tell us more.
J

Sorry, can't say more on a public forum that the media might be trolling for a juicy twist to this story other than to tell you that the knowledge comes from being in the pointy end on that day.
Sometimes fate is the hunter and an oblivious passenger unknowingly breaks the chain of events...
The situation was downplayed (I lied like a used car salesman) to the team and despite them fuming from a cancelled flight, (and an evac) they never truly realized the gravity of it all.
There are times in our lives when by being 5 minutes late we avoid ending up being 30 years early.

BP

[MUSKEG]

It seems Aurora you have hung your hat on standard weights. As mentioned that will hold little water. If or shall we say when you stand before a tribunal you will be asked that very question. Did you know? And as you point out here over and over again you know. Then guess what the insurance company will do. There is not enough insurance buyable to cover a senario like that. But boy you sure make the paperwork look good.

[North Shore]

Ok, to brag, slag or justify flying overweight, go here: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=76333

This thread is about 42 poor buggers killed in an (avoidable?) plane crash, and their grieving families.

Thanks.

[Chaxterium]

This is interesting. Apparently the Russian authorities have released some information about the crash. Note that this is from Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth.

The Technical Commission of the MAK released further information on September 12, 2011. Among the findings:

-the engines continued working until the crash,

-the weather was ruled out as a cause of the crash,

-the crew carried out a check of all controls of the aircraft, including the elevator, the helm in normal mode,

-take-off weight was less than the maximum allowable for take-off,

-the plane had 14 tonnes of fuel on board, of which 8 tonnes was from the airport in Yaroslavl,
before take-off, the stabilizer and flaps were set to take-off position.


On September 14, 2011, it was revealed that the parking brake of the plane was on during the take-off, which significantly slowed the plane down and prevented it from accelerating properly.

Eek.

Sincere condolences to all the families affected.

[cdnpilot77]

This is interesting. Apparently the Russian authorities have released some information about the crash. Note that this is from Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth.

The Technical Commission of the MAK released further information on September 12, 2011. Among the findings:

-the engines continued working until the crash,

-the weather was ruled out as a cause of the crash,

-the crew carried out a check of all controls of the aircraft, including the elevator, the helm in normal mode,

-take-off weight was less than the maximum allowable for take-off,

-the plane had 14 tonnes of fuel on board, of which 8 tonnes was from the airport in Yaroslavl,
before take-off, the stabilizer and flaps were set to take-off position.


On September 14, 2011, it was revealed that the parking brake of the plane was on during the take-off, which significantly slowed the plane down and prevented it from accelerating properly.

Eek.

Sincere condolences to all the families affected.

Wow, if true!!

[Mig29]

Not so anymore, apparently that has been rules out of question based on latest reports.


Officials rule out 'emergency brake' theory of Yak-42 crash


Published: 14 September, 2011, 21:48


Reports that an engaged hand brake could have caused the plane carrying Russian hockey team Lokomotiv to crash have no evidentiary support, according to both aviation officials and experts.

Officials from the Transportation Ministry and the Russian Aviation Agency have dismissed media reports that pilots of the ill-fated Yak-42 that crashed outside Yaroslavl could have tried to take off with the parking brake still engaged.

“There are all these versions appearing in the media – that the brake was on, that one pilot was trying to take off while the other was trying to stop the plane, and so on,” said Aleksand Neradko, head of Russia’s Aviation Agency. “They’re all illogical, and unrealistic.”

Investigators looking into the crash have lent support to this statement, saying that no tire tread marks have been found on the runway – and they would have been there had the brake been engaged.

Neradko’s statement was also supported by the former CEO of the national carrier, Aeroflot, who now serves as deputy transportation minister. Valery Okulov told journalists that many of the possible causes of the crash reported in the media are simply inapplicable to this tragedy.

Earlier, a Russian daily, quoting its own sources, reported that pilots may have forgotten to disengage the parking brake before attempting to take off.

The Interstate Aviation Committee is still extracting information from the flight recorders recovered at the crash site. According to members of the investigating team, the recorders – and the material on them – are in very good condition, and the case is expected to be closed soon.

Many possible causes of the crash have already been ruled out – such as poor fuel quality and engine failure. The two main theories still being considered are human error and technical malfunction.

The Yakovlev Yak-42 airliner crashed on the banks of the Volga River on September 7, taking the lives of 44 people. One survivor remains in the hospital, with doctors fighting for his life.

http://rt.com/news/plane-crash-cause-pilots-569/

[Chaxterium]

Well I guess that's what I get for quoting wikipedia!

Thanks for the update Mig. This is getting very interesting.

Cheers,
Chax

[Mig29]

Not a problem - after all it's just a discussion.

Cheers man!

[FL_CH]

"MAK", the Russian aviation incident investigation agency, has released an update.
Source (Russian):
http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigation ... 42434.html

Findings:
- All engines were operating normally
- Flight Control Check was performed twice before takeoff
- Flaps were set for takeoff
- Weight and Balance of the aircraft were within certified limits
- Takeoff roll was initiated approximately 300m from threshold (total runway length 3000m)
- Max Continuous Thrust was used for takeoff

Sequence of events:
- The aircraft accelerated normally to 165 km/hr (~ 86 KTS)
- The PF initiated rotation at 185 km/hr (~ 100 KTS)
- The aircraft failed to pitch up
- 6 seconds after, full takeoff power was applied
- The aircraft's acceleration rate has decreased even after applying full power
- The horizontal stabilizer was commanded to 9.5 degree nose-up position from the initial 8.7
- More nose-up control input was made by the PF, but the aircraft failed to rotate until 400 m beyond the end of the runway
- After lifting off, the aircraft struck an antenna
- Aircraft's pitch increased rapidly to 20 degrees nose-up over 2-3 seconds
- The maximum altitude reached was approximately 5-6 meters
- Aircraft banked to the left and hit the ground
- The maximum speed reached was 230 km/hr (~ 124 KTS)

The suspected cause is residual brake pressure in the brake system, which would not only have increased the takeoff roll, but also created additional nose-down momentum.

[pika]

residual brake pressure in the brake system

Is this a nice way to say the park brake was set?

If "residual brake pressure" prevents take off how does one taxi with the same condition?

[Chaxterium]

Is this a nice way to say the park brake was set?

I don't think so because it states that the aircraft accelerated normally to 86kts. And also they've explicitly stated that the parking brake was not on.