https://news.sky.com/story/algerian-mil ... s-11326146

Reported ~100 deceased. Down shortly after takeoff. RIP to those involved and thoughts with their family and friends.

Reuters.seems to report according to a Swedish newspaper that 257 people are dead.....are there room for that many?? It seems to have went down in a agriculture area.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/wE ... t-257-doda (Swedish only)

The high toll could be because it crashed on a motorway.

If that's the case I doubt any number is really accurate.

I saw on Le Monde that all victims were on board (247 10 crew).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43724941
R.I.P.

Holy shit this is awful. I hope they find the cause soon.

I know that IL-76s have been known to carry a LOT of people, but I can't imagine what it's like to have 257 people inside one of those things. RIP.

This is horrible. I offer my condolences to the family and friends of those lost on this plane.
Hopefully the cause will be known soon.

This is awful, so terrible for so many families and loved ones. My condolences.
The IL-76 is a reliable and true work horse of an aircraft. I will be watching to see what happened to cause such a tragedy.

Tugg

An awful crash and as others have said, I also can't imagine how it would feel to have 257 inside an IL76, seems to me like it's too many but please correct me on this. My condolences to the families and friends of the people lost in this tragic crash

A388

It's a big aircraft but my first thought was also, wow, 250 pax in an Il-76?

Wikipedia gives no info about the number of seats that can be fitted. However, it says a cancelled version was a double-decked 250-passenger airliner. So, the single cargo deck must be packed with 250...

A388 wrote:

An awful crash and as others have said, I also can't imagine how it would feel to have 257 inside an IL76, seems to me like it's too many but please correct me on this. My condolences to the families and friends of the people lost in this tragic crash

A388

In 2003, an Iranian IL-76 crashed with 275 on board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iran ... l-76_crash

My first thought was also, wow that plane seemed overloaded. Especially if those people had any luggage/cargo to bring along. I just can’t imagine

zrb2 wrote:

My first thought was also, wow that plane seemed overloaded. Especially if those people had any luggage/cargo to bring along. I just can’t imagine

Not necessarily. It's a crazy amount of people but their weight should be far below what the -76 can haul. Plus I doubt there is room for much baggage and cargo when you have to squeeze in so many people..

Martijn

Probably totally urelated, but the (in)famous "Vodka Burner" video came to mind . . .

RIP

We all take so much for granted. If this had have been an A or B Aircraft in developed world posts here would have been crazy numbers.

Let’s hope they get to bottom of it so can all continue to learn and have years like 2017 for aircraft safety

PW100 wrote:

Probably totally urelated, but the (in)famous "Vodka Burner" video came to mind . . .

Sadly, that was the first image that came to me. RIP.

May God comfort the families and loved ones of those who sadly lost their lives.
Based on the reported 257 passengers, typical passenger and baggage weights (and rough adjustments for military packs etc.), the reported route (DAAK to DAOF) to be flown and estimated cruise altitude, available online IL76 specification max. weight data, and calculated approximate total fuel required (no fuel tankering), IMO the takeoff weight should have been much below maximum takeoff weight.

cat3appr50 wrote:

May God comfort the families and loved ones of those who sadly lost their lives.
Based on the reported 257 passengers, typical passenger and baggage weights (and rough adjustments for military packs etc.), the reported route (DAAK to DAOF) to be flown and estimated cruise altitude, available online IL76 specification max. weight data, and calculated approximate total fuel required (no fuel tankering), IMO the takeoff weight should have been much below maximum takeoff weight.

Firstly, the destination airport is a remote and poorly equipped airfield so the aircraft was probably tankering fuel for the return. Secondly, I would be surprised if the IL-76 is certified to airworthiness standards comparable to the US or EU, which would lead me to suspect performance margins.

It looks like it lost an engine on takeoff.

Several witnesses told Algerian TV network Ennahar they saw flames coming out of one of the planes' four engines just before it took off.
"The plane started to rise before falling," an unidentified man lying on what appeared to be a hospital bed told Ennahar TV. "The plane crashed on its wing first and caught fire."

http://www.newser.com/article/5c585d852860450b8509c2266f6aa33d/crash-kills-257-in-algerias-deadliest-aviation-disaster.html

First, unreliable witness statements warning! We often get reports of "was on fire" and similar statements in early stages, only to find out that they were completely wrong or even that no such statements were ever made.

That being said, losing an engine + overweight or losing an engine + piloting mistake are potential accident sequences in case like this.

And the man on the hospital bed might be describing the effects of stall.

AirlineCritic wrote:

First, unreliable witness statements warning! We often get reports of "was on fire" and similar statements in early stages, only to find out that they were completely wrong or even that no such statements were ever made.

That being said, losing an engine + overweight or losing an engine + piloting mistake are potential accident sequences in case like this.

And the man on the hospital bed might be describing the effects of stall.

The man in the hospital bed said yesterday, that he was hit by the wing as it came down on his farm!

I have been watching the news here in Morocco, it was expected to stop half way to its destination so maybe not as full with fuel as we expect?

Wes...

cat3appr50 wrote:

May God comfort the families and loved ones of those who sadly lost their lives.
Based on the reported 257 passengers, typical passenger and baggage weights (and rough adjustments for military packs etc.), the reported route (DAAK to DAOF) to be flown and estimated cruise altitude, available online IL76 specification max. weight data, and calculated approximate total fuel required (no fuel tankering), IMO the takeoff weight should have been much below maximum takeoff weight.

Two people have cited over-loading as a possible contributing factor, seemingly ignoring cat3's comment above.

I look at the Il-76, and I am reminded of the original C-141A, and standard (short) bodied C-130's. These aircraft are built to military specs, expecting to carry dense military cargo. The RAF (with the C-130K) and USAF (C-141B) both discovered that the airframe could be stretched because outside of the battlefield, day-to-day operations were frequently constrained by capacity (volume) rather than weight. I have no doubt the Il-76 follows this concept.

But above all else, cat3 has gone through the actual numbers, so whilst 257 pax may seem outrageous, unless it was also carrying some cargo that is as yet undeclared, I don't believe take-off weight is an issue.

I don't know if this is a fake video or not, or if I'm breaking the posting rules, but this is worth debating: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cateeee ... 546485558/

350Ops wrote:

I don't know if this is a fake video or not, or if I'm breaking the posting rules, but this is worth debating: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cateeee ... 546485558/

No debate. This was a National Air Cargo 747-400 that crashed right after takeoff in Bagram, Afghanistan in 2015. Cargo broke free and shifted aft, greatly affected CoG, causing a stall and subsequent crash.

Thank you for the valuable input.

Gatorman96 wrote:

350Ops wrote:

I don't know if this is a fake video or not, or if I'm breaking the posting rules, but this is worth debating: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cateeee ... 546485558/

No debate. This was a National Air Cargo 747-400 that crashed right after takeoff in Bagram, Afghanistan in 2015. Cargo broke free and shifted aft, greatly affected CoG, causing a stall and subsequent crash.

You can fit 200+ people in an IL-76. Not fully equipped troops with gear, but it can be done.

Buddy of mine, ex-RuAF told me that each aircraft at its base had a container with a different cargo hold modification beside it. Wanna move wounded? No problem, open up the container and put the stretchers and what not into the hold.

Anyhow, he said there was some modification where a "second deck" would be put inside the cargo compartment. Basically divide it in two vertically.

Haven't seen it myself nor have I seen any photos.

Edit: He said it would fit 240 passengers in the "double decker option". So on the both levels you have people sitting sideways along the sides of the fusulage and also a central "bench" on both decks running the length of the fusulage.

tu204 wrote:

You can fit 200+ people in an IL-76. Not fully equipped troops with gear, but it can be done.

Buddy of mine, ex-RuAF told me that each aircraft at its base had a container with a different cargo hold modification beside it. Wanna move wounded? No problem, open up the container and put the stretchers and what not into the hold.

Anyhow, he said there was some modification where a "second deck" would be put inside the cargo compartment. Basically divide it in two vertically.

Haven't seen it myself nor have I seen any photos.

Edit: He said it would fit 240 passengers in the "double decker option". So on the both levels you have people sitting sideways along the sides of the fusulage and also a central "bench" on both decks running the length of the fusulage.

Having sat on said second deck, I can confirm it exists and increased personnel carrying capacity. As you correctly point out, it's not intended for fully equipped troops. Plus, it's horribly uncomfortable!

Cheers
A

Here's the only picture I could easily find from my flight.



The ladder leads up to the second deck, which is basically nothing more than two benches that run the length of the hold, with a floor between them. You sit facing each other, and the backrest is not much more than a low set plank that runs the length of the contraption. The padding you can see is entirely useless, might as well not be there.

In this aircraft the middle row of seats on the main deck was not used, but on another flight I took they were in place.