Is This The Most Dangerous Takeoff Ever Captured On Video?

[NYCA News]

NYCAviation:

Is This The Most Dangerous Takeoff Ever Captured On Video? (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nycaviation/~3/APqK64allSc/)

These old Russian planes were built to plow through just about anything within reason, but these pilots throw reason into the mud.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/nycaviation/~4/APqK64allSc
[Click to Read Full Article (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nycaviation/~3/APqK64allSc/)]

[PhilDernerJr]

Wondering if the poor climb performance is because of the altitude or mud in the engines affecting its ability. Any confirmation if they actually made it to their destination?

[megatop412]

If that happened on takeoff I'd hate to have to land in that- can you say braking action poor as sh*t

[snydersnapshots]

If that happened on takeoff I'd hate to have to land in that- can you say braking action poor as sh*t

Quite the opposite. You sink down into that stuff and you'll stop in nothing flat. My concern would be damaging the gear...

I remember three limitation numbers from a previous airplane: 1/2" standing water or slush, 2 1/2" wet snow, 4" dry snow. That looked more like standing water or slush to me and it was DEFINITELY more than 1/2"! Why not just plow the damn runway?

[gonzalu]

I am sure a typical American pax would have hurled on the first impact of mud on the windows :tongue:

[Speedbagel_001]

Maybe instead of installing EMAS at the departure end of R14 at KFRG, they could save a few bucks and put down some mud instead!:biggrin:

[megatop412]

Quite the opposite. You sink down into that stuff and you'll stop in nothing flat. My concern would be damaging the gear...

I remember three limitation numbers from a previous airplane: 1/2" standing water or slush, 2 1/2" wet snow, 4" dry snow. That looked more like standing water or slush to me and it was DEFINITELY more than 1/2"! Why not just plow the damn runway?

Your comment reminded me of something I read in a book about air crash investigations about the effect of slush on aircraft takeoff performance. It referenced a rejected takeoff of a BEA Airspeed Ambassador at Munich in 1958 that resulted in a crash with many fatalities. The initial assumption had been that wing ice had caused the accident and that the captain had failed to take that into account when committing to the takeoff. It was only after several years of research into the issue that the cause of the crash was switched from wing ice to slush on the runway surface. Apparently, back then there was very little acknowledgement that slush, even in small amounts, could contribute to the degradation of takeoff performance. Specifically, the British government found that only half an inch of slush on the runway could increase the takeoff run by 40 percent for nose-wheel aircraft. The German commission investigating the accident had previously said that takeoffs could safely be made in slush up to at least 5cm.

Interestingly, in re-reading this section a few minutes ago I also learned that Trans-Canada Airlines had completed its own slush testing after an incident in 1948, a full ten years before the Elizabethan crash, and they had come to the same conclusions regarding the effects of slush, including a reduction in acceleration and the need for greater lengths of runway, as well as the ability of the slush to increasingly cancel out the available engine thrust which would prevent any further acceleration. Why this data did not seem to get disseminated to the BEA crew(or why it was received but not applied) is anyone's guess. Book is 'Pilot Error' by Ronald Hurst, published in 1976 if interested.

Sorry for the essay-like quality of this post but some of them have to be somewhat intelligent sounding instead of my usual 'beer and planes' comments:tongue:

[sporky]

Your comment reminded me of something I read in a book about air crash investigations about the effect of slush on aircraft takeoff performance. It referenced a rejected takeoff of a BEA Airspeed Ambassador at Munich in 1958 that resulted in a crash with many fatalities. The initial assumption had been that wing ice had caused the accident and that the captain had failed to take that into account when committing to the takeoff. It was only after several years of research into the issue that the cause of the crash was switched from wing ice to slush on the runway surface. Apparently, back then there was very little acknowledgement that slush, even in small amounts, could contribute to the degradation of takeoff performance. Specifically, the British government found that only half an inch of slush on the runway could increase the takeoff run by 40 percent for nose-wheel aircraft. The German commission investigating the accident had previously said that takeoffs could safely be made in slush up to at least 5cm.


Interesting. Might actually use this with my classes now regarding the need to verify runway contamination and the effects of runway slush/snow/water.

Now for a "beer and planes" comment...would hate to be the poor folks having to wash this plane later. :tongue: Also kind of reminds me of the de-icing technique on another Russian plane where the pilot used the take off roll to remove the snow/ice from the wing.

-Tad