hahahaha, plane burns, quick get some family cars on the scene followed by a slow moving fire engine. Thinking of flying within Russia? You're having a laugh!
@cherrypoots so the pilot passed v1 (i guess because he was noe up. But he clearly aborted takeoff, not in a normal sense, because it looks like both engines failed. So it would probably have been the right decision to try to land the aircraft, no matter what the conditions were, because if they hadn't it would probably have resulted in a worse accident.
Все пассажиры живы здоровы, ветер в этот день дул сильный с моря, огонь и дым сдувало, все благополучно покинули самолет после трагедии. Авария произошла из за птицы попавшей в двигатель, КЭ принял решение садиться, это стало роковой ошибкой, что привело к гибели самолета.
Не прошло и дня, как из пожарного шланга потекла мутная жидкость... Видимо пена. А свинопас, так и не смог привести в действие огнетушитель. Новые пропили а старые естественно не работают.
It was a bird strike to the engine... it could happen to anyone, pilot made the right call, everyone walked away from it. If he had tried to climb and fallen even 10 ft off of the ground, we could have been watching almost 40 people die.
The shooter of this film is either part of terrorists or some how knew this plane is going to crash... Im supprised no one what i noticed talked about this from beginning? or does anyone hold to information about this?
@MrXzyn Remember, this was a Russian military flight from a Russian military airfield. It is standard practice at many military air facilities to record all takeoffs and landings. (I don't know if that's the source of this video - might have just been an aviation buff.) You only see the crash video because that's the exciting one that got posted to You Tube. I can't imagine it's the only video that exists of planes taking off at this base.
@dcs002 This couldn't be the regular military recording of takeoff/landing. Even the Russians would know to use a tripod. Wouldn't they? Maybe they have a tripod but use it to hold a huge flagon of Vodka. That would be pretty funny.
@localcrew Of course I wouldn't know the actual source of this video (private recording vs military), but do you know for sure that Russian military recordings were made from tripod-mounted cameras? Russia emerged from the breakdown of the USSR in a precarious position, and I personally try not to assume anything. Maybe they had tripods, maybe not. Assuming all we have is this video, we have insufficient evidence to say anything else.
@masshousse All twin engine aircraft are capable of taking off on one engine if the plane is already going fast enough for the pilot to lift the nose safely, but it's not easy. This plane lost its engine just as the pilot lifted the nose. Under normal circumstances, airline pilots would usually choose to continue with takeoff if this happened, but this plane was very lightly loaded and flying a military mission. The plane was capable, but the pilot made a quick judgement call, and all survived.
very probably he should have taken it airborne .. V1 is a very well defined limit (if properly calculated witht the correct weight and environmental conditions / runway characteristics.) It includes a reaction time of about 1 second until full brakes ARE applied. It doesnt account for reverse thrust so there is a bit of margin in there for commanders to consider when they have sufficient reason to believe that the aircraft is in a state UNABLE to fly. (this is very rarely ever the case)
@0524013 Nobody died. There were three injured Navy officers - that's it. Military plane, military flight, military crew, military passengers. Only 20 people on board, all are fine. Russian Navy Adm. Vladimir Masorin was on board - he's fine.
@cherrypoots he should have made the right decision then, shouldnt he? The runway was clearly not long enough so in the end, he royally fucked up. Calculations should have confirmed whether he was able to continue the take off or not. Its actually pretty simple.
@MrBillLumberg Is that part of Russian Naval procedure when there's an admiral onboard? Do you yourself have a license to make a flight like that for the Russian Navy? Are you a Russian Navy pilot? Are you sure you know their procedures?
This is a far fetched prediction, but it almost seems as if the pilots didn't deploy their flaps. Although its far fetched but not impossible. You can see the captain rotated the aircraft, so he should of been past V2. Does anyone have the flight number for this crash?
Real miracle here is what the description states "All Survived" -The wing broke apart... that mean the impact was tremendous, that means the aircraft didn't stay alloft on its wheel. enfurno that engulfed the airplane is death.
@ps13turbo1 Don't judge by looks alone. :) All did survive. Only three of the 20 Russian military personnel on board this military flight were injured. Admiral Vladimir Masorin was on board, and he's fine too!
It makes you wonder about the airport. It looks like there was a ditch at the end of the runway. It would have been quite cheap and easy to make a smooth and flat run-off area either of grass or concrete.
@dcs002 That makes it even worse! Miitary runway are far longer than Civilian runway. They have to handle massive cargo planes that carry tanks. They are massive, massive aircraft. Google the Antonov An-225; that could never land on a Civilian runway.
@dharma6662000 Not every military airfield has to accommodate every military plane. Each military airfield has its own mission, and many will never see an An-225 or anything like it.
From Aviation Safety Network: "The Tupolev 134, operated on behalf of the Black Sea Fleet Aviation unit (VVS ChF) of the Russian Navy. It was carrying Adm. Vladimir Masorin who was on an inspection trip to the Black Sea Fleet. On takeoff the nr.1 engine failed and caught fire, possibly as a result of a bird strike. Takeoff was aborted but the Tupolev overran the runway. Three navy officers were injured." Pilots did a pretty good job, IMHO, given when the engine blew.
@addvanced After a plane rotates (nose up on take-off run), usually it's going too fast to stop on the remaining runway. By that time they are usually committed to flying, even if they lose an engine. But this was a Russian military plane, so who knows what their procedures are. They might have been indecisive. They might still have been trying to become airborne on one engine (which is usual) for a while, but maybe that engine wasn't working well either. Many things might have happened.
@dcs002 That may be true, But do you know for sure that there was a failure in 'only' one engine? Could have been failure in both engines. Then going airbourne is out of the question
@addvanced Another response - drop the nose and you lose all that induced drag. (Does the Tu-134 have brakes in the nosegear?) Having the wing rotated at over 100 mph induces a huge amount of drag that nosegear brakes, if the plane had them, couldn't compete with. Planes at high speeds on the runway get most of their braking power by reverse thrust and drag from flaps & spoilers. Keeping the nose up adds lots of drag. Wheel brakes are more important at lower speeds.
Regulations will never over-ride a pilots decision to do whatever he feels is correct during an abnormal or emergency situation - what we are talking is about is correct training techniques and aircraft manufactures requirement for operating their aircraft. If HR asked me during an interview the question of whether or not I should/could/would reject a takeoff at or after V1, I would give them the exact same answer that I gave you, that is, V1 is a GO speed.
The decision to reject a takeoff should have already been made. Of course, if between V1 and VR you decide to reject that takeoff and succeed in stopping the aircraft in the remaining feet of runway, then you simply got lucky as the performance figures do not account for this type of action. If HR rejected my interview for this answer, then this company would not be one I would want to work for any way
@hollywud744 Lastly, in this video the aircraft was already in the rotation stage and the Captain rejected the takeoff with the obvious consequence of his actions occurring a few seconds later. I haven't watched the video of the Seneca yet (but I will), however, we are comparing apples to oranges in this case - I think you know that.
Actually you do have to continue. V1 is a go speed and clearly in this video one of two things happened. Either the aircraft wasn't capable of getting airborne on the remaining engines (which it should have) or the Captain decided to reject the takeoff at VR (rotation) - VR comes after V1. The result speaks for itself doesn't it?
I'm not so sure about continuing on above V1 in ALL cases.
If I'm the PIC... and my engine blows - and I've immediately got fire - and IF I have more than 4-thousand foot of runway, I seriously consider hitting the brakes and taking my chances.
In most cases, especially passenger aircraft, going around with an engine fire is not advisable. Many times, there's just not enough time for the aircraft to return to base leg before the plane has lost its ability to stay in the air.
Soviet Union crashed 20 years ago, and dont create planes20years. That planes worked in world more then20 years! What you talking about shitty? New boeing and airbus crashed every month, need very big money. Soviet planes havent techinical support , but working more then 20-30 years around thewold.
Soviet Union crashed 20 years ago, and dont create planes20years. That planes worked in world more then20 years! What you talking about shitty? New boeing and airbus crashed every month, need very big money. Soviet planes havent techinical support , but working more then 20-30 years around the world.
@kapkan03 boeing and airbus plane dont crash monthly
big passenger planes only crash every three or four months a year
the only reason you never see russian planes crashing is because they are in far less supply than western planes. russians didnt have turbofans until twenty years after the western world
@sketchupto3drad this paper patriotism. Soviet aircraft for 40 years, surpassed the west, take the same tu144, and the fact that industrial espionage and sabotage, concurancia, were better developed in the west, no doubt. I think the best proof is that the Soviet aircraft are still working around the world, with no maintenance. This is a workhorse that pulls the whole country from famine and war. In the west, made only comfort for passengers.
@sketchupto3drad first jet engine designed by the engineer Gerasimov in 1909, and the first aircraft was established in 1939. Nazi Germany implemented the serial production, but in 1947 the Soviet aircraft industry has caught up again, and by 1970 created a fundamentally new development
All survived? Really? This footage shows the airplane turning into total fireball and the passenger cabin being completely destroyed. And it doesn't show anyone leaving the plane or at least staying around. Isn't it just soviet propaganda?
Pilots error!!! He was rotating so he was above V1 and above V1 there is no stop, thats why this mark exists, he must go airborne even with one engine.. and that is not suposed to be a problem. All civil twin engine aircrafts are certified to fly with one engine only.
@Mateyhv1 Actually, sometimes V1 and rotate are called at the same time. Perhaps it was better that he put the thing in the weeds. Fuck Soviet planes...
@Mateyhv1 I don't think you know the details. You assumed that the plane could actually fly. But how do you know for sure? Maybe what they had was something more then a single engine failure.
@rolfen Judge by yourself. This is an extract from aviation-safety(dot)com accident report: On takeoff the nr.1 engine failed and caught fire, possibly as a result of a bird strike. Takeoff was aborted but the Tupolev overran the runway.
@Mateyhv1 ,, .That one couldn't take off with one engine,,,, or did the pilot chicken out? It looks like he tried but couldn't get off the runway and so had to settle for crashing off the end instead. This is the first I've seen of it so I don't Know what happened or why.
@Mateyhv1 - Ya know what the other engine does when the first one quits?? It takes you to the scene of the accident. My dad always said, "Ya know why that airplane has 2 engines? Cuz it doesn't fly well on one."
@Mateyhv1 Those are US rules, do we know for sure those rules apply in russia? Also, we don't know what type of failure occurred here, sure it appears an engine failed, but it could easily been hydralic (spelling) spewing out.
But as you can see. He was rotating but the airplane didn't take off. So i don't know if the thrust were in iddle position or if the other engine wasn't powerfull enought to take off the plane.
But as you can see. He was rotating but the airplane didn't take off. So i don't know if the thrust were in iddle position or if the other engine wasn't powerfull enought to take off the plane.
@Mateyhv1 Easy to say pilot error, but at least one of your assumptions is wrong. This was not a civil aircraft. It was a Russian Navy aircraft on a military mission from a military airbase. Was the #2 engine operating at full power? What caused the failure of #1, and why assume #2 was ok? Yes, it looks like a bird strike and failure of the crew to take off after V1, but all you smart people who know what V1 means seem to be rushing to judgement without all the facts.
@Mateyhv1 Yes they are supposed to fly with one engine but NO they are not designed to take off with fully loaded. Perhaps on your flight simulator game but not in reality.
@Mateyhv1@Mateyhv1 Maybe pilot error, but the winners are not judged. The incident was exactly V1, not a second later. If they had done everything right, they would all die because engine fire for example ... The pilots thought and not dully performed notes.
@Mateyhv1 Actually, i believe that russian engines from the 60's 70's were not perfect and if this plane has a engine surge/failure when taking off, the only thing you can do is try to stop.
@gicanu1986 Just google-search "tupolev 134 05 red incident", and you will get the incident-report. I would have shared the link if it wasn't for the stupid google-owned youtube's "no url in posts"-policy.
Strange how it stopped burning so quickly after crashing ... only started burning again after a while. Usually planes don't stop burning, just keep on burning more! Rescue teams were very slow! Can't see any survivors around plane. Hard to believe there were many ppl on it ... must have been only crew ... if all really did survive.
This plane struck a flock of birds during full throttle and everyone survived. It had nothing to do with any deficiency of the plane. The 134 has a better safety record than western jets of that era - the only drawback was their high fuel use. 852 were built and they have been in service with 42 countries since 1963. Nowadays many have been converted as VIP transports although there are still over 100 in civilian service.
@miamad You go around looking for this vid so you post the same comment. You might want to buy a new keyboard for your PC, yours seems to have caps lock stuck on.
Startsem. I am not sure where you are getting your information and you may be correct, however the FAA defines it as: V1 means the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot MUST take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance. After that, you go. However, in Canada, that certification is different. I think the argument that more lives have been saved by Decision Speed than not.
No jets pilots commenting so I will educate some people. I am not sure what the certification standards are for Russian aircraft but in the US, a multi-engine turbine powered aircraft must be able to climb after the loss of an engine. For the pilots, when they hit V1, which is called decision speed, they continue the takeoff.
Would this plain have exploded/crashed if the runway was longer? If it wouldn't have then that is terrible, I have read that no on died but why not make the runways longer just in-case of this eventuality? Surely this would seem like a reasonable thing to do?
They showed this on an episode of destroyed in seconds. Question, what airline did that plane operate for?
TheNw1218 3 days ago
Wow, what beautiful camerawork! (sarcasm intended)
themuffinman12345 1 week ago
all survived ?????? i think not héhéhéhé
johan270571 2 months ago
That's Russian-built airplanes in a nutshell!
NoPancakeMixxx 3 months ago 3
"In Russia we fly you to site of crash"
hammerogod 3 months ago 2
wow, was the guy who filmed this the same one that filmed cloverfield?
1pnoe 3 months ago
Clowns >_<
MariaHolicTV 3 months ago
hahahaha, plane burns, quick get some family cars on the scene followed by a slow moving fire engine. Thinking of flying within Russia? You're having a laugh!
slyarun 4 months ago
how do you survive from the plane exploding like that!?
Assassinsweeed 4 months ago
@cherrypoots so the pilot passed v1 (i guess because he was noe up. But he clearly aborted takeoff, not in a normal sense, because it looks like both engines failed. So it would probably have been the right decision to try to land the aircraft, no matter what the conditions were, because if they hadn't it would probably have resulted in a worse accident.
wewillrockyou1986 4 months ago
@AndreyT73
Maybe the russian Pilots jush have a little bit more experience in crashing their Airplanes^^
Looks like a "Flameout" at one of the turbines...
aircobra62 4 months ago
@AndreyT73 i agree, simply pure luck, considering the fact that russian pilots are drunk most of the time. scums has more life in the shelves.
ikiratum91 4 months ago
Sobreviventes houveram???? Qual país esta catastrofe?? Saudações.
Toninhoferraz 5 months ago
На этом самолете вылетал главком ВВС ВМФ Массорин с Анапы .
Vas7464 5 months ago
Все пассажиры живы здоровы, ветер в этот день дул сильный с моря, огонь и дым сдувало, все благополучно покинули самолет после трагедии. Авария произошла из за птицы попавшей в двигатель, КЭ принял решение садиться, это стало роковой ошибкой, что привело к гибели самолета.
Vas7464 5 months ago
What was wrong in this plane? Why it couldn't complete a takeoff? I mean, the runway looks pretty long but that plane still didn't make it, why?
Was it loaded heavily or was there some kind of a fuel or engine problem in the plane?
killeri000 5 months ago
fk ur movn hand
Sup3rFre4sh 5 months ago
Не прошло и дня, как из пожарного шланга потекла мутная жидкость... Видимо пена. А свинопас, так и не смог привести в действие огнетушитель. Новые пропили а старые естественно не работают.
ut5ueo 5 months ago
sure all survived lol
plonke155 5 months ago
@ 7:43 - An impressive show of advanced training and high tech equipment working hand in hand.
masterfistlord 5 months ago
@masterfistlord good one! i laughed...really
OnsetOfPutrefaction 5 months ago
It was a bird strike to the engine... it could happen to anyone, pilot made the right call, everyone walked away from it. If he had tried to climb and fallen even 10 ft off of the ground, we could have been watching almost 40 people die.
gobyhomar 5 months ago
not a surprise. day to day basis in russia.
MySipuli 5 months ago
@MySipuli shut up -.-
Gunn4rX 5 months ago
@Gunn4rX uMad?
MySipuli 5 months ago
Comment removed
MySipuli 5 months ago
That's amazing that everyone survived such a fiery crash!
BlatantlyBritt 6 months ago
The shooter of this film is either part of terrorists or some how knew this plane is going to crash... Im supprised no one what i noticed talked about this from beginning? or does anyone hold to information about this?
MrXzyn 6 months ago
@MrXzyn
Methink the photographer had trained the birds.
sablatnic 5 months ago
@MrXzyn Remember, this was a Russian military flight from a Russian military airfield. It is standard practice at many military air facilities to record all takeoffs and landings. (I don't know if that's the source of this video - might have just been an aviation buff.) You only see the crash video because that's the exciting one that got posted to You Tube. I can't imagine it's the only video that exists of planes taking off at this base.
dcs002 5 months ago
@dcs002 This couldn't be the regular military recording of takeoff/landing. Even the Russians would know to use a tripod. Wouldn't they? Maybe they have a tripod but use it to hold a huge flagon of Vodka. That would be pretty funny.
localcrew 4 months ago
@localcrew Of course I wouldn't know the actual source of this video (private recording vs military), but do you know for sure that Russian military recordings were made from tripod-mounted cameras? Russia emerged from the breakdown of the USSR in a precarious position, and I personally try not to assume anything. Maybe they had tripods, maybe not. Assuming all we have is this video, we have insufficient evidence to say anything else.
dcs002 4 months ago
@dcs002 They do drink a lot of vodka though. I rest my case.
localcrew 4 months ago
Wow, that is the most shity point to loose an engine, noone wants to be in that situation.
All walked away, the the 'pilot made a good call
demusch 6 months ago
Wow, that is the most shity point to loose an engine, noone wants to be in that situation.
demusch 6 months ago
i doubt that. how can u take off with only one engine working?you can fly on 1 engine if u already airborne even landing should not be a problem.
masshousse 6 months ago
@masshousse All twin engine aircraft are capable of taking off on one engine if the plane is already going fast enough for the pilot to lift the nose safely, but it's not easy. This plane lost its engine just as the pilot lifted the nose. Under normal circumstances, airline pilots would usually choose to continue with takeoff if this happened, but this plane was very lightly loaded and flying a military mission. The plane was capable, but the pilot made a quick judgement call, and all survived.
dcs002 5 months ago
Looks like the decicion to abort came to late. The fact that no one died is a miracle.
XCougar85X 6 months ago
Should have continued T/O...
contraposaune 6 months ago
Toughski shitski.
oracle2world 6 months ago
Russian crap...
stalkingalizee 7 months ago
@stalkingalizee это блядь твои крап и все твои под Москвой обосрались и бежали с вашим бонапартом а у меня самая лучшая нация. !!!! ТУПИЦА
zonderrrr 6 months ago
okay, first of all:they're lucky they had a long run-way because at chicago midway they would've all died.
NovaGas123 7 months ago
Amazing.
EngineeringFun 7 months ago
very probably he should have taken it airborne .. V1 is a very well defined limit (if properly calculated witht the correct weight and environmental conditions / runway characteristics.) It includes a reaction time of about 1 second until full brakes ARE applied. It doesnt account for reverse thrust so there is a bit of margin in there for commanders to consider when they have sufficient reason to believe that the aircraft is in a state UNABLE to fly. (this is very rarely ever the case)
skysurfer0805 7 months ago
All survived? I don´t belivied...
TheSpyTon 7 months ago
sprzet gaśniczy na najwyzszym poziomie. Nawet tym ścierniska nie mogli zgasić.
smokpiotrek 8 months ago
это стрёмно !
PapaDronZilla 8 months ago
bird
one engine down
the pilot stop takeoff
pvn35 8 months ago
super tractor
very quick
pvn35 8 months ago
V1 means go go go! He should have went......
Heebsy1 8 months ago
In Soviet Russia the ground crashes on the plane
MultiMinigun 8 months ago
people were burned alive....
0524013 8 months ago
@0524013 Nobody died. There were three injured Navy officers - that's it. Military plane, military flight, military crew, military passengers. Only 20 people on board, all are fine. Russian Navy Adm. Vladimir Masorin was on board - he's fine.
dcs002 8 months ago
1:25 Engine Failure
ziccy7 8 months ago
I would hate to have to depend on their fire department riding bicycles to the crash @ 6:23 in the video.
Mr4detroit 8 months ago
I would hate to have to depend on their fire department riding bicycles to the crash.
Mr4detroit 8 months ago
@Mr4detroit just as the dutch army in the second world war.
iancius 8 months ago
looks like they need to upgrade their fire fighting trucks and equipment!
dimitrigregorieff 8 months ago
@dimitrigregorieff And the aircrafts too... :)
brandistocker 8 months ago
@cherrypoots he should have made the right decision then, shouldnt he? The runway was clearly not long enough so in the end, he royally fucked up. Calculations should have confirmed whether he was able to continue the take off or not. Its actually pretty simple.
MrBillLumberg 8 months ago
how retarded is this pilot? he tries to abort after v1 whilst rotating. Really?! Guy should not have been given a license.
MrBillLumberg 8 months ago
@MrBillLumberg Is that part of Russian Naval procedure when there's an admiral onboard? Do you yourself have a license to make a flight like that for the Russian Navy? Are you a Russian Navy pilot? Are you sure you know their procedures?
dcs002 8 months ago
This is a far fetched prediction, but it almost seems as if the pilots didn't deploy their flaps. Although its far fetched but not impossible. You can see the captain rotated the aircraft, so he should of been past V2. Does anyone have the flight number for this crash?
Real miracle here is what the description states "All Survived" -The wing broke apart... that mean the impact was tremendous, that means the aircraft didn't stay alloft on its wheel. enfurno that engulfed the airplane is death.
macfahad 8 months ago
How these crappy "In Soviet Russia . . . YOU !" get so many thumbs up?
LuftfahrtFan 8 months ago
All did not survive by the looks of the wreckage
ps13turbo1 9 months ago
@ps13turbo1 Don't judge by looks alone. :) All did survive. Only three of the 20 Russian military personnel on board this military flight were injured. Admiral Vladimir Masorin was on board, and he's fine too!
dcs002 8 months ago
How the shit can everyone survive engulfment of fire?!
END2BEGINNING 9 months ago
Dang stupid pilots
misterymarcos1 9 months ago
flaps
frogmonstor 9 months ago
It makes you wonder about the airport. It looks like there was a ditch at the end of the runway. It would have been quite cheap and easy to make a smooth and flat run-off area either of grass or concrete.
dharma6662000 10 months ago
@dharma6662000 This is a military airbase, not a civilian airport. There's probably a reason for the design.
dcs002 8 months ago
@dcs002 That makes it even worse! Miitary runway are far longer than Civilian runway. They have to handle massive cargo planes that carry tanks. They are massive, massive aircraft. Google the Antonov An-225; that could never land on a Civilian runway.
dharma6662000 8 months ago
@dharma6662000 Not every military airfield has to accommodate every military plane. Each military airfield has its own mission, and many will never see an An-225 or anything like it.
dcs002 8 months ago
From Aviation Safety Network: "The Tupolev 134, operated on behalf of the Black Sea Fleet Aviation unit (VVS ChF) of the Russian Navy. It was carrying Adm. Vladimir Masorin who was on an inspection trip to the Black Sea Fleet. On takeoff the nr.1 engine failed and caught fire, possibly as a result of a bird strike. Takeoff was aborted but the Tupolev overran the runway. Three navy officers were injured." Pilots did a pretty good job, IMHO, given when the engine blew.
Wizzardgirl 10 months ago
anybody mention and notice he could have stopped way shorter
by dropping the nose quicker harder, could have saved that the plane for sure then applying the brakes harder.
addvanced 10 months ago
@addvanced After a plane rotates (nose up on take-off run), usually it's going too fast to stop on the remaining runway. By that time they are usually committed to flying, even if they lose an engine. But this was a Russian military plane, so who knows what their procedures are. They might have been indecisive. They might still have been trying to become airborne on one engine (which is usual) for a while, but maybe that engine wasn't working well either. Many things might have happened.
dcs002 8 months ago
@dcs002 That may be true, But do you know for sure that there was a failure in 'only' one engine? Could have been failure in both engines. Then going airbourne is out of the question
Prickler32 8 months ago
@Prickler32 I made that point in another post. We just don't know, but a lot of people here think they do.
dcs002 8 months ago
@addvanced Another response - drop the nose and you lose all that induced drag. (Does the Tu-134 have brakes in the nosegear?) Having the wing rotated at over 100 mph induces a huge amount of drag that nosegear brakes, if the plane had them, couldn't compete with. Planes at high speeds on the runway get most of their braking power by reverse thrust and drag from flaps & spoilers. Keeping the nose up adds lots of drag. Wheel brakes are more important at lower speeds.
dcs002 8 months ago
@dcs002 wow!! that is an expert answer endeed, im a pilot, congrats.
captOrange1 5 months ago
Obviously a bird strike just while he was rotating. When there is no power, there is no take off. Not even at V1.
BrennFilmcom 10 months ago
Regulations will never over-ride a pilots decision to do whatever he feels is correct during an abnormal or emergency situation - what we are talking is about is correct training techniques and aircraft manufactures requirement for operating their aircraft. If HR asked me during an interview the question of whether or not I should/could/would reject a takeoff at or after V1, I would give them the exact same answer that I gave you, that is, V1 is a GO speed.
hollywud744 11 months ago
@hollywud744
The decision to reject a takeoff should have already been made. Of course, if between V1 and VR you decide to reject that takeoff and succeed in stopping the aircraft in the remaining feet of runway, then you simply got lucky as the performance figures do not account for this type of action. If HR rejected my interview for this answer, then this company would not be one I would want to work for any way
hollywud744 11 months ago
@hollywud744 Lastly, in this video the aircraft was already in the rotation stage and the Captain rejected the takeoff with the obvious consequence of his actions occurring a few seconds later. I haven't watched the video of the Seneca yet (but I will), however, we are comparing apples to oranges in this case - I think you know that.
hollywud744 11 months ago
@cherrypoots
Actually you do have to continue. V1 is a go speed and clearly in this video one of two things happened. Either the aircraft wasn't capable of getting airborne on the remaining engines (which it should have) or the Captain decided to reject the takeoff at VR (rotation) - VR comes after V1. The result speaks for itself doesn't it?
hollywud744 11 months ago
all survived? really?
kailas1412 1 year ago
aeroflot ??
skeva39 1 year ago
How is it possible for everyone to survive? there was an explosion!
ultimatezero12345 1 year ago
I'm not so sure about continuing on above V1 in ALL cases.
If I'm the PIC... and my engine blows - and I've immediately got fire - and IF I have more than 4-thousand foot of runway, I seriously consider hitting the brakes and taking my chances.
In most cases, especially passenger aircraft, going around with an engine fire is not advisable. Many times, there's just not enough time for the aircraft to return to base leg before the plane has lost its ability to stay in the air.
Burnsengine 1 year ago
I watched this. birds burst into the engine
pericavrucinic 1 year ago
Was everyone OK?
agt155 1 year ago
that was intense
glodieda 1 year ago
Fire brigade is not very quick, I wonder how they got ICAO certificate for international flights?!
videovic99 1 year ago
Soviet planes are shitty quality. This is what happens when it hits something as soft as a bird...
tannalv 1 year ago
Soviet Union crashed 20 years ago, and dont create planes20years. That planes worked in world more then20 years! What you talking about shitty? New boeing and airbus crashed every month, need very big money. Soviet planes havent techinical support , but working more then 20-30 years around thewold.
kapkan03 1 year ago
Soviet Union crashed 20 years ago, and dont create planes20years. That planes worked in world more then20 years! What you talking about shitty? New boeing and airbus crashed every month, need very big money. Soviet planes havent techinical support , but working more then 20-30 years around the world.
kapkan03 1 year ago
@kapkan03 boeing and airbus plane dont crash monthly
big passenger planes only crash every three or four months a year
the only reason you never see russian planes crashing is because they are in far less supply than western planes. russians didnt have turbofans until twenty years after the western world
sketchupto3drad 1 year ago
@sketchupto3drad this paper patriotism. Soviet aircraft for 40 years, surpassed the west, take the same tu144, and the fact that industrial espionage and sabotage, concurancia, were better developed in the west, no doubt. I think the best proof is that the Soviet aircraft are still working around the world, with no maintenance. This is a workhorse that pulls the whole country from famine and war. In the west, made only comfort for passengers.
kapkan03 1 year ago
@sketchupto3drad first jet engine designed by the engineer Gerasimov in 1909, and the first aircraft was established in 1939. Nazi Germany implemented the serial production, but in 1947 the Soviet aircraft industry has caught up again, and by 1970 created a fundamentally new development
kapkan03 1 year ago
What you doing with V1 if the Plane can´t rotate in case of a hydraulic failure???
MrGonzilein 1 year ago
Can fly with one engine not take off !
stlomarc 1 year ago
soviet-russian type of landing.
Zahal948 1 year ago
Everyone survived with only minor bruises. Look it up on the world wide internets.
EvvyThomas 1 year ago
All survived? Really? This footage shows the airplane turning into total fireball and the passenger cabin being completely destroyed. And it doesn't show anyone leaving the plane or at least staying around. Isn't it just soviet propaganda?
pepa007 1 year ago
@pepa007 you can see survivors at around 2:52
TheSimonHarris 1 year ago
@TheSimonHarris I see, didnt notice them before. Thanks.
pepa007 1 year ago
@pepa007 Nobody survived that crash
beeroosterm 1 year ago
@beeroosterm Wait, I was wrong. You can see a whole line of people to the right of the wreckage at 3:30.
beeroosterm 1 year ago
That's just so not nice.... Amazing footage, very surreal and scary too. Glad everyone survived though!
spencerjumbo 1 year ago
wow thank god everyone survived!
brotmann86 1 year ago
Pilots error!!! He was rotating so he was above V1 and above V1 there is no stop, thats why this mark exists, he must go airborne even with one engine.. and that is not suposed to be a problem. All civil twin engine aircrafts are certified to fly with one engine only.
Mateyhv1 1 year ago 47
@Mateyhv1 I think you studied for ATPL :)
boldrake90 1 year ago
@Mateyhv1 Agree. Shouldn't have aborted by normal standards.
beeroosterm 1 year ago
@Mateyhv1 Actually, sometimes V1 and rotate are called at the same time. Perhaps it was better that he put the thing in the weeds. Fuck Soviet planes...
beeroosterm 1 year ago
@Mateyhv1 I don't think you know the details. You assumed that the plane could actually fly. But how do you know for sure? Maybe what they had was something more then a single engine failure.
rolfen 1 year ago
@rolfen Judge by yourself. This is an extract from aviation-safety(dot)com accident report: On takeoff the nr.1 engine failed and caught fire, possibly as a result of a bird strike. Takeoff was aborted but the Tupolev overran the runway.
Mateyhv1 1 year ago
@Mateyhv1 except russian aircrafts xD
Mousouka 1 year ago
@Mateyhv1 ,, .That one couldn't take off with one engine,,,, or did the pilot chicken out? It looks like he tried but couldn't get off the runway and so had to settle for crashing off the end instead. This is the first I've seen of it so I don't Know what happened or why.
Rob187ok 1 year ago
Comment removed
Stregalicious 10 months ago
@Mateyhv1 - Ya know what the other engine does when the first one quits?? It takes you to the scene of the accident. My dad always said, "Ya know why that airplane has 2 engines? Cuz it doesn't fly well on one."
Stregalicious 10 months ago
@Mateyhv1 Those are US rules, do we know for sure those rules apply in russia? Also, we don't know what type of failure occurred here, sure it appears an engine failed, but it could easily been hydralic (spelling) spewing out.
heihache 10 months ago
@Mateyhv1
But as you can see. He was rotating but the airplane didn't take off. So i don't know if the thrust were in iddle position or if the other engine wasn't powerfull enought to take off the plane.
AirTimSimulation 9 months ago
@Mateyhv1
But as you can see. He was rotating but the airplane didn't take off. So i don't know if the thrust were in iddle position or if the other engine wasn't powerfull enought to take off the plane.
AirTimSimulation 9 months ago
@Mateyhv1 this is tree engines aircraft lol.
elaszcz84 9 months ago
@elaszcz84 No it only has 2 engines
aspiringdrummer17 9 months ago
@elaszcz84
You realy do not know this model.
Three engine hath Tu-154. Tu-134 - only two.
rashwerewolf 8 months ago
@Mateyhv1 Easy to say pilot error, but at least one of your assumptions is wrong. This was not a civil aircraft. It was a Russian Navy aircraft on a military mission from a military airbase. Was the #2 engine operating at full power? What caused the failure of #1, and why assume #2 was ok? Yes, it looks like a bird strike and failure of the crew to take off after V1, but all you smart people who know what V1 means seem to be rushing to judgement without all the facts.
dcs002 8 months ago
@Mateyhv1 Yes they are supposed to fly with one engine but NO they are not designed to take off with fully loaded. Perhaps on your flight simulator game but not in reality.
rx713bbp 7 months ago
@Mateyhv1 It fan fly with one engine but it could not take off especially in this short runway. If he had tried to take off the result was same.
lavashaki 7 months ago
Comment removed
aleks070777 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mateyhv1 @Mateyhv1 Maybe pilot error, but the winners are not judged. The incident was exactly V1, not a second later. If they had done everything right, they would all die because engine fire for example ... The pilots thought and not dully performed notes.
aleks070777 7 months ago
@Mateyhv1 Actually, i believe that russian engines from the 60's 70's were not perfect and if this plane has a engine surge/failure when taking off, the only thing you can do is try to stop.
pereduranofcourse 7 months ago
man i cant find anywhere documentation about this crash, are u sure u wrote the correct details about it ?
gicanu1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
tommern89 1 year ago
Comment removed
tommern89 1 year ago
Comment removed
tommern89 1 year ago
@gicanu1986 Just google-search "tupolev 134 05 red incident", and you will get the incident-report. I would have shared the link if it wasn't for the stupid google-owned youtube's "no url in posts"-policy.
tommern89 1 year ago
holy shit...double bird strike on rotation!
seatgurus 1 year ago
double bird strike at 1:24
cjellwood 1 year ago
watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE - А чего тут у пацанов как-то получше получилось?
Ssykun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"where are the survivors ?"
look at 2:59 and 3:15
krzysiekzda 1 year ago
where are the survivors ?
ermollejuo 1 year ago
Strange how it stopped burning so quickly after crashing ... only started burning again after a while. Usually planes don't stop burning, just keep on burning more! Rescue teams were very slow! Can't see any survivors around plane. Hard to believe there were many ppl on it ... must have been only crew ... if all really did survive.
ricestationzebra 1 year ago
Strange how it stopped burning so quickly. Usually planes don't stop burning, just keep on burning more!
ricestationzebra 1 year ago
This plane struck a flock of birds during full throttle and everyone survived. It had nothing to do with any deficiency of the plane. The 134 has a better safety record than western jets of that era - the only drawback was their high fuel use. 852 were built and they have been in service with 42 countries since 1963. Nowadays many have been converted as VIP transports although there are still over 100 in civilian service.
av21031 1 year ago
In Soviet Russia plane lands YOU!!!
Latengodesmesurada 1 year ago 19
@Latengodesmesurada soviet russia doesnt exist any more
sketchupto3drad 1 year ago 2
I think it was pilots mistake, they tried stop plane after V1 speed. They could turn off damaged engine,take off, go arond and landing.
UKeyyyyy 1 year ago
furchtbare löscharbeiten!!
avzansbach 1 year ago
@avzansbach für russland perfekt
Scorpac 1 year ago
i HATE russian planes! it looks awful and has bed properties!
JUST fucking shit!
yryteny 1 year ago
Comment removed
yryteny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ich währ mir da nicht so sicher, hatte ein paar jahre zuvor an selbinger landebahn mit selbigen flugzeugtyp 4 startversuche...
shaldag 1 year ago
ich währ mir da nicht so sicher, hatte ein paar jahre zuvor an selbinger landebahn mit selbigen flugzeugtyp 4 startversuche...
shaldag 1 year ago
luckely the burning wings seperated itself from the plane it self. otherwise, nobody survived... and it crashed because its Russian.
MrVinney96 1 year ago
DO NOT FLY RUSSIAN AIRPLANES! RUSSIAN PLANES = DEATH!
miamad 1 year ago
@miamad Das war ein Vogelschlag [bird strike], der kann auch bei Boeing oder Airbus passieren :-)
Auch der offensichtliche Pilotenfehler (nach V1 muss gestartet werden) kann jederzeit woanders passieren.
heisserreifen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heisserreifen RUSSIAN PLANE = DEATH!
miamad 1 year ago
@miamad You go around looking for this vid so you post the same comment. You might want to buy a new keyboard for your PC, yours seems to have caps lock stuck on.
THEkendarkness 1 year ago
Startsem. I am not sure where you are getting your information and you may be correct, however the FAA defines it as: V1 means the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot MUST take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance. After that, you go. However, in Canada, that certification is different. I think the argument that more lives have been saved by Decision Speed than not.
Croseenuf 1 year ago
What a fail plane..
Taz1451 1 year ago
Worst Fire Crew EVA!!!!!!!!1111!!!!
Might as well get some indians to the airport and train them to do the rain-dance arround burning planes.
IuTiubTM 1 year ago
ох
:(
SonyVideoBest 1 year ago
No jets pilots commenting so I will educate some people. I am not sure what the certification standards are for Russian aircraft but in the US, a multi-engine turbine powered aircraft must be able to climb after the loss of an engine. For the pilots, when they hit V1, which is called decision speed, they continue the takeoff.
Croseenuf 1 year ago
@Croseenuf , you do NOT have to continue after V1.
startsem 1 year ago
ALL SURVIVED??? in this kind of fire?!
benjie0414 1 year ago
@benjie0414 Exactly!!!
I Wonder If They Did!!! With The Fuselage And The Cabin Up In Flames, I As Well Suspect If A Few Made It!!!
amuline13 1 year ago
In officcial reports the plane (one engene) was striked by flock of birds.
Ravenholm1982 1 year ago
There's a version with sound!
Tome4kkkk 1 year ago
i dont see how anyone could survive that crash. are you sure they all survived?
Ranger4321 1 year ago
Would this plain have exploded/crashed if the runway was longer? If it wouldn't have then that is terrible, I have read that no on died but why not make the runways longer just in-case of this eventuality? Surely this would seem like a reasonable thing to do?