What's new

Iran plane crash kills 40

First of all, required take off thrust depends on the ambient conditions.

That's correct.

And second, "reduced thrust take off" are not "standard procedures" to any airliners.

For all intents and purpose, they are. Unless your ambient conditions involve operating in monsoon or icing conditions on a daily basis which few airlines do

I'm guessing you know that already, so you should stop being ignorant and start explaining things to people more politely.
Ignorant?

Pardon me for brevity but I did not want to bog down a lay person with technical terms and go into too much depth with regards to airbus flex thrust and Boeing's assumed temperature methods.

As for ignorance (contradiction on your part, perhaps you meant arrogance?) I recall it was me who first introduced you to the derate/assumed temperature procedures and explained the FAA certification criteria for Accelerate stop distances, in which case you should be cutting me some slack.

Lastly, I've just pulled up the computed take off performance figures for Pakistan International 777s over the past two weeks. In almost 100 take offs, less than 5% were performed at Maximum thrust. In addition to the SOP doc below, seems like a pretty standard operating procedure to me

This is what PIA SOP state:

2wbz0q8.jpg
 
Incorrect. Standard procedures on Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier and McDonnell Douglas aircraft are reduced thrust take offs.



As I stated, reduced thrust take off are the norm in airliner operation, including at Emirates. The tail strike you reference which occurred on the A345 at MEL was due to the incorrect take off weight being used. If reduced thrust take off were unsafe, the FAA/EASA would not allow them.

As a side note, the average reduced thrust/derate on take-off according to global figures is 10% thrust reduction.

Even Air Force One pilots who are trained by Atlas Air in the US use Boeing assumed temperature reduced thrust take offs with Obama on board.

Unless the witness is an expert in the field of aviation, it is extremely unlikely his/her words hold any water.
Expert or not expert its not rocket science to see the engine is failed and stopped working specially if its a torboprop engine.specially if your sit is beside the engine .

And the crash itself is caught on the police cameras .

By the way you compare a boeing 777 which only one engine of it can provide enough trust for take off of 10 small plane like an-140 with its tiny engine . beside an-140 all other vehicle that use Klimov TV3-117 engine are helicopters
 
Last edited:
By the way you compare a boeing 777 which only one engine of it can provide enough trust for take off of 10 small plane like an-140 with its tiny engine .

The Laws of Physics are the same for a high wing turboprop as they are for a jetliner.

ATR42/72, Dash8 family, Saab family, Embraer and even the Super kingair I have experience in are all capable of taking off at MTOW with a post V1 engine failure.

Furthermore, you will find the Pratt and Whitney PT6 family, as is the case with the TV3, is also used in rotary applications.
 
A Ukrainian designed, Iranian built airplane ? Those people didn't have a chance.:fie:
 
The Laws of Physics are the same for a high wing turboprop as they are for a jetliner.

ATR42/72, Dash8 family, Saab family, Embraer and even the Super kingair I have experience in are all capable of taking off at MTOW with a post V1 engine failure.

Furthermore, you will find the Pratt and Whitney PT6 family, as is the case with the TV3, is also used in rotary applications.
That engine you mentioned have been used in airplane by the weight of 3ton not 13ton

And the law physics is exactly not the same if you have no extra power to expend.

And any training manual for small aircraft and the one with no extra power is to use full throttle . the reduced power takeoff is only when certain requirement met.
 
And the law physics is exactly not the same if you have no extra power to expend

Yes it is.

Have a look at the FAA reading material for the pilot training syallabus.

The first act the event of an engine failure on a multi engine aircraft is to counteract the yaw due to the asymmetric thrust condition.

Doesn't matter if you're in a 6 ton beechcraft or a 569 ton Airbus A380.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, turboprops of Western heritage in the same weight and power class are all able to continue take off post engine failure as takeoff calculations take into account one engine inoperative climb gradients.

If the aircraft weight is at a point where it can not safely continue flight post V1 due to one engine climb considerations, weight needs to be offloaded until single engine climb gradients can be met.

This is not an aircraft-engine combination issue as you are making out but one of pilot training.

Please don't take this as an insult towards Iranian pilots.

After all, humans of all creed and colour make mistakes. You need only look at the PIA fokker engine failure at Multan which resulted in the pilots failing to control the aircraft.
 
Yes it is.

Have a look at the FAA reading material for the pilot training syallabus.

The first act the event of an engine failure on a multi engine aircraft is to counteract the yaw due to the asymmetric thrust condition.

Doesn't matter if you're in a 6 ton beechcraft or a 569 ton Airbus A380.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, turboprops of Western heritage in the same weight and power class are all able to continue take off post engine failure as takeoff calculations take into account one engine inoperative climb gradients.

If the aircraft weight is at a point where it can not safely continue flight post V1 due to one engine climb considerations, weight needs to be offloaded until single engine climb gradients can be met.

This is not an aircraft-engine combination issue as you are making out but one of pilot training.

Please don't take this as an insult towards Iranian pilots.

After all, humans of all creed and colour make mistakes. You need only look at the PIA fokker engine failure at Multan which resulted in the pilots failing to control the aircraft.
Let just say one thing from 7 accident with this airplane 3 or 4 of them were due to engine failure and there is a lot difference when the airplane empty weight is 14 ton by the time when its 5 ton . when the engine can't provide enough power no matter how much you push the yaw . it will be no use . when this engine failure happened this plane was supposed to do a left turn but there was not enough lift so the plane could be leveled and instead of left turn a right turn occurs .
 
. when the engine can't provide enough power no matter how much you push the yaw .

Sorry this doesn't make sense.

'no matter how much you push the yaw' - This needs clarifying.

I will repeat what I said earlier.

The same aircraft has been certified by the Ukrainian and Russian civil aviation authorities. The flight tests an aircraft would have to go through to achieve certification include VMCG/VMCA testing where an engine is idled (failed) post V1 at max take off weight.
The aircraft has to be able to continue to accelerate to take off speed and climb on a single engine and meet the 50ft obstacle clearance requirements.

Following engine failure, the aircraft can not deviate (I stand to be corrected on this point) more than 15m from the runway centreline in a lateral direction. Of course, this can only be achieved with a strong and sustained kick of the rudder.

Your claim is that the aircraft can not meet single engine climb gradients. In the event that this is the case, Iranian regulators need to be arrested and hanged for allowing an inherently unsafe aircraft to carry passengers.
 
I should clarify my post #86 as it is factually wrong.

include VMCG/VMCA testing where an engine is idled (failed) post V1

is incorrect.

Of course, whilst one engine out and VMCG/VMCA testing is done in tandem, VMCG/VMCA is always below V1.

You wouldn't want a situation where V1 is below VMCG/VMCA. If you were to suffer an engine failure in such an instance, there is a high probability that you will be going sideways off the runway.

This short vid does a much better job of explaining VMCG than I ever could (VMCA is the same but is the minimum safe speed in air not ground - subtle differences).

 
Right now that i was looking at the news i saw sonething intresting .
It seems in parliament there is talk that Head of Iran aviation organization claimed this airplane could not provide enough power in hot and humid weather (at the time of accident the weather was 40c ) but they later were allowed to fly this type of airplane if they reduced the weight (not carry full passenger and cargo) but this particular airplane not only flied with full passenger and cargo but also filled to the brim with fuel .and because of that after the failure of one engine it could not provide enough lift to stay airworthy.
عضو کميسيون عمران مجلس عنوان کرد: بار و مسافر بيش از ظرفيت عامل احتمالي سقوط هواپيماي آنتونف ۱۴۰

By the way it seems this flight was an Isfahan to Tehran to tabas flight and so they didn't check the engine in Tehran for any fault

Your claim is that the aircraft can not meet single engine climb gradients. In the event that this is the case, Iranian regulators need to be arrested and hanged for allowing an inherently unsafe aircraft to carry passengers.
I agree with you on this one 300%
Some one who is not the pilot needs to get hanged for this incident .
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom