Military Review

Does the accident of a Russian bomber in Yeysk repeat the scenario of the Irkutsk disaster in 1997?

128
Does the accident of a Russian bomber in Yeysk repeat the scenario of the Irkutsk disaster in 1997?

On December 6, 1997, an An-124 super-heavy transport aircraft crashed in Irkutsk during takeoff. The victims of the crash were 72 people. In this article, we will analyze what that plane crash and the Su-34 accident in Yeysk, which occurred on October 17, have in common.


And before proceeding to the main part, let's briefly analyze two frequently asked questions regarding the Su-34.

Was the length of the strip in Yeysk sufficient?


With a normal takeoff weight of the Su-34, 1300 meters is enough for a takeoff run. The length of the runway at the airfield from which the ill-fated aircraft took off is 3000 meters - more than enough for safe operation, so we can immediately exclude the option when the aircraft was operated in conditions that were not quite suitable for it or at the limit of calculated values.

Could the pilots have taken the plane to the side?



The building that the plane crashed into is marked in red in the screenshot (Krasnaya St., 47). It is located at a distance of 3700 meters from the end of the runway from which the Su-34 took off. Obviously, there was simply nowhere to “take away” the plane: the same distance to the left, to the right, and forward - residential development.

The fact that the point of impact is to the right of the runway axis may indirectly serve as a basis for the assumption that the left engine gave more thrust than the right one, which is quite consistent with the versions of failure and / or fire in the right engine.

What does the tragedy in Irkutsk have in common?


Combines these two stories the fact that the planes took off in the direction of a residential area, despite the fact that the opposite direction was almost empty.

It is obvious that if the Su-34 had taken off in the other direction, then it would not have crashed into any house. In Irkutsk, the situation was similar - in the screenshot below, the airfield and the crash site marked with a red marker.


There are two solutions here - one is less global and cheaper, the second is more complex and will require significant time and finances. Let's start with the simpler.

One of the scenarios in which an engine failure occurs implies that this failure occurs before the PIC (aircraft commander) has made the decision to take off, that is, at the moment when the aircraft is still on the ground. The key to this scenario is that if the PIC is confident that there is enough distance left to stop the aircraft, he simply aborts the takeoff and the aircraft stays on the ground. This is the best thing that can happen. Only a doubt that the plane will be able to SAFELY (!) Stop within the runway can force it to continue taking off.

In order to increase the likelihood of such an outcome, a special EMAS system has been developed. In essence, these are equipped end safety strips in which cells made of deformable material are installed. Rolling out of the runway, the plane, as it were, "gets stuck" in these "honeycombs", without receiving any serious damage, thanks to which it is possible to avoid the most terrible scenario - damage to fuel tanks and fire.


The video clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of such a system:


This solution requires a minimum of free space and is quite cheap both in installation and in subsequent operation. Despite this, Russia is in no hurry to implement such modern solutions in practice.

Air engine failure


The previous solution is cheap, but it does not cover all possible scenarios. But what if the failure occurred when the car is already in the air? For example, in Irkutsk, problems with the engine began 3 seconds after the An-124 took off from the ground. In the case of the Su-34, it is not known at what stage the problems arose. However, if they happen in the air, in this case there is only one option, like the An-124 - to continue the flight, hoping that the remaining engines will not fail and their thrust will be enough for a turn and an emergency landing.

And here one point is fundamentally important - anything can be called a formal reason for refusal. A bird that got into the engine, poor-quality fuel, poor-quality engine repairs, icing, etc. And formally, these reasons may be correct. That's just victims on the ground can be avoided if you stop launching planes in the direction of urban development.

Why did the plane take off towards the city?


The thing is that takeoff AGAINST the wind is more preferable - in this case, the speed of the oncoming air flow is added to the speed of the aircraft relative to the ground, and the lift force increases. However, in the case of the Su-34, this rule applies to a much lesser extent, since its thrust-to-weight ratio (power-to-weight ratio) is much higher than that of a passenger or cargo aircraft, which means a gain of 20 km / h, which can be obtained by taking off against wind, for him is not important.

The situation with the An-124 was less optimistic from the very beginning. The length of the runway is 2500 meters, which is close to the minimum requirements for such an aircraft, which means that the influence of the wind was more significant.

There is only one solution in this case - a legislative ban on building closer than 4 km from the end of the strip.


In the presented screenshot, just such a distance is marked in red. These building restrictions were introduced by the command of VCh 88503 with the assistance of the Ministry of Defense, and as practice shows, they are not a whim of officials, but serve as an example of reasonable rules designed to prevent the death of a large number of people.

Therefore, it is necessary to introduce clear regulations at the legislative level so that this issue is prescribed at the federal level, and not given to local authorities. Indeed, in the mentioned HF there were literate people who were not too lazy to deal with this issue, but there are no guarantees that they will be the same everywhere.

Of the operating airports where such a problem is relevant, I remember Sochi (Adler). Of the 1500 meters from the end of the strip to the sea, about 700 are built up - to put it mildly, not the safest place to live.

Despite all of the above, it is not known whether someone will solve this problem comprehensively, because in the media sphere it is quite possible to confine oneself to a narrower understanding of the problem - bad fuel or a flock of birds.
Author:
128 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Evgenijus
    Evgenijus 22 October 2022 06: 34
    -8
    From everything that the author of the article said, I understood that the state with its Ministry of Construction is to blame for the accident (aircraft crash). The crew of the plane is innocent of the crash.
    1. alexey sidykin
      alexey sidykin 22 October 2022 08: 48
      -7
      The development of cities is decided by the city authorities and not the federal ones ... so the state and the Ministry of Construction have nothing to do with it.
      1. rotkiv04
        rotkiv04 22 October 2022 09: 58
        +10
        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
        The development of cities is decided by the city authorities and not the federal ones ... so the state and the Ministry of Construction have nothing to do with it.

        if the state had worked out this issue at the legislative level, there would not have been these tragedies, I mean the victims of the population, but since there are all sorts of Kremlin eccentrics and their effective managers in power, then the result is the same - PR, fraud and theft
        1. Valnik
          Valnik 22 October 2022 14: 11
          +4
          The territories adjacent to the airfields were built up under the USSR. There were no managers back then. A brick house in Irkutsk on which Ruslan's tail was built by the MZhK under the USSR.
          The product of the plant also fell on the workshop of the aircraft factory during the USSR. You just want to stink.
          1. rotkiv04
            rotkiv04 22 October 2022 23: 23
            -3
            Quote from Valnik
            The territories adjacent to the airfields were built up under the USSR. There were no managers back then. A brick house in Irkutsk on which Ruslan's tail was built by the MZhK under the USSR.
            The product of the plant also fell on the workshop of the aircraft factory during the USSR. You just want to stink.

            well, it’s the same ill-mannered and in power, it pokes at strangers, it was brought up by the same ill-mannered parents, learn, sick, to start with a culture of communication, and then post what you don’t understand
        2. alexey sidykin
          alexey sidykin 22 October 2022 17: 42
          +3
          Once again, I say building has always been in the department of city authorities, not even regional ones ... this has been unchanged since the days of the USSR. If not before. So there is nothing to nod at the federal authorities. How to divide the money like this, the screams go. The Feds are depriving them of their lives, and they’re a little screwed up on the ground, then right away it’s not us, let the feds think for us ...
          1. Wbond
            Wbond 22 October 2022 22: 03
            +10
            ... in New Moscow, in the area of ​​approach (and take-off if the wind is in the other direction) near Vnukovo airport, namely Solarevo-Filatov Lug, they have set up and continue to build modern multi-storey residential complexes ... the airport claims that houses interfere with landing - a bad radar signal, etc. ..... as a result, a conflict with the developer, then the tenants who bought apartments cannot move in .... the question is - who gave permission to build high-rise buildings in this area? ... really the Kremlin ?. ..of course, the local authorities (at that time still the authorities of the Moscow region) ... "grandmothers" decide ... now they also built a metro there - golden land and square meters .... and you say safety!
      2. Cheshire
        Cheshire 22 October 2022 10: 23
        +10
        Quote: Alexey Sedykin
        The development of cities is decided by the city authorities and not the federal ones ... so the state and the Ministry of Construction have nothing to do with it.

        Slightly disagree. Indeed, the urban planning policy in the field of red building lines is determined by the decisions of local authorities, but the state still has leverage. Nobody canceled the vertical of power, there would be a desire. The point here is in a system that does not accept excess, in its own opinion. Managers are completely to blame, but no one had the desire to admit guilt and resign ... hi
        1. alstr
          alstr 22 October 2022 12: 13
          +5
          To be honest, the decision at the legislative level to transfer the issuance of permits to the level of municipalities is a mistake.
          As practice has shown, the lower level of self-government is seriously susceptible to corruption and / or cannot predict the development of not only its own municipality. but also neighboring ones.
          And the main reason is poor funding. As a result, there is an impulse, if not to take a bribe, then to build more, in order to receive more deductions later.
          For example, in Murino in the Len region, local comrades did not issue permits, but they could not provide sewerage, water and electricity capacities. As a result, part of the residential complexes could not be put into operation for several years. I am generally silent about the social sphere. My daughter was given a referral to kindergarten only when she was already going to school. Schools weren't very good either.
          And if you consider that there is an artillery range nearby, then it becomes quite fun.

          And so it continued until all construction issues were transferred to the regional level.
          And rightly so, because only at the level of the subject can the entire construction be more correctly designed. Because this is not only and not only residential buildings, but social programs, roads, transport. And that worked. that the municipalities issue permits, and the regions to build roads and provide transport.

          So it turns out like in the novel "Airport" by Haley (forgive me, 1968), first they built an airport, then housing around, and then residents began to complain about the noise.
          It’s about the same here.
          To be honest, it is mandatory to prohibit building in the alignment of the runway +/- some degrees. Otherwise, this will not be the last such disaster.
          1. svoroponov
            svoroponov 22 October 2022 15: 07
            +5
            In Soviet times, it was so (before Gorbachev's perestroika). Airfields, especially military ones, were not surrounded by housing. Near the airfields there were only military camps. And according to the take-off courses, it was GENERALLY forbidden to build capital buildings near airfields.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 24 October 2022 10: 34
            0
            Quote: alstr
            For example, in Murino in the Len region, local comrades did not issue permits, but they could not provide sewerage, water and electricity capacities.

            EMNIP, in those parts they still managed to rent an area without access roads. That is, in fact there is a road (concrete from slabs), but legally - no, because this is a temporary hut that was supposed to be dismantled after construction was completed. As a result - to hell with you, comrades, and not public transport - because it is impossible to lay a route.
            Murino. Abandon hope, everyone who enters here. smile
        2. alexey sidykin
          alexey sidykin 22 October 2022 17: 43
          -1
          In Soviet times, it was the same without any managers ...
        3. Machiavelli
          Machiavelli 22 October 2022 22: 29
          +1
          In this case, the leadership of the city of the times of the USSR is to blame. For the houses were built in the USSR.
      3. nickname7
        nickname7 23 October 2022 08: 13
        0
        Surely the Ministry of Construction has nothing to do with it, in the same states there have been adopted entire standards for the construction of cottage villages and the road network at the federal level, which is why their building development is the same throughout the country.

        Considering that the development of building standards, taking into account safety and usability, is a difficult task, it is better to develop it once and give it to the regions in finished form.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 24 October 2022 10: 41
          0
          Quote: nickname7
          Surely the Ministry of Construction has nothing to do with it, in the same states there have been adopted entire standards for the construction of cottage villages and the road network at the federal level, which is why their building development is the same throughout the country.

          Hailey reminded me of something...
          - When we settled here, no one knew that there would be such a hellish noise from your planes! A woman shouted from the crowd.

          “But we knew that!” - Mel turned to the woman. - The airport management knew that new heavy-duty airliners would be released, knew what noise they would make, and we warned individuals and the commissions operating in this area and persuaded them not to build houses here. I had not worked at the airport then, but photographs and protocols were preserved in our archive. The airport has placed stands around exactly where your town is now located: “AIRCRAFT WILL FLY AND GO IN LANDING ABOUT THIS AREA”.
          Other airports did the same. And all over the place, merchants and land sales agents plucked these ads. Then they sold land and houses to people like you, but they kept quiet about the noise and how the airport will grow, although they were usually well aware of it, so, as I understand it, these businessmen outwitted you and us.
          <...>
          - Many enterprising people profit from people like you: they sold land and houses in areas where land should not be built up or built up only by industrial enterprises, which airport noise cannot interfere with. Having given your money, you did not end up with a broken trough: you have plots and houses, but, unfortunately, both of them have fallen significantly in price.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. stankow
        stankow 22 October 2022 10: 54
        +9
        They ejected just in time. There was already nothing to do in the cockpit.
      2. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 22 October 2022 13: 11
        -1
        If the aircraft (for example, a fire licked the wiring of the SDU) failed the SDU, then there is nothing to do in the cockpit - the aircraft, completely uncontrollable, falls down like a stone.
        Or starts a chaotic rotation. It's impossible to take him away.
        And all due to the fact that the family of these aircraft with unstable aerodynamics.
      3. svoroponov
        svoroponov 22 October 2022 15: 10
        +5
        If the plane lost control and there was a fire on board with a possible explosion every second, then you need to eject. Otherwise, the crew will simply be added to the dead on the ground.
    3. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 22 October 2022 10: 38
      -1
      Quote: Evgenijus
      From everything that the author of the article said, I understood that the state with its Ministry of Construction is to blame for the accident (aircraft crash). The crew of the plane is innocent of the crash.

      There are several risk factors, one of them is the location of airfields near the city. You can ban development, or you can move the airfield away, or make the runway a little longer and take off in the opposite direction. I don’t think that the state would go bankrupt if it extended the runway by a couple of kilometers.
      1. svoroponov
        svoroponov 22 October 2022 15: 14
        +4
        She is there already 3000 meters, much further. And in terms of costs, it is so possible to liquidate housing at the take-off rate in a certain sector and build another one aside and further away, it will even be possible and cheaper. It is better to introduce the rule into the rules for operating the airfield that with this course, after retracting the landing gear, when climbing, create a left or right roll up to 15--30 degrees to bypass the settlement. training and more competently plan the performance of flights by type of training. This solution is optimal. Modern boards allow such a bypass immediately after cleaning the chassis (and even before cleaning) without problems.
        In general, those who gave permission for construction near the airfield are to blame. Believe me, they knew well about the risks of such construction.
      2. Machiavelli
        Machiavelli 22 October 2022 22: 32
        0
        The airfield was built in the sixties, the houses in the eighties.
    4. not main
      not main 23 October 2022 00: 27
      0
      Quote: Evgenijus
      From everything that the author of the article said, I understood that the state with its Ministry of Construction is to blame for the accident (aircraft crash). The crew of the plane is innocent of the crash.

      After the "passage" about taking off in the opposite direction ???! There is nothing to talk about! And that's why these buildings appeared, that's the question! I think everyone understands how much the land costs there. And here are hectares of the security zone! And that, as usual, the pilot is to blame?
    5. nickname7
      nickname7 23 October 2022 07: 58
      0
      in an accident (aircraft crash) the state is to blame

      Quite right, the construction is proceeding according to the norms established by the state. The same problem of officials' careless work is also manifested in the road system, when an intercity highway with one lane in each direction and head-on collisions are frequent when overtaking. Throughout the Russian Federation, there should be a modern road network with passive safety, with two lanes in each direction, with acceleration lanes with markings, etc. Airfields should be far from buildings.
  2. Bingo
    Bingo 22 October 2022 06: 39
    +23
    There, it was initially clear that they unequivocally ran into the building, the houses are right next to the strip. Locals say that Yeysk stands on a spit, they say the city is expanding - there is nowhere to escape from this, but there is nowhere to expand stupidly, that's why they built it up. And the flyers say that the devil’s airfield was built there, and it’s cheaper to move the city in general than the airfield.
    In short, a classic case of Russian maybe. But maybe, as always, he didn’t take it out. What is there to crush water in a mortar, the fault of the developers here is obvious and indisputable
    1. stelltok
      stelltok 22 October 2022 11: 14
      0
      and it’s cheaper to move a city than an airfield.

      And how much does it cost to build a new airfield away from the city?
      1. svoroponov
        svoroponov 22 October 2022 15: 36
        0
        About a billion somewhere, a modern military airfield with all the necessary infrastructure and such a runway length.
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 22 October 2022 18: 30
          -2
          Quote: svoroponov
          About a billion somewhere, a modern military airfield with all the necessary infrastructure and such a runway length.

          A billion is unlikely. I think 10 billion is more realistic.
        2. Cheshire
          Cheshire 23 October 2022 08: 08
          0
          hi Vyacheslav, unfortunately the order of prices is completely different. For comparison, the Castorama hypermarket with an area of ​​18600 sq.m with parking for 780 cars and connection to communications in 2018 cost 2.189 billion rubles on a turnkey basis. This is the cost of construction, without acquiring land.
          About a billion somewhere, a modern military airfield with all the necessary infrastructure and such a runway length.

          By analogy, the cost of constructing a runway without other structures cannot be less than 5, plus associated structures and automation. Pulls on 10, even taking into account the fact that an approximate contractor like "Spetsstroy" will build.
  3. VicktorVR
    VicktorVR 22 October 2022 06: 44
    +7
    We have every day drying over the city.
    Under Serdyukov, the squadron was transferred from the Far East to the airfield of the navigator school on the outskirts of the millionaire.
    Why did they do it at all?
    Why is it really impossible to take off / land in the other direction?
    Why not ban flights in the city? In addition to takeoff and landing, they circle at a low altitude.

    It’s cool, of course, to go through the windows of high-rise buildings with a roar and clank of glass, shoot a beautiful video and put it on the Web ...
  4. 78bor1973
    78bor1973 22 October 2022 06: 53
    +17
    A civilian airport is still a neighborhood, and here is a military airfield, an AL-31 in afterburner is not a civilian engine, it rumbles as it should - "moles will stall"! By the way, in Voronezh there is the same problem, all airfields are built with dense buildings! The local authorities are to blame, but the command did not insist. It is surprising how people live there, I lived in Semipalatinsk 7 km from the airfield, the MiG-25 when all the dishes take off at home rings.
    1. Bingo
      Bingo 22 October 2022 08: 04
      +3
      This is what surprises me more. My dacha is a warrior in the flight zone, and it was the same under the Union in the 90s ... Somewhere at the end of the 4s they were removed, and there was talk that it was precisely because of this - a reserve, nearby a recreational zone, villages, cottages, rest houses they say It’s logical, Christmas trees, you know, when you walk through the forest, someone switched to supersonic above your head - you will catch up with the moose. When the ringing in my ears stops. But it’s all rural, and here it’s cities ... It’s due to the fact that flyers cannot be evicted to a tent camp, except perhaps, which means a city will grow around the military camp, service there, shops, transport ... But one dog - airfields must be removed at least for the same 5-XNUMX km, and the flight zone can already be taken away from the city for sure - and it’s easy
    2. Eug
      Eug 22 October 2022 09: 08
      +2
      If the local authorities allocate a construction site to the military even near the airfield - believe me, there will be no disputes, it will be accepted with gratitude, if not with delight ...
      1. Bingo
        Bingo 22 October 2022 10: 36
        +7
        To those who build - there are no questions, since they gave you a site and said either this or nothing. Who gave permission and what did he get out of it?
        In general, it's time to take these goats for wheezing - there is such a mess all over the country. Remember the song "Malinka" by Friske. In, I had an internship there when I was an environmental student. Appreciated. Reserve of federal importance, there are even mushrooms - and then you can not collect. So also in the first sanitary protection zone of the reservoir there is a cottage village Malinka. What the **** allowed?!!! Ah, these are the dachas of the Prosecutor General's Office-uras ...
        1. Eug
          Eug 22 October 2022 11: 15
          +5
          At every power level there are people who live by the principle - if you can’t, but you really want to, then you can ... alas ...
    3. Eug
      Eug 22 October 2022 09: 13
      +3
      When in the Dnieper (as we called Dnepropetrovsk for short already in the late 80s) the MiG-25 took off, the entire air town, located approximately 3-4 km from the runway, perceived their roar as MUSIC OF FLIGHTS ... it was not alarming the roar of engines, and an unplanned lull ...
  5. strelec69
    strelec69 22 October 2022 07: 08
    +3
    Yes, in the region there are at least 2 more cities in which airfields are dangerously located, these are Krasnodar and Armavir.
    1. Sergey250455
      Sergey250455 22 October 2022 07: 34
      +7
      The city crawled dangerously close to the airfield the fastest. I know from Semipalatinsk. The military and civilians warned the city authorities not to crawl close to the airfield. There is steppe all around. There are places to build. But the city authorities decided to bring the development closer to the airfield
  6. couch
    couch 22 October 2022 07: 21
    +5
    in Russia, from time immemorial, the severity of laws has always been compensated by their non-execution, and therefore, no matter how much they shout about building residential buildings near airfields, this is a cry in the Bedouin desert. we got a small country
    1. Alexander_K
      Alexander_K 22 October 2022 12: 04
      +2
      Quote from sofa
      we got a small country

      And there is no forest in it, all the furniture is made of sawdust. Disgrace. The largest country in the world, the population is like in small Japan, and the land is more expensive than an apartment.
      Unreasonable greed. Disgrace.
      1. DenVB
        DenVB 22 October 2022 12: 44
        -2
        Quote: Alexander_K
        and the land is worth more than the apartment.
        Unreasonable greed. Disgrace.

        Do not make me laugh. Fifteen kilometers from the city (the capital of the region), you can buy old Soviet vegetable gardens of 5-6 acres for less than 100 thousand rubles. With a house, with a bath. Buy, live. You can build a good house. There is a road, there is electricity. They are not in demand. Too far to go, by our standards.
        1. goblin xnumx
          goblin xnumx 22 October 2022 16: 51
          +2
          well - make us laugh - in what kind of capital of the region is 15 km 5 acres less than 100 thousand?
          1. DenVB
            DenVB 22 October 2022 18: 18
            -2
            Quote: Leshy74
            well - make us laugh - in what kind of capital of the region is 15 km 5 acres less than 100 thousand?

            I do not want to name the city, for privacy purposes. But it's true. Why do you doubt it? We have quoted plots within 5 kilometers from the city. Here prices are about 100 thousand per hundred square meters. Further - much cheaper. At 20-25 kilometers from the city there are horticultural areas (they liked to give this under the Soviet regime) where most of the plots are simply abandoned, only weeds.
      2. Kurva18
        Kurva18 22 October 2022 12: 53
        +2
        Our land is an empty sea, but if you want to take it for use, this is where the problems begin. Dachas have been privatized for 15 years, but most of them have not been privatized.
  7. avia12005
    avia12005 22 October 2022 07: 27
    +7
    While there are no results of the investigation, no need to guess. Especially when they begin to argue why the plane took off in one direction and not in the other. One takeoff and landing course. And it happens that the engine or engines fail on landing. Or wing mechanization works on one wing, but not on the other. They also fall on landing. If you think like that, you need to build new airfields for combat aviation everywhere. Let Deripaska, Potanin and the escaped Chubais finance.
  8. Diviz
    Diviz 22 October 2022 07: 29
    0
    Let's say after takeoff go to the side and up and turn on the afterburner. Birds enter when the plane is in a horizontal position. Or just use airfields that are at the right distance from the village.
    1. avia12005
      avia12005 22 October 2022 08: 02
      +6
      Combat aircraft, as a rule, fly in afterburner and turn it on on the runway.
    2. ailcat
      ailcat 22 October 2022 17: 23
      +1
      It will be cheaper to demolish the village and rebuild it in a new place than an airfield. That's really cheaper.
  9. avia12005
    avia12005 22 October 2022 08: 00
    +8
    By the way: the author, in Yeysk is not an ACCIDENT, but a DISASTER. It would be necessary to study the classification of flight accidents. An accident is damage or complete destruction of an aircraft without loss of life. Disaster - with death.
  10. Eug
    Eug 22 October 2022 08: 52
    +5
    As for me, it is worth distinguishing between two causes - the catastrophe itself (a flight accident, albeit a serious one) and its consequences for the population. If the cause of the accident is sorted out by experts and conclusions are drawn, then the formation of a "safety zone" around airports is an interdepartmental task and requires the cooperation of the airport administration, local and federal authorities. The task is very difficult, because it requires curbing greed....
  11. your1970
    your1970 22 October 2022 09: 00
    +11
    The author forgot to indicate that
    1) taking off against the wind saves fuel. And it's not the cost - sometimes these liters are just not enough
    2) taking off against the wind saves the resource of the units. Even helicopters take off on an airplane for the sake of it.
    That is why, under the USSR, military airfields were built according to the wind rose where a strong wind blows all year round
    1. DenVB
      DenVB 22 October 2022 09: 11
      0
      Quote: your1970
      taking off into the wind saves fuel.

      It is unlikely. Taking off into the wind only saves runway length.
      1. your1970
        your1970 22 October 2022 11: 58
        +1
        Quote: DenVB
        Quote: your1970
        taking off into the wind saves fuel.

        It is unlikely. Taking off into the wind only saves runway length.

        Short run upwind with more lift = less time takeoff mode= fuel economy
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 22 October 2022 12: 36
          -2
          Quote: your1970
          Short upwind roll with more lift = faster takeoff time = fuel savings

          A very dubious argument. Already at a speed of about 10-20 meters per second, the main fuel consumption goes precisely to overcome air resistance. Accelerating into the wind or against the wind - the takeoff speed relative to the air is the same. A little more fuel will be used at the very beginning of acceleration to start moving relative to the ground, but this is not essential.

          Well, then - the plane needs to fly not relative to the air, but relative to the ground. Take off against the wind - you fly more slowly relative to the ground. To gain the same speed over the ground as when taking off into the wind, you will need to expend additional fuel. Which will more than eat up the initial savings during overclocking.

          From the point of view of economy, it is most profitable to take off in the direction where you need to fly. To avoid wasting fuel on U-turns.
  12. DenVB
    DenVB 22 October 2022 09: 05
    -5
    I think it's more the fault of the military. You can move the airfield to another place. Land near the city is very expensive. It is quite possible to sell this land for development, and with the proceeds to buy an equal plot of land for an airfield a few tens of kilometers from the city. Enough for the land and for the construction of the strip.

    It seems to be prevented by two factors. The first one is corrupt. None of the persons involved will want to sell the available land so that the money gets into the budget. We recall Vasilyeva and other "Serdyukov women" who chopped cabbage precisely on the privatization of the lands of the Moscow Region. And if you still can’t sell yourself out of your pocket, it’s better to hold on to a valuable asset until better times.

    The second factor is that the flyers simply do not want to leave the city. It's one thing when it's five minutes to go to work, and another thing when it's an hour. And many of the technical staff do not have cars - do they need to get to the service every day on the overhead? Building your own town near the airfield is even worse. Who wants to move out of the city? Nobody.
    1. dobrynin
      dobrynin 22 October 2022 10: 33
      +4
      Can you imagine what it means to "move the airfield to another place"??! Apparently, no .... Why write nonsense?
      1. DenVB
        DenVB 22 October 2022 10: 47
        -2
        Quote: dobrynin
        Can you imagine what it means to "move the airfield to another place" ??

        It just needs to be built somewhere else. And in the old place, of course, to remove. If you thought that I was proposing to lift the entire airfield and carry it in your arms to another place, then excuse me.
        1. ailcat
          ailcat 22 October 2022 17: 32
          +2
          Roughly: construction costs of 1 sq.m. WFP is about the same as the cost of building 1000 sq.m. housing (not in the capital and not even in a millionaire, of course. We are talking about cities like Yeysk or, say, Yaroslavl)
          So moving an entire area (especially the private sector) can easily turn out to be cheaper than building a new runway (and in addition to the runway, the entire infrastructure will need to be rebuilt, from taxiways and parking lots for aircraft to a toilet for the driver of a sewage truck)
          1. DenVB
            DenVB 22 October 2022 18: 10
            -3
            Quote: ailcat
            Roughly: construction costs of 1 sq.m. WFP is about the same as the cost of building 1000 sq.m. housing

            Well, that's... no need to flog nonsense... it hurts her.
            1. dobrynin
              dobrynin 29 October 2022 05: 56
              0
              Nonsense - these are your comments, joker. It's good to be stupid!
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. dobrynin
          dobrynin 29 October 2022 05: 50
          -1
          Are you a comedian? I'm sorry, getting angry at comedians is not respecting yourself. Look at how much it costs to "just build"
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 22 October 2022 10: 44
      0
      Quote: DenVB
      I think it's more the fault of the military. You can move the airfield to another place. Land near the city is very expensive. It is quite possible to sell this land for development, and with the proceeds to buy an equal plot of land for an airfield a few tens of kilometers from the city. Enough for the land and for the construction of the strip.

      It seems to be prevented by two factors. The first one is corrupt. None of the persons involved will want to sell the available land so that the money gets into the budget. We recall Vasilyeva and other "Serdyukov women" who chopped cabbage precisely on the privatization of the lands of the Moscow Region. And if you still can’t sell yourself out of your pocket, it’s better to hold on to a valuable asset until better times.

      The second factor is that the flyers simply do not want to leave the city. It's one thing when it's five minutes to go to work, and another thing when it's an hour. And many of the technical staff do not have cars - do they need to get to the service every day on the overhead? Building your own town near the airfield is even worse. Who wants to move out of the city? Nobody.

      Service buses were not invented yesterday.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 22 October 2022 12: 08
        0
        If we knew how many airfields with residential towns are located in such holes ... And the nearest city is tens or even hundreds of kilometers away.
      2. your1970
        your1970 22 October 2022 12: 09
        +3
        Quote: Pilat2009
        Quote: DenVB
        I think it's more the fault of the military. You can move the airfield to another place. Land near the city is very expensive. It is quite possible to sell this land for development, and with the proceeds to buy an equal plot of land for an airfield a few tens of kilometers from the city. Enough for the land and for the construction of the strip.

        It seems to be prevented by two factors. The first one is corrupt. None of the persons involved will want to sell the available land so that the money gets into the budget. We recall Vasilyeva and other "Serdyukov women" who chopped cabbage precisely on the privatization of the lands of the Moscow Region. And if you still can’t sell yourself out of your pocket, it’s better to hold on to a valuable asset until better times.

        The second factor is that the flyers simply do not want to leave the city. It's one thing when it's five minutes to go to work, and another thing when it's an hour. And many of the technical staff do not have cars - do they need to get to the service every day on the overhead? Building your own town near the airfield is even worse. Who wants to move out of the city? Nobody.

        Service buses were not invented yesterday.

        Yeah ......
        As well as the OBATO vehicle fleet, warehouses for fuels and lubricants, ATI and RAV, barracks for a security company, a canteen for flight personnel and soldiers, a food warehouse, a guardhouse and a duty room, and off we go ...
        It turns out suddenly - what needs to be built fully military town. With the entire infrastructure of the substation, water intake and sewerage ....
      3. alstr
        alstr 22 October 2022 12: 19
        +2
        Yeah. and in it in traffic jams on combat alert. lovely picture
    3. svoroponov
      svoroponov 22 October 2022 15: 55
      +2
      The military is completely irrelevant. Almost all military airfields were built far from cities and towns. These are cities and towns, slowly but surely, crawling,, to the airfields. First in the form of vegetable gardens, then dachas, and then the capital residential sector. Note, not industrial areas but residential. I notice this from a long flight practice. Until the 80s, it was forbidden to build any capital construction, especially housing, up to a certain distance from airfields. You would not even be allowed to build a capital cottage for that time, only garden houses. Closer to 90, this article was silently abolished and construction began, including capital construction of housing. At the same time, note that the industrial zones somehow did not fall into these sectors. That is, the legislation was carried out but selectively.
  13. Illanatol
    Illanatol 22 October 2022 09: 06
    -2
    There is only one solution in this case - a legislative ban on building closer than 4 km from the end of the strip.


    And if the building - before the runway appeared? Demolish an entire neighborhood to hell?
    Maybe it's easier to lengthen the runway? And take off in the opposite direction, even with the wind?
    In the event of a disaster in Irkutsk - aircraft overload plus pilot errors. It was worth taking the plane to the left of the course, reaching the local square, draining excess fuel, and then returning to the runway.
    But the pilots turned the plane 180 degrees, which led to a loss of speed and a fall. The plane fell with its nose to the runway, fell almost vertically (therefore, the building on which the tail rests is slightly destroyed).
    1. alstr
      alstr 22 October 2022 12: 25
      0
      Actually, the airfield has been there since 1931. And just in 2011, a new strip was built.
      1. Illanatol
        Illanatol 22 October 2022 13: 30
        +1
        When did construction start? By the way, the microdistrict was created for this enterprise, that is, an aircraft factory.
        "Just in 2011"... 15 years after the disaster. Better late than never?
        However, there are still takeoffs / flights over residential areas. Both transport and combat.
  14. ODERVIT
    ODERVIT 22 October 2022 09: 07
    +4
    An article for a current topic. Has the author heard anything about the stability and controllability of an aircraft at various stages of flight, in other words, about flight dynamics? I think that I did not study, and if I studied, I forgot. I also forgot what else from the "king of the peas" the GDP of the military airfield is equipped with ATU.
    It is rightly noted that only the state commission can draw conclusions.
    I agree that the issue of development should be addressed at the federal level.
  15. lisikat2
    lisikat2 22 October 2022 09: 08
    -3
    In Irkutsk - not high-quality fuel. Stepfather says "married gasoline".
    In Yeysk -? The husband claims that engine wear and the slightest "bump" is enough for the engine to turn off
    1. Pushkar
      Pushkar 22 October 2022 09: 23
      +2
      Quote from lisikat2
      Stepfather says "married gasoline".

      Aviation flies on kerosene, its quality must be checked before flights.
    2. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 22 October 2022 09: 28
      +6
      In Irkutsk - not high-quality fuel.
      Everything is easier there. An-124 had previously flown in from Vietnam, but stood all night with empty tanks, where the condensate froze. They refueled before takeoff, and during takeoff, the condensate clogged all the filters. A similar situation is envisaged, the filters are heated, and just before falling into one of the engines, kerosene still went, but it was too late. And all that was necessary was to follow the instructions - not to keep the device with empty tanks in the winter at the airfield. However, effective managers rule.
      1. ODERVIT
        ODERVIT 22 October 2022 17: 17
        +1
        In the autumn-winter period of operation of aviation equipment, liquid "I" (ethyl cellosolve) is added to the fuel. God forgive me, what garbage in the gray matter pops up.
        It is she, the liquid "I", that is the main one to exclude the possibility of crystallization of water dissolved in the fuel.
        It's just that, just a memory. We used to be... wink
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 22 October 2022 18: 11
          -1
          In the autumn-winter period of operation of aviation equipment, liquid "I" (ethyl cellosolve) is added to the fuel.
          Probably, should be added, however - the era of primitive capital accumulation, the 90s.
  16. Pushkar
    Pushkar 22 October 2022 09: 17
    +6
    The ease of advice in the comments is striking - do not take off in a "built-up" direction, move the airfield. How about a second-round approach in case of a malfunction, poor visibility, unavailability of reception (they didn’t have time to clean the runway) or, God forbid, a flurry? The transfer of the airfield essentially means its elimination in this direction. A modern airfield is a complex engineering complex that requires a constant supply of consumables, electricity, ground-based air defense, etc. In fact, it is cheaper and easier to remove an urban area, and even more so a summer house, which is interfered with by some "warriors" and "flyers" .
    1. DenVB
      DenVB 22 October 2022 10: 36
      -5
      Quote: Pushkar
      A modern airfield is a complex engineering complex

      You exaggerate this.

      Quote: Pushkar
      requiring a constant supply of consumables, electricity

      Well, any place where people live and work also requires a constant supply of consumables and electricity.

      Quote: Pushkar
      ground air defense

      What, Shell or Thor will not be able to move to a new place? If they are there at all.

      Quote: Pushkar
      It's actually cheaper and easier to clean up an urban area

      There, the entire central part of Yeysk will have to be removed.
      1. Pushkar
        Pushkar 22 October 2022 12: 13
        +1
        Quote: DenVB
        There, the entire central part of Yeysk will have to be removed.

        And it will be cheaper than cleaning up the airfield. Unfortunately, the topic is too extensive and deep, I would ask one of the airfield specialists to create a special article on this. At one time, I had a chance to build a line of 10 square meters, no, not to the airfield itself, but to the station for receiving and pumping fuel, then it went through a 5 km pipeline to a centralized refueling station. Suppose, 10 Su-34s were rolled out for planned training flights, full refueling was 12 kg of fuel, we refuel a third for a training flight - 100 kg, the planned number of sorties is 4000-4 (i.e. approximately 5 sorties). 45x45=4000 kg. Those. during planned studies, the consumption of 180 tons of fuel per week (flights 000 times a week). A four-axle railway tank holds 360 tons of fuel, an eight-axle one - 2 tons. Those. 60 four-axle tanks per week, during combat work - more. I won’t talk about electricity, building materials and the rest of the MTO. According to the ZRV - the airfield is an object and protection is object, not military.
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 22 October 2022 12: 26
          -2
          Quote: Pushkar
          And it will be cheaper than cleaning up the airfield.

          Sorry, but that's not even funny.

          Quote: Pushkar
          At one time, I had a chance to build a line of 10 square meters, no, not to the airfield itself, but to the station for receiving and pumping fuel, then it went through a 5 km pipeline to a centralized refueling station. Suppose, 10 Su-34s were rolled out for planned training flights, full refueling was 12 kg of fuel, we refuel a third for a training flight - 100 kg, the planned number of sorties is 4000-4 (i.e. approximately 5 sorties). 45x45=4000 kg. Those. during planned studies, the consumption of 180 tons of fuel per week (flights 000 times a week). A four-axle railway tank holds 360 tons of fuel, an eight-axle one - 2 tons. Those. 60 eight-axle tanks per week, during combat work - more.

          Very interesting calculations. AND?

          Quote: Pushkar
          I won’t talk about electricity, building materials and the rest of the MTO.

          Well, tell me. What will happen to electricity and building materials 20 kilometers from Yeysk?

          Quote: Pushkar
          According to the ZRV - the airfield is an object and protection is object, not military.

          The shell will not travel 20 kilometers?
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 22 October 2022 10: 47
      -4
      Quote: Pushkar
      The ease of advice in the comments is striking - do not take off in a "built-up" direction, move the airfield. How about a second-round approach in case of a malfunction, poor visibility, unavailability of reception (they didn’t have time to clean the runway) or, God forbid, a flurry? .

      I wonder how it affects the above removal of the airfield by 10 kilometers?
      1. ailcat
        ailcat 22 October 2022 17: 41
        +1
        Removal - nothing.
        But the transfer - in the form of capital costs, which would be enough for residential development with an area 2-3 times larger than the area of ​​​​the airfield
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 23 October 2022 14: 42
          0
          Quote: ailcat
          Removal - nothing.
          But the transfer - in the form of capital costs, which would be enough for residential development with an area 2-3 times larger than the area of ​​​​the airfield

          By the way, less than three days have passed, another plane crashed on the house
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol 24 October 2022 13: 56
            -1
            That's what flying over the city leads to. And all that was needed was to take off in a different direction and conduct test flights over an uninhabited area. Or do our fighters also need a headwind to take off?
            Even if so. In general, in Irkutsk the wind is usually north, so take off against the wind - just in the north direction. But it is necessary to fly over the city, to show off, probably. Well, at least this time no civilians were killed (according to the first reports).
  17. Sergey_52
    Sergey_52 22 October 2022 09: 31
    +1
    One can recall the example of the city of Gorky, now Nizhny Novgorod, when during the tests of the MIG-21bis there was also an accident that caused the plane to crash in a residential area. Miraculously (not without the participation of the pilot), serious consequences were avoided. Since then (1980), the airfield has been approached only from the sparsely populated part.
    1. ailcat
      ailcat 22 October 2022 17: 43
      0
      For factory flights, you can also wait a week or two for a suitable wind (well, you will have to fly around not 1, but 2-3 cars in one flight day - it’s decided).
      For combat training, this is no longer very rolling, and for regular flights it is not an option at all.
  18. Vasilyevich Pensioner
    Vasilyevich Pensioner 22 October 2022 09: 32
    +2
    Does the accident of a Russian bomber in Yeysk repeat the scenario of the Irkutsk disaster in 1997?
    The author on the hot decided to earn money. I don't see any other point in this article.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 24 October 2022 13: 26
      -1
      Quote: Vasilyevich Pensioner
      Does the accident of a Russian bomber in Yeysk repeat the scenario of the Irkutsk disaster in 1997?
      The author on the hot decided to earn money. I don't see any other point in this article.

      The meaning of this material is so that there are no such tragedies. Otherwise, somehow planes often began to fall on houses
      1. Vasilyevich Pensioner
        Vasilyevich Pensioner 24 October 2022 15: 03
        0
        Yes, even if he fantasizes a bunch of such materials, only he will be of any use - denyuzhka drips on hot news. Accidents do not occur according to the scenario, in each case there is a reason that cannot be foreseen by the article, no matter how hard the author tries. Only specialists can do this.
  19. Gorynych_1977
    Gorynych_1977 22 October 2022 09: 41
    +8
    In Krasnodar the same situation. Earlier, on the outskirts of the city, a flight school was built in Soviet times. For all types of aircraft and helicopters training. During the Chechen campaigns, it was used as an airfield. In modern times, as a transit point in addition for all the military. But... There used to be fields around. Then there were dachas. Now the dacha buildings have been transferred to the "Musical" MKR, the one that stands from the end of the GDP, and other MKRs on the other sides. The most funny thing is that cadets take off, and in most cases, over houses. And a cadet is not an experienced pilot, there is more risk. And in Muzykalny live comers who yell - why is there a military airfield in the city, demolish it. And the fact that their houses were illegally erected by Armenians from country houses, with proximity from each other, the width of a suit, they don’t care. The principle - why do we need a flight school, if we live here and the sea is nearby. And yes .... We found the last one in construction and legalization. Someone was imprisoned, someone escaped, but no one from the city administration answered for the signatures. Something like this
  20. frog
    frog 22 October 2022 09: 47
    -2
    Actually, a rare case when, despite the captain's obviousness, I agree with the author.
    The problem began even in the Union, when they stupidly spat on some things. But not for everything. After that, they began to spit on much more significant ..... We know the result. And this applies not only to buildings in the exclusion zone. For the latter, we can mention the already announced decision of the RF Armed Forces. A figure of 30 km is mentioned there ...... So what? Purely IMHO, but two-thirds of the runways in Russia are built up (but about the exclusion zone, esssno)).
    In some cases, as in the one mentioned in the article, you can decide the direction of takeoff / landing, but why? The traditional "I don't care, it will do." We see the result. And if you decide systematically, this, in addition to .... "inconveniences", is also a lot of money. And at whose expense is the banquet? Yes, there are (probably)) documents with signatures .... So what? Some - Soviet times yet, some - later ..... What's the point? Someone proposes to close all the perpetrators? It's not funny. And to correct the situation, as I already said, we need a bunch of old women .... Who would give ..... It’s for this .... And who wouldn’t piss her correctly ...... The same MO even " problematic "runway uses all the way, and nothing .....
  21. bober1982
    bober1982 22 October 2022 10: 35
    0
    I started reading the article, and then abandoned it, there was no point in continuing.
    The takeoff is made against the wind, hence the direction of the takeoff course is determined.
    Why did the plane take off towards the city, asks iksperd, .... and this is called analytics, it's worse not to find such stupid analysts.
  22. Rusfaner
    Rusfaner 22 October 2022 10: 36
    +11
    Quote: dobrynin
    Well, they are not heroes ... They went nuts,
    catapulted quickly. It's not for us to judge them!


    Here's what's floating around the web:
    According to Yeisk...

    Good afternoon.
    The crew has been checked, in the hospital, everything is in order. The navigator received five stitches in his ass. Landed on a fence. Caught in a flock of birds. At the end of the strip collected 17 pieces. The left one immediately failed, the right one died a little more slowly. Just spoke to the pilot's father. Served together, resigned from the academy in July this year. According to the incident in Yeisk. The pilot laid the car on the road between the house and the Magnit hypermarket. At the last moment gave a left roll. Eyewitnesses watched. Before that, I walked at an angle of 45 to the house. The plane hit the ground and just rolled over onto the house. If he had entered the house, or even worse, would have fallen on the hypermarket, at 18 hours 11 minutes (there were 100 people in the store after work), the consequences would have been much sadder. At the rate, strictly a second earlier - a kindergarten, 150 children in the yard, 150 parents, 30 staff, plus the yard of the house. We went to the left, tangentially touched the house, at that moment - the most empty place, there is a road ahead on it, at that moment, a traffic jam, on the ring, further behind the road - refueling, linger for 0,3 seconds, then there will be more victims and they themselves would die , according to calculations, jumped 0,7 seconds before impact with the ground. So thank you and kudos to them. Problems with the engine began after the takeoff, one was on fire, the second lost momentum, and the city was already under the wing, you can’t blame it, the decision was right. Thank them! Yes, the greed of the city authorities is amazing, because in 1972 the cadet Laguta showed what happens with an emergency after takeoff, but then there was a wasteland, now they built up behind the "red lines" of the general plan, and now let the Ministry of Defense remove the airfield because of the threat, during an emergency , lives of residents?
  23. koralevviktor
    koralevviktor 22 October 2022 10: 48
    -3
    Then many claimed about betrayal, i.e. perfect sabotage. Only then about the incompetence of the personnel who prepared the ship for the flight. This time, things can be much more prosaic. The only question is whether we are ready for it.
  24. DenVB
    DenVB 22 October 2022 11: 14
    0
    By the way, they have an interesting collection there in Yeysk. Does everything fly?

    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 October 2022 11: 07
      +1
      Quote: DenVB
      By the way, they have an interesting collection there in Yeysk. Does everything fly?

      And what is there?
      Eternal Il-62 (no replacement), a pair of UBLs (no replacement), Tu-154, An-26, An-72 and a pair of Il-38. Oh yes, also "Albatrosses" and Su-25 (the last one, by the way, from the "Kuznetsov" group).
      The 154s are still flying even in civilian companies.

      In addition, this is the airfield of the MA Navy. Machines are operated in it to the last, because our naval aviation is the same last little pig.
      1. DenVB
        DenVB 24 October 2022 11: 31
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        An-72

        I don't see that.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 24 October 2022 16: 18
          0
          Quote: DenVB
          Quote: Alexey RA
          An-72

          I don't see that.

          Yes, you are right - on the right in the center of the Be-200. At first it seemed to me that the engines were above the wing.
  25. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 22 October 2022 12: 06
    +1
    The fact that the point of impact is to the right of the runway axis may indirectly serve as a basis for the assumption that the left engine gave more thrust than the right one, which is quite consistent with the versions of failure and / or fire in the right engine.

    In general, after takeoff, planes always leave with a roll to the right or left, laying down on a course. Both civilian and military. The assumption in this case may not be entirely correct.
    1. Illanatol
      Illanatol 22 October 2022 13: 46
      0
      Just before that, they still gain height. Such maneuvers at ultra-low altitude are fraught in themselves.
      What height could a heavily loaded Ruslan reach a few seconds after takeoff? He flew over the roofs of five-story buildings, almost touching the antennas.
  26. lelik613
    lelik613 22 October 2022 12: 55
    -2
    The ultimate culprit is the flight director.
    It was he who gave the take-off route.
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov 22 October 2022 16: 35
      +1
      If you do not know the duties of the flight director, then it is better to be silent.
      1. lelik613
        lelik613 22 October 2022 17: 46
        0
        Well, give out a terrible secret, do not keep it in yourself, you will burst ...
  27. Illanatol
    Illanatol 22 October 2022 13: 40
    -1
    Quote: Pushkar
    The ease of advice in the comments is striking - do not take off in a "built-up" direction, move the airfield. How about a second-round approach in case of a malfunction, poor visibility, unavailability of reception (they didn’t have time to clean the runway) or, God forbid, a flurry? The transfer of the airfield essentially means its elimination in this direction. A modern airfield is a complex engineering complex that requires a constant supply of consumables, electricity, ground-based air defense, etc. In fact, it is cheaper and easier to remove an urban area, and even more so a summer house, which is interfered with by some "warriors" and "flyers" .


    Cheaper and easier? Relocate 50-70 thousand people? How do you imagine it in modern conditions?
    Maybe it was still worth more carefully choosing a place for the airfield? And make the runway with a fair margin and take off not over residential areas, but in the opposite direction. Or is the same runway cleaner in one direction than in the other, and the squall acts differently depending on the takeoff direction?
    In Irkutsk, the civilian airport is not in the best place, and therefore there were catastrophes there too. A decision has already been made to build a new one ... but, probably, it was worth moving the city to a new place. laughing
    1. DenVB
      DenVB 22 October 2022 14: 04
      -1
      Quote: Illanatol
      In Irkutsk, and the civil airport is not in the best place

      And in London?
    2. ailcat
      ailcat 22 October 2022 17: 54
      +3
      The place for the airfield was chosen 90 years ago. But for apartment buildings - less than 20 years ago. So who should have chosen the place more carefully?
      And one more thing: to build a microdistrict for 50-70 thousand people (and in all of Yeysk, how many inhabitants will at least be typed?) - this is at most a quarter of the cost of transferring the airfield. Or maybe even 10-15%, given the parameters of the Yeysk runway
    3. svoroponov
      svoroponov 24 October 2022 09: 27
      0
      One more time for everyone. Airfields are not approaching settlements. They were all originally built outside of them, when there were no settlements nearby or they were far away. This construction or expansion of settlements crawled under the side or right next to the airfields. Well, the airfield was moved. And where is the guarantee that this will not happen again in 15-20 years? And the civilian structure built in this zone is immediately demolished without notice by the military. Maybe it will be better this way. And this is without a statute of limitations.
      1. DenVB
        DenVB 24 October 2022 11: 45
        0
        Quote: svoroponov
        It is necessary to legislatively introduce a security zone around airfields within a radius of 15 ---- 25 kilometers, where any capital construction is prohibited, except for military facilities.

        To do this, the airfield must be initially built at such a distance from existing settlements. You look at the map of Yeysk. There the city is sandwiched between the airfield and the estuary. Moreover, the runway is built in such a way that it cuts the city in its current form exactly in half. Perhaps the city was originally much smaller, but it clearly had nowhere else to expand. It was possible, of course, to leave an undeveloped safety strip 500 meters wide in the alignment of the runway, but this is still unrealistic in our conditions. Moving an airfield is cheaper.
  28. Eule
    Eule 22 October 2022 13: 55
    0
    IMHO the cheapest would be to rename the administration of Yeysk without touching the city itself. "Gay administration" - just two letters to make for the facade, and the psychological effect would be good to stimulate the resettlement of high-rise buildings from the glide path, and their demolition.
    Only private houses make sense under the glide path - they are lower, and if anything, there will be only a few dead, not hundreds.
    1. ailcat
      ailcat 22 October 2022 17: 55
      +1
      And private cannot be. Only temporary (dachas) or non-residential (warehouses)
      It's within a 5 mile (8 km) zone in the sector, if memory serves, +/- 5 degrees off the runway heading. It seems that I am not confusing the numbers of PAT zones (but maybe I am confusing - then housing cannot be built up to 15 km)
  29. alexey sidykin
    alexey sidykin 22 October 2022 17: 46
    -3
    Over in the States every year planes fall on houses and no one cares about this ... and we have another reason to criticize the authorities.
  30. Blark_the_Orc
    Blark_the_Orc 22 October 2022 18: 19
    +1
    In Perm, planes take off not on the red line, as in the screenshot, but in the opposite direction, where there are no buildings at all for tens of kilometers. But when landing, they go through the whole city ..
  31. Cvgt23
    Cvgt23 22 October 2022 20: 43
    -2
    What are you surprised. Laws and regulations in Russia are like a drawbar where they turn there and it came out. We know everything, but we repeat. Because stability. Who built the airfield in Irkutsk ..... A little lower there are wonderful berry fields along the left bank of the hangar. There is little land. gasoline. Machines. Well, the roads are narrow. Airports within the city. You can understand small countries. There is no earth at all. But there is space here. Everything is not right.
  32. electronics
    electronics 22 October 2022 21: 24
    -5
    here it must be admitted that according to modern standards of reliability, our military aviation is complete rubbish, there is another version that it was shot down on takeoff by MANPADS, then it must be admitted that the protection of military airfields is to hell.
  33. Nikoha2010
    Nikoha2010 22 October 2022 23: 29
    -1
    I do not read the text, but immediately in the comments. There adequate and all answers with +! We lived in PrikVO
    Stry. Above us (they lived for 11 years) everything flew and at the same time never fell! To TECH questions! In Hungary, 2 MI-6 YuGV chopped themselves with blades in the fog, I remember 1979-1980 something like this. But this is different!
  34. Briz
    Briz 23 October 2022 02: 52
    -1
    From everything that the author of the article said, I understood that the state with its Ministry of Construction is to blame for the accident (aircraft crash).

    This is also true. Each accident has a position and a surname and a name
  35. alex967
    alex967 23 October 2022 14: 48
    0
    SU-30SM crashed in Irkutsk today. Today at Novo-Lenino. It seems that no one died except for the pilots.
  36. Alex Nevs
    Alex Nevs 23 October 2022 14: 51
    0
    It's good to whine in a vest. Do not fall where nothing flies! ! ! Shout it out loud for the especially intellectually "gifted" ..... a neighboring country isn't it?
    1. Illanatol
      Illanatol 24 October 2022 14: 03
      -1
      Thank you reassured. They do not fall where there is no bungling and disregard for their citizens.
  37. The centurion
    The centurion 23 October 2022 15: 36
    -1
    Quote: VicktorVR
    Why is it really impossible to take off / land in the other direction?

    Under Governor Yurevich, they rubbed this issue for 2 years, so nothing worthwhile was decided. And the people were never explained "Why is it really impossible to take off / land in the other direction?". Until now, Sushki and Carcasses take off and land over the millionth city of Chelyabinsk. Apparently they are waiting for when one of them crashes into a city or a factory. And on the other side of the airfield there is no city, only forest, lakes and steppe. Miracles and more.
    1. DenVB
      DenVB 24 October 2022 11: 54
      0
      Quote: Centurion
      Until now, Sushki and Carcasses take off and land over the millionth city of Chelyabinsk. Apparently they are waiting for when one of them crashes into a city or a factory.

      Not only can it crash, but flights over the city by themselves hardly add comfort to residents. Noise, you know...
  38. Arbeiternegast
    Arbeiternegast 23 October 2022 18: 50
    0
    Quote: Cheshire
    hi Vyacheslav, unfortunately the order of prices is completely different. For comparison, the Castorama hypermarket with an area of ​​18600 sq.m with parking for 780 cars and connection to communications in 2018 cost 2.189 billion rubles on a turnkey basis. This is the cost of construction, without acquiring land.
    About a billion somewhere, a modern military airfield with all the necessary infrastructure and such a runway length.

    By analogy, the cost of constructing a runway without other structures cannot be less than 5, plus associated structures and automation. Pulls on 10, even taking into account the fact that an approximate contractor like "Spetsstroy" will build.

    Listen, what 10 billion? The ski jump for the Olympics cost 9,3 billion, at prices up to 2014. And the airfield with all the infrastructure and, most importantly, our honest officials, will easily pull a hundred lard.
    1. DenVB
      DenVB 24 October 2022 11: 57
      +1
      Quote: Arbeiternegast
      The ski jump for the Olympics cost 9,3 billion, at prices up to 2014.

      Olympic construction sites, like the entire Olympics, were conceived for mega-cutting. A military airfield can be built in a more discreet way. Ten billion seems like a reasonable amount.
      1. Arbeiternegast
        Arbeiternegast 24 October 2022 22: 37
        0
        A military airfield can be built in a more discreet way.[
        And you ask about the discreet way of Serdyukov and Vasilyeva! Yes, and Shoigu flashed at first with a temple, and with the start of mobilization and uniforms, as many as 1,5 million sets, everyone around is cracking about it. Yes, and Rogozin is an example of restraint ... With a cosmodrome ...
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 24 October 2022 22: 42
          0
          Quote: Arbeiternegast
          And you ask about the discreet way of Serdyukov and Vasilyeva!

          And they didn't build anything.

          Quote: Arbeiternegast
          Yes, and Shoigu first flashed a temple

          Let this one build. He loves it.
    2. ailcat
      ailcat 24 October 2022 14: 36
      +1
      There is also a relatively recent example - Gagarin Airport.
      22 billion in 2019 prices for the airport itself (they write that the passenger complex was built at the expense of investors, so it is not clear whether it is included in this amount or only the airfield itself is included in it),
      plus 4,9 billion external communications (access road, power lines, water, sewerage, etc.)
    3. svoroponov
      svoroponov 26 October 2022 09: 11
      +1
      Might be more expensive than what I quoted. But the military and the materials are not being built at commercial prices.
      But to resettle two dozen high-rise buildings at the rate of rise, by building new housing and transferring communications will probably be cheaper than building a new, of this class, airfield
  39. nickname7
    nickname7 24 October 2022 10: 44
    0
    Well, they jinxed it, in Irkutsk the plane crashed again.
    1. Illanatol
      Illanatol 24 October 2022 14: 01
      0
      Unjustified risk sooner or later leads to sad results.
  40. Illanatol
    Illanatol 24 October 2022 14: 12
    0
    Quote from Cvgt23
    What are you surprised. Laws and regulations in Russia are like a drawbar where they turn there and it came out. We know everything, but we repeat. Because stability. Who built the airfield in Irkutsk ..... A little lower there are wonderful berry fields along the left bank of the hangar. There is little land. gasoline. Machines. Well, the roads are narrow. Airports within the city. You can understand small countries. There is no earth at all. But there is space here. Everything is not right.


    The airfield was built together with the local aircraft factory (in the 30s), the airfield is needed by the aircraft factory, therefore - within the factory line. The plant needed a lot of workers, and so the microdistrict (Irkutsk-2) grew up, in which these workers lived and still live. With transport, both personal and public, it used to be stressful, because residential buildings are right next to the enterprise.
    But why they take off in the direction of the microdistrict and the city is a mystery. What prevents you from taking off in the opposite direction - HZ.