Crash: Silk Way IL76 near Bagram on Jul 6th 2011, impacted mountain

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 10:51Z, last updated Monday, Sep 5th 2011 14:44Z

A Silk Way Airlines Ilyushin IL-76 on behalf of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), registration 4K-AZ55 performing a freight flight from Baku (Azerbaijan) to Bagram Air Force Base (Afghanistan) with 9 crew and 18 tons of cargo (automobiles and trailers), was on approach to Bagram's Air Force Base, located about 22.5 nm north of Kabul, when radar contact was lost with the aircraft that was flying about 13.5nm from Kabul descending through 4000 meters/13000 feet at around 00:10L (19:40Z Jul 5th), no emergency call and no report about any anomaly had been received from the crew. The aircraft was located in flames on a mountain side near Akhshay in the Ghorband/Syahgerd district at 3800 meters of elevation. Four bodies have been recovered from the crash site, the remaining 5 people are still listed missing.

The provincial governor reported eight bodies were recovered from the crash site, it was impossible the ninth could have survived the impact. The airplane broke up in about 10 larger parts.

The Ghorband district is located just west of the Kabul and Bagram districts.

On Aug 29th 2011 Russia's Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) reported the cockpit voice recorder of 4K-AZ55 arrived at their laboraties. The recorder was damaged, the tape however was in good condition and all data have been downloaded. First checks show an inflight emergency. The investigation is conducted by Afghan's Aviation Authorities with the support by Russia's MAK.

On Sep 5th 2011 Azerbaijan's Civil Administration ruled out any external influence into the crash of the aircraft according to preliminary results into the investigation. DNA examinations of the human remains recovered revealed that they belong to 4 persons. The remaining 5 people are still missing.

Metars Kabul:
OAKB 052250Z 00000KT CAVOK 22/01 Q1014 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 052150Z 06003KT CAVOK 21/01 Q1014 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 052050Z 05003KT CAVOK 22/03 Q1014 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 051950Z 35001KT CAVOK 25/M03 Q1014 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 051850Z 33008KT CAVOK 26/M04 Q1014 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 051750Z 34008KT CAVOK 28/M03 Q1013 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 051650Z 05006KT CAVOK 26/03 Q1012 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 051550Z 08006KT CAVOK 28/04 Q1012 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU

Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth):

Ghorband Map (Graphics: AIMS):

Reader Comments: (the comments posted below do not reflect the view of The Aviation Herald but represent the view of the various posters)

By (anonymous) on Monday, Aug 29th 2011 20:09Z

Being a General Director of an air transport operation branch (not a CEO, but a good hatred target too) I can tell you the pilots are less connected to the reality of the company they work for than management.

When the pilots perceive something is really really wrong, water is above waistline already. Mechanics and engineers have a much better nose for deviations and they are usually the first to "shout wolf".

In my company we keep pilots, engineers and unions aware of how our bottomline and key performance indicators of the company are going monthly, so everybody knows they work for the bottomline, the shareholders and the almighty God of Money and also everybody knows management and operations people will share the same fate if we don't deliver.

terrible
By hojira on Monday, Aug 29th 2011 19:53Z

what an awful loss... my condolences to the families and friends.
Let's hope that once the final report is released, we all can learn something from this tragedy; the least we can do.

about the "cheap not safe"
By Sergio on Monday, Aug 29th 2011 15:29Z

While the CEOs and directors of near-broken companies keep getting 7+ digit bonuses, simply the message to the public will be "we don't care about the service, we just want all the money we can get". The internal feedback is practically inexistent. I like that program "Undercover boss"....it shows how disconnected are the management with the reality of their own company.

By (anonymous) on Monday, Aug 29th 2011 13:56Z

Sorry Dan, customers would still buy the cheaper ticket and demand compulsory installation of the new technology

@Visitor
By Ricardo on Monday, Aug 29th 2011 13:24Z

Nice words

@anonymous
By Dan on Tuesday, Jul 12th 2011 00:49Z

"People want cheap...not safe..."

Well, that is an issue.

But think of the marketing aspects. If I were an airline operator with thermal imagers, my ad campaigns would say "What our pilots see" (caption for a thermal image clearly showing mountain tops straight ahead), then "What our competitors' pilots see" (caption for an image of a completely opaque windscreen).

Passengers, most not remotely familiar with modern avionics/nav aids, would flock to my ticket counters in droves, and my pilots would be quite grateful for the genuine reduction in their stress.

The imagers would pay for themselves in no time. What do you think?

IL 76 4K-AZ55
By Alex on Saturday, Jul 9th 2011 18:13Z

IL 76 4K-AZ55 in 2011 SAFA inspectors inspected three times was not made any findings.

By (anonymous) on Thursday, Jul 7th 2011 19:42Z

Dan,

"There are just no more excuses for not having it in planes which fly in all weather and at all hours. "

People want cheap...not safe...

Yet another case for....
By Dan on Thursday, Jul 7th 2011 04:06Z

...thermal imagers?

To all operators, before you add another aircraft to your fleet let's just add thermal imagers to the planes you already have instead.

And no, I am not concluding this was CFIT "before the report comes out." But CFIT remains a terrible fact of life simply because humans are not perfect and it is never going to stop until pilots are allowed to see with their own eyes what lay ahead and below. How many "potential" CFITs have we seen in just the past two years? More than is acceptable, especially now that technology exists which could conceivably put an end to them, to say nothing of reducing the worst stress pilots face. There are just no more excuses for not having it in planes which fly in all weather and at all hours.

What a sad and needless loss. May God give these families some relief from their pain.

@Koos
By bluicejag on Thursday, Jul 7th 2011 02:03Z

True, Silk Way Airlines (Azerbaijan) have not been on EU blacklist.
Indonesian carriers were banned from EU in JUN/2007 due civil aviation admin issues, however early 2009 Garuda Indonesia and a few others granted exemption for independantly satisfying EU standard, the others (50 or so) are still banned. Garuda now operate daily to AMS?
Silk Air however are a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, based in SIN, and have never been subject to the Indo/EU ban.

IL-76 loss
By Visitor on Thursday, Jul 7th 2011 01:27Z

The bodies haven't stopped burning yet, and already so much baseless speculation and guess work abounds.

I fly in that location regularly. The terrain is very rough. Communications are sporadic and imprecise. The airspace is thick with aircraft, much of it unmanned. Hostiles abound.

Anything could have happened to the aircraft. Surface to air threats, terrain, pilot error, mid-air, or a host of other potentialities.

None of us know what happened. Guesswork dishonors the dead and doesn't speak well of the guesser.

Wait and see. For those who also fly in that area, fly safe.

some speculating
By dendar on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 23:06Z

has anyone here flown this approach? how is the airplane intended to fly?

this looks like an obvious controlled flight into terrain.

Modern Aircraft, CFIT
By bob on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 22:37Z

That aircraft was built in 2005, which is modern...shouldn't it have some type of terrain avoidance system that works independent of altimeter settings?

Looks like they hit the mountain peak, in darkness.

Does the pilot have to manually enter the altimeter sea level settings for where they are flying to?

Thx Koos
By DRC on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 19:33Z

Thanks for the url. Interesting read. Am off to West Africa in a few months - will carefully pick and choose how I get around! :-)

AFB
By Robert on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 18:20Z

I flew a lot over there and is a fkn nightmare

By Hauler on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 16:20Z

RIP the crew. My thoughts are with their families.

There are many un-decorated and poorly respected heros in this war who bust their asses day in and out in a "complex" enviornment, to support the troops over there.

Some are lucky to fly for a carrier like Silk Way, some make their living in less stellar operations.

@JB
By Gordon on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 14:40Z

Ah yeah, didnt even see that.

By yulchick on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 14:20Z

eek. I just sent freight with them to Tblisi a couple weeks ago. They seem to have their poop together as a carrier. RIP guys.

altimeter
By JB Pilot on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 14:02Z

The local pressure was standard, so not setting local altimeter
would not have been a factor

@Novice
By Gordon on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 13:42Z

Could have possibly overlooked their Transition level altimeter setting ?

We'll just have to wait until the initial report is brought out.

RIP to those on board! Truly horrible

This may be a stupid question
By novice on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 13:34Z

Can someone with far more knowlede than me explain if it possible that the crew can some how have their altimeter readings set to be above sea level and not ground level as the very close flight level and impact level readings seem to indicate this may be an issue. Thanks in advance.

Sad for the family and friends of those lost

Shame
By DRC on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 13:24Z

What a shame at the loss of these people who have chosen to work in such a hazardous geography. RIP crew and condolences to family and friends.

A pity
By Paul on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 12:40Z

Silk Air have an excellent reputation for an IL-76 operator. They are closely linked to the cargo terminal in GYD airport which itself is also well run. A real pity that this happened.

Silk Way Airlines - Silk Air
By Koos on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 12:06Z

@nick :

No, Silk Way Airlines was never on the EU blacklist. All Indonesian carriers were banned in 2009/2010, because of administration problems at the Indonesian CAA. Silk Air was then banned automaticly. But Indonesian carriers are unbanned now.

Carriers from Kazakhstan were also EU-banned some time, but not those from Azerbeidjan.

Actual EU blacklist:

By Martin on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 12:03Z

Interesting what the cargo content was... weapons, ammunition, corpses or maybe even radioactive material?

@ Nick
By Jacopo on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 11:51Z

It is not on the EU blacklist...Silk Way Airlines operates freight service to Frankfurt, Milan and Luxembourg.

By Nick on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 11:38Z

Silk Way is an airline on the EU's ban list, isn't it?

Rip crew, I think that's a no-surviver crash.

By chris on Wednesday, Jul 6th 2011 11:37Z

stinger?

Add your comment: (max 1024 characters)
Your IP address 129.158.246.160 is being tracked. We reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Profanities, personal attacks (against any physical or legal person), discussions about site policies, false statements or similiar as well as copyrighted materials from third parties will not be tolerated, those messages will summarily be deleted. Links and mail addresses are not permitted and will not appear in the display, posts trying to circumvent the restriction of links/mail addresses will be removed. We ask for your valid e-mail address in the email field. This address is only used by us to establish contact with you in case of further questions, it will not be displayed anywhere or be used otherwise.
Your Name:
Your Email:
Subject:
Your comment: