PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 14th Apr 2010, 19:22   #561 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 37
Posts: 58
As far as

I remember the Avianca ran out of gas.
eagleflyer is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 19:34   #562 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 247
I'm an outsider, for a short time here only, sorry. Simply interested whaat foreign pilots think of it, as compared with our pilot's forum. I'm Russian, and no relation to aviation, but naturally interested, why the Poles broke on our land. As we were a host country.
This is the link to the local blog with the discussion. Many maps of? something. that you find here important. I'll translate you the conclusion on wghich the discussion stopped at a Russian forum, if you wish. That is, until new data, of boxes, becomes available.

Катастрофа Ту-154 президента Польши - Страница 55 - Авиационный форум AVIAFORUM.RU
Alice025 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 19:58   #563 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,985
Sorry, in the meanwhile I lost track about number of approaches.

Was it the first attempt to land?

Thx
hetfield is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 20:12   #564 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 39
Posts: 5
Here is the crew total flight time in hours by 36 splt www:

- (captain) kpt. pil. Arkadiusz PROTASIUK - total time: 3528h (on Tu-154M - 2937h)
- (first officer) mjr pil. Robert GRZYWNA - total time: 1939h (on Tu-154M - 506h)
- (navigator) por. pil. Artur ZIĘTEK - total time: 1069h (on Tu-154M - 59h, as navigator)
- (flight engineer) chor. Andrzej MICHALAK - total time 330h
Elberoth is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 20:14   #565 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 39
Posts: 5
hetfield - there was only one.
Elberoth is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 21:10   #566 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 31
Posts: 1
Yes, there was only one, failed approach
major256 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 21:29   #567 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Italy
Age: 40
Posts: 6
Controller

Here's the link to what appears to be the interview with the aerodrome controller on duty that day:

Диспетчер рассказал о причинах крушения Ту-154 : LIFE | NEWS
Sorry, it's in Russian. The controller (Pavel Plusnin) speaks about language barrier problems etcc.. If someone thinks it could be interesting I could translate it.
wizele is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 21:36   #568 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 54
Posts: 202


this pic led to some speculation that they mistook the big parking lot and taxiway in front of the runway for the runway itself.
vovachan is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 22:00   #569 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 48
Posts: 1
I am following this thread with great interest. Seems you guys dig down to the bare facts and are getting closer to the core cause of the crash.

It has been made public this afternoon that the records from the crew cabin revealed the pilots knew they were are going to crash about 3-5 secs before the impact, with assumption of a speed of 150-180 m/sec.

This would make a distance of max 900 mts (my calculation) before the impact and could possible be more less when they did hit the first tree (?).

Being no pilot, I would assume realising only 3-5 sec before impact is scary late and would indicate the pilot was convinced their heading was OK almost till impact.

Rafal
RafalR66 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 23:06   #570 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 247
An opinion of a Russian pilot. (translated)
"The reason may be in the lay-out of the terrain. TU was on course 267-268, to the left from the axis by only 50-55m at the distance of a 1,000 m from the butt-end of the stripe. Had tangage +1...+2. Which means was rising. Where does it follow from? From the trees cut. One, the birch, was cut h=12...13m H=238m (above the sea level), the second, by the road, was cut h=5...6m at height H=249m. The distance btw them 270,, that is little enough for the crew to have time to make any sharp maneuvres. The crew simply didn't know or lost out of attention that the stripe is practically (if to move from the E) located at an elevation, and had lowered much lower than the glissade. The butt-end of the stripe H=253m. This is all on the base of GE and it lies by height not more than 1%, and this is in the worst cases.
At the distance over 1,000m from the stripe they have, possibly, sat down even lower, due to even lesser height above the sea-level of the Eastern slope. "
Alice025 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 23:43   #571 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: East of eden
Age: 70
Posts: 135
VNAV/GPS

Anyone know if the -154 avionics update included GPS? If so then would not an LNAV/VNAV approach been safer? Mind you since the CIS is not WGS-84 that may have put them in the weeds anyway!
As to QFE/ QNH... when in Rome etc springs to mind. Fly meters and QFE.
flown-it is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 02:14   #572 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 19
It easier to see situation on this map. I have added distance from the tree that was first to be hit, and then elevation, in meters. First point (first tree) is at elevation 237m. Final breakdown was at elevation 257m. Second road and the runaway are at 253m. Trees at the second road, although on the higher terrain, were cut much higher than the first tree. If we add elevation difference, it means that they, despite first hit, were still climbing. They gained in absolute height some 20 - 30 meters. It is independent proof that the motors were still operational. It was very, very near thing. One second earlier, and they would be OK.

Map with distances and elevations.jpg
PaleBlueDot is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 02:19   #573 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Had tangage +1...+2. Which means was rising.
Tangage is the French word for pitch.

I do not know the pitch attitude the TU-154 would use on approach, but a bit of nose up is common on jets on approach.

Of course the evidence of the trees shows a slight climb from the initial impact. The crew may have been making a modest altitude correction and may not have been aware of the initial contact(s).

At the reported 150-180 m/sec, there would have been >= 1.5 second between the two trees.

While these initial impacts may not have incurred major structural damage, hydraulic, electrical and pneumatic runs may have suffered damage at these points that compromised further flight.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 04:08   #574 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 19
A bit more precise data and calculation. I have used Goggle Earth distance and elevation information. Goggle data errors should not be significant because I am using only the difference of that data for nearby points. Reference points were established according to Picasa composite and other available pictures. We are comparing what Picasa composite has called point 1 and point 7. In point 1, if we assume reasonable height for that fence (1.2 m), then the height of that tree is now 4.2 meters. According to Goggle, terrain elevation at that point is 238m. So, the first tree cutting point is at 238+4=242m elevation. Dirt road in picture 7 is at elevation 250m. If the man in red 1.8m tall, then all trees in that picture were cut at 7.2m height above the level of the road. Which means that trees were cut at 250+7=257m. That means that in, approximately, 295m of horizontal distance we have increase in elevation of 257-242=15m, or 5% climb.

Last edited by PaleBlueDot; 15th Apr 2010 at 05:05.
PaleBlueDot is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 06:46   #575 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Age: 43
Posts: 11
These 150-180 m/s approach speeds seem to be too high
150 m/s is 540 km/h
kingofbongo is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 07:08   #576 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: November18
Age: 38
Posts: 261
HEATHROW DIRECTOR:

What sort of radar returns could controllers expect in such atmospherics?
What freq/band is used?
x213a is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 07:46   #577 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 482
Google translator, slightly polished up, from the Russsian forum:

Rarely speak at the forum, but then grieved. So many put forward the most featured version, a shot from the satellite for me personally, put things in order.
I do not know if there is Instrument landing system, or just a drive, and maybe the crew once used to call a satellite navigation - it does not matter. The plane was on the glide path, PF controlled flight to about CDF.
At CDF captain began to look for land. I'm not talking about the reasons behind it, I'm talking about elementary incompetence. And no doubt the skills of captain makes him a small plaque in general, and on the Tu-154 - obviously, grossly inadequate.

To master the piloting of such a complex aircraft as the Tu-154, is required considerable flight time. I came to the Tu-154 at the age of 35 years, with a total 9000 hours of flight time on the three types of aircraft, each of them I flew as the captain, and still the first year was very, very difficult. I flew as the second pilot, 1500 hours, and only then became the commander of the aircraft. And all the older pilots in one voice telling me: fear, fear of the first thousand hours of command in the new type! If it will appear to you, that you are familiar with this aircraft throughout - do not believe it!
Later I saw many times the truth of those warnings and then I also warned the young. And this applies to any new pilots for the aircraft type.

The flight killed a pilot was about 3500 hours (according to his father - 1930 hours), one part of it flown on the Yak-40, part (if you believe the media) as a FO (!) Tu-154, and then somehow became the commander, and (if, again, to believe the media) as PIC on the Tu he had only 200 hours. And this half-educated (albeit talented) was entrusted to carry the president! And the military pilot somewhere to gain experience in the most complex operations in the flying ship, on imperfect systems similar to the one installed in Smolensk? And in general - the experience of flight in adverse weather conditions?
And where is the experience gathered over the years, hundreds of complex approaches to different airports. Where and when he gathered them?
As a result, he made a self-confident, school, simple error: He was searching the ground below the decision height. And found it.

How to help the captain? This aircraft can not fly alone. Data for the crew, too, suggest the doubt. Navigator (if you believe the media) was produced from the school mechanic.
Weather conditions were just deadly: I would, in all my experience, do not dare to go for landing in the fog 400, but he went there blind and stupid.
Ground control had nothing to do with it. The head ATC crew gave advance information about the bad weather, gave advice on caring for an alrternate. He controlled the decline and warned of the flight below the glide path. But flying is done by the pilot!

Do not believe the words: "the pilot of the first class," the best among the best, "chief pilot of the president."
Ptkay is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 07:55   #578 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 7,268
x213a..... Modern ATC radars in the western world are rarely effected by weather which, in simple terms, is "filtered out" by the electronics.

ATC surveillance radars often operate around 23cms. Shorter range airfield radars maybe around 10cms. However, I have no knowledge of the radar equipment employed in Russia.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 08:13   #579 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 482
Quote:
From the trees cut. One, the birch, was cut h=12...13m H=238m (above the sea level), the second, by the road, was cut h=5...6m at height H=249m. ... The threshold was H=253m.
So, as I expected and mentioned above, they were flying almost
below the runway elevation and well below the radar.

Ptkay is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 08:26   #580 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 61
Posts: 685
Being below rwy-elevation could also count for some comm-problems (line of sight?).

Another question: The airfield looks like a unused junkyard with no operational aircraft. For an active military airfield there should be more trucks, more cars and more logistic visible.

Could it be, that it was just only opened for the very purpose of bringing the polish delegation to smolensk without having to use a public airfield?

And how would this inflict safety- hazards concerning equipment like Radar, radios, approach-lighting?

franzl
RetiredF4 is offline  
Closed Thread
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 15:16.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network