Polish Government Tu154M crash
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grizz,
I am pretty sure the cockpit looked on April 10th the same as in the picture.
The modifications, inspections and maintenance done in Samara were purely
ones to extend the TBO. It was a general overhaul, as prescribed by Tupolew
manuals.
I am pretty sure, that the modifications of the avionics were done in Poland
before, and on both aircraft simultaneously, to maintain the uniformity of the fleet.
I will try to dig deeper to confirm it.
When you say that the first photo is of "101" (the accident aircraft) I want to confirm that we are still not sure of what the instrument panel of 101" looked like, because that photo was taken before the refit of December last year. Am I correct?
The modifications, inspections and maintenance done in Samara were purely
ones to extend the TBO. It was a general overhaul, as prescribed by Tupolew
manuals.
I am pretty sure, that the modifications of the avionics were done in Poland
before, and on both aircraft simultaneously, to maintain the uniformity of the fleet.
I will try to dig deeper to confirm it.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While re-reading, found several things.
1. Smolensk Northern has another entry route for planes (called here "glissade"), from the opp. side to the same runway.
These ways are established by some "flying laboratories" flying around and? like? ? setting markers? on some equipment?
2. The "minima" for the opposite entry way is not much better than for the way the Kachinsky plane was directed to; 80x1,000 and the minima in the way he took is 100x1,000.
But still I have a vague feeling that the opposite entry route is equipped with smth useful better.
3. The entry route taken by the Polish plane is also equipped with something on top of the 2 beacons (Far and Near and some "markers" to them) (to the Near one only?) - because the flying laboratory Smolesnk people say is back and flied and flied around like mad, they suppose checking, the commission, that whatever it is there is set correctly.
As I understood - checking that aeroport sees the plane on this entry route adequately on their aeroport screen. Described on forum as "checking course-o-glissade system and the landing locators"
4. Far beakons are set not alike in the 2 "ways" (glissades) leading onto the runway.
The glissade not taken this time - has the Far beakon away 4,000m from the run-way.
The glissade/the way that was to be taken this time by the Polish plane - has its Far beakon at 6,000m away from the runway (one chap says) - and the other says - at 6,300m.
They are crawling there with a roulette measuring tape :o)
5. Some "decision taking height" is 100m for that TU154M or may be for all? May be for all, in that "glissade".
Over the Near beakon it should have been at 60 m height.
So the "decision taking height" is even before the Near beakon.
6. Various pilots say some "RCP-6" and those ? whatever landing abbrev. other is very ? straight and un-destroyable? like simple straightforward system into which nothing can interfere (weather, other signals, radio), it is reliable. That beakon + markers + some locators? anthennaes? to make it a package.
7. The runway enough for TU154M is 1,000 m (well, can be), so they say if he even missed the beginning of it by 200 m. would be quite alright, to say nothing to skip the first 20 m, to be sure it doesn't touch earlier than needed. (in discussions could it have landed theoretically being off course 45 m when in the area of the Near beakon)
8. They say probably less victims if when 3.35m from the ground, like, realising practically ? (nobody knows when they understood they are near the ground) say, 10 seconds away from the runway. Or 15. they took measures to, like, land, instead of going up away off from the land.
Like, the cockpit would have def. be ruined but may be some passangers survived in the back. But very vague ideas re that. Because when that near that was already it, basically.
9. They say possibly the kommander knew they are wrongly near the ground way off away from the first trees' clip and trees' touch, as from the time they began clipping trees the route was definitely up up and up.
Which means they took the decision to go up up and up earlier than when they met the trees thre first time. As it takes time with TU to change its mind from landing onto ascend. To adjust. Some say 5 seconds others say 10 seconds, and dispute weight distribution in the plane and the engines a lot, protecting their 5 sec or 10 sec.
But all say when doing that change from down to "up" it will sink down, by? inertia" adapting.
And that sinking can be from 10 m down to 50! 60!m, depending on the speed vertical and horizontal, with which it was landing.
This speed is unknown. Without data from black boxes they don't know when it began going down, being how far away. Some say 1,700 m away, others - 2,000 m away.
This "landing" speed btw 1,700 (2,000) m away from the runway - some calculated as 11m/sec others as 6.3 m/sec. Both too much.
To all it looks more like a fall in height, of a kind, than a "landing" speed.
5. These 2 opposite in direction entry ways onto the runway are un-changeable, like, fixed, as I understood for myself, set once and forever for the aerodrome functioning.
1. Smolensk Northern has another entry route for planes (called here "glissade"), from the opp. side to the same runway.
These ways are established by some "flying laboratories" flying around and? like? ? setting markers? on some equipment?
2. The "minima" for the opposite entry way is not much better than for the way the Kachinsky plane was directed to; 80x1,000 and the minima in the way he took is 100x1,000.
But still I have a vague feeling that the opposite entry route is equipped with smth useful better.
3. The entry route taken by the Polish plane is also equipped with something on top of the 2 beacons (Far and Near and some "markers" to them) (to the Near one only?) - because the flying laboratory Smolesnk people say is back and flied and flied around like mad, they suppose checking, the commission, that whatever it is there is set correctly.
As I understood - checking that aeroport sees the plane on this entry route adequately on their aeroport screen. Described on forum as "checking course-o-glissade system and the landing locators"
4. Far beakons are set not alike in the 2 "ways" (glissades) leading onto the runway.
The glissade not taken this time - has the Far beakon away 4,000m from the run-way.
The glissade/the way that was to be taken this time by the Polish plane - has its Far beakon at 6,000m away from the runway (one chap says) - and the other says - at 6,300m.
They are crawling there with a roulette measuring tape :o)
5. Some "decision taking height" is 100m for that TU154M or may be for all? May be for all, in that "glissade".
Over the Near beakon it should have been at 60 m height.
So the "decision taking height" is even before the Near beakon.
6. Various pilots say some "RCP-6" and those ? whatever landing abbrev. other is very ? straight and un-destroyable? like simple straightforward system into which nothing can interfere (weather, other signals, radio), it is reliable. That beakon + markers + some locators? anthennaes? to make it a package.
7. The runway enough for TU154M is 1,000 m (well, can be), so they say if he even missed the beginning of it by 200 m. would be quite alright, to say nothing to skip the first 20 m, to be sure it doesn't touch earlier than needed. (in discussions could it have landed theoretically being off course 45 m when in the area of the Near beakon)
8. They say probably less victims if when 3.35m from the ground, like, realising practically ? (nobody knows when they understood they are near the ground) say, 10 seconds away from the runway. Or 15. they took measures to, like, land, instead of going up away off from the land.
Like, the cockpit would have def. be ruined but may be some passangers survived in the back. But very vague ideas re that. Because when that near that was already it, basically.
9. They say possibly the kommander knew they are wrongly near the ground way off away from the first trees' clip and trees' touch, as from the time they began clipping trees the route was definitely up up and up.
Which means they took the decision to go up up and up earlier than when they met the trees thre first time. As it takes time with TU to change its mind from landing onto ascend. To adjust. Some say 5 seconds others say 10 seconds, and dispute weight distribution in the plane and the engines a lot, protecting their 5 sec or 10 sec.
But all say when doing that change from down to "up" it will sink down, by? inertia" adapting.
And that sinking can be from 10 m down to 50! 60!m, depending on the speed vertical and horizontal, with which it was landing.
This speed is unknown. Without data from black boxes they don't know when it began going down, being how far away. Some say 1,700 m away, others - 2,000 m away.
This "landing" speed btw 1,700 (2,000) m away from the runway - some calculated as 11m/sec others as 6.3 m/sec. Both too much.
To all it looks more like a fall in height, of a kind, than a "landing" speed.
5. These 2 opposite in direction entry ways onto the runway are un-changeable, like, fixed, as I understood for myself, set once and forever for the aerodrome functioning.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other forum say the "shassi" the wheels? are standardly let out, even before the Far Beacon, as part of the procedure.
So it can be both - the Polish president's plane was seriously minded to land OR it was "proving" to the bosses on board that they are seriously minded to have a look around and attempt to do it. Because what if will see the runway.
They think in either case the kommander would let those wheels out.
So it can be both - the Polish president's plane was seriously minded to land OR it was "proving" to the bosses on board that they are seriously minded to have a look around and attempt to do it. Because what if will see the runway.
They think in either case the kommander would let those wheels out.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full avionics list
In contrast to serial machines, our Tupolev received during the operation and subsequent repair / maintenance primarily modern avionics. Thus became one of the most advanced Tu-154 used in the world. Pilots' cabin is a mosaic of old Soviet equipment and that from Western countries. Communications equipment HF radios are Micron, Orlan-85ST VHF, satellite phone (since 2008), R-855UM radio station, the device's internal communications SPU-7B, the speaker system SGS-25, tape recording conversations of the crew Mars BM.
The modern navigation equipment includes:
* Doubled navigation system FMS UNS-1D (the production of Universal Avionics) with the computer navigation Navigation Computer Unit (NCU) and two control panels (FPCDU - Flat Panel Display Control Unit) and two sets of 12-channel GPS receivers with antennas CI 401;
* Radiocompass (ADF?) ARK-15M,
* Radio altimeter RW-5M
* Navigation and landing system Kurs-MP-70,
* Additional navigation receiver GPS Bendix / King KLN-89, previously was used receiver Garmin 155XL, on a plane / b had another 101-1000 GPS receiver with antenna type CI 401,
* Radio receiver for radio signals from the antenna to the Reference Sensor DME, VOR splitter,
* Aircraft Control System (AutoPilot?) ABS-154-2
* Track following system TKS-P2
* Aerodynamic parameters system WBE-SWS,
* TAWS
* Collision avoidance system TCAS-II
(detects up to 45 objects, illustrated 30 of them),
* Weather radar RDR-4B
* Multifunction display MFD-640
* Doppler meter of drift angle and speed of travel DISS-013,
* Portable disk drive (Omega DTU) at the navigator desk.
I am not sure about what some of the systems are, but will try to dig deeper again.
The modern navigation equipment includes:
* Doubled navigation system FMS UNS-1D (the production of Universal Avionics) with the computer navigation Navigation Computer Unit (NCU) and two control panels (FPCDU - Flat Panel Display Control Unit) and two sets of 12-channel GPS receivers with antennas CI 401;
* Radiocompass (ADF?) ARK-15M,
* Radio altimeter RW-5M
* Navigation and landing system Kurs-MP-70,
* Additional navigation receiver GPS Bendix / King KLN-89, previously was used receiver Garmin 155XL, on a plane / b had another 101-1000 GPS receiver with antenna type CI 401,
* Radio receiver for radio signals from the antenna to the Reference Sensor DME, VOR splitter,
* Aircraft Control System (AutoPilot?) ABS-154-2
* Track following system TKS-P2
* Aerodynamic parameters system WBE-SWS,
* TAWS
* Collision avoidance system TCAS-II
(detects up to 45 objects, illustrated 30 of them),
* Weather radar RDR-4B
* Multifunction display MFD-640
* Doppler meter of drift angle and speed of travel DISS-013,
* Portable disk drive (Omega DTU) at the navigator desk.
I am not sure about what some of the systems are, but will try to dig deeper again.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plane carrying the president was also equipped with a flight management system (FMS), by the American company Universal Avionics Systems and TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning System). To make these devices work properly, appropriate maps must be loaded onto the disks, including land survey map of Smolensk region. AFAIK, perhaps these maps were not loaded, although probably NATO has them, because it can not be commercially purchased.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- a quote from the plane manual given there "the allowed ? deviation sideways? for the height of the maneuvre beginning of 80m and distance to runway 1,500m for TU154M is 70m."
TU154M text-book by Petin, p.62, Table 9.
- by Polish media, the current kommander was in the second pilot capacity during Kachinsky's flight to Tbilisi. :o(
- some "reverse" capability of TU154M was there, not "blocked" at landing automatically (video by other TU154M brought as proof)
- During the 7th April flight of Tusc the "metric" system was used (from the Polish media interview with Stronsky who stayed at home this time but was flying that flight to the Northern)
- someone said that "my friend delta-planer insists GPS is off by 300 m after the war with Georgia" but was responded "I don't know what your friend says; my 100euro navigation for the car is 15-20m lying steady in the parking lot :o), as it were before the war with Georgia - the same it is now" :o)
-TAWS someone commented is "tomohawk system adaptation; set for 200 m above the ground, no use with tiny variations of the ground closer. Would be useful for them only for that big hill further on. "
:o)
- Smolensk Northern is not in some IATA certification ? books?
TU154M text-book by Petin, p.62, Table 9.
- by Polish media, the current kommander was in the second pilot capacity during Kachinsky's flight to Tbilisi. :o(
- some "reverse" capability of TU154M was there, not "blocked" at landing automatically (video by other TU154M brought as proof)
- During the 7th April flight of Tusc the "metric" system was used (from the Polish media interview with Stronsky who stayed at home this time but was flying that flight to the Northern)
- someone said that "my friend delta-planer insists GPS is off by 300 m after the war with Georgia" but was responded "I don't know what your friend says; my 100euro navigation for the car is 15-20m lying steady in the parking lot :o), as it were before the war with Georgia - the same it is now" :o)
-TAWS someone commented is "tomohawk system adaptation; set for 200 m above the ground, no use with tiny variations of the ground closer. Would be useful for them only for that big hill further on. "
:o)
- Smolensk Northern is not in some IATA certification ? books?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USA Today
The Russian-built Tupolev TU-154 had been equipped with a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) made by Universal Avionics Systems of Tucson, said company spokesman John Hamby. He said the company could not discuss the investigation into the crash or other details.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the Russian PAR (RSL) works vs. "normal" PAR
In the East, the pilot reports flight passing set points (1000 m, 600 m, further NDB, closer NDB, etc.), and RSL controller confirms, he is giving the distance to the runway threshold. RSL controller, in principle, is active only in fixed locations, but also whenever the pilot deviates from the axis of the runway or in a vertical plane - from the approach path. Then he gives the command, eg "5 degrees to the left" or "reduce by half the descent." Each time the pilot shall acknowledge receipt of this command with his height AGL.
In turn, according to NATO procedures "Talk down" is done. Precision approach radar controller (equivalent to a RSL controller) presents a continuous monologue, giving the amendment or affirming the movement of aircraft at a fixed path approach. By the way, precision approach radar controller did not say "five degrees to the right" only "course 265" if the course is 260 degrees belt. However, in the continuous chatter of the controller cannot be interrupted by the pilot, so there is no read back or confirmation. Precision approach radar controller knows that the pilot can hear him, because he sees whether the pilot performs his command.
Source:
http://translate.google.pl/#pl|en|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.samoloty.pl%2Findex.php%2Fartykuly-lotnicze%2F5061-analiza-przyczyn-katastrofy-tu-154m.%0A%0A
(much more information available there)
In turn, according to NATO procedures "Talk down" is done. Precision approach radar controller (equivalent to a RSL controller) presents a continuous monologue, giving the amendment or affirming the movement of aircraft at a fixed path approach. By the way, precision approach radar controller did not say "five degrees to the right" only "course 265" if the course is 260 degrees belt. However, in the continuous chatter of the controller cannot be interrupted by the pilot, so there is no read back or confirmation. Precision approach radar controller knows that the pilot can hear him, because he sees whether the pilot performs his command.
Source:
http://translate.google.pl/#pl|en|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.samoloty.pl%2Findex.php%2Fartykuly-lotnicze%2F5061-analiza-przyczyn-katastrofy-tu-154m.%0A%0A
(much more information available there)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Радиолокационная система посадки самолетов РСП-7 - Музей небытовой электроники
That's about No 7 (in the museum :o) , but No 6 in Northern one would think is not much different. Wiki informs No 6 is in use currently in Russia.
That's about No 7 (in the museum :o) , but No 6 in Northern one would think is not much different. Wiki informs No 6 is in use currently in Russia.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question was put if the inertial navigation system aided by GPS (IRS / GPS unit), the GPS unit installed in the Tu-154M did work or did not work?
In the case of CASA 295M in Mirosławiec the GPS block IRS / GPS not working with this very prosaic reason that the Polish mechanics did not know that the GPS unit in the system INS / GPS used in military aircraft, need additional crypto module, which is required for decode the code P (Y) which is encoded accurate GPS signal (P-code) on both the L1 frequency and (especially) L2.
INS / GPS anyone can buy and install. But only the army, and it is not all, have access to navigation by using P-code.
The module needed to decode coded cipher P (Y), which protects the P-code is probably a secret, and it changes regularly Combination Lock keys are probably top secret. These things are no longer need to receive channels from the U.S. military, by NATO. Maybe not every ally in NATO may get a piece of electronics?
Nay, I would also not be surprised if after receiving an order that the plane has to fly to Russia the order was to remove all the secret material, dismantle the crypto module in the block IRS GPS navigation system / GPS. Or module lies somewhere in the safe and was never installed, as in CASA-295M. Or it has never been and will not.
If the GPS unit with the military P (Y) Code does not work, because there was no crypto module in the receiver, the GPS and precise altimeter were not necessarily operational...
In the case of CASA 295M in Mirosławiec the GPS block IRS / GPS not working with this very prosaic reason that the Polish mechanics did not know that the GPS unit in the system INS / GPS used in military aircraft, need additional crypto module, which is required for decode the code P (Y) which is encoded accurate GPS signal (P-code) on both the L1 frequency and (especially) L2.
INS / GPS anyone can buy and install. But only the army, and it is not all, have access to navigation by using P-code.
The module needed to decode coded cipher P (Y), which protects the P-code is probably a secret, and it changes regularly Combination Lock keys are probably top secret. These things are no longer need to receive channels from the U.S. military, by NATO. Maybe not every ally in NATO may get a piece of electronics?
Nay, I would also not be surprised if after receiving an order that the plane has to fly to Russia the order was to remove all the secret material, dismantle the crypto module in the block IRS GPS navigation system / GPS. Or module lies somewhere in the safe and was never installed, as in CASA-295M. Or it has never been and will not.
If the GPS unit with the military P (Y) Code does not work, because there was no crypto module in the receiver, the GPS and precise altimeter were not necessarily operational...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for special navigation equipment brought last week for Putin - for Putin everything is possible :o)
May be they carry after him, ahead of the way, whenever he flies to, a something? For he flies to many interesting places in Russia, where no nothing at all :o), I would think. But I don't think they'll share it with other statesmen, how to say.
Anyway the day of the catastrophe - he flew in normally, soon after the crash, on the same conditions as everyone else. Hardly it is so quick, to install something, for him personally?
(and our Medvedev flew to Warsaw yesterday, position obliges, even the volcano or whatever, the rest who came, like Ukraine - drove). (and flew back)
May be they carry after him, ahead of the way, whenever he flies to, a something? For he flies to many interesting places in Russia, where no nothing at all :o), I would think. But I don't think they'll share it with other statesmen, how to say.
Anyway the day of the catastrophe - he flew in normally, soon after the crash, on the same conditions as everyone else. Hardly it is so quick, to install something, for him personally?
(and our Medvedev flew to Warsaw yesterday, position obliges, even the volcano or whatever, the rest who came, like Ukraine - drove). (and flew back)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TU flight decks
grizzl ptk
you guys are discussing what was in this plane
maybe this video is the anwer post 750
you guys are discussing what was in this plane
maybe this video is the anwer post 750
Plane and pilots 2,5 months ago
2,5 miesi?ca przed ?mierci? ratowali Haiti - Najwa?niejsze informacje - Informacje - portal TVN24.pl - 18.04.2010
Its a movie made 2,5 ago on the way to Haiti where the pilots delivered humanitarian aid. Left- A.Protasiuk, right, R.Grzywna (the crew that died in Smolensk). The Haiti mission was completed and they got and award from A. Błasik for a succesful mission. Now 3 mentioned are r.i.p. Their bodies are not identified till now..probably nothing left. Anyway you can see the pilots and the machine that crashed in Smolensk. Hope you all guys will have safe flights
Greetings from Warsaw.
2,5 miesi?ca przed ?mierci? ratowali Haiti - Najwa?niejsze informacje - Informacje - portal TVN24.pl - 18.04.2010
Its a movie made 2,5 ago on the way to Haiti where the pilots delivered humanitarian aid. Left- A.Protasiuk, right, R.Grzywna (the crew that died in Smolensk). The Haiti mission was completed and they got and award from A. Błasik for a succesful mission. Now 3 mentioned are r.i.p. Their bodies are not identified till now..probably nothing left. Anyway you can see the pilots and the machine that crashed in Smolensk. Hope you all guys will have safe flights
Greetings from Warsaw.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
instrument panel of 101
Grizz,
Quote:
When you say that the first photo is of "101" (the accident aircraft) I want to confirm that we are still not sure of what the instrument panel of 101" looked like, because that photo was taken before the refit of December last year. Am I correct?
I am pretty sure the cockpit looked on April 10th the same as in the picture
Quote:
When you say that the first photo is of "101" (the accident aircraft) I want to confirm that we are still not sure of what the instrument panel of 101" looked like, because that photo was taken before the refit of December last year. Am I correct?
I am pretty sure the cockpit looked on April 10th the same as in the picture
it shows both pilots sitting if front of the panel
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys what are you talking about what a secret module? 101 aircraft looks like it has no any military equipment. P code is well known for Russian intelligence. Polish TU 145 has reliable but old fashioned avionic they have no money for something advanced. She was only transport plane with satellite phone that's it!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, in Smolensk wind was 2.5m/sec.
(On Yak with journalsists read in another place it could have still be carrying on old Russian RSBN (Radiolocating System of Blizney/Near Navigation) parts compatible with what Northern has for the approach to it but fron the opposite side of entry into the runway.
That this RSBN equipment was definitely carved out of TU154M, when modernising it for Poles with ? modern avionics systems.
RSBN they say is Russian old equivalent of foreign VOR DME. That this is used for night/day hand piloting or semi-controlled piloting to (ex-USSR and around) airports at weather minima.)
The other blog is lost for absence of new data and spent last 30 pages discussing spies crawling around with false beakons temporarily installing them to navigate the plane away :o). Likewise terrorists capturing the controller and making him say what they want. :o) Likewise what the only Polish word said that became known through the chap who listened to the record but doesn't say what it was - what it could mean - in English "Are we on time?" - like when was it said.
The new date set by Polish side is Thursday when the Polish General Prosecutor promised to publish the black boxes again.
(On Yak with journalsists read in another place it could have still be carrying on old Russian RSBN (Radiolocating System of Blizney/Near Navigation) parts compatible with what Northern has for the approach to it but fron the opposite side of entry into the runway.
That this RSBN equipment was definitely carved out of TU154M, when modernising it for Poles with ? modern avionics systems.
RSBN they say is Russian old equivalent of foreign VOR DME. That this is used for night/day hand piloting or semi-controlled piloting to (ex-USSR and around) airports at weather minima.)
The other blog is lost for absence of new data and spent last 30 pages discussing spies crawling around with false beakons temporarily installing them to navigate the plane away :o). Likewise terrorists capturing the controller and making him say what they want. :o) Likewise what the only Polish word said that became known through the chap who listened to the record but doesn't say what it was - what it could mean - in English "Are we on time?" - like when was it said.
The new date set by Polish side is Thursday when the Polish General Prosecutor promised to publish the black boxes again.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed. Question about RSBN already answered above, I see.
"RCP-6" from Alice's post is the RSP-6 radar system mentioned above, which they did say was practically indestructible.
"RCP-6" from Alice's post is the RSP-6 radar system mentioned above, which they did say was practically indestructible.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on military PAR approach from an ex-Russian AF pilot:
"When you land at minimal visibility and nothing it is visible, you simply say the height "two hundred twenty fifth 200" and controller there and then gives you lateral deviation and deviations from glideslope and if they are not present that tells "on a course on glideslope"
It is possible to chirp like that every 20m."
"When you land at minimal visibility and nothing it is visible, you simply say the height "two hundred twenty fifth 200" and controller there and then gives you lateral deviation and deviations from glideslope and if they are not present that tells "on a course on glideslope"
It is possible to chirp like that every 20m."