RegDep

Sadpole, please give me a plausible explanation for this recording on the CVR:
in the scenario that the said "He" was in the cockpit.

And, please don't build me a watch, I am only asking the time.

B767PL

Completely baseless speculating on your part, in an otherwise serious thread.

You are speaking as if you were Jarosławs alter-ego. You seem to be no different in the way you are speaking.

Reading some of your comments in this thread make me want to

I guess sticking to known and confirmed facts has gone out the window.

I will add : Do yourself, and everyone else here a favor and stop posting politically motivated drivel.

RetiredF4

I think the best would be, you step back a bit and calm down. You write as being short of a heart attack or some other serious problem.

No offense there, but with each word you go further away from facts and advocate speculation, assumption and political BS.

Take a piece of paper and write down everything "known for a fact", every "assumption", every "rumor" and every "speculation". Then weigh it by place of origin and author. Done that write your post new. It will be a lot shorter and more helpful. And it will calm you down.

franzl

SadPole

I think, 2nd pilot - clearly more assertive of the the two- makes some hand or face gesture to the PIC about the complete lack of visibility. As in - say/do something, damn it!!!

To which most likely PIC responds: "It will only piss him off if we try to protest". org: (Wkurzy się, jeśli jeszcze... )

RegDep

SadPole, do we know on which channel was that recorded?

SadPole

All right guys. You win. If you still say your silly nonsense about the goaround button is based on proven facts, and nothing I said is based on facts (as in new things deciphred in the CVR), then yes, I would be very silly to say anything more. Because yes, it's like talking to Kaczynski, and accusing me of having anything in common with that twit was a low blow indeed.

Have fun. Tam ti tam. I am pressing that there BUTTON...

RegDep

SadPole, I don't think anybody said that.

geirha75

But still there is no information on the radar about if it`s what we consider as primary radar in the west. I presume it is a kind of primary radar which doesn`t display received information from an airplane like height and id. I'm not even sure if Tupolev 154 had a transponder. There radar seems to provide information on horisontal and vertical position with a single dot which indicates the plane. No information on height and ID is displayed.

Kulverstukas

SadPole, you are the True Pole by the heart! Bold and proud. Don't go away, we will miss you!

geirha75, absolutely right.

RetiredF4

That is correct, there is no digital display of the altitude, however it is not necessary for glidepath and approach guidance.

If the aircraft is established on the correct glidepath angle and the correct azimuth, the primary radar return will be exactly on the graphic overlay for the extended centerline and the prescribed gidepath. Deviations can be observed from an expierenced radar controller and informations or intructions can be given to the aircrew. The range to the target can be seen as well on the range overlay.

At the beginning of the maximum range of the equipment larger deviations might pass unobserved, closer in small deviations will show on the scope.

Expierienced controllers also can observe trends, like being on glidepath but on the way to drop below glidepath e.t.c. Glidepath angle and range determine also the point of MDA, where the go around should be initiated.

With similar equipment our controllers talked us down to a published minimum of 60 meters with a visibility of 800 Meters , flown with approach speed / landing speed of 230 KIAS / 160 KIAS. But on the other hand, we had no better gadgets in our F4, we flew it manually and had been able to do the instrument crosschecks same time. And to make it sporty, the radar controllers could us handle in these WX conditions and with this old equipment also as twoship flying in close formation.

There is no magic in it, it can be done. Everything falls back on knowledge and expierience.

franzl

Kulverstukas

Franzl, TS-11, main Protasuk's plane, isn't better than F4 I belive

Alice025

How can there be now "new" phrases revealed in Poland just days after the MAK final report was presented? Aren't it the same people from Poland who worked in MAK all this time on the tapes deciphering?
Or is it a different Polish team, who were working on the tapes' deciphering all this time in parallel?
Do the new phrases take the place of the phrases marked "un-recognisable" in the MAK report?

PS are there many "un-recognisables" still left available for future? ;o)

Kulverstukas

Алиса, ? ????????? ???? ??????? • ?????????? ?????

Alice025

If it is true that TAWS would scream the same, say, during the same plane's landing in the Northern three days earlier, on the 7th (pity one can't hear anywhere that flight black boxes record. wonder if it was erased after the successful flight, space on the tapes not allowing to record several days in a row? ? or is that record still there on the same very tapes)
- then the crew might have simply neglected the alarms not because thety went into some "stupor", as some suggest (I think they had no time even for that:o), and not because they were out-commanded by whatever "superior" to try to land come whatever,
but simply because they knew, in experience, that TAWS would shout on approach to any aerodrome not in the system's database.

Then it is very unfair of MAK to point out to the "neglect of the warning system signals by the crew", when listing the possible causes of the accident. MAK simply do not want to quarrel with that CFIT avoidance equipment producer, to go into details why some pilots - purely theoretically - sometimes - put 760 air pressure knowing it is not correct but trying to fool the system (in part, at least) to decrease the level of sound. May be in order not to startle every other minute. or to be less nervous.
So MAK acts formally - blaming the un-ruly pilots who neglected the warning system. And says No, we have no idea, why would they put the barometer on 760. We can't look into thoughts in the crew's heads.
Formally all correct.

RetiredF4

Beleieve me, the F4 Phantom II was a much better Aircraft than the TS-11, being a combat aircraft with max speed of Mach2.
But the navigation avionics of the modern TS-11 is ten times better than what we had.

- only one TACAN (comparable to a VOR / DME)
- one Inertial navigation system with real big tolerances (error of more than 5 miles common after one hour flight)
- one Navigation radar
- one weapon system operator in the back

Crosscheck, Time and heading and basic navigation skills were the life insurance, and basic airmanship the toolkit to do it.


sorry for off topic.

franzl

vovachan

Question:

What was the Il-76 which went around supposed to bring there? The Poles were aware it was coming so I assume it was related to their trip.

Alice025

Thank you, Kulverstukas, I read the content of the newly apeared phrases before I posted ;o).
What I wonder about is not their content but the very fact of their appearance. If these sentences were deciphered before, by the same Polish experts who worked in MAK - MAK knew of it but included them into its final report as unrecognisables. This casts a shade on the MAK's objectivity, imagine marking recognisables as unrecognisables to make whatever of the two sides in Poland to be happier. For the sake of the "relations".
If the sentences are discovered by another Polish team, suppose they used some clever equipment to clear the back noise - why MAK doesn't have that equipment? Does it really not?
For some of these new discoveries are pretty long statements, not a short curt one word something, that the technical commission would stay in 2 (3-4-5) minds about and mark it , basically, "we didn't agree between themselves on what it can be, some hear it as this, some as that."

It is useless IMO to try to hurry up in technical things to reach good Polish-Russian relations. One side is a mystery wrapped into enigma by definition :o), the other has two - both very passionate sides. Of which one will be happy with no less than "Putin, by his own hand, ...' :o), while the other is presented by SadPole peppering his head with ashes :o)

Then comes simply extraordinary bad luck, as one can't call this 200 metres visibility fog sharply fallen down as any thing else - and all the intricacies and planning of the good countries' relations go to hell anyway, whatever anyone does! Conclusion one should simply relax about those "relations", forget it, "a man is supposing but God is disposing". And keep technical side clean of any deviations to the sides. For the sake of the future. That's the best course of action given our unpredictable future. And the proverbial "unpredictable past" o)

Kulverstukas

vovachan not bring but take away limo's after event

Ptkay

Sorry, my mistake, I meant janeczku.

Kulverstukas

Алиса, may be I missed something but can you give me some hint if FINAL transcript of CVR was published by MAK somewhere? I belive that CVR transcript was published by Polish side and it was denoted by MAK as "intermediate".

About TAWS warnings, I belive that TERRAIN AHEAD is not very informative, but PULL UP definitely mean not only that vector of a/c speed pointed in terrain, but that in the same time a/c speed and configuration is wrong for landing. Correct me if I'm wrong.