A Sukhoi superjet 100 is missing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Семь последних миль ... по данным бортовых самописцев, система T2CAS несколько раз предупредила экипаж об опасности. Яблонцев лично испытывал работу этой системы на Северном Кавказе и, составляя руководство по летной эксплуатации SSJ-100, написал, что при срабатывании сигнализации нужно «незамедлительно начать набор высоты». Однако в Индонезии пилот почему-то не поверил системе: он был уверен, что летит над равниной к аэропорту и даже проигнорировал собственные рекомендации, снизившись на 800 футов.
Plus a shouting TCAS where there should be flat terrain underneath when returning to Jakarta ?
Sorry, This sounds a bit strange for my taste.
I rather prefer to wait for the official report hoping it will be published and be objective without cover up.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henra - some of the earlier posts and pictures show how easy it is to have mist & cloud around the crash site - he could probably see the mountain out of one window and thought he was in over flat land to the north - couldn't see the other ridge coming up fast on the other side..........
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not to put it simple?
IFR?
Check your plates for MSA.
VFR?
Have a look out, stay clear of clouds/traffic and obstacles, but don't blame any other person e.g. ATC.
IFR?
Check your plates for MSA.
VFR?
Have a look out, stay clear of clouds/traffic and obstacles, but don't blame any other person e.g. ATC.
They would have been North of the mountain range all the time. In that scenario any green solid mass of terra firma reaching up to their flight level, be it to the left or to the right, should have initiated instant concern - and action.
As they were released to FL60 and hit the mountain at ~FL62 I see no indication for a vigorous attempt to climb until maybe the last 5 or 10 seconds.
Last edited by henra; 15th Jul 2012 at 08:04.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we review for a moment? Looking at PJ's post #288 the crash appeared to be south to north. How does that fit with a 'reciprocal error' heading south?
The other was North to South. The latter one seems to be the more likely and generally accepted one. That second one is also the basis for the speculation about this reciprocal error.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this map is correct:
Файл:SSJ100 crash on Salak ru.png — ВикипедиÑ
(red point = crash site, 2211 - Mt Salak)
it is unlikely that plane flew from South to Nord. The crash site lies behind the peak in this direction. The crash site lies in the end of canyon which heading is ca 200, opposite to the direction to the airport.
Файл:SSJ100 crash on Salak ru.png — ВикипедиÑ
(red point = crash site, 2211 - Mt Salak)
it is unlikely that plane flew from South to Nord. The crash site lies behind the peak in this direction. The crash site lies in the end of canyon which heading is ca 200, opposite to the direction to the airport.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
henra:
There was discussion much earlier that the TCAS(TAWS) may have had a regional terrain database, which did not include the area in question.
Plus a shouting TCAS where there should be flat terrain underneath when returning to Jakarta ?
It is just the combination with other Issues that makes it -in my Eyes- not the most likely overall scenario.
Looking back at most accidents Occam's Razor has an excellent hit rate. Maybe this is one óf the exceptions.
But I only tend to believe it if there is substantial evidence pointing in the direction of a scenario that needs (too) many assumptions. So far I don't.
What scenario prefers Occam's Razor in this case?
Henra, you are quite correct - my original scenario, south-to-north, is incorrect.
The flight path was north to south, striking the other side of the ridge where I thought the original site was - everything fits. This knowledge and mapping actually came from a German site and it is worth re-reading this thread to see their work, which I think is correct.
Edit - here's as good a map and theory as any, posted by mcgyvr81
The flight path was north to south, striking the other side of the ridge where I thought the original site was - everything fits. This knowledge and mapping actually came from a German site and it is worth re-reading this thread to see their work, which I think is correct.
Edit - here's as good a map and theory as any, posted by mcgyvr81
Last edited by Jetdriver; 18th Jul 2012 at 11:07.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that link, PJ. We sum this up, as I and many others said earlier as
'LOST'. Why? I sure reams of PDFs can be written on the psychology of this, but I still think my post#591 says it all and we should close the folder and go 'WHAT?!!!?
'LOST'. Why? I sure reams of PDFs can be written on the psychology of this, but I still think my post#591 says it all and we should close the folder and go 'WHAT?!!!?
BOAC;
Yes, fully agree.
I haven't read it yet, (haven't covered all recent posts here) if the TAWS database included this area. Anyone?
but I still think my post#591 says it all and we should close the folder and go 'WHAT?!!!?
I haven't read it yet, (haven't covered all recent posts here) if the TAWS database included this area. Anyone?
I really hate to say this but I honestly believe it is something along the lines: Sightseeing gone wrong.
Lost situational awareness and maybe thought they were in a different valley. One they saw before where you could fly through. Or thinking they were on the outside of the mountain range and flying alongside it (while the outer ridge being obscured).
This would explain why they did not initiate a climb once entering the canyon, without requiring total obscuration of both ridgelines while accidentally following exactly the direction of the canyon without seeing it.
Happy to stand corrected by the official report, though
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Indonesian NTSC has just released the Preliminary Report in to the investigation of this crash.
http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...4_Released.pdf
http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...4_Released.pdf
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the report, ATC never delegates Responsibility for Terrain Clearance to the pilot.
The keyword "visual" is found wanting when the pilot & atc agree on 6,000'.
Also ATC doesn't give a 'clearance' to 6,000'. He says '6,000 copied'. Doesn't sound like a clearance to me. Have to say they approved the right orbit after that.
The keyword "visual" is found wanting when the pilot & atc agree on 6,000'.
Also ATC doesn't give a 'clearance' to 6,000'. He says '6,000 copied'. Doesn't sound like a clearance to me. Have to say they approved the right orbit after that.
Last edited by Radix; 1st Aug 2012 at 21:44.