View Single Post
Old 19th Apr 2010, 16:10
  #783 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 272
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.
Alice025 is offline