Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Polish Government Tu154M crash

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

Polish Government Tu154M crash

Old 13th Apr 2010, 17:29
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,286
Shortfinals wrote: "Flying a PAR or an SRA, you don't respond to the instructions once you are established. "

A truly remarkable statement! How does one become "established" on an SRA or PAR? As a controller I have done thousands of SRAs and every time I issued a change of heading, the aircraft responded. If they hadn't there would have been a lot of smoking aluminium.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 17:34
  #502 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,410
Chris Scott;

Many thanks for your kind, and timely intervention; indeed that's what I meant to convey. PJ2
PJ2 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 17:41
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,052
"Do not acknowledge further instructions..."

Heathrow Director,

You must have said the above to the pilot every time you did a full SRA or PAR? Think that's what Shortfinals was referring to.


PJ2,

'twas nothing... At least one person always tries to read your posts carefully!

Chris
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 17:42
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,022


Translation (top to bottom)

1) Cutted trees



2) Piece of wing
3) Place of broken birch - first impact (added by local witness)



4) Birch somewhere there
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 18:00
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,022
andrasz

here u got some pictures which didn't show by journalist:
iMGSRC.RU 154 on para-moto1.iMGSRC.RU
From the pictures we do gain one piece of important information not mentioned elsewhere: there are approach lights in place, though perhaps not exactly up to current ICAO standards...
It's not approach lights, it's standart lights used by emergency (EMERCOM) for working in the dark.
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 18:18
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 214
Animation of Polish Government Tu154M crash. RIP.

YouTube - Plane Crash Animation that Killed RIP Polish president Lech Kaczynski



Obviously, only proper official sources will have the true flight approach.
.

Last edited by alph2z; 14th Apr 2010 at 00:21.
alph2z is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 18:24
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,286
<<"Do not acknowledge further instructions..."

Heathrow Director,

You must have said the above to the pilot every time you did a full SRA or PAR? >>

I never used PAR, which is a procedure where the controller says "do not acknowledge, etc", and keeps talking. However, during an SRA the controller issues instructions and the pilot responds every time.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 18:38
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Can't remember
Posts: 160
"Do not acknowledge further instructions*

HD I have been given this during numerous SRA approaches at various airfields in the UK, Surley they cant all be wrong
Squealing Pig is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 18:53
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's looking like they were established on straight in final on an NDB approach, took it lower and lower...maybe watching the radar alt to follow terrain, but then hit an antennae at 66ft...then trees.

Another plane had made it in that day, another missed right before them...might have been some pressure, pilots trying to be the hero...

I would be curious to know what the approach speed was......scud running is a 'slow' sport, keeping your speed down to 'find the runway then land'...impacting a tower at slow speeds might have damaged a wing enough to create a stall....can't add enough power to fly it out...damaged wing drops...then hits trees....

Also curious if EPGWS was installed and then disregarded....I wonder if Russian NDB towers and their elevations are in the database....
johns7022 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 19:02
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 547
"From what I understand from Russian press reports initial impact happened before the highway (therefore the white piece may actually be a wing tip). The plane then bounced over the highway and disintegrated upon impacting more trees. Press could be wrong of course."

CNN have a video showing parts of the plane before the highway. I think there is a close up of the piece in question

Robertson: Scene of Polish plane crash stuns onlookers - CNN.com
peter we is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 19:11
  #511 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,410
alph2z;

The only animations which are of any use at all are those which are data-driven from the DFDR and, where it may survive, the QAR.

Anything else is from someone who has some skill with Google Earth or the many animation programs out there, and some imagination. As such, with these animations there is absolutely no basis in reality or fact so they should be completely ignored. Those doing such work, including any media, do not have access to DFDR information.

What is reliably known now is that the tree-breakage and wreckage pattern means the aircraft was low on the approach and in a low rate-of-descent regime rather than in a high rate-of-descent loss-of-control situation. This speaks to approach issues rather than operational/aircraft issues but why they were low cannot be established from what we know thus far.

That is why it would be helpful to know what approach was in use and what charts were being used by the flight crew and what those charts indicated.

Has it been firmly established that they were doing an NDB approach?

For others pondering the meaning of such approaches, an NDB approach is essentially a cloud-breaking procedure with questionable accuracy.

To add a bit of precision to the approach, a time (in minutes/seconds) to the runway threshold or, (better), the MDA, (minimum descent altitude) from the FAF (final approach fix) using a ground-speed chart and altitude to lose are provided on the chart along with a rate-of-descent.

This is intended to provide a uniform rate of descent towards the MDA, ideally reaching the MDA at or slightly before the time is up rather than what is called the "dive-and-drive" descent where high rates of descent obtain followed by a level-off for level-flight low to the ground and perhaps some distance away from the runway.

The timed approach with published rate of descent is so that the crew know when they should descend no further until they establish firm visual contact with the runway.

However, the temptation to scud-run (as the previous poster accurately states) once one sees a bit of the ground, can be very high. The result is a very high risk approach in poor visibility.

But because of accuracy issues (left or right of course) and the complete absence of vertical guidance and the illusions which may be caused by variations in terrain, (such as here), the civilian regulatory limitations on forward visibility are high on such approaches. If I recall from earlier posts, the visibility was around 400m, or very near/at CATII limits precluding any kind of non-precision approach.

PJ2

Last edited by PJ2; 13th Apr 2010 at 19:35.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 19:15
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Russian NDB/ Locator Towers

The airports that I used in Far Eastern Russia always had the inner NDB situated at the approach end of the runway in line with the extended centre line.

It was good to show where the end of the runway was although the Tower itself was an obstacle for both the take-off and landing.

Tmb
Tmbstory is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 19:23
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,052
peter we,

Thanks for the CNN link.

Don't know how long ago their reporter was there, but it makes no difference: how much evidence may have been removed by scavenging sightseers? Am astonished at the apparent lack of security. The opposite of a police-state, it seems...

Chris

PS
Re. the 3-metre-long piece of a wing part, that the reporter was examining: is it a piece of the ultimate stage of a multi-stage T/E wing flap?
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 19:47
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
CNN have a video showing parts of the plane before the highway.
I am really shocked about total lack of protection of important forensic evidence
left unattended by any security forces, readily available to looters and
souvenir seekers.

If there was any kind of mechanical failure and parts being lost before impact,
there is very little chance they will be ever found or evaluated.

It will be just few days before the e-bay will be over-flooded with pieces
of this aircraft for sale.

This is far beyond my understanding of "careful and thorough investigation".

Ptkay is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 20:26
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: est
Posts: 68
It will be just few days before the e-bay will be over-flooded with pieces
of this aircraft for sale.
How many people in Smolensk know about the existence of E-bay?

I think that only the main site (the fuselage) was secured at that time, no one of the persons responsible managed to think about gathering some pieces of metal in the nearby wood.

And why anyone will take these pieces of metal? Everybody knows about the problems that will happen to them in this case...
liider is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 20:41
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 298
Amateur video just after the crash.

YouTube - ????? ???????.mp4


Question to people knowing very well the Tu-154. How many recordes are usually on board.
To my knowledge there are 2 MSRP recorders - 1 operational and one crash resistant "black box", MARS or??/and?? MS-61 recorder. The Polish Tu-154 had an additional QAR recorder installed. Anything else?

Arrakis
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 21:16
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
PTKAY

I mentioned the ron brown crash much earlier in the thread.

AS TO : WHY NOT CLOSE THE AIRPORT? (from a new guy poster)

While I don't pretend to know russian procedures or polish procedures, I do know good old USA stuff.

AND a number of pilots don't know jack about what it means to "CLOSE" an airport.

Certainly some airline pilots will come over the PA system and say: folks, we can't land at Cleveland right now because the airport is closed due to bad weather.

WELL, that isn't really right.

ONE: Only the airport management can close an airport...for example, the Port Authority of New York for LGA. Like closing the runways to plow them to remove snow...ATC will relay management's closure, but ATC doesn't close the airport.

TWO: IF the TOWER SAYS: Airport Closed, it is probably due to an accident in which the crash/fire/rescue units are responding, and full response would not be available for another crash. This is usually done with a letter of understanding from the airport authority/management to act on their behalf in an accident situation.

THREE: ATC in the US can't "CLOSE" an airport due to bad weather. Certainly ATC might abandon the control tower if a massive tornado is approaching, but closing the airport ...NO.

SADLY, ATC may not actually say: For God's sake, don't land, the weather is awful. While a controller may act with MORAL AUTHORITY, they don't tell you that YOU can't land even if all hell is breaking loose.

So, airport closure isn't really a safeguard for anything.

And very sadly, there are airline pilots who don't know the above, and honestly feel that if they are cleared to land...the weather is good enough.

HA.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 21:20
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: est
Posts: 68
I should think quite a lot
E-bay was launched in Russia just 3 weeks ago and it's impossible to sell anything there due to restrictions, the only possibility is to buy.

Ebay delayed its Russia launch

For people, who live in the Western world, these plane pieces are in the first place forensic evidence and may cost some money.
Of course, the area should have been secured according to the Western rules we are used to, I think that Russian security guys thought about securing valuable stuff, the luggage of the passengers.
And a normal Russian civilian will not steal anything that has no value for him when guys from the Federal Security Service hang around.
liider is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 21:28
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Above the clouds
Posts: 81
Amateur video just after the crash.

YouTube - ????? ???????.mp4
Guys?! Where is the fire?!
Yeah is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 21:30
  #520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
@yeah

Engines torn off completely with tail section, so no hot metal at the tanks!?
hetfield is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.