Polish Government Tu154M crash
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me the possible scenario was:
1. The pilot gets the information on bad weather and informs President
about possible diversion well ahead, probably near Minsk.
2. The President and the aids, maybe also the Head of Air Force say,
"go ahead to Smoleńsk, we will see, there is sometimes a gap in the fog".
3. They continue to Smoleńsk, the pilot reports again fog and low visibility,
suggests diversion. Again, he is told to "look for a gap".
4. He circles 3 times trying to wait for a weather change or "find a gap". He reports
to the President and/or HoAF, "no gap" we have to divert. The answer is:
"Let's at least have a try, then we divert,
we will, at least, be sure we did everything we could..."
5. The doomed approach starts...
As I mentioned before, there might be nothing to hear on the CVR,
because this was a common practice (as mentioned by former President
Lech Walesa in an interview), that it was the Capitan who was
leaving the cockpit to inform the President and his aids personally about
the situation and to discuss the solutions. Sometimes they were just deciding
which alternate to use in case of diversion, such discussions were harmless
to the safety of operations.
If the CVR will confirm that anybody of the crew left the cockpit,
we can assume this was the reason. Nevertheless, the conversations
among crew members would indicate, that my scenario, as sketched above
is probable.
Unfortunately, such conversations might have taken place long enough
before the final events, so they can be easily left out from the final
publication of the CVR transcripts, as promised today by the Chief Prosecutor,
from the Polish Military Accident Investigation Commission.
1. The pilot gets the information on bad weather and informs President
about possible diversion well ahead, probably near Minsk.
2. The President and the aids, maybe also the Head of Air Force say,
"go ahead to Smoleńsk, we will see, there is sometimes a gap in the fog".
3. They continue to Smoleńsk, the pilot reports again fog and low visibility,
suggests diversion. Again, he is told to "look for a gap".
4. He circles 3 times trying to wait for a weather change or "find a gap". He reports
to the President and/or HoAF, "no gap" we have to divert. The answer is:
"Let's at least have a try, then we divert,
we will, at least, be sure we did everything we could..."
5. The doomed approach starts...
As I mentioned before, there might be nothing to hear on the CVR,
because this was a common practice (as mentioned by former President
Lech Walesa in an interview), that it was the Capitan who was
leaving the cockpit to inform the President and his aids personally about
the situation and to discuss the solutions. Sometimes they were just deciding
which alternate to use in case of diversion, such discussions were harmless
to the safety of operations.
If the CVR will confirm that anybody of the crew left the cockpit,
we can assume this was the reason. Nevertheless, the conversations
among crew members would indicate, that my scenario, as sketched above
is probable.
Unfortunately, such conversations might have taken place long enough
before the final events, so they can be easily left out from the final
publication of the CVR transcripts, as promised today by the Chief Prosecutor,
from the Polish Military Accident Investigation Commission.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: est
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Russian forums:
"I listened to the CVR tape today. To be more precise - the last 20 minutes.
The Polish prosecutor was right, the final is dramatic. They understood EVERYTHING during the last 5 seconds...
The most interesting is another thing. Fog... visibility... navigation... Bulls''t! According to what I heard in the last 20 minutes, they would have landed in Smolensk even if there was a herd of cows or the Saint Mary herself on the runway!
No one from the cabin told anything to them (at least, it is not on the tape). Seems, they understood themselves, how important that was. And twice asked "Are we in time?..."
They were in a big hurry. Never discussed the possibility to divert. It was their first approach, visual."
"I listened to the CVR tape today. To be more precise - the last 20 minutes.
The Polish prosecutor was right, the final is dramatic. They understood EVERYTHING during the last 5 seconds...
The most interesting is another thing. Fog... visibility... navigation... Bulls''t! According to what I heard in the last 20 minutes, they would have landed in Smolensk even if there was a herd of cows or the Saint Mary herself on the runway!
No one from the cabin told anything to them (at least, it is not on the tape). Seems, they understood themselves, how important that was. And twice asked "Are we in time?..."
They were in a big hurry. Never discussed the possibility to divert. It was their first approach, visual."
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did she phone a friend, from on-board?
called his brother on the satellite phone to say
"Everything is OK, we are landing in 15 minutes".
Also, as reported by a personal doctor to the family, Mr. Kaczyński also
called him from the a/c to get information about the state of his
mother's health. She is since weeks in hospital in very a serious condition.
So it s quite possible, that also she called somebody, or Mr. Kaczyński
told his brother, that she is not in the cabin with him, just before the landing.
This could be the explanation, why the body of the President was recognized so fast,
and the recognition of the body of the First Lady took 3 days and
needed indications about her jewellery and nail paint colour.
The front part of the a/c was in, relatively, good shape, compared to the rear.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most interesting is another thing. Fog... visibility... navigation... Bulls''t! According to what I heard in the last 20 minutes, they would have landed in Smolensk even if there was a herd of cows or the Saint Mary herself on the runway!
or even the briefing conversations with the Presidential aids...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were in a big hurry. Never discussed the possibility to divert. It was their first approach, visual."
here is the answer: VISUAL
With 400 m visibility...
"Failure is not an option".
PJ...
re your comments about how certain systems may get installed and certified in (what I will call) "other than Western" jurisdictions. I have very recently been involved (after the fact) in two different accidents -- both in Asia -- where installed and certified GPS and EGPWS databases were erroneous in terms of terrain heights and locations. One case involved enroute MSAs that had completely omitted (maybe still have?) a mountain that extends over 2000' above an MSA (!) on an approved route. The other case involves towers and trees missing from an approach database for a (non-precision) IFR runway. Interestingly, in that case the runway endpoint is also erroneously offset (tangentially) almost 400 meters in the database, on certified software and certified equipment.
I am not at all saying this is the case here (Smolensk), I am simply commenting on the fact that civil aviation standards and regulatory oversight in some parts of the world are very different than what many from "the West" are used to. Indeed, in some parts of the world -- regardless of what the charts, databases and AIPs may indicate -- one must use extreme caution (more than "normal caution") when operating at or near minimums of any sort.
grizz
re your comments about how certain systems may get installed and certified in (what I will call) "other than Western" jurisdictions. I have very recently been involved (after the fact) in two different accidents -- both in Asia -- where installed and certified GPS and EGPWS databases were erroneous in terms of terrain heights and locations. One case involved enroute MSAs that had completely omitted (maybe still have?) a mountain that extends over 2000' above an MSA (!) on an approved route. The other case involves towers and trees missing from an approach database for a (non-precision) IFR runway. Interestingly, in that case the runway endpoint is also erroneously offset (tangentially) almost 400 meters in the database, on certified software and certified equipment.
I am not at all saying this is the case here (Smolensk), I am simply commenting on the fact that civil aviation standards and regulatory oversight in some parts of the world are very different than what many from "the West" are used to. Indeed, in some parts of the world -- regardless of what the charts, databases and AIPs may indicate -- one must use extreme caution (more than "normal caution") when operating at or near minimums of any sort.
grizz
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grizzeld,
finally some new and extremely valid point.
I was involved in developing a non certified database for
non certified GPS/FMS system for Poland.
I can assure you, that what we achieved as amateurs was way
above the database provided by the certified Garmin units.
The other problem is, that in case of some ex soviet military airbases
the data were biased on purpose. If somebody was not aware of it
and didn't take care to, at least, compare them with the satellite images,
then the result could have been disastrous.
Once having aboard a modern FMS and using it in most cases, one
develops a treacherous, blind confidence in it and stops thinking...
Being used to fly according to your nice "glass-cockpit" screens, you sometimes
forget to look out through the windscreen...
finally some new and extremely valid point.
I was involved in developing a non certified database for
non certified GPS/FMS system for Poland.
I can assure you, that what we achieved as amateurs was way
above the database provided by the certified Garmin units.
The other problem is, that in case of some ex soviet military airbases
the data were biased on purpose. If somebody was not aware of it
and didn't take care to, at least, compare them with the satellite images,
then the result could have been disastrous.
Once having aboard a modern FMS and using it in most cases, one
develops a treacherous, blind confidence in it and stops thinking...
Being used to fly according to your nice "glass-cockpit" screens, you sometimes
forget to look out through the windscreen...
Hi dvv...
I take your point -- which is why I specifically wrote I was not saying that software or database inaccuracties did, or did not, play a part in this accident,
Having said that, virtually all of the world's militaries use civilian manufactured and certified (on-board) navigation equipment. Military transport aircraft -- especially those that carry VIP's -- spend most of their time in civilian airspace, under civil ATC, and operating into and out of civil airports. We don't yet know what nav systems / equipment this particular aircraft was using, but I'll bet you a case of beer that the databases and software were civilian manufactured and (hopefully) certified.
grizz
I take your point -- which is why I specifically wrote I was not saying that software or database inaccuracties did, or did not, play a part in this accident,
Having said that, virtually all of the world's militaries use civilian manufactured and certified (on-board) navigation equipment. Military transport aircraft -- especially those that carry VIP's -- spend most of their time in civilian airspace, under civil ATC, and operating into and out of civil airports. We don't yet know what nav systems / equipment this particular aircraft was using, but I'll bet you a case of beer that the databases and software were civilian manufactured and (hopefully) certified.
grizz
From Russian forums:
"I listened to the CVR tape today. To be more precise - the last 20 minutes.
The Polish prosecutor was right, the final is dramatic. They understood EVERYTHING during the last 5 seconds...
"I listened to the CVR tape today. To be more precise - the last 20 minutes.
The Polish prosecutor was right, the final is dramatic. They understood EVERYTHING during the last 5 seconds...
Arrakis
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 48
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Link
@ ARRAKIS
Here you go:
???????? ?????? - ?????????-?????????
btw - the poster didn't mean "VISUAL" as VFR approach, rather he wanted to say that they were looking out (as he explains further down the thread)
He also indicates that the CVR transcript is going to be published quite soon.
My first post here - rather interesting.
Here you go:
???????? ?????? - ?????????-?????????
btw - the poster didn't mean "VISUAL" as VFR approach, rather he wanted to say that they were looking out (as he explains further down the thread)
He also indicates that the CVR transcript is going to be published quite soon.
My first post here - rather interesting.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Closer than you think
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One theory yesterday was that the crew were not familiar with a key peculiarity of the Tupolev-154.
What an idiotic suggestion. The captain had 3000 hours on the thing. I'll be amazed if that Mail story has an ounce of research or truth in it, not least because it seems to contradict the most basic, known information.
Arrakis
safetypee...
One of the important bits of info that so many of us are interested in (and so far has not been made clear, at least not on this thread or in press releases that I've seen) relates to the age and nature of the aircraft's equipment. What types and generation of nav equipment were onboard? What level, if any, of "glass cockpit" did this particular aircraft have? Was the other TU-154 (of the same squadron) similarly equippped? The work that was done in modifying or updating the aircraft last December is therefore just one of the many things that will be of interest. Until we get some of those answers we won't know who owes some beer to whom.
In any event, I'll use almost any excuse to justify a trip to the UK -- even if I end up having to buy the beer...
grizz
One of the important bits of info that so many of us are interested in (and so far has not been made clear, at least not on this thread or in press releases that I've seen) relates to the age and nature of the aircraft's equipment. What types and generation of nav equipment were onboard? What level, if any, of "glass cockpit" did this particular aircraft have? Was the other TU-154 (of the same squadron) similarly equippped? The work that was done in modifying or updating the aircraft last December is therefore just one of the many things that will be of interest. Until we get some of those answers we won't know who owes some beer to whom.
In any event, I'll use almost any excuse to justify a trip to the UK -- even if I end up having to buy the beer...
grizz
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go, the cockpit.
Hi res:
Photos: Tupolev Tu-154M Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
AFAIK it is the Honeywell FMS, including all the bells an whistles.
Hi res:
Photos: Tupolev Tu-154M Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
AFAIK it is the Honeywell FMS, including all the bells an whistles.
I listened to the CVR tape today. To be more precise - the last 20 minutes.
The Polish prosecutor was right, the final is dramatic. They understood EVERYTHING during the last 5 seconds...
The Polish prosecutor was right, the final is dramatic. They understood EVERYTHING during the last 5 seconds...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ptkay, yes, Izvestia wrote that Polish Health Minister was in Moscow and recognised Maria Kachinsky by her ring, with the ingraving inside, wedding ring.
Awful disaster.
I also read that reference to that last 20 minutes recorded, and cleaned out of noise and extra sounds, as I understood. The man who posted flat refused to say in whose office he was let to listen to the recording. From questions trying to extract out of him more, I understood there is no command or interferance of the Polish President into the crew work recorded. But that from discussions of the crew btw themselves it follows they only said to the ground that "we will try once and if doesn't work will go away to the reserve airport" but in fact didn't plan to, at all. They not so much "tried" but were simply landing whatever it will be.
My unscientific idea is all were way too polite, in comms, airport-airplane.
To the prev. Russian plane the airport said go away and they went away, llike, ground says airplane does, they trusted each other. Now, when the controller was interviewed, it's not for nothing they were asking him why didn't you, like, shout them a big No and many times over again. Did they swear at you, or what, why didn't you, like, shouted at them, repeatedly - stop it!
And it appears that nobody knows if a military airplane landing at a civil-military airport, has to do unequivocally what the ground tells him, type Aye Aye Sir. For the controller it was a foreign military plane, and moreover "Bort Nomer Odin" - Board No 1 (carrying Head of a State). I think if it were an own plane, going across the controller, confirming they got it, that landing impossible, and still saying "we will try once" - the ground controller will find some words, very expressive, to re-convince.
But that's just my general feeling, I am no aviator.
Pilots in the blog discuss could the controller deny them the airport, somehow, entirely, under IATA? some article, and arrived to the conclusion that couldn't have been, none of the 3 reasons there (plane position not allowing landing, too short distance between landing planes, technical defects of the runway).
Awful disaster.
I also read that reference to that last 20 minutes recorded, and cleaned out of noise and extra sounds, as I understood. The man who posted flat refused to say in whose office he was let to listen to the recording. From questions trying to extract out of him more, I understood there is no command or interferance of the Polish President into the crew work recorded. But that from discussions of the crew btw themselves it follows they only said to the ground that "we will try once and if doesn't work will go away to the reserve airport" but in fact didn't plan to, at all. They not so much "tried" but were simply landing whatever it will be.
My unscientific idea is all were way too polite, in comms, airport-airplane.
To the prev. Russian plane the airport said go away and they went away, llike, ground says airplane does, they trusted each other. Now, when the controller was interviewed, it's not for nothing they were asking him why didn't you, like, shout them a big No and many times over again. Did they swear at you, or what, why didn't you, like, shouted at them, repeatedly - stop it!
And it appears that nobody knows if a military airplane landing at a civil-military airport, has to do unequivocally what the ground tells him, type Aye Aye Sir. For the controller it was a foreign military plane, and moreover "Bort Nomer Odin" - Board No 1 (carrying Head of a State). I think if it were an own plane, going across the controller, confirming they got it, that landing impossible, and still saying "we will try once" - the ground controller will find some words, very expressive, to re-convince.
But that's just my general feeling, I am no aviator.
Pilots in the blog discuss could the controller deny them the airport, somehow, entirely, under IATA? some article, and arrived to the conclusion that couldn't have been, none of the 3 reasons there (plane position not allowing landing, too short distance between landing planes, technical defects of the runway).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: east of north east
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the blog entry from the guy who allegedly listened to the last 20 minutes of the recording ???????? ?????? - ?????????-?????????
For non-Russian speakers
(1) the alleged context of this leak was a visit from the author of the blog to his friend, a high ranking government official
(2) not much info is given apart from that the last 5 seconds are dramatic, communication with military ATC is in Russian, no apparent misunderstanding. No outsiders in the cockpit. Pilots were under stress to make it to Smolensk on time, arrival time to destination features several time in conversations.
(3) recording has a lot of noise and is not very intelligible, however the transcript was already available, with approvals by both Russian and Polish side.
(4) in the final stage of the flight it appears that pilots were trying to make visual contact with the ground. it does not state if approach was visual or PAR. in fact the author of the blog professes to know nothing about aviation.
(5) it mentions that the Russian side was ready to release the transcript of recording but Polish side insists on waiting a bit longer (until after the funeral?)
Could be fake but somehow does not feel like it watching the rest of the blog. The guy owns Aston Martin, why does he need cheap attention?
For non-Russian speakers
(1) the alleged context of this leak was a visit from the author of the blog to his friend, a high ranking government official
(2) not much info is given apart from that the last 5 seconds are dramatic, communication with military ATC is in Russian, no apparent misunderstanding. No outsiders in the cockpit. Pilots were under stress to make it to Smolensk on time, arrival time to destination features several time in conversations.
(3) recording has a lot of noise and is not very intelligible, however the transcript was already available, with approvals by both Russian and Polish side.
(4) in the final stage of the flight it appears that pilots were trying to make visual contact with the ground. it does not state if approach was visual or PAR. in fact the author of the blog professes to know nothing about aviation.
(5) it mentions that the Russian side was ready to release the transcript of recording but Polish side insists on waiting a bit longer (until after the funeral?)
Could be fake but somehow does not feel like it watching the rest of the blog. The guy owns Aston Martin, why does he need cheap attention?