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 15th Apr 2010, 19:46
  #621 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483

again, the CASA accident similarities are stunning...

ASN Aircraft accident Casa C-295M 019 Miroslawiec AB

- The PIC did not have any previous experience on this version of CASA C-295 aircraft, which was additionally equipped with 2 IRS/GPS LN-100G units instead of 2 TOPSTAR 100-2 GPS receivers, and, ironically, with EGPWS Mk. V – unfortunately lack of cryptographic modules in GPS receivers, which made IRS/GPS LN-100G system almost useless (IRS alone with no GPS enhancement) caused flight crew to use handheld GPS receivers (Garmin GPSMAP 196),
I do not suggest such gigantic errors were possible in the Tu-154, but sometimes
the Polish army lack some really negligible amounts of cash to buy software
and database updates to the most sophisticated systems installed, that cost millions...

EGPWS Audio warning was inhibited (the flight crew missed EGPWS test before departure from Warsaw, even though it was a checklist item, and never corrected the problem – the PIC was not familiar with the system – he has never flown before CASA C-295M equipped with EGPWS) – in result no audio warning of excessive bank angle, high terrain closure rate and high sink rate was available to the flight crew, as well as no automatic height above ground callouts were given,
Again, I do not suggest such gigantic errors were possible in the Tu-154.
But the similarities of these two accidents are stunning.
Ptkay is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 20:28
  #622 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Age: 47
Posts: 11
Some interesting graphics from a Russian forum:

a/c orientation throughout the crash:

possible landing gear marks:

tree cliping elevations graph:
kingofbongo is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 20:35
  #623 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 80
A press photo today seems to confirm that the stray piece I mentioned earlier is the wing-tip.
GobonaStick is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 21:36
  #624 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Italy
Age: 45
Posts: 6
What the controller said...

Translation (excerpt) of the interview between a Russian journalist and the controller Pavel Pliusnin (sorry for the graphic layout, but html was not cooperating with word settings..):

Controller- They were suggested to fly to an emergency airport. They refused.
Journalist- It was you who suggested them?
C- Yes
J- For what reason?
C- Because I saw that the weather was getting worse..
J- And what was the answer?
C- The answer was: "I have enough fuel, I'll do one passage and I'll fly to the emergency airport, if I don't land.”

J-We received the information, that the pilot was suggested to land in other cities.
C-I suggested him this too.
J-And why did he refuse to do so?
C-He would have had to ask about that.
J-(...)And what were your further actions?
C- (...) . I can't tell you more.
J-(and then) what did they say?

C-For any kind of instruction I gave, at the beginning they gave me information, then they stopped giving any kind of information. ..

J-They stopped listening to your instructions?

C-They had to give a kvitanzia (receipt), but they didn't.
J-What kind of kvitanzia (receipt)??
C-Data about the height on attempt to land.
J-They even didn't give you information about the height of the airplane?
C-Yes, they didn't.

(...) J-And why didn't they give you this 'kvitanzia' (receipt)??
C-How the heck can I know? Because they spoke a bad Russian.
J-And then he went ahead with that landing, that you forbade him??

C-I cannot forbid, I recommended him, that he didn't try it!

On the Russian aviation forum people are insisting on the fact that the controller had to close the aerodrom (which would have been a very difficult decision to take, considering diplomatic issues involved!!). I guess the (btw - military) controller probably asked a superior on what to do...
wizele is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 21:54
  #625 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 23
They probably got the warning, as the tree cuts measurements show, they were climbing, but terrain was climbing faster.
Not that it matters very much for them, but maybe it is good to know: In spite of all their errors, in the end they managed to rise faster than the terrain. From the height of 4 meters above ground, in this picture,

and being at least 9 meters below the runaway, they finally managed to rise some 20 meters above constantly rising ground and as much above level of the runaway, and almost exactly on the course. They were out of the valley and above the top of the hill but, unfortunately, still below the top of the trees near the road. And they would probably make it, if only those trees were not there. So, the lesson is: Airports with "death valley" in front of them should consider clearing the trees on the runaway axis, even if they are 800m far away and partially below the runaway level.

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 cannot even remotely imagine how it would feel. They were first going down at the downward slope of the valley (it's not wide or deep, and they definitely were in it), then climbing up the rising side, constantly looking at the grass several meters in front of the cockpit - but never actually falling down. Four or five seconds, small eternity. And then through upper branches of the trees, successfully over the top of the hill and finally in full sight of the nearby runaway, but without parts of the wing … "dramatic" may not be the right word.
PaleBlueDot is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 21:54
  #626 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 5
Just as a confirmation of few facts, short interview (in polish) with another pilot who has flown this plane few days earlier landing at the same airport (Smolensk). Trzy dni wcze?niej l?dowa? na tym samym lotnisku - Wideo - portal TVN24.pl - 15.04.2010 He says, that plane was fitted with EGPWS, mentiones that approach to Smolensk is based on two NDBs (he doesn't mention PAR/SAR, but on other hand it is not an in depth interview). Also says that it is very easy to switch avionics on board between metric and imperial units and that in the past they never had problems using correct ones.
piotro is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 22:15
  #627 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 614

Thanks for that pic.
I couldnt tell (by going to the site) whether the photo is:
A. The accident aircraft, or its squadron partner, and
B. Before or after the December upgrades.

Does ayone have that info?
grizzled is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 22:17
  #628 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
727 History

3 Holer History - I recall the 727 had a sink rate problem many years ago and had to carry power through the approach thereafter
Old 15th Apr 2010, 22:51
  #629 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
USA Today:

The Russian-built Tupolev TU-154 had been equipped with a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) made by Universal Avionics Systems of Tucson, said company spokesman John Hamby.
Machaca is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 22:59
  #630 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155

ok, case of beer it is. So tell me — what's the Russian cert no. for that database? Or at least what is the Russian process of certifying GPS–based navigation databases?
dvv is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 23:00
  #631 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 272
in the very beg. of the discussion on the Russian avia blogs someone wrote that already after the plane engines fixing and internal ? panels lining (for more modern looks inside) in December in Samara factory, the Polish TU was additionally equipped in Poland with something good and American for navigation. Sorry for "something good" it is my ineterpretation :o) I simply didn't understand the abbreviations.

Anyway here is a link to reconstruction of how a piece of a wing flew off away (possibly) after hanging on a bit, after meeting with the birch tree.
The green line is the correct glissade, leading to the runway, the red line is the one the plane was following, and after the hit with 2 trees it swayed leftward somehow.

? ????????? ???? ??????? • ?????????? ?????
Alice025 is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 23:15
  #632 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
Official investigation site:

(Google translation)

It was established that the site of the first contact with the plane trees, is located on 1050 meters distance from the end of the runway (the area near the drive) and to the left of the track for about 40-45 meters. After 200 m the aircraft collided with a tree left wing, resulting in a sharp krenenie aircraft with the coup left. Most of the fragments of the aircraft is at a distance of 350-500 meters from the end of the runway, the left lane at 150 m.
Machaca is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 23:25
  #633 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Age: 41
Posts: 1
Hi all... Sorry if my english is bad.

I read you for a few days, and you are very good source of informations about this tragedy.
I am not expert, but i like planes.
In this accident I am interested in technical details.
And a few pages before i noticed that someone wrote that speed was 150m/s (540 km/h). If this information is true(??), that is little strange.
As I know about landing and approach speed that is way to big speed for approach. I think that on that speed thay couldnt deploy landing geer at all.
So could someone who know this things better than me, explain why speed was so big, and did thay could land at that speed at all (if thay pass those trees safe...)?

Hope that my question does not disturb your discussion.

Skokic is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 23:35
  #634 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
Alice025: Thanks for the link to this image:

Here is the severed portion of the left wing:

Machaca is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 00:01
  #635 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 614
hey dvv...
don't you mean "Polish"?

grizzled is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 00:13
  #636 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 272
Quotes (from Smolensk forum)
First the board passes Far Beacon with Marker (DPRM), this is the beg. of going into landing, at that in the pilot cabin there works a sound signal, the height is controlled by height meter, then follows the stage of lowering to 60m (The Height of Decision Taking), this height the vessel should have above the Near Beacon with Marker (BPRM); when it passes it it is also confirmed by sound and light signal. In this case the crew clearly didn't hear the BPRM signal. From the Near Beacon to the butt-end of the runway are located lights of nearing with which the Kommander should establish visual contact if visibility of the runway is limited. (explaininhg to someone how it is in Smolensk airport)
- Chaps, I listened to the tape only once. The trees they haven't seen, were shouting each other some numbers. Were losing height unexpectedly and quickly.
-If to take time from when Belorussians passed them over to crash it's 36 minutes. 4 minutes flight, 3 ?swirls ? over the point this is 12 minutes and 20 minutes for one attempt to land.
-There was a connection, the crew had where and with what to say about their problems, why did they keep quiet?
- And of what they would talk, that the plane, most likely, lost a part of the wing console, is making a "barrel" at the height of 10 m? Because before that their only problem was they went on at the height of several metres. But this problem they'd have managed themselves - if they would know about it!
- Technical commission: It's established that the place of first touch with the trees is 1,050 m away from the runway butt-end (area of Near Beacon) and away left from the course by approx. 40-45m. In 200m there was a clash of the plane with a tree.
(so at the Near Beacon they were at 8 m height instead of 60)
- I think this piece of the wing could have torn away later, when the plane was already going over the road, as it cut the tree with the wing, began craning, and on the other side of the road it tore off away completely. Before the fall the plane turned over 180 degrees that is it fell tail down, there at the sputnik photo the mark on the ground is well seen, that's why of passangers no one survived, they were covered from above.
Alice025 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 00:21
  #637 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Ptkay, are you sure that is a Honeywell FMS? Honeywell typically prints their name in the upper left of the bezel. Collins and Universal put their names centered on the top of the bezel. The display above the FMS is a Universal MFD-640, and it's been reported above (by USA Today) that the TAWS was a Universal TAWS, not Honeywell. I'm guessing the FMS is Universal as well.

Smolensk UUBS is not in the Universal TAWS database (not in Honeywell EGPWS either) according to their websites, so the TAWS would give nuisance alerts during every approach/landing unless those predictive functions were inhibited by pilot. If they were inhibited, all they're left with is the rad-alt based GPWS modes, and as stated earlier without ILS and in a stable descent there would be no alerts, except the routine altitude calls if enabled.
GroundProxGuy is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 00:31
  #638 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 272
Machasa, you are welcome.
This is all weird for me, I mean, unknown stuff, but I worked for DHL before, in Moscow, and have some sympathy for ? when aviators try to manage it better. To know local things Russian, for the future.
BTW someone asked there, why this airport, for so important a delegation? Vitebsk could have been used, Lukashenko's, it's 2hr drive away only. And they said, like, still, they were flying to Russia, not Belorussia, and the airport was found OK just the week before, for Putin plane, and Co, and for the Polish Premiere plane, and for the journalists, and relatives, when there was the official ceremony, last week. So apparently they took some labour to ? improve it may be. Or had checked, as min.
Alice025 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 03:30
  #639 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
GroundProx got it right -- it had Universal Avionics FMS + TAWS:

Close-up of panel:

Last edited by Machaca; 16th Apr 2010 at 05:45.
Machaca is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 05:39
  #640 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Ptkay, are you sure that is a Honeywell FMS?
No, I am not, just second hand information, sorry...
Ptkay 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.