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 16th Apr 2010, 05:43
  #641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
So the former argument about the 120 deg cut on the tree is closed.

They did go inverted due to loosing left wing tip, then loosing the
entire left wing.

Absolutely no chance for survival for anyone on board.
Ptkay is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 05:46
  #642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
"Do przyjaciół Moskali".

To our Russian chaps here on the forum

Many thanks for your input, professional and bringing lots of valid information.

Большое спасибо дорогие друзья!

Last edited by Ptkay; 16th Apr 2010 at 13:13.
Ptkay is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 07:44
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 649
They did go inverted due to loosing left wing tip, then loosing the entire left wing.
A technical question to anybody in the know. Would a TU5 or any similar sized a/c (727, 737) remain controlable at landing speed on right aileron and rudder after losing a left wingtip and aileron? Obviously irrelevant here, as the crew had no time to experiment, just curious.
andrasz is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 08:52
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Who knows...
Posts: 8
Yesterday i had read on on some rusian forum about Kyrgystan (?) TU-154 incident. A/C lost about 2 m. of wing during takeoff. They managed to takeoff, go around and land.
Looking at thorn wing part picture it looks - there was about 4-5 m. of wing missing, maybe a bit to much.
Ground Brick is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 09:13
  #645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Italy, Switzerland, Poland
Age: 44
Posts: 2
Yesterday i had read on on some rusian forum about Kyrgystan (?) TU-154 incident. A/C lost about 2 m. of wing during takeoff. They managed to takeoff, go around and land. Looking at thorn wing part picture it looks - there was about 4-5 m. of wing missing, maybe a bit to much.
well I dont know the story , but I can immagine there may be other significant differences between these partial wing loss as fe forces involved during impact (a/c wing vs tree - some rotating torque) and some structural damage resulting in the loss of part of the wing /partial loss of the lift force (only) in the other case - easier and more important - leaving longer time for reaction / control
graziano is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 09:26
  #646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 7
TU154 was below runway level ?

Korn is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 10:36
  #647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 272
Sorry can't find it somehow, there was a large photo and comment that the airport should cut all trees in approach. As they nearly made it, managed to get sharply up, out of the ? that hole pre-road, made it over the road, but hit the trees again the other road side. That's of course, after this tragedy, absolutely.
Still, if you look at the reconstruction aerial maps, of the Smolensk chap who stubbornly works on them (it's easier for him, he is local. can take a drive, look up, after all), they were 15 metres above the road, not 2.5 m above the ground, as they started it, the lowest point, in the hole. May be not the trees on the other road side were the problem for them at that point, but that they were already half turned over, above the road.

The forum over there concluded that if not that turn over they would have made it, they gained their height, got out of the hole.
And at least would have landed on the trees the other road side heavy, but not with so many casualties.
And that even that they were not on the glissade but slightly leftward -their route, factually taken - the red line - was still bringing them right onto the runway, not bad course, they would do the runway.

Somehow they figured the route that brings them to the runway, whatever fog or navigation problems - they were directed, or managed to be directed - they were going straight steady line to the runway, and to make it along it.

It's that turn over spin that they got into somehow, two problems to manage in too short time. The height gaining and the rotating.

Car on the road evidence said when the plane was over them something was falling from it, like powdering, small bits.

Re the loss of the part of the wing and was the plane pilot-able after, the other forum says pilot-able, but which "alerons" got stuck after the piece of the wing loss - none, the left one, or both the left one and the right one? This only commission knows. If it does.

With both "alerons" stuck they think that? no-go. With one - a pilot says - yes, but there is a method, you go straight up, and don't ? turn the wheel? change direction? something re TU piloting specific, in this situation (like the other TU in the other example did and got out).
Alice025 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 10:51
  #648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 272
And the main thing - no body yet said how they got into this ? cascade of heroic saving deeds , in the first place.

8 m from the ground, then 2.5 m from the ground. Without knowing it!
Smolesnk men say it's a miracle that there hasn't been more casualties.

There are garages, and lots of small work-shops, lots of stuctures there. That they went at their 2.5 between them miraculously, and didn't fall on neither of them, is also something.

And being left from the course also played its deadly ? toll. Along the glissade - there are bushes. No trees.

It is plain scary to think what they undertook to get out of where they got to. But how on Earth they got so low, initially, not aware of it entirely!
Alice025 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 11:17
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 71
Posts: 192
The more you look at the incoming data, the more it appears to be an altimetry error.

Passing abeam the inbound locator at an altitude of 238 m AMSL as shown in the above picture where the correct altitude on a 3 degrees slope should be 327 m corresponds almost exactly to a 10 mb error in altimeter setting, for example setting 990 instead of 980.

Beside, it is possible that the crew was prepared to bust the approach minimum a little given their new equipment but it is unbelievable that looking for the runway by terrain following in dense fog was planned.
DJ77 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 11:44
  #650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 64
Would a TU5 or any similar sized a/c (727, 737) remain controlable at landing speed on right aileron and rudder after losing a left wingtip and aileron?
The Tupolev is equipped with leading edge slats, so what happened to them would be critical in assessing its ability to keep flying.. Assuming the aircraft was flying close to stall speed with the slats extended, the slats are an essential part of lift on the wing. If, as a result of a collision with an object, the slats retracted on one side, were torn off, or were significantly damaged, the stall speed on that wing could rise by perhaps 10 or 15 knots. Thus, if the aircraft was flying close to stall speed, and if the damage was only to one side, the aircraft would immediately roll toward that wing, and the pilot would not be able to correct with the ailerons. Loss of a section of the wing would only add to the problem.
ST27 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 11:48
  #651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Who knows...
Posts: 8
Here is more about Kirgiz TU-154 part of the wing loss:
AMC releases KC-135 accident investigation results

...The KC-135 was struck by a host nation TU-154 that was taking off. The TU-154's right wing struck the fairing of the KC-135's No. 1 engine. The force of the impact nearly severed the No. 1 engine from KC-135 and destroyed a portion of the aircraft's left wing. The TU-154 lost approximately six feet of its right wingtip, but was able to get airborne and return to the airport for an emergency landing with no additional damage to the aircraft.
Ground Brick is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 12:28
  #652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 7
Here You can see whats left from TU154 101

Sk?adaj? Tupolewa ze szcz?tków. Zobacz unikatowe zdj?cia - Polska - Informacje - portal TVN24.pl - 16.04.2010
Korn is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 13:29
  #653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 7
Its especialy painfull if You read post 580 from Vasily Ershov, author of the text book on piloting TU-154:

"To master the piloting of such a complex aircraft as the Tu-154, is required considerable flight time. I came to the Tu-154 at the age of 35 years, with a total 9000 hours of flight time on the three types of aircraft, each of them I flew as the captain, and still the first year was very, very difficult. I flew as the second pilot, 1500 hours, and only then became the commander of the aircraft. And all the older pilots in one voice telling me: fear, fear of the first thousand hours of command in the new type! If it will appear to you, that you are familiar with this aircraft throughout - do not believe it!
Later I saw many times the truth of those warnings and then I also warned the young. And this applies to any new pilots for the aircraft type.

The flight killed a pilot was about 3500 hours (according to his father - 1930 hours), one part of it flown on the Yak-40, part (if you believe the media) as a FO (!) Tu-154, and then somehow became the commander, and (if, again, to believe the media) as PIC on the Tu he had only 200 hours. And this half-educated (albeit talented) was entrusted to carry the president! And the military pilot somewhere to gain experience in the most complex operations in the flying ship, on imperfect systems similar to the one installed in Smolensk? And in general - the experience of flight in adverse weather conditions?
And where is the experience gathered over the years, hundreds of complex approaches to different airports. Where and when he gathered them?
As a result, he made a self-confident, school, simple error: He was searching the ground below the decision height. And found it.

How to help the captain? This aircraft can not fly alone. Data for the crew, too, suggest the doubt. Navigator (if you believe the media) was produced from the school mechanic.
Weather conditions were just deadly: I would, in all my experience, do not dare to go for landing in the fog 400, but he went there blind and stupid.
Ground control had nothing to do with it. The head ATC crew gave advance information about the bad weather, gave advice on caring for an alrternate. He controlled the decline and warned of the flight below the glide path. But flying is done by the pilot!

Do not believe the words: "the pilot of the first class," the best among the best, "chief pilot of the president." !!!
Korn is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 14:45
  #654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 272
Korn, don't be angry with Ershov. Rough? hard opinion, not diplomatically put, true. But then TU fliers respect him, somehow, his book as I understood on the forum, who quote various pages, examples, is ? one big case study, on all that ever happened to this aicraft. Like, encyclopaedia, of Tu-154 life.
The Russian forum was originally and throughout against pilots blaming. They don't like it :o), from comraderie, when pilots are blamed. Too often here it is written off to "human mistake" when there is fuel lack simply, or some bosses directions.
When he checked in and wrote pilots' fault there was like some stunned silence :o), on the forum, it froze still for a while. They asked "can we quote you on that" and he wrote "yes, quote me" "you'll see, later".

And still they cheered up and whatever he said continued with options, and searching for the reason. Because this is not the "book chapter" yet.

Anyway it's been written that the Polish Prosecutor General will make public today the whole content of one black box. Russia wanted yesterday but apparently the Polish side wanted to delay a bit, until after the funeral. But then decided that today, and the full content of it, but "with-helding some private talks not related to fllight for privacy reasons".
If the yesterday's info leak of the recording is correct, there is nothing to delay the publication of the transcript, no need to wait until after the funeral, there was no pressure on the pilots recorded.
Alice025 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 14:54
  #655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 7
I am not angry with Ershow, i am angry with ...
Korn is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 15:12
  #656 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East of the sun, West of the moon
Age: 71
Posts: 2,397
Alice025;
The Russian forum was originally and throughout against pilots blaming. They don't like it :o), from comraderie, when pilots are blamed. Too often here it is written off to "human mistake" when there is fuel lack simply, or some bosses directions.
When he checked in and wrote pilots' fault there was like some stunned silence :o), on the forum, it froze still for a while. They asked "can we quote you on that" and he wrote "yes, quote me" "you'll see, later".

And still they cheered up and whatever he said continued with options, and searching for the reason. Because this is not the "book chapter" yet.
Yes, it is natural for pilots to resist being blamed. Sometimes that is the correct thing to do, sometimes it is not. It may be correct because if just the pilots are blamed but there are other causes, those causes will remain undiscovered and another accident may occur.

If it is only the pilots then that is it. The important task in the investigation is discovering which thing it is - was it the pilots only, or are there other causes? If there are other causes, why were they permitted to occur?

My question is, why would experienced pilots try to land at an airport with such low visibility but which did not seem to have any vertical approach guidance for the aircraft? Why was the aircraft so low so early on the approach?

Normally, a pilot who knew that visibility was very poor would not begin to descend for an approach when he could not see beyond 400m without some form of vertical guidance such as an ILS or a GPS or a PAR (Precision Approach Radar - a ground-controller-guided approach) which would accurately place the aircraft safely above the terrain until the runway was reached.

That is the big question that must somehow be answered. Whether the voice recorder or the data recorders answer this question or creates more questions will be known soon we hope.

PJ2
PJ2 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 15:39
  #657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 60
Eloquently and succinctly put PJ2, that is indeed the question. It is very difficult to accept the notion that a pilot would conduct such an approach in the absence of external pressures, direct or indirect. Sadly we may never know the pilot's true motives with any confidence.

One thing is clear IMO: it is profoundly irresponsible for a politician or other public figure to threaten or criticize a pilot for exercising professional judgement in conducting a safe operation, as the Polish PM did in 2008. It is also extremely foolish, as his family and friends perhaps now understand when they are honest with themselves. Not to mention the family and friends of the other dead. I daresay a very bitter lesson has been learned about the need to comply with procedures - pretty sad.

Such public figures should be roundly condemned in the interests of public safety. I would like to know how much harsh criticism the Polish PM received from his compatriots over his earlier statements, that undoubtedly set the tone for subsequent missions involving himself. Does anyone know?

In Poland at the moment it seems that it's a case of de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Perhaps this will change when emotions ebb and reason prevails.

Last edited by SDFlyer; 16th Apr 2010 at 15:57.
SDFlyer is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 16:04
  #658 (permalink)  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Romania
Age: 68
Posts: 19
andrasz
A technical question to anybody in the know. Would a TU5 or any similar sized a/c (727, 737) remain controlable at landing speed on right aileron and rudder after losing a left wingtip and aileron? Obviously irrelevant here, as the crew had no time to experiment, just curious.
TU54 has a HYDRAULIC CONTROL on three autonomous systems:
The movements of control column are going to 3 RA-51 some automated devices outputting only the right quantity of movement to 3 RP-60 moving effectively the control surface. Missing an aileron means all 3 hyd. sys. are opened.
Means NO PRESSURE ---> NO CONTROL, AT ALL!!! Not a bit, nada, zilch. The TU was doomed. Nothing near the landing of B707 in France without right wing tip and eng. no.3&4.
yaw_damper is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 16:11
  #659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
SDFlyer
to threaten or criticize a pilot for exercising professional judgement in conducting a safe operation, as the Polish PM did in 2008.
This was not the PM, this was the President, Lech Kaczyński,
the same one who died (and his wife and 94 others) in this very accident.

The PM, Donald Tusk, behaves in a quite different way.

Also on board were members of the President staff calling the other pilots
"cowardly", as well as MPs, who officially asked the Minister of Defence,
why the pilots do not obey the orders of the President...

Brutal irony.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post5631056

Last edited by Ptkay; 16th Apr 2010 at 16:27.
Ptkay is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 16:22
  #660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Such public figures should be roundly condemned in the interests of public safety. I would like to know how much harsh criticism the Polish PM received from his compatriots over his earlier statements, that undoubtedly set the tone for subsequent missions involving himself. Does anyone know?
As mentioned several times before, the pilot, who refused to follow
the Presidents orders was put under big pressure by the President
and his aides, but was vigorously defended by the Minister of Defence
and eventually received Silver Order of Merit for bravery in peace time.

See the link to my earlier post above.

But it was the President on board of this tragic flight, not the Minister or PM.
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.