Polish Government Tu154M crash
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alice
I don't see much moire in this cockpit, than the Tu one above...
Full size here:
Photos: Yakovlev Yak-40 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
So Kachinsky plane was in disadvantage by make-up, compared to ordinary Yak.
Full size here:
Photos: Yakovlev Yak-40 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vorra I will look it up, if on Smolensk forum will bring it, it was abbreviation and a link to it explaining what it is, the navigating system.
if on main avia forum- they closed it up yest! it starts with a sign - "we hope for your understanding etc."
I had it even all saved, like copy, save, wanted to transfer here, the diff. btw TU154M and Yak, and couldn't return to this site, several times. I think becuase of volcano, traffic to this site.
if on main avia forum- they closed it up yest! it starts with a sign - "we hope for your understanding etc."
I had it even all saved, like copy, save, wanted to transfer here, the diff. btw TU154M and Yak, and couldn't return to this site, several times. I think becuase of volcano, traffic to this site.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yes, pilots there mentioned that TAWS would be un-appliccable, because Smolensk military is not in the maps, may be yet, it's 9 months ago they decided it can be used for civil aviation.
But as Smolensk local forum points out - no nothing "civil" as minimum Russian local, ever so far landed in it, likely they the citizens lived without airport at all, since their Smolensk Southern was closed up.
And that yes, likely the TAWS warning system will be switched off by the pilots for constantly screaming, below some level? But of this they were not sure.
However they wrote the should be a howling siren? like a strong sound, the simple other TU? airport? system, in the plane, when a plane passes the near Beakon below the proper height. Or above it. Or - misses it? Didn't understand properly, need to look up. In short - something had them warned, simple, and very loud at that.
But as Smolensk local forum points out - no nothing "civil" as minimum Russian local, ever so far landed in it, likely they the citizens lived without airport at all, since their Smolensk Southern was closed up.
And that yes, likely the TAWS warning system will be switched off by the pilots for constantly screaming, below some level? But of this they were not sure.
However they wrote the should be a howling siren? like a strong sound, the simple other TU? airport? system, in the plane, when a plane passes the near Beakon below the proper height. Or above it. Or - misses it? Didn't understand properly, need to look up. In short - something had them warned, simple, and very loud at that.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TV idea film was critised for wrong aircraft turn-over in the air and the huge blast at the end, the forum thinks TV got it wrong.
To say nothing they say nil how come at all; only? a spectacular? thing done for general audience.
To say nothing they say nil how come at all; only? a spectacular? thing done for general audience.
Zorra’s photo (#744) and Ptkay’s photo (#745) and previous description seem to show that PAR was available at Smolensk. Early statements by Russian and Polish senior military officers appear to confirm that PAR was in use. (# 191 and 302) And it is clear the controller detected the increased rate of descent and glideslope deviation.
Of the approach aids available to the crew , PAR surely offered the best chance of success and was also the least unsafe. My original assumption was that the crew were conducting a PAR which went wrong and they did not correct in a positive and timely way . But the view on this thread, apparently influenced by comments on Russian forums, is that they were flying their own approach without reference to the PAR which was being provided. In other words they made the decision to follow a procedure which most would agree was extremely fraught in the prevailing conditions.
One needs to ask why they chose not to conduct a full PAR, the best available aid especially in respect to vertical guidance. The following possibilities come to mind:
- Although they spoke Russian they were not confident in their ability to fly a Russian language PAR in critical conditions ?
- They were concerned that if they handed over their approach to a controller, they could have been ordered to go around, hence voiding the purpose of the mission ?
Is there a cultural difference here between the west and ex Warsaw Pact countries ? In the west we would request a PAR and then follow the controller’s instructions as we would follow an ILS. It would be our primary approach aid. In eastern Europe, and especially the military, is PAR more usually a monitor of whatever other approach the crew decide to use as their primary? (E.g. a two NDB procedure, GPS/FMS or even visual ).
I ask this question because although my experience of operating in Russia is restricted to the major airports, and ten years ago at that, I recall in low visibility at SVO it was the norm to receive PAR monitoring of the Cat 2 ILS from Sheremetievo Talkdown. This was provided without being requested, and it was not part of our SOPs to require it..
Of the approach aids available to the crew , PAR surely offered the best chance of success and was also the least unsafe. My original assumption was that the crew were conducting a PAR which went wrong and they did not correct in a positive and timely way . But the view on this thread, apparently influenced by comments on Russian forums, is that they were flying their own approach without reference to the PAR which was being provided. In other words they made the decision to follow a procedure which most would agree was extremely fraught in the prevailing conditions.
One needs to ask why they chose not to conduct a full PAR, the best available aid especially in respect to vertical guidance. The following possibilities come to mind:
- Although they spoke Russian they were not confident in their ability to fly a Russian language PAR in critical conditions ?
- They were concerned that if they handed over their approach to a controller, they could have been ordered to go around, hence voiding the purpose of the mission ?
Is there a cultural difference here between the west and ex Warsaw Pact countries ? In the west we would request a PAR and then follow the controller’s instructions as we would follow an ILS. It would be our primary approach aid. In eastern Europe, and especially the military, is PAR more usually a monitor of whatever other approach the crew decide to use as their primary? (E.g. a two NDB procedure, GPS/FMS or even visual ).
I ask this question because although my experience of operating in Russia is restricted to the major airports, and ten years ago at that, I recall in low visibility at SVO it was the norm to receive PAR monitoring of the Cat 2 ILS from Sheremetievo Talkdown. This was provided without being requested, and it was not part of our SOPs to require it..
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a side note - here- they quoted a TU can go low and get up - when with both wings.
YouTube - ?????? ?? ????????? ????? ?????? ??-154 ? ??-86.
YouTube - ?????? ?? ????????? ????? ?????? ??-154 ? ??-86.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for the most interesting and thorough (also educational!) information!
Just one (non-professional, I'm afraid) question - if they had stayed on ground at where the suspected gear trail was (a photo, grass with marks as if the tyres had touched ground), would they have had a chance? Could a TU land on grassland (+trees and bushes) on a slope? As an emergency landing?
Just one (non-professional, I'm afraid) question - if they had stayed on ground at where the suspected gear trail was (a photo, grass with marks as if the tyres had touched ground), would they have had a chance? Could a TU land on grassland (+trees and bushes) on a slope? As an emergency landing?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the Polish blogger - a question, please, - from the transcripts of the talks, in Polish - does it follow they passed the Far Beacon alright? On the proper height, or, how to say, that there was a contact with the aerodrome - does it say anything, in this respect?
Whole forum in Smolensk wonders, as originally the official news was yes, the Far Beacon they passed and were on course, etc. But, still - does it follow from the tape, to be sure?
As there are var. idea, re how he showed up in the Near Beacon area, from a straight glissade or from a side, from a circle around? may be
Smolensk is lost ab building the map of the route from further away than when they began "marking it", by the trees' cut. As from the ground they think no body could see the plane in the air. All that part of the route must be reflected on the records, from airport, and from the record in the pilot's cabin.
And they suspect the politicians now from both sides will do political trading now, how to dose the info, and how to present it, and lay hopes only on own capabilities, how to say, to reconstruct the way of events.
Whole forum in Smolensk wonders, as originally the official news was yes, the Far Beacon they passed and were on course, etc. But, still - does it follow from the tape, to be sure?
As there are var. idea, re how he showed up in the Near Beacon area, from a straight glissade or from a side, from a circle around? may be
Smolensk is lost ab building the map of the route from further away than when they began "marking it", by the trees' cut. As from the ground they think no body could see the plane in the air. All that part of the route must be reflected on the records, from airport, and from the record in the pilot's cabin.
And they suspect the politicians now from both sides will do political trading now, how to dose the info, and how to present it, and lay hopes only on own capabilities, how to say, to reconstruct the way of events.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could a TU land on grassland (+trees and bushes) on a slope? As an emergency landing?
a bomber turned into passenger plane.
If anybody remembers the original Tu-134, the Il-76 they all have a s.c. "navigator cabin"
in the nose part, which is actually the bomb operators aiming cabin.
Also the gear was over-dimensioned to allow landings on auxiliary
airfields, grass strips in case the main base was destroyed.
Good proof is the landing of the Il-62, even bigger and heavier than Tu-154
in Germany on a grass runway of just 1000m without a scratch.
YouTube - IL-62 landing on grass
This was really an unfortunate chain of events, that they touched down inverted.
If touching down gear down, even at that speed in the forest,
they would have probably all survived.
See the Tu-204 crash in similar circumstances near Moscow,
mentioned here before.
Last edited by Ptkay; 19th Apr 2010 at 13:29.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been reported, the the Polish Army Intelligence was receiving
(and recording) on line the GPS route of the a/c, but are not releasing it.
They also registered all the radio conversation between the crew and the tower.
I wonder, of it will be ever available to the public.
Google T?umacz
(and recording) on line the GPS route of the a/c, but are not releasing it.
They also registered all the radio conversation between the crew and the tower.
I wonder, of it will be ever available to the public.
Google T?umacz
Last edited by Ptkay; 19th Apr 2010 at 13:31.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one (non-professional, I'm afraid) question - if they had stayed on ground at where the suspected gear trail was (a photo, grass with marks as if the tyres had touched ground), would they have had a chance?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ptkay
As stated above, the Tu-154 (as well as all Russian civil aircraft) was basically
a bomber turned into passenger plane.
As stated above, the Tu-154 (as well as all Russian civil aircraft) was basically
a bomber turned into passenger plane.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one (non-professional, I'm afraid) question - if they had stayed on ground at where the suspected gear trail was (a photo, grass with marks as if the tyres had touched ground), would they have had a chance?
(edit)
I should have said 'sealed once he was descending below the glide slope'.
Last edited by cats_five; 19th Apr 2010 at 16:46.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,436
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alice025
Smolensk forum just explained (to each other), that the previous, also Russian made, airplane, that brought in journalists, that very morning - HAD something Russian electronic for? can't explain. something for plane navigation a system allowing to go in fog. Will give a link.
May I have the link to Sverdlovsk forum, to confirm my suspicions, please?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vorra, I duly re-read last 20 pages of both forums, Smolensk and aviators general (Russian) and can't find the description of what it is on Yak anymore. I am sorry. Either one or the other - I glanced in at far earlier pages of either forum yest - or - more likely - moderators at both forums post-reactively "clean the branch" (as they say, "I have cleaned this branch as I could, and please in future refrain from what has no relation
to..." etc.
The links:
Smolensk locals, at 234 pages so far
? ????????? ???? ??????? • ?????????? ?????
The main Rus. avia forum, stopped for contributing at page 88 (last page so far)
Êàòàñòðîôà Òó-154 ïðåçèäåíòà Ïîëüøè - Ñòðàíèöà 88 - Àâèàöèîííûé ôîðóì AVIAFORUM.RU
And just in case a small Rus avia forum as well, but just 6 pages
Forumavia.ru - Àâòîðñêèå ôîðóìû
That's where I fish :o)
to..." etc.
The links:
Smolensk locals, at 234 pages so far
? ????????? ???? ??????? • ?????????? ?????
The main Rus. avia forum, stopped for contributing at page 88 (last page so far)
Êàòàñòðîôà Òó-154 ïðåçèäåíòà Ïîëüøè - Ñòðàíèöà 88 - Àâèàöèîííûé ôîðóì AVIAFORUM.RU
And just in case a small Rus avia forum as well, but just 6 pages
Forumavia.ru - Àâòîðñêèå ôîðóìû
That's where I fish :o)
ptkay
First, thanks again for all your efforts in translating and posting.
I have another question...
Reeference your photos of TU flight decks (post #760). When you say that the first photo is of "101" (the accident aircraft) I want to confirm that we are still not sure of what the instrument panel of 101" looked like, because that photo was taken before the refit of December last year. Am I correct?
Thanks!
grizz
First, thanks again for all your efforts in translating and posting.
I have another question...
Reeference your photos of TU flight decks (post #760). When you say that the first photo is of "101" (the accident aircraft) I want to confirm that we are still not sure of what the instrument panel of 101" looked like, because that photo was taken before the refit of December last year. Am I correct?
Thanks!
grizz
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, for the time being it is not confirmed that Smolensk north had either RSBN or PRMG transmitter installed and operating.
before the April 7th visit of Tusk and Putin, and then disassembled before
the arrival of Kaczyński.
Of course tooted widely as part of conspiracy theory.
Blasted down with the argument, that the Tu-154 101 was anyway not capable
of using it, so it was put up for Putin only, and put down, for obvious reasons,
after he left. (If fact at all.)
