Polish Government Tu154M crash
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently there was a Katet landing system at Smolensk-North, but it was taken down when the AF unit there was disbanded. This is a pure-military system which probably was compatible with the Polish Tu-154 anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last theory from the Smolens.ru forum.
The outer NDB with marker in Poland is usually 4 km from the threshold,
and the inner NDB with marker - 1 km.
It has been confirmed, that the outer NDB in Smoleńsk,
due to terrain situation was 6 km from the threshold.
(Which is quite common in Russia.)
If you assume the 2,6 deg glide-path the 2 km error in distance
would result in 90 m altitude difference at the 1 km NDB,
which corresponds approximately to the altitude deficiency the
accident aircraft experienced at this point.
The pilots, assuming outer NDB at 4 km and following the
normal glide path were 100m lower then they should be.
Continuing with the angle of 2,6 deg they were still 2 km
from the runway, at the moment, when they expected threshold,
and at 1 km from the runway already below the runway level...
Fits the fact known until now quite well.
The lowest line in this diagram corresponds to 2.66 deg from 6 km NDB.
It's 0m QFE point is exactly 2km back from the touchdown point 300m
down the runway.
Plausible?
Anyone?
The outer NDB with marker in Poland is usually 4 km from the threshold,
and the inner NDB with marker - 1 km.
It has been confirmed, that the outer NDB in Smoleńsk,
due to terrain situation was 6 km from the threshold.
(Which is quite common in Russia.)
If you assume the 2,6 deg glide-path the 2 km error in distance
would result in 90 m altitude difference at the 1 km NDB,
which corresponds approximately to the altitude deficiency the
accident aircraft experienced at this point.
The pilots, assuming outer NDB at 4 km and following the
normal glide path were 100m lower then they should be.
Continuing with the angle of 2,6 deg they were still 2 km
from the runway, at the moment, when they expected threshold,
and at 1 km from the runway already below the runway level...
Fits the fact known until now quite well.
The lowest line in this diagram corresponds to 2.66 deg from 6 km NDB.
It's 0m QFE point is exactly 2km back from the touchdown point 300m
down the runway.
Plausible?
Anyone?
Yes, it is. But...
Protasiuk had landed in Smolensk three days before the crash
Was it possible that they (had not used/had not to use) NDB in that flight?
Originally Posted by http://www.gazeta.ru/social/2010/04/14/3351290.shtml
Протасюк [...] садился на аэродроме Северный за три дня до катастрофы.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it possible that they (had not used/had not to use) NDB in that flight?
On April 7th, when they arrived with Tusk, it was CAVOC in Smoleńsk,
so they probably did a VFR approach and landing.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looking at this drawing it looks like at any point on this lower green line one can start to go full thrust upward
looking at red line at which point could it happen it looks to steep going down
posts in this thread say that tu 154 needs time to full thrust it sinks for a while before it starts very gradually go up
on the other hand this tower which is supposed to see you on radar shoud see it long before that height over runway is close to 0
on this drawing at distance 2300 is 30m maybe 40m
thay said that they lost it from radar suddenly this would be the case with the red line
looking at red line at which point could it happen it looks to steep going down
posts in this thread say that tu 154 needs time to full thrust it sinks for a while before it starts very gradually go up
on the other hand this tower which is supposed to see you on radar shoud see it long before that height over runway is close to 0
on this drawing at distance 2300 is 30m maybe 40m
thay said that they lost it from radar suddenly this would be the case with the red line
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Directly translated from the Russian forum:
Excerpt of the rules:
"Antenna near a marker beacon should be located on the continuation of the axial line of the runway at a distance of 850-1200 meters from the runway threshold of the approach and the displacement of less than ± 75 m away from the centreline of the runway.
The antenna far-marker beacon should be located on the continuation of the center line of the runway at a distance of 4000 ± 200 meters from the runway threshold of the approach and the displacement of not more than 75 meters away from the centreline of the runway."
But the long-range (outer) NDB in the North is located at 6 km ...
Fog and stress added to the confusion ...
"The correct rate of descent" in this case is somewhat different from "traditional", "victim of automatism".
That's all the "false glide path", favourite local trolls ...
Descending to the correct height, waiting for the signal passing inner NDB.
And it is not coming ...
Feverishly look out in the fog for the runway - there is none.
The navigator starts counting on the altimeter - 100,100, 100 ...
It is in this place (2 km) opposite side of the ravine.
Stress, hair standing on their necks - you cannot change the laws of physics ...
At a distance of 1700 meters go lower still in disarray.
Hear the cries of the dispatcher.
Finally, everyone understands. There is still 1500m to the threshold ...
Well, about this point begins the diagram by the distinguished Aml ...
(Aml - nick of Amilin, who created the photos and drawings quoted above)
Excerpt of the rules:
"Antenna near a marker beacon should be located on the continuation of the axial line of the runway at a distance of 850-1200 meters from the runway threshold of the approach and the displacement of less than ± 75 m away from the centreline of the runway.
The antenna far-marker beacon should be located on the continuation of the center line of the runway at a distance of 4000 ± 200 meters from the runway threshold of the approach and the displacement of not more than 75 meters away from the centreline of the runway."
But the long-range (outer) NDB in the North is located at 6 km ...
Fog and stress added to the confusion ...
"The correct rate of descent" in this case is somewhat different from "traditional", "victim of automatism".
That's all the "false glide path", favourite local trolls ...
Descending to the correct height, waiting for the signal passing inner NDB.
And it is not coming ...
Feverishly look out in the fog for the runway - there is none.
The navigator starts counting on the altimeter - 100,100, 100 ...
It is in this place (2 km) opposite side of the ravine.
Stress, hair standing on their necks - you cannot change the laws of physics ...
At a distance of 1700 meters go lower still in disarray.
Hear the cries of the dispatcher.
Finally, everyone understands. There is still 1500m to the threshold ...
Well, about this point begins the diagram by the distinguished Aml ...
(Aml - nick of Amilin, who created the photos and drawings quoted above)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tu 154 needs time to full thrust it sinks for a while before it starts very gradually go up
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: U K
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can blame NDB on 6NM.
One can blame NDB on 4NM.
Another one can blame QHN/QFE.
Also some one can blame Russians for not having full CAT III ILS in Smolensk.
I want to know how presidential crew did not prepare their preflight briefing to cover all relevant informations and data for flight?
Also I am very curious to find out how and why this crew end up below minimum on this approach?
Leave stories about this or that equipment aside. Focus yourself to understand how fully trained crew has flown fully servicable A/C into CFIT!!!
All respect to Polish people and to Polish pilots, but do not try to find scape goat.
Find the thruth!!!
For your sake and for sake of all of us.
One can blame NDB on 4NM.
Another one can blame QHN/QFE.
Also some one can blame Russians for not having full CAT III ILS in Smolensk.
I want to know how presidential crew did not prepare their preflight briefing to cover all relevant informations and data for flight?
Also I am very curious to find out how and why this crew end up below minimum on this approach?
Leave stories about this or that equipment aside. Focus yourself to understand how fully trained crew has flown fully servicable A/C into CFIT!!!
All respect to Polish people and to Polish pilots, but do not try to find scape goat.
Find the thruth!!!
For your sake and for sake of all of us.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hammsterdam
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude, everyone knows that they've crashed!
The question is why they flew so low, having all the stuff except ILS !
We cannot focus on anything important because, there soon will be NO official informations!
It's total amateur investigation, from all the available infos.
And we are not necromancers!
If You can't stand it, just don't read this tread.
The question is why they flew so low, having all the stuff except ILS !
We cannot focus on anything important because, there soon will be NO official informations!
It's total amateur investigation, from all the available infos.
And we are not necromancers!
If You can't stand it, just don't read this tread.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falcone:
I think you miss the point. This is not a search for a scapegoat.
This is obvious and clear, that the pilots made an error.
The question is: what kind of error?
And: why they made it?
The Polish pilots were excellent in the war time.
Creative, brave, daring.
The Polish 303 Squadron was the best of all in the Battle of Britain.
But they were also well known for rather lax attitude against procedures.
These are not the features you are looking for in the peacetime.
And certainly not in a transport aircraft carnying the most precious cargo.
But what were they supposed to do, when this precious cargo told them
on one of the previous flight: "The Polish pilot shouldn't be cowardly".
So they were not "cowardly", not at all...
"There are bold pilots, there are old pilots,
but there are no old bold pilots."
These boys were young and bold.
All respect to Polish people and to Polish pilots, but do not try to find scape goat.
This is obvious and clear, that the pilots made an error.
The question is: what kind of error?
And: why they made it?
The Polish pilots were excellent in the war time.
Creative, brave, daring.
The Polish 303 Squadron was the best of all in the Battle of Britain.
But they were also well known for rather lax attitude against procedures.
These are not the features you are looking for in the peacetime.
And certainly not in a transport aircraft carnying the most precious cargo.
But what were they supposed to do, when this precious cargo told them
on one of the previous flight: "The Polish pilot shouldn't be cowardly".
So they were not "cowardly", not at all...
"There are bold pilots, there are old pilots,
but there are no old bold pilots."
These boys were young and bold.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: U K
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys, after years of my involvent in air accident investigations, I do not ask for NDB on 6NM or NDB on 4NM one milion dollar question.
I ask why they descend below minima and did not cary immidate go-around action. Regardless of postion at 1km before RWY or at 5km after same.
I do not care if CAT III ILS is there or no radio facilities at all. I ask how they did perform their preflight brief.
And I understand very well pressure from above. I do not blame pilot for his error. I blame him for not correcting same.
Being 6 meters above ground is insane.
I ask why they descend below minima and did not cary immidate go-around action. Regardless of postion at 1km before RWY or at 5km after same.
I do not care if CAT III ILS is there or no radio facilities at all. I ask how they did perform their preflight brief.
And I understand very well pressure from above. I do not blame pilot for his error. I blame him for not correcting same.
Being 6 meters above ground is insane.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect they had no idea they were too low until it was far, far too late.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hammsterdam
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not blame pilot for his error. I blame him for not correcting same.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: U K
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one execute go-around at published minima can not end up being to late.
Published minima are calculated to take in account the worst performing aircraft for certain approach category of A/C.
One either obey published minima or other discuss about him at PPRUNE.
Also one do not suspect his position over ground level. One reads radio altimeter and crosscheck at least three different sourced altimiters onboard A/C.
That is paramount of approach briefing. Either in civil or military operations.
Published minima are calculated to take in account the worst performing aircraft for certain approach category of A/C.
One either obey published minima or other discuss about him at PPRUNE.
Also one do not suspect his position over ground level. One reads radio altimeter and crosscheck at least three different sourced altimiters onboard A/C.
That is paramount of approach briefing. Either in civil or military operations.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: U K
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not about me. And if you do not see that, sorry.
It is about rumours and news. It is about PPRUNE. It is about learning from mistakes, own or mistakes commited by others.
And Mirogoster if you contributions to this sad accident is:
" Well it's a huge pity, that You was not pilot at that flight. "
You are not worth talking to.
It is about rumours and news. It is about PPRUNE. It is about learning from mistakes, own or mistakes commited by others.
And Mirogoster if you contributions to this sad accident is:
" Well it's a huge pity, that You was not pilot at that flight. "
You are not worth talking to.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hammsterdam
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was afraid of such thing, it was just matter of time.
That some young keyboard fighter will show up and start
... trolling.
Please try to contribute here, not asking sily questions.
That some young keyboard fighter will show up and start
... trolling.Please try to contribute here, not asking sily questions.