Polish Government Tu154M crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
crisss
If one commences the approach when wx is so much below minima, for me it's a mistake which possibly shows the mindset of get-there-itis.
are trying to say that you neither trust your altimeters nor any minimums ?
If so then it would be even wrong to start the flight, better stay at home.... but then when yo decide to leave your home and come in VMC, the VMC may not be there any more.
MET people can not give you 100% true air-to-ground visibility.
Beside wx is not like a wall painting, it is alive and changing...
It is up to you to decide, that is why we have mini-mums ooops minimums..
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green Guard, I'm not talking about commencing a CAT I app with 500-600m visib and OVC002, when you have a chance to legally get in. But if you start an NDB app in these conditions then - cmon Green Guard. Of course, if you set your altimeters correctly and go around at minima, nothing should go wrong, but then, what's really the point in commencing? In such a case, one can really wonder if get-there-itis is not involved.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From initial iterview of the controller it followed the aerodrome warned the aircraft that they are way below the gliding path. That initially they were going "very steady" but then began losing hight rapidly for the reason unknown to the aerodrome.
Can be the controller saw them somehow on own screen otherwise how would he know? Unless the crew kept giving the controller its own idea of their height?
Since investigation committees took over - apparently the controllers were prohibited to talk to the journalists, and only as much is known as got out in the first day during the general rush and ran around.
Confirmation of the contents of the talks ground-aircraft are in the black box record - delayed and delayed to be made public. Besides, there was a small article in Polish media that the Polish Defence ministry monitored the whole flight, its location and route throughout, and has records as well - of talks in the pilot cabin. But that the Defense Ministry only aknowledges they have all that but doesn't plan to let it known publicly.
The only leak of the content of the talks was in Russian internet, listened to, in Russia, approx.? already 5? days ago. And the only thing the man who listened to it shared was that "they would have landed come anything - cows on the runway or Virgin Mary standing on the runway herself". And that at one point the commander asked "Are we on time?"
That's absolutely all that was available from un-official sources.
And official ones keep it to themselves.
Can be the controller saw them somehow on own screen otherwise how would he know? Unless the crew kept giving the controller its own idea of their height?
Since investigation committees took over - apparently the controllers were prohibited to talk to the journalists, and only as much is known as got out in the first day during the general rush and ran around.
Confirmation of the contents of the talks ground-aircraft are in the black box record - delayed and delayed to be made public. Besides, there was a small article in Polish media that the Polish Defence ministry monitored the whole flight, its location and route throughout, and has records as well - of talks in the pilot cabin. But that the Defense Ministry only aknowledges they have all that but doesn't plan to let it known publicly.
The only leak of the content of the talks was in Russian internet, listened to, in Russia, approx.? already 5? days ago. And the only thing the man who listened to it shared was that "they would have landed come anything - cows on the runway or Virgin Mary standing on the runway herself". And that at one point the commander asked "Are we on time?"
That's absolutely all that was available from un-official sources.
And official ones keep it to themselves.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ATC ordered the aircraft to change to horizontal flight and go for go-round at 1500 m from the runway according to the information available at the moment. They did not respond, apparently they'd stopped responding even before this moment.
Smolensk-North has the RSP radar system which means the controller would have been aware of the aircraft going below the glideslope.
Smolensk-North has the RSP radar system which means the controller would have been aware of the aircraft going below the glideslope.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Age: 57
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how it could be
"Becouse ravine bottom goes about 50 m below runway threshold, they increaced
lowering speed thinking they are to high. They saw terrain going up being
a few meters about threshold level. But lowering at 6-7 m/s, weighing ap. 60-70
ton Tu 154 configured to landing can not be forced to ascend in a second.
You loose next 15-20m and fly in this time ap 350-400 m before
transisioning to ascending - in first seconds free"
"it takes a few second before plain reaches his max accending speed
in landing configuration. At the same time it is only after reaching
positive ascending that the chasis is hiding and position of
flaps to starting position decreases eg from 40 to 20 degrees.
This takes anogther few several seconds. I think crew using radio altimeter
wanted to approach to aprox. 50-60 m above ground and only than
do eventually go-around. It was not reasonable."
"additionally they forgot about ravine which bottom was about 1300 m from threshold
If it was not there if terrain was flat as they assumed they would manage to land.
but it seems to me that with 400 m visibility and approach speed
apprx. 135 knots (70m/s) little probable. or they would do succesful go-around...
.... How do i know? Because i have a few landing like that
behind me. and it also seemed to me that published minimas are for loosers
and not "ases" like me. Only i had a little more luck and stayed alive to point when
i was able to kick these ideas out of my head"
"Becouse ravine bottom goes about 50 m below runway threshold, they increaced
lowering speed thinking they are to high. They saw terrain going up being
a few meters about threshold level. But lowering at 6-7 m/s, weighing ap. 60-70
ton Tu 154 configured to landing can not be forced to ascend in a second.
You loose next 15-20m and fly in this time ap 350-400 m before
transisioning to ascending - in first seconds free"
"it takes a few second before plain reaches his max accending speed
in landing configuration. At the same time it is only after reaching
positive ascending that the chasis is hiding and position of
flaps to starting position decreases eg from 40 to 20 degrees.
This takes anogther few several seconds. I think crew using radio altimeter
wanted to approach to aprox. 50-60 m above ground and only than
do eventually go-around. It was not reasonable."
"additionally they forgot about ravine which bottom was about 1300 m from threshold
If it was not there if terrain was flat as they assumed they would manage to land.
but it seems to me that with 400 m visibility and approach speed
apprx. 135 knots (70m/s) little probable. or they would do succesful go-around...
.... How do i know? Because i have a few landing like that
behind me. and it also seemed to me that published minimas are for loosers
and not "ases" like me. Only i had a little more luck and stayed alive to point when
i was able to kick these ideas out of my head"
Unfortunately, as of today, Polish authorities postpone the release date and started warning "this investigation is going to need much more time".
It seems for a reason unknown they are changing their plans now. Just a few days ago they were planning a recording script release for Thursday, now it not that clear any more.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another interesting piece of info which has been mentioned by the locals- apparently together with the journalists a Polish flight control group arrived on the Yak-40, and they were in the ATC tower at the time of the 101 landing, not clear on what they were doing there exactly apart from watching.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pavel Valerjevich Plusnin was "rukovoditel' poletov"/head of the flights'
group, in the Northern, on that day. There is his interview given to journalists on that day, telling about the "steady" line? flight? until suddenly the aircraft began losing height and they warned them, etc.
In the TV interview his face is not shown, only voice, but his name is given as exactly P.V. Plusnin.
All is fine except Smolensk forum people say it's not his voice.
And can hardly be because he is career officer and they can hardly imagine his media chat after the crash, even with his face not shown, he'd "lose epaulettes" for that.
Who the media interviewed, 2 hrs post the crash? unknown. May be someone, from the aerodrome, from the larger group, someone of civillians. Someone present in the control room, or who knows something.
So Smolensk "self-investigation group" remind each other that 1,500m distance away from runway is not confirmed, steady flight at 2,000 m distance away the runway is not confirmed, it is all "media".
The same media who kept saying there were 4 landing attempts, basing it by different "interviews" as well.
One thing they estblished for sure, the crash time, 16 minutes earlier than the "official", as went to their electricity board who had electricity line by the road torn by the plane, and the elctricity office record gave them minutes and seconds.
Between the crash and the start of the Polish TV broadcast (by the TV programme that the Poles quoted) of the ceremony there were 30 minutes left. They were in a hurry 100%, given that the delegation also had to get out of the plane and drive to the Katyn museum.
group, in the Northern, on that day. There is his interview given to journalists on that day, telling about the "steady" line? flight? until suddenly the aircraft began losing height and they warned them, etc.
In the TV interview his face is not shown, only voice, but his name is given as exactly P.V. Plusnin.
All is fine except Smolensk forum people say it's not his voice.
And can hardly be because he is career officer and they can hardly imagine his media chat after the crash, even with his face not shown, he'd "lose epaulettes" for that.
Who the media interviewed, 2 hrs post the crash? unknown. May be someone, from the aerodrome, from the larger group, someone of civillians. Someone present in the control room, or who knows something.
So Smolensk "self-investigation group" remind each other that 1,500m distance away from runway is not confirmed, steady flight at 2,000 m distance away the runway is not confirmed, it is all "media".
The same media who kept saying there were 4 landing attempts, basing it by different "interviews" as well.
One thing they estblished for sure, the crash time, 16 minutes earlier than the "official", as went to their electricity board who had electricity line by the road torn by the plane, and the elctricity office record gave them minutes and seconds.
Between the crash and the start of the Polish TV broadcast (by the TV programme that the Poles quoted) of the ceremony there were 30 minutes left. They were in a hurry 100%, given that the delegation also had to get out of the plane and drive to the Katyn museum.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power cut time makes more sense (10:39:50 Smolesnk time),
8:39 am Warsaw time, as TV broadcast of the church service was advertised as 9:10am beginning/introduction, 9:30am the service itself, Warsaw time.
At least, they were hurrying to make it, barely but they would, while with the official crash time they were already past making it, when in the air.
This could mean they had no time for a turn-around, the second go.
(It is very un-well to withhold the records because 2 countries worry, at least, something, they could have said. )
8:39 am Warsaw time, as TV broadcast of the church service was advertised as 9:10am beginning/introduction, 9:30am the service itself, Warsaw time.
At least, they were hurrying to make it, barely but they would, while with the official crash time they were already past making it, when in the air.
This could mean they had no time for a turn-around, the second go.
(It is very un-well to withhold the records because 2 countries worry, at least, something, they could have said. )
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot who died in Smolensk, was on the crew with the "coward-pilot"
Pilot in command of the crash flight near Smolensk, Cpt. Arkadiusz Protasiuk, was also on the flight with the president in Tbilisi in 2008. One of the crew, PIC, was called coward after refusing landing due to bad conditions. - Could it affect the crew? - Monika Olejnik asked her guest, General Anatol Czaban, head of Air Force training.
According to the head of training of Polish Air Force Gen. Anatol Chabany, the pilot who crashed in Smolensk, might have wanted to check whether the conditions at the airport are really as bad as it reported by flight control.
ATC opinion is another view of the weather conditions from the land, another is from the plane, a Tupolev first pilot Arkadiusz Protasiuk knew that an hour before Yak-40 flown by less experienced pilot was landing at the airport Smolensk, so he could check to see if weather conditions were really bad.
"The pilot knew that the ceremony is important"
Czaban said that Protasiuk already flown several times in the Smolensk airport. He pointed out that an explanation of why the disaster happened is the matter of a special commission.
According to Czaban, the pilot "had to take into account several factors", such as the importance of Katyn ceremony and the fact that the delegation was late, and therefore "decided to check whether he can make it." - For some reason he has not taken the decision to divert - said the general. When asked if there is something like " VIP airplane syndrome", he said: - As I am 32 years in aviation, no one trains pilots to risk more than what is in legislation.
This pilot was called a coward because he did not want to land
- And how it has contributed to the accident, the famous situation when there was pressure on the pilot to land in Tbilisi? They had the pressure to land. Do you remember that the prosecutor investigated, and that the pilot was insulted as a coward - the program moderator, Monika Olejnik asked.
Arkadiusz Protasiuk in 2008 was then the second pilot in the crew, which refused the landing.
Czaban said that then the situation was different, because the airport in Tbilisi had been closed and did not accept any airplanes. - He and his colleagues of the crew were called cowards after refusing landing due to bad conditions - he said.
He said that the crew did not meet any unpleasant consequences and Protasiuk in that flight was the second pilot.
He also considered it unlikely that the crew before deciding to land has consulted with the Commander in Chief of the Polish Air Force Gen. Andrzej Błasik being on board of the flight.
He also rejected the supposition that the crew just before the landing attempt stopped feeding information about the height of the tower of the ATC due to language difficulties. He assured that Cpt. Protasiuk spoke Russian well.
Asked about the opinions of civilian pilots, according to which the landing attempt was inadmissible in these weather conditions, Czaban said that "the LOT (Polish Airlines) pilots generally operate to an airport and back," while military pilots flying in different places.
I leave it without comment.
Source:
W Smole?sku zgin?? pilot z za?ogi, gdzie by? 'pilot-tchórz'
According to the head of training of Polish Air Force Gen. Anatol Chabany, the pilot who crashed in Smolensk, might have wanted to check whether the conditions at the airport are really as bad as it reported by flight control.
ATC opinion is another view of the weather conditions from the land, another is from the plane, a Tupolev first pilot Arkadiusz Protasiuk knew that an hour before Yak-40 flown by less experienced pilot was landing at the airport Smolensk, so he could check to see if weather conditions were really bad.
"The pilot knew that the ceremony is important"
Czaban said that Protasiuk already flown several times in the Smolensk airport. He pointed out that an explanation of why the disaster happened is the matter of a special commission.
According to Czaban, the pilot "had to take into account several factors", such as the importance of Katyn ceremony and the fact that the delegation was late, and therefore "decided to check whether he can make it." - For some reason he has not taken the decision to divert - said the general. When asked if there is something like " VIP airplane syndrome", he said: - As I am 32 years in aviation, no one trains pilots to risk more than what is in legislation.
This pilot was called a coward because he did not want to land
- And how it has contributed to the accident, the famous situation when there was pressure on the pilot to land in Tbilisi? They had the pressure to land. Do you remember that the prosecutor investigated, and that the pilot was insulted as a coward - the program moderator, Monika Olejnik asked.
Arkadiusz Protasiuk in 2008 was then the second pilot in the crew, which refused the landing.
Czaban said that then the situation was different, because the airport in Tbilisi had been closed and did not accept any airplanes. - He and his colleagues of the crew were called cowards after refusing landing due to bad conditions - he said.
He said that the crew did not meet any unpleasant consequences and Protasiuk in that flight was the second pilot.
He also considered it unlikely that the crew before deciding to land has consulted with the Commander in Chief of the Polish Air Force Gen. Andrzej Błasik being on board of the flight.
He also rejected the supposition that the crew just before the landing attempt stopped feeding information about the height of the tower of the ATC due to language difficulties. He assured that Cpt. Protasiuk spoke Russian well.
Asked about the opinions of civilian pilots, according to which the landing attempt was inadmissible in these weather conditions, Czaban said that "the LOT (Polish Airlines) pilots generally operate to an airport and back," while military pilots flying in different places.
I leave it without comment.
Source:
W Smole?sku zgin?? pilot z za?ogi, gdzie by? 'pilot-tchórz'
Last edited by Ptkay; 22nd Apr 2010 at 07:02.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how it could be cont.
"According to newspapers, the officials were supposed to say, that up to distance of 2 km (from runways threshold, or touchdown zone), everything looked fine and correct - the aircraft was 100 m above runway threshold elevation (even though the MDH - minimum descent height was 120 m). The aircraft than increased the rate of descent to 6-7 m/s. It is possible that the rate was even higher in later stages although it was not registered by the approach monitoring radar which, unlike PAR, has a delay 5 seconds."
"Сергей, you have done a great job. Based on available information and your hard work, only two primary reasons may be concluded. (1) Intentional descent by the crew below MDH, using primary RA and excluding baro altimeter from the scan"
"(2) Airspeed lost during level-off at 100 m above runway threshold elevation following by the development of high sink rate, initially not observed by the crew due to RA indications affected by the lowering terrain. There was not enough time and spare altitude to recover especially considering now rising terrain, In any case no help from EGPWS available, due to lack of XUBS in EGPWS database. If EGPWS was inhibited to avoid TCF warnings, also the RFCF warnings and altitude callouts were absent"
"If the information is true, that the aircraft was at 100 m height above threshold, at the distance of 2 km (from the runway threshold, I guess), then its altitude was 355 m AMSL (above mean sea level)."
"Anyone can verify that Smolensk airfield was not in the EGPWS database by entering its ICAO code XUBS into search window of EGPWS Mk. VIII airport database: MK VI & VIII Airport Search - Honeywell . This answers the question why the EGPWS did not warn the crew. It would give TCF (Terrain Clearance Floor funtion) warnings after descending through 700 feet (about 210 m) AGL above ground level, so the crew ignored the warnings or even inihibited EGPWS audio warnings to avoid distraction by them."
"For comparison one may enter EPWA (Warszawa/Okecie) and see the results. Inhibiting EGPWS audio to avoid "distracting" or "nuisance" warning casued that no RA altitude call-outs were inhibited as well. RFCF function was not available since the airport was not in the EGPWS database (because it was not measured according to WGS-84/PZ-90 and was not published in Russia AIP). More on that here: http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...ance_Floor.pdf with a classic example"
"The Presidential Tu-154 which crashed on 10th of April will become another sad example, why all airports should be in EGPWS database, even though it was not the primary reason for the crash - just a contributing factor."
"Regarding http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...ance_Floor.pdf "Height Above Field Alert Envelope refers to RFCF protection"
"Anybody can learn more about EGPWS by reading the EGPWS Pilot Manual: http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...VIII_EGPWS.pdf"
"Сергей, I do not accuse anybody. It is expensive to have the airport and surrounding obstacles measured in WGS-84/PZ-90. However the aircraft operator should consider before any operation if it is safe to land at such an airfield, especially in IMC, with low visibilities and ceilings. The operator shoulld have special procedures for such situations. And the crew should never, ever ignore EGPWS warnings or inhibit the EGPWS audio system."
"I would add however, that in most countries, including Poland, even small VFR-only airfields, which are published in AIP Poland, has been measured in WGS-84 and are included in EGPWS database providing the runway has suf ficient lenght. Since the airfield was used by state aircraft, including Russian state aircraft, it was not senseless to have it measured. But like I said before, it was kind to allow the use of airport, and the aircraft operator (Polish Air Force) should by thoroughly familiar"
"with all the limitations. I do not suggest that PAF should demand anything, and the airport management was not obliged to provide any extra facility or measures, including WGS-84/PZ-90 measurements. BTW, I know that measurements of all airports in Russia iaw PZ-90 has been on the way for some time. This is good for safety."
"This is just frustrating for a pilot, when he or she flies with EGPWS, and yet the great capabilities of this life-saving device are compromised, in case of airports which are not in the EGPWS database, and yet they have legal instrument approach procedure and can be used legally in IMC. This frustration is also mine. The EGPWS creators didn't envision such a possibility."
"Yet the decision is left in the hands of aircraft commander - to inhibit EGPWS audio warnings, or listen the nerve-wrecking "Too low! Terrain! Too low! Terrain!" throughout the last part of procedure flown in IMC, close to the ground."
"There is something very helpful in situation like that. It is called TLS (Transponder Landing System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and is compatible with any airborne ILS avionics. A mobile version can be deployed in less than 3 hours, and gives the same capablities as conventional ILS. In certain aspects it is even better system. PAF should have one or two such system to be used on ocassions like that in Smolensk. But I'm just a pilot. As always, the governent knows "better"."
"tp://www.anpc.com/prod_mobile.cfm
However, it is not clear to me, whether Russians would allow for such a mobile installation to be deployed at their airfield in Smolensk for several days. I am not aware if Russian version of TLS (if any is available) is compatible with ILS/TLS. Of course TLS needs flight inspection - it takes a few hours. And if not TLS, then JPALS: Joint Precision Approach and Landing System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Maybe it's even better than TLS. PAF definitely need one."
"One remark on EGPWS - this is known now, that TAWS manufactured by Universal Avionics Systems was installed on board and not the Honeywell's EGPWS. Nevertheless the problem has been the same. XUBS airfield has been not in the database, causing initially nuisance warnings during approach, and therefore TAWS had been likely inhibited by the crew, or the warning had been ignored almost to the end by the crew (except for the very last RA altitude callouts)."
green line vertical speed 3m/s red 6m/s
"Сергей, you have done a great job. Based on available information and your hard work, only two primary reasons may be concluded. (1) Intentional descent by the crew below MDH, using primary RA and excluding baro altimeter from the scan"
"(2) Airspeed lost during level-off at 100 m above runway threshold elevation following by the development of high sink rate, initially not observed by the crew due to RA indications affected by the lowering terrain. There was not enough time and spare altitude to recover especially considering now rising terrain, In any case no help from EGPWS available, due to lack of XUBS in EGPWS database. If EGPWS was inhibited to avoid TCF warnings, also the RFCF warnings and altitude callouts were absent"
"If the information is true, that the aircraft was at 100 m height above threshold, at the distance of 2 km (from the runway threshold, I guess), then its altitude was 355 m AMSL (above mean sea level)."
"Anyone can verify that Smolensk airfield was not in the EGPWS database by entering its ICAO code XUBS into search window of EGPWS Mk. VIII airport database: MK VI & VIII Airport Search - Honeywell . This answers the question why the EGPWS did not warn the crew. It would give TCF (Terrain Clearance Floor funtion) warnings after descending through 700 feet (about 210 m) AGL above ground level, so the crew ignored the warnings or even inihibited EGPWS audio warnings to avoid distraction by them."
"For comparison one may enter EPWA (Warszawa/Okecie) and see the results. Inhibiting EGPWS audio to avoid "distracting" or "nuisance" warning casued that no RA altitude call-outs were inhibited as well. RFCF function was not available since the airport was not in the EGPWS database (because it was not measured according to WGS-84/PZ-90 and was not published in Russia AIP). More on that here: http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...ance_Floor.pdf with a classic example"
"The Presidential Tu-154 which crashed on 10th of April will become another sad example, why all airports should be in EGPWS database, even though it was not the primary reason for the crash - just a contributing factor."
"Regarding http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...ance_Floor.pdf "Height Above Field Alert Envelope refers to RFCF protection"
"Anybody can learn more about EGPWS by reading the EGPWS Pilot Manual: http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...VIII_EGPWS.pdf"
"Сергей, I do not accuse anybody. It is expensive to have the airport and surrounding obstacles measured in WGS-84/PZ-90. However the aircraft operator should consider before any operation if it is safe to land at such an airfield, especially in IMC, with low visibilities and ceilings. The operator shoulld have special procedures for such situations. And the crew should never, ever ignore EGPWS warnings or inhibit the EGPWS audio system."
"I would add however, that in most countries, including Poland, even small VFR-only airfields, which are published in AIP Poland, has been measured in WGS-84 and are included in EGPWS database providing the runway has suf ficient lenght. Since the airfield was used by state aircraft, including Russian state aircraft, it was not senseless to have it measured. But like I said before, it was kind to allow the use of airport, and the aircraft operator (Polish Air Force) should by thoroughly familiar"
"with all the limitations. I do not suggest that PAF should demand anything, and the airport management was not obliged to provide any extra facility or measures, including WGS-84/PZ-90 measurements. BTW, I know that measurements of all airports in Russia iaw PZ-90 has been on the way for some time. This is good for safety."
"This is just frustrating for a pilot, when he or she flies with EGPWS, and yet the great capabilities of this life-saving device are compromised, in case of airports which are not in the EGPWS database, and yet they have legal instrument approach procedure and can be used legally in IMC. This frustration is also mine. The EGPWS creators didn't envision such a possibility."
"Yet the decision is left in the hands of aircraft commander - to inhibit EGPWS audio warnings, or listen the nerve-wrecking "Too low! Terrain! Too low! Terrain!" throughout the last part of procedure flown in IMC, close to the ground."
"There is something very helpful in situation like that. It is called TLS (Transponder Landing System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and is compatible with any airborne ILS avionics. A mobile version can be deployed in less than 3 hours, and gives the same capablities as conventional ILS. In certain aspects it is even better system. PAF should have one or two such system to be used on ocassions like that in Smolensk. But I'm just a pilot. As always, the governent knows "better"."
"tp://www.anpc.com/prod_mobile.cfm
However, it is not clear to me, whether Russians would allow for such a mobile installation to be deployed at their airfield in Smolensk for several days. I am not aware if Russian version of TLS (if any is available) is compatible with ILS/TLS. Of course TLS needs flight inspection - it takes a few hours. And if not TLS, then JPALS: Joint Precision Approach and Landing System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Maybe it's even better than TLS. PAF definitely need one."
"One remark on EGPWS - this is known now, that TAWS manufactured by Universal Avionics Systems was installed on board and not the Honeywell's EGPWS. Nevertheless the problem has been the same. XUBS airfield has been not in the database, causing initially nuisance warnings during approach, and therefore TAWS had been likely inhibited by the crew, or the warning had been ignored almost to the end by the crew (except for the very last RA altitude callouts)."
green line vertical speed 3m/s red 6m/s
Duck Under?
One possibility is that the crew saw a hole over the valley and chose to drop through it with the intent to scud run the remaining distance to the runway.
Perhaps one of the locals in the valley at the time could tell us if the cloud deck was above the valley level.
Perhaps one of the locals in the valley at the time could tell us if the cloud deck was above the valley level.
Originally Posted by Ptkay
I leave it without comment.
- who would be in the plane, and
- what is the weather in Smolensk, and
- what is the time margin between the planned arrival and the beginning of the ceremony, and
- all these facts were provided right after he took off.
Furthermore, expressing publicly such an opinion before the investigation end, he - purportedly or not - blames pilots rather than passengers for the accident.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's really depressing, but it looks more and more like a typical cover-up. Alice knows (and a huge thank you to You for giving an idea about the forums, I'm not THAT fluent in Russian!). No recordings released, times and data messed up...
As for my question that was supposed to be the only one - about landing on a slope - I understand a TU will still go down for some time (physics!) after starting a climb-up ('command' from the pilots' cabin). Does a pilot 'feel' when the gear touches the ground? And supposing these were the gear marks on this photo of the grassland, if the pilot had understood (is that possible at all?) that the gear was touching the land, could he have gone to the landing regime instead of trying to get up again? I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in aviation-English. Still the forum has been extremely interesting and good to read the opinions of people who really KNOW something.
As for my question that was supposed to be the only one - about landing on a slope - I understand a TU will still go down for some time (physics!) after starting a climb-up ('command' from the pilots' cabin). Does a pilot 'feel' when the gear touches the ground? And supposing these were the gear marks on this photo of the grassland, if the pilot had understood (is that possible at all?) that the gear was touching the land, could he have gone to the landing regime instead of trying to get up again? I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in aviation-English. Still the forum has been extremely interesting and good to read the opinions of people who really KNOW something.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another explanation which has been offered (not by me, by a pilot) is that they ended up in the ravine not intentionally, due to whichever miscalculation, but due to a piloting error which lead to an uncontrolled increase in the vertical speed which they did not have time to correct. To a layman this sounds like they simply fell into it.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
probie, you are very welcome. I don't know nothing, I am translator, if you wish, summarising from that blog over to this blog. Google Polish-Russian works very bad, as google itself say the quality-ty depends on the level of comms btw two langauges. Google English-Russian though works very well. It is because the translation system feeds on the internet material as it comes in, self-learning, on the way, not pre-set by the programme makers initially. I am glad if my translation helps - anybody.
From what I read TU154M once touching the ground can NOT go up on the second round again. Some IL can, TU - can't.
Tyre traces in grass were not found by Smolensk locals after someone published them, the photo. So they are not sure it ever touched ground. May be it was trampled over the place, later on, however the fact is - it's not there. The lowest it were established for fact is that 3 metres some centimetres, by measuring tape, from the first tree tops clipped down to the ground. They think it's not wheels but ? those flaps? under the aircraft "belly", let out in landing, as the tree tops were cut in very even straight line, like shaved.
They think the captain realised they are by the ground before the plane began clipping tree tops, as its "path" over the trees is "marked" so, shows it was in ascend way, already when in trees.
That the captain may be finally saw something straight in front of them before the plane hit the trees. Or they simply realised they are falling by own, how to say, normal senses feeling! before that. without any devices.
From what I read TU154M once touching the ground can NOT go up on the second round again. Some IL can, TU - can't.
Tyre traces in grass were not found by Smolensk locals after someone published them, the photo. So they are not sure it ever touched ground. May be it was trampled over the place, later on, however the fact is - it's not there. The lowest it were established for fact is that 3 metres some centimetres, by measuring tape, from the first tree tops clipped down to the ground. They think it's not wheels but ? those flaps? under the aircraft "belly", let out in landing, as the tree tops were cut in very even straight line, like shaved.
They think the captain realised they are by the ground before the plane began clipping tree tops, as its "path" over the trees is "marked" so, shows it was in ascend way, already when in trees.
That the captain may be finally saw something straight in front of them before the plane hit the trees. Or they simply realised they are falling by own, how to say, normal senses feeling! before that. without any devices.
Tu-154 crash probe strives to clean 'noisy' voice recording
Is it actually unusual that the voice data are contaminated by a noise?
Originally Posted by David Kaminski-Morrow @ Flight Global
"Voice information is very noisy and there are many sections that need restoration," says the Russian Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK).
bahrd
No it's not at all unusual. Many factors, including the type of recorder, the recording medium itself, the microphones, how those mics are worn or used, volume settings, as well as levels of background noise (engines, air con, fans, etc) -- all contribute to dimished clarity of voices.
Other noises on the recorders are also very useful to investigators (such as audible cockpit warnings, alarms, horns, etc), so enhancing and otherwise cleaning up the sounds on the tapes is often done, and sometimes quite necessary.
No it's not at all unusual. Many factors, including the type of recorder, the recording medium itself, the microphones, how those mics are worn or used, volume settings, as well as levels of background noise (engines, air con, fans, etc) -- all contribute to dimished clarity of voices.
Other noises on the recorders are also very useful to investigators (such as audible cockpit warnings, alarms, horns, etc), so enhancing and otherwise cleaning up the sounds on the tapes is often done, and sometimes quite necessary.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the true time of crash is hidden??
There are three other facts that confirm described here time of crash.(8:39)
1. Plane started from Warsaw at 7:23, planed time of flight ( in documents ) was 70 min so it give us 8:33
2. Plane with PM Tusk on 07-10-2010 was flying 80 min if President trip took also 80 min they will land on 8:43
3. President call his brother on 8:20 and said "lądujemy za kilkanaście minut" this means between 11-19 min this give us arrival time between 8:31 and 8:39
The question is why they are not giving us real time of the crash?
1. Plane started from Warsaw at 7:23, planed time of flight ( in documents ) was 70 min so it give us 8:33
2. Plane with PM Tusk on 07-10-2010 was flying 80 min if President trip took also 80 min they will land on 8:43
3. President call his brother on 8:20 and said "lądujemy za kilkanaście minut" this means between 11-19 min this give us arrival time between 8:31 and 8:39
The question is why they are not giving us real time of the crash?