|
<<About 1 km before runway it seems that they tripped some antenna (PAR ?)>>
It would not be PAR. Precision Approach radar antennas are usually located on the airfield, close to the touchdown area. |
Well, in my oppinion pilots were under pressure:
1. Very Important People VIP on board. 2. VIP had to go to a polical/social ceremony. There were a lot of people waiting for them, and pilots knew the importance of the events. I´m sorry |
Andrasz, thank you for support:
Yes, it was a 20 year old TU5. Yes, it was completely overhauled last year. Yes, it was outfitted with western instrumentation including FMC, EGPWS, TCASII, etc. No, it was not outfitted with RR engines (some twit confused the Tu-154 with the Tu-204). Ptkay,that's a very arrogant statement/question you made there and is typical of a "I know better than you" attitude. There is no way on earth I would fly with you as PIC. Based on the below I suggest you wipe the egg off your face. or keep your "I know better than you" attitude based on the single, internet note based on single e-mail by an "expert". I suggest, you wipe up your.... PS: In the meantime, the "expert", Mr. Miller has withdrawn this RR "utter crap" from his statement. Nevertheless still claiming the aircraft manufactured 1990 was "26 years old"... Check yourself: Tu-154 likely not to blame for crash: expert - CTV News |
Utter nonsense. You cannot dump fuel on a TU5. If the problem is not that serious, you circle above the airfield to burn off fuel, in any other case you go in overweight. After a 1.5h flight and only 80something pax o/b the a/c would have been well under MLW (80t) even if it was fuelled for the return journey. Amazing amount of ill-informed posts in the past 12 hours surfacing on this thread that started off reasonably sound. Your specific detail about the TU was very useful though so thanks for that. NF |
Well, in my oppinion pilots were under pressure... NamibFox, apologies, no intention of being offensive, my remark referred to the original article not to your posting. |
Could we PLEASE stop this discussion on Russian vs. US technology that is rapidly deteriorating into the ridiculous! From what we know the make of the airplane played very little if any role in the accident. Yes, it was a 20 year old TU5. Yes, it was completely overhauled last year. Yes, it was outfitted with western instrumentation including FMC, EGPWS, TCASII, etc. No, it was not outfitted with RR engines (some twit confused the Tu-154 with the Tu-204). So far from what seems to be known, the accident has all the hallmarks of a dozen or so similar events when a non precision approach in marginal weather placed the aircraft to a position it had no intention of getting to. The last one was just two weeks ago at DME... At the moment the critical questions we should be asking (and hopefully getting answers soon): * What kind of approach did they fly ? We know there is no ILS, there is a NDB but doing a NDB approach with 500m vis is suicidal. The crew were professional, even under pressure to land it is extremely unlikely that they would have done someting like that. Most likely they were flying a PAR approach, but at this moment we do not know. Language very unlikely to have been an issue, all Tu pilots would have received their type training in Russia, language proficiency was one of the selection criteria. * Did they really make 4 approaches ? There have been suggestions that they only circled the field 4 times, that sounds more like holding over the field waiting for the weather to improve. If indeed there were 3 prior missed approaches, then the event hovers at or is beyond the definition of being reckless, and would be a strong indication of the kind of pressure the crew were under to land. * Are the reports of wreckage found away from the main impact site true, and if so are they indicative of a tree strike at that point, or are they supportive of an in-flight failure (engine or other). All these questions are pretty simple to answer, even on the first day of an investigation. Mr. Putin, we are waiting! Spot on Andrasz, kösenem! The pressure from the cabin in an executive aviation environment can be very bad and makes you think 3 times before you decide not to try... (never been in the military but could imagine that is even more of a problem there) Lets hope it won´t come to a fight and slagging contest between Russia and Poland over the investigation. Their relations are bad enough, with Kaczynski being a major contributor to the unrest between them. |
flyhelico: "for me it' s simple, don't hire ex military pilots. These guys want land at all cost. I know it, I flew with military pilots..."
It is certainly a mistake to put ex-military straight in the left hand seat regardless of background. The fast jet jockeys might need to or three years learning the ropes. But ex-transport pilots (I was a Hercules QFI) like me adapted to the civilian methods – which frankly were virtually indistinguishable – with relative ease. Nonetheless, 12 months in the right hand seat provided a useful and necessary apprenticeship as an airline pilot for which I am grateful. But having got that out of the way, within a few years I was an IRE. The CAA doesn’t give away IREs to reckless pilots who land at all costs. Jack |
According to polish press and witnesses of the crash, Tu154 was not approaching 4 times but just circled airfield 3 times, and then pilots decided eventually to land. Almost 0 visibility and no ILS = off center line approach, wrong glide slope. If there was zero visibility, how did witnesses see anything? Or is that information from air traffic controllers? |
Skimmed quickly through the last 10 pages and I didn't come upon it. Where exactly was the point of ground contact in relation to the R/W ? one report said 1.5km, was that 1.5km on final on the centreline ? or 1.5km offset alongside the runway ? or where exactly. An earlier poster referenced a satellite image, can't find nowt on google, any links ?
Do we know yet if the aircraft was flying PAR/NDB ? |
They were not ex-military pilots, they were current military pilots, this was a military a/c. The real problem for polish military pilots is they get very little flying time per year due to funds shortage, but this wouldn't apply to these transport pilots.
If there was no ILS, there are only 2 possibilities, NDB or PAR, as VORs are rather scarce there. PAR more probable due to reports that ATC "commanded" the crew to climb (of course, it might happen also under normal SSR, but it does bear resemblance to PAR), but then, placing of the crash site so far from the expected flight path would be difficult to explain. BTW, Casa's ATC transcript was not classified. They were published, and CVR from An28 crash (CFIT during training flight) was published likewise. I would assume that if there's nothing really embarassing for the dead VIPs on the CVR (clear instructions to try to land, meaning they killed themselves), it gets published. Whatever you (and we) might think, it's not some third world. And again, can we finally cut all the nonsense about a/c type and Eastern vs Western? It makes the first P look more like pathetic than professional... |
Useful infographics regarding your question:
http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/9/7756/m7756789.jpg That was military PAR approach as far as I understood Russian AF vicecommander Aloshin. |
To flyhelico
for me it' s simple, don't hire ex military pilots.
these guys want land at all cost. I know it, I flew with military pilots... maybe not all, but when you have been trained in the military for 20 years, it 's very hard to change habits. := FlyHelico, obviously you did not undergo a western-type UPT; i can´t remember there has ever been a economic pressure by a CEO in commencing an approach in my military time, but i remember an IP who had been busted by higher command, just because of commencing an approach for a missed approach training purpose, when the wx-conditions were below published minima. Sounds a little bit like one of this guys had been hired where you´ve been rejected..??:p t's better to miss the lead story at 6 . . . than to become the lead story at 11. — Bruce Erion, President of the National Broadcast Pilots Assn., 1999. |
Where exactly was the point of ground contact in relation to the R/W ? There is a wooded area between the airfield and the town, if this report is true the accident site is 1.5 km North of the runway, significantly off the approach path. So far I have not seen any credible report even on which approach direction they were using. |
My gut feeling is they would have been under a lot of pressure to "get in". The inexperienced can fall fowl in these scenarios.
Being military pilots they would be used to "taking orders", without question, if they valued their careers. That what they are trained to do. One also would need to to question the criterion of "presidential crews". I am always wary of the "unblemished" record or never "made a mistake" quality of some of these people. When persons of this quality do eventually screw up it can be in a big way. P.S. Shouldn't the minimums when operating these VVIP flights, be set "higher" and adhered to? |
I found this map. If you zoom in then choose "hybrid" in you will get a rough location. Hope this helps.
Accident location map. The Aviation Safety Network Website. Last updated: 11 April 2010. |
Being military pilots they would be used to "taking orders", without question, if they valued their careers. |
So, you think they were in a good position to leave ? current type Tu154, current job market ?
Or does being Polish and working in a control tower give you a different and more in depth perspective of the job market than the rest of us ? |
The Investigation
I notice that a number of the posts on this thread are rational, and appear to contain authentic information. A smaller number even manage to avoid speculation based on assumptions.
Any dedicated, professional investigator charged with conducting the inquiry into this tragedy will be faced with an unenviable task; not because of the circumstances of the accident itself, which are likely to have been mundane. Mr Putin's reported decision to take personal charge of the investigation will be seen by some as indicating the importance of leaving no stone unturned; by others as determination to ensure that the Russian state is absolved of any blame. The Russians are rightly proud of their aeronautical heritage. On the other hand, the proud reputation of Polish aviation, which stoically faced such hardship from 1939, is also at stake. Normal protocols suggest that only the two states need to be involved in the investigation. In view of the sensitivities involved, however, not least that of potentially conflicting national pride, it is vital that at least one other should play a leading role in it. The question is: does the accident-investigating authority of any third-party state have a high enough reputation for expertise and impartiality to silence the nationalistic conspiracy theories that are being formed, inevitably, in the wake of this disaster? If so, time is of the essence... Chris |
You can always acquire other type ratings. Surely easier for them to get trained on a 737 or E170 than for military to find a Tu154 pilot, or to find someone current on a 737 wanting to convert to a Tupolev.
And as I said, a number of crews DID leave this unit in last 2-3 years due to low pay and conditions, so it means there are other possibilities for them, unless you suggest they preferred unemployment. |
Originally Posted by captplaystation
(Post 5626231)
Indeed, properly maintained/operated it may be as safe as a DC9 etc. . . . but, you wouldn't catch me hopping on one, much as I enjoy to watch them take off, quite an epic piece of kit, but much too scary to actually set foot in it with the intention of getting airborne thanks :=
It's actually a very robust plane and you have to make many dumb mistakes before you manage to crash it. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.