..of what i gathered from the newspapers if those facts are true, i think this specific case is quite obvious:

* fog: 400 metres visibility
* non precision approach = weather below minimum
* not following atc instructions
* captain too weak to follow rules and regulations

i also wonder why a pilot with LESS than 2000 hours total time flies such a big aircraft as captain with all those VIPs...

It isn't low experiance like for polish soldier. It isn't thesame flying as in airline (6 days of flyin and 4 days off). I've heard that this aircraft (101) has a TT 5XXX hours since new.

The plane itself, manufactured in 1990, had slightly above 5400h and the II pilot around 3500h. We are not talking about an airline.



Arrakis

Mind you that while their hours might seem low, they did many sectors, as they flew practice IFR patterns and approaches almost every day, and many short flights like EPWA-EPGD and back (25-30 mins) or even shorter ones from Warsaw to nearby air force base, so they shot lots of approaches.

Pitch Up Authority

"It has been reported by our media that (on an earlier state flight) the Polish President himself has ordered the PIC to start an approach into an airport that was basically closed."

If that is the case and I had been the Captain I would have asked the person who gave the order , to fly the damned thing himself, next trip! You see I am thankfully a civilian trained pilot and therefore would have no hesitation to answer such an order with a counter order.

Chris,

There certainly is an inconsistency, not in the statement but in the desires. However that inconsistency disappears if the evidence indeed does point towards piloting error being the primary cause.

Judgement pretty much hinges on whether the permission for, and the commencement of the approach were within legal bounds. Whatever the finding will be, the commission is walking on pretty thin ice, no wonder Putin is in charge...

Wessel Words

I believe on that particular flight that was exactly what the crew did - it is reporetd that the P. wanted to have the crew fired afterwards. We do not know whether it was the same crew as the accident flight, or a different one.

iWhat has the status of the passengers got to do with the qualification of the crew ? Either they are capable to be in command of an aeroplane or not - even if it is freight that they are carrying. Do they perform less professionally when positioning an empty aeroplane back to base ?

I once announced to those in the pub who chose to listen, that I had just go back fhome after flying a freighter. I was asked when I was going to be promoted to flying passengers ? I retorted that I chose to fly the freighters whenever I could, freight doesn't answer back when one has to divert due weather.

andrasz,

Thanks, but I think the fact that "Putin is in charge" of a Commission that you say is "on thin ice" is likely to magnify the problem I refer to.

Chris

Chris, I think we're in full agreement there.

Third recorder?
 

I've just read the news in Polish newsportal that third recorder was found. Of course it was referred as a "black box" so don't know what recorder it actaually is. Does the TU154M have more than a single FDR and CVR?

Few observations:

1. QFE/QNH is one of the areas for concern.

2. Polish Air Force TU154 pilots have little chance to get more hours other than on "live" VIP flights. Some training for sure, but you can't expect they will do a few thousands of hours on training flights. None of East European airlines operating TU154 for quite some time now, so it is next to impossible to arrange pilots to fly commercially to get more experience. However, I would say crew experience was more or less in line with other military crews flying heavy transport like C130/C17/C5/IL76/AN124.

3. Other areas to look at are rules and procedures. Polish Air Force aircraft flying into Russian military airfield controlled by military ATC. I'm pretty sure that rules were bended and corners were cut to make it happen in a first place. I don't belive that PAF crew went though the approapriate training at Russian Air Force and completed some tests/exams to become officially qualified to fly into russian military airfields. Most probably they received a short briefing, not more, and got some information from older comrades who were flying in Soviet times. Quite possibly a mismatch in understanding of procedures between crew & ATC played its role, add a less-than-fluent language knowledge.

hasta.la.vista

Could be QAR (Quick Access Recorder), but not sure if PAF have them fitted.

We know. It wasn't the same crew.

Arrakis

Just listened to an interview on Polish radio (TOK FM) with an "aviation expert" Michal Fiszer, who gives another version of the approach.

According to his current knowledge 2 approaches were flown: first to "have a look" (agreed with ATC) and then the fatal one.

Tonden

I refuse to believe that this crew was not familiar with OFE / QNH operations nor that there was anything wrong with the plane that crippled it in such a way that prevented the crew from making a normal approach.

I believe it is more reasonable to believe the reasonable and that is that the crew was under a lot of pressure from behind.

We all know that on a NP let down it is crucial to make a rough crosscheck between Baro and Radio altimeter.

Perhaps I am being thick here but, assuming they had set the correct number of Hpa given by ATC there was no danger associated with believing they had set QNH when in fact it was QFE, if they descended to elevation plus minima 830 & 330 = 1160 thinking it was QNH, they would have been 1160 above the airfield, not much chance to get the lights , but equally no chance to hit the ground.
What would have killed them would be descending to a minima (330 MDH?) based on QFE thinking it related to QNH (and having set it as a QNH MDA and having set QNH if one was given, which I doubt) .
This of course would require total absence of thought concerning the field elevation.
I think they will have operated enough in soviet bloc countries to be familiar with QNH/QFE/Metres Feet confusion, but well, under pressure I guess anything is possible.

ummm.... I believe the QFE at the airport was 0 feet

hasta.la.vista

I believe the third recording is the ATC tapes. On the russian PM website there is a transcript of a discussion of the 11th, they clearly discuss three recordings, the retrieved ATC tapes, and the CVR/FDR recovered from the wreckage. The first one was already listened two and "confirms no technical problems, and that the crew was advised of the weather conditions". The other two are being de-cyphered now, in the presence of the Polish team and the public prosecutors.

question to the russian/ QFE experienced pilots:


on those airports: do you use QFE ( so landing with 0 feet on alt) or ask for QNH?

what is in your opinion the best way?

i think the easiest thing would be if all airports worldwide have the same standards: QNH :-)

And I believe you are in the wrong forum.