|
When protectthehornet said that, I must admit, it was the first thing that crossed my mind as well. It might have been in a similar capacity (ie. high ranking officials etc with "get-me-there-itis") alas...
The link from what protectthehornet was referring to is here: 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just hope that it wasn't a risky-shift scenario what with all the big airforce bosses onboard and probably (pure speculation here) being in the cockpit? -- JFK -- |
and what if the high ranking air force guys were in the pilot's seat?
|
If the above weather report is correct and it was 0.5 Km vis. and there was not an ILS.
What type of approach were they using in those conditions???? |
If the above weather report is correct and it was 0.5 Km vis. and there was not an ILS. What type of approach were they using in those conditions???? On a more serious note -- I am sure that what transpired on the deck was/is/were easier said than done. Eager to hear what the CVR recorded (if ever made possible). |
I'm not sure the relevance of a/c produced to hull loss is relevant without the amount of cycles or flying hours etc is included?? In which case i'm sure the 737 is a safer more sucessful aircraft?
|
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. These guys have to land, in a case of war, guys land, whatever happen. in no war time, they land in any situation, in case there is a war! |
FlyHelico, you do a disservice to military pilots who follow SOP's, not to mention exercise their own good judgment. Counter to your statements, note the quote in the Wall Street Journal from a reporter who traveled in the aircraft that crashed on a previous flight, and reported on the late President Kazynski of Poland:
"Of course, I don’t know exactly what happened and this is not to suggest anything, but let me share a story that shows President Kaczynski’s attitude toward his own personal safety. "During the Russian-Georgian conflict over South Ossetia, Kaczynski flew to Georgia to show support for the Georgian leader. The president, as the supreme commander of the military, ordered the pilot to land near the breakaway republic and the military pilot respectfully refused, saying it was too dangerous and that Kaczynski may be his supreme commander on the ground, but not in the air. "Eventually, he landed at a safer airport and the president had to take a really long drive in a motorcade. Upon arrival, an angry Kaczynski told reporters that it was unacceptable for his orders to be ignored like that and decisions about his travel be made “on such a low level.”" |
I hope he was happy with his decision of taking his low level status pilot off his flights so he could control the next captain more efficiently. It sure saved that long limo ride. Sorry for the sad news. Poland lost a lot of people going to a humanitarian event.
|
The Times is reporting that the Russia Today reports (Chinese whispers perhaps) that the crew of the TU 154 were dumping fuel before the missed approaches and final accident.
If this is true then it puts a whole new perspective on the Captain's determination to get the aircraft down despite the prevailing conditions. Polish president dies in plane crash after pilot ignored warning not to land - Times Online Russia Today and other television stations reported that even before the first attempt to land, the pilot had been dumping fuel — indicating some form of mechanical problem — so by the fourth attempt there was no alternative but to put the aircraft down. Mechanical issues aside, the questions about the imperative to land still seem firmly trended towards the nature of the president's political fears about a diversion. Kaczynski, whose body was also said to have been found, was a former anti-communist campaigner with a penchant for taunting the Kremlin. He had every reason to believe he was not welcome in Russia. Polish observers said he may have interpreted an order to divert to Moscow as an attempt to sabotage his big day in Katyn, where he was due to attend a mass and give a speech. Russian media reports said he had once become angry with a pilot who refused to land in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, on the grounds that it was unsafe. The same thing may have happened at Smolensk, aviation experts claimed. They suggested he may have pressed the pilot to make at least two attempts to land. The crew included Captain Arkadiusz Protasiuk, Major Robert Grzywna, the first officer, Artur Zietek, the navigator lieutenant, and Andrzej Michalak, the engineer. All were said to have been very experienced. |
flyhelico,
You would not have hired Captain Sully! |
I can't offer much insight on this crash but I can offer a small amount of information. Judging from satellite pictures of the crash site, the aircraft came down in a relatively small space on the order of 200 or 300 meters. The surrounding area doesn't seem too badly damaged, most of the trees nearby are intact - but it's not exactly thick forest anyway.
I vaguely recall a post here stating that bits fell off the a/c several km short of the crash location, but I can't see any evidence of that. I guess it depends how big the bits are though! Was the Eastern Space Shuttle a success? Somewhat off topic, but yes it was a success if you look at the engineering. Buran was considered superior to the US shuttle in most areas of it's design and construction. Buran was never an operational success due to the fall of the Soviet Union, not because there was anything wrong with the shuttle itself. |
Just a thought. The Commander of the Polish Air Force was on board. It is not unknown for top brass to want to pilot the aircraft themselves. I could relate some (fortunately amusing) incidents when as a QFI in the RAF, the “Old Man” wanted a go.
Jack |
I'm not sure the relevance of a/c produced to hull loss is relevant without the amount of cycles or flying hours It probably wouldn't be relevant even with that data. Conclusions on aircraft safety drawn purely by counting hull losses are utterly meaningless. |
Any possible similarity?
AVFLASH NEWShttp://www.avweb.com/images-avweb/bluetabcorner.gifJanuary 25, 2008
Polish CASA C-295M Crash Update http://www.avweb.com/images-avweb/mailtoicon.gifEmail this article |http://www.avweb.com/images/printicon.gifPrint this article By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editorhttp://www.avweb.com/images-avweb/clearpixel.gif http://www.avweb.com/newspics/polish_casa_c295m.jpgThe Jan. 23 crash of a Polish air force air transport aircraft that killed all 20 aboard (including high-ranking officials) has led Polish officials to ground its fleet of nine EADS CASA C-295M aircraft pending the results of an investigation. The crash aircraft had fewer than 500 flight hours and its data recorder has been recovered. It clipped trees prior to crashing approximately 1 nm shy of the runway at Miroslawiec air base in northwest Poland. The crash occurred just after 7 p.m. local time. Weather at the time included cloud bases near 300 feet with heavy rain in the area. It was the aircraft's second approach. An instrument landing system had yet to be introduced at Miroslawiec, a spokesman for the Polish air forces, Lieutenant-Colonel Wies³aw Grzegorzewski, told the Polish Radio Information Agency. He added that the pilots knew that the ILS system was not operating at the base and were landing by means of a precision approach radar. The pilots, according to the spokesman, were used to such conditions. The flight was returning personnel from a flight safety conference in Warsaw. Among those killed were Col. Jerzy Pilat, commander of the Miroslawiec air base, and Brig. Gen. Andrzej Andrzejewski, commander of an air brigade based in Swidwin. The Polish government is recognizing the loss with three days of national mourning. |
jackharr Just a thought. The Commander of the Polish Air Force was on board. It is not unknown for top brass to want to pilot the aircraft themselves. I could relate some (fortunately amusing) incidents when as a QFI in the RAF, the “Old Man” wanted a go. Jack On board there were top brass PAF officers. All communication with ATC and cockpit recordings are classified to this time!! And now, 7 top Polish generals died too! |
...the crew of the TU 154 were dumping fuel before the missed approaches... Amazing amount of ill-informed posts in the past 12 hours surfacing on this thread that started off reasonably sound. |
Military PAR approach
According the words of Russian Air Force Vicecommander gen. Aloshin it should've been a PAR approach. His description of cooperation between ATC and crew almost certainly indicates that kind of approach.
|
Classified you say... Please check Dokument ujawniony przez min. Klicha and explain how come this "classified" information leaked to this news portal.
|
Sorry to interrupt your nice offtopic chat, but quick update on topic:
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. About 1 km before runway it seems that they tripped some antenna (PAR ?) and tried to level up with full power. |
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):
|
<<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 06:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.