Soloviev D-30KU
 

Tom, could you elaborate:

Why should know cases of uncontained engine failures
of the Soloviev D-30KU engines on take off power be
irrelevant in case of an attempted go-around?

<<the only way a controller would know if the aircraft was descending>>

SSR Mode C?

JeV

What an utter crap...
Where did you get these RR from???


ReplyDate: 10 APR 2010
Time: 10:50
Type: Tupolev 154M
Operator: Polish Air Force
Registration: 101
C/n / msn:
First flight: 1990
Engines: 3 Soloviev D-30KU-154-II

indeed, this is a PROFESSIONAL PILOTS rumor and news page. that s why i rather prefer to be here than in russian professional webnews! at least -here i can gather information no investigation commision ever will discloss to public. don t you understand who we are dealing with? ok, here are some people far from aviation, so what? the link to this website is published in all news and it is not "by accident" . so, really, get over yourself and let people bring in the latest updates from russian media. at least THAT is ALLOWED, or you rather prefer to googletranslate? :)

as you wish- do it yourself! Ýêèïàæ Òó-154 èãíîðèðîâàë óêàçàíèÿ äèñïåò÷åðà óéòè íà çàïàñíîé àýðîäðîì - âîðîíåæñêèé èíôîðìàöèîííûé ïîðòàë ÌΨ! Online

This has a horrible ring of truth about it . . . a scenario that was repeated time and time again in European airspace in the years after the war.

And yes, it's speculation. In part at least, it's what this forum's for.

I would be interested to know what you think I have posted that is "crap".
That the Tu154 has a poorer safety record than Western types

Well, if you're asking, this is crap. Compared to similar western types in wide use and about the same age (B737, DC-9), discounting planes downed by missiles, CFIT, mid-air crashes and other non-aircraft related accidents, I would say the Tu154 has about the same safety record, or barely worse than Western types.

This being PPRuNe (as in ProPilots), I'm really dissapointed with some of the posts here.

pbogdanovic

Probably/Maybe you are right, and a large part of its poor record is down to the fact that is has been operated in a fairly non-standard way in countries with either decaying maintenance/regulatory structure (former USSR states) or generally poor standards anyhow (Iran, Africa for example )

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 :=

lompaseo,

the info I would like to hear is the previously shown met gobbledegook translated, and the type of app being flown

What poor record and relevant to what statistical study of other types operated in a similar way?

I appreciate that the investigation has only just begun but there seems to be no evidence yet that the aircraft type had any part to play in this accident.

This Russia Today program gives more detail on this particular aircraft and a previous 'diversion' incident that raised the president's ire.

YouTube - Tail ?101: Lech Kaczynski was reluctant to replace old Tupolev Tu-154 plane

Captplaystation, you're entitled to your opinion, but posting it as a fact is of little use. 737 with it's history of rudder hardover accidents is not the best example of safety record, and is hardly newer than Tupolev (and this particular Tupolev was younger than some a/c in LOT fleet). And this is rumour and news, not conjectures and biased opinions forum. I can't refer to your other opinions, as some posts have been deleted.

Why is it the same platitudes about the TU-154M are rolled out again and again after any significant event?

Of course its hard to discount other causes, but assuming that the a/c was in a good maintainable state (and it was a low time airframe with probably VIP maintenance throughout its lifetime) I'd rather more lean towards what we already know.

The evidence reported (albeit early stage) leans towards the inevitable highly likely conclusion. Why can't anybody call a spade a spade nowadays?

Any facts to back up you theory.
I will help you a little. A total of 68 Tu-154 airframes were lost. Now, how many were lost to terrorist attack, crew error, collision, missile attack, etc.. and how many were lost due to technical problems and how many of them were related to poor maintenance?

Arrakis

The TU-154 is operated in some of the harshest climates known to man and has a design & components based on Soviet-era bombers it's fair to say that it's a tough old beast (CaptPlayStation - what are you on?).

For example, a Malev TU-154 did a accidental gear up landing, go-around and still landed safely with gear extended (Thessaloniki, 2000 - the fuselage still remains there). From the pictures (hence my speculation), whilst the terrain is woody, it doesn't appear to be massively dense.

So if the crew had descended below the MDA just to try and get in (because of the political importance of the event), and had become visual with the ground or lack of runway at the last moment and had executed a go-around, it would be fair to assume that the RoD could be arrested or reduced to a minimum and therefore even if contact with the gear/trees had taken place a similar outcome to the Malev case could be expected.

However in the crash site (again from TV pictures) the wreckage and fire scorched area seems to be quite tight rather than distributed widely but without deep craters. This would suggest a high RoD at low speed which seems odd at this stage of the approach (or go-around if one has been executed). Anyone else see where I am coming from?

What about GPWS or EGPWS calls? Surely they would recieved these warnings.

Or does the 154 not have this fitted?

Rolls-Royce
 

From http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100410/tu_154_100410/20100410?hub=World:

Aviation expert Mark Miller said allegations that the 26-year-old plane is the cause of the crash are likely unfounded.

The plane that was carrying the Polish president had recently undergone refurbishments, including the addition of "three Rolls Royce engines -- some of the most sophisticated and advanced engines available today," Miller told CTV News Channel Saturday in a telephone interview. "This idea that the plane was unsafe is an unfair characterization."

Clearly here is one "aviation expert" who knows something that the rest of us don't.

I will not be surprised if this will be the final official werdict as well.

Now the Poles have another reason never to forget the Katyn massacre
 

That is the headlines from The Telegraph, see the article at:
Now the Poles have another reason never to forget the Katyn massacre – Telegraph Blogs

If the approach was PAR given by a soviet controller it is a fair bet there will shortly follow a massive political fallout and calls for the accident investigation to be conducted by other than soviet state authorities. Basically this is not just an ordinary air accident.

Right! Fully agree, this accident MAY become a polit thriller.

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.

JSP

TV Report: Tail broke off
 

According to a report from the Swiss-German Public TV, the tail broke off when it struck trees.

A reporter was sent to Smolensk. Witnesses told him that the a/c was obviously too low. When maximal thrust was then applied, the pitch was such that the tail struck the trees and broke apart from the rest of the fuselage. The a/c hit the ground a couple hundred meters further into the woods.

Caution: we are talking here about witnesses' accounts, interpreted by a foreign journalist.

Source: Look for the "Christoph Wanner" report (in German) at : Staatstrauer in Polen nach Tod des Präsidenten / International / SF Tagesschau

...and witnesses accounts in dense fog too. how much did they really see?