Fake Sealion

1 Brief for the approach - intentions and responsibilities confirmed

2 Identify a DH based on QFE

3 Fly the approach down to DH - QFE

4 At DH -look up - acceptable visual references? - Yes - Land.
No - Abort & Divert.

Had they done that - all would be well.

The evidence points to them descending (in a controlled way) below DH-QFE

Irrespective of the "misinterpreted" RA values caused by the valley they should NOT have descended below DH -QFE.

So why did they?

Probably became fixated on the "constant" 100m RA values and neglected QFE values OR the PF thought he saw a visual reference, deliberately descended below DH but then lost the reference, by which time the go around was made too late to avoid impact on the upslope.

Short of some additional CVR material "coming to light" for those last 10 seconds - we have to accept that the reason for the descent below DH will never be known and thats it.

BOAC

FS - all agreed and my way too. The question to 'opher' was to try and gain insight into what is obviously a complete mis-understanding by me of the eastern bloc military way of flying approaches - which may well be the root cause of the death of so many unfortunate people. It begins to sound as if 'Opher' and his colleagues may have another way of doing it to what we see as the 'norm'..

Regarding your last para, I have already said on this thread what I think happened.

Alice025

To aggravate things further now attention is to the tape, when did it go ? from track to track, could there be an over-lapping of a couple of seconds. Three times voices on the record in cabin say "100", one of them is mysterious A reading unknown what altimeter and who is he to know anyway, but twice it is one and the same navigaitor, at a time distance of about 7 seconds.
So there are options:

1. Navigator read "100" from 2 different altimeters, one after another, at an interval of 7 seconds.
2. Navigator simply repeated himself, as TAWS was talking in parallel to him all the way. To make sure he is heard.
3. Plane suspended in the air for 7 seconds in a flat kind of mode, went parallel (to unknown what, it's a slope).
4. That's where tape track was changed and it's an overlap.

Alice025

wetbehindear @326
"Dear Alice is there a handle in Polish and Russian blogs about this coordination meeting.

I came to believe that advance party did not accomplished a very good job."

Co-ordination meeting not mentioned anywhere in 2 months' time :o)
Only rare squeaks re what Diplomatic Corps of one country sent to another and the other way around. It looks (to me) they were arranging it by diplomatic channels.
And it looks to me both sides got relaxed in years, after all every spring Poles come to mourn. Ordinary ones by train, official events as I understood it are arranged by plane. Not the first Kachinsky flight there either, what's new. In fact, ordinary Polish people come all year round, to the graves of their relatives. Poland must have thought the route is well trampled what's new; Russia must have thought what's new an unavoidable how to say, reminder of dismal past, every spring Poles come.

Now, one short business trip to Northern for 2 days for reps from 36 Regiment - not for Diplomats - one familiarisation trip for pilots. To walk the place, see the "control tower" (btw they could very well have been thinking all the way it's not there. there is a quite high thing nearby that does look like a perfect control tower. part of the factory nearby), get acquainted with the controllers - how many of them are there! after all! not many. 2 shifts max. To see what they see in their screens. to trot down to the far beacon may be.

- and we'd have nothing to write about.
They might have mentioned what they expect by their rules, like that they give them height, come fog. etc.

While controller asks the captain "Have you flown to a military aerodrome before". They aren't acquainted. Which means even on the 7th, 3 days earlier, Polish pilots didn't trot down to the control shed to check things out or say hello. Otherwise if not Plusnin - then the other one - would have surely said - Oh, that's Protasiuk. He's been here on the 7th.
Impossible that Russians would speak to an acquainted person like to an un-acquainted one - even in control-board short exchange.

I am not saying that private acquaintances is the only sure way around a Russian aerodrome :o)
But there is a feeling more familiarisation is in want, re the "arrangements" made.
It's 2 months after nobody knows by what rules they should have spoken, or not spoken, could the controller prohibit, was it a must for the pilot to oblige. Kind of late all began thinking about it.

Alice025

And anyway there should be a way to not crash even in fog.
Fog in Smolensk is a frequent thing. Locals can't remember any crashes.

Alice025

I can't forget how in Perestroyka was hired as an interpretor/guide for an American airline crew. Who were starting charter flights into Russia. In one day from museum guide I was "converted" into ground agent :o)
The Captain said Hermitage it's fine but Alice let's better go to the airport; do you think we can have a tour arranged?
"We" :o) spoke with all, in both Pulkovo and Sheremetevo. Visited meteo offices and enquired about weather maps, how often and where from. The Captain was awful interested in fuel (I regretted I didn't take chemical dictionary with :o) He wanted to go to Nairobi from St. Petersburg. All was pre-booked, but, to be sure, the captains (as I worked for them for a while, from the first flight on) wanted to see all for themselves themselves. And not for nothing :o) can't forget how we were all in choir re-calculating gallons into litres and translating weather maps.

For ex. he booked water. We waited for it 3 hrs. The crew began wondering ab water shortages in St. Petersburg :o)
Then water arrived. In beautiful metal thermoses, Pulkovo chaps explained "we heard Americans have their stomacks in dis-array-s from foreign water, so we boiled it all, then cooled down, and packed into thermoses. Sign here for delivery." And they wanted lots of water, by a pipe, from a cictern, into the plane's belly!

There is no limit of mis-understandings even when both sides are full of best intentions.
First flight Mosow-St. Petersburg the American crew asked me to fly with them. They were fine people, and fine plane, and I agreed. "Just in case. We know control speaks English. But just in case."
They didn't need me as it was proved, but in approach asked me - jokingly - to glance out of the window and tell if I recognise the native aerodrome. I replied in the affirmative - there is my house, yes, it's our airport, that one is Int'l, that one is Domestic, see they are connected you can taxi, here is East here is West etc. All were laughing but all were looking at me very attentively :o)

Alice025

And catering. He THOUGHT he booked 7 types of menu-s.
The difference btw something semi-vegetarian and full-vegetarian even I couldn't understand. And kosher. The kitchen all fell down when they understood the Americans aren't joking, they really want 7 types. But they made it. Not 7, but 5 they made.

d-bug

PTKAY
We really appreciate the picture of the russian autopilot. Thanks!

oleczek

d-bug:
http://yurik.flightgear.ru/tu154eng.html

Search for 366

Olek

d-bug

great resource Olek, thanks.

SadPole

An article on the subject in today's Gazeta Wyborcza. Interview with a pilot who USED to fly dignitaries in the same Polish Airforce unit. He now trains civilian pilots. It’s very long and detailed, as he knows to the letter both Tu-154 and Russian ATC procedures. Some most important points he made:

• The approach at Smolensk like many here suggested was NOT a PAR approach. He says it is clear from the start. All what Smolensk North apparently had was ASR and this is why it is so damn important when the ATC screamed that they were not reading the altitude (Oni nye kvitovali!!!). On ASR approach the ATC only knows altitude of the plane from what the plane crew tells him. When they read radar altimeter values that did indeed mean to him that they were on the right path as they were supposed to give him barometric altitude values.

• They never had permission to land. All that they were given was conditional permission to descend to the decision height at which point they were supposed to request permission to begin landing procedure. They never did that, never followed proper procedures. The ATC had no clue they were landing no clue where they were because they were never supposed to use radar altimeter readings for landing.

• The crew was absolutely never trained for what they were doing. For political reasons, the polish government canceled Tu-154 simulator training – because they had to do it in Moscow and did not want to buy a simulator of their own. The way they were doing their emergency procedures training was pretend playing on the plane parked at tarmac. This is one of the reasons why pretty much all competent pilots have quit that military outfit. And, of course, the fact that civilian airlines pay several times higher salaries did not help the matter either. The only good thing about the story is that the IDIOT who made the decision to not train on Tu-154 simulators was the one of those killed on that flight.

• He asserted that the Tu-154 instruction specifically prohibits landing on autopilot even on ILS approach. They are supposed to disengage the autopilot between 100 to 60 meters above landing strip. I found the Tu-154 instruction on the internet and that is indeed what it says. Whether one agrees or disagrees whether it should be like that, the instruction like that HAS TO BE FOLLOWED because it probably means that it can become impossible to safely disengage the autopilot under some conditions after that threshold is passed.

• The other political decision was made by the dead president himself to change the flight plan twice. The original flight plan called for departure at 6:30 Warsaw time. But the president requested the time to be changed to 7:00 and then was half an hour late for that, and so they left at 7:30, which would make it impossible to make it to the ceremony if the plane landed anywhere but Smolensk north.

Meaning, we have incompetent, not too confident pilots being micromanaged by egomaniacal politicians. If the pilots believed in their abilities there is no way they would stay at that job under those conditions.

robdean

Sadpole - thank you very much for reporting on that article - it makes sense of a great deal of what happened.

dukof

SadPole,

Can you provide a web link showing this full interview (whatever language) ?

BOAC

A far clearer insight the way it came about, but it appears that there is another CVR transcript around that we have not seen. This 'cry' "Oni nye kvitovali!!!" does not appear anywhere on the transcript I have seen, nor is there any sign of any "radio altimeter" reading being given to ATC. Does anyone have the 'other' CVR transcript?

I still do not think we have the picture, despite this insight. I still maintain there was a PAR available but not used - how else could "on course, on glidepath" be said? It would appear that an "ASR" approach in this part of the world is quite different to the western style, and you do NOT need the a/c to tell ATC its altitude for an ASR approach!

As for having to wait until DH to ask for and get landing permission................................ it just would not work. I begin to wonder why I trained to go to war against the Eastern block if they were all going to crash in bad weather waiting for 'landing clearance' In the west landing clearance was normally given at around 300' above DH so you did not have to descend below it first and you could actually concentrate on putting the jet on the tarmac!

criss

'Oni nye kvitovali" is from the alleged interview with the controller, not from the CVR.

SadPole

The interview appeared in the Satarday paper edition of Gazeta Wyborcza. As of now, they still have not posted it on their website. I think they generally do it with 1 to 2 day delay. I cannot wait, because there is lots of great info there. I hope they (the fanatics here in Poland) don't hound the guy down for exposing all that.

SadPole

BOAC – all your "concerns" are semantical misinterpretations and as such have very little substance. For example:

You say:
"It would appear that an "ASR" approach in this part of the world is quite different to the western style, and you do NOT need the a/c to tell ATC its altitude for an ASR approach!"

That's interesting as I have found a US "NAVAL AIR TRAINING COMMAND" manual that says the following:

*****
305. NONPRECISION APPROACHES
A nonprecision approach provides directional (azimuth) guidance only; altitude restrictions are listed in the approach procedure (FLIP Low Altitude Approach Plates). The pilot flies the aircraft along the depicted or directed course, keeping the aircraft within the published altitude restrictions as it descends toward the airport. Nonprecision approaches may be based upon VOR, VOR/DME, TACAN, NDB, GPS, or Localizer radio aids, or upon communications from a
controller.
306. ASR APPROACH
The ASR approach is a nonprecision radar ground controlled approach. During an ASR approach, the radar controller will provide the pilot with azimuth information in the form of headings to fly. All altitude information will be advisory. The controller will state, if the pilot requests, the recommended altitude at each mile of the approach. The ASR ground controlled approach also requires two-way radio communications and cannot be used for selection of an alternate airport for single-piloted aircraft An example of the controller's instruction would be:
"ON COURSE, TWO MILES FROM RUNWAY, ALTITUDE SHOULD BE ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FEET."
*****

http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-305/P-3050101.htm

Meaning, the Russian procedure is actually safer as it requires the landing plane to report its altitude to ATC in order for him to continually verify the path in addition to the aircraft crew doing that. The interview that I talked about describes all of Russian procedures in detail, and this is why I cannot wait to post it here.

You say:
"As for having to wait until DH to ask for and get landing permission................................ it just would not work. I begin to wonder why I trained to go to war against the Eastern block if they were all going to crash in bad weather waiting for 'landing clearance'"

Again, semantics. The Russian procedure simply requires to restate the decision to land in form of request on specific basis of (in this case) visually seeing the runway lights. It does not mean that the plane has to level off at decision height to await permission to land (that would not work). This "permission" requirement is simply procedural safety to force the pilot to go on record stating that he is landing under allowable conditions and all that it means is that the landing craft has to state one specific sentence and the ATC has to acknowledge it with another. They have not done that and as such broke the procedures and had no permission to land. This is discussed at great lengths in the interview.

The issue of pilots lying about seeing runway so they can proceed with landing is not exactly unknown issue in the western world. Please examine the Aspen 2001 crash transcripts where the pilots specifically discuss the issue of crews lying about seeing the runway and end up doing it themselves, killing everyone onboard:

*****
The first officer also stated, about 1848:04, "remember that crazy guy in this Lear[jet] when we were...on the ground in Aspen last time and he [stated that he could] see the airport but he couldn't see it." The captain did not respond to either of the first officer's statements.
*****
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...01MA034&rpt=fa

That Aspen crash is almost exact western "replica" of that Tu-154 crash.

As to competence of people in the East as demonstrated by the current Polish government, I have written very detailed opinion on the subject and posted it here. The post was quickly removed due to (no doubt) complaints of some fanatics.

RegDep

Criss,
I recall this sentence in media coverage just within the first days after the event, as part of the controller's story. Cannot produce a link now.

SadPole

Here is the interview, machine translated into English:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient-menuext&hl=en&u=http%3A//www.lifenews.ru/news/20288

Russian original
http://www.lifenews.ru/news/20288



This part is critical:

So you did not have any information about their height?

- Do not.



- So it turns out that he once again turned around, went to the landing, did not sit down, and then went to the alternate?

Or differently?



- No, no, different.



One Sunset fulfilled and all.

Then he went to the landing.

- And go up to the landing, you are forbidden to him?

- I could not deny, I recommended to him that it does not need to do!


The story is quite obvious:

So you did not have any information about their height?
Did not.

BOAC

SadPole - obviously we in the west place a greater trust in our military crews. There is NOTHING to show that the crew were receiving ANY approach control from the ground, was there - unless you know differently?