Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Link in Post #576
Vakakaa, thanks for the link in #576 to the Tu-154 incident report. Good that the report is in English. I downloaded the full report and that was in English, too! Just an additional small note: the terrain here before the RWY 34 is pretty flat, contrary to Smolensk.
RD
RD
Last edited by RegDep; 18th Jun 2010 at 18:19. Reason: Addition
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason guys like me didn't like Soviet Union was not because we could not live without sex-shops or McD's but because we did not like politics driving everything, including engineering (See Chernobyl or K-19 for premiere examples of what it leads to). The very reason this whole affair gets to me so much is because it proves that we still have not gotten rid of that idiocy neither in Poland nor in Russia.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SadPole, explain me pls a little bit (can be in that personal letter) for I didn't understand why you are unhappy with TU-154 dogma or a rumour (hell knows) anyway it does go around - "not to complete landing on autopilot". ?
And how does politics get into this final landing stage? eh? as inter-related with (possible) auto-pilot landing prohibition - surely expect to hear in the personal letter! :o)))))))))))
And how does politics get into this final landing stage? eh? as inter-related with (possible) auto-pilot landing prohibition - surely expect to hear in the personal letter! :o)))))))))))
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 things just for info.
1. Entering the runway from the opposite direction - there is also a hole :o)
And folks say steeper than this one.
This one is actually quite gradual, at least, to an eye, stretched out.
That's why all doubted that flying in good weather on the 7th Capt. Protasiuk would even notice it , or think ab it as anything remarkable.
Northern description gives it as "in the region of Smolensk" (all journalists followed :o) - ain't true. Whole Smolensk in the blog protested. The aerodrome is right in the city.
Orography of Smolensk is quite troublesome. It's roughly located on top of a huge pre-historic elevation, on one sloping down side of this? kind of ancient wave/roller (in shape). When earth was moving plateau-s, millions years ago. So the city is on top of a slope, a wave. Then it is also cut through deep by ancient rivers and ravines, by river-beds, by river Dnieper flowing throughout it in the centre. It all consists of holes and deep cuts. Amelin said 70 metres cut a usual thing down-town.
To their river to swim they walk deep down.
This interesting design helps with fogs formation.
Plus fogs condense on city particles in the air, the aerodrome is in the city, once again.
Plus there was a spring flow-out of the Dnieper river in the time.
Which Amelin planned to take photos of, woke up at 8 looked out of the window - characterised this film hanging as "un-photo weather" - went back to sleep.
2. Wiki gives the unit operating ground control at Smolensk as "military".
Must be true, in spite of "common civillian-military use aerodrome".
Locals say civil aviation flights into Northern they don't remember of.
They definitely don't fly out of Northern anywhere.
The aerodrome is not used anymore by military either.
Who uses it at all is chancy special visits of var. officials. Russian church patriarch. Polish delegations. FSB planes like that IL that went around on the day (was to pick up security after events back into Moscow AND - most importantly - simply the? ladder? the? steps? specially delivered to Smolensk by this very IL, so that var. officials can kind of walk down instead of jumping out :o) Putin and Tusk and was planned for Kachinsky as well.
The aerodrome which doesn't have own ? steps? ladder? for big planes - hardly seems in "civillian use" to me.
The factory nearby though uses it for trying own airplanes.
1. Entering the runway from the opposite direction - there is also a hole :o)
And folks say steeper than this one.
This one is actually quite gradual, at least, to an eye, stretched out.
That's why all doubted that flying in good weather on the 7th Capt. Protasiuk would even notice it , or think ab it as anything remarkable.
Northern description gives it as "in the region of Smolensk" (all journalists followed :o) - ain't true. Whole Smolensk in the blog protested. The aerodrome is right in the city.
Orography of Smolensk is quite troublesome. It's roughly located on top of a huge pre-historic elevation, on one sloping down side of this? kind of ancient wave/roller (in shape). When earth was moving plateau-s, millions years ago. So the city is on top of a slope, a wave. Then it is also cut through deep by ancient rivers and ravines, by river-beds, by river Dnieper flowing throughout it in the centre. It all consists of holes and deep cuts. Amelin said 70 metres cut a usual thing down-town.
To their river to swim they walk deep down.
This interesting design helps with fogs formation.
Plus fogs condense on city particles in the air, the aerodrome is in the city, once again.
Plus there was a spring flow-out of the Dnieper river in the time.
Which Amelin planned to take photos of, woke up at 8 looked out of the window - characterised this film hanging as "un-photo weather" - went back to sleep.
2. Wiki gives the unit operating ground control at Smolensk as "military".
Must be true, in spite of "common civillian-military use aerodrome".
Locals say civil aviation flights into Northern they don't remember of.
They definitely don't fly out of Northern anywhere.
The aerodrome is not used anymore by military either.
Who uses it at all is chancy special visits of var. officials. Russian church patriarch. Polish delegations. FSB planes like that IL that went around on the day (was to pick up security after events back into Moscow AND - most importantly - simply the? ladder? the? steps? specially delivered to Smolensk by this very IL, so that var. officials can kind of walk down instead of jumping out :o) Putin and Tusk and was planned for Kachinsky as well.
The aerodrome which doesn't have own ? steps? ladder? for big planes - hardly seems in "civillian use" to me.
The factory nearby though uses it for trying own airplanes.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. Chaps in the forum said a flight is not civillian in Russia if it doesn't follow the established set flying paths. Like, those air routes, approved by the Aviation Ministry.
So it is not enough in Russia to fly on personal, peaceful business, to be considered "civillian".
If you don't follow the common established air route, stamped and all - you aren't "civillian aviation".
You are a special occasion.
So it is not enough in Russia to fly on personal, peaceful business, to be considered "civillian".
If you don't follow the common established air route, stamped and all - you aren't "civillian aviation".
You are a special occasion.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alice025,
Spasibo for the translation.
The "lantern" that was shown at the Smolensk beacon, is turned on during the day when poor visibilty (fog) is at the airfield.
(photos)
???-??????? Picasa - ?????? ?????? - ?????????????...
???-??????? Picasa - ?????? ?????? - ?????????????...
???-??????? Picasa - ?????? ?????? - ?????????????...
There is a reason for this type of neon lantern that glows red.
In 1928 General Electric developed red neon lights for the purpose of warning pilots and captians on ships.
As was discussed on the Russian avaiation forum in 2007, the "lantern" is used at some airfields and is placed at the beacon. And it flashes the Morse Code.
The two 5 meter T-antennas in the picture are found with the Automated PAR-10s and the mobile PAR-10.
The two same 5 meter T-antennas are also at Smolensk.
(photo)
???-??????? Picasa - ?????? ?????? - ?????????????...
The military vehicle that is "khaki" in color and has the lantern setting on top, it is an earlier Gaz-66.
This is the same truck profile that is shown in the photo on the specifications of the PAR-10.
Given this, why has no one in the Russian forums or this forum asked if this "lantern" was turned on during the fog?
The pilot makes no mention of seeing this lantern and given this lantern can be seen from pilots from as far as 60km on a clear night, I question why would they not see this lantern (location of lantern was to the right when the plane clipped the first tree) before they were at 8 meters high 40 meters to the left of the centerline when the aircraft clipped the first tree.
I would hate to think that the reason that it was not on, was because it was broken or the residents of the area complained because it was too bright.
This apparatus was designed for the fog.
Spasibo for the translation.
The "lantern" that was shown at the Smolensk beacon, is turned on during the day when poor visibilty (fog) is at the airfield.
(photos)
???-??????? Picasa - ?????? ?????? - ?????????????...
???-??????? Picasa - ?????? ?????? - ?????????????...
???-??????? Picasa - ?????? ?????? - ?????????????...
There is a reason for this type of neon lantern that glows red.
In 1928 General Electric developed red neon lights for the purpose of warning pilots and captians on ships.
As was discussed on the Russian avaiation forum in 2007, the "lantern" is used at some airfields and is placed at the beacon. And it flashes the Morse Code.
The two 5 meter T-antennas in the picture are found with the Automated PAR-10s and the mobile PAR-10.
The two same 5 meter T-antennas are also at Smolensk.
(photo)
???-??????? Picasa - ?????? ?????? - ?????????????...
The military vehicle that is "khaki" in color and has the lantern setting on top, it is an earlier Gaz-66.
This is the same truck profile that is shown in the photo on the specifications of the PAR-10.
Given this, why has no one in the Russian forums or this forum asked if this "lantern" was turned on during the fog?
The pilot makes no mention of seeing this lantern and given this lantern can be seen from pilots from as far as 60km on a clear night, I question why would they not see this lantern (location of lantern was to the right when the plane clipped the first tree) before they were at 8 meters high 40 meters to the left of the centerline when the aircraft clipped the first tree.
I would hate to think that the reason that it was not on, was because it was broken or the residents of the area complained because it was too bright.
This apparatus was designed for the fog.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 91
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Status of Smolensk-Severnyj ATC
-- Does anyone definitely know the official status of Smolensk Korsazh ATC ???
"Manager, taking international flights landing, according to the rules serves only as an adviser - In other words, he simply has no right to prohibit the landing,."
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk of ATC/TU154 procedures/PAR etc etc is a waste of time. It appears that the CVR is not complete OR something very strange was happening in the cockpit - why else is there no apparent discussion/comment/acknowledgement from PF following P2's go-round call to just before impact?
To bring this down to basics. I can, at the moment, think of 5 reasons why I would fly below DH:
1) I am convinced I have sufficient visual acquisition
Without a 'visual'
2) Due to lack of fuel or technical problems, this approach is the only one I can make for a landing
3) Someone has a gun at my head (even then, why kill everybody else?)
4) My instruments are malfunctioning
5) I am incompetent
To bring this down to basics. I can, at the moment, think of 5 reasons why I would fly below DH:
1) I am convinced I have sufficient visual acquisition
Without a 'visual'
2) Due to lack of fuel or technical problems, this approach is the only one I can make for a landing
3) Someone has a gun at my head (even then, why kill everybody else?)
4) My instruments are malfunctioning
5) I am incompetent
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alice025 wrote:
It's quite simple. As an engineer, I do not believe in dogmas. So, when someone says, "You never, ever go below 100 meters on this autopilot" a large red flashing sign appears that says "BECAUSE…" Its partly a Polish thing too.
Anyway, while I was responding to your post, I figured out the last remaining questions in my goofy theory, I think.
Clearly, by all available documentation the "H" (altitude hold) Tu-154 autopilot tries to hold the plane on constant altitude over ground. By the way radio altimeter works, it sends a beam down and reads reflected results. When the plane flies relatively high, the RA will average out the height below from a large circle, but when the plane flies low, the circle gets smaller, meaning, the lower you are, the bumpier the ride.
Such a Radio Altimeter controlled autopilot, has obviously very little use in civil aviation. The 'ahem' Self Loading Cargo' would puke peanuts all over and there would be no end to WHINING, and so this is why none of the western civilian planes would have such a capability.
There is however, an area of aviation where such functionality is required and essential:
I copied it from wikipedia to save myself typing.
And as we are talking about a SOVIET design, it all makes perfect sense. As part of clear doctrine, they would try to reuse all basic parts in both military and civilian design. This idea actually makes a lot of sense because, for example, a military tank and a large civilian truck and an agricultural tractor would use exactly the same engine. Your tank engine broke down? No problem, you find some "civilian" and "borrow" his. In this case, why design an autopilot from scratch when you can use one from some bomber? Then, in a war, when you need parts, you canibalize some (then unnecessary) civilian machines.
Compare it to the western non-doctrine where only an "autorized" dealer with his "just-in-time" production network can fix things, with that thingamabob being made in Malasia and this doohicky in South Korea, etc.
On top of this, the Soviet Union did not really have anything purely civilian, especially aviation related. A large, fast jet? Perfect desant(chik) delivery platform, you see, so it HAD to have "ground hugging" capability. It would not be a Soviet aircraft if it didn't.
And in a way, the crew of this flight did a perfect military manouver, snicking onto that airport in deep fog, below the radar, from inside a ravine. If it wasn't for that tree, the ATC would never know what hit him.
Suddenly, I feel better already. There could not have been any real Polaks in that cockpit if they would not figure out instantly what the "verbotten" H (Altitude Hold) button was for.
SadPole, explain me pls a little bit (can be in that personal letter) for I didn't understand why you are unhappy with TU-154 dogma or a rumour (hell knows) anyway it does go around - "not to complete landing on autopilot". ?
Anyway, while I was responding to your post, I figured out the last remaining questions in my goofy theory, I think.
Clearly, by all available documentation the "H" (altitude hold) Tu-154 autopilot tries to hold the plane on constant altitude over ground. By the way radio altimeter works, it sends a beam down and reads reflected results. When the plane flies relatively high, the RA will average out the height below from a large circle, but when the plane flies low, the circle gets smaller, meaning, the lower you are, the bumpier the ride.
Such a Radio Altimeter controlled autopilot, has obviously very little use in civil aviation. The 'ahem' Self Loading Cargo' would puke peanuts all over and there would be no end to WHINING, and so this is why none of the western civilian planes would have such a capability.
There is however, an area of aviation where such functionality is required and essential:
"Radar altimeters are also used in military aircraft flying extremely low over terrain to avoid radar detection and targeting by anti-aircraft artillery or Surface-to-air Missiles. Radar altimeter technology is also used in terrain-following radar allowing fighter aircraft to fly at very low altitude."
I copied it from wikipedia to save myself typing.
And as we are talking about a SOVIET design, it all makes perfect sense. As part of clear doctrine, they would try to reuse all basic parts in both military and civilian design. This idea actually makes a lot of sense because, for example, a military tank and a large civilian truck and an agricultural tractor would use exactly the same engine. Your tank engine broke down? No problem, you find some "civilian" and "borrow" his. In this case, why design an autopilot from scratch when you can use one from some bomber? Then, in a war, when you need parts, you canibalize some (then unnecessary) civilian machines.
Compare it to the western non-doctrine where only an "autorized" dealer with his "just-in-time" production network can fix things, with that thingamabob being made in Malasia and this doohicky in South Korea, etc.
On top of this, the Soviet Union did not really have anything purely civilian, especially aviation related. A large, fast jet? Perfect desant(chik) delivery platform, you see, so it HAD to have "ground hugging" capability. It would not be a Soviet aircraft if it didn't.
And in a way, the crew of this flight did a perfect military manouver, snicking onto that airport in deep fog, below the radar, from inside a ravine. If it wasn't for that tree, the ATC would never know what hit him.
Suddenly, I feel better already. There could not have been any real Polaks in that cockpit if they would not figure out instantly what the "verbotten" H (Altitude Hold) button was for.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing portions of the CVR (could not resist):
Click Here
And Here
Click Here
And Here
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 91
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still more speculation about radio systems
Sukhoi.ru etc can tell: "According to the bulletin of the Tupolev Design Bureau, during the modernization of the Polish Tu-154 to version Tu-154M, the RSBN system was dismantled...
...but the Yak-40 has RSBN-7C". Therefore 36SPLT Yak-40 pilot, Lt. Arthur Wosztyl probably could tell whether he had an opportunity to try to use RSBN or not during the approach (ref: sukhoi.ru).
According to several sources the airport radio navigation systems were not in official use - although allegedly tested after the accident.
...but the Yak-40 has RSBN-7C". Therefore 36SPLT Yak-40 pilot, Lt. Arthur Wosztyl probably could tell whether he had an opportunity to try to use RSBN or not during the approach (ref: sukhoi.ru).
According to several sources the airport radio navigation systems were not in official use - although allegedly tested after the accident.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 64
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The radalt alert was set by the navigator at 100m at the very beginning of the tape.
The radalt alert went off between the the 80 and 60 m callouts by the navigator, who was obviously reading off the baro altimeter the way he should, which equals 100 m by the RA due to there being a 30 m deep valley underneath them.
So could we please please put the RA theory to rest finally???
The radalt alert went off between the the 80 and 60 m callouts by the navigator, who was obviously reading off the baro altimeter the way he should, which equals 100 m by the RA due to there being a 30 m deep valley underneath them.
So could we please please put the RA theory to rest finally???
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
between the the 80 and 60 m callouts by the navigator who was obviously reading off the baro altimeter
I think you should put the 'baro' theory to rest?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
210thars, in the second link of the 3 you've posted (the next one after pictures) "Energetic" replies to someone to the question "Was it switched on?"
"Energetic" answers : "Yes, it was..."
Now, that's from depths of Smolensk forum, date isn't given, time of posting only. Who knows what they were talking about. Can be ab that very "lantern" may be smth else.
Mind it, "Energetik" isn't happy confirming it was on. I vaguely remember there was a discussion ab that lantern but all thought if it were on - the crew could have taken it as a visual for runway, the Near Beacon - instead of the runway. I've got a feeling Smolensk chaps are of 2 minds re whether to be happy it was on, or to be happy it wasn't on.
For sure on or off not confirmed and is not even mentioned yet anywhere. Like all technical data - is missing so far.
"Energetic" answers : "Yes, it was..."
Now, that's from depths of Smolensk forum, date isn't given, time of posting only. Who knows what they were talking about. Can be ab that very "lantern" may be smth else.
Mind it, "Energetik" isn't happy confirming it was on. I vaguely remember there was a discussion ab that lantern but all thought if it were on - the crew could have taken it as a visual for runway, the Near Beacon - instead of the runway. I've got a feeling Smolensk chaps are of 2 minds re whether to be happy it was on, or to be happy it wasn't on.
For sure on or off not confirmed and is not even mentioned yet anywhere. Like all technical data - is missing so far.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SadPole
"And in a way, the crew of this flight did a perfect military manouver, snicking onto that airport in deep fog, below the radar, from inside a ravine. If it wasn't for that tree, the ATC would never know what hit him.
Suddenly, I feel better already. There could not have been any real Polaks in that cockpit if they would not figure out instantly what the "verbotten" H (Altitude Hold) button was for."
SadPole, in this sad lay-out I think I can live with any thing that makes you a happy Pole :o)
Civillian-military things interchangeable in USSR sure. Mass production, economy of scale and all. Still I am not exactly sure a TU154 gets oriented by radio altimeter as when the news got spread the crew used that all fell down. (the forum, I mean). Literally, flopped. By this indirect reaction I concluded it is not orthodox to use radio altimeters. Apart from the last 50 meters down. I read there, many mentioned, the navigator can use radio altimeter at that point - but must he? no idea.
Anyway a joke to lighten your spirits how a military USSR factory in Perestroyka is "converted" into peaceful things production. Kettles instead of T-34 tanks or smth. By the way a very real scenario. So a friend asks the manager how the transition went. And the chap sadly replies that there must be a bug someplace in the system. "We feed all the proper ingredients into the conveyor, a kettle whistle and a lid and? handsome red paint and all. The procedure is changed totally. The process is new. And then - out of the end of the conveyor - what do we get - there gets out invariably a T-34!"
:o)
"And in a way, the crew of this flight did a perfect military manouver, snicking onto that airport in deep fog, below the radar, from inside a ravine. If it wasn't for that tree, the ATC would never know what hit him.
Suddenly, I feel better already. There could not have been any real Polaks in that cockpit if they would not figure out instantly what the "verbotten" H (Altitude Hold) button was for." SadPole, in this sad lay-out I think I can live with any thing that makes you a happy Pole :o)
Civillian-military things interchangeable in USSR sure. Mass production, economy of scale and all. Still I am not exactly sure a TU154 gets oriented by radio altimeter as when the news got spread the crew used that all fell down. (the forum, I mean). Literally, flopped. By this indirect reaction I concluded it is not orthodox to use radio altimeters. Apart from the last 50 meters down. I read there, many mentioned, the navigator can use radio altimeter at that point - but must he? no idea.
Anyway a joke to lighten your spirits how a military USSR factory in Perestroyka is "converted" into peaceful things production. Kettles instead of T-34 tanks or smth. By the way a very real scenario. So a friend asks the manager how the transition went. And the chap sadly replies that there must be a bug someplace in the system. "We feed all the proper ingredients into the conveyor, a kettle whistle and a lid and? handsome red paint and all. The procedure is changed totally. The process is new. And then - out of the end of the conveyor - what do we get - there gets out invariably a T-34!"
:o)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vakakaaa "According to the bulletin of the Tupolev Design Bureau, during the modernization of the Polish Tu-154 to version Tu-154M, the RSBN system was dismantled...
...but the Yak-40 has RSBN-7C". Therefore 36SPLT Yak-40 pilot, Lt. Arthur Wosztyl probably could tell whether he had an opportunity to try to use RSBN or not during the approach (ref: sukhoi.ru)."
vakakaaa, aerodrome things for RSBN usage were located on the other side of the runway. They say they were dismantled when the military moved out last July. RSBN (they say) was appliccable when a plane enters the runway from the opposite direction, from the West. This one was East, as I understood. So the plane arriving from the West had to turn around and all.
My understanding is the same as yours - Yak was better equipped - and is better equipped for military Russian aerodromes still - but in that particular case it made no difference.
...but the Yak-40 has RSBN-7C". Therefore 36SPLT Yak-40 pilot, Lt. Arthur Wosztyl probably could tell whether he had an opportunity to try to use RSBN or not during the approach (ref: sukhoi.ru)."
vakakaaa, aerodrome things for RSBN usage were located on the other side of the runway. They say they were dismantled when the military moved out last July. RSBN (they say) was appliccable when a plane enters the runway from the opposite direction, from the West. This one was East, as I understood. So the plane arriving from the West had to turn around and all.
My understanding is the same as yours - Yak was better equipped - and is better equipped for military Russian aerodromes still - but in that particular case it made no difference.
Karel_x, many thanks for the translation. So they are doing the NDB approach; but it doesn't look like they've done a detailed brief on who's monitoring what, so presumably their crew actions are whatever their SOP is.
We should always look for the simplest mistakes and the least number of mistakes (Occam's razor).
1 )I don't think they are setting a DH of 100m RA. The transcript just seems to indicate that this is what the nav sets, and it's quite clear from that lovely graphic of Janeczku's (#506) that the nav is calling RA readings. At this stage, the PF is using these as just useful extra info. Since they have an extra guy (General Blasik); then I suggest that since the nav's location on the flight deck is low, this is the best use of the nav.
2)If it's an NDB, then as RetiredF4 and others have said, we could expect them to be getting down to MDH then cruising in.
3) Initially the steeper descent would not concern them as this is what they intend!
4) They aren't acting on ATC because: that's not briefed, an NDB is briefed, and they aren't bothering to provide ATC with heights, there are no pitch movements corresponding to ATC instructions, and nobody before them bothered acting on ATC info (that's enough reasons! Ed)
My scenario involves only 2 mistakes being made:
1) The PF thinking they are level at 100m, due to the repetition of this height and the workload.
2) No instrument crosscheck for a while. Remember that there is a probably a lot of pressure on the crew to get a landing, so there are probably too many eyes out of the cockpit. Also, responsibilities are not included/reminded in the approach brief.
In other words, they only have to get two things wrong for 10 seconds, under high stress.
The PF incorrectly thinks they're level, and neither of the pilots checks Attitude or Rate of Descent in that time, probably because they are both heads out looking for the runway. General Blasik and the nav are reading altimeters as they should, and ATC is providing the best service he can.
Nothing idiotic, no conspiracies, and no alien spacecraft.
From my own very limited number of bad weather approaches in multicrew aircraft, we always specifically briefed and split the task with one pilot doing the instruments and the other solely looking out.
This is the big professional error in my view, the rest is just human error (as opposed to pilot error).
We should always look for the simplest mistakes and the least number of mistakes (Occam's razor).
1 )I don't think they are setting a DH of 100m RA. The transcript just seems to indicate that this is what the nav sets, and it's quite clear from that lovely graphic of Janeczku's (#506) that the nav is calling RA readings. At this stage, the PF is using these as just useful extra info. Since they have an extra guy (General Blasik); then I suggest that since the nav's location on the flight deck is low, this is the best use of the nav.
2)If it's an NDB, then as RetiredF4 and others have said, we could expect them to be getting down to MDH then cruising in.
3) Initially the steeper descent would not concern them as this is what they intend!
4) They aren't acting on ATC because: that's not briefed, an NDB is briefed, and they aren't bothering to provide ATC with heights, there are no pitch movements corresponding to ATC instructions, and nobody before them bothered acting on ATC info (that's enough reasons! Ed)
My scenario involves only 2 mistakes being made:
1) The PF thinking they are level at 100m, due to the repetition of this height and the workload.
2) No instrument crosscheck for a while. Remember that there is a probably a lot of pressure on the crew to get a landing, so there are probably too many eyes out of the cockpit. Also, responsibilities are not included/reminded in the approach brief.
In other words, they only have to get two things wrong for 10 seconds, under high stress.
The PF incorrectly thinks they're level, and neither of the pilots checks Attitude or Rate of Descent in that time, probably because they are both heads out looking for the runway. General Blasik and the nav are reading altimeters as they should, and ATC is providing the best service he can. Nothing idiotic, no conspiracies, and no alien spacecraft.
From my own very limited number of bad weather approaches in multicrew aircraft, we always specifically briefed and split the task with one pilot doing the instruments and the other solely looking out.
This is the big professional error in my view, the rest is just human error (as opposed to pilot error).
The radalt alert was set by the navigator at 100m at the very beginning of the tape.
There is another checklist before approach. Interesting, but we don't hear that one on the tape? Another thing, in those 2 checklists, the Tu-154M FM requires from the PIC the same setting of the RA warning.
Arrakis
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 91
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vakakaaa, aerodrome things for RSBN usage were located on the other side of the runway. They say they were dismantled when the military moved out last July. RSBN (they say) was appliccable when a plane enters the runway from the opposite direction, from the West. This one was East, as I understood. So the plane arriving from the West had to turn around and all.
Last edited by vakakaaa; 19th Jun 2010 at 16:12.