Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
That is simply what we call the change in 'Magnetic Variation'. I suspect nothing has actually changed.
1) They were probably set up for an autopilot 2-NDB approach, 3 degree glidepath, with the MDH set on the Radalt because the autopilot won't take Baro Alt inputs?
On the first pages there is a list of functions of the system. One of them is barometric altitude stabilisation. Nothing about any radio height stabilisation.
4) At the last gasp they forgot they were on radalt not baro alt, or they didn't know about the ravine?
Arrakis
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 22nd Jun 2010 at 06:05.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Franzl,
When I saw the one individual state that the lantern was used during the night and during the day when there is fog, I had cross referenced the comments with an article published in 1928.
There in the article, the neon lights were developed for foggy conditions because according to tests, the red neon light is seen from a further distance with the naked eye than with other lights.
And there was some confusion on this thread as to if this lantern was the APMs that were mention by the Jak-40 crew. According to the trancripts, the Jak-40 crew mentioned to the pilot that the APMs were 200 meters from runway.
And as you pointed to the APM 90 which may or may not fit.
Also take note in the photo of the light (reflector, spot) setting on what seems to be the ground behind the two 3 prong antennas at the beacon.
When I saw the one individual state that the lantern was used during the night and during the day when there is fog, I had cross referenced the comments with an article published in 1928.
There in the article, the neon lights were developed for foggy conditions because according to tests, the red neon light is seen from a further distance with the naked eye than with other lights.
And there was some confusion on this thread as to if this lantern was the APMs that were mention by the Jak-40 crew. According to the trancripts, the Jak-40 crew mentioned to the pilot that the APMs were 200 meters from runway.
044: As far as I remember, at 500 metres we were still above the clouds.
2P: Ah... At 500 metres [you were] above the clouds... Good, good, thanks.
044: Ah... One more thing... The APMs are about 200 metres from the edge of the runway.
2P: Thanks.
2P: The APMs are there.
2P: 200 metres from the edge of the runway.
Alice025 had stated that the APM's were mobile. And as you pointed to the APM 90 which may or may not fit.
Also take note in the photo of the light (reflector, spot) setting on what seems to be the ground behind the two 3 prong antennas at the beacon.
Last edited by 210thars; 21st Jun 2010 at 22:09. Reason: correction
Thank you both!!
Gets worse the more I hear. I must say I always study the topography of anywhere I'm going. I remember when they put a very large wind turbine up near Kirkwall airport in the Orkneys. If I hadn't read about it, I might have hit it!
Gets worse the more I hear. I must say I always study the topography of anywhere I'm going. I remember when they put a very large wind turbine up near Kirkwall airport in the Orkneys. If I hadn't read about it, I might have hit it!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Alice,
do we know for sure, which system was available on 10.04.2010 - RSP-6M2 or RSP-10MN?
Arrakis"
Official news nil. Specifications not mentioned yet once, neither in Poland nor in Russia. Smolesnk puzzled over the number for a long time; finally it was gotten out of the Electrician (who worked there before) that No 6, he repeated angrily several time - 6 - NOT 10.
But then he is an ex.
___________
With where were all types of lightning - hopeless. They dragged them around, from their idea of "day-time, fog" to "day time, no fog - for "alarm" (resque) Ministry and next for Putin" - then to "night time" - for that Ministry planes - and all before the 10th of April expired.
There were way too many planes arriving there that evening and the following night. Putin met Tusc then Kachinsky-brother there already at 5pm or may be 6pm. The Extraordinary Affairs Ministry flew in before Tusc and Putin (Tusc though didn't fly direct, for clear reasons). Then the whole night the Ministry busied around. All who took pictures on the afternoon got absolutely confused where which lights in which colours were and when.
The only particular thing spotted and photo-ed were now famous "nano-buckets" :o) "secret nano-technology yellow lamp-shades" - for the colour yellow - converted from what seems to be smth like ordinary supermaret kitchen buckets :o). Not all the yellow ones though, some of them. Locals say the metal ones were way too popular with some creative locals and frequently stolen :o)
So the aerodrome was replacing the missing factory-made "lamp-shades" by improvised versions.
They even protected their choice in Smolesnk forum by saying the manual demands the ones positioned ? by the runway? close to it? say, near - must be breakable easy so that if a plane touches them by mistake in landing - the lamps have to be smashed - not the aircraft parts.
So by this "breakability" parameter - the "yellow nano-buckets" were up to the aerodrome manual.
do we know for sure, which system was available on 10.04.2010 - RSP-6M2 or RSP-10MN?
Arrakis"
Official news nil. Specifications not mentioned yet once, neither in Poland nor in Russia. Smolesnk puzzled over the number for a long time; finally it was gotten out of the Electrician (who worked there before) that No 6, he repeated angrily several time - 6 - NOT 10.
But then he is an ex.
___________
With where were all types of lightning - hopeless. They dragged them around, from their idea of "day-time, fog" to "day time, no fog - for "alarm" (resque) Ministry and next for Putin" - then to "night time" - for that Ministry planes - and all before the 10th of April expired.
There were way too many planes arriving there that evening and the following night. Putin met Tusc then Kachinsky-brother there already at 5pm or may be 6pm. The Extraordinary Affairs Ministry flew in before Tusc and Putin (Tusc though didn't fly direct, for clear reasons). Then the whole night the Ministry busied around. All who took pictures on the afternoon got absolutely confused where which lights in which colours were and when.
The only particular thing spotted and photo-ed were now famous "nano-buckets" :o) "secret nano-technology yellow lamp-shades" - for the colour yellow - converted from what seems to be smth like ordinary supermaret kitchen buckets :o). Not all the yellow ones though, some of them. Locals say the metal ones were way too popular with some creative locals and frequently stolen :o)
So the aerodrome was replacing the missing factory-made "lamp-shades" by improvised versions.
They even protected their choice in Smolesnk forum by saying the manual demands the ones positioned ? by the runway? close to it? say, near - must be breakable easy so that if a plane touches them by mistake in landing - the lamps have to be smashed - not the aircraft parts.
So by this "breakability" parameter - the "yellow nano-buckets" were up to the aerodrome manual.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smolensk blog the major source of news has stalled entirely. 2 reasons - all discussed to perfection :o) And the fact that the blog was tucked away off into "Thematic forums" - away off from the main page. And into "sub-forums", within the "thematic forums". For unclear reasons but must be city admin is fed up :o). Nothing happens by itself.
Well, 2 months of absolute freedom - already something to say thank you for.
But all expect it to liven up again when new data becomes available.
Well, 2 months of absolute freedom - already something to say thank you for.
But all expect it to liven up again when new data becomes available.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 91
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
210thars thanks! The Czech site is good, have seen it earlier, language is not much easier than Polish...
Also : RSBN-4N, PRMG-4KM, "Morse lanterns" KNS-1 & KNS-4, APM-90M lamp, SOV MRM-48 "Marker", some terminology!
Marker E-615, Marker MRM-48 and others are part of certain type of PRMG, just like ”western” Markers are of our ILS.
Also : RSBN-4N, PRMG-4KM, "Morse lanterns" KNS-1 & KNS-4, APM-90M lamp, SOV MRM-48 "Marker", some terminology!
Marker E-615, Marker MRM-48 and others are part of certain type of PRMG, just like ”western” Markers are of our ILS.
Last edited by vakakaaa; 22nd Jun 2010 at 08:48. Reason: Additions
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
210thars, I still vote for No 6, as min the guy is real, available in everyday talking (in the side business - "Int'l Chatter Pavillion" - created for off-top talks, as a branch of the "An airplane crashed in Smolensk" blog.) As a matte of fact I will ask him in the "Pavillion" again, he proves to be not so old:o) after all and quite relaxed there.
Though personally I don't see the difference btw 6 and 10 :o)
One live man who can be asked and re-asked is better than "we think Russians have".
400 instead of 300 at Far Beacon is of course bad, though may be manageable? in ground control opinion. Note though that they didn't communicate it to the control. It's said by A(nonimous) and addressing the crew. So did the control see it - is a question.
There was an idea that un-perfect glideslope could have been "tolerated" by the ground control as they didn't give them clearance to land, and for the purpose "to have a go have a look" (mysterious thing!) a heigher start than norm at Far Beacon was alright.
For landing though nothing but published aerodrome scheme is alright, the angle in degrees and 300 metres height at Far Beacon.
There was a build up to this, un-researched well, I mean, in talks, - many commented there was something with the crew having difficulty to take 500 metres height. Way too many times (for normal comms) there were crew-control exchanges "Have you taken 500 height? - Not yet. Have you taken 500 height? not yet" - 3 times like that.
Though personally I don't see the difference btw 6 and 10 :o)
One live man who can be asked and re-asked is better than "we think Russians have".
400 instead of 300 at Far Beacon is of course bad, though may be manageable? in ground control opinion. Note though that they didn't communicate it to the control. It's said by A(nonimous) and addressing the crew. So did the control see it - is a question.
There was an idea that un-perfect glideslope could have been "tolerated" by the ground control as they didn't give them clearance to land, and for the purpose "to have a go have a look" (mysterious thing!) a heigher start than norm at Far Beacon was alright.
For landing though nothing but published aerodrome scheme is alright, the angle in degrees and 300 metres height at Far Beacon.
There was a build up to this, un-researched well, I mean, in talks, - many commented there was something with the crew having difficulty to take 500 metres height. Way too many times (for normal comms) there were crew-control exchanges "Have you taken 500 height? - Not yet. Have you taken 500 height? not yet" - 3 times like that.
Without going into details, MAK is the Russian equivalent of FAA.
I have no other charts for XUBS approach than those I mentioned before.
If you look at:
http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/...m_101_pic1.jpg
you will see, that the near beacon is 1050 m from the runway threshold. Confirmed by GoogleEarth and people from Smolensk. Now, if you look for the far beacon, GoogleEarth will give you 6300 m (instead of 6100 m) from the runway threshold. So far no logical explanation.
Arrakis
I have no other charts for XUBS approach than those I mentioned before.
If you look at:
http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/...m_101_pic1.jpg
you will see, that the near beacon is 1050 m from the runway threshold. Confirmed by GoogleEarth and people from Smolensk. Now, if you look for the far beacon, GoogleEarth will give you 6300 m (instead of 6100 m) from the runway threshold. So far no logical explanation.
Arrakis
Edited to accoount for arrakis' well made point below...
Just a slight clarification:
MAK is the regulatory authority, AND contains the Air Accident Investigation Commission (the Russian aircraft accident investigative body) which is equivalent to the NTSB in the USA, or the AAIB in the UK, the TSB in Canada, etc. The difference is that in most countries the investigative agency is separate from the Civil Aviation Authority.
My point is that when one is talking about investigating accidents, MAK is not equivalent to the FAA (or the CAA in most coutnries) as the FAA does not have the mandate to do that. That function is performed by the NTSB, whcih is an independent body (as ICAO recommends).
Having said that, the quality of the work of the Air Accident Investigation Commission (within MAK), especially in the past 8 or 10 years, has generally been excellent.
grizz
Just a slight clarification:
MAK is the regulatory authority, AND contains the Air Accident Investigation Commission (the Russian aircraft accident investigative body) which is equivalent to the NTSB in the USA, or the AAIB in the UK, the TSB in Canada, etc. The difference is that in most countries the investigative agency is separate from the Civil Aviation Authority.
My point is that when one is talking about investigating accidents, MAK is not equivalent to the FAA (or the CAA in most coutnries) as the FAA does not have the mandate to do that. That function is performed by the NTSB, whcih is an independent body (as ICAO recommends).
Having said that, the quality of the work of the Air Accident Investigation Commission (within MAK), especially in the past 8 or 10 years, has generally been excellent.
grizz
Last edited by grizzled; 22nd Jun 2010 at 17:46.
Sorry, but you are wrong. The main job of MAK (or Interstate Aviation Committee if you prefer) is certification, airports, aircrafts, equipment, etc.... Accident investigation (aviation) is just a small part of their job. Their US counterpart is FAA.
Arrakis
PS. Grizz, FAA has something called the Office of Accident Investigation.
PPS. Old habits. Of course Karel, MAK is not just Russian.
Arrakis
PS. Grizz, FAA has something called the Office of Accident Investigation.
PPS. Old habits. Of course Karel, MAK is not just Russian.
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 23rd Jun 2010 at 20:40. Reason: PS. added
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAK is realy interstate, international. It works for dozen postsoviet republic - Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact would be interesting to read somewhere how MAK was created. On the ruins of USSR, as I understand. When all ran away from us :o)))), while Russia was temporarily confused and in the mixed feelings :o)))). Anyway all went individual and living by own rules but I guess it was found out rather quick that locals still want to get around, and some sort of alignment, standards and agreements are necessary in air.
I know it's headed by a very influential lady owner of Transaero or part-owner of it. Transaero was the first private airline in Russia, I remember the times when they advertised flights on their first 2 aircarfts.
I know it's headed by a very influential lady owner of Transaero or part-owner of it. Transaero was the first private airline in Russia, I remember the times when they advertised flights on their first 2 aircarfts.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 91
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
see here: Tsarina of Russian aviation
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Najgorsze tam jest, źe jest dziura, tam są chmury i wyszła mgla"
Question for some native Pole - can "dziura" (hole) mean anything else then terrain roughness, opening in clouds or fog etc.? For example as Alice suggests "lack of ground equipment" (as I understand her).
Question for some native Pole - can "dziura" (hole) mean anything else then terrain roughness, opening in clouds or fog etc.? For example as Alice suggests "lack of ground equipment" (as I understand her).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You understood me correctly; pity the prev. post vanished but I guess I was too carried away commenting the lovely article :o)
It doesn't look very probable the crew made note of the ravine in their previous approaches as it is not steep and, presumably, didn't cause them any troubles in previous flights. Why would theuu spot the slope , from air, at all? Or may be they meant approach from the other side, where there is also a ravine, but with a steeper slope? We don't know from what side the Polish planes approached the runway in the previous years.
I'd say by the hole they meant the airport with an absence of ILS. But can be of course, someone of them had an attentive eye and remembered the landscape, like, in general, that the aerodrome is on an elevated piece of land - glance at it from any side.
It doesn't look very probable the crew made note of the ravine in their previous approaches as it is not steep and, presumably, didn't cause them any troubles in previous flights. Why would theuu spot the slope , from air, at all? Or may be they meant approach from the other side, where there is also a ravine, but with a steeper slope? We don't know from what side the Polish planes approached the runway in the previous years.
I'd say by the hole they meant the airport with an absence of ILS. But can be of course, someone of them had an attentive eye and remembered the landscape, like, in general, that the aerodrome is on an elevated piece of land - glance at it from any side.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 41
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sentence is not entirely corect - either the transcript is not correct or the syntax used here was very strange.
'Dziura' can also mean slang for 'rural, remote place' - it could be interpreted as implying there isn't proper precision landing equipment, but this is a VERY long shot.
Problem is the sentence doesn't make sense withour more context and this is not provided by the rest of the transcipt, and as I said the syntax is strange.
Normally no Pole will say Najgorsze tam jest, źe jest dziura, he would rather say Najgorsze że tam jest dziura. But let's not turn this into linguistics forum
'Dziura' can also mean slang for 'rural, remote place' - it could be interpreted as implying there isn't proper precision landing equipment, but this is a VERY long shot.
Problem is the sentence doesn't make sense withour more context and this is not provided by the rest of the transcipt, and as I said the syntax is strange.
Normally no Pole will say Najgorsze tam jest, źe jest dziura, he would rather say Najgorsze że tam jest dziura. But let's not turn this into linguistics forum
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure if this is still relevant, but I edited the post by Alice025 that BOAC didn't understand to make it more readable. I have to note I am not a professional and do not have all the terminology correct. The sentence I could not understand is in cursive.
Now, BOAC.
You wrote you never told your height to the ATC on PAR approaches, and you wondered why anyone would.
I questioned a military pilot again regarding why he would do it.
He explained that this is the accepted way of interaction with the ATC, i.e. the way the pilot-controller tandem operates.
The example given was landing in 100x1000 visibility.
“The complex preparatory stages in this weather demanded some tricky flying. The first step was getting to the point 52 km away from the aerodrome and at 4,800 m height. Then from this point descending to the next point at the slope of 30 degrees and speed of 550 km/h. When approximately there (by flying time), telling the ground control my height - and as a return courtesy the ATC responded with the plane's distance to aerodrome.
Desirably, the distance is set for the second point. Also at that time ATC told the pilot by how many degrees and in what direction to turn to finally get on the landing course and that is where ATC gave permission to descend.
When ATC allowed me to let out the landing gear and the flaps, I needed to descend at an angle of 12 degrees and at the descent rate of 30 m/s to proceed to the next point where I needed to be at 2,000 m height. In this mode the ATC periodically told me where to fly to get on the landing course and I simply told him my height in response as a confirmation.
When 30 km away from the aerodrome, I could finally breathe out, decrease my descent rate by half and the descent angle to 8 degrees, but this was still too far from the aerodrome and the ATC still didn’t see my descent path so to their directions regarding where to fly I simply responded with my height - simply called out the number.
In the next stage the initiative in conducting radio-talk was passed over to the pilot.
While before this point ATC saw my deviation from the course and gave me commands to which I responded with my height (which meant "I understood you, thanks a lot")
- then in the next stage the ATC kept quiet unless I told them my height (which meant I want to know my distance and deviation from course).
Knowing my distance I could correct my descent rate up to the point of entering the glideslope.
From this point to the outer NDB the ATC already saw not only my course but where I was in relation to the glideslope and, in general, could do without me calling out my height - but the quickest way to find out my distance for me was still to say my height - as an echo the ATC immediately told me my distance and lateral deviation in meters.
If instead of saying my height I said “Dear Controller, please give me my distance to runway edge and lateral deviation, if possible"
- it wouldn't work out very well.
From the outer NDB to the runway I usually didn't give my height but if I had doubts regarding my position I could say it and the ATC replied with distance.
Of course I had a system to tell me the distance and lateral deviation but it was not always exact and I had to confirm the data by some other means. For the ATC knowing the height is important as they usually have over 10 planes landing at once and have to know who is on what height."
You wrote you never told your height to the ATC on PAR approaches, and you wondered why anyone would.
I questioned a military pilot again regarding why he would do it.
He explained that this is the accepted way of interaction with the ATC, i.e. the way the pilot-controller tandem operates.
The example given was landing in 100x1000 visibility.
“The complex preparatory stages in this weather demanded some tricky flying. The first step was getting to the point 52 km away from the aerodrome and at 4,800 m height. Then from this point descending to the next point at the slope of 30 degrees and speed of 550 km/h. When approximately there (by flying time), telling the ground control my height - and as a return courtesy the ATC responded with the plane's distance to aerodrome.
Desirably, the distance is set for the second point. Also at that time ATC told the pilot by how many degrees and in what direction to turn to finally get on the landing course and that is where ATC gave permission to descend.
When ATC allowed me to let out the landing gear and the flaps, I needed to descend at an angle of 12 degrees and at the descent rate of 30 m/s to proceed to the next point where I needed to be at 2,000 m height. In this mode the ATC periodically told me where to fly to get on the landing course and I simply told him my height in response as a confirmation.
When 30 km away from the aerodrome, I could finally breathe out, decrease my descent rate by half and the descent angle to 8 degrees, but this was still too far from the aerodrome and the ATC still didn’t see my descent path so to their directions regarding where to fly I simply responded with my height - simply called out the number.
In the next stage the initiative in conducting radio-talk was passed over to the pilot.
While before this point ATC saw my deviation from the course and gave me commands to which I responded with my height (which meant "I understood you, thanks a lot")
- then in the next stage the ATC kept quiet unless I told them my height (which meant I want to know my distance and deviation from course).
Knowing my distance I could correct my descent rate up to the point of entering the glideslope.
From this point to the outer NDB the ATC already saw not only my course but where I was in relation to the glideslope and, in general, could do without me calling out my height - but the quickest way to find out my distance for me was still to say my height - as an echo the ATC immediately told me my distance and lateral deviation in meters.
If instead of saying my height I said “Dear Controller, please give me my distance to runway edge and lateral deviation, if possible"
- it wouldn't work out very well.
From the outer NDB to the runway I usually didn't give my height but if I had doubts regarding my position I could say it and the ATC replied with distance.
Of course I had a system to tell me the distance and lateral deviation but it was not always exact and I had to confirm the data by some other means. For the ATC knowing the height is important as they usually have over 10 planes landing at once and have to know who is on what height."
Last edited by vorra; 25th Jun 2010 at 14:53.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the old thread:
More on military PAR approach from an ex-Russian AF pilot:
"When you land at minimal visibility and nothing it is visible, you simply say the height "225th 200" and controller there and then gives you lateral deviation and deviation from glideslope and if they are not present that tells "on course on glideslope"
It is possible to do that every 20m."
More on military PAR approach from an ex-Russian AF pilot:
"When you land at minimal visibility and nothing it is visible, you simply say the height "225th 200" and controller there and then gives you lateral deviation and deviation from glideslope and if they are not present that tells "on course on glideslope"
It is possible to do that every 20m."
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, but that is nothing like what we all understand here in the west as a 'PAR'! I also suspect that the Polish Airforce would not either.
It sounds very similar to what we call an SRA which uses only a Plan Position radar screen, but again no heights are reported by the aircraft on the approach.
It sounds very similar to what we call an SRA which uses only a Plan Position radar screen, but again no heights are reported by the aircraft on the approach.