Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
210thars and BOAC,
with much interest watched the video of the PAR approach.
quote" The same two displays as shown in an earlier post
How there is NO response from the aircraft during the talkdown
How the ATC transmission is without a significant break."
Yes, strikes one a difference at once, of non-stop talk of controller except he may be breathed in once :o) - compared to our silence let's say it in comparison it is silence.
And I thought the controller hears what the plane says to him via some ear phones! Decided that that's why it's not recorded in the video.
But you say the plane simply said nil. in 4.5 minutes of landing, it seems.
May be there were some ear phones, still? It sounds like there is a quiet mumble, of some sort?
with displays I am technically un-fit :o) to understand anything.
I don't even know why there seem to me moving 2 "snakes" towards the runway! :o)))) Were it 2 planes controlled simultaneously may be?!
Anyway I'll find an appropr. person in Smolensk blog hopefully (all deserted it temporarily for absence of news) and show it to a Russian controller, will try to obtain one.
with much interest watched the video of the PAR approach.
quote" The same two displays as shown in an earlier post
How there is NO response from the aircraft during the talkdown
How the ATC transmission is without a significant break."
Yes, strikes one a difference at once, of non-stop talk of controller except he may be breathed in once :o) - compared to our silence let's say it in comparison it is silence.
And I thought the controller hears what the plane says to him via some ear phones! Decided that that's why it's not recorded in the video.
But you say the plane simply said nil. in 4.5 minutes of landing, it seems.
May be there were some ear phones, still? It sounds like there is a quiet mumble, of some sort?
with displays I am technically un-fit :o) to understand anything.
I don't even know why there seem to me moving 2 "snakes" towards the runway! :o)))) Were it 2 planes controlled simultaneously may be?!
Anyway I'll find an appropr. person in Smolensk blog hopefully (all deserted it temporarily for absence of news) and show it to a Russian controller, will try to obtain one.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Azrael229, thank you. I thought it can be simply an emotional expression about a desolate hole. After all WE know they had hardships there (by fact), and can not be the crew kept so cool all throughout, not even expressing annoyance once, for having to land at an aerodrome instead of a normal airport. They were young modern pilots, had a classy over-equipped with everything possible plane, were in quite good moods and such a trip is not their regular traffic trip.
_______
Ab how TU's native auto piloting system was merged with the foreign one - indeed no one says a word. Whatever way it was - it is not , how to say, factory issue, on which some tests and trials and paperworks and certificates would be issued. Something improvised.
_______
Ab how TU's native auto piloting system was merged with the foreign one - indeed no one says a word. Whatever way it was - it is not , how to say, factory issue, on which some tests and trials and paperworks and certificates would be issued. Something improvised.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, strikes one a difference at once, of non-stop talk of controller except he may be breathed in once :o) - compared to our silence let's say it in comparison it is silence.
The controller may stop for breath, but his/her transmit button remains 'active' the whole time. Any break in transmission of more than a few seconds means Radio Failure and go-round.
Yours was 'silent' because there was no 'PAR' (or 'control') in progress!
And I thought the controller hears what the plane says to him via some ear phones! Decided that that's why it's not recorded in the video.
No
But you say the plane simply said nil. in 4.5 minutes of landing, it seems.
Yes - from ATC call 'Start descent' to ATC call on the runway 'contact tower' - silent. No transmission from aircraft is possible anyway with permanent transmission from ATC.
May be there were some ear phones, still?
Ear phones yes, aircraft talking no
It sounds like there is a quiet mumble, of some sort?
Well it was a USAF aircraft.............................
with displays I am technically un-fit :o) to understand anything.
I don't even know why there seem to me moving 2 "snakes" towards the runway! :o)))) Were it 2 planes controlled simultaneously may be?!
One aircraft, 2 'blips'/'pips' - whatever you wish to call them. (Radar returns from 2 radar sets )The top one is the glidepath the lower the centreline. With these 2 views there is NO NEED for anything from the aircraft!
Anyway I'll find an appropr. person in Smolensk blog hopefully (all deserted it temporarily for absence of news) and show it to a Russian controller, will try to obtain one.
Good luck
The controller may stop for breath, but his/her transmit button remains 'active' the whole time. Any break in transmission of more than a few seconds means Radio Failure and go-round.
Yours was 'silent' because there was no 'PAR' (or 'control') in progress!
And I thought the controller hears what the plane says to him via some ear phones! Decided that that's why it's not recorded in the video.
No
But you say the plane simply said nil. in 4.5 minutes of landing, it seems.
Yes - from ATC call 'Start descent' to ATC call on the runway 'contact tower' - silent. No transmission from aircraft is possible anyway with permanent transmission from ATC.
May be there were some ear phones, still?
Ear phones yes, aircraft talking no
It sounds like there is a quiet mumble, of some sort?
Well it was a USAF aircraft.............................
with displays I am technically un-fit :o) to understand anything.
I don't even know why there seem to me moving 2 "snakes" towards the runway! :o)))) Were it 2 planes controlled simultaneously may be?!
One aircraft, 2 'blips'/'pips' - whatever you wish to call them. (Radar returns from 2 radar sets )The top one is the glidepath the lower the centreline. With these 2 views there is NO NEED for anything from the aircraft!
Anyway I'll find an appropr. person in Smolensk blog hopefully (all deserted it temporarily for absence of news) and show it to a Russian controller, will try to obtain one.
Good luck
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
210thars,
"Alice025,
Have any of the pilots that you have spoken to talked about RSP and CAP for Smolensk?
Also there is a terminology "mode" and "planting"...
10:39:40,8 D Planting additionally 120-3 meters. 10:39:40,8 Д Посадка дополнительно 120-3 метра"
______________
Sorry I'm also catching up late; what only not they spoke about! can't by now remember; besides, don't know what is CAP. The word "mode" I didn't see anywhere in the extract you quoted. ?
Re the "planting" - it is of course "landing" in English. Landing to be requested additionally - it means. But it is a literate translation, because the same word is used in gardening, like planting a plant into a clay pot. Same word and verb for planes, we "plant" them. :o)
"Alice025,
Have any of the pilots that you have spoken to talked about RSP and CAP for Smolensk?
Also there is a terminology "mode" and "planting"...
10:39:40,8 D Planting additionally 120-3 meters. 10:39:40,8 Д Посадка дополнительно 120-3 метра"
______________
Sorry I'm also catching up late; what only not they spoke about! can't by now remember; besides, don't know what is CAP. The word "mode" I didn't see anywhere in the extract you quoted. ?
Re the "planting" - it is of course "landing" in English. Landing to be requested additionally - it means. But it is a literate translation, because the same word is used in gardening, like planting a plant into a clay pot. Same word and verb for planes, we "plant" them. :o)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re FMS + TU native system. At Smo blog someone noted that Western things are all electronic and buttons, while old Sov. are famous for being sturdy heavy metal. So how smoothly will FMS move around heavy levers, that is, command them to be shifted around?
The expression "By hands! By hands! Only by hands at landing!":o) I read a hundred times at the Smo blog.
As a side example I only yesterday broke a foreign lift by dog's collar+leash Russian system. 5 m of sturdy tarpaulin, the edge stayed beyond doors when the lift began moving, and voila. 7 floors down the leash is almost alright but the lift is no more :o)
The expression "By hands! By hands! Only by hands at landing!":o) I read a hundred times at the Smo blog.
As a side example I only yesterday broke a foreign lift by dog's collar+leash Russian system. 5 m of sturdy tarpaulin, the edge stayed beyond doors when the lift began moving, and voila. 7 floors down the leash is almost alright but the lift is no more :o)
Alice025
10:39:40,8 D Planting additionally 120-3 meters. 10:39:40,8 Д Посадка дополнительно 120-3 метра"
10:39:40,8 D Planting additionally 120-3 meters. 10:39:40,8 Д Посадка дополнительно 120-3 метра"
Which corresponds with the forecast.
07:00Z (10am) Temp 1°C Dew 1°C Humidity 98% QNH 1026 hPa Visibility 0.5 kilometers Winds SE 10.8 km/h / Heavy Fog
franzl
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re FMS + TU native system. At Smo blog someone noted that Western things are all electronic and buttons, while old Sov. are famous for being sturdy heavy metal. So how smoothly will FMS move around heavy levers, that is, command them to be shifted around?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how smoothly will FMS move around heavy levers
Or the FMS can generate a ILS-like display and the pilot just follows it, manually or by fiddling with the autopilot.
According to my Info it is: "Landing Info 120° 3 meters", meaning the wind is coming out of 120° with 3 meters/second.
10:39:40,8 Д Посадка дополнительно 120-3 метра
Arrakis
An interview with one of the Yak-40 crew members published a few days ago.
"Dostali?my zgod? na 50 metrów. Tu-154 i I? te?" - Najnowsze informacje - Informacje - portal TVN24.pl - 06.07.2010
Basically, a lot of b.s. but there is a new XUBS approach chart, unpublished before.
Foto - portal TVN24.pl
This time it's 259 course, as it should be.
Even taking into account the poor quality of the copy, one can see that the far beacon has moved. The distance looks like 6,26 km (instead of the previous 6,1 km), which would almost confirm my measurement using GoogleEarth (6,3 km).
Alice,
do you know, where is actually the wreckage of the "101"? Was it moved to a hangar or is it still outdoor?
Arrakis
"Dostali?my zgod? na 50 metrów. Tu-154 i I? te?" - Najnowsze informacje - Informacje - portal TVN24.pl - 06.07.2010
Basically, a lot of b.s. but there is a new XUBS approach chart, unpublished before.
Foto - portal TVN24.pl
This time it's 259 course, as it should be.
Even taking into account the poor quality of the copy, one can see that the far beacon has moved. The distance looks like 6,26 km (instead of the previous 6,1 km), which would almost confirm my measurement using GoogleEarth (6,3 km).
Alice,
do you know, where is actually the wreckage of the "101"? Was it moved to a hangar or is it still outdoor?
Arrakis
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 10th Jul 2010 at 21:47.
Now i dont go with the BS.
The Yak crew states, that they had been cleared down to 50 meters. Are they talking BS? May be.
They also state, that the call for the TU "horizon 101" was exactly at those 50 meters. How do they know? Again, are they talking BS?
They further state, that the russian Tu, which diverted, was two times lined up to the left of the centerline, so they could not land out of it. They observed the go arounds from ground. Again, is it BS? The crashed Tu ended up left as well.
So i think there are informations included, the question is how you judge them.
franzl
The Yak crew states, that they had been cleared down to 50 meters. Are they talking BS? May be.
They also state, that the call for the TU "horizon 101" was exactly at those 50 meters. How do they know? Again, are they talking BS?
They further state, that the russian Tu, which diverted, was two times lined up to the left of the centerline, so they could not land out of it. They observed the go arounds from ground. Again, is it BS? The crashed Tu ended up left as well.
So i think there are informations included, the question is how you judge them.
franzl
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not important if they have the clearance to 50m from TWR, because they do not need it.
Russian AIP:
AD1.1
c) pilots-in-command of foreign aircraft operating in Russia shall make a decision on the possibility of …landing at destination aerodrome on their own, assuming full responsibility for the outcome of landing.
http://aviadocs.net/AIP/aip/ad/ad1/ad1-1.pdf
Once again Tu-154 minima:
OPRS (1x NDB) 4000 x 250 m
OSP ( 2x NDB) 1800 x 120 m
RSP+OSP (PAR + 2x NDB) 1200 x 100 m
Russian AIP:
AD1.1
c) pilots-in-command of foreign aircraft operating in Russia shall make a decision on the possibility of …landing at destination aerodrome on their own, assuming full responsibility for the outcome of landing.
http://aviadocs.net/AIP/aip/ad/ad1/ad1-1.pdf
Once again Tu-154 minima:
OPRS (1x NDB) 4000 x 250 m
OSP ( 2x NDB) 1800 x 120 m
RSP+OSP (PAR + 2x NDB) 1200 x 100 m
FlightPlan with mistake in name of waypoint ASKIL (AKSIL):
Imageshack - aksil.jpg
Waypoint ASKIL Country RS
Imageshack - aksil.jpg
Waypoint ASKIL Country RS
Russian AIP:
Any pilot has the responsibility for the outcome of any landing, you dont need an AIP for that statement.
However, what is the sense of giving that information (assuming the statement of the YAK-40 crew is correct) to a the presidential aircraft of a foreign nation on a known official mission, if it is against the AIP?
Enlighten me.
franzl
AD1.1
c) pilots-in-command of foreign aircraft operating in Russia shall make a decision on the possibility of …landing at destination aerodrome on their own, assuming full responsibility for the outcome of landing.
c) pilots-in-command of foreign aircraft operating in Russia shall make a decision on the possibility of …landing at destination aerodrome on their own, assuming full responsibility for the outcome of landing.
However, what is the sense of giving that information (assuming the statement of the YAK-40 crew is correct) to a the presidential aircraft of a foreign nation on a known official mission, if it is against the AIP?
Enlighten me.
franzl
So i think there are informations included, the question is how you judge them.
If you were able to read that article, you will know why I was talking about b.s.
Arrakis
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 10th Jul 2010 at 21:47.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, what is the sense of giving that information (assuming the statement of the YAK-40 crew is correct) to a the presidential aircraft of a foreign nation on a known official mission, if it is against the AIP?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
Please, see ARRAKIS' post five posts above yours, and please click the link (Foto - portal TVN24.pl) he provides. You will see the point. Down in the "card" are the cordinates of the threshold (you need to be able to figure out what is North and what is East in Russian, though), inner marker, and outer marker. You will be able to tell the difference between this and the previously posted older "card" in the previous thread (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post5653943), and the discussion on what is the real distance (and hence the glideslope) between the outer marker, when the old card said 6,1 km and the 6,26 in the newer one. I do not know what difference would these 160 meters have made (haven't done the maths, don't know enough the substance), but this seems to be a point at issue in other threads, and thus important for ARRAKIS to try to enlighten us about.
Please, see ARRAKIS' post five posts above yours, and please click the link (Foto - portal TVN24.pl) he provides. You will see the point. Down in the "card" are the cordinates of the threshold (you need to be able to figure out what is North and what is East in Russian, though), inner marker, and outer marker. You will be able to tell the difference between this and the previously posted older "card" in the previous thread (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post5653943), and the discussion on what is the real distance (and hence the glideslope) between the outer marker, when the old card said 6,1 km and the 6,26 in the newer one. I do not know what difference would these 160 meters have made (haven't done the maths, don't know enough the substance), but this seems to be a point at issue in other threads, and thus important for ARRAKIS to try to enlighten us about.
Last edited by RegDep; 10th Jul 2010 at 21:23.
BOAC,
at the the Smolensk forum there were some question rised regarding the position of the far beacon and the difference between data on the approach charts available so far and Google Earth data. I think the problem is solved.
From the "101" crew point of view those 160 m (or maybe 260, the chart is unreadable) were meaningless.
It also means, that when ATC is giving the crew the "6 km" distance, there is a few hundred meters error, just like for 4/3/2 km, which rises a few questions about how the RSP-10 system at Smolensk was calibrated and (in?)accurate. Just that.
The system was tested a few days after the crash, but so far really nothing was published about it.
Arrakis
at the the Smolensk forum there were some question rised regarding the position of the far beacon and the difference between data on the approach charts available so far and Google Earth data. I think the problem is solved.
From the "101" crew point of view those 160 m (or maybe 260, the chart is unreadable) were meaningless.
It also means, that when ATC is giving the crew the "6 km" distance, there is a few hundred meters error, just like for 4/3/2 km, which rises a few questions about how the RSP-10 system at Smolensk was calibrated and (in?)accurate. Just that.
The system was tested a few days after the crash, but so far really nothing was published about it.
Arrakis
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RegDep - I have tried to see some co-ordinates for the 'threshold' but can only see the 'O' and the 'OK' plus two other points on the procedure - and they are almost impossible to read accurately. Your link takes me in at post #901 on the closed thread - can you give me a post number for this 'card' please so I do not have to go through 1005 'conspiracy theory' posts to find it? It would also help if you guys (and girls?) could just simply post these numbers for us since it is all in a blurred foreign format. As far as I can see from the blurred figures there is nothing unusual. This business about crashing 'left of the centreline' would probably be explained by the loss of the port wing tip and a roll to the left?
As for the '160'/'260' m difference ( I gather the 'NDB' used is truck mounted so could easily be in a different position) would make NO difference at all on an NDB approach. From the CVR we (I) can see, you all need to accept that as far as we can tell the 'RSP-10' played no part in the accident at all and that neither beacon position nor a range error will explain why the a/c descended below DH.
Now, again - any sign of the FDR?
As for the '160'/'260' m difference ( I gather the 'NDB' used is truck mounted so could easily be in a different position) would make NO difference at all on an NDB approach. From the CVR we (I) can see, you all need to accept that as far as we can tell the 'RSP-10' played no part in the accident at all and that neither beacon position nor a range error will explain why the a/c descended below DH.
Now, again - any sign of the FDR?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC: I am very sorry, the link I posted yesterday was supposed to be a "permalink" but you are right, today it brings me too to a wrong place. The current number of the post (in the closed thread) is #897, and it shows a good copy of the "older" "chart". And believe me, I would never ask you to go through all that foul stuff about conspiracies.
Point taken on future communication.
Point taken on future communication.