BOAC

Thanks, RD. I now can see the co-ords for the 'old' chart - they appear to be 'spot on' for the runway reference - if you read a blurred '02.6E' - and I still cannot see any co-ords on the latest chart (as posted). What is ARRAKIS talking about please, and please remember it would not matter on a non-precision approach?

ARRAKIS

BOAC,
the charts we had so far
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post5765521

The new ones
Foto - portal TVN24.pl
or
http://slimak.onet.pl/_m/TVN/tvn24/smolensk_.pdf

The eastern runway threshold coordinates are exactly the same on both charts.

AFAIK it's not a truck mounted system but a fixed one.

Agree 100% on that, but can someone tell exactly what kind of approach they were flying?

Now a part of the interviw with the Yak-40 crew member, that landed at XUBS some 90 minutes before the crash.

We did get copies of the charts from the embassy. We were prepared, we had the coordinates of the center of the airfield (the word he uses, but I think he meant the center of the runway). So we had a quite precise distance. But the GPS was bringing us to the left and NDBs to the right. 'So, we were flying the average/resultant. When we saw the APM spotlights (from the transcript we know they were 200 m from the threshold) we had to "go" right.

smolensk-progi.jpg | arrakis | Fotki, Zdj?cia, Obrazki Fotosik.pl

Smolensk runway and both thresholds coordinates from the charts. The "virtual" runway center is located slightly to the right of the real runway, not to the left.
Now what kind of approach was flying the Yak's crew? An "average" beteween NDB and GPS
Have the 101 crew done the same, relying to much on their FMS system (UNS-1D) instead to stick to the NDBs and their DH?

Arrakis

RegDep

BOAC and RetiredF4: With the recognized risk that I am cluttering the thread and explaining the evident, I'd like to say:

The reference to BS by Arrakis when he posted the latest interview may mostly be because press tends to perpetuate and blow hot air in technical issues that they do not comprehend, but what are sexy for the discussion about goodies and baddies (OK, what else is new?). Arrakis, I'm sorry to "explain" you without you asking me to.

One of them is "why did the 101 hit trees East of the extended centerline (at the inner marker) and crashed east of the centerline (which, by the way are almost the only things that we know for a fact, I mean, that it crashed and where). 101 hit trees rather little left of the centerline about 1 km from the threshold, the left wing hit a thicker tree a bit later, left a section of the wing behind, and veered left. Now the press presses out from the Yak-40 crew that they, too, came a bit left and saw (standing outside their plane and watching), that the Russian Tu-154 was a bit left, too, and being a larger aircraft, needed to be more exactly close to center to land safely. The conjecture being that this "veering left" would have been caused by the faulty maps and systems at Smolensk North and would have significantly contributed to (or caused, as the press would like to say) the accident. Well, BS may be a correct term.

The same goes for the position (or moving of them) of the markers. The photos show that they both are fixed buildings, and the "move" probably is that they have been moved on the map by changing a bit their coordinates and distance in the chart. Media-sexy claim on deceptive Russians, but won't drop a plane from the sky.

And another is the one whether or not the ATC can tell the the pilot to go around. The posed question has been something like "why did the ATC allow them to crash and did not order them to go around. Bad-bad-bad controller". Ahem.

Many a message from the boys and girls out there help us explain why we see what we see, and and provides insight to the accident, but even more to the investigation process. Pretty important part of R & N.

Please pm me if I should stop.

Reg

dvv

About this "Yak-40 crew's interview": doesn't it sound idiotic to fly "the average/resultant" and use the ARP for landing?

BOAC

Some explanation for my comments:
arrakis:
The eastern runway threshold coordinates are exactly the same on both charts.

So? Why bring the subject up?

AFAIK it's not a truck mounted system but a fixed one.

Well, I have no idea -we have had so much here about the mobile soup kitchens and this radar and that radar I just got confused

exactly what kind of approach they were flying?

At this rate we will never know. Almost certainly NOT ground controlled though.

Have the 101 crew done the same, relying to much on their FMS system?

It does not matter! It was altitude (or lack of) that killed them, not left or right of centreline. Looking at the wreckage plots I would estimate they were pretty well spot on the centreline at first impact, certainly with respect to a non-precision approach.

Reg:

No, don't stop! As long as we can stay away from the conspiracy posts and too much detail about intricate pieces of Russian radar etc which - as far as we can see - are not relevant, plus mysterious statements in Russian/Polish which we cannot understand, what you are posting is good.

did not order them to go around.

I thought the command was given? 'Horizon' or something - NB even if ATC 'order' a g/a they cannot MAKE an a/c do it.

Like dvv I am at a loss to understand the Yak40 'interview'

Until we get more information from the FDR or a 'new' CVR transcript my personal belief remains. What we must not lose sight of is the tragic loss suffered by the Polish nation in this accident.

ARRAKIS

To answer your previous question and answer someone's question regarding my opinion on what was said in the interview.

Again, it would not, if they were just flying an NDB approach, but we don't know that. We don't even know for sure if it was just an approach or if they were landing (for example relying on the FMS), thus ignoring DH.

40 m left at the first tree (hit with the left wing) and 80 m left, 260 m later, when "101" lost a part of the left wing.
The picture of the first tree by MAK, upper left corner:
http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/...m_101_pic1.jpg

Arrakis

BOAC

- here we go again - that makes NO sense!

Only 40m left!!!! That is precision flying, Arrakis.

RegDep

Gentlemen: Let's stay positive. OK?

Correct: The 101 was 40 m left of the extended centerline when touching the first trees and veered more to the left.

Correct: The 101 was very much lower than it should have been at the time, so being 40 m left has no significance at that point.

Correct: We do not know whether 101 was trying to land or go around, before we get enough facts, which we do not have before we get them from the FDR, if then.

Correct: We all are happy to get any piece of verifiable facts, and explanations thereof, as well as food for thought.

Back to watch World Cup.

Reg

ARRAKIS

It reminds me the first time I wrote about "101" using RA. Your reaction was quite similar.
Even if it doesn't make sense, it's close to what was done by "044". As we can exclude technical problems, UFO, and many other media theories, I would say the root cause of the crash was ingnoring the rules and some unorthodox airmanship.

Now going back to RA. First I was thinking it was a crew error but after checking the Tu-154M FM I'm not sure anymore. The landing procedure requires to switch from barometric to RA starting at 60 m altitude and read height every 10 m down to 20 m, and every 5 m starting from 20 m.
Now, we have 2 options.
A. They switched to RA because they were lost, went insane, etc...
or
B. They switched to RA because they were following the landing procedure (or a part of it).

Anyones choice.
If "B", knowing how inaccurate could be an NDB approach and the weather conditions, they had to rely on GPS/FMS to attempt a landing. I see no alternative. We also know from the interview that Yak's crew probably did something similar, by the way ignoring a Go Around (twice?) from Smolensk ATC.

Just my theory.

Arrakis

BOAC

ARRAKIS - it is more than likely that we are suffering from a problem with language here, but those words as written, in English make no sense at all to any pilot. Hence my comment.

Regarding "Anyones choice" probably the same. No intelligent pilot would set out to fly a 'GPS/FMS' approach at an unknown and unsurveyed airfield using an RA minimum UNLESS it was a dire emergency or they were being forced, and even for the latter, I cannot see anyone actually doing it. GPS/FMS approach - yes, as I have said, they most probably did exactly that and most probably acquired a false 'visual', but if they flew it to an RA minimum in fog then it was the Polish crew that killed the Polish passengers and you can write ATC/Russia/conspiracy/incorrect lat and longs of beacons/100m high at the O Marker etc etc out of the equation.

RegDep

ARRAKIS

If / when you can get hold of a good translation of the interview article, there would be much interest in reading it!

Is your take from the interview, Arrakis, that the Russian Ilyushin did a "test landing" (or two) and ignored the DH?

Best
Reg

dvv

RegDep, my take from the "interview" is that it's all a bunch of stinky BS — from flying "the resultant", to determining the position of the Il-76 with the naked eye in 200m visibility from at least 200m away from the runway centerline, to the missing clearance to descend to 50m and any acknowledgement thereof.

RegDep

Thanks dvv

Would you, by any chance, have a good translation available for us, nevertheless?

Reg

dvv

Google translator works good enough for me to get the gist of it.

RegDep

dvv - I see, thanks.

dvv

And, BTW, ARRAKIS, the coordinates of the thresholds on the chart which is not supposed to be used for landing are exactly that — useless for landing. Just note the true runway heading of 266°46' elsewhere on the charts (next to the РСБНą runway data). And, BTW, this heading and the РСБН runway distance data are an almost exact match to what you can see in Google Earth.

ą РСБН — a Soviet radio navigation system, in its basic form functionally similar to VOR/DME, see DTIC and elsewhere for details.

RegDep

dvv - Are you saying that РСБН (RSBN) was in use at the time of the accident at Smolensk North?

Reg

dvv

No, I'm saying that one's got to be an idiot to use coordinates that are of a dubious origin and in an obvious contradiction with navigation system data.

RegDep

dvv - Were they used?

Let me recap: ARRAKIS had been asked in this thread to try to find a newer chart than the one already posted from 2005 - 2005. A clue would be that the course should be 259° as said by MAK, not 261 as in the "older" chart. ARRAKIS found one in a recent interview and posted it, as per request.

Without more than GoogleTranslated gist of the article, I cannot say whether or not they were, hence the question.

Thanks
Reg

dvv

What they? GPS data or RSBN data? As per the "interview", the Polish crew used at least some GPS coordinates (the interviewee seems to refer to at least the airport reference point). But I strongly doubt they used RSBN — it has never been mentioned either by MAK or by anybody else, and, most probably, the on–board RSBN equipment wasn't there, anyway.

So to recap what my problem with this all is:

it's an idiotic thing to use GPS coordinates from the charts of an airfield that was never properly surveyed and certified for GPS approaches in a country that didn't even have procedures for said certification until very recently (if ever). Particularly if these data are not from the field's approach plates and contradict other data on the charts. So either the "interview" is a crock, or those pilots are truly idiots.