Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
franzl, I've never called the controller's words "garbage". What I called "garbage" were the quoted numbers as an input for trajectory calculations. Please read more carefully.
dvv:
franzl, I've never called the controller's words "garbage". What I called "garbage" were the quoted numbers as an input for trajectory calculations. Please read more carefully.
franzl, I've never called the controller's words "garbage". What I called "garbage" were the quoted numbers as an input for trajectory calculations. Please read more carefully.
However it is not acceptable to get inacurate information in a landing situation as this, wether intentional nor by fault. If information is given, it has to be useful. Incorrect or inacurate information is sensless and might be dangerous.
franzl
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bahrd:
In my eyes Mr. Klich is very respectable man, the same as many Poles. But the day after you give any information to polish investigators it will be published as citation of anonymous, informed source. And distorted and sharply misinterpreted with blind assault intention. It is not easy for both sides to cooperate in atmosphere of deep distrust. There is no obligation for giving this kind of informations according to Chicago convention. I belive that it is not useful for enybody to blame the secound side.
In my eyes Mr. Klich is very respectable man, the same as many Poles. But the day after you give any information to polish investigators it will be published as citation of anonymous, informed source. And distorted and sharply misinterpreted with blind assault intention. It is not easy for both sides to cooperate in atmosphere of deep distrust. There is no obligation for giving this kind of informations according to Chicago convention. I belive that it is not useful for enybody to blame the secound side.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karel_ x
Thank you for the translation... Example of a RSP + CAP by ATC The call out 8km, 6km, 3,km, 2km, 500m.
From Dukof on June 16,
The call-out heights by ATC fit the Russian Federal regulations for the RSP + CAP approach.
The radar:
The approach plate for Smolensk RSP + CAP 100x1000:
From FlightGlobal "Crashed Polish Tu-154 struck trees below runway elevation" By David Kaminski-Morrow
"...Five days before the accident the airport was declared ready to receive both the Tu-154 and the Yakovlev Yak-40 used by the Polish presidential air wing, down to a minimums of 100m (330ft) height and 1,000m visibility."
5.4.4.1.
In the time of descend by the GS the instructions and information about following the correct flight trajectory are sending continuously with pauses between messages to give the crew a chance for communication.
The ATC commands and information can be received without confirmation after passing initial point of GP.
The crew confirms instruction of clearance (ban) for descent and landing .
In the time of descend by the GS the instructions and information about following the correct flight trajectory are sending continuously with pauses between messages to give the crew a chance for communication.
The ATC commands and information can be received without confirmation after passing initial point of GP.
The crew confirms instruction of clearance (ban) for descent and landing .
From Dukof on June 16,
The whole theory that ATCO is responding to heights called to him by crew is a very poor conclusion from CVR. Indeed, it indicates the complete opposite. ATCO calls "on course and glideslope" at 8km, at 6km, and at 4km, without any height being in the transcript beforehand. So what is he basing it on? Hence it's absolutely no reason to believe this was any different for the remaining two "on course and glideslope" calls at 3km and 2km.
The radar equipment was there, as shown on images. I can't understand why anyone would believe it was not working. Only because one person supposedly made a comment that it was not? Highly unlikely in my opinion.
It is however very interesting to observe that the 4km, 3km and 2km, "on course and glideslope" was given 400-600m too early. Which I explained in this post.
The radar equipment was there, as shown on images. I can't understand why anyone would believe it was not working. Only because one person supposedly made a comment that it was not? Highly unlikely in my opinion.
It is however very interesting to observe that the 4km, 3km and 2km, "on course and glideslope" was given 400-600m too early. Which I explained in this post.
The radar:
The approach plate for Smolensk RSP + CAP 100x1000:
From FlightGlobal "Crashed Polish Tu-154 struck trees below runway elevation" By David Kaminski-Morrow
"...Five days before the accident the airport was declared ready to receive both the Tu-154 and the Yakovlev Yak-40 used by the Polish presidential air wing, down to a minimums of 100m (330ft) height and 1,000m visibility."
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
franzl, it was useful information — the crew was informed that their parameters were good enough, and that they were to maintain the current heading and rate of descent.
dvv
franzl, it was useful information — the crew was informed that their parameters were good enough, and that they were to maintain the current heading and rate of descent.
franzl, it was useful information — the crew was informed that their parameters were good enough, and that they were to maintain the current heading and rate of descent.
Your statement "the crew was informed that their parameters were good enough" is like confirming the accuracy of a stopwatch by looking at the clock of a church with only hours and minutes available.
There is another point to consider. As we dont know at the moment in what context the information was given from ATC (PAR, or just some information to get some talking on the way), we also dont know to what reference the range information was given. In case of a PAR it would have been touchdown, which is somewhat down the runway from the threshold, it could also have been referenced to the threshold of the runway or even some other reference-point like the position of the ground radar.
And if the given information is that lousy, then i should be entiteled to know, that it is lousy, otherwise i could use it for the wrong purpose.
But feel free to enlighten me what such an information is good for, i cant see the point.
franzl
Last edited by RetiredF4; 5th Aug 2010 at 19:48.
dvv
franzl, it was never a PAR approach, it was an РСП+ОСП at best. And I bet you a dollar you've never flown one like that.
franzl, it was never a PAR approach, it was an РСП+ОСП at best. And I bet you a dollar you've never flown one like that.
Its irrelevant wether i flew such an РСП+ОСП approach, and i sure didn´t, as in my time the big iron curtain was west of Berlin and east of my homebase.
You did such approaches, so it would be time to explain it to all of us, maybe we can understand the usefullness of range information with an accuracy of +/-500 meters on short final as well as you do.
franzl
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
franzl, I've never flown an РСП approach either (all my cockpit flying has been subject to FAR only), but! I'm able to read Russian and I'm mighty curious. And as the РСП approach is described in Russian documents (and by pilots with some experience with this kind of approach), the distance from the threshold that comes with controller's "on course, on glide slope" is not meant to be a substitute for DME, and is provided only as a rough reference. As long as the controller sees the airplane "on course, on glide slope" inside LOM, he has to come on air every 1 km of the airplane's path to inform the crew of the fact (which is about 13 seconds at the assumed speed of 280 km/h). Well, there is no 5 km mark in the transcript, but, I mean, come on…
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that words "on course, on GS" could have similar meaning like "everything is OK". But I can hardly imagine man, looking at his screen, where blip shifts every 2 secounds, milimetr by milimetr betveen verical lines of distance scale, and he reports whole km not in the moment, when the blip joins vertical scale lines, but in the middle betveen two lines. Why?
Maybe it is also important that operator was in retirement age, all the life long he was a soldier and soldiers have very diferent view at safety rules then people in airlines. He may rarely controll foreign planes for witch diferent rules are in Russia. His operation was not too brilliant, but it is not right to blame his for crash.
I can read russian too
, I love Tolstoy, I spend most of my life at the eastern side of iron curtain, the one year of my military service I spend next to the screens of soviet made radar but I have no personal experience with РСП+ОСП
Maybe it is also important that operator was in retirement age, all the life long he was a soldier and soldiers have very diferent view at safety rules then people in airlines. He may rarely controll foreign planes for witch diferent rules are in Russia. His operation was not too brilliant, but it is not right to blame his for crash.
I can read russian too
, I love Tolstoy, I spend most of my life at the eastern side of iron curtain, the one year of my military service I spend next to the screens of soviet made radar but I have no personal experience with РСП+ОСП
Last edited by Karel_x; 6th Aug 2010 at 22:29.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the press Russia has given the materials to Poland, the Russian aviation authorities (MAK) had claimed they have found out and driven final conclusions about what had lead to the catastrophe (as stated by Oleg Jermolov), but they will not comment on anything until the 60 days have passed that Poland has to decide if they want to comment on the crash.
Anybody in Poland or Russia, anything more?
Anybody in Poland or Russia, anything more?
While CVR transcripts have been released, we remain waiting for the FDR.
Which will see a complete release first -- Islamabad or Smolensk?
Which will see a complete release first -- Islamabad or Smolensk?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 64
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted the KATEKAVIA crash report for a reason. It didn't generate the slightest interest, probably because the passengers were not rich or powerful men and they crashed in the middle of nowhere. But I am willing to bet the conclusion will be similar: pilots conducted a non-precision approach in poor visibility, there was a lack of clarity re roles, both were looking for the lights and neither one was paying enough attn to instruments or callouts, a premature descent and a crash resulted.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RatherBeFlying
We will get the FDR in the MAK report (as happens in other countries that publish reports). The report is to be expected after 60 days of the comment time has elapsed, which will be sometime in December 2010, which would be some nine months after the accident. That would be expedient by most standards.
I wouldn't compare Russia with Pakistan, as you do in your rhetorical question. Russia, through the Interstate Aviation Committee, publishes ICAO style reports (in Russian, like French in French and Canadians in English) and they are available. For those that involve foreign aircraft there are English translations available.
The Igarka accident that vovachan refers to can be found at http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigat...t_ra-46524.pdf, was published three months after the accident. In that case, the crew survived and there was no international (bilateral) investigation.
We will get the FDR in the MAK report (as happens in other countries that publish reports). The report is to be expected after 60 days of the comment time has elapsed, which will be sometime in December 2010, which would be some nine months after the accident. That would be expedient by most standards.
I wouldn't compare Russia with Pakistan, as you do in your rhetorical question. Russia, through the Interstate Aviation Committee, publishes ICAO style reports (in Russian, like French in French and Canadians in English) and they are available. For those that involve foreign aircraft there are English translations available.
The Igarka accident that vovachan refers to can be found at http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigat...t_ra-46524.pdf, was published three months after the accident. In that case, the crew survived and there was no international (bilateral) investigation.
Last edited by RegDep; 23rd Oct 2010 at 11:58.
Looking for the elctronic version of the Operator's Manual of UAS TAWS (the one installed onboard of the crashed Tu-154)?
I was able to find the Installation manual, but not the Operator's one (just single pages published here or there).
Arrakis
I was able to find the Installation manual, but not the Operator's one (just single pages published here or there).
Arrakis
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
BBC: Poland criticises Russia Kaczynski plane crash report
Polish PM Donald Tusk has criticised an investigation by Russia into a deadly plane crash which killed the country's president in April. He said it was "unacceptable" and some conclusions "without foundation".
Russia recently handed Poland a draft report of the incident after months of investigation, though it has not been made public.
Former President Lech Kaczynski and other senior officials were among 96 people killed in the crash. The plane came down near the western Russian town of Smolensk.
'Without foundation'
Without revealing details of the report, Mr Tusk said it did not comply fully with the Chicago Convention which regulates international air travel.
"From the Polish point of view, the draft report from the Russian side as it has been sent is without question unacceptable," he said in televised comments to reporters in Brussels. "This negligence and mistakes or lack of positive reaction to what Poland has been asking for, all these things allow us to say that some of the report's conclusions are without foundation," he added..........
Polish PM Donald Tusk has criticised an investigation by Russia into a deadly plane crash which killed the country's president in April. He said it was "unacceptable" and some conclusions "without foundation".
Russia recently handed Poland a draft report of the incident after months of investigation, though it has not been made public.
Former President Lech Kaczynski and other senior officials were among 96 people killed in the crash. The plane came down near the western Russian town of Smolensk.
'Without foundation'
Without revealing details of the report, Mr Tusk said it did not comply fully with the Chicago Convention which regulates international air travel.
"From the Polish point of view, the draft report from the Russian side as it has been sent is without question unacceptable," he said in televised comments to reporters in Brussels. "This negligence and mistakes or lack of positive reaction to what Poland has been asking for, all these things allow us to say that some of the report's conclusions are without foundation," he added..........
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) announced that on Dec. 17, 2010 Chairman of the Technical Commission of Inquiry IAC crash of the Tu-154 № 101 of the Republic of Poland, which occurred April 10, 2010, Morozov received comments Republic of Poland to the Final Report of Aircraft Accident Investigation .
Comments are presented on 148 pages in Polish with Russian translation, made by the Polish side.
Polish party stated that: "The original observations are made in Polish. If there are different interpretations of translated and original texts of the document (is crucial) the binding text is in Polish. "
When (you pass) passing the Final Report to the Authorized Representative of the Republic of Poland Mr Edmund Klich Technical Committee IAC requested to submit comments in Russian and English languages are official languages of ICAO.
Considering the above, as well as the fact that the text has a considerable amount of technical information and aviation terminology IAC will take measures to reconcile the comments of the Polish side in Russian, with mandatory notarization.
Answering journalists' questions spokesman IAC said that the Committee does not intend to and will not comment on statements of political figures relating to the technical investigation the crash of TU-154 № 101 of the Republic of Poland.
In accordance with the Standards of ICAO Annex 13 Final report on the investigation and the comments of the Polish side will be published and communicated to the public.
Comments are presented on 148 pages in Polish with Russian translation, made by the Polish side.
Polish party stated that: "The original observations are made in Polish. If there are different interpretations of translated and original texts of the document (is crucial) the binding text is in Polish. "
When (you pass) passing the Final Report to the Authorized Representative of the Republic of Poland Mr Edmund Klich Technical Committee IAC requested to submit comments in Russian and English languages are official languages of ICAO.
Considering the above, as well as the fact that the text has a considerable amount of technical information and aviation terminology IAC will take measures to reconcile the comments of the Polish side in Russian, with mandatory notarization.
Answering journalists' questions spokesman IAC said that the Committee does not intend to and will not comment on statements of political figures relating to the technical investigation the crash of TU-154 № 101 of the Republic of Poland.
In accordance with the Standards of ICAO Annex 13 Final report on the investigation and the comments of the Polish side will be published and communicated to the public.
Last edited by RegDep; 18th Dec 2010 at 15:15. Reason: Made some comments in italics for easier reading