Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread

Old 24th May 2010, 18:30
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Guys - a rad alt minimum is only valid if the terrain before the runway is reasonably flat. There is no way a radio DH would have been published for that runway. If they used one, they made it up and suffered as a result..
Maybe I wasn't precise enough. Used to call DH the settings on AN/APNs. In Russian and in Polish those two different DHs have distinctive names. Anyway, again.
The decision height was 100 m, but according to Tu-154M FM you have anyway to set a rad alt minimum, which is equal to the DH, if DH < 60 m or you have to set it to 60 m, if DH => 60 m. If no runway lights visible passing rad alt minimum, it's missed approach.

Hope this time it's OK.

Arrakis
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 19:43
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi,

Maybe those pilots (if it's a pilot error .. ) needed a TU-154 equipped with :
Terrain-following radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
jcjeant is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 19:52
  #83 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hope this time it's OK.
- no not really! It still makes no sense. If the ground is not level before the runway, then '60m' has no use. If the terrain rises to the threshold as in Smolensk, a 'call' at 60m is too late, as it was there.
If no runway lights visible passing rad alt minimum, it's missed approach.
- should read If no runway lights visible passing 100m baro minimum, it's missed approach. Then it is 'OK'.

By the way, what is a 'practice approach' and 'not intending to land' mean?

"they did not intend to land. They just wanted to confirm visibility at MDA and either land or divert. " is crazy. Is it a problem in translation?
BOAC is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 20:11
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
- should read If no runway lights visible passing 100m baro minimum, it's missed approach. Then it is 'OK'.
Yes, it should be that way, but they went anyway below the 100 m barometric.
In that case, at 60 m (rad alt) - they should get (probably did) an aural warning (and a nice yellow indicator switching on). That's according to the aircraft FM. That was their second chance (and the last one).

Arrakis
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 24th May 2010, 21:09
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Confirmed.
Gen Blasik, the commander of the PLAF was the 5th men in the cockpit during the last minute of the flight.

Arrakis
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 00:24
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ptkay, can't comment on Ershov statement /link as Smolensk blog didn't go into details this time discussing what Ershov said. Only brief comments "this time Ershov may be right" :o)

(thing is we there fell out with Ershov :o) after he critised the Smolensk chaps in a comment elsewhere as "amateurs crawling the ground checking for land marks for nothing when all is clear" :o)))))))

the blog unanimously gave him thumbs down :o), especially that the first Ershov comment didn't prove true so far (idea the plane deviated leftwards of the runway on purpose, taking some lights mistakingly as orientation. Whereas in fact it was our very birch tree, and then more of them, found by Smolesnk blog on the ground exactly :o)

So we are minimalistic in wording, re each other, ever after :o) (Ershov and the blog)

He said a plane cannot deviate leftwards after hitting a tree! That a tree is nothing for a plane, it's as if "someone caught by hand an ear of the running elefant - the arm is more likely to fly away together with that ear, but even the torn off ear won't change the elefant's running route!"

(how he dared :o). the plane's balance changed after it a wing to the tree. in this sense an ear can change the elefants' running direction)

Anyway Ershov summary in comment 2 is the crew were poor babies sent by some idiots into the fog, well knowing the aerodrome of destination is in fog and poor visibility, thus knowing the landing will have to be performed blind, by devices, and well knowing this crew is not trained for that but for modern airports and automated systems instead)

(there is also a pilot's minima discussed, like, in Russia as min there is an airplane minima, an aerodrome equipment minima, the weather minima - AND a pilot's qualification minima - allowing him to do some things and not allowing to perform other. pilots are awarded with their degrees of the ? trickiness /difficulties they can manage, formally, via exams' system here.
It is widely believed these pilots didn't pass exams allowing blind landing by 2 Beakon's equipped aerodrome only, in TU154 aircraft type)
Alice025 is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 00:58
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From Polish sources (Klich) it follows the crew knew they are below the decision point, as the voice was saying "90...80..."

It is unclear why they continued on autopilot even after that, where they thought they are flying to.

That "trial flight for landing" (as it is officially stated everywhere) all think is some oxymoron, invented for political purposes, as a Russo-Polish consensus. :o) As it is a weird combination of terms.
The ground control never allowed them landing; neither the crew ever asked for the permission to land. While theoretically the crew should have informed the ground control type "we intend to land" and get "OK, landing permitted".
This exchange never took place.

What the crew got from the ground control is OK for their intention to come down to 100 metres and check visibility - with the ground control warning that "OK go to 100 but be ready to go for second circle from that point."
So, formally, the Polish crew was not landing, only going down to 100 metres to have a look. Somehow they over-did it.
Continued to 90 and 80 and further down.
Ground control told them "hundred first, horizon!" (in Russian) (sto pervy - gorizont!)

Now the Polish investigators wonder if the crew understood what the command "gorizont" means in Russian. (101 is the plane's board number, and as they heard it in Russian already several times during this very flight previously, they must have kniwn "sto pervy" means their own bopard number. Especially as it is proved the Captain knew Russian excellently well and it was the Captain himself who kept talking with the ground control. Most likely because his navigaor did NOT know Russian. or knew it far worse. while normally it'll be Navigator's task to keep talks with the ground control)

A test - would anyone here Western-trained understand what it means when a Russian control tower says sorry shouts :o) - "Gorizont!"
(hint - you as a pilot already know you've just crossed the 100 metres decision taking height) (and no, you did not request permission to land)
?
Alice025 is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 02:23
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You can't help noticing that a small maneuvrable Yak - landed, while of the two big heavy - one gave up the other - may be also gave up, by the way, also wanted to go off away from 100 metres - but somehow mis-managed the approach - or their automated piloting system did - something clearly happened why haven't they went off away from 100 metres
As I recall from the news reports, the YAK landed more than an hour before the TU, and the visibility at the time was reported as well over 1000 meters. The fog moved in after the YAK landed, and the visibility at the time the IL attempted to land had dropped to around 500 or 600 meters. By the time the TU attempted to land, it had dropped further to only about 200 meters. Thus it is no surprise that the YAK was able to land, and the other two aircraft probably could have landed with that same visibility.

One hour after the accident, the fog had thinned out enough that the visibility was again more than 1000 meters.
ST27 is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 03:15
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some basics for simulator pilots, even if you have an airplane manual it seems some of you are confused:

- height: always refers to something above some sort of **terrain**, compared to altitude, which refers to something above sea level

- radio height: height above the terrain spot where you are, measured by the radio altimeter. Is only about 2000 ft when you fly at FL260 over the Himalaya.

- desicion radio height: only exists for precision approaches as ILS CAT II/III, but not for a NDB/NDB or whatever non-precision approach

- decision height: only exists in the Russian system as it is a

- height above **field elevation**: this is the relevant value for minima in the Russian system, so "100m" refers to 100m above Smolensk airport level - not the actual spot of terrain. Over the actual point of decision making, the radio height may be 140m, as the terrain below is slopy. -> Can never be measured properly by a radio altimeter, only by setting the baro to QFE. ->The point of decision making can only be measured from the baro altimeter.

The confusion for Westerns comes here as **baro** QFE "height above field elevation" does not exist (anymore) and the term "height" usually refers to **radio** height, while "altitude" refers to baro QNH.
threemiles is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 05:24
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TU-154 M Manual

For those interested in aircraft description which includes auto flight, I've uploaded an English manual recently completed for flight simulation use. Before you discount it as unrealistic, take a look. Autoflight covered in chapter 8, HTH:
Google Docs
opherben is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 06:45
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
threemiles,
thank you for the lecture on the altitude/height. Never had time for simulators. The FM is in Russian, which doesn't help.


One question.
Photos: Tupolev Tu-154M Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

On the picture, above the right pedal, there are 5 indicators. The 2nd and 3rd form the top are the RV-5M radioaltimeter indicator and the VD-10 barometric altimeter. Next to them, on the right, there is another altitude indicator, which was part of the FMS/TAWS aircraft upgrade. Anyone can tell, what exactly is it? Manufacturer/model?

Arrakis

Last edited by ARRAKIS; 25th May 2010 at 06:55.
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 07:28
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You guys are going to have your hands full bouncing around between Russian, Polish and English languages and also Russian, Polish and Western ways of operating in general and operating the Tupolev in particular. You really don't want to quiet down and leave this one to the professionals for a while?

Why is it that we don't get people weighing in with amateur opinions on brain surgery? We do get them doing that with aviation and even rocket science but nobody seems to want to second-guess a brain surgeon.

Why I have to ask, is that unravelling the causes of a crash such as this one should be pretty complicated, tracing back the individual elements that led to the obvious disaster to try and read the intentions of a captain who is now not going to tell us anything, being quite dead as he is. We can only be fairly certain that he didn't intend to crash and die, when that lone certainty makes his allowing this chain of events to end in the way it did, when he bore the final responsibility for this event, deeply puzzling.

It is going to take a whole roomful of experts to get to the bottom of this so what a group of amateurs ping-ponging guesses and insults off each other hope to accomplish is just another puzzle to me. You might as well stare into your pachinko machine to prophesy where the next little steel ball will land.
chuks is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 07:43
  #93 (permalink)  
wozzo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by chuks
Why is it that we don't get people weighing in with amateur opinions on brain surgery? We do get them doing that with aviation and even rocket science but nobody seems to want to second-guess a brain surgeon.
Just wait until the Microsoft Brain Surgery Simulator™ comes out!
 
Old 25th May 2010, 10:43
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
You guys are going to have your hands full bouncing around between Russian, Polish and English languages and also Russian, Polish and Western ways of operating in general and operating the Tupolev in particular. You really don't want to quiet down and leave this one to the professionals for a while?
Which professionals? For example a shrink that went lately to Moscow to try to evaluate the crew stress level? Meteorology experts... and so on?

That's the idea of a forum, to exchange information with people having different areas of expertise.

One more thing. Whatever is published or said on that crash, has a direct impact on the presidential elections coming soon in Poland, on Warsaw-Moscow relations, etc... There is a lot of background to it so, personally, the answer to your question is nope.

One more thing. Any finding by KBWLLP - the body investigating PLAF aircraft crashes - can be overruled by the commander of PLAF.

Arrakis
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 10:52
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chucks,
with my 36 year flying experience, a degree in air transportation management, work as XCAA accident investigator, and other higher qualifications, let me suggest the following:
1. Experts are not necessarily very bright when it comes to creative thinking and initiative.
2. With all that money, time and expertise already spent, where is the AF A330? why do professional pilots takeoff in a B757 with one failed airspeed indicator, and 2 minutes later CFIT, plus 3 other crews repeating exactly this during the relevant investigation simulations? why does a failed radar altimeter cause an aircraft to lose airspeed during the approach and crash the B737NG without crew intervention? Why did 18 out of 19 B744 pilots fail to identify and act upon below G/S and other serious PFD erroneous annunciations, in a Boeing/ Nasa/ Academy research? is all that the best humans can do, or maybe the result of expert work?
3. Aircraft accident investigations are also politically motivated. With Putin in charge of the investigation, rest assured his motives are not yours and ours.
4. If we professional pilots crash and burn, where is our expertise?
5. Being myself active in online flight simulation and air traffic control, it is a separate branch but a similar activity with a lot of commonality, with many high level professionals from RW involved, which makes that environment closer to real life than many here think. Want proof- look at the FREE manual I uploaded of the TU-154M, mentioned a few messages up.
opherben is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 10:54
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hammsterdam
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@chuks ...and co. one more time, it is PPRUNE. Rumour speak for itself.
Please leave Your attitude and 'words of wisdom' somewhere else
mirogster is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 11:40
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the manual:

RV5 Radar altimeter.
The button on the left is used to set the green index during
approach to circling altitude and later to the decision height. It
triggers the ‘H’ signal light with corresponding sound when the
radar altitude passes this altitude.
........
There are two altimeters on board, the digital
altimeter and the conventional altimeter.

Ptkay is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 12:59
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I will try to find some time to read this manual, but already.
page 17

"25 Radar altimeter РВ-5М." It should be RV-5M (or RW-5M in some countries). In fact, RV-5M is the entire set, the indicator is UV-5M ("УВ-5М"). "PB-5M" is in Russian.

Arrakis

Last edited by ARRAKIS; 25th May 2010 at 14:40.
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 14:18
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,553
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
What does Russian ATC mean by "Horizon"

Alice025
A test - would anyone here Western-trained understand what it means when a Russian control tower says sorry shouts :o) - "Gorizont!"
Perhaps an Eastern-trained aviator can explain to us Westerners.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 25th May 2010, 14:41
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Points taken but...

The title of this is, after all, Rumours & News, not Unfounded Speculation!

I think a certain amount of reserve when discussing a tragedy is no bad thing, basically. Not to spoil anyone's fun but the very time when we feel most compelled to speculate about the cause of a crash is also exactly when we know the least about it!

This one is going to be one very hot potato given the past history between Russia and Poland, not least the very event the deceased Polish head of state was going to commemorate, the Katyn Massacre. Then we will have a layer of murk from the Russian/Polish/English languages and the Russian/Polish/Western ways of both operating aircraft and (perhaps) investigating accidents.

I suppose that having Vladimir Putin head up the investigation is to show on the part of Russia how seriously this is being taken, when to many of us, he is simply a sinister former KGB man. Right there you see a very basic conflict looking at the same thing.

I think we all understand that humans are imperfect in whatever we try to accomplish, otherwise there would be no accidents to discuss here! It is just that air of "Well, I know exactly what went wrong there! It was..." followed often by some unfounded speculation rather than a rumour, let alone news might be best avoided.

I am here reading this thing and also commenting, after all, so that it is not as if I am saying it's totally a bad thing that has no place in aviation. It is just that I think one needs to keep a certain sense of proportion when discussing a very real, human tragedy.

Just to show you what I mean, we were once inbound to a small airstrip out in the hills of Western Virginia, when we overflew the site of a very recent, fatal CFIT. The guy I was with went onto Unicom to give his opinion of just how our fellow aviator had got it so badly wrong, blah-blah-blah. 2 minutes later, just after landing, someone walked over to thank him for that but to point out that the crash pilot's widow had been listening in on the loudspeaker in the line shack. Oops...
chuks is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.