Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Poland, Zyrardow
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I know that, but this doesn't answer why GA mode must be armed on the ground, as opposed to enabling (pushing) the GA button to initiate GA that can only take place in the air obviously.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As far as I understand, the arming of Go-Around on ground is purely for checking purposes, the actual conditions for arming in-flight are in the cited paragraph - "active Glide slope mode used for autoflight or flight director approach in combination with Approach mode".
To put it simple: Automatic Go-Around was impossible under the conditions.
To put it simple: Automatic Go-Around was impossible under the conditions.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
janeczku, Kulverstukas
The whole problem with this theory is precisely that it is very, very unlikely and thus absurd.
The idea that they decided to do go-around at 10:40:42, pushed the goaround button, and then did NOTHING and said NOTHING till 10:40:57 (that is for 15 seconds) while engines idled all this time is very unrealistic. They would have to be complete vegetables to do something like that. And so, this leads to: they could not have done that, and maybe something else was at play, etc, etc.
Is it possible that they tried the GoAround button? Sure it is. I will agree they busted the minima and then tried goaround button at say 10:40:55 and thus lost another 2 or 3 seconds because of it. Quite likely and realistic based on all that we know.
So why would someone pursue that theory with attempted goaround at 120m RA? Because it is a good opening salvo to another good feel good/conspiracy theory. The gazeta.pl article that Kulverstukas asked me about and that started this conversation already does that. I didn't want to discuss all the details of it precisely because I personally consider it stupid unsubstantiated speculation. But here it is, this is what they hint:
1. The pilot flies by the book and at 10:40:42 RA 120[m] gives the goaround command, command is acknowledged, but none of it was shown in the original transcript because it was obstructed by the TAWS warnings.
2. They try everything and nothing happens and so at 10:40:51 the "Podchodzimy" (landing approach) command is given and not goaround. (Podchodzimy/Odchodzimy not that much difference if recording is noisy). Meaning, they tried goaround, all possible ways, and nothing happened and so, to save the plane they made the desperate attempt to land in spite of the fog. Meaning, the pilots were HEROs, the politicians were HEROs and martyrs and so on and so forth.
I would have nothing against this theory, if someone offered some proof of it, but they don't. Those who fall for that goaround at 10:40:42 theory (also without any proof) are sort of useful silly people, you see. The way to stay sane is to stick with what we know, and reject the highly improbable theories.
Now, if this theory is pushed through, they will officially blame the problem on "mechanical failure" (which happens way too often since machines cannot talk and hire lawyers), while silly people will "know" that the bad Russkies must have installed some device on board that temporarily disabled the throttle connections to the engines to cause the crash no proof necessary as it is "obvious" because the throttles didn't work for a while and then started working again and the plane was serviced and "crashed on purpose" in Russia so the bad Russkies could hide the proof. Wait till the "Polish Report" comes up and you will know I was right.
While I see why stupid politicians and non-Slavs might find such idiotic theories "useful", it is absolutely deadly to those of us who hoped for us becoming normal people with normal relations. Again no problem pursuing any realistic theory IF there is some proof. Problem with unrealistic theories without proof because they only open door to conspiracy theories.
"I am devastated as a pilot and a Pole. For many critical seconds the pilot was "wrestling" with the autopilot, while "the plane was flying" as used to say my instructor Col. M. It would have been sufficient to just execute the procedure that follows the instruction to "go around". Firewall throttle, level, climb... Those are things which are learned already in the basic training for the private pilot license! First full throttle, then pull the stick! ... But he went on, and went, and nothing ... Or maybe he did not want to make a "go around" just-level, and rat crawl to the runway?"
The whole problem with this theory is precisely that it is very, very unlikely and thus absurd.
The idea that they decided to do go-around at 10:40:42, pushed the goaround button, and then did NOTHING and said NOTHING till 10:40:57 (that is for 15 seconds) while engines idled all this time is very unrealistic. They would have to be complete vegetables to do something like that. And so, this leads to: they could not have done that, and maybe something else was at play, etc, etc.
Is it possible that they tried the GoAround button? Sure it is. I will agree they busted the minima and then tried goaround button at say 10:40:55 and thus lost another 2 or 3 seconds because of it. Quite likely and realistic based on all that we know.
So why would someone pursue that theory with attempted goaround at 120m RA? Because it is a good opening salvo to another good feel good/conspiracy theory. The gazeta.pl article that Kulverstukas asked me about and that started this conversation already does that. I didn't want to discuss all the details of it precisely because I personally consider it stupid unsubstantiated speculation. But here it is, this is what they hint:
1. The pilot flies by the book and at 10:40:42 RA 120[m] gives the goaround command, command is acknowledged, but none of it was shown in the original transcript because it was obstructed by the TAWS warnings.
2. They try everything and nothing happens and so at 10:40:51 the "Podchodzimy" (landing approach) command is given and not goaround. (Podchodzimy/Odchodzimy not that much difference if recording is noisy). Meaning, they tried goaround, all possible ways, and nothing happened and so, to save the plane they made the desperate attempt to land in spite of the fog. Meaning, the pilots were HEROs, the politicians were HEROs and martyrs and so on and so forth.
I would have nothing against this theory, if someone offered some proof of it, but they don't. Those who fall for that goaround at 10:40:42 theory (also without any proof) are sort of useful silly people, you see. The way to stay sane is to stick with what we know, and reject the highly improbable theories.
Now, if this theory is pushed through, they will officially blame the problem on "mechanical failure" (which happens way too often since machines cannot talk and hire lawyers), while silly people will "know" that the bad Russkies must have installed some device on board that temporarily disabled the throttle connections to the engines to cause the crash no proof necessary as it is "obvious" because the throttles didn't work for a while and then started working again and the plane was serviced and "crashed on purpose" in Russia so the bad Russkies could hide the proof. Wait till the "Polish Report" comes up and you will know I was right.
While I see why stupid politicians and non-Slavs might find such idiotic theories "useful", it is absolutely deadly to those of us who hoped for us becoming normal people with normal relations. Again no problem pursuing any realistic theory IF there is some proof. Problem with unrealistic theories without proof because they only open door to conspiracy theories.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SP - way back in this thread I advanced my 'personal' theory that they were picking up some visual cues and 'pressed on', although we seem to have no CVR (or indeed any basic cockpit communication!) to indicate this. It may account for the lack of g/a, and could account for an increase in r of d, and in my mind it could be the lack of knowledge of the rising ground and very late sight of it that finally caused the crash? I feel this is a far more likely scenario than looking for obscure technical reasons why an auto g/a was not flown when, as janeczku posted, the manual g/a was so accessible and easy. I suspect we will never know!
What is so unbelievable of a few simple failures?
We know nearly without doubt, that the crew
- had limited expierience with this type of approach
- showed limited knowledge of the autopilot systems
- started the descent late
- was steep on descent
- was fast on descent
- used the RA (Nav) or the wrong set up of the PIC΄BA as Altitude reference
- briefed the intention to go around with autopilot (although not possible)
So it unfolds quite obvious without much assumption (which is the mother of all f**ck*p):
See Figure 45 of the report as reference:
Forget the regular decision height at 10:40.42, they didn΄t get that one.
The crew flew down to RA 100 meters (which is below the minimum)
Therefore for them everything looks nice till 10:40:49, being still at 100 meters (RA), and time for goaround. The FO even calls it normal. And ATC gave the last information as being on glidepath.
Only one second later at 10:40:50 the nav calls 80 (rising terrain and high descent rate), and the FO calls go around 1 Sekond later at 10:40:51. He even initiates a pull up with the stick, which did not disconnect the autopilot, but was well recorded from the FDR.
Somewhere beetween 10:40:43 (First time NaV 100) and 10:40:51 the decision to goaround was made (based on the wrong altitude information) and if they did it like planned, they hit the go around button to let the automatics do the hard work.
But nothing happens, so another 5 Seconds with disbelief and panic pass by, until the throttles had been jammed to max power at 10:40:56.
Sit yourself in the chair and look, how fast those only 6 seconds from "everything normal" to "oh my god" pass by.
Limited able crew, bad weather, reliance on automatics and a not very helpful ATC station, that΄s it.
But this simple chain of events is neither good for the media nor for the politicians on both sides.
So the assumptions will continue on and on.
franzl
- had limited expierience with this type of approach
- showed limited knowledge of the autopilot systems
- started the descent late
- was steep on descent
- was fast on descent
- used the RA (Nav) or the wrong set up of the PIC΄BA as Altitude reference
- briefed the intention to go around with autopilot (although not possible)
So it unfolds quite obvious without much assumption (which is the mother of all f**ck*p):
See Figure 45 of the report as reference:
Forget the regular decision height at 10:40.42, they didn΄t get that one.
The crew flew down to RA 100 meters (which is below the minimum)
Therefore for them everything looks nice till 10:40:49, being still at 100 meters (RA), and time for goaround. The FO even calls it normal. And ATC gave the last information as being on glidepath.
Only one second later at 10:40:50 the nav calls 80 (rising terrain and high descent rate), and the FO calls go around 1 Sekond later at 10:40:51. He even initiates a pull up with the stick, which did not disconnect the autopilot, but was well recorded from the FDR.
Somewhere beetween 10:40:43 (First time NaV 100) and 10:40:51 the decision to goaround was made (based on the wrong altitude information) and if they did it like planned, they hit the go around button to let the automatics do the hard work.
But nothing happens, so another 5 Seconds with disbelief and panic pass by, until the throttles had been jammed to max power at 10:40:56.
Sit yourself in the chair and look, how fast those only 6 seconds from "everything normal" to "oh my god" pass by.
Limited able crew, bad weather, reliance on automatics and a not very helpful ATC station, that΄s it.
But this simple chain of events is neither good for the media nor for the politicians on both sides.
So the assumptions will continue on and on.
franzl
Last edited by RetiredF4; 17th Jan 2011 at 21:38.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RetiredF4, janeczku, BOAC
Well, the whole point is WHEN they were supposed to press that button. I thought this is what we were discussing. See janeczku post:
1st 100 meter callout is made at 10:40:42,6. The "Terrain ahead" callout that supposed to have obstructed the "goaround" command has been made at 10:40:42,0, or more less 120[m] RA.
That's what I say is absurd and unrealistic. No way would they sit with idling engines that long (15[s] or 14[s]) doing nothing if indeed they wanted to execute goaround.
What RetiredF4 and BOAC say obviously makes sense - and putting these two together gives a very likely scenario. But, note that obviously, clear, undeniable, proven meddling in the cockpit by politicians played a major role.
The whole idea behind these concepts being proposed (in my view) is obstructing the role that politicians played in that mess. Polish politicians had the Russian report for some time and were trying to negotiate what they wanted in it and did not, where blame would be officially distributed and pilot and ATC would get the blame. Then the Russians just ignored them and published the report without negotiations and that report makes Polish politicians look bad.
I found it very, very interesting that in similar crash of US VIP plane in Croatia it was shown that US specifically removes, or never installs, CVR and FDR on all such planes. What's the reason? - so nobody ever knows if politician meddling causes such crashes?
Well, the whole point is WHEN they were supposed to press that button. I thought this is what we were discussing. See janeczku post:
I am starting to consider, that they might have actually pushed the button at 1st 100m callout (the polish report states that a GA callout is heard on the CVR at that time).
The strongest argument for that is the fact, that using the automatic GA was the procedure setup by the crew minutes before.
The strongest argument for that is the fact, that using the automatic GA was the procedure setup by the crew minutes before.
That's what I say is absurd and unrealistic. No way would they sit with idling engines that long (15[s] or 14[s]) doing nothing if indeed they wanted to execute goaround.
What RetiredF4 and BOAC say obviously makes sense - and putting these two together gives a very likely scenario. But, note that obviously, clear, undeniable, proven meddling in the cockpit by politicians played a major role.
The whole idea behind these concepts being proposed (in my view) is obstructing the role that politicians played in that mess. Polish politicians had the Russian report for some time and were trying to negotiate what they wanted in it and did not, where blame would be officially distributed and pilot and ATC would get the blame. Then the Russians just ignored them and published the report without negotiations and that report makes Polish politicians look bad.
I found it very, very interesting that in similar crash of US VIP plane in Croatia it was shown that US specifically removes, or never installs, CVR and FDR on all such planes. What's the reason? - so nobody ever knows if politician meddling causes such crashes?
The aircraft was operated by the 86th Airlift Wing, based at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. Unlike civilian 737s, the military CT-43A version was equipped with neither a flight data recorder nor a cockpit voice recorder
Forget the regular decision height at 10:40.42, they didn΄t get that one.
The crew flew down to RA 100 meters (which is below the minimum)
Therefore for them everything looks nice till 10:40:49, being still at 100 meters (RA), and time for goaround. The FO even calls it normal. And ATC gave the last information as being on glidepath.
Only one seconds later at 10:40:50 the nav calls 80 (rising terrain and high descent rate), and the FO calls goaround 1 Sekond later at 10:40:51. He even initiates a pull at the stick, which did not disconnect the autopilot, but was well recorded from the FDR.
The crew flew down to RA 100 meters (which is below the minimum)
Therefore for them everything looks nice till 10:40:49, being still at 100 meters (RA), and time for goaround. The FO even calls it normal. And ATC gave the last information as being on glidepath.
Only one seconds later at 10:40:50 the nav calls 80 (rising terrain and high descent rate), and the FO calls goaround 1 Sekond later at 10:40:51. He even initiates a pull at the stick, which did not disconnect the autopilot, but was well recorded from the FDR.
It still doesn't explain what went wrong next. There are some test flights to come.
In fact there were probably some yesterady, as the second Tu-154M made at least 10 GAs.
Arrakis
Czas po "odchodzimy" wystarczaj?cy by si? uratowa? - Najwa?niejsze informacje - Informacje - portal TVN24.pl - 17.01.2011
You can find a part of the conference there and a resume below.
Arrakis
You can find a part of the conference there and a resume below.
Arrakis
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, but what they want to find by this expensive experiments? ABSU schematic isn't secret and not more complex than color TV of 70-th.
Report Fig.44 - about 4 sec
how long would it take the engines to spool up from flight idle to TOGA?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARRAKIS, Kulverstukas
Do notice they seem to be about 48h behind everything that's being discussed here.
In article you posted they say they now don't think GoAround command and attempt were made at first 100[m] RA callout but a little later. How do they think they heard the call at one time and now they think they heard it a little later????
Also, get a load of following today's article:
"Go Around" Cpt's Protasiuks command or suggestion"
Do note that they had the Russian report months ago and only now they are investigating all the revelations and run tests to poke holes in it. I'm not saying by any means I know they are wrong. I am just suspicious at constantly changing story. Facts changing with politics is not investigation. It's one thing to come up with possible scenarios on an internet forum and completely another to do so at a press conference every day.
I better not post anything more till the Polish Report comes out together with ATC transcript (now they say middle of February).
Let's see if I'm right as to where it is going politics-wise.
Have fun everyone.
Do notice they seem to be about 48h behind everything that's being discussed here.
In article you posted they say they now don't think GoAround command and attempt were made at first 100[m] RA callout but a little later. How do they think they heard the call at one time and now they think they heard it a little later????
Also, get a load of following today's article:
"Go Around" Cpt's Protasiuks command or suggestion"
Do note that they had the Russian report months ago and only now they are investigating all the revelations and run tests to poke holes in it. I'm not saying by any means I know they are wrong. I am just suspicious at constantly changing story. Facts changing with politics is not investigation. It's one thing to come up with possible scenarios on an internet forum and completely another to do so at a press conference every day.
I better not post anything more till the Polish Report comes out together with ATC transcript (now they say middle of February).
Let's see if I'm right as to where it is going politics-wise.
Have fun everyone.
In article you posted they say they now don't think GoAround command and attempt were made at first 100[m] RA callout but a little later. How do they think they heard the call at one time and now they think they heard it a little later????
Even in the Polish remarks to MAKs report there is information that when passing 100m the PIC declared a GA, which was confirmed by his F/O. The rest is just jurnalists imagination. They had 3x100m on the transcript and just made the wrong choice.
Basically it wasn't a new information.
You shouldn't rely on the newspapers.
Arrakis
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caught my eye, too. In the light of the paragraph above (third from bottom of the page), it sounds like the report were hinting that the pilots could have expected to hear barometric, rather than radio altimeter indications.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you think that it "not cleared"? Moreover, it's many times stressed that Nav was actually F/O flying Yak-40 and for him this procedure (reading RA) was natural (in absense of SOP).
What is not mentioned is if this crew flew this plane in this same team before?
What is not mentioned is if this crew flew this plane in this same team before?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am confused. See footnote 3 in the report page 11:
Does it say that Protasiuk was the FO on the PAF Tu-154M flight on April 7? Or does it say that he was specified as the FO for the 10 April flight (accident) in the request?
Edit: Oh, sorry, Page 21, just above the passage discussed three posts before:
3 In the mentioned requests for flights on April 7 and 10 for the Tu-154M aircraft the same PIC was specified who was the chief of squadron. Actually, the flight of April 7 was performed by him, but on April 10 (during the accident flight) the PICs duties were performed by another pilot who was co-pilot in the flight of April 7.
Edit: Oh, sorry, Page 21, just above the passage discussed three posts before:
Thus, on April 7, 2010 the PIC flew to Smolensk "Severny" Airdrome as a co-pilot.
Last edited by RegDep; 18th Jan 2011 at 07:13. Reason: I stand corrected
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Luxembourg
Age: 54
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I have another theory. At 100m they did not attempt to make GA, however they tried to level the flight by using the autopilot. If you look at FDR N1 chart, you will see the slight increase of N1 at the moment they decided to abort the landing (shortly after first PULL UP of TAWS). I guess they set the ascend/descend rate to 0m/s in the autopilot which seemed to be a safe move to them as they thought they were 100m HAA and the ATC confirmed they were on the glidepath. It seems to me, they just wanted to fly above the airport leving the decision to land at a very last moment... What do you think ?
I have another theory. At 100m they did not attempt to make GA, however they tried to level the flight by using the autopilot. If you look at FDR N1 chart, you will see the slight increase of N1 at the moment they decided to abort the landing (shortly after first PULL UP of TAWS). I guess they set the ascend/descend rate to 0m/s in the autopilot which seemed to be a safe move to them as they thought they were 100m HAA and the ATC confirmed they were on the glidepath. It seems to me, they just wanted to fly above the airport leving the decision to land at a very last moment... What do you think ?