RetiredF4

From the ATC transcripts:

What to conclude out of it?

Does that mean, that MAK evaluated itīs own performance and possible contribution to the accident?



franzl

kontrolor

@ RockShock
it is not up to ATCO do determine if the aircraft is below or above minima. The only phrase in PAR is "report runway in sight". nothing else. adhering to minima lies in hands of crew and nobody else.

so in case of Russian ATCOS - they warned them about flying below desired GP, and this was all they could do. If the flight was russian military (or afaik civilian), they could order GA.

Tiger65

Either ACP transcript is flawed, flight controllers were drunk and gave incorrect readings or PRL RSP6M2 was faulty/out of order (most probably)

Ptkay

Gstaniak, thank you, I was just about to write the same,
you were faster.

RetiredF4

When did they do that? The calls had always been "on glidepath, on course" until the "101 horizon" call, which was at 10:40:52,4 At that time 101 was below 25 meters above runway elevation and well below glidepath. The aircraft started to drop below glidepath 16 seconds prior. Source: MAK report Page 156 Figure 45.

That kind of warning at that late point is sensless.

franzl

kontrolor

do you know how fast the radar blip was refreshed? do you know how fast the aircraft was descending - 8m/s...modern mode c radar display (typical in civilian operational rooms) is refreshed arround every 4 seconds and the data displayed is not raw data, so there is extra delay. I have no idea what kind of equipment ATCOS had at hand and its capabilities... (havent read the MAK report yet).

so I can only speculate on your question why they didn't a) notice b) react

RetiredF4

Link with picture of the smolensk of radar screens, use google to translate/

They where working with the RSP-6M2 landing radar, it refreshes every second. Source: MAK report page 53. And by the way, it is an older system with raw-data.

A good controller knows the limits of his equipment and adjusts the calls for that.


I suggest, you read the report first. It is not very helpful to explain facts again and again to posters, who are not up on the necessary level of information due to not reading it.

franzl

mary meagher

Sad Pole's valuable analysis of the political background to this disaster holds lessons that will (we hope) improve flight safety. It goes right back to Tenerife and the intransigence of KLM's heavyweight captain. There too they tried to lay the blame on the Spanish ATC.

Its called Human Factors now. First Officer has a duty to point out any mistakes or oversights of the Captain in time, and strongly enough to persuade the self-important Captain that there IS a problem, right NOW! I would not feel comfortable as a passenger on any airline with a tradition of military type chain of command. And sadly, though I used to love a visit to the cockpit en route, the sterile cockpit rule is another lesson that was learned the hard way.

The junket to Smolensk by a planeload of politicians was in trouble from the very beginning, when the flight planning was sketchy, no alternates seriously considered, the management of the go-around attempt not properly understood. A nightmare from the beginning. Very very sad.

Alice025

Re MAK certifying everything - I am not so sure. If to judge by their site - they do certify everything :o))) - the part of the site called "Certificates" is split into Airlines certification, Aircrafts made within the Commonwealth of Independent states' certification :o)))) (the C.I.S used to unite 12 republics/now new countries out of 15 republics/now countries of 15 USSR ever had in total) (15-3 Baltics), Educational centres certification :o)))))),
Medical centres' certification, Airports certification, airport radio equipment certification, airport lighting systems' certification, aircrafts' engines produced in the CIS certification. and a handful/several more sub-sections re airport equipment.

The sections under these titles give to who what was certified when and type of that something, maker, valid through - expiry date.
For the past 20 years roughly. (one off is TU-134 certified it states "in 1977" when there were no MAK :o))))))))
The rest fall into dates of MAK existence, since 1991 - that Commonwealth of the ex' formation.

(The Commonwealth used to have 12 members, but as we quarrel and make peace again - some countries exit - then return back, on average I'd say there are always 8-9 countries "in the club" but you never know.) Can be 5 in half a year 10. Then 7 again. ;o) (It is possible by its rules to walk back and forward, when it suits a country it joins, some tariffs or something).

According to those certificates' list MAK never certified TU154 (M or simply 154), never certified any Smolensk airports (no Smolensk in at all, neither Southern nor Northern) - it never certified Aeroflot or any big other Russian airlines, clearly didn't certify some airports we have (I wish I knew how many there are in all? to compare), with regards to airport equipment - it can not be that all technical things an aerodrome or an airport has can be listed in several pages incl. radio equipment and lights - if someone hints me equipment type applied on Northern lights and radio included - I can check whether there is a conflict of interest here.
But most equipment MAK certified is "Siemens" in makers and all big foreign names other o))))) I don't think they got very exhausted certifying :o)
Alternatively it's things made by Tajikistan and other small non-aviation traditionally countries' makes. Some light bulbs and whatever.
Likewise the airlines they certify are those countries' names.

I think MAK in this certification competes with someone as in one airport there are clearly more various boxes and cables' names and devices in crowds not what is in 5-7 pages of MAK. And it is those electricity cables certified, separate components.
But I don't know with who MAK competes for certification field, may be there are more knowledgable people here. I think they pulled to themselves all CIS business, majority of it, in terms of airlines' certification, and those "medical centres" are all in our "ex" places.

RockShock

@SadPole: I know you won't be disappointed, but rather satisfied, but this is my last post to you unless something drastically changes my mind. I am sick of having to put your misleading information straight and you must have some purpose in all you write here.

If you care to read the article, not just the 'click-luring' headline, you will see that the alive Kaczynski is referring not to the landing in Smolensk, but to the selection of reserve airfield, hence he concluded that presence of the presidential minister in the FD was nothing wrong, as they were agreeing as to where divert in case of being unable to land. So please, again, do not post misinformation and politically biased opinion here - even more as you seem to succeed in convincing some people that political climate in Poland has something to do with the accident!
You tend to drop false information and then after someone claryfying this, you don't admit to misinformation, but continue with elaborate non-relevant posts to support your opinions (as it was when you referred to unprofessional and written-on-the-knee ATC transcript with missing timestamps which in fact was something a journalist copied from the slideshow and didn't admit you were wrong...)

Alice025

There must be some Federal body, state-financed, of the Russian Federation. Whose business MAK is peace-meal pulling onto own side o
Having began as a Commonwealth company, for 12 countries.

SadPole

But, I DID read the article.

In it, we get another glimpse at what is going on in the minds of our elites.

1. Sterile cockpit laws - sure he heard of it but it NEVER applies in Poland, especially when he was Prime Minister – he would always run all around the cockpit, you see. The only way he could stop is if someone installed some thingamabob that would let him bark orders at the pilots without leaving his seat.

2. When the pilot refused to fly to Tbilisi it was not because it was a war zone, but because the pilot was Tusk agent doing his bidding or something like that, and it was all a political provocation by Tusk to prevent Kaczynski from becoming the hero of Georgia, and not pilot exercising his duty.

Now, what I would add:

3. What this is all about is the fact that our "elites" think no rules apply to them and therefore, if the report says there is a fog in some airport they want to go to, they make a call and demand the fog be removed. See the article a few posts back.

4. Therefore, if someone says there is a fog in Smolensk, this fog also has to be politically motivated, but if landing in this politically motivated fog results in a crash, then not closing the airport due to this politically motivated fog was also politically motivated.

5. One cannot trust anything from Russia, fog reports, controllers, anything like that – everything politically motivated, of course, but in this case they would have trusted if the controller told them to get lost, and not see it as politically motivated, and so on and so forth.


Come on, man. Obviously, you are an intelligent man. Unlike most Kaczynski supporters, you mastered English even. You should not like all those "adjustable laws" concepts and all the professionals who always have to do what ordered. If you are a pilot, dare to believe that you and nobody else rules your crate. That's the way of the West (or at least used to be when the West was growing).

You cannot save this dying concept of the almighty elite and the rubber laws and regulations at their service. Wait till wikileaks is done publishing what US ambassador and others thought of Kaczynskis. That will be fun.

RockShock

Do we know then who issued the certificate about which the MAK report mentions in 1.10:

?

I am asking as in Poland there've been some voices stating that MAK is actually investigating in its own case, hence it's highly impropable that anything wrong on their side would ever see a daylight... Do we know who issued the certificate for the airport then?

RetiredF4

A very interesting interview with Dr. Edmundem Kilch, chairman of the State Commission for Aircraft Accident Investigation.

Co mia?em zrobi?...-wywiad z dr.Edmundem Klichem - fakty nieujawnione - Onet.pl Blog

Google translation is understandable.

franzl

ARRAKIS

Are you kidding

Ok, my 0.02$.

I agree with most of RetiredF4 opinions.

Regarding the report, the way it was published. The long list of errors made by the crew is undeniable, but the pressure presented as a very important factor is wishfull thinking.

Just look at Fig. 47. Both flights and crew actions were similar. They were acting the same way. PIC from the 10.04 flight was F/O during the 07.04 flight (landing pilot AFAIK). When the first TAWS warning sounded, there was no hesitation how to calm id down. They were doing that before.

The problem is continuity of training when old pilots, trained by Tupolev, flying in parallel the same machines in a civil airline (LOT) were leaving one by one the unit. At some moment young pilots were training younger ones, passing them their knowledge, but also habits. Habits--> unwritten SOPs
Bean counters, etc....

About 2 months ago a book written by former VIP regiment commander was published. In a very diplomatic way he mentioned/adressed also the problems above.

After the crash, because the remaining Tu-154M was sent earlier for overhaul, the remaining 1,5 Tu-154 crew lost their currency.
To train them, PAF haired a very experienced Tu-154 test pilot Ruben Esaian, vice-director of the Russian State Research Institute of Civil Aviation. On many occasions you could find his signature on the changes to Tu-154 FM. Our Russian forum members could write a few words about him. He flew with Polish pilots and had the possibility to evaluate them. By the way, his colleages (subordinates) from the Institute wrote a part of the final report.

Pressure: For sure there was on both sides, but regarding the pilots IMHO it made the difference between flying directly to Moscow or Minsk vs flying to Smolensk, to show someone there is really fog. Until further notice like information about late president phone call to his brother or regarding events just before take off that day, anything else is pure speculation.

Going back to Fig. 47. On the left we can see the plane suddenly loosing 200 m of altitude. Why? Nice weather, no pressure Did someone explained what error(s) were made then?


One thing that really bothers me, it's the fact they used RA height instead of altitude. Was it an error or was it one of their habits. I think that was an error but again, there is not a straight answer in the report.

Another point. Polish MOD has a document governing HEAD flights. It's available without problems for example in the central military library. Haven't seen anything about it in the report.

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

The corridor is just behind those sliding dors.

Arrakis

Azrael229

Is there any information on results of this evaluation available to public anywhere?

Bandures

Smolensk airport doesn't have MAK certificate. It was evaluated for special use before incidient and report was issued that it can take aircraft according to it's minima.
If it has any certificate, than it's a military certificate.

Golf-Sierra

SadPole, come on, stop the gutter level propaganda. As far as English goes - well at least make the effort to correctly translate the title of the article - the original title does not contain the word landing 'lądować'. Besides, it's an onet article, that's a site next to which the Daily Mail is professional journalism.

As has been pointed out - Kaczynski's brother refers to the fact that the VIP passenger has the right to decide what to do if they cannot land at Smolensk - divert to A, divert to B, return to Warsaw. This issue has been beaten to death on this and all the Polish aviation forums.

J Kaczynski is a political party leader and an MP. Please read the Polish Constitution - it was sent to every household a few years ago. J Kaczynski does not create the law in Poland. Law in Poland is not governed by precedents. NATO is not governed by precedents in member countires. NATO does not govern government flights in member countries. NATO has nothing to do with it. Stop getting hysterical.


The whole pilot 'under pressure' argument is b*****it.

The pilot in the Tibilisi affair got a medal for his conduct during that flight.

The Smolensk pilot was working towards leaving the PAF and becoming a commercial pilot. (Given that the opposition is in government and that LOT is state controlled one could even argue that pissing off Kaczynski on that day would have been a good career move).

The Russians had turned back the IL - the TU pilot could have aborted the landing without loosing face.

The YAK crew had ostentatiously reported the lack of visiblity (although they backed down a bit later) - the TU pilot could have aborted the landing without loosing face.

The fact is they were (most probably) trying to fly over the airport at MDA and botched it up. PPL exercise 17a - "The Precautionary search and landing" - guess you could say they messed that one up. I would expect a pilot in an 'elite' PAF unit to be able to do that. But you know what they say - it doesn't matter how many flights you've flown - it's how you flew the last flight that counts.

Golf-Sierra

SadPole

1. The original title of the article was: "Prezydent nie jest pakunkiem, moze decydowac o ladowaniu" - and my translation was completely accurate.

Probably Kaczynski goons were hoping mad and whining to onet and threatening lawsuits as they always do and so the title was changed. Complain to them.

2. In the article, Kaczynski states that sterile cockpit never applied in Poland to VIPs and never will. (Yes or no?) How is that for law in Poland? (Poland actually has so called HEAD law already that prevents even politicians from interfering with pilots during the flight and it was binding law at the time of Smolensk disaster).

3. Kaczynski accuses Tbilisi pilot that he refused orders to fly to Georgia at war not because it was unsafe but because Tusk ordered the pilot to prevent Kaczynski from becoming hero of Georgia (Yes or no?).

4. The pilots knew about the ravine, discussed in cockpit twice, and yet they descended to about 20 m above runway altitude before they tried to execute goaround. (That would be unacceptable even with CAT II ILS). Why? How does any pilot worth his salt do something like that, unless the idea is to take a risk trying to land? To me, there is ZERO proof that they ever intended goaround at any decision height even radio altitude 100 m. It was discussed here 10 times to sunday.

vorra

Is there any information on what the Flight Engineer was up to during landing? Keeping track of engine power is his responsibility.