jimjim1

Note that this is Google Earth (requires the installation of an application), not Google Maps the web site.

I notice some discussions of the availability of topographical maps. While I am not aware that Google Earth can be made to easily display topographical maps with countour lines, it does have a constant reading of terrain elevation on the bottom of the display. I have checked a couple of places in the UK and they seem is good accord with Ordinance Survey maps. Google is about 1-2metres greater than OS in the two places I checked. Could be different reference point is in use.

e.g.
Google 26m
OS 25m

I would expect that anyone interested could determine the source of the data used.

The options allow the display to be set to feet or metres.

I would guess that a programmer could figure out how to extract a topographical map with countour lines, at least of a small area.

jimjim1

Using Google Earth I have constructed a cross section of the approach path by sampling the elevation every 15 seconds of arc longitude (268metres - I hope) along the extended line of the runway.

For the purpose of calculating the distance to the runway I have assumed that the runway alignment is exactly east-west and have ignored the latitude change. This will result in a very small error in the result. So small it can be ignored in my view since the runway alignment is so close to east-west.

I have not arranged facilities to post pictures and I am not sure what would be most useful to people anyway - so I have posted raw-ish data only.

I hope I have used the right airport - the one to the north of the city. Should have double checked frst 54 49'N - 32 02'E


Distance from touchdown (intersection of first taxiway) and Elevation (from sea level I guess) all in metres.

Sorry it looks a bit naff, but the pprune she does not accept the tabs (converts them to spaces


Distance from touchdown - metres
Elevation - metres

0 255
268 254
535 254
803 258
1071 254
1339 247
1606 233
1874 216
2142 203
2409 228
2677 239
2945 237
3213 225
3480 212
3748 207
4016 217
4283 210
4551 179
4819 181
5087 183
5354 202
5622 240
5890 250
6157 259
6425 260
6693 255
6961 252
7228 243
7496 224
7764 200
8031 177
8299 198
8567 224
8835 235
9102 234
9370 205
9638 208
9906 230
10173 240
10441 237
10709 239
10976 240
11244 241
11512 238
11780 219
12047 193
12315 201


Here is a more processed one.


Distance from touchdown - miles
Relative Elevation - feet (-ve is lower)
Angle to reach touchdown - degrees (-ve requires climbing)


0.00 0 0.00
0.17 -3 -0.21
0.33 -3 -0.11
0.50 10 0.21
0.67 -3 -0.05
0.83 -26 -0.34
1.00 -72 -0.78
1.16 -128 -1.19
1.33 -171 -1.39
1.50 -89 -0.64
1.66 -52 -0.34
1.83 -59 -0.35
2.00 -98 -0.54
2.16 -141 -0.71
2.33 -157 -0.73
2.50 -125 -0.54
2.66 -148 -0.60
2.83 -249 -0.96
2.99 -243 -0.88
3.16 -236 -0.81
3.33 -174 -0.57
3.49 -49 -0.15
3.66 -16 -0.05
3.83 13 0.04
3.99 16 0.04
4.16 0 0.00
4.33 -10 -0.02
4.49 -39 -0.10
4.66 -102 -0.24
4.82 -180 -0.41
4.99 -256 -0.56
5.16 -187 -0.39
5.32 -102 -0.21
5.49 -66 -0.13
5.66 -69 -0.13
5.82 -164 -0.31
5.99 -154 -0.28
6.15 -82 -0.14
6.32 -49 -0.08
6.49 -59 -0.10
6.65 -52 -0.09
6.82 -49 -0.08
6.99 -46 -0.07
7.15 -56 -0.08
7.32 -118 -0.18
7.49 -203 -0.29
7.65 -177 -0.25

BOAC

Could someone explain the point of all this 'terrain modelling' stuff?

Alice025

Official investigation is being done based on MAK map of heights, which differs from maps obtained from sources other. Which is slightly worrying, after all, they investigate at which point the plane did what being how high up and where exactly on its route. and it may be interesting where the crew thought they are, and where they were by fact, by black boxes' record, how high above the ground.
anyway, I don't know.
just checking, I guess, all that is in commoner's power to check :o) - in the vacuum of official facts.

BOAC

Does it really matter, a few metres either way? If you arrive with 2m vertical displacement from ANY terrain with a 4m solid tree in the way it is called a crash.

Only a fool would use a radalt on an NPA unless it was a dire emergency.

ARRAKIS

I took a few minutes and installed GE. The deepest point of the last valley before the runway is - also according to GE - around 200 m. Deepest point situated around 1700 m from the rwy.

As Alice pointed out, it makes wonder, from where MAK did get it's terrain profile?

Or stressed like hell. E. Klich said, that the PIC was "programmed for landing".
Another point. During landing, they should be counting down their RA height starting from 60 m.
Still many things unclear.
The transcript from the voice recorder will - maybe - be published next week.

Arrakis

Alice025

Amelin's chart must be equal to TAWS chart (he presumes).
TAWS is from that shuttle flight record in year 2000.

But! Shuttle covered the area in question - but it doesn't mean the project people spent the two following years fine-tuning the resulting terrain map, as they did with other places and airports. Cleaned "errors", adjusted, how to say, it follows they did a lot of work to make it a TAWS usable map, from the data of the Shuttle flight, worked on it, for a long time.
Because Smolensk Northern airport in particular - is not in TAWS database.

So TAWS data re Smolensk may be an approximation, and not to be taken for guidance for automated approach. I mean, it's not for nothing this aerodrome is not officially in the TAWS system - means, they don't guarantee the exactness, simply, has not thought it'll be of use to anybody, when were working on the data.

I think it can be like this.

And I think as the Russian-Polish commission did fly to TAWS makers "to help clarify some details" - may be this is what they were clarifying.
In particular - also - which map of heights is correct - the MAK or the TAWS idea of it.
I think Poles also wanted to know what to use as a base, is MAK map trust-able.

They don't tell us any thing! One has to extrapolate, which questions they had to TAWS. And which answers they've got from the makers. Can be about the map.

ARRAKIS

What about the military topographic maps?

Old news. The PIC from the Smolensk flight was already trained to fly Embraer 175 in 2009.

Arrakis

Alice025

Smolensk maps year 1942

Ñìîëåíñêàÿ îáëàñòü 1:100 000

The other blog is planning a walk runway-Far Beacon with GPS in hands, to finally find out where they live :o)

MFgeo

Alice025

Does the airport appear on these maps? If so, where is it shown? If not, what are the coordinates of the topography on which the airport was subsequently built?

threemiles

The airport is the blank area to the left next to 78. The rest you find when comparing with GE. (from N36-041)

deefer dog

BOAC,

Because there appears to be good reason to "speculate" that the crew may have been using rad alt as their primary means of vertical navigation.

I think the legality or otherwise of using rad alt during a NPA has already been established and agreed upon by most posters.

You have already posted your speculated analysis. Many here appear to think there is merit in considering the rad alt theory....that is why the discussion is centred on this "terrain modelling stuff."

BOAC

- not only is is 'illegal' but it is plain stupid. Regardless of what they were doing, they descended below DA/DA (for some reason) and flew down into a dip. Is there a serious suggestion that an accurate terrain model would have made any difference when I believe ALL warnings were being ignored?. A few meters - insignificant. I suspect if they had not hit the first tree they would have hit the next or the rising ground with the same results.
They just should not have been where they were, doing what they were doing, and you all have to accept that.

Elsewhere I see "Or stressed like hell. E. Klich said, that the PIC was "programmed for landing". " yet it is reported that there was no intention of landing - they were merely having a look?????? Which is it?

It really is no good trying to defend the crew due to 'being under stress' - ask yourself what they actually achieved. If the Chief of the PAF was the 'driving force' - didn't he do well?

No, my money is still on a false visual acquisition. Still wrong, but nothing to do with 'radalts' and more understandable, but not excusable, with the suggested 'pressures' in the cockpit.

Alice025

on "using rad alt during a NPA".
This (Polish side statement) (seemingly accepted by now by all) - disagrees with another piece of revelations, from the informed sources in Poland - namely that "the pilots were counting down 90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20" (down to 20 meters, and in this manner)

There isn't a place! nearby, in the 3 ravines and 3 hills, preceding the runway (assuming they were taking the aerodrome official glidepath, as per aerodrome papers) - where a rad alt would read 90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20. The terrain all jumps there under the plane and nothing this good steady is available in principle.

A riddle wrapped into enigma the "facts" as being fed to the audiences contradict each other. That's why Amelin crawls there LOL with GPS, trying to establish the terrain at least, for fact.

So far:
Road crossing the glidepath right before the edge of the runway - 260m.(the plane managed to fly over that road, getting out of the hole it got to, turned upside down after the road and hit the ground before it reached the runway edge)

The lowest point in the ravine, the hole the plane got into, the ravine right before the road - 198 metres.

The circular road around the city (the other side of the ravine the plane got into) - 237m.

Alice025

And the question "were they landing" or "were they having a look" is also un-solved yet.

First news from all sources as we remember pointed in the direction "were landing, and by all means and in spite of any thing".

Then the official tune has suspiciously changed to "no, were not landing, were simply having a look down to 100 meters". This is very sweet, because it interestingly suits both sides - Russian aerodrome for allowing to land at all in that fog (it is disputable COULD they forbid them to do it, a legal nightmare. but from the moral point of view - Russian aerodrome should have placed a truck onto the runway and that's it no landing and forget about it, legally OK or wrong - that's for lawyers)
And it suits the Polish side as takes out of the hit any theoretically possible directions from higher chip commanders of all sorts on board.

So, how they got basically let's say it landing onto the Near Beacon - intentionally (mis-calculating their distance to runway) (attracted by other lights, as is said above) (or whatever)

or did they think they are just cruising above at 100 steady meters or more (altimeters game)

or what.

Alice025

? ????????? ???? ??????? • ?????????? ?????

If you scroll this page a bit down - it is profile of heights before the runway (left side of the pic). Amelin got it from someone somehow, and it agrees he writes excellently well with his measurements by GPS.
His GPS isn't professional, ordinary, but he walked the glidepath (as we THINK it were) twice - one way and backwards, just in case, and numbers are the same.

Only it disagrees with the MAK map :o))))
Amelin thinks may be the real plane glide-path was not what we think it was... And MAK gave heights in his map for the real plane's glidepath taken.... If the plane appeared from more Southwards than all think. The glide-path over that, Southern, terrain - fits MAK's map... Anyway he is thinking, how to mentally absorb it.

Tonden

The press speaker of the Polish government announced the CVR scripts are going to be published "within hours". They will include "cockpit recordings as well as all information exchanged with ATC and the Yak-40 crew"

Ptkay

CVR published without any censoring:

http://slimak.onet.pl/_m/TVN/tvn24/stenogram.pdf

The critical moment is:

10:40:42 100m Pull Up!

10:40:49 100m Terrain ahead!
10:40:50 90m Pull Up!

and so on...

10:41:56 20m


For 7 seconds they were reading and knowing to have 100m constant.
It could have been only RA.

criss

CVR is clear - commenced approach with known vis of 400m, continued with information of visibility dropping to 200m, continuing knowingly to 20m with 100m decision heigh, no response to "pull up". Classic CFIT, case seems closed. New discussion about their training is now more important.

vovachan

This is a goldmine!

2 observations:

- the last alt callout by the navigator at 10:40:56 was = 20 m. They were 6 secs away from impact.

- they were sinking at a rate of what appears to be 10 m/sec which sounds way way excessive

- which means at the time of impact they were at an alt of minus 40 m or so. What the hell were they thinking??