Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stepwilk
Tu-154 lost 2.5m of right wing during take off, made go around and landed safely at the airport.
Lena could give you some rough translation from Russian:
"" http://avia.m74.ru :: - -154 !
Tu-154 lost 2.5m of right wing during take off, made go around and landed safely at the airport.
Lena could give you some rough translation from Russian:
"" http://avia.m74.ru :: - -154 !
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tu-154 in Bishkek lost 2.5 m of a wing, the Tu-154 in Smolensk lost 6.5 m of a wing. Big difference in rolling moment. Ailerons can compensate only so much.
The Il-76 both times missed to the left, not undershot. The controllers swore profusely because it almost smeared them.
The Il-76 both times missed to the left, not undershot. The controllers swore profusely because it almost smeared them.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lena, something for you:
On December 4, 1965, a TWA Boeing 707-131B collided with an Eastern Airlines Constellation near New York City. The Constellation crash landed (with 4 fatalities), but the 707 landed safely.
Impact damage to TWA flight 42 consisted of the complete severance of the outer 25 ft of the left wing at about wing section 700.
midair
On December 4, 1965, a TWA Boeing 707-131B collided with an Eastern Airlines Constellation near New York City. The Constellation crash landed (with 4 fatalities), but the 707 landed safely.
Impact damage to TWA flight 42 consisted of the complete severance of the outer 25 ft of the left wing at about wing section 700.
midair
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Tiger65, are you contesting Miller's committee's conclusion too?
Do you dismiss the trail of all the broken branches after the fateful birch as a KGB forgery or what? Photographed by Smolensk residents long before the MAK report and published at Smolensk forum
Do you dismiss the trail of all the broken branches after the fateful birch as a KGB forgery or what? Photographed by Smolensk residents long before the MAK report and published at Smolensk forum
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lena,
From the status report I enclosed (or from the Miller's committe remarks):
I do not question trails of broken trees/branches, but one can not tell beyond a reasonable doubt that all those trails were caused by 101.
TAWS and FMS readings (last recorded events) which indicate a different direction of the plane in the last moments of the flight were ignored both by MAK and Miller's committee.
From the status report I enclosed (or from the Miller's committe remarks):
Among the motions ignored or refused was a request for information regarding the assessment of the minimum airdrome conditions at the Smolensk airport, a request for video recordings of radar display readings by the Chief Air Traffic Controller on April 10, 2010 with respect to landing approach of the following flights: Il-76, Yak-40, Tu-154M, a request for photographic documentation from the crash scene, a request for data of the fly-around performed soon after the crash, and requests for inspection of communication and navigation aids. The Polish side did not receive any technical expertise of the wreckage debris or any data of two failed attempts of Il-76 landings prior to the crash of PLF [/SIZE]101. A motion to authorize the Polish Accredited Representative and two specialists to take part in the fly-around procedure was denied. A protest against this refusal was ignored as well as the protest against the refusal of the inspection of the RSP-6M2 radar system in Smolensk.
TAWS and FMS readings (last recorded events) which indicate a different direction of the plane in the last moments of the flight were ignored both by MAK and Miller's committee.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There wasn't any barrel roll few meters off the ground, there was a roll only. First it is not possible for Tu-154 to do barrel roll few meters off the ground. Second, radio altimeters could not register anything during barrel roll as it happened in this case. Third, it wasn't possible to record 13 satellites "visible" and 11 "tracked" during 160-200 degree roll.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amelin lives in Smolensk. In his blog about this crash, part 3: English version, Russian version; Russian versions only: part 4, part 5, part 6. Look at photos.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lena, you are kidding me. I have read this blog from the very beginning Yes, I can read in Russian.
Nevertheless, he took his photos on April 13, 2010 and it was his "version" of events both MAK and Miller's team had assimilated and included in final remarks
Nevertheless, he took his photos on April 13, 2010 and it was his "version" of events both MAK and Miller's team had assimilated and included in final remarks
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lena, neither you nor I know what happened. Amelin either.
There are three ongoing investigations (Polish and Russian Prosecutors as well as Polish Parliamentary commission). Please be patient
There are three ongoing investigations (Polish and Russian Prosecutors as well as Polish Parliamentary commission). Please be patient
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tu-154 lost 2.5m of right wing during take off, made go around and landed safely at the airport.
Please read more carefully before pulling the trigger.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: birch trees, barrel rolls, and the precise sequence of events in those final seconds
"Whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it's going to be bad for the pitcher." (Man of La Mancha).
"Whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it's going to be bad for the pitcher." (Man of La Mancha).
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Africa Asia EU all together
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading further the entire transcript ( for the first time ) shocking one. I noticed that this plane crash became a political argument for the both parties from time to time being activated for the political purposes as described here as“ artificial fog”. Or as described by Lena accurately a “publication game”. I guess I had fallen in love at the last party by the way.I would pay attention more to Lena and her rational comments on this topic really and on potato 232 comments, which are adequate to a tragedy. The entire black box should be taken to London to a neutral place, not to cause any disbeliefs or wonderings.
Mechanical calculations cannot be more accurate then the mathematical or phisical model you are using.
We have the experiment (crash), with a long line of trees and wires cut/damaged by the plane, being like an additional, external FDR. If the simulations does not match the experiment, it just means they were f** up. Simple as that.
According to the recent findings
Arrakis
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: >FL300
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lena.Kiev:What is your view of reasons of the crash?
1. The crews inability to commence an non-precision approach in a safely matter resulting in CFIT.
2. The tower radar controllers radio callouts that they are on course & glidepath, when they in fact are not, they are way off, despite that the radar controller keeps on giving them false information that they are.
1. The crews inability to commence an non-precision approach in a safely matter resulting in CFIT.
2. The tower radar controllers radio callouts that they are on course & glidepath, when they in fact are not, they are way off, despite that the radar controller keeps on giving them false information that they are.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My view: no CRM at all, the PIC did everything; the PIC used to use ILS and had no practice using 2NDB, he ignored NDB; he couldn't use the yoke on the glidepath, he let GPS in FMS to control yaw (forbidden by the flight manual on approach) and controlled pitch (not descent rate) with autopilot's wheel (like a mouse wheel) - forbidden by the flight manual because executed with a delay. He used autothrottle - forbidden by the flight manual if no ILS. He decreased speed too late, so was late entering glidepath. Intead of go-around, he descended too steeply, engines on idle though the flight manual requires to go-around if on the glidepath engines rotate too slowly (the engineer failed to warn the PIC about that). The crew used radio-altimeter since 300 m above runway not thinking about terrain shape (hills and ravines), descended along descending slope of the last ravine and hit the ascending slope. Pitch control was too slow because of the wheel instead of yoke and engines on idle but speed still more than set into autothrottle.
Crew of another Polish airplane told the FO (over the radio on another frequency, so PIC didn't hear directly) of cloud base "less than 50 m, considerably". The FO deceived the PIC telling him "cloud base 50 m". That also nudged the PIC to try scud-running.
It was not Western PAR, but old Soviet radar - way less precise. Real pictures on the screens look not at all as neat as published photos. Anyway, the PIC ignored the controller and listened to the navigator who called aloud from a radio-altimeter; both PIC and FO looked ahead instead of at instruments. They saw trees at last in the dense fog - too late.
The president pressured the crew to land at the first attempt, the PIC yielded to the pressure and scud-runned, descended way below MDA in dense fog - both are guilty.
The above is from my technical point of view. There is another view: the president pressured the crew to land because he and other politicians and clergy were late to the political show at the graveyard in Katyn, i.e. he literally was in a hurry to the cemetery.
My beloved thinks that that was the reason of the crash, like in the old tale (as far as I remember it, and I'm translating from Russian): a fortune-teller told a prostitute that she'd drown. She avoided ships until old age and at last bought a ticket to a large ship. In the sea the ship began to sink, she looked up and asked the sky: "OK, I deserved this, but have all the other passengers to perish guiltless with me?". Then she heard a booming voice from above: "You don't know how much time and effort it took to gather all you together".
Crew of another Polish airplane told the FO (over the radio on another frequency, so PIC didn't hear directly) of cloud base "less than 50 m, considerably". The FO deceived the PIC telling him "cloud base 50 m". That also nudged the PIC to try scud-running.
It was not Western PAR, but old Soviet radar - way less precise. Real pictures on the screens look not at all as neat as published photos. Anyway, the PIC ignored the controller and listened to the navigator who called aloud from a radio-altimeter; both PIC and FO looked ahead instead of at instruments. They saw trees at last in the dense fog - too late.
The president pressured the crew to land at the first attempt, the PIC yielded to the pressure and scud-runned, descended way below MDA in dense fog - both are guilty.
The above is from my technical point of view. There is another view: the president pressured the crew to land because he and other politicians and clergy were late to the political show at the graveyard in Katyn, i.e. he literally was in a hurry to the cemetery.
My beloved thinks that that was the reason of the crash, like in the old tale (as far as I remember it, and I'm translating from Russian): a fortune-teller told a prostitute that she'd drown. She avoided ships until old age and at last bought a ticket to a large ship. In the sea the ship began to sink, she looked up and asked the sky: "OK, I deserved this, but have all the other passengers to perish guiltless with me?". Then she heard a booming voice from above: "You don't know how much time and effort it took to gather all you together".
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lena, your summary is pretty what i have read in the english version of the mak report ans like already said- i think it matches pretty the thruth.
all people who feel the russians are lying in the report- so what , the russians managed to bring the tupolev into a crash ? how and for what ? to kill nearly the entire polish goverment ? for what?
i think we have two solid facts:
1) the aircraft crashed into the ground
2) there was heavy fog
point 2 points that the pilot went without ground visibility below minimums for an ndb approch ( since at published minimums there is nothing he could crash into) and finally hit the ground, regardless if he cut a birch or two or none. thats by itself is a massive pilot error.
somebody wrote that the wing may be ripped off due to g-overload from the massive pull at last second and not a hit into a tree. thats nonsense i think- the aircraft was nearly approach speed ( a little to fast) but surely far below manouver speed ( dont ask me the numbers for a tu 154m, i have no idea) and even a full pull ends up in a stall and not a massive g overload at such low speeds.
beyond that the tu154 is known as a robust bird - designed to operate from bad airstrips and with severe temperatures in siberia, i never heard something about a wing separation due to structural failure at this type.
here i found a photo- Photos: Tupolev Tu-154M Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
look what by optics for a solid piece of russian metal the fuselage and the wing looks at this aircraft- i believe its not that easy to break this wing.
all people who feel the russians are lying in the report- so what , the russians managed to bring the tupolev into a crash ? how and for what ? to kill nearly the entire polish goverment ? for what?
i think we have two solid facts:
1) the aircraft crashed into the ground
2) there was heavy fog
point 2 points that the pilot went without ground visibility below minimums for an ndb approch ( since at published minimums there is nothing he could crash into) and finally hit the ground, regardless if he cut a birch or two or none. thats by itself is a massive pilot error.
somebody wrote that the wing may be ripped off due to g-overload from the massive pull at last second and not a hit into a tree. thats nonsense i think- the aircraft was nearly approach speed ( a little to fast) but surely far below manouver speed ( dont ask me the numbers for a tu 154m, i have no idea) and even a full pull ends up in a stall and not a massive g overload at such low speeds.
beyond that the tu154 is known as a robust bird - designed to operate from bad airstrips and with severe temperatures in siberia, i never heard something about a wing separation due to structural failure at this type.
here i found a photo- Photos: Tupolev Tu-154M Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
look what by optics for a solid piece of russian metal the fuselage and the wing looks at this aircraft- i believe its not that easy to break this wing.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lena, could you translate it into English?
Tu-154M
Допустимые из условия прочности максимальные эксплуатационные перегрузки (для всех масс самолёта) составляют 2,5 с убранной механизацией крыла и 2 с выпущенной. Допустимая минимальная эксплуатационная перегрузка составляет минус единица (убранная механизация крыла) и нуль с отклонённой во взлётно-посадочное положение. При выполнении манёвра рекомендуемая перегрузка должна не выходить за пределы 0,5 - 1,8. Допустимые углы крена составляют не более +/- 15 градусов на высотах 250 метров и ниже при скоростях менее 340 км/ч на взлёте и менее 280 км/ч при заходе на посадку. Во всех же остальных случаях +/- 33 градуса
Thank you
Tu-154M
Допустимые из условия прочности максимальные эксплуатационные перегрузки (для всех масс самолёта) составляют 2,5 с убранной механизацией крыла и 2 с выпущенной. Допустимая минимальная эксплуатационная перегрузка составляет минус единица (убранная механизация крыла) и нуль с отклонённой во взлётно-посадочное положение. При выполнении манёвра рекомендуемая перегрузка должна не выходить за пределы 0,5 - 1,8. Допустимые углы крена составляют не более +/- 15 градусов на высотах 250 метров и ниже при скоростях менее 340 км/ч на взлёте и менее 280 км/ч при заходе на посадку. Во всех же остальных случаях +/- 33 градуса
Thank you