Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
BBC Reporting non-flight crew members on flight deck just before accident.
BBC News - Non-crew in cockpit in Polish president's plane crash
BBC News - Non-crew in cockpit in Polish president's plane crash
As I, and a number of others have said, Let's wait for the audio. I still think that will make any speculation unnecessary. Wouldn't be at all surprised to find, though, that the Non-Crewie On Flight Deck's hat had a lot of scrambled egg on it, or was ADC to same relaying orders.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure why there should appear to be anything unusual. I have been on the flight-deck of several airliners, along with other non-crew members, several times so it could be totally innocent.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAP (Polish Press Agency) suggests that the person was the Chef of PAF, Gen. Blasik himself, also a pilot.
In relation to this it is very interesting, that his deputy, Gen. Zaleski,
acting Chief of PAF since the accident, resigned yesterday.
Did he know, what was to be published today?
BBC:
Shortly after the crash, there was speculation that passengers may have put pressure on the crew to land in Smolensk, though Polish officials said at the time that there was no evidence to substantiate such claims.
On Wednesday, the head of the inter-state air committee, Tatyana Anodina, said the investigation had established "in the cockpit there were individuals who were not members of the crew".
Was the "back seat driver" performing the landing...??
In relation to this it is very interesting, that his deputy, Gen. Zaleski,
acting Chief of PAF since the accident, resigned yesterday.
Did he know, what was to be published today?
BBC:
Shortly after the crash, there was speculation that passengers may have put pressure on the crew to land in Smolensk, though Polish officials said at the time that there was no evidence to substantiate such claims.
On Wednesday, the head of the inter-state air committee, Tatyana Anodina, said the investigation had established "in the cockpit there were individuals who were not members of the crew".
Was the "back seat driver" performing the landing...??
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The voice of one of them has been identified exactly"
That could be double speak for "it was the President's voice". His is probably the only voice that could be recognised without voice analysis.
And he does have 'previous' for this.
That could be double speak for "it was the President's voice". His is probably the only voice that could be recognised without voice analysis.
And he does have 'previous' for this.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official MAK web page preliminary report:
Google translated:
Click "Information" then "News", May 19th
Google Tłumacz
Google translated:
Click "Information" then "News", May 19th
Google Tłumacz
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two most important aspects quoted from the report::
"Trial approach"
"a. At the request of the crew they carried out their "trial" approach to decision height (100 meters).
b. ATC informed the crew after the third that from 100 meters they must be prepared to perform a go-around."
Autopilot on.
"a. The glide path was performed on automatic pilot in the longitudinal and lateral channels, as well as with the automatic thrust. Turning off the autopilot in a longitudinal canal and automatic thrust occurred while trying to do a go-around 5 and 4 seconds respectively before the collision with an obstacle (tree), which led to the beginning of the destruction of aircraft structure. Turning off the autopilot in the lateral channel occurred at the time of the third collision with obstacles, which led to the beginning of the destruction of the structure."
Landing on AP with no ILS and just GPS and altimeter ???
I can't believe it!
"Trial approach"
"a. At the request of the crew they carried out their "trial" approach to decision height (100 meters).
b. ATC informed the crew after the third that from 100 meters they must be prepared to perform a go-around."
Autopilot on.
"a. The glide path was performed on automatic pilot in the longitudinal and lateral channels, as well as with the automatic thrust. Turning off the autopilot in a longitudinal canal and automatic thrust occurred while trying to do a go-around 5 and 4 seconds respectively before the collision with an obstacle (tree), which led to the beginning of the destruction of aircraft structure. Turning off the autopilot in the lateral channel occurred at the time of the third collision with obstacles, which led to the beginning of the destruction of the structure."
Landing on AP with no ILS and just GPS and altimeter ???
I can't believe it!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without the benefit of translation, but do the pictures in image #2 of the previous post indicate the aircraft rolled through 90 left, hit the trees and and continued rolling until it impacted inverted?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without the benefit of translation, but do the pictures in image #2 of the previous post indicate the aircraft rolled through 90 left, hit the trees and and continued rolling until it impacted inverted?
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The photo sequence would seem to indicate collision with one tree, resulting in left roll, then further tree impacts at near 90 degree left bank and continuing roll to inverted before final impact. Tu-154 has l/e devices doesn't it? Damage to one would reduce lift on that wing...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They didn't react to the warnings, just looked outside the windows,
probably all of them, the AP was flying...
b.The first warning by the TAW system of type PULL UP was 18 seconds before the collision with an obstacle, which led to the early destruction of the aircraft structure. Prior to this, double message of type TERRAIN AHEAD was issued.
probably all of them, the AP was flying...
b.The first warning by the TAW system of type PULL UP was 18 seconds before the collision with an obstacle, which led to the early destruction of the aircraft structure. Prior to this, double message of type TERRAIN AHEAD was issued.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am going to go out on a limb here and blame the flyby. Is it even a normal procedure? The thing is they were not actually coming in for a landing, they were just going to take a peek... no big deal!
Is this a procedure that is trained for, in terms of who is doing what? Because I agree with the previous poster - it sounds like they were on autopilot the whole time, just along for the ride.
Is this a procedure that is trained for, in terms of who is doing what? Because I agree with the previous poster - it sounds like they were on autopilot the whole time, just along for the ride.
Last edited by vovachan; 19th May 2010 at 12:45.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autopilot on.
"a. The glide path was performed on automatic pilot in the longitudinal and lateral channels, as well as with the automatic thrust. Turning off the autopilot in a longitudinal canal and automatic thrust occurred while trying to do a go-around 5 and 4 seconds respectively before the collision with an obstacle (tree), which led to the beginning of the destruction of aircraft structure. Turning off the autopilot in the lateral channel occurred at the time of the third collision with obstacles, which led to the beginning of the destruction of the structure."
Landing on AP with no ILS and just GPS and altimeter ???
I can't believe it!
"a. The glide path was performed on automatic pilot in the longitudinal and lateral channels, as well as with the automatic thrust. Turning off the autopilot in a longitudinal canal and automatic thrust occurred while trying to do a go-around 5 and 4 seconds respectively before the collision with an obstacle (tree), which led to the beginning of the destruction of aircraft structure. Turning off the autopilot in the lateral channel occurred at the time of the third collision with obstacles, which led to the beginning of the destruction of the structure."
Landing on AP with no ILS and just GPS and altimeter ???
I can't believe it!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several question immediately arise.
- Captain=530 hrs on type, FO=160 hrs, Nav = 30 hrs, FE=235 hrs. Isn't this a bit too low, even by Colgan Air standards?
- They were performing a "test" approach to 100m. What the hell is a test approach?
- It sounds like there were at least 3 VIPs in the cockpit. How do you even fit 3 fat guys into a Tu154 cockpit??
- Captain=530 hrs on type, FO=160 hrs, Nav = 30 hrs, FE=235 hrs. Isn't this a bit too low, even by Colgan Air standards?
- They were performing a "test" approach to 100m. What the hell is a test approach?
- It sounds like there were at least 3 VIPs in the cockpit. How do you even fit 3 fat guys into a Tu154 cockpit??
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WAW
Age: 56
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding pax in the cockpit, according to the Polish representative accredited to the Commission, they are heard on the CVR tape between 20 and 16 minutes before the crash. Nobody says they were sitting inside. The cockpit door remained open.
Last edited by mikeepbc; 19th May 2010 at 14:43. Reason: explanation added
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 52
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further bits of info from an article in Polish:
- TU-154 had 19 tons of fuel at departure from Warsaw
- one of the voices unofficially identified in the cockpit at 20 to 16 minutes before crash is that of General Andrzej Blasik, PAF chief
- 4 minutes before the crash the crew of JAK-40 aircraft on the ground in Smolensk informed the crew of the Tu-154 that visibility on the ground is 200m
- TAWS "PULL UP" is heard at 18 seconds before the crash
Does the TAWS command indicate they were not planning to land the plane? Would TAWS warnings be inhibited if the aircraft was configured for landing?
Dowódca si? powietrznych by? w kabinie Tu-154? - Wiadomo?ci - WP.PL
- TU-154 had 19 tons of fuel at departure from Warsaw
- one of the voices unofficially identified in the cockpit at 20 to 16 minutes before crash is that of General Andrzej Blasik, PAF chief
- 4 minutes before the crash the crew of JAK-40 aircraft on the ground in Smolensk informed the crew of the Tu-154 that visibility on the ground is 200m
- TAWS "PULL UP" is heard at 18 seconds before the crash
Does the TAWS command indicate they were not planning to land the plane? Would TAWS warnings be inhibited if the aircraft was configured for landing?
Dowódca si? powietrznych by? w kabinie Tu-154? - Wiadomo?ci - WP.PL
A missed approach from the minima only has a designed terrain clearance of 100 feet. The clearance is allowed to be this low as it is classified as a "rare event". Common events require higher clearances to allow for variation in flying technique and standards. Because this is recognised as a less safe manoeuvre, most of Europe has some form of approach ban in order to prevent flying the approach to the minima with the probable expectation of then having to perform a low level missed approach.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unfortunate closing of the other thread has resulted
in scaring away our Russian friends, so helpful until now.
We need their comments and translations from the other forums
to understand many things.
For example, how the AP works on Tu-154?
Anybody any comment?
in scaring away our Russian friends, so helpful until now.
We need their comments and translations from the other forums
to understand many things.
For example, how the AP works on Tu-154?
Anybody any comment?