Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Ptkay
At 10:30:02 by pre landing brieffing C/O says: "Altimeter 9-9-3/ 7-4-5",
it is to be understood: 993 hPa, 754 mmHg QFE.
(in military in Poland they fly QFE)
Later 10:30:21 the ATC gives them "pressure 7-4-5"
10:30:24 PF confirms "7-4-5"
At 10:30:02 by pre landing brieffing C/O says: "Altimeter 9-9-3/ 7-4-5",
it is to be understood: 993 hPa, 754 mmHg QFE.
(in military in Poland they fly QFE)
Later 10:30:21 the ATC gives them "pressure 7-4-5"
10:30:24 PF confirms "7-4-5"
It checks with the forecast QNH of 1025 hPa.
So that should not be any factor.
franzl
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10:11:01,5:
2P: No, I can see the ground... I can see something... It may not be a tragedy...
2P: No, I can see the ground... I can see something... It may not be a tragedy...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As smolensk atco gave glideslope info and headings(even with two digits) we are talking about radar service."
Any chance to find out what the actual readings for the ATC were? As someone mentioned before, he might have been unsure and just said ok or something.
Any chance to find out what the actual readings for the ATC were? As someone mentioned before, he might have been unsure and just said ok or something.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There were many references early on to the possibility of additional people (non-crew) being on the flight deck for those last few minutes. I've seen nothing in conjunction with the release of the CVR transcripts to confirm or rebut that notion.
Anybody?...."
Poluk had answered; I've also read the 40, it's full of "A" comments throughout (un-recognised person, as explained in abbreviations at the end. Any of them un-recognised).
That is, indeed un-recognised a month ago. Since then recognised.
Many things are missing in that 2nd May transcript that were later made known by the Polish side, in giving snippets to the press.
For example if you remember discussions about that "Drugoi" exclamation of Captain. It's nowhere here. And all are still disputing was it address to the second pilot (the second/drugoi), instead of calling him by name, or call for a second turn/go-around, or call to look at another/drugoi altimeter.
Just in case here are the 40 pages again
???????????? "??? ??????" / ????? / EchoMSK / C?????????? ??????? "?????? ??????" ???????? ?????????? ??????????? / ???????????
Anybody?...."
Poluk had answered; I've also read the 40, it's full of "A" comments throughout (un-recognised person, as explained in abbreviations at the end. Any of them un-recognised).
That is, indeed un-recognised a month ago. Since then recognised.
Many things are missing in that 2nd May transcript that were later made known by the Polish side, in giving snippets to the press.
For example if you remember discussions about that "Drugoi" exclamation of Captain. It's nowhere here. And all are still disputing was it address to the second pilot (the second/drugoi), instead of calling him by name, or call for a second turn/go-around, or call to look at another/drugoi altimeter.
Just in case here are the 40 pages again
???????????? "??? ??????" / ????? / EchoMSK / C?????????? ??????? "?????? ??????" ???????? ?????????? ??????????? / ???????????
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SINGAPUR - I am not familiar with USSR mil ATC but I see no 'Service' here. merely advisory PAR info, which was most probably correct at the time given.. Whether this will result in a trip to the Gulag for the controller I know not.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW the news that the plane was at 400 metres instead of 300 metres above the Far Beacon are also given in the record by "A". Can we trust it, who was he to know. And the actual glide building on all those maps that many are trying depends on where they were above the Far Beacon.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOAC
2) Here's a hand grenade into the room - who was actually 'PIC' ...
Here is one more, for your conspiracy theory, BOAC:
On the internet page of the 36th Sq.
::: Serwis ZABLOKOWANY ::::::::::::::::::::: hosted by ibc.pl :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
(now dysfunct due to overload)
as victims of the accident of the Tu-154 are listed
8 crew members and 88 passengers.
Everywhere else there are 7 crew listed: 4 cockpit, 3 cabin.
So, who should the 8th crew member be?
Gen. Blasik?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only please nobody read the media. In 1 night they have already "read" the transcripts to the effect that Gen. Blasic is called "Basya" (when in fact it was address to the stewardess), and ground control 120-3 direction is interpreted as "when you are at 120 metres report again for the 3rd time" (while the aerodrome was simply telling the crew wind direction in degrees and wind strength of 3m/s).
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mauritius,soon or latter
Posts: 541
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][merely advisory PAR info,/QUOTE]
that is the point. they did something between,and if we are lucky enough that any Russian military atco or experienced pilot from Russia,appears on those pages I would like to ask him where is such thing allowed in official books and papers relating to Military ATC paper in Russia.
and will tell you without Russian experts.
NO WHERE!
Why? Because there is no any logic to put it down on paper, A little radar service.
It is not safe,so it is not written anywhere.
bad practice,40 % contributing factor.
that is the point. they did something between,and if we are lucky enough that any Russian military atco or experienced pilot from Russia,appears on those pages I would like to ask him where is such thing allowed in official books and papers relating to Military ATC paper in Russia.
and will tell you without Russian experts.
NO WHERE!
Why? Because there is no any logic to put it down on paper, A little radar service.
It is not safe,so it is not written anywhere.
bad practice,40 % contributing factor.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The maps built so far are indeed self-critisised themselves by map builders; there is one "bumpy", built by radio altimeter, reflecting the ground curves below indeed very suspiciously timely, one - more decent glidescope (if they were getting oriented by barometric altimeter), one - combined (radio altimeter to 100 metres and barometric altimeter from 100 metres) - all along that mysterious "A", who said "400" in the vicinity of the Far Beacon - could have simply meant something like (oh) 400 metres (visibility). As they were just previously informed of that.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapurcanac,
audio records of 1 month old is not the plane glideslope.
The true plane glidescope is in black boxes other - speed and regimes used. Surely, combined with the audio-record (not this one. but the one resulting from the work of Poles in Moscow for a month, identifying their voices) - gives a much fuller picture - combined with the plane's technical devices' records.
What I mean is Poland is aware of the plane's technical devices' record, and for a month as min already.
AND Poland has their own 3rd black box - reading the same engines' work parameters, etc. The own Polish installment, additional to the ordinary black boxes' plane set - that Poland took home the first thing - right on the crash site. Doubling the technical info held in Moscow.
There can't be any fooling around with technical data from the plane - it was recorded by different devices, in parallel - and is kept respectively in Moscow and in Warsaw. Neither side will trick with that.
If the resulting picture, of the plane's glidepath and aerodrome neglecting to see the plane's position timely - their duty indeed - pointed at the ground control mistake - nothing on Earth would have stopped Poland during the last month of releasing that news.
audio records of 1 month old is not the plane glideslope.
The true plane glidescope is in black boxes other - speed and regimes used. Surely, combined with the audio-record (not this one. but the one resulting from the work of Poles in Moscow for a month, identifying their voices) - gives a much fuller picture - combined with the plane's technical devices' records.
What I mean is Poland is aware of the plane's technical devices' record, and for a month as min already.
AND Poland has their own 3rd black box - reading the same engines' work parameters, etc. The own Polish installment, additional to the ordinary black boxes' plane set - that Poland took home the first thing - right on the crash site. Doubling the technical info held in Moscow.
There can't be any fooling around with technical data from the plane - it was recorded by different devices, in parallel - and is kept respectively in Moscow and in Warsaw. Neither side will trick with that.
If the resulting picture, of the plane's glidepath and aerodrome neglecting to see the plane's position timely - their duty indeed - pointed at the ground control mistake - nothing on Earth would have stopped Poland during the last month of releasing that news.
I assume you say that based on your own, better simulation.
We would appreciate very much if you could share it wit us.
On the Polish forum, where I have taken it from, it is valued as valid,
and even enhanced by other forum members.
We would appreciate very much if you could share it wit us.
On the Polish forum, where I have taken it from, it is valued as valid,
and even enhanced by other forum members.
What I mean is Poland is aware of the plane's technical devices' record, and for a month as min already.
AND Poland has their own 3rd black box - reading the same engines' work parameters, etc. The own Polish installment, additional to the ordinary black boxes' plane set - that Poland took home the first thing - right on the crash site. Doubling the technical info held in Moscow.
There can't be any fooling around with technical data from the plane - it was recorded by different devices, in parallel - and is kept respectively in Moscow and in Warsaw. Neither side will trick with that.
AND Poland has their own 3rd black box - reading the same engines' work parameters, etc. The own Polish installment, additional to the ordinary black boxes' plane set - that Poland took home the first thing - right on the crash site. Doubling the technical info held in Moscow.
There can't be any fooling around with technical data from the plane - it was recorded by different devices, in parallel - and is kept respectively in Moscow and in Warsaw. Neither side will trick with that.
Arrakis
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've asked a military pilot at Smolensk blog, quote:
"Alexander, and at ordinary military aerodromes, when there lands an ordinary military plane, someone exchanges talk with another type "Your decision I am landing Ask permission to land Permission granted or what? It appears this point was not talked over btw the Polish plane and the ground much?"
Got an answer; quote:
"
1. We at Far beacon were asking permission to land "225 Further, wing, flaps, shassi let out for landing ready", the RP says "Landing permitted".
2. They placed a request to proceed to VPR (Decision Taking Height), RP permitted, then gave wind and said permission to land they'll get at additional request. Additional request hasn't taken place. There were three RP commands "Horizont", "Horizont check height", "Get-out on the 2nd circle".
The first two commands don't exclude further landing on entering the glideslope but mean immedeately abort descending, the last command aborts performing of the attempt.
3. Alice Poles yes didn't talk of it, I for example brake down awful when think of something and wife asks question demanding choice for example "will you have tea or coffee" in the result I can't solve neither first nor second riddle))) drive her off away and start solving the first one from the beg.
I think they stopped communicating with RP because they had tseitnot (aliens standing in their way in the cabin, I'd drive them all out to fig, apparently that's why I was the most senior pilot in the regiment))) (senior pilot is the least commanding rank in aviation, means leader of the pair, all my fomer led ones over-did me by position and some even by rank)))
(signature) Flew: L-29, MiG-21pfm, MiG-23m, MI-14pl
"
:o))))
Got an answer; quote:
"
1. We at Far beacon were asking permission to land "225 Further, wing, flaps, shassi let out for landing ready", the RP says "Landing permitted".
2. They placed a request to proceed to VPR (Decision Taking Height), RP permitted, then gave wind and said permission to land they'll get at additional request. Additional request hasn't taken place. There were three RP commands "Horizont", "Horizont check height", "Get-out on the 2nd circle".
The first two commands don't exclude further landing on entering the glideslope but mean immedeately abort descending, the last command aborts performing of the attempt.
3. Alice Poles yes didn't talk of it, I for example brake down awful when think of something and wife asks question demanding choice for example "will you have tea or coffee" in the result I can't solve neither first nor second riddle))) drive her off away and start solving the first one from the beg.
I think they stopped communicating with RP because they had tseitnot (aliens standing in their way in the cabin, I'd drive them all out to fig, apparently that's why I was the most senior pilot in the regiment))) (senior pilot is the least commanding rank in aviation, means leader of the pair, all my fomer led ones over-did me by position and some even by rank)))
(signature) Flew: L-29, MiG-21pfm, MiG-23m, MI-14pl
"
:o))))
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by arrakis
Let's say 16 s. The second "100 m" was at 10:40:48,7. Add to it 16 s and you will get the answer why I disagree with it.
which is exactly the time when the cry ends.
One second later is EOR.
So where is the error?
The time scale is from the time of final impact, assuming it to be
app. 400m from threshold, 800m from glide path end, touch down point.
The recalculation of distances was done assuming 280 km/h, as last
reported speed, hence app. 78 m/s.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In anticipation of the release of the FDR info, does anyone know exactly what key data will be available from this particular model of FDR as fitted to this particular aircraft?
Will it include precise 3 dimensional positional data from the gps (or other device) or is this data available separately from the gps box(es) itself.
If all timescales sync then we will know precisely when the "demand" to go around ties in with the action of applying power/control surface deflections and at what QFE/RA heights.
That should be interesting.
Having followed this thread closely it beggars belief that no-one apparently was cross referring the RA values with the QFE based baro altimeter.
As they requested, set(?) and read back the QFE, just exactly what did the crew intend to do with that information other than monitor that baro alt to DH
or....was someone monitoring one of the baro alts with the wrong pressure setting. Still with departure airport setting perhaps?
Basic stuff I know but they were clearly under pressure to execute a landing for their VIPs to attend the ceremony in time.
Will it include precise 3 dimensional positional data from the gps (or other device) or is this data available separately from the gps box(es) itself.
If all timescales sync then we will know precisely when the "demand" to go around ties in with the action of applying power/control surface deflections and at what QFE/RA heights.
That should be interesting.
Having followed this thread closely it beggars belief that no-one apparently was cross referring the RA values with the QFE based baro altimeter.
As they requested, set(?) and read back the QFE, just exactly what did the crew intend to do with that information other than monitor that baro alt to DH
or....was someone monitoring one of the baro alts with the wrong pressure setting. Still with departure airport setting perhaps?
Basic stuff I know but they were clearly under pressure to execute a landing for their VIPs to attend the ceremony in time.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KVS: We're making our approach. In case of a failed approach, we ascend on autopilot.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WAW
Age: 56
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The recalculation of distances was done assuming 280 km/h, as last
reported speed, hence app. 78 m/s.
reported speed, hence app. 78 m/s.
DPRM signal: 10:39:50,20
BPRM signal: 10:40:56
time: 1:05,8
distance: 5 km
speed: 75,99 m/s, 273,56 km/h
(If my maths is OK, of course
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What basis do you have that suggests anyone ever initiated TOGA? Nothing I read in the translation gives any indication of any attempt to initiate a go around at 100M (or any other height before impact with the 1st tree's).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 52
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ SLFinAZ
At 10:40:51.2 (end) the First officer says "go around"
this is right between the end of the callouts 90 meters and 80 meters by the navigator. 10:40:51.3 is when navigator 80 meter callout ends.
What exactly were the captain's actions after he heard the "go around" will be a mystery until the FDR is released, precisely matched in time to the CVR.
I'm starting to lean towards the theory of false visual aquisition by the captain - he probably ignored the go around callout because he thought he saw the runway, and cruicial seconds were lost until he saw trees, at that point it was too late. The CVR has no sound recorded from the captain during that time, so we have no clue what he did until the FDR.
this is right between the end of the callouts 90 meters and 80 meters by the navigator. 10:40:51.3 is when navigator 80 meter callout ends.
What exactly were the captain's actions after he heard the "go around" will be a mystery until the FDR is released, precisely matched in time to the CVR.
I'm starting to lean towards the theory of false visual aquisition by the captain - he probably ignored the go around callout because he thought he saw the runway, and cruicial seconds were lost until he saw trees, at that point it was too late. The CVR has no sound recorded from the captain during that time, so we have no clue what he did until the FDR.