Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread

Old 26th Jun 2010, 16:51
  #681 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the records there is no information about what pressure exactly Plyusnin told the pilots.
- 10:24:51?
BOAC is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2010, 19:03
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
vakakaaa,
I'm afraid you are misreading the text you just quoted. AFAIK vorra gave the correct meaning of the "Horizon" command.

Arrakis
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2010, 20:09
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Poland, Zyrardow
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrakis is right, "Horizon" command in Polish is "wyrownaj lot" -- "change to horizontal flight" just as vorra said.
mbar is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2010, 04:39
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vakakaaa,



10:32:58.8

KVS: We're making our approach. In case of a failed approach, we ascend on autopilot.
The context with what was stated on the command "Horizon 101"
In the interrogation, which led A. Aleshin, the dispatcher said that at a distance of 1.1 km (that the protocol has been fixed at 1.5 km) before issuing the order to suspend the Polish crew landed, he saw the Tu- 154 on the radar screen. In the second protocol Ryzhenko showed that at a distance of 1,5 - 1,7 km aircraft on the monitor he had not seen.
At 1.1 km, the pilot was in the ravine so the plane would have not been seen.
10:40:32,4:
TAWS:TERRAIN AHEAD.
ST: 200.
KVS: Turned on.
ST: 150.
D: 2 and on course, on glideslope.
TERRAIN AHEAD, TERRAIN AHEAD.
A: 100 metres.
ST: 100.
TAWS:PULL UP, PULL UP.
TAWS:PULL UP, PULL UP.
TAWS:TERRAIN AHEAD, TERRAIN AHEAD.
ST: 100.
(2P): In the norm.
ST: 90.
TAWS:PULL UP, PULL UP.
ST: 80.
2P: Go around.
Signal at F=400 Hz. (Decision height).
TAWS:PULL UP, PULL UP.
ST: 60.
ST: 50.
D: Horizon 101. (level)
ST: 40.
The first interrogation states at 1.1km (corrected to 1.5km) he saw the plane on radar before giving the order.

In the second interrogation, at 1.5km, according to the graph at Smolensk ws, the plane was below the rise at the top of the ravine and at 1.7 km the plane was above the airfield elevation.

The command Horizon 101 was given when the pilot was below the airfield elevation.

Question Vakakaaa: At 2km in your translated article, are they saying the radar is sending a warning or is it an image of the plane on the screen?
According to one of the protocols, he showed that when the aircraft was just two kilometers from the airfield runway, the indicator on the sensor of the landing radar blink.

Last edited by 210thars; 27th Jun 2010 at 08:13. Reason: remove graph and ask question
210thars is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2010, 08:26
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 91
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question Vakakaaa: At 2km in your translated article, are they saying the radar is sending a warning or is it an image of the plane on the screen?
Hello 210thars. See amended #685 above, research of the case continues... Without having better knowledge of the display my guess is that he talks about a warning (not LED?) on the screen. The aircraft image on the screen was sometimes called a "pip", what it is in Russian? On some of the Russian forums there was a man who said he worked 28 years with ATC radars, will try to find him to ask whether it could have been a blinking “pip” or what. I have available book: “Russian-English and English-Russian Dictionary of Radar and Electronics”. Датчик = pickup; sensor, detector. I was most of the time flying radiotechnical measurements, not ATP, first medical: March 1948, last: March 1998.

Last edited by vakakaaa; 27th Jun 2010 at 08:42. Reason: additions
vakakaaa is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2010, 10:22
  #686 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If it is of any use to you guys here in all this stuff about radar etc, in the West we call it a 'blip' which is slang for radar return. On you go.
BOAC is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2010, 11:16
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 91
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Although unofficial, radar plays an important role in this case. Synonyms are sometimes important for linguists. See: blip vs pip. In this case we are dealing with Russian language. Having a feeling that I’d better follow PJ2 for a while…
vakakaaa is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2010, 15:30
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for all. I guess that "dziura" (a hole) can also mean missing digital model of XUBS terrain in TAWS...
Karel_x is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2010, 22:06
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vakakaaa,

FYI...

These were the official statements coming from Alyoshin:
While investigators began their work, Lieutenant General Alexander Alyoshin, deputy head of the Russian air force, revealed that the pilots of the ill-fated airliner had repeatedly ignored instructions from air traffic controllers.
Wreckage -- including the engines and a large chunk of mud-caked tailfin -- was scattered across a forest. While sections burned for more than an hour, the black-box flight recorders were found, news agencies reported.
Some 1.5 kilometres (one mile) from the airport, air traffic controllers noticed the Tupolev -- overhauled in December 2009, according to manufacturers Aviakor -- was below its appropriate glide path, Alyoshin said.
"The head of the (air traffic control) group ordered the crew to return to horizontal flight, and when the crew did not fulfil the instruction, ordered them several times to land at another airport," he said. "Nonetheless the crew continued to descend. Unfortunately this ended tragically."
As was stated in the first interrogation, the ATC stated they could see the aircraft. This contradicts the second interrogation where ATC stated they did not see the aircraft on the radar.

And you are correct, the radar is important, that is why the Polish prosecutor is requesting information from the Russians, on the radar.

From another aviation forum... (google translated)
Re: When approaching the 3 or 4 a reversal of decline often asked the current altitude, as if you see any bad or just clarify for control.
ИМХО, поправьте меня, но я для себя всегда этот момент связывал с боковыми лепестками диаграммы направленности локатора.
IMHO, correct me, but I for myself always, this time connected with the side-lobe locator.
То есть, у любого локатора есть свои точки неустойчивого приема.
That is, any radar has its own point of unstable reception.
Хотя в данном случае скорее всего речь идет о каком нить радиодальномере.
Although in this case most likely it comes to what the thread telemeter.
На посадочном таких нюансов никогда не было.
At the landing of such nuances never had.
Что позволяет предположить скорее об особенностях использования того или иного локатора или радиодальномера, нежели о его неисправностях.
Suggesting that most of the peculiarities of a particular radar or telemeter than its faults.
Это один момент.
This is one thing.
-----------------------
-----------------------
На аэродроме Северный был установлен военный комплекс РСП-10.
At the airport the North became a military complex of the CPR-10.
Это диспетчерский и посадочные локаторы в одном вагоне.
This tower and landing radars in the same car.
На больших дальностях от 200 км до посадочной прямой ведут по обзорному диспетчерскому локатору.
At large distances from 200 km to the final approach led by the review dispatching locator.
У РСП-10 нет международного вторичного канала RBS а только отечественный УВД (как в гражданском ДРЛ-7СМ), все ТУ-154 сейчас летают с ответчиком в режиме RBS, поэтому диспетчер не мог видеть высоту борта.
There is no CPR-10 international secondary channel RBS only domestic air traffic control (as in civil DRL-7cm), all of the TU-154 is now flying with the defendant in the mode of RBS, so the manager could not see the high side.
Только азимут и дальность по пассивному каналу.
Only the azimuth and range of the passive channel.
В ближней зоне в локаторе обычно используется режим селекции движущихся целей.
In the near zone in the locator is commonly used mode of selection of moving targets.
Не буду вдаваться в подробности, но в районе третьего четвертого разворота и при пролете траверза РЛС из-за особенностей режима метка от ВС пропадает на 2-3 оборота антенны.
I will not go into details, but in the third and fourth turn during the flight abeam the radar of the peculiarities of the regime tag from Sun disappears for 2-3 turns the antenna.
После выхода на посадочную прямую используют ПРЛ из состава РСП-10, напоминающий РП-4Г.
After landing on the direct use of PRL from the CPR-10, reminiscent of the ER-4G.
У диспетчера есть индикаторы курса и глиссады, по которым он контролирует положение на посадочной прямой с высокой точностью
In Manager there are indicators of the course and glide path, on which he controls the situation on the final approach with high accuracy.
Alice025,

Have any of the pilots that you have spoken to talked about RSP and CAP for Smolensk?

Also there is a terminology "mode" and "planting"...
10:37:26,2 D 101, follow the fourth.
10:37:23,1 KBC and carry out the fourth, Poland 101.
10:39:08,7 D 101-th, removing 10, the entrance to the glide path.
10:39:30,1 D 8 at the course, glide path
10:39:33,6 KBC undercarriage, flaps are released, Poland 101.
10:39:37,3 D band is free.
10:39:40,8 D Planting additionally 120-3 meters. 10:39:40,8 Д Посадка дополнительно 120-3 метра.
10:39:45,6 KBC Thanks.
Actual ATC footage of PAR at Elmendorf AFB below.

YouTube - PAR Approach Runway 6 PAED

Last edited by 210thars; 28th Jun 2010 at 05:37. Reason: added statement and question
210thars is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 11:20
  #690 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for that video link, 210. To our eastern friends - if you watch that you will see:-

What WE (the West) mean by a PAR
The same two displays as shown in an earlier post
How there is NO response from the aircraft during the talkdown
How the ATC transmission is without a significant break.
BOAC is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 12:55
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
210thars
I think a lot of this mysterious terminology is due to bad translation:

10:37:23.1
10:37:25.4
PIC
Carrying out the fourth [turn], Polish 101.
10:37:26.2
10:37:27.4
ATC
101, Carry out the fourth.
10:39:08.7
10:39:10.6
ATC
101, distance 10, entering glideslope.
10:39:30.1
10:39:31.4
ATC
8 on course, glideslope.
10:39:33.6
10:39:35.9
PIC
Undercarriage, flaps released, Polish 101.
10:39:37.3
10:39:38.5
ATC
Runway free.
10:39:40.8
10:39:43.8
ATC
Landing additionally [landing permission to be asked/given later] 120-3 meters [wind].
10:39:45.6
10:39:46.8
PIC
Thank you.


What is CAP?
vorra is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 13:09
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some more notes from Russian aviation forums:

No landing procedure was ever agreed on, PAR or otherwise. The ATC almost certainly expected them to do a trial approach to DH and then leave (as they wouldn't be able to see anything from there).
vorra is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 14:00
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Well, is there something like a "trial approach"?

Given the fact, that the weather was way below minima (airbase/pilot/aircraft), there was really never question about landing,
outside:

10:24:49,7
"[...]Visibility approx. 400 m and we estimate the cloud base below 50 m. Way below."

and 10:25:05,8
"We landed in the last moment. But seriously, you can try. Really. [...]"

Knowing that for a 2xNDB approach Tu-154M minima for visibility and cloud base are 1800 m and 120 m, I'm impressed.

The approach looks to be (probably) an "OСП + РСП", which is a 2xNDB approach with an additional, limited radar control/confirmation from ATC using RSP system.

From the RSP-10MN technical manual, distance measuring accuracy of the system is 150 m, but I would call it a "technical" accuracy. Still need to set-up/calibrate the system. RSP-10MN is a mobile one. As we remember, the actual distance measuring error was some 400-500m.
Also, from the same manual, RSP-10MN can be used (alone?) to bring aircrafts to the runway threshold when visibility is 1500 m and cloud base 150 m.

The more I go into the details, the more i understand how important was the readback by PIC to the ATC, especially given the weather conditions and the (in)accuracy of the system.
As there was no altitude readback by the crew, how should Smolensk ATC react? Go around?

Arrakis
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 15:03
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrakis,

I do not know if trial approach is an official term, but it is widely repeated and discussed and seems to be in common usage, meaning going through the landing procedure to DH and then deciding depending on what is happening.

I do not think ATC can order a go round just due to a lack of readbacks. What has been mentioned by military flight controllers is that they would have probably found a way to make a regular Russian Airforce plane, not a Polish Airforce plane carrying the President, respond, even if it would have involved liberal usage of four-letter words - especially in the case of things going wrong.

P.S. Which legal flight rules apply in this case seems have been a subject of great debate. The Russian military rules do not apply to foreign aircraft, the civil aviation rules do not apply to a military airfield etc.

Last edited by vorra; 28th Jun 2010 at 16:09.
vorra is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 15:16
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Also, the general opinion trend seems to be that it is possible (though not advisable) to land a plane in such conditions with such equipment, but the crew lacked the skills and experience for it and should not have attempted it.
vorra is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 16:27
  #696 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I may offer a western perspective (should I perhaps say 'EU'?)

'Trial approach' I am sure is a mis-translation. There is really no such thing (except perhaps in a training environment). Every approach, even in bad weather, is an approach to either land or go-round depending on what is seen at decision. A 'western' translation would be "we will have a go" or "we will attempt an approach".. Providing the weather is better than the minima (therein is a question?) it is legal and not unusual for pilots to make an approach EXPECTING to go-round.

ARRAKIS - "The more I go into the details, the more i understand how important was the readback by PIC to the ATC, especially given the weather conditions and the (in)accuracy of the system.
As there was no altitude readback by the crew, how should Smolensk ATC react? Go around?"


We still do not know what sort of approach was being flown by PAF101. I believe it was set up internally. ATC can do very little to prevent an approach and landing short of shooting down the a/c or positioning obstacles on the runway. It is important that some of you understand that there was no actual need for any readbacks for a successful approach and landing from what I have seen on the CVR.
BOAC is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 16:52
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BOAC, yes, this is what is meant by a trial approach from what I can gather, except for the part about the minima - an approach can be attempted the weather conditions below minima under some regulations (possibly in the military).
vorra is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 17:19
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: White eagle land
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
It is important that some of you understand that there was no actual need for any readbacks for a successful approach and landing from what I have seen on the CVR.
Just after the crash there was information (Smolensk ATC interview), that such readback was standard procedure/required by Russian ATC and the crew ignored it. This is why I mentioned it. As I wrote before, we had a PAF aircraft in foreign airpace. If there was a readback requirement from the Russian side, they should have done it. And from what I'm learning about the ground equipment, it was unvise not to do so.

ATC can do very little to prevent an approach and landing short of shooting down the a/c or positioning obstacles on the runway.
We already discussed that. My question was "what they should have done by the book". Of course I remember that the Yak-40 crew just ignored a "go around" (probably twice).


'Trial approach' I am sure is a mis-translation. There is really no such thing (except perhaps in a training environment).
This is why I was asking. There is no translation error. On MAK's pages you have
"пробный" заход
. This is an exact quote, including quotation marks.

Arrakis
ARRAKIS is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 17:39
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My trial attempt

Arrakis:
This is an exact quote, including quotation marks
BOAC: GoogleTranslate (not an authority but a good first-response tool) gives that word in parentheses the following translations: trial, test, pilot , tentative, experimental, specimen.

Can we agree that most of "them" are here to help us, please.
RegDep is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2010, 17:59
  #700 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ARRAKIS
And from what I'm learning about the ground equipment, it was unvise not to do so
- and what I am saying is that from the CVR evidence I see it would have made no difference. Even the crudest radar monitored approach in the Western world needs NO 'readback' of height.

The CVR we have seen indicates a self-interpreted approach that can be safely flown without ANY ATC (and possibly without any beacons if the TU equipment allowed)..

All the 'projected' flight path diagrams are just that - projected, as are rates of descent. A lot of effort from those who drew them but not based on positively known facts.. We really need to get the FDR traces to know what exactly was going on in the aircraft - any sign of those anyone?
BOAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.