Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Thank you all, for your help.
Alerady been discussed. It was a HEAD/gov't flight and they knew it. It's in the ATC transcripts.
As was already said, we had 4/4. All four approaches were made below minima and not exactly by the book. Smolensk ATC was letting go the crews, thus reducing the error margin. It's nicely visible especially during the second Il-76 approach.
Wasn't exactly PAR approaches and anyway, excepted for Yak, we had "landing conditionally" which by the book means going to MDA and if at that altitude the crew confirms seeing the RWY, it's an authorisation to land from ATC, if not, it's GA.
I will later copy and translate the most interesting part of the ATC transcript.
Arrakis
PLF101 had no official status (HEAD), but people at the airport had an idea WHO is coming.
As was already said, we had 4/4. All four approaches were made below minima and not exactly by the book. Smolensk ATC was letting go the crews, thus reducing the error margin. It's nicely visible especially during the second Il-76 approach.
Even during PAR, it is NOT up to ATCO to command go-arround
I will later copy and translate the most interesting part of the ATC transcript.
Arrakis
All Quotes from kontrolor
franzl, you are boring us with your re-definition of ATC and its tasks. Regardless what your idea about ATM managment is (that's why there is no more Air Traffic Control, but ATM - Air Traffic Managment),
Eurocontrol Guidlines for Airspace Management Edition 3.0
EXPLANATION OF TERMS
Air Traffic Management (ATM) is the dynamic, integrated management of air traffic and airspace including air traffic services, airspace management and air traffic flow management - safely, economically and efficiently - through the provision of facilities and seamless services in collaboration with all parties and involving airborne and ground-based functions. (I)
The general objective of ATM is to enable aircraft operators to meet their planned departure and arrival times and to adhere to their preferred flight profiles with the minimum constraints, without compromising agreed levels of safety.
Air Traffic Services (ATS) is a generic term meaning variously, Flight Information Service, Alerting Service, Air Traffic Advisory Service, Air Traffic Control Service (Area Control Service, Approach Control Service or Aerodrome Control Service). (I)
Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service is a service provided for the purpose of:
a) preventing collisions:
1) between aircraft, and
2) on the manoeuvring area between aircraft and obstructions, and
b) expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic. (I)
You dont need to look it up, it is the edition from 2010.
We all know what is meant by the term ATC, so i dont really care how you call it. Maybe we can agree on local Air Traffic Services, if that suits you.
the tasks of ATCOS is pretty clear. If you are asking what kind of approach PLF101 was cleared to - well, trial approach, according to the crew. Now go and find that in your books. I'm pretty sure you won't fnd them in ICAO documents.
Correct approach clearance would have been something like ...
....."you are cleared for the NDB (or PAR-NDB, or PAR....) approach, trial approach .........
Even during PAR, it is NOT up to ATCO to command go-arround, unless prescribed otherwise by local authorities.
PLF101 had no official status (HEAD), but people at the airport had an idea WHO is coming.
Again, it was THE CREW which SCREWED it up,
responsibility of ATCOS finished when PLF101 busted ALL minimas (by QFE and RA)
Or are you trying to tell me, that they saw it and knew what was going to happen, but didnt do anything against it until 25 meters above ground?
plus, do you have any bloody idea HOW FAST IS 8m/s on approach?
The more iīm wondering, why nobody on the radar screen did notice anything unusual, or do you tell me again they noticed it, but didnīt feel responsible to prevent an accident for some unknown reason?
Kontrolor, i would like to see your posts in context with your knowledge and your expierience. So my question to you: who are you and what is your profession?
Edit: I caught up with my last question out of your previous posts, so your point of view is influenced from the place behind the scope, as mine is influenced from the place in the pointy part of the aircraft.
That aside, also you should be aware of a lot of questions concerning the role of ATC or ATM or ATS in this accident. Denying any participation or any responsibility at all falls too short. Finally it was not any kind of uncontrolled glider strip they approached. What would you have done different in their place?
franzl
Last edited by RetiredF4; 28th Jan 2011 at 11:39.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recommendations in Russian Final Report
On the last page of the English translation, recommendations are made firstly to the Polish military to tighten up their training and proceedures. Nothing controversial there, all need doing.
Secondly, general recommendations are made, all sensible.
A lot of discussion about the problems of lack of experience of the pilots, and the visitors to the cockpit probably exerting pressure on the PIC to "have a go". I found particularly interesting the discussion about the unstable approach, possibly being due to everybody looking out the window hoping to see something instead of somebody minding the instruments to maintain a steady glide path. Probably a VOR and radar information from the ground is not much help here, especially as altitude readouts are being given in the cockpit of the radio altimeter, which is perfectly happy as long as they are flying over a valley.....and then the TAWS kicks in and goes hysterical because they are heading directly for the higher ground. Ending up well below the height of the threshold, too late to go around by the time the PIC saw the birch trees.
One hope of improving international travel in the former Soviet bloc will no doubt be the decision of the Russians to use English as the primary language for aviation. Then we wouldn't have to worry whether the Polish aircrew had an adequate understanding of Russian instructions. Or exactly what form of approach ATC had approved. In this respect I very much look forward to the promised translation by Arrakis.
Now if we could only persuade the French to use English.....
Secondly, general recommendations are made, all sensible.
A lot of discussion about the problems of lack of experience of the pilots, and the visitors to the cockpit probably exerting pressure on the PIC to "have a go". I found particularly interesting the discussion about the unstable approach, possibly being due to everybody looking out the window hoping to see something instead of somebody minding the instruments to maintain a steady glide path. Probably a VOR and radar information from the ground is not much help here, especially as altitude readouts are being given in the cockpit of the radio altimeter, which is perfectly happy as long as they are flying over a valley.....and then the TAWS kicks in and goes hysterical because they are heading directly for the higher ground. Ending up well below the height of the threshold, too late to go around by the time the PIC saw the birch trees.
One hope of improving international travel in the former Soviet bloc will no doubt be the decision of the Russians to use English as the primary language for aviation. Then we wouldn't have to worry whether the Polish aircrew had an adequate understanding of Russian instructions. Or exactly what form of approach ATC had approved. In this respect I very much look forward to the promised translation by Arrakis.
Now if we could only persuade the French to use English.....
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One hope of improving international travel in the former Soviet bloc will no doubt be the decision of the Russians to use English as the primary language for aviation.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kulverstukas
Being a fan of Looney Tunes, that cartoon was the first thing that came to my mind after I heard the news (yes I am EVIL bwahahahaha!!!! 
).
But - this particular Polish version is skewed toward emphasizing the ATC Elmer role. There is more to it than that in the original English version. I will see if I can find it, in particular, near perfect demonstration of the actual crash itself.
p.s. As you can see in latest development in the news, it may show yet that I have been right all along and both the GA button confusion and the ATC role stories have been mostly spin to distract from the main issue.
). But - this particular Polish version is skewed toward emphasizing the ATC Elmer role. There is more to it than that in the original English version. I will see if I can find it, in particular, near perfect demonstration of the actual crash itself.
p.s. As you can see in latest development in the news, it may show yet that I have been right all along and both the GA button confusion and the ATC role stories have been mostly spin to distract from the main issue.
One hope of improving international travel in the former Soviet bloc will no doubt be the decision of the Russians to use English as the primary language for aviation.
Now if we could only persuade the French to use English.....
For anyone still interested, clarification - both Krasnokutsky and Plyusnin were from Smolensk originally (from the Il-76 regiment), but Ryzhenko was not, he had been specially transferred there from Tver before the 07/04 flight.
By the way, from what I heard, Plyusnin remained at Smolensk after the Il-76 regiment was disbanded, whereas col. Krasnokutsky left for Tver.
Arrakis
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 28th Jan 2011 at 20:05.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the information about Ryzhenko was confirmed by one of the Il-76 pilots from the regiment on SF. About Plyusnin - yes, he remained in Smolensk.
? ????????? ???? ??????? • ?????????? ?????
? ????????? ???? ??????? • ?????????? ?????
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Franzl, Kontrolor, you're both right in your own field. You're not any longer looking at responsibilities , but what could have been done to prevent this tragedy, right ?
Yes ATC could have done more. Could they have closed a few holes in the cheese layers in front of them? : yes. But they did not add cheese layers themselves.
It is a bit like looking at kid crossing the street besides you when the pedestrian light is red. If he passes though the cars, not your problem, if he gets run over, it is a different story. You could have done something to prevent it, maybe . And you'll have to live with it. What you don't need is the parents of the Kid starting a debate on Internet and blaming you for not doing anything .
As to the French on the R/T in France :interestly enough the French Air Force has since years an "English R/T " day every week and you will find that both FAF ATC and Pilots speak far better English than their Civil counterparts, AF included.
Yes ATC could have done more. Could they have closed a few holes in the cheese layers in front of them? : yes. But they did not add cheese layers themselves.
It is a bit like looking at kid crossing the street besides you when the pedestrian light is red. If he passes though the cars, not your problem, if he gets run over, it is a different story. You could have done something to prevent it, maybe . And you'll have to live with it. What you don't need is the parents of the Kid starting a debate on Internet and blaming you for not doing anything .
As to the French on the R/T in France :interestly enough the French Air Force has since years an "English R/T " day every week and you will find that both FAF ATC and Pilots speak far better English than their Civil counterparts, AF included.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alice
Originally Posted by Alice025
....
In which case it comes up with an own report, titled:
How to Bust Airport, Aicraft and Pilot Minima and Perform a Successful Go-around at More than Double Vertical Speed Without Reading Aicraft Manual From the First Attempt in One's Life While Ignoring All ATC Directions but One When An ATC Does Their Job Right.
In which case it comes up with an own report, titled:
How to Bust Airport, Aicraft and Pilot Minima and Perform a Successful Go-around at More than Double Vertical Speed Without Reading Aicraft Manual From the First Attempt in One's Life While Ignoring All ATC Directions but One When An ATC Does Their Job Right.
! Might be a bit 'bumpy' English, but good to see you didn't lose your humour in this sometimes grim debate here...
Regards, ihg
One question.
When Il-76 started his approach, ATC informed him about the type of it:
"OSP with RSP".
I looked for fraseology and found so far only a civil aviation document (not military), but let's start with it.
http://www.royfc.com/documents/radioobmen.pdf
There is a "RSP with OSP", but no such thing as "OSP with RSP".
However, there is mention of OSP wiht PRL-A control (2xNDB with radar control). It's a non-precision approach and minima in such case are the same as for 2xNDB.
Would "OSP with RSP" be in fact "OSP wiht PRL-A control" (difference in civil/military fraseology or just mil ATC habit to call it that way)?
Something else?
Arrakis
When Il-76 started his approach, ATC informed him about the type of it:
"OSP with RSP".
I looked for fraseology and found so far only a civil aviation document (not military), but let's start with it.
http://www.royfc.com/documents/radioobmen.pdf
There is a "RSP with OSP", but no such thing as "OSP with RSP".
However, there is mention of OSP wiht PRL-A control (2xNDB with radar control). It's a non-precision approach and minima in such case are the same as for 2xNDB.
Would "OSP with RSP" be in fact "OSP wiht PRL-A control" (difference in civil/military fraseology or just mil ATC habit to call it that way)?
Something else?
Arrakis
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 29th Jan 2011 at 20:46.
If minima would be just like for 2*NDB, it would make another hole in MAK's cheese.
Anyway, I'll live for the moment MAK and ATC aside, and start from the end.
Pieces of the puzzle.
1.
They used RA
. MAK's report is suggesting, it was a mistake, because NAV was used to fly Yaks, and it was part of Yak SOPs. My first reaction was "who is that dumb a..." but later... Yak 044 landed safely at Smolensk, regardless of the terrain profile, and the information regarding using RA is just out of context. We don't have/know their complete SOP's, so how can we judge?
2. I wrote it before. Whatever they were doing, they have done it before. Whatever they were doing, they were doing it knowingly - except that GA attempt. Forget about that pressure/orders form PAF commander/president BS.
3. I wrote before about ATC letting the aircrafts go below minima - say to 50 m. It's nicely visible during the second Il-76 approach.
4. Crew/aircraft minima - don't think it was 100x1000m and for sure they knew their minima.
5.Important element. VCR transcript and that little chat with Yak's crew about weather and especially cloud base.
6. VCR transcript.
I think, they were trying to go below the clouds, so they descended to a minimum altitude, they belived to be safe - probably around 50 m - hoping they could go for a scud run. RA played no role in the crash. Everything went as planned to the moment we can hear a GA from PIC and F/O. Next, the button of automatic GA was probably pressed and problems started. Was there something else ( like weather problems above that valley)? No idea. But this is the way I see it today.
Arrakis
Anyway, I'll live for the moment MAK and ATC aside, and start from the end.
Pieces of the puzzle.
1.
They used RA
. MAK's report is suggesting, it was a mistake, because NAV was used to fly Yaks, and it was part of Yak SOPs. My first reaction was "who is that dumb a..." but later... Yak 044 landed safely at Smolensk, regardless of the terrain profile, and the information regarding using RA is just out of context. We don't have/know their complete SOP's, so how can we judge?2. I wrote it before. Whatever they were doing, they have done it before. Whatever they were doing, they were doing it knowingly - except that GA attempt. Forget about that pressure/orders form PAF commander/president BS.
3. I wrote before about ATC letting the aircrafts go below minima - say to 50 m. It's nicely visible during the second Il-76 approach.
4. Crew/aircraft minima - don't think it was 100x1000m and for sure they knew their minima.
5.Important element. VCR transcript and that little chat with Yak's crew about weather and especially cloud base.
6. VCR transcript.
I think, they were trying to go below the clouds, so they descended to a minimum altitude, they belived to be safe - probably around 50 m - hoping they could go for a scud run. RA played no role in the crash. Everything went as planned to the moment we can hear a GA from PIC and F/O. Next, the button of automatic GA was probably pressed and problems started. Was there something else ( like weather problems above that valley)? No idea. But this is the way I see it today.
Arrakis
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 30th Jan 2011 at 13:38.
Arrakis,
you might be close.
Add to it the start of all desaster, starting 100 meters high on glideslope trying to intercept the glideslope from above with a high descent rate, leading to high approach speed and engines in idle.......
franzl
you might be close.
Add to it the start of all desaster, starting 100 meters high on glideslope trying to intercept the glideslope from above with a high descent rate, leading to high approach speed and engines in idle.......
franzl
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought, I will shut up, but Arrakis, I thought, you are a pilot.
Where have you learned that you can do an approach with 8m/s?
My instructor, when I was going 5m/s was yelling at me "Don't dive".
Also, with the engines almost idling due to high speed and steep descent
how can you perform a successful GA, when the spool up will take
effectively several seconds longer?
They were diving towards the ground with idling engines!
They should have done the GA already at 300-200m,
due to not stabilized approach, according to the book!
Was anybody in the cockpit screening the instruments?
The RA, AP, GA button etc. is just the topping on the cake.
Wake up and accept it.
Major co.. up.
Where have you learned that you can do an approach with 8m/s?
My instructor, when I was going 5m/s was yelling at me "Don't dive".
Also, with the engines almost idling due to high speed and steep descent
how can you perform a successful GA, when the spool up will take
effectively several seconds longer?
They were diving towards the ground with idling engines!
They should have done the GA already at 300-200m,
due to not stabilized approach, according to the book!
Was anybody in the cockpit screening the instruments?
The RA, AP, GA button etc. is just the topping on the cake.
Wake up and accept it.
Major co.. up.
What I will write below, is nothing personal, just a general remark.
Many people are trying to analyse this crash based on their own SOPs, their airline, training, DOCXXXX, etc... It's going nowhere. Try to analyse the facts. Don't try to stick facts to your beliefs. There was a crash, because someone wasn't flying by the book or something wasn't right in his book.
I just suggest you go to the Fig. 47 of MAK's report and take a close look at the RA record of 7th/10th of April flights. Do you think there is something to add here? Maybe an explanation how the aircraft did lost 200 m in approx 20 s, ending some 150 m below their circle altitude. Wake up call by Smolensk ATC. The PIC from that flight can answer questions.
I would add to the list the 2005 incident in Switzerland where the "101" Tupolev was involved - again problems with altitude control.
Arrakis
Many people are trying to analyse this crash based on their own SOPs, their airline, training, DOCXXXX, etc... It's going nowhere. Try to analyse the facts. Don't try to stick facts to your beliefs. There was a crash, because someone wasn't flying by the book or something wasn't right in his book.
I just suggest you go to the Fig. 47 of MAK's report and take a close look at the RA record of 7th/10th of April flights. Do you think there is something to add here? Maybe an explanation how the aircraft did lost 200 m in approx 20 s, ending some 150 m below their circle altitude. Wake up call by Smolensk ATC. The PIC from that flight can answer questions.
I would add to the list the 2005 incident in Switzerland where the "101" Tupolev was involved - again problems with altitude control.
Arrakis
Last edited by ARRAKIS; 1st Feb 2011 at 17:58. Reason: Typing error
