Maybe I wasn't precise enough. Used to call DH the settings on AN/APNs. In Russian and in Polish those two different DHs have distinctive names. Anyway, again.
The decision height was 100 m, but according to Tu-154M FM you have anyway to set a rad alt minimum, which is equal to the DH, if DH < 60 m or you have to set it to 60 m, if DH => 60 m. If no runway lights visible passing rad alt minimum, it's missed approach.

Hope this time it's OK.

Arrakis

Hi,

Maybe those pilots (if it's a pilot error .. ) needed a TU-154 equipped with :
Terrain-following radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- no not really! It still makes no sense. If the ground is not level before the runway, then '60m' has no use. If the terrain rises to the threshold as in Smolensk, a 'call' at 60m is too late, as it was there. - should read If no runway lights visible passing 100m baro minimum, it's missed approach. Then it is 'OK'.

By the way, what is a 'practice approach' and 'not intending to land' mean?

"they did not intend to land. They just wanted to confirm visibility at MDA and either land or divert. " is crazy. Is it a problem in translation?

Yes, it should be that way, but they went anyway below the 100 m barometric.
In that case, at 60 m (rad alt) - they should get (probably did) an aural warning (and a nice yellow indicator switching on). That's according to the aircraft FM. That was their second chance (and the last one).

Arrakis

Confirmed.
Gen Blasik, the commander of the PLAF was the 5th men in the cockpit during the last minute of the flight.

Arrakis

Ptkay, can't comment on Ershov statement /link as Smolensk blog didn't go into details this time discussing what Ershov said. Only brief comments "this time Ershov may be right" :o)

(thing is we there fell out with Ershov :o) after he critised the Smolensk chaps in a comment elsewhere as "amateurs crawling the ground checking for land marks for nothing when all is clear" :o)))))))

the blog unanimously gave him thumbs down :o), especially that the first Ershov comment didn't prove true so far (idea the plane deviated leftwards of the runway on purpose, taking some lights mistakingly as orientation. Whereas in fact it was our very birch tree, and then more of them, found by Smolesnk blog on the ground exactly :o)

So we are minimalistic in wording, re each other, ever after :o) (Ershov and the blog)

He said a plane cannot deviate leftwards after hitting a tree! That a tree is nothing for a plane, it's as if "someone caught by hand an ear of the running elefant - the arm is more likely to fly away together with that ear, but even the torn off ear won't change the elefant's running route!"

(how he dared :o). the plane's balance changed after it a wing to the tree. in this sense an ear can change the elefants' running direction)

Anyway Ershov summary in comment 2 is the crew were poor babies sent by some idiots into the fog, well knowing the aerodrome of destination is in fog and poor visibility, thus knowing the landing will have to be performed blind, by devices, and well knowing this crew is not trained for that but for modern airports and automated systems instead)

(there is also a pilot's minima discussed, like, in Russia as min there is an airplane minima, an aerodrome equipment minima, the weather minima - AND a pilot's qualification minima - allowing him to do some things and not allowing to perform other. pilots are awarded with their degrees of the ? trickiness /difficulties they can manage, formally, via exams' system here.
It is widely believed these pilots didn't pass exams allowing blind landing by 2 Beakon's equipped aerodrome only, in TU154 aircraft type)

From Polish sources (Klich) it follows the crew knew they are below the decision point, as the voice was saying "90...80..."

It is unclear why they continued on autopilot even after that, where they thought they are flying to.

That "trial flight for landing" (as it is officially stated everywhere) all think is some oxymoron, invented for political purposes, as a Russo-Polish consensus. :o) As it is a weird combination of terms.
The ground control never allowed them landing; neither the crew ever asked for the permission to land. While theoretically the crew should have informed the ground control type "we intend to land" and get "OK, landing permitted".
This exchange never took place.

What the crew got from the ground control is OK for their intention to come down to 100 metres and check visibility - with the ground control warning that "OK go to 100 but be ready to go for second circle from that point."
So, formally, the Polish crew was not landing, only going down to 100 metres to have a look. Somehow they over-did it.
Continued to 90 and 80 and further down.
Ground control told them "hundred first, horizon!" (in Russian) (sto pervy - gorizont!)

Now the Polish investigators wonder if the crew understood what the command "gorizont" means in Russian. (101 is the plane's board number, and as they heard it in Russian already several times during this very flight previously, they must have kniwn "sto pervy" means their own bopard number. Especially as it is proved the Captain knew Russian excellently well and it was the Captain himself who kept talking with the ground control. Most likely because his navigaor did NOT know Russian. or knew it far worse. while normally it'll be Navigator's task to keep talks with the ground control)

A test - would anyone here Western-trained understand what it means when a Russian control tower says sorry shouts :o) - "Gorizont!"
(hint - you as a pilot already know you've just crossed the 100 metres decision taking height) (and no, you did not request permission to land)
?

As I recall from the news reports, the YAK landed more than an hour before the TU, and the visibility at the time was reported as well over 1000 meters. The fog moved in after the YAK landed, and the visibility at the time the IL attempted to land had dropped to around 500 or 600 meters. By the time the TU attempted to land, it had dropped further to only about 200 meters. Thus it is no surprise that the YAK was able to land, and the other two aircraft probably could have landed with that same visibility.

One hour after the accident, the fog had thinned out enough that the visibility was again more than 1000 meters.

Some basics for simulator pilots, even if you have an airplane manual it seems some of you are confused:

- height: always refers to something above some sort of **terrain**, compared to altitude, which refers to something above sea level

- radio height: height above the terrain spot where you are, measured by the radio altimeter. Is only about 2000 ft when you fly at FL260 over the Himalaya.

- desicion radio height: only exists for precision approaches as ILS CAT II/III, but not for a NDB/NDB or whatever non-precision approach

- decision height: only exists in the Russian system as it is a

- height above **field elevation**: this is the relevant value for minima in the Russian system, so "100m" refers to 100m above Smolensk airport level - not the actual spot of terrain. Over the actual point of decision making, the radio height may be 140m, as the terrain below is slopy. -> Can never be measured properly by a radio altimeter, only by setting the baro to QFE. ->The point of decision making can only be measured from the baro altimeter.

The confusion for Westerns comes here as **baro** QFE "height above field elevation" does not exist (anymore) and the term "height" usually refers to **radio** height, while "altitude" refers to baro QNH.

TU-154 M Manual
 

For those interested in aircraft description which includes auto flight, I've uploaded an English manual recently completed for flight simulation use. Before you discount it as unrealistic, take a look. Autoflight covered in chapter 8, HTH:
Google Docs

threemiles,
thank you for the lecture on the altitude/height:ok:. Never had time for simulators. The FM is in Russian, which doesn't help.


One question.
Photos: Tupolev Tu-154M Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

On the picture, above the right pedal, there are 5 indicators. The 2nd and 3rd form the top are the RV-5M radioaltimeter indicator and the VD-10 barometric altimeter. Next to them, on the right, there is another altitude indicator, which was part of the FMS/TAWS aircraft upgrade. Anyone can tell, what exactly is it? Manufacturer/model?

Arrakis

You guys are going to have your hands full bouncing around between Russian, Polish and English languages and also Russian, Polish and Western ways of operating in general and operating the Tupolev in particular. You really don't want to quiet down and leave this one to the professionals for a while?

Why is it that we don't get people weighing in with amateur opinions on brain surgery? We do get them doing that with aviation and even rocket science but nobody seems to want to second-guess a brain surgeon.

Why I have to ask, is that unravelling the causes of a crash such as this one should be pretty complicated, tracing back the individual elements that led to the obvious disaster to try and read the intentions of a captain who is now not going to tell us anything, being quite dead as he is. We can only be fairly certain that he didn't intend to crash and die, when that lone certainty makes his allowing this chain of events to end in the way it did, when he bore the final responsibility for this event, deeply puzzling.

It is going to take a whole roomful of experts to get to the bottom of this so what a group of amateurs ping-ponging guesses and insults off each other hope to accomplish is just another puzzle to me. You might as well stare into your pachinko machine to prophesy where the next little steel ball will land.

Just wait until the Microsoft Brain Surgery Simulator™ comes out!

Which professionals? For example a shrink that went lately to Moscow to try to evaluate the crew stress level? Meteorology experts... and so on?

That's the idea of a forum, to exchange information with people having different areas of expertise.

One more thing. Whatever is published or said on that crash, has a direct impact on the presidential elections coming soon in Poland, on Warsaw-Moscow relations, etc... There is a lot of background to it so, personally, the answer to your question is nope.

One more thing. Any finding by KBWLLP - the body investigating PLAF aircraft crashes - can be overruled by the commander of PLAF.

Arrakis

Chucks,
with my 36 year flying experience, a degree in air transportation management, work as XCAA accident investigator, and other higher qualifications, let me suggest the following:
1. Experts are not necessarily very bright when it comes to creative thinking and initiative.
2. With all that money, time and expertise already spent, where is the AF A330? why do professional pilots takeoff in a B757 with one failed airspeed indicator, and 2 minutes later CFIT, plus 3 other crews repeating exactly this during the relevant investigation simulations? why does a failed radar altimeter cause an aircraft to lose airspeed during the approach and crash the B737NG without crew intervention? Why did 18 out of 19 B744 pilots fail to identify and act upon below G/S and other serious PFD erroneous annunciations, in a Boeing/ Nasa/ Academy research? is all that the best humans can do, or maybe the result of expert work?
3. Aircraft accident investigations are also politically motivated. With Putin in charge of the investigation, rest assured his motives are not yours and ours.
4. If we professional pilots crash and burn, where is our expertise?
5. Being myself active in online flight simulation and air traffic control, it is a separate branch but a similar activity with a lot of commonality, with many high level professionals from RW involved, which makes that environment closer to real life than many here think. Want proof- look at the FREE manual I uploaded of the TU-154M, mentioned a few messages up.

@chuks ...and co. one more time, it is PPRUNE. Rumour speak for itself.
Please leave Your attitude and 'words of wisdom' somewhere else

From the manual:

RV5 Radar altimeter.
The button on the left is used to set the green index during
approach to circling altitude and later to the decision height. It
triggers the ‘H’ signal light with corresponding sound when the
radar altitude passes this altitude.
........
There are two altimeters on board, the digital
altimeter and the conventional altimeter.

I will try to find some time to read this manual, but already.
page 17

"25 Radar altimeter РВ-5М." It should be RV-5M (or RW-5M in some countries). In fact, RV-5M is the entire set, the indicator is UV-5M ("УВ-5М"). "PB-5M" is in Russian.

Arrakis

What does Russian ATC mean by "Horizon"
 

Alice025 Perhaps an Eastern-trained aviator can explain to us Westerners.

Points taken but...
 

The title of this is, after all, Rumours & News, not Unfounded Speculation!

I think a certain amount of reserve when discussing a tragedy is no bad thing, basically. Not to spoil anyone's fun but the very time when we feel most compelled to speculate about the cause of a crash is also exactly when we know the least about it!

This one is going to be one very hot potato given the past history between Russia and Poland, not least the very event the deceased Polish head of state was going to commemorate, the Katyn Massacre. Then we will have a layer of murk from the Russian/Polish/English languages and the Russian/Polish/Western ways of both operating aircraft and (perhaps) investigating accidents.

I suppose that having Vladimir Putin head up the investigation is to show on the part of Russia how seriously this is being taken, when to many of us, he is simply a sinister former KGB man. Right there you see a very basic conflict looking at the same thing.

I think we all understand that humans are imperfect in whatever we try to accomplish, otherwise there would be no accidents to discuss here! It is just that air of "Well, I know exactly what went wrong there! It was..." followed often by some unfounded speculation rather than a rumour, let alone news might be best avoided.

I am here reading this thing and also commenting, after all, so that it is not as if I am saying it's totally a bad thing that has no place in aviation. It is just that I think one needs to keep a certain sense of proportion when discussing a very real, human tragedy.

Just to show you what I mean, we were once inbound to a small airstrip out in the hills of Western Virginia, when we overflew the site of a very recent, fatal CFIT. The guy I was with went onto Unicom to give his opinion of just how our fellow aviator had got it so badly wrong, blah-blah-blah. 2 minutes later, just after landing, someone walked over to thank him for that but to point out that the crash pilot's widow had been listening in on the loudspeaker in the line shack. Oops...

Ok Chuks, i'm sorry for my previus maybe a little bit rude post.
But believe me, we all are (well most of us) far from blaming pilots, ATC guys or somebody else (at this stage - until cockpit records will be known).
We all are humans and make mistakes. And we're well aware of this 'expert' poses (and trully bullish) seen shortly at media after the crash.
I dont know if You followed original thread - there was couple of russian friends (now they contribute also here) translating from smolensk blogs and forums.
Political influence and media merry-go-round are also known well here. Trust me we're very sensitive for that bulls**t.

RatherBeFlying,
I wouldn't have guessed myself but for a Russian control tower and pilots it means "level off" ? out? - Stop descend take horizontal flight.

Head of the Polish Investigation committee - Mr Klich - after listening to the ground-crew talks' record - expressed doubt the pilots understood what the control tower wants from them.

Now I tend to understand why.

We checked it on ordinary Poles in the Smolesnk blog they understand "gorizont" in Russian as "horizon" in Polish without any doubts, but no one could check there if they know what the command means - as all there are way too well informed, read the Klich interview several times first, themselves, in Poland, and NOW know what a Russian control tower wants when it says "Board xxxx, horizon".

Intuitively I would think it could be an (astonished), hasty, urgent exclamation (in surprise of realizing that may be now things look like they really may go wrong) trying to say, suggest, order or demand in just one single word something like:

"(Go) horizontal !"

Meaning to say horizontAL (action), rather than just horizon (the horizon) . . .

(Put it horizontal... (Go) straight... Level off...)

learner . . .

60m on RA
 

As per Google Earth terrain data, the terrain dips down to approx 180m MSL between ДПРМ (compass Locator at Outer Marker, LOM) and БПРМ (compass Locator at Middle Marker, LMM, where the aircraft first impacted a tree). With the field elevation at 262 meters, it is possible to have 60m on RA and be below the field.

Head of Polish Investigation Committee said he knows content of all talks but as investigation formally goes on - he won't tell anybody media. When they were terrorizing him - this "101, horizon!" was one of the very few things that media managed to get out of him.

Also, much know the Yak crew - but these all signed they will stay numb until are allowed to talk, and it's an awful pity as from what was confirmed the Yak spoke to the TU non-stop and through to the very end.

The other blog meanwhile is puzzling over the position of various devices in the pilots' cabin, looking at photos here and there and trying to figure out at which "height-meter" of all the crew would look and when and what could have been possibly set on each and when exactly.
There is an idea the captain set one of their "height-meters" a-la Russian way (distance to the runway), made a mental tick in mind "I have corrected it", then switched on auto-piloting to be able to speak with VIPs in the cabin, then returned back to the height-meters but glanced at the un-corrected one (while thinking "I had done it").
Especially that the captain flew the previous flight, on the 7th, as the second pilot (sitting on the right side) (and being used to looking at what's near him), and when he changed the chair this time ? may be looked again at what's usual for him - there - in haste - when things began taking a strange turn (TAWS, ground control) ?
could be he didn't believe they crossed the 100 metres as his un-corrected "height-meter" was set at sea-level - in which case he'd think he's got safe 300 meters or so more.
? Approx.

The Russian word "Gorizont"- means " Horizon" in English.

The Russian word " Gorizont" - would have been pronounced " Horyzont " in Polish, and the meaning is the same as in English.

Any Polish with a minimum, or no knowledge of the Russian language would have understood what " Gorizont " mean ..
Both, Russian and Polish word " Horizon" sound practically the same and mean the same in both languages.

Both words are very close in pronunciation in both Russian and Polish languages...:hmm:

E.Klich blames pilots and lack of training
 

It seems E. Klich gets more and more clear in blaming directly the pilots and the way they had been trained.

Here the article:
Ekspert obwinia pilotów - Rzeczpospolita

Google translation:
Google T?umacz

and an interview with Klich
Gdyby si? szkolili, nie podj?liby ryzyka - Rzeczpospolita

Google translation:
Google T?umacz

Well, someone has to be blamed (?), but is it the pilots... or the one who is responsible for the personnel work?
Generally, it all sounds logical if you have had some soviet practice. There are rules, of course, but not for people who are in unique positions (high officials). If they really organised the flight the way described in the report (preparation, people in cocpit etc.).
Unfortunately some rules apply to all.

According to all the drawings and data published on the Smolensk forum, the lowest point is at 202 m.

Now, tha latest news. When they went below the 100 m, as was already said, the counted 90 m, 80 m... etc They counted down to 20 m. Taking into account the topography, it means they were descending using RA.

Another point, just my guess.
I belive, they could have mixed WGS-84 coordinates and Pulkowo coordinates. So far MAK was slightly enigmatic on that just informing that they didn't have the actual data (NOTAM, etc...). MAK wasn't very specific here.
Second option is a scud run.

Arrakis

There decision height was 362m QNH (baro) or 100m QFE (baro). Which is 262m field elevation plus 100m decision height ABOVE FIELD ELEVATION. This is the relevant date.
The use of the radio altimeter is not permitted during a non-precision approach.

According to state regulations I am aware of there is no authorization to start an approach when the airfield is below published minima. There is nothing like a "trial" approach.
They were far below published minima.

There has been another occasion (Armavia A320 Sotchi) where a Russian ATC controller was not aware that he was not empowered to order a FOREIGN registered aircraft's pilot to go around, deny an approach approval due to weather or deny a landing clearance due to other than operational circumstances. This empowerment of ATC is valid for RUSSIAN registered aircraft only. Therefore the gorizont command and the approval for the "trial" approach is legally not relevant and the responsibility for the approach is only with the pilots, as in the Western countries. (Understanding that the "trial" approach was a NDB but not a PAR approach which would be different, of course)

Nuff said.

When Russian ATC says "Gorizont" -- What is the Pilot Expected to Do?
 

The word is a noun, but in this context it seems to be a command to ... ?

ARRAKIS, what is the source of those Smolensk forum data?

60m on RA
 

Also, have a look at this picture from МАК: http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/...m_101_pic1.jpg

Like going below minimum, attempting to land way, way below aircraft minimas, not respecting FM and many other things. This is all I can say.
There was a "go around" from the II pilot when they were at 80 m. PIC continued the descent.

"Tunnel" vision. Landing and only landing. I think, it's now up to the shrink to say why.
Reminds a little bit the 2006 Sochi A320 crash
(http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2006/ek...ek-9060502.pdf)

Arrakis

When Russian ATC says "Gorizont" -- What is the Pilot Expected to Do?
 

'HORIZON!' it obviusly means 'you gonna meet him sooner as you think' = pull up or you gonna crash. Is that complicated?

@ARRAKIS or 'capitanosis' in few other crashes.

I presume, that getting topography data of the town is no rocket science for the people living in Smolensk.

Alice,
could you ask Sergiei or any other Smolensk forum member to check this difference. What is the lovest point of this valley they flew over? Is it 202 m or around 180 m?
Best wishes to all the forum members. I'm reading the crash thread since the first day.


By the way. E. Klich, the head of the Polish investigation body confirmed today. They used RA.

Arrakis

ARRAKIS,

Most probably, you presume correctly — if they used rocket science for their illustrations, their data would've been more in line with Google's — Google did use rocket science for their Earth (SRTM to be precise). As МАК's data seem to be confirming those of Google, I suspect that there's some element of rocket science in МАК's data, too. Now what science was used for the Smolensk forum data — I hope you can help to find it out for me.

Thanks!

Major Fiszer zadał Klichowi pytanie dotyczące tego, czy piloci mieli świadomość, na jakiej wysokości się znajdują:
- Załoga czytała wysokość: 70, 80 metrów.
Czy to poszło dalej? - pytał Fiszer.
- Poszło dalej, doszło do 20 metrów - odpowiedział Klich - Piloci mieli świadomość, że są poniżej wysokości decyzji.

Major Fisher ask Klich if pilots had information which real altitude is:
- Crew read altimeter: 70, 80 m.
And they keep counting?
- Keep counting till 20 m. Pilots know that they are below decision altitude.

Sure I'll ask Amelin. So we are asking - "202 or what"?

I remember there was an alarm when MAC published numbers and Amelin's previous "formal" map disagreed with that of MAC, and the chaps were thinking what to do. To import the MAC map into the summary or not to believe and leave own old.

The Smolensk blog operates on 2 levels: the blog itself, where all quarrel and discuss and bring in fresh snippets of news, from Russia and Poland likewise. And the Amelin blog - which is the summary of all worthy things obtained in the main bulky multi-page blog.
Amelin summary was originally in Russian, now is being doubled in Polish and English - folks are translating the summary at home.

Page 1,100 or so runs now LOL, on the main blog, for a second. Which is 220,000 messages, hard to get oriented in there.