Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
    When the argument was under "military or civil" rules for command of the flight, you have a point, but they operated under civil rules and as such ATC never took command of the flight.
    CIVIL RULES ??? Where did this come from?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
      (...)

      When the argument was under "military or civil" rules for command of the flight, you have a point, but they operated under civil rules and as such ATC never took command of the flight.

      (...)
      I wonder about it. At one point you can hear the controller ask have you ever landed at a military airfield? or something like that. It's not like military airfields have vertical runways, so did he mean procedures...?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by kris View Post
        The chance to land was zero, unless they were willing to bust the minimums the hard way. A bit risky though not impossible.
        They shouldn't descent below 100 m (i.e. they should level off at 100 m above runway, and don't descent further). And at 100 m radio (which was ca. 70 m baro at first) they were still descending ~ 7-8 m/s.

        OTOH isn't it the same what the Yak crew did?
        Yak landed because the weather conditions were better. Visibility 1000m (see attached). And they came out straight at the RWY.

        Tu-154 continued to descend at 7-8 m/s, at some point double that rate. Do you really think they were trying to land? With AP on?

        Comment


        • Boring! Can we please get back to the secret Russian mind-control ray and KGB EMT death squad? That was much more entertaining and the obvious truth no longer has any value here. I don't want answers. I want more questions. Northwester, show us some more puzzling graphics.

          Comment


          • Going way back in this thread there was discussion about the investigation and the Chicago rules.

            Chicago rules pertain to investigations but .. the led to a talk about the rules of flight and it was established that as an Air Force plane the flight could have ... note .... could have been handled as a military flight were the ATC has absolute authority over the conduct of the flight including landing.

            I suppose that this is because a military flight may turn hostile and as such they call the rules of what is done.

            Poland and Russia started to discuss a lot of options including this, the handling of it as a military flight and if there would be a Russian "leaderman" filling in as the navigator. It sounds like there was no decision and it was left in limbo on both issues ... that led to the handling as a civil or civilian flight where the pilot is fully in command.

            If the status was that of a military flight they could have ordered them not to land. This is a lot of posts ago.
            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
              BTW "trial approach" (or maybe "conditional approach") is the best translation for what Russians call "kontrolnyi zakhod". It means descending to MDA, checking conditions, and deciding to land or executing go-around.
              That's a very different thing. Generally all approaches are "conditional approaches".
              No conditions, no landing

              Anyway they were informed and fully aware that the conditions "are not suitable for landing" (ATC words). They knew they had no chance to even see the runway (let alone a successful approach) without seriously busting the MDA. Yet they still insisted and then wilfully descended below MDA. Yak crew did most probably the same.

              I think they didn't intent to descent below runway elevation, though. Perhaps if they didn't play games with EGPWS (ALT to STD), or if they had someone looking at the altitude... But I'm sure the first thing was their intentional descent (well) below MDA.

              Now tell me they (and Yak) did it without pressure.
              The problem was there was no enough pressure to stay at MDA.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                Yak landed because the weather conditions were better. Visibility 1000m (see attached). And they came out straight at the RWY.
                Still they (Yak) busted MD altitude. Minimums are not visibility only.
                Tu-154 continued to descend at 7-8 m/s, at some point double that rate. Do you really think they were trying to land?
                Of course. They weren't going around so they were approaching. Now tell me, what do you really think they were doing?
                With AP on?
                Perhaps the PIC thought they were higher and that radio altitude meant they were over the final hill. I think he was sure he's almost over the threshold, otherwise he wouldn't descent that low.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Boring!
                  Thank you for sharing your feelings Evan. Feelings are important!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    Q: Why was the copilot of the temper tantrum flight now the Capt of the doomed flight? Does it have something to do with the former Capt no longer being in the left seat?
                    Have you ever considered more down to earth reasons, like that he was ill, or perhaps he asked for few days off way ahead?

                    You ridicule NW-er for his conspiracy theories yet you expect your own to be taken with a straight face.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Peter_K View Post
                      You ridicule NW-er for his conspiracy theories yet you expect your own to be taken with a straight face.
                      My own what...? The former Capt was humiliated by the President in front of the PIC of this flight. The PIC of this flight became PIC well before his time, and therefore took unnecessary risks to please the President, and avoid a similar fate. It didn't go well. How hard is it to understand?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kris View Post
                        Still they (Yak) busted MD altitude.
                        How do you know that? If they could see the RWY from above the MM, they had a reason to proceed with landing.
                        Perhaps the PIC thought they were higher and that radio altitude meant they were over the final hill. I think he was sure he's almost over the threshold, otherwise he wouldn't descent that low.
                        Really? What hill? There was a ravine there. So when the Nav read 80m the PIC thought what? That they were 180m above the RWY?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                          How do you know that? If they could see the RWY from above the MM, they had a reason to proceed with landing.
                          Come on... Even that 1000m was below minimum, the formally required visibility was 1500m (see e.g. the Russian report). 1000m would be good enough with approach radar, but they were (supposedly) using only 2 NDBs (apart from GPS set with wrong coords and to the middle of the runway).
                          Also see the ATC tape transcript. If it's still not obvious to you, see e.g.:
                          http://www.polskieradio.pl/5/3/Artykul/318852,Zaloga-Jaka40-ladujac-10-kwietnia-w-Smolensku-zlamala-prawo
                          General Staff announced that it has rejected an appeal against the findings of the Air Force, made up by the crew of What-40. Air Force Commission, which investigated the What-40 landing at Smolensk airport, decided in late January that the pilots violated the rules of the air, coming down below the minimum level specified for this airport. Crew appealed against this decision to the committee at Flight Safety Inspectorate of the General Staff.
                          I think they were lucky to finally escape criminal prosecution (though given the situation, it's not them I'd aim the prosecutor arm at).
                          Really? What hill? There was a ravine there.
                          You force me to search the archives again. Ok, it seems the "hill" is so low it's doesn't matter. Anyway, I think when Nav read 80m the PIC thought he was about 80m above the runway (or maybe higher, due to his altimeter setting). That's why he was descending so fast. See the FDR graphs. Do you see him levelling off at 100m, or is he rather levelling off at projected 0 radar altitude, unfortunately not taking into account the raising terrain? Why didn't he pull up when he realized he's descending fast below 100m? Also see the vertical acceleration graph. The graphs also show he definitely knew how to pull up.
                          Do you think the graphs are forged, too?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kris View Post
                            You force me to search the archives again. Ok, it seems the "hill" is so low it's doesn't matter. Anyway, I think when Nav read 80m the PIC thought he was about 80m above the runway (or maybe higher, due to his altimeter setting). That's why he was descending so fast. See the FDR graphs. Do you see him levelling off at 100m, or is he rather levelling off at projected 0 radar altitude, unfortunately not taking into account the raising terrain? Why didn't he pull up when he realized he's descending fast below 100m? Also see the vertical acceleration graph. The graphs also show he definitely knew how to pull up.
                            Do you think the graphs are forged, too?
                            Whether he thought 80m above ground or above RWY it does not matter at all. If he was going to land, he would have turned off the autopilot. You do not land with AP on.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                              Whether he thought 80m above ground or above RWY it does not matter at all. If he was going to land, he would have turned off the autopilot. You do not land with AP on.
                              He wasn't landing. He was approaching. You can approach on autopilot, as long as it does what you want. The other question is how long was he going to fly on AP.
                              Again, what do YOU think he was doing?

                              Comment


                              • I know you didn't ask me, but I think that:

                                The approach should have never been attempted to begin with, since there was no reason to take a risk to try a non-precision approach down to minimums with all the top of the government on board when they knew very well that they would end going around.

                                There was some confusion first with the minimum altitude, with 100 meters being called three times, maybe reading different altimeters (baro vs radio) or with different settings. We know that they changed the setting of one altimeter to avoid GPWS warnings.

                                That, combined for poor CRM and lack of sterile cockpit (the captain was doing almost everything and different people were calling the same things), made for a late decision to go-around.

                                The go around was still possible, though, but it was botched due to some reason, which I think is the key doubt right now, probably some procedural error about flying the go-around on AP.

                                To make things worse, the plane was descending at a vertical speed much higher than that of a normal approach, which made the margin (in seconds) between the minimums and the crash much lower than should, so the pilots had little time to recognize the failure of the go-around and take corrective actions before it was too late.

                                There was never the intention to bust minimums. The captain said several times that they would try once down to 100m and then go around, and he called the go-around more or less at the same time than the last 100m call (when they were lower than 100m)

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X