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 Taliesin View Post
    That's interesting. So it showed an altitude above runway elevation even after the collision with ground obstacles below runway elevation? What does that tell you about the accuracy of the barometric altimeter?Then why did he ignore repeated calls to go around from the FO? Why did he ingore 15 calls of "Terrain ahead, Pull Up!" that are clearly audible on the CVR?
    The tree was showing 5 m above the ground, the baro alt was showing 18 m above the ground (not directly of course). That would be an error of about 70%. I think all barometric altimeters should be thrown out of existing planes as a safety hazard.

    Both PIC and FO called for GA. They knew how to execute it. So I have the same questions as you do. BTW, have you ever been in a plane that drops 15 m/s? And there was no sound from the passengers or the pilots?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
      The tree was showing 5 m above the ground, the baro alt was showing 18 m above the ground (not directly of course). That would be an error of about 70%. I think all barometric altimeters should be thrown out of existing planes as a safety hazard.
      Err lol what? Barometric altitude is calculated with the reference pressure at 0ft altitude. As Smolensk airport is at roughly 250m, 13m are roughly 5% error. Which is why to my knowledge, barometric altimeters arent used during approach, they use radar altimeters, which the FO was reading out.
      Originally posted by Northwester View Post
      Both PIC and FO called for GA. They knew how to execute it. So I have the same questions as you do.
      If they knew how to do it, why didnt they turn off the auto pilot that was overriding their inputs?
      Originally posted by Northwester View Post
      BTW, have you ever been in a plane that drops 15 m/s? And there was no sound from the passengers or the pilots?
      As long as it's a steady descent, you dont feel anything. I assume you are hinting at some kind of "Roller Coaster" sensation? What you feel in a roller coaster is acceleration, not speed. It's the same in your car, as long as you go in a straight line and have good highways, 50km/h doesnt feel any different to 200km/h.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
        Err lol what? Barometric altitude is calculated with the reference pressure at 0ft altitude. As Smolensk airport is at roughly 250m, 13m are roughly 5% error. Which is why to my knowledge, barometric altimeters arent used during approach, they use radar altimeters, which the FO was reading out.
        Both Yak nad Tu got the same pressure info from the tower. Yak pilots reported that the baro alt after landing showed 0. According to the tree the Tu-154 was flying 3 m below the RWY and the baro alt was showing 12 m above the RWY. It wasn't the FO who was reading the alt, it was the Nav and he did not have radalt on his panel.
        If they knew how to do it, why didnt they turn off the auto pilot that was overriding their inputs?
        The GA procedure they were executing works with auto pilot on. It was shown during the tests with the twin Tu-154.
        As long as it's a steady descent, you dont feel anything. I assume you are hinting at some kind of "Roller Coaster" sensation? What you feel in a roller coaster is acceleration, not speed. It's the same in your car, as long as you go in a straight line and have good highways, 50km/h doesnt feel any different to 200km/h.
        Exactly. The descent changed from 5 m/s to 15 m/s within one second. You know how that feels.

        Comment


        • Ok so instead of a garden variety CFIT, where pilots overestimated their abilities and put their airplane in a place where it should never have been, you accuse the russians of:

          -Giving false barometric information
          -Bringing the plane down with explosives
          -Manipulating the FDR to cover up their actions
          -Manipulating the airplane avionics to deactivate the GA functions
          -Cutting down trees to make it look like an impact with terrain

          To what end? What do they gain? What do they achieve? How could you possibly think this long list is more likely than a garden variety CFIT?

          Comment


          • What tickles me is that if this had been.....oooooh.......lets say a Luxembourg registered aircraft crashing at .......ooooh......lets say a Swiss airport with no political ramifications, under the same weather circumstances this would all have been done and dusted by now as a CFIT incident with poor barometric altitude use and proceeding below minimums as the cause.

            .....and this thread wouldn't be 109 pages long !
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
              Ok so instead of a garden variety CFIT, where pilots overestimated their abilities and put their airplane in a place where it should never have been, you accuse the russians of:

              -Giving false barometric information
              No, they got correct barometric information.
              -Bringing the plane down with explosives
              They discovered TNT on the wreckage - needs to be investigated.
              -Manipulating the FDR to cover up their actions
              The black boxes are still in Russia. Why?
              -Manipulating the airplane avionics to deactivate the GA functions
              No. Something did not work during GA. We don't know what.
              -Cutting down trees to make it look like an impact with terrain
              Don't have a clue here. There are indications that the plane was flying higher than the trees, and it is pretty sure that the tree could not have broken off a section of the left wing.

              The whole investigation smells bad. The wreckage and the black boxes are still in Russia. The wreckage was seriously mishandled during the recovery and transport. There are 3 versions of CVR. There is contradictory data in the official reports. The autopsy reports are a joke. The bodies were switched - the families buried strangers believing they were burying their loved ones. The bodies were mutilated after identification process and autopsies. And the list goes on...

              Comment


              • The last recorded landing of Tu-154 101.
                Zobaczcie ladowanie '101' w wykonaniu naszych chlopcow z 36. Pulku w Pradze, czyli '101' siada, jak to mowimy, na '102' !! Klasa!"Piloci na pewno nie popełni...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                  What tickles me is that if this had been.....oooooh.......lets say a Luxembourg registered aircraft crashing at .......ooooh......lets say a Swiss airport with no political ramifications, under the same weather circumstances this would all have been done and dusted by now as a CFIT incident with poor barometric altitude use and proceeding below minimums as the cause.

                  .....and this thread wouldn't be 109 pages long !
                  So imagine what it is to live here...
                  A good friend of mine lost all of her common sense (in my humble opinion) supporting the conspiracy theory. Actually up to the point that I was told to be narrow-minded and not open for critical, alternative views. She must be right, no?

                  In contrast to her, I don't want to judge anyone here. But a good starting point for anyone interested in the matter is this Scientific American article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...n-conspiracies
                  Not that I believe this will end the debate. After all, we are Polish. We debate and disagree (and beat the French at it!).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Geebee View Post
                    So imagine what it is to live here...
                    A good friend of mine lost all of her common sense (in my humble opinion) supporting the conspiracy theory. Actually up to the point that I was told to be narrow-minded and not open for critical, alternative views. She must be right, no?

                    In contrast to her, I don't want to judge anyone here. But a good starting point for anyone interested in the matter is this Scientific American article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...n-conspiracies
                    Not that I believe this will end the debate. After all, we are Polish. We debate and disagree (and beat the French at it!).
                    Good article and also good comments to it. On both sides of the argument. I will quote only one:
                    "Conspiracy theories are not all crazy. They are frequently formulated from undeniable facts that are conveniently brushed aside by groups and interests that have the power to do so and the need to hide the facts. You don't have to silence everyone who might come forward with information; you only need discredit them as you attempt to do in your article."

                    Comment


                    • BTW, this is a screen of the detector used in Smolensk.

                      Comment


                      • I don't follow the investigatiin of the crash. That tu-154 crashed the day when I took an Uzbekistan TU-154. Since, I don't want to take that aircraft type anymore
                        Love at the first flight


                        The link shows only my last flights of these last 3 years and some of 4 years ago.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                          ...I think all barometric altimeters should be thrown out of existing planes as a safety hazard...
                          I agree, those things are total, worthless pieces of crap- especially when you start flying below minimums.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                            Ok so instead of a garden variety CFIT, where pilots overestimated their abilities and put their airplane in a place where it should never have been, you accuse the russians of:

                            -Giving false barometric information
                            -Bringing the plane down with explosives
                            -Manipulating the FDR to cover up their actions
                            -Manipulating the airplane avionics to deactivate the GA functions
                            -Cutting down trees to make it look like an impact with terrain

                            To what end? What do they gain? What do they achieve? How could you possibly think this long list is more likely than a garden variety CFIT?
                            Got a question Tally- do you think that maybe there might have been one Russian somewhere who drank too much wodka, and maybe took 4 minutes too long to respond to the crash, and that maybe someone has altered a little something to cover it up.

                            I kind of suspect there was...don't know where- but somewhere...so, we have a cover up conspiracy.

                            As to the grand murder plot which you lay out above (I'm chosing my words carefully- you are not SUPPORTING that plot)...but I think I agree with you that it seems just a little bit far fetched.

                            ...and I haven't figured out where the chem trails or nanoprobes come in on this one either...surely somewhere.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              Yes, that's what the Congo's government reported, but thy were wrong. That's why the report was updated. You forgot to include this part:
                              Originally Posted by Simon, Av Herald's editor
                              thanks a lot for your heads up - it took considerable time to review all evidence on file, match all photos with satellite images, measure distances and check for all details and dig up additional evidence.

                              The break through was the last photo by Louis Okamaba that although at first glance suggesting a movement in direction of runway 23 at a second look ruled out a movement from the runway to that location. Then a number of originals of photos (published and not published) helped to identify the first impact marks confirming your comment in full.

                              It didn't help that immediately after the crash local media were claiming the government were lying, the aircraft couldn't be in Brazzaville (arguing there is no ravine known in Brazzaville) and the aircraft was shot down, this created the necessity to be extra careful due to the resulting conspiracy claims.

                              The original headline was Trans Air Congo - in the meantime I was able to verify the Facebook site is indeed Trans Air Congo's and with additional evidence now mounting it became clear it wasn't Trans Air Congo indeed other than evidence on our hand as well as initial statements by Congo's government suggested. Hence I changed the story (both for Aero Service instead of Trans Air Congo as well as for the landing short of runway 05L instead of going around on runway 23R).
                              Thank you for posting that story. Do I understand it correctly that group of aviation enthusiasts challenged the official report published by Congo's government by putting together bits and pieces of information that officials have left out?

                              What were credentials of these enthusiasts that allowed them to question of the official story and reverse the history, I mean direction of the plane?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jonathan_Creek View Post
                                Thank you for posting that story. Do I understand it correctly that group of aviation enthusiasts challenged the official report published by Congo's government by putting together bits and pieces of information that officials have left out?

                                What were credentials of these enthusiasts that allowed them to question of the official story and reverse the history, I mean direction of the plane?
                                There was no official report published by any anybody.
                                When I said "that's that the Congo government reported" I meant what some government agent reported to the media within hours of the accident.

                                And Simon is not your usual aviation enthusiast. He is the one behind the Aviation Herald.

                                --- 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