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

  • It sounds like dancing between rain drops or splitting hairs.

    I sounds like the president tried to shaft the guy and the military circled wagons and made a "hero" of him to put it back in the politicians laps. Each played their hand and the politician cried uncle first.

    Did that have an effect on the behavior of later flights ... seeing one of your buddys miss getting the royal shaft and where a change of the guard may allow your flank to be open for "round three", you better believe there was pressure.

    If you haven't been in the military and think you can dodge ALL of the political ALL of the time, you are nuts. My "career" took a turn after simply dating the XO's daughter.
    Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

    Comment


    • If it wasn't for some kind of pressure, why would the captain even decide to fly the approach, even knowing beforehand that it would not work and would have to go-around?

      I'm not saying that this is the direct cause of the accident. A pilot has the "right" to try the approach down to minimums even if he knows it won't work (case in which it would be a nonsense but it's still his right). But for me it proves a lower bound of pressure (and we don't know how much above that).

      --- 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


      • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
        It is called rotation.
        Oh, ok. Where I come from, rotation happens as a result of experience and qualification, but I guess in this case it is just to let everyone have a turn. Maybe that explains the General being in the cockpit. He was probably just waiting for his turn at the left seat...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Oh, ok. Where I come from, rotation happens as a result of experience and qualification, but I guess in this case it is just to let everyone have a turn. Maybe that explains the General being in the cockpit. He was probably just waiting for his turn at the left seat...
          I think you are right. That's why he was scolding the PIC and sending him back to the cabin to explain things to the President so he could take the left seat himself. Oops, I forgot, that part of the CVR was cut out. My bad.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            If it wasn't for some kind of pressure, why would the captain even decide to fly the approach, even knowing beforehand that it would not work and would have to go-around?

            I'm not saying that this is the direct cause of the accident. A pilot has the "right" to try the approach down to minimums even if he knows it won't work (case in which it would be a nonsense but it's still his right). But for me it proves a lower bound of pressure (and we don't know how much above that).
            - the ATC were expecting the pilots to do one trial approach
            - the weather info the pilots had was incomplete and inconsistent, the weather was changing fast - there was a chance of conditions changing to better
            - it was a standard procedure in the unit to do one trial approach even in difficult conditions

            All of that was enough for the pilots to make the decision to try even if they realized that the chance to land was minimal - there is no need to plug in a pressure from the cabin here.

            Comment


            • Meh? The press plane ahead of him made it in. Next ac didn't but you can't blame him for hoping for a lucky hole.

              Of course the press plane warned him that it was "for shit" so they should have been expecting the worse.
              Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                - the ATC were expecting the pilots to do one trial approach
                - the weather info the pilots had was incomplete and inconsistent, the weather was changing fast - there was a chance of conditions changing to better
                - it was a standard procedure in the unit to do one trial approach even in difficult conditions

                All of that was enough for the pilots to make the decision to try even if they realized that the chance to land was minimal - there is no need to plug in a pressure from the cabin here.
                Yeah, sounds reasonable to me.

                But where does descending below the MDA and below the runway elevation come in?
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  Yeah, sounds reasonable to me.

                  But where does descending below the MDA and below the runway elevation come in?
                  Well, it seems that they didn't intend that. They intended to descend to the MDA and then go around, but failed. That's the part of the thing that Northwester is trying to figure out.

                  --- 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


                  • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                    - the ATC were expecting the pilots to do one trial approach
                    And??? That means nothing. In fact, the ATC had advised them not to do the approach. The crew insisted and the ATC let them.
                    - the weather info the pilots had was incomplete and inconsistent, the weather was changing fast - there was a chance of conditions changing to better
                    They had received information that the ceiling and visibility was crap, orders of magnitude below minimums, including the sentence "conditions are not suitable for an approach". And it was not like they were listening to the ATIS. Both ATC and (in particular) the press plane that was there were looking out of the window and told them about the conditions just a couple of minutes before the crash.
                    - it was a standard procedure in the unit to do one trial approach even in difficult conditions
                    If that's the case, that's a stupid and irrational procedure, I'd say.

                    All of that was enough for the pilots to make the decision to try even if they realized that the chance to land was minimal - there is no need to plug in a pressure from the cabin here.
                    Having at the back a president that insulted the previous captain when you were the copilot for not doing a landing (and now you are the captain), informing him that it's likely that the landing will not be possible and receiving a "then we have a problem" for an answer, and then asking him what to do next and receive a "the president doesn't know what to do if we can't land" as a response, MUST put some kind of pressure on you. I can never prove it, but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind.

                    --- 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


                    • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      Yeah, sounds reasonable to me.

                      But where does descending below the MDA and below the runway elevation come in?
                      If we knew that, we would not be discussing it here now. Even if they had some problems with the go-around procedure, they still were not supposed to descend below the MDA and the proper altitude at the MM was 70m. But I believe the PIC knew how to execute the GA. I really wish I could have the full unaltered CVR recording.

                      And at some point, below the MDA, the plane was descendig at about 15 m/s. Do you really think that that was a deliberate action of the pilots?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        And??? That means nothing. In fact, the ATC had advised them not to do the approach. The crew insisted and the ATC let them.
                        It only indicates that the ATC was aware of the procedure and gave them permission to proceed with the trial approach.

                        They had received information that the ceiling and visibility was crap, orders of magnitude below minimums, including the sentence "conditions are not suitable for an approach". And it was not like they were listening to the ATIS. Both ATC and (in particular) the press plane that was there were looking out of the window and told them about the conditions just a couple of minutes before the crash.
                        I am only saying that when they left Warsaw the forecast was different - see attached.
                        If that's the case, that's a stupid and irrational procedure, I'd say.
                        This is Air Force - their procedures have different rationale.
                        Having at the back a president that insulted the previous captain when you were the copilot for not doing a landing (and now you are the captain), informing him that it's likely that the landing will not be possible and receiving a "then we have a problem" for an answer, and then asking him what to do next and receive a "the president doesn't know what to do if we can't land" as a response, MUST put some kind of pressure on you. I can never prove it, but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind.
                        I am not disputing that there was some pressure or expectation, but not even close for the pilots to do something stupid. They were clear about their intentions - see attached.

                        Comment


                        • Has anyone seen N2 values in any of the reports, any place?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                            - the ATC were expecting the pilots to do one trial approach
                            Definitely not true. ATC gave them permission for approach only because they insisted, and (most probably) only because of their foreign VIP status. "No condition for landing" doesn't look like expectancy to me.
                            - the weather info the pilots had was incomplete and inconsistent, the weather was changing fast - there was a chance of conditions changing to better
                            Doesn't look consistent with ATC and Yak reports. Also the CVR shows they were fully aware of the conditions.
                            - it was a standard procedure in the unit to do one trial approach even in difficult conditions
                            Source please.

                            BTW: what a "trial approach" is?

                            All of that was enough for the pilots to make the decision to try even if they realized that the chance to land was minimal - there is no need to plug in a pressure from the cabin here.
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by kris View Post
                              Definitely not true. ATC gave them permission for approach only because they insisted, and (most probably) only because of their foreign VIP status. "No condition for landing" doesn't look like expectancy to me.
                              It is true. At 09:41:12 Col. Krasnokutsky says: They will do a trial approach.
                              Look at the attached transcript.

                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Really, so what? What is your point. They did it and lost.

                                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.

                                The ATC boy was probably under as much pressure to let them try as the pilot was to try it which he did. It sounds like he also assumed the duties both the Captain and FO since he was both flying and handling communications which is probably not in the Air Force ops manual either.

                                "Trial approach, conditional approach, attempt or ground sniffing" ... what is the difference?
                                Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X