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
    BTW, will the test include a recovery from "down in the hole" off the threshold?

    It is much more than doing a GA from a normal approach.
    The most important test is the one of automatic GA with identical AP configuration.

    Comment


    • Another gem from the report. If you analyze ground speed from about 11km on, using data from the report, you will come up with a significant variation:
      10km - 289km/h
      9km - 344km/h
      8km - 310km/h
      7km - 292km/h
      6.3km - 327km/h
      5.5km - 315km/h
      4.5km - 320km/h
      3.5km - 297km/h
      3km - 286km/h
      And all that with the F/O calling 280km/h at 10:38:45 and 10:40:14 and flying on autothrottle.

      Comment


      • Marek Pasionek who was overseeing the Polish investigation was removed from the investigation for apparently "contacting a foreign country". He requested satellite photographs from the US using his contacts in the US government.

        Comment


        • He was removed by?

          Was there a strict protocol?

          Would the US have refused if he ... I assume this was "back channel" by the tone of the post?
          Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

          Comment


          • I must have missed the earlier post but you indicate that the flight had filed a plan that identifies itself as ... PLF-101-I-M ... and as such is that the identifier that was sent to the Russians?

            Would there have been an acknowledgement of the flight as a military flight with the "M" suffix and what would convention and law or protocol dictate?

            It was said that as a military flight the Russians would have had authority and control over the flight. I think it was mentioned that they should have ordered a "wave off" regarding the altitude and such?

            It makes perfect sense that a foreign military flight be under absolute control of the "host" nation, but is it possible that the crew ... it does not sound like they were anticipating a wave off but is that possible?

            Were other phases of the flight handled in such a fashion? Was the YAK that arrived prior to this handled in such a military manner? This is assuming that it was also a Polish Air Force flight.
            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
              He was removed by?

              Was there a strict protocol?

              Would the US have refused if he ... I assume this was "back channel" by the tone of the post?
              He was fired by the head military prosecutor. He might be charged but not many details are out yet.

              I guess he was trying to obtain some information and maybe shared some information with his US contacts without the approval of his higher ups. But again, this is preliminary.

              Looks like different opinions (factions?) in the commission are becoming public. Maybe the final report is coming out soon.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                I must have missed the earlier post but you indicate that the flight had filed a plan that identifies itself as ... PLF-101-I-M ... and as such is that the identifier that was sent to the Russians?

                Would there have been an acknowledgement of the flight as a military flight with the "M" suffix and what would convention and law or protocol dictate?

                It was said that as a military flight the Russians would have had authority and control over the flight. I think it was mentioned that they should have ordered a "wave off" regarding the altitude and such?

                It makes perfect sense that a foreign military flight be under absolute control of the "host" nation, but is it possible that the crew ... it does not sound like they were anticipating a wave off but is that possible?

                Were other phases of the flight handled in such a fashion? Was the YAK that arrived prior to this handled in such a military manner? This is assuming that it was also a Polish Air Force flight.
                The flight was classified as military and the flight plan was given to the Russians.
                The crew did not say "we are going to try an approach", they asked for a permission to do it. The ATC had a full authority to divert the plane or to allow an approach.

                Both Yak-40 and IL-76 were handled in a similar manner.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                  The crew did not say "we are going to try an approach", they asked for a permission to do it. The ATC had a full authority to divert the plane or to allow an approach.
                  The ATC told them, in no ambiguos terms, and after informing several times about the horrible conditions way below minimums, that "THE WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR LANDING".
                  After that, the crew INSISTED that they still wanted to try once.
                  Why would the ATC prevent them from doing so?

                  (Paraphrasing the CVR and ATC tapes)

                  - ATC: Visibility and ceiling are crap. What's your alternate?
                  - IL: Please give us the meteo for the field.
                  - ATC: Visibility and ceiling are crap.
                  - IL: Please give us the meteo for the field.
                  - Aren't you listening? Visibility and ceiling are crap.
                  - IL: The full meteo please.
                  - ATC: Ok, here's the wind, the QNH, the temp the dew point... But why interested at all? Didn't you hear that the visibility and the ceiling are crap? "Conitions are NOT suitable for landing" (verbatim).
                  - IL: We know, but we still want to try the approach once. If at the minimums we don't see the runway, and we don't expect to see it really, we'll miss the approach and go for the alternate.
                  - ATC: Ok, if you really want... it's up to you. Are you sure you'll have enough fuel for the alternate then? Because you will need it.
                  - IL: Yes, enough.
                  - ATC: Ok, then you are cleared for the approach. But remember the minimum is 100m, you'll have to go-around if, I mean, WHEN, you don't have the field by then.
                  - IL: Yes, I know, 100m.
                  - ATC boss (to ATC guy): They are crazy enough that they insisted to try approach. Ok, but make sure that you clear them only to 100m, the minimums, but never for the landing.
                  - ATC guy: Yes sir (and so he did).

                  --- 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


                  • Ummmmmmmmmmm, how about Alpha Mike Foxtrot?

                    Inane, even after I consider the source.
                    Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                    Comment


                    • For the record, this is the radio traffic between the ATC and Yak-40 and ATC and IL-76. First 3 pages.

                      Comment


                      • Next 3 pages. Interesting what they say at 09:41:12.

                        Comment


                        • For those who did not find it, at 09:41:12 Krasnokutsky (whoever this guy is, he is not ATC) says about Tu-154 "they will do one trial approach". How did he know that one hour before the crash?

                          Comment


                          • Top page does not indicate that this is who is communicating.

                            The presidential flight is an hour out, heck the "Tu" reference was probably for the Yak or Il.
                            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                              Top page does not indicate that this is who is communicating.
                              Not sure what you are referring to. Krasnokutsky's name is next to the line stating that Tu-154 left Warsaw, and next to the line about the trial approach.
                              The presidential flight is an hour out, heck the "Tu" reference was probably for the Yak or Il.
                              In the Russian text they use "Tushka" which is a nickname for Tu-154. And it left Warsaw airport at 9:27. I don't think there is any doubt what they are talking about here. Yak-40 already landed, and IL-76 was flying away.

                              Comment


                              • One more interesting thing. From NYT article from April 11, 2010:
                                "Correspondents at the scene said the plane’s explosion was so powerful that fragments of it were scattered as far as the outskirts of Smolensk, more than a mile from the crash site."
                                Never heard of that before.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X