If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Good points, but I still think it might have something to do with a power-gradient-human-factors issue, bad judgement, and descending below MDA's trying to get in when the weather is well below minimums. I know that kind of thing hasn't ever happened before, but there's always a first tme......
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Good points, but I still think it might have something to do with a power-gradient-human-factors issue, bad judgement, and descending below MDA's trying to get in when the weather is well below minimums. I know that kind of thing hasn't ever happened before, but there's always a first tme......
...or trying to execute a go-around on A/P on a Tu-154 without glideslope...
This argument is not quite clear yet. Apparently TU-154 pilots knew how to execute GA on A/P without ILS.
You are showing the appendix. The main report says that while it is possible, it is unlikely that the pilots knew it because it's not described anywhere in the autopilot manual and it is not trained or taught (or something like 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 ---
You are showing the appendix. The main report says that while it is possible, it is unlikely that the pilots knew it because it's not described anywhere in the autopilot manual and it is not trained or taught (or something like that).
I am only saying that because some other pilots in unofficial statements said that such a procedure was known to them and it worked.
The rotation of the plane seems to be quite erratic. When I examine the progression of rotation using points from the description in the report (pages attached), I get a wide variation of the rotation speed:
21.9 deg/sec
43.4 deg/sec
22.4 deg/sec
74.0 deg/sec
42.9 deg/sec
10.5 deg/sec
23.0 deg/sec
All of that happened in about 4 seconds!
Either tha plane had a special engine attached to control the speed of rotation, some violent forces were acting on the plane, or the whole description is a piece of fiction. Choose one.
What is also interesting is that the plane, while gaining altitude and rotating to 50 deg, flies perfectly straight between points 5B and TAWS #38.
The rotation gets even crazier when I examine more points from the Table on page 4/14. The rotation speed gets up to 112 deg/sec only to stop abruptly for about 0.5 sec.
When I try to synch CVR with TAWS timeline I am getting inconsistent results. Using points that are the easiest to match (gap between the trees, 30 cm birch, MM) and accepting the possiblity that CVR recording went beyond the FMS power loss by 0.616 sec., I arrived at a significant discrepancy with the TAWS #37 event location. Since the TAWS timeline is the most reliable, it is very probable that the CVR has been "modified".
And that proves what exactly? The airplane collided with the ground below runway level. Does this information trigger any kind of neural response with you?
And that proves what exactly? The airplane collided with the ground below runway level. Does this information trigger any kind of neural response with you?
That indicates that most likely sections of the CVR recording were removed. If you look at the attached picture you'll know what I am talking about. Gap "A" is when the pilots were calling for go-around. We don't know what was removed but it must have been important and likely undermining the conclusions of the report. How can you be sure about what you know about this crash when you face issues like this? Maybe the cut out section had someone saying "I see the search lights, we can land, forget the go-around". Pure speculation of course, but there is a part of recording missing and if you can dismiss it and live with it then your neural response is in question.
There is at least one more gap in the recording that I see. Could be more. Why?
Maybe the cut out section had someone saying "I see the search lights, we can land, forget the go-around".
Good point. That would change the situation from busting minimums to... still busting minimums. No see-a runway, no land-a the plane, those are the rules.
You might be right in that they called off the go-around because they had the searchlights in sight (due to VIP pressure I might add), and simply didn't speak this decision, but rather continued the descent. This is still, however, unforgivable.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment