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

  • On the other hand "Tower, AF1 going around" is not asking permission to go around, it's informing the ATC that they ARE going around. And the only acceptable reply to an eventual "No, AF1 continue the landing, you are a military flight and I give the orders here" would be a "Fuck you" (ok, "Unable" might be more appropriate).
    Unable might be more appropriate... but I think your first suggestion might be the one delivered in private

    For them to have tried landing, several conditions would have to be met: a permission from the ATC (and ATC can issue such a permission only if they can see the plane from the tower, otherwise they order GA), ground/RWY visiblity at decision height...
    I have NEVER heard of a situation where on an instrument approach the tower must visibily sight the aircraft prior to giving landing clearance.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MCM View Post
      I have NEVER heard of a situation where on an instrument approach the tower must visibily sight the aircraft prior to giving landing clearance.
      They got a "conditional" landing permission from the ATC. If at the decision height the ATC can observe the plane, they issue a final landing clearance. Otherwise they order a go around. This is a standard operating procedure at Russian military airdromes.

      Have you ever landed at a Russian military airdrome?

      Comment


      • One thing still bothered me besides the length of the MM signal. The altitude alert was set for 100m (radalt) but it fired its alert when the plane was below 60m above ground. Then I realized that I left those alerts where the Russian CVR transcript showed them. But when I listened to the recording I noticed that they formed one sound block with the Nav calling the altitude etc. So I moved the altitude sound alert, MM signal, AP alerts to match their location with other sounds in the recording. Suddenly the altitude alert is exactly where the plane crosses the 100m distance to the ground (point D) and the MM signal starts at altitude of 56m (point E), which would be perfectly fine for the 2.5 sec length of the signal. Also the force is applied to the control column at the same time as the F/O repeats the GA call. This also works with the new assumed trajectory (light-blue dashed line). The trajectory based on report flight data would have generated the altitude alert much earlier.

        So why would the Russians move the whole sound block few seconds forward? Doing this they raised red flags with the strange behavior of TAWS, length of MM signal, and the time of altitude alert.

        I think they were trying to show that the pilots were using radalt, not baro alt, and that their actions were too late to save the plane. You can see in the new plot that their actions were immediate, the sufficient force was applied to the control column before the last safe GA point. Most likely they were dealing with some other failure of the systems that prevented them from saving the plane.

        Comment


        • I take it the findings on this were controversial, not easily accepted by everybody.

          Comment


          • No I haven't - and if that is their procedure then it is one of the strangest I have come across and completely negates the concept of instrument approach design.

            You would need rediculously high visibility to make an approach at an aerodrome with such a requirement. No wonder no-one made it in!

            Comment


            • OK, with your new theory in mind,

              Why did the crew ignore the GPWS "Pull Up" that occurred significantly prior to the Captain ordering the go around?

              2nd point,

              The push down does not necessarily have to be a technical failure, although it may have been.

              It would not be the first time a pilot got to the minima, called for a go around, saw some lights on the ground that he thought were the runway and pushed down to "duck under" to see better. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it wouldn't be the first.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MCM View Post
                OK, with your new theory in mind,

                Why did the crew ignore the GPWS "Pull Up" that occurred significantly prior to the Captain ordering the go around?
                Normally, with an airdrome in the GPWS database, the "Pull Up" alerts would be supressed when the plane is in a landing configuration. This airdrome was not in the database, so "Pull Up" alerts before reaching the decision altitude were just nuisance alerts.
                The push down does not necessarily have to be a technical failure, although it may have been.

                It would not be the first time a pilot got to the minima, called for a go around, saw some lights on the ground that he thought were the runway and pushed down to "duck under" to see better. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it wouldn't be the first.
                To "duck under" they would have to turn the AP off first. It seems like they were trying to do everything possible to pull the plane up. Technical issues are more likely here, but at this point we don't know for sure.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                  To "duck under" they would have to turn the AP off first. It seems like they were trying to do everything possible to pull the plane up. Technical issues are more likely here, but at this point we don't know for sure.
                  After both the Russians and the Poles have scrutinized the FDR and CVR, the only technical issue that has been indicated is an apparent lack of technical knowledge. Isn't that right?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    After both the Russians and the Poles have scrutinized the FDR and CVR, the only technical issue that has been indicated is an apparent lack of technical knowledge. Isn't that right?
                    According to the Russian report there were no technical issues. Polish side still does not have access to the wreckage (and it might be too late for it now) or to the original recordings (and black boxes themselves), so their investigation cannot be completed. And if the "lack of technical knowledge" you are referring to is the GA procedure, I would wait till we see the results of the test flight.

                    So what is your opinion about the behavior of the plane after the second 100m call?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                      To "duck under" they would have to turn the AP off first.
                      It seems like they were trying to do everything possible to pull the plane up.
                      Except actually turning the AP off and pulling up? Well, adding a bit of thrust wouldn't be a bad idea either.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                        So what is your opinion about the behavior of the plane after the second 100m call?
                        Pilot error in executing a go-around, after pilot error in continuing an unstabilized approach down to MDA (after pilot error in attempting the approach in the first place).

                        Comment


                        • His cohort in the Yak had just landed a few moments before that remember.

                          There is always the "last one to have made a successful landing" and then there is ... the other guy.
                          Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Pilot error in executing a go-around, after pilot error in continuing an unstabilized approach down to MDA (after pilot error in attempting the approach in the first place).
                              The only error we can agree on here is attempting the approach.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                                His cohort in the Yak had just landed a few moments before that remember.

                                There is always the "last one to have made a successful landing" and then there is ... the other guy.
                                There was one plane after Yak (IL-76) that tried twice, almost crashed, and flew away. ATC should have diverted everyone after that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X