Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Evan]

Cockpit gradient on steroids.

[Highkeas]

I'm sure there is often pressure on pilots to make on time landings for dignitaries. This reminds me of the Ron Brown accident:
The aircraft crashed while executing a non-precision NDB approach in bad weather. United States Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was among the passengers killed.
Source http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=04031996%AE=73-1149&airline=United+States+Air+Force

[ATFS_Crash]

Originally Posted by Olii

MarcinL7788 please , stop forum spam. Why you write lies in all air forums ?

As near as I can tell MarcinL7788 is not lying or spamming. There is some evidence that seems to suggest that there is at least some truth to what MarcinL7788 is saying.

In August 2008, the pilot of Kaczyński's plane was threatened with dismissal when he refused to land in Tbilisi during the South Ossetian war between Georgia and Russia.

Sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Po...e_Tu-154_crash

http://www.newsru.com/world/12aug2008/kolonna1.html

It seems as if you may be the one that might be lying and spamming.

Originally Posted by Evan

Cockpit gradient on steroids.

On the contrary. I'm not sure at what context your post is, perhaps you're suggesting that more cockpit gradient is needed, but what you say seems to come across the other way. I feel that the cockpit gradient was negative in this case because it seems that the powers that be, put itself above the cockpit.

If these stories are true that the powers that be, had a history of intimidating this pilot to do unsafe things against his better judgment; that would suggest that the cockpit gradient was broken. It seems that this pilot and perhaps other pilots were bullied into submission at the cost of safety.

I have complained before because a lighter version of this seems to also exist in the West. I can't help but feel that sometimes airlines and ATC tend to have a slightly heavy hand in encouraging commercial airline pilots to land and take off in fairly heavy weather. It seems sometimes pilots are encouraged to take more risks than they should and are sometimes expected to perform beyond their capabilities. I feel that a pilot should be best qualified to know what their own capabilities are (and know the immediate conditions/circumstances); therefore I feel if a pilot refuses to take off or wants land at an alternate airport; that judgment call should generally be respected without retributions.

Though air traffic control may have been suggesting using an alternate airport and that is probably what is best documented, it seems this pilot has a history of being bullied into landing when he thought it was unsafe. That may be a bad lesson that he had learned and it may have broken him as a man and may have made him fear rerouting flights. There may have also been some bullying by the powers that be that were on board the doomed airplane that may have bullied the pilot into disregarding the pilot's better judgment and air traffic controller's advice.

It looks like that this was going to turn out to be pilot error. However there seems to be more to the story, it seems that the powers that be may be at fault for encouraging/ordering pilot error. It seems like this was a failure of crew resource management. It seems like this was a failure largely of the powers that be.

I'm assuming that one of the recorders is a CVR. Hopefully there will be more clues on the CVR, however the recordings me not to reveal bullying even if there was some on this flight. The intimidation may have very well taken place off mike. It's also possible that there wasn't any intimidation that day; but the pilot had learned from previous intimidation to disregard safety.

I suspect weak cockpit gradient from intimidation (whether it be from intimidation that day or from the past) is the likely root cause of this mishap.

[Geebee]

Although I concur with your comments ATFS_Crash, please note that this was a different pilot than the one of the 'Georgian' incident. Hence, I disagree with your statement that

it seems this pilot has a history of being bullied into landing when he thought it was unsafe.

.

BBC and other sources now mention that the crew might have neglected ATC advice to hold or gain altitude as they were going below the glide path.

CVR hopefully will provide more clues shortly.

[ATFS_Crash]

Originally Posted by Geebee

please note that this was a different pilot than the one of the 'Georgian' incident.

If so, then I stand corrected. As often; I may be confused by the language and translations. I will try to reread after I'm better rested.

Even if it was another pilot, it seems to suggest that there was a figuratively a bad atmosphere for cockpit command and safety in the community. Bad crew resource management.

Originally Posted by Geebee

BBC and other sources now mention that the crew might have neglected ATC advice to hold or gain altitude as they were going below the glide path.

By that time because of possible intimidation the pilot may have been in over his head. The pilot had probably entered what I call "situation overload" lost "situational awareness" and may have psychologically blocked out communications (psychologically put comms on cold mike).

[Olii]

Please do not cite wikipedia and Russian newspapers. They are not completely reliable. Several times he had lied on the number of aircraft landings and records of the WTC. Someone on the overlap does not understand what is in a position to make the Russian military. If this is a wine ATC might never know. There are black boxes read, but the Russian press has already impose on the pilot's fault. This is ridiculous and typical of the Russian action. None of us was not there, do not know what happened. The entry on Wikipedia was added by Russian user. Suffice it to recall the tragedy of Polish Airlines aircraft or Kursk tragedy.

It is a pity that it appears above, based on CNN news. Which are copied from one Russian newspaper. I know Russian well, I read all day to keep about 10 Russian websites. The information that was there made a complete chaos, a simple example lies on the number of landings. ATC does not tell the truth, as it was a simple example. How could they not know how many times a plane approaches to land. Let me give a simple example, the plane approaches the landing. The cockpit is a pilot and an experienced president. The President orders the landing, the pilot refuses. He knows that there is no visibility, for example, that a landing means 30% risk of breakdown. At home waiting for his wife and children, on board are 90 passengers. I understand that you think ends up So is suicide? I think that if the conditions were terrible that has ever tried to land regardless of whoever told him. Just the human body physically did not allow him to do something.

[DAIRD]

@Ollii: "...In Georgia air incident , its only small problem president vs captain.

In Georgia incident fly captain , PŁK Tomasz Pietrzak.

Today in crash fly , captain Arkadiusz Protasik - this pilot flew with the president several times. Its very good Polish president friend. There would be no pressure on the pilot..."

I would say: different pilots - same problem. The aircraft had no failure, because in that case it would'nt have made this flight. For me it looks like the problem was the high-ranking entourage sitting behind the crew. And I'm sure, what we later will hear or read about the accident will be: "pilot error", without any mention about the circumstances on board.

I don't care about the politics behind the scene, this fate hits humans sitting in a plane what crashed.

[Crunk415balla]

Why so many essential countrymen were put on one plane, I'll never understand. Terrible tragedy, for sure a worst case scenario.

[Pizzojad]

Originally Posted by Olii

[...]In Georgia air incident , its only small problem president vs captain.[...]

I was registered because I can't leave that unanswered.
That "small problem" was a big story in the Poland but I suppose that it was almost unknown in other countries.
Olli tries to play an rusophoby card so let me cite part of article from the biggest polish newspaper "Gazeta Wyborcza" (sorry for google translation):

Colonel Pietruczuk informed of its decision and Łopińskiego Stasiak. Once you have the president come to the cockpit and personally as a superior military forces ordered me to fly to Tbilisi - the pilot said in a report. Earlier, the president's closest collaborators, such as Adam Bielan, said that Kaczynski is not in contact with the pilot. And the president in an interview for Polish Radio claimed: - "I did not seem to command, I just spent a lot of different commands more than a pilot officer in the Polish Army. And they have carried out my instructions and the pilot made the order in writing. And the pilot did not listen.

Kaczynski later told reporters during the flight that "if someone decides to be an officer, it should not be fearful." After landing in Azerbaijan announced that "after returning to the country will introduce order in this matter."

Wtranslation of whole article can be found here:
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...98crdQzPM9n1HA

[Alessandro]

Originally Posted by brianw999

A badly flown B767 that hits trees will crash just the same as a TU154 that is badly flown and hits trees !

Sure, I never claimed it was a better plane, but more political correct.

[Alessandro]

Originally Posted by tsv

The 767's would need to be converted into VIP config which would presumably be quite expensive. They may also be bigger than what the President requires given the TU-154's have sufficed to now. And they're not exactly new or particularly cheap to operate. As Poland is an EU member I'd suggest an order for a couple of A320/321's might be appropriate.

But obviously if they're going to attempt landings in heavy fog at airports without ILS then the aircraft choice is irrelevant, they'd be better ordering Gliders that can crash more softly.

It´s politics we taking about, sure the polish public wouldn´t mind the cost, it has happened before, PAF taking over planes from LOT.

[tsv]

Originally Posted by BoeingKing77

Dude,do you know what the NATO name for this aircraft is?Careless.And its had 66 incidents and accidents. And do you see a patern in what planes are crashing??Over here:Occasional crashes.former soviet union:Almost always a Soviet aircraft,almost never a western aircraft.

Oh man are you for real? I suggest reading the crash reports for the 66 "incidents and accidents". You can do so here - http://aviation-safety.net/database/.

Even a Caveman should quickly come to the conclusion that the crashes were not caused by any defects in the airliner. One hit a Snow Plough on the runway, some were shot down, there have been mid air collisions, issues with contaminated fuel, overloading, navigational mistakes, poor Maintenance issues and of course Pilot Error. But the aircraft itself has had no issues that would lead any reasonable person to believe it is "unsafe".

As for Soviet aircraft crashing more regularly than the Western ones well take a look at the data for Fatal Passenger Jetliner Crashes since 2005 in the former Soviet Union (2005 is about the time Western Models became reasonably common in these countries).

There are 11 such crashes that have occurred in the 15 Countries of the former Soviet Union since 2005;

1. 7th June 1995, Latvian Air Force LET 410, 2 Fatalities (Latvia)
2. 2nd January 2006 Evolga BA125, 3 Fatalities (Ukraine)
3. 3rd May 2006 Armavia A320, 113 Fatalities (Russia)
4. 9th July 2006 Sibir A310, 125 Fatalaties (Russia)
5. 22nd August 2006 Polkovo TU-154, 170 Fatalities (Ukraine)
6. 17th March 2007 Utair TU-134, 7 Fatalities (Russia)
7. 26th December 2007 Jet Connect Business Flight, Canadair CL600, 1 Fatality (Kazakhstan)
8. 24th August 2008 Itek Air, 737, 65 Fataliites (Kyrgystan)
9. 14th September 2008, Aeroflot Nord 737, 88 Fatalities (Russia)
10. 26th October 2009, S-Air BAE125, 5 Fatalities (Belarus)
11. 10th April 2010, Polish Airforce TU-154, 98 Fatalities (Russia)

So of the 11 crashes there was 1 aircraft produced in Czech Republic, 3 in Russia, 2 in Britain, 2 in the US, 2 in France and 1 in Canada.

Of the Fatality Count, 279 were killed on Eastern Built Aircraft and 400 on Western Built Aircraft.

Now what was that you were saying about a Pattern...

[thrpst]

Probably the penultimate landing of the TU-154M machine at Prague Airport on Thursday 8. May. This airplane reg. no. 101 crashed in the morning of Saturday 10. May in Russia.

http://www.planesvideo.cz/wp-content...M_PolishAF.wmv

http://www.planes.cz/cs/photo/107414...zyne-prg-lkpr/

http://www.planes.cz/cs/photo/107411...zyne-prg-lkpr/

Might not be the best airliner at present, but still very elegant one.

[Evan]

I've consider the possibility that state departments are still flying older airframes, not just due to costs, but because they predate the elimination of the flight engineer position. Even our own Air Force one 742's meet this criteria. I suspect that is it considered safer (though commercially inefficient) to offload this responsibility to a third crewmember. This may be particularly true when in-flight refueling is required. As far as costs are concerned, I imagine these older jets are significantly less efficient and more expensive to operate, both in fuel and maintenance costs.

The replacements to the Air Force One 742's will probably be 748 or 787. I wonder if these be modified to allow for a flight engineer?

[Curtis Malone]

Originally Posted by Evan

I've consider the possibility that state departments are still flying older airframes, not just due to costs, but because they predate the elimination of the flight engineer position. Even our own Air Force one 742's meet this criteria. I suspect that is it considered safer (though commercially inefficient) to offload this responsibility to a third crewmember. This may be particularly true when in-flight refueling is required. As far as costs are concerned, I imagine these older jets are significantly less efficient and more expensive to operate, both in fuel and maintenance costs.

FWIW, when the VC-25A was being procured, the 747-400 was still a project, so perhaps the AF wasn't willing to wait. As far as efficiency, it's powered by the same CF6s the -400s have, so I doubt there is a huge difference there, especially considering that the -25A likely flies at much lower weights than commercial -400s typically operate at.

[Geebee]

To ATFS_Crash, absolutely no offense taken. I think you make very good points anyhow along the board.

Here is another link to a new article on BBC aiming at the aircraft type and it's reliability. An interesting read and some interesting things I was not aware of (ie. the fact that many Tu-154 accidents were not related to the plane but to the environment in which they typically operated...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612915.stm

For those interested. The CVR and FDR are being investigated by a joint Russian/Polish investigation committee, so let's not focus on creating urban legends. The press is the press. So it is the case in Russia. Let's wait for the official versions of the investigation to become available.

On a different note, I hope that the recent thaw in Russian-Polish relationships will not be jeopardized by the event. However, I'm afraid it will not help....

[DAIRD]

It makes no sense to point at Tupolevs or Boeings, what is better equipped or had more capacities in power... The main reason behind all crashes are humans who are either driving the plane or maintain it wrong. Government aircraft are not more safe of human-made errors than any other commercial airliner. If there is no ILS while the sight is below CAT III, the tower gives the advice to cancel the approach and looking for another airport to land safe and the pilot ignores the regularies at all, you can't blame the aircraft for the crash.

[Highkeas]

Originally Posted by Evan

.......................

The replacements to the Air Force One 742's will probably be 748 or 787. I wonder if these be modified to allow for a flight engineer?

Actually there are different aircraft used as Air Force One or Marine One including C-17s, C-32, C130, V-22, and S-3 - these do not have flight engineers.

[BoeingKing77]

Originally Posted by Olii

MarcinL7788 please , stop forum spam. Why you write lies in all air forums ? Why you today make acc in more air forums ? This guy , its no jet , air expert. Its only anti-president fraction representative. Agresive spam its popular in this political fraction.

In Georgia air incident , its only small problem president vs captain.

In Georgia incident fly captain , PŁK Tomasz Pietrzak.

Today in crash fly , captain Arkadiusz Protasik - this pilot flew with the president several times. Its very good Polish president friend. There would be no pressure on the pilot.

You have no respect for the victims. You are using this tragedy to their political games. You do this on many forums. Sorry everyone, but due to the memory of the dead I could not just leave. Sorry also for my poor English.

I dont call that spamming.I think it is an appropriate comment for this.And I'm pretty sure we almost all have respect for the victims.

[Myndee]

CRM wouldn't matter in a situation in which the boss of the boss of the boss said "LAND, or ______ will happen." The 1st and 2nd officers can just pray along with the captain that when they break from the cloud that they will see pavement in front of them instead of trees or a grass covered hill.

Like I said before, I have never served in the military, so I don't know what the procedure would be in a situation in which a commanding officer issued an order, even if it meant death.

I just cannot see an experienced pilot conducting CFIT on purpose. I don't mean that this pilot was suicidal, but without visibility, ILS, or glideslope, trying to land was pretty much a death mission.

Maybe he thought that on his 5th try that he got a good feel of the area and thought that he really could make the approach. Will we ever know?