Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Peter Kesternich]

Originally Posted by justLOT787

Well we don't know that for sure. We don't have the real proof and a real report out do we now. All the reports from MAK are fake like all the speculations on this thread.

Hmmmmm - from what I have read here it seems to me that the info is quite obvious in both the Russian and Polish version of the CVR transcript - i.e. that the crew were warned against attempting the approach but tried nevertheless.

[Northwester]

Originally Posted by Peter Kesternich

They did not only make mistakes, they made THE mistake - busting minimums.

And you know it was intentional, right?

[guamainiac]

Because in 99 cases out of 100 it is intentional.

Sniffing right at the edge of illegal but so are hookers and that does not mean they don't exist.

Why is it that this is about the #1 place to look in this sort of incident?

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Northwester

So if you look at both versions of the CVR plots, what conclusions can you come up with? Accidental shift of the timeline? Sloppy work? Lack of attention to detail?
Put both plots next to each other and compare. Not minimally material?

If you have the tape, proper equipment, and few months of time, you can do almost anything with it.

I didn't explain myself well.

I'm not defending the Russian investigation. There are some dark points that I cannot explain.

I meant something material regarding that the Russians were a significant causal factor in the accident, let alone intentionally doing something to cause the accident.

About the difference between both plots, I can't explain. I can't either say which is the right one. I understand your points to explain that the Polish one is the right one and that the Russian version is impossible (TWAS with the plane already climbing), and that makes me doubt of the Russian version of the plot and I'm open to the possibility that the Polish version is right.

About the wrong point in space (with any of the plots), we went through this several times. They were in a NON PRECISION APPROACH. They didn't have glide slope information. They were supposed to descend to 100m and, at most, stay there until the missing approach point, and then start a go around. And being a couple of dozens of meters off horizontally is not bad either for a non-precision approach. If they saw the runway at 100m of altitude and they were not too close to the runway already as to attempt a landing, they must have been some 2000m from the touchdown zone, so correcting say 30m horizontally is not such a task.

Regardless of the differences that I agree meet the "minimally material" check, what both plots and CVR show is:

- A descent rate that, after the outer marker, increases beyond what any airline would consider within a stabilized approach criteria, and which reduces the margins of error because you are closer in time from any point to the ground.

- The plane descending below 100m.

- The plane descending below the runway altitude.

- 5 "Terrain ahead" and 8 "Pull-up, pull-up" warnings.

- The "go around" command stated AFTER the nav called "100 meters" (unlike a precision approach, where you initiate the go-around when crossing the decision height, in a non precision approach you are supposed to start to level off BEFOR reaching the minimum descent altitude because you are not authorized to go 1 meter below it).

- The crew of the previous Polish plane advising the accident crew of a visibility that was one fifth of the minimum one.

- The ATC saying that the weather conditions were not suitable for landing, but the PIC insisting in that they would try.

- Someone saying that the President has not decided yet what to do if the landing failed, and the pilot saying that "He will kill me if we don't land" (ok, I'm not sure if that last part was included in the Polish version, but then let me doubt of the Polish version too. If the Russians are not impartial, I don't expect the Polish to be it either).

- The pilot saying that "If we have to go around will do in on autopilot", something technically impossible for this plane in a non precision approach.

And I don't know how the Russians could have influenced in any of all these things during the flight, which in some way or another is what ultimately brought the plane down.

So again, until there is something minimally material to support it, I'm out of the discussion of whether the Russians were a causal factor in the accident, let alone intentionally causing it with the goal of killing the Polish President.

[MCM]

The manner of the crash - yes. Location? The plane was off course, off path, about 1000m farther away from the RWY than the pilots assumed (and were informed by the ATC). Even if they were on path (correct altitude), they would have missed the RWY touching down to the left of it.

The point is that the GPS does not provide you with path information in a GNSS approach. Looking at the terrain and altitude where they did impact the ground, it is clear it was not as a result of them being 1000m displaced on their map either. Had they, for example, crashed into a 500ft hill because they were 1000m displaced in their position, then you'd have an argument. But they didn't.

The next point - how far off centreline were they? If you're looking at GPS accuracy, minor tracking errors can easily be explained. The tolerances allowed on GPS approaches are quite high, but usually accuracy is quite good.

Lets assume for a moment that the navigation solution is working to an accuracy of 0.05 (not unusual for something like a 747). This is about 3 times as accurate as the design of even the most critical approaches being flown in the commercial world. Even at 0.05, you're looking at a 100m error being allowed. For the design of a standard GNSS approach, it could be as much as 0.30 - which is ballpark 600m offset while still being within approved limits. Just how far offset were they?

[Northwester]

Originally Posted by MCM

The point is that the GPS does not provide you with path information in a GNSS approach. Looking at the terrain and altitude where they did impact the ground, it is clear it was not as a result of them being 1000m displaced on their map either. Had they, for example, crashed into a 500ft hill because they were 1000m displaced in their position, then you'd have an argument. But they didn't.

The next point - how far off centreline were they? If you're looking at GPS accuracy, minor tracking errors can easily be explained. The tolerances allowed on GPS approaches are quite high, but usually accuracy is quite good.

Lets assume for a moment that the navigation solution is working to an accuracy of 0.05 (not unusual for something like a 747). This is about 3 times as accurate as the design of even the most critical approaches being flown in the commercial world. Even at 0.05, you're looking at a 100m error being allowed. For the design of a standard GNSS approach, it could be as much as 0.30 - which is ballpark 600m offset while still being within approved limits. Just how far offset were they?

If a 600m error is allowed in a standard GNSS approach then the GPS is totally useless for navigation. They were about 50m off, depending on which dist. from the RWY you want to use as a reference. My car GPS is lightyears ahead, usually within 5m of the actual position.

I am assuming they were using onboard navigation systems for staying on course, for the info from the ATC was useless. The Yak-40 crew reported that during their approach the GPS was leading them to the left, and the NDBs to the right. So they followed the path inbetween both signals and still came out to the left of the RWY. They did what the Tu-154 pilots were supposed to do: descended to 100m, levelled off, continued till they saw the searchlights illuminating the RWY and then landed.

What I cannot explain about Tu-154 flight data is that at 10:40:38 the Nav says 100, and then he repeats it 7 seconds later (the same time as the PIC calls for GA) as though the plane was flying level, but the flight data shows a steady descent.

[Peter Kesternich]

Originally Posted by Northwester

And you know it was intentional, right?

I don't know if it was intentional and it actually doesn't matter. If the minimum descent altitude is for example 100m and you go below that in low visibility and then hit the ground without seeing it then it's the pilot's fault. If it was unintentional then it was at least stupid and a sign of bad training in the Polish pilots. If it was intentional it was criminal on top of being stupid and badly trained.

The important thing is that the crew of the president's plane had all means at their disposal to avoid this accident. If they had used them, the accident wouldn't have happened. There is no way the Russians could have done anything to crash the plane (intentionally or unintentionally by making mistakes on the Russians' part), if the crew of the Tu-154 had been working professionally and relying on standard practices.

[MCM]

If a 600m error is allowed in a standard GNSS approach then the GPS is totally useless for navigation... My car GPS is lightyears ahead, usually within 5m of the actual position.

I've got an idea Northwester - before declaring things useless, why don't you take the time to do some reading and some education on the topic?

Maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something and won't just prove the point that those around you are saying - that you are all talk but no evidence or proof?

1 - GPS approaches are very common, so they're hardly useless are they. They are storming the world.

2 - Normal GPS approaches require an "RNP" value of about 0.30nm. That means that the accuracy is guaranteed to be within 0.30nm, ie 555 metres. Even the most accurate approaches going around anywhere in the world... RNP 0.10, only requries you to be within 185m either side of track.

3 - Yes, normally accuracy is higher than that - and normally sits at about 0.02 or 0.03 - which, coincidently, is about 50m, HOWEVER, given the tolerance is 555m, you cannot use the fact it was 50m off the given track to prove that there was sabotage!


Your car GPS is USUALLY at 5m. Is it always? Can you guarantee, for a given drive, that it will ALWAYS be within 5m? Of course not.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by MCM

Had they, for example, crashed into a 500ft hill because they were 1000m displaced in their position, then you'd have an argument.

No, he wouldn't.

This was not a precision approach. It was not planned as a precision approach. A precision approach was never available. A wise planning decision would have been as follows: We have very important people on board. If we have visibility issues, we go to the alternate. Period.

This thread will continue to circle itself as long until the end of time. Northwester will continue to point out what may be valid discrepancies in the accident report without seeing the glaringly obvious causative factors. He will continue to focus on these details despite the fact that they do nothing to change the issues that really matter. That is a devil's advocate argument and it can go on until the end of time.

But the fate of these passengers and crew was sealed when Polish authorities planned the mission. It lies in the crew selection, which was based upon the malleability of their principals rather than the depth of their experience. A Russian pilot familiar with the field was arrogantly refused. The crew was selected because they would not stand up to VIP demands, because they would have the "courage" to complete the mission. Their training and experience was obviously not the primary factor, or they would have known what to do long before they reached MDA.

The Polish ex-president and certain members of his senior staff are guilty of manslaughter due to their negligence and recklessness. Poland should see that this is brought to trial, and that changes are made to prevent another such occurrence. If, instead, they choose to focus on what the Russians might have done, or not done, to change the outcome here, they have learned nothing.

[MCM]

His justification could have been be that they could have been perfectly acceptably completing an non-precision approach to the normal minima, and if there was a LARGE nav discrepency they could have crashed into a hill that shouldn't have been there.

That is, of course, not what has happened here - there is no large navigational discrepency at all - they could have been 600m left of track and still not hit anything had they completed a normal GPS approach.

What I cannot explain about Tu-154 flight data is that at 10:40:38 the Nav says 100, and then he repeats it 7 seconds later (the same time as the PIC calls for GA) as though the plane was flying level, but the flight data shows a steady descent.

The Russian version of the plot that was linked a few posts ago fits in perfectly well with these events. The first time the radio altimeter got to 100, the NAV said "100". The aeroplane continues descent, however the terrain falls from the aircraft at a faster rate. Then, the aircarft again passes through this 100ft rad alt measurement, and the NAV says it again. It is not an uncommon thing to see.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by MCM

His justification could have been be that they could have been perfectly acceptably completing an non-precision approach to the normal minima, and if there was a LARGE nav discrepency they could have crashed into a hill that shouldn't have been there.

...and then at mimina they could have gone around on autopilot...oh hang on, it's not working...does anyone know how this thing works?!!!

I'm not arguing with you MCM. I get your points. I just wish the larger points were more the topic of discussion.

[Northwester]

I am not arguing about the larger issues because as I said before I do not question poor planning and mistakes during the flight. But you cannot say that in an accident of this magnitude some "small" details (like CVR discrepancy) can be ignored. If you said that, you would be negating any civilized, common sense, and professional standards that allow us, human beings, to be right, just, and moral. I am on a high ground here, but I am getting tired of many on this thread being selective in choosing what aspect of this flight they are willing to talk about, and ignoring some other. Just the fact that there are two versions of the CVR transcripts should raise a huge red flag. And that there is a strong indication that the Russian version is not the correct one should make that red flag even bigger. The fact that the plane cut the power line at 10:39:35 (3 seconds before the crash) and the FDR shows 10:41:05 as the crash time (this is in synchronized time!) should make people scream. But what I hear instead is some small talk about wristwatch settings.

All talk, no facts? When this thing blows wide open, and sooner or later it will, I hope the ones of you that are honest (not the ones playing a game) will have a slightly different understanding of the realities surrounding this event.

[guamainiac]

Christ man, you sound worse than them.

Your way or the highway? Really listen to what you are saying.

In effect ... if there was a conspiracy and they did what I think they might have done convict them anyway?

No thanks.

[Northwester]

Originally Posted by guamainiac

Christ man, you sound worse than them.

Your way or the highway? Really listen to what you are saying.

In effect ... if there was a conspiracy and they did what I think they might have done convict them anyway?

No thanks.

Them - who?

[guamainiac]

Never one iota of gee, perhaps or "hmmmmmm that makes sense".

You got the answers before you came on here.

Sorry, I am not into "positive affirmations" and hugs.

Who? Who's on first.

Abbott and Costello

Youtube it, you need a laugh.

[guamainiac]

You don't show so I don't tell.

Who Are You .. a song by who else but ... "The Who".

Hoot is what the owl said.

[Peter_K]

Originally Posted by Evan

A Russian pilot familiar with the field was arrogantly refused.

I never heard about it but, after all Evan can not be wrong, can he? I'm sure it's a standard procedure for all HEAD flights, Barack Hussein lets foreign pilots ride up form in Air Force One all the time.

Originally Posted by Evan

The Polish ex-president and certain members of his senior staff are guilty of manslaughter due to their negligence and recklessness.

And why do we spend taxpayers money on prosecutors investigation when Evan for no extra charge will gladly play the role of prosecutor, judge and the hangmen all in one.
After all he is an expert on aircraft performance, aerodynamics, international law, geography, just to name a few.

[Peter_K]

Originally Posted by MCM

The next point - how far off centreline were they?

Eyewitness reports may not always be accurate but according to one an electrical discharge passed from the wing of the aircraft to the NDB antenna. If that was the case, they could not have been too far.

[guamainiac]

Look back at post #207 and the shot of the airport and approach.

I erred and though he was off center and made a stab for the runway. From the elevations he could have never done that?

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Northwester

I am not arguing about the larger issues because as I said before I do not question poor planning and mistakes during the flight. But you cannot say that in an accident of this magnitude some "small" details (like CVR discrepancy) can be ignored. If you said that, you would be negating any civilized, common sense, and professional standards that allow us, human beings, to be right, just, and moral. I am on a high ground here, but I am getting tired of many on this thread being selective in choosing what aspect of this flight they are willing to talk about, and ignoring some other. Just the fact that there are two versions of the CVR transcripts should raise a huge red flag. And that there is a strong indication that the Russian version is not the correct one should make that red flag even bigger. The fact that the plane cut the power line at 10:39:35 (3 seconds before the crash) and the FDR shows 10:41:05 as the crash time (this is in synchronized time!) should make people scream. But what I hear instead is some small talk about wristwatch settings.

All talk, no facts? When this thing blows wide open, and sooner or later it will, I hope the ones of you that are honest (not the ones playing a game) will have a slightly different understanding of the realities surrounding this event.

Northwester,

I want to, again, state clearly my position.

I support your concerns about abnormal things in the investigation, including the CVR, and that "small" (or not so small) details can't be ignored.

I'm willing to discuss ALL aspects of this flight. That doesn't mean that I'll agree with you in ALL of them.

There are several things that, in my mind, make the Russians suspects of a poor, not serious and unprofessional investigation, and I can't explain why it happened. I hope these things are explained sooner than later.

But I see nothing, NOTHING, minimally material that makes the Russians suspect of being a causal factor in the accident. If you see it otherwise please show us what you have.

A small comment about the clocks. You've said "the plane cut the power line at 10:39:35 (3 seconds before the crash) and the FDR shows 10:41:05 as the crash time (this is in synchronized time!)". Are you sure? How do you know? I, for what it's worth, would not even know how to start to synchronize the FDR clock with the electrical company clock, other than using the time when the power was cut as the baseline, case in which both clocks (once synchronized) will show exactly the same time as the time of cutting the wires (by definition of synchronization).