WWW.PROTu-154.org
Project Tupolev Team Forum Index Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search

Project Tupolev Team Forum Index » Hangar Talk » Terrible crash Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Post new topic  Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic 
Another blame on russian aircrafts from Iran
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 21:04 Reply with quote
Kleinerprinzsara
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 192
Location: EDDH




Walter

Sadly it does`t matter that the 101 is not guilty - after this crash many many people never will enter a Tushka anymore !!!

The reason are always these artificial bad news like this stupid one here from March



http://flyawaysimulation.com/article3913.html
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 14:02 Reply with quote
WalterLeo
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1660
Location: Viena Austria




Kleinerprinzsara


Yes but all this public perceptions are based on image not on facts. When now in Iran airlines change to MD 80 series, than they get a plane with better image, a little better safety record and less fuel burn. Maintaining the MD-80s could be much more difficult than the Tu-s. The Tu-154 familiy has less percent of hull losses than the entire 727 , 737 and DC-9 families and is much better than DC-10. But the passangers in due time wont have the decesion if they want to fly in Tu-s or not, these will be "fased out". Sadly but true.
What remains is, that these planes were remarkable tecnical achievmients perfectly fitting the harsh climatic conditions and the geography of their "birthplace" serving safely and punctually flights far north and over terrain without reliabel magnetic compass indications far away from radionavigational fixes. Not forgetting also the professionalism of their flightcrews and maintenance people.
We can be happy that exactly this plane has the most remarkable simulation of MS-Flightsimulator thanks to P.T.


Regards

Walter
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Final report
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 16:11 Reply with quote
WalterLeo
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1660
Location: Viena Austria




As the final report came out but still political discussions rage, one can go back to the facts but as person I take the liberty "to speculate".

1) From my experience as a small ex-PPL owner and a retired civil cervant who was very near to the political decisionmakers, even very often aboard VIP-flights I can say, one has to understand all parties involved to do justice to everybody. As a wise man said: Understanding everthing one can pardon everything.

2) The accident-investigators did their job which is not condem but trying to draw conclusions to avoid repetions of the accident.

3) Everybody onboard knew, that this voyage was very important with the "main passanger" beginning, trying to bring back on track his presidency.

4) The people of polish airforce from the commander inchief down to the FI were eager to fulfil the mission, to demonstrate how well prepaired and able they were and how well the money had been spent on them.

5) The pilots were in dilemma: How to explain to laymen, they cannot land on an airport, where they landed 3 days before and their collegues in the (slower) Yak 40 landed one and a half hour before (with still better visibility) and they beeing at the helms of a much better equiped airplane.

6) The captain requested from "main passanger" a decision to go to which alternate, but never received an answer, instead his airforce-boss enters the cockpit and takes the oberservers seat and talks about activating psychological reserves, which means among pilots, that the numbers of the visibility and definitions of what should be seen as "runway environment" are not numbers like in your bank-account, there is place for interpretation. At least the captain was under enormous pressure at least to try the approach, if nothing was visible below MDA everybody would have a good argument to go to an alternate, with the airforce chief as main-witness.

7) For me everthing went wrong as the radaraltimeter started to show erroneous elevetion when the airplane overflew the low ground before the treshhold. Seems the crew was not aware, "to erronous radar-altimeter indications" as on airports with lower ground before the runway-treshold in the approachplates is announced (e.g. Funchal, Puerto Escondido etc etc), therefore they steepened their approach (more than the permitted), and came below runway elevation.

8) For the controllers at the airfield it was also a difficult situation, there comes a state-flight, weather below minimus, they try an approach, the controllers whatch that approach at their military approach radar, but its not a GCA-approach, they propose to go to the alternate, the plane follows down, they wander below the glidepath, should they cry "fire", but its a state-flight whose crew shurely knows what they are doing...

That comes to my mind, should everybody killed there rest in peace.

For us still living the main conclusions are: Always be prepaired to go to an alternate (nearby!). No destination is worth reaching at the price of life. No event has to start on time. If you waited more than half a century for an event to take place, everybody can wait for some hours more. No technical equipment can free you from nature.
AND: Take rules and procedures by the letter. Organize your flightdepartment with clear and tried rules. And as a boss defend your people at all costs, if they are complying that rules and procedures against everybody and in whats case whatsever.

Walter

_________________
You think I am a bad pilot, you should watch me playing golf!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 17:07 Reply with quote
shc_04
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 177
Location: Turkey




Report in english language
http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigations/2010/files/tu154m_101/finalreport_eng.pdf

Also a good reconstruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucfMbPt8xRw

But part i don't understand is isn't there is a MDA. As far as i can see when plane reaches that altitude pilot couldn't see the runway so is it matter that ATC says you are on glideslope or not.

_________________
Mehmet Bengi Taysun
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 17:39 Reply with quote
WalterLeo
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1660
Location: Viena Austria




shc_04


At least in the abstract is said that in preparation of flight it was decided between the russian and the polish authorities that 100 m vertical and 1000 m horizontal visibilty as minimum for that special flight. In this special NDB approach, which was the proc. oficialy flown you are permitted to go down to 100 m above rwy elevation and there you hold that altitude, if you see the runway or its environment you land, if not you go around, normaly there is an NDB marking the missed approach point or you fly by the clock, after passing certain time at certain speed at 100 m you must go around. In an NDB approach there is no glideslope indication. In that case seems it was from the not used military GCA approach. AND: seems it was programmed into the FMC, therefore they flew on AP nearly to impact. But shurely the AP did not follow the FMC directly, therefore the too high descent rate was put into it by hand.

And the radar altimeter still showed an erronuosly higer altitude above the low ground and as in the RT=reconstruction shown, the Captains electronic altimeter had an erronously airpressure programed showing 100 m more than the other altimeters.
Thanks for the links, but the english final report did not open for me it was a problem of firefox.

As a friend of mine an ex airline pilot told me: Never mix procedures. Bad examples abound.

The political discussion in Poland concentrates now on the problem, if there is a duty of ATC to call out "below glideslope" or "passed missed aproach point" or "passed MDA". Besides the question, if ATC at Smolensk airbase could receive transponder altitude readout and what altimeter in the plane that was programing it, seems the only indication on ground that something was going wrong was from the GCA=Radar. Normally civil and military controlers work on differnt stations, even if they cooperate they are responisible for differnt things, talk on differnt frequencies etc... and the reconstruction is not a readout of stored radar datas, but based on the MSRP data of the downed plane.

Kind regards

Walter


Last edited by WalterLeo on Thu Jan 13, 2011 21:40; edited 1 time in total

_________________
You think I am a bad pilot, you should watch me playing golf!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 20:10 Reply with quote
tomcat
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 203
Location: Warsaw, Poland




The political discussion in Poland is a big mess, don't base on it, what they say, they're politics, they don't know anything about aviation, they read stupid articles, hear gossips and later they are telling us all that untidiness.
Actually, in the raport we can read many facts, but there is in example unconformity with the witness statement from the crew of Yak-40*. We also never find out, what gesticulation and body language occur in cockpit, and what conversation effectuated in president cabin. So we can get know only direct evidence what the reason of accident was.

*-They say, during those landing they got clearance to descend to altitude 50 m above airport. They heard ATC conversation during flight 101 approach, they remember the same clearance to 50m for Tu-154.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 09:12 Reply with quote
denokan
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 4952
Location: UNBB, UUDD




A good pilot WILL never descend below MDA without suitable visual reference!

It is a law. It is common for all countries within ICAO or out of its borders.

And no person may force the captain to make a decision to descent below MDA.

Its captain's only responsibility.

_________________
Fly with PT!
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 14:47 Reply with quote
WalterLeo
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1660
Location: Viena Austria




denokan


Only to add, also bad pilots should never do that! After reading part of the report I would say, that this report really tried to explain, why exactly that happened. 2 possibilities appear:
1) The Captain bowed to pressures, the crew was only waiting like passengers and not even doing the callouts necessary.
2) The Captain was inadvertently flying according to the false indications of his electronic altimeter, his crew was not whatching his actions and not cooperating in the difficult approach and overseeing the warnings of false altitude readouts and the discrepancies between the differnt altimeters.

In both interpretations the CRM broke down totally and still contributing was the AP and AT angaged, so masking that the engines were spooling down below the permitted limit, prolonging the time to react for a go-around. Flying by hand the PF would have known immidiatly that he should throw away that approach and not diving into the fog at 9m/sec or 1800 ft/min at idle trust, which also in western flying would be a horrendos descent so close to the ground. Even under good visibility that approach could have ended in a crash one kilometer short of the runway, like 4 B 727s did when that plane was introduced.

The truth could have been also a combination of both interpretations: The Captain and his crew did not want to fly the approach, but they had to try it at least to have an excuse for not landing. But under that pressure he and all has crew started making serious plunders and tried to find doubtful help in FMC, AP, AT and ATC on the ground like PPL owners sometimes do, when they are facing overwhelming problems entrusting their responsibility to fly the plane first to something or somebody else. That shows also the lack of real flying experience in real weather that this unhappy crew in their plane didnt have. Especially in NDB approaches for which many western airline pilots are not current, like US investigations and some tragic accidents like the Dubrovnik Crash of an US-Airforce 737-200 with the then US Minister of Trade onboard show. That flight wandered nearly 2 km off centerline and was also well below limits when it crashed into a mountain killing everybody onboard. Besides lack of practice the plane was underequipped for that approach (only 1 ADF) and should not have tried it from 1st instance.

Kind regards

Walter

_________________
You think I am a bad pilot, you should watch me playing golf!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 17:10 Reply with quote
tomcat
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 203
Location: Warsaw, Poland




denokan wrote:
And no person may force the captain to make a decision to descent below MDA.

This is a law writen many years ago by blood, I know it, but in Polish military aviation, there is a big list of neglections in pilots group. Many of them are sharp-tempered and frivolous. I knew that crew meaby not good at all, but I know something about them. Co-pilot and Navigator were good pilots of Yak-40, knowledge of Tu-154 was not good, experience either. Board Engineer was a very calm, clever man, but he was young, he have just lerned that airplane. The Captain (very self-possessed, smart) in that flight was the man, who had to do almost everything instead of the crew, it's not assumption, that crew often work like that due to a lack of knowledge. Moreover the captain had fishy Boss just behind him, he was a pilot too, he saw the indications of instruments. As I know KBC, I can suppose, he wanted just to show his boss that, there is no way to land with that condition - that's why he made a decision to try approach. He knew the consequences if he don't try to approach to MDA and go around from cruise level- boss would be fenced, he could even fired him, KBC had w wife and 2 kids, he didn't want to argue with his boss, and KBC also know that if he approach MDA and go around the boss would be angry, but probably undestand that they had done everything they could, and that they just can't pass MDA - no runway in sight. I would like to add, the 'going around' started at height about 20 meters, but VBE showed 155 metes there. So I can suppose the navigator changed the pressure on VBE due to his lack of knowledge of TAWS system - he probably wanted to silece alarms by increasing barometric altitude, KBC trusted barometric altitude, probably he concentrated only on that parameter. He knew he can't land, he just wanted to descend to it and go around, to avoid his boss charges for didn't peform everything he could to perform the task. Probably he don't care overshooted glideslope and high vertical speed, becose he just didn't have intensions to land. There was no CRM, this is a huge reason of this accident. It's my opinion - the person who know just a little about polish military flying. Unfortunately long list of neglections cost Poland very much, there is a problem in our army, but some of the pilots I know are really instances to impersonate.

_________________
Best regards.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 04:41 Reply with quote
WalterLeo
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1660
Location: Viena Austria




tomcat


Hi: Thanks for contributing with your insider-knowlege which underlines the hints in the report and my above expressed suspisons, that in that cockpit not only ruled the clean and tried aeronautical wisdom but incapacity, neglect and manouvering for buerocratic infights rose their ugly heads. In every nation the pilots community has also traits of the society in which it exists, that is a fact but there is a strong resposibility of the organizators of that pilots-communities to do their outmost, that the good practices of the art of flying dont fall prey to forces which also in other fields are the eternal enemies of human wellbeing like stupidity, laziness, recklessness, social positionfighting etc. This also means, that the responsibility doesnt end with the verdict "pilots error".

Kind regards

Walter

_________________
You think I am a bad pilot, you should watch me playing golf!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 06:26 Reply with quote
denokan
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 4952
Location: UNBB, UUDD




tomcat

Thanks for your information! Its quetly understandable and I'm sure that here, in Russian Air Forces things look much the same.

Lets wish that airline pilots in our countries are more professional.

_________________
Fly with PT!
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger

PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 17:11 Reply with quote
WalterLeo
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1660
Location: Viena Austria




denokan
tomcat
Hi:

After reading the final report to the end I wanted to stress some experiences of myself and of friends of mine about the pilots communitys responsibilty. I was a Private Pilot and had some very good instrutors, but I saw also instructors which were less than good. And a lot of accidents of PPL owners happened in my country and normaly the instructor of the dead pilot appeared in the media declaring what a fantastic pilot the unhappy one was and he had never provoked any doubt about his proficiency as a pilot. How one can say this e.g. of a guy with 100 hours total time, taking a mother with two children onboard and flying at 10 meters altitude above the Danube into a cable which was clearly marked on his map and 20 km away from his homebase?

Or a check-captain of an airline (a freind of mine) at the american continent flies as passenger in his airline and before T.O. a stewardess appears and whispers to him, he should come into the cockpit. There the F.O. officer was preparing the flight, the captain asleep and totally drunken. My freind asked the F.O. if he wants to kill everybody, flying with a drunken Cap. at his side. The F.O. murmers "But he is the Cap!". My freind (who was current as Cap of that plane) flew the leg and reported the incident and his boss commented, one couldnt do nothing cause the drunkyard was very popular and influencial with the union and the problem was known for long hopefully that man would retire in short time.

There is a responsibilty outside the cabin: the instructors, checkairmen, bosses and flight-doctors have to act accordning this outside responsibility. And all these persons together can create an "atmosphere" conducing to flight safety or disaster.

Red the report alltogether one gets the impression, that the fate of Polish Airforce 101 was the end of a long chain of shortcomings and misgivings in organisation, training, supervision and composition of the crews made worse by the conflict provoked to the captain who resisted 2008 the "main passenger" by not landing in Georgia and excluding him from the cockpit of the presicdential plane, bringing his then F.O. into the captains seat and his then navigator into the right seat of PA 101 at Smolensk giving them a "lecture": Never resist a politician, better risk his and your life and not your carreer.
Cap Sullenberger the man who landed in the Hudson saving everybody onboard said: He could draw all his training and experiences of 40 years of flying in that moment like a huge sum from his bank account and he had a competent crew at his side. In Smolensk was the other way around: All the failures, misgvings, small neglects and oversights of years behind accumulated to an overwhelming problem.

Kind regards

Walter

_________________
You think I am a bad pilot, you should watch me playing golf!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Visibility 400 m Fog!
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 20:20 Reply with quote
WalterLeo
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1660
Location: Viena Austria




The last weather report given to PA 101. Flown more or better less on glideslope at 100 m nothing is visible, the runway came in sight at 30 m which is only 50 % of the ILS CAT 1 minimum.

Kind regards

Walter



400 m fog 70.JPG
 Description:
 Filesize:  116.56 KB
 Viewed:  3252 Time(s)

400 m fog 70.JPG



_________________
You think I am a bad pilot, you should watch me playing golf!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 20:26 Reply with quote
acr
Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 28




denokan wrote:
A good pilot WILL never descend below MDA without suitable visual reference!


pretty right ,but accidents always occour when things which should not happen start to happen.

first i thought that the PIC was pressed directly by the president, but currently i do not think so. he was relativly fresh as captain on the presidental tu154 and was by himself very eager to fullfil the mission. he HAD intentions to go below the published MDA. they flew on "official" ndb approach , but surely navigated by GPS signals to keep centerline and even took a forbidden reference from the radar altimeter. in their stress maybe they forgot the valley infront the airport and so false readouts , as well setting the correct pressure on baro altimeter. = they tried somekind of a self made ILS CAT II with the reference of GPS and radar altimeter. they also seemed to ignore TAWS since smolensk is not in the database and they believed it talks rubbish to them.

it was more than clear for everybody in the cockpit that an NDB app with respecting the published minimums will give no result.

the YAK40 which landed surely also went below minimums- but landed safely, the russian IL76 aborted also later than published, but managed the go around.

one improtant thig at this story : with his last reactions he would probably crash even NOT hitting any trees because at this low speed in the last second he pulled the column FULLY back which would result in a sure wingstall without any chance for stall recovery at this altitude.

one another thing : none of the pilots, as it seems, was certified for more than CAT I ILS approaches- so even with an ILS system in smolensk the weather was too poor for app.

one last thing- like written above-: with this approach , with even ignoring TAWS, he would crash also every Boeing or Airbus, the TU154 has nothing in common with it.

its a dramatic situation for poland, and they should develop crew resources for respecting precedures and minimums, especially with such important people on board every kind of a risk should be avoided.



best regards!
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 00:34 Reply with quote
WalterLeo
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1660
Location: Viena Austria




acr

Hi: our friend Tomcat knew the crew well, he even had flown in PA 101 with them in the cockpit. He does not believe, that they wanted to go so low, but the chain of unhappy circumstances brought them lower as they wanted to go, to have an excuse infront of their peers. This could be a plausible interpretation true for pilots which have to deal with a directly paying or firing client or boss 2 meters behind them. As the Aspen crash of a GULF III also had shown, the airline pilots are better off, cause their angry paxes only can write insulting letters to the managment and not fire you if you land 300 km away from the promised destination.
Thanks for your remark, that taken all together also a Boeing or Airbus would have crashed under the same circumstances.

Kind regards

Walter

_________________
You think I am a bad pilot, you should watch me playing golf!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Terrible crash
 Project Tupolev Team Forum Index » Hangar Talk
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 3 Hours  
Page 3 of 4  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  
  
 Post new topic  Reply to topic  


  Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group. Designed for protu-154.org | Webmaster - ^COOLER^