Part of Polish gov members including president probably dead in plane crash

[Vulcan59]

Hi Vulcan,

101 is the aircraft's tail number, and its callsign is 'Polish Air Force 1-0-1' or just 'Polish 1-0-1".

But as for the "horizon" call there are basically two versions of its meaning in Polish media/Internet. One version (prevailing in MSM) is that "Horizon 101" is a command (given to 1-0-1?) to stop descending and level off the a/c, with its variation that it is a warning of danger to hit the ground.

Hi POB,

Okay that makes sense now. So essentially that is a call to verify whether the pilot was visual or not. So the actual call would have been something like, "Horizon, 101?". More like asking, "Are you visual, 101?". Perhaps Horizon 101, makes more sense in Russian.

[quote author=Possibility of Being]
The second option is that it's calling for reporting back the a/c altitude. This one would fit with some early reports (true or not) that an interview right after the crash the controller said that he had asked several times the crew to read back the altitude but they didn't.

Oh, and as for the ATC, there was only one controller at the airfield as far as I know. He was just a soldier with some (no details revealed) training as a controller. [/quote]

Well there was no call from the ATC asking for altitude readback from the pilots in the transcript, so the guy could be lying. And why does he want an altitude readback when throughout the approach, he was saying, "on glideslope"? Unless the glideslope indicated that the aircraft was high or low, the controller would ask for an altitude readback but in this case according to the transcript, the aircraft was always "on glideslope" and so ATC didn't ask for an altitude readback which is what the transcripts shows (assuming it is accurate).

[quote author=Possibility of Being]
Everything was done deliberately. They tried to "dive" below clouds (they were told the cloud base was at 50 meters) so to get into an eye contact with the ground, determined to land no matter what. The crew knew what the captain were performing after reaching the MDA way before the near NDB; they did it before. That's why there was silence in the cockpit with the NAV reading RA altitude only. They might have managed it if not the ravine on the way, probably filled with fog... OR if the NAV had read the barometric altimeter. They were short of some 5 meters of altitude. Risky maneuver indeed. :(

I don't understand how it was possible to perform such a maneuver on autopilot, but they did it so clearly it must have been possible...
[/quote]

Yes, you can dive under the cloud base but you can't dive under fog. If the crew were really doing that, it shows their total lack of experience flying in fog or low visibility conditions and not to mention, high terrain environment, always a very lethal combination.

If the aircraft was below MDA well before the NDB, then why was the controller reporting "on glideslope"? It seems to me that it was a continuous descent at normal rates from the 2 km point until they hit the obstacle.

And in any case, the crew ignored the "Pull Up" warnings, going against normal procedures. As I said earlier, they obviously didn't know what that meant and probably had very little or no understanding and training with the EGPWS equipment.

The autopilot controls pitch(attitude) and roll(bank) and so it can be used to control these two parameters but there usually is a limit of not below 200ft in most commercial jets unless conducting category II or category III approaches.

 

[Possibility of Being]

Well there was no call from the ATC asking for altitude readback from the pilots in the transcript, so the guy could be lying.

Yes, he did. Moreover, it seems that he was unable to read the altitude on his screen (or whatever it was in front of him).

10:32:02,7 ATC: Are you set at 500?
- - - PL 101: No, we are at 1000, and descending.

10:33:40,1 ATC: PL 101, altitude 500?
- - - PL 101: approaching 500

10:34:50,8 ATC: set at 500?
- - - 101: set at 500.

10:40:54,7 ATC: Height control, horizon.
- no answer

And why does he want an altitude readback when throughout the approach, he was saying, "on glideslope"? Unless the glideslope indicated that the aircraft was high or low, the controller would ask for an altitude readback but in this case according to the transcript, the aircraft was always "on glideslope" and so ATC didn't ask for an altitude readback which is what the transcripts shows (assuming it is accurate).

Good question :)
For example, when they were flying over the outer NDB and were supposed to be at 300, ATC said:
10:39:49,9 - 10:39:52,3 ATC: Approaching outer marker, on course, on glideslope.
while 7 seconds later, they were at 400:
10:39:57,1 - 10:39:59,3 U: 400 meters

Well, maybe they were reading radio altimeter and the ground there was over 100 meters below the threshold level...

Yes, you can dive under the cloud base but you can't dive under fog. If the crew were really doing that, it shows their total lack of experience flying in fog or low visibility conditions and not to mention, high terrain environment, always a very lethal combination.

They were military pilots, used to risk, with a poor training particularly in civilian flights... :(

If the aircraft was below MDA well before the NDB, then why was the controller reporting "on glideslope"?

Especially when he possibly couldn't see them as they were below the airfield level or at least hidden behind elevated terrain...

It seems to me that it was a continuous descent at normal rates from the 2 km point until they hit the obstacle.

How then could they have ended up hitting a tree 1300 meters before the RNW? Well, they could have been too low at 2 km, as we discussed earlier. But in this case there is no explanation for their ignoring TAWS warnings (that were of TAD mode and not approaching signals), while in the diving scenario everything makes perfect sense (kind of...).

And in any case, the crew ignored the "Pull Up" warnings, going against normal procedures. As I said earlier, they obviously didn't know what that meant and probably had very little or no understanding and training with the EGPWS equipment.

Or they thought they could oversmart it. Aim attitude, determination and dare-devil type of behavior. They were expected to make it.

I just checked the pprune forum that I had abandoned after knowing your opinion. :) Anyway, that's what I found:

_http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/415657-time-re-open-polish-presidential-flight-thread-15.html#post5732615

I am more and more convincesd it was a deliberate manoeuvre by the pilots.

If the controller was confronted before with the "szczur" (rat, scud running)
landings performed by the Russian pilots before, he might have thought that.

Such "szczur" "procedure" (as mentioned by me before) consists of "diving"
under the clouds before inner NDB, keeping level and on course on NDB and trying
to squeeze the a/c in level flight between the ground and cloud base to the RWY.

So the initial "dive" might have been not that alarming for the ATC,
he has seen it before.
But not arresting the dive on time and disappearing from the radar screen was too much for him.

"Szczur" works well in flat terrain. But you have to bear in mind, that EPWA, the home base
of the 101, as well as 80% of Polish territory and airfields are flat as a table.

Analysing the CVR, I am more and more convinced they were trying scud run
to the runway, what they probably did before successfully, but having
a witness, or two in the cabin they couldn't talk it over, brief each other
correspondingly, and also couldn't comment on the scud run as they
performed it.
This would be also an answer to the question about lack of any comments
from PIC in the last 10 seconds.

He couldn't just say in presence of Gen. Blasik to the C/O "Robmiy szczura."
("We do a scud"), and expect the C/O to support him.

There was another expert's opinion published in the Polish media. The Tu-154 test pilot Akimienkov says that the manual of Tu-154M forbids to land on autopilot and it was the main cause of the crash. He explains that while entering a descending path, the aircraft was balanced, i.e. its instruments were set in such a way so that the aircraft descended with a constant vertical speed 3,5 m/s in ascending streams. But just a little bit over 1 km from the runway threshold there is the ravine with lower temperature where fog were flowing from. Above the ravine, there were no ascending streams. The plane has got disbalanced and "fell" in the air hole, formed right over the ground. Vertical speed has doubled - up to 7 meters per second, and more. The captain, by the way, noticed it and pulled the helm(?), trying to counteract, but at the height of 30 meters it was virtually impossible. Akimienkov says that it would be much easier if not on autopilot.

But does it make more sense? I don't know.

 

[Vulcan59]

Hi POB,

Okay before we go on, here is a diagram of what the controller sees on the radar screen. Also here is the standard phraseology used during a GCA/PAR approach. As this is a Russian military airfield, it's is probable that the controller would not use the standard ICAO phrases but it seems close enough for horseshoes, so to speak.

Notice the whitish dotted line appearing slightly above the slope (on the top image) and slightly left of center line (in the bottom display). That is an aircraft doing a PAR approach and the controller sees that image on his radar screen. I can't imagine how the controller could have missed seeing the aircraft going below the slope. That slope is drawn such that it would keep the aircraft clear of all terrain and obstacles until the MDA. Whether the crew were reading pressure or radio altimeter also becomes a non issue as can be seen from the radar display. Note that the scale on the screen can be adjusted or zoomed in by the controller. In this example, it is showing 5 nm and a 3 degree glideslope.

10:32:02,7 ATC: Are you set at 500?
- - - PL 101: No, we are at 1000, and descending.

10:33:40,1 ATC: PL 101, altitude 500?
- - - PL 101: approaching 500

10:34:50,8 ATC: set at 500?
- - - 101: set at 500.

10:40:54,7 ATC: Height control, horizon.
- no answer

Okay that was not in the earlier transcript. In any case, that seems to be before the start of the approach while the very last call (10:40:54,7 ATC: Height control, horizon) seems to be just before the aircraft impacted the obstacle. During the approach, it seems that all was normal until after passing the 2 km point.

I am more and more convincesd it was a deliberate manoeuvre by the pilots.

If the controller was confronted before with the "szczur" (rat, scud running)
landings performed by the Russian pilots before, he might have thought that. ....

If the aircraft had dived below the MDA or descended to MDA before he was supposed to, it will appear to be on the radar screen. If the aircraft dived after the 2km point to MDA and kept level, till reaching the 1 km point, again that would appear on the radar screen. In which case the controller would have immediately asked for an altitude check from the pilots. Going by the radio call (ATC:Horizon 101) it seems more like asking if the pilot was visual rather then rather screaming to the pilot that he was below altitude. That "100" call by the NAV immediately after the 2 km would have shown up below the glideslope and yet the ATC says nothing and TAWS correctly yelling "Pull Up"? A bit puzzling for me.

There was another expert's opinion published in the Polish media. The Tu-154 test pilot Akimienkov says that the manual of Tu-154M forbids to land on autopilot and it was the main cause of the crash. He explains that while entering a descending path, the aircraft was balanced, i.e. its instruments were set in such a way so that the aircraft descended with a constant vertical speed 3,5 m/s in ascending streams. But just a little bit over 1 km from the runway threshold there is the ravine with lower temperature where fog were flowing from. Above the ravine, there were no ascending streams. The plane has got disbalanced and "fell" in the air hole, formed right over the ground. Vertical speed has doubled - up to 7 meters per second, and more. The captain, by the way, noticed it and pulled the helm(?), trying to counteract, but at the height of 30 meters it was virtually impossible. Akimienkov says that it would be much easier if not on autopilot.

But does it make more sense? I don't know.

Wasn't this aircraft (only one of two) modified to do CatII/CatIII ILS landing as was reported earlier? If that is true, than this test pilot doesn't know what he is talking about. But if it's not true, then yes, this test pilot is essentially correct.

I am not sure I understand the talk about "air hole" which is normally associated with turbulent air and not relatively calm air (less than 2 meters per second) which is one of the conditions for fog to form. If he did drop into this "air hole" over the ravine, we are back to the issue that this would appear on the radar screen and why the ATC didn't say anything.

 

[Possibility of Being]

Did I say I had an "answer"? I don't have any more. :( :)

Thanks for the picture, Vulcan. It was very timely! In the constant Russian-Polish fight for 'who is to blame', back and forth, the latest move is a Polish prosecutor suspecting the radar was out of order (the controller confirmed 101 being on the slope when it couldn't have been, given all the known data) and asking for its records, if anything like radar records exists.

As for the "Horizon" call, it seems it wasn't as you say:

a call to verify whether the pilot was visual or not. So the actual call would have been something like, "Horizon, 101?". More like asking, "Are you visual, 101?

It seems everybody is in agreement that it was a command to level off the aircraft, to fly it horizon-tally. But is it true?

Wasn't this aircraft (only one of two) modified to do CatII/CatIII ILS landing as was reported earlier? If that is true, than this test pilot doesn't know what he is talking about. But if it's not true, then yes, this test pilot is essentially correct.

Yes it was but it didn't apply to the situation in Smolensk where they have PRMG system only (don't know if it matters). On the other hand, even if Tu-154 can't land on autopilot, they weren't landing yet, only approaching. I think it isn't the same, is it?

And what if the captain (or whoever was sitting in his place) thought the NAV was reading PA while it was actually RA? All that transcript leaves one with more questions than gives answers. If you are interested, here is its complete, but not professional translation into English.

On another note, it reached me again, how symbolic the crash was! A wake-up call, indeed. Laura wrote yesterday:

It's not me that's reminding you, it's your own higher self that is screaming "warning! warning!"

How many times, in how many various situations, and on how many levels could we hear recently about warnings that had been sent and ignored?! Is it just me, or the universe is actually screaming its warnings so loud and intensely as never before?

 

[Vulcan59]

Did I say I had an "answer"? I don't have any more. :( :)

I am getting quite confused as well and having more questions than answers. :) Hopefully we'll get more data.

As for the "Horizon" call, it seems it wasn't as you say:

a call to verify whether the pilot was visual or not. So the actual call would have been something like, "Horizon, 101?". More like asking, "Are you visual, 101?

It seems everybody is in agreement that it was a command to level off the aircraft, to fly it horizon-tally. But is it true?

Well that's possible although at that stage on a PAR approach, it's a call by ATC to ask if the pilot is visual with the runway rather than a command. But this is a Russian military airfield, so perhaps that may have been the normal practice.

Yes it was but it didn't apply to the situation in Smolensk where they have PRMG system only (don't know if it matters). On the other hand, even if Tu-154 can't land on autopilot, they weren't landing yet, only approaching. I think it isn't the same, is it?

The PRMG is basically the equipment that the airport authorities put somewhere near the runway to facilitate up to a CatII landing. However in order for the aircraft to land in CatII conditions, it must also have the necessary equipment. In this case some earlier reports made the comment that this aircraft was modified and suitably equipped, meaning that it had the necessary equipment to make a CatII landing.

So basically PRMG is a airport/runway equipment. The aircraft needs autopilot and some other equipment on board for it to be able to use the PRMG equipment to make a CatII landing on that runway. And yes, you are correct in saying that even if the aircraft cannot land in CatII conditions, it can fly usually not below 200ft with the autopilot engaged.

And what if the captain (or whoever was sitting in his place) thought the NAV was reading PA while it was actually RA? All that transcript leaves one with more questions than gives answers. If you are interested, here is its complete, but not professional translation into English.

Had a look at the entire transcript and again not much additional information to go on. The bit from 4km onwards till the aircraft crashed has no additional data. The PA, RA issue; well if the aircraft was doing PAR, it really becomes a non issue since the controller is watching the aircraft on radar and should have really said something if the aircraft was too high or too low as in this case, as discussed earlier.

On another note, it reached me again, how symbolic the crash was! A wake-up call, indeed. Laura wrote yesterday:

It's not me that's reminding you, it's your own higher self that is screaming "warning! warning!"

How many times, in how many various situations, and on how many levels could we hear recently about warnings that had been sent and ignored?! Is it just me, or the universe is actually screaming its warnings so loud and intensely as never before?

Yes a warning for sure. I had a "Dark Man" dream not too long ago and only recently I have begun to get an idea of what it might have meant. Keep your eyes and ears peeled. "Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Endangers". :)

 

[Possibility of Being]

Today, MAK released two new reports. From one of them:

Завершен анализ материалов предварительного отчёта фирмы Universal Avionics Systems Corporation (UASC) об исследовании информации бортовой системы предупреждения столкновения с землёй (TAWS – Terrain Avoidance Warning System) и бортовых компьютеров (FMS UNS-1D), установленных на самолёте.
В результате проведённого исследования, которое было начато 4-го мая 2010 года в лаборатории исследовательского центра компании UASC в Рэдмонде (США, шт. Вашингтон), установлено, что данное оборудование в полёте 10 апреля с.г. было исправно и обеспечивало экипаж и системы самолёта необходимой информацией.
Анализ содержания, сохранившихся в памяти устройств, сообщений и служебной информации позволил подтвердить выводы, сделанные на основании информации бортовых регистраторов, а также уточнить порядок работы экипажа, навигационные расчёты и траекторию полета самолета.

MAK's analysis of the preliminary report issued by Universal Avionics Systems Corporation (UASC) on the study of TAWS system and computers (FMS UNS-1D) installed on the aircraft determined that the equipment was properly functioning and provided the crew and aircraft systems with necessary information.

Is it MAK's way of saying that there was Smolensk-North data available and uploaded in the TAWS system?

 

[Vulcan59]

Is it MAK's way of saying that there was Smolensk-North data available and uploaded in the TAWS system?

Hi POB,

Going by the transcripts, it seems that the TAWS was working properly and providing accurate warnings to the crew. :)

 

[osher]

I would very much appreciate if the subject mentioned above was brought up in session.
Was it an accident?
If not - who did it and why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash

 

[Akopirnas]

Hmmm

Laura just if you can... Ask C's about this tragedy ?

Yes, after several months it could be the best question.

Provided that the answer does not harm others.



Also it's interesting to know why Laura said that Polish Prime Minister is pro-American..?

 

[Possibility of Being]

Was it an accident?
If not - who did it and why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash

First chapter in the Wiki entry is: "Accident". ;)

Let's see what accident is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

An accident is a specific, unidentifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

Hmm...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident

1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

2. Law . such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.

3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

Given the above, I'd say yes, most likely it was an accident with an exception for the point 2 since a possible fault of one or more of the injured persons it is not clear at the moment. On the other hand, the third point makes me wonder to what extent we can say it happened "unexpectedly". Imagine yourself watching a movie presenting that trip to Smolensk. You can see them leaving without required documentation, you can hear the Minsk controllers warning them about bad weather, you can hear their conversation with Yak's pilots - weather conditions and visibility much below required. There are clouds, there is dense fog, the airfield is poorly equipped, you can't see anything around, you can't see the ground. The plane is descending. The warning system starts beeping and you can see "terrain ahead" flashing red. There is still no visibility and basically no hope for it, but the plane continues descending... What would you think watching that on a screen? Would the idea of an assassination even cross your mind? Or would you nervously shout: "Pull up, you are going to kill yourself and those on board!"?

So why there is all that mess around the crash? That disinfo spread widely in mass media (you don't think the Polish media are free to write what they wish to, do you?), the investigation chaos, apparent incompetency, constant shifting of responsibility, etc...? Well, I'd say that's very common in Poland. I used to say that Poland is a country where nothing works other than accidentally, so I'd be really surprised seeing the investigation conducted proficiently. But there is also a lot of dirt to hide; corruption, political games, frauds and so on which could be revealed during the investigation. So there are many involved who have a reason to be afraid and be interested in spreading a lot of disinformation and misdirecting the investigation. At least that's how I see it, fwiw.

As for asking C's, yes, it would be nice to know what they can add to the picture. But do we really need their input? Are Polish affairs that important for the world's fate and/or for our ability to understand what's going on here on our BBM? I think, it's good to keep in mind what is really important not only for a few and to learn how to distinguish what we want from what we need because it would serve our Aim.

Also it's interesting to know why Laura said that Polish Prime Minister is pro-American..?

And who isn't pro-American in Poland?

 

[ark]

And who isn't pro-American in Poland?

Is it really the case that no one in Poland had an idea that Poland could be a neutral country?

 

[osher]

(you don't think the Polish media are free to write what they wish to, do you?)

As for asking C's, yes, it would be nice to know what they can add to the picture. But do we really need their input? Are Polish affairs that important for the world's fate and/or for our ability to understand what's going on here on our BBM? I think, it's good to keep in mind what is really important not only for a few and to learn how to distinguish what we want from what we need because it would serve our Aim.

1. Of course they are not. And many polish people see it. But most don't. Recently we had presidential elections and for example most of facebook pages/groups/profiles criticising gov and our new mr president were closed, also mine - some time before the catastrophe.

2. Of course they are not. It's just our polish selfish point of view to want to know the truth. But what sources do we have left? As mentioned above our media will never say truth and we may never know it. And yes, it is of a little importance to the world and to our survival and growth and to anybody personal problems.

I do not want to sound unpolite, if so exscuse me. Do your work. I start to do mine already helping people with EE. BTW I'm working on music to the "Prayer Of The Soul", expect a piece ready in... who knows.

 

[Possibility of Being]

Hey Osher,
I don't think you sound rude. I do understand you and the need to know the truth about the crash. I myself was completely taken in for over a month trying to sort out things and get an idea what had really happened in Smolensk. I hope the truth will be revealed one day and those at fault will get punished. And I hope people will learn from that, especially Poles. It just makes me sick seeing how much Poles want to have their own 9/11. They are blind to most of manipulations they are subjected to, but the same time they just can't be "worse than Americans". And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

By the way, may I ask what you mean by helping people with EE?

 

[ark]

I do not want to sound unpolite, if so exscuse me. Do your work.

I do my work without your encouragement. Yes, indeed, you do sound impolite. But that is just the sound. Sounds sometimes (but not always) are misleading.

 

[Nienna]

By the way, may I ask what you mean by helping people with EE?

Yes, I'm curious about that, too, osher.