Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Northwester]

Wrong again. 8-17 is clearly IL-76. Isn't it obvious?

This is almost funny. Do you really think they were setting different approach for every plane that day? Are you serious here?

[Northwester]

Sure. So they chose the third option, trying an approach instead. With full knowledge that landing without busting minimums is impossible.

No, they checked the real conditions.

Sure, the one used by PIC. They descended below runway elevation, why?

PIC has 2 baro altimeters next to each other. Only one was wrong.

Doesn't this alone mean the PIC had wrong altitude?

No.

Suspecting a malfunction?

Maybe.

Aren't they in the reports?

N2 values are nowhere to be found.

Are you saying the navigator shares the blame?

No. The Manual says he was supposed to use the baro altimeter, he was trained to use the baro altimeter. Absolutely no reason to assume he was using radalt. Besides on his instrument panel there is only one altimeter - baro altimeter.

[Northwester]

Here's another jewel from the report. Both pictures are in the same report. The upper one shows no change of trajectory after clipping the birch - the plane continues straight till about the TAWS #38 point. The lower one shows a change of direction after losing a part of the wing. Which one is correct?

You would think that hitting a tree that ripped off a big part of the wing would impact the direction of flight. But TAWS #38 stands in the way of this seemingly logical assumption.

[guamainiac]

Yawn.

[Evan]

PIC has 2 baro altimeters next to each other. Only one was wrong.

No. The Manual says he was supposed to use the baro altimeter, he was trained to use the baro altimeter. Absolutely no reason to assume he was using radalt. Besides on his instrument panel there is only one altimeter - baro altimeter.

Is there something in the report that details this? AFAIK the standard Tu154 has three standard altimeters. One is conventional pressure altimeter, one is electric (not connected to the static system but rather slaved to the pressure altimeter - to provide QNH when the main alt is set to QFE). Both of these are on the PIC's panel and the radalt is right there on the center panel (in plain view of the both pilots). If this is correct, than would not both pressure and electric altimeters both be wrong, since the one depends upon the other for air data reference?

[Northwester]

Is there something in the report that details this? AFAIK the standard Tu154 has three standard altimeters. One is conventional pressure altimeter, one is electric (not connected to the static system but rather slaved to the pressure altimeter - to provide QNH when the main alt is set to QFE). Both of these are on the PIC's panel and the radalt is right there on the center panel (in plain view of the both pilots). If this is correct, than would not both pressure and electric altimeters both be wrong, since the one depends upon the other for air data reference?

Pages 42-46 of the Polish Report.

[Northwester]

Is there something in the report that details this? AFAIK the standard Tu154 has three standard altimeters. One is conventional pressure altimeter, one is electric (not connected to the static system but rather slaved to the pressure altimeter - to provide QNH when the main alt is set to QFE). Both of these are on the PIC's panel and the radalt is right there on the center panel (in plain view of the both pilots). If this is correct, than would not both pressure and electric altimeters both be wrong, since the one depends upon the other for air data reference?

The plane has 8 altimeters, 2 radio and 6 baro.

The reference pressure was reset only on one altimeter (VBE-SVS). The other one on the PIC panel (UVO-15) had the reference value set as received from the ATC - 745mmHg.

[guamainiac]

You seem to like numbers.

Please factor the point where there was first an acknowledgement and attempt to apply GA power.

From that point, considering the rate of descent, calculate the number of seconds that it would take that mass of aluminum and steel to register a positive rate of climb.

[Northwester]

You seem to like numbers.

Please factor the point where there was first an acknowledgement and attempt to apply GA power.

From that point, considering the rate of descent, calculate the number of seconds that it would take that mass of aluminum and steel to register a positive rate of climb.

Numbers don't lie.

You are right, the GA power was applied too late. But we don't know why. The button UXOD (Abort - GA) was supposed to work. And the pilots were trained to switch to manual GA immediately. Apparently there were cases where UXOD would not activate GA even at airfields with ILS. The procedure was to apply take off power and pull the column within 1 sec of no response.

What were the N2 values when all of that was happening?

Side note: The button UXOD was designed for planes that were flying to airfields without ILS systems. Why would it work properly only with ILS?

[Northwester]

Someone did interesting research about the plane and the birch. All of it is in Polish, so I will write a short summary of what’s going on, but you can watch the pictures in these 3 clips.
Prof. Binienda from Akron University in Ohio provided results of his mathematical simulation of the wing – birch impact. He is a member of the FAA and NASA Aviation Accident Expert Group. He is a director of UA Gas Turbine Facility. His special area: high energy impact and material properties research.

The easiest way to watch it is to skip to subsequent pictures. They are self-explanatory.

In the first clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2O6wk0IPfs&feature=related
he is presenting his credentials and describes the methodology used, the same that was applied to the shuttle Columbia investigation. Binienda’s presentation starts at 00:58.

In the second clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2BnkF6-to0&feature=related
he finishes the Columbia part and explains his assumptions for the Tu-154 case. The parameters are as follows:
Plane speed: 70 – 80 m/s
Weight: 78600 kg
Impact height: 5 -6 m
Birch diameter: 40 cm
Wing impact point: 3 -7 m
He examined different angles both along the flight axis and across the flight axis. He applied appropriate properties to the materials and constructed the wing according to the manufacturer’s drawings. He broke the process down to 1 nanosecond steps. 1 nanosecond = 10^-9 sec.

In the third clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDE2si7wtx4&feature=related
he shows the results of the experiment. He ran about 50 simulations changing some of the parameters.

If he is right then one of the main assumptions of both Russian and Polish investigations is gone.

[guamainiac]

Did he use a generic characteristic of wood? Polish was beyond me.

[Northwester]

Did he use a generic characteristic of wood? Polish was beyond me.

No, he used properties of birch of specific age.

[Taliesin]

he shows the results of the experiment. He ran about 50 simulations changing some of the parameters.

If he is right then one of the main assumptions of both Russian and Polish investigations is gone.

..aaand? Are you going to tell us what he found out? I dont speak polish, so bear with me.
The video shows the birch tree shearing off the wing, is that your point? The lack of a shorn off wing fragment supports your theory that the plane was shot down?

[Evan]

Someone did interesting research about the plane and the birch.

This continues to astound me. How much work went into this? And why? If a fraction of the effort involved in denying the obvious fault of the crew had gone into the selection and training of the crew in the first place, this crash would never have happened. It's like there is an entire Polish industry now devoted to resisting the truth through complex obfuscation and assumption-based theories.

Poland, learn this: Your leadership was at fault here. Your own investigation makes this quite obvious. Stop shifting blame to the Russian and their trees. Demand official changes on your side, resignations and unconditional mea culpas. Accountability is a powerful deterrent.

Or you can suspend disbelief and fidget away with birch tree science all day.

[guamainiac]

Since the gear is several, what 7 to 10 feet below the wing, how do we know that a tree did not deflect the direction first?

I would not hinge any argument based on a birch. Birch are usually a light wood of little density, short lived, not too tall.