Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Peter_K]

Poland presses Russia to pass on Smolensk crash black boxes


Polish military prosecutors have asked Russian investigators to let them have access to recordings from two black boxes, including the pilots conversations in the lead up to the disaster.

Two Tu-154 flight recorders, which contain flight parameters and voice recordings are being examined at the laboratory in Moscow by Russian investigators and Col. Zbigniew Rzepa from the Polish Supreme Military Prosecutor’s Office.

The Polish prosecutor reveals that the voice recorder contains the last thirty minutes of the flight, including pilots’ dramatic conversation and horrific screams on the flight deck moments before the Tupolev-154 hit the ground.

The recording has not yet been fully decoded. At the moment Russian investigators are trying to identify voices recorded on the black box. If they do not manage to match voices with the flight crew, they will ask Poles, probably the pilots’ colleagues, for help.

It has not been established yet whether any of the passengers contacted the crew during the last moments of the flight.

“This is not clear because identification of voices is very difficult and takes time,” said Rzepa.

Today, Prosecutor General Andrzej Seremet will reveal details concerning the investigation on the cause of the presidential plane’s crash, based on inspection of the crash site and plane’s wreck, victim’s postmortem and witnesses’ testimonies. (mg)

Source: Gazeta Wyborcza

Isn't the title and the highlighted part in contradiction to the rest of the text? Obviously they have access to it. The back boxes weren't even opened before the Polish investigators arrived in Smolensk. What Poland asked for was the official transcript. Just a formality.

[Geebee]

Isn't the title and the highlighted part in contradiction to the rest of the text? Obviously they have access to it. The back boxes weren't even opened before the Polish investigators arrived in Smolensk. What Poland asked for was the official transcript. Just a formality.

We've had precedents in this thread

In fact, my posting just above already refers to what Seremet declared during his press conference. The full text can be found on gazeta.pl

[Geebee]

From the information above and publically available I see the following:

• At 1500m (0,96miles) from the runway they went below the glide slope. ATC advises to abort landing.
• At 1100m prior to the runway they're at 8m (24ft) AGL and hit the first tree.
• First question: there was fog but I understood visibility was less than 400 m and I assume they must have had visual contact with the ground at this stage. Or am I oversimplifying things?
• At 850 m they are 2,5 m (7,5ft) AGL and hit the big tree (probably with the left wing).
• Second question: Roughly 2,5 seconds must have gone between they hit the first tree and the second one. Assuming they would have responded after the first event, applied thrust and tried to abort landing, the inertia of the plane would not allow it to react over such a short distance and time-frame, correct?

In the end, it still is a mystery to me why they were so low.

[justLOT787]

Another mysterious thing is that the crash happened at 10:56am. I have never in my life yet seen fog that is that bad in late morning. Just pointing out, also it was said that the pilot made 4 landing attempts and then it was said it hit a radio antenna. So what is the trust! Maybe he did not hit the tries first!

[Jason]

Another mysterious thing is that the crash happened at 10:56am.

So far have not seen anything mysterious yet.

I have never in my life yet seen fog that is that bad in late morning.

I have - so what are you trying to express?

[EconomyClass]

I suppose fog varies by location, but my usual experience is that it burns off by that late in the morning. Someone live where it hangs on till the afternoon?

[Geebee]

Yes, I grew up in such a region (the low countries), where it is very wet. I confirm it is easily possible to have fog at any time of the day although it is obviously more common in the morning. Typically it clears out during the day, but not necessarily.

[Evan]

I think that PAF 101 had good avionics and it probably was working. Doesn’t a warning kick on when they are to low like (danger low terrain, speed, stall some thing in front of you terrain) Those pilots wore one of the best and I don't think they would have made a mistake like this!!

The aircraft was recently upgraded and I think it probably had GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) installed. The problem is that GPWS is inhibited in landing configuration (gear down, flaps 25+) because otherwise it would always go off as the aircraft approached the runway. Because GPWS requires radio altimeters, they would have had those for reference to the altitude above terrain regardless of the barometer altitude setting provided by the ATC.

First question: there was fog but I understood visibility was less than 400 m and I assume they must have had visual contact with the ground at this stage. Or am I oversimplifying things?

The only thing I can think is that the terrain was unfamiliar to them and they weren't expecting it to rise up 150ft just prior to the runway.

At 850 m they are 2,5 m (7,5ft) AGL and hit the big tree (probably with the left wing).
Second question: Roughly 2,5 seconds must have gone between they hit the first tree and the second one. Assuming they would have responded after the first event, applied thrust and tried to abort landing, the inertia of the plane would not allow it to react over such a short distance and time-frame, correct?

7.5 meters AGL?! 2.5 meters AGL?! That can't be right. I'm wondering if the radalts were malfunctioning.

[tsv]

I've heard conflicting reports about this supposed antenna strike. I was trying to locate an antenna on the satellite imagery. The sun is low so even short objects are casting long shadows. A sizable antenna should cast a rather obvious shadow.
.

Photo 2 in Reply 165 shows the antenna still in tact. It was definitely not hit.

This link explains exactly what happened during the crash. You can paste the text into a translator or there is a translated link on another forum. While the translation is not perfect the photos help make the events clear. http://smolensk.ws/blog/168.html

What the a/c was doing that low in the first place is another matter.

[VANGHELL]

It seems incredible to me!!!!!

I have spoken recently to some aviation experts, and ex pilots on TU 154's, from TAROM (romanian air transport), and they have told me that clipping an antenna is not likely to have been the cause of the crash. The TU 154 is a rugged airplane, designed to land on strips covered in rubble, dirt strips and grass. It seems a little unlikely that the best pilots in the country on this type of airplane would choose to land in CAT III conditions as though it were VFR!

Something else, though, has caught my attention! I have heard the audio of the conversations between the pilots and the ATC countless times on TV, and the pilots keep saying that they are working according to their orders... orders to do what? Descend under the glideslope? Land in next to zero visibility? Get everyone on board killed?

God knows what happened? R.I.P. to all on board!

[VANGHELL]

Few Questions to All here...

Evan said earlier that the pilots would try to make a visual, descending bellow minimums, and taking advantage of radalt equipment, newly installed on the plane.
What would be the approach speed of a TU 154 in such conditions? Guessing somewhere around 140-155 knots, slats and flaps extended.
Now, what would be the angle of attack at such an airspeed? I guess it would be a very nose-up attitude. Going on the same judgement, from were the pilots are sitting, I guess it would be hard to see in front, in perfect conditions, doing a shallow approach, so in fog it is blind flying!
From my flying experience, GPWS is used on any approach, be it VFR, or ILS, or NDB, or VOR! I personally use it in any conditions, cus I feel it lets me know the altitude much better than a copilot. I consider it suicide not to use it in every case.
Furthermore... there is a saying among airline pilots, at least in this neck of the woods, that says like this "300 on the mile", so what the f*** were they doing at 200 ft, more than a mile away from the runway, not to say the threshhold, or TZ. Anyway you look at it, it's suicide!

Hope I made some sence...

[Geebee]

Clear to me Vanghell. The high AoA would be a good explanation. With you on that.

Another question from a non-pilot to the experts here. As a pilot, wouldn't you make yourself familiar with the environment of the destination airport before or during the flight? And if so, wouldn't they know about the 'valley' (I'd rather call it a small depression) just prior to the runway? Or would the Jeppesen maps used for the approach typically only highlight large obstacles?
This said, I believe that the same pilot flew the prime minister to Smolensk just days before the accident.

[Geebee]

Something else, though, has caught my attention! I have heard the audio of the conversations between the pilots and the ATC countless times on TV, and the pilots keep saying that they are working according to their orders... orders to do what? Descend under the glideslope? Land in next to zero visibility? Get everyone on board killed?

God knows what happened? R.I.P. to all on board!

Vanghell, I'd be interested to learn when and where were these broadcasted? Are there any transcripts? I live in Poland and haven't heard anything but that is obviously not conclusive.
It was my understanding that nothing would be made public until after the return of the Polish prosecutors later this week and if the Russian's would authorize them to do so because it is material that is being used in the criminal investigation.
Tx

[VANGHELL]

About the ATC discussions

http://www.videonews.ro/action/viewvideo/43185/Inregistrarea-convorbirii-dintre-pilotii-avionului-prezidential-polonez-si-turnul-de-control/

This is the link to the last discussion between ATC and Polish president's plane. Good luck with the translation from russian.

Thnx GeeBee

[Geebee]

Gazeta.pl published an interview with general Czaban commenting on the incident. I will summarize some key excerpts of the article to be found here http://tinyurl.com/2annoex

Pilot of crash near Smolensk, Cpt. Arkadiusz Protasiuk, was also with the president in Tbilisi in 2008. - He and his colleagues were called cowards after refusing landing due to bad conditions - said on Radio Zet, General Anatol Czaban, head of Air Force training.

So although he was not the PIC in Tbilisi, he was the co-pilot on that flight. I did not realize that so far.
By the way, Czaban confirmed once more that the Cpt. was fluent in Russian.

Another excerpt.

According to the head of training Air Force Gen. Anatol Chabany, the pilot who crashed in Smolensk, might want to check whether the conditions at the airport were really as bad as reported by flight control.

In his opinion the pilot may have had another view of the weather conditions of the land as first pilot Arkadiusz Protasiuk knew that an hour before another plane landed at the airport Smolensk Yak-40 flown by a less experienced pilot, so he wanted to check to see if weather conditions were really bad.

"Nobody trained pilots to risk more than what is in the rules"

Czaban said that Protasiuk already had flown several times to the Smolensk airport. He pointed out that an explanation of why the disaster occurred is the subject of a special commission.

According Chabany, the pilot "had to take into account several factors, such as the importance of Katyn ceremony and the fact that the delegation was late, and therefore" decided to check whether a successful" landing would be feasible. - For some reason he did not decide to divert to another airport - said the general. When asked if there is something like "VIP airplane syndrome" he said: - As I am 32 years in aviation, no one trains pilots to risk more than what is in the regulations.

Finally, the cockpit - ATC conversations above are a hoax. Sorry to burst the bubble.