If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
That's interesting. So it showed an altitude above runway elevation even after the collision with ground obstacles below runway elevation? What does that tell you about the accuracy of the barometric altimeter?Then why did he ignore repeated calls to go around from the FO? Why did he ingore 15 calls of "Terrain ahead, Pull Up!" that are clearly audible on the CVR?
The tree was showing 5 m above the ground, the baro alt was showing 18 m above the ground (not directly of course). That would be an error of about 70%. I think all barometric altimeters should be thrown out of existing planes as a safety hazard.
Both PIC and FO called for GA. They knew how to execute it. So I have the same questions as you do. BTW, have you ever been in a plane that drops 15 m/s? And there was no sound from the passengers or the pilots?
The tree was showing 5 m above the ground, the baro alt was showing 18 m above the ground (not directly of course). That would be an error of about 70%. I think all barometric altimeters should be thrown out of existing planes as a safety hazard.
Err lol what? Barometric altitude is calculated with the reference pressure at 0ft altitude. As Smolensk airport is at roughly 250m, 13m are roughly 5% error. Which is why to my knowledge, barometric altimeters arent used during approach, they use radar altimeters, which the FO was reading out.
BTW, have you ever been in a plane that drops 15 m/s? And there was no sound from the passengers or the pilots?
As long as it's a steady descent, you dont feel anything. I assume you are hinting at some kind of "Roller Coaster" sensation? What you feel in a roller coaster is acceleration, not speed. It's the same in your car, as long as you go in a straight line and have good highways, 50km/h doesnt feel any different to 200km/h.
Err lol what? Barometric altitude is calculated with the reference pressure at 0ft altitude. As Smolensk airport is at roughly 250m, 13m are roughly 5% error. Which is why to my knowledge, barometric altimeters arent used during approach, they use radar altimeters, which the FO was reading out.
Both Yak nad Tu got the same pressure info from the tower. Yak pilots reported that the baro alt after landing showed 0. According to the tree the Tu-154 was flying 3 m below the RWY and the baro alt was showing 12 m above the RWY. It wasn't the FO who was reading the alt, it was the Nav and he did not have radalt on his panel.
If they knew how to do it, why didnt they turn off the auto pilot that was overriding their inputs?
The GA procedure they were executing works with auto pilot on. It was shown during the tests with the twin Tu-154.
As long as it's a steady descent, you dont feel anything. I assume you are hinting at some kind of "Roller Coaster" sensation? What you feel in a roller coaster is acceleration, not speed. It's the same in your car, as long as you go in a straight line and have good highways, 50km/h doesnt feel any different to 200km/h.
Exactly. The descent changed from 5 m/s to 15 m/s within one second. You know how that feels.
Ok so instead of a garden variety CFIT, where pilots overestimated their abilities and put their airplane in a place where it should never have been, you accuse the russians of:
-Giving false barometric information
-Bringing the plane down with explosives
-Manipulating the FDR to cover up their actions
-Manipulating the airplane avionics to deactivate the GA functions
-Cutting down trees to make it look like an impact with terrain
To what end? What do they gain? What do they achieve? How could you possibly think this long list is more likely than a garden variety CFIT?
What tickles me is that if this had been.....oooooh.......lets say a Luxembourg registered aircraft crashing at .......ooooh......lets say a Swiss airport with no political ramifications, under the same weather circumstances this would all have been done and dusted by now as a CFIT incident with poor barometric altitude use and proceeding below minimums as the cause.
.....and this thread wouldn't be 109 pages long !
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Ok so instead of a garden variety CFIT, where pilots overestimated their abilities and put their airplane in a place where it should never have been, you accuse the russians of:
-Giving false barometric information
No, they got correct barometric information.
-Bringing the plane down with explosives
They discovered TNT on the wreckage - needs to be investigated.
-Manipulating the FDR to cover up their actions
The black boxes are still in Russia. Why?
-Manipulating the airplane avionics to deactivate the GA functions
No. Something did not work during GA. We don't know what.
-Cutting down trees to make it look like an impact with terrain
Don't have a clue here. There are indications that the plane was flying higher than the trees, and it is pretty sure that the tree could not have broken off a section of the left wing.
The whole investigation smells bad. The wreckage and the black boxes are still in Russia. The wreckage was seriously mishandled during the recovery and transport. There are 3 versions of CVR. There is contradictory data in the official reports. The autopsy reports are a joke. The bodies were switched - the families buried strangers believing they were burying their loved ones. The bodies were mutilated after identification process and autopsies. And the list goes on...
Zobaczcie ladowanie '101' w wykonaniu naszych chlopcow z 36. Pulku w Pradze, czyli '101' siada, jak to mowimy, na '102' !! Klasa!"Piloci na pewno nie popełni...
What tickles me is that if this had been.....oooooh.......lets say a Luxembourg registered aircraft crashing at .......ooooh......lets say a Swiss airport with no political ramifications, under the same weather circumstances this would all have been done and dusted by now as a CFIT incident with poor barometric altitude use and proceeding below minimums as the cause.
.....and this thread wouldn't be 109 pages long !
So imagine what it is to live here...
A good friend of mine lost all of her common sense (in my humble opinion) supporting the conspiracy theory. Actually up to the point that I was told to be narrow-minded and not open for critical, alternative views. She must be right, no?
In contrast to her, I don't want to judge anyone here. But a good starting point for anyone interested in the matter is this Scientific American article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...n-conspiracies
Not that I believe this will end the debate. After all, we are Polish. We debate and disagree (and beat the French at it!).
So imagine what it is to live here...
A good friend of mine lost all of her common sense (in my humble opinion) supporting the conspiracy theory. Actually up to the point that I was told to be narrow-minded and not open for critical, alternative views. She must be right, no?
In contrast to her, I don't want to judge anyone here. But a good starting point for anyone interested in the matter is this Scientific American article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...n-conspiracies
Not that I believe this will end the debate. After all, we are Polish. We debate and disagree (and beat the French at it!).
Good article and also good comments to it. On both sides of the argument. I will quote only one:
"Conspiracy theories are not all crazy. They are frequently formulated from undeniable facts that are conveniently brushed aside by groups and interests that have the power to do so and the need to hide the facts. You don't have to silence everyone who might come forward with information; you only need discredit them as you attempt to do in your article."
I don't follow the investigatiin of the crash. That tu-154 crashed the day when I took an Uzbekistan TU-154. Since, I don't want to take that aircraft type anymore
Love at the first flight
The link shows only my last flights of these last 3 years and some of 4 years ago.
Ok so instead of a garden variety CFIT, where pilots overestimated their abilities and put their airplane in a place where it should never have been, you accuse the russians of:
-Giving false barometric information
-Bringing the plane down with explosives
-Manipulating the FDR to cover up their actions
-Manipulating the airplane avionics to deactivate the GA functions
-Cutting down trees to make it look like an impact with terrain
To what end? What do they gain? What do they achieve? How could you possibly think this long list is more likely than a garden variety CFIT?
Got a question Tally- do you think that maybe there might have been one Russian somewhere who drank too much wodka, and maybe took 4 minutes too long to respond to the crash, and that maybe someone has altered a little something to cover it up.
I kind of suspect there was...don't know where- but somewhere...so, we have a cover up conspiracy.
As to the grand murder plot which you lay out above (I'm chosing my words carefully- you are not SUPPORTING that plot)...but I think I agree with you that it seems just a little bit far fetched.
...and I haven't figured out where the chem trails or nanoprobes come in on this one either...surely somewhere.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Yes, that's what the Congo's government reported, but thy were wrong. That's why the report was updated. You forgot to include this part:
Originally Posted by Simon, Av Herald's editor
thanks a lot for your heads up - it took considerable time to review all evidence on file, match all photos with satellite images, measure distances and check for all details and dig up additional evidence.
The break through was the last photo by Louis Okamaba that although at first glance suggesting a movement in direction of runway 23 at a second look ruled out a movement from the runway to that location. Then a number of originals of photos (published and not published) helped to identify the first impact marks confirming your comment in full.
It didn't help that immediately after the crash local media were claiming the government were lying, the aircraft couldn't be in Brazzaville (arguing there is no ravine known in Brazzaville) and the aircraft was shot down, this created the necessity to be extra careful due to the resulting conspiracy claims.
The original headline was Trans Air Congo - in the meantime I was able to verify the Facebook site is indeed Trans Air Congo's and with additional evidence now mounting it became clear it wasn't Trans Air Congo indeed other than evidence on our hand as well as initial statements by Congo's government suggested. Hence I changed the story (both for Aero Service instead of Trans Air Congo as well as for the landing short of runway 05L instead of going around on runway 23R).
Thank you for posting that story. Do I understand it correctly that group of aviation enthusiasts challenged the official report published by Congo's government by putting together bits and pieces of information that officials have left out?
What were credentials of these enthusiasts that allowed them to question of the official story and reverse the history, I mean direction of the plane?
Thank you for posting that story. Do I understand it correctly that group of aviation enthusiasts challenged the official report published by Congo's government by putting together bits and pieces of information that officials have left out?
What were credentials of these enthusiasts that allowed them to question of the official story and reverse the history, I mean direction of the plane?
There was no official report published by any anybody.
When I said "that's that the Congo government reported" I meant what some government agent reported to the media within hours of the accident.
And Simon is not your usual aviation enthusiast. He is the one behind the Aviation Herald.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment