Originally posted by Northwester
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View Post.....And Simon is not your usual aviation enthusiast. He is the one behind the Aviation Herald.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostWhat 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 !
Also, if this had been a Luxembourg registered aircraft there would be no stories about 4 attempts to land at Swiss airport.
We would have known the precise time of the crash from the day one. It would not have to be moved by 10 minutes a week later.
Also, by now, respective Swiss' and Luxembourg's State Prosecutor's Offices would have most likely concluded their investigations and all the evidence and other property or its remains would have been returned to the rightful owners.
So, thank you for keeping this thread alive.
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostBut what actually qualifies him to comment ? As far as I can make out he is a flight simulator software developer and part time journalist when working with/for AV Herald.
Just compare his articles with anything mainstream. He follows a strict rule to publish only reasonably cross-checked information and in a factual, not sensationalist style.
Sometimes he is wrong, though, an he'll be the first to admit it. For example, this article now titled:
Aero Services IL76 at Brazzaville on Nov 30th 2012, impacted buildings short of runway
had been previously titled something like
Trans Air Congo IL76, failed brakes, overruns rwy during go-around
--- 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 ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostSomeone did an interesting analysis of the moving straps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0HiJ...layer_embedded
--- 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 ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostOne of the Russian bloggers discovered this in the FMS data. FMS logged plane's position in relation to VOR and TACAN points that is different from the official one.
Full document is available here
http://mswia.datacenter-poland.pl/pr...sploatacja.pdf
FMS extraction report starts on page 644, all in English.
I noticed the following paragraph right above Table 3-10 you quoted:
"An RRS was configured on ARINC input port 3. The RRS contains DME, VOR, and TACAN receivers. The DME, VOR, and TACAN receivers were operational, but no stations were in range"
I do not understand any of it therefore I provided the link to full FMS report.
Live and learn.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jonathan_Creek View PostThis "discovery" is at least 12 months old. I do not understand the meaning of it, or what you imply in your post, but I would like to point to a full FMS Data Extraction report published in the Appendix #4 to the official Polish report.
Full document is available here
FMS extraction report starts on page 644, all in English.
I noticed the following paragraph right above Table 3-10 you quoted:
"An RRS was configured on ARINC input port 3. The RRS contains DME, VOR, and TACAN receivers. The DME, VOR, and TACAN receivers were operational, but no stations were in range"
I do not understand any of it therefore I provided the link to full FMS report.
Live and learn.
FMS calculated the distance to TACAN and VOR stations based on plane's position and known coordinates of these stations.
Comment
-
A retired Russian pilot questions some of the official assumptions. One of them is the supposedly incorrect flight path in the last part of the flight. The statement from the report says:
At the flight fragment parallel and in the opposite direction to the RWY the crew did not stay on the magnetic heading 79°, deviated to the left, and as a result, after making the third turn on the radial 19km, came out of the 4th turn about 14km from the RWY with not enough distance and time to properly enter the glide slope.
The pilot argues this way:
- According to Plusnin and Ryzhenko (ATC) the 4th turn was executed at 17km from the RWY threshold
- The point of exit from the 4th turn (10XUBS), located at 17km from the RWY, was registered in the flight plan
- Changing of the heading to requested by the ATC 79° was done through the FMS: “analysis of the used keys revealed that at a certain point a specified course had been selected (CMD HDG), after which it has been selected to 40° and 79° (the system has been operating in a magnetic course).” – from the Final Report, page 120. How could the value of the magnetic course (supposedly set automatically) while flying between the 2nd and 3rd turns be equal to 70° if the FMS was flying the aircraft with the 79° magnetic heading?
- According to an unpublished CVR transcript such exchange took place between the Nav and the F/O:
10:31:20 Nav – and at this point we are 5 miles from Central
…
10:31:56 F/O – Yes, we are 5 miles where?
10:31:56 Nav – on the side
On the attached picture showing the official version of the flight path not a single point corresponds with what was said in the cockpit. So most likely the path shown in the report is not correct, and the correct path is shown with the green line.
Comment
-
He also maintains that it is not true that the crew failed to intercept the glideslope at 10km.
"despite the info from the ATC that the craft reached the point 10km from RWY where the glide slope should have been intercepted at
500m altitude, the crew continued a level flight performing card check. The reduction of altitude was initiated at 9km from the RWY."
According to him the crew was executing approach along the 3 deg 10' path beginning at 5 nautical miles (9km) from the RWY, and not along the 2 deg 40' path beginning 10km from the RWY.
Comment
-
The guy speculates that some kind of precision landing system was in place during the landing of TU-154. Otherwise you coud not explain the values of glideslope and localizer deviations. (Pic 1)
He thinks that a Transponder Landing System was used. Tu-154 had a TRA 67A-(Mode S) transponder installed. Pic 2 shows what the ATC could have seen on their screens. The video recording from the ATC could confirm it, but it has disappeared.
The system can generate signals of the markers. In a mobile version it can be deployed in under 6 hours.
Comment
-
He also points to an abnormality with the vertical speed at takeoff in Warsaw. TAWS logged in a negative vertical speed (pic 1) which is not possible. The error is 2.75 m/s:
Delta Vy = Closure Rate - Sink Rate
Delta Vy = 1 m/s - (-1.75 m/s)
Delta Vy = 2.75 m/s
If this correction is applied to Vy logged at TAWS 34, 35, 36, 37 we get Vy within a normal range for 3 deg 10' glideslope (pic 2).
Comment
Comment