Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Northwester]

By the way, would you please honor my request and post the part of the parameters chart where the airspeed, baro altitude and baro vertical speed are displayed?

Here you go.

[Northwester]

By the way, would you please honor my request and post the part of the parameters chart where the airspeed, baro altitude and baro vertical speed are displayed?

I have a request for you too. Could you outline the procedure, from the pilots' point of view, during an ILS approach?

[Gabriel]

Here you go.

It is quite clear that they were NOT following a glide slope, don't you think? (unless it was a bent glide slope, with the last part being quite steep also).

[Gabriel]

I have a request for you too. Could you outline the procedure, from the pilots' point of view, during an ILS approach?

Sure (in western countries):
1- You have a ILS approach plate.
2- You brief an ILS approach.
3- You intercept the localizer, say 10 miles out, flying constant altitude below the glide slope (typically some 2000 / 2500 ft = 600 / 750 m AGL)
4- You intercept the glide slope, typically some 6 miles out.
5- You configure the airplane for landing.
6- You keep a constant airspeed (Vref + wind allowances) and cosntant vertical speed (typically 700 / 800 fpm for 140 / 160 kts), while keping the needles centered (loc and GS).
7- If by 1000ft (300m) the airplane is not established and stabilized on speed, localizer and glide slope, you go around. This criteria also includes the airplane being fully configured for landing, the landing brieffing being complete, and the landing checklist being complete.
8- If at any time below 1000ft the approach becomes unstabilized, they initiate a go-around.
9- When the runway is in sight, the non-flying pilot calls "runay in sight" (the flying pilot is looking at the instruments, not outside). Then the flying pilot looks out, confirms, transitions to visual flight, and lands.
10- If by the published minimums (typically 200 ft / 60m for a calss I approach) the flying pilot has not heard "runway in sight" and acquired himself sight and recognition of the runway, he starts the go around: calls "go-around, flaps X (typically a take-offish setting), and either: a) Pulls up to establish a climb and applies TOGA, or b) Pulls the GA buttons and monitors as the AP/AT does just that.

Why this was NOT an precision approach (regardless of whehter they were following a glide slope or not, that we've already seen that they weren't):

- They had not precision approach chart.
- They didn't brief a precision approach.
- If they were following a glide slope (which they weren't), they were either not established and stabilized by 300m or they got unstabilized by 220m where the altitude plot bends and the sink rate increases). Or, most likely, both (in none of the parts where the vertical speed was stable and the altitude line is mostly stright, the trajectory aims to the runway.
- Thy also had a vertical speed that was about twice than of a precision approach (6 and 9 m/s, in each of the two stable parts, that equals to 1200 and 1800 ft/min).
- They never got the runway in sight.
- They busted the published minimums of the chart that they had, and even the theoretical minimums of a theorethical precision approach chart that they didn't have.

My opinion: They were making the approach in vertical speed mode. At one point they realized they were too high so they increased the selected vertical speed in the AP. That explains the bend in the trajectory and the increase in vertical speed.

[Northwester]

Sure (in western countries):
1- You have a ILS approach plate.
2- You brief an ILS approach.
3- You intercept the localizer, say 10 miles out, flying constant altitude below the glide slope (typically some 2000 / 2500 ft = 600 / 750 m AGL)
4- You intercept the glide slope, typically some 6 miles out.
5- You configure the airplane for landing.
6- You keep a constant airspeed (Vref + wind allowances) and cosntant vertical speed (typically 700 / 800 fpm for 140 / 160 kts), while keping the needles centered (loc and GS).
7- If by 1000ft (300m) the airplane is not established and stabilized on speed, localizer and glide slope, you go around. This criteria also includes the airplane being fully configured for landing, the landing brieffing being complete, and the landing checklist being complete.
8- If at any time below 1000ft the approach becomes unstabilized, they initiate a go-around.
9- When the runway is in sight, the non-flying pilot calls "runay in sight" (the flying pilot is looking at the instruments, not outside). Then the flying pilot looks out, confirms, transitions to visual flight, and lands.
10- If by the published minimums (typically 200 ft / 60m for a calss I approach) the flying pilot has not heard "runway in sight" and acquired himself sight and recognition of the runway, he starts the go around: calls "go-around, flaps X (typically a take-offish setting), and either: a) Pulls up to establish a climb and applies TOGA, or b) Pulls the GA buttons and monitors as the AP/AT does just that.

Why this was NOT an precision approach (regardless of whehter they were following a glide slope or not, that we've already seen that they weren't):

- They had not precision approach chart.
- They didn't brief a precision approach.
- If they were following a glide slope (which they weren't), they were either not established and stabilized by 300m or they got unstabilized by 220m where the altitude plot bends and the sink rate increases). Or, most likely, both (in none of the parts where the vertical speed was stable and the altitude line is mostly stright, the trajectory aims to the runway.
- Thy also had a vertical speed that was about twice than of a precision approach (6 and 9 m/s, in each of the two stable parts, that equals to 1200 and 1800 ft/min).
- They never got the runway in sight.
- They busted the published minimums of the chart that they had, and even the theoretical minimums of a theorethical precision approach chart that they didn't have.

My opinion: They were making the approach in vertical speed mode. At one point they realized they were too high so they increased the selected vertical speed in the AP. That explains the bend in the trajectory and the increase in vertical speed.

Thank you.
I would like to make just few points now. There is more to discuss.
- Look at the localizer and glideslope deviations on the first picture. These values were recorded for all TAWS events during the approach. Such values cannot be achieved without a precision instrument approach.
- The second picture shows what our Russian pilot speculates were 2 glideslopes, the blue one from April 7th and the red one from April 10th. He shows F/O's and NAV's altitude callouts that match the line. The glideslope is 3 deg 10'. The ATC were confirming several times "on path, on course". If you look at the "bent" glideslope on the charts that I posted previously, there is no way that the ATC could have issued "on path, on course" confirmations. I believe the plane was on 3 deg 10' perfect glideslope, the ATC could see it on their screen, and the glideslope deviation, as recorded by TAWS, was minimal.
- On the 3rd pic you can see that the crew set the prescribed speed of 280 km/h before entering glideslope. The F/O says clearly "we have 280". The Russian graph shows higher speed but even our friendly Russian pilot does not believe it.

There are some other things that do not check. But I am out of time now.

[Gabriel]

So, in the best case, what you mean is that they flew an unofficial and illegal precision approach (not GPS based, because then they would hit the runway, but ground nav-aid based, with the nav-aid displaced intentionally displaced ahead of the runway to guide the plane into the trees, but somehow the records still show "ILS tuned: 0") with the president on board and they still busted the unofficial and illegal minimums of the the unofficial and illegal precision approach as they decided to aim to the search light to the ground (the search light were also misplaced and turned off seconds before the crash to confuse the pilots) without the runway in sight.

Brilliant!

[Northwester]

So, in the best case, what you mean is that they flew an unofficial and illegal precision approach (not GPS based, because then they would hit the runway, but ground nav-aid based, with the nav-aid displaced intentionally displaced ahead of the runway to guide the plane into the trees, but somehow the records still show "ILS tuned: 0") with the president on board and they still busted the unofficial and illegal minimums of the the unofficial and illegal precision approach as they decided to aim to the search light to the ground (the search light were also misplaced and turned off seconds before the crash to confuse the pilots) without the runway in sight.

Brilliant!

Sounds outrages but that's what this Russian pilot believes. The fact is that there is a lot of data in the reports that cannot be reconciled.

Btw, there is a new documentary just released about the crash where witnesses contradict official findings. Unfortunately it is only in Polish.

[Gabriel]

What is outrageous in this, hmmm..., hypothesis (to call it somehow) is that, beyond the Russians misplacing the ILS-like nav-aid and the search lights and turning them off at the last second, all the intention to assassinate the Polish president, is that they needed a lot of help from the pilots by flying an unofficial and illegal approach that was not even briefed, busting the minimums of the official one, busting the ATC clearance, and yet bust the unofficial and illegal minimums, all in solid IMC and with the runway never in sight. I wonder if the pilots were in fact patriotic Russian martyrs.

[Peter Kesternich]

With all the planning that must have gone into this "conspiracy" I am still not sure about one thing: How did the Russians make the fog?

[Northwester]

What is outrageous in this, hmmm..., hypothesis (to call it somehow) is that, beyond the Russians misplacing the ILS-like nav-aid and the search lights and turning them off at the last second, all the intention to assassinate the Polish president, is that they needed a lot of help from the pilots by flying an unofficial and illegal approach that was not even briefed, busting the minimums of the official one, busting the ATC clearance, and yet bust the unofficial and illegal minimums, all in solid IMC and with the runway never in sight. I wonder if the pilots were in fact patriotic Russian martyrs.

So, according to you, we are back to the failed GA?

The problem I have with this hypothesis is that there was nothing in the crew's action indicating they were trying to execute a GA. I know they talked about auto GA if no visibility. But it is inconceivable that they would not be able to do it if they decided to GA. The GA button worked in the mode they were flying - that was tested afterwards. The PIC had his hands on the column and was doing everything as though he was proceeding to land.

Do you have a reasonable theory about what might have happend after descending to 100m?

[Northwester]

With all the planning that must have gone into this "conspiracy" I am still not sure about one thing: How did the Russians make the fog?

It is easy to sidetrack this conversation by mentioning how crazy it would be to suspect someone of something as impossible as inducing fog. Look at this section from the official report. Any right size particles dispersed in the air can function as nuclei for water steam condensation.

[Jonathan_Creek]

- Look at the localizer and glideslope deviations on the first picture. These values were recorded for all TAWS events during the approach. Such values cannot be achieved without a precision instrument approach.

Let me rephrase you. These two values were recorded for each TAWS event as exactly the same values. According to Appendix C for TAWS events #38, 37, 36, 35 and 34:

Glideslope Deviation: 0.095982 dots
Localizer Deviation: 0.108367 dots

With this 0 delta for Deviation this must have been super precise approach. The difference between TAWS #34 and #38 is 56 seconds and 1130 feet.

TAWS #34 recorded MSL Altitude: 2132.087732 feet and Alert Time (H:M:S): 06:40:03
TAWS #38 recorded MSL Altitude: 1002.226390 feet and Alert Time (H:M:S): 06:40:59

Unfortunately there was no Zapruder there to catch it all on the film.

~
In your response to my previous comment you said that Roll Angle input has not been disabled. How do you explain that the Roll Angle value was 0.000000 deg for each TAWS entry starting from entry #33 TAKEOFF to last entry #38?

[Northwester]

Let me rephrase you. These two values were recorded for each TAWS event as exactly the same values. According to Appendix C for TAWS events #38, 37, 36, 35 and 34:

Glideslope Deviation: 0.095982 dots
Localizer Deviation: 0.108367 dots

With this 0 delta for Deviation this must have been super precise approach. The difference between TAWS #34 and #38 is 56 seconds and 1130 feet.

TAWS #34 recorded MSL Altitude: 2132.087732 feet and Alert Time (H:M:S): 06:40:03
TAWS #38 recorded MSL Altitude: 1002.226390 feet and Alert Time (H:M:S): 06:40:59

What is your interpretation of these values? Accidental?

Unfortunately there was no Zapruder there to catch it all on the film.

I don't know if you had a chance to see the latest documentary by Anita Gargas where an eyewitness states that the plane was flying with the wheels pointing down over the street where according to the reports the roll was at least 90 deg.

~
In your response to my previous comment you said that Roll Angle input has not been disabled. How do you explain that the Roll Angle value was 0.000000 deg for each TAWS entry starting from entry #33 TAKEOFF to last entry #38?

I don't know but I wonder why was the Roll Angle Limit disabled. Maybe you know why.

[Peter Kesternich]

It is easy to sidetrack this conversation by mentioning how crazy it would be to suspect someone of something as impossible as inducing fog. (...)

It's not a matter of sidetracking the conversation. Everybody knows that it is possible to induce fog, given the right atmospheric conditions. But with all the elaborate planning that would have gone into bringing the plane down, it was still impossible to create these atmospheric conditions for the arrival window of the flight. So, it would all together have been possible to plan the crash and the plane would have arrived under clear skies with visibility of 100km, doing a visual approach and there was nothing anybody could have done about it, no matter what electronic and ATC distraction from the ground they had planned.

[3WE]

So, according to you, we are back to the failed GA?

Yeah, Gabriels theory is somewhat specific- and therefore you there are some things you can question. (see footnote)

But I want to know what's wrong with just calling it messing up and CFIT when busting minimums, trying to land in fog.

I forget how many times I've cited this on this thread.

Sad to say this sort of thing has happened many times in history- and happened to many airliners being flown by experienced crew.

...and the other interesting trend you sometimes see in CFIT is an important individual with pressure to attend and important event- resulting in pressure to go below minimums, and try to find the airport.

(In fact, the other sad truth is that folks sometimes do this and get away with it. Plain and simple, it's an added risk, and does result in these sorts of crashes sometimes)

Oooooooo, this bears a frightening resemblence......

Footnote: There is nothing wrong with Gabriel's theory- there's almost always some unanswered questions, and the more specific you get, the more questions there are. How does a top flight crew do CFIT? It seems unconscionable! Well, 1) it's happened before, and 2) Well, maybe they botched their go around- it only takes a brief lapse in attention- hit the GA button, look away from the altimiter for a second...