Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[guamainiac]

Of course to "stick it to the deck" once you touch down. Thanks, I thought the deployment on final was for dumping altitude.

Looking at the basics of the this situation, is it possible that he was below the proverbial "power curve" if his engines were spooled down .. as in the Munson crash? A Citation is different but the basics should apply.

[Curtis Malone]

Simultaneous - you pitch up and add power.

A lot of years and pounds ago I was taught "pitch up, power up, clean up, speak up".

[Gabriel]

Looking at the basics of the this situation, is it possible that he was below the proverbial "power curve" if his engines were spooled down .. as in the Munson crash? A Citation is different but the basics should apply.

Yes.

Well, almost every question that starts "is it possible" have "Yes" for an answer, but in this specific case, what you say is reasonable.

The last part of the descent to 100m seems to have been at a pretty steep angle, that would require a much lower thrust than normal to hold speed.

Then they level-off at 100m. It seems that the speed was going down then. Maybe they "forgot" to add thrust to keep speed after level-off.

Then they start a very steep descent again.

If they were flying that low at below Vref, at a high descent rate, with low thrust (and hence long spool-up times), then leveling off again can be impossible before hitting the ground.

Yet, they managed to stop the descent and start to climb (which was not enough to avoid the crash, of course). The fatal hit with the big tree that severed the left wing happened at a higer altitude than the first minor hit with the small tree. The first was at 8m above the ground and the second was at 2.5m above the ground, but there was a raising terrain and the ground between those trees climbed more than that difference of 5.5m.

[guamainiac]

That sounds like they almost made it doesn't it?

Low and slow they were getting away with but down in the hole was the final straw.

[Gabriel]

The only difference I see here is the last part of the flight path, where based on CVR they were somewhat higher, and based on the other graphics they were supposed to be 8m above ground. One source is flawed. Don't know which one.

Which can be flawed? The trajectory that you (and later me) reconstructed from the voices and sounds recoreded in the CVR, or the one recontructed from the marks left on the trees as the plane flew though them?

That's a tough question .I'll have to think that for a while. Done.

Northwester, I have the impression that you have not gone through this.

http://smolensk.ws/blog/168.html

If you didn't, do.

[MCM]

A lot of years and pounds ago I was taught "pitch up, power up, clean up, speak up".

The "pitch up" in that sentence (certainly during my training) referred to the prop pitch in a variable pitch system - not pitch as in attitude - although there is certainly no harm in it doing so.

Again - a difference between jets and light aircraft - getting the power coming on in a jet is important because of the lead time required - in a light aircraft you have power almost immediately available.

[Northwester]

Which can be flawed? The trajectory that you (and later me) reconstructed from the voices and sounds recoreded in the CVR, or the one recontructed from the marks left on the trees as the plane flew though them?

That's a tough question .I'll have to think that for a while. Done.

Northwester, I have the impression that you have not gone through this.

http://smolensk.ws/blog/168.html

If you didn't, do.

I am actually glad I started digging deeper into this theory about searchlights. In the process we discovered that the CVR transcript has flaws. The attached illustration shows it. According to CVR the plane was at alt 20m above RWY at dist 1141.62 from the RWY. But at about 1110m from the RWY it cut a tree at elev. of 8m above ground. To do that the plane would have to descend 25.6m in a distance of 31.6m. That's an angle of 39 deg.!

Thanks for the link, Gabriel. It will take some translating!

[Northwester]

Just so I am not being accused of pushing only one theory, here's my theory B (theory A is the "searchlight theory").
The pilots had the best intentions to fly at alt 100m to point B (right after the NDB), check if RWY is in sight, and then either go around or land. At point A there was a mechanical failure that caused the plane to lose altitude quickly. There is no record of any conversation in the cockpit referring to it because: 1. it happened too fast, the crew just had enough time to check the altitude (the navigator had nothing else to do except read the numbers) and try to gain control of the plane, 2. the CVR is flawed (as proven in the previous post) and does not include something that might have indicated mechanical problems.

Happy New Year everyone!

[Evan]

Just so I am not being accused of pushing only one theory, here's my theory B (theory A is the "searchlight theory").
The pilots had the best intentions to fly at alt 100m to point B (right after the NDB), check if RWY is in sight, and then either go around or land. At point A there was a mechanical failure that caused the plane to lose altitude quickly. There is no record of any conversation in the cockpit referring to it because: 1. it happened too fast, the crew just had enough time to check the altitude (the navigator had nothing else to do except read the numbers) and try to gain control of the plane, 2. the CVR is flawed (as proven in the previous post) and does not include something that might have indicated mechanical problems.

Happy New Year everyone!

There is one comment by the F/O, after descending below 100m, something roughly translated as "in the norm" or "in standard". What does that refer to? If there was a mechanical issue causing the a/c to drop below MDA, how does it corollate to such a statement?

[Northwester]

There is one comment by the F/O, after descending below 100m, something roughly translated as "in the norm" or "in standard". What does that refer to? If there was a mechanical issue causing the a/c to drop below MDA, how does it corollate to such a statement?

Good question. Why would the F/O say "in the norm" without anyone else asking about something? Maybe someone pointed to one of the indicators noticing something strange. Right after that the fatal descent begins. Some speculate that the comment is refering to TAWS.

[Northwester]

If we really want to determine root cause, is not the obvious explanation that these were the actions of a desperate pilot, flying as close to the ground as possible in order to find a landmark and then losing awareness or realizing too late he wasn't where he hoped he was? But I don't even subscribe to this theory, the obvious one, because there's no way of knowing and probably never will be.

Just a quick comment before we all move into a new year.

What I see here is a professional crew doing everything by the book, following procedures, getting to the MDA ready to go around, flying a well equiped aircraft, not projecting any signs of stress suddenly losing it in few seconds. Makes me think...

[guamainiac]

If it wasn't the most common IFR "honey trap" in the book I might agree but this kind of accident does fit a pattern or behavior so it is not unique.

Every pilot who has had an instructor worth his salt has been cautioned over and over again. "Your job is to get there, not get there on time". Does that ring a bell. That was in lesson #6 in 1968. I checked.

"Sucker holes" or "blue holes" all of those things are gone over ad naseum yet we still break rules.

Bust minimums? Be honest now. When was the last time you broke the speed limit? Probably by at least a few miles an hour each day right? Did you know that all speed limits are set by a standard for elevations, curves, lanes, population and such. Yep, each and every sign. In theory, if we all did the strict limit you could reduce the number of accidents by at least half. So do people bust minumums? Just a few times a day.

The reason instructors try to hammer it into you is obvious. Despite the flags thrown most feel that "the book" was written for "the other guy".

Oh? Happy New Year or Szczesliwego Nowego Roku

[Gabriel]

What I see here is a professional crew doing everything by the book, following procedures...

I'm not so sure about that.

In many operations, procedures don't allow to even attempt an approach in cases like this (visibilty required 1000, informed 400 and 200).

Also, the approach evidently got unstabillized even before reaching the MDA (with descent rates in excess of 1500fpm), but they didn't abort.

Another thing, the lack of an approach briefing is something that called my attention. Except for the captain saying "If we go arround we'll do on autopilot" or something like that, there was no briefing about what approach will be flown, how it will be flown, what would be the go-nogo criteria, what they'll do next if it's a nogo, or what where the functions of each crew member.

And finally, they did bust minimums. Whether it was intentional or not is something we still have to figure out.

Just a quick comment before we all move into a new year.

Too late for me

[Gabriel]

If it wasn't the most common IFR "honey trap" in the book I might agree but this kind of accident does fit a pattern or behavior so it is not unique.

Every pilot who has had an instructor worth his salt has been cautioned over and over again. "Your job is to get there, not get there on time". Does that ring a bell. That was in lesson #6 in 1968. I checked.

"Sucker holes" or "blue holes" all of those things are gone over ad naseum yet we still break rules.

Bust minimums? Be honest now. When was the last time you broke the speed limit?

The problem here is, if it was intentional, it was a horrible strategy to bust minimums, beyond the simple fact that busting minimums it's already a horrible strategy in the first place.

I mean, taking your analogy with speed limits, I doubt any reasonable driver, even if he is used to go 10 MPH faster than the limit in the highway, would intentionally cross a stop sign driving wrong way at 40 MPH above the limit.

Descending below the MDA before reaching the MAP, and doing that at some 2500fpm, and busting the runway elevation still before raching the MAP, intentional?

[guamainiac]

The "limits" are based on vehicle performance, driver reaction times, usage and terrain. If we all, followed the limits there would be almost ... those that happen would be true accidents. How many times have you scoffed at the term when someone was in a wreck?

We get into a pattern of driving in the "grey zone".

The first thing we do is bust a bunch of rules and get tickets in our first years. Or, we crash and burn a few times; I did both.

But after a warning and an insurance hike most of us get the message and start operating in "the grey zone". Most PD set the "bug" at 10 over the limit so we do 69 in a 60 mph zone knowing we will not attract attention.

No tickets and only one crash (not my fault), in 30 years? How? I wondered myself. I am not overly attentive or cautious. I spent almost thirty years driving a shift of about 200 miles over 10 hours a day. What I noted that I adjusted my own margins. Where most people keep 5 car lengths I kept 6 or 7. Things like that. In aviation, that would be if the MDA was 100m, I made it 120m for myself. Probably not good in some ways but I didn't have a choice.