Skip to comments.Smolensk: Radar at the airport was broken! Inspectors handed pilots incorrect data?
Posted on 08/03/2010 4:48:22 AM PDT by theanchoragedailyruse
Everything seems to indicate that there has been a breakthrough in the investigation ws. Russian Tupolev Presidential disaster. During a test flight over the military airport in Smolensk, the Russians agreed that the radar showed the incorrect data. Our eastern neighbors did not want the Poles to give the report of the study.
Could it be approached with great strides Smolensk final determination of the causes of tragedy? If the Russian investigators all documents passed to the Poles for what they ask, perhaps national prosecutors would be able to unravel the mystery of the disaster. The investigation is in place, because the Russians fuss and do not want to cooperate.
During a test flight over the airfield in Smolensk Russian prokurtorzy discovered that the radar was broken. Defined the height of an airplane landing with an accuracy of only 300 meters. The auditors could therefore be given to the crew of the Tu-154M erroneous data.
"The fact he wrote that the information disclosed so sensational Edmund Klich (67 l.), accredited in Moscow when the committee investigating the reasons for the disaster Tupolev. Not only that. The Russians already have a test report, but the Polish investigators do not want him back. Has already sent a protest on this issue.
Klich betrayed "Gazeta Wyborcza" that the Russians had only showed him a report on the matter and then only after a great quarrel. "Fact" and has determined that the documents did not send our Moscow prosecutors today.
The key to the investigation material may not be too still insist the prosecutors, including These contain data about the state of the airport, and radar beacon. - The five applications for legal aid, or send the documents, the Russians realized half of one - tabloid says Rafal Rogalski Attorney, Agent families of victims of the disaster.
Facts on the Radar approach... It was a military precision approach (PAR) and the facility was supposedly certified by MAK on April 5th.
News that there was one survivor - A Polish security officer
The text above is google translated.
It looks like this was a Die Hard 2 situation where the tower had them fly right into the ground: “We’ve got you.”
Any pilot will tell you, the pilot of the Tupelov descended illegally below the legally prescribed height as shown on his barometric altimeter in order to try to salvage a landing.
Happens all the time. End of story.
But... but.... you'll deny Freepers another chance to tie something else to a commie conspiracy and tie it all back to being Obama's fault and calling the American people sheep /s
Mindbender26’s legacy below on Freerepublic.
He states he is a pilot but doesn’t even know the first and most basic meterology and aviation terms.
Good to see you there Top (I don’t know what a fog bank is)Gun.
BTW it was a RA, not a baro and the ATC never stated a ceiling.
Malevolent will exists, of course; and whether played out on small stage or large; in an moment, or 'in time'; by an individual or a collective; it is often, by it's very abhorrence; impossible to rationalize and ascribe human motive to.
(Especially by those who do not operate at that level of moral ignorance. Covertly perped; it is a 'sleight-of-hand'; and only when time 'slows' is the moving hand, more visible.)
Post 9/11 America should have opened our eyes to all possibilities. We do not 'rest' in evil; but we must keep our eyes open to it; try to see beyond what are the bad magic acts perped by enemies of Moral Reason and so enemies of Life.
Certainly, America's current historical experience unfolding should sharpen our vision and our morally-reasoned wits.
Living proof why you should not be allowed, as a non-pilot, to post to aviation forums.
MDA, Minimum Descent Altitude is driven by the barometric altimeter, not the radar altimeter, and a ceiling broadcast (or not broadcast) from ATC has no relevance, as the only thing that matters is whether nor not the pilot flying the approach can clearly see the "runway environment" when at or above the MDA.
Please, you are clearly way beyond your qualifications and experience in all these dozens of "The Russians Killed The Polish President" posts. Leave them to people qualified, like pilots, which you are not.
Your posts that keep throwing around technical terms that you do not really understand, and relying on some very poor translations of a very questionable non-aviation newspaper only serve to confuse people.
So, you've been at FR longer than FR's founder, Jim Robinson (11/28/1997)?
How did you happen to manage that when "here" wasn't exactly "here"?
Sorry, thought it was Sept of 97. Might have been ‘98.
Memory fades at age 66.
Yeah, totally agree.... but facts are such a bitch sometimes....
The newspaper that claims there has been survivor of the plane crash is pretty close to a Polish version of National Enquirer, so I wouldn’t get too excited of they report. And se.pl (SE stands for Super Express) - the source of a main article - is a web page of a Polish afternoon daily newspaper - again not a very reliable source of information.
The approach was a precision approach with a DH or DA dipstick. The regs call for an RA callout when in the norm.
Let’s see, you didn’t know what the call sign was during a readback, you don’t know a fog bank, you don’t recognize a PAR with a DH.
Shall we continue with your nonsense.
Mmmmm, that would be akin to saying the New York Times is a reliable source in the U.S.
No Thanks — Fakt and the others have been very reliable.
Here you go dipstick, so you can know the difference between a QFE and QNH.
Hint you can find it when the article speaks about a DH or DA.
Not an MDA.
Here is what really happened, from FlightGlobal PS, call me all the little 4th grade names you would like. It really makes you look mature!
Please read this in depth. Understand it, including the PIREPS from the other aircraft.
It's very simple, it was not a PAR approach. The pilot, under pressure, screwed up. Plane crashed, which is what of fen happens when the pilot screws up.
The following is from an authoritative journal, FlightGlobal.
“Crashed Polish Tu-154 struck trees below runway elevation
By David Kaminski-Morrow
The flight from Warsaw, originally scheduled for 06:30, had its departure time revised to 07:00 and subsequently took off late at 07:27. Four crew members - a pilot, co-pilot, navigator and flight engineer - were on board, although MAK points out that the aircraft's manuals were designed to support a three-person crew, without a navigator.
While the crew had weather information for the departure and diversion airports, as well as the flight route, they had no forecast - or other aeronautical data, including NOTAMs - for Smolensk North Airport.
The aircraft was technically sound and it had 19t of fuel, enough to operate the service given the alternate airports selected. Analysis of the fuel shows that it met quality standards and the aircraft's take-off weight and balance were within limits.
Russian authorities had conducted an assessment of Smolensk on 16 March, to check that the airport was capable of handling Tu-154 and Tu-134 aircraft. On 25 March a subsequent flight test of the airport's equipment showed that the approach radar, the NDB beacon and its markers, as well as the airfield lighting and radio systems met criteria for an approach on an easterly magnetic heading of 259°.
MAK says that Smolensk could not support an approach using the aircraft's flight director.
Five days before the accident the airport was declared ready to receive both the Tu-154 and the Yakovlev Yak-40 used by the Polish presidential air wing, down to a minimums of 100m (330ft) height and 1,000m visibility.
After departing Warsaw on 10 April the Tu-154 cruised over Belarus at an altitude of around 10,000m. During the en route phase of flight the crew communicated with both Minsk and Moscow area control centres in English, but switched to Russian when the aircraft came under the responsibility of Smolensk controllers.
MAK says it has completed its interpretation of the crew members’ conversation, and clearly identified their voices. “The work was complicated by high levels of noise, including that due to the open cockpit door,” it states, adding that the investigators have had to use special analysis techniques to filter out the extraneous sound.
But it points out: “It was discovered that, in the cockpit, were people who were not members of the crew.”
One of the voices has been “accurately identified”, it states, but the source of the other voices is subject to further analysis by Polish specialists. “This is important for the inquiry,” adds MAK, but stresses that it is not disclosing names. Several senior military and political figures were among the delegation on board the aircraft.
Minsk and Smolensk controllers, as well as the crew of a Polish state Yak-40 flying ahead of the presidential Tu-154, “repeatedly informed” the Tu-154 crew about the weather at Smolensk. The Yak-40 landed at Smolensk at 09:15, about 1h 30min before the accident.
Some 27min before the crash, the Tu-154 descended to a height of 7,500m and Minsk controllers informed that Smolensk was experiencing fog with visibility down to just 400m. Having been handed off to Smolensk the crew twice received similar information, the 400m visibility being far below the minimum criteria for approach.
Sixteen minutes before the accident, the Yak-40 crew relayed the 400m figure and added that the vertical visibility was just 50m. Another aircraft, an Ilyushin Il-76, had made two approaches to Smolensk before aborting its approach and diverting to an alternate airport. The visibility continued to decline and, four minutes before the crash, the Yak-40 crew told the Tu-154 pilots that it had fallen to just 200m.
The crew opted initially to test the approach down to the 100m decision height. MAK says the controller, during the Tu-154’s turn to base leg, informed the pilots that they would need to prepare for a go-around at 100m.
During the approach the Tu-154 had its autopilot engaged for longitudinal and lateral control, and its autothrottle was active.
The aircraft's terrain awareness and warning system had signalled ‘terrain ahead’, before instructing the pilots to ‘pull up’ around 18s before the accident. Just 5s before the impact the longitudinal autopilot channel was disengaged, followed immediately by the autothrottle, in preparation for a go-around.
While the runway lay at 258m above sea level, the aircraft by this point had descended into a ravine located about 1km from the threshold. It was flying some 15m below the level of the runway elevation and - at 1,100m from the threshold, and 40m left of the centreline - struck a tree at a height of less than 11m.
The aircraft continued for another 260m, and drifted 80m left of the centreline, before colliding with another tree, whose trunk was 30-40cm in diameter.
This impact badly damaged the jet, shearing off the tip of the left wing. Crippled, the Tu-154 rolled to the left. Within 220m it had rolled 90° and was fully inverted within a further 120m. MAK says around 5-6s elapsed between the initial structural damage and the complete destruction of the aircraft just after 10:41.
Forensic examination shows the occupants of the Tu-154 were subjected to forces in the region of 100g, says MAK, and survival was “impossible”.
The airport's lighting had been checked earlier in the day, prior to the jet's arrival, and found to be operational. There were no problems with the Tu-154’s engines.
Further investigation, says MAK, will include additional analysis of the flight-management system - the aircraft was fitted with satellite-based navigation equipment - and the terrain warning system, as well as a detailed assessment of the crew and operating procedures, and an examination of the flight under the weather conditions present on the day.”
BOTTOM LINE: Pilot was cleared to descent to a barometric altitude of 330 feet above the runway elevation. In reality, he descended to an altitude of 15 meters (about 50 feet) BELOW the runway elevation, while flying in a ravine, and crashed.
Pilot screwed up, plane crashed, people died. Happens all the time. It's a common aviation disease call “Get-there-itis” It's a disease that is often fatal, but doesn't have to be.
This was a classic ‘controlled flight into terrain’ crash. They ignored GPWS for just a bit too long, oops.
Ahh another classic comment from someone who doesn’t know squat.
See above to get your lesson.
Please tell the world, how what in the world you just said means anything.
Please read carefully.
Radar had nothing to do with it. If you were a pilot you would know that. Pilot was flying an approach with a minimum altitude below which he was not authorized to descend. He descended way below that altitude trying to “sneak in under the weather.”
What happened to him is what happens to most pilots who try that repeatedly. They crash and kill all aboard.
Sorry, those are what are called “facts.”
Let me make this easy.
Pilot should not have been lower than 100 meters above the runway altitide.
He was over (then crashed into) a ravine flying at an altitide of 15 meters below the runway altitide.
He crashed. They all died.
Make “altitide” altitude. Spill chucker was off.... like your thought process...
ATC gave command to descend to DH of 50 meters. CAT 1 DH is what with a precision approach?
Make that height not altitude.
A typical Cat I DH is 200 feet AGL, but that has nothing to do with this case.
Pilot was not “cleared” to descend below whatever the DH or MDA was for the approach he was using. These MINIMUMS are exactly that, they are MINIMUMS below which he was not authorized to fly unless he had a clear view of the “runway environment” in view, (in other words, unless he had a clear view of the runway by looking out the window.)
These minimums do NOT come from ATC via radio. They are published on small charts, one for each type of approach to each runway, called Approach Plates. ATC cannot lower those minimums.
Here is a sample approach plate.
It is for an ILS to Runway 9 at MIA, Miami International Airport. At the top of the Plate you can see that the TDZE is 7. That means that the touchdown zone of the runway is 7 feet above sea level.
Look at the bottom of the plate. You'll see the notation for the ILS “207/24 200(200-1/2)” That means that the DH for that approach to that runway is 207 feet above sea level on the barometric altimeter, or 200 feet above the 7 foot TDZE (200 feet above the ground.)
This is all meaningless in the Smolensk accident, however, because the aircraft was flying over (and crashed into) a ravine at an altitude of 15 feet BELOW the TDZE for the runway in question.
It's all rather simple, really.
The former Sovs can be bad boys, but despite what some Polish tabloid claims, this error was caused by pilot error, not the Russians.
There was no ILS at Smolensk. Only NBDs. A typical MDA would have been at least 500 feet above the TDZE. The pilot was 15 feet BELOW the TDZE.
In addition, the flight data recorder voice channels have multiple recordings of the automated voice driven by the radar altimeter loudly announcing “Low - Pull Up!” and “Terrain Ahead!” That automated voice is quite loud and unmistakable.
That has been confirmed by Polish investigators.
A good sim of the crash is shown at http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,7761110,Tak_doszlo_do_tragedii.html
Notice that it was his 4th approach. The Commanding General of the Polish Air Force in the cockpit telling the pilot that he “had better find a way to land.”
A perfect recipe for a disaster.
There was no 4th approach. The CVR proved that.
If there was no ILS why is there an ILS indicated on the most current approach plates and no Notams issued telling otherwise?
Enough of your B.S. be gone.
“...A typical Cat I DH is 200 feet AGL, but that has nothing to do with this case.”
That would be 60 meters DH right? BTW You just stated previously the baro was QNH, the baro given to the pilot was QFE.
2P: Go around.
Signal at F=400 Hz. (Decision height).
TAWS:PULL UP, PULL UP.
Moreover idiot, I posted a picture of the Smolensk approach plate showing an ILS and PAR.
You are not a pilot, you have no understanding of aviation procedures, despite your claims to have been a “weatherman.”
You keep insisting that some other element caused the crash and using the Polish equivalent of the National Enquirer as your source, although every other source, especially those staffed by professional pilots and accident investigators agree it was a CFIT.
There is also a good chance you are a troll, simply here to try to discredit FR.
Finally, you are also rather rude, crude and exceptionally classless. If your parents are alive, they are probably very embarrassed by you, because you probably display this same boorish behavior offline as well. Of course, there is always the chance that you are a rather cowardly polite meek little man offline, and only display these clearly disturbed personality traits when you can hide behind the anonymousness of the Internet.
Because you are not worth further comment or consideration, you are now electronically shunned.
We have recommended you get professional help, but since you will not get it, the next best thing we can do is simply what everyone does with a foolish, unintelligent, attention-demanding boor.
We will ignore you.
This is about the fourth time you said you would ignore the threads.
Heed your own words, or I will notify the mods next time.
You are a fraud.