Mr.B 0 #26 April 11, 2010 Quote Quote Is it too soon after the tragedy to make that joke that there was instability caused by poles in the right half plane? I dunno. Was that your joke? It's not "too soon" but it's also not funny. That's the thing about jokes, they're supposed to be funny. The joke is pretty specific and probably only people with signal processing knowledge (or in other fields that "depend" on Laplace transform) will really get it (read: geeks humor)... But even then it's not that great cheers, Bart Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RALFFERS 0 #27 April 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn the USA, sure. But most smaller countries, especially those without the resources, have little choice but to put everyone on the same aircraft. And in the US the President flies on one of the most sophisticated airplanes in existence. While I'm certain this was a fairly well kept Tu-154, I wonder exactly what the level of sophistication in its flight control system was. For instance, even a stock 747 can make a completely automated zero-zero ILS landing. The Tu-154 can make landing on unimproved surfaces, but I don't know what its capabilities are fo r landings in severely reduced visibility. http://www.krakowpost.com/article/2009Dialogue/commentary between Divot, Twardo & myself - "from your first Oshkosh when the three of us were riding to or from one of Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #28 April 12, 2010 Quotehttp://www.krakowpost.com/article/2009 Article is pretty reasonable in its discussion. Wasn't aware the airport didn't have an ILS, but that also pretty much rules out any sort of auto-land. Article also discusses by thoughts about diverting after two misses and pressure on the pilots to land even when it would otherwise not even be considered. It will be interesting if there are any sort of cockpit voice recordings. I would hope the pilot had at least discussed diverting.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,618 #29 April 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteIs it too soon after the tragedy to make that joke that there was instability caused by poles in the right half plane? I dunno. Was that your joke? It's not "too soon" but it's also not funny. That's the thing about jokes, they're supposed to be funny. books.google.com/books?id=niey4jurEsQC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=poles+right+half+plane&source=bl&ots=q0ljxPrxU3&sig=v7w_UdqY_rj2M4w5jznK5iC0dZE&hl=en&ei=8R_DS-OCKMH5nAfs4-iACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=poles%20right%20half%20plane&f=false It's a very old engineers' joke.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyhi 24 #30 April 12, 2010 QuoteWasn't aware the airport didn't have an ILS From an earlier post: Quote"At a distance of 1.5 kilometers [0.9 miles] the air traffic control group discovered the crew had accelerated its downward descent and begun descending beneath its glide path," Alyoshin told Russian news agencies. No ILS, so if they were doing a nonprecision approach, there was no glidepath info available to the pilot. His "required" elevation would be the MDA. If they were doing a PAR then he should have been getting continuous glide path info. Anyone know if they have PAR's at this airport? Were they shooting one? If so, the weather must have been pretty bad. PAR should get you down to 200 feet AGL.Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #31 April 12, 2010 QuoteI just finished reading about that. Something doesn't quite make sense about how they're saying this happened. Of course, it's a bit too early to buy into the pilots ignoring ATC and just flying into the ground. "Ahh, yes, we will go to the massacre memorial and then we will take care of the missile defence problem Mr. President" "Yes Vladimir"When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #32 April 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIs it too soon after the tragedy to make that joke that there was instability caused by poles in the right half plane? I dunno. Was that your joke? It's not "too soon" but it's also not funny. That's the thing about jokes, they're supposed to be funny. books.google.com/books?id=niey4jurEsQC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=poles+right+half+plane&source=bl&ots=q0ljxPrxU3&sig=v7w_UdqY_rj2M4w5jznK5iC0dZE&hl=en&ei=8R_DS-OCKMH5nAfs4-iACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=poles%20right%20half%20plane&f=false It's a very old engineers' joke. LOL... That really is impressivly geeky!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JanuszPS 0 #33 April 12, 2010 QuoteArticle also discusses by thoughts about diverting after two misses and pressure on the pilots to land even when it would otherwise not even be considered. As per recent assumptions/speculations/informations (pls choose preferred option): The fatal approach was in fact the first or at most the second. Before that the pilots decided to make 3 or 4 rounds/circles around the airport at higher altitude. Another thing is that probably the pilots were speaking in Russian with the control tower and as per control tower crew there were problems with exchanging information using the numbers (altitude info). Howere it might not be sustained as the pilot has known Russian on (very) good level. A new version of simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnPh7cTnPcs&feature=player_embedded unfortunately the description is in Polish, but the picture is quite clear. regards j.Back to Poland... back home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #34 April 12, 2010 Thanks for posting the simulation, you don't have to speak Polish after watching the simulation the cause of the crash is glaringly obvious, . The pilot was as dizzy as a three year old on a merry go round.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #35 April 12, 2010 QuoteThe fatal approach was in fact the first or at most the second. Before that the pilots decided to make 3 or 4 rounds/circles around the airport at higher altitude. This also makes no sense. Maybe something is getting lost in translation. In the US a "circling approach" means the pilot flys an instrument approach to one runway (say runway 3) and when he has visual contact with the runway he will then fly a pattern below the clouds to the correct runway to land (say runway 18). "Circling approaches" are not really all that great of an idea and it certainly wouldn't require flying three or four times around the airport in order to land. You'd also never do it without maintaining visual reference to the airport. If the implication is that it was not a "circling approach" but rather that the aircraft was "holding" above the airport, then that's a very different circumstance and would not have happened exactly as depicted in the last graphic explanation (it's certainly not a simulation). I still like to know what the conditions were at the airport. How thick the fog was and what, if any, ceiling there was.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JanuszPS 0 #36 April 12, 2010 It was created by a news paper/magazine, so I wouldn't rely on that too much. However the plane was rather hold in the air making circles 3x than what you said made a circle approach. In terms of weather there was very thick fog. j. edit: no point to post here by myself as I'm not a pilot or specialist in that area by any means.Back to Poland... back home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JanuszPS 0 #37 April 12, 2010 really funny, tell me where do you jump in Ireland. IPC, SI or WG? j.Back to Poland... back home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mik 2 #38 April 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteYes, a sad event. What's surprising to me is that they had so many important government people on the same plane. Isn't it SOP to distribute a group like that onto several planes? In the USA, sure. But most smaller countries, especially those without the resources, have little choice but to put everyone on the same aircraft. A country like Poland might not have the resources of the US of A but I suspect that chartering a second plane might not have caused a major budget decifit!! Like a previous poster, I have worked in organisations that recognise the risks in having more than 3-4 senior people on one plane - and insist that if more than that number have to travel, then they should use separate planes. And these companies did not have the resources that Poland has. An article in the Financial Times today reported that on a previous occasion the President of Poland had ordered a pilot to land a plane when the pilot was not happy. According to this article the pilot refused (after effectively being called a coward by the president) but was subsequently awarded a medal for this action. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be1dabfa-4642-11df-8769-00144feab49a.html *********************************************** I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
