As more information emerges about the accident flight, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand the justification for its planning and execution in the marginal weather that prevailed.
On 10 April the Polish air force Tupolev Tu154M operating the presidential flight took off from Warsaw for the 800km journey to Smolensk Severny (Smolensk North). The latter is a former air force base, recently decommissioned by the military but now used as Smolensk's sole civil/military airport since the recent closure of nearby Smolensk Yuzhny (Smolensk South).
Smolensk airport has no precision approach aids, and meteorological observations provided there do not meet ICAO specifications. For example they can provide estimated visibility from the control tower, but not runway visual range. There were no special arrangements made for the presidential flight, according to our sources. Three days earlier (7 April) the same aircraft had flown the identical trip carrying the Polish Prime Minster, so the crew of the presidential flght should not have faced any unknowns.
The presidential flight was to be carried out in daylight, but fog was forecast at the destination airport. About 90min before the Tu-154 was due to arrive, a Polish air force Special Air Transport Wing Yakovlev Yak-40 carrying journalists landed at Smolensk in fog. About 30min before the presidential flight was expected, a Russian air force Ilyushin IL-96, bound for Smolensk carrying Russian Federal Security Service staff, was ordered to divert because the weather was below minimums. In Russia, air traffic control can give orders to military flights, but both the Polish air force flights had civilian status, so they could only be provided with advice and information.
When an aircraft hits the ground on the approach, it is self-evident that it was lower than it should have been at that point. The answer sought in all approach accidents is why it was too low. The Russian authorities say conversation between the crew and ATC was normal, and the pilots did not report any technical problems. Initial scans of information from flight recorders also suggests no problems with the aircraft.
If that is the whole truth, we are in the familiar realms of human factors.
If a pilot is determined to land from an approach in marginal conditions, it is tempting for him/her to continue descent below the minimum descent height (MDH) for the approach aid in use, hoping to see the runway through the fog, and relying on seeing the ground below the aircraft so as to avoid collision with it. In the case of the presidential flight, according to air transport regulator Rosaviatsia's chief, Alexander Neradko, the aircraft was so low that it hit an 8m high tree when still 1,200m from the runway threshold. At that point on a standard 3deg approach glideslope it should still have been at 60m height, says Neradko.
But whatever the height of a theoretical glideslope at 1,200m, this flight should not have descended even as low as 60m (182ft) on this approach without the pilots being able to see the runway - and with the reported visibility being 400-600m in fog, they could not have done. The airport has no precision approach aids, and the status of the aids it has have not been confirmed by the authorities yet.
So why would pilots have ignored their minima? Widespread press speculation suggests pressure from the senior military personnel on board influenced the captain, but it's not at all clear how they could know that. Pilots flying their country's president would not need external pressure to feel the need to land successfully - they would supply their own. The only safeguard would have been the discipline needed to stick to the rules and disappoint nearly 100 of Poland's top officials by insisting on diverting a long distance away from Smolensk, and thus from Katyn, where the President was due to lead his retinue in honouring the memory of Polish soldiers who died in a Second World War massacre 70 years ago.
When it closed as a military base in October 2009, Smolensk Severny had surveillance radar and a Russian RSPB beacon, almost identical to the western military aid TACAN (tactical air navigation), which operates in an overlapping frequency band. RSPB, like the civilian VOR/DME, offers bearing and range from the beacon, but slightly more accurately than its civil counterpart. It is still, however, not a precision approach aid. The status of the RSPB and the airport surveillance radar on that day is not known at present, but if surveillance radar were available the crew could have been provided with non-precision lateral and range guidance on the approach to the runway, which in this case was runway 26. Reports suggest that ATC was providing vectoring guidance, but what kind is not clear.
As a final caveat, it has not yet been possible to check some of this information with official organisations, so any input from industry professionals is welcome.
on April 13, 2010 2:52 PM | Reply
just a question.
It was known the Polish government delegation was coming. The event was supposed to be a breakthrough in the icy relations of the 2 countries. It would be normal to suppose it wasn't just up to the Russian air controllers to see the delegation gets to Katyn in time, wouldn't it? Why wasn't the Polish delegation contacted after another plane had been diverted half an hour before - and another destination and options of getting to the ceremony in time suggested? With all the high-ranking officials on board?
on April 13, 2010 3:15 PM | Reply
I don't actually know for certain, but I am pretty sure that ATC would have passed on advice like this as a matter of course,
That said, it would not be unusual for an aircraft commander who had plenty of fuel to make one exploratory approach despite an actual weather report that was below minimums, on the basis that if you stick strictly to your minimum descent height and then make a go around/divert decision if you don't see the runway at that point, that's fine. The rationale for the attempt is that fog is notoriously variable, and you just might get lucky.
on April 14, 2010 5:13 AM | Reply
AFAIK the flight departed Warsaw at around 7:23am (about 20 minutes late) and they had to be at Katyn at 9:30am. (11:30 local time) If they had diverted to Minsk they would need to drive for 4 and a half hours to get to Katyn, according to Pravda.
on April 14, 2010 7:28 AM | Reply
Good point, and thank you for the reply!
But still - the view 'from the ground' is missing? Who were waiting for them (there had to be someone?), how pressed for time were they, were there other transportation options/plan B for them being late etc considered on the ground? I mean, one would think about these things if it had been a family, for example, so probably the more so with a government delegation?
on April 14, 2010 5:23 PM | Reply
"...Katyn, where the President was due to lead his retinue in honouring the memory of Polish soldiers who died in a Second World War massacre 70 years ago."
please correct it
memory of polish citizens (21 768 people: intellectuals and intelligentsia - elite including soldiers, lawyers, professors etc ) who were mordered by Soviets in planned crime. Till 1989 year there was forbiden to talk about this massacre. The lie about Katyn was that Russians never wanted admit it. They blamed germans. But that was not true. Till nowadays they didnot admit it.
accident
secondly: there was no rush in the plane. The president was the most important guest, they could postpone the cerymony. there was no fog before, it was provoced 15 minutes before presidenetial aeroplane. what about electromagnetical terrorism? HAARP? I do not believe in aacident
on April 16, 2010 7:24 PM | Reply
David, what is source for pre-last paragraph? I mean which starts from "When it closed as a military base" and stops on "but what kind is not clear." I ask it because some elements look slightly odd, and I like to see source. The other side of coin - facts might be more unpleasant and even suggesting that this flight should have been planned to another airport in first place.
on April 19, 2010 1:12 AM | Reply
Some facts:
96 passangers (inc. staff);
no fire, no explosion;
landing speed - means slow;
low altitude;
no rocks, only trees;
AND:
no one survived - all killed in impact time (officially);
plane is in very small pieces;
many photos and movies from crash site but:
no bodies or body remains on all photo, including photos and movies which were made just few minutes after crash (check net and youtube). Witness, who was also witness of other cathastrophe years ago (amazign, but true) was sure - "plane was empty";
on photos and movies only rear part of the plane. Nobody saw photo with pilots cabin or passengers compartment. From week;
in one piece only funeral wreath carried on anniversary, because it can't speak.
on April 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Reply
pessimist: 1) The breakthrough was Tusk's visit on the 7th. This was Kaczynski's personal endeavor (political rivalry). 2) The rest of the delegation that arrived by ground was waiting for them. They say (according to the black box voice recorders), the pilots were very eager to land.
on April 21, 2010 12:47 PM | Reply
IF THE PRESS PLANE LANDED 90 MINUTES BEFORE THE PRESIDENTS PLANE , WHY IS THERE NO PRESS PICTURES?.IF I WAS A PRESS GUY I WOULD BE OUTSIDE GETTING PICTURES OF THE PLANE LANDING .WOULD I NOT? MAKES WE WONDER WERE THE PICS ARE. ???????
on April 21, 2010 1:11 PM | Reply
The press arrived to take pictures of the President's arrival. They did take plenty of pictures of the President's arrival, and they were published, but it was not quite the arrival that everyone had hoped for.
What are you trying to say?
on June 2, 2010 8:07 AM | Reply
With some hindsight now, does it raise any red flags that the Russian IAC has not turned over the actual CVR and FDRs for examination and authentication?
I'd want to know:
-were these the BB's onboard Kaczynski's flight?
-any signs of tampering or negligent handling of CVR/FDRs during IAC custody?
-chain of custody from crash on?
-can an FDR or CVR be altered, supplanted, or edited?
-if TAWs was switched off, was it by pilot? Why?
-IAC reported "intrusive" and "extraneous" noise on CVR -- how so if it was technically sound and plane was technically sound? What caused the noise such that IAC announced it had to "restore" the CVR in places...what does that mean? Is it a mask for alteration?
There's more, I'm sure. I've seen many hard questions on Analyst Bluepapers blog.
on June 7, 2010 6:00 PM | Reply
All this time I have kept wondering: some countries that used to belong to the old CCCP still use the old system of landingaltidudes based in QFE. All western countries use QNH. That includes Poland. Is it possible that the Smolensk controllers were referring to a QFE approach while the Polish pilots assumed that the given data were for a QNH approach? Do know the data of that day but it might explain why the plane was actually below the altitude of the runway (in a gully in front of it)