The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives [3] 
  
Account: Guest

Posts by delphiandomine  

Joined: 25 Nov 2008 / Male ♂
Warnings: 1 - Q
Last Post: 17 Feb 2021
Threads: Total: 86 / Live: 15 / Archived: 71
Posts: Total: 17813 / Live: 4639 / Archived: 13174
From: Poznań, Poland
Speaks Polish?: Yeah.
Interests: law, business

Displayed posts: 4654 / page 127 of 156
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
delphiandomine   
3 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Then why wasn't it classed as a suicide mission? Too painful or didn't address the facts?

Because...it wasn't?

I don't want to embrace wild conspiracies either but when two official sources produce such conflicting accounts, who can we go with?

What conflicting accounts?

Every single account of the crash has the same story - the pilot busted his minimums.
delphiandomine   
3 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Convex, he wouldn't navigate into the ground. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Let's see..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_965
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_605
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RusAir_Flight_9605
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlasjet_Flight_4203
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armavia_Flight_967

Plenty of examples in history.

People are not blaming Russia, they are searching truths and they may be some people in Russia who even you may not like.. (for ex, Kaczynski's this trip was blamed and warned by Putin et al, wasn't it?)

The only people pushing that line are the ones who think that Putin cared less about a ceremonial President of a minor European country.
delphiandomine   
3 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

That is very surprising, because this information stays in contradiction with the accusation of the polish pilot trying to switch on the ABSU system and it shows that the report conclusions had no basis in this case .

As I read it - the report makes that conclusion based on the inactivity between the "go-around?" comment and answer and the flight controls being pulled. There's nothing to "prove" it one way or another - which is what this military report it saying. The basis of the conclusion in the report is that earlier in the flight, they had planned such a move (to go around on autopilot).

They do agree with each other - there's no contradiction, the military is merely saying that there is no evidence of the button actually being pressed (which is what the test flights were for - to see if the button press was recorded despite being non-operative).

As you know, sky, they likely believed that the TAWS was malfunctioning due to the lack of data for that neck of the woods. I encourage you to check the interview with the TAWS owner of Arizona. They clearly believed they were higher than they were at all times. Pilots tend to know margins of error and he wasn't on a suicide mission.

Well, using the radar rather than barometric altimeter might have something to do with that belief.

They knew that they didn't have data for that part of the world - that's why the deliberate act of setting the barometric altimeter 'high' (in order to silence the TAWS device) was made.

As for margins of error - well, may I remind you of the way that there are many, many "controlled flights into terrain" in history?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_controlled_flight_into_terrain

I along with many, worldwide, still think Russia is the blame, in one way or other, for this crash. It may take some time, for the truth to come out, and I hope soon, so all will know.

You, along with a minority of others, seek to blame Russia because it's simply easier than accepting that some of the best Poland has flew the plane into the ground.

Convex, I've written time and again why he went below. You know why.

One thing that you should bear in mind is that while ATC can give clearance to a certain level, it doesn't mean it's legally binding - the pilot is still bound by his minimums. In this case, while ATC could clear him to 100m - he wasn't allowed to go there.
delphiandomine   
2 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

My Dad is very skeptical if it comes to the state of current training of pilots , not enough flight hours . My father also says it is outrages that pilots have as little flights hours as he had in just one year . The lack of money is the main issue

Yep. It's a huge problem with the Air Force - the report makes this so clear. The training simply isn't good enough - Sky mentioned the reaction to "pull up, pull up" - why didn't they have it?

Personally - I wouldn't be pointing the finger at the Russians, but rather at the Defence Ministry. I thought from the beginning, and still think, that the opposition should have focused on the incompetence of the Ministry rather than crosses, Russians and conspiracies. There's absolutely no doubt that heads must go in the Air Force - but with the reports coming out of Afghanistan, it seems that the Army isn't fit to do the job as well.

If you ask me, the one failing in the report is that it didn't do a good enough job of digging into the culture of the Air Force that allowed this to happen.
delphiandomine   
2 Aug 2011
History / Warsaw Rising 1944 - National Disaster or Triumph of Spirit ? [515]

God help me if I ever came across one of those PIS people.

I had the pleasure once. Amusing, if only because she hit a child because he dared to tell the truth rather than their hate-fuelled version.

Is this a serious idea? It sounds insane to me.

History shows that the Soviets seriously over-stretched their supply line in order to get to Berlin first. The same history tells us the AK had some capability in Poland - not a lot, but some. We also know that the Germans were willing to fight to the death in many places - Poznan, Kustrin, etc.

Now - do you honestly think the Western Allies would have been particularly keen on helping out Stalin if the Poles were destroying their supply lines? Germany was losing the war anyway by late 44, early 45 - and they may actually have been quite happy to see the Poles fight the Soviets in order to take Berlin before the Soviets.

Sure, it might not have worked - but it would've been a damn sight smarter than sending children to the slaughter needlessly. Poland had to do something, that was sure - but the Warsaw Uprising was the wrong time to do it.
delphiandomine   
2 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Well I wouldn't go that far lol, but it is true Russians and the Russian diaspora monitor Polish, Ukrainian and other websites pertinent to Russia.

They do?

Any evidence? You know, real evidence that suggests that Russians actively monitor websites, and for what purpose.

(incidentally - you do realise that Echleon is far more scary than anything the Russians could come up with?)

EXACTLY!!! What is up with that INTENSITY of theirs?? It seems very peculiar.

Perhaps, just maybe, we have an interest in the subject? I live here, I saw the aftermath of 10.04 first hand when in the city centre - kinda natural to be interested in such a thing, no?

Some of these guys (especially one individual) fight tooth and nail to defend Russia on this topic like their lives depends on it.

Actually - everyone sane on this thread has already said "yup, Russians made mistakes" and moved on from the topic. There's not much to say about them - everything is in the report.

Incidentally, what do you know about sterile cockpit rules? While it's a cruel twist of fate that Blasik was the only one that appeared to be able to read an altimeter correctly, he still shouldn't have been there and could very well have influenced the accident. Unless of course, you wish to claim that the commander wouldn't have been influenced by the possibility of getting a lot of credit from the "big boss".

Tell you what though MediaWatch - can you find me a valid reason why the commander of the plane went below minimums?
delphiandomine   
2 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Links in Polish will be removed.

Leave it, please - a lot of the "counter" arguments are only in Polish, and the sources in English tend to be utter rubbish - and there's very little "new" being published in English about the opposing point of view.
delphiandomine   
2 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Delph - I want to tell you, because you may not know, but there is no lawyer, who would know all the laws. It is simply impossible.

Of course. But the law in question is referenced in the report - go ahead and check it.

And how do I know that this was a civilian flight this issue was resolved by the Russians on 13 .01.2011 r in agreement with the Polish side, that it was a civilian flight. It appears that you have outdated information

The information comes directly from the report, in accordance with the law in force at the time of the accident. If there was such an agreement, can you provide me with a link to it?

Russia still broke the rules by going outwith the permissible deviation parameters, delph. That's just a fact!

Indeed. The LZC guy did mess up, and there's questions over the radar equipment - but it didn't cause them to crash. It would be a different story if they were told "on course" and then hit something while above 100m - but they hit something when going below 100m without clearance.

But as several pilots have informed you - it is the commander's responsibility to keep within minimums, not the ATC.

And - Seanus - that link is factually inaccurate. I can't be bothered to go through it, but one example -

Ten minutes later, at 8:20, there are words which tell us that the crew did not receive any guidance from the tower as to the direction of approach. 2nd pilot Robert Grzywna says: "It looks like 259, this would be even better, because it would not be against the sun." This conditional phrase clearly indicates that the pilots await the decision of the controllers. In the end, the approach was from direction 259, but there is not even a single word mentioning the decision of the tower on this issue!

One problem. The other approach was decommissioned and a NOTAM issued about this well before 10.04.

Also -

Blasik was confirmed to be in the cockpit by the Polish experts.

Plenty of other misleading statements in that link, too. For instance - it wasn't a PAR approach, so comments about "ATC must be talking constantly" are just wrong.
delphiandomine   
2 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

The Polish pilot would adjust the plane to the right position and all the deviations would be corrected . But because he received false information from the controllers hi was reassured that the plane was on the proper altitude and right path .

However, that doesn't excuse him going below 100m when not cleared to do so. As I mentioned earlier - the last "on glidepath" call was made above 100m.

Of course it was a civil flight and the Chicago Convention provisions apply to this crash .

The report authors disagree with you. Care to provide any evidence that it was a civil flight?

I'd honestly expect a lawyer to know the provision in the Aviation Law which clearly states that a flight operated by the Polish Air Force is classed as a military flight.

Delph - but you deny obvious facts , Russians are not immune from committing mistakes and they did a lot of them . Stop this theater with your denial as I will treat you as a "enfant terrible" of this forum .

Answer my question. What justification did the commander have in breaking various minimums - his own, the plane and the one set by ATC?

Look at this report findings -no reaction (for a period of 10 s) to the crew‘s continued descent beyond maximum acceptable deviation (-30‘).

10 seconds? That's nothing in a moment of high stress. Still doesn't excuse the commander going below 100m on the barometric altimeter, does it?

This simply explains, why they descended below the minimum altitude and whose fault it was . 10 seconds at that speed is like ages . So don`t repeat your theories like mantra .

Again, and for the final time. Did they have clearance to go below 100m? No. Therefore - there is no justification for doing so.

Unless they were explicitly cleared to go below 100m (and a "on glidepath" call above 100m does not constitute clearance to land in aviation) - they are strictly responsible for taking that plane below 100m.

I'm still waiting for you to justify why they attempted an illegal landing in the first place.

So, civil or military, it is flue if investigators are not sure. Investigators (Russians) there at the location of incident chosed then it was military flight. It is okay. When it is military flight, the investigation rules change, isn't it. In this case, if there is assassination, it is military crime.. (do you think that Medyedev's pressure on some many generals there has anything to do with that?)

The Russians didn't chose anything - the Polish report makes it clear that an aeroplane operated by the PAF must be military. The law of "Rzeczpospolita Polska" governed the flight - not the rules of the Russian Federation.
delphiandomine   
2 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Delphiandomine, perhaps, you didn't see my question to you in this sequence on page 5:

I didn't, no -

Delphiandomine, was that flight President of Poland flied a military flight or a civil flight?

Difficult question, and one that the investigators couldn't answer either.

However - the Aviation Law in question makes it clear that a flight operated by the Polish Air Force must be a military flight. It also had the status of "HEAD" (a term used for VIP transport, which was conducted by the military in Poland when it came to flights) - and it was operating under military, not civilian rules.

For the Chicago Convention to be relevant - it would require the flight to be conducted under civilian rules - which it clearly wasn't.

You know nothing about Criminal Procedure Law , so don`t comment on that .

I think they'll be rather too busy prosecuting Poles to bother with Russians, don't you think?
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

You together with Delphiandomine have to acknowledge the fact

Tell you what - while we're talking about facts.

What was the minimum visibility required for landing legally at Smolensk-North, and what was the actual visibility on that day?
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

You together with Delphiandomine have to acknowledge the fact , that the Russians have committed just as many unforgivable mistakes, it is difficult for you , as you are both Russians to accept this painful truth.

Unforgivable mistakes?

Monia, an unforgivable mistake is what the Commander did on that plane - as the person in supreme authority, his decision to begin the approach (despite not being legally allowed to do so!) was reckless when you consider who was board. I mean, the guy was only carrying around some of the very top people in Poland - why was he even attempting to approach when he was prohibited from doing so, and also in the knowledge that the airport had told him clearly that "conditions for landing : none"?

Then we have the unforgivable mistake of going below the level to which he was cleared to. Can you justify this in any way? You can't.

No-one here is denying that the Russians made mistakes too, but they certainly didn't put that plane below 100m (barometric) without clearance.

Many of these people if it happened in Poland, would be prosecuted for committing a crimes of unintentional air catastrophy crimes and negligence of duties .

Utter lies. You know why? I don't recall any court martials of people in the 36th regiment, especially those responsible for training. Likewise, I don't see any BOR officials being prosecuted despite their inability to check the airport in Smolensk - and for letting the President fly there when it wasn't checked.

The Polish criminal prosecutor`s investigation is already underway .

Good - we might see prosecutions of all those incompetent people who failed to do their job in Poland.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
History / Warsaw Rising 1944 - National Disaster or Triumph of Spirit ? [515]

I tend to be more harsh on AK commanders because I read some articles about them (not long ago) and some were quite reckless by character, while others were weak and let themselves be dominated by hot heads.

I'm harsh on them because they effectively sent people to their doom - when there was an alternative option available. In my opinion - they had the resources for one attack - and they chose the worst time.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Seanus, they should've increased the thrust far earlier. Even if they were using the Radio Altimeter - as I understand it - they should have applied thurst as early as 160m to compensate for the TU-154M dropping 30m (which seems to be a well known/understood 'feature'). The ravine was about 40m deep - so in a worst case scenario, they would've ended up at around 90m above the runway before pulling up. Quite survivable.

Delph, you always talk of the 100m thing but they really didn't know.

They did know. The report makes it clear that General Blasik was reading out the correct (barometric) altitude readings. It's all checked and there in black and white. In fact, when Blasik made the 150m call - they should've either spotted the runway or performed a "go around". Nothing more to it.

The pilot was not suicidal and would not have gone way way down as he ended up doing. Below the 100m mark, maybe, but look where they ended up and how off to the left they were. Not feasible without distortion, sorry.

Why did he start the approach, then? He was breaking the regulations by even attempting to approach in those conditions. Look at what his minima was for the 2xNDB approach.

What distortion? Blasik clearly reads out the barometric altimeter, and the navigator is clearly reading out the radio altimeter. No distortion there - they knew where they were at all times.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Anyway, OK legally the pilot has ultimate responsibility, but I think its just wrong to blame him 100% if he's getting faulty information from the air control tower.

He's not blamed 100% - but he has the ultimate responsibility.

Its kind of like driving your car. At the end of the day you are responsible for your driving actions despite what people in the car may tell you.

The driver is still responsible for the safe operation of the car. It's his job to stop if the road isn't suitable, not the passenger.

I think the pilot originally thought there would be an ILC airport tracking device that would help him land (like there was when Putin and other top Russians landed there before) and only found out last minute there wasn't one.

You can "think" all you want - there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that the pilot thought so. That - again - is just idle speculation. If he expected an ILS, then discovered there wasn't one - don't you think it would be on the cockpit voice recorder? Don't you think he'd ask the Yak guys "hey dudes, where's the ILS gone?". Don't you think the Yak pilots themselves would mention such a thing?

It's pretty obvious that you know nothing about aviation from such comments.

They weren't *allowed* to perform this landing. Training or no training, it won't change the fact that they attempted an approach in which they were required to have over 1km of visibility - and it won't change the fact that they went below 130m without visually spotting the runway.

Landing at this airport in Russia is no different to thousands of airports in the West. There are rules and regulations applied, and the pilot broke them. End of story.

I do give credit to the Russian air tower in that they tried to request from Moscow another airport for the plane to land at.

Failed to provide them? What are you talking about? ATC doesn't "give" them an alternative airport - they define it themselves. ATC can, of course, advise them to go somewhere - but again - it's advisory. It's very likely that after PAF 101 missed the approach, they'd be advised to divert to Moscow.

Incidentally, it's not a matter of "thinking it's acceptable" - visibility was down to 200m (by the way, the report shows a nice foggy picture for you - and Blasik already reported that visibility was zero) - which made his landing attempt illegal. As a pilot, he should've known his qualifications - and his qualifications didn't allow him to attempt it.

MediaWatch, I understand you - you're trying to apply common sense to a situation that's highly regulated and specific. But it just doesn't work like that - aviation is full of regulations and rules that simply don't make sense to us mere mortals.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
History / Warsaw Rising 1944 - National Disaster or Triumph of Spirit ? [515]

A single flag with a black stripe would be an insult to those brave souls who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Insulting?

Insulting is the way that Warsaw demands respect throughout the country for her failed uprising, while ignoring all the other uprisings and especially ignoring the one that actually succeeded!

Anyway, it would be a far grander gesture to have a single flag flying - less is more when it comes to this sort of thing. Having flags flying throughout the country means nothing when many people simply ignore it - I had to ask several people to find out what the reason was for them flying in Poznan - most people simply didn't know - because they have their own uprising here.

I honestly think that a single flag, combined with the air raid sirens going off would be a grand gesture - and far more poignant than flags everywhere. Funny though - virtually no private people will fly a flag here to commemorate it - only in official places.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
History / Warsaw Rising 1944 - National Disaster or Triumph of Spirit ? [515]

good, that You are not the decider

Sorry, but when was the last time that Warsaw ever celebrated the successful Wielkopolska Uprising?

I fail to see why one of the worst military decisions of the 20th century should be celebrated with flags flying and so on.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

As you can see from the professional`s opinions ; he was experienced pilot, he was named a champion , the best pilot , extremly intelligent person .

And yet - he made a fatal mistake. His training wasn't up to scratch, and he wasn't qualified at that moment in time to fly the plane.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
History / Warsaw Rising 1944 - National Disaster or Triumph of Spirit ? [515]

Sikorski was right that the Warsaw Rising was a national catastrophe.

He is.

If Poland simply waited for the inevitable German vs Soviet fight to the end - she could have waited and waited until the Soviet overstretched their supply lines in the race for Berlin....and then BANG. A Polish attack on the Soviets would have destroyed their supply lines quickly and easily - leaving Poland in the situation where an already-massively-depleted Red Army would have had to not only fight the Germans in the last desperate phases of the war, but also the Poles.

Can't imagine that the Red Army would have won - it's well documented that they were simply throwing men forward at all costs in order to get to Berlin first.

The Warsaw Uprising should be commemorated with a single, solitary flag flying with the black ribbon in the centre of Warsaw -no more, no less. It was utterly tragic that so many people died in vain - the AK leadership almost certainly has blood on their hands for this. It was simply a dreadful move - brave, courageous, but dreadful.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Can somebody explain to me why the Air Traffic Controller was telling the pilots "On course and path" and "Continue Approach" (page 214 of report) when they clearly were not on course and not on the right landing path?

Worth pointing out that despite not being exactly on course, they (most of the time) were within the tolerances allowed.

What might be interesting is if you go back and look at his qualifications - he wasn't qualified to make such an approach in those conditions. In fact, even if you assume that the "visibility : 400m" is correct - then he had no business even attempting such an approach.

Anyway, the entire report is a really fascinating read. The conversations that took part behind the scenes paints a really good picture of "half-assing" things and massive unprofessional behavior from just about everyone involved. Everything was really sloppy, started well before the plane took off, and continued long after the crash...

For me, the most interesting is the way that they repaired the plane after a bird-strike 2 days before. Had no influence on the accident, yet shows what the culture was there.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

He's just another one of those guys who spends his life reading conspiracy theories in an attempt to find THE TRUTH, even when it's presented in front of him in black and white.

Still, I wonder what makes him better than those many experts that participated in the Polish investigation.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Why? Ordinary Poles too know that the report is non-credible.

No. Most of them are either happy to believe the news source (such as those who watch TVN24) - or they already think that the report is full of lies and thus there's no point reading it.

Have you read it? What's your knowledge of aviation? Perhaps could you explain to us, as a lay person, why we don't have a Decision Height in an NDB approach?

Ah...silence.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

No, he wasn't inexperienced overall but with Tupolevs, yes. Read the bold on page 112 and just after. Very relevant!

That's not really relevant - while his training was lacking, he had nearly 3000 hours on the Tupolev - with nearly 500 as commander. In fact, the bulk of his experience was on the Tupolev - so it's not right to call him inexperienced for a military pilot.

They should have closed the airport in accordance with FAP PP regulations.

For me, "no conditions for landing" are the same as "airport closed". They mean the same thing to all practical extents.

The LZC should have told them to make a decision sooner, see p262.

Perhaps. But there was no harm in letting them go down to 100m.

P263 shows that they continued to misguide them very late into proceedings.

Again - it wasn't entirely factual, but nothing on p.263 shows them to have done anything that threatened the safety of the flight.

P267 proves you wrong. They should have informed the crew about 5 secs after seeing them go down below the glidepath.

At that point, it was possibly too late anyway. Bear in mind that we're talking about a matter of seconds when the LZC was under heavy stress - it wasn't a precision approach, after all. He may simply have assumed that they had reached 100m and had initiated the go-around - which is a fair assumption to make.

As you can see though, from the report - the LZC's behaviour can be explained in several ways. So yes, although a contributory factor, it didn't directly lead to the destruction of the plane. It all goes back to the 100m point - which was broken.

He told them they were on path and that was illegal, esp given that they were wrong.

Yes, but it didn't cause the crash.

Well, as an outsider, having heard from people here now that he was a person not liked by Europe, Russia and present party of Poland, a report prepared in this medium by these people are less trustable than speculations.

Again - wild unsubstantiated speculation.

He wasn't liked, but he was still the President of Poland and respected for that.

Losing the election was guaranteed. His ratings were in the toilet, and he stood to lose badly - hence why he was going to Katyn for exposure. Incidentally - there were people on that flight from all over the political spectrum - not just his buddies.

I know why people are concentrating on what the russians might have done wrong. Because it's too painful to look at the man in charge, and his navigator.

Exactly. It hurts to realise that the bulk of the blame lies within Poland for the death of the President and many others. It's especially hurtful for those who were depending on him and his appointee (Blasik) to keep them safe from perceived dangers.

Human nature, I suppose.
delphiandomine   
1 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

He was an inexperienced Tupolev pilot with incomplete training records.

Seanus, be fair - he wasn't inexperienced, but his training was...well...interesting.

Yes, they were cleared to 100m as the transcripts show. However, read on as it's the fullest version above. They continue on and were actually told that they were still on the correct glidepath and of sufficient height.

Unless it was a precision approach (it wasn't) - what they were told was an irrelevance - at 130m, they had to either spot the runway or go around. There wasn't any other choice open to them - what they did was simply wrong.

At 0635 - they were told clearly that at 100m, they should prepare to go-around. But again - the Tupolev had the requirement of spotting the runway at 130m, not 100m - of course, the ATC guys wouldn't know the specific minimums for each plane.

At 0637 - the Yak guys told them that visibility was down to 200m.

Seanus - at no point after they crossed the 100m barrier did they receive any messages about being on the glidepath. The last message came in at 114m above the runway. After that, the next communication was the Horizon command.

Again - responsibility to keep that plane no lower than 100m without clearance lies with the commander. It simply wasn't a precision approach - hence why the "on glidepath" remarks should have been treated for what they were - advisory and not binding.

But, he was a person who wasn't like by European politicians, not by Russiams either and his rival party is in power in Poland... These are your words.. So, how will i trust all these technical details, reports, etc?

Because most of us who know anything trust the authors of the report more than wild speculation. We also realise that Lech Kaczynski was headed for a devastating electoral defeat - at one point before the accident, he was forecast to lose in the 1st round. There was simply nothing to be gained by making a martyr out of him.

He wanted to maintain the glidepath that he told was good.

As above - at 130m, he should have either spotted the runway or leave. Nothing else was legal in the circumstances.

(Sky : thank you, as always, for your insight into how aviation works - I appreciate it)
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

That's what the big mystery is and will always will be - what was he doing using that?

It's a shame that the button press (if it was pressed) wasn't recorded - it would almost certainly provide a concrete answer as to what his intentions were.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

Yes but you haven't commented on the switching of the VBS-SVS altimeter being switched to standard pressure, delph. This led to a 168m distortion in thought position Vs actual position and TAWS was not activated as a result, not til later. This is the crux of the matter, not what Blasik thought.

It's hard to comment because we can only speculate as to why - my feeling is the same as they say in the report - that he wanted to shut the TAWS system up. But...still. Lunacy.

The no conditions for landing was abandoned as they continued to claim they were on the right glide path.

No, not quite. They were cleared to 100m - no more. Given that the Tupolev minima was 130m, in reality, they should have obeyed that rather than the controllers. It wasn't a precision approach - so the ATC guidance was simply advisory in nature.

The theory that the commander did what he did on many occasions (press the TOGA button and wait) does make sense - possibly because it always worked before, as he would've been making ILS landings with the Tupolev - and when he tried to do the same thing here, it caught him out.

Still - my golden question - why did he go below 100m when not cleared to do so?
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

L. Kaczynski wasn't liked by Western Europe politicians? Okay, there may be many reasons, but, what is main reason?

Generally, he was seen as stubborn and uncooperative. A lot of anti-EU rhetoric too - but precious little action. The fact that he signed the Lisbon agreement when he didn't have to was his worst hour.

Mind you - he was also seen in a good light for some of his real successes, such as his work with the Jewish community.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]

The sheer incompetence on the Russian side was incredible!

I don't even think it was incompetence, just the usual Russian lack-of-decision making. Same problem exists in Poland, too.

Now, the golden question is whether or not this had a material impact on the ultimate outcome,

Nope - as said above by several people, the barometric altimeter was correct, as confirmed by General Blasik. The lack of information isn't really much of a problem - you go by what you can see regardless of forecasts. And - Smolensk made it clear - "no conditions for landing". They had the information needed - and chose to ignore it for reasons best known to themselves.

This video shows the political climate and background before and after the crash. It outlines the rather reluctant attitude of Western Europe polititians towards Mr. L. Kaczynski. He was the character you did not like in the political salons of Europe. That`s why there was no pressure to investigate the case properly .

It's worth pointing out that while he wasn't exactly liked, he was heading for a devastating election defeat - which was far more useful for PO and Europe than a plane crash which killed him and made him a martyr among certain people.

Most observers made the huge mistake of assuming that the President had power (especially American observers) - when in reality, he had barely any.