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: 17823 / Live: 4649 / Archived: 13174
From: Poznań, Poland
Speaks Polish?: Yeah.
Interests: law, business

Displayed posts: 4664 / page 128 of 156
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
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 [859]

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 [859]

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 [859]

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 [859]

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 [859]

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 [859]

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 [859]

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 [859]

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 [859]

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.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

But, I do wish Monia would listen to reason and free herself..

Her intentions are honest, but I think she's been swayed by reading too many "opinion" pieces that outright lie about things, like the most recent one she posted.

Many people found it impossible to grasp that Smolensk-North was so utterly lacking in equipment - but that's because they only ever fly from Civilian Airport A to Civilian Airport B on a commercial service.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Read the whole article first . pls .

Certainly, shall we have some fun?

Practically everyone in Poland, and many others around the world, strongly suspected that Russia, especially Putin, must have had a hand in the crash.

Not true in the slightest. In fact, many people thought that while it was a cruel coincidence, they also realised that trying to land a plane in heavy fog at an airport which wasn't equipped with an ILS (or similar) system was always going to be difficult. It was only ever a minority in Poland that was screaming RUSSIA MURDER.

The airplane was a 20-year-old Russian TU-154M that had been refurbished and upgraded in Russia four months before, and probably completely bugged.

Again, more groundless speculation. Do you really, honestly think that the BOR are so useless (and Kaczynski so inept as not to order it?) as to not check a plane thoroughly for any sort of bugging device?

The instrumentation was the latest and best, and included a standard ILS (Instrument Landing System) receiver which would guide the airplane to the edge of the Smolensk runway — providing the ILS receiver and ground based transmitters were reliable and working properly.

What ILS at Smolensk-North? It didn't exist! The airport was closed, remember?

The ILS ground transmitters at the Smolensk airport

What ILS ground transmitters?

Forty minutes before the crash, a Russian YAK-40 airplane with 40 people on board landed safely. Twenty minutes before the crash a Russian AWAC airplane did a touch-and-go at the airport then flew on to Moscow

The Yak landed without clearance - and could've easily crashed too. Landing safely isn't and wasn't the same thing as approaching safely.

At the outer marker, two kilometers from the runway

As the report says, confirmed with Google Earth - the outer NDB marker was actually at close to 7km from the runway.

The aircraft’s reported speed of 280 K/hr has to be an error. This is twice the speed of a normal landing approach.

Has to be an error? The TU-154 is well known for the high landing speed - for instance, the B version has a landing speed of around 230km/h - and the M variant is higher.

Although the Russian investigation is in violation of a few agreements — the Chicago Convention that governs international air crashes

Covered above. Perhaps he might want to tell me what a Civil convention has to do with a military flight.

with no opposition from a strong anti-communist president.

Strong? He clearly doesn't realise that the Polish Presidency is a rather weak position with little executive power.

Too easy.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Do you know that anything is visible from the pilot`s cockpit during the flight ?

Good question. Perhaps in your attempt to blame the Russians, you can explain to us why the pilot didn't react as soon as he reached the minimum altitude allowed for visually spotting the runway. That's 130m, barometric, by the way. He was in full possession of the barometric data - Blasik's readouts have confirmed this.

So do you think that cpt. Protasiuk could fly safely only because he managed to land his plane safely 3 days before that crash . Don`t you think that all the conditions were different .

What was different? Trees don't grow several metres in three days.

Actually, what was different was that he wasn't flying the plane then.

The plane during the flight was just above the clouds and when it descended it was a fog that obscured the vision totally for the pilot . So it was up to the controllers to give proper information for the pilot to land a plane safely . They missed such obligations . LZC and ATC crews are fully responsible for that crash .

Listen to what convex is telling you - ATC is advisory. The pilot has the responsibility to maintain the correct altitude - he got to 130m and continued to descend rather than 'go around'. When he reached 130m, in terms of aviation, he was required to either spot the runway or 'go around'. He didn't see the runway and instead chose to keep descending - which led to the crash.

He couldn't see anything, yes? So - according to his licence, he shouldn't even have attempted the landing. Perhaps you might want to explain why he did?

The controlling tower first and main purpose is to make the landing safe .

Common myth. In fact, they're there to provide information to help the pilots make the correct decisions.

Why bother , everything is up to the pilot , according to some critics.

Not "according to some critics", but rather "according to aviation law".

The commander has supreme responsibility, unless he explicitly delegates this to ATC. There is such a thing where the controller takes responsibility, but they certainly weren't flying such an approach on that day into Smolensk-North.

Incidentally, Monia - again - you paste things with little to no knowledge of what they contain. Perhaps you might want to tell us just what the Chicago Convention has to do with a military flight? Perhaps the correct name of the convention might help you -

Convention on International Civil Aviation

delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_altimeter

Again, I quote.

A radar altimeter, radio altimeter, low range radio altimeter (LRRA) or simply RA measures altitude above the terrain presently beneath an aircraft or spacecraft. This type of altimeter provides the distance between the plane and the ground directly below it.

Seriously now...

Go away and read up about decision heights - here - I'll give you a link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_height#Decision_height_or_altitude

Now - tell me - what was the TU-154M's decision height?

Keep it civil.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

By the way, regarding the ravine.

Again, you've pushed and pushed and pushed the theory that they didn't know that it was there.

But - page 228 of the English report contradicts you dramatically.

The commander certainly knew about it.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Given air pressure was false .

Again - you're telling deliberate lies. I'm not sure why, but page 229 of the English report makes it clear that it was fine.

Where in the report do you read anything about a false barometric reading? What page? Or is this just your hypothesis, based on nothing and certainly contradictory to the official report?

That`s the fact , but how could the commander communicate with the controllers, if the TAWS alarm was on making unbearable noise .

It's not unbearable. The CVR shows that it's loud enough to be heard, but not unbearable.

That is very disputable , as some experts state that the system was not even switched on as the pilot wanted to pull the machine manually .

'some experts'? What experts?

We've had tests done, and we can clearly see that he attempted to do something that simply didn't work. And anyway, he made the go-around call far too late. If he had made the GA call at 130m, realised 5 seconds later that the button wasn't working and then started to pull up - maybe, just maybe, the plane would've escaped by a matter of meters. But anyway - it was pilot error - if he was trained properly, he'd know that the TOGA button wouldn't work in such a circumstance.

Don`t you think it was too much for one commander .

Yes, it was far too much for him. That's why the plane hit the ground.

Monia, he made mistakes and killed everyone as a result. The Russians didn't help (the late calls, etc), but the ultimate blame has to lie with him. The Russians didn't guide him into the ground - he put the plane there himself.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

His altimeters were not showing him proper height due to the lack of the information from Smolensk meteo about the current air pressure .

There was information from Smolensk. Read the transcript - the barometric information was clearly given. You can even listen to the CVR if you want.

Why was the pilot not informed about the fact that the aerodrome was not equipped with ILS system and the system was removed just days before ?

Again, you don't seem to show much, if any knowledge about aviation. If you were truly a pilots daughter, you'd know that pilots are given approach charts for every airport - which would tell them exactly what was installed at what airport and how to land there. The charts given to them had no mention of an ILS, so - what's the issue?

Yes the official conclusions , but if you have brains you can figure out something else, if you read the report carefully . Your conclusions might be very different .

I've read it several times - and you seem to be claiming things that contradict what's written in the report.

Take a look here - krakowpost.com/article/2132

10:24:49,2: D: The temperature (incomp.), air pressure 7-45. 7-4-5, the landing conditions are nonexistent.

Air pressure 7-4-5. That's the setting for the barometric altimeter. It's there in black and white - why are you trying to contradict this?

Why didn't you say simply this "yes, Smolensk airport isn't so good airport and weather condition/fog made things worse.."

Because the airport was fine for what it was - a closed ex-military airport with minimal facilities. I've said numerous times - it was sheer stupidity on the part of the military to even attempt to fly there - and they learnt the hard way. Sure, the lights were obscured - but what difference would they make when Blasik said "visibility : zero"?

Bear in mind one thing - Smolensk controllers told them clearly that there were "no conditions for landing".
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

"Few day before the planned visit of Lech a Kaczynski in Katyn, landed the head of the Russian government Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Donald Tusk, with the help of particularly delivered a radar device, on 7 April on the Smolensker airport.

So - this whole story about the equipment at Smolensk is based on the writing of one journalist, who opposes Putin and claims that he has power over all European leaders?

Utter nonsense and not worth listening to. Until someone credible comes forward to say that a portable ILS system was installed - the claim must be treated as hearsay.

From wikipedia -

Viktor Yanukovych's victory in the presidential election once again raises doubt about the basic premise of democracy: that the people are capable of choosing their own leader. Unfortunately, only wealthy people are truly capable of electing their leaders in a responsible manner.[13]

Such a nice, trusting woman - isn't she?

Colonel Bartosz Stroinski, which on 7 April as a commander Tupolev Prime Minister Tusk flew to Smolensk said that the crew accomplished the landing with the help of the standard equipment local military airport.

Standard equipment? Hardly informative - was it an ILS system, was he talking about the 2xNDB, what?
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Do you expect form the pilot to complain about the height of the trees , they would laugh at him , don`t be naive that any pilot would do it . It was up to his superiors to decide and give him actual conditions of the aerodrome , those ones he was handed over were false . Read the segment in the report how much of the area was covered by trees exceeding the norm .

Again - who went below minima? Not the superiors, not the Russians, but the commander of the plane.

The report makes it pretty clear that it looks like he was expecting the magic "button" to work as it always did, only to be surprised when it didn't. But he still made the go-around call far, far too late.

It is the best idea ( politically justified ) to put all the blame on the pilot, as he is dead and those responsible are still alive .

Again - the pilots went below minima. Not anyone else.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Apparently it was safe enough for the Presidential security detail to clear it. The crew apparently thought it safe enough when they landed a couple of days before.

Strange that the same pilot managed to land there three days before in the same plane at the same airport, without problem - if it was really so dangerous, how come they managed then?
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Vitebsk was closed - which was another sign of the incompetence of the Air Force to have such an airport as an alternative.

Anyway, in the absence of a decision, he could circle Smolensk-North for upto half an hour while waiting for a decision. He could also try and land again - he had plenty of options.

Sadly you don`t want to hear the truth because you are Russian , but the truth is very crushiung for the Russian side.

The truth is in the Polish report, as far as I'm concerned. And that truth makes it clear that the ultimate responsibility for this crash lies at the hands of the commander.

Controllers confirmed him that the plane was on the safe altitude , he was deprived of the proper information of the plane`s altitude due to the lack of current baromiter conditions which should be given by Smolensk meteorologist on duty in order to set up his altimeter on board of the plane .

He had the current barometer - it's given quite clearly to him. He decided to change it in order to silence the TAWS.

Anyway, let me teach you something about the concept of minima. The TU-154M's minima was actually 130m (what the ATC cleared him to has no relevance here) - which means that either radio or barometric, he should have never, ever gone below this. Now, a known characteristic of the TU-154M is that it drops about 20-40m before it starts to rise when you "pull up" - so he should've made that decision a bit higher, perhaps around 160m.

So - at 160m - if he couldn't see the runway, he should've pulled up and flew away. There were no trees at 160m, were there?

This is what most people simply don't understand.

Anyway, at the end of the day, *nothing* changes the fact that the commander put the plane into the ground.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

The light`s warning system was completely obscured by trees, which were several meters high above the norm . On the path of a runaway high trees were growing, which was not compatible with international rules .

What do you expect from a closed, decommissioned airport that was only reopened to deal with these flights?

More importantly, what the hell did the Polish expect?

The crash was caused by one wing hitting the tree. If there was no trees the crash would not happen , as pilot managed to pull the aircraft up and was able to land .

Again, more nonsense.

The crash was caused by the pilot going below minimums. Generally speaking, minima are there for a reason - go below them, and you're going to have problems.
delphiandomine   
31 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Where it says it was him to decide . It was not his decision to land in Smolensk. Give me a source proving your statement .

I remind you that under aviation law, the commander of the plane has full responsibility for the flight. Civilian or military, it doesn't matter - the commander is the man in charge. It doesn't matter if Blasik was there, it doesn't matter if the Commander-in-Chief was there - none of them have the authority to overrule the designated commander of the plane - unless they withdraw his command.

If he wished to go somewhere else, it would be his decision and his decision only as to where they fly to.

It is not true that the actual aerodrom`e conditions , obstacles or vicinity of ravine were known to the plane`e crew . THey were not given a chance to be familiar with them .

So - a Polish mistake in not making such that such materials were available. They should have never allowed a flight to an aerodrome of which they had incomplete information, don't you think? Nothing to do with the Russians, everything to do with the Poles.

This shows that the commander didn`t have proper and actual weather conditions during the flight . He received more accurate weather report just minutes before the crash .

The Yak-40 guys made it pretty clear to them that things were bad there. Anyway - yes, you're right - and yet more reason why they should've never gone below 100m.

The crew was not informed about the current air pressure from meteorological aerodrome`s crew due to the lack of proper instruments which were exemplified in my previous post, so they had to switch the barometer altimeter without precise data on the estimated by aircraft commander air pressure level . This proves that using the barometer altimeter to estimate the plane`s real height was useless in such case .

Wrong. The transcripts issued clearly show that they had the correct air pressure - no-one has contradicted the air pressure given.

Incidentally - the action with the TAWS device was a deliberate act in order to silence it. They had the correct air pressure -there's no arguments about this. I can see that you're not familiar with these devices - but essentially, the device would scream "pull up, pull up" because Smolensk-North wasn't in its database. That's why they had to manipulate the barometric altimeter, in order to silence the device.

The commander had to do that in order to hear the Smolensk tower crew commands .

He didn't have to do that at all - the CVR recording makes it obvious that it was in the background.

No decision was handed over back to him .

It's an irrelevance, because in the event of failing to make a landing, they would "go around" and circle until a decision was made. Again - quite normal.

According to the results and findings of the report, the commander of the aircraft was extremely intelligent and very well-trained pilot. No one in given conditions would manage to do his task better .

Well trained? He wasn't even qualified to fly the TU-154M on that day!

Extremely intelligent? He took the plane below minima at an aerodrome that was more-or-less out of use in conditions where he had zero visibility. There's no escaping this.

If you ask me, the final blame lies at the door of the military. We know the Polish military is simply unfit for purpose - due to years of underinvestment and problems with nepotism. We can blame the controllers, the pilots, everyone - but at the end of the day, it's institutional failure on a large scale that led to this accident.
delphiandomine   
30 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Just ask yourself a question , why there was no other non Russian investigators right on the spot ? Few reports were missing ( the vital one of the controller`s ) . Polish prosecutors were just puppets .

Puppets?

That's a pretty serious allegation to make. Bear in mind that the report actually does contain heavy criticism of the controllers - and they are mentioned as one of the contributory causes of the accident.

Putin ( former KGB agent ) is the last Russian to be trusted . Their report is just one big lie as Putin as the head of the investigation had the final word about the report contents .

Whether or not you trust the Russians is one thing, but I trust the Poles. The guys investigating this were some of the top guys in the country - to accuse them of being puppets is very, very serious stuff.

Nothing would help, as they were given wrong flight course by flight controllers . Wrong course just seconds before landing means inevitable crash .

Again - you don't seem to understand the concept of minima. If they had kept to the minimums that they were authorised to go to (it's all in the report) - then the plane wouldn't have crashed. The Captain went way, way below them - and that caused the crash. Unless of course, you're telling me that there were obstacles at the 100-130m (Barometric) height? That's news to me.

Like I said there were other important factors , one of the most important was the idea of landing on the russian air force tarmac unequipped with modern technology devices .( it was not any civil airport by all means ) .

Correct, it was sheer idiocy to put the President and Prime Minister there. The airport was essentially a piece of tarmac with some very basic landing aids - and was more or less not operating as an airport. The state (as shown in the report) of the infrastructure was shocking and certainly not suitable for a 'HEAD' flight.

The modern electronical equipment was removable .

Perhaps so. However, it's an irrelevance - as far as the Poles knew, there was no ILS installed at Smolensk-North. At the end of the day - if there was such equipment or not, it really doesn't matter - it wasn't being used on this approach and that's that.

If someone iportant was langing the devices were being installed , why at that day they were not . It was someone`s mistake not to install such for the polish aplane to give it safer conditions . In such case they would be able to land in a fog , whatever .

Again - it's the captain's responsibility to fly the plane safely. If there was no ILS, then he shouldn't have been taking risks - and he certainly shouldn't have gone below 100m barometric. Of course, an ILS system would help - but it wasn't there, so what were they doing going below 100m?

If I was a person to decide I would never land on such tarmac I would chose the civil airport .

That's why the Defence Minister has gone.

You're actually right here - it was sheer madness to allow a plane with the President to go to such an airport, even in perfect weather conditions - they simply weren't set up for accepting such flights. Even the Russians were pretty reluctant to allow them to land there before that day - and you can hear from the ATC discussions that they were preparing to send them to Moscow.

The fact that the BOR officers couldn't gain access to the airfield should have been enough reason to not go there.

Monia, some Poles do have blood on their hands, but at the end of the day - the commander of the plane took it into the ground, not anyone else. It happens a hell of a lot - I seem to remember a figure of 1/3rd of aviation accidents are due to pilots flying planes into the ground. The CASA accident was a great example, as was Korean Air Flight 801 among countless others.

It happens :(
delphiandomine   
30 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

the investigation did not follow international protocall, in what world does putin head the investigation of a downed plane?

Care to tell me what international protocol is when dealing with a military accident over your territory?

Hint : ICAO regulations don't apply.

when the plane was downed poland became a russian puppet government, hence the institutional problems and collusion with pilot error

Yawn. Same old nonsense. People on here (who can actually fly planes) have already attested to the attitude of the Air Force in Poland, and the CASA accident certainly had nothing to do with Russians.

anyone who beleives otherwise is the enemy.

Keep your opinions on the other side of the pond - we don't need them.
delphiandomine   
30 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

pilots are taught to trust there equipment. they didn't. they ignored it.

Quite badly, actually - from the report, it says that the command to go-around was given at a mere 39m above the runway.
delphiandomine   
30 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

They knew, that they were flying too low and they didn`t change the altitude of a plane , right?

Don`t you think that if they knew the actual altitude, they would pull the plane up ?

In a situation like this, where you can't see anything out of the window and with the head of the Air Force breathing down your neck, along with the President of the country on-board, who *must* attend a very important ceremony (for him)? It's pretty obvious that they were under huge stress at the time, not helped by the utter unfamiliarity with such a situation.

Anyway - the real altitude was available to them all the time. General Blasik was even reading it out to them!

The clock`s were giving the the right altitude , nothing was broken , but they were reading misleading altitude , that altitude was a ground zero for a ravine , which they didn`t have any knowledge about .

They didn't need to have any knowledge of it - they shouldn't have been using the Radio Altimeter. It's as simple as that. Can you give me any credible explanation why they were using the Radio and not the Barometric altimeter? Blasik was able to use the Barometric readings - so...

When they realised that they were inside a ravine they started pullig up the plane , and it was just seconds which they missed to survive.

Now - under such a high stress situation, is it such a surprise that the events spiralled out of control for them? They more-or-less had to descend to minima to make sure that their boss didn't give them hell afterwards, after all. Now - perhaps you might want to explain why the plane had already gone down to below 100m before the "go around" command was given? That's well below the height that they were allowed to be at!

Do you think that they deliberately were flying too low or you think that such simple procedure as reading cockpits clock`s was so mysterious for them, that they made a mistake in reading the real altitude .

Using the radio altimeter rather than the barometric - no-one knows. As for flying too low - it's quite possible that the commander of the flight chose to go lower than he was allowed to go in order to give himself a chance at landing the plane. We'll never know, but such behaviour was/is common in the Air Force.

You don`t understand the whole idea . The clocks data were telling them the distance from the base of a ravine to the altitude of a plane , which they didn`t realise about . They started to lower the plane as they were preparing a plane for landing . Once of a sudden the clock were starting to show unexpected low position so then instead of landing they picked up the plane but it was too late as the trees damaged wings .

The whole idea is that they were wrongly using the radio altimeter instead of the barometric altimeter - for reasons unknown. It may have been to silence the TAWS system - which didn't have Smolensk-North in its database. Don't forget - the navigator and Blasik were both reading out numbers - one, the RA data, the other, the Barometric data.
delphiandomine   
30 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

The plane`s altimeter was unable to give them precise informations ( misleading to the real ground tarmac altitude ) , as you may have heard , because they were flying over a ravine ( if you only understand what consequences that factor have had ) .

Monia - with all due respect, this is rubbish. There were two types of altimeter used - radio and barometric. The radio one measures from the plane to the ground, while the barometric one measures from the runway height to the plane. It seems that they switched from barometric to radio in order to inhibit the TAWS system. There's no conspiracy here - their decision to do this was one of the reasons why that plane crashed.

(incidentally - Blasik was reading out barometric readings - Page 226 of the English report makes it clear that he was reading those out, while the rest were working with the Radio Altimeter)

If the pilots were told , that the tarmac was closed for landing, they wouldn`t bother to land . Simple as that .But it was not closed . Planes can land in a heavy fog , you know . It happens many times . I am a pilot`s daughter , so I have got some knowledge about the subject .

Planes certainly can, but not at an airport which doesn't have a precision landing system installed. There was no ILS at Smolensk-North, nor was there anything else (okay, so there was the 2xNDB markers - but they are hardly "precision").

The airport wasn't closed, this is true - but at the same time, they were clearly told that there were "no conditions for landing". This is as good as closed - the plane went below 100m without authorisation. In fact, if you read the report, you can clearly see that although they were cleared to 100m, they weren't allowed to actually go near that - they should've "gone around" from a much higher height. Airport open or closed, it's an irrelevance - they weren't cleared to land and certainly weren't cleared to go below 100m.

Where did they know this from , that they were positioned inside a ravine , Einstein ?

The barometric altimeter, if they were paying attention to it, would mean that they would be at least 140m over the deepest part of the ravine if they obeyed minima. However, the report makes it clear that they were aware of the ravine there.

which would give them a chance and time to adjust the plane to the real ground zero position of a tarmac

The barometric altimeter would have done just that. In fact - they shouldn't have had to adjust the plane at all, as they should've been "going around" by the time they crossed the ravine. How can you excuse the "go around" order coming far too late?

Sorry Monia, but read the report rather than the media - it's all there in black and white.

Nice! With fog, somebody should have been watching the radio altimeter.

They shouldn't have been using the radio altimeter at all, but rather the barometric one.

Again - a clear cut sign of incompetence within the Air Force.
delphiandomine   
30 Jul 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

pilot`s mistake, if it was such, it was the least significant among many others .

Least and yet most significant at the same time.

They do make it clear in the report that he was under immense stress at the time. Again though - it confirms the Russian theory that he was simply too much of a nice guy to be doing that job.