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

Posts by convex  

Joined: 25 Nov 2009 / Male ♂ 		Last Post: 28 Nov 2011
Threads: Total: 20 / Live: 2 / Archived: 18
Posts: Total: 3928 / Live: 746 / Archived: 3182 		From: Wroclaw
Speaks Polish?: un poco...wait
Interests: aviation

Displayed posts: 748 / page 1 of 25
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
convex   
28 Nov 2011
Off-Topic / What languages do you know? [51]

English, German, Czech, Russian, and a bit of Polish :) Can understand Spanish and Italian, but far from fluent....
convex   
23 Aug 2011
News / Should Poland leave the EU institution? [147]

Where would they be, then? No such thing in Poland exists.

Just about every country has highway strips, Poland has quite a few.

But uh, back to Poland leaving the EU?
convex   
18 Aug 2011
History / 'Battle of Britain' won thanks to Polish aces !! [158]

Apparently they were hit with flak.

The time difference thing might be due to zulu time vs local time. Dunno if they used it back then, but might be an explanation.
convex   
15 Aug 2011
Life / Why Do You Love Poland? [907]

Exactly. Not like in Australia where you celebrate Christmas, wearing bikini costumes.

not a good selling point really... not really..
convex   
13 Aug 2011
UK, Ireland / Why Poles will never belong in England [283]

Tell me Wroclaw, why do you think that ethnic background has nothing to do with these riots?

Again, you see what you want to see.

telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8695472/London-and-England-riots-looting-suspects-and-rioters-appear-in-court.html
convex   
10 Aug 2011
Law / Poland on its way to Greece? [64]

Ignoring the fact that GDP calculations are ridiculous, it is meant to capture all goods and services produced. Turkmenistan is still a dump.
convex   
6 Aug 2011
USA, Canada / Polka Parade Television Show [43]

Not many Mexicans listen to Czech music :)

...but lets keep this one on topic..there is another thread out there for it.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

The controller was providing advisory information. It was a non-precision approach, a pair of NDBs. It was not a radar approach. A radar approach wasn't available in Smolensk...
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Heavy, thick fog was at 10:00 AM, much later. Also, it is only 500 m. 500 m is enough for soft crash.. Somewhere, it says 80 m. Which is true?

10am local, 7 zulu which is what the transcripts are given in.

here it is from avherald:

10:00Z (1pm) Temp 3°C Dew 2°C Humidity 94% QNH 1025 hPa Visibility 4 kilometers Winds east 14.4 km/h / Mist
07:00Z (10am) Temp 1°C Dew 1°C Humidity 98% QNH 1026 hPa Visibility 0.5 kilometers Winds SE 10.8 km/h / Heavy Fog
04:00Z (7am) Temp 0°C Dew -1°C Humidity 89% QNH 1025 hPa Visibility 4 kilometers Winds ESE 7.2 km/h / Mist
01:00Z (4am) Temp 3°C Dew -0°C Humidity 72% QNH 1025 hPa Visibility 10 kilometers Winds SE 7.2 km/h /
22:00Z (1am) Temp 6°C Dew -0°C Humidity 52% QNH 1025 hPa Visibility 10 kilometers Winds SE 7.2 km/h

The two relevant ones are bold.

You say "fast and hard" - Of course, any airplane crash will be hard - but, how hard? In 500 m visibility, landing at an airport can't be that hard. People in the airplane knowing the risk of landing would be taking some small protections for their lifes and probability of some people surviving from such softer hard crash is 1-5%. It is not a bomb, suddenly exploding..

They didn't know they were going to hit the ground. 400m of visibility is nothing when you're travelling at 150 knots. 2-3 seconds max to avoid something. Regarding survivability, posted a couple of messages above on it from the report.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

TMC-65, what a convenient tool ;) ;)

*sigh* are we really going back to fog machines and executions?

In that case, I will stick by the "aliens took over the bodies of the crew and caused them to descend below their minimums" as my entry.

Enjoy...
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Visibility was reported at 400m, not 80. "Mist" can turn into "Fog" in a matter of seconds. It's simply a change in visibility. If the temperature changes and the dew point remains the same, mist or fog will form. It's not an uncommon thing...
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Minsk reported fog to the crew over half an hour before the approach. The only difference between mist and fog is visibility, any number of atmospheric changes could cause visibility to decrease by 500m very quickly. It didn't go from being bright and sunny to foggy, temperature/dew point spread was between 1 and then at dew point for quite a bit of the morning.

Perhaps, they thought that even if they pulled up, airplane would explode, by bombs inside airplane with remote controller and they tried their little chance, land dawn.. In this soft-crash, we can assume that at least 1-5% of people could survive.. Likely, it happened - and, the shot fire sounds heard in the video is about that..

They came down fast and hard.

From the report:

1.15.3 Possiblities of crew’s and passengers’ survival
The configuration of the aircraft at impacting the ground created no chances of the crew and/or passenger survival.
According to the trajectory which the aircraft followed on the surface of the ground, the flightcrew were subject to impact acceleration along the ―x‖ axis (back-to-chest). Assessing the character of injuries of crewmembers‘ heads, chests and spines, their bodies were given a surge load not smaller than 100 g.
The cause of death of 8 members of the crew and 88 passengers was massive multiorgan trauma due to deceleration force on the impact of the aircraft against the ground 45.

I didn't hear gunshots in the video, but I'm not an expert in grainy camera phone videography.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Whether it was artifical or natural, communications about the weather between people and stations are not normal, considering time differences/delays.

What wasn't normal? Mist/Fog was reported the entire time. I've seen it go from legal to fogged in over the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee. The crew had information about fog at least half an hour before the approach. They had current weather when they started the approach and themselves agreed that it was unsafe for landing.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Mist turned into fog, it's only a difference in visibility. Visibility deteriorated even worse and it was reported by Minsk and then also later at the airfield.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

I don't buy the barometric altimeter idea. It is FAAAAR too amateurish a mistake to make without other factors being present.

Based on the experience of the crew, it would seem that they were used to flying approaches which relied on decision height and not decision altitude. Combine that with the fact that the airport wasn't in the DB and gave warnings which caused the Captain the set standard pressure to shut it up...well, not good, not good. Simple fact is, if he would have been using the baro altimeter like he was supposed to, they'd probably still be alive, even after knowingly busting minimums (as they did).
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

But you don't believe it, or? There are lots of questions being asked which would have been answered by reading the report.

So your bet, delph, is that they went against probability and hoped they wouldn't hit a tree? They were so close to escaping but that one tree screwed them. Bravado sometimes pays off but it often doesn't.

I think a combination of failure to use the barometric altimeter, over reliance on advisory information, and having the boss in the cockpit killed them.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

It is same that you and those who say it was pilot's fault have not given a credible explanation for why they busted the minimum yet.

The same reason that pilots knowingly bust minimums all the time, they wanted to get down. Do you think an exchange like this might add pressure to land?

Fog has appeared just now and under the existing conditions we cannot make it‖ (meaning a landing). We'll make one attempt, one approach, probably for no good. You can now begin to think what decision to take and do terwards he named two airports that could be taken into account, viz. MIŃSK and WITEBSK. The director left the cockpit to brief the President on the situation.
[b]The aircraft was descending and at 500 meters entered the SMOLENSK NORTH landing circuit. At 06:30:33, the diplomatic protocol director appeared in the cockpit for a moment to say: ―As for now, no decision from the President about what we do next.‖
Progressing along downwind to the base leg, the crew configured the aircraft for landing. At the time, the Aerodrome Controller asked if the crew had ever landed at that military aerodrome. Before beginning to make the turn to the base leg, the purser reported to CC cabin readiness for landing. To a command from the Aerodrome Controller the Commander turned onto the base leg and continued approach to Runway 26 (RWY26). When the aircraft was on the base before the final leg, the Aerodrome Controller advised the crew to be ready to make a go-around when at 100 meters. Then, the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Force entered the cockpit and CC reported that the Yak-40 aircraft's CC advised on runway visibility which was 200 meters.

Questions unanswered are not only this. Also, why computer power went off before landing.

I didn't read that in the report.

Now in all seriousness, who here actually took the time to read either the Russian or Polish report?

Can you explain to us why they even attempted the approach, given that the approach flown required 1200m of visibility - after being told by a couple of different sources that visibility was 400m and falling?

They were fully within their right to attempt an approach. I would have.

Convex, the conditions deteriorated rapidly after that. The Yak pilot recommended that they try once and then go around. That was their green light.

Those weren't suitable conditions for landing, not even close.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Let's face another fact, though, the official visibility recordings were not exactly presented on time and details were sparse.

From the transcripts:

D: Polish Air Force 1-0-1, for information at 06:11 Smolensk visibility 400 meters fog.

What information are you looking for?

The series "Air Crash Investigations" covers the Crossair accident
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossair_Flight_3597

Lots of similarities. Have a watch as a 17000hour pilot busts minimums at his home airport.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Convex, one thing I don't understand - how come the captain was only qualified to fly ILS Cat. I approaches and not II or III?

The report doesn't specifically say that, it just has the minimums for a couple of different approaches. VOR approach isn't listed either. I think they just listed the approaches relevant to the accident.
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Actually, that's a good point...Those families are accepting risk when they decide to drive on the connecting roads, or in snow, or in the rain... But seriously, how many times do you see crazy passing with a car full of kids, or someone blasting through a yellow light? Maybe it's just a Wroclaw thing...
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Half of Poland isn't normal in that case :)

Now, say you have the President on board, and he's late for a meeting. You have an added pressure to make it in time. Someone else arrived on time and you have blasted through yellow lights before and were praised for being a great driver and getting the VIPs there on time. You are the best of the best after all, it's just a yellow light...
convex   
5 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

But the Russians who said this thought it was important because it would make him look like he was drunk. They were disengenuous since most human corpses biologically generate alcohol within 24 hours of death. This autopsy showing alcohol in the body was done AFTER 24 hours of death. They should have noted the 24 hour plus / body decomposition alcohol relationship.

Agreed.

You would have never known that coming from the Russian news reports. They made it sound like it was 100% the fault of the Poles and that the Russians could do no wrong.

News reports vs. official report. One more reason to ignore the news...

Yes in the end it was the mistake of the pilot to trust the assurance of the airtower that he was landing OK.

The pilot most likely thought another human being would not give him instructions that would lead to his death and the deaths of almost a hundred other people, so that's why he trusted the air tower guy. He was wrong to do that.

That's piloting 101. You trust your instruments, not some junk radar installation and advisory information from a controller that can barely speak English.

I simply refuse to believe that a pilot worth his salt would intentionally go too low over an afforested area. It's tantamount to suicide and jeopardised too many lives.

Again, pushing the gas when the traffic light turns orange. I see drivers do it every day, hell, I've done it. Does that mean that I'm suicidal?
convex   
4 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

You are right Seanus , no accurate data given to him , so the pilot had to adjust the barometric altimeter using only his predictions , after he set the pressure , controllers reassured him he was right . That was their major mistake .

Did you read the report? I even gave you the page number.

You should watch the videos I posted above, Monia. They are in Polish and professionally cover, through the insight of experts, that which the official reports duck. The lack of final guidance is covered too.

With the assumption that somehow the controllers were responsible for the approach, which is ridiculous.
convex   
4 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Following height because?

Using a fancy radar altimeter instead of the barometric altimeter. It corresponds with the navigators callouts.

I was wondering convex where are you from? I am asking out of curiousity. You seem to have an answer for everything, a bit like the Russians.

We'll go with Moscow to add a little fuel to the fire. Just read the reports (both of them, I prefer the Polish one myself, but...meh).

As for your comment about the right to assume there was pressure.

The presence of a superior is pressure. There is absolutely no reason he should have been in the cockpit. Ask any airline or mil pilot (sky mentioned it earlier as well).

Basically what the Russians said seem very convenient in concluding that Poland is totally at fault and Russia did nothing wrong.

The MAK report criticized the Smolensk controllers as well as ATC.

Honestly if the Russians did not feel they were at fault from the start and had nothing to hide then why be so protective? Why not assist and say here is the evidence gathered, it was a terrible tragedy, very sorry fo you, feel free to go and investigate the cause of it. Not, go away, wait till it is checked here first and then you can look at it later on when it is time to.

There weren't any complaints.

The report by Macierewicz is something that you should look at as the Polish Report was always going to put more blame on the Polish side and this was said many times even before it was officially released.

It makes a couple of decent points, like placing blame on BOR, but the majority of it reads like political campaign material. Pilots place the majority of the blame on the Polish side for very obvious reasons. You don't bust your minimums. Simple as that. Instrument approaches are designed to be safe down to minimums, everything past that is rolling the dice. Simple fact of the matter is, had they respected the minimums and flew the approach properly, they would still be alive. Kaczynski would have a bit of egg on his face for showing up late, but they'd still be alive.
convex   
4 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Weather was NOT given properly and timeously, convex. Read the report again.

Again, page 212.

Wow, so 2 other planes did the same and STILL the ATC sat on their arses drinking vodka. Do you know that one of the guys wasn't tested for alcohol on that day? They MUST be, it's protocol.

They saw the runway before it became an issue.

Blasik also thought they were at a different altitude and that's the main thing. 100m my butt, they were well below.

Then they screwed up, again, page 212. No excuses. Had pressure, following height instead of altitude.

The Russians allegedly wanted to kill the maker of that video, convex. There is an account online somewhere of people interviewing him and him being petrified that he'd be caught. There was even a scare story that they caught up with him in Kiev, Ukraine, and killed him.

Link? And please not that Chechen separatist site again...
convex   
4 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Maybe after seeing how bad the weather was , and how the tower was communicting with a pilot , the lack of air pressure data from Meteo ( Polish and Russian ), how bad equipped the aerodrome was ?

Weather and pressure was given, page 212.

So, why were they soooo far off to the left again? Why weren't they told about it?

Have a read through the report, the Yak and the Il had the same problem.

And how come they said about him being drunk, very shocking for me . That`s why 70 % of Polish people don`t think we have got all the evidences . So we are waiting .I have heard that USA experts gathered more information, unknown for Polish side , because the were decoding one of black boxes, which was USA made and sent to them by Russians .

They said that he had alcohol in his body. I thought it wasn't important.

How can they say general Blasik was putting on pressure with no evidence? All they can say is that he was in the cockpit, no more. Yet they said that 'obviously' his presence in the cockpit would put pressure on the situation. They have no right to do this.

Sure they do, he had absolutely no reason at all to be there. None. The simple presence of a superior standing behind you is pressure whether you believe it or not. That's why you don't see CEOs of airlines riding in jump seats. It's ridiculous, and completely unprofessional. Basic psychology.

The witness specifically heard gun shots right beside where the plane was.

Right... But uh, if they were executing survivors, wouldn't the Russians have made sure that video never saw the day of light after such an elaborate plot? Doctoring the CVR and FDR, falsifying the controller recordings, autopsy results...and shooting the survivors... and then they let some guy with a camera phone wander off?
convex   
3 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Reason: protecting Prime Minister and President at the same time would be difficult? And, this is logistical reason for two seperate ceremonies? Russia wasn't enough big company that could accept them both at the same time? PM could be just another among 96 people.

Yea, I don't buy that either. They both managed to show up in Brussels at the same time...
convex   
3 Aug 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

I'd argue that was the first factor that ultimately caused the crash. No backup plan. Personally, if I have a meeting somewhere and want to fly there, the first thing I do is buy a commercial ticket. That's my get out of jail free card should there be a problem with weather or a mechanical issue. No pressure.