The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 763

Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash


Seanus 15 | 19,706
2 Aug 2011 #271
I'm beginning to believe the same, I-S. We can't trust these idiots who conduct the investigations and they simply CANNOT reach such different conclusions from the black box recordings.

As I said, a man who sees and who has the required talent can land. Take that away and he becomes blind. Does he need a lot of help? Of course he does. He needs the aviation equivalent of a guide dog and the Russian ATC failed to be that. Delph, for the last time, they went under 100m as they had distorted readings and the Russian ATC really HAD TO see they were dipping too fast.
NomadatNet 1 | 457
2 Aug 2011 #272
Usually for an accident to happen there must be lots of bad coincidencies.In this case we can attribute everything to the harsh russian weather which stopped Hitler and Napoleon as well.

russian weather? weather too has a nationality? lol. (perhaps, you mean it was an artificial weather, artificial fog, who knows. i thought that too and it's not out of technology today, is it.?)
skysoulmate 14 | 1,296
3 Aug 2011 #273
MONIA - you bring up several subjects so I'll try to reply to them one-by-one.

MONIA:
I don`t care if you are Russian . I`ve made my assumption after I read in some other post that someone called you Michało or Michaił . This I remember 100%.

Show me that post and I'll send $500 to a charity of your choice, I'll donate the money in the name of your choice and will provide you with a receipt. No BS, I say what I do and I do what I say. If someone called me by that name they weren't addressing me. I was born in Poland but raised in Sweden and have lived in the States for close to 20 years. Nothing new, many of those who've sparred with me here on PF have heard this before.

MONIA:Now , you sound a little bit different, than just 2 days before . Not far ago, you stated the the Polish crew is only to blame . I will not comment on your vulgar calling me .

- You're right, that was vulgar of me and I shouldn't have done it. I appologize for the name calling. I got angry with you because of this specific subject, we were discussing an accident that happened not far away from Katyń where a relative of ours was murdered. So here I am trying to be as unbiased as I can, despite what the Russians did back then, trying to look at this as a professional because in my view that's how I can honor those pilots, by trying to understand what happened and by learning from the accident, by making sure an accident like this doesn't happen ever again - and just because my perspective doesn't appeal to you I'm being labeled as a Russian?! In normal circumstances I couldn't care any less. In the Katyń context though I took it as a very vulgar accusation and I reacted. I was wrong but that's what happened.

- As far as me "sounding different now" - no I don't sound any different. Look at my old thread and you'll see I was pretty disgusted with the Russian authorities not inviting foreign observers and with the fact Putin was in charge of the investigation, and the fact the ATC communication was being conducted in Russian even though this was an international flight and as such ICAO rules stipulate for English to be used (although military fields and special agreements take precedence). There were numerous things I found perplexing and still do. Russians ruined their chances of being perceived as unbiased and fair by not inviting other, foreign specialists to the investigation.

- However, the pilot-in-command is always responsible, if unsure a go-around and diversion to an alternate is always the safest bet. The slow response to the EGPWS alert is another factor, when you hear that warning you only have seconds to react before ground impact becomes a reality. So my views haven't changed. Both sides made mistakes, no doubt about it. However a pilot-in-command is ALWAYS the final authority and the same applied to this fateful flight.

MONIA:Just read what the commission says about pilot`s intentions about landing .

Yes, this is correct, what's being described here is what we call the "take a peak" rule, once you initiate an approach you're legal to continue to the prescribed minimums, "take a peak" and land or go missed if you have to. I never questioned this rule. It's a standard practice all over the world.

Going below minimums however is what killed them. They were lower than they should've been at the particular moment. You say your father is an instructor? Well, I instructed for several years too so I'm certain he'll agree with me when I say that going below minimums is unacceptable in any and all circumstances, in other words it's taboo, that's how people get killed. Why they were lower than prescribed is another story. Where they trying to "cheat a little" by getting lower hoping to see ground or were they confused or a little bit of both? Or was it something else? We will never know because the people who did it aren't here to tell us. The transcripts do not explain what they were thinking but rather what they were doing. We do know an aircraft got closer to the ground then it should have and that's what we must focus on.

(your google translate name-calling link wasn't funny so I'll skip it)

MONIA:
Skysoulmate - I think you can`t depreciate other people for their views, just because you are a pilot.

It would help tremendously if you could read entire posts and not just the passages that help your point of view. Yes, I'm a "civilian" pilot but I'm also in the national guard. Ask your father he'll understand how this works but basically I fly two different jets, one in the military and one in the civilian world. I used to be full time military but transitioned to the civilian flying and kept a part-time national guard slot. I was activated as recently as the Libyan mission but nowadays fly primarily civilian flights. Because I'm still in the service I tend not to discuss any specifics as far as the equipment I fly, bases, etc. However both aircraft I fly have four engines each if that helps you. Your father will probably be able to figure it out (I say it out of respect because pilots/instructors tend to read up on aviation related news from many angles)

The passage about "men issues" and the implication that somehow I'm bothered by you writing here because you're a woman shows (again) that you do not pay attention to people's posts. On several occasions I've commented the ridiculous women degrading threads that seem to pop-up, I've written about not making assumptions simply because of people's gender, race, etc. I've worked with numerous women pilots throughout my career, many have become friends for life and I do not look at them as "women" but rather as pilots because that's what they are, my fellow pilots who just happen to be women.

This is a yet another assumption made by you that comes out of the blue simply because you feel the need to attack me for holding a view you disagree with. Which is strange because you said before that you trusted the commission specialists which is exactly what I'm doing. However, I hear the commission say "both sides made mistakes", yet you seem to hear "only the Russians made mistakes."

Ironside:
Aviation is my hobby too (beginner :)), sky didn't investigate the Smolensk Crash and edit.

You're absolutely right, I'm just giving my perspective, what I see based on the published materials. Not sure what you mean by meediting the investigation??

Also, can you expand on the "aviation as a hobby" part? Just curious...

Ironside:Neither of us is an expert, and simple true is that is that all evidence was in Russian hands and could have tampered with.I think that is almost impossible to find out who or what was responsible.
Anyone one who is making presumption is not wise...

Exactly, which us why within days of the accident I said an international investigation was the only way the Russians would be taken seriously. They squandered a great "good-will" gesture and will always be viewed with suspicion.

Gotta get some sleep,

Gute Nacht!

Delphie
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?

Well, the blame goes to many parties but unless there's an acceptance of errors being made there won't be any change in the safety culture.

As far as Afghanistan, don't know what you read but several US special ops guys I've gotten to know had very high opinion of the Polish military. I'm sure you'll find bad examples here and there but that applies to any military branch.
Ironside 50 | 11,499
3 Aug 2011 #274
Not sure what you mean by me editing the investigation?

I wrote and delph is a ...... - which was edited by the mod!

Also, can you expand on the "aviation as a hobby" part? Just curious...

I'm taking flying lessons
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #275
You know what happened to Icarus, I-S ;) ;)

I see that Lewitin (Russian) responded to Jerzy Miller, sore affronted that the report could have implicated Russia in any wrongdoing. The airport's condition was haphazard at best. As a result, maximum care must be taken, esp given the magnitude of the situation. A delegation with 96 officials should be extended the maximum courtesy and not be the victims of slippages and slack monitoring.
Monia
3 Aug 2011 #276
Military prosecutors presented their conclusions at a press conference on 26 July 2011, dedicated to performance analysis of flight data recorder Polish Tu-154 .

The first issue :

They informed, that : third ATM ( polish made device installed on many various planes around the world ) black box recorder did not show that the go-around ABSU system in the last seconds of flight of Tu-154M was active.

This is inconsistant with the report version which stated that :

nb 3.2.2. Circumstances Contributing to the Accident ( English version )

3) attempt to execute the go-around maneuver under the control of ABSU (automatic go-around);

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 .

The second issue

The military prosecutors informed , that the interruption of power supply of on-board computer took place 15 m above the ground and at a distance of 60-80 meters from the first contact with the ground by plane .

For the first time it was written by "Gazeta Polska " (February 2011), For several months, the mainstream media tried to be silent or make fun of this fact.

Today, prosecutors confirmed the accuracy of the information of "Polish Gazeta"

The commentators say ; it is unheard of similar situation and

“ unfortunately, it is hard to believe in that to say that the aircraft electrical systems ( there were 3 independent electrical systems in the plane ) completely got off by contact with birch which caused falling off the wing section – this just means the total discrediting the prosecution.

Note the date of the conference organized suddenly by prosecutors. came three days before the planned publication of the report of George Miller.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #277
Monia, it's good that you are trying to get to the bottom of things (we are both highly qualified in Law) but don't be force-fed rubbish. Go straight to the critical points and examine the 'facts' as best we know them. The crux of the matter is the 100m question. I've already given 2 suggestions as to why they went below 100m. If you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Russian ATC was negligent in the exercise of their duties then you have your trump card.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #279
You don't know Polish, nomad, so I can tell you that George is Jerzy or Jurek. Jerzy Miller headed up the investigation on the Polish side with the help of Szeremet, Rzepa etc.
NomadatNet 1 | 457
3 Aug 2011 #280
Ok, thanks, Seanus.

The military prosecutors informed , that the interruption of power supply of on-board computer took place 15 m above the ground and at a distance of 60-80 meters from the first contact with the ground by plane .

So, without touching the ground, some technical problems happened in the airplane and this wasn't mentioned in official reports. And, this is informed by military prosecutors, in another kind of report.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #281
I don't think that technical problems played a major part in what happened at the end. Then again, I'm just going on available data. The problem with the Tupolev is it takes a long time to pull up. The pilot didn't have enough time to work with and after clipping a birch tree or two, his options were severely limited.
skysoulmate 14 | 1,296
3 Aug 2011 #282
Ironside:
I wrote and delph is a ...... - which was edited by the mod!

I see, all I saw was a red "edit", I guess it means censorship? lol

Ironside:
I'm taking flying lessons

Very cool, congrats it's an awesome "addiction" lol. Are you flying in Cessnas, Katanas or something else?

If you ever get confused or need a few hints plz let me know here or at the other place, my instructor license is still valid.

Seanus:
The problem with the Tupolev is it takes a long time to pull up

Seanus, you're correct if you are talking about the automation, however a TAWS event is a hands-on maneuver, you disconnect the automation, shove the thrust levers all the way in and pitch up for 20 degrees or the stick-shaker, whichever comes first. Tupolev's pitch might be a little less depending on the thrust provided by the engines but the procedures are about the same on all aircraft. It's actually a fairly aggressive maneuver, frightening to the passengers but necessary.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #283
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.
valpomike 11 | 197
3 Aug 2011 #284
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.

Mike
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #285
Please elaborate, mike
convex 20 | 3,978
3 Aug 2011 #286
What page was this on?

248

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 .Every military pilot according to previous plans in 2010 was to spend in the air over 40 hours.

I don't think it's as much a problem with hours as it is just creating a more professional environment, and enforcing the rules. I obviously don't mind you taking part in the conversation, some of your questions are valid, and I like to explain things. A kind of learning through teaching thing.

Well no surprise that MAK has rejected any part of the Polish Report that puts the Russians at fault.

The MAK report cited plenty of problems on the Russian side.

Maybe pilots are responsible maybe not, maybe it was an accident and then maybe not - thats all who any sentient being can say on the issue.

They usually are. That's a very important thing which is ingrained in your mind. If you fly a plane without a current annual and you crash due to a mechanical issue, it's your fault for flying an aircraft that isn't airworthy. If you get caught in ice and go down, it's your fault for not properly judging the weather. If you taxi out onto a runway while an aircraft is approaching, it's your fault for not making sure the runway was clear. If you're out practicing maneuvers and some goober in a sailplane plows into you, it's your fault for not doing clearing turns. See the pattern? The responsibility for the safety of the aircraft always rests with the captain who has ultimate authority. If a captain is issued an instruction by ATC, it's their duty to deviate from it if they feel it is unsafe.

that is a separate issue...

No, it came down to training and deviation from SOPs. Again, the important thing is that lessons learned weren't applied. The Smolensk accident could have easily been avoided.

I'm beginning to believe the same, I-S. We can't trust these idiots who conduct the investigations and they simply CANNOT reach such different conclusions from the black box recordings.

The reports don't really differ all that much on the root causes. They both acknowledge mistakes on behalf of the flight crew and the controllers.

As I said, a man who sees and who has the required talent can land. Take that away and he becomes blind. Does he need a lot of help? Of course he does. He needs the aviation equivalent of a guide dog and the Russian ATC failed to be that. Delph, for the last time, they went under 100m as they had distorted readings and the Russian ATC really HAD TO see they were dipping too fast.

That's completely inaccurate. It was an NDB approach, the crew was solely responsible for guiding the plane in. He went under 100m on his out instruments in the cockpit. Those are his eyes, not the voice on the other end of the radio. And if he was primarily using the advisory information from the radar controller, he was already making a huge, huge, huge mistake. That's a very basic no-no.

I'm taking flying lessons

Congratulations man :) Say goodbye to your friends, family, free time, and whatever you have in your bank account. PS, don't ever go anywhere with a pilot and non pilot....you just end up talking airplanes the entire time and the earthbound person will have to pretend to be interested, check their phone alot, and stare out of the window :)

Also, can you expand on the "aviation as a hobby" part? Just curious...

Well, no one pays me to fly. I would like to take some time off and get an instructor rating. Not many FAA CFIs over here...It'd be more along the lines of having someone else pay the fuel and put some much needed hours on the TB10. I guess it's more of a lifestyle :)
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #287
Convex, I've written time and again why he went below. You know why.
convex 20 | 3,978
3 Aug 2011 #288
Of course I know why. He wasn't paying attention to his instruments like he should have been, and his navigator was calling out height above ground, not altitude.

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.

The navigator was calling out heights that were below MDA. They knew they were busting minimums.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
3 Aug 2011 #289
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.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #290
Convex, he wouldn't navigate into the ground. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Were you in the plane, convex? Then how do you know?
convex 20 | 3,978
3 Aug 2011 #291
Convex, he wouldn't navigate into the ground. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

People cheat all the time. It's not the first time, and surely not the last time.

Were you in the plane, convex? Then how do you know?

I read the transcripts and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You're right, none of us were in the cockpit. Aliens might have taken over the bodies of the crew in the last minute knowingly plowed the plane into the ground.

Safe altitudes are busted all the time.
avherald.com/h?article=4403e7bf&opt=512
avherald.com/h?article=43f15431&opt=512
avherald.com/h?article=427d6604&opt=512
avherald.com/h?article=41a5f274&opt=512
avherald.com/h?article=3ff0b15a&opt=512
NomadatNet 1 | 457
3 Aug 2011 #292
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.

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?)

Anyway, this Smolensk story will be similar to Twin Tower story in that many reports showed that without bombs under the towers, those twin towers and wt7 wouldn't collapse.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
3 Aug 2011 #293
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.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #294
Then why wasn't it classed as a suicide mission? Too painful or didn't address the facts?

Exactly! I don't want to embrace wild conspiracies either but when two official sources produce such conflicting accounts, who can we go with? Yourself and Sky, as aviators, should easily be able to reach a definitive conclusion. However, yourselves, like the rest of us, have just been fed with what some want us to hear.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
3 Aug 2011 #295
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.
convex 20 | 3,978
3 Aug 2011 #296
Then why wasn't it classed as a suicide mission? Too painful or didn't address the facts?

If you get into an accident by speeding up to get through a yellow light, would you consider that a suicide mission?

Exactly! I don't want to embrace wild conspiracies either but when two official sources produce such conflicting accounts, who can we go with? Yourself and Sky, as aviators, should easily be able to reach a definitive conclusion. However, yourselves, like the rest of us, have just been fed with what some want us to hear.

Goes back to trusting the CVR and the witnesses, if you don't, then there's no reason to even discuss the technicalities. For me, the reports definitely support CFIT. It only confirms what most people thought from the get go. It's a common reason for accidents.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #297
Delph, it was tantamount to it given how low they were. Even scud runners don't pull that nonsense given the terrain.

Why did he flirt with the trees, delph? Does that suggest experience to you?

Convex, I'd consider it as a hidden deathwish ;)

I don't believe they knew their true altitude, simple
NomadatNet 1 | 457
3 Aug 2011 #298
The only people pushing that line are the ones who think that Putin cared less about a ceremonial President of a minor European country.

Didn't Putin blame the visit of Kacyznski to Katryn? and didn't he warn Katcynski?
convex 20 | 3,978
3 Aug 2011 #299
Why did he flirt with the trees, delph? Does that suggest experience to you?

It suggest that the PAF was more focused on completing the mission than completing the mission safely.

Why did the YAK flirt with the trees?

Convex, I'd consider it as a hidden deathwish ;)

I don't believe they knew their true altitude, simple

You don't believe the CVR, fair enough. And yea, it's a deathwish just like the driver of the car in the earlier example. I'm reminded of driving along in the countryside and having people pass around blind corners. It happens all the time, people die, I don't think they wanted to die.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
3 Aug 2011 #300
The YAK guys had greater visibility and a lighter aircraft.


Home / News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.