- you bring up several subjects so I'll try to reply to them one-by-one.
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)
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."
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,
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.