The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [2]  |  Archives [1] 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 734

Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash


Monia    
31 Jul 2011  #91
Yes that all very nice, you are saying that if a plane loose engine and a wing it is still is fault of a commander.

Good point .

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 .
delphiandomine 85 | 17,470    
31 Jul 2011  #92
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.
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
  31 Jul 2011  #93
If I had the President, as well as many other VIP's on my back, then I wouldn't take the risk to begin with.

(this isn't an answer to my question above.. anyway.)

About landing on April 7, three days ago, you mentioned above:

“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. On Saturday 10 April 2010 the equipment had disappeared” - Julia Latynina commentated on Thursday in “the Moscow Times”. Nevertheless it added that one had prepared a strategy during the Tusk of visit also, as one lets the visit of the Polish president Lech Kaczynski treat by Russian authorities “as redundant” can.

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. It granted here that conditions were rather bad locally. Considering its one must ask oneself however, what drove a Iljuschin-60 after Smolensk, which accomplished there alleged landing attempts, which one should assign possibly later Tupolev for the time of the approach of Polish journalists, although this undertook only one attempt.

Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #94
So why don't PiS conduct their own investigation to draw their own conclusions? It's easy to point the finger but what independent analyses have they performed? They have almost everything they need at their disposal and were they to rely on known facts, their report might be credible. Come on, JK, what are you waiting for?
delphiandomine 85 | 17,470    
31 Jul 2011  #95
"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?
Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #96
It's simple. The Polish pilot will have known that there was no ILS nor MLS. Therefore, they have no leg to stand on.
Monia    
31 Jul 2011  #97
The radar altimeter doesn't require the pressure.

They were using radio and barometer altimeter . What do you mean then ?

The controllers were giving him also false data and they were confirming him about his proper altitude which was false . His altimeters were not showing him proper height due to the lack of the information from Smolensk meteo about the current air pressure .

Here's the outcome of the Polish report:

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 .

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 ?
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
31 Jul 2011  #98
Wait a minute, Delphiandomine:

Monia said somethings like this "Smolensk wasn't so good/proper airport to land (even in the clear air.)"
She didn't say anything wrong. All people know this. There is always risk at any airport and at Smolensk, there are more risks.

You objected this, to defend Smolensk airport too..

Delphiandomine: "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?"

What has your these words to do with the average conditions, not being perfect, of Smolensk airport? I drew an analogy by saying this:

Nomad: "Are you serious about this question? If I close your eyes, can you still walk easily on the narrow path that you walk everyday?"

And, you changed the dialog by deviating from airport by bring an additional parameter "existence of president and vip" this time.

Why didn't you say simply this "yes, Smolensk airport isn't so good airport and weather condition/fog made things worse.." - Instead, you tried to defend even Smolensk airport and this shows that you'll defend everythings Russian and will try to kill any evidence/logic that you'll not like. You say we should not believe a journalist. Shall we believe Putin? Isn't ok if I believe my own logic that says this Smolensk is nothing else than a liquidation?
LwowskaKrakow 28 | 431    
31 Jul 2011  #99
Polish mistakes were crushing, though, and directly contributed to the accident.

Is it true that the Polish goverment is denying pension to the flight pilots'widows ?
If so, it is appalling,looks like misplaced revenge and will not help the dead coming back anyway.
Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #100
Yet Marta Kaczyńska appears to have profitted quite handsomely according to a few sources.

PiS have a great chance for an open debate and the elections are but 2.5 months away. This could really help sway some of the sceptical public their way.
delphiandomine 85 | 17,470    
  31 Jul 2011  #101
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".
convex 20 | 3,980    
31 Jul 2011  #102
radar altimeter is the same thing as a radio altimeter. if you read the cvr transcript, you can see that they were using it, and the report states it as well. apparently minsk ATC gave qfe at 1500m.

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 ?

They planned an NDB approach from the start.
Monia    
31 Jul 2011  #103
We can read form the report official causes of the crash included in provisions –

nb 3.2.2. Circumstances Contributing to the Accident

1) Failure to monitor altitude by means of a pressure altimeter during a non-precision approach;

( yes , that`s the fact, the other fact is that the device was not set up ( Smolensk aerodrome data should be put in memory storage of it before entering the plane ) it was up to other people to put in such data, but not the pilot ( maybe technicians ) .. How would the monitoring be carried on by the pilot, if he was deprived of proper air pressure data , which was not delivered by Smolensk meteo due to lack of proper equipment . Given air pressure was false .

2) failure by the crew to respond to the PULL UP warning generated by the TAWS;

That`s the fact , but how could the commander communicate with the controllers, if the TAWS alarm was on making unbearable noise . The plane`s altitude was 1500 meters according to controllers , he couldn`t verify this with plane`s barometer at the same time , so he believed the plane was positioned at such altitude.

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

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 .

4) Approach Control confirming to the crew the correct position of the airplane in relation to the RWY threshold, glide slope, and course which might have affirmed the crew's belief that the approach was proceeding correctly although the airplane was actually outside the permissible deviation margin;

That was Smolensk air traffic control crew fault .

5) failure by LZC to inform the crew about descending below the glide slope and delayed issuance of the level-out command;

The same as above

6) incorrect training of the Tu-154M flight crews in the 36 Regiment.

Which was fully responsible for putting as a c-pilot untrained junior pilot ( he didn`t know the rules of barometric altimeter , no knowledge of Russian language )

During the difficult flight , it should be a cockpit silence , while the pilot had to talk over the radio with the tower in Russian language , checking radio and barometer altimeters , making the proper assumptions about the weather conditions , speaking with DWL commander and protocol`s director . , everything occurring during the difficult conditions . Don`t you think it was too much for one commander .

delphiandomine 85 | 17,470    
31 Jul 2011  #104
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.
Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #105
2) It wasn't that noisy, Monia. There is an online account of the plane coming in and it didn't impede communication.

3) No, the go around was left until it was too late. They were given the instructions to bail out but they had already dipped too low and it's hard to pull such a plane up so quickly.

4) Professional pilots clearly disagree with you, Monia. If it was so clear, don't you think experts would have known it?

5) It does strike me as strange, yes. It was a former military airport and they have better facilities than domestic airports.

6) You MUST know the rules of barometric pressure. The main pilot knew Russian very well and that's what counts. If it was too much then they should have foreseen that and left for an alternative airport long before. Why couldn't they have flown earlier, stayed at a hotel and then be fresh for the tribute ceremony? Skąpstwo!!
delphiandomine 85 | 17,470    
31 Jul 2011  #106
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.
Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #107
Only the most amateur of pilots wouldn't have known about a ravine or canyon there. Protasiuk had made the same flight just 3 days before so he HAD TO know the lay of the land. Monia, I also suspected foul play but it seems like Polish over-confidence to me. Many Poles agree with me on this one.
Monia    
31 Jul 2011  #108
radar altimeter is the same thing as a radio altimeter. if you read the cvr transcript, you can see that they were using it, and the report states it as well. apparently minsk ATC gave qfe at 1500m.

But this radar altimeter is not inside the plane . The controlling tower is equipped with such device . This radar altimeter indicated the plane`s altitude on 1500 meters above the ground and such data was passed on to the Polish commander by the LZC crew in Smolensk . That was a major fault and the most crucial factor of the crash .
Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #109
Monia, it can't be that simple. Experts have analysed this and fault would be easy to prove. Why don't you get PiS to publish a report on that if it's so clear?
southern 76 | 7,103    
31 Jul 2011  #110
The Russians should have fired some missiles to the direction of the plane to persuade them not to land.
delphiandomine 85 | 17,470    
  31 Jul 2011  #111
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.
convex 20 | 3,980    
31 Jul 2011  #112
QFE was given.

That`s the fact , but how could the commander communicate with the controllers, if the TAWS alarm was on making unbearable noise . The plane`s altitude was 1500 meters according to controllers , he couldn`t verify this with plane`s barometer at the same time , so he believed the plane was positioned at such altitude.

Because he didn't enter the QFE when he transitioned.

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 .

It was part of the FDR information

That was Smolensk air traffic control crew fault .

Yup, even though the controller is only in an advisory role. the crew is responsible for maintaining altitude

I think that the cockpit resource management was deplorable. Why for instance was the captain on the radio and flying? Sloppy, very very sloppy.

But this radar altimeter is not inside the plane . The controlling tower is equipped with such device . This radar altimeter indicated the plane`s altitude on 1500 meters above the ground and such data was passed on to the Polish commander by the LZC crew in Smolensk . That was a major fault and the most crucial factor of the crash .

The RA is on the plane.
Monia    
31 Jul 2011  #113
Only the most amateur of pilots wouldn't have known about a ravine or canyon there. Protasiuk had made the same flight just 3 days before so he HAD TO know the lay of the land. Monia, I also suspected foul play but it seems like Polish over-confidence to me. Many Poles agree with me on this one.

Do you know that anything is visible from the pilot`s cockpit during the flight ? 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 . If your theory was true it would be enough for the safe landing just ordering the same pilots who flew to some specific airport just once before .

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 .

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

If it wasn`t needed , the arport would not bother to build a tower , equipe it with expensive radar systems and employ such crews .

Why bother , everything is up to the pilot , according to some critics.
Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #114
OK, so you are saying that the conditions were bad, correct? In that case, was it wise to attempt a landing? They had been informed to bail out long before.

Can you refer me to a regulatory manual provision that they were obliged to do so?

Fully responsible? Then your goverment and senior officials are pretty darned daft then.
Monia    
31 Jul 2011  #115
Gene Poteat is an electrical engineer (The Citadel) and a retired CIA scientific intelligence officer. He served abroad in London, Scandinavia, the Middle East and Asia. He is president of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), writes and lectures on intelligence matters and teaches at The Institute of World Politics graduate school in Washington

Read what he thinks about this crash , he is not connected with PIS , BTW :

The Aftermath, the Cover-up, Denial and Deception.
Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #116
Yes but he is merely stirring things up and not talking about the technical flight path or any significant details.
Monia    
31 Jul 2011  #117
I forgot about the link :

charlestonmercury.com/articles/2010/06/15/news/doc4c17d3f5734b3292394378.txt
Seanus 15 | 19,717    
31 Jul 2011  #118
Another mad ex-CIA official trying to pit Poland against Russia. Sorry, Monia, but you need to stick with the facts and not those with political agendas.
delphiandomine 85 | 17,470    
  31 Jul 2011  #119
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

NomadatNet 1 | 457    
31 Jul 2011  #120
Russians quickly took control of the crash site, recovered the black boxes

Hmm. Quite possible. I hadn't thought these.
Any document was found in the ruins of airplane? Or, anyone survived?


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