The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 737

Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash


f stop 25 | 2,513
1 Aug 2011 #211
that the Russians have committed just as many unforgivable mistakes, it is difficult for you

like I tell my child: do not look for blame with others if you could have changed the outcome yourself.
Monia
1 Aug 2011 #212
100% if he's getting faulty information from the air control tower.

According to the report - the most cardinal mistakes of Russian controllers crew are :

1 ATC did not order the crew to confirm information about their position with altitude, just as he had not done in case of Yak-40 or Il—76 crews, nor did he react to the incorrect radio exchange by LZC, contrary to provisions of FAP PP GosA item 96.

2 The analysis indicated that flights support by LZC did not comply with FAP PP GosA regulations, or with the ―Rules and Terminology in Radio Communication for Flight Preparation and Air Traffic Control‖, as most of Tu-154M‘s flight on approach was outside the area of acceptable deviation from the glide path. Between 9,300 m and 2,900 m from RWY 26 threshold, the aircraft remained above the glide path, and between 7,400 m and the moment of ground impact, the aircraft was flying left of RWY 26 center line.

3 According to LZC information, the aircraft was on the correct glide path and course. Actual facts suggest that LZC had no right to inform the Tu-154M crew to the effect of correct approach, because the aircraft’s deviation from glide path and course was in excess of one third of linear dimensions of the area of acceptable deviation. That was contrary to item 115 of FAP PP GosA.

In the opinion of the Committee, errors of LZC and deviations from principles of servicing landing approaches using radar equipment involved the following:

1) informing the crew about the aircraft‘s correct position ―on course and on glide path‖, while their position in reference to RWY center line and glide path was outside of the acceptable deviation zone;
2) communicating information about distance to RWY 26 500-600 m in advance;
3) no reaction (for a period of 10 s) to the crew‘s continued descent beyond maximum acceptable deviation (-30‘).
4) delayed issue of the command „Горизонт, сто один‖ (Horizon, one zero one) to the Tu-154M crew.

The Polish pilot would adjust the plane to the right position and all the deviations would be corrected . But because he received false information from the controllers hi was reassured that the plane was on the proper altitude and right path . In such case it would be better for the crew not to have any radio connestion with the tower , so they would rely only on their cockpit devices and measurements .
delphiandomine 83 | 17,771
1 Aug 2011 #213
You together with Delphiandomine have to acknowledge the fact

Tell you what - while we're talking about facts.

What was the minimum visibility required for landing legally at Smolensk-North, and what was the actual visibility on that day?
NomadatNet 1 | 457
1 Aug 2011 #214
Delphiandomine, perhaps, you didn't see my question to you in this sequence on page 5:

Delphiandomine, was that flight President of Poland flied a military flight or a civil flight?
Monia
1 Aug 2011 #215
The Polish criminal prosecutor's reach doesn't extend to Russia.

You know nothing about Criminal Procedure Law , so don`t comment on that .
delphiandomine 83 | 17,771
2 Aug 2011 #216
Delphiandomine, perhaps, you didn't see my question to you in this sequence on page 5:

I didn't, no -

Delphiandomine, was that flight President of Poland flied a military flight or a civil flight?

Difficult question, and one that the investigators couldn't answer either.

However - the Aviation Law in question makes it clear that a flight operated by the Polish Air Force must be a military flight. It also had the status of "HEAD" (a term used for VIP transport, which was conducted by the military in Poland when it came to flights) - and it was operating under military, not civilian rules.

For the Chicago Convention to be relevant - it would require the flight to be conducted under civilian rules - which it clearly wasn't.

You know nothing about Criminal Procedure Law , so don`t comment on that .

I think they'll be rather too busy prosecuting Poles to bother with Russians, don't you think?
convex 20 | 3,978
2 Aug 2011 #217
In such case it would be better for the crew not to have any radio connestion with the tower , so they would rely only on their cockpit devices and measurements .

Completely agree, and his instruments definitely should have been his primary means of navigation for the approach he was flying.

Delphiandomine, was that flight President of Poland flied a military flight or a civil flight?

Apparently the flight plan indicated it was a military flight, which makes sense as I remember reading that the crew didn't have civilian ratings.

Oh, and apparently it is being taken seriously in the PAF, almost paraphrasing my earlier post:

thenews.pl/1/8/Artykul/52654,More-heads-to-roll-after-Smolensk-air-crash-report
Monia
2 Aug 2011 #218
a military flight or a civil flight?

Of course it was a civil flight and the Chicago Convention provisions apply to this crash .

Unforgivable mistakes?

an unforgivable mistake is what the Commander did on that plane

Delph - but you deny obvious facts , Russians are not immune from committing mistakes and they did a lot of them . Stop this theater with your denial as I will treat you as a "enfant terrible" of this forum .

Look at this report findings -no reaction (for a period of 10 s) to the crew's continued descent beyond maximum acceptable deviation (-30').

This simply explains, why they descended below the minimum altitude and whose fault it was . 10 seconds at that speed is like ages . So don`t repeat your theories like mantra .
NomadatNet 1 | 457
2 Aug 2011 #219
Difficult question, and one that the investigators couldn't answer either.

So, civil or military, it is flue if investigators are not sure. Investigators (Russians) there at the location of incident chosen then it was military flight. It is okay. When it is military flight, the investigation rules change, isn't it. In this case, if there is assassination, it is military crime.. (do you think that Medyedev's pressure on some many generals there has anything to do with that?)
delphiandomine 83 | 17,771
2 Aug 2011 #220
The Polish pilot would adjust the plane to the right position and all the deviations would be corrected . But because he received false information from the controllers hi was reassured that the plane was on the proper altitude and right path .

However, that doesn't excuse him going below 100m when not cleared to do so. As I mentioned earlier - the last "on glidepath" call was made above 100m.

Of course it was a civil flight and the Chicago Convention provisions apply to this crash .

The report authors disagree with you. Care to provide any evidence that it was a civil flight?

I'd honestly expect a lawyer to know the provision in the Aviation Law which clearly states that a flight operated by the Polish Air Force is classed as a military flight.

Delph - but you deny obvious facts , Russians are not immune from committing mistakes and they did a lot of them . Stop this theater with your denial as I will treat you as a "enfant terrible" of this forum .

Answer my question. What justification did the commander have in breaking various minimums - his own, the plane and the one set by ATC?

Look at this report findings -no reaction (for a period of 10 s) to the crew‘s continued descent beyond maximum acceptable deviation (-30‘).

10 seconds? That's nothing in a moment of high stress. Still doesn't excuse the commander going below 100m on the barometric altimeter, does it?

This simply explains, why they descended below the minimum altitude and whose fault it was . 10 seconds at that speed is like ages . So don`t repeat your theories like mantra .

Again, and for the final time. Did they have clearance to go below 100m? No. Therefore - there is no justification for doing so.

Unless they were explicitly cleared to go below 100m (and a "on glidepath" call above 100m does not constitute clearance to land in aviation) - they are strictly responsible for taking that plane below 100m.

I'm still waiting for you to justify why they attempted an illegal landing in the first place.

So, civil or military, it is flue if investigators are not sure. Investigators (Russians) there at the location of incident chosed then it was military flight. It is okay. When it is military flight, the investigation rules change, isn't it. In this case, if there is assassination, it is military crime.. (do you think that Medyedev's pressure on some many generals there has anything to do with that?)

The Russians didn't chose anything - the Polish report makes it clear that an aeroplane operated by the PAF must be military. The law of "Rzeczpospolita Polska" governed the flight - not the rules of the Russian Federation.
convex 20 | 3,978
2 Aug 2011 #221
This simply explains, why they descended below the minimum altitude and whose fault it was . 10 seconds at that speed is like ages . So don`t repeat your theories like mantra .

It wasn't the controller's job to make sure that the plane didn't bust minimums. That is solely the responsibility of the pilot.
NomadatNet 1 | 457
2 Aug 2011 #222
I think they'll be rather too busy prosecuting Poles to bother with Russians, don't you think?

Maybe, prosecuting Russians too in Russia by Russians too already started, who knows.. Don't be so sure.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
2 Aug 2011 #223
Russia still broke the rules by going outwith the permissible deviation parameters, delph. That's just a fact!

ndb2010.salon24.pl/286036,artykuly-o-smolensku-w-jezyku-angielskim
it's so hard to know what to believe. I really believe that standdowns were issued and more than one Polish official has claimed that the official transcripts have been fiddled with.
Monia
2 Aug 2011 #224
I'd honestly expect a lawyer to know the provision in the Aviation Law which clearly states that a flight operated by the Polish Air Force is classed as a military flight.

Delph - I want to tell you, because you may not know, but there is no lawyer, who would know all the laws. It is simply impossible.

And how do I know that this was a civilian flight this issue was resolved by the Russians on 13 .01.2011 r in agreement with the Polish side, that it was a civilian flight. It appears that you have outdated information

With the Polish agreement, immediately on the basis of Russian legislation the whole investigation has been referred to the Committee Tatiana Anodiny MAK boss. Without this consent MAK could not independently investigate the crash and would have created a report signed by a Russian.

Prime Minister ...".

You may not know so I would like to inform you, that the Polish air law does not settle the issue.

Not always the Law is excellent and sometimes it contains loopholes. Well I am not perfect too , so don`t expect me not to make mistakes if I make some in the future just because I am a lawyer .

[
MediaWatch 10 | 945
2 Aug 2011 #225
no supervisor should ever pressure a captain into anything, coming into a cockpit before a landing is often viewed as such.

Where in the transcripts is there evidence of a supervisor putting pressure on the captain?

Russian ATC and the tower should have taken action once they realized that the Yak pilot didn't really care much about following proper procedure instead of complimenting him for pulling off the landing after breaking the rules.

Where is there evidence of this?

An approach was requested from the crew, and provided by ATC..

Why did Air Tower Control give them permission to make their approach if the Air Tower felt there were bad landing conditions?
Ironside 48 | 9,899
2 Aug 2011 #226
I just wounder why so many foreigners are interested in convincing everyone that the Smolensk Crash was a fault of the pilot.
They state that in finite terms, there no place for doubts in their posts.
I could understand if they stated their opinion, fair play, but they very intense, almost as they would have a stake in it.
Interesting ......
Monia
2 Aug 2011 #227
the Polish air law does not settle the issue.

I have to add that it settles the issue, but in this case it is hard to make it clear , because the character of that flight was civil, but the aircraft was military . So , there was so much fuss about that in last months .
convex 20 | 3,978
2 Aug 2011 #228
Where is there evidence of this?

Did you read the report? The Yak was never cleared to land, did so anyway, and the controller made the compliment.

Why did Air Tower Control give them permission to make their approach if the Air Tower felt there were bad landing conditions?

Because the captain is well within his authority to request an approach, take a look for himself, and then chose the proper plan of action (divert, attempt a second approach, land if he sees the runway before reaching minimums). In fact, when you're doing an instrument approach to an uncontrolled airfield with no available weather, that's the only thing you can do. If you don't see the runway by the time you hit minimums, you go missed. That's another thing that struck me as odd on the CVR transcripts, there was no mention at all of the missed approach procedure. I think he was determined to land. It didn't sound like checklists were used at all.

I just wounder why so many foreigners are interested in convincing everyone that the Smolensk Crash was a fault of the pilot.

Because this has been an operation that has been planned out for a long time by the FSB and we were planted on this forum years ago to make sure that there is no dissent towards the official Russian/Polish findings....ooops, let it slip!

I have to add that it settles the issue, but in this case it is hard to make it clear , because the character of that flight was civil, but the aircraft was military . So , there was so much fuss about that in last months .

In that case, the flight was completely illegal as there were no qualified pilots on board. But, the report makes it pretty clear what kind of flight it was...
delphiandomine 83 | 17,771
2 Aug 2011 #229
Delph - I want to tell you, because you may not know, but there is no lawyer, who would know all the laws. It is simply impossible.

Of course. But the law in question is referenced in the report - go ahead and check it.

And how do I know that this was a civilian flight this issue was resolved by the Russians on 13 .01.2011 r in agreement with the Polish side, that it was a civilian flight. It appears that you have outdated information

The information comes directly from the report, in accordance with the law in force at the time of the accident. If there was such an agreement, can you provide me with a link to it?

Russia still broke the rules by going outwith the permissible deviation parameters, delph. That's just a fact!

Indeed. The LZC guy did mess up, and there's questions over the radar equipment - but it didn't cause them to crash. It would be a different story if they were told "on course" and then hit something while above 100m - but they hit something when going below 100m without clearance.

But as several pilots have informed you - it is the commander's responsibility to keep within minimums, not the ATC.

And - Seanus - that link is factually inaccurate. I can't be bothered to go through it, but one example -

Ten minutes later, at 8:20, there are words which tell us that the crew did not receive any guidance from the tower as to the direction of approach. 2nd pilot Robert Grzywna says: "It looks like 259, this would be even better, because it would not be against the sun." This conditional phrase clearly indicates that the pilots await the decision of the controllers. In the end, the approach was from direction 259, but there is not even a single word mentioning the decision of the tower on this issue!

One problem. The other approach was decommissioned and a NOTAM issued about this well before 10.04.

Also -

Blasik was confirmed to be in the cockpit by the Polish experts.

Plenty of other misleading statements in that link, too. For instance - it wasn't a PAR approach, so comments about "ATC must be talking constantly" are just wrong.
Monia
2 Aug 2011 #230
I could understand if they stated their opinion, fair play, but they very intense, almost as they would have a stake in it.
Interesting .....

You have to know their roots, it seems to me they are all Russians : Delph, Sky ( I heard someone said to him Michaił ) , Sasha .
Ironside 48 | 9,899
2 Aug 2011 #231
Nevertheless it is interesting !I think it is a good question.
No, doubts, no second thoughts, from the very beginning some of them made their stand. I think that discussion would be more interesting if they at least admitted that there is possibility they maybe wrong.
Monia
2 Aug 2011 #232
Here is a link :

lubczasopismo.salon24.pl/Smolensk.Raport.S.24/post/269561,cywilny-czy-wojskowy-a-po-co-ta-gra

Links in Polish will be removed.

But there is no english link about such issue
delphiandomine 83 | 17,771
2 Aug 2011 #233
Links in Polish will be removed.

Leave it, please - a lot of the "counter" arguments are only in Polish, and the sources in English tend to be utter rubbish - and there's very little "new" being published in English about the opposing point of view.
convex 20 | 3,978
2 Aug 2011 #234
Nevertheless it is interesting !I think is a good question.

Aviation is my hobby, sky is a professional pilot, and delph is an FSB agent.

It's interesting for me because I know a little something about it, and have discussed this over many beers with friends in the PAF before the accident happened. The big discussion back then was the CASA that went down at Miroslawiec. No lessons learned out of that tragic accident is just inexcusable. I'm not alone in my thinking on that... all the usual excuses came up, no time, no money, the problem has already been dealt with by firing a couple of guys.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
2 Aug 2011 #235
Did you read the report? The Yak was never cleared to land, did so anyway, and the controller made the compliment.

What page was this on?

Because this has been an operation that has been planned out for a long time by the FSB and we were planted on this forum years ago to make sure that there is no dissent towards the official Russian/Polish findings....ooops, let it slip!

Well I wouldn't go that far lol, but it is true Russians and the Russian diaspora monitor Polish, Ukrainian and other websites pertinent to Russia.

I just wounder why so many foreigners are interested in convincing everyone that the Smolensk Crash was a fault of the pilot.

EXACTLY!!! What is up with that INTENSITY of theirs?? It seems very peculiar.

Some of these guys (especially one individual) fight tooth and nail to defend Russia on this topic like their lives depends on it. It makes you wonder. Some of these guys even make token anti-Russian comments and then go to extremes criticizing and finding fault with the Polish pilots and even regurgitating old early Russian propaganda lines about "pressure put on Polish pilots by other Poles".

Remember when these same Russia supporters were talking about the Russian talking point about "Drunk pilots" or "Drunk Pole pressuring the pilot"? It turns out, the Russian autopsy showed there was alchohol in the guy's body but it was tested OVER 24 hours after he was found dead. They conveniently forgot to mention that many times a corpse creates alcohol naturally especially after 24 hours.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,771
2 Aug 2011 #236
Well I wouldn't go that far lol, but it is true Russians and the Russian diaspora monitor Polish, Ukrainian and other websites pertinent to Russia.

They do?

Any evidence? You know, real evidence that suggests that Russians actively monitor websites, and for what purpose.

(incidentally - you do realise that Echleon is far more scary than anything the Russians could come up with?)

EXACTLY!!! What is up with that INTENSITY of theirs?? It seems very peculiar.

Perhaps, just maybe, we have an interest in the subject? I live here, I saw the aftermath of 10.04 first hand when in the city centre - kinda natural to be interested in such a thing, no?

Some of these guys (especially one individual) fight tooth and nail to defend Russia on this topic like their lives depends on it.

Actually - everyone sane on this thread has already said "yup, Russians made mistakes" and moved on from the topic. There's not much to say about them - everything is in the report.

Incidentally, what do you know about sterile cockpit rules? While it's a cruel twist of fate that Blasik was the only one that appeared to be able to read an altimeter correctly, he still shouldn't have been there and could very well have influenced the accident. Unless of course, you wish to claim that the commander wouldn't have been influenced by the possibility of getting a lot of credit from the "big boss".

Tell you what though MediaWatch - can you find me a valid reason why the commander of the plane went below minimums?
f stop 25 | 2,513
2 Aug 2011 #237
Every aviation accident is widely discussed all over the international aviation community, since often we share the same equipment, airports and planes.
BTW, at my company I passed around the pictures and translated the legend for the Russian autopilot that was on the TU-154 to our pilots, and we all learned something.

Yes, the conditions at the Smolensk airport were pretty primitive, that's why the lack of preparation by the Polish crew, or trying to land in the fog, was so much more damning.

The ones that can separate the business of flying a plane from cantankerous Polish-Russian history and politics, know what happened now. Agencies of both countries got their recommendations. I hope they follow them, and the conspiracy theorists - you just carry on, embarrassing yourselves.

BTW, if you look, I'm sure you can find like minded people on the internet and save everyone, including yourselves, a lot of time and aggravation here.
skysoulmate 14 | 1,297
2 Aug 2011 #238
MONIA:
You together with Delphiandomine have to acknowledge the fact , that the Russians have committed just as many unforgivable mistakes, it is difficult for you , as you are both Russians to accept this painful truth.

Say what??? I'm a Russian??? Where did that come from?!? Obviously you haven't read any of my previous posts. I don't know how many times I've been told, here on PF, that I can't be unbiased because my distaste for the Russians is so obvious. Yet now I AM a Russian?? Go figure...

I've never, ever claimed that the pilots were the only ones who made mistakes, from early on I specified the numerous mistakes the Russian ATC made, I wrote about the sloppy and biased investigation of the Russian authorities. I early said that making Putin the top guy of the investigating commission was a slap in every Poles' face, a person who graduated from the murderous KGB, the same organization that murdered all those Poles in Katyń, including a relative on my mom's side, was now in charge of this investigation, wrong and shameful.

You somehow pick one sentence of numerous posts I've written on this subject and totally disregard everything else I've said. Then when you decide the factors I bring up do not correspond with your beliefs I'm all of a sudden turning into a Russian??

I've been polite toward you, I've asked question when I wasn't sure what you meant, I've given you the benefit of the doubt when other people called you names yet all you can do is insult me? ...and yes, to me that is an insult.

You don't know sh&@t about aviation, several of us here do and we've been trying to show our perspective on this subject, you don't believe us, fine, other aviation links have been provided for you and others on this site, websites where hundreds of pilots are basically agreeing on this subject. Still not good enough.

You've no f@&cling idea how hard it is to attend a fellow pilot's funeral, how hard it is to look at his kids and the widow who's clinging on to the casket, I've been to my share of funerals. We have an obligation to each other to make sure mistakes made by crews become lessons to other crews. All pilots know that and that's why investigations are so important. Yet you cherry pick certain sentences from the dozens or so posts I've made on this subject and resort to calling me a Russian? Where the hell did that come from??? Does disagreeing with you make me a Russian? I have to say that this is the weirdest response I've gotten here on PF since joining it in 2009.
JonnyM 11 | 2,621
2 Aug 2011 #239
You know nothing about Criminal Procedure Law , so don`t comment on that .

Evidently a little more than you, if you think (as you've said before) that the Polish legal system has jurisdiction overseas.

The saddest thing in all this is that you are trying to turn a tragedy caused by errors by the Polish flight crew into an international matter, shifting the blame onto a neighbouring country which you dislike. Even though that country has behaved in a dignified - even exemplary fashion in this whole sad matter.
skysoulmate 14 | 1,297
2 Aug 2011 #240
Seanus
An international team of experts needs to be assembled. It's as simple as that. Then neither MAK or the Polish side will be able to turn this into a circus.

You're absolutely correct and that is exactly what I said had to be done within days of the accident. I said that due to the mutual distrust between the two nations an international team of investigators should be assembled by the Russians. If not there would always be a plethora of conspiracies, and you know that area seanus better than I do (sorry, couldn't resist ;).

At this point however it's too late...

MONIA:
You have to know their roots, it seems to me they are all Russians : Delph, Sky ( I heard someone said to him Michaił ) , Sasha .

Show me one ******* post when someone calls me Michaił, just one!!! You can call me a communist, you can call me a nazi, you can call me the devil himself but don't fuckung call me a Russian you narrow-minded moron, knock off your dumbness...

Ironside:
I just wounder why so many foreigners are interested in convincing everyone that the Smolensk Crash was a fault of the pilot

I hope you don't include me in your assertion. I've said all along that all sides made mistakes BUT as always it is the captain or the commander who's in charge of the flight. There are many issues involved and we can discuss it if you want or let it be and agree to disagree. However, the notion of someone being labeled a Russian aka a traitor just because he dared to look at the accident from the perspective of a pilot is a total bs. If I was one of few who disagreed it'd be one thing but the pilot boards show almost unanimous agreement, I've been a member of these message boards for years and know personally many of the pilots on there. None of them is a Russian and neither am I.

MW:
Where in the transcripts is there evidence of a supervisor putting pressure on the captain?

Didn't see my name next to it so I missed your quote & question. 抱歉
Blasik was in the cockpit according to cvr transcripts, are you saying he wasn't? Why was he there? I don't know of a single pilot who doesn't feel stressed and pressured when a superior sits in the observer's seat. That seat is used for check-rides, line checks, proficiency checks, etc. It's a "stress seat" if you so will and unless used for training, retraining, etc. is usually empty. A supervisor merely sitting in it is indeed putting a pressure on the entire crew. If you make a minor mistake the observer will catch it before you do; the extra stress is why instructors try to stay away from that seat unless they have to utilize them for training.

The irony is that many of us seem to agree yet we keep arguing. Monia said that she supported the Polish report and so do I so why am I being called a Russian for agreeing with a commission that puts the blame on both the pilots and the ATC?


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.