The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 682

Polish President Lech Kaczynski and gov officials die in a plane crash in Russia


convex 20 | 3,978
1 Jan 2011 #571
Same thing as any other news story, wait and see what comes out of it and shape your opinions based on what you believe.
noreenb 7 | 557
1 Jan 2011 #572
One of the commentators on Polsat News (I guess) found 12 causes of the tragedy. Till the moment people will feel they want to discuss about it remember it, the topic will not disappear. It still warms up people's emotions. At in my opinion it's good, because (among many reasons) it still has a strength to join people somehow. I still like to listen (well, really, I do) about Smoleńsk. I think, AdamKadmon, that it's not a proper time for "forgetting" about event which has changed so much in our country and its people.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
1 Jan 2011 #573
According to the Polish prime minister, the MAK report in the current shape is unacceptable but Poland agrees with many of it's findings. Russians promissed to answer all Polish questions. There is no time limit specified for their reply however."

I think the factors that are being clarified now, are the ones that could have prompted induced pilot error.
rychlik 41 | 373
1 Jan 2011 #574
CNN says 4 people died. A lot were seriously injured.
Wiedzmin_fan - | 79
1 Jan 2011 #575
I think the factors that are being clarified now, are the ones that could have prompted induced pilot error.

I've looked at Russian aviation forums, and one of the problems has to do with classification of flight as military or civilian. if it was a civilian flight, they couldn't have ordered to abort it (but then there are other rules that were broken regarding accepting civilian flights in a military airfield); if it's was a military flight, then the ground technically could have ordered to abort (or had the authority to do so, anyway), but then they have to disclose the [military] guidelines on weather minimums and so on, and they are technically top secret, so the chicago convention doesn't apply. It's a right mess, really.
wildrover 98 | 4,451
1 Jan 2011 #576
CNN says 4 people died. A lot were seriously injured.

Its possible the death toll will go up then...
Velund 1 | 476
2 Jan 2011 #577
Three dead as of 8pm, Jan 1.

itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15833506&PageNum=0

_Very_ strange explosion. I will not be surprised if they will find proofs of sabotage .
Happymeal 7 | 35
2 Jan 2011 #578
Russia orders halt to Tu-154B flights

cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/02/russia-plane-fire.html

Russian transport officials ordered the country's airlines on Sunday to stop using Tu-154B aircraft while they try to determine why one of the planes caught fire on a Siberian runway, killing three people.

Tupolev Tu-154 - Incidents and accidents
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-154
MediaWatch 10 | 945
3 Jan 2011 #579
[quote=Happymeal]Russia orders halt to Tu-154B flights

Russian transport officials ordered the country's airlines on Sunday to stop using Tu-154B aircraft while they try to determine why one of the planes caught fire on a Siberian runway, killing three people.

Tupolev Tu-154 - Incidents and accidents

OK I'll go out on a limb here and say, maybe there is a problem with this Tupolev Tu-154 airplane?

All these accidents and catastrophes happening with this airplane can't all be coincidences.
wildrover 98 | 4,451
3 Jan 2011 #580
All these accidents and catastrophes happening with this airplane can't all be coincidences.

The Tu 154 actually has a good record in terms of the number of aircraft built , it compares well with any other western aircraft of this type...

Many of the accidents that have involved this aircraft have been due to the fact that it very often operates in countries where weather conditions make flying dangerous , some have been shot down in countries where a conflict has been going on....

You won,t find many accidents where the cause has been some mechanical failure of the aircraft...

It is however quite an old aircraft now , and most airlines using them are replacing them with more up to date machines...

There have been 39 fatal accidents involving this aircraft type....most of them not caused by any malfunction of the aircraft...
MediaWatch 10 | 945
3 Jan 2011 #581
Well with this recent plane problem, if it wasn't shot at and didn't have mechanical failure, what was the cause of the problem?
wildrover 98 | 4,451
3 Jan 2011 #582
This latest incident looks like an engine failure , unless it was something weird like sabotage ...?

Even Rolls Royce have engine failures sometimes.. Its a bit strange that the aircraft exploded in flames so quickly though , the engines are all in the tail section , and the fuel tanks are in the wings and center section , you would have thought it would have taken a bit longer for the whole aircraft to become a fireball...?
convex 20 | 3,978
3 Jan 2011 #583
you would have thought it would have taken a bit longer for the whole aircraft to become a fireball...?

There was one that went up in Birmingham a good while back, killed half the people on the plane without getting off the ground, no crash or anything.

I've looked at Russian aviation forums, and one of the problems has to do with classification of flight as military or civilian.

Yup, that's still in question, and that affects the type of approach. But, if the transcripts are true, the crew knew exactly what kind of approach they were on and flew it into the ground. The root cause would still be controlled flight into terrain due to pilot error. They knew they were below MDH or MDA, depending on the type of approach. The second that they knowingly descended past DH/DA, they were 100% at fault. That's just how it goes.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
3 Jan 2011 #584
Yeah that's if those transcripts are true.

Its interesting that the Russian report was rejected and that 148 pages of questions were submitted back to the Russian side.

I mean, 148 pages??? Goodness.
convex 20 | 3,978
3 Jan 2011 #585
Its interesting that the Russian report was rejected and that 148 pages of questions were submitted back to the Russian side.

There were questions open for a while about whether the flight was a military of civ flight. I think it's more in the details, haven't heard anything about the root cause of the crash being questioned. I would guess that there is some debate on the contributing factors. Remember that those 148 aren't just questions, but supporting materials. I think if there was a question about the authenticity of the transcripts, we'd already have seen ambassadors recalled and a mobilization of the military.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
3 Jan 2011 #586
I don't believe so.

To their credit, the Russian PEOPLE (not goverment) showed genuine sympathy to Poland when Poland was at its lowest moment back in April. This was never lost on the Polish public and even the Polish diaspora including myself. Hence, I have always had mixed feeling about this whole thing.

So in essence the Polish authorities are walking on egg shells to be as diplomatic as possible about their findings that counter what the Russian authorities (Government) have found in this investigation.

Whatever criticisms the Polish Authorities have about this investigation, I believe its being presented as best as possible and in the context, so that hopefully Poland-Russian relations can continue to improve.

I believe the Polish authorities are trying to have the Russian authorties conceed some points while not making Russia lose face.

Its a delicate thing to say the least. The Polish investigators/Government are walking on egg shells and understandably so.

If the Polish criticisms of the Russian investigation were minor details, why would they be so secretive about their criticisms? By definition, minor criticisms and supporting materials as you say, should be no big deal. Right?

I believe that in general, Poland and Russia want to continue improving their relationship and this improving relationship could be jeopardized if Polish criticisms are not presented the right way.

Wouldn't you agree that improving Poland-Russian relations is at least on some level on both the investigating Polish and Russian authorities' mind's?
convex 20 | 3,978
3 Jan 2011 #587
If the Polish criticisms of the Russian investigation were minor details, why would they be so secretive about their criticisms? By definition, minor criticisms and supporting materials as you say, should be no big deal. Right?

That's usually how it works. It's just protocol to remain quiet and offer the other investigating party a chance to make changes before making it public. There's some scuttlebutt floating around mentioning that the primary issues are with the status of the flight, and with how the controller conducted himself during the approach. Root cause is apparently agreed on...but, we won't know until they make it public...
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
3 Jan 2011 #588
OK I'll go out on a limb here and say, maybe there is a problem with this Tupolev Tu-154 airplane?

Bear in mind that the TU-154B and TU-154M are different variants, and on top, the Polish one had been totally overhauled in recent months.

You also have to consider what the TU-154 base model was designed for - for operating into difficult conditions throughout the Soviet Union - so it's understandable that we'd see accidents. They're also now being operated by smaller operators - so it does make sense that accidents are now happening more and more.

You see the same thing with the A300 - a glut of accidents towards the end of the last decade.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
4 Jan 2011 #589
That's usually how it works. It's just protocol to remain quiet and offer the other investigating party a chance to make changes before making it public. There's some scuttlebutt floating around mentioning that the primary issues are with the status of the flight, and with how the controller conducted himself during the approach. Root cause is apparently agreed on...but, we won't know until they make it public...

Where are you getting this scuttlebutt information from?

. There's some scuttlebutt floating around mentioning that the primary issues are with the status of the flight, and with how the controller conducted himself during the approach. ...

What questions are they asking about how the controller conducted himself during the approach?
Stu 12 | 522
4 Jan 2011 #590
What questions are they asking about how the controller conducted himself during the approach?

Didn't he urge them not to land? And didn't the pilot decide to go against the controller's advice (he obviously did cause he crashed the plane into the ground)? Or did I miss something? As long as there is no hard evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that it was a simple matter of CFIT. A phenomenon which is (unfortunately) no exception and which happens even to the best pilots (especially in fog, or at night and without the aid of "modern" instruments).
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
4 Jan 2011 #591
What questions are they asking about how the controller conducted himself during the approach?

We don't know. We have to wait for the report, like I've been saying all along.

Didn't he urge them not to land? And didn't the pilot decide to go against the controller's advice (he obviously did cause he crashed the plane into the ground)? Or did I miss something? As long as there is no hard evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that it was a simple matter of CFIT.

The controller at Smolensk-North told them quite clearly that "conditions for acceptance : none". The weather reports (including from CNN, which I saw a couple of hours after the crash) quite clearly indicate dreadful conditions there at the time. Where's convex when you need someone to explain how weather can change in an instant?

If anything, the Russians should be blamed for not closing the airport. But can you blame them, when they were dealing with a flight with a President that would use absolutely any opportunity to attack them?
convex 20 | 3,978
4 Jan 2011 #592
Where are you getting this scuttlebutt information from?

Aviation forums.

What questions are they asking about how the controller conducted himself during the approach?

Phraseology during the approach.

If anything, the Russians should be blamed for not closing the airport.

They were never cleared to land. They were cleared for the approach which should have ended about 100m before it did. The Polish crew, based on the transcripts, knew they were descending below minimums and never reported the runway in sight.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
4 Jan 2011 #593
I suppose it all comes down to this in the end -

Are the transcripts genuine? No? Then the fog clearly seen at the crash site is a fabrication, and with it, the videos shot in the immediate aftermath. That means that any footage of Russians killing Poles is false.

Are the transcripts genuine? Yes? Then they put the plane into the ground beyond all reasonable doubt.

My feeling is that Poland is questioning certain aspects of the investigation report, rather than the contents of the report itself. Komorowski wouldn't have came out and said that the pilots were to blame unless they really were, after all.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
4 Jan 2011 #594
Didn't he urge them not to land?

That's what they say the transcripts say, which have questionable integrity. Especially when you have unexplained gaps in the transcripts.

Isn't one of the issues brought up recently by the Polish side, was that the air controllers should have told them to land somewhere else? Why would they say that if the air controllers did urge them not to land?

Also, Pilot error doesn't necessarily mean its the pilot's fault if its induced pilot error. Just like someone driving a car who suddenly veers away from a deer charging in the road and crashes on the side of the road can't be totally blamed even if the driver error is technically his fault.

Also does that CFIT syndrome you talk about have to do with sudden whether/fog changing conditions?

Fog conditions that could be created by this?
youtube.com/watch?v=LQF8hsitxvY
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
4 Jan 2011 #595
Especially when you have unexplained gaps in the transcripts.

What unexplained gaps?

Isn't one of the issues brought up recently by the Polish side, was that the air controllers should have told them to land somewhere else?

Nope, no such issue here. As convex says - they were cleared down to 100m and should never have gone below that. The fact that they even tried an approach after being told that the airport couldn't accept them - well, that's a huge question.

The problem is that the controller didn't close the airport. I suspect that the Poles will be looking to attribute some blame in the direction of the airport staff for this - but really, the Russians didn't force the plane into making a landing.

Some blame should almost certainly be laid at the feet of the Yak pilots for landing the plane without permission - this was obviously playing on the mind of the pilots at the time.

Also, Pilot error doesn't necessarily mean its the pilot's fault if its induced pilot error. Just like someone driving a car who suddenly veers away from a deer charging in the road and crashes on the side of the road can't be totally blamed even if the driver error is technically his fault.

Induced pilot error? All he had to do was pull up after reaching the decision height. In fact, he should have started the maneuver at about 150m or so - his failure to do so is what caused the crash. Tell me - what would have prevented him from doing this?

But yes, it's possible that the fog caused the captain to become disorientated - in a situation of high stress, with seconds between safety and disaster, it's far too easy to happen. Haven't you ever found yourself veering to the side of the road when driving in fog?

Fog conditions that could be created by this?

Could be - but if so, why attempt a landing when they were already told by the Yak pilots that the conditions were dreadful? The Yak pilots haven't denied having this conversation.

Tell me, MediaWatch - are you going to accept the authority of the Polish investigators when they release their report?
MediaWatch 10 | 945
4 Jan 2011 #596
What unexplained gaps??

The ones I already talked about:

Referenced in townhall.com article:

Meanwhile, writing in the Polish newspaper Nasz Dziennik, some Polish pilots have challenged the authenticity of the recordings. Among other aeronautical reasons, they cited the length of the transcript, which appears to exceed the 30-minute capacity of a black box tape. The pilots also noted the transcript is missing the signature of the sole Polish expert involved. Further, Polish Radio RMF has reported that one of the Russian-made black-box recordings contains a 16-second gap.

townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2010/08/13/polish_plane_crash_investigation_under_suspicion/page/1

Tell me, MediaWatch - are you going to accept the authority of the Polish investigators when they release their report?

Tell me delphiandomine,

Why is this investigation and its outcome so important to you?

This one topic seems to be the most important topic to you on this forum.

What dog do you have in this hunt? So to speak.

You sound like you have some kind of bet on the outcome of this investigation and you bet the house that Russia will be 100% innocent and the Polish pilot will be 100% guilty of this tragedy.
convex 20 | 3,978
4 Jan 2011 #597
It will be interesting to read the report. The Yak crew on the ground was in contact with 101 during the arrival and the approach. ATC suggested a diversion and informed the crew of the Il's attempts to land. The controller (and the Yak crew) at the field informed the crew of the conditions.

Also, Pilot error doesn't necessarily mean its the pilot's fault if its induced pilot error.

Sure it does. The pilot error in this case was knowingly descending past minimums (with the AP engaged), as well as ignoring TAWS. The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and passengers at all times, this is no exception. For instance, if TCAS starts screaming at you that another aircraft is closing in, you don't need permission to change altitude or heading, you just do it. Same goes for an approach in minimums. The controller will not tell the pilot to break off an approach, it is expected that they will call minimums and go missed.

Also does that CFIT syndrome you talk about have to do with sudden whether/fog changing conditions?

Mostly it's lack of situational awareness due to pilot error. Changing weather conditions shouldn't be an issue on an approach like that. You reach minimums, and you go missed. The fog was already known (as relayed from the Yak crew, and the controller). According to the transcripts, they never made visual contact with the runway, but went below minimums anyway. Trying to dip below and "take a peek" is a fairly common way to die on an approach. It's also a good way to get down through that last illegal 20m and land the aircraft.

If you don't believe the transcripts are authentic, then there's nothing to analyze and it just turns into mass conspiracy with endless vague theories that can't be analyzed due to lack of evidence.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
5 Jan 2011 #598
I've explained this a thousand times, but for the last time.

Nasz Dziennik is well known to make up complete nonsense for political purposes - it's not regarded as serious journalism by anyone in Europe as a whole. It's a tabloid, on the level of the National Enquirer - except with a "Catholic" slant designed to cater for the uneducated and easily brainwashed.

But to give you some idea - the 30 minute capacity isn't the capacity of the tape, but rather what international agreements have agreed upon for civilian flights. Given that the TU-154M was being used for VIP transport for the highest officials in the land, it's obviously going to be specified to a far higher standard than civilian aviation.

As for RMF - it's a single source. RMF is credible enough, but they could just have been reporting whatever they were told. The Smolensk report will clear this one up for definite, though - as the Polish black box will collaborate the Russian-made boxes.

Why is this investigation and its outcome so important to you?

I'm keenly interested in aviation - and I saw post-Smolensk reaction for myself.

You sound like you have some kind of bet on the outcome of this investigation and you bet the house that Russia will be 100% innocent and the Polish pilot will be 100% guilty of this tragedy.

What else can he be, if he ignored the rules and the plane crashed as a result?

You still haven't answered my question - will you accept the authority of the Polish investigators?
MediaWatch 10 | 945
5 Jan 2011 #599
I have been told that the Polish government's disagreements with the Russian report were basically minor things.

If this is true, why is it being reported that the Polish side is having a CHANGE OF STANCE on the work of the Russian investigators? Based on MINOR disagreements??

"The Polish comments to the report amount to over 150 pages, which clearly shows a change of stance on the work of the Russian investigators," the lawyer added.

en.rian.ru/world/20110103/162037827.html
Harry
5 Jan 2011 #600
the Polish pilot will be 100% guilty of this tragedy.

Which is somewhat of a problem, given that the pilot was only following orders. Although with that said, the Nuremberg defence is now defence.


Home / News / Polish President Lech Kaczynski and gov officials die in a plane crash in Russia
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.