RegDep
Would there be any chance for us to have the sequence(s) of the transcript?
In the MAK transcript at 10:30:45 the FO says: 'The worst thing is that there's a hole, there are clouds and the fog's appeared'
Now, in Poland this has been interpeted either as a general remark as to the location of the airfield itself, or as a reference to the ravine on the approach (obviously each side of the table picks its own interpetation...) I seem to recall from somewhere a note that during the preflight talks, someone was mentioning the ravine expressedly, but I couldn't find any transcripts of the preflight discussions so I may be wrong.
@
BOAC
Either way the approach was not flown properly and that ultimately is down to the person with hands on the controls - and the Captain.
Despite all the other 'bits' there was ultimately one person only who crashed this a/c. I'm afraid you will have to accept that.
Surely you may be right and obviously it's hard to separate political beliefs from practical and cold approach (especially if you're a Pole - we do have it in our blood), but I'd like this case to be properly explained. It's been political from very beginning, and those were the Russians trying to cover for their faults and playing for the public in a really nasty way. Let me just recap what's been historically said:
1) Just after the accident it was said that certainly the late president was influencing the landing and forcing it as it's been the case in Georgia incident.
2) Later, after tapes were read it couldn't be proven that it was a direct influence, so 'psychological' analysis was done to convince everyone that it was the case
3) Later it was said that there was a Polish general under influence of alcohol in the cabin and this was published at a MAK conference along with the voice recordings of the flight to the very end, with all the screams after the strike which I think is not a common practice in the aviation world (sometimes even the transcripts are edited, not mentioning publication of the CVR)
4) Now, from the Polish investigation, it appears that not only there were no attempts to influence the decision, but also a g/a was initiated at a proper height (initiated by the crew, the ATC ordered a g/a a lot later). It has not been successful due to, as it seems at the moment, using the autopilot without the ILS present - but that will be explained in Polish report probably (see the trials of the second Tu at:
?wiczenia TU-154M nr 102 nad Wroc?awiem. 16.01.2011 r. :: Kontakt 24)
So, surely the pilot will take most of the blame and it's not the question of the percentages of blame here, however there's never a single link in the chain and MAK didn't do the proper job to explain the accident in my opinion.
One thing that I don't understand is that it's being said now that the g/a was done improperly, as it couldn't work at all without ILS. However, from the trajectory of flight I remember that the a/c actually was rising already when it hit the first tree, so somehow finally the landing was aborted - it's the puzzle I am still missing as to the final moments - as I'd understand it, if g/a is initiated improperly then the aircraft trajectory wouldn't change and it would simply fly into ground - yet it seems it started to raise in final seconds...