Originally Posted by
SadPole
Boring misrepresentation. He says "It's what they say" and he means "It's what they[the crew] say[in the cockpit]". (See transcript 10:03:22). But, you cannot even figure it out and assume that "they" means overheard hearsay and you twist your translation that way. One might say you were a little "biased" or something.
I am looking at the transcript:
http://g.infor.pl/p/_wspolne/pliki/2...4_m_213866.pdf and don't see anything at 10:03:22 nor anywhere else where such words would be heard. Plus, you may try to convince non-Polish speakers that that's the translation - but for all of the Poles speaking the language phrase "That's what they say" means what PEOPLE not CREW say, so stuck your misinformation accusations elsewhere and don't accuse me of misinterpretation. Make your mind at last where is the proof of Blasik reporting readiness and denial of PIC to conduct the flight: transcript, CCTV recording or 'common knowledge' that's nowhere to be confirmed.
It's EXTREMELY relevant because if they have issues with alternate airport choices then perhaps they should resolve them BEFORE flight plan is made, before boarding the plane and not run all around the cockpit during flight as was the norm with Kaczynskis on board. See Kaczynski interview again for details.
It's not relevant to the case of accident. It might be relevant to point out that preparations were made improperly, or the flight shouldn't go without this info - but it's not relevant to the accident! The pilot's intention was to try to land and if not possible to divert. You suggest that because of lack of preselected alternate they had to land in Smolensk.
He was not just a pilot, he was the commander of the 36th Air Regiment for over 12 years and, lost no planes. At that time, it was also assumed that the commander of that Regiment was the best pilot, whose duties also included flying the President on important missions, which he did. Afterwards, they increasingly preferred political appointees as commanders with almost zero experience, which he discusses in detail.
I am sure that in PAF there are many things being screwed and messed up - but this is irrelevant as direct cause of the accident and it's easy for him to blame events that happen 11 years after his departure - I repeat again - that's nothing more than trying to earn capital by pretending 'insider' knowledge and saying things that will easily sell to people like you.
What's more, he contradicts himself saying in same part of an interviev:
- he was not allowed to even start the descent from cruise height over Belarus on hearing the met info
- and in next sentence he says that he mustn't have descended below 100m
- in almost every sentence he uses 'probably', 'maybe', the pilot 'idled' and was not capable of performing any actions
I need to congratulate you on the selection of 'experts' you are having to support your misleading job on this forum.
Now, what is interesting, he never liked Kaczynskis because they canned him for some never determined improprieties as seems to be the re-occurring scheme for them. Someone does not kiss their ass, he must be a Russian agent or something, they smear him, destroy him, and at the end this proves to be yet another Kaczynski fantasy (See Doctor G., Blida stories and many others).
As pointed out by ARRAKIS already, Kaczynski stopped being the head of NIK in 1995, way before the colonel stepped down from the squadron lead. In your fury against Kaczynski you even start mixing people and treating them as one person: Ziobro, Kaczynski #1, Kaczynski #2 etc - indeed I am impressed by your persistence!