The weather itself is no contributing factor what so ever in this accident.
it comes in to play when judging, wether to begin the flight and later on to commence the approach down to the minimum made any sense at all. But again, it is not illegal to start an approach in this weather, so forget about it. Otherwise i would have been illegal a hundred times, and i was not and i still live like thousands other pilots who have done such approaches.
And every trained pilot should be able to handle it, if he sticks to the publihed and his personal limits.
So it makes no sense to misuse it for political pi**ingmatches.
SadPole
I understand your points. However, for example, all your points about ATCs would be 100% valid if both the crew and the ATC worked for the same team, trained the same procedures and were required to use them. None of these facts are true.
In aviation regardless if itīs civil or military there is no place for different interpretations of ATC-Aircrew interaction. There has to be general understanding of regulations and procedures for safe conduct of flight. If differences in the systems are present, both parties have to know about it beforehand and have to act accordingly. There is no excuse from either side, neither from PAF nor from Smolensk ATC if this understanding was not present.
What's more, the trip was sort of an "in-your-face" operation, and nobody on either side liked their predicament because it was first and foremost an idiotic pre-election dog and pony show, and Katyn was the excuse.
With those kinds of arguments u permanently disqualify your otherwise useful inputs. If you want to tell me, that the accident ould not have happened if that .......your words.......... political pony show would not have taken place, then i agree. but it is a nonsense statement, lets stop flying and the accident rate goes to zero.
Or in other words: 25% of the heavy car accidents in germany are caused by drunken drivers. That means, that 75% of them are caused by not drunken drivers. To really get the accident rate down, you have to get those "not drunken" idiots of the street and you reduce the accident rate by 75%.
As to proof of the other assertions - they are all around, both directly and in well documented past behavior - such as meddling with crew, strong arming the crew, or "fixing" the fog so otherwise illegal landing could take place. It's all well documented now.
Come on, llets talk about hard facts and not about some reported behaviour out of the past biased by political motives and journalistic sensationalism. You cannot build an accident investigation on such hear sayings.
And another point: The military is no "kindergarden". It is organized not like civil aviation, and it never will be. If the sh+t hits the fan, commanders have to send their people in harms way wether they like it or not. And any soldier knows about that from the beginning. Thatīs the way how the military command structure works and it is the same all over the world and definitely not much different in the countries on the north half of the globe. Soldiers are trained to cope with those issues. But that does not make them suicidal pilots on command in peacetime.
This thread turns out no more valuable information, because the screening of the facts with political biased fog takes place again and again.
Whats still in the blind is the complex of leadership and command in the polish airforce. Hereby i raise the question, how can it be, that a crew with not enough knowledge and not enough expierience is in command of the number one aircraft with high ranking people on board? Where did the expierienced pilots go, how could the training deteriorate that much and what has to be done to get the operation back on track.
What still bothers me is the question, how an closed airport can be o fully operational status within short time with everything fully operational in such a short time under civil rules (when i understand it correctly itīs what the MAK report says) or under military rules. In Germany this task would take a year and more only for work and checking.
What still bothers me is the question, wether a ATC controller can just leave his unit on place A, go to place B some 100 Km away and start to work there on the same level as he can do in his known environment?
Those are also points, where MAK report is very tight lipped in stating background and doing analysis of operational status.
franzl