To make it clear from the beginning, dear Sadpole, i´m answering to your post for the benifit of other readers, because it seems to be sensless to answer to you with knowledge, insight and facts. You either dont see the reality, or you dont want to see it.
I even think now, that you are a politician or you are on the payroll of one. You act like one in an election process trying to attract votes. They also talk a lot, hear nothing and forget everything five minutes later.
The whole point is, the crew was NOT allowed to make their own decisions and thus command the plane within their own skill and safety limits. How was anybody from outside the plane supposed to prevent that???
The crew was not forced to crash their aircraft and kill the passeengers all along with themselves. Their own lacking skills killed them.
You are still saying there is no proof of it? Let's look at the transcript.
10:03:12 to 10:04:04 – The crew discusses the issue how general Blasik works so hard to get that extra star and assignment in NATO. How does he "work hard" during trip to Smolensk?
That is a global saying in ther meaning of "he has an aim to acchieve something and he works very hard for it".
It has nothing at all to do with the situation on board 101 at that very moment.
Then, on the same breath one of the crew says:
10:04:11 It will be a… massacre. We won't be able to see anything.
Soldier Talk. It has nothing to do with the real massacre that happened moments later. It only expresses the assumption, that they probably will not be able to land out of it. But that does make the approach neither unsafe nor illegal.
An elegant proof, would you say, of following:
1. That the crew knew about fog before leaving
it does´not matter even if they knew. The aircraft also flies in fog and clouds, in thunderstorms and in crosswinds. It is not made out of sugar or quits when it sees fog. As mentioned before, weather forecast and actual weather, ground visibility and inflight visibbility are not the same. The whole aviation functions like thatnd uses weather forecasts as an information for planning, not for inhibiting flying at all, nothing new there.
2. That the crew saw it as a suicide mission
That is your point of view, which suits your overall aim, but has nothing to do with reality and nothing to do with facts. Even in wartime there would be no suicide mission ordered nor followed. As a soldier you always calculate your risk and look, wether you can handle it.
3. That it was not their own idea
To fly there? sure not. It was an order. Would be totally knew to me that soldiers can fly around on their own ideas.
4. They did not like their predicament
That depends on what is seen as their predicament. To fly there and do an approach, either land out of it or go around and go to the alternate or home again is normal business for a aircrew. Why should they not like it? Well there are missions of more or less fun, maybe that one promised less fun than others.
But, please feel free to tell me what else that conversation means. Take your time. Come up with absolutely best spin possible.
I did and it was no hard work for me, also it is sensless, because you are repeating yourself again and again like a broken CD.
Afterwards, after contact with Minsk,
10:11:01 Well, I can see earth… Can see something… Maybe it won't be a tragedy.
Again Pilot talk. The weather looks better down there now, may be it will not be difficult at all to land. That is my interpretation.
What exact proof would you accept short of HD video of someone holding a gun to the pilot's head????
I know how it would have happened in reality.
General comes in the cockpit and says: Dear friend, the president has to land there by all means, so you bring that bird down on the ground asap in one piece and dont tell me that it is not possible.......
Soldiers and especially Generals with subordinate soldiers prefer a clear and understandable language, they give orders and dont talk in lyrics or secrets free to different interpretations.
Now show me this order on the CVR and i believe you.
RetiredF4:
Quote:
.......... Soldiers are trained to cope with those issues. But that does not make them suicidal pilots on command in peacetime.
Quote SadPole
While indeed ordering soldiers into harm's way in wartime is indeed part of war, last time I checked we were not in war with Russia, and they were not delivering some critical bomb-load through fog to avoid anti-aircraft fire, so I really don't know how that applies here.
Exactly my point. Soldiers know when they are at war and when they have to act close to being suicidal, but not in peacetime, neither as general nor as aircrew.
While general Blasik or "main passenger" could be seen as within their rights to risk their own life ordering pilots to do such crazy crap, they would be committing a crime volunteering some 90 unsuspecting people to go along with them on that mission and the crew committed a crime by following such orders – IF this is what happened – and I think this turn of events is probable enough, supported enough by clues and evidence, to be investigated FULLY.
They did´t ask any crazy crap, a fully qualified aircrew not doing a haystack full of mistakes together with a not up to the notch ATC on a junkyard airfield would have had no problems with the order (flying from A to B and doing an approach for the purpose of landing if possible or going around and do something different).
The mistakes killed them and the passengers, and you have to ask them how they developped, why nobody noticed them, and how to prevent them in future. In my opinion it points to a big leadership problem.
But those questions do not suit the aim of SadPole unfortunately, therefore he is not interested in them.
franzl