Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Guest
Posts: n/a
1.17.8. Provisions of the Russian AIP
In compliance with Para 3.10 GEN 1-2.9 of the Russian AIP, foreign aircraft flying to airdromes not open for international flights should be escorted (led). As was mentioned in Section 1.1. the flight request supplied by the Polish Embassy in the Russian Federation contained a request for a navigator (leaderman). Further the Polish side refused the leaderman services.
In compliance with Para 3.10 GEN 1-2.9 of the Russian AIP, foreign aircraft flying to airdromes not open for international flights should be escorted (led). As was mentioned in Section 1.1. the flight request supplied by the Polish Embassy in the Russian Federation contained a request for a navigator (leaderman). Further the Polish side refused the leaderman services.
There was no navigator-leaderman on board the aircraft. According to the available information, after submitting the initial flight permission request the Polish side refused the leaderman services explaining that the crew had sufficient mastery of Russian.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
The specific complexities and CRM are secondary to the root cause of the crash. All other elements including the non precision approach, incorrect briefing (prior to landing) high sink rate etc all are rendered inconsequential IF the pilot exercises his command authority and adheres to recognized SOP and common sense at the critical moment. SadPole hits on the underlying complexity due to having both the President head of the Air Force on board. However as long as the PIC is strapped in the pointy end he is the aircraft commander and has both the authority and responsibility. My comment is about the root cause and responsibility...not the benefit of analysis for the sake of learning and safety.
All to often I think the root cause is somewhat hidden in the complexity of circumstance. If we look at recent crash in Lebanon the "real issues" are simple.
1) Do not pair low time (in type) captains and first officers
2) A lack of hand flying proficiency and insufficient unusual attitude training will kill you sooner or later if you fly enough.
3) Automatics aren't always automatic. Regardless of workload the "pilot flying" is just that...even if George is driving the bus.
At the end of the day if you take the aviator out of aviation you eventually get bent and broken aluminium...
The specific complexities and CRM are secondary to the root cause of the crash. All other elements including the non precision approach, incorrect briefing (prior to landing) high sink rate etc all are rendered inconsequential IF the pilot exercises his command authority and adheres to recognized SOP and common sense at the critical moment. SadPole hits on the underlying complexity due to having both the President head of the Air Force on board. However as long as the PIC is strapped in the pointy end he is the aircraft commander and has both the authority and responsibility. My comment is about the root cause and responsibility...not the benefit of analysis for the sake of learning and safety.
All to often I think the root cause is somewhat hidden in the complexity of circumstance. If we look at recent crash in Lebanon the "real issues" are simple.
1) Do not pair low time (in type) captains and first officers
2) A lack of hand flying proficiency and insufficient unusual attitude training will kill you sooner or later if you fly enough.
3) Automatics aren't always automatic. Regardless of workload the "pilot flying" is just that...even if George is driving the bus.
At the end of the day if you take the aviator out of aviation you eventually get bent and broken aluminium...
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report gives a lot of insight on the state of affairs at the Polish Air Force:
- the plane didn't have a valid C of A - so they took one from another airframe,
- the PIC was not current on his IMC landings - so he logged a near CAVOK landing as IMC,
- the PIC was apparently undergoing training at LOT - but his logbook shows he was in fact flying at the same time (or perhaps it is the logbook that is incorrect?).
- they didn't have an up to date FCOM,
- they didn't have 4 crew SOP,
Maybe these were not significant factors, but I think they show the attitude that prevailed. This approach is still very typical of many things run by the government in Poland. Disregard the rules - how likely is it you'll get caught?
The communication between the Tu and the Yak-40 - I would not be surprised if there was more than meets the eye there.
One thing makes me wonder about the report though - the Russians are very scrupulous in quoting the reference and date of all documents received from the Polish side regarding the flight prep - with the exception of the refulsal to have the navigator-leader. When did the Poles refuse? How was this communicated?
Regards,
Golf-Sierra
/Polish expat/
- the plane didn't have a valid C of A - so they took one from another airframe,
- the PIC was not current on his IMC landings - so he logged a near CAVOK landing as IMC,
- the PIC was apparently undergoing training at LOT - but his logbook shows he was in fact flying at the same time (or perhaps it is the logbook that is incorrect?).
- they didn't have an up to date FCOM,
- they didn't have 4 crew SOP,
Maybe these were not significant factors, but I think they show the attitude that prevailed. This approach is still very typical of many things run by the government in Poland. Disregard the rules - how likely is it you'll get caught?
The communication between the Tu and the Yak-40 - I would not be surprised if there was more than meets the eye there.
One thing makes me wonder about the report though - the Russians are very scrupulous in quoting the reference and date of all documents received from the Polish side regarding the flight prep - with the exception of the refulsal to have the navigator-leader. When did the Poles refuse? How was this communicated?
Regards,
Golf-Sierra
/Polish expat/
Originally Posted by Golf-Sierra
One thing makes me wonder about the report though - the Russians are very scrupulous in quoting the reference and date of all documents received from the Polish side regarding the flight prep - with the exception of the refulsal to have the navigator-leader. When did the Poles refuse? How was this communicated?
Sounds plausible ?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is Polish Sheet of Disageements published in russian. Don't know if it is available in english, but it's very interesting reading.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All to often I think the root cause is somewhat hidden in the complexity of circumstance.
I always find it odd that people choose to use the metaphor "root" because very very few plants have a single root. An individual plant has many roots, and in fact botanists speak of a individual plant having a "root system".
The complexities you mention don't "hide" the causes of the crash. They are indivisible from those causes.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'Root Cause' of this tragic accident is very simple. The authority of the Captain was compromised.
Many moons ago, I was a Flight Lieutenant passenger in an Army Air Corps Sioux helo. The pilot was a Corporal in the Catering Corps. Naturally, I deferred to him as the Captain of the aircraft.
A while later, as the Flight Lieutenant Captain of a Nimrod, we had our AOC on board. Yes, he who signed all our Flying Orders. He was a Navigator, so started the trip at the Nav station. Later in the sortie, on intercom, so the whole crew heard him, he asked my permission to visit the flight deck, thereby acknowledging that a junior officer Captain was in command. A memorable moment for all present; CRM in spades.
Many moons ago, I was a Flight Lieutenant passenger in an Army Air Corps Sioux helo. The pilot was a Corporal in the Catering Corps. Naturally, I deferred to him as the Captain of the aircraft.
A while later, as the Flight Lieutenant Captain of a Nimrod, we had our AOC on board. Yes, he who signed all our Flying Orders. He was a Navigator, so started the trip at the Nav station. Later in the sortie, on intercom, so the whole crew heard him, he asked my permission to visit the flight deck, thereby acknowledging that a junior officer Captain was in command. A memorable moment for all present; CRM in spades.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Causes of Crash
Oh, those are not quotes from the russian report on smolensk but are from the official report concerning the cfit crash of another polish military plane in 2008.
Is this astonishing analogy of pilots fuc** it up just coincidence?
* Improper flight crew selection for the flight
* Poor flight crew coordination and cooperation (poor MCC & CRM)
* Improper, lacking weather situation analysis performed by the PIC before the flight,
* The aircraft was improperly vectored to final approach ... which resulted in rushed, non-stabilized first approach, because the aircraft started descent on final approach segment being twice as high as glide slope.
* Altimeter indications were improperly interpreted by the flight crew,
* Both pilots concentrated their attention outside of the cockpit during final seconds before crash and did not scan flight instruments
* Poor flight crew coordination and cooperation (poor MCC & CRM)
* Improper, lacking weather situation analysis performed by the PIC before the flight,
* The aircraft was improperly vectored to final approach ... which resulted in rushed, non-stabilized first approach, because the aircraft started descent on final approach segment being twice as high as glide slope.
* Altimeter indications were improperly interpreted by the flight crew,
* Both pilots concentrated their attention outside of the cockpit during final seconds before crash and did not scan flight instruments
Is this astonishing analogy of pilots fuc** it up just coincidence?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the opinion of polish side, taking into the account not suitable condition and maintenance of airport, Tu-154M with HEAD (Liter "A") status shouldn't have obtained the permission for flight to Smolensk "Severny".
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 15th Jan 2011 at 12:38.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help wondering, even if they had decided to go around in time, how their plan to go around "v avtomate" would've worked out.
According to the report the go-around button is inhibited during a nonprecision approach like this one. And the time when the ground is closing in fast is not a good time to learn how to operate your plane, and which button does what when.
According to the report the go-around button is inhibited during a nonprecision approach like this one. And the time when the ground is closing in fast is not a good time to learn how to operate your plane, and which button does what when.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polish side, take in account not suitable condition and maintenance of airport, insist that Tu-154M with HEAD (Liter "A") status shouldn't have obtained the permission for flight to Smolensk "Severny".
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
criss, I read whole polish paper. It's even more funny - they make the resolution, that because (in their opinion) weather was worse minima at Yak-40 arrival already, ATC MUST been sent them to go around, then do the same to Il-76. THEN Tu-154 will take the order for go around seriously and ta-dam! all will be saved. 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kulverstukas, criss
That, unfortunately, is their whole "point", and this is why they hang onto that nonsense that it was all Russian-military procedure flight (where the pilot has to follow all orders and military ATC can order them to get lost) and not a civilian flight in accordance with international aviation rules, under which the pilot cannot be ordered by ATC not to land. Nobody at the right mind can imagine how that "by Russian military rules" cooperation would look like. I mean, by these rules the Russians could/should now court martial the Yak plane pilot that landed contrary to ATC recommendations/orders.
On top of it, they now want ICAO to arbitrate based on that nonsense. Meaning, ICAO now arbitrates over Russian military procedures??? I hope ICAO does not let itself be dragged into this nonsense and simply states that there is nothing to arbitrate about because if the flight was by ICAO rules, the pilots screwed up, if it was by military rules, ICAO is not a body to ask for arbitration. The only reason for this possible "arbitration" issue is playing that crap for the purposes of politics forever.
All I can say about it is what I said months ago here on this issue:
Note it hurts me (a Pole) to say that in an international forum, but this is least I can do to limit damage that is being done.
I read whole polish paper. It's even more funny - they make the resolution, that because (in their opinion) weather was worse minima at Yak-40 arrival already, ATC MUST been sent them to go around, then do the same to Il-76. THEN Tu-154 will take the order for go around seriously and ta-dam! all will be saved.
On top of it, they now want ICAO to arbitrate based on that nonsense. Meaning, ICAO now arbitrates over Russian military procedures??? I hope ICAO does not let itself be dragged into this nonsense and simply states that there is nothing to arbitrate about because if the flight was by ICAO rules, the pilots screwed up, if it was by military rules, ICAO is not a body to ask for arbitration. The only reason for this possible "arbitration" issue is playing that crap for the purposes of politics forever.
All I can say about it is what I said months ago here on this issue:
In a way, this catastrophe shows that Solidarity uprising was yet another vulgar Marxist revolution that put Polish "Forest Gumps" in charge. And yes, it is safe to say that these people are idiots and there will be hell to pay when everyone finally realizes that.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SadPole polish papers raise a lot of rigt questions about our (Russian) procedures and poor state of airport and staff. Also, how I put earlier, MAK report biased toward russian side a bit. Nonetheless, unfortunately it's nothing to do with this disaster. It' howewer, can make it bit worse but can't prevent it.
I read whole polish paper. It's even more funny - they make the resolution, that because (in their opinion) weather was worse minima at Yak-40 arrival already, ATC MUST been sent them to go around, then do the same to Il-76. THEN Tu-154 will take the order for go around seriously and ta-dam! all will be saved.
Regarding that document, I have the impression they spend too much time finding as much as possible, instead of concentrating on elements worth their attention and maybe relevant to the chain of events.
Arrakis
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kulverstukas
Well, I know all that, of course. BUT, everyone knew all along that Smolensk Severny was pretty much an abandoned military airport, not maintained properly. And yet, they insisted on flying there pretty much all the time because it made it convenient to do frequent political dog and pony shows at Katyn, and all.
So, pretty much they are now saying SOMEONE should have prevented them from flying there because the airport was not up to specs, did not have ILS, etc, etc.
But, the thing is, the reason they were allowed to fly there was that if they were not, they would scream that it was all for political reasons to prevent them from going to Katyn.
The ONLY good thing that can come out of it on both side is this:
Neither Russian ATC nor Polish pilots should have been pressured by any political considerations in doing their jobs. The old post Soviet culture (on both sides) makes both the pilots and the ATCs into insignificant pawns in the political game. They are not allowed to make decisions independently, on their own, without involvement of politicians.
The big "smoking gun" that they (polish politicians) are trying to drag out tomorrow is precisely that the pilots are not at fault because the ATC was supposedly not allowed to make his own decisions and the Russian politicians were involved in his decision process. For that purpose they say they will publish the recordings of conversations at the tower. They pretend they did not get the recordings from the MAC/IAC in spite of asking for them but nevertheless got them by other means.
So, here is what I say. The sane people on both sides can use this mess to free the professionals from politicians at least a little bit.
Well, I know all that, of course. BUT, everyone knew all along that Smolensk Severny was pretty much an abandoned military airport, not maintained properly. And yet, they insisted on flying there pretty much all the time because it made it convenient to do frequent political dog and pony shows at Katyn, and all.
So, pretty much they are now saying SOMEONE should have prevented them from flying there because the airport was not up to specs, did not have ILS, etc, etc.
But, the thing is, the reason they were allowed to fly there was that if they were not, they would scream that it was all for political reasons to prevent them from going to Katyn.
The ONLY good thing that can come out of it on both side is this:
Neither Russian ATC nor Polish pilots should have been pressured by any political considerations in doing their jobs. The old post Soviet culture (on both sides) makes both the pilots and the ATCs into insignificant pawns in the political game. They are not allowed to make decisions independently, on their own, without involvement of politicians.
The big "smoking gun" that they (polish politicians) are trying to drag out tomorrow is precisely that the pilots are not at fault because the ATC was supposedly not allowed to make his own decisions and the Russian politicians were involved in his decision process. For that purpose they say they will publish the recordings of conversations at the tower. They pretend they did not get the recordings from the MAC/IAC in spite of asking for them but nevertheless got them by other means.
So, here is what I say. The sane people on both sides can use this mess to free the professionals from politicians at least a little bit.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SadPole :
Pity copy of the Flight plan is not annexed in the report. The box "Type of Flight " would clear that up. I bet you it does not say "M" ( Military) and that it was a GAT flight plan and not an OAT/Military one.
Preparation of that flight plan seem to indicate ( again reading the report) that it was botched from the outset. (e.g selection of an alternate Aerodrome closed by Notam, no selection of APP type , etc. )
I have seen the same CIV/MIL confusion being played by the Germans after the loss of their Tu154 off the coast of Namibia. There the wrong flight plan payed a major role , but , even to that day the German air force still denies it.
they hang onto that nonsense that it was all Russian-military procedure flight [...]not a civilian flight in accordance with international aviation rules,
Preparation of that flight plan seem to indicate ( again reading the report) that it was botched from the outset. (e.g selection of an alternate Aerodrome closed by Notam, no selection of APP type , etc. )
I have seen the same CIV/MIL confusion being played by the Germans after the loss of their Tu154 off the coast of Namibia. There the wrong flight plan payed a major role , but , even to that day the German air force still denies it.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be no way for Polish Air Force plane to have been qualifying to Russian military airport rules. Even a military plane - it is not part of Russian Defense Ministry , how to say, planes and system. They are military alright - but not ours, and local Defense ministry rules are not for them. I don't know how is it , say, with Kazakhstan military planes? are there any? As they seem to be part of a small local military block here. Do they fall in our system, when visiting, I mean, can a military airport here command them to turn around?
No idea. I am sure though, many NATO country leaders arrive to Russia by own military planes, but to big int'l airports here, say, in Moscow or St. Petersburg, and I guess are dealt with there by rules of civil aviation, int'l ones. A Polish plane, part of NATO, can not arrive here in the capacity of "military" :o) Either as a civil aviation flight, or is it a raid on us? :o) on a war mission? :o)
Point 2 from me is still a bad feeling; either they should have minded all the rules, all organisers and those who carried out the flight, or then have agreed I don't know, somehow, that it is all very private and nobody minds any rules! In this case the Russian air controller would have shouted them to stop being suicidal and in strong expressions, and this would have given the Captain additional weight in refusing his passengers to land. Like, he would have said "not only me thinks this is un-wise, but the Russky shout here to go to a back-up airport, see?" That captain was nice and had difficulty saying "No", a help from the ground to him, an additional opinion, expressed in BIG NO unequivocal terms like "we tell you again - NO CONDITIONS FOR LANDING - CONFIRM YOUR UNDERSTOOD!" would be the most timely thing needed.
As it is now it is one side flies to sure death while our Russian side looks at it all in cool nerve and without expressive comments, like "crash if you wish". Naturally both sides feel kind of idiots after.
It is as in the old saying "For my friends - all, for the enemy - the law."
Here the Poles got "the law". But as they aren't enemies as a Russian I badly wish they got a violation of those rules. A big friendly shout violating whatever.
No idea. I am sure though, many NATO country leaders arrive to Russia by own military planes, but to big int'l airports here, say, in Moscow or St. Petersburg, and I guess are dealt with there by rules of civil aviation, int'l ones. A Polish plane, part of NATO, can not arrive here in the capacity of "military" :o) Either as a civil aviation flight, or is it a raid on us? :o) on a war mission? :o)
Point 2 from me is still a bad feeling; either they should have minded all the rules, all organisers and those who carried out the flight, or then have agreed I don't know, somehow, that it is all very private and nobody minds any rules! In this case the Russian air controller would have shouted them to stop being suicidal and in strong expressions, and this would have given the Captain additional weight in refusing his passengers to land. Like, he would have said "not only me thinks this is un-wise, but the Russky shout here to go to a back-up airport, see?" That captain was nice and had difficulty saying "No", a help from the ground to him, an additional opinion, expressed in BIG NO unequivocal terms like "we tell you again - NO CONDITIONS FOR LANDING - CONFIRM YOUR UNDERSTOOD!" would be the most timely thing needed.
As it is now it is one side flies to sure death while our Russian side looks at it all in cool nerve and without expressive comments, like "crash if you wish". Naturally both sides feel kind of idiots after.
It is as in the old saying "For my friends - all, for the enemy - the law."
Here the Poles got "the law". But as they aren't enemies as a Russian I badly wish they got a violation of those rules. A big friendly shout violating whatever.