Kulverstukas

Dear polish friends. I just want to compile "new transcription" source with the "old one" (MAK, published by Poland June 2010).

It's about "go-around at proper time and height", which is in bold. Look:

Look at Nav readings. Somebody lies here, isn't it?

SadPole

Not that easy. For the reasons I explained. I have seen at least 3 different versions of when the PIC GoAround command and corresponding acknowledgements were supposed to take place. Also, in commentaries to these versions, the people in charge would generally state that they were not sure if these were orders or questions or suggestions. SO what the hell is the significance of it if they don't even know that?

In one of these versions, the PIC goaround command was supposed to take place at the first 100 m readout or 10:40:42. In another at 10:40:50 so that 2nd pilot confirmation matches the MAK transcript. In this one, the command is supposed to take place at 10:40:45. All of them are supposed to be said at the time coinciding with TAWS warnings.

So what the hell is going on or would I be slandering someone if I said that tampering with the transcripts is being done? Was MAK doing it? OK. I will accept that IF I see the raw recordings. Audio cleaning software is today available to everyone.

Kulverstukas

SadPole, what about 5 sec (or not less than 400 m with their speed) difference in timing between this "new transcription" and MAK report, fig.45-46? What about 30 m height loss in 1 sec?

MaxTGT

SadPole, I wonder if there were any comments on the crash from Mr Kaczynski's ex first pilot, the one who had refused to fly to Tbilisi?

LeClercus

As mentioned on the previous page I already compiled Russian transcript with the new one, released recently, into one document. English version is on the second tab of this spreadsheet http://goo.gl/Uunk7 . New stuff is in column D.

The new transcript was shown during the presentation on January 18, 2011.
Link to video (in polish) Untitled video on Vimeo
Staring in 17 minutes 40 seconds of the video you can listen to recorded conversation and see the transcript and flight simulation on the screen.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the first transcript prepared by Russians and the one used in the video differ by couple of seconds.
For example, in the Russian transcript there is a "Beep sound, F845HZ. Outer marker" starting at 10:39:50 and going to 10:39:58.
On the new transcript (39 minutes into the video) it starts at 8:39:46 CET - full 4 seconds earlier.You can see it in row 2219 of the translation.

SadPole

Well, that's what I said. In this version the 2'nd pilot confirmation moves up by 5 seconds against the MAK transcript.

If I were to speculate about Kaczynski supporters being culprits, I would say that someone is ordered to make the story that they TRIED to do goaround by the book at DA look good – and that's not that easy because for this to be true the command would have to be spoken at 10:40:42 which then creates other holes in it. So, if you confuse the issue a little, it HELPs because general public will not be making spreadsheets putting it all together. And yes, they don't think how spinning things is different in the era of internet.

If I were to speculate about Russia being culprits, then all of current interpretations would have to be re-evaluated because they were based on the MAK transcript.

As I said – someone is tampering with the CVR, the question is who.


p.s. Apologies to Westerners reading this. I doubt you ever saw a mess that could even compare to this one. But, that's commonplace around them here parts, boys and girls.

Kulverstukas

SadPole, look at Report 1.11.5 - there is some explanation about time shift.

About your apologies to "western" - do you think that there is some magic countries where everything is strict and without any mess?

[off]
Rat asked Hamster: We are both rodents, but why people love you and hates me? - My PR is better.

SadPole

I don't think that's relevant. That's about the additional Polish flight recorder stopping the recording 2.5 s earlier than the factory one – due to probably different shock exposure/resistance during the crash.

p.s. Those extra recorders were installed on all Russian jets operated in Poland after the 1987 Il-62 disaster in which the engine shaft separated due to defective bearing and which Russian commission blamed on pilot error. This is one of the reasons many Poles will not believe Russian commissions.

LOT_Polish_Airlines_Flight_5055

Of course not. To use a quote from certain cheesy American movie: "I studied western hypocrisy" all around the world. But, I also know that average westerner does not experience anything like that directly because they had established elites for centuries and therefore do not know how it is like to live under always changing chain of "heroes" "saving them" from the previous heroes like we do. They are being screwed same as we are, they just won't know it as long as their governments can borrow money to finance their nonsense.

What I was trying to say is that I would not want to wear out our welcome here. If someone (owners of this website most of all and old timers) think we should stop dragging this thing on, we must stop it.

RockShock

@Kulverstukas
I don't think there's a direct cause of the accident on the Russian side, but surely the ATC information has not been accurate (I am not talking about closure of the airfield etc, as this is something that has been decided politically that the airfield will remain opened and I'd prefer to keep to the facts)
But it seems from the reports of the Polish commision that the info given by the controller was indeed not accurate at all and the confirmation of the correct glidescope was given incorrectly (with enormous differences vs the required one).
That's not to blame the ATC for PIC flying the plane into ground and please do not take it like that - however it needs to be known as it completes the picture of the whole story a lot. MAK said that psychologists say that crew might have been under influence of the VIPs on board, but completely excludes the fact that it could equally well been under influence of the controller saying 'Everything's all right' when in fact the plane was plummeting below the glidescope. So, I would just like to know the whole picture of the story and so far I think it's the Polish side (yeah, I know I'm from Poland so no other choice ) makes more effort to really described what happened that day. MAK ommitting the ATC role completely certainly didn't fare well in doing that (IMHO)

ARRAKIS

Could you please stop with your politically biased, ill-informed and ill-informing comments
Just like in every aviation crash investigation there are two teams. One is the criminal investigation team led by the military prosecutor's office. The second one is the KBWLLP, which is - without going into details, doing here a job comparable to, say, NTSB (or MAK). It's lead by the actual head of the Polish Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration. Calling him former's President supporter, it's news of the day.
The first team is not publishing anything, as it should be during a criminal investigation. The new elements for the transcript are coming from KBWLLP conferences.

No comments.

I'm not saying there wasn't any pressure, but so far there are no tangible proofs to back it up and information that could sheed some light here are, let's say, not exactly public domian.

Rearding the terrain depression and last Tuesday press conference.
8.40.02 F/O: Tam jest obniżenie.system (There is a depression there) / TAWS: TERRAIN AHEAD

8.40.04 F/O: Tam jest obniżenie Arek (There is a depression there Arek - it's PIC's first name).
8.40.06 PIC: Wiem, zaraz będzie. Tam to jest taki. (I know, it will be soon. Second phrase unfinished, didn't translate it).
You should add 2h to get Moscow time given in the first preliminary transcript by MAK.

Another weird thing during that tragic flight. The plane should start it's descent from 500 m altitude approx. 10 km from the runway. The crew got the proper information from the controller (at 10:39:08). For approx 2-2,5 km the plane continues its flight and starts a quick descent only after hearing from ATC "landing conditionally" (at 10:39:40). Why so late?


Arrakis

Kulverstukas

SadPole, it's not about "stopping the recording 2.5 s earlier", I just get from this para that polish recorder was some time shifted earlier than MARS. There is good work of Oleg M from Smolensk forum, from which we can make conclusion that all polish "new transcription" just shifted backward and can be sinchronised with MAK transcription by shifting it forward.

SadPole

OK. Let's assume you are right. But, why publish transcripts that
1. Have some mis-matching phrases from the previous transcripts (they are shifted in time) and not provide explanations
2. Remove timings from critical parts of it:

Source

At the very least it's completely unprofessional. If we are talking about transcribing a single recording, how do you know what time is one phrase spoken and with the one presented next, you don't? Mismatching absolute time, OK, mismatching it with some ATC recordings timings, fine but can be corrected by aligning the two, misalignment with Flight Data Recorder – corrected by RF keying record.

But, how do you mismatch timing within a single recording? This is supposed to be serious business, you know, with certain parties now claiming the Russians murdered the Polish President, and the rest claiming Russians bear a lot of responsibility. If Russians didn't see us as complete idiots already, declarations like that could be seen as a sort of declaration of war, or something. Why do you get angry at me supposedly misrepresenting things, but don't seem to have a problem with unprofessional info being presented which is then used to come up with the "Russians sabotaged the plane and led us into a trap" accusations?

How do you think such unprofessional work being released will look? Why release such unprofessional work? Why do little until Russians release their report by surprise that crashed the hopes in Poland on agreeing on common report, politically correct to both sides. Why suddenly fall into this madness of releasing bits and pieces of often contradictory info. Do you like this mess?

SadPole

You are right. I see it. Time shift by 2.5 s. But still nowhere near the explanation of how all the 2nd pilot goaround got shifted by 5 seconds. I was actually comparing the sequence mostly - as in goaround command in relation to altitude callouts.

RockShock

SadPole:

Well, if you will notice that the interval between the 'marked' sentences is one second, then it's not hard to conclude, that if something is not 'marked' then it must have been said in the second marked already by previous sentence and is simply a way of presenting the various overlapping sounds that happen at the same time...

SadPole

It's still unprofessional. That's not how everyone else does it, and probably for a good reason. Each phase spoken by different person should be given with a timestamp.

Like here:

Note that MAK went even further and provided beginning and the end of the each phrase. More info presented, more difficult to "fudge" data.

Now look at this:
Navigator says these phrases twice or someone wrote that transcript on his knee somewhere on a bus?

Again, I don't want to nitpick anymore, but you still have that 2nd pilot "goaround" going back in time by 5 seconds issue, I think.

vovachan

What could the ATC have done differently/better? The could

a. shut up completely - that would be a lot more helpful than giving position information which was off by a mile and confusing the pilots

b. Give accurate AND timely info!

Anywhere else in the world they would get at least honorable mention as a contributing factor

RetiredF4

I myself find the graphical display of events quite excellent for analysis.

Go to the MAC-report and look at figure 49:
At 10:40:51 interference from the crew in pitch control noted. The radar altitude showed 75 meters at that time. According to MAC that was the copilot trying to initiating the go around. But the pitch input was not enough to disconect the autopilot, wich reacted with a downforce trim to counter the pitch input and keep the Tu154 on the glidepath.

Now check on figure 45 the time and check the go-around call af the FO, it took place at 10:40:50,50, only 1/2 second prior his unsuccessful go around attempt.

Go further back 1.5 seconds to 10:40:49, and you reach the point where the NAV calls 100 the second time and the FO acknowledges it with "normal".

6,5 seconds before that at 10:40:42,5 the nav had called 100 meters for first time.

Now go back to the figure 49. and locate that time on the left edge of the graph.
From that point to the go around attempt of the FO several things show on the graph:
- the speed goes from 290 to 295, dropping to 290 again and then to 283.
- the PF control column position deviates somewhat from the trimmed position,
- Throttle position Nr. 2 and Nr. 3 deviate from Nr. 1

So something was happening there, and i think uneventfull as it was it´s the secret to the awful long time elapsing between the Radaraltitude 100 meters (which was already 25 meters below DH for known reasons) and the go around attempt of the FO.

At 10:40:55,35 the pilot made a big stabilator input, which overrode the autopilot and caused that one to disengage. The radar altitude was 25 meters.


Figure 45 shows another point:

- radar altitude 150 meters at 10:40:37,3 equaled baroalitude 125 meters,
- radar altitude 100 meters at 10:40:42,5 equaled baroaltitude 75 meters
- so in this timeframe they showed probably pretty much on glideslope on the radar screen.

Stuff to think about.

franzl

RockShock

Yes you are nitpicking, as you are referring to:

1) Not a report, but a presentation that was preliminary (the final report published by Poland will be ready perhaps in one month)

2) Show me the transcript published by the commmision. The one you are referring to is a one written by the journalist apparently from the slides on the presentation seen here: YouTube - Zapis rozmów na wie?y kontrolnej w Smole?sku cz 3

As you will surely see in 14:02 the phrase is not repeated so probably is a type by journalist. Also, here you can see where your dreaded timing notation comes from: in the presentation the time was displayed in the top left corner of the screen and journalists simply wrote second by second what was displayed on the slides at the moment - so blame them, no the Kaczynski's supporters messing with the CVR recordings...

Unless of course you have a link to an official document showing the transcript in the 'unprofiessional' form you are referring to...?

SadPole

Meaning, all these theories are being presented by government commission (not made up say at some internet site) including graphical presentations about the PIC giving the GoAround command in time, by the book, but nobody ever stated precisely when it was supposed to happen? Well, I kind of figured that reading the Polish Remarks to the MAK report. Is that the story? Is that professional? Can/should anyone take it seriously?

Wouldn't it make sense to make the transcript BEFORE making PRELIMINARY graphical presentations?

Well, I will translate it for you:
-Not a report, but a presentation that was preliminary
in politico speak means
-Not a report, just a little propaganda for the masses while we think what to do next.

SadPole

OK. Inspired by our little exchange I had with RockShock, I looked through all the "preliminary presentation" videos, and here is what I found.

1. When explaining why they think ATC is at fault, they actually identified (imprecisely) when the PICs GoAround command was issued. 3 Seconds before ATC command and 1 second before 2nd pilot GoAround confirmation. This would place it at around 10:40:50 (it is supposed to be on top of PULL UP) or at the time when they started attacking the rising edge of the ravine (rapidly falling readings of RA).

2. This being the case, no way could anyone claim that the GA command was issued by the book at decision height. They only reacted when they got rapidly decreasing RA readings, until then they probaly were intending on landing - in spite of not seeing anything, and saying so, per new transcripts. At that point yes, they might lose some 3 to 4 seconds on the button confusion, and only then they push the throttles. Meaning, we have 9 seconds from PIC's GoAround command to hitting the first tree.

3. The main argument of the presentation is that since PIC gave his order 3 seconds before 10:40:52 Horizon command, ATC is at fault because he should have done it much sooner. Geee, I don't know. That sounds kind of... childish????

4. It appears that the main graphical presentation for the masses (the one with the plane flying through fog) might have been a little "fudged" since everyone gathered from it that GoAround was issued by the PIC some 5 seconds earlier.

Source