ARRAKIS

Quite normal during a HEAD flight. I already explained why.

Just remind me, what was the reaction of the crew....

Another of your news facts, out of context, interpreted the way it suits your theory. I do not intend to go into the details here.

You are reading to many sensation books or watching too much movies. I just stated there was a corridor. Point.

Arrakis

Tagron

Actually it is far from proven that the crew was performing a Rad Alt approach or using a Rad Alt DH, though many people believe so. The MAK report does not suggest this, though it points to the possibility of confusion in the final stages of the approach caused by the Navigator's call outs of radio altitude.

No "Decision Height" calls were made by any crew member, and the Rad Alt alert height was found set to 60m which corresponds to a default setting for a non-precision approach, not the 100m specified by ATC.

BOAC

!! That's bold!

SadPole

I agree.

But, it was discussed to discredit the Polish presentation in which supposedly the crew was doing things by the book, trying to get to decision height of 100[m] and then trying to do goaround and supposedly failing at it only because of ATCs fault.

What the presentation ignored was that those measurements were radio-altitude, that's one problem, second was that the ATC actually gave them 120[m] as the decision height not 100[m]. But even IF, IF, IF we assume that they somehow were justified to use the Radio Altimeter and use RA 100[m] as decision height they STILL did not try GoAround at that 100[m] Radio Altitude, not by a long shot. The presentation tried to assert that nonsense nevertheless and to confuse the issue by presenting some phrases together under one timestamp, thus suggesting that PIC gave his Goaround command 5 seconds earlier. Another problem with that "order" is that it was reported (prior to the propaganda show) that they were still not sure if these were orders or questions as they did not seem assertive enough.

Sorry everyone if I got too involved in all that. It just makes me angry if we constantly complain about Russia doing propaganda and falsifying facts and now I have to watch the Polish side doing exactly that. We cannot ask to be respected if we don't respect others.

SadPole

1. It was not a HEAD flight. Not that Kaczynski would behave differently depending on formal status of a flight. It was an informal visit without HEAD status.
See here

2. Even if it was a HEAD flight, all that Kaczynski was supposed to do was choose Minsk or Witebsk as these were the agreed upon alternates. Instead, they are told to land after they asked for the decision on the alternate. Even in a HEAD flight the PIC is supposed to be in command of the flight, especially if it comes to safely landing the plane. And if some challenged "HEAD" decides to do a little mutiny on board, he is responsible for the results, not the Air Traffic Controller.


ATC from military base testifying that VIPs (including Kaczynski) would "stretch" the weather reports so that they could do routinely dangerous landings in fog is "out of context" or "interpreted do suit", etc?

The reaction of the PIC was to refuse order, which Kaczynski responded to by ordering a General to order the PIC to fly, upon which PIC refused the General's order saying he takes orders only from his base superior, upon which Kaczynski and the General called that superior and tried to order him to order the PIC, but he would not go along. Kaczynski then shouted threats at them.

Upon return, Kaczynski demanded the PIC to be court-marshaled, but the court cleared him instantly, which only pissed off Kaczynski and his goons. They then filed criminal charges against the PIC and tried a parliamentary resolution to punish the PIC and his superior, and the military judges, etc.

ARRAKIS

Another BS story.

It never went't to the court. The military prosecutor's office ended quickly the procedure. I wrote already about it and it's all public domain information.

Some real facts please


Interesting story. You are actually mixing pilot/aircraft(?) minima with XUBS minima, which were given by Smolensk controllers to the crew and which were 100 m. Again, to hell with the facts. More to come


I would suggest looking on Fig. 47 from MAKs report, comparing the flights from 04.07 and 04.10. Interesting.

Arrakis

SadPole

And if you cut all the BS, what was the plane's altitude above landing strip before they allegedly decided do do GoAround?

I will tell you - about 20 meters. How is that by the book regardless of which minimum was he supposed to use.

In view of this how does that not make the presentation a little fraud? How is it the controller's fault they went that low. Did he order them to do it?

Alice025

SadPole, stop being so sad, and for one thing - stop worrying what Russians will think and what if won't be freindly in future as neighbours.

We've seen here ups and lows o))))) how to say, and on very wide range, won't wonder at anything. Besides, we know you 500 years plus and it's more of the same :o))))) One can't get yourself other neighbours, that's forever and you should find the ways to cope and to go along - relates to Poland as well regarding what can be expected of Russia you should have all pretty much learned it in all this time.
Don't you see that we've been getting one accusation weirder than the other once a week past nine months (my fav. is "telescopic birch-tree" :o)))))) with adjusting sizes X, L, XXL) and the reaction is we mostly joke about it but no one is getting mean.

Will pass with years.

RegDep

Ladies and gentlemen,

I think we have now a suitable moment to "take a preliminary vote":

Is there in the MAK report anything that would be a misrepresentation of a material fact? Meaning, is there something in the published MAK report that says something which is not true and which would cause the conclusions to come out wrong in a major, important way?

Please note, that I am not asking if the conclusions are correct, just are the facts that are represented, represented correctly.

Let's concentrate for a short moment to that. Anybody who believes that there is a misrepresentation (some might call them a "lie" but it is a loaded and subjective word, so I would not like to use it). Please speak up and give cool and reasonable reasons why you think so.

Reg

RockShock

RegDep:

Yes, there are differences in the transcript that lead to the MAK psychology experts drawing premature conclusions in the part of the report that should talk about facts only. The differences are big enough to affluence the conclusion of the report: MAK report concludes that pressure and lack of decision to g/a in right time was decisive factor
In turn, from the Polish presentation it seems there was no pressure, the g/a was called in right moment (it was not executed but it was called for) and ATC provided wrong information for the airplane. That stands in contradiction to the conclusions of MAK - I'd say Polish report will point the g/a was not executed properly but was not due to the pressure or failure to call g/a, with a contributing factor of ATC reassuring the crew on the proper glidescope.

Now, I am not saying either side is right but Polish transcript makes a bit more sense to me and the part that caused MAK to draw conclusions about VVIP pressure etc now is a simple statement of the worsening weather - which turns all the psychology analysis of MAK into dust bin - provided the Poles are correct in reading the CVR.

RegDep

Thanks RockShock,

So you are voting for omission of parts of the content of the CVR, and think that the new analysis will reveal more content that should have been in.

Do I read you correctly that you vote for omissions in the description of the ATC activities (or are you proposing that the ATC should have done something differently, in which case the MAK report may be materially correct in facts)?

Let us leave all conclusions for the moment.

Reg

RetiredF4

The MAK report comes on the most subjects with great detail.
Where does the report lack those details?
- It does not exactly state, for wich kind of approach 101 was cleared to
- It does not go into great detail concerning the operational status of
-- the radar equipment and it´s capabilities
-- the lighting system and its capabilities
-- the obstacle clearance in the approach sector
-- the responsibilities of ATC personell

Also there is no explanation of the silence in the critical time around the decisionheigt.

The MAC report even speculates on the psychological state of the aircrew in length and with lots of asssumptions, but it says nothing at all how the people like ATC saw the accident happen. How about a transcript from the ATC- shack? On the other hand they cite witness observations from outside the airport with no relevance to the accident at all ...... i saw the aircraft in the fog .......bla bla bla....

So the report is on the spot where it brings facts, but there are not all available there.


franzl

swish266

Hi everybody,
I just read the original Russian version of the report (My Russian is almost as good as my English).
My blood turned cold.
You just cant record more mistakes in 210 pages.
I will just highlight a very few, absolutely, totally unacceptable:
1. Departure w/o forecast or actual wx at destination.
2. Lack of proper NOTAM brief - Witebsk was closed by NOTAM. Come on! After all it was the President’s flight!!!
3. Total disregard of ATC warnings about wx.
4. Lack of basic knowledge of the a/c (the Tu-154 A/P cannot execute a G/A unless in automatic ILS capture mode – the P1 mentioned at some time they will do an automatic G/A). I did 610 hours on it in 1992 and I can still remember that!
5. Lack of basic CRM ( no APP brief, no mention of APP type, task sharing, intentions, etc)
6. Descend below MDA.
And some conclusions of mine:
1. Poland is a NATO country (actually the first ex-communist country to become one). The Polish military SHOULD meet minimum NATO standards… Or has NATO become a joke?
2. If the P1 did not have the guts to walk off maybe he did not have the brains to realize he should have walked off (fortunately for the Russians, they did not have the guts to point this in the psychological profile they built of him). What about SELECTION STANDARDS of the Polish AF?
3. What about training standards of the Polish AF? Guess a lot has changed since the Polish cavalry charged the German panzers in 1939…
4. Flying around heads of state is real tough job, and if the usual saying goes that pilots have balls like oranges and brains like peas, the VVIP pilots should have balls like footballs and brains at least like oranges.
5. A Captain is a Captain and on a ship/aircraft you can have only one, unless you are prepared to take his seat (if he lets you do so).
IMHO.
RIP

Tagron

BOAC (#1307), I would guess the 60m is essentially a " parking position" for the DH bug, not an indication of intent to use that setting for a non-precision approach !.

kontrolor

^^^^ best summary so far

swish266

Tnx.
Appreciated.
Still can't go to bed.

Alice025

MAK waxing lyrical about psychology for pages is a forced choice, IMO, a poor and too lengthy, watery substitute for the thing they can't say direct. As every such substitute product, instead of a real thing, it gets noticed as something out of place or unproportionate and attracts attention.

Nevertheless, what they wanted but could not say straight, does have direct relation to the accident - more than average intent of the passenger -who initiated the very flight - to be in Katyn on that very date.

This intent is obvious, common sense fact to each and every one aware of the political lay-out in Poland in April - coming presidential elections, in which the party of the travellers on the 7th competed with the party of the travellers on the 10th, and Putin putting his stakes in future two countries' relations on Tusk.
Katyn was always a prominent burning spot in political parties in Poland agenda, apart from being a national grief and un-healing wound.
MAK can't write "Putin personally invited Tusk by-passing Kachinsky - which was alright on the surface of things - one PM invites another, their PM level, but to anyone aware of heavy weights' distribution in Russia, Putin, by-passing Kachinsky, was an affront to Kachinsky."

This is not aviation talk o)))))))))) But it explains "more than average" desire of Kachinsky to arrange a separate expedition to the same Katyn.

No 2 is heavy media gathering awaiting Kachinsky then and there in Katyn. It was planned to be a very wide-coverage media event, far more intense that Putin-Tusk visit.
Should Tusk have fog on the 7th and his plane diverted - Putin would have come for him on a later day. Putin made a move, moved his figure on the chess-board, he planned to apologise to Poland for Katyn, publicly, for the first time, and chose Tusk as the evidence to this his decision. When our prime minister plans something we here think he does it, plus minus three days of fogs in a row do not matter. Russia began releasing its Katyn documents to Poland.
For Kachinsky was waiting there only media-blitz. It's a huge pity the Yak with media did not divert. But I am not sure that would be decisive, as much media arrived there before by other routes.

For anyone aware of the lay-out who has common sense - no transcripts are needed to prove the late President desire to be there and then.
All this psychology and jazz in MAK report is completely over the board.
It is a round-about akward way of saying "the late President wanted to be there and then very much, but we can't explain you here why so in aviation terms, sorry o)))))

Alice025

Polish-Russian relations began improving not when Russians sympathised so much with Poles over the catastrophe, but earlier - when Putin made the first move and apologised for Katyn.
Unfortunately that longly late due improvement having began on the 7th - happiness lasted only three days.

RegDep

Thank you Alice!

Ver good and very understandable summary of an unfortunate yet understandable scenario.

To the question of are there misrepresentations of material facts, your answer reads 'no'.

In aviation terms, we are (including and especially this thread) still missing the fullest possible transcript of the CVR to know and hopefully understand what happened, and even why, such that made the desire to land to become an accident.

Let us sincerely hope that MAK and the (two or more?) Polish expert groups can come together, finalize and publish the transcript joint and final version.

They owe it to themselves and to the grieving fellow citizens.

RockShock

RegDep:

MAK report doesn't contain the:
- ATC recordings from the time that IL-76 had a near miss while trying to land
- the discussions between the tower and the higher rank officers where it was discussed what to do with the Tu-154 and that it should be guided to 100m only and then ordered a go-around

Consequently, the report doesn't contain in the analysis part the following conclusions:
- nervous atmosphere on the tower
- failure of the ATC to warn Tu-154 on passing the 100m altitude as it was decided beforehand

Apart from the CVR readings, which I think may be a mistaken in some points indeed as the Russians were not listening to their native tongue, it's true that the facts presented in the report are mostly true. However, I wouldn't expect anything different. The real question is about the facts that are not presented and that's what I feel the Polish report will aim to cover.