Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alice, I can only add to your political analytic that Kachinsky was the first to send his request for Smolensk flight at April 10th (and by some intelligence it was planned to spoil progress in Polish-Russian relations). So Putin and Tusk arranged summit at 7th. All this is in the Report but without any comments (but sapienti sat why MAK published this story about two requests for flight at April 7th).
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RegDep, Alice025
Quality of MAK report
On the question whether there were any misrepresentations of facts in the MAK report, I could not find anything significant. The main arguments about the causes of the crash were pretty well documented by presentation of voice and flight recorder data, multiple charts showing the situation. To somehow introduce any falsehoods in the report would therefore require up-front tampering with both FDR and CVR data and that would be hard if not impossible. Abundance and detail of raw data always does that, and the report contains enough raw data for anyone to draw their own conclusions. Also, coming up with alternate scenario would require producing different raw flight recorder data and/or radically different transcription of conversations in the cockpit, for example. Someone doing that will then have to explain the differences and show how the discrepancies occurred or were introduced.
However, while the report contains more than enough raw data for a usual aviation accident, it does not contain enough raw data for this accident, which unfortunately can and already is being used for politics. To stay out of trouble, and to prevent the accident from being used for politics, all raw data should have been published up front. Flight Recorder Data should have been published right away in computer readable format and so should the cockpit recording in high quality digitalization. This would be far above and beyond accepted international standards, but I hope something like that would become standard of the future. Note that FDR data could be fed to a flight simulator that uses Google satellite maps available to pretty much everyone nowadays. Everybody interested could then see how that ride on Tu-154 looked like, which would instantly eliminate most of the potential of using this aviation accident for politics. I see no reason why, for example, aviation magazines should not be allowed to do their own investigations.
Note how quickly most of the nonsense surrounding the supposed smoking gun hiding in the ATC tapes subsided once MAK published the ATC tapes. Prior to that, there was supposed to be some FSB general taking charge of the situation and ordering the ATC to lure the Tu-154 into the fog, and exclusion of ATC discussion at the report was supposed to be the proof. ATC tapes published – game over. That's the way to do it.
Now the main controversy is the one surrounding possible different interpretations of the CVR. Publishing the CVR recording in high quality digitalization would end that game as well. While writing that, I realized that MAK sort of did that, (in low quality though) by including the CVR in its video presentation. So, extracted the sound, filtered it many times and here is what I found out:
1. At 10:38:00 the navigator indeed most likely says "It's getting cloudy." And not "He will get pissed off". Not because the quality of recording allows to tell the difference but because of what he says next. He basically says: "It's getting cloudy. 1 mile to landing strip remaining". It would not make sense to discuss being angry together with distance to landing strip in one breath and that intonation.
2. At 10:36:42 to 10:37:01 there is far more critical things being discussed that revealed so far. For one thing, I don't think it is the engineer who says "Good Morning" there. Completely different voice. It is our mystery cockpit passenger. I think, there also might be words being spoken that sound like "must categorically…" (musimy kategorycznie). But, the quality of the recording extracted will not allow to determine for sure what it is, so I won't go into it any further.
All these issues could be resolved instantly if the public at large had access to raw data. Complete openness is the only way to prevent this thing from being used for politics forever. For example, I would like to know where was Kaczynski during the crash. This issue is completely ignored for some reason, but should be of critical importance. Far more important than psychological analysis. I glanced through the autopsy reports in Russian and for example, it is stated that Kazana was strapped in his seat during the crash. Nothing about where Kaczynski was. If impossible to determine, it should have been stated as such. Politicians interfering with operation of their aircraft is a safety issue not only in Poland or Russia.
Politics of the situation
As to unfortunate politics of the whole thing discussed by Alice. There is more to it than that, and the potential for it being used and abused for long term politics huge, far surpassing the current players.
First of all, it wasn't only Putin who was shunning Kaczynski. Kaczynski was shunned by Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown, Obama, etc, etc, and Kaczynski worked very, very hard to get there. For example, he first negotiated Poland's acceptance of Lisbon Treaty himself and then accused Merkel and Tusk of making Poland into a German colony by means of the Lisbon Treaty. As to Obama, Kaczynski supported Obama's opponent "Insane in the membrane" McCain in the US elections. Among many other things, McCain promised instant war with Iran and getting tough with Russia if elected. McCain was such an insane man he directly made it possible for the first black guy to become US president. Yet, Kaczynski wanted McCain as US president.
Putin was right to try to keep away from Kaczynski, because Kaczynski was rapidly loosing support, and only some major political stunt could save him. He was looking for ways to become a "hero" and it would be stupid for any foreign politician (not just Russian) to allow himself to be used for that purpose by Kaczynski.
This is how we get into Katyn being used as election dog and pony show. It was to be Kaczynski's crucial moment of re-inventing himself prior to election. This is why he probably HOPED Russia would refuse the request to have second ceremony – thus allowing him to scream about imperialist Russia lying about Katyn, etc, but Russia didn't. And so, this was to surpass all other election dog and pony shows. He not only gathered all his critical supporters, but also invited/ordered a lot of other people to be there. That's the real tragedy – they pretty much were sacrificed there.
But, if it was so damned important, why not try to get there ahead of time, drive or fly the day before, or something. Hell no. Not only that, Kaczynski once again shows his ego unsupported by thinking and decides that getting up early for the trip was too hard and so he shifted the departure time upward and then was even late for that – and that was already reported widely in the news before the plane crashed. He was already late at the time they approached Smolensk. If he did not land, the headlines would be "Kaczynski overslept his election dog and pony show". And so he HAD to land.
Now, picture yourself in the shoes of the second Kaczynski. If the truth comes up, he is finished. So, he preemptively maneuvered to make his dead brother into a martyr. Now, he is building a cult of his dead brother – the martyr hero fighting bad Russians in Georgia and Smolensk, and so on. Every month he is organizing marches with torches through Warsaw demanding that Putin and Tusk be punished and so forth. The worst thing is, Tusk isn't the greatest politician either. He has no clue what to do with economy, but we have to support the guy because if we don't Kaczynski will return to power. Some economic problem discrediting Tusk – Kaczynski returns to power - because the Smolensk tragedy sort of gave him a second life in politics. That's the tragedy here. If it wasn't for that crash, both Kaczynskis would already be completely insignificant, forgotten men.
Not publishing all of the materials will only make this mess go on and on, and on. All the raw materials should be published, because it isn't just an aviation accident.
On the question whether there were any misrepresentations of facts in the MAK report, I could not find anything significant. The main arguments about the causes of the crash were pretty well documented by presentation of voice and flight recorder data, multiple charts showing the situation. To somehow introduce any falsehoods in the report would therefore require up-front tampering with both FDR and CVR data and that would be hard if not impossible. Abundance and detail of raw data always does that, and the report contains enough raw data for anyone to draw their own conclusions. Also, coming up with alternate scenario would require producing different raw flight recorder data and/or radically different transcription of conversations in the cockpit, for example. Someone doing that will then have to explain the differences and show how the discrepancies occurred or were introduced.
However, while the report contains more than enough raw data for a usual aviation accident, it does not contain enough raw data for this accident, which unfortunately can and already is being used for politics. To stay out of trouble, and to prevent the accident from being used for politics, all raw data should have been published up front. Flight Recorder Data should have been published right away in computer readable format and so should the cockpit recording in high quality digitalization. This would be far above and beyond accepted international standards, but I hope something like that would become standard of the future. Note that FDR data could be fed to a flight simulator that uses Google satellite maps available to pretty much everyone nowadays. Everybody interested could then see how that ride on Tu-154 looked like, which would instantly eliminate most of the potential of using this aviation accident for politics. I see no reason why, for example, aviation magazines should not be allowed to do their own investigations.
Note how quickly most of the nonsense surrounding the supposed smoking gun hiding in the ATC tapes subsided once MAK published the ATC tapes. Prior to that, there was supposed to be some FSB general taking charge of the situation and ordering the ATC to lure the Tu-154 into the fog, and exclusion of ATC discussion at the report was supposed to be the proof. ATC tapes published – game over. That's the way to do it.
Now the main controversy is the one surrounding possible different interpretations of the CVR. Publishing the CVR recording in high quality digitalization would end that game as well. While writing that, I realized that MAK sort of did that, (in low quality though) by including the CVR in its video presentation. So, extracted the sound, filtered it many times and here is what I found out:
1. At 10:38:00 the navigator indeed most likely says "It's getting cloudy." And not "He will get pissed off". Not because the quality of recording allows to tell the difference but because of what he says next. He basically says: "It's getting cloudy. 1 mile to landing strip remaining". It would not make sense to discuss being angry together with distance to landing strip in one breath and that intonation.
2. At 10:36:42 to 10:37:01 there is far more critical things being discussed that revealed so far. For one thing, I don't think it is the engineer who says "Good Morning" there. Completely different voice. It is our mystery cockpit passenger. I think, there also might be words being spoken that sound like "must categorically…" (musimy kategorycznie). But, the quality of the recording extracted will not allow to determine for sure what it is, so I won't go into it any further.
All these issues could be resolved instantly if the public at large had access to raw data. Complete openness is the only way to prevent this thing from being used for politics forever. For example, I would like to know where was Kaczynski during the crash. This issue is completely ignored for some reason, but should be of critical importance. Far more important than psychological analysis. I glanced through the autopsy reports in Russian and for example, it is stated that Kazana was strapped in his seat during the crash. Nothing about where Kaczynski was. If impossible to determine, it should have been stated as such. Politicians interfering with operation of their aircraft is a safety issue not only in Poland or Russia.
Politics of the situation
As to unfortunate politics of the whole thing discussed by Alice. There is more to it than that, and the potential for it being used and abused for long term politics huge, far surpassing the current players.
First of all, it wasn't only Putin who was shunning Kaczynski. Kaczynski was shunned by Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown, Obama, etc, etc, and Kaczynski worked very, very hard to get there. For example, he first negotiated Poland's acceptance of Lisbon Treaty himself and then accused Merkel and Tusk of making Poland into a German colony by means of the Lisbon Treaty. As to Obama, Kaczynski supported Obama's opponent "Insane in the membrane" McCain in the US elections. Among many other things, McCain promised instant war with Iran and getting tough with Russia if elected. McCain was such an insane man he directly made it possible for the first black guy to become US president. Yet, Kaczynski wanted McCain as US president.
Putin was right to try to keep away from Kaczynski, because Kaczynski was rapidly loosing support, and only some major political stunt could save him. He was looking for ways to become a "hero" and it would be stupid for any foreign politician (not just Russian) to allow himself to be used for that purpose by Kaczynski.
This is how we get into Katyn being used as election dog and pony show. It was to be Kaczynski's crucial moment of re-inventing himself prior to election. This is why he probably HOPED Russia would refuse the request to have second ceremony – thus allowing him to scream about imperialist Russia lying about Katyn, etc, but Russia didn't. And so, this was to surpass all other election dog and pony shows. He not only gathered all his critical supporters, but also invited/ordered a lot of other people to be there. That's the real tragedy – they pretty much were sacrificed there.
But, if it was so damned important, why not try to get there ahead of time, drive or fly the day before, or something. Hell no. Not only that, Kaczynski once again shows his ego unsupported by thinking and decides that getting up early for the trip was too hard and so he shifted the departure time upward and then was even late for that – and that was already reported widely in the news before the plane crashed. He was already late at the time they approached Smolensk. If he did not land, the headlines would be "Kaczynski overslept his election dog and pony show". And so he HAD to land.
Now, picture yourself in the shoes of the second Kaczynski. If the truth comes up, he is finished. So, he preemptively maneuvered to make his dead brother into a martyr. Now, he is building a cult of his dead brother – the martyr hero fighting bad Russians in Georgia and Smolensk, and so on. Every month he is organizing marches with torches through Warsaw demanding that Putin and Tusk be punished and so forth. The worst thing is, Tusk isn't the greatest politician either. He has no clue what to do with economy, but we have to support the guy because if we don't Kaczynski will return to power. Some economic problem discrediting Tusk – Kaczynski returns to power - because the Smolensk tragedy sort of gave him a second life in politics. That's the tragedy here. If it wasn't for that crash, both Kaczynskis would already be completely insignificant, forgotten men.
Not publishing all of the materials will only make this mess go on and on, and on. All the raw materials should be published, because it isn't just an aviation accident.
Last edited by SadPole; 25th Jan 2011 at 12:22.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you SadPole!
And please forgive me posting some time ago
Now I know what time it is, but only now when I hear how the watch is made 
And please forgive me posting some time ago
And, please don't build me a watch, I am only asking the time.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RegDep
Point taken. But, I just could not resist posting what I found in the CVR, nor could I resist commenting on what Alice wrote.
Sorry.
To make it short:
MAK report fine, but they should also publish all raw data.
Sorry.
To make it short:
MAK report fine, but they should also publish all raw data.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Kulverstukas,
I wonder if you could translate this text below into english? I can read it, but to translate it would be to hard for me
Thank you in advance 
These are some suggestions made by SmolenskForum user, and I wonder if any of the professionals could make some comments with this regards?
P.S. Can wrong readings from Vertical Speed Indicator (e.g. caused by icing) affect all on board instruments and give false readings?
I wonder if you could translate this text below into english? I can read it, but to translate it would be to hard for me
Thank you in advance These are some suggestions made by SmolenskForum user, and I wonder if any of the professionals could make some comments with this regards?
В отчете (примечание на с 112) написано, что автомат тяги был настроен на выдерживание скорости 280 км/час. Теперь смотрим рис. 25. Приборная скорость уменьшилась до заданной величины за 10 секунд до «серой зоны». Из того же рисунка – с 10.40.10 обороты двигателей на минимуме. С. 112 называет этот минимум конкретно малым газом (слова "почти" нету).
Быть может я ошибаюсь, но мне кажется, что КВС думал уходить в автомате с помощью рукояки Спуск-Подъем, при канале тангажа, включенном в режим стабилизации. Наверно он не раз крутил эту ручку и знал "приемистость" тушки к вращению этого колесика. Быть может и так, что он делал это раньше тогда, когда приборная скорость была застабилизированиа автоматом тяги. В этот раз ему пришлось догонять глиссаду и из-за повышенной вертикальной скорости, автомат тяги не смог застабилизировать приборную скорость, даже переведя двигатели на малый газ.
Теперь немного физики. Откапываем РТЭ АБСУ 154-2 Часть 3, Автомат тяги АТ-6-2. Смотрим схему на с.7.
Что мы видим? Двигатели начинают сразу реагировать на сигнал тангажа с гировертикали, если разница между приборной и заданной приборной скоростью мала. Если нет, то откорректированный сигнал с гировертикали вычитается с откорректированным и ограниченным рассогласованием приборной скорости, а потом эта разница подается на интегрирующий привод, который и крутит сектора газа.
Далее смотрим 3.7.8 того же РТЭ – у исполнительного механизма автомата тяги есть концевики, которые останавливают привод при достижении малого газа. Если МАК сказал, что малый газ был, то я склонен верить, что концевики сработали. Далее по предыдущей схеме – пойдет сигнал на привод секторов газа в обратном направлении только если а) приборная скорость упадет; б) тангаж увеличится; с) либо а, либо б "пересилит".
А что с тангажом? Смотрим часть 2 (САУ АБСУ-154-2), стр. 34 того же РТЭ. Видим схему.
В первом приближении – разница сигнала с гировертикали и ручки спуск-подъём через ограничитель идет на привод.
И вот возможная картина. Глиссада догоняется с превышением приборной скорости над заданной в автомате тяги. Автомат тяги переводит двигатели в малый газ (10.40.10) Начиная с 10.40.33 (геометрическая высота >100, приборная скорость 290, на 10 больше заданной) КВС начинает медленно крутить ручку спуск-подъём на подъём (см. Рис 25 отчета МАК, сигнал с гировертикали). Самолет реагирут совсем не так, как привык КВС, т.е. совсем никак – тангаж пополз, но движки стоят как вкопаные на малом газу. А все потому, что (см. Первую схему) приборная скорость незастабилизирована, а движение рукояткой спуск-подъём у КВС заточено под стабилизированную приборную скорость. КВС сильнее крутит колесико, и вот – свершилось – сигнал тангажа пересилил сигнал скорости, которая упала до заданной 280, концевики у исполнительного механизма автомата тяги сработали и обороты стали расти. Темп роста оборотов не оставлял никаких шансов и через пару секунд РУДы были переведены вручную. Но было поздно. В общем, грабли. Уйти, вращая колесико, было можно, но КВС привык совсем к другой реакции самолета-в его практике не было догона глиссады (имхее не бывает). Кстати, есть ли прямой запрет в РЛЭ на использование АТ и АП при большой вертикальной скорости?
Быть может я ошибаюсь, но мне кажется, что КВС думал уходить в автомате с помощью рукояки Спуск-Подъем, при канале тангажа, включенном в режим стабилизации. Наверно он не раз крутил эту ручку и знал "приемистость" тушки к вращению этого колесика. Быть может и так, что он делал это раньше тогда, когда приборная скорость была застабилизированиа автоматом тяги. В этот раз ему пришлось догонять глиссаду и из-за повышенной вертикальной скорости, автомат тяги не смог застабилизировать приборную скорость, даже переведя двигатели на малый газ.
Теперь немного физики. Откапываем РТЭ АБСУ 154-2 Часть 3, Автомат тяги АТ-6-2. Смотрим схему на с.7.
Что мы видим? Двигатели начинают сразу реагировать на сигнал тангажа с гировертикали, если разница между приборной и заданной приборной скоростью мала. Если нет, то откорректированный сигнал с гировертикали вычитается с откорректированным и ограниченным рассогласованием приборной скорости, а потом эта разница подается на интегрирующий привод, который и крутит сектора газа.
Далее смотрим 3.7.8 того же РТЭ – у исполнительного механизма автомата тяги есть концевики, которые останавливают привод при достижении малого газа. Если МАК сказал, что малый газ был, то я склонен верить, что концевики сработали. Далее по предыдущей схеме – пойдет сигнал на привод секторов газа в обратном направлении только если а) приборная скорость упадет; б) тангаж увеличится; с) либо а, либо б "пересилит".
А что с тангажом? Смотрим часть 2 (САУ АБСУ-154-2), стр. 34 того же РТЭ. Видим схему.
В первом приближении – разница сигнала с гировертикали и ручки спуск-подъём через ограничитель идет на привод.
И вот возможная картина. Глиссада догоняется с превышением приборной скорости над заданной в автомате тяги. Автомат тяги переводит двигатели в малый газ (10.40.10) Начиная с 10.40.33 (геометрическая высота >100, приборная скорость 290, на 10 больше заданной) КВС начинает медленно крутить ручку спуск-подъём на подъём (см. Рис 25 отчета МАК, сигнал с гировертикали). Самолет реагирут совсем не так, как привык КВС, т.е. совсем никак – тангаж пополз, но движки стоят как вкопаные на малом газу. А все потому, что (см. Первую схему) приборная скорость незастабилизирована, а движение рукояткой спуск-подъём у КВС заточено под стабилизированную приборную скорость. КВС сильнее крутит колесико, и вот – свершилось – сигнал тангажа пересилил сигнал скорости, которая упала до заданной 280, концевики у исполнительного механизма автомата тяги сработали и обороты стали расти. Темп роста оборотов не оставлял никаких шансов и через пару секунд РУДы были переведены вручную. Но было поздно. В общем, грабли. Уйти, вращая колесико, было можно, но КВС привык совсем к другой реакции самолета-в его практике не было догона глиссады (имхее не бывает). Кстати, есть ли прямой запрет в РЛЭ на использование АТ и АП при большой вертикальной скорости?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, RegDep.
SadPole, I wish publication of some "raw data" could save us from our 2012 election choices! :o)))))) But no. But in case of Poland you are right, raw data publication by MAK may pacify your turbulent waters, one minor detail is how to convince MAK. Looks like you will have to write to them directly and I will translate! :o) And it won't be enough. I think all of those be it police investigation or technical investigation are very tight-fisted about sharing raw data with general public. Not advanced democratically enough yet, say, in this respect :o))))))))
See MAK is tight-fisted, even when it harms them (and all of Russia, for a sec :o) The first summer transcripts was it June? were published after MAK released them to Poland, on the surface prohibiting Poland to publish them, but in reality I think they knew what Poland would do with them ;o)))) not a Newton's binom to figure out in that situation. That today the papers leave Moscow and tomorrow they are copied by each and every Polish media, literally. At that, there was absolutely nothing there that would harm Russia's position -no shouts "this plane is broken! it doesn't work!" or clearly wrong ground control directions. So, when Poland presses hard - MAK unwillingly but parts with a bit of their data.
Same recently - only after Poland screamed we want those ATC transcripts dead or alive - they appeared on MAK site, as an attachment :o) living life of its own ;o) on their site - but were not made a part of the report initially.
And, again, what was there to hide in ATC transcripts?! apart from un-printables and general alarm dashing around situation -nil. Ordinary controllers ordinary dashing around, given they were the whole "airport" :o) - as normal ones one would presume have others in the airport to run the runway to kick out unwanted visitors and have others taking care of lighting system adjustment acording to weather changes.
Similarly, I think MAK has many more interesting things for public - which do not undermine the case they have built - somewhere up their sleeve :o) They are just being tight-fisted bears :o) who are not yet penetrated by the awareness "you share with public all interesting for public". One gets a feeling they don't work for public, and actually they aren't meant to, so the trick is to make the change their understanding of responsibilities, and that's au wow difficult; I think SadPole for a exception granted in this case you will have to write right to Putin-Medvedev (and I will translate :o)
SadPole, I wish publication of some "raw data" could save us from our 2012 election choices! :o)))))) But no. But in case of Poland you are right, raw data publication by MAK may pacify your turbulent waters, one minor detail is how to convince MAK. Looks like you will have to write to them directly and I will translate! :o) And it won't be enough. I think all of those be it police investigation or technical investigation are very tight-fisted about sharing raw data with general public. Not advanced democratically enough yet, say, in this respect :o))))))))
See MAK is tight-fisted, even when it harms them (and all of Russia, for a sec :o) The first summer transcripts was it June? were published after MAK released them to Poland, on the surface prohibiting Poland to publish them, but in reality I think they knew what Poland would do with them ;o)))) not a Newton's binom to figure out in that situation. That today the papers leave Moscow and tomorrow they are copied by each and every Polish media, literally. At that, there was absolutely nothing there that would harm Russia's position -no shouts "this plane is broken! it doesn't work!" or clearly wrong ground control directions. So, when Poland presses hard - MAK unwillingly but parts with a bit of their data.
Same recently - only after Poland screamed we want those ATC transcripts dead or alive - they appeared on MAK site, as an attachment :o) living life of its own ;o) on their site - but were not made a part of the report initially.
And, again, what was there to hide in ATC transcripts?! apart from un-printables and general alarm dashing around situation -nil. Ordinary controllers ordinary dashing around, given they were the whole "airport" :o) - as normal ones one would presume have others in the airport to run the runway to kick out unwanted visitors and have others taking care of lighting system adjustment acording to weather changes.
Similarly, I think MAK has many more interesting things for public - which do not undermine the case they have built - somewhere up their sleeve :o) They are just being tight-fisted bears :o) who are not yet penetrated by the awareness "you share with public all interesting for public". One gets a feeling they don't work for public, and actually they aren't meant to, so the trick is to make the change their understanding of responsibilities, and that's au wow difficult; I think SadPole for a exception granted in this case you will have to write right to Putin-Medvedev (and I will translate :o)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mad Now
Age: 43
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all knowledgeable in this matter:
Is it true that MAK is responsible for the certification of the airfields, airfield installations, ATC etc in Russia and other CIS countries?
Thanks
RS
/edit:
@SadPole: you gave a very nice overlook of the Polish politic situation - care to comment how this applies to the accident itself actually?
Is it true that MAK is responsible for the certification of the airfields, airfield installations, ATC etc in Russia and other CIS countries?
Thanks
RS
/edit:
@SadPole: you gave a very nice overlook of the Polish politic situation - care to comment how this applies to the accident itself actually?
Last edited by RockShock; 25th Jan 2011 at 15:12.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 56
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swish226
Sorry for off-topic, guys, but I just couldn't resist:
They didn't This is an (urban) legend. Polish cavalry had an excellent reputation as far as their skill and courage are concerned, but they were not suicidal, and their commanders were not idiots. The image you're talking about was made popular by a scene from Andrzej Wajda's film "Lotna", which was kind a metaphor of desperate struggle against all odds. However, not many people know about the last cavalry charge in the II WW made on March 1st, 1945 at Borujsko near Mirosławiec by Polish lancers -- supporting a tank attack in replacement for infantry. Google Translate still does massacre texts, but you can get the gist at:
The charge at Borujsko
3. What about training standards of the Polish AF? Guess a lot has changed since the Polish cavalry charged the German panzers in 1939…
This is an (urban) legend. Polish cavalry had an excellent reputation as far as their skill and courage are concerned, but they were not suicidal, and their commanders were not idiots. The image you're talking about was made popular by a scene from Andrzej Wajda's film "Lotna", which was kind a metaphor of desperate struggle against all odds. However, not many people know about the last cavalry charge in the II WW made on March 1st, 1945 at Borujsko near Mirosławiec by Polish lancers -- supporting a tank attack in replacement for infantry. Google Translate still does massacre texts, but you can get the gist at:The charge at Borujsko
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it true that MAK is responsible for the certification of the airfields, airfield installations, ATC etc in Russia and other CIS countries?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can wrong readings from Vertical Speed Indicator (e.g. caused by icing) affect all on board instruments and give false readings?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 56
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SadPole
To somehow introduce any falsehoods in the report would therefore require up-front tampering with both FDR and CVR data
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear SadPole,
speaking to you as a fellow Pole, may I please remind you that this is a professional aviation forum, not a cafe for political discussions. All these commentaries regarding the political situation in Poland and Kaczynski's politics are somewhat out of place here, and this going on and on and on is starting to give us Poles a bad reputation - people who can just rant on endlessly. No wonder the '101' threads on Polish aviation forums have been shut down ages ago.
I wasn't an great fan of the man, but I do acknowledge the fact that he was elected as President. Something you don't achieve by sitting behind a keyboard and ranting.
I am also realistic about the 36th PAF unit that was responsible for the flight. It's not like this was a competent, impeccable unit, professional staff, great airmanship, everything by the book and all of a sudden Kaczynski showed up and messed everything up. The unit was substandard, the attitude very lax, forged logbook entries, poor training, lack of procedures.
Golf-Sierra
speaking to you as a fellow Pole, may I please remind you that this is a professional aviation forum, not a cafe for political discussions. All these commentaries regarding the political situation in Poland and Kaczynski's politics are somewhat out of place here, and this going on and on and on is starting to give us Poles a bad reputation - people who can just rant on endlessly. No wonder the '101' threads on Polish aviation forums have been shut down ages ago.
I wasn't an great fan of the man, but I do acknowledge the fact that he was elected as President. Something you don't achieve by sitting behind a keyboard and ranting.
I am also realistic about the 36th PAF unit that was responsible for the flight. It's not like this was a competent, impeccable unit, professional staff, great airmanship, everything by the book and all of a sudden Kaczynski showed up and messed everything up. The unit was substandard, the attitude very lax, forged logbook entries, poor training, lack of procedures.
Golf-Sierra
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the ATC transcripts:
JAK-40 landing
9:14:22 WHR 1, on course, on glidepath.
9:15:06 RP Landing. Papa Lima three one, later park at 180, well done.
That means JAK-40 flew ~1100m in ~44 sec. Average speed - 25m/s (90km/h)
IL-76 landing
09:25:32 WHR 1, on course, on glidepath.
09:25:54 RP/Krasnotuskij Cursing (Ёб твою мать, ни хуя себе, ой бля-а-а-а) (listning to live tape, one can hear flying airplane noise in the background)
That means, that the same distance IL-76 flew in 22 sec., average speed 50m/s (180km/h)
JAK-40 landing
9:14:22 WHR 1, on course, on glidepath.
9:15:06 RP Landing. Papa Lima three one, later park at 180, well done.
That means JAK-40 flew ~1100m in ~44 sec. Average speed - 25m/s (90km/h)
IL-76 landing
09:25:32 WHR 1, on course, on glidepath.
09:25:54 RP/Krasnotuskij Cursing (Ёб твою мать, ни хуя себе, ой бля-а-а-а) (listning to live tape, one can hear flying airplane noise in the background)
That means, that the same distance IL-76 flew in 22 sec., average speed 50m/s (180km/h)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Golf-Sierra
No wonder the '101' threads on Polish aviation forums have been shut down ages ago.
Good example from one of them, they found an excellent link:
YouTube - ????? ?? ????? - ????? ?????? 1/7
At 10:23 you can see the test on the ground (preflight)
of the notorious "Uchod" (GA) button.
This may close the discussion, if it was possible to use this button
in case of no ILS approach, by arming it on the ground.
The arming on the ground was just for test purpose.
In the second part of this video, continuing preflight,
at 00:53 , just one frame, you can see, tat there is also
the "uchod" button on the yoke.
YouTube - ????? ?? ????? - ????? ?????? 1/7
Last edited by Ptkay; 25th Jan 2011 at 17:02.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golf-Sierra
I think SadPole has given in his latest post valuable insight, which, together with Alice25's post helps this forum professionals to understand why it is so difficult for the Poles among themselves and with the Russians to agree on the causes of this accident. I think he deserves to be heard, like many other posters.
I think SadPole has given in his latest post valuable insight, which, together with Alice25's post helps this forum professionals to understand why it is so difficult for the Poles among themselves and with the Russians to agree on the causes of this accident. I think he deserves to be heard, like many other posters.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can wrong readings from Vertical Speed Indicator (e.g. caused by icing) affect all on board instruments and give false readings?
Sorry for misunderstanding. I asked this question without any relation to the Russian citation.
May I repeat it?
Can wrong readings from Vertical Speed Indicator (e.g. caused by icing) affect all on board instruments and give false readings? (FMS, KAV, etc.)
Russian citation you provided is not about wrong speed indicator reading. It's about using A/T in speed stabilization mode and autopilot in vertical control. It can cause engine to go IDLE due to A/T signal priority. They suggest, that pilot tried GA with autopilot, but due to A/T setup, there was no reaction.
May I repeat it?
Can wrong readings from Vertical Speed Indicator (e.g. caused by icing) affect all on board instruments and give false readings? (FMS, KAV, etc.)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golf-Sierra
I understand and I appologize. But, if the ATC at fault question is being treated as a technical issue here, so should be who exactly was at control of the plane.
I mean, the other Kaczynski might still fly to London one day as VIP. Will that become technical issue?
Latest from Kaczynski.
President not cargo package - can decide about landing
How is that for technical conversation about sterile cockpit rules not applying to VIPs precedent? This is about legal precedent in a NATO country.
p.s. Thanks to all who liked what I wrote.
I mean, the other Kaczynski might still fly to London one day as VIP. Will that become technical issue?
Latest from Kaczynski.
President not cargo package - can decide about landing
How is that for technical conversation about sterile cockpit rules not applying to VIPs precedent? This is about legal precedent in a NATO country.
p.s. Thanks to all who liked what I wrote.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts