ARRAKIS

Another tabloid level interpretation of facts, the way it suits you. By the way, have you ever read that document?

Arrakis

kontrolor

again, blaming the controllers for the crash is absolute nonsense. This landing was conducted as if somebody would have been given the task to find the explosive device with timer in thick fog with count-down on loudspeakers and with notice, that at 10 seconds to blast, crew must find a shelter, because it takes 5 seconds to dismantle the explosive device. The crew of PLF101 continued to search the device even after the countdown was beyond 10 and found the device 2 seconds before the blast.

this is equal to busting the minima they have performed. If they would level off or continue descent with wrong QNH or QFE, they wouldn't have called 100, 90, 80 ... meters...this is clear indication, that they were searching (and hoping) for the runway..."it must be here somewhere, we will see it any second). This is how hazzard junkies are thinking (I'm gonna win the lotto today, I'm gonna win jackpot today....). The only difference between them and pilots is, that first group only looses money and dignity, the other bring down the plane and its passengers with them....

Artificial Horizon

Why is this so hard, Pilots continued approach when it was not appropriate to do so, whatever ATC or PAX says does not remove responsibility of the PIC to discontinue an approach at the given minima. They didn't, they crashed, everyone on board was killed. To try and blame anyone else but the crew is just aboput saving 'face'

RockShock

@Artificial Horizon
At least in my opinion it is not. I don't think any of us here blames the ATC for the crash, please do not exaggerate the discussion. What everyone here is trying to point out is that the report is not complete and I think it's important it is as complete as possible to avoid future accidents.
Based on MAK report the crew under pressure busted the minima and crashed the plane, however due to Polish investigation this is not true: the crew properly called for g/a but failed to execute it properly. This has tremendous implications, as it can help save lives in the future for other Tu-154 pilots in the world - the training etc will be able to be updated with those findings.

About the ATC, nobody here is blaming them for ordering the a/cto fly into ground. I think the general consensus is that ATC could have prevented the crash if warned the aircraft in due time, but failed to do so. It doesn't mean that ATC is blamed for CFIT by anyone (not sure if we can call this accident a CFIT after all recent discoveries though)

From latest news, the Polish criminal analysis lab reading the CVR says that they managed to read the whole recording and there will be no [unintelligible] parts in the transcript published by Polish side and all the voices will be identified. That's a good news as I think the CVR is critical to deeming any pressure etc. Of course, in this thread we already have a fine example of someone who believes that the tapes are being tampered here by the brother of the late president and the words are inserted there to suit the Polish theory, so please take my words with a dose of respect - I may be a mole here

SadPole

Complete horse****. This "Polish investigation" pretends that using RA for decision height was acceptable (it isn't) and that they called goaround upon reaching 100[m]. They didn't. They supposedly issued goaround command at about 20 m above runway altitude and not upon reaching 100[m] RA but when it rapidly started decreasing due to rising edge of the ravine (between 90 and 80 RA callouts). They started executing GA while way below runway level inside the ravine.

I think everybody understands why politicians would want to muddy up things a bit. What is UNACCEPTABLE is that the official Polish "expert" Klich is now doing that, completely ignoring "RA used for decision height - STUPID" issue.

They will decertify us from everything ICAO if he continues that horse****, you know. Would you certify a guy who does not see RA used for decision height as completely wrong?

The issue was about the Polish presentation that showed all these new phrases without proper timestamp, which misled everyone (not me) into thinking that they supposedly were issued 5 seconds prior to rapidly decreasing RA readings. That's the "tampering" that was talked about.

This issue has been completely explained already. Don't pretend to be that... silly.

Golf-Sierra

SadPole - but why do you continue to lie?

The title of the article is (and this is a quote) "Prezydent nie jest pakunkiem, decyzja należy do niego" - "The president isn't freight, it is his decision".

The fact that Onet has twisted the link to the article a 'bit' - well as I said Onet makes the Daily Mail seem like professional journalism. And anyone who claims to be an inteligent person simply does not quote that sort of source, especially on a form with the word 'professional' in it's name.

This is an excerpt from his full statement - which reads: "Jest chyba oczywiste, że prezydent czy premier nie jest pakunkiem na pokładzie samolotu i gdy trzeba decydować, na które lotnisko lecieć, kiedy nie można lądować na lotnisku zaplanowanym, decyzja należy do niego lub osoby przez niego wskazanej" - "It's obvious that the president or prime minister are not freight and when a decision is needed which airport to go to if you can't land at the planned airport it is up to him or someone nominated by him".


As regards the sterile cockpit the article stated:

"Według niego o naciskach nie może świadczyć obecność w kabinie pilotów zarówno gen. Andrzeja Błasika jak i szefa protokołu dyplomatycznego Mariusza Kazany. Według Kaczyńskiego takie zachowanie (obecność w kabinie pilotów – red.) jest normą. - Piszę to jako były premier, który dziesiątki, jeśli nie przeszło sto razy w ten sposób podróżował."

"According to him [J Kaczynski] the fact that Blasik and Kazan were in the cockpit cannot be taken as proof of pressure being put on the pilots. According to Kaczynski such behaviour (non crew in the pilot's cabin) was something normal (i.e. usual, typical of these flights). I am stating this as a former Prime Minister who has travelled in this way tens of, perhaps even over a hundred times".

So he was not commenting on the legality of people in the pilot's cabin.

The final paragraph of this article - where J Kaczynski points out that the 36th PAF Squadron is subordinate of the Government (i.e. prime minister) not of the Presidential office - you conveniently leave out from your comments.

Come on man - think - Tibilisi - why did the pilot get a medal, who made that decision? Answer - the Minister of Defence - i.e. the Government. So who do the staff of the 36th report to? Government - Yes. President - No.


So SadPole - please leave your personal political agenda off of this forum.

Golf-Sierra

SadPole

In your view, should it be? Do Americans have Obama or British have Cameron sitting in the cockpit during landing? Is that safe, according to you?

Come on people. You accuse me of playing politics but you ignore all the accepted rules to somehow point out that the pilots did little if anything wrong and that ATCs are just as guilty as the pilots. That's a technical and not a political stand?

1. Did they request PAR approach? (Yes or no?)
2. Did they follow the rules of that Russian half-PAR approach by reading their altitudes back? (Yes or no?)
3. Did they report reaching decision height and reported their intentions to ATC?
4. If they didn't give rat's ass about Russian procedures why were the ATCs suddenly required to go above and beyond to save them from doing something stupid?

This stand is similar to this situation. Suppose there is a law that you are supposed to report a drunk driver when you see one. You don't report one and he then kills a bunch of people. Does it make the drunk driver innocent or half innocent and you guilty of that crash because you didn't report him?

RockShock

@SadPole:
Please point me to a movie in youtube showing the Polish press conference and a minute:second of that film where this happens. Unless you do that I refuse to conduct any furhter argument with you.

Kulverstukas

SadPole, don't know about Obama (personally I think that he want to, but they just forbid him), but Putin not only flew Su-27, Tu-160 and Be-200, but also dropped a load on later.

gstaniak

I think you greatly exaggerate the importance of this crash. From the technical point of view, no new lessons will be learnt here. One cannot deny that the accident would not happen if the crew flew by-the-book and was better trained. AFAIR it's actually not uncommon for people in such situations to say one thing and do another (or do nothing) -- that's why CRM was invented.

probes

in other words: no pressure, as the crew were used to non-sterile cockpit. Doesn't make things look better?

SadPole

Very good – here is the video.

Go to 14:03 in the video. In there, under timestamp 8:40:47 there are three phrases:
1. PIC We are leaving for second circle (aka goaround command)
2. 2nd – GoAround.
3. Navigator: 80,70,60, 50

Problem is – None of these phrases should have been stamped with 8:40:47. It's a mistake or misinformation. Due to the fact that Polish timestamps were shifted by timezone and about 2.5[s] – different time settings in Polish FDR, it led to three different versions of transcripts regarding where exactly was that critical GoAround command was supposed to take place, for example, this one:

Someone then tried to place it altogether with Russsian transcript, and ended up with multiple "goarounds" by 2nd pilot, among many other things.

Note that the Russian transcript has the 2nd pilot goaround at 10:40:50.

Meaning – we had a TECHNICAL mystery to solve and we solved it here at this website, together, with all the different "teams" participating. A very good use of the resources of this website, wouldn't you agree?

A different part of the Polish presentation allowed to clarify that. Walk back a few pages and you will see the whole thing.

The Polish commission should have published the complete new transcript before publishing the "preliminary presentation" with new phrases which then resulted in journalists producing different new transcripts.

SadPole

I am dreaming of a day when most Poles and Russians will be able to see our politicians as clowns the same way many Americans and Brits see their politicians. When I lived in the US, there were several months of debates on every channel whether Bush was a complete idiot or only pretended to be one.

See here

That's why I say it is so important that we have professional people (soldiers, pilots, experts) who run things independently of the clown in charge. Now we still don't.

RockShock

That is irrelevant. If the Polish transcript will be shifted, it will be shifted from the beginnning to an end. It is a problem for the journalists trying to match transcripts from few different sources. Yet, you already managed in this thread to bash the still-alive-Kaczynski, the already-dead-Kaczynski, accuse his supporters of tampering with the tapes and the Polish commisions of trying to deny the blame of the pilot for the accident. You did this all based on the 'transcript' rewritten by journo by hand from the slides and you accused the commision of the lack of professionalism releasing such transcript (while in fact they haven't yet released anything)

That is the problem of the journalist putting together the info, but you were accusing the commision of stitching the tapes together just to fit them into the official Polish picture of the accident that cannot blame the pilots at all.

No, you have an agenda of mixing political opinions and ideas with evidence and accusing the evidence of being false if they don't suit your theory. I don't know who you refer to by 'we' but your posts did nothing more than shifted the discussion from facts to political gossip.

That is your problem and the problem of journalists. If you decide to conduct your arguments based on the transcripts produced by a newspaper, rather than wait for official report - and you want thus to discredit this report even before it sees the daylight - that is your problem

probie:
No, it doesn't make the things look better and there are obvious negligences on the Polish military side - nobody here denies that. However, this makes the whole MAK report conclusions irrelevant, as they concluded the pressure on the pilot was the main cause of the crash. That is why a Polish report with a complete transcript will be interesting to complete the picture.

SadPole

No, as I showed you again and again – it wasn't me who was using the goaround time confusion for political purposes but the political circles in Poland, and to a degree even our so called "experts". The confusion about exact time is the very basis of the theory that supposedly the crew tried to execute the GoAround by the book. Even Klich says that.

As to me – I saw all the three different goaround times being given/guessed and treated it as unreliable on that basis. No exact time given – no theories allowed based on those new phrases. When asked questions about it, I first ridiculed it as possible mis-info and then investigated the details and found the answer.

Now - show me what I supposedly did wrong in that whole thing. Take your time.

RockShock

You see, that is your problem that even now you still try to undermine the qualifications of the commision. Mind you that the commision has active airline pilots, air disaster experts and people with experience in air safety. Yet, you put them between "quotes" to show their credibility should not be trusted.

Yes, the problem is that Klich refers to the confusion created when MAK failed to read from the CVR the first g/a at 100m from the PIC - due to their report the first g/a call was by the FO. That's what he means by 'timing' the GoAround.
You, obviously, you refer to the timestamps which I tell you again are irrelevant - if the Polish CVR transcript will start 5sec earlier, the plane will hit the ground 5sec earlier too. Unless of course, as you wrote, someone will be tampering with the recordings in order to stich the tapes togehter.
I repeat again: you used journalist 'transcript' to criticize the comissions and "experts" professionalism before the report is published. You find them unreliable yet they were reliable enough to bash around all the people not following your line and the people working in Poland from across the industry to solve the investigation. You should mind that there are a lot of people here from Poland who are part of the industry and certainly they are not happy to read that you undermine their competences based on the press stories. The military world in Poland still carries the burden of the communism era, but the civil authorities are at a level that unjustifies any criticism that you have made - and those are civil authorities involved in investigation, apart from the military prosecutors.

The list of your latest posts should be sufficient lecture for anyone who'd like to draw the conclusions.

Tiger65

As you perfectly know, the new transcript wasn't completed when the presentation took place.

How do you know that the previous draft transcript published in May last year was properly stamped? It is obvious that the latest Russian ATC transcripts had to comply with the previously determined timestamps, but, that does not mean that no mistake was done in the very beginning.

One has to wait for the final report and then make comments

Alice025

I read interview with Yeltsin's pilot who he inherited from previous "tsars".
It appears, in his view, he saw it nothing strange that VIP-s are behaving "unreasonable", like, he viewed it part of his job description to be able to manage both the flight and them. He said he had a habit of flying "technical flights" the day before or two days before to the destination of VIP travel, to check if any up-dates in the lighting system in the airport and how he understans the controllers' English.
He checked even Heathrow :o)))))
Then, they flew in 3 planes team, and the front one he used to sacrifice :o), to do a trial approach as visibility he said is often better "than what the ground reports to be on the safe side".
He admitted he busted minima what appears not once when Yeltsin was "unreasonable". And didn't bust in other times. He said it depends on contingency planning, how sure he is evaluating chances, combining info from his own technical flight the day before and what the plane going immediately in front of him says re the actual visibility in go-around.

But here is a culture of expectation that VIP-s are likely to behave "unreasonable", they plan for the worst scenario. He carried USSR and Russian tsars for 25 years and said he negotiated his right to hand-pick his crews, it is not that he was "given" mixed crews every time.

How it is in democratic places don't know :o) but apparently all worked out their ways to cope. Poland should just make its choice and either upgrade their VIPs' :o) or upgrade their crews, because when it's a mixture one is un-prepared.

Alice025

But then we live in absolute monarchy mentality still :o), where, as Kulverstukas has mentioned Putin flies SU-s and displays other un-healthy interest to various technical "toys" driving like MIR to the bottom of Baikal lake (imagine THEIR contingency planing for "un-reasonable VIP visit"!!! ;o))))),

where R/W route Moscow - St. Petersburg is straight line except for one "bug"/small curve - tsar Nicolas II finger-tip circled by his pencil by mistake on the map, when drawing a line

and Moscow subway ring line is said to owe its existence to Stalin's coffee cup with overspill left on the map without noticing.

Alice025

By the way it seems Poland followed those old "handle with care" VIP visit rules -had a "technical flight" preceding on the 7th (alas not the same crew set), and sent forward one may view it like this - Yak! to land, to check the actual weather. Just not immediately before, and Yak may be was reporting the weather not aware of thir role.