RegDep

Alice,

Correct. What I think happened was that when the Director General (or whatever) asked the Tsar how he wanted the railway to run, the Autocrat said: "The most direct possible way of course, you fool. OUT!" and it was built straight, except where the terrain did not allow, given the performance of the locomotives of the time. After all the DG did not want the Tsar's train to get stuck, because that could have meant....

So, is there something for us to learn?

ARRAKIS

Let me see... what's written on page 148
"According to the Polish side, some of the statements in chapter 3.2. are not ...."

SadPole

Very good. So you DID look at it! All right!

Now look at the MAK report and find the causes that were not listed in the Polish report as one of those that are wrong or unsupported by any evidence or insufficiently proven.

Now, you think that they did not abandon approach at 100 m was not sufficiently proven?

RockShock

I am getting sick of straightening out your misinformation. Until now, your English was perfect, what happened now to your language skills when you wrote the above, when the 'Remarks' doc at page 148 says:

In the opinion of Polish comission, some of the conclusions contained in the section 3.2 "Causes", cannot be confirmed by facts, are not sufficiently proven by the analysis, or the analysis is not performed properly
If you care to read more in the document, not just the last page of it, you'll see that most of the remarks to the above are not denying the finding, but are calling for clarification on how the conclusions were obtained, or are pointing out some details that were not taken into account by MAK - not denying the conclusions themselves.

So far they don't have anything to walk away from as the report is still far from being published - so you can sleep in peace.

gstaniak

Arrakis:
You're right, my mistake. Due to the fact that partly these are the same people -- predominantly, E. Klich sits on both comittees.

RockShock:
Correction: the cockpit was silent, the tower cursed. It's a mistake to equalize silence with lack of pressure/stress. And what are the "contributing factors" on the side of the ATC? I hope you don't subscribe to the "they could have called Poland directly after the IL-76 approach" BS. I've seen pilots reply to this blame-shifting with "it's not the tower that crashed" (probably even in this thread). Specifically: what were the causes or contributing factors of the accident that you can blame on ATC? Not theories about "what would've happened if (e.g. they called Poland directly)", not sensations about nervous atmosphere or cursing, but actual causes?

I'm afraid we've been there, and extensively too. What makes you think it was a PAR (or RSL) approach? Did the crew specify the approach type? Did they request radar service? Did they follow the procedure for the RSL approach?

Let me quote from the EPKT "orange":

Substitute "landing" for "take-off" and apply the above to the Smolensk situation. How come Polish specialists write the above in a report about an incident at Katowice-Pyrzyce, but somehow forget it all when they deal with the Smolensk accident? And suddenly start to blame Col. Krasnokutskiy for "passive attitude" and "letting the crew decide for themselves"? Sorry, I know you have a different opinion, but if I ever saw a case of trying to desperately shift the blame regardless of the truth and common sense, then this is one. It is enough to see the amount of BS completely unrelated to the causes of the accident that was produced during the conference. And to me, one of the reasons for this is that people on the committee are military or MoD personnel. There is a clear conflict of interests.

Alice025

RegDep "So, is there something for us to learn?"

Yes (sigh). "To God (it) is high, to tsar (it) is far" (do it yourself). (sigh).
______________

RockShock, I will help you.
SadPole, take it easy. Let's do a short cut and sleep well as advised and all.
Do you think Russia is going to care about any Polish commission conclusions? :o))))))))))

It will end up either one way or the other.

One way is, let's ? how it's called in English give the credit of? an allowance? ? nevermind. One result is commission says ATC actions or inactivity did not influence the outcome of the flight and thus agrees with MAK.

The other result is the commission finds ATC action/inaction immediately affecting the flight outcome.
In which case it comes up with an own report, titled:

How to Bust Airport, Aicraft and Pilot Minima and Perform a Successful Go-around at More than Double Vertical Speed Without Reading Aicraft Manual From the First Attempt in One's Life While Ignoring All ATC Directions but One When An ATC Does Their Job Right.

I am sure it will be a hit popular publication with ICAO who will multi-copy it and distribute all around the world as an Action Guide.

RetiredF4

I myself and others elaborated on "not very helpful behavior of ATC" in great detail. Those arguments are based on the MAC report alone. Those arguments don´t blame ATC as being the main cause of the accident, but they raise several questions concerning the ATC handling of 101 being not helpful for them to catch up with their mistakes and shortcomings.

One example being the information "on glidepath on course", when they started out 100 meters above glidepath and ended up in the ground. The warning horizon 101 being the first warning of being not on glidepath anymore, 12 seconds after they dropped below glidepath and 25 meters above runway elevation. In a PAR this kind of information would be main cause for the accident. As we agreed that the crew did not request a PAR this information at least was wrong, useless and dangerous.

It is still not clear, what kind of approach they had been cleared to, also it is the responsibility of ATC to do that (after the aircrew states their request for the type of approach, which did not happen here) or to prohibit the approach itself if it is not clear what kind of approach is being flown.

Two examples of previus qualified comments based on MAC-report from other posters and myself. I´m not going to repeat all of them.

You ignore those posters and their arguments at all and continue with your own agenda again and again. You think, it is a helpful behavior in this thread?
I ask you the same question here as SadPole; who are you, and what is your profession and qualification?

franzl

MikeJuliet

One thing is certain - neither 101 crew nor ATC used PAR, or the ground-controlled approach procedure. One of the basic rules in PAR is "5 seconds of silence = go around".

SadPole

I DID take a long sleep long before you posted it.

AND. I know Russia is not going to care much about those remarks. I would LOVE to be the one writing the response to Polish remarks, as I have written enough technical reports to know how to deal with what I call – Wishy-washy-washing-nitpicking-stalling-machine-of-Walla-Walla-Washington.


What I do worry about is just how much more STUPID we (Poland) will look when the Polish report comes out - if it's based on similar ideas.

AND – the last job I would want is to be that poor dude who is writing that report after they wound up so many people in Poland about Russian ATCs being completely at fault.

ARRAKIS

Alice,
what could be the meaning of "не дергайся" in the ATC transcript (open micro, 9:38:55) and a few seconds later "да не дергайся ты". I understand the words, but I may be missing the sense/context and prefer to be sure.

Arrakis

RetiredF4

I would like to ammend your statement to read:
One thing is certain - neither 101 crew nor ATC followed the rules of a PAR, or the ground-controlled approach procedure.

No doubt about that.
But again: Who is in control of the airport, who grants approach, landing, missed approach and departure clearances? I learned long ago , it is
"A" like Air
"T" like Traffic
"C" like Control

Control is the magic word.
"To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; to direct."
definition of control
What and how did they "control" on that special day?

franzl

Alice025

Arrakis it's a set expression literally "don't jerk yourself, stop twitching" used as "don't worry". Used not when someone shakes in your view ;o)), no epilipsia, but when you suppose someone worries about something very much and I guess is torn mentally between several options what to do.

Another circumstance is when one plans to do something not thought through well (it seems to you), jump at doing something, so you stop him, like, don't jump at solutions, don't take rush? decisions. Well I guess this is then the same as idea 1.
Never thought of it when we use it.
I would hear it often :o) Like, I would say, well, if I can't make it for that train I will thyen run borrow money er? soemwhere and return that ticket and buy another one for two days' later and, if I also simultaneously ... etc!" and someone approx. Mum :o) would say stop it slow down stay at home simply that's too complex planning nothing that is done quickly is done well. :o) So this is "slow down" as well.
Well then this is an all-circumstances embracing list at max.

overthewing

Sounds as if it's the equivalent of 'Chill'?

RegDep

Or: No sweat?

Alice025

Well I don't know how you quiet-en? someone too temperamental in your view in English.
Keep in mind we are not frozen in snow here contrary to common belief :o))))), but on a scale Estonian/Finnish to Italian - more towards the "Italian" expressive side.
There is a self-critical joke re pent up energy, when a man runs to catch a bus in a city bus stop, doors are closing, he runs quicker, other passengers already in sympathise with him, driver holds the door open one extra second, then after one mile run ;o)))) the man falls onto a bus seat and tries to catch his breath. When he can breathe again he asks the passengers around: What's the number?

vorra

"Chill"/"calm down"/"keep still". Not entirely clear who Krasnokutsky is saying it to from the transcript. The landing zone controller (Ryzhenko)?

For anyone still interested, clarification - both Krasnokutsky and Plyusnin were from Smolensk originally (from the Il-76 regiment), but Ryzhenko was not, he had been specially transferred there from Tver before the 07/04 flight.

MountainBear

or perhaps, "snap"?

In the part of the USA I'm from we use it to mean "relax and focus on something important". If someone is emotionally hyper about something but it's the wrong thing they should be paying attention to we say "snap".

James: "I can't believe Jenny left me for another man. That's just so cruel."
Jim: "Hey buddy, snap. You have to be at work in five minutes."

So snap does have the implication of "slow down" or "chill" but also the implication of "refocus" too.

edit: Having thought about it some more the question I would pose to Alice is if the phrase is meant critically. Both "Chill" and "snap" have the subtle implication that the person being addressed is in error in some way. "Chill dude, she's not worth fighting over." On the other hand, "don't sweat it" or "don't worry" are more affirmative in nature, more supportive. "Mom, I burnt the toast. Don't sweat it. Just make some more."

Sorry if this is thread drift but I happen to find the translation of idiomatic phrases quite a fascinating topic. But perhaps not on this board.

D262

Well, I can't put any proffesional input on flying and related procedures, but my English is good enough for a fairly exact translation of idioms.
So I'll put in my "2 cents" (in Russian it would be "5 kopeks")
What Krasnokutskiy was saying means "Calm down"- "Stay cool" -"Stop worrying".
So no subtle indications of possible error or wandering attention are present.

D262

Does it matter much? Think it's impossible to determine - it must be his reply to smbd gesturing his frustration, showing that approach is close to insanity etc. But anyway it's during second approach by Il-76, and has nothing to do with Tupolev.

Any other translation questions? - just ask for help.

kontrolor

franzl, you are boring us with your re-definition of ATC and its tasks. Regardless what your idea about ATM managment is (that's why there is no more Air Traffic Control, but ATM - Air Traffic Managment), the tasks of ATCOS is pretty clear. If you are asking what kind of approach PLF101 was cleared to - well, trial approach, according to the crew. Now go and find that in your books. I'm pretty sure you won't fnd them in ICAO documents. Even during PAR, it is NOT up to ATCO to command go-arround, unless prescribed otherwise by local authorities. PLF101 had no official status (HEAD), but people at the airport had an idea WHO is coming. Again, it was THE CREW which SCREWED it up, responsibility of ATCOS finished when PLF101 busted ALL minimas (by QFE and RA) plus, do you have any bloody idea HOW FAST IS 8m/s on approach?