Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: D-90449
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Go around
Karel,
The MAK's "reconstruction" is available from:
The 2nd pilot "Odchodzimy" is to be heard @35:36-37...
The polish "reconstruction" is available from:
1) From the "final" report presentation:
"Odchodzimy" @04:03
2) From the preliminary report published 18.01.201:
"Odchodzimy" @03:21...
In either of those two cases:
1) The crew voices were replaced with transcripts;
2) The statament "W normie" (from 2nd pilot, as known from MAK's transcription) was replaced with 1st pilot's "Odchodzimy na drugie zajscie".
----
"Dochodzimy" == "Go around"
The MAK's "reconstruction" is available from:
The polish "reconstruction" is available from:
1) From the "final" report presentation:
2) From the preliminary report published 18.01.201:
In either of those two cases:
1) The crew voices were replaced with transcripts;
2) The statament "W normie" (from 2nd pilot, as known from MAK's transcription) was replaced with 1st pilot's "Odchodzimy na drugie zajscie".
----
"Dochodzimy" == "Go around"
Indeed it is little suspicious. From the begining the words of 2nd pilot are discussed, but appearing the command of captain is very suprised. It looks litle like trick to to prove that there was no pressure to land from VIP pax. Poles need to clean their exponents.
Both MAK an the Polish report assumed, that the increase of the descent rate mentioned above was intentional. Me thinks they are wrong, and it was inadvertent.
We know that AP should not be used that way, because it is not a very precise way of driving the bus.
Now, what would happend, if my explanation of why we can clearly hear the GA from the FO and in PIC's case an audio analysis was needed, was correct.
If PIC at that precise moment addressed the man standing behind, how would it affect its control over that AP wheel?
Arrakis
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Odchodzimy" @03:21...
In either of those two cases:
1) The crew voices were replaced with transcripts;
2) The statament "W normie" (from 2nd pilot, as known from MAK's transcription) was replaced with 1st pilot's "Odchodzimy na drugie zajscie". ----
"Dochodzimy" == "Go around"
In either of those two cases:
1) The crew voices were replaced with transcripts;
2) The statament "W normie" (from 2nd pilot, as known from MAK's transcription) was replaced with 1st pilot's "Odchodzimy na drugie zajscie". ----
"Dochodzimy" == "Go around"
The quality of sound is poor and there is loudest warning PULL UP! I can not hear "Odchodzimy na drugie (zajscie)" /i.e. Going to secound (occurence)/. I can't hear it at all. It may be little more intelligible at multiple-truck tape of CVR.
In the secound polish video, those voices could be heard (but hardly understood) at 01:57 (better then at 03:21).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polish Officers charged by Military Police for negligence
The first charges have been filed against two "senior" officers who were involved with training the crew and arranging the flight details. This follows the dismissal of a dozen high-ranking officers in the military:
Two servicemen charged for poor preparation of Smolensk flight - Warsaw Business Journal - Online Portal - wbj.pl
Two servicemen charged for poor preparation of Smolensk flight - Warsaw Business Journal - Online Portal - wbj.pl
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: D-90449
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karel,
The multimedia from the final polish report's presentation are available from:
http://www.mswia.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=13486
(Zip file : 60.4 MB)
The multimedia from the final polish report's presentation are available from:
http://www.mswia.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=13486
(Zip file : 60.4 MB)
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Africa Asia EU all together
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no such a available still I suspect. All what I know for now, is that a " third person " in a cockpit was not a President. By the way no one had mentioned there were two ( thanks 
) on this flight . I will ask my American military friend expert who was attending one of the last parties to make certain points more clear. It could had been either a head of a protocol responsible for any foreign visit. Let me ask around. For now please follow what is possible to follow here.
) on this flight . I will ask my American military friend expert who was attending one of the last parties to make certain points more clear. It could had been either a head of a protocol responsible for any foreign visit. Let me ask around. For now please follow what is possible to follow here.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two (known long ago) in the cockpit besides the crew were Kazana (director of diplomatic protocol) and Błasik (airforce commander). I have no reason to believe that the third was not president Lech Kaczyński. Americans are as biased as Poles and Russians.
I have no reason to believe that the third was not president Lech Kaczyński. Americans are as biased as Poles and Russians.
Sorry, but you've got it all wrong.
For me, it was a failed scud run, with the crew going knowingly below MDA, and neither MAK or the Polish Commision explained all the details.
Arrakis
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ARRAKIS
For me, it was a failed scud run, with the crew going knowingly below MDA
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Expatsylvania
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? You would expect the president in this situation to be fully cognizant of the terrible risks involved in descent below minima or scud running?
If the captain is intimidated into attempting an unsafe action, guess what? It's his own bloody fault. Above all else, it's his job to know better. Pilots come under pressure daily from people in positions of authority to do potentially unsafe things. In all known cases, the authority of those in question is superseded by that of the ground. Pilots are expected to plan accordingly.
If the captain is intimidated into attempting an unsafe action, guess what? It's his own bloody fault. Above all else, it's his job to know better. Pilots come under pressure daily from people in positions of authority to do potentially unsafe things. In all known cases, the authority of those in question is superseded by that of the ground. Pilots are expected to plan accordingly.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that president (Kaczyński). During Georgia-Russia war, Kaczyński with several other presidents flew to make a political show of supporting Georgia (because anti-Russian rhetoric was the base of Kaczyński's politics), the planned flight destination was in another country near Georgia, then ground travel to Georgia was planned. During the flight, Kaczyński ordered the crew to change flight destination directly to Georgia which airspace was a war zone at the time, in fact controlled by Russian military. The plane easily could be shot down. The crew refused then, landed at planned destination, presidents ground-traveled to Georgia safely. Later Kaczyński attempted to court-martial the PIC, the PIC suffered some career consequences. The FO in that flight was the same Protasiuk which later was the PIC who scud-runned (with Kaczyński and others) into the ground in Smolensk. Yes, Protasiuk is guilty. But Kaczyński too.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash of the Polish Governmental Plane PFL 101 in Smolensk1 April 10, 2010
Status Report Dated November 11, 2011:
http://home.comcast.net/~fotoszop/ks...s%20Report.pdf
Status Report Dated November 11, 2011:
http://home.comcast.net/~fotoszop/ks...s%20Report.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Poland, Zyrardow
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Findings of the Polish Parliamentary Committee for the Investigation of the Smolensk Crash
According to the IAC Final Report, “the aircraft collided with the birch with a trunk diameter of 30–40 cm, which led to the left outer wing portion of about 6.5 m ripped off and intensive left bank. In 5–6 more seconds, inverted, the aircraft collided with the ground and was destroyed.”71 Accordingly, the encounter with the birch that resulted in the loss of a part of the wing caused the plane to invert and crash. This scenario was illustrated by an animation demonstrating IAC's interpretation of the last moments of the airplane before the crash. This animation was not supported by any scientific or forensic analysis of the crash scene, but rather represented a work of art contrary to basic law of physics.
On September 8, 2011, Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, an expert on high-energy impacts on materials and structures testifying before the Polish Parliamentary Committee, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision with the birch could not have ripped the outer portion of the wing from the aircraft. While applying all parameters presented in the IAC Final Report in a rigorous finite element analysis, he demonstrated through a virtual experiment that the high-energy impact causes the wing to act like an ax, cutting the birch with only a small amount of damage to the edge of the wing but without any damage to the lifting area of the wing.72 These findings directly challenged the scenario presented by the IAC.
70 Ścios, Zbrodnia Smoleńska, p. 73.
71 Findings No. 3.1.69 and 3.1.70, IAC Final Report, English translation, p. 180.
72 Wieslaw Binienda, „Czy brzoza w Smoleńsku mogła złamać skrzydło Tu-154M 10 kwietnia 2010 roku?” as posted on November 7, 2011 at
PREZENTACJA EKSPERTÓW PRZED ZESPO?EM PARLAMENTARNYM, 08.09.2011 - Marek D?browski: ""Merde!" Cambronne, 1815" - Salon24.
Smolensk Status Report November 2011
Page 20 of 21
However, even if the scenario presented by the IAC is assumed whereby the birch rips off 1/3 of the length of the wing at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground, the ripped-off portion of the wing could not have fallen as far as 111 meters from the birch where it was found. The aerodynamic simulation shows that the ripped off part would crash to the ground no further than 12 meters from the birch at velocity of 100 km/h. The inspection of the crash scene showed that the ripped off portion of the left wing was found leaning against the trees 111 meters from the birch and on the right side of the path of the airplane. The observed damage to the trees and to the ripped off segment of the wing excludes the possibility of a velocity of 100 km/h at the point of impact.
According to the IAC Final Report, “the aircraft collided with the birch with a trunk diameter of 30–40 cm, which led to the left outer wing portion of about 6.5 m ripped off and intensive left bank. In 5–6 more seconds, inverted, the aircraft collided with the ground and was destroyed.”71 Accordingly, the encounter with the birch that resulted in the loss of a part of the wing caused the plane to invert and crash. This scenario was illustrated by an animation demonstrating IAC's interpretation of the last moments of the airplane before the crash. This animation was not supported by any scientific or forensic analysis of the crash scene, but rather represented a work of art contrary to basic law of physics.
On September 8, 2011, Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, an expert on high-energy impacts on materials and structures testifying before the Polish Parliamentary Committee, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision with the birch could not have ripped the outer portion of the wing from the aircraft. While applying all parameters presented in the IAC Final Report in a rigorous finite element analysis, he demonstrated through a virtual experiment that the high-energy impact causes the wing to act like an ax, cutting the birch with only a small amount of damage to the edge of the wing but without any damage to the lifting area of the wing.72 These findings directly challenged the scenario presented by the IAC.
70 Ścios, Zbrodnia Smoleńska, p. 73.
71 Findings No. 3.1.69 and 3.1.70, IAC Final Report, English translation, p. 180.
72 Wieslaw Binienda, „Czy brzoza w Smoleńsku mogła złamać skrzydło Tu-154M 10 kwietnia 2010 roku?” as posted on November 7, 2011 at
PREZENTACJA EKSPERTÓW PRZED ZESPO?EM PARLAMENTARNYM, 08.09.2011 - Marek D?browski: ""Merde!" Cambronne, 1815" - Salon24.
Smolensk Status Report November 2011
Page 20 of 21
However, even if the scenario presented by the IAC is assumed whereby the birch rips off 1/3 of the length of the wing at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground, the ripped-off portion of the wing could not have fallen as far as 111 meters from the birch where it was found. The aerodynamic simulation shows that the ripped off part would crash to the ground no further than 12 meters from the birch at velocity of 100 km/h. The inspection of the crash scene showed that the ripped off portion of the left wing was found leaning against the trees 111 meters from the birch and on the right side of the path of the airplane. The observed damage to the trees and to the ripped off segment of the wing excludes the possibility of a velocity of 100 km/h at the point of impact.
This so called "starus report" is a shame to us all...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Expatsylvania
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for cropping my statement so as to completely reverse it's meaning, Lena.
And the answer is "no". I would not expect the president to know the risks. I would expect the president to think that nothing in the wide world is as important as landing the plane right now so he may go about whatever world-shattering diplomatic adventures are on the agenda for today. I would expect the pilots to take into account that the president's sphere of influence does not extend to the laws of physics. However terrible the consequences for disappointing the president, I hope we are in agreement that the consequences for the chosen course of action were worse.
The weather at the airport was contributory. Pressure from the VIP on the plane was contributory. The pilots' decision to descend below safe minima was causative. These are important distinctions in post-accident cleanup.
Really? You would expect the president in this situation to be fully cognizant of the terrible risks involved in descent below minima or scud running?
The weather at the airport was contributory. Pressure from the VIP on the plane was contributory. The pilots' decision to descend below safe minima was causative. These are important distinctions in post-accident cleanup.