Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is this suspicious silence of the controller at the end, all wonder why didn't he shout Level off or Go-around earlier. As was rightly noted, too high aircraft's speed is no excuse as an experienced controller can forecast that the plane moving at increased speed will end up at 100 metres earlier than normal. I don't know about the talking head controller, but the other two were very experienced, Plusnin - head of the landing zone and Krasnokutsky - head of some regional military-transport unit.
Legally - as was noted here as well - these are "off the hook", as the magic words - the exchange re type of approach control were never said.
Thus, technically, they could have as well said nil, and may be it would be better if they didn't. The crew then would know for sure they are to rely, from entry into the glidepath to Go-around at 100 metres/landing/depending what they had in mind - entirely on themselves.
But, humanly, and professionally - what were the controllers thinking about keeping silent at the last bit. I have one idea, that Krasnokutsky's words from the exchange, re previous Yak-40 "they must have some equipment... I thought they are doing the Go-around" (but they landed)
On having got no heights' reported and no exchange with the plane of "magic words" :o) / type of approach flown/ - for the second time in a row, (first - Yak, next - TU), they could have thought Polish planes behave so inordinary (in those military background controllers' view, kind of set in their ways) because they don't need them. Some "equipment".
Allowing Yak to land while the better fit one (in their view) own IL - haven't.
How about displaying initiative at this point, and insisting that TU "employs" them for approach control, says the formula and gives back "receipts" /confirmations (in the shape of heights) - is another question.
Legally - as was noted here as well - these are "off the hook", as the magic words - the exchange re type of approach control were never said.
Thus, technically, they could have as well said nil, and may be it would be better if they didn't. The crew then would know for sure they are to rely, from entry into the glidepath to Go-around at 100 metres/landing/depending what they had in mind - entirely on themselves.
But, humanly, and professionally - what were the controllers thinking about keeping silent at the last bit. I have one idea, that Krasnokutsky's words from the exchange, re previous Yak-40 "they must have some equipment... I thought they are doing the Go-around" (but they landed)
On having got no heights' reported and no exchange with the plane of "magic words" :o) / type of approach flown/ - for the second time in a row, (first - Yak, next - TU), they could have thought Polish planes behave so inordinary (in those military background controllers' view, kind of set in their ways) because they don't need them. Some "equipment".
Allowing Yak to land while the better fit one (in their view) own IL - haven't.
How about displaying initiative at this point, and insisting that TU "employs" them for approach control, says the formula and gives back "receipts" /confirmations (in the shape of heights) - is another question.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFFTOPIC
From the russian forum:
"Poland intends to use their last Tu-154 for an experiment to make test approaches similar to this of the presidential aircraft on April 10..."
- Such a pity only one plane left.
- They can buy another one from us to try more approaches.
- No. Such a pity that only one Kaczyński left, and the can't buy another one to try more approaches.
"Poland intends to use their last Tu-154 for an experiment to make test approaches similar to this of the presidential aircraft on April 10..."
- Such a pity only one plane left.
- They can buy another one from us to try more approaches.
- No. Such a pity that only one Kaczyński left, and the can't buy another one to try more approaches.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alice, here in the USA the controller has little control of what the pilot wants to attempt in an approach. Either it is above minimums or below minimums. The pilot makes the decisions, not the controller. The controller tells the pilot all he knows about airport conditions. Also in the US if it isn't a commercial flight you can land even if it is below minimums if you want to. I have when I decided to divert in a Cessna 421 because it was below minimums and the boss heard the controller say the airplane in front of you made it in ok. I could see the runway from three miles out but when I flared for landing all I could see was the glow of the runway lights in the ground fog. Never again.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers "Alice, here in the USA the controller has little control of what the pilot wants to attempt in an approach."
Here as well, from that shed :o), but if we are clarifying here everything, why, I mean, leave the controllers out.
Kulverstukas, aj-jaj-jaj, it's not "pity no more planes" but "It's worrying to think what they'll be doing next? When there are no left-over planes left." :o))))
another one is "Poles got offended by committee conclusions' part and raised an awful shout, blamed controllers instead.
Controllers got offended by it but decided to keep polite silence."
:o)))))))
Here as well, from that shed :o), but if we are clarifying here everything, why, I mean, leave the controllers out.
Kulverstukas, aj-jaj-jaj, it's not "pity no more planes" but "It's worrying to think what they'll be doing next? When there are no left-over planes left." :o))))
another one is "Poles got offended by committee conclusions' part and raised an awful shout, blamed controllers instead.
Controllers got offended by it but decided to keep polite silence."
:o)))))))
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On January 18, representatives of the polish government delivered presentation on the situation at the Smolensk airport on the day of the TU-154 crash.
Video can be watched here Untitled on Vimeo (only polish version available).
During that presentation the government released transcripts of conversations of TU-154 crew as well as ATC. Transcript published by Newsweek is available here (polish version only): goo.gl/TCre3 .
Last spring, I translated the first version of the transcript that Poland received from Russia. Now, I added to it the above mentioned transcript prepared by the polish side.
There are some more conversations that were transcribed and some differences with the first version. Here is a link to google document http://goo.gl/Uunk7. Transcript in English is in a second tab. New stuff is in column D, highlighted in orange.
Note that there is 4 to 6 seconds difference between the two transcripts.
Video can be watched here Untitled on Vimeo (only polish version available).
During that presentation the government released transcripts of conversations of TU-154 crew as well as ATC. Transcript published by Newsweek is available here (polish version only): goo.gl/TCre3 .
Last spring, I translated the first version of the transcript that Poland received from Russia. Now, I added to it the above mentioned transcript prepared by the polish side.
There are some more conversations that were transcribed and some differences with the first version. Here is a link to google document http://goo.gl/Uunk7. Transcript in English is in a second tab. New stuff is in column D, highlighted in orange.
Note that there is 4 to 6 seconds difference between the two transcripts.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the unit at Smolensk was disbanded, so controllers were send from another unit/town just for the flights (07 and 10 of April). Dates of specific orders are given in MAKs report.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44, the military procedure is different, at least in Russia. The controllers are in charge and can give orders (as they did in Smolensk with the Il-76). Another reason why they would have been at a loss about what to do with the Polish crews who just plain ignored them.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been following this thread all along and thank all of you regular posters for helping to make sense of the tragedy.
Would any of you be so bold as to speculate what was the role (if any) of a misunderstanding about station and sea level air pressure? Is that essentially why the crew thought they were well above the level of the airfield?
And at the same time, does anyone think that the crew might not have known for any reason that the airfield was higher than the approach terrain (by 20-30 metres from what I gather)? If so, why would they not be aware of this? Faulty maps, poor planning, bad briefing?
Could I also ask, why was the plane coming in on a path somewhat to the south of the runway centre-line and not on the centre-line? Was that deliberate (to get a better view as they expected in this operation) or does it indicate something about what caused the accident? I realize that being on the centre line would have resulted in a different, possibly less catastrophic, result like a belly landing or a ground strike and controlled crash landing (because there would be fewer or no trees along that path). Or do you consider that there would have been a catastrophic end result even on that course when avoidance was attempted?
These points may have been totally covered in the mass of details, but I find some of the posts confusing on these points, and feel that possibly other less experienced readers (non-pilots for certain) might not be getting a very clear picture of the main problems in this tragic accident.
We have been given a very clear picture of what happened, but not so clear as to why it happened.
Would any of you be so bold as to speculate what was the role (if any) of a misunderstanding about station and sea level air pressure? Is that essentially why the crew thought they were well above the level of the airfield?
And at the same time, does anyone think that the crew might not have known for any reason that the airfield was higher than the approach terrain (by 20-30 metres from what I gather)? If so, why would they not be aware of this? Faulty maps, poor planning, bad briefing?
Could I also ask, why was the plane coming in on a path somewhat to the south of the runway centre-line and not on the centre-line? Was that deliberate (to get a better view as they expected in this operation) or does it indicate something about what caused the accident? I realize that being on the centre line would have resulted in a different, possibly less catastrophic, result like a belly landing or a ground strike and controlled crash landing (because there would be fewer or no trees along that path). Or do you consider that there would have been a catastrophic end result even on that course when avoidance was attempted?
These points may have been totally covered in the mass of details, but I find some of the posts confusing on these points, and feel that possibly other less experienced readers (non-pilots for certain) might not be getting a very clear picture of the main problems in this tragic accident.
We have been given a very clear picture of what happened, but not so clear as to why it happened.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would any of you be so bold as to speculate what was the role (if any) of a misunderstanding about station and sea level air pressure? Is that essentially why the crew thought they were well above the level of the airfield?
10:24:51,2 10:24:58,9 KRL / Д Температура плюс 2, давление 7-45, 7-4-5, условий для приема нет. Temperature plus 2, pressure 7-45, 7-4-5, there are no conditions for landing.
10:25:01,1 10:25:10,0 KBC Спасибо, ну если возможно, попробуем подход, но если не будет погоды, тогда отойдем на второй круг. Thank you, but if we can, we would like to try approach, but if not , there will be no weather, we will leave for a go around.
...
10:27:09,4 10:27:10,7 KBC Na 7-4-5. To/on 7-4-5.
10:27:11,4 10:27:11,9 2P / 2П Ile? How much?
10:27:12,7 10:27:13,8 KBC 7-4-5.
10:27:17,9 10:27:19,6 2P / 2П 7-4-5, tak? 7-4-5, yes?
10:27:19,3 10:27:21,1 KBC 2 stopnie, 7-4-5. 2 degrees, 7-4-5.
10:27:21,0 10:27:22,2 A 2 stopnie? 2 degrees?
10:27:23,7 10:27:25,4 IP / Б/И 2 stopnie, 7-4-5. 2 degrees, 7-4-5.
And at the same time, does anyone think that the crew might not have known for any reason that the airfield was higher than the approach terrain
Could I also ask, why was the plane coming in on a path somewhat to the south of the runway centre-line and not on the centre-line?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kulverstukas
Correct.
However, ARRAKIS mentioned earlier that
Would there be any chance for us to have the sequence(s) of the transcript?
It will make no difference if they follow procedure.
However, ARRAKIS mentioned earlier that
According to the transcript shown last Tuesdey by the Polish Investigators (some new elements), the crew knew about the terrain.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would there be any chance for us to have the sequence(s) of the transcript?
8.26:32. PIC: Paliwa nam tak dużo nie starczy, żeby wisieć.
8.27:17. А: Boże kochany.
...
8.29:46. PIC: Już jest blisko.
8.29:47. N: Zanim zadecyduje [zapewne ktoś ważny na pokładzie], to może byśmy kartę zrobili w międzyczasie? [chodzi o wprowadzenie do instrumentów pokładowych takich danych, jak np. ciśnienie] Wszystko jedno, czy to będzie Mińsk, Witebsk.
8.29:50. PIC: Tak, bardzo proszę.
...
8.31:45. А: Tutaj jest pięknie z tej strony.
8.31:52. А: Na jakiej wysokości lecimy?
8.31:56 IP: 1000 m.
...
8.35:41. А: Tak czy nie? My musimy to lotnisko wybrać, w końcu na coś się zdecydować.
Z padających chwilę potem słów można wywnioskować, że do kokpitu weszła jeszcze jedna osoba.
8.36:41. А: Witam, witam.
8.36:42. IP: Dzień dobry.
8.36:57. PIC: Witamy.
8.37:00. 2P: O kurwa... Zobacz [zapewne komentarz do pogody].
Before crash
А: Nic nie widać
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Kulverstukas,
Are you referring to this
How would the Polish translate this to English?
Or do you refer to something else for "the crew knew about the terrain" vis-a-vis the lower area?
Edit: And what is the time reading representing?
Are you referring to this
8.31:45. А: Tutaj jest pięknie z tej strony.
Or do you refer to something else for "the crew knew about the terrain" vis-a-vis the lower area?
Edit: And what is the time reading representing?
Last edited by RegDep; 23rd Jan 2011 at 10:27. Reason: Time
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RegDep what time reading do you mean?
Here is "Zapis rozmów przekazanych przez polską komisję [PEŁNY TEKST]" but it's a) in polish b) not compared with previous transcript c) splitted to too many pages
Here is "Zapis rozmów przekazanych przez polską komisję [PEŁNY TEKST]" but it's a) in polish b) not compared with previous transcript c) splitted to too many pages
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 23rd Jan 2011 at 12:40.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mad Now
Age: 43
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RegDep
In the MAK transcript at 10:30:45 the FO says: 'The worst thing is that there's a hole, there are clouds and the fog's appeared'
Now, in Poland this has been interpeted either as a general remark as to the location of the airfield itself, or as a reference to the ravine on the approach (obviously each side of the table picks its own interpetation...) I seem to recall from somewhere a note that during the preflight talks, someone was mentioning the ravine expressedly, but I couldn't find any transcripts of the preflight discussions so I may be wrong.
@BOAC
Surely you may be right and obviously it's hard to separate political beliefs from practical and cold approach (especially if you're a Pole - we do have it in our blood), but I'd like this case to be properly explained. It's been political from very beginning, and those were the Russians trying to cover for their faults and playing for the public in a really nasty way. Let me just recap what's been historically said:
1) Just after the accident it was said that certainly the late president was influencing the landing and forcing it as it's been the case in Georgia incident.
2) Later, after tapes were read it couldn't be proven that it was a direct influence, so 'psychological' analysis was done to convince everyone that it was the case
3) Later it was said that there was a Polish general under influence of alcohol in the cabin and this was published at a MAK conference along with the voice recordings of the flight to the very end, with all the screams after the strike which I think is not a common practice in the aviation world (sometimes even the transcripts are edited, not mentioning publication of the CVR)
4) Now, from the Polish investigation, it appears that not only there were no attempts to influence the decision, but also a g/a was initiated at a proper height (initiated by the crew, the ATC ordered a g/a a lot later). It has not been successful due to, as it seems at the moment, using the autopilot without the ILS present - but that will be explained in Polish report probably (see the trials of the second Tu at: ?wiczenia TU-154M nr 102 nad Wroc?awiem. 16.01.2011 r. :: Kontakt 24)
So, surely the pilot will take most of the blame and it's not the question of the percentages of blame here, however there's never a single link in the chain and MAK didn't do the proper job to explain the accident in my opinion.
One thing that I don't understand is that it's being said now that the g/a was done improperly, as it couldn't work at all without ILS. However, from the trajectory of flight I remember that the a/c actually was rising already when it hit the first tree, so somehow finally the landing was aborted - it's the puzzle I am still missing as to the final moments - as I'd understand it, if g/a is initiated improperly then the aircraft trajectory wouldn't change and it would simply fly into ground - yet it seems it started to raise in final seconds...
Would there be any chance for us to have the sequence(s) of the transcript?
Now, in Poland this has been interpeted either as a general remark as to the location of the airfield itself, or as a reference to the ravine on the approach (obviously each side of the table picks its own interpetation...) I seem to recall from somewhere a note that during the preflight talks, someone was mentioning the ravine expressedly, but I couldn't find any transcripts of the preflight discussions so I may be wrong.
@BOAC
Either way the approach was not flown properly and that ultimately is down to the person with hands on the controls - and the Captain.
Despite all the other 'bits' there was ultimately one person only who crashed this a/c. I'm afraid you will have to accept that.
Despite all the other 'bits' there was ultimately one person only who crashed this a/c. I'm afraid you will have to accept that.
1) Just after the accident it was said that certainly the late president was influencing the landing and forcing it as it's been the case in Georgia incident.
2) Later, after tapes were read it couldn't be proven that it was a direct influence, so 'psychological' analysis was done to convince everyone that it was the case
3) Later it was said that there was a Polish general under influence of alcohol in the cabin and this was published at a MAK conference along with the voice recordings of the flight to the very end, with all the screams after the strike which I think is not a common practice in the aviation world (sometimes even the transcripts are edited, not mentioning publication of the CVR)
4) Now, from the Polish investigation, it appears that not only there were no attempts to influence the decision, but also a g/a was initiated at a proper height (initiated by the crew, the ATC ordered a g/a a lot later). It has not been successful due to, as it seems at the moment, using the autopilot without the ILS present - but that will be explained in Polish report probably (see the trials of the second Tu at: ?wiczenia TU-154M nr 102 nad Wroc?awiem. 16.01.2011 r. :: Kontakt 24)
So, surely the pilot will take most of the blame and it's not the question of the percentages of blame here, however there's never a single link in the chain and MAK didn't do the proper job to explain the accident in my opinion.
One thing that I don't understand is that it's being said now that the g/a was done improperly, as it couldn't work at all without ILS. However, from the trajectory of flight I remember that the a/c actually was rising already when it hit the first tree, so somehow finally the landing was aborted - it's the puzzle I am still missing as to the final moments - as I'd understand it, if g/a is initiated improperly then the aircraft trajectory wouldn't change and it would simply fly into ground - yet it seems it started to raise in final seconds...
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Russia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RegDep, may be you mean this?
8.40.04
2 Pilot: Tam jest obniżenie Arek.
8.40.06
1 Pilot: Wiem zaraz będzie. Tam to jest taki.
2 Pilot: Może coś się.
8.40.09
ATC: Cztery na kursie ścieżce.
Rozmowy kontrolerów lotu, ostatnie s?owa pilotów TU-154. S? zapisy z konferencji - Wiadomo?ci - Newsweek.pl
8.40.04
2 Pilot: Tam jest obniżenie Arek.
8.40.06
1 Pilot: Wiem zaraz będzie. Tam to jest taki.
2 Pilot: Może coś się.
8.40.09
ATC: Cztery na kursie ścieżce.
Rozmowy kontrolerów lotu, ostatnie s?owa pilotów TU-154. S? zapisy z konferencji - Wiadomo?ci - Newsweek.pl
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been political from very beginning, and those were the Russians trying to cover for their faults and playing for the public in a really nasty way.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kulverstukas, RegDep, RockShock
At the risk of annoying those who don’t want to hear anything more about it, let me explain what's going on. Without it, I doubt anybody from the outside will have a clue what is going on.
There are now TWO teams working on the transcript. One of them is clearly run by some Kaczynski supporter. That's the source of the alleged new discoveries about pilots trying to do goaround by the book but unable to due to (according to Kaczynski) sabotaged plane. These guys constantly float a lot of newly transcribed (re-transcribed) phrases but never even reference it properly (say by time when these phrases were being spoken). The clear purpose of these is to provide proof that Kaczynski was not at cockpit at the end. Also, all the phrases showing the crew being angry about their predicament are being re-transcribed by them to mean something else.
Example: Where the MAK transcript says "Wkurzy sie jeszcze" (It will only piss him off more" they now say that what really was said was "Chmurzy sie jeszcze" (It is getting more cloudy).
But what is more interesting is the other team that released newly transcribed phrases and even (imagine that) assigned time to them. That's the hot potato because it shows someone new going into the cockpit right around the time when someone important finally decided what to. They are doing an approach instead of going to Minsk or Witebsk (for which they were already writing approach data).
Undeniably, we now have two non-crew characters in the cockpit at the time of the crash. Blasik undeniably is even giving a micro tour of the cocpit, explaning what wing mechanization is for. So Blasik is one, who is the other. Nobody ever answered that. Could it be Blasik entering the cockpit at this time? It was assumed/reported he was in the cockpit prior to that. It was not Kazana because Kazana talked to them prior to that and the entire crew greets clearly new person with "Welcome, welcome". No soldier would greet a general that way. You would think at least the junior officers would say "Mr. General" not "welcome". Besides, Blasik already talked to the PIC extensively before the flight and supposedly there is a video of it, so why would they the PIC greet him another time?
Answer who is the new person at the cockpit and you know what happened. They are waiting for the decision and someone new, clearly important, comes and they instantly know the decision.
Now see what the Kaczynski side is doing. This is his official story on what went on. Count how many lies you can already document.
Source
How would you want to be in the shoes of the guys who have to "document" the story according to Kaczynski? This is why it becomes paramount that MAK releases all the raw data to the public. Otherwise, all the opposing teams will be interpreting/re-interpreting things till doomsday. Are Russians playing politics with this whole thing? Probably. The only way to try to put an end to it is to release all raw data and clear slander by Kaczynski is a very good excuse.
Meanwhile, when asked about why all the Polish aviation and other experts disagree with his take on the events, Kaczynski answered that if he were the Prime Minister, he would have already taken care of these experts by means of "state services". So yes, if this guy was in power, I and countless other Poles would be in prison already. So yes, I am rather pissed off about all this.
There are now TWO teams working on the transcript. One of them is clearly run by some Kaczynski supporter. That's the source of the alleged new discoveries about pilots trying to do goaround by the book but unable to due to (according to Kaczynski) sabotaged plane. These guys constantly float a lot of newly transcribed (re-transcribed) phrases but never even reference it properly (say by time when these phrases were being spoken). The clear purpose of these is to provide proof that Kaczynski was not at cockpit at the end. Also, all the phrases showing the crew being angry about their predicament are being re-transcribed by them to mean something else.
Example: Where the MAK transcript says "Wkurzy sie jeszcze" (It will only piss him off more" they now say that what really was said was "Chmurzy sie jeszcze" (It is getting more cloudy).
But what is more interesting is the other team that released newly transcribed phrases and even (imagine that) assigned time to them. That's the hot potato because it shows someone new going into the cockpit right around the time when someone important finally decided what to. They are doing an approach instead of going to Minsk or Witebsk (for which they were already writing approach data).
Undeniably, we now have two non-crew characters in the cockpit at the time of the crash. Blasik undeniably is even giving a micro tour of the cocpit, explaning what wing mechanization is for. So Blasik is one, who is the other. Nobody ever answered that. Could it be Blasik entering the cockpit at this time? It was assumed/reported he was in the cockpit prior to that. It was not Kazana because Kazana talked to them prior to that and the entire crew greets clearly new person with "Welcome, welcome". No soldier would greet a general that way. You would think at least the junior officers would say "Mr. General" not "welcome". Besides, Blasik already talked to the PIC extensively before the flight and supposedly there is a video of it, so why would they the PIC greet him another time?
Answer who is the new person at the cockpit and you know what happened. They are waiting for the decision and someone new, clearly important, comes and they instantly know the decision.
Now see what the Kaczynski side is doing. This is his official story on what went on. Count how many lies you can already document.
Source
The plane was on the wrong course, but it could fly away
"The plane took off, with an incorrect forecast about the weather, but we know that the airport does not provide forecasts. He approached the airport at Smolensk, was not warned, the airport was not closed. He got two signals. One - the most important one that he is being guided for landing. And second, from the Polish crew of Yak. That [the weather] was bad but that he could try. Descent into the decision height is normal procedure. With the properly functioning plane and efficient airport service such a thing is not associated with any risk. Even in very difficult conditions. But, as we know today, the crew of the airport was to the largest degree defective, to say the least, and on the other hand, we don’t know if the plane was functioning properly. The ATC crew misled the crew of the aircraft. And this was the result of the decision in Moscow taken somewhere at a high level, who, at the moment, we cannot determine. At the altitude of 100 meters they decided to leave. The rest is a mystery. We know that the plane was on the wrong course. That from this course the plane could not land, but he could lift up and fly away. There was an order to do so, issued by the first pilot , and the second pilot repeated it. The rest still needs to be explained. "
The plane crashed through the fault of the Russians
"The secret is in the wreckage of the aircraft. Is or was, because you know that the wreckage was destroyed. We do not have a huge amount of material. We are dealing with the situation, which is a gigantic scandal resulting from the fault of the Russians. Just as it was their fault that this plane crashed. But this could be the fault of the Polish government. The Polish government did not have to agree to such conditions for carrying out the procedures for the explanation of this terrible disaster. This gives reason to the highest degree of negative evaluation. When I said that Russia was guilty, I talked about the direct fault. Because of the fact that this plane was in a hopeless situation, in fact, encouraged to land. But we have another [party at] fault. There comes to the forefront the basic fault for the separation of the visits. Fault because there was a game played with a foreign power against their own president. The game, which ended in tragedy. In the normally functioning democracy the people responsible for something like this would have nothing to seek/say in politics. "
"The plane took off, with an incorrect forecast about the weather, but we know that the airport does not provide forecasts. He approached the airport at Smolensk, was not warned, the airport was not closed. He got two signals. One - the most important one that he is being guided for landing. And second, from the Polish crew of Yak. That [the weather] was bad but that he could try. Descent into the decision height is normal procedure. With the properly functioning plane and efficient airport service such a thing is not associated with any risk. Even in very difficult conditions. But, as we know today, the crew of the airport was to the largest degree defective, to say the least, and on the other hand, we don’t know if the plane was functioning properly. The ATC crew misled the crew of the aircraft. And this was the result of the decision in Moscow taken somewhere at a high level, who, at the moment, we cannot determine. At the altitude of 100 meters they decided to leave. The rest is a mystery. We know that the plane was on the wrong course. That from this course the plane could not land, but he could lift up and fly away. There was an order to do so, issued by the first pilot , and the second pilot repeated it. The rest still needs to be explained. "
The plane crashed through the fault of the Russians
"The secret is in the wreckage of the aircraft. Is or was, because you know that the wreckage was destroyed. We do not have a huge amount of material. We are dealing with the situation, which is a gigantic scandal resulting from the fault of the Russians. Just as it was their fault that this plane crashed. But this could be the fault of the Polish government. The Polish government did not have to agree to such conditions for carrying out the procedures for the explanation of this terrible disaster. This gives reason to the highest degree of negative evaluation. When I said that Russia was guilty, I talked about the direct fault. Because of the fact that this plane was in a hopeless situation, in fact, encouraged to land. But we have another [party at] fault. There comes to the forefront the basic fault for the separation of the visits. Fault because there was a game played with a foreign power against their own president. The game, which ended in tragedy. In the normally functioning democracy the people responsible for something like this would have nothing to seek/say in politics. "
Meanwhile, when asked about why all the Polish aviation and other experts disagree with his take on the events, Kaczynski answered that if he were the Prime Minister, he would have already taken care of these experts by means of "state services". So yes, if this guy was in power, I and countless other Poles would be in prison already. So yes, I am rather pissed off about all this.
RockShock
One thing that I don't understand is that it's being said now that the g/a was done improperly, as it couldn't work at all without ILS. However, from the trajectory of flight I remember that the a/c actually was rising already when it hit the first tree, so somehow finally the landing was aborted - it's the puzzle I am still missing as to the final moments - as I'd understand it, if g/a is initiated improperly then the aircraft trajectory wouldn't change and it would simply fly into ground - yet it seems it started to raise in final seconds...
One thing that I don't understand is that it's being said now that the g/a was done improperly, as it couldn't work at all without ILS. However, from the trajectory of flight I remember that the a/c actually was rising already when it hit the first tree, so somehow finally the landing was aborted - it's the puzzle I am still missing as to the final moments - as I'd understand it, if g/a is initiated improperly then the aircraft trajectory wouldn't change and it would simply fly into ground - yet it seems it started to raise in final seconds...
The PF pulled at the steering horn with some 15 Kg force, leading to a stabilator deflection of 20° pitch up, which force-disconnected the autopilot.
franzl
Last edited by RetiredF4; 23rd Jan 2011 at 14:04.