ARRAKIS

+1

Arrakis

man_in_poland

Retired F4.

I am amazed at your patience and self-control. Please be assured that many readers of this forum recognise your calm professionalism in the face of SadPole's rantings. Being fluent in both Polish and English, I can also assure you that sensationalist terms like "massacre (masakra)" and "tragedy (tragedia)" are flippantly used in Polish, and in throwaway conversation carry nothing of the weight they do in English. Poles, especially young Poles, could easily use the term "masakra" simply talking about someone's horrid hairdo! Likewise, a poorly-redecorated home (or, at least, one that does not sit well with their own sense of design) could be called a "tragedy (tragedia)".

In the context from the CVR, it sounds to me simply like light-hearted banter, Hey, the weather's not great. As you rightly say, soldier talk.

The overwhelming evidence currently in the public domain points to poor airmanship as the DIRECT cause of the crash. INDIRECT causes such as quality of training (or lack thereof), operating procedures and so on, will no doubt emerge.

SadPole

Now you are getting quite funny.

You think there was a leadership problem?! You mean a politician going down in a plane with his favorite (allegedly drunk) general in the cockpit was a leadership problem? Well, hello, friend, that's EXACTLY what I was telling you all the time, but when I tell you that you call it politics.

And I will even tell you how EXACTLY this leadership problem developed. Blasik would spend 3 months on a post then promoted, given another star, 3 months more and promoted again, and so on. Why? Because he was favorite of Kaczynski. Get the picture? That's your leadership problem. Soldiers promoted not because of skill but because of political connections. No need to look any further. And since they were so damn good in all that "leadership" they solved that problem on their own – both the general and his sponsor. And, it would not be such a bad thing if:

1. They didn't take a bunch of other people with them
2. Their supporters didn't try to blame everyone else for the disaster while building hero-martyr cult around all that dead "leadership"

How do you blame the PIC's lack of skill if there is his general, top guy in the Air Force breathing down his neck while they do that crazy landing? The general didn't know what they were doing? How does one become head of airforce and participate in such a crazy stunt? You need it to be spelled out more?

That happened in Warsaw before they left, and there are supposed to be witnesses and even surveillance camera recording. But, the witnesses (such as PICs family and friends) are being intimidated and the recording withheld. That's the situation at hand as I see it - which needs to be dealt with.

RetiredF4

SadPole,
you understand nothing, nothing from military and nothing from flying.

Leadership in the military is not limited to a person like Blasik or the president, leadership is an integer chain of command. It is about recruiting the right persons, building the right units, do the corret instructing and teaching, give appropriate orders and supervise the execution of them. Feedback out of the results have to flow back and improve the system again and again. It is a process of many years. Those are only a few points out of a lot more.

The highest ranking General like general Blasik is mainly on the political side of the supervision and not on the military side. There are the group commandes, section commanders, the instructors and a lot more key positions responsible for conduct of longterm leadership.

General Blasik might be responsible for the decay in this leadership, i even do not doubt that. It is always the highest ranking officer who should have the oversight and the big picture. It is his final responsibility that the aircrews are capable and willing to fullfill the necessary tasks.

However, it is no sense in arguing that he caused this accident due to his presence in the cockpit or due to his orders to fly there anyhow. You are mixing reason with cause.

To fly there was nothing special, imposed no unsolvable problem. Would it have been my task to sit in the cockpit, i would have appreciated that the general was looking over my shoulder. That way he could see that there was no way to land out of the approach, no discussion later on.

Sterile cockpit rules, come on forget it. I spent more hours in civilian airliners in the cockpit then in the cabin, because i always asked the captain early if the jumpseat was free. I was sitting there from pushback to docking.
Sterile cockpit stuff was implemented due to the danger of terrorism not due to passengers disturbing the concentration of the crew or breathing down their necks.

unfortunately all your facts are non proovable due to the dark side of unknown forces everywhere.

But let me ask you again, Mr. SadPole: Who are you and what is your profession and expierience?

franzl

Green Guard

what are you doing here ?
trying to be a prosecutor and a judge in the same time ?

RetiredF4

Sorry, i dont understand that one.
Those flights took place before 911, and it was not illegal to stay in the cockpit with the captains permission. So what is funny about it?

franzl

Ptkay

I can only confirm your remarks.
It is very often in Polish language that the two terms can also
be used to describe a lady's dress or her general looks...

SadPole

You sound like a corporate lecture on synergy, or something. Lots of good sounding words, zero substance in this paragraph. If the top Air-Force (at cockpit) is not responsible for the crew not being qualified for the job and doing every stupid thing in the book while he is watching, then who is? If the politician who appointed Blasik is not responsible for wrong leadership, then who is? I am? All the guys whom these silly people got rid of because they did not kiss ass enough? To repeat, there were more competent pilots, but that "leadership" got rid of them after, for example, they refused Kaczynski's orders to fly plane with 4 heads of state through war zone without diplomatic clearance.

Wrong. Sterile cockpit rules were implemented long before terrorism. You are confusing sterile cockpit rules with locked cockpit rules. Sterile cockpit rules were implemented after series of crashes where pilots were BSing, flirting, etc during landing or takeoff instead of watching instruments. The issue appeared in the US in 1970's already.

Personally, I do not agree with such rules because you cannot ever legislate stupidity away. And the issue in this case is not even sterile cockpit rules but politicians running around cockpit and deciding at the last moment, land/not land, where to divert, giving orders to pilots regarding things they had no clue about, etc. That's what the problem is about. Also, it cannot be legislated away. But, if the public is aware of the problem, it can try to punish politicians who regularly do things like that before these politicians punish themselves and others in the process – as happened in this case.

Sure they are provable. When we get rid of or at least ridicule politicized prosecutors, for example, who grab all the evidence and release it only if and when it suits the leaders of their party. That's the problem. Prosecutors and soldiers who are first some political party members and prosecutors and soldiers second.

SadPole

Yes, yes guys. Everything in Poland is always tales from the crypt, isn't it?

The word they actually used is makabra (macabre) not massacre, but it did not translate well into a short phrase in that context.

Yes, yes. I use these terms when my mother in law asks me if the dress is making her look fat.

mary meagher

Give us all a break, SadPole, take a week off or something. Of course you can see conspiracy, coverup, political posturing, exploitation by the gutter press to increase circulation and cause public alarm. But honestly, I think you are overdoing it, ranting on this thread. Give it a rest for a while and let the dust settle.

Retired F4, despite being a German, makes a lot of good sense. He's right about visiting the cockpit on civilian aircraft. This old woman used to sit on the jump seat across the Atlantic from time to time before 9/11. Sterile cockpit certainly did not become absolute before then.
Actually, visitors helped keep pilots awake....

747JJ

Dear Mary et al

You will find that sad pole is correct in one matter. A sterile cockpit concept was indeed introduced after non-essential communication and conversation where found to have contributed towards accidents.

Closed cockpit door policy was introduced with US pt121 carriers well before 911 where PAX were not allowed into the cockpit during flight. Some Europan and Asian companies followed same procedures and pt129 foreign air carriers operating to US where expected to comply. Armoured doors etc came after 911, outside Israel.

Two very different issues really.

mary meagher

The closed door was not universal policy for British carriers before 9/11. I cannot comment on American carriers. As for the rest of Europe, daresay it varied with the countries involved. French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, etc .... everyone followed their own national policies. And borders.

Anyone here ever heard Dave Gunson's talk about the French Air Traffic Controllers strike affecting cross channel traffic??? (thread creep, yes, I confess, but why not. It highlights how quaint practices and international misunderstanding can cause difficulties for air travel.)

ARRAKIS

For reasons explained earlier, sterile cockpit question is irrelevant in our case.
In my opinion it was mentioned in the report only too back up that tabloid oriented pressure story.

criss

Franzl, while you're correct about most of issues, I have a feeling that what you describe is far from reality of Polish military.

WHBM

I believe the US requirement for locked doors came after this accident in 1964

ASN Aircraft accident Fairchild F-27A N2770R San Ramon, CA

"Prior to the accident, the FAA adopted certain amendments to Parts 40, 41, and 42, of the Civil Air Regulations. These amendments, which became effective August 6, 1964, required that the door separating the passenger cabin from the crew compartment on all scheduled air carrier and commercial aircraft must be kept locked during flight. "

Alice025

I've also travelled in a jump seat; in the prev. millenium it was OK for DHL employees when all other seats in a plane are booked. You only promise to behave yourself :o) and not interfere :o)

d-bug

Just a quick translation of the YAK crew reply, which was translated as advice to land by all means.
"No, natomiast powiem szczerze, że możecie spróbować, jak najbardziej"
it means: "Well, I'll honestly say, by all means, you can try". As in English, "by all means" is never used to really mean "by ALL means".

RegDep

A little hesitantly, I offer you this link into a report in a post on another thread of this forum.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ml#post6227604

I don't claim (necessarily) that there would have been similarities or analogies to the FAF 101 accident, but found it interesting reading and good "food for thought".

My suggestion is that you read it with your Denial OFF, "I know that all" OFF and Rant OFF .

Reg

ARRAKIS

Thank you. Interesting document.

Arrakis

Alice025

Let's assume that none of officialdom members on board told the crew "you must try to land", when news of the low visibility were delivered to the crew and shared, one would think, with the key passengers.
Especially that we have to, as there are no records, in circulation at least, that such a sentence was ever said by any one on board.

I anyway think (but it is me) that the build-up to the flight led to, let's say, "above average" intent of the crew to land.
The question is into what it got translated -
- trying to land in spite of
- doing a trial approach (to the limit of either 100 m as specified by the ATC, or to the 60 metres as specified by the TU technical manual) (and then mis-managing it, due to mixture of auto-pilot and whatever. that improvised flying technique)
- making a trial approach and extending it below minima intentionally (search for the ground)
-making a trial approach and extending it below the minima un-intentionally (result of either altimetres confusion or ATC directions' confusion or something else technical mix-up that we aren't aware of)

As regards why I think "above average" - of this are aware all in Russia-Poland, the nature of the expedition, the circumstances in which it was organised. That was more of a "mission" than a "one off, charter flight nature, occasion". This relates to "long before" the flight time.
Plus, during the very flight, a certain urgency was added, by being half an hour late, while 200 people wait. Would any one of us like to be late or miss an event for which you have gathered 200 guests and are being late? It's like skipping your own won't say wedding but any other party where the guests are there but the organiser of the event is missing.

As to Russian side - no body mentions it now, as it is very compromising, but the general desire to have Kachinsky with that event there was like?
Like sorry nothing more adequate comes to my mind, the way the USA would feel if Ahmadinejad would be coming to them by a private party to one of their aerodromes, to run an int'l media event "Let's talk again about poisoned blankets".
Because - and nobody speaks about it post-catastrophe again - the level of mutual love and understanding btw the late president and Kremlin was approximately like that. Kachinsky made it a point to expose Russian ulcers of the past and present, liked to brand them by burning iron, be that Katyn or Georgia or monument to Red Army removal in the Baltics, he watched every Russia's step and criticised to his pleasure. Was behind (together with the Baltics) EU Parliament initiative to mark the day of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as day of remembrance of all fallen to Stalin and Hitler in the world. With much difficulty re-negotiated by Russia to more neutral definition "day of memory of victims of totalitarian regimes".

We (on the ground - mind it - not Kremlin) hated this Kachinsky idea, namely listing Stalin first, then - putting Stalin and Hitler on one board (may be alright for Poland), as we thinkone was mostly harmful to own people, while the other - to outside countries. And, kind of, we put down 28 million people fighting that Hitler, so can't figure out here locally how come they were such bosom friends, in Kachinsky's interpretation.
Anyway.
What I want to say, it was not viewed as a friendly visit in Russia. And the late president, with that media event expedition, might have also had a feeling he is on a war path.

The difference is that the USA would have said to Ahmadinejad "Get lost" and we can't, because Poland has their graves in Russia and you simply can't, it's forever.