Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to lighten up the atmosphere on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
Little help with pronunciation:
YouTube - maul halten!
Kind of Polish version of the BBC "Allo, Allo".
Enjoy...
Little help with pronunciation:
Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz, Chrząszczyżewoszyce powiat Łękołody.
Kind of Polish version of the BBC "Allo, Allo".
Enjoy...
SadPole
No, I am showing that those who try to say this MAK translation is wrong because it could mean that they said "try by ALL means" with some alleged stress on ALL have absolutely no clue what idiom "by all means" means in English or what the original phrase in Polish means.
No, I am showing that those who try to say this MAK translation is wrong because it could mean that they said "try by ALL means" with some alleged stress on ALL have absolutely no clue what idiom "by all means" means in English or what the original phrase in Polish means.
Are we talking about the same paragraph from Page 144?
MAK-report english Page 144
At the same time the crew of the TU-154M used the second radio station at 123.45mHz to contact the crew of the Yak-40 who were at the aerodrome. The crew of the Yak-40 emotionally explained ("You know, generally it´s absolutly **** here") that according to their assessment the weather was bad, visibility 400m, vertical visibility less than 50m, but they also said: ".....we were lucky to land at the latest moment. But frankly speaking you could try of course, there are two APS, they´ve made a gate".
At the same time the crew of the TU-154M used the second radio station at 123.45mHz to contact the crew of the Yak-40 who were at the aerodrome. The crew of the Yak-40 emotionally explained ("You know, generally it´s absolutly **** here") that according to their assessment the weather was bad, visibility 400m, vertical visibility less than 50m, but they also said: ".....we were lucky to land at the latest moment. But frankly speaking you could try of course, there are two APS, they´ve made a gate".
OK, let´s sum it up, just answer with yes or no: Is the MAK report in english concerning the above paragraph correct or wrong?
Probably you will talk around this answer: As mentioned before, you behave like a politician, you have to be one.
franzl
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Alameda, CA, USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ptkay please correct my spelling, if possible:
Hshchinch bmzhmi v schinye v Schebzhshchinye !
Hshchinch bmzhmi v schinye v Schebzhshchinye !
Olek
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. Petersburg
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be that's why MAK let in Polish deseipher-ists? for trancripts at once. Gave up at once :o), knew what to expect :o).
I'm jealous. We've only got borsch :o( And that one said to be Ukrainian! :o)))))
I'm jealous. We've only got borsch :o( And that one said to be Ukrainian! :o)))))
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argument between Błasik and Protasiuk before departure
The rumours are getting further confirmed.
Chief Military Prosecutor's Office spokesman Col. Zbigniew Rzepa confirmed today that prosecutors have a security camera recording from Okecie Airport from 10 April 2010
Protasiuk refused to take off...
Błasik reprimanded his subordinate, using sharp, vulgar words.
TVN24: k?ótnia mi?dzy B?asikiem i Protasiukiem przed wylotem
Poor google translation:
Google T?umacz
Chief Military Prosecutor's Office spokesman Col. Zbigniew Rzepa confirmed today that prosecutors have a security camera recording from Okecie Airport from 10 April 2010
Protasiuk refused to take off...
Błasik reprimanded his subordinate, using sharp, vulgar words.
TVN24: k?ótnia mi?dzy B?asikiem i Protasiukiem przed wylotem
Poor google translation:
Google T?umacz
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 56
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like it's not just a scene from a CCTV camera and guesses:
Awantura przed Smolenskiem?
There's a witness, a junior officer of the Government Protection Bureau, (BOR, Biuro Ochrony Rzadu) who heard gen. Blasik sharply rebuke kpt. Protasiuk for his refusal to take off in absence of proper meteo data from Smolensk. Allegedly, he ordered kpt. Protasiuk to go to the cockpit and start preparations for take off, while the general himself reported the crew ready for the flight to the president.
Awantura przed Smolenskiem?
There's a witness, a junior officer of the Government Protection Bureau, (BOR, Biuro Ochrony Rzadu) who heard gen. Blasik sharply rebuke kpt. Protasiuk for his refusal to take off in absence of proper meteo data from Smolensk. Allegedly, he ordered kpt. Protasiuk to go to the cockpit and start preparations for take off, while the general himself reported the crew ready for the flight to the president.
This is starting to look interesting.
Protasiuk was entirely correct in refusing to depart without a destination TAF or METAR. Ironically, even if these had been available, the current Smolensk TAF was not forecasting fog, and the fog had not formed at the time of pre-departure planning. Of course he might have been concerned by reports of fog from other airfields in the region.
It is not just a question of visibility. MAK concludes that PLF101 at the time of the accident was 4.5 tonnes above the maximum landing weight for the existing conditions, i.e. the performance limited max landing weight. If met data had been available forecasting the tailwind on runway 26 this would have affected the flight planning assumptions, in particular the amount of reserve fuel carried. The alternative, RW08, presumably would not have been so limited because of headwind and the runway upslope, but appears to have no instrument approach procedure, so a visual approach only.
It could lend credence to the theory that the approach was not an attempt to land but to demonstrate to Blasik that conditions were such that a landing was impossible and to prove the point involved continuing the approach down to a point beyond what was prudent.
Protasiuk was entirely correct in refusing to depart without a destination TAF or METAR. Ironically, even if these had been available, the current Smolensk TAF was not forecasting fog, and the fog had not formed at the time of pre-departure planning. Of course he might have been concerned by reports of fog from other airfields in the region.
It is not just a question of visibility. MAK concludes that PLF101 at the time of the accident was 4.5 tonnes above the maximum landing weight for the existing conditions, i.e. the performance limited max landing weight. If met data had been available forecasting the tailwind on runway 26 this would have affected the flight planning assumptions, in particular the amount of reserve fuel carried. The alternative, RW08, presumably would not have been so limited because of headwind and the runway upslope, but appears to have no instrument approach procedure, so a visual approach only.
It could lend credence to the theory that the approach was not an attempt to land but to demonstrate to Blasik that conditions were such that a landing was impossible and to prove the point involved continuing the approach down to a point beyond what was prudent.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tagron
Protasiuk was entirely correct in refusing to depart...
It could lend credence to the theory that the approach was not an attempt to land but to demonstrate to Blasik that conditions were such that a landing was impossible and to prove the point involved continuing the approach down to a point beyond what was prudent.
It could lend credence to the theory that the approach was not an attempt to land but to demonstrate to Blasik that conditions were such that a landing was impossible and to prove the point involved continuing the approach down to a point beyond what was prudent.
It also nearly proves that Protasiuk was NOT in command of the aircraft, and that he was flying under protest. Quote from cockpit: "It will be a massacre (macabre is the exact word used). We won't be able to see anything"
The people who deciphered the transcript also say that the "Goaround" command does not sound at all assertive, meaning that it was probably a suggestion to Blasik (who was in charge). They expected him to confirm before they executed goaround, but he never did.
Anyway – it is probably futile to consider the real evidence and story as the "Russians at fault" crowd will once again flag my post to be removed and once again they will succeed. Which kind of makes you wonder – what is going on around here. Stirring up for war with Russkies is all politically correct here, but looking at the real facts and story is not.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More and more facts seem to be confirmed (but I will list them still as rumours):
- gen. Blasik very often entered flights as check instructor
to reach his 40h/year to get higher salary
- gen. Blasik as check instructor forced PIC to land Yak-40 in Krzesiny 2 years ago
in icing and snow conditions below minima which resulted in runway overrun
- gen. Blasik was member of the crew as check flight instructor on the flight to
Smolensk
- Protasiuk refused to take-off due to lack of precise weather forecast and overweight
- Yak-40 landed already before Tu-154 took off and Protasiuk probably knew (unofficially)
the poor weather conditions there
- gen. Blasik reprimanded (in vulgar words) Protasiuk and took over command
- gen. Blasik was under influence of alcohol
- gen. Blasik was highly motivated to satisfy President Kaczyński wish to get to Smolensk "by any means",
his transfer to NATO structures in Norfolk depended on Kaczyński support.
- gen. Blasik delayed his command/approval of the "go around" command
given by 2nd pilot for over 10 sec., distracted by another person in the cockpit
The result is well known and well described.
- gen. Blasik very often entered flights as check instructor
to reach his 40h/year to get higher salary
- gen. Blasik as check instructor forced PIC to land Yak-40 in Krzesiny 2 years ago
in icing and snow conditions below minima which resulted in runway overrun
- gen. Blasik was member of the crew as check flight instructor on the flight to
Smolensk
- Protasiuk refused to take-off due to lack of precise weather forecast and overweight
- Yak-40 landed already before Tu-154 took off and Protasiuk probably knew (unofficially)
the poor weather conditions there
- gen. Blasik reprimanded (in vulgar words) Protasiuk and took over command
- gen. Blasik was under influence of alcohol
- gen. Blasik was highly motivated to satisfy President Kaczyński wish to get to Smolensk "by any means",
his transfer to NATO structures in Norfolk depended on Kaczyński support.
- gen. Blasik delayed his command/approval of the "go around" command
given by 2nd pilot for over 10 sec., distracted by another person in the cockpit
The result is well known and well described.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Poland
Age: 56
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- gen. Blasik was under influence of alcohol
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But he might have had a few drinks on board of the PLF 101,
Who he was drinking with, is just a guess.
This could also explain his mood prior to flight and argument with Protasiuk.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More and more evidence suggest gen. Blasik responsible
Recent leaks from the Prosecutors Office confirm, that PIC Protasiuk
knew about the bad weather in Smoleńsk before take-off, refused to fly,
and was ordered to do so by gen. Blasik in vulgar manner.
The Yak-40 pilots after landing called the military meto officer and
informed him about fog, and he transferred this information to Tu-154 crew.
Source:
The pilots knew about the fog
Piloci wiedzieli o mgle
Translated:
Google T?umacz
knew about the bad weather in Smoleńsk before take-off, refused to fly,
and was ordered to do so by gen. Blasik in vulgar manner.
The Yak-40 pilots after landing called the military meto officer and
informed him about fog, and he transferred this information to Tu-154 crew.
Source:
The pilots knew about the fog
Piloci wiedzieli o mgle
Translated:
Google T?umacz
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by H H
Come on guys - let this one go
So, once again "Come on guys - let this one go"?
Gulfstream CFIT Aspen 2001
Another example of eminent passenger pressure:
2001 Avjet Aspen crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relatives of some dead passengers sued the operator and were awarded $11M by a LAX jury. I would also have sued the estate of the chartering passenger.
2001 Avjet Aspen crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relatives of some dead passengers sued the operator and were awarded $11M by a LAX jury. I would also have sued the estate of the chartering passenger.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RatherBeFlying
I would also have sued the estate of the chartering passenger.
Worst that could happen in case the pilot of the chartered jet telling the customer to bug off was the charter company loosing a customer. In the case of the Polish airforce, the pilots who refused the same retarded politician's stupid orders had their career and lives destroyed and totally inexperienced crew took their place. The crash happened because there were absolutely no mechanisms that would protect the pilots of the government planes from being pushed around that way – quite contrary – the mechanisms seem to protect the politicians no matter how many people they kill. This is the biggest problem for me as a Pole.
While I understand westerners who do not want to be involved in this (why should they?), Poles do have to address this issue because if we don't the problems will escalate.
We already have the idiots who caused the crash being painted as some sort of heros, dying on the job by the hand of "evil Russkies" and such – even at this forum. Fortunately, finally all the real evidence is leaking out.