RatherBeFlying

Is there an instrument rated pilot anywhere that does not believe that the pilot killed everybody aboard by deliberately descending below MDA?

Sometimes the radar altimeter will allow you to sneak low, but descending low over a valley gets you in conflict with terrain and/or trees when the ground rises -- as has been demonstrated in this and other cases.

fullforward

Fed up of loads of b...s here and there trying to explain the very old stupid mistakes that keep on killing people.

Ptkay

I would recommend banning the Tiger65 from this forum
for propagating political scam on professional threads.

Fed up with those morons trying to push their conspiracy theories
ad absurdum...

jcjeant

It's a shame ... Russian-built aircraft are not what they were ...
A small tree can cut them in half a wing ...
By cons .. Airbus are much stronger
The A320 that landed accidentally in a forest kept its wings
Le savoir faire français

sideslyp

Perhaps you're the bunny ptkay - while you are trying to explain the crash based on MAK report which has already been proven to be incorrect, inconsistent and false, the rest of us can easily see that there's something not quite right here...What's the point of trying to analyze this crash if the data about the crash has been altered and falsified and the polish people still have not received a single piece of the wreckage, the real blackbox or an explanation as to why the coffins needed to be sealed tight ... So, stop propagating the government's preferred line (are you on their paycheck or something?) and make your conclusions when (if ever) we get any real evidence back from Moscow. When we do, we can certainly engage in a more meaningful discussion on cause and effect, which undoubtedly will prove to be something else then a single standing tree...

Lena.Kiev

The same Tu-154M landed in a forest around too short and too narrow abandoned airstrip (emergency landing) and kept its wings:
Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Depends on thickness of the trees, more exactly cross-section (proportional to thickness squared). Many thin trees can gradually slow the plane down. One thick tree breaks a wing.

Ptkay

Sideslyp,

who are you?
Came here to post just one political opinion?
Are you a pilot, a specialist?

I live in Poland, I am Polish (not polish), I was trained by military pilots,
I know the country, I know the military pilots mentality and the
structures and procedures.

It would be nice to have another case of heroism, another
heroic victim of foreign conspiracy and ambush.

But the truth is simple and pathetic.

Error over error, over error, starting with training, then procedures
and ending with the typical Polish "jakoś to będzie".
(so or so, it will work out...)

There were three independent systems registering flight parameters,
Russian black box, Polish recorder and US GPWS.
They were read and analysed independently in Russia, Poland and US.
What else do you want?

All of them delivered consistent and conclusive data on the flight
path and parameters.

It was a pathetic CFIT, classic case.

And yes, I am a Polish patriot, I love my country and people,
but it doesn't mean I must close my eyes to the obvious truth.

Ptkay

Just to give you the feeling, how Polish pilots are trained
and how they fly, here a nice example.


An ex-military pilot flying in this case a SAR mission wit PA34,
delivering a heart for transplantation to an airfield in small town.
GPS approach, at 5:20 missed the runway, close over tree tops,
eventually landed by second approach.

BUT: it was SAR, life saving flight, just pilot and nurse on board.
Pilot well acquainted with the airfield.
Mission accomplished.

If you try the same in Tu-154 with 100 on board,
in unknown terrain and airfield, this is another story...

Karel_x

I've read carefully both reports, made by Polish and MAK. They are very similar in basic results and they are very different in hundreds of details. I think that most important diference is question if pilot gives command for GA. MAK supposed that he search ground to the last second and Polish investigators supposed that CPT gave the GA command, but he didn't know that that he can use the GA push button only when locked on ILS. So the MAK said that they deliberately violate rules (because of VIP presence) and Polish said that he "only" didn't know how to fly TU5.

Polish understood words of command in loud noise in the place, where I cant hear that anyone spoke at all... But both reports blames CPT.

Conspirational theories are quite crazy and seems to be based on blind rusophobia.

Tiger65

2012 Smolensk Conference in Warsaw, Poland
October 22, 2012 – October 22, 2012

The conference will provide a forum intended for discussion and dissemination of interdisciplinary studies related to the 10 April 2010 crash of the Polish Air Force TU-154 in Smolensk, Russia.

The conference will cover all technical aspects associated with the destruction of the plane TU-154 M irrespective of the technical field to which the matter should be eligible. Papers for the Conference may therefore apply to both general issues related to the mechanics of flight and the mechanics of destruction as well as specific issues related to on-board data analysis, materials testing, research, modeling, simulation and others.

http://smolenskcrash.com

There will be live streaming of the Conference here:
live Transmission

Lena.Kiev

Of course, the only papers will be the paid for by politicians, designed to impress fools and feed the paranoiacs. Sane people will not waste time and effort explaining the obvious.

Heathrow Harry

Christ!

I hope they all don't start posting on PPrune!!!

Tinribs

I cannot speak to the findings in this cae and I have not made a study of the report but I do have some experience of Russian aircraft accident reports having been in a crash on the Kola

Our aircraft was out of control from about 100 feet on the approach to a wild landing sight on a river bank. It seemed to me to be a classic vortex ring given the circumstances of the approach, slight tailwind, high power hover, slow rate of descent, slow forward movement

We hit the ground very hard, thank you Russians for a helo built like a boiler house, cartwheeled, rolled, a minor fire developed and the tail cone lay across the door. All the wheels remained intact but the aircraft nose was destroyed, we had struck nose first.

The report said the pilot allowed the tail to touch the ground during the landing

The Russian investigator told me vortex ring was not a Russian problem.

In this sort of environment reports become suspect

scud

You cannot generalize based on your experience of a single occurence. I read the Russian report on the TU-154 PAF crash, and it was very thorough and factual. In fact, given the very high profile nature of this accident, the Russians would have no interest in making fools of themselves.

Similar was the report on the Yak-42 crash carrying the hockey team. There was a lot of blame in that one, including the Civil Aviation regulators.

I take it that you have no idea about some of the reports from the US NTSB. In quite a few cases, it took a second analysis from ALPA's accident investigation division to make the NTSB reverse some the cop-out conclusions the NTSB had made: namely simply blaming the pilots in question.

Your report of vorex ring state not being a Russian problem may simply have been a language issue.

Karel_x

IMHO the level of Russian (or interstate MAK) investigators and their reports is on the standard level. There are other safety problems in Russian aviation, namely too much effort to accomplish the task without proper consideration of risks. I had read dozen of reports as well as many reports of NTSB, BEA etc. I think that all are on similar level. In all of them you can find both objective solid facts and subjective effort to puzzle this facts to the most probably picture of accident. It is clear, that everyone can always discuss this subjective puzzling. It is important not to be biased.

All of us have a right for their own interpretation and it will be always more or less subjective puzzling. Poles should be aware of taking a wild tendentious theories as a solid facts. One of many examples is CVR transcript, where some Polish specialists understood the sentence in place, where MAK and I could hear absolutely nothing, only sheer noise. How much convincing are evidences like that..?

I believe that the conference will not be a fair of tendentious theories.

antheads

Remigiusz Muś was theflight engineer of the Yak-42 that landed at Smolensk before the Tu-154 and was found hanged in his basement yesterday night. He was one of the most important witnesses to the smolensk investigation.

Muś could hear the communication between the Tu-154 crew and the Smolensk air traffic controllers via his onboard radio and had always stated that the tower had told the Yak-42 and the Tu-154 to descend to no less than 50m. This is in contradiction of the MAK and Polish report which specified 100m.

The 36th Unit of which he belonged was disbanded and its members threatened with legal action for landing the yak-42 in bad conditions which might be a factor in this apparent suicide.

cldrvr

Smolensk plane crash: 'explosives remnants found on aircraft' - Telegraph

Dg800

Pity nobody else seems to have seen the same report...

cldrvr

AP carried it first, slowly being picked up worldwide for what it is worth, guess the press is a bit busy with this rainshower in NY for them to notice anything else....

cldrvr

Here is the originator of the article

News from The Associated Press