SadPole

Here is my problem.

That "preliminary Polish presentation" was used and abused 100 times to sunday and is supposed to be proof that the Polish pilots did everything by the book and the Russian ATCs are to blame.

That's what bothers me, big time, because I would hope no professional would like to have their honest work to be used like that. We are slandering Russians all the time, it is supposed to be accepted, unassailable wisdom that Anodina cannot take a piss without asking Putin for permission, that ATCs were incompetent, drunk and on leash from Moscow, that's why MAK report is no good, and yet you want me to like the fact that this preliminary presentation seems to have life on its own and is used to support the theories that:

1. Pilots did nothing wrong
2. They tried goaround by the book
3. Russians screwed up everything
4. Something then happened which made goaround impossible - which the Kaczynski people see as PROOF of plane being sabotaged, and proof of Russians murdering the president and the delegation.

Polish experts who produced the presentation allow their work be used that way - that's what discredits them - not some insignificant buffoon (like me) on some website.

So trust me - I WANT Polish report to come up, be unshakable technically, detailed, and clearly professional in its conclusions without any regard whatsoever for politics of the issue. Cannot wait for it to be published.


But – I do want to know where was Kaczynski during the crash – because it matters.

Kulverstukas

RockShock

Wrong. MAK conclusion is that MAIN cause of the crash is (in order by the relevance) busting plane and PIC minima; using AP with AT at the non-ILS approach; lack of SOP; lack of CRM; poor training and only then such things as non-sterile cabin and only after that psychological tidbits. Just not overweght that last two things was mentioned in separate books of report - it's not because of their importance, it's just because first five is so clear and undeniable even crazy politicians can't deny them

Alice025 Urban legends

gstaniak

To be honest, you should also point out that it also consists of the Ministry of Defense personnel. Taking into account that the bulk of responsibility for the system errors contributing to the accident lies with MoD people or the military, these people are the judges in their own case. No wonder they can see ATC faults everywhere.

RetiredF4

You are trying to perform an accident investigation with your heart and not with your head, that is your wrong-doing here.

And your heart was telling you from the beginning, that the accident must have been caused by the late presidents mistakes, by his messing with the pilots decisions. Now, around 100 posts later your circle of suspects grows wider and wider, post by post and argument by argument.

Others, like myself, dont judge the actions of the participating parties by their place of origin, i have no reason to. I´m neither polish nor russian, i dont have anything to blame on polish or russian people. I´m just an aviation buff with a aviation history, being a retired military pilot. My heart goes with the lost souls and with the many lives lost in aviation year for year in an unneccesary way.

That way i think my vision and my judgement is less clouded than your heart and therefor i try to stick to facts and place my options on those facts and my expierience.

I personally think, that you are not able to do that (due to no expierience in aviation itself and in military aviation as well) and also due to the shown inability to look for facts instead to grasp any rumor available in the world wide web. If i´m wrong here, proof it by telling who you are and what your type of expierience or your profession is.

Your political insight is respected anyway, but you could have done with it in two to five posts instead of repeating it again and again and making it the center of your heart-thinking.

franzl

RegDep

Alice - Kulverstukas,

Know your history: Nicolay II was born 1868, the Moscow - Petersburg railway was opened 1851.

And the urban legend (about Nicolay I) has been attributed to a Russian journalist (Греч, Николай Иванович).

Sorry for the off-thread .

Golf-Sierra

Sorry for keeping up the OT, but...

In that case perhaps please be kind enough to emigrate to some remote country, definitely outside the EU, and live with your clown there. As far as I am concerned - I hope we will have wise and competent leaders in charge of our countries. The leaders we have are afterall the leaders we choose.

You've continuously demonstrated your arrogance in relation to sympathisers of both the deceased Lech Kaczynski and his brother Jarek. It takes a certain maturity of character to realise that not everyone who thinks somewhat differently than you do is a clown or idiot. It all has to be black and white for you, does it not?

But why do you now think you are in a position to claim that our Russian, American and British colleagues have in fact chosen clowns run their countries - I do not understand?? From what I observe the USA, UK and Russia are all doing quite well.


Golf-Sierra

RockShock

Wrong
I am looking at MAK report p.182&183 (the pdf is protected so cannot copy it)
The conclusions are in order of appearance:
- failure of the crew to timely divert to another airport - here I would agree, however I think that a 'trial' approach would be allowed if executed properly
- descent to below minimas without visual contact with the ground - I surely agree, but it should be noted here that acc. to MAK, this descent was done 'on purpose', while we already know from the tampered Polish CVR transcript it was because of the mistakes of the crew - the decision to g/a was taken
- the exposed psychological pressure on the pilot to continue descent with a dominating aim to land - not agreed as stated above

Anyways, I agree that the numerous cases are mentioned and pressure is just one of them. So I withdraw my conclusion from initial post that the new findings deny the findings of hte whole MAK report: I hereby say that by my judgement, they deny a large part of the report.

gstaniak
You are correct, there are some MoD representatives as well, though I don't know the proportions. I don't think they see the ATC faults everywhere, only where those faults were present. As I said earlier: I don't see in their actions a will to shift the blame from the pilots/dispatchers for the accident - I rather see a will to complete a picture stemming from MAK report in places where it lacks some information... Plus, I don't think it's that simple, as judging in own case, as those people are from air transport safety side - I'd say there would be a conflict of interest if the commision was run by MoD only and consisted of the AirForce only - with the setup it has, I think they have a good chance of working properly - though this will be confirmed by final report only...

Kulverstukas

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post6183702

Ptkay

I also abstain form any further speculations on this forum
(as you maybe have noticed) until the transcript of the conversation of the
twin K. brothers will be published or the witness testimonies
about the argument between Błasik and Protasiuk at briefing
will be made available.

I can bet a substantial amount of money that this
transcripts will be published or leaked about 2-3 weeks
before parliament elections due this year in Poland.

All remaining technical details are more or less clear.
Button pushed or not is absolutely irrelevant,
there were so many errors by the pilots,
that one more or one less
doesn't make any difference.

gstaniak

Really? We must've seen two different conferences then. In my version of Matrix they started with a general assertion that "ATC made many mistakes" and followed this with a detailed account of the events that took place at the ATC site, with comments about "non-sterile tower", "extreme tension", "ATC personnel at the verge of their nervous capacities", cursing, "passive attitude" of their commander, col. Krasnokutskiy, who simply "let the a/c decide for themselves" about landing, and then there was a fragment about the Il-76 approach, and doubts about the weather, and finally an accusation that ATC "could have called Poland directly" to warn PLF 101 after the difficult landing attempt by Il-76! And this picture doesn't strike you as a desperate attempt to shift the responsibility to the ATC side? Really?

What exactly that was said during the conference points to a real fault on the side of the ATC? I mean something that might have caused the accident or contribute to it? Because that's what they're supposed to investigate, aren't they? Not all kinds of theories about "what would have happened if". If you accept this theorizing about "what ATC could have done", then perhaps you should also theorize about "what would have happened if the president had decided right away to divert to Moscow", or "what would have happened if the AF Commander-in-Chief had ordered the crew to stop an approach in which the pilots broke regulations and the a/c flight manual". Or do you want to admit that these, too, were causes of the accident?

As far as "completing the picture" is concerned -- please have a look at:

http://www.mi.gov.pl/files/0/1792161/2009962RKPKBWL.pdf (sorry, Polish only)

This is a final report on a serious incident that took place at Katowice-Pyrzyce (EPKT) on November 9th, 2009, when an Eurocypria B-737 busted minima when landing with respect to RVR, mistook side line of lights for the central line, and as a result left the landing strip with the front gear and left main gear. Please note that this report was prepared by the very same Polish comittee that is investigating the Smolensk accident at the moment. I'd like to point a few things to you:

• nowhere in the report the committee raises the question of closing the airport because of visibility below minima,
• nowhere in the report the committee raises the question of ATC giving the crew clearance to land with visibility below minima for their ILS cat. I approach,
• ATC work is hardly mentioned in the report at all,
• let alone publishing the whole transcript of ATC conversations,
• or wondering "what ATC could have done" to prevent this incident.

Now, does the Polish committee routinely publish reports that do not "complete the picture", or maybe we are witnessing a nice example of double standards in their treatment of the Smolensk accdent?

ARRAKIS

No way. You are mixing the PKBWL (civil one) with KBWLLP (military one).

Arrakis

RockShock

As you say so, I would tend to agree. However, I see it more as an attempt to show, that all the points mentioned by MAK as contributing factors to the accident in the FD of Tu-154M were ignored when it comes to the tower - while in fact as it now seems there was no pressure at all in the FD (I mean, more pressure than usual perhaps), while the tower atmosphere was quite nervous. As the conference was discussing the ATC part only (as this was the part ommited by MAK) I don't see it as an overuse as they were meant to concentrate on the ATC only. I am quite convinced that the final report will be covering all aspects and will not blame ATC for the crash, but I prefer to wait and see discussing this.
I don't agree: the crew was allowed for conditional approach (p 183 of MAK report: "The clearance was received from the landing zone controller") and this brings ATC into picture whether we want it or not, as in the PAR approach he has an active role, hasn't he? If his role was not performed well, why wasn't this mentioned in the MAK report, while other factors have been metioned (like IL-76 diverting that is seemingly not relevant either directly to the accident). In my opinion the poor guy made mistake that did not cause the crash, but could prevent the crash from happening - though obviously it seems that even with the 'horizon' command issued earlier (together with PIC decision) it would end the same way as the g/a was messed up by the crew.

I don't agree that comparing this EPKT orange to Smolensk apple is applicable here. In the ILS approach the ATC role is only to provide weather conditions, and this is mentioned. Also, the report brings suggestion for the airports to introduce low-vis procedures. ATC actions in this report are mentioned within the extent of the ATC responsabilities (weather report and clearance). Since PAR approach in Smolensk required active ATC participation, it is going to be more widely covered.

RockShock

I am wondering if the KBWLLP is a permanent body or was created due to the special nature of the accident? I would think that the military accidents are normally investigated by the Military Prosecutor's office. Anyways, from this link it seems that half of the comission is military and half civilian: Tajna komisja Millera - Wiadomo?ci - Newsweek.pl

Ptkay

About following rules in the 36th.
They don't need no ATC at all, not speaking about the Russian ones.

Yak-40 landed in Bydgoszcz to pick up the Foreign Minister
with no ATC whatsoever.

Bydgoszcz: Specjalna komisja bada, czy rz?dowy Jak-40 wyl?dowa? w Bydgoszczy wbrew przepisom - 10 czerwca 2010

Google T?umacz

ARRAKIS

It is a group always created for a specific incident of a military/state aviation aircraft.

Arrakis

Tiger65

It does happen that the MAK includes performance evaluation of flight controller in its final reports.

A quote from the Russian MAK report on ТU-134 RA-65021 crash (17.3.2007) http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigations/2007/tu-134_ra-65021.html (in Russian only).


One of the final remarks made by the MAK's Technical Commission:

Quote:

Неиспользование диспетчером посадки всех технических возможностей посадочного радиолокатора из-за противоречия в нормативных документах, определяющих порядок и технологию его работы...

Rought translation:

Failure to use by the flight controller of all the technical possibilities of the radar because of the contradictions in the regulations governing the technology and its work ...

Alice025

RegDep @ 1389 now that's unfair of you to know years :o))))))))))
Either way, you can't deny we want our tsars to be big and all-powerful.
(A quality bad) reputation these days is everything! :o)))

Alice025

"ATC personnel at the verge of their nervous capacities", "cursing".

Even worse! Would have behaved Russian navigator - don't go to a fortune teller - if there was one in the flightdeck. I think he might even start a fight :o)))))), wanting to live :o)))))))

SadPole

Man, oh, man. All I was saying, I want a situation where "leaders" do not go to "experts" and tell them: "hi there, old buddy, could you fix that there crash report for me so it makes me look good" and you go into that little diatribe of yours against me.

Aren't you a little old to still believe in Santa Claus? Let me know when you find a place with wise and competent leaders.

The leaders we get are the leaders people who believe in pies-in-the-sky choose. Problem is, pies are running out and so is credit for them.

Well, I kind of got nervous after Jarek announced that if he were Prime Minister he would already send "state services" to take care of all the experts who disagree with his little dogma that Russians sabotaged the plane and who dare to say that the Polish pilots might have made some mistakes.

See here

I would have to go looking for another clown to live under, and I am getting too old for that, as I have already searched the world long and high and wide for those "wise and competent" leaders.

SadPole

Have you even read the official "Polish Remarks to the MAK report"? According to it, ALL causes of crash shown by MAK report are wrong or unsupported by any evidence or insufficiently proven

Then they specifically list all these causes, including:
- mistakes in training and preparation of crew
- mistakes in preparation of alternate airports
- landing approach on autopilot in configuration specifically not allowed by flight manual
- not abandoning approach upon reaching decision height of 100[m]

See Page 148 of the report.

The commission is maneuvering itself into a hole. As gstaniak pointed out their little presentation made most politicians believe that ATCs were indeed the main culprits. Even Tusk believes we should go to ICAO to prove that Russian ATCs were at fault.

How are they going to walk away from it now?