Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

You Tube video

I'm afraid that the Youtube video is probably in breach of WP:ELNO, see WP:YOUTUBE for further explanation. That said, given the claim it was aired on Polish TV, {{cite episode}} may be the appropriate template to use for a cited reference. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is substantial, there should be some online print coverage which can be cited. YouTube videos could be removed tomorrow on copyright grounds, so they are never ideal citations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying to cite the video, I was saying cite the actual TV programme that was aired on whatever TV channel in Poland that it was on. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The video mentioned is Misja Specjalna - dok. "Smoleńsk" - nadany 05.10.2010 - całość (Special Mission - documentary "Smolensk" 5 October 2010). It is from Telewizja Polska, is fifteen minutes long, and all of the dialogue is in Polish. Leaving aside WP:YOUTUBE (which is mainly about not violating copyright), the main problem is verifying an English language version of the video. Judging by the general content of the video, concerns are raised about the Russian handling of the crash site, some of which have been raised elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A while back, we all got into an argument over the copyright status on this image, which apparently shows the Tu-154 wreckage at Smolensk airbase in April. If the investigation has been concluded, the wreckage may be regarded as scrap metal, even though the victims of the crash may find this distasteful. The last that was heard of the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103, it was at a scrapyard in Lincolnshire, England.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule that sources must be in English. In this case, I'd say that the Polish language video would be better, as it is easier to verify what was said, then translate, rather than verify that the translation was correct in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

After this was raised, I tried to find the original documentary on http://www.tvp.pl/ or something in text about the documentary on Google, but had no luck on either count. The documentary itself looks like a reliable source, but would need translating into English by someone fluent in Polish.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If the video has any notable or relevant points about the accident would they not be in the reliable print media somewhere. Worst case a reference to the programme in the media. Dont see why the video itself has to be included. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me to be more of a case of Investigative Reporting than actual news. It is perfectly normal for aircraft wreckage to be stored outdoors, then melted down and recycled after an accident investigation is concluded. TWA 800 and Pan Am 103 are exceptions as opposed to the rule. In TWA 800's case, it was decided the reconstructed airframe was far more valuable as a training tool for new investigators than it was as scrap metal. In Pan-Am 103's case, the prosecution of the defendants required the wreckage be retained as evidence under Scots Law. It was stored outdoors, in a scrapyard, until all appeals were complete some 15 years later. It now awaits an uncertain fate. In any case, the Polish Air Force owns the wreckage of their aircraft, and they would most certainly cry foul if they felt anything inappropriate was being done with their property. This does not appear to be happening. N419BH 19:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

“Seems to me to be more of a case of Investigative Reporting than actual news.” What is the difference between “Reporting” and “actual news”? This specific documentary aired on Polish TV and exposes important facts pertaining to this crash. What a novel idea! WingManFA2 (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Polish, so I can't evaluate the source directly. Nevertheless, it is perfectly normal for wreckage to be stored outdoors and discarded once it has been analyzed. The Polish Air Force owns their airplane (whole or in pieces). If they felt anything improper was being done with it, they would cry foul. This does not appear to have happened. In any event, both Poland and Russia have come to the preliminary conclusion that pilot error was to blame. The only evidence the airframe itself will provide are such things as flap position, gear position, and throttle position. The Russians would have given the plane a thorough once-over to make sure there was nothing out of the ordinary. Once this was accomplished, the airframe has provided all the information it can, and the investigation will move to the CVR, FDR, ATC, and radar track recordings. N419BH 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't bother to watch this documentary, did you? Did you see the "analysis" and "thorough once-over" it depicts? The footage came from one of the Russians present at the crash site right after the crash. Did the Polish TV reporters get it all wrong? Is the Polish TV not trustworthy enough for some reason? If you have a problem with that, we need to know why? You are an expert here, right? A lot of the content in this article is pure and unadulterated bullshit. So, lets start with the facts this particular documentary depicts, and then we will move on. And what is up with this "preliminary conclusion"? Is the "preliminary conclusion" a fact? What is a "preliminary conclusion"? What does it mean? WingManFA2 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak polish, therefore, I cannot watch the documentary and obtain any information. My only means of understanding are the translations provided by others. What I can speak to is the methods by which accident investigations are conducted. The fact is, it is perfectly normal for aircraft wreckage to be left outside. This was the case for Pan Am Flight 103, a terrorist attack, in which the wreckage was left outside and uncovered for 15 years while the investigation and later trial of the terrorists were conducted. Also, the Polish Air Force owns the wreckage of their airplane. If they felt anything improper was being done with it, they would say so. As for a "preliminary conclusion", an accident investigation is conducted by "ruling out" various possibilities. That is, you investigate the evidence and go, "the evidence says it wasn't the engines, it wasn't the weather, it wasn't terrorism, it wasn't....therefore, it has to be pilot error". The evidence so far overwhelmingly indicates the pilots intentionally ignored their Minimum Descent Altitude and the later warnings from the Ground Proximity Warning System. The evidence indicates they attempted to descend using their Radar altimeter, which is not a safe means of operation because of terrain features. However, in deference to the previous statement, the Russians are ruling out all other possibilities before concluding pilot error was to blame. Finally, as for the documentary itself, I have nothing wrong with Polish documentaries in general. I live in the city with the highest population of Poles outside of Warsaw. The body of the translations I've read indicate to me that it is more Investigative journalism than pure statement of fact. While some investigative journalism is reliable as a source, the body of the evidence that I have explained above does not indicate that the information contained in this particular report is reliable as fact. N419BH 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"I don't speak polish, therefore, I cannot watch the documentary and obtain any information". Then, how can you make an informed decision to outright reject many important facts this documentary introduces? Particularly, since you didn't "obtain" any information to begin with? "Obtaining" the information would require "watching" and "understanding". Isn't that silly? WingManFA2 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the information contained in the documentary, as I understand it from the english translations, strongly contradicts the body of the evidence and standard practice in accident investigation. That's how. N419BH 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As we clearly dont understand what WingManFA2 is talking about would it not be of help if he/she could help us non-Polish speaking users and explain what the important facts actually are ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of standard aircraft wreckage storage. N419BH 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Before the Pan Am wreckage was discarded, it was actually painstakingly analysed, and then thoroughly reconstructed. Wasn't it? I also don't believe you are suggesting that the wreckage was chopped up, smashed up, and destroyed with the use of heavy machinery? Oh, and it was never left unprotected from the elements for months either? Was it? Is that what you are suggesting? See here: Pan Am 103 Investigation Photo WingManFA2 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And the Polish evidence was not? Notice in that photo you linked to they only reconstructed the small section where the bomb was, after determining in the field that the bomb was there in the first place. The reconstruction was to determine the mode of failure, not to determine a bomb blew up the airplane. In the case of the Polish accident, why would you reconstruct the airframe if there is no evidence of a bomb? And why wouldn't you use heavy machinery to move heavy wreckage? There is no other means of moving it. N419BH 20:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it was NOT! The footage shows what was taking place immediately after the crash. Are you suggesting that the Russian investigators were able to make the determination as to the cause of the crash within 24 hours? Oh, I forgot, they did! It was the pilot error, right? What was happening at the crash site is with no precedence! Unlike the great majority of meaningless statements quoted out of context in this article, this documentary presents facts! Nothing but the facts. It was aired on the Polish TV, and as such it is not some sort of speculative fringe source that should be discarded. WingManFA2 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to this, and has labeled the removal of same by three different editors (myself included) vandalism. N419BH 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks I missed that, my ignorance:

• This documentary shows how the members of the Russian special services who were present on the site of the tragedy during the first days after the crash handled the wreckage.

Not sure why that is significant a bit of a so what.

• The majority of the trees, that the Tupolev TU-154 is alleged to have made contact with, were cut down.

Alleged? I dont see why they should leave damaged trees standing - nothing unusual.

• The wreckage was left unprotected from the elements for months.

Nothing unusual why should it be protected ?

• The footage that documents the actions of the Russians show how the wreckage, that is the most important piece of the evidence in this crash, was being destroyed.

What else are they going to do with at this stage it is not needed for the investigation.

• The remains of the wreckage where moved from place to place.

Oh so they were sorting and checking it then - contradicts the earlier statements.

• The larger pieces were stretched-out, compacted, and crushed.

Dont see why that is unusual.

• The majority of the aircraft remains were not analyzed in any way.

No reason to investigate everything when the on site evidence doesnt point to a failure of the airframe.

• In the end, the wreckage remains found their way onto an auxiliary landing strip at the Severny airport.

Oh so it wasnt all destroyed they left big bits alone and just moved them. Where else are they going to put it, out of the way I am sure that if it was left in a pile in the countryside on view people would not like it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

N419BH wrote in this thread: In any event, both Poland and Russia have come to the preliminary conclusion that pilot error was to blame. That's blatantly untrue, "Poland" has reached no such preliminary conclusion. PilotPL20 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This article, from a Krakow, Poland newspaper, states, "On Wednesday, the joint Polish and Russian investigative team issued a report that ruled out terrorism or technical failures as causes of the crash, and hinted towards pilot error as the likely cause." Sure Poland hasn't come to the pilot error preliminary conclusion? N419BH 20:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! Gazeta Prawna, July 22, 2010: Prosecutor General Col. Zbigniew Rzepa in interview with Gazega Prawna "At this point we are not excluding any scenario". WingManFA2 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am very sure. Just an example, the article claims: "Just before the crash, air traffic controllers had advised the crew of the Tu-154 plane to fly to another airport, instructions which they ignored." If you read the cockpit recordings that's not a very accurate description of the situation. As long as an airport is open the controllers cannot give instructions to the pilot to fly to another airport. They only give conditions and then it is pilot's call. PilotPL20 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a pilot, trust me, I know this. The article reflects that it was the pilot's decision "...advised the crew to fly to another airport...". The article here on Wikipedia also reflects the pilot's responsibility. Which only adds evidence to the conclusion that pilot error was the likely cause. N419BH 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It so happens that I am a pilot as well and I don't trust you because you are talking nonsense. Shortly before the Tu-154 crash another Polish plane landed plus a Russian plane tried to land and then flew away. There was nothing wrong in attempting to land and the Wikipedia article most certainly should not reflect pilot's responsibility until such a responsibility is formally established by the investigation. PilotPL20 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is turning into another thread where past arguments are repeated. The preliminary report in June ruled out a mechanical fault or terrorist attack, and focused on the likelihood of pilot error. There seems to be more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in this section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense! Gazeta Prawna, July 22, 2010: The Polish Prosecutor General Col. Zbigniew Rzepa in his interview with Gazeta Prawna states: "At this point we are not excluding any scenario". You are refusing to hear anything that refutes your peculiar agenda! WingManFA2 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The investigation is focusing on all possible causes not just the pilot error. This is not the first time you try to put the blame on the pilots, I remember you have tried this before. Any particular reasons for that? PilotPL20 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made the same point in basically all of my posts. This article which I've already referred to might explain it. Read the last sentence. N419BH 21:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the preliminary report? PilotPL20 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Klich, the chief Polish investigator, indicated the likelihood of pilot error as the cause. The article states this with reliable sourcing. This section is turning into a Whac-A-Mole game, and the most likely cause is the failure of the article to push the pet theory that the crash was not an accident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This article says, in the cause section of the infobox, "Unknown, Pilot error suspected" which is in line with the statement by Ianmacm above. What more do you two want? (as for not believing I'm a pilot, I have 425 hours, 405 single-engine, 20 multi-engine, 10 of those King Air, also B727 simulator, and I hold FAA SEL, MEL, IA, CFI/A, and CFI/IA) N419BH 21:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And the source for the "Pilot error suspected" is what exactly? Btw I have not said I don't believe you. PilotPL20 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Three sources, actually 1 2 3. N419BH 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay now please compare your newspaper sources with the highly respected and specialized source, The Aviation Safety Network: As you can see the official preliminary report does not "suspect" anybody at this point. PilotPL20 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The ASN page is based on a preliminary reports from May 2010 just after the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because that is the only official report that was published as far as I know. If you know if another report please show it. PilotPL20 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)...And? The chief Polish investigator has stated that pilot error is the likely cause. The third newspaper article, from the highly respected Wall Street Journal refers to him when reporting pilot error as the likely cause. This article here on Wikipedia accurately reports the current status of the investigation: Ongoing, with pilot error suspected as the likely cause. N419BH 22:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that in the link you provided. In any case as far as I know The Wall Street Journal primarily focuses on business and financial news. It does not trump the highly specialized source about aviation crashes. PilotPL20 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Newsweek.pl is quoting Klich, "there is not enough evidence to formulate any hypothesis about the reasons for the crash". —Preceding unsigned comment added by WingManFA2 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the first sentence: "...said the top Polish official involved." A quote or paraphrase from him is very reliable as a source. N419BH 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Investigation" section...

...is a total POV job. Weak sources, the usual "pilot ignored this, pilot ignored that" speculations presented as facts, no mention of the difficult cooperation between the Polish and Russian investigators etc. PilotPL20 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There are various sources, another from the Washington Post is here. For the umpteenth time, we do not know what the final report is going to say, but we do know that a mechanical fault and terrorism were ruled out, and that pilot error is seen as the likely cause. No more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep supporting your POV with very old newpaper articles. Here is the thing investigations are not based on what papers write. I have seen all sorts of things written about the crash in various papers and pilot error was not even the most common claim. That's why I believe at this point Wikipedia should simply describe what happened. After and if the investigation concludes there was a pilot error then Wikipedia should include that information. PilotPL20 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The section includes quotes from individuals critical of the investigation. The pilot error theory is supported by a quote from the lead Polish investigator. N419BH 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another error. The text in the section claims: On the day after the crash, investigators said they had reviewed the flight recorders, and confirmed that there were no technical problems with the Soviet-built aeroplane, ruling out initial theories that the 20-year-old aircraft was at fault. One of the recorders was built specifically for that plane in Poland had to be sent to Poland which happened, as far as I remember, only after only after a week or maybe two. PilotPL20 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a paraphrase of a cited source. In all likelihood they're referring to the FDR specifically, which in a pilot error scenario usually says, "Everything's fine, everything's fine, everything's fine... Uh oh we're too low (recording ends as electrical power is cut as plane hits hill). So it's not an error it's an accurate reflection of the source, which is slightly off due to the timeframe. N419BH 22:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read what I have written above? One of the flight recorders was not examined until week(s) later, thus it was completely impossible to rule out a mechanical problem a day after the crash. As for your scenario, well such a scenario can be caused by a number of reasons not just the pilot error. PilotPL20 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is all speculation lets just wait for the official report. MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree! Most of this article is nothing more than a speculation (I will refrain from calling it bunch of bullshit), weird POVs driven by peculiar agendas, and science-fiction. This article needs a serious cleanup. WingManFA2 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...the article is written based on the statements and releases of the investigation, as reported by numerous third parties in line with WP:V. It accurately reflects the current status of the investigation, and even includes criticisms of said investigation. Calling it science fiction is calling the entire investigation science fiction. If you wish to make that claim, consider creating the article Conspiracy theories regarding the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, but make sure it's well written or it'll end up at WP:AFD. N419BH 23:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in science-fiction, nor am I interested in any conspiracy theories. I am interested in facts! This entire discourse exposes serious factual problems with this article. WingManFA2 (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Only if you do not believe the sources cited. N419BH 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Then, why are you questioning the integrity of the Misja Specialna documentary. Can you take a look and tell me if this is the way the crash scene is protected, or the way the investigation is conducted? After all, it aired on Polish national TV. I can discern that the MilborneOne is most likely a very young kid, with a lot of silly things to say. But, you on the other hand, claim to be a pilot? A friend of mine who happened to fly a 747 for living, read this article and laughed. I wan't quote him here. It is not necessary. Thanks! WingManFA2 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you that MilborneOne is not a kid. He's been taking photos of aircraft since at least 1980, which I suspect is before you were even born! Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Human body parts

Just watched the whole thing. Can't understand anything they're saying but I can see what's going on. Looks like their main complaints are the Russians built a road to access the wreckage, cut some pieces in order to move them, and used heavy machinery in order to move the wreckage. Frankly, these are all normal means of moving wreckage once it has been photographed in location, particularly in rugged or heavily forested terrain where large machines won't fit. Dunno about the trees, although once they've been photographed the evidence has been preserved. Not sure what they were getting at with the bones. As for the guy breaking the window, that might be a legitimate issue, unless he was breaking it in order to attach a crane to move the piece. N419BH 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The main complain is that the wreckage was moved and damaged immediately after the crash, before it was even examined. Apparently the attention to that fact was brought to the authors of the documentary by two Russians who worked on the scene of the crash and who requested to remain anonymous. The expert in the documentary states that if he was to decided for sure he would protect the wreckage from the elements. PilotPL20 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The part about the bones may relate to complaints that human body parts and personal belongings are still being found at the crash site. This is something that could be mentioned in the article if it could be confirmed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "if it could be confirmed"? Check the video at 13:03. PilotPL20 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the video hosted on Youtube, it can't be used for reasons explained above. A request has been made to source it to the original source and use the appropriate template to reference it, but the request has falled on deaf ears so far. Mjroots (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And why, may I ask? It doesn't confirm with the official party line? What's the silly excuse this time? WingManFA2 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference what, the human remains? That can be easily done. PilotPL20 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here we go: [2][3][4][5] PilotPL20 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is confirmed at [6]. After the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981 in 1974, the forest outside Ermenonville was filled with human body parts. This is a consequence of an air crash at high speed, and body parts and personal belongings may continue to be found in the forest outside Smolensk for some time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source which compares the two crashes? Considering that the Tu-154 was attempting to land, the speed was lower plus the Turkish plane was obviously flying at a considerably higher altitude. Anyway that the human body parts are a result of the air crash is no great insight, it seems obvious so I am not sure why exactly are you making that point. PilotPL20 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that there are direct similarities between the two crashes. Turkish Airlines Flight 981 crashed into a forest at an estimated 430 knots (500mph/800kmph) which would have resulted in human body parts and personal belongings being spread over a wide area. If Flight 101 crashed in a forest at landing speed (estimated at around 200kmph, which is WP:OR for a Tu-154), the results could have been similar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a significant difference because the Kinetic energys is a function of the square of velocity :$E_{k}={\tfrac {1}{2}}mv^{2}$, so the energy involved could have been as much as 16x times higher in the Turkish plane crash. Thus your conclusion that the results could have been similar is both WP:OR and very dubious at best. Anyway I really, really don't see the point of this conversation, the article should state the facts. PilotPL20 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, the YouTube video and photo of the wreckage of Flight 101 confirm the theory that the plane did not crash into the ground at high speed. After the Ermenonville crash in 1974, the plane was in shreds over a large area of forest, and 20,000 body parts were found.[7]. Looking at the photos of the crash scene at Smolensk, it is hard to support the theory of a high speed crash or a bomb exploding in flight. However, let's wait for the final report, which is now only a few weeks away.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What in the name of God are you talking about? Do you realize that what you just wrote makes absolutely no sense? No one here is talking about bombs, or conspiracy theories! We are talking about the facts that don't collide with elementary math, physics, and above all, the common sense. That's all! Nothing else! Why in the heaven's name are spinning this article? Get out of the bunker, and get some fresh air for crying out loud! WingManFA2 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is not spun. It is written using reliable sources. If you feel something is missing, be WP:BOLD and add the important missing information into the article. Please be sure that your edit is written in a Neutral Point Of View and that it references one or more reliable sources. Otherwise it is likely to be removed as unsourced negative material. Note that Wikipedia is based on consensus, so you may not get your way if a majority of editors disagree with your edit. Also note that quality of arguments are taken into account, as Wikipedia does not strictly vote. Finally, it is exceedingly rude to call removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information "vandalism" as you have done on several occasions in your edit summaries. If you would like, feel free to place your proposed edit here on this talk page. Myself and other editors would be happy to point out specific issues which, once improved, will make your edit more accepted by the community at large. N419BH 04:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming rather tiring to keep having to reply to comments from one editor who seems incapable of assuming good faith from the other editors. The article reflects the current state of play from reliable sources, and is not "spun". We have all bent over backwards in recent days in an attempt to keep WingManFA2 happy, so it would be nice to see some good will in return.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither is the article written by reliable sources nor it is written from a Neutral Point Of View. Rather it seems that whoever wrote large parts of the article assumed the guilt of the pilots and then searched and dumped into it every newspaper article which supports that particular POV. And all negative aspects encountered during the investigation are simply censored out of the article. PilotPL20 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please, write a paragraph or two covering what's missing, and place it here on this page. Gather some sources and list them here. I'm going to work. I'll review it when I get back 6 hours from now, maybe make some style and copy edits, format the references, and place it into the article for you. See if you can find a review of the documentary. I'm guessing it'll be reviewed in one of the major Polish newspapers. See if you can find additional sources as well. The more there are, the more everyone will accept the edit. N419BH 15:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

IanMacM wrote: “one editor who seems incapable of assuming good faith from the other editors”. It isn't *ONE* editor who is having issues with what you are doing! Ok! So, now that you are no longer able to maintain that the pink elephant was in the room all along, the other editors are “incapable of assuming good faith?” This statement is particularly disingenuous! Your clique had thus far thoroughly sanitized this article and prevented other editors from contributing to this article. You are working as a tag team! You had vandalized many other editors’ contributions. So, in order not to confuse you too much, lets start with the photos taken by the Belarusian journalist that you arbitrarily removed. And, since it is more than apparent that the few of you are working as a tag-team, lets give the phrase “other editors” a rest. Let us begin. WingManFA2 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not "arbitrarily remove" the material about the lamps, read the discussion again, there was a clear WP:CONSENSUS. However, since I have no desire to be drawn into another circular debate, I will repeat N419BH's advice to WingManFA2: write a sourced paragraph about criticism of the investigation, and let other users discuss it openly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wingman, if you insist on this aggressive tone and POV pushing, whilst refusing to come up with reliable sources to verify what you are saying, the I will consider raising your editing at WP:ANI. So, either find the sources, propose the wording here for comment and gaining of consensus, or drop the issue. This is becoming disruptive now. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well, apparently my contributions were removed? You guys really need to lay it off! A while ago, I suggested that you are editing as a tag team as well. The WingManFA2 is not disruptive at all. He is simply tired of your POV pushing and editing games! Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• @ Mjroots, ianmacm, N419BH and other members of the secret KGB plot: Wow, you guys are patient. I think you need some help from a rouge admin to sort this out quickly and painlessly. --illythr (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Since no one seemed to follow my advice and instead accused me of meatpuppetry, I will follow it myself. Wingman, Robert Warren, PilotPL20, and other interested editors, please feel free to improve this section. Do however keep it neutral. N419BH 02:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Section Title: Investigation Criticisms

A number of individuals have criticized the handling of the investigation on numerous grounds. The handling of the wreckage is one of the chief complaints. Critics note that the crash site was disturbed by the cutting of trees to make way for heavy equipment. Questions have also been raised regarding the means used to move the wreckage, which have included cutting some pieces apart, dragging wreckage across the ground using heavy machinery, and breaking windows to attach equipment. Body parts are still being found at the accident site, and this has led to criticism of the thoroughness of the Russian search for remains. Additionally, the wreckage has been stored outdoors. These issues have caused some to speculate that evidence is being destroyed through either incompetence or deliberate acts. A large segment of the Polish population believes the true cause of the disaster will never be conclusively determined.

Commentary

I have been avoiding major edits to the article for a while now, because they are likely to be superseded when the final report is published in a few weeks' time. When the report is published, there will be plenty of fresh criticism of the findings, hopefully from reliable sources, so I am holding off until then.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Cover up"

Re this edit. WorldNetDaily is a news aggregator and not a WP:RS, and this edit seems to be an attempt to prejudge the final report. The Polish government has said that it will look at the crash report findings before commenting.[8] As the saying goes, "comment is free, but facts are sacred". Also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Duma condemns Katyn massacre

BBC are reporting that the Duma have condemned Stalin for the Katyn massacre. Putin reported to be planning a state visit to Poland. Not sure if this should be added to this article, or the related reactions article. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only notable to this article if it's directly related to the accident. Let's wait and see what happens during the visit. I have no doubt the accident will be discussed, and we might be able to use what is said in the article. N419BH 17:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The report

Apparently published around the 17 December. Poland has criticised certain aspect of the report (BBC). Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction: Report has not been published yet. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Final report is now out. English language version. Looks like pilot error was the cause. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The report steers clear of identifying pilot error as the cause of the crash, although it accepts that there was nothing mechanically wrong with the plane.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still reading it. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion 3.130 says:"The crew members had valid medical licenses. No violations of the work and rest balances were detected. No evidence of alcohol or other prohibited substances was revealed by the coronary examination. The accident was not caused by the health or capacity of the crew members."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there's some photos which we should consider using in the article. Anyone know if MAK photos are copyrighted or on a Wikipedia compatible licence? Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Section 3.2 (Causes) reveals little that was not known since the preliminary report in June 2010. It states: "The Tu154-M aircraft was serviceable before the departure from Warsaw. No evidence of aircraft, engine or system failures before the collision was revealed. There was was no fire, explosion or in-flight destruction before the collision.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Shorthand: The report says the immediate cause was the descent below MDA without adequate visual reference, thereby causing controlled flight into terrain (the term "Pilot error" has increasingly fallen into disuse by official investigations as it does not specify why an accident happened). We should probably change the infobox to agree with the official report in this regard. I will do that now (our own article on the topic quotes Boeing as saying Controlled Flight Into Terrain is often a form of pilot error). Obviously we are going to have to undertake a major rewriting of the article now that the official report has been released. I am reading the rest of the report. N419BH 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So, who's up for getting this to GA (and possibly FA) standards? I suggest we do the work in a sandbox to avoid disruption to the article. I haven't read the report yet, but probably will this evening. wackywace 19:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What is interesting is how the report avoids making an outright statement that the cause was pilot error. How could the cause be summarised in the infobox?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pilot Error" really isn't used much in official investigations anymore because it doesn't say why something happened. The media still uses it a lot but official report do not. Example: two airplanes collided when they could see each other. That's pilot error, but the cause of the accident is the failure of the pilots to see and avoid each other. In this case Russia has found a large number of causes leading up to the accident itself (pressure placed upon the pilots, bad weather, terrain features, etc). The accident itself though is summarized nicely by Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT): where a perfectly good airplane is accidently flown by a properly trained crew into the ground. The accident report states CFIT was the end result on page 182. I have already placed this as the cause in the infobox, although obviously an entire section of the article will have to delve into the root causes of the accident. CFIT though is a good generalization for what happened. I'll gladly help get this to FA status. We've got a lot of work to do... N419BH 19:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of work indeed... Would it be better to start again in a sandbox with just the infobox, since a lot of things in the article are completely unrelated to the actual accident. wackywace 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wackywace, for licensing reasons, that would not be a good idea. We need to continue working on/with the existing article. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary cause was pilot error/CFIT. Secondary causes were lack of experience, lack of CRM, failure to maintain a sterile cockpit, poor planning and poor training. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fog

An IP editor has twice added info on a Polish documentary whose title translates at "The Fog". The addition has been reverted twice.

It may well be appropriate to record that the documentary was made and aired on Polish Television. However, it should be understood that any claims as to the causes of the accident cannot be sourced from the documentary, particularly in light of the official report that was published today. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Polish Television is not impartial and it cannot be trusted as a source automatically in this matter(see example). 99.236.14.72 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is impartial. What I'm saying is that it may be appropriate to mention that the programm was aired (subject to consensus for this). Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tbilisi incident

The pilot and co-pilot on this flight were the co-pilot and navigator on the flight carrying Lech Kaczyński and the presidents of Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia which LK ordered to fly to Tbilisi and the pilot refused to for safety related reasons. Said pilot was cleared at court-martial, but never flew an aircraft carrying LK again.

I think we should add details of this incident as it provides evidence of pressure on the flight crew to land at Smolensk and not to divert elsewhere - this is covered in the Final report issued yesterday. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pilot was not courtmartialed, he was given a decoration by the Minister of Defence for the correct decision not to land at Tbilisi. There was some criticism of the pilot in the pro-Kaczynski press, plus an accusation submitted to a prosecutor by an MP from Kaczynski's party but rejected out of hand as spurious. That was some form of pressure, but nowhere near a court-martial. Where do such stupid inaccuracies arise, I wonder? This is all so easy to check. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the Final Report. I believe a Court Martial was certainly considered, but it was ruled that the pilot was correct in his actions. Despite this, he was either removed from flying the President, or sacked according to other sources which we cannot use in the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this interview with Pietruczuk (the pilot) in Gazeta Wyborcza he was not sacked and flew the president multiple times after the incident (link). Use Google Translate if needed. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done And no, the guy wasn't sacked, but according to the accident report he DID NOT fly the president again. N419BH 08:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case the report is wrong. This not surprising. Why should Russians be particularly knowledgeable about personnel decisions taken in the Polish military in 2008? I would rely on the interview by the most respected Polish newspaper with the pilot himself. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Protasiuk (the captain who died at Smolensk) was second pilot in the Tbilisi incident, and part of the crew that refused the president's direct order to land then. If defying Kaczynski would get you sacked or prevented from flying him again, then what was Protasiuk doing in the cockpit in 2010? Also, if Protasiuk was so psychologically weak that he bent to the president's pressure in 2010, how come he was able to stand up to the president in 2008? This theory seems to be full of holes. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Protasiuk was not the pilot in charge of the Tbilisi flight, he was only the co-pilot. Pietruczuk made the decision not to fly to Tbilisi, and he carried the can afterwards. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, what we can verify from reliable sources will be used in the article, even if it is not the truth. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If getting a medal for your actions fits the definition of carrying the can (not to deny that Pietruczuk did face unpleasantness, and implications that he was a coward from some circles). Anyway, Gazeta Wyborcza is a reliable source, so if it quotes the interview with Pietruczuk where he states he flew the president again after Tbilisi incident, that seems quite credible to me. In another article it states that during Tbilisi flight Kaczynski tried to dismiss the Captain (Pietruczuk) and ordered Second Pilot (Protasiuk) to perform the landing, and he refused. link The details of what happened on the way to Tbilisi are actually not at all clear. All the more surprising that the Russian Final Report is so definite on that incident's impact on the Smolensk crash. As Poland refused to certify the report, I would be careful about unquestioningly accepting the report's findings on the internal dynamics of the Polish military in 2008. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the definitive source. Article from the September 23, 2008 (link). Translation of the beginning:

President flown by pilot who files where he wants'

The pilot who refused to land in Tbilisi with Lech Kaczyński again sat behind the controls of a plane with the president on board. This time Grzegorz Pietruczuk flew Kaczynski to New York. ...

Article goes on to state that the numbers of trained crews flying the Tu-154 is limited (only 2 at that time) and for safety reasons it is impossible to exclude one of the pilots for flying, even if someone dislikes him.99.236.14.72 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a couple questions and need your help to answer them. Can you determine from your sources who the command pilot was on the April 7 flight? I have a sneaking suspicion (though as I am not fluent in Polish I cannot read your sources), that the command pilot on April 7 with the Prime Minister on board was Pietruczuk, and that he was removed from the April 10 flight specifically because the President was on board. I have not included this in the article as I do not have a reliable source for this. I will re-read the section of the accident report on the Tbilisi incident and see if I missed something. If possible, can you also determine how often Pietruczuk flew the President after the 2008 incident? If the sources note that Pietruczuk flew the President much less often after 2008 and the accident Captain (I am not naming him since he was found at fault for the accident and is obviously not here to defend himself) flew him much more, then this is pertinent information to the article. As it stands though the information that Pietruczuk did not fly the President after Tbilisi is reliably sourced to the Russian accident report. If the Russians made a mistake than by all means let's find a reliable source with the correct information. It's also possible that the original report in Russian is correct and the true meaning of their statements was lost in the translation to English (we are referencing the official English translation of the MAK report in the article). Our goal here is to get the article right. We need your help as I for one do not speak Russian or Polish (I'm one of those dumb monolingual Americans, and for that I apologize). N419BH 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You guessed correctly, Pietruczuk was the captain on April 7 (link) on the flight to Smolensk, while Protasiuk was second pilot on that flight. I have not come across any source which discusses why that choice was made: both pilots were competent to fly. I don't have any information about how often Pietruczuk flew with the president - since there were usually only 2 qualified crews in the unit, I imagine it was quite often, given crew rest requirements. In the Polish media this is a non-issue. However, Kaczynski and Pietruczuk clearly had some level of dislike between them, at least in 2008, so I would not be surprised that in situations when both pilots were available to fly, Pietruczuk would be selected less often. Still, this is just speculation on my part. The English version of the report was released by the Russians and it is official, unless of course there was a screwup at some point, in which case an official correction should be issued. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the main point is that the Russian report brings in the 2008 Tbilisi incident to demonstrate that the pilots on April 10 felt pressure, and were afraid to say no to Kaczynski. But the fact is that the crew which did say no in August 2008 on the way to Tbilisi suffered no apparent professional consequences at all: the captain remained in the unit and continued to fly, and even got a medal for his actions from the Minister of Defence. It could be argued that the Tbilisi incident made it more likely that the pilots of the unit would resist Kaczynski's pressure, since they did it once already without professional consequences. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

While that's possible, the final report comes to a different conclusion on page 126 of the English translation, specifically, "This event had a serious response. According to the available information the PIC who took that decision was later never included in the crews conducting flights with the President on board." This would seem to be borne out by the fact that Pietruczuk was Captain on April 7 and not April 10. Since the accident Captain was also present on the April 7 flight crew it is likely this was not the result of crew rest requirements. The report also notes that the accident Captain received his VIP flight Captain authorization on September 8, 2008, less than a month after the August 12, 2008 Tbilisi incident. I am beginning to wonder if Pietruczuk continued to fly the President only until the accident Captain was properly trained to do so. It seems as though Pietruczuk was usually the captain of PLF 101 flights with the accident Captain and First Officer serving as Pietruczuk's First Officer and Navigator, respectively. When the President was on board however, Pietruczuk was removed from the crew, his usual First Officer and Navigator became Captain and First Officer, and a different Navigator was then brought on board. Obviously this is pure conjecture on my part based on the sources I have read, but if this can be reliably sourced it is certainly pertinent to the article. N419BH 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your speculation is interesting and I hope it will be fully addressed in the Polish report, because the Russian report does not provide any lengthy discussion of these matters besides one factually incorrect sentence. I hope we agree at this point that the statement "PIC who took that decision was later never included in the crews conducting flights with the President on board" in the Report is clearly not true. If the Russians in fact meant something else, I hope the clarification of that statement from official sources will be coming soon. If it doesn't, I will certainly conclude that there is not much concern about the factual accuracy of the report in the minds of its authors. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too. When the Polish report comes out we will certainly have to compare the two and make note of any major differences. This has happened in the past, EgyptAir Flight 990 for example, where Egypt and the United States came to VERY different conclusions concerning what happened (United States determined it was suicide by the Cruise First Officer, Egypt faulted the airplane). I am not expecting such a severe difference in findings from Poland; they have already agreed the pilot was at fault, but I expect them to come to different conclusions regarding psychological pressure and the role of ATC in the accident. If you can read Russian, could you look at the Russian version of the report and see if it says anything different from the statement already covered in English? One recurring translation problem I have noted is the report often states "...despite the crew not once being timely informed of the poor weather conditions." To native English speakers this implies that the crew was never notified of the poor weather. However, the crew obviously was, and as such I am guessing the proper translated meaning is "despite the crew more than once being timely informed of the poor weather conditions." It is possible that a translation problem is to blame here too, and that the original Russian states something along the lines of, "PIC who took that decision was later rarely included in the crews conducting flights with the President on board." If you can confirm this in either the original Russian report or the MAK's Polish translation, I will change the quote immediately. N419BH 19:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

All that looks like too much speculation at this point and rather far fetched. We could just as well add the related 2008 incident where Russian troops fired at the presidential convoy in Georgia .. or is it already somewhere in the article? Richiez (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Russian report the sentence is:

Командир, принявший данное решение, впоследствии не включался в состав экипажей, выполнявших рейсы с Президентом на борту.

I believe it matches the English sentence in meaning, stating that: The captain, having taken this decision, was subsequently not included in the crews which conducted flights with the president on board. My Russian is rudimentary, so please correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct, both versions contain the same error. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ehh, that meaning is slightly different in that it says "not included" as opposed to "never included". "Never" implies "not once EVER", while "not" can mean "usually not (but sometimes)". Such is the difficulty with translation... I would say the situation is therefore unclear based on the accident report alone, but since your previous article from September 2008 says the President had flown with this Captain after the incident, I think for now we should use the direct Russian translation, the September 2008 article, and see if we can find anything from a later date regarding the President's flight crew composition once the accident Captain was fully trained as a TU-154 VIP Captain. Also, what does the Polish translation say? Thanks so much for all your help! N419BH 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Both English and Russian versions of the report are official documents issued by MAK. They are meant to be equally authoritative. If the English version contains an error, that is an error by MAK and not by some translator not associated with MAK. There is no official Polish version of the report issued by MAK. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am very surprised that MAK would not issue a Polish translation considering the circumstances. Oh well. The official MAK English translation does state that the Russian language version is the authoritative document should there be any questions regarding meaning. I'll make the appropriate edits if they haven't been made already. N419BH 05:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. As a native Russian speaker, I can suggest that both Russian and English versions are slightly ambiguous. The source Russian phrase (впоследствии не включался) neither says directly, "was afterwards never included", nor says "was afterwards sometimes not included". Depending on the context, both meanings could be easily found in the phrase. I am almost certain that the original Russian writer has not paid much attention to this ambiguity, and we should instead look for more credible sources. A grammatically disputable, but somewhat adequate translation could be, "has been not included" in the sense that it has certainly happened, no further details provided. Ilya Martchenko —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

Thank you so much for the clarification!!! I'm trying to find additional sourcing, but it all seems to be in Polish and as such my English searches are coming up empty. N419BH 05:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

MAK or МАК?

Should the initialism MAK be replaced with МАК wherever it occurs? Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead says "Additional parties involved in the investigation were the Russian Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) (Russian: Межгосударственный авиационный комитет (МАК))" Subsequent references should stick to MAK, although new sections might consider a wikilink to create MAK. Interestingly, it is hard to tell apart the Roman and Cyrillic versions here. KGB is usually given as Roman initials rather than КГБ, so MAK is probably preferred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

...I didn't even notice a difference...I've been calling it "MAK" in all my edits (I also don't have the other K key...). N419BH 08:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are online Cyrillic keyboards, but a lazy person can use copy and paste:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll use keep using "MAK" and if we decide to change it later we can just grab an AWB bot and have it change every instance of "MAK" to "МАК". I copy-pasted the original Russian Russian: Межгосударственный авиационный комитет (МАК) from Interstate Aviation Committee anyway :). Think I'm done making major edits to the article. Most of the pertinent information from the accident report is now included. Lots more little things to do though... N419BH 08:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Polish Air Force

Having read the English language version of the Russian investigation report I am struck by the criticism of the Polish Air Force, in particular crew composition and training. For example that the Pilot-in-Charge was relatively inexperienced, had been switching roles between PIC and co-pilot and between aircraft types, had no simulator training on type, was not current in flying below weather minima. Similarly the co-pilot had recently been flying another type, and that the navigator was very inexperienced and seems not to have understood his role on this very difficult approach. Then there is the claim, based on pathological evidence, that the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Force was not only in the cockpit during the landing approach but had been drinking (0.6% blood alcohol = 'light intoxication'). Granted that the Russian findings are disputed by Poland, these are, in the context of air accident investigation reports, serious allegations and if made against a civil airline in Europe would lead to formal action by the appropriate regulator and possibly withdrawal of licence. I don't want to prompt a flame war in suggesting that the article might refer to these criticisms, but at at the least it would help people abroad (like myself) to understand why the report has been so badly received by the Polish government. AJHingston (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple, the report ignored any problems on the Russian side. In particular problems with Air Traffic Control at the Smolensk airport, discussed in today's press conference (read above).99.236.14.72 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In this BBC article, Blasik's blood alcohol level is described as "just above the drink-driving limit for most EU states." This article says "The blood-alcohol content found in Blasik was lower than what is generally considered outright intoxication. But the professional pilots and physicians group www.flightphysical.com says “the number of serious errors committed by pilots dramatically increases at or above concentrations of 0.04 percent,” a level lower than Blasik’s." In this article, Blasik's widow denies that he was drunk.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Blasik was not flying the plane, he was a passenger. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue was whether he placed pressure on the crew to land. Nothing in the voice transcript suggests this. According to the BBC article, Tatyana Anodina, the head of MAK, commented: "The presence of the Polish air force commander on the flight deck up to the aircraft's impact with the ground put psychological pressure on the crew captain to decide on continuing descent in a situation of unjustified risk, dominated by the goal of making a landing at any cost." --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think no one would like to do their job with the top boss of their outfit sitting behind them and observing. The presence of Blasik in the cabin was clearly a violation of procedure and probably detrimental to the pilots. But his alcohol level is a red herring. MAK makes no argument how it contributed to the accident, just states the fact (in other words there is no demonstration how his alcohol level made the effect of his presence in the cabin worse than it already was). 99.236.14.72 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The MAK report makes no conclusions with regard to the alcohol level. They merely state that his blood contained alcohol which was most likely consumed during the flight. The conclusions section does not state anything with regard to his consumption of alcohol affecting the flight. The report instead states his presence on the flight deck contributed to the accident by placing psychological pressure on the crew. It is normal for an accident report to contain information regarding aspects of the events which were not determined to be a factor in the cause. This is because in an accident investigation you rule out theories until there is only one possible explanation, as opposed to making a hypothesis and finding evidence to support it. In this case the MAK's rough chain of though was, "it wasn't the airplane, it wasn't the navigation equipment, it wasn't ATC, it was the crew." Then they went, "it wasn't the crew alone, it wasn't the commander being intoxicated, it was the commander being present, amongst other factors." N419BH 19:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I distracted attention from the main point by mentioning Blasnik's drinking (the MAC report does say that it corresponds to light intoxication though). There was nothing in itself wrong in his having a drink on the plane so long as he remained out of the cockpit and didn't otherwise interfere. On a civil flight he would not have been permitted to be there. The point I really wanted to make was that his presence was symptomatic of a number of serious failings which are blamed on the air force command rather than the actual crew of the flight. Aside from the possibility that the PIC might have falsified his records regarding currency in landings in reduced visibility, the aircrew's lack of training and experience was the responsibility of senior officers. It isn't just about pressures placed on the PIC during this particular flight, its about the professionalism and adherence to standards of the air force command. As a neutral, I'm concerned that the absence of any mention of these issues runs the risk that the NPOV of this article might be challenged. AJHingston (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. The shortcomings in training and organization however are listed as a systemic cause as opposed to an immediate cause in the MAK report. I'll add a new article section and report all the causes listed. N419BH 19:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The special unit for transporting VIPs in the Polish Air Force is not an airline. Its pilots fly much less frequently. Poland is a small country and there is no need to fly around it in a Tu-154. That plane was used only for international trips for top level government officials and those did not happen very frequently. So it is not surprising the number of flight hours among unit's pilots was small - the question is whether it was so low it violated international norms. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Causes section added. Question: as the MAK report is a translation the English used is not on a native level. I have directly quoted several sections and closely paraphrased several others with citation. Since these are not direct quotes I have not placed them in quotation marks. Does anyone have a better way of doing this? I am not sure if such paraphrasing is the best option. N419BH 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should not use "Russian report". Russian transport minister said today that MAK is an independent body and it had Polish experts involved in the investigation, so it should not be called "Russian". [9] Of course some will disagree with that statement. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done "Russian Report" changed to "MAK Report". Will add a brief section explaining MAK's role and link to the main article

Jan 18 press conference

Brief list of key points made at today's press conference by Polish investigators of the accident. Key additional source of data were the recordings made in the Smolensk ATC which the MAK report did not include.link

• Smolensk was fogged in even before Tu-154 took off from Warsaw.
• Polish Yak-40 landed violating minimums and ignoring the ATC order to go around, after which the ATC commended the pilot with "Molodets" ("good job!")
• Il-76 approaching in low visibility came close to crashing during its landing attempt, which placed great stress on ATC personnel (profuse swearing, sighs of relief)
• These two incidents put the ATC personnel at a high level of psychological stress
• Crew was contacted by person in the ATC other than the controller (breaking procedure)
• Heated discussion occurred in the ATC and with its superiors as to what to do and whether to allow a "trial approach" for the Tu-154
• The crew was not given a clear offer of an alternative airport to proceed to
• During final stage of landing the ATC was incorrectly reassuring the Tu-154 it was on the correct course, when it was in fact not (in particular the horizontal deviation was significant and should have been noticed).
• According to the Russian side, the videotape recording the ATC radar display during the landing "jammed" and recorded no data.
• The command "Level 101" was given 11 s too late by the controller, when Tu-154 was 70 m below glide path it was supposed to be on
• The captain gives the command "Go around" 3 s before "Level 101" is received.

Key conclusion: The level of support the crew received from the ATC was inadequate, and the incorrect reassurances the crew received about being "on course, on glide path" contributed to the accident.

In response MAK announced it will release its own transcripts of ATC conversations. Anonymous sources within MAK reported some inaccuracies in the Polish version of events. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Added to the article. However, that specific source does not contain the Yak-40 information, or at least my translation software didn't find it. Can you locate additional Polish sources for this press conference? N419BH 19:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I watched the conference live and heard Yak-40 discussed. This link mentions the issue from Russian perspective, giving the Polish version and disputing it: [10] The list I made can be freely edited if need be, once news articles containing the information released at the press conference come online. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Transcripts released by MAK confirm that the Polish version of events with Yak-40 checks out. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• The captain gives the command "Go around" 3 s before "Level 101" is received. This is a puzzle, as the transcript here does not contain these words. The "Горизонт 101" command ("Horizon 101") was given by the tower at 10:40:53. The only words (other than the height of the plane in metres) spoken at around 10:40:50 in this transcript are "В норме/W normie" (Normal) by the co-pilot.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This was deciphered recently by Polish analysts, and not included in documents released by MAK. The analysis of the recordings is ongoing and new information obtained continuously. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest - MAK has published its transcripts of controller conversations (see link, at the bottom). 99.236.14.72 (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Direct links to the transcripts of controller conversations: Microphone in the Control Tower ("Open microphone") Phone calls Radio transmissions (the transcripts are in Russian and almost all communication was done in Russian with a few phrases in English). 93.153.182.18 (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Crew

I think that describing the crew in a separate section would better describe the whole event. If there are no objections or breaking the rules in doing so, I can add a new subsection named "The Crew" to the "Background" section. Other background information, such as the 2008 incident with non-landing in Tbilisi can also be moved there.

The crew and their experience, according to commemorative page on the website of their unit (36 special aviation regiment):

• captain — kpt. pil. Arkadiusz PROTASIUK, 3528 total flight hours, 2937 hours on Tu-154;
• first officer — Robert GRZYWNA, 1939 total flight hours, 506 hours on Tu-154;
• navigator — Artur ZIĘTEK, 1069 total flight hours, 69 hours as navigator on Tu-154;
• flight mechanic — Andrzej MICHALAK, 330 total flight hours;
• flight attendants — Barbara MACIEJCZYK, Justyna MONIUSZKO, Natalia JANUSZKO.

93.153.182.18 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No objection in principle, although the crew should not be named per WP:NOTMEMORIAL - i.e. they are not Wikinotable people, not having or being notable enough to sustain a stand alone article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The crew's experience, training, and involvement in the 2008 Tiblisi incident are all clearly relevant. But we need to be very aware of the sensitivity of the topic to family members and others. Given that the crew mambers are not able to answer for and explain their actions, experience shows that it can be very difficult to maintain NPOV, and neither appear to exonerate them by deflecting criticism to others nor attribute blame other than in the measured terms of the formal enquiry reports. Sometimes references to the recently dead can cause even more difficulty than to the living. For an example of a CFIT incident where the families of the pilots have waged a long campaign to argue that ultimate responsibility rests with the air force command and not the aircrew see 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash. Whatever is said about the actions of the ATC I can see that a similar debate may continue in this case given the questions raised both about the preparation and training of the crew and the demands made upon them. AJHingston (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We should not name the crew, as they cannot defend their actions and are not notable outside of this accident. The only times we name crewmembers is when they have become notable for other events and have their own articles; Al Haynes is an example, of United Airlines flight 232 fame. Flight experience is certainly relevant, but we will need a reliable source before we place specific numbers in the article. If we choose to move this section, we will have to re-write the narrative as the way I originally wrote it causes the cockpit stresses section to flow in with the flight sections. N419BH 15:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's last victims?

Can those who died on the plane be described as Stalin's last victims?

The most that can be said is that 'responsibility for the accident is diffused among various persons on the plane and elsewhere' combining with the weather and 'a wish to get the event over and done with.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Smolensk tower tapes and other evidence not contained in the MAK report

There is an important matter which should be touched on, possibly even in the lead. In the aftermath of the crash, during the early phase of the investigation where the Russian side was more willing to share information, Poland obtained the recordings of the conversations carried out in the Smolensk airfield control tower, the contents of which are highly relevant to how the crash happened. The Russian report largely ignored the information which these tapes contained, which understandably infuriated the Polish side. These conversations will be revealed by Poland next week, but here is what they contain, in a nutshell (Gazeta Wyborcza article link)

• The flight controller at Smolensk ATC was pressured by his superior officer, who was also in the tower. "Despite multiple suggestions of the flight controller that the Poles be ordered not to land, the superior gave an unambiguous order: we direct (the plane) to 100m, 100m and this is the end of the conversation' "

• Polish commission unambiguously concludes that the superior's decision ended any further attempts by the controller to send the plane to the reserve airfield (this is based on actual tower recordings)

• The key point of the dispute is whether the Polish flight was military or civilian. The Russian side claims that the reason the ATC could not forbid the Polish plane to land was that it was treated as a civilian plane, and if it had been a military plane, the landing attempt would have been forbidden. However, shortly before the crash a Russian military Il-76 made two landing attempts with the permission of the tower.

What this shows is that there was psychological pressure and general confusion about procedures on the Russian side as much as on the Polish side on that fateful day, and yet the MAK report puts the blame exclusively on the Poles.

Hopefully, when the Polish side presents shortly unambigous evidence to the contrary, the Russian report can be reopened and amended. This article will certainly need to be expanded and possibly rewritten when the Polish report comes out.

In addition, Polish experts have deciphered some of the words spoken in the cockpit which in the Russian report are taken as unintelligible. Among them is an indication that the Captain decided to abort the landing by giving the command "We are departing" (Odchodzimy) when the plane passed the decision altitude of 100 m about 22 seconds before the crash - MAK report claimed the captain tried to pull up only in the final seconds when the plane was striking the first trees. This would put the actions of the captain in a completely different light, showing that he was not fixated on landing at any cost due to psychological pressure, as the MAK report claims, and was in fact following correct procedure (though it is not known why the attempt to abort the landing failed). This analysis was offered to the MAK before the publication of its report but was ignored. This issue is discussed in this Gazeta Wyborcza article (link). 99.236.14.72 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, saying you're going to go around and actually doing it are two different things. If this 100m "go around" call was indeed made (I suspect it was), why didn't the crew actually abort the landing attempt at this point? Including the 60m "go around" call from the first officer, that is now two calls to go around made by members of the flight crew which were not carried out. The question now becomes why this was not done. Only an investigation can answer that. Since the Russian investigation did not fully answer this (they suspect psychological pressure but are not definitive in stating this), we will have to wait and hope the Polish side comes to a definite conclusion on this matter. The real question here is not what happened (both Poland and Russia agree it was CFIT and intentional violation of minimums by the flight crew), but why it happened. Why would a highly qualified flight crew make such grave mistakes? N419BH 08:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that CFIT due to minimum violation is the cause and that is not disputed by either side - only the circumstances which contributed to that violation occurring are contested. What is really at issue are the relations between Russia and Poland in the next decade, and that is much more important. If the Russian investigation was more even handed, fairly evaluated the evidence available and acknowledged at least some responsibility on the Russian side, a new era in relations between the two countries would have truly began, solidifying the reconciliation started around the time of the crash. Given the important role that Poland plays as one of the 6 big countries in the EU, the relations between EU and Russia would have certainly improved as well. Instead, things are proceeding in the opposite direction, which is unfortunate and against objective Russian interests. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of this has been discussed before at Talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash#TAWS. At 10:40:50.5 and around 80m in the MAK transcript, the co-pilot Major Robert Grzywna says "Odchodzimy", variously translated from the Polish as "We're leaving/departing/coming away" The problem is that this appears to be conversational language rather than a formal aviation command, so its meaning is open to interpretation. Some sources interpreted it as "We're off course". The "Horizon 101" from air traffic control is a formal command to level off. It is true that at no point does the ATC issue a direct command not to land. However, the ATC has already said that there are no conditions for landing and recommended diverting to another airport. The controller was exonerated of blame by the report, and this has disappointed Donald Tusk and parts of the Polish media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To the comment regarding the Chief ATC ordering another controller not to deny landing permission, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the Chief ATC received the memo regarding the treatment of PLF 101 as a civilian flight, and was instructing his subordinates as to the proper rule set to apply (ICAO standard: PIC in charge as opposed to Russian military standard: ATC in charge). I would expect some confusion from the Russian ATC as they usually handled military flights and almost never handled international flights. As to the Russian military IL-76 being offered approach attempts, the weather was much better at that time than it was when PLF 101 approached. N419BH 08:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It the Polish and Russian reports end up saying two different things (even diametrically opposite things), we should report both in as neutral a tone as we can, and allow the reader to make up their own mind as to the version they believe. The publication by the Poles of their report (hopefully also with an English translation) will stop a lot of this speculation. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The conditions were already quite bad at the time of the Il-76 landing, but you have a point. Nevertheless, if a Russian crew which knew the Smolensk airfield well could not manage a landing, the Polish Tu-154 in worsening conditions had no chance of landing and the controllers knew it.

It is indeed true that by not correctly acting on the weather information the Poles were making a tragic mistake. Nevertheless, the Smolensk ATC did have it in their power to save them from that mistake. The controllers and/or their superiors could have effectively said: forget the procedure (not very well established anyway), we are going to save some lives today, even if it causes some diplomatic unpleasantness and whining from Kaczynski. We are going to close the airfield and send the Polish flight to Moscow. That would have been the moral and common sense thing to do. The question of who prevented this from happening should be carefully examined. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The criticism of the report seems to come down to the fact that the air traffic controller did not formally declare the airbase closed when the visibility dropped to 400 metres. With the benefit of hindsight, this may have been a mistake. However, the radio conversations show clear advice against landing, and the Tu-154 is never given clearance to land. This is probably why the air traffic controller was exonerated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor point We're leaving/departing/coming away, in aviation sometimes departing can mean departing from normal flight, basically they have lost it and the aircraft is not responding, not sure the term is used in Polish. MilborneOne (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re this edit: The "Горизонт 101" command ("Horizon 101") was given at 10:40:53.4.[11] This is around 11 seconds before the Крик (expression of fear followed by swearing) collision with the tree at 10:41:02.7 - 10:41:04.6. At the point of the 101 command, there would have been just about enough time to pull up. Also, as stated before on the talk page, the final decision on the safety of landing rests with the crew of the plane, not the tower.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

10:40:59.3 - 10:41:04.6 says Шум от столкновения с лесным массивом (Noise from collision with large forested area). The cockpit voice recording transcript says that the plane was at around 50 - 40 metres when "Horizon 101" was given by the tower. The article says "The Final Report would later determine that a go-around was technically possible from as low as 40m, but that 200m was the first of many times that the crew were required to go around but did not". This confirms the borderline nature of the 101 command.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the plot on page 156 of the final report, the "level 101" command is given when the airplane around 10 or 15 m above the level of the airport (and about to drop to altitude -15 m relative to airport level by flying into the valley along the approach path). So, from the tower's perspective the plane was basically already on the ground, and that is a bit late to issue a warning. Then again, the whole role of the ATC was confused: the Polish crew was not reporting altitude to the controller (as procedure required), and yet the ATC was periodically reassuring the plane that it was "on course, on glide path", even though the radar at Smolensk was not precise enough to do this. Maybe this contributed to the false sense of security of the Polish crew, who knows. One also wonders why, if the Polish crew was not following procedure and not reporting altitude, why did the ATC not order an abort just on that basis. "PLF 101, you are not following correct procedure, go around and try again". That would have done it. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the voice transcript cited above shows that the crew of the plane seemed to believe that everything was OK at the time of the 101 command. Because of the bumpy terrain in the approach to the airbase, it was difficult to assess the altitude of the plane exactly. No doubt the debate will continue on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems more and more obvious that the direct cause of the crash was the crew's reliance on the radar altimeter and its apparent ignorance of the fact that there is a deep valley along the glide path. Thus at a crucial moment the crew thought it was significantly higher relative to the airport level than they really were. If correct procedure was followed and the crew was continuously reporting its altitude to the ATC, maybe the controller would have realized the crew is in error and called out "level 101" earlier. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this has been mentioned in media reports before. In the absence of an instrument landing system, the crew seems to have relied on the radar altimeter for guidance. Since there was a valley in the approach to the airbase, the crew of the Tu-154 may have believed that its altitude relative to the airbase was considerably higher than it actually was. Perhaps the article should try to find sourcing on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is, under ICAO rules the handling of the aircraft is the pilot's responsibility; the quote in United States Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), which are ICAO compliant, is, "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft (FAR 91.3(a))." Imagine what would have happened if the controllers had attempted to order the Polish jet not to land, especially considering Poland's status as a former member of the Soviet Bloc and all the baggage THAT entails. Nothing was particularly dangerous about this flight until the crew descended below the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) of 100m without having the runway environment in sight. This is the most important rule when conducting approaches in bad weather, you DO NOT descend below MDA without the runway environment in sight. Furthermore, airports, at least in the United States, are almost never closed due to bad weather. Pretty much the only time this happens is when all the runways are covered in snow and/or ice and need to be cleared. There was nothing dangerous about conducting an approach in such conditions, I've done several in such conditions myself in actual aircraft, literally hundreds more in small aircraft simulators, and dozens more in a B-727 (roughly equivalent to a TU-154) simulator. So long as you don't descend below MDA, you're perfectly safe. The moment you descend below MDA without seeing the runway, you're basically gambling that you'll break out of the clouds soon enough to see the runway and land safely. In this case the flightcrew lost the bet. This accident is pretty much a carbon copy of the 2001 Avjet Aspen crash. As for the Radar altimeter, even at 100m radar altitude the crew could have gone around safely. At 60m, well below minimums, and only 15m above the actual runway, they would have made it. At 40m, they probably would have made it. When they finally tried at 20m, -15m in relation to the runway, it was already too late. N419BH 18:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Polish flight to Smolensk was a highly unusual, one of a kind operation (flying a large jetliner to a half-abandoned military airport with the most rudimentary navigation aids) so it is far from clear that standard ICAO rules applied. It seems that due to poor coordination, the Russian side assumed they did and the Polish side assumed they did not. 18:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, your insights from personal experience are very interesting. Keep in mind though that the Polish crew was poorly trained, with much fewer flight hours than civilian airline pilots get (the navigator reading the crucial radar altimeter had only 60 hours on Tu-154(!), and co-pilot only 198 hours in that role on Tu-154), and most importantly without access to flight simulator training (not easily available for the Tu-154, apparently). The landing attempt should have been safe for a well trained crew, but apparently it was not safe for the PLF 101 crew flying that day. Admittedly, the Russian ATC was in no position to know the degree of Polish crew's training inadequacies. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Today it was announced that the Polish report on the accident will be released in February, while the content of the conversations in the Smolensk ATC control tower will be made public in the next few days.[12] The Polish government will also release the document listing its objections to the Russian report, among them the MAK report's refusal to address what was happening in the Smolensk ATC and the presence there of other unauthorized persons besides the controllers. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The evidence indicates they didn't even react to "Horizon!" so in my mind it doesn't matter if the call was late. I actually wouldn't call the Polish crew poorly trained at all, in fact I'd call them highly trained. Lack of simulator training in a TU-154 is a bit of a difficulty, but that just means they had training in the actual airplane instead. As for lack of TU-154 simulators, the MAK report discusses going to Aeroflot's training center for the simulator experiments. I would imagine Aeroflot, once the largest operator of the TU-154, has at least a few simulators of the type... I also wouldn't characterize the airport as half abandoned, though it is a bit...primitive in its facilities. There are thousands of other airports around just like it worldwide. The next step here is really to wait for the Polish accident report.

As for the politics involved, at the bottom of the first page of the MAK report is the following statement, "In accordance with ICAO standards and recommended practices the sole objective of this report is air accident and incident prevention. The investigation conducted within the framework of this report and suggested recommendations does not apportion blame or liability. The criminal aspects of the accident are investigated within a separate criminal case." This is standard practice in the industry. In fact, most accident reports are inadmissible evidence in a court of law specifically so that there will be no outside pressure of any kind to taint an investigation. Accident investigations are one thing that must be conducted irrespective of politics in order to ensure the true cause is determined and valid, prudent recommendations are made with the goal of preventing future accidents. So while some people would have liked to have seen the controllers partially faulted, the fact is under ICAO rules it's the pilot's responsibility. Even the "Horizon 101!" call isn't an order. It's a last ditch warning. ATC assumes a pilot knows what they're doing. These pilots knew what they were doing. Why they chose to approach in the manner they did is still an open question, and it is a question that will never be fully answered. The only people who know the true reasons why the pilots made the decisions they made are the pilots themselves. And they unfortunately won't be talking anytime soon. N419BH 05:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the Polish media has said that the "Horizon 101" was given too late, the crew show no response to it and do not seem to have any worries about how things are going until the collision with the trees. This means that there may always be a mystery over what the crew was thinking about during the last fifteen seconds of the flight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We talked for a while, and I think the subject is becoming exhausted, so let me sum things up from my perspective. Clearly the crew bears the majority of the blame. They performed a landing approach which should have been been a very low risk operation, and they flew into terrain.

However, both the Polish and Russian sides agree that the conditions at the airfield made a safe landing impossible. So one should ask why the Polish crew was given permission to engage in a completely pointless exercise of attempting a "look and see" approach? Yes, the ATC could have assumed the risk of doing this was very low, but it would have been even less risky to just close the airport and send the plane somewhere else.

Let's also remember that flying to an alternate airfield would simply have meant that Kaczynski would be a few hours late for the Katyn ceremony, it would not amount to barring him from going to Katyn, so the diplomatic damage would have been very minor, if any. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Very, very true. The prudent move was for the crew and ATC to say, "There's no way we're going to be able to land; see you in Moscow." With the weather the way it was the fog actually lifted at noon, so they likely could have gone to Moscow, refueled, chatted with the Il-76 crew already there, waited until the fog lifted, then flown back to Smolensk arriving approximately 1300. Why this was not done is a question whose answer is only truly known by the persons in the cockpit. Let's continue to work on the article, keep everything neutral, and insert relevant Polish and Russian comments as they are made. When Poland issues their report, we will have a lot of work to do. N419BH 19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well according to transcript from tower they did say "Visibility 400 meters <...> no conditions to accept you". The capitains responce was "Thank you, will try if possible [meaning "will try and check if landing possible"], if not - will go to second circle [second attempt]". After that someone inside tower (probably chief) explains "<..> this is the decision of the capitain, [he] will try test landing, will make the decision on 100m height, [after that will] pull up, ask them ["them" means tower staff] to request readyniess of secondary [airport] in Minsk and Vitebsk" 91.76.18.134 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Minsk and Vitebsk are in Belarus. Poland has tense relations with Belarus so landing the Polish president there would have been inconvenient to say the least. It's unfortunate that the tower did not offer the Tu-154 an alternate airfield in Russia. Moscow was discussed as an alternate landing field in the tower but this was not passed on to the crew for some reason. From the pilot's viewpoint, it looked like his failure to land would exclude Kaczynski from coming to Russia at all. What I wonder about are the discussions in Warsaw at the command center which monitored the flight. Surely they would have been monitoring the situation, and examining alternate landing sites. We have not yet heard anything on that angle of the story. Hopefully the Polish report will shed light on this. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this was probably one of the reasons Russians stated there was a 'psycological pressure' on pilots to attempt landing in these conditions. Since Minsk and Vitebsk where named by the crew themselves when they were initially asked about their secondary airports and quantity of fuel onboard, control tower was probably hesitant to offer the alternatives without any reason to do so, before they even made their attempt to land.

As for monitoring, control tower operator specifically asked, if the crew knew how to land on military airports. The reason behind it (partly) was that military airports (in former USSR at least) have very basic radars with poor resolution compared to civilian airports. Meaning the operator could not offer any reasonable help with blind landing and the crew was on their own - that is why they intially stated that there are no conditions to land. That is also the reason why the control tower operator probably never realized and warned the pilot that the plane was steadily descending at twice the normal speed - since his radar did not provide such information, and the crew did not inform him of their altimeter readings. Because of that when he started to warn and then shout at them to pull up - it was already too late.

Furthermore the operator said "Посадка дополнительно" at 10:39:40. According to russian aviation rules, this means that landing is PROHIBITED. According to the procedure, since the crew aknowledged this command, this means that they should make a decision whether to land *before* reaching "decision height", which was 100m in this case. After informing control tower about their decision they can continue to land only if control tower will accept it, however even then the responsibility for a safe landing lies solely on the crew, the control tower is only responsible for clearing the path and the landing zone. In reality the decision was never made, they continued to descend without informing control tower about anything, well below their decision height. Why didn't operator shout or curse at them for breaking the protocol - is not known, probably everyone thought that they really know what they are doing.

I hope when Polish analysis will be published they will also officially translate all the russian transcripts into English, preferrably with commentary about the meaning of phrases. I doubt it is possible to cite sound files with russian speech as sources of information... 91.76.18.134 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This video is a translation of official russian video attached to the MAK report. I can not vow for accuracy of the translation, however they might prove useful for somebody. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gInNoNKpchk 91.76.18.134 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The report (english translation) says that the Polish aircraft did not have to follow russian aviation rules hence some of the confusion. The report mentions the landing radar and that they were following the flight (how else did the tower know the aircraft height) but the pilot had not asked to use it for a controlled approach. Also note that Vitebsk was closed on a Saturday. Not sure if it is the english translation but with some of the comments here we appear to be reading different documents! MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I was mainly noting extent of flight monitoring from Russian operators to talk and frankly I do not see any contradiction between our statements.

Yes, the pilots did not have to follow rules and did not ask for controlled approach, however tower operator was monitoring them anyway, and was providing adecuate commands. Yes, of course airport had a radar, however without additional information about exact plane height the operator could not see that they were landing too fast along incorrect trajectory and warn them. From his estimates their trajectory was correct. More information on the landing radar is in MAK report, pages 107-111, along with photographs of radar's screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.18.134 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The tower wouldn't have known the aircraft's height unless they had secondary radar. They had primary radar and some form of landing radar, but there's no information in the MAK report regarding whether or not the airport was equipped with secondary radar. Without this they are totally reliant on the aircrew for altitude reporting. N419BH 18:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

According to transcripts the Il-76, which presumably knew the Russian procedures perfectly, did not report altitude to the ATC at all during its first landing attempt and only one time on the second (130 m at 09:38:35). So criticizing Polish pilots for not doing this is a bit puzzling to me. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not critisizing. It is simply one of the reasons why ATC operator was not able to accurately measure plane's height and warn pilots. Comparison with IL-76 is not proper, as IL-76 was not landing on his own (unlike TU-154 and YAK-40) - he was following ATC orders and never got below "desicion height". 91.76.28.53 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. According to the same MAK report, page 52, this airport uses a "RSP-6М2 Radar Landing System" (РСП-6М2), and they don't have any secondary radar. 91.76.18.134 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a Precision Approach Radar or more of a landing aid? I've refrained from calling it a PAR system because it's unclear to me. N419BH 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not a PAR, accuracy is much lower.

"Radar Landing System CPR-6M2 is designed to regulate traffic on the far and near approaches to the aerodrome as well as for guiding planes (out of sight of land) to the runway of airfield and control over their descent to a height of 150-200 meters in the complex weather conditions by issuing commands to the crew via radio communications."91.76.28.53 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For me it's the Il-76 landing attempt that is one of the key variables here which the MAK report glossed over. One hour before the Tu-154 arrived, a Russian Il-76, with an experienced crew that knew the airfield and Russian landing procedures well, failed in two landing attempts, and in fact almost crashed, as evidenced by the stream of obscenities from the ATC controller after one of the attempts. This was one hour before the Tu-154 attempted a landing. Now, if conditions were such that an experienced Russian crew almost died just one hour before, that should have been a strong warning sign that something was going desperately wrong that morning. More should have been done to close the airfield or to dissuade the Tu-154 from landing. The question why not more was done is crucial here, and the MAK report completely ignored it, hiding behind the banal legalism that "an international flight cannot be prohibited from landing" 99.236.14.72 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

They could have just been upset that the airplane couldn't land. "He missed the approach...%&$#!" would be just as reasonable of an explanation as "he nearly crashed...%$)#!". Airports don't close in bad weather, and civil flights are under the final authority of their pilots, as are, according to Russian regulations, foreign military flights. There's really no way to blame air traffic control here. They warned multiple times that the weather conditions were terrible. The pilots tried to land anyway. To prohibit a landing attempt would have required the Russian controller to issue a military order to a Polish military pilot. Consider the ramifications of that...remembering Poland's status as a former Soviet bloc member and all of the related baggage that carries... N419BH 21:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is what's in the transcript, 5 seconds after the "Go around" command is given by the controller to the Il-76:

09:25:54 : еб твою мать, ни хуя себе, ой бл-я-я-я-я (на фоне разговора прослушивается гул самолета)

translating

09:25:54 : F*ck your mother, holy f*ck, oh fuuuu ... (in the background hum of jet engines)

So no, it was not just being mildly upset that the landing did not succeed. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely not mild frustration. Wonder what happened. Will have to see what the sources say on the matter. N419BH 01:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually without hearing their voices it is impossible to assume anything. This phrase probably sounds harsher in English, but in Russian this does not mean anything other than generic tension/surprise, as long as they did not shout. 91.76.28.53 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some footage from Polish TV and eyewitnesses on the ground, so the factual information about the Il-76 landing will find its way into the Polish report. But sure, the transcript by itself could mean anything, maybe the controller just spilled some hot tea in his lap at that moment and was annoyed. The sound of an Il-76 buzzing the tower can make one do that, I guess. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be interesting to compare the ATC communication with the IL-76 with that with the YAK-40 at 09.15. The report (p114 of the English translation) says that 'the CATC instructed the crew [of the YAK-40] to go around, but the crew did not follow the instruction and landed'. Visibility was much better at that point and the reason for the instruction was that the YAK-40 was too high on approach. Coupled with the fact that ATC were not even told that the YAK-40 was on its way until 25 minutes before landing (p136), and that the aircraft had not reported the selected approach system, the MAK report suggests that ATC had concluded that the Polish pilots were evidently relying on their own navigation (p145) and in effect gave up trying to guide them. But the IL-76 was subject to Russian procedures. AJHingston (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The recording of the ATC conversations was played at the recent press conference by Polish officials. It is available here. The moment of Il-76 buzzing the tower is around 4:10 in the video. Maybe some Russian speakers reading this can judge how tense are the comments?

Well, the last "bliaa" is a word used as an exclamation and does not have its own meaning, so you can judge how tense it was by the tone of his voice. In my opinion it is hard to assume from this single phrase that the plane "almost crashed", espesially since a second later the operator sad "Turn around" in completely calm voice. 91.76.14.34 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

At 5:40 in the Polish video there is discussion of test footage made by Polish TV stationary camera which shows the approaching Il-76 passing at what is judged to be 54 m altitude and descending, which clearly shows the Russian crew broke the allowed minima. Note that the Smolensk ATC does not issue the command "horizon" even though the plane descended below 100 m. The camera is 400 m away from the plane and the large plane is barely visible, which indicates the visibility is in practice below 400 m. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not have any published information regarding IL-76. Without knowing its horizontal position at the moment of filming and very vaguely estimating size of the plane on the recording, it is next to impossible to accurately calculate vertical position by filming from a single position given complex relief of the airport surroundings. There can also be large deviations in estimates depending on accuracy of reported horizontal and vertical position of the camera, its field of view and the direction it was facing. I suppose it is best to wait until Polish report is officially published, because then Russians will probably in responce publish IL-76's data. 91.76.14.34 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)