The Polish president killed in a plane crash.

[Ghostwalker]

The Polish president, Lech Kaczynski was killed when the plane, he and hos wife was on, crashed in Russia.

The plane was enroute from Warsaw to Smolensk airport, 220 miles southwest of Moscow when hit hit the trees and
crashed during landing.

apart from the president allot of other high Polish officials, such as the Polish army and the head of the
presidential administration were also on board the plane.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7574238/Polish-president-feared-dead-in-plane-crash.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/world/europe/11poland.html?hp

[ioan]

RIP

[Daniel]

RIP

[ShiftingGears]

RIP

[driveace]

another tragedy with a Russian Topulov 154,these Russian planes seem to involved in so many disasters.I know this time it was foggy ,BUT!
A lot of people on board too!
RIP.to all

[veeten]

sad news, indeed. :(

[Sonic]

:(

[Garry Walker]

To think, poland lost over 20000 people through katyn massacre 70 years ago and now, the president of poland and everyone else on board, fly to the same place to commemorate the victims and they die too.

Sad.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Very sad. There are reports that this plane in particular and all the Tupolevs in the Polish fleet were under scrutiny for their safety and maintenance issues. Poland was looking to buy Embararer's from Brazil for governmental transports but due to political optics hadn't done so. Now you know why it is almost kind of silly to criticize politcal leaders for having new planes to get around in. The reality is, your nation's faith and political destiny can be on one of these planes, and it doesn't do a nation any good to have half its leadership die in a tragedy such as this.

God I hope is looking after Poland...they have some difficult days ahead, and I hope those who perished rest in peace....

[Ghostwalker]

Very sad. There are reports that this plane in particular and all the Tupolevs in the Polish fleet were under scrutiny for their safety and maintenance issues. Poland was looking to buy Embararer's from Brazil for governmental transports but due to political optics hadn't done so. Now you know why it is almost kind of silly to criticize politcal leaders for having new planes to get around in. The reality is, your nation's faith and political destiny can be on one of these planes, and it doesn't do a nation any good to have half its leadership die in a tragedy such as this.

God I hope is looking after Poland...they have some difficult days ahead, and I hope those who perished rest in peace....

So what are your evidences that it was the plane and not the pilots orjust a series of unfortunate events?
Put yourself into the pilots situations they missed several attempts and have a plane full of high dignitaries that do not wish to be delayed by
going to another airport which would cause a large delay...

[Mark in Oshawa]

So what are your evidences that it was the plane and not the pilots or
just a series of unfortunate events?

It could be anything, but it was on the wire report today on the radio where I first heard that there was talk in Poland about the effort to replace their executive aircraft for the gov't with planes from Brazil. I am not saying that it was the fault of the plane, pilot or conditions. Most plane crashes are a series of events. My point is though that when your starting point is an old design from the Communist era with a spotty safety record, it doesn't take an actuaral accountant to figure out that the plane likely has a role in the story.

[Captain VXR]

RIP

[Daniel]

So what are your evidences that it was the plane and not the pilots orjust a series of unfortunate events?
Put yourself into the pilots situations they missed several attempts and have a plane full of high dignitaries that do not wish to be delayed by
going to another airport which would cause a large delay...
Mark merely made a very good point. He didn't say it was the plane's fault or anything, just that it could have been a contributing factor.

[ozrevhead]

The Polish president, Lech Kaczynski was killed when the plane, he and hos wife was on, crashed in Russia.

The plane was enroute from Warsaw to Smolensk airport, 220 miles southwest of Moscow when hit hit the trees and
crashed during landing.

apart from the president allot of other high Polish officials, such as the Polish army and the head of the
presidential administration were also on board the plane.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7574238/Polish-president-feared-dead-in-plane-crash.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/world/europe/11poland.html?hp
That would be a disaster for any country - my heat goes out to all our Polish friends and more importantly the victims' loved ones

RIP :(

[BDunnell]

The manner in which the Russians (though on whose part I'm not sure) have let it be known that human factors were to blame before any investigation has had much of a chance to get under way is rather distasteful. Who, after all, is not to say that the Russian air traffic controllers did not also make mistakes?

[ioan]

Mark merely made a very good point. He didn't say it was the plane's fault or anything, just that it could have been a contributing factor.

Well, it wasn't the plane. The plane had a complete overhaul performed last year.

The fact that they were at the 4th landing attempt, when they should have given up and headed for another airport after they failed twice and were advised, by the Russians, to land in Minsk, points to a mistake done by the pilots.

[ioan]

The manner in which the Russians (though on whose part I'm not sure) have let it be known that human factors were to blame before any investigation has had much of a chance to get under way is rather distasteful. Who, after all, is not to say that the Russian air traffic controllers did not also make mistakes?

The fact that the air controllers advised them not to lend contradicts your theory.
The fact that they tried to land 4 times in spite of being told not to do so explains why the Russians are not happy and are making it clear that it wasn't their fault.

Let's not judge the Russians for what they aren't responsible for, the weather and the Polish pilot's decisions.

[Ghostwalker]

The fact that the air controllers advised them not to lend contradicts your theory.
The fact that they tried to land 4 times in spite of being told not to do so explains why the Russians are not happy and are making it clear that it wasn't their fault.

Let's not judge the Russians for what they aren't responsible for, the weather and the Polish pilot's decisions.

although we don't know if it was the pilots decision do we?
After all the pilot could have been under allot pressure from all the dignitaries onboard
to land the plane at that airport to avoid a delay that going to Minsk or Moscow would mean.

[Ranger]

to land the plane at that airport to avoid a delay that going to Minsk or Moscow would mean.

Better a short delay than a permanent one.

RIP

[Roamy]

RIP

Damn these pilots just have to know when to give it up.

there are "old pilots" there are "boid pilots" but there are no "Old Bold Pilots"
A real shame that could have been easily avoided. In these conditions you have to stay on glide path and even if you see the strobes you have to stay put and at decision height you either see the runway or you don't. Fudging usually ends this way. My friend goes fishing on the Panoi every year with the "Elite" and when he shows me the pictures of what they fly in I just shutter.

ie. If it ain't a Boeing I ain't going!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

although we don't know if it was the pilots decision do we?
After all the pilot could have been under allot pressure from all the dignitaries onboard
to land the plane at that airport to avoid a delay that going to Minsk or Moscow would mean.

The Pilot would still be alive and out of a job if he succumbed to pressure from the VIP's. Bad call. The Russian air controllers will have tape I am sure backing their call. In the end, if the pilot caved into his bolder instincts, he paid with his life and the lives of everyone on the plane. Stupid...and sad. A nation just lost a major part of its leadership over the desire to get somewhere in a hurry.

[Rani]

Very sad indeed. Even more so if this turns out to be an avoidable tragedy. What I don't understand is why they would take the huge risk of flying the President with a deputy foreign minister, Armed forces chief of staff (and a lot of other high ranking officers), National bank president and a host of other dignitaries. Putting all the eggs in one basket like that is always dangerous.



After all the pilot could have been under allot pressure from all the dignitaries onboard
to land the plane at that airport to avoid a delay that going to Minsk or Moscow would mean.


I totally disagree. When flying the plane the pilot is the proffessional authority on board. His job is to take stressful decisions based on his knowledge and experience. If what happened here is the pilot caving in to pressure and trying to make a dangerous landing anyway it's his fault alone.

I truly feel sorry for the victims and the people of Poland, hope they can recover from this as fast as possible.

[Daniel]

I totally disagree. When flying the plane the pilot is the proffessional authority on board. His job is to take stressful decisions based on his knowledge and experience. If what happened here is the pilot caving in to pressure and trying to make a dangerous landing anyway it's his fault alone.

So pilots aren't subject to pressures from people from above who don't actually know what they're talking about? Rubbish!

[Rani]

That's exactly the difference between just A pilot and a proffessional pilot. I'd expect any country to man (or woman) its presidential plane with the second kind.

[veeten]

It's also why most governments choose military, rather than civilian, pilots to fly the planes for their heads of state. Better able to handle situations of this type and respect the 'chain of command' within the cockpit.

[ioan]

although we don't know if it was the pilots decision do we?
After all the pilot could have been under allot pressure from all the dignitaries onboard
to land the plane at that airport to avoid a delay that going to Minsk or Moscow would mean.

Sure, but he was the one who took the decision in the end, unless one of teh politicians took the airplane's control.

[ioan]

I totally disagree. When flying the plane the pilot is the proffessional authority on board. His job is to take stressful decisions based on his knowledge and experience. If what happened here is the pilot caving in to pressure and trying to make a dangerous landing anyway it's his fault alone.

Exactly.


So pilots aren't subject to pressures from people from above who don't actually know what they're talking about? Rubbish!

The pilot is the commandant of the plane not the politicians, and he shouldn't give a damn about what they want if that puts lives in danger.
Stop posting rubbish Daniel.

[ioan]

That's exactly the difference between just A pilot and a proffessional pilot. I'd expect any country to man (or woman) its presidential plane with the second kind.

The previous pilot of the Polish presidential plane has been fired after he refused a landing in dangerous circumstances (war in Georgia) in Tbilisi, and chose to land in Azerbaijan.
He was smart and strong and he's still alive.

[BDunnell]

The fact that the air controllers advised them not to lend contradicts your theory.
The fact that they tried to land 4 times in spite of being told not to do so explains why the Russians are not happy and are making it clear that it wasn't their fault.

Let's not judge the Russians for what they aren't responsible for, the weather and the Polish pilot's decisions.

How do we know that the crew really 'tried to land four times in spite of being told not to do so'? Yes, the Russian media have said so, but based on what? Until the official report has been released, everything is hearsay in a case such as this.

[J4MIE]

Just heard about this, very sad situation whatever the reasons for it :(

[ioan]

How do we know that the crew really 'tried to land four times in spite of being told not to do so'? Yes, the Russian media have said so, but based on what? Until the official report has been released, everything is hearsay in a case such as this.

I suppose you know better, again, than the Russian media who had first hand information.
Playing down the little information we have just because it doesn't suit the agenda?

[BDunnell]

I suppose you know better, again, than the Russian media who had first hand information.
Playing down the little information we have just because it doesn't suit the agenda?

ioan, what is my 'agenda'? I ask because I genuinely don't know. Am I a bit suspicious of the information that can be put out by the Russian media? Yes, but who can say whether it's correct in this case? All I am saying is that, in an incident such as this, no-one can know the cause for certain until the report of a full investigation is published. There is often some absolute rubbish to be heard in the immediate aftermath of an aircraft accident.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So pilots aren't subject to pressures from people from above who don't actually know what they're talking about? Rubbish!

They may be subject to pressure, but if they are a pilot trained in the miltary and have learned their lessons well, they know they can make that call in spite of that decision, and at least be alive to show something for it. I do think your point is valid pressure may have been applied, but the pilot in the end has the control, has the judgement and should use it. This pilot appears to NOT have used good judgement.

AS for Ben's assertion we need to have a full airing of all the facts, the only niggling doubt was that this occuring on Russian soil, will all the facts be heard, and the trust I have in the Russian government to be transparent even if they look bad is a question. Sorry, I think Ben's point it we need a full and open hearing is VERY valid. I do think things happened as we think, where the pilot just messed up and ATC told him to divert, but I would feel 100 times more confident in a open and competant investigation if this occured over Biggin Hill south of London or flying into Le Bourget in Paris.

[Daniel]

They may be subject to pressure, but if they are a pilot trained in the miltary and have learned their lessons well, they know they can make that call in spite of that decision, and at least be alive to show something for it. I do think your point is valid pressure may have been applied, but the pilot in the end has the control, has the judgement and should use it. This pilot appears to NOT have used good judgement.

AS for Ben's assertion we need to have a full airing of all the facts, the only niggling doubt was that this occuring on Russian soil, will all the facts be heard, and the trust I have in the Russian government to be transparent even if they look bad is a question. Sorry, I think Ben's point it we need a full and open hearing is VERY valid. I do think things happened as we think, where the pilot just messed up and ATC told him to divert, but I would feel 100 times more confident in a open and competant investigation if this occured over Biggin Hill south of London or flying into Le Bourget in Paris.
All I'm saying is that people are making this assumption that pilots are superhuman or something. Sure there are a lot of cases where pilots show amazing courage, intelligence and skill and them sometimes they're just human like you or I.

At the end of the day if your boss is telling you to put it down somewhere you don't want to it's up to you to tell him to eff off but how many people out there actually have the courage/stupidity to tell their boss where to stick it?

As Ben says it's all speculation till a proper independent investigation has been completed.

[BDunnell]

All I'm saying is that people are making this assumption that pilots are superhuman or something. Sure there are a lot of cases where pilots show amazing courage, intelligence and skill and them sometimes they're just human like you or I.

At the end of the day if your boss is telling you to put it down somewhere you don't want to it's up to you to tell him to eff off but how many people out there actually have the courage/stupidity to tell their boss where to stick it?

As Ben says it's all speculation till a proper independent investigation has been completed.

Even so, the likelihood of the pilot being put under pressure by someone else on the aircraft, no matter how senior, is very slim indeed — and, in any case, unless something was said to this effect by the crew on the flightdeck and was thus recorded, there is no way of proving this one way or the other.

[Daniel]

Even so, the likelihood of the pilot being put under pressure by someone else on the aircraft, no matter how senior, is very slim indeed — and, in any case, unless something was said to this effect by the crew on the flightdeck and was thus recorded, there is no way of proving this one way or the other.
Of course. I just feel that it's stupid to say that it's the pilots fault if someone was putting pressure on him to land there.

I'm all for waiting for an independent investigation to be completed and very much against statements like "It's the pilots fault if......."

As some people on here will know I did some flying training and a university course with the intention of getting a commercial pilots licence and then of course hoping to fly for an airline and I can't honestly say I'd have the strength of will to tell someone where to go if they were telling me to land somewhere I didn't feel entirely safe landing, unless of course I felt that there was a massive risk of an incident.

It's very easy for us to all sit here after the plane has crashed and with minutes or hours to think about it give what seems now to be the obvious answer but you weren't there on the flightdeck doing what they were doing whilst what was happening around them happened.

[airshifter]

Of course. I just feel that it's stupid to say that it's the pilots fault if someone was putting pressure on him to land there.




Yet it's acceptable to argue with the same information that it would be ok to endanger the lives of many due to "pressure"? Please stick to jobs that can't affect the lives of others. Pressure is a reality of many jobs, but when dealing with other peoples lives any professional should make that the primary consideration.



Regardless it's a sad event no matter what the cause. And as Rani mentioned, even worse with so many dignitaries aboard the aircraft.

[Jag_Warrior]

Sadly ironic.

R.I.P.

[Rudy Tamasz]

RIP. :(

I also can't help quoting a Russian joke. Two Russian tycoons are boarding a helicopter on their way back from hunting with lots of trophys. The pilot is worried to watch as they load a huge bear, then a reindeer, then the rest. 'That's too much' he says, 'Let's leave some stuff here'. 'Shut up and start the engine' they respond. 'We already tried taking off at this very place with the same load last time'. 'Okay' he says and tries to take off. After some efforts the helicopter takes off a bit and then falls down and crashes. One tycoon crawls from under the debris and tells his friend 'Mind you, we fell down yet again, just like last time'.

[ojciec dyrektor]

How do we know that the crew really 'tried to land four times in spite of being told not to do so'? Yes, the Russian media have said so, but based on what? Until the official report has been released, everything is hearsay in a case such as this.
The investigators says this was first attempt to land. I think some of You are overreacting. Almost 100 people died, including pilot and crew. So give them a break. Let them rest in peace and stop judging them. Writing whose fault it was without evidences, only based on speculations is inappropriate.

There are many contradictory informations in this case. I don't know on what basis some of You are so sure about what happened. The investigation has just started their job and over 800 people are working on it. If You are so sure and have informations what happened maybe You should help them?

[Daniel]

:up:

[Mark in Oshawa]

The investigators says this was first attempt to land. I think some of You are overreacting. Almost 100 people died, including pilot and crew. So give them a break. Let them rest in peace and stop judging them. Writing whose fault it was without evidences, only based on speculations is inappropriate.

There are many contradictory informations in this case. I don't know on what basis some of You are so sure about what happened. The investigation has just started their job and over 800 people are working on it. If You are so sure and have informations what happened maybe You should help them?

We can only go by media reports, who as we all know can get it wrong, but usually get it mostly right. The early reports were that the plane attempted to land 4 times in bad weather and was advised not to by Russian Air Traffic Control. We only have the press releases to go by, but I did point out that there is an element of distrust with what the Russians say at times, but in the end, Poland has suffered a great loss, and all of us are united in saying we feel for the Polish people losing so many top leaders.

The investigation will be what tells the tale, but I do hope there is no political interference or ineptitude. Not from Poland's end....but from the Russians.....

Sorry, old habits die hard, and Putin and his puppet have done a lot of shady things in the last decade or so....and I have a real distrust of most of their actions.

[BDunnell]

We can only go by media reports, who as we all know can get it wrong, but usually get it mostly right.

Having read many a media account of an aircraft accident, I can't agree with you.

[EuroTroll]

In the Times Online, the usually well-informed Edward Lucas's article includes the sentence, "President Lech Kaczynski’s apparently reckless insistence on landing on an unsuitable foggy airport cost the lives of some of Poland’s most distinguished military and academic figures."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7094785.ece

I was quite surprised by this.. Mr. Lucas is the CEE correspondent for the Economist.

[Tomi]

In the Times Online, the usually well-informed Edward Lucas's article includes the sentence, "President Lech Kaczynski’s apparently reckless insistence on landing on an unsuitable foggy airport cost the lives of some of Poland’s most distinguished military and academic figures."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7094785.ece

I was quite surprised by this.. Mr. Lucas is the CEE correspondent for the Economist.

Im not so surprised if this is true, hopefully Poland elect them self a smart good pro European for new president, who has respect for human rights.

[BDunnell]

In the Times Online, the usually well-informed Edward Lucas's article includes the sentence, "President Lech Kaczynski’s apparently reckless insistence on landing on an unsuitable foggy airport cost the lives of some of Poland’s most distinguished military and academic figures."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7094785.ece

I was quite surprised by this.. Mr. Lucas is the CEE correspondent for the Economist.

I agree that Edward Lucas is a well-informed, respected journalist. I do, however, note his use of the word 'apparently'! Certainly, it's been suggested by several outlets that Kaczynski may have form in this respect, which is rather extraordinary if true. Time will tell.

[EuroTroll]

Well, according to Helsingin Sanomat (http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Syytt%C3%A4j%C3%A4+Puolalaislent%C3%A4j%C3%A4%C3%A 4+ei+painostettu+laskeutumaan/1135256041710) (in Finnish), the information that the President ordered the plane to land is based on an "unconfirmed Polish source". On the other hand, the Polish Prosecutor General says there's nothing that indicates such pressure on the pilot.

Indeed, we will likely know more soon.

[Daniel]

No doubt some of the armchair aviation experts on this forum will still blame the pilot because he should have told his boss where to go.

[EuroTroll]

No doubt some of the armchair aviation experts on this forum will still blame the pilot because he should have told his boss where to go.

Pressure or no pressure, I'd agree with those armchair experts. "God in Heaven, Captain on ship," is an old naval saying around my parts..

[ojciec dyrektor]

In the Times Online, the usually well-informed Edward Lucas's article includes the sentence, "President Lech Kaczynski’s apparently reckless insistence on landing on an unsuitable foggy airport cost the lives of some of Poland’s most distinguished military and academic figures."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7094785.ece

I was quite surprised by this.. Mr. Lucas is the CEE correspondent for the Economist.
All passengers are dead and only they knew what happened. Until we don't know what is in black boxes these are only guesses and slanders. Mr. Lucas is hyena not a journalist. I wonder why he is so sure that was Kaczyński's insistence and not one of the other four or five generals who were in plain too.

[ojciec dyrektor]

Pressure or no pressure, I'd agree with those armchair experts. "God in Heaven, Captain on ship," is an old naval saying around my parts..

For now there is no evidence to prove pilot's fault. So give him a break. At least for a couple days when we'll know all facts.

[ioan]

No doubt some of the armchair aviation experts on this forum will still blame the pilot because he should have told his boss where to go.

And the would be right, unlike you, who as an armchair expert are saying the opposite.

[ioan]

All passengers are dead and only they knew what happened. Until we don't know what is in black boxes these are only guesses and slanders. Mr. Lucas is hyena not a journalist. I wonder why he is so sure that was Kaczyński's insistence and not one of the other four or five generals who were in plain too.

Because Kaczyński has a history of such 'insistence', that's why.

[ioan]

For now there is no evidence to prove pilot's fault. So give him a break. At least for a couple days when we'll know all facts.

The simple fact that they tried to land more than 2 times is a fault of the pilot.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Having read many a media account of an aircraft accident, I can't agree with you.

Mostly right on most stories...not just aviation ones. You are correct when it comes to aviation, they have NO clue....

[Mark in Oshawa]

No doubt some of the armchair aviation experts on this forum will still blame the pilot because he should have told his boss where to go.


Daniel, I speak with a bit of experience. I was part of the training program for air traffic control before I went in another direction. One of the first things I was taught about who is responsible is the pilot in charge has the final say...a controller cannot make the pilot do anything unsafe...

[BDunnell]

Because Kaczyński has a history of such 'insistence', that's why.

How do you know those stories are true? They could be utter nonsense for all we know.

[Mark in Oshawa]

How do you know those stories are true? They could be utter nonsense for all we know.

Ben, he says we shouldn't speculate that it wasn't this fellow and yet accuses of us guessing. There is no guessing, we legitmately cannot say what EXACTLY happened, but it is pretty much a given that the ATC advised the pilot of the weather, and he made the final call in the end. No politician with half a brain would order a pilot to land no matter what in unspeakable weather after 3 previous attempts. I would like to think Poland's president, god rest his soul was not that foolish...

[BDunnell]

Daniel, I speak with a bit of experience. I was part of the training program for air traffic control before I went in another direction. One of the first things I was taught about who is responsible is the pilot in charge has the final say...a controller cannot make the pilot do anything unsafe...

But a combination of mistakes by both parties can be deadly. No doubt ioan, who is clearly a member of the investigation team in this instance given the opinions he is offering here, which obviously derive from his deep personal involvement in the inquiry rather than just reading a few media reports about the crash, will be able to tell us more.

[Mark in Oshawa]

But a combination of mistakes by both parties can be deadly. No doubt ioan, who is clearly a member of the investigation team in this instance given the opinions he is offering here, which obviously derive from his deep personal involvement in the inquiry rather than just reading a few media reports about the crash, will be able to tell us more.

Ben...shocking...do I see that tongue firmly planted?

[BDunnell]

There is no guessing, we legitmately cannot say what EXACTLY happened, but it is pretty much a given that the ATC advised the pilot of the weather, and he made the final call in the end.

Yes, I think we can take that as a given. Of course, what we do not know is whether the information offered by ATC was entirely accurate — after all, we haven't read transcripts yet — but as a bare factual statement of what happened, you're absolutely right.


No politician with half a brain would order a pilot to land no matter what in unspeakable weather after 3 previous attempts. I would like to think Poland's president, god rest his soul was not that foolish...

Well, who can say? I am certain, however, that none of the professional pilots I know would have jeopardised the safety of an aeroplane carrying passengers on the basis of an order given by a non-pilot (I specify that because there was at least one other pilot, the air force commander, flying aboard the Tu-154 as a passenger) or indeed anyone not directly involved in the piloting of that aeroplane. Their judgment is their own.

Incidentally, I undertook a wide-ranging visit to Polish Air Force facilities three years ago, and was most impressed by the professionalism of the air arm and the manner in which, despite some ageing Soviet-era equipment, it was furthering its integration into NATO. Alas, a few months later, some of the unit commanders I and my colleagues met were killed in the crash of one of Poland's brand new transport aircraft, a mishap that is tragically, but in all probability coincidentally, similar to what happened on Saturday — http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/25/221101/poland-grounds-c-295-transports-after-20-killed-in-crash.html

[BDunnell]

Incidentally, here is a piece by a very well-respected British aviation journalist, a former professional pilot himself, which can surely be taken as more factual than your average report by a journalist with no aviation knowledge tasked to cover this story.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2010/04/the-polish-accident.html

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, who can say? I am certain, however, that none of the professional pilots I know would have jeopardised the safety of an aeroplane carrying passengers on the basis of an order given by a non-pilot (I specify that because there was at least one other pilot, the air force commander, flying aboard the Tu-154 as a passenger) or indeed anyone not directly involved in the piloting of that aeroplane. Their judgment is their own.
I would suspect that the Air Force commander would be more than wise enough to NOT interfere in the pilot's final call, but maybe it was a factor. I cannot imagine any pilot with such a valuable plane full of his nation's VIP's willing to take this risk. I am really in shock really that the commander would allow a guy to try to make any more than a second attempt at landing in such conditions.


Incidentally, I undertook a wide-ranging visit to Polish Air Force facilities three years ago, and was most impressed by the professionalism of the air arm and the manner in which, despite some ageing Soviet-era equipment, it was furthering its integration into NATO. Alas, a few months later, some of the unit commanders I and my colleagues met were killed in the crash of one of Poland's brand new transport aircraft, a mishap that is tragically, but in all probability coincidentally, similar to what happened on Saturday — http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/25/221101/poland-grounds-c-295-transports-after-20-killed-in-crash.html

Very curious. Poland's military I had always heard had taken great pride in the post Cold War era on their upgrading to become part of NATO and these incidents seem to not fit with that image.

[BDunnell]

I would suspect that the Air Force commander would be more than wise enough to NOT interfere in the pilot's final call, but maybe it was a factor. I cannot imagine any pilot with such a valuable plane full of his nation's VIP's willing to take this risk. I am really in shock really that the commander would allow a guy to try to make any more than a second attempt at landing in such conditions.

Unless, for some reason, either the aircraft captain or co-pilot said over the radio that pressure had been applied on them to land, or that pressure is actually heard being applied on the voice recordings, it is certain that we will never know. I find either scenario almost impossible to comprehend.

As for your comment about the air force commander, it's my opinion that it's very unlikely that he either attempted to exert any influence on the crew, or would have attempted to do so. Any air force commander worth their salt, and there is no reason to suggest that Maj Gen Blasik was anything other than professional in this role, would not seek to interfere in such circumstances, no matter how great their flying experience. Do we think George H. W. Bush would have done so aboard 'Air Force One'?


Poland's military I had always heard had taken great pride in the post Cold War era on their upgrading to become part of NATO and these incidents seem to not fit with that image.

Yes, helped by substantial US assistance, the Polish military has gone from being unable to offer much of a contribution to NATO's capabilities to being an active participant in multi-national operations and exercises.

The safety record of the Polish air arms has been good in recent times. Now, it has been very seriously marred by two dreadful accidents, both involving its transport aircraft. And, while I again draw no comparisons/connections at all, one of its newly-delivered ex-USAF C-130 Hercules has recently been grounded after being severely overstressed during operations in Afghanistan. Not a happy time for the Polish military transport community.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ben, I will just say President Bush is a pilot himself, so he would know better than to try to override the pilot. Your take on Maj. Gen. Blasik would likely apply to any airforce commander in the same situation.

My greatest worry in all of this will be interference or coverups through the Russians and/or the Polish. If something like this happened on British soil or American soil, I couldn't imagine there not be a transparent process. The Russians however do not seem to understand this at times, and I do think there are many figures that may or may not seal the results or inquest from the public. It is just my opinion, but my view of the Russians is not one of total trust.

[BDunnell]

Ben, I will just say President Bush is a pilot himself, so he would know better than to try to override the pilot. Your take on Maj. Gen. Blasik would likely apply to any airforce commander in the same situation.

I made that reference because Blasik too, just as with all air force commanders I can think of, was himself an operational Polish Air Force pilot. He may well have remained current as a pilot; I'm not sure.



My greatest worry in all of this will be interference or coverups through the Russians and/or the Polish. If something like this happened on British soil or American soil, I couldn't imagine there not be a transparent process. The Russians however do not seem to understand this at times, and I do think there are many figures that may or may not seal the results or inquest from the public. It is just my opinion, but my view of the Russians is not one of total trust.

Nor is mine. I can think of many countries where procedures are more professional and transparent, while Russia's own air safety record remains pretty dire. But given the high-profile nature of the accident, and the fact that there will be a Polish Air Force investigation as well as a Russian one, with a high-degree of co-operation involved in both, it will be difficult for there not to be greater transparency.

[slorydn1]

Rest in Peace, Mr President and all the victims who perished :(


I'm only learning of this tonight having worked night shift all weekend.

I only have one question. Didn't this airport or aircraft have a modern ILS? If so, fog shouldn't have been a problem at all. If not, then they shouldn't have been trying to land there.

I sure hope there is a thorough and transparent investigation into all of this. Maybe all of the world's leader's methods of air transport need some examination.

I know our own presidential aircraft, the twin Boeing 747's called Air Force One while the President is on board are at least 21 years old (purchased by President Reagan, but first flown on by President George H W Bush in 1989) are meticulously cared for and the avionics are constantly upgraded. Are all of the aircraft used by the world's leaders kept up to that kind of standard?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I only have one question. Didn't this airport or aircraft have a modern ILS? If so, fog shouldn't have been a problem at all. If not, then they shouldn't have been trying to land there.

I sure hope there is a thorough and transparent investigation into all of this. Maybe all of the world's leader's methods of air transport need some examination.

I know our own presidential aircraft, the twin Boeing 747's called Air Force One while the President is on board are at least 21 years old (purchased by President Reagan, but first flown on by President George H W Bush in 1989) are meticulously cared for and the avionics are constantly upgraded. Are all of the aircraft used by the world's leaders kept up to that kind of standard?

ILS doesn't land the plane. Furthermore, even when you are on the glideslope and inside the final marker, if you cannot see the runway, you are to do a missed approach and ask for another clearance, to either go around on another insturment approach, or ask for an alternate. There are visual minimums, and most civilian airliners would be diverted with low visibility. This being a military flight, and likely being given all priority as a VIP one, different rules might apply. It is why the ATC will be pulling their tapes for all the voice data, and there will be an inquest of the RVR reading's at the airport. The thing is, some of the newest Avionic suites are pretty capable of landing the plane without the pilot BUT if there is crosswinds, or shear conditions, would a pilot trust it? Did the plane have the most modern avionics? I doubt a Tu-154 would be retrofitted to have the latest autopilot capable of landing.

The fact is, this was an old plane, maybe well maintained, but likely not up to the standards of Air Force One. Considering the USAF has B-52's older than the fathers of the kids flying them now, old aircraft properly maintained and upgraded for years can be effective. We don't know anything beyond what we read in the press as lay people on the facts. I am just telling as someone who was 80%of the way to a working ATC controller, the fact is no Controller would advocate a plane landing in really severe conditions of limited visability or high winds. I have no idea what the conditions were, and no one else really does here except those at the airport or in the plane.

[Mark]

No doubt some of the armchair aviation experts on this forum will still blame the pilot because he should have told his boss where to go.

Well, yes. Ultimately the pilot is responsible for the safety of the aircraft and all its passengers. So if it's unsafe to land, you don't land.

Of course, when your boss is the president, saying no, and saying no would likely cost you your job....

They did say on the news that there had been reports that the Polish president had been 'irritated' in the past when being told they couldn't land at their destination. That's not to say this happened on this occasion.

[BDunnell]

I only have one question. Didn't this airport or aircraft have a modern ILS?

This is what Flight International says regarding the airport: 'Smolensk airport has no precision approach aids, and meteorological observations provided there do not meet ICAO specifications. For example they can provide estimated visibility from the control tower, but not runway visual range.'

[Mark]

This is what Flight International says regarding the airport: 'Smolensk airport has no precision approach aids, and meteorological observations provided there do not meet ICAO specifications. For example they can provide estimated visibility from the control tower, but not runway visual range.'

Sounds like a poor show!

[F1boat]

RIP.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This is what Flight International says regarding the airport: 'Smolensk airport has no precision approach aids, and meteorological observations provided there do not meet ICAO specifications. For example they can provide estimated visibility from the control tower, but not runway visual range.'

Umm Then why would anyone try to land a plane full of VIP's in bad weather at an airport with no ILS? The longer this goes on...the more it sounds like the pilot had taken leave of his common sense.

Smolensk isn't some little tiny burg, it is a city most of us have heard of, surely the Russians would have put in modern approach aids or at least the ILS without an RVR system.

Unreal...

[ojciec dyrektor]

Because Kaczyński has a history of such 'insistence', that's why.
If You have three digit IQ You should know that this is no evidence. If sb cause an accident in the past and he dies in the other accident it isn't evidence of his fault, is it?


The simple fact that they tried to land more than 2 times is a fault of the pilot.
As I said, the simple fact is that was first attempt to land.

[Daniel]

Well, yes. Ultimately the pilot is responsible for the safety of the aircraft and all its passengers. So if it's unsafe to land, you don't land.

Of course, when your boss is the president, saying no, and saying no would likely cost you your job....

They did say on the news that there had been reports that the Polish president had been 'irritated' in the past when being told they couldn't land at their destination. That's not to say this happened on this occasion.

Exactly. It's incredibly easy to come along after the incident and seem all intelligent and say "The Captain is in charge and should tell the president where to go" etc etc but then again hindsight makes genuises of us all doesn't it?

[BDunnell]

Exactly. It's incredibly easy to come along after the incident and seem all intelligent and say "The Captain is in charge and should tell the president where to go" etc etc but then again hindsight makes genuises of us all doesn't it?

Agreed, but in these circumstances such an attempt to overrule the aircraft captain (not that I'm saying this is what happened) would be exceptionally unusual, and any professional pilot worth his/her salt should know not to take heed of it. This is not to deny that some terrible mistakes get made, naturally.

[BDunnell]

As I said, the simple fact is that was first attempt to land.

With respect, on what basis is this 'simple fact'? Has there been an official statement to this effect? We simply don't know yet one way or the other.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Agreed, but in these circumstances such an attempt to overrule the aircraft captain (not that I'm saying this is what happened) would be exceptionally unusual, and any professional pilot worth his/her salt should know not to take heed of it. This is not to deny that some terrible mistakes get made, naturally.

Ben, I agree 100%. What people have to realize that in the end, no one is going to physically jerk the pilot out of the seat. He has to make the right call and be safe EVERY time. If the people on the plane interfere with this decision making process, than they deserve to be at peril. I don't believe anyone on that plane was applying that sort of pressure, but the pilot MAY have been perceiving it. I don't know. All I know is the media reports I last saw had 3 attempts and a crash on the fourth in heavy fog, but I haven't read the paper or any stories on the latest developments.

[Ghostwalker]

two articles from The Telegraph:
'VIP passenger syndrome' may have contributed to Polish plane crash (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7583134/VIP-passenger-syndrome-may-have-contributed-to-Polish-plane-crash.html)

"Russia tried to divert Polish president's flight" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7581643/Russia-tried-to-divert-Polish-presidents-flight.html)

[ojciec dyrektor]

With respect, on what basis is this 'simple fact'? Has there been an official statement to this effect? We simply don't know yet one way or the other.
First informations on tragedy day was form Russian airport's crew. They said about 4 attempts to land and Polish pilot's problems with Russian language. I just read news from yesterday about informations from black boxes. There were two attempts and no communication problem between them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

First informations on tragedy day was form Russian airport's crew. They said about 4 attempts to land and Polish pilot's problems with Russian language. I just read news from yesterday about informations from black boxes. There were two attempts and no communication problem between them.

Well my Polish friend, of course the only people able to talk about are Russians, the plane crashed with all souls on board perishing it. The black boxes say that there was chatter between ATC and the plane, and language may have been an issue. Pressure, even in the abstract mind of the pilot from the last time a pilot diverted with the President on board made this guy take some risks. I don't believe for a nanosecond the Russians wanted this to happen.

The investigation will go where it goes, but smart money says the pilot is to blame really and no one else. In the end, it is his job to put that plane safely on the tarmac. All the rest of this is just hyperbole and spin. In the end, you had a pilot flying and old and not great performing aircraft in foggy conditions trying to land at a strange airport with limited ILS aids and a language issue with the ATC. Gee....cant imagine WHY anyone would have to make up anything more to put this plane in peril?

[BDunnell]

In the end, you had a pilot flying and old and not great performing aircraft...

I don't really think that's particularly fair. The Tu-154 is a decent performer, and the Polish examples not the oldest of the breed around, while also probably being amongst the best-maintained in active use.

[Mark]

I had been of the assumption that air traffic control the world over always spoke English, unless they are talking to pilots in their native language? So you would expect Polish <-> Russian would use English. Perhaps this is not the case in Russia?

[Mark]

I don't really think that's particularly fair. The Tu-154 is a decent performer, and the Polish examples not the oldest of the breed around, while also probably being amongst the best-maintained in active use.

Ben,
What is it about aircraft which can see them being in active service for such a long period of time compared to, say, cars. Is it being constructed from aluminium or simply because they are highly maintained?

[BDunnell]

Ben,
What is it about aircraft which can see them being in active service for such a long period of time compared to, say, cars. Is it being constructed from aluminium or simply because they are highly maintained?

An interesting question, and one to which I really don't think there is a single answer. Instead, there's a combination of factors. In part it's down to the inherent durability built into their design and construction, for obvious reasons; then there is the high level of maintenance you mention; and some operators would rather modify/upgrade older aircraft for continued service rather than go to the expense and hassle of replacing them with something that may not be superior. There are other factors, but those are some that spring to mind.

[Daniel]

Ben,
What is it about aircraft which can see them being in active service for such a long period of time compared to, say, cars. Is it being constructed from aluminium or simply because they are highly maintained?

I don't see what you mean. A car can pretty much go on indefinitely. My dads Fiat 500 is from the 60's and other 500's from that era it's still roadworthy and able to be driven daily if he wanted to, ditto with his Peugeot 504 which is a touch over 30 years old.

I would go as far as to say that aircraft probably don't last as long as cars tbh. All those landing and takeoff cycles take their toll on the aircraft and whilst bits can be replaced it's usually not economical as other planes out there are usually more economical to run

[BDunnell]

I don't see what you mean. A car can pretty much go on indefinitely. My dads Fiat 500 is from the 60's and other 500's from that era it's still roadworthy and able to be driven daily if he wanted to, ditto with his Peugeot 504 which is a touch over 30 years old.

I would go as far as to say that aircraft probably don't last as long as cars tbh. All those landing and takeoff cycles take their toll on the aircraft and whilst bits can be replaced it's usually not economical as other planes out there are usually more economical to run

I think what Mark was getting at is how certain types of aircraft — the B-52 being a classic example — remain in active service well beyond the point at which a car ceases to be used for everyday purposes.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't see what you mean. A car can pretty much go on indefinitely. My dads Fiat 500 is from the 60's and other 500's from that era it's still roadworthy and able to be driven daily if he wanted to, ditto with his Peugeot 504 which is a touch over 30 years old.

I would go as far as to say that aircraft probably don't last as long as cars tbh. All those landing and takeoff cycles take their toll on the aircraft and whilst bits can be replaced it's usually not economical as other planes out there are usually more economical to run

Most cars will do what they are doing with aircraft, but most people don't want to spend the money to keep a car on the road forever. It is cheaper to scrap them at some point or sell them and move on to a newer car.

Aircraft are built to far more exacting standards, and compared to cars are engineered with far more built in room for failure. If a car was built as well as an airplane, people wouldn't replace cars for decades.

Military aircraft are often maintained to standards that would astound the layperson, but alas, the military wants everything maintained to the best level they can afford, and they can afford a lot.

That said, most aircraft are built to a higher standard. One has to only look at the number of C-47/DC-3's still in the air, or the number of Cessna 152's/172's out there still in the air and their average age. Jets for the amount of cycles they endure of pressurization and depressurization still last a VERY long time with regular maintenance.

In the case of this Tupelov, I am not sure on what quality of aircraft it is vs an American counterpart, but one only has to notice Aeroflot went to Airbus and Boeing first chance they got when the Cold War ended. Russian transport aircraft as a whole were not usually built to the same standards of quality, because they were a government creation of a corrupt and inefficient government. The quality of modern Russian aircraft is far better likely than this example. That said, the 154 may have been their best transport and when maintained properly a safe aircraft. It isn't for me to say, but from my earlier days in the ATC training, I know of a few instructors at my school who told me of how some of the Aeroflot flights to Cuba would stop in Gander Nfld and many were horrified with the quality of those planes (Russian airliners)and their lack of performance....

[Mark in Oshawa]

An interesting column that tells a similar tail of a VIP plane crashing and the reasons why from Jonathan Kay in Canada's National Post.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/11/jonathan-kay-beware-the-alpha-male-ego-in-the-cockpit.aspx

[BDunnell]

In the case of this Tupelov, I am not sure on what quality of aircraft it is vs an American counterpart, but one only has to notice Aeroflot went to Airbus and Boeing first chance they got when the Cold War ended. Russian transport aircraft as a whole were not usually built to the same standards of quality, because they were a government creation of a corrupt and inefficient government. The quality of modern Russian aircraft is far better likely than this example. That said, the 154 may have been their best transport and when maintained properly a safe aircraft. It isn't for me to say, but from my earlier days in the ATC training, I know of a few instructors at my school who told me of how some of the Aeroflot flights to Cuba would stop in Gander Nfld and many were horrified with the quality of those planes (Russian airliners)and their lack of performance....

Well, standards of maintenance in Russia probably haven't been as stringent as we would want in the West for many years, and standards of piloting... er, vary, to put it politely. But no-one should doubt the inherent durability of Soviet-era aircraft, which were designed to operate in some pretty primitive conditions. The bad reputation these aircraft have must in large part be put down to the way in which they are operated, rather than any inherent flaws in the designs themselves.

[harsha]

The bad reputation these aircraft have must in large part be put down to the way in which they are operated, rather than any inherent flaws in the designs themselves.

operated.......and maintained for that matter

anyway RIP

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, standards of maintenance in Russia probably haven't been as stringent as we would want in the West for many years, and standards of piloting... er, vary, to put it politely. But no-one should doubt the inherent durability of Soviet-era aircraft, which were designed to operate in some pretty primitive conditions. The bad reputation these aircraft have must in large part be put down to the way in which they are operated, rather than any inherent flaws in the designs themselves.

I am sure they were designed for crude conditions....Russia is like Canada, large and full of places where fussy and maintenance intensive aircraft wont cut it. The thing is, most of what I have read about Soviet era aircraft and military equipment is that it is often not user friendly. I just notice Aeroflot couldn't get to buy Airbus's and Boeings fast enough when they had the chance. THAT ought to say a lot.

[BDunnell]

I am sure they were designed for crude conditions....Russia is like Canada, large and full of places where fussy and maintenance intensive aircraft wont cut it. The thing is, most of what I have read about Soviet era aircraft and military equipment is that it is often not user friendly. I just notice Aeroflot couldn't get to buy Airbus's and Boeings fast enough when they had the chance. THAT ought to say a lot.

It probably says more about the reputation Soviet-era aircraft have long had with passengers from elsewhere. If they are operated well, there need not be a particular problem with them.