Źróło: Gazeta Poland, June 10, 2010
Transcripts talks with Tu-154 cockpit, which were exclude the hypothesis of deliberate causing crash near Smolensk, in fact, it uprawdopodobniły. Experts interviewed by Gazeta Poland ", confirm the possibility of distortion of the aircraft navigation, induced by accident or deliberately false data from the tower
" I have decided to release the material, not to do something to explain this to someone, only to stop the speculation and to dispel the ambiguous atmosphere of mystery " - Prime Minister Donald Tusk said, commenting on the fact that the publication of record cockpit conversations with Presidential Tu-154. Sorry - transcripts, full of gaps, inconsistencies, and places "incomprehensible" - "Ambiguous atmosphere of secrecy" surrounding the tragic death of Lech Kaczynski and 95 passengers only zagęściły.
As for the one most commentators is consistent: the most puzzling is the last 15 seconds of the flight when the pilot of the second command, Robert Fine, "" go, Tu-154 suddenly began to lose altitude. Earlier, the flight proceeded - it seems - without any complications. The pilots were calm, aware of the deteriorating weather, they knew about the difficulties of landing a Russian Il-76. About 10.26, minutes before the crash, Captain. Arkadiusz Protasiuk said: "At this time, under these conditions that are out, do not give advice to sit down. We will try to approach, do one incident, but probably nothing will. " Six minutes later, the commander said: "We come to land. In the case of a missed approach moving away from the machine [ie, on automatic pilot - editor. "GP"]. "
> Why not gone
Height
decisions - that is the level at which the crew must finally decide to land - the airport is the Smolensk-Siewiernyj 70 m. Polish pilots, without breaking procedures, descended to 100 meters, then on the 90th They probably wanted to check the terms of the formalities for the landing. At a height of 80 m - and thus before the decision height - Maj. Robert Fine said, "we go", giving a signal to abort landing maneuver. Meanwhile, a huge plane with a vertical speed (about 14 m / s) began to decline. Why?
- You'd have to check with other flight recorders, which at that time did the first pilot. I assume the two versions: one that ignored the order, despite the fact that his friend was responsible for it, and belonged to him decision. This version now often referred to in the media. I think that was different, that at this point Arkadiusz Protasiuk attempted to leave the airport. Without data from flight data recorders, but we can only speculate - says "GP" Krzysztof Zalewski of trade magazine "Aviation."
According to a retired pilot, Capt.. Janusz Wieckowski, if in fact the pilots tried to pick up the plane, is at a crucial moment may have been a failure or partial disintegration of the engine. This vulnerability explained by the loss of control over the Tu-154 and fast descent of the aircraft. If there was a failure, it had recorded flight data recorder, which records have not yet been disclosed.
Anyhow, it seems impossible that the crew after the command "come away" has decided to land. First, do not have the sufficient visibility, secondly, to retain records of conversations with any reaction to the reduction of suicide by the commander of the machine against the command of the second pilot. Thirdly: According to the card approach, the 70 m Tu-154 should pick up a signal beacon closer, located 1.1 km from the airport runway (Further beacon is located just 6.1 km from the waist). Meanwhile, this signal is received, but - attention - less than 20 m, three seconds before the first blow in the trees! Even inexperienced pilots do not continue their land, not having received the beacon signal indicating their closer, that are at the right altitude and in the proper distance from the runway.
> FSB / GRU on the tower
reading transcripts also leads to questions about the behavior of Russian workers flight tower. - In my opinion the decisions of the tower were very late in comparison to what followed. Even after crossing the 100 meters on the tower operator should respond, given the crew of the aircraft command "horizon" to fly in a straight line, without descent - says, "GP" Krzysztof Zalewski.
The editor of the monthly "Aviation", in the last few seconds of the flight crew was left to itself: the controllers did not land in Smolensk reborn - as claimed by the media - in no way makes it easier to glide Polish pilots. What's more, almost to the end of the tower reported that the Tu-154 is "on the path and course." Controller Smolensk Shuttle crew handed over the command to stop the descent "101 horizon" only thirteen seconds before the crash (at 50 meters!), and when the machine was at 20 I approached the tree, it fell to the message ordering ... shift to the second circle.
- If the aircraft descends below the path approach, the tower operator should respond: "You are below the descent path." Such a reaction was not. Question: Why? - Zalewski wonders. He informed the Journal, similar reservations about the work of Russians to Polish military prosecutor's office.
The fact that the Russian sections of the tower, strange things, provides a number of mysterious events: the testimony of an employee allegedly falsely accusing the Poles of the tower of ignorance of Russian, the disappearance of the Head of the controllers at the airport and head changes (one of which he retired three days after the disaster, the other faded in the air, after removal of it through an unspecified close 'uniforms'), lack of approval from the Russians for interrogation operation at the airport by Polish prosecutors and, finally revealed by the "fact" the presence in the tower of the Russian secret service agent. It is puzzling officer - probably the FSB or the GRU (the Smolensk-Siewiernyj a military airport) - accompanied by two inspectors, who - remember - had disappeared. Polish military prosecutor's office has confirmed it is true that "explores this topic, but considering that two months after the disaster to the Poles could not even hear the people guiding the Tu-154 on the belt, do not expect the agent to determine the role of the FSB (GRU? ) in a tragic airplane landing.
Intriguingly, the tower controller's assistant, Ryżenko, learned how to "GP", was seconded Airport Smolensk-Siewiernyj "until the end of flight on April 10." Such is the testimony of the protocols.
Incidentally, in the whole affair, no less than the confusion associated with the flight tower reflects the organization of disparity between the disastrous landing of the Russian side (no lighting, modest density of the tower and the runway) and the huge number of officers of the uniformed services and the special of the morning of 10 April in the vicinity airport. The report from Russia's Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) that after 13 minutes after the crash (ie 8.54) if the area was surrounded by 180 (!) members of the board of internal affairs departments of Smolensk Oblast and Federal Security Service. Shortly after the crash on the spot were also officials of OMON - Russian special forces paramilitary militias (including the armed assault rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers). We know this from the fact that even an hour after the tragedy in Smolensk was one of them - according to government spokesperson Paul Grasia - to steal a few thousand to your credit card, who died in an airplane Andrew Carrier.
> Putin will play stenogramami
Disclosed stenogramach surprising high degree of noisy tapes. On some pages of the document the expression "incomprehensible" are 20-30 percent. record. This is very much in comparison with other recordings from the flight recorders. For example: conversations in the cockpit of Il-62 that crashed in 1987 in the Forest Kabacki, survived almost 100 percent. Is this the result of noise for interference in the black boxes, or perhaps of "incomprehensible" are odszumione before the election? Or perhaps both?
- In stenogramach are moments in which we do not know who speaks for the issue, we do not know what is the content of speech, there are entire sequences, under which you can plant a lot of different elements - says Krzysztof Zalewski of the monthly "Aviation". - The transcripts presented a matter of fact nothing is clear. Not that there was some pressure, but also that it was not. The result is that the situation is open. The inscription on the front page that it is a variant of No. 1, prepares us, that probably will be other options. According to Zalewski
, it might aim for that at a certain point there will be certain information that will be broadened our knowledge gained from option # 1 We know that it is now running the election campaign. It gives the possibility of interference in Polish internal affairs. Skillfully manipulating the leaks, you will be able to control public opinion. Suddenly there will be content that will be put in place dotted, denouncing the person being identified data issues.
Compliance with the truth presented by the Government of the transcripts also raises serious doubts. First of all, have not confirmed the authenticity of documents ... Russians themselves. Besides, the published stenogramach missing signatures Bartosz Stroiński - Polish military pilot, in Moscow who identified the voices of their dead colleagues from the regiment. As if this were not enough, the voice belongs to the Russians, according to Chief of Protocol Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mariusz Kazany (which the news of the fog was to say like "we have no problem") could be the voice of an entirely different person. "The fact that the voice belong to the crew, who recorded a black box Tu-154 belonged to the head of the MFA Diplomatic Protocol, Mariusz Kazany is just a suggestion. Have not confirmed that Polish experts "- Ministry spokeswoman Margaret Wozniak. Chris
Zalewski has no illusions: - Every now and then an article appeared in the Russian press, spoke of Russian specialists who are giving a piece of transcript excerpts, formed a picture of pilot error and pressures. Then it used the Polish newspaper, where he spoke to various experts, who built a similar picture. Then, Russian media quoted these passages, arguing that the Poles have already argued that the cause was pilot error. We may believe that similar action will be taken still.
> procedure written in blood
the calculations of our experts made on the basis of time of flight and height of the transcripts and report MAK, that the flight path has been disrupted. A similar statement is Maj. Waldemar Łubowski, the pilot: - There is no request stenogramach crew on the way to the landing incident, they were led on a tangent to the circle with a radius of 19 km. Under these conditions it is definitely too close. Aircraft continue to be derived, at around 30 km and is set in the axis of the belt so that the crew can rip all the parameters and precise in her hold. They came here in the axis of the belt for 10 km, with little time to be accurately set in it. Maybe they flew by GPS that they falsely showed the distance to the runway. If we had everything that was happening, shifted forward, the plane would be placed after all the axes.
Mark Strassenburg Kleciak, a specialist in three-dimensional navigation systems, says: - Either the pilots were a suicide, or 80-90 m something happened, what we do not know. According to my calculations show that the plane was flying over the correct approach path, and below decision was flying below the path. The explanation suggested by the transcripts, even if he believed, is that the navigator started give indications of the pilot as a radio altimeter barometric altimeter instead. It is completely absurd, but the species of these explanations, which the layman can be represented as the cause of the disaster. Even novice navigator will not commit such an error. There was no reason that the crew had to break the procedure. It is written in blood.
> Reflecting the loss of controllability
With meaconingu pilots can be brought over the jar (wide valley) instead of Smolensk airport, while the direct cause of the disaster could have been failure or other event that caused the pilots lost their influence on the controllability of the machine. One theory for the loss of control after passing the beacon further (6.1 km from the runway) says that it could be, for example damage to the hydraulic servo rudder of the aircraft. Fog, if it was at 500 meters, she could keep suspended particles (fumes), oil or other substances, which (like volcanic ash), when you get to slow hydraulic servo steering, clog it, causing the disruption of function, or reversal of action. The problem of steering the aircraft could start already at elevations below 400 m. Perhaps this was the reason for the presence of General Błasik in the cockpit and read aloud the instructions.
Just before the crash occurred in the Smolensk area in the dense fog, which was received that the pilots realized belatedly that are next to the path of approach and just above the ground. Another strange coincidence Polish services, which the chair. 8.25 are informed about the fog in the Smolensk region, forgot to send this message on board the presidential plane.
> Meaconing and strange crash?
If, when the presidential Tupolev Tu-154M was deliberate distortion of the GPS signal, the so-called. meaconing is that (theoretically) the attack was effective, would also be disrupted by the height and distance from the waist, or failure to happen. Pilot uses GPS readings, but if the GPS signal is disturbed without a false beacon, it is just 6.1 km, at an altitude of further beacon, the pilot zorientowałby that is in the wrong position. Zdążyłby infer machine on the second circle. In the event of false beacons the chances of saving a decrease to almost zero.
> Mystery beacon
- When the pilot properly tune the device in the cockpit, the plane flies itself, as he set the pace. Flying, heading for the antenna. When the plane is tuned for further and closer to the beacon, the pilot knows he will come out perfectly on the runway. If passed at the correct height above the other, closer beacons are evenly wyleciałby the runway. There is no other possibility. The signal it sends beacon on the plane, is shown as a vertical line. Theoretically it is possible to signal reflections radio beyond a vertical line, called. leaf, but this is unlikely. The aircraft must pass over the beacon at the correct height, then the pilot knows that falls exactly in the radar beam standing at the beginning of the runway to help him sit on the tarmac. It all proves that the plane was on the wrong course - the caller said, "GP", who operate the navigational equipment on military airports.
The raid on the pilot beacon radiokompas observed. Flight along the line of the axis of the belt causes the deflection rate of the device. Pilot knows the height of the each beacon, and its distance from the waist down, he knows well, at what rate should fly over all of them. Pilots prepare before the start of the path parameters approach.
- We know that the closer to the beacon interrupt [which confirmed what the crew, who had landed - editor. ed]. But both further and closer to the beacon was detected by equipment on board. I suspect that the beacons were of secondary, because he could be guided by GPS navigation, using the opportunities that had the plane - it says "GP" Krzysztof Zalewski of the magazine "Aviation." Rzeczpospolita revealed that pre-flight pilots to Smolensk 36th transport regiment unsuccessfully asked the Russians and the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to allocate to them - in accordance with the procedures - a Russian navigator. The question of why it happened, is particularly strong today.
But bringing the presidential Tupolev Tu-154 with the proper approach path into the valley next to the belt by a signal from the proximal false beacon was the case with this catastrophe likely? The plane took him, being less than 20 m above the ground. The use of a false beacon would have a justification, had been placed earlier. Receiving the signal just above the ground, which is only nine seconds before the crash and less than 20 m from the ground, not 70, as procedures dictate, does not make sense. Unless the received signal, recorded in stenogramach, reached the true beacon, which at this point is at a distance of about 40 m on the right side, and about a mile before the path came to a fake fake aircraft marker beacon (eg, when the real interrupt broadcast - that the interrupt signal to send, what the pilot said.) Maybe
So it was a failure. Same transcripts, a large number of so-called. noise parameters without a flight that Minister Miller also brought from Moscow, did not they cut off speculation - on the contrary, intensify it.
Even more would increase the success of any attempt to set offset APM s fake, or special lighting guiding aircraft to the runway, and also fade or remove the real lights (there is pictures of Russian departments, which after the crash wkręcały bulbs). They are set on the threshold of runway. If the pilot would see the light, it would convinced that he saw the runway.
Leszek Misiak, Greg Wierzchołowski
0 comments:
Post a Comment