Kolejny raport naukowców potwierdzający, że tupolew został zniszczony bombą

background image

4


Contents table:

Introduction

1.1 PLF-101 -7
1.2 Background

-15

1.3 The motive

-52

Information process and investigation analyzes -63
2.1

Credibility of the investigation

-63

2.1 Confused investigation -65

- How to mistake the truth – brief

instruction by Josef Stalin – 65

2.2 Just after the catastrophe -67

2.3 Next days – 74

2.4 Mourning time – 78

2.5 Volcanic Funeral?

– 83

2.6 Between the funeral and national holiday

– 88

-

National

holiday

and

farther

disinformation

– 93

2.7 Before the preliminary report of MAK – 97

2.8 Everything was beautiful, only the pilots are

guilty… – 110

2.9 The truth is covered. Farther indoctrination.

– 119

2.10 Self-styled, but necessitating representative,

investigation who’s who and notable so-called “experts”.

-110

-Edmund Klich – 110

-Col. Stefan Gruszczyk: it was a suicide!

– 138

-Tomasz Hypki and his boys – 140

background image

5

-Gen. Parulski – 142

2.11 Summary

-145


Facts

3.1 The last travel

-164

-Weather conditions -195

-Short history of the flight -196

3.2 Crew information

-200

-Pilot-In-Command -200

-Co-pilot

-201

-Air engineer -202

-Navigator

-204

-Flying experience of the crewmembers

-205

3.3 Air Traffic Control

-211

3.4 Aircraft Information

-230

-Careless(ness) of Mr Shengardt -230

-Operational history -239

3.5 The overhaul and the aircraft condition -262

-President will be content -262

-Financial aspects of the modernizations

-264

-How to be killed? 267

-Tu-154 best before and Brazilian cure-all

nostrum

-279

3.6 Meteorological information once again -284
3.7 A page about the navigation -288
3.8 The airport

-290

Airport equipment efficiency

-301

Approach Charts

-305

PLF-101 Navigation Charts

-310

background image

6

3.9 Flight recorder, do not open! Enregistreur de

vol, ne pas ouvrir!

-313

The CVR transcripts -315

Authenticy aspects -366

3.10 Injuries to person

-377

Survival aspects

-387

Relation between injuries to people and

damage to the aircraft and analyse of the possible
circumstances of thermo-baric weapons or another
missile using. -393

3.11 Damage to the aircraft -404
3.12 Other damage – main evidence, but evidence

in past tense only… – 417

MAK evidence - 419

3.13



background image

7

1.1 PLF-101

Every day somewhere in the world there is an air

incident or catastrophe.

One of each several million of airborne travels is

not ended by successful getting the target, but by a
tragedy.

However presidential planes do not crash every

day. Mathematical probability of so important flight to
crash is extremely low, due to high level of safety
regulations, far surpassing international civil aviation in
all respects.

Please notice that overwhelming proportion of

presidential aircraft are military or governmental, flaying
under a status of so-called HEAD. Only in Russian
Federation, president Mr Dmitry Miedviediev uses for air
transport planes (“Board Number One” and “Board
Number Two”), chartered from governmental Rossiya
Airlines, however these aircraft have interior cost
millions of US dollars, air safety no worse than Boeing
Dreamliner and security level similar to early “flying
fortresses”.

Presidential aircraft are under a special technical

care, have the best avionic and communicational
equipment on the board and finally – the best pilots,
specially selected and trained. Presidential aircraft are
non-stop guarded by secret service and when it is
necessary escorted by fighters enroute.

Therefore accidents of presidential aircraft are not

normal, usual situation.

background image

8

However usual situation is an assassination

airborne, specially efficient, when it is possible to take
control on the rescue operation (to be able to decrease
survival rate) and farther investigation (to hide the truth).

Two days after Smolensk air disaster, when

Polish president Prof. Lech Kaczynski had died,
Telegraph prepared a list of presidents involved in air
incidents
(

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/pol

and/7581639/Death-of-Lech-Kaczynski-political-leaders-
who-have-died-in-plane-crashes.html

)

Telegraph describes inter alia case of Mr René

Barrientos, President of Bolivia, whowas killed in 1969
when his helicopter crashed in Arque. Rumours persist
that it may have been shot down
(...)”

Barthélemy Boganda, first Prime Minister of the

Central African Republic autonomous territory, was
killed in a mid-air explosion in 1959 just days before he
was poised to become the first president of the
independent CAR.

Dr John Garang de Mabior, Vice President of

Sudan, died in 2005 after the Ugandan presidential Mi-
172 helicopter he was flying in crashed while on the way
back from a secret meeting which he had not told his
government about. Six of his colleagues and seven
Ugandan crew members were also killed in the accident,
which was blamed on poor weather conditions. However
there are doubts about the truth of this, and even the
Ugandan President suspected "external factors".

However the most interesting air disaster

concerning presidents are probable assassinations of Mr
Jaime R. Aguilera, President of Ecuador, who was killed

background image

9

under circumstances similar to Kaczynski – he was flying
along with his wife and military leaders. Completely like
now in Russia, pilot was blamed of controlled flight into
terrain. However many factors indicate, that external
forces had took part in the air disaster, because of plans
to develop the hydrocarbon sector, which would have
threatened US interests or because he was strengthening
ties with the Soviet Union.

However not only the motives but circumstances

– probably normal, common bomb exploded on the board
make assassination the most possible case.

According to Mr Marek Strassenburg, Hamburg

University of Technology, inventor, designer of one of
the earliest 3D navigation systems, head of Strategic
Analyses Department in Harman Becker Inc., there were
9 notable catastrophes of presidential aircraft since 1945.
6 of those were assassinations.

http://smolensk-

2010.pl/2010-09-09-musimy-poznac-prawde-dlaczego-
doszlo-do-katastrofy.html

Other words according to statistics there is a

probability of 66% that it was an assassination in
Smolensk.

Moreover Poland is probably the only country in

the world, where presidential aircraft can be cared by
another country – a foe in the international politics,
historical enemy for last 1000 years.

Only in Poland, presidential aircraft could be

technically ministered by Russia. It was a Tupolev-
154M, produced in Samara (Kyubishevo), USSR in 1990
(it does not mean that it was too old airplane – for
example Germany chancellor Mrs. Angela Merkel, flies
on the board of two much older Airbus A-310, inherited

background image

1
0

from Interflug, East German Airlines), last generally
modernized in December 2009, which made it one of the
best-equipped Tupolevs in the history. However, this
modernization was carried out not for example in Israel,
as it could be, but in Russia, Samara. Another Polish Tu-
154M, a twin of crashed, is still in a facility in Samara,
undergoing an overhaul.

However work of Russians engineers could not

bring out a catastrophe if they were working correctly,
because they have all necessary international licenses,
powers, dozens years of experience concerning
production and servicing of the type.

Other words, if work of the Russian experts in

Poland could had brought out an air disaster, it was a
sabotage, so an assassination.

It was not an accident, according to Mr Gene

Poteat, electrical engineer and a retired CIA scientific
intelligence officer, who served abroad in London,
Scandinavia, the Middle East and Asia, a president of the
Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO),
writing and lecturing on intelligence matters and teaches
at The Institute of World Politics.

“Times change but the ways countries hide

unquestionable acts of genocide remain the same. And
attempts to force acknowledgement of, or to
commemorate, such acts can trigger desperate,
sometimes bizarre acts of revenge or disavowal.”
– wrote
Mr Poteat in his report about the Smolensk Air Disaster.

As it is already stated above, there is in Warsaw,

in structure of 36

th

Special Transport Aviation Regiment

warranty repairs carrying out Russian specialists team of

background image

1
1

Joint Stock Company “Aviacor” Aviation Enterprise,
Samara.

Of course, it could be a coincidence that the only

aircraft serviced by the Russians, was the only aircraft in
whole regiment having in-flight failures. But these
failures were rather strange, because concerned aircraft
systems – on first sight not related to each other, however
this is not the most striking detail concerning Polish Air
Force flight 101 – as presidential flight had been
numbered.

However everything above can be summed as a

piece of speculations, fuelling thousands of conspiracy
theories. Nevertheless there are also thousands of pieces
of evidence, that will be described in this publication.
Before this fact one thing should be analyzed – rescue
operation after the catastrophe had happened in
Smolensk.

Normally, when air disaster takes place, there is

only one quarry in first minutes – to rescue as much
human beings, as it is possible.

According to British journal of anaesthesia first

medical aid, especially basic cardiopulmonary
resuscitation should be applied in 10-12 minutes. Else
there is no chance to survive for example after an air
disaster, if you only lose of consciousness, or for
example cessation of breathing will appear. These are
typical diagnoses after each serious transport accident.

However after Smolensk Air Disaster there

was no any ambulance called to the scene. It means,
that in muddy forest, where had crashed Polish
presidential aircraft nobody was going to rescue the
passengers...

background image

1
2

According to Russian Interstate Aviation

Committee (MAK) of Commonwealth of Independent
States in Moscow, highest Russian aviation authority,
which is conducting an investigation after the air disaster,
it took only 14 minutes to surround place around the
wreckage by a group of 180 soldiers and secret service
officers. It would be impossible to be performed on
Saturday morning, outside the city, in soppy terrain,
without prior knowledge about the air disaster. Other
words Russian services should know, that Polish
presidential aircraft would crash, before it crashed. They
should be waiting in full readiness.

Lots of data concerning this operation gives a film

taken using a mobile phone by a witness on the disaster
scene, just after 180 people group coming.
However sound track of the movie is not similar to
typical sounds of rescue operation, but rather to an
execution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9WEFQNqBMM

For example around 50sec. “Don’t kill us, I beg”
statement in Polish language is audible. Farther run of the
recording brings sound of racking and 3 noisy gunshots,
as well as some commands and exclamations. There are 3
outlines of people walking visible behind elements of the
aircraft, as well as one person in a squatting and one
outsider – old man, who could be a witness.
On the movie, among several voices, a begging voice
belongs to a women. It is only possible for her to be a
passenger or a flight attendant. However a timbre of the
voice seems to be identical to speeches of the only
women, who had been travelling in the fore compartment
of the aircraft, although it could not be confirmed clearly.

background image

1
3

Also an author of the recording induces some sounds. No
medical service is visible on the recording – no
ambulances or helicopters, characteristic for search and
rescue operation after an air disaster.

According to Mr Antoni Macierewicz, Member of

Parliament and former head of Military Counter-
Intelligence Service of Poland, the film described above
is authentic, which is confirmed officially by Polish
Military Attorney Office, as well as Internal Security
Agency. It is also confirmed that sound track of the film
was not modified.

According to Macierewicz it was possible that it

was a murder, but it is also possible, that the shots were a
kind of deterring a people coming to the place of the air
disaster. (

http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-09-04-

macierewicz-kontrolerzy-winni-katastrofy-tu-
154m.html

).

However statement “Don’t kill us” make only

first half of Mr Macierewicz statement possible.

According to Mr Macierewicz the Polish

prosecutors are not interested in examining of the
recording examination.

Author of the recording had not been interrogated

yet. Nevertheless, other sources evidence the he was
already murdered in Kiev.

According to weekly “Najwyzszy Czas”, the

Polish Intelligence Agency got high number of photos
from Smolensk, including photos of body of president
Lech Kaczynski taken at 14:52, so before official time of
his body localisation (16:00). According to Polish
intelligence officers quoted by “Najwyzszy Czas” Polish
president’s body was massacred post mortem.

background image

1
4

Intelligence officers had also contacted real

author of the recording described above, who agreed for
the co-operation, after giving him a promise, that he
would receive the asylum in Poland. However after the
officer had sent a report to Intelligence Headquarters, the
author had been taken by somebody to unknown place
and killed in Kiev.

http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-08-01-dowody-matactwa-

najwyzszy-czas-leszek-szymowski-dziennikarz-
sledczy.html

background image

1
5

1.2 Background

Not only last 500 years of history of Russia, but

also last 11 years of Col. Vladimir Putin’s dominance
show clearly, that assassinations and crimes underpin
whole mechanism of state structure. They condition as
well international politics strategy, as interior politics of
heavy-hand, eternal principle of Russia.

It is 1

st

of November 2006, Lt.-Col. Alexander

Valterovich Litvinenko is eating sushi in one of the
London restaurants, he does not yet know, that his days
are already numbered.
Suddenly he feel ill and becomes hospitalized.

Several hours ago, according to Col. Oleg

Gordiyevski, he visited ex-Russian agent Andrey
Lugovoi. In a house of Mr Lugovoi, Litvinenko met a
man introducing him selves as Vladimir. He did not say
many words, but strongly urged Mr Litvinenko to drink a
cap of tea. It was probably the last cap of tea for Mr
Litvinenko. He was poisoned and became the first
confirmed victim of Polonium-210, lethal isotope.
According to British doctors, he was murdered and it was
the beginning on nuclear terrorism era. Mr Litvinenko
was dying over 3 weeks, having symptoms of creeping
dose.

background image

Lt.-Col. Litvinenko
before the crime.



It is confirmed, that Lt.-
Col. Alexander
Litvinenko was
assassinated, due to his
investigations against
the Kremlin and Russian
president, Col. Vladimir
Putin.

background image

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/11/25/obituarios/1
164449771.html

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/11/25/obituarios/1
164449771.html


It is clearly evidenced, that polonium, which killed Lt.-
Col. Litvinenko, flew Great Britain from Moscow.
(

http://www.litvinenko.org.uk/map_en.php

)


His death is the first case of confirmed death cased by
polonium, but not the first literally. For example, a
journalist Mr Yuri Shchekochikhin (2003) and KGB
defector Mr Nikolay Khokhlov (1957) were poisoned
using not Polonium, but Thallium, according to Mr Alex
Goldfarb.

Please notice, that a death of Lt.-Col. Alexander

Litvinenko (who openly stated that, Col. Vladimir Putin,
president of Russian Federation is responsible for his
nuclear poisoning.) was confirmed and evidenced, by
Scotland Yard assassination, politically motivated, cased
by his investigation concerning a murder of Mrs. Anna
Politkovskaya, killed in Russia, Russian journalist. It is
said that she was the 17

th

antigovernment writer killed

during Col. Putin rules. But that is not truth – he was the
91

st

journalists killed since 1999. Please notice that a date

of her murder was probably not a coincidence. Mrs.
Politkovskaya died on the 7

th

of October 2006 – just on

the 54

th

birthday of Col. Vladimir Putin, president of

Russian Federation, who Mrs. Politkovskaya criticized
openly. That is why her death could be a kind of birthday
gift for president.

background image

What was the reason of that manslaughter – Mrs.

Politkovskaya was shout in an elevator of block of flats,
she was living in, a gun and scales had been found next
to her body – was it her demeanour, so problematic for
Col. Putin? Lt.-Col. Litvinenko, ex-KGB officer, leaving
in London, who was also openly criticized Col. Putin,
tried to investigate this affair. He was killed.

But please notice, that analyzing only murder of

Mrs. Politkovskaya is not enough to describe a scale of
manslaughters in Col. Putin’s Russia.

Col. Putin became a prime minister during Mr

Boris Yeltsin presidency in 1999.

In this year not many journalist were killed – only

9, but this number was not as high probably due to lack
of power concerning Col. Putin, who did not became a
president yet.

On the 8

th

of August 1999, he was sworn in as a

prime minister.

Only 12 days after, a Russian journalist Mr Ludov

Loboda was killed in Kyubishev, Siberia.

The next homicide took place much closer to a

Kremlin, Mr Christopher Reese was in Moscow on the
27

th

of September 1999. Moreover, it was not a last

killing of journalists on an outset of Col. Putin’s era. On
the 27

th

of October 1999, Chechen Supyan Ependiyev

died in a crossfire – according to official version. Please
notice that it was a time, when already hung in a balance
2

nd

Chechen Conflict. Two days after, under the same

circumstances, died Mr Shamil Gigayev and Ramzan
Mezhidov – TV workers.

Col. Putin was hoarding day-by-day, finally

becoming a president. Until however he managed this,

background image

next people died. From hundreds of years the Kremlin
has been a place of intrigues. Under the rules of
Romanov dynasty, just before their falling down,
Rasputin was directly manipulating whole tsar family, he
became the real sovereign of not only Russia, but also
unimaginable fortune, including high shares in a power
of United States – for example in American railway,
owned partly by Russian tsar. After this period Russia
became an arena of one of the most amazing and most
brutal games in the history of world. Revolutions of
Lenin, who was carried by Germans in plumbed wagon,
like a plague. Number of civil wars, murders, turnovers
brought on a pedestal a Red Tsar – Georgian cacique Mr
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. During his rules Gen.
Wladyslaw Sikorski, prime minister on exile of Republic
of Poland during the Second World War was killed in a
assassination in Gibraltar air disaster, on the 4

th

of July

1944. As it appeared days after, although the
manslaughter had taken place over the British territory, it
had been carried out by the Russians. Daughter of Gen.
Sikorski, Mrs. Zofia Lesniowska, had been kidnapped by
the Russians and sent by them to Stalin (who finally
redirected her to a concentration camp in Siberia), via
Cairo, when she left her bracelet (according to historian,
Dariusz Baliszewski and photos presented by him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zofia_Leśniowska

).

The same air disaster, which caused Gen. Stalin to

assassinate Polish leader, managed probably also Col.
Putin. But before he was able to kill Polish president (if
even did not kill, please notice, that he had great
spectrum of forces and utilities to do it), he had to kill
many another people – completely like Stalin, and

background image

benefited help of Yeltsin, completely like Stalin used
Lenin. In dead history – as proclaims an old saying –
repeats itself permanently.

That four manslaughters was moreover not only

during Col. Putin’s brutal way to the presidency of a
great superpower.

On the 1

st

of February 2000 Mr Vladimir Yatsina,

a journalist of ITAR-TASS – one of the biggest Russian
press agencies, with over 100 years history, was
kidnapped and then killed in Chechnya. 9 days after Mrs.
Ludmila Zamana, was killed in a homicide in Samara, the
same city were Polish 101 was contracted 9 years earlier
and modernized 10 years later.

On the 9

th

of March Mr Artyom Borovik,

publisher and journalist was probably killed on
Sheremetyevo International Airport (UUEE, SVO) near
Moscow.

Then Mrs. Luisa Arzhieva, Russian reporter, was

killed in a crossfire in Chechnya.

On the 17

th

of April 2000, journalist Oleg

Polukeyev was killed.

On the 8

th

of May 2000, Col. Vladimir Putin

finally became a president of Russia. This was a time,
when a great powerful wave of crime, shaken Russia.

Only 5 days later, on the 13

th

of May 2000 Mr

Alexander Yefremov, died in Chechnya. Then, on 16

th

of

July 2000, another journalist, Mr Igor Domnikov,
working in Novaya Gazeta, he died in a car crash, cased
by a paid murderer. Contractor was never punished.

On the 26

th

of July Mr Sergei Novikov of Radio

Vesna, Smolensk. He was shot in a contract killing in
stairwell of his block of flats.

background image

But not murders of journalists, but another case

became an inglorious symbol of Col. Putin’s Era. On the
12

th

of August 2000, explosion shock the deck of Oscar-

II class nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine K-114
Kursk. It sank down on the Barents Sea with all, 118-
people crew. Everybody died, due to lack of effective
rescue operation.

Any rescue operation did not start in 24 hours,

after Kursk had sank, because Russian Navy officers
fought that about 200 kilograms TNT – force explosion,
had been a part of their exercises.

When the Kursk felt to the bottom, a buoy,

marking she’s position should be automatically released,
but this system was probably turned off, due to a risk of
release of the buoy during high g-force manoeuvres of
Kursk and detecting she by “an enemy”.

When some part of submarine crew had a chance

to survive, but British, Norwegian and American, offers
of help were rejected by president, Col. Vladimir Putin.
Russian government had been affirming that Russian
rescuers had a contact with crew and that accident had
taken place not on the 12

th

, but on the 13

th

of August.

When on the 17

th

of August 2000, 5 days after

catastrophe finally British and Norwegian rescuers were
admitted to the submarine by Col. Putin, all of the 108-
people crew were death.

After the accident head of special commission,

investigating causes of the Kursk tragedy became
president, Col. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

On the 21

st

of September 2000, Mr Iskander

Khatloni, from Free Europe Radio, Tajik journalist also
was killed outside his block of flats on the night.

background image

Probable motive was his work concerning the human
rights problem in Chechnya, occupied, by the Russians.

On the 3

rd

of October Mr Sergei Ivanov, from

Lada-TV, was shot in front of his block of flats, a
favourites place to kill journalists (for example Mrs.
Politkovskaya) in Col. Putin’s Russia.

On the 18

th

of October Mr Georgy Garibyan, Park

TV, was shot in Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Two days after
this time another journalist and TV worker, Mr Oleg
Goryansky was probably killed. He was a reporter
working under wildly understood problematic of freedom
and human rights.

On the 21

st

of October, three days after Mr

Garibyan, Mr Raif Abyashev, journalist and
photographer died in a homicide.

On the 3

rd

of November 2000 Mr Sergei Loginov,

also from Lada TV was probably killed.

Farther, on the 20

th

of November, Mr Pavel

Asaulchenko, a camera operator of Austrian TV, died in
Moscow. It was contract killing that is why conviction of
murderer is only apparent.

On the 23

rd

of November, Reuter’s camera

operator, Mr Adam Tepsurkayev died in a war crime in
Chechnya.

On the 28

th

of November, already not

professionally active Nikolai Karmanov died. He was
retired, but there was a hearsay in Russia, that he led
private investigation, concerning a crime of another
journalist. His homicide took place in Lyubim, Russia.

On the 23

rd

of December 2000 Mr Valery

Kondakov, photographer was killed in Armavir, near
Sochi. He was a freelance journalist.

background image

Year 2001 seemed to be very calm – started by

only four brutal homicides. On the 1

st

of February 2001,

Mr Eduard Burmagin was killed. Then on 24

th

of

February Mr Leonid Grigiriev – also a journalist, and
also murdered. On the 8

th

of March, Mr Andiei

Pivovarov had been killed. On the 31

st

of March Mr Oleg

Dolgantsev.

On the 17

th

of May 2001 Mr Vladimir Kirsanov,

Russian publisher and journalists had been killed in
Kurgan, Russia.

On the 2

nd

of June, another journalist Mr Victor

Popkov died after over two months of fighting for life in
a hospital near Moscow, after crossfire in Chechnya.

Then on the 11

th

of September 2001, Mr Andrei

Sheiko died in a homicide. There is extremely less of
data concerning this manslaughter.

On the 19

th

of September 2001, Mr Eduard

Markevish was shot in back by a contract killer. He was
editor, publisher and journalist.

On the 5

th

of November 2001 Mrs. Elina

Voronova, a journalist was murdered.

On the 16

th

of November 2001 Mr Oleg Vedenin,

a journalist was murdered.

On the 21

st

of November 2001 Mr Alexander

Babaikin, a journalist was murdered.

On the 1

st

of December 2001 Mr Boris Mityurev,

a journalist was murdered. This homicide entered a
period – year 2001, but not an Era of Col. Vladimir
Putin, and not a period of journalist killing.

Freezing January 2002, also was started by brutal

homicide of journalist – Mrs. Svetlana Makarenko.

background image

On the 4

th

of March 2002, Mr Konstantin

Pogodin, a journalist was murdered.

On the 8

th

of March 2002, Mrs. Natalya Skryl

journalist with Nashe Vremya newspaper was killed.

On the 31

st

of March 2002 Moscow News

journalist Mr Valery Butayev was brutally murdered in
the capital of Russian Federation, not far a way from
Kremlin.

On the 1

st

of April 2002, Mr Sergei Kalinovsky

editor living in Moscow died in Smolensk, in a homicide.

On the 4

th

of April Mr Vitaly Sakhn-Vald,

journalist and camera operator was murdered.

On the 25

th

of April 2002 Mr Leonid Shevchenko,

journalist died in homicide in Volgograd.

On the 29

th

of April 2002 Mr Valery Ivanov,

journalist, publisher and editor was killed in Samara,
Russia.

Although April of 2002 seems to be very tragic,

only after analyzing not only journalists’ murders. On the
28

th

of April 2002 crashed helicopter Mi-8, which

governor of Krasnoyarsk Country, Russia Gen.
Alexander Ivanovich Lebied’ was killed.

This hero of Afghan War, and than Ist Chechen

Conflict appeared as a votary of president Mr Boris
Yeltsin. Then after he was expelled from Kremlin by Mr
Yeltsin, he won a vote in Krasnoyarsk country, where he
became a governor. New Russian leader Col. Putin was
openly criticized by Gen. Lebied’, who did not show his
friendship or even acceptation both for Mr Yeltsin as
Col. Putin’s government members. Russian prosecution
by some coincidence alleged him embezzlements of
public money, including hunting polar bears from a board

background image

of Ambulance Service Helicopter. This objections were
not well evidenced, that is why investigation had been
continued. Gen. Lebied’ was not scared to criticize Col.
Putin. Suddenly he died in hospital, after air disaster in
2002. Although it was a helicopter – a Soviet-constructed
Mil Mi-8, the circumstances where quite similar, to the
10

th

of April 2010, disaster near Smolensk. The

helicopter crashed and damaged in poor visibility after it
had contacted a ground-based energetic line. Gen.
Lebied’ posthumously, completely like Mr Kaczynski
was suspected to force landing on a pilot. But many facts
indicated supposition of an assassination of Lebied’, that
is why his death indicated many conspiracy theories.
(

http://www.przeglad-

tygodnik.pl/index.php?site=artykul&id=1784

)

On the 20

th

of May 2002 journalist Mr Alexander

Plotnikov was murdered.

On the 6

th

of June 2002 journalist Mr Pavel

Morozov died in a homicide.

On the 25

th

of June 2002, a publisher, editor and

founder of local TV and Radio in Vladivostok, Mr Oleg
Sedinko, died in contract killing.

On the 20

th

of July 2002 Mr Nikolai Razmolodin,

general director of local TV and Radio company in
Ulyanovsk was murdered.

On the 21

st

of July 2002, Mrs. Maria Lisichkina

was killed in a homicide.

On the 27

th

of July 2002, not a journalist but

spokesperson of Moscow Region Governor was
murdered.

Then on the 18

th

of August Mr Nikolai Vasiliev, a

journalist was murdered.

background image

On the 25

th

of August Fin origin, retired editor

and journalist, Mr Paavo Voutilainen, was murdered in
Karelia, Russia.

On the 4

th

of September 2002, according to

Glasnost Defense Foundation, a publisher Mr Leonid
Kuznetsov was murdered.

On the 26

th

of September, a British journalist, Mr

Roderick “Roddy” Scott, died in crossfire.

On the 2

nd

of October, Mrs. Yelena Popova was

murdered.

On the 19

th

of October, Mr Leonid Plotnikov was

murdered.

On the 23

rd

of October, Chechen partisans carried

out an attack on the Dobrovka Theatre, Moscow during a
show. All the people inside have been taken hostage. On
the 26

th

of October, after three days on negotiations Col.

Putin’s commando not calculating victims threw on the
theatre with 922 innocent civilians inside, based on a mix
of fentanil and 3-Methylfentanyl combat gas, killing
about 300 people, according to unofficial statistics.

Please notice, that the government dependent of

Col. Putin did not send ambulances to injured people, but
transported them to hospitals by buses. Governmental
service did not also inform doctors what kind of gas had
been used by commando that is why it was very difficult
to introduce life-saving treatment. This clearly shows,
that a target of Col. Putin was probably not to increase a
number of victims to shock the world, showing high
number of killed, which he was going to attribute to
Chechen terrorists. After a fault of government service
was revealed by the world media, number of victims was

background image

probably more than twice undervalued, by central
authorities of Russian Federation.

A head of special commission investigating case

of Dobrovka became Col. Vladimir Putin.

On the 21

st

of November local journalist, Mr

Dmitry Shalayev was killed in Kazan, Russia.

On the next years, authority of Col. Vladimir

Putin was so strong, that he did not have to be afraid of
opposition. In media rarely appear now plunged relations
with the Chechen war, rarely they were also shown on
the West of Europe and in USA, because more powerful
Russia of Col. Putin became once again equal both for
European superpowers, as for the USA.

In this time critics of president Col. Vladimir

Putin decreased radically in Russian media. Probably that
is why also a number of journalist’s murder was
permanently decreasing, but it was still rather high.

On the 7

th

of January 2003 Mr Vladimir

Sukhomlin, Moscow editor, journalist and blogger had
been killed by a contract killer, under very unclear
circumstances.

On the 11

th

of January in Moscow had been killed

a sport commentator and journalist. We can say that it
certainly was not a political murder, in contrast to farther
murders, including one, that took place on the 18

th

April,

when Mr Dmitry Shvets, publisher, editor and deputy
director of independent, whose TV station TV-21 had
received a multiple threats for its reporting on
influential local politicians
in Northwestern Russia.

Before him on the 21

st

February 2003, Mr Sergei

Verbitsky, a publisher was murdered.

background image

On the 3

rd

of July in Moscow very well-know

journalist, politician, publisher and editor, Mr Yuri
Shchekochikhin, probably was murdered, before his
travel to the USA. He suddenly suffered on an
anaphylactic shock, due to unexplained allergic reaction.
He was investigation scandals in FSS (ex-KGB), where
Col. Putin had been the head time before. Mr Yuri
Shchekochikhin was a deputy editor in Novaya Gazeta,
Moscow, where inter alia Mrs. Anna Politkovskaya had
been working.

On the 4

th

of July journalist with French agency,

Mr Ali Astamirov, missed in Nazran, probably kidnapped
and killed.

On the 18

th

of July 2003 Mr Alikhan Guliyev,

freelance TV worker, showing the problems of
Ingushetia Republic, Russia, was murdered in Moscow.

On the 10

th

of August, Mr Martin Kraus was

murdered, when he had been travelling to Chechnya.

This year, during summer holiday Russian press

seemed to be very calm and polite – please notice that for
month any journalist did not killed.

Only on the 9

th

of October, a journalist who had

been shot about one year earlier died in a hospital. Then
on the 24

th

of October Mr Alexei Bakhtin,

businessperson, former journalist was murdered.

After a first two years of dominance in Russia,

Col. Putin became as strong as he could be called, a
dictator. This former secret service head, in a very short
time subordinated himself whole the state apparatus,
including judicature, media, interior, secret service,
military power, local administration and diplomatic

background image

services. There were nearly no opposition, like in
Western democratic countries, and lack independent
business.

The most characteristic example of Col. Putin

politics concerning private business was a case of Mr
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, at one time the richest person in
Russia and one of the 16 wealthiest people in the world, a
philanthropist. He repeatedly criticized Col. Putin’s
politics. On the 25

th

of October 2003, he was charged in

very controversial process in May of 2008 proclaimed
guilty of frauds concerning privatization. Please notice,
that in Russia privatization processes are regulated by
central authorities, that is why this type unilateral process
could have only political basis and can be only a kind of
retribution.

When he was under arrest this situation had

forced Mr Khodorkovsky to declaim function of CEO in
his own company Yukos, 3 years later this oil
corporation became bankrupt. Mr Khodorkovsky is
currently doing draconic porridge of 8 years in boot
camp, central Siberia. Mr Khodorkovsky can feel very
lucky, because - although Putin’s judgment of
condemnation send him to a kind of concentration camp,
relict of Soviet Union, well known by Western reader
fascinating book “The Gulag Archipelago” of Mr
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn – he is still alive. Thousands of
another people did not have such chance.

Murders of journalists did not ever stop even for a

long while, but temporarily there was nobody to kill.

On the 30

th

of October, however died Mr Yury

Burgov, a journalist and long time after on the 25

th

of

December 2003 Mr Pyotr Bebenko, but they, although

background image

murdered were rather only local than political-involved
pressmen.

On the 1

st

of February 2004, Mr Yerim Sukhanov,

died in Archangielsk.

Farther on the 23

rd

of March probably, a camera

operator Mr Farit Urazbayev.

On the 2

nd

of May 2004, died in a homicide

journalist Shangysh Mongush.

On the 9

th

of May died Chechen President Mr

Amhat Kadyrov, who was assassinated in a stadium in
Grozny, Chechnya during a Victory Day (anniversary of
the end of World War II), as a result of the explosion
explosives hidden in the VIP tribune. Mr Kadyrov’s die
absorbed Col. Putin and Russian authorities with
situation in Chechnya (Kadyrov was supported by Col.
Putin, was the Russian Federation Gold Star Hero), that
is why a number of journalists killed in Russia was
decreasing, disturbance in Chechnya and Caucasus was
that time increasing, and few month later led to a tragedy.

Before the most tragic attack in history of Russian

Federation and a short time after the attack, when
Russian authorities were absorbed situation in separatist
republics, not many journalist ware dying, but much of
they can be described as real Kremlin enemies .

On the 9

th

of June Mr Paul Klebnikov, famous

journalist, editor-in-chef of newly established Forbs,
Russia was killed by a contract killer in Moscow.

On the 1

st

of July 2004 in St. Petersburg was

killed Mr Maxim Maximov, whose body has never been
found.

On 17

th

of July 2004 Mr Pail Peloyan, editor from

Moscow was murdered.

background image

On the 3

rd

of August 2004, a journalist and writer,

Cossack nationalist, was killed near Moscow.

24

th

of August 2004 Mrs. Svetlana Shishkina, a

journalist from Kazan, Tatarstan died in a homicide.

Nevertheless, the 24

th

of April was much more

tragic – on the night 90 people died in two serious air
disaster cased by a terrorist attack.

At 22:40, a Tupolev-154B-2 of Sibir Airlines took

off Moscow-Domodedovo (UUDD/DME) for a flight to
Sochi-Adler, Russia (URSS/AER), with 46 people on the
board.

A high explosive material hexogen (RDX) was

detected in crashed Tupolev.

Air disaster took place, in the same time with a

Volga-Aviaexpress Tupolev 134, which departed
Domodedovo 10 minutes earlier. According to FSF, “It
appeared that the explosives had been carried aboard by
a female passenger. Two female suicide bombers arrived
at Moscow at 19:45 on the same day on a flight from
Makhachkala in the company of another two Chechens.
They had taken aside on arrival and were handed to a
police captain in charge of antiterrorist precautions, but
they were released without apparently having been
searched. After bribing a Sibir Airlines employee in
charge of check-in and boarding one of the women was
able to bypass security and get on board the Tu-154.”

Please notice that terrorists had not any problem

with getting into the board of two aircraft. Please also
notice that miraculously both aircraft crashed at the same
time – at 22:53, although nothing indicates, that
explosive materials could be fire directly, because places

background image

of catastrophes occur far each other and hundredths of
kilometres from departure airport.

This is not a place to accuse anybody, but due to

these accidents Col. Putin’s Russia got a pretext to
increase tempo of operations in Chechnya, where
situation became as hot as a boric acid, when it is boiled
in a test glass.

On the 1

st

of September 2004, as every year in

inter alia Russian schools, a school season started. It was
not only a time of education re-starting, but also a
massacre in Beslan, North Osetia, a breakaway region of
Russian Federation. Terrorist commando was a part of
forces of Chechen cacique, and now field warlord, Mr
Shamil Salmanovich Basayev aka Abdullah Shamil Abu-
Idris. It is rather unbelievable to this attack be inspirited
by Russian Authorities of Col. Putin, but as reprehensible
in the light of international humanitarian law and human
rights should be described government forces action,
which bring to children rather death, than freedom.

Assault was carried out by the same troops, those

two years earlier in Dobrovka, Moscow. Nevertheless,
this time they did not use combat gas, but rocket flame-
throwers type Shmel, according to Mr Nikolai Shepel,
deputy attorney general of Russian Federation. However,
Mr Shepel noted, that not fire, but reek missiles were
used.

All the same – it does not change the fact, that

due to the Russian commando about 380 people
(including 156-180 children) had been at least killed.
Farther 700 people had been injured. Please conversely
notice, that about 200 people, in most children were
considered as missing, their fate is still not clear, that is

background image

why a number of killed people could be much higher.
Seeing the fact, there number of victims in Dobrovka,
Moscow (2002) had been being undercut, there is no
indication, that such practices did not be carried out in
forgotten by God and people Osetia, situated about 1200
miles from Moscow.

In this place it is necessary to signalize, that both

after attack in Dobrovka, as in Beslan there was a huge
disinformation campaign carried out in Russian media, in
order to conceal some of the circumstances and to
understate number of the victims.

During action in Dobrovka, Mrs. Anna

Politkovskaya, independent journalist tried to not allow
on bloodshed, playing the role of negotiator. Although it
was permitted for her in Moscow, during a flight to
Beslan she was poisoned on a board, probably drinking
tea. However, in contrast to Mr Litvinenko did not die,
because the tea was not radioactive, but was "only"
hospitalized. However, her hours were already numbered
that time.

Attack in Beslan became a pretext for Col.

Vladimir Putin to disclose plans of his reforms, aiming
radical strengthening of president’s power in Russia,
especially concerning internal and defense politics. He
announced that procedure of Parliament elections would
be changed, as well as president will nominate governors,
instead of democratic elections. Please notice, that Col.
Putin probably tried to exploit tragedy to increase his
own competence.

Then on the 18

th

of September 2004, Mr Vladimir

Prithin, TV journalist and editor was murdered.

background image

Year 2005 was one of the calmest of the Col.

Putin’s Era, concerning murders of journalists. Reasons
are plural. The vast majority of Col. Putin’s critics in
media already left Russia or they were killed.
Alternatively, they bent under the pressure of punishable
threats (in contrast to Mrs. Politkovskaya) and ceased to
write critically about Col. Putin.

Nearly nobody had this time courage to still

criticize Col. Putin. That is why number of murders
decreased radically.

Moreover, only a few criticizing journalists still

remain working and alive. That is why protection of the
Committee to Protect Journalists became effective.
Marginalized, did not be formidable for Russian
president.

On the 23

rd

of May – Mr Pavel Makayev, reporter

from Rostov-on-Don was killed, but not due to political
essays, but probably photographing night street racing,
organized by Russian mafia.

On the 28

th

of July an exception was made –

politician journalist from Dagestan, Mr Magomed
Varisov was executed near his house. He had received
threats before murder. He died and the case is still not
clearly explained despite of engagement of the
Committee to Protect Journalists.

On the 31

st

of August 2005 a journalist, Mr

Alexander Piterky had been murdered. Three days after
this time another journalist, Mr Vladimir Pashutin, of
Smolensk was probably murdered.

This year only Mrs. Kira Lezhneva, a reporter

died in a homicide.

background image

On the 8

th

of January 2006 Mr Vagif Kochetkov,

press worker of Trud was killed.

On the 26

th

of February Mr. Ilia Zimin, NTV

Russia journalist, was murdered in his flat in Moscow.

On the 4

th

of May, Mrs. Oksana Teslo, a journalist

died, after her summerhouse near Moscow went up in
flames, in was a homicide.

On the 14

th

of May, Mr Oleg Barabyshkin,

director of radio station in Chelabynsk was murdered.

On the 23

rd

of May, Mr Vyacheslav Akatov,

reporter of Business Moscow TV was murdered.

On the 25

th

of June, a camera operator Mr Anron

Kretenchuk was murdered in Rostov-on-Don.

On the 25

th

of July a journalist, Mr Yevgeny

Gerasimeko was murdered.

On the 31

st

of July Mr Anatoly Kozulin, a retired

freelance journalist died in a homicide.

On the 8

th

of August 2006 Mr Alexander Petrov,

editor-in-chef a magazine in Omsk was murdered with
his family, during his holiday near Altai, Russia

On the 17

th

of August 2006, Mrs. Elina

Ersenoyeva, Chechen press reporter, missed in Grozny,
Chechnya.

On the 13

th

of September 2006 Mr Vyacheslav

Plotnikov, of local TV in Voronezh was probably
murdered.

On the 7

th

of October 2006 in an elevator of her

house in Moscow, was murdered by a contract killers,
Mrs. Anna Politkovskaya, a freelance, political journalist,
human rights worker and famous writer, author of inter
alia bestsellers A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in
Chechnya
(2001) and Putin’s Russia (2004). She died on

background image

a birthday of Russian president, Col. Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin, people knowing her agree – Col.
Putin could not get a better gift.

(loiko-photo.com)
Mrs. Anna Politkovskaya openly criticized Col. Putin.
She
probably did not have any other enemies. To this day we
do
not know who truly contracted murderers.


On the 16

th

of October Mr Anatoly Voronin,

ITAR-TASS agency Moscow, was murdered.

On the 28

th

of December 2006 Mr Vadim

Kuznetsov, editor-in-chief of a magazine in Saint
Petersburg was also murdered. This was the last
confirmed journalist murdered in Russia in 2006.

background image

We cannot say that a power of Putin decreased,

but it was a time when his cadence was coming to the
end. Nobody had known than, what vision of Russia
would show the present, leaving his office. Constitution
prohibits being a president in Russia longer, then two
cadencies, but in contrast to many democratic countries
after one cadence gap, Col. Putin can come back.

Than nobody knew if Col. Putin will have been

retired, make a cadence gap of politics or will try to
change constitution?

Finally, he settled on Kremlin, his subordinated

inferior from the government, Mr Dmitry Anatolevich
Medvedev.


Mr Dmitry Medvedev

www.medvedev.kremlin.ru


(All the data above from

http://journalists-

in-russia.org/journalists/index/

)

Three days after the catastrophe, most of commentators
and press agencies claimed that catastrophe was an
assassination planed by Col. Vladimir Putin. Israeli press
recalls (please notice that truthfully), that Mr Kaczynski
was allegedly hated by Kremlin, for his anti-Russian
views.
On the 12

th

of April 2010 (two days after

Smolensk Air Disaster) Ha’aretz wrote that Russia’s
solidarity with the Polish people about the Smolensk
tragedy was ostensible.

It is clearly visible, that all the Hebrew-language

newspapers repeatedly described Mr Kaczynski’s anti-

background image

Russian foreign policy and that he was one of most
reliable allies of USA.

Please notice, that Mr Kaczynski actively

supported Ukrainian president, Mr Viktor Yushchenko
and Georgian leader Mr Mikhail Saakashvili in their
conflicts with Col. Putin’s administration.



Control
panel of
anty-
aircraft
rocket
launcher
Grom.
These
Polish

launchers were delivered to Georgia during their military
conflict with Russia, on request of Mr Lech Kaczynski.
Grom can be spaced in only 15s, and is able to kill
supersonic aircraft.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/
b/bb/MSPO2007-09.jpg/300px-MSPO2007-09.jpg

Ha’aretz was very surprised, words of ambassador

of Republic of Poland, Mrs. Aganeshka Magdzyak-
Mishevskoy (Polish writing: Angnieszka Magdziak-
Miszewska), who stated: “I’m truly surprised the
international press speculates such allegations, but in
Poland nobody believes in a conspiracy theory nor

background image

accuses Russia for what happened.” The full interview
was published by Ha’aretz April 12

th

. She stated that she

believed in Medvedev and Putin’s sincerity when they
spoke about their grief for the disaster victims.

The first channel to mention the possibility of

Putin’s involvement was the second ITV channel.
“Kaczynski was a toreador’s red muleta for Putin and
Medvedev” said the international news department editor
Arad Nir, on the 10

th

of April in the evening.

A day after Mr Kaczynski death, on the 11

th

of

April the printed press heavily speculated conspiracy
theories. “The Polish, who are used to be surrounded by
enemies, can hardly believe that their political and
military elite disappeared as a result of an accident
caused by a tragic set of circumstances, technical failures
and human mistakes” wrote Yediot Ahronot paper.

Maariv, stated as following: “The smell of

elimination. (…) Moscow promised to investigate, and
Putin became the chief of the inquiry commission, but it’s
less than probable the truth will be unveiled”
.
According to the political analyst, Mr Ynet Atila
Somfalvi, Mr Kaczynski “could never bear with Russians
and now they are the main suspects”.

Even religious papers, for example Be-Hadrei

Haredim, rarely interested in the international politics, in
very characteristic, balanced tone suggested, that: “It’s
possible that Russia and its leaders, who, saying the least,
didn’t actually like Kaczynski, are responsible for his
death.”

Radio Reshet Bet aired a talk show with many

journalists and analysts debating the true causes of

background image

plane’s crash. Most of them accused Putin of being
involved in Kaczynski’s death.

According to Mr Gene Poteat, retired CIA officer:

(http://www.charlestonmercury.com/articles/2010/06/15/
news/doc4c17d3f5734b3292394378.txt)

However, this is a perfect place to explain one

think. Listing the journalists killed in Russia was not
however a way to mention Col. Putin as the guilty or as
the only guilty. It was necessary to show what current
situation in Russia is and how similar it is to Soviet
Union. We can believe that Russian Federation became a
Western civilization country. We can also compare Col.
Putin to Mr Stalin, as above. But the real truth is only one
– Russia is specific country and it is a great error to
observe it, just like the Great Britain, a country of low,
peace and thousands year of cultural tradition. We cannot
also look at Russia through the prism of Soviet Union,
and the thousands of people die every day. We can only
look at Russia only just like at Russia. A country with
pseudo-democratic system, so with free elections, just
like in Great Britain, but also with no any real opposition
just like Soviet Union. The country where foreign
journalists can work, just like in Great Britain, but where
nobody can feel safety - like in Soviet Union. Also
thinking about Putin’s Russia, we cannot live behind
tragedies in Beslan, Dobrovka on the Kursk, where
hundreds of people died as a fault of governing and their
services, as well as their inconceivable ruthlessness.

Please also notice, that after tragedies in Beslan,

Dobrovka, on Kursk, the head of Russian commission,
the only commission became Col. Putin. Completely just,

background image

like after the catastrophe of Polish aircraft. The head of
Russian commission is also Col. Putin.

Dishonesty of Russian investigation institutions,

including Putin’s commission, MAK (with self-styled
Polish representative Col. Edmund Klich), prosecution is
clearly visible. That is why it is sure, that their work will
not improve the flight safety.

That is why the only possible way to improve

flight security with not counting on Russian institutions
is a careful consideration of all possible cases and
factors. Technical, men and organizational factors, as
well as a criminal (terrorism) act will be considered.
Nevertheless, before it will be possible to analyze them
objectivity it is necessary to ask on one question: qui
bono. Who benefited? Polish government, Gazprom, Col.
Putin, great Russian nation with 1000 years of history or
maybe for example Burkina Faso African republic secret
military intelligence? Qui bono?

This question is also complex, because to answer

on it, all the VIP-s on the board have to be included, but
in the light of their relations with the forces, able to case
the air disaster, which was very, very simple. Excluding
God, Allah and Jack the Ripper, only Polish and Russian
governments, as well as the terrorists should be
contemplated. Terrorist attack’s probability is however
very low, due to extremely low possibility of bombing
attack (aircraft was under the special care of security
services and soldiers) as well as lack of explosion and
lack of sign of downing by a surface to air missile.
Terrorists also have to have great problem with eventual
sabotage – they never used this method. Of course, they
also never before had used a method, they carried out

background image

attack on the 11

th

of September, but any terrorists did not

have a motive. The only beneficent could be Russian and
Polish governments or other unknown
organizations/forces. For example Mr Witold S.
Michalowski (pipeline designer, engineer, editor
journalist, author of books concerning international
politics, pipeline designing and petroleum industry, chef
designer of pipelines in Nigeria and Canada, as well as
petroleum and pipe installation in Iran, Iraq, Libya, weld
technology author for the biggest European pipeline)
indicates, that potential guilty of the catastrophe could be
Russian international concern Gazprom. “Global
business syndicates are able to do everything, as
evidences history”
. Mr Michalowski, one of the best
Siberia experts, recalls during Russian attack aircraft
operation, he was a witness, when two Sukhoi aircraft
attacked a group of Chechen children by combat
weapons.

According to Mr Michalowski also gen. Lebied,

Putin’s opponent could be murdered, because probably
the crew of his helicopter was not familiar with terrain,
received error flight charts, using which they should
contact energetic line, in a fog appearing every day, that
valley. Moreover, according to Mr Michalowski before
the crash a grave in Moscow, huge crucifix and
thousands of flowers were ready to bless Lebied. There
were probably, according to Mr Michalowski another
factors indicates, that that was a murder in mountains of
Krasnoyarsk – Gen. Lebied entered ambulance on his
own, well-being, but get hospital in critical condition
somehow. Moreover, local journalists investigating that

background image

air disaster were changed and send aboard, just after had
started their private investigation.

Mr Michalowski however is very cautious with

indicating guilty of Lebied’s crash, as well as Smolensk
air disaster – he only lists the facts.

However Mr Miroslaw Kuleba (journalist,

reporter, essayist, absolvent of infrastructural engineering
faculty, correspondent during Abkhazian War 1992-
1993, Yugoslavian Conflict 1993 and 1

st

Chechen

Conflict 1994-1996, as well as 2

nd

Chechen conflict

1999, author of 11 books concerning war and Russian
internal politics aspects) states, that the aircraft of Mr
Kaczynski could be downed for example by Shmel
rocket weapon.

Results of preliminary expertises published by

Russian commission, examining catastrophe of
presidential Tupolev, excluded so to say 'a priori' and
indisputably a possibility of explosion on the board of the
aircraft. However the character of damages, that the
fuselage of presidential Tu-154 suffered with, kind of
injuries to victims of the catastrophe and some
significant details, concerning preservation conditions of
objects found directly near the bodies draws myself
picture, well known for mi from Russo-Chechen war, I
saw as a journalists working with several Polish
redactions

During the first war in Chechnya in 1994-1996

years, I spend among the Chechen fighters nearly 9
month and I got to know many types of Russian weapons
used by them.

Nearly every warrior had on personal equipment

one shot, personal anti-tank rocket launcher RPG-18

background image

“Fly” or RPG-22 “Netto”, or similar to them, also put in
short composite pipe rocket flame-thrower “Shmel”.

A weapon with Russian name RPO-A (rakhtivnyi

protivotankhovyi ogniemiot) “Shmel”, another words
rocket flame-thrower, calibre 93mm is difficult to be
classified. It as the most looks like one-shot anti-tank
rocket launcher, because from plastic container it
launches on a distance of several hounded meters not a
fire stream, how could suggest name, but a capsule with
thermo-baric missile (in other terminology volumetric). A
rule of Shmel’s missile is however similar to an effect
used in vacuum bombs: during explosion impulse of the
extremely high temperature is joined by enormous
pressure drop, destroying all alive power on the surface
of 50-80 square meters. During a hit of the capsule into a
panzer vehicle BVP, machine simply turns upside down
and burns along with the crew.

Shmel appeared extreme efficient weapon in fight

with Russian tanks and panzer vehicles. Effects of its
work whole world saw during a tragedy in Beslan:
Russian commandos used thermo-baric missiles in action
of recapturing of the children massed in school.

It exactly cased unimaginable massacre. Empty

Shmel containers were found on the roofs of the building
surrounding the school of which fire had been conducted.

Nota bene – using of “Shmels” in such action

discloses intense of the side used this murderous gun:
they were going to be as many victims, as it was possible.

Let's now come back to the wreckage of the

presidential Tu-154. Underlined is unintelligible
“disappearing” of passenger saloon, difficult in

background image

explanation dismembered of whole fuselage section
between the cockpit and a tail.

Well, such effect is impossible in a falling down of

the machine from and altitude of barely several meters
and little speed, had not to be cased by an internal
explosion, leaving very characteristic traces in sheathing
of the aircraft.

The same effect is able to be reached during

detonating of thermo-baric capsule outside the fuselage.

In such situation aircraft, which will be inside the

vacuum formed by an explosion of fuel mixture, will be
destroyed under force of inside pressure in hermetic
board.

This kind of explosion would have as destruction

influence on passengers’ bodies. This is the essence of
the conception on which design of this weapon is based:
in a vacuum from the sprayed and detonated airborne
fuel, which burn consumes all the oxygen on the area and
forms vacuum, peoples’ bodies are parted into shreds,
due to natural interior pressure.

Identical effect brings for example decompression

of astronaut’s suit during space walk in vacuum.

One of the Chechen warriors told me about

situation in house hit by Shmel, which he finds as the
most terrible reminiscence of the war. He found
apparently undisturbed cradle with sleeping baby inside.
When he took the baby from the cover, body of the child
came to bits in his hands.

What important – the aircraft did not have to be

hit by thermo-baric weapon, which would leave traces on
the metal elements of sheathing.

background image

Every such missile has its own auto-destroying,

activating after reaching of set distance. Detonation
could happened in a distance of even over a dozen meters
to the fuselage.

Intact would be objects, for example inside the

pockets of victim’s clothes, covered of high temperature
direct influence.

More and more details of the catastrophe indicate

suspicion of precision assassination conduction to kill
head of state.

Gloomy and possible scenario takes a shape:

various instruments to lead the catastrophe, and after the
pilot had taken hopeless attempt of leaving the deadly
trap, when the manoeuvre of re-ascent – he was hit by
rocket. It did not have to be a capsule of Shmel; it could
be stronger thermo-baric missile, with the same base of
action. It could be made on base of aviation fuel, to erase
traces of manslaughter. However cannot be removed
completely. If criminal scenario really took place, the
specialists should perform inspection of wreckage
remains again, with assumption of out of the fuselage
explosion and vacuum effect force.

Maybe targeted is exhumation and medical re-

examination of the victims’ bodies. Or maybe the answer
is on the satellite photos from the time of the accident,
still undisclosed.


Mr Kuleba reasoning is very interesting because:

1. The medical examinations of 95 bodies

had been performed without Polish
representatives by Russians.
(

http://www.bibula.com/?p=21036

)

background image

2. Medical examinations results are still

unavailable for Poland.
(

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-lech-

kaczynski-nie-zyje-2/kaczynski-
fakty/news-piotr-schramm-dziwi-mnie-
brak-protokolow-z-sekcji-
zwlok,nId,293435

)

3. In official preliminary report MAK stated,

that there was 100g force pressuring the
bodies, impossible to act during terrain
impact. (see:

www.MAK.ru

)

4. The uniforms of the generals in contrast to

the bodies survived the air disaster.
(

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?da

t=20100807&typ=po&id=po01.txt

)


According to Dr. Tadeusz Augustynowicz, former

LOT Polish Airlines and Air Force, military co-ordinator
of airfields in Kabul (Afghanistan) and Prague (Czech
Republic), former manager at London Heathrow Airport
there is a high possibility to be statement of Mr Kuleba
truth:

1. The aircraft wreckage is still kept by Russians.
2. The wreckage is not currently under examination

– it is deteriorating under outdoor, under
influence of water drops, wind and under
security of a soldier with gun.

3. Recording from the Air Traffic Control tower, as

well as Cockpit Voice Recorder of Russian Air
Force Ilyushin Il-76M transport aircraft are
ignored and top secret.

background image

4. There is still no even real time of the air disaster

– there is only Russian-stated time of recording
end- the recording which is somehow 1/3 longer
then normally. This time is completely conflicted
with time of energetic line cut as well as gen.
Blasik’s watch stop.

5. Polish side did not receive black boxes.
6. All the international procedures concerning

black boxes had been broken by MAK.

7. Black boxes before by the first time copied for

Poland had been put in the safe of Gen. Anodina
and protected only by… paper seal.

8. Fragments of bodies have been finding by people

months after the catastrophe on the unprotected
scene.

9. Polish prosecution burned received from Russia

wears and uniforms.

According to Mr Michalowski very possible

motive was a sense of so-called Naimski’s report –
analyse sent to Mr Lech Kaczynski in half of March,
prepared by a group of international-known experts with
former minister Mr Piotr Naimski as a head.

Naimski indicated, that works of Mr Tusk’s

government as well as Gazprom policy is going to
subordinate Poland of Russian energy to 2037, to make
Gazprom a monopolist in Central Europe gas market,
remit USD milliard Gazprom debt to Poland, as well as
to be Russian gas transfer through Poland… free.

Kaczynski could only state, that a group of

experts lead by ex-minister is a bunch of idiots or take
some action.
– stated Mr Michalowski. However, under

background image

rules of count Bronislaw Komorowski, current president
of Republic of Poland, Poland signed unprofitable and
dangerous gas contract for 27 years. Count Komorowski
is friend of Prime Minister Mr Tusk and member of his
party, political opponent of late Mr Kaczynski.

According to Czech journalist, Mr Karel Penkava:

1. Some of disclosed facts just after the

tragedy with part of presidential plane
induce serious doubts concerning
Russians readiness and desire to co-
operation.

2. Fragments and conversations of PLF-101

with ATC, quoted by PLF-044 crew are
somehow not present in PLF-101 after
crash black box CVR recording
transcripts, received by Polish
government from Russia.


However, the article of Mr Penkava is perfect

continuation of the preface of this publication, when a
serious of Russian manslaughter had been listed.

Mr Penkava states, that many people directly

connected with the air disaster of the air disaster died,
including:

1. Professor Marek Dulinicz – chef of Polish

archaeologists expeditions, who were going to
examine the scene of the air disaster to check
weather some parts of the aircraft and bodies are
still present there. Archaeologists did not go
Smolensk.

2. Krzysztof Knyż – Polish journalist, a

correspondent and operator working in Russia.

background image

3. Mieczyslaw Cieślar – new Polish protestants

leader (a protestant bishop Col. Adam Pilch died
in Smolensk)

To the black series described by Mr Penkava also

one murder should be add – author of movie showing
aircraft’s wreckage woman voice and shots just after the
catastrophe had been killed.

Russians dissidents group extended an open letter,

concerning Smolensk air disaster.

Several hundred thousand people already know

from the internet proclamation for the Russians, in which
Polish presidential candidate, Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski
was able to express honestly and cordially acknowledge
those Russians, who in the most difficult for both our
nations time, shown Polish sympathy and help.

Russian authorities did not consider it

appropriate to publish text of the proclamation or answer
it. By the silence they evidenced, that all their official
word an sympathy expressions by the reason of tragic
death of president Kaczynski and accompanying him
group of people, were only empty formality and came up
not from honest heart (like some of us wanted to believe),
but due to clearly passing reasoning. Unfortunately, that
is nothing weird.

However we are surprised and seriously afraid

the investigation conduction, which had to explain
circumstances and cased of the Tu-154 catastrophe near
Smolensk. Na impression, that Russian authorities are
not interested in explaining of all the catastrophe cases

background image

appear, and Polish authorities repeat ensuring of
Russian side full opening , nothing in fact demanding and
only waiting patiently for the materials promised by
Moscow.

It is difficult to get rid of the impression that for

the Polish government closeness to the current Russian
authorities is more important than establishing the truth
in one of the biggest national tragedy.

It seems that Polish friends have a certain naive,

forgetting that the interests of the current leadership in
the Kremlin and Russia's neighboring nations countries
are not convergent each other.

We are concerned that in a similar situation the

Polish independence as today, as tomorrow it may be
seriously threatened. We hope that Polish citizens
appreciating their freedom are able to protect it. Also in
upcoming voting.

Mr Victor Feinberg (dissident, opponent during

Czechoslovakian intervention)

Mr Alexander Bondariev (journalist and translator)

Mr Vladimir Bukovskyi (dissident of Soviet Union and

Putin’s Russia)

Mrs. Natalia Gorbanevskaya (pro-democratic activist)

Andrei Illarinov (former Putin’s advisor, now

oppositionist, economist)

The only notable international reaction is proposal

of United States Congressman, Mr Peter King, to be an
international commission founding requested by US
Congress.

http://www.redakcja.newsweek.pl/Tekst/Swiat/537840,K

background image

ongresmen-peter-king-chce-miedzynarodowego-
sledztwa-ws-smolenska.html


Mr Peter King requests to establish international

investigation to examine cases of the air disaster.

1.3 The motive


Background section can indicate mistakenly that

only the journalists are murdered regularly in
manslaughters in Russia.

Last several years evidence perfectly authenticy

of old saying assigned for Joseph Stalin: “One killed is
tragedy, millions of killed is a statistic”.

In the millions also presidents are included, for

example president of Ukraine, Mr Victor Yushchenko,
who only by a miracle maintained live, democratic and
anty-Russian politician, who had been poisoned in 2004.

According to Dr. Michael Zimpfer of

Rudolfinerhaus clinical tests evidenced that dioxins had
been used in murder attempt.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S01406736096
09120

Also Dr. John Henry, toxicologist with London

St. Mary’s Hospital indicated dioxins in his analyzes.

Please however notice, that due to natural links,

based on thousand years of history without own country,
and millions of people living in diasporas all over the
world, as the best informed in the world must be fingered
the Israeli press.

background image

Israeli people, not only are the best informed, but

also, due to their temperament respond the most quickly
and do never beat around the bush.

In contrast to press in Great Britain, Poland or

Canada, Israeli press does not believe the Russian and
authorities of Col. Vladimir Putin.

According to Israeli press, Smolensk Air Disaster

is a typical Kremlin assassination.

Ha’aretz, which is probably the best newspaper in

Israel (Israeli press would be perfect if only not so
expensive), wrote, also, “Few hours after the accident,
conspiracy theories about Putin’s involvement, based on
his tensioned relationship with Kaczynski, spread
throughout Poland”.
(http://www.jurnal.md/en/news/israeli-press-accuses-
putin-of-kaczynski-s-elimination-184453/)

“The trip to Smolensk was expected to highlight

Russia

finally admitting culpability in the massacre, after

long having blamed it on the Germans, an atrocity they
had tried to conceal for over 70 years. As for the
reception committee, it had different ideas.

Putin

wasn’t

looking forward to such an occasion. Included in this
poisonous reception brew was President Kaczynski’s
well-known public criticism of Moscow and

Putin

, a habit

that has ended the lives of others within

Russia

— and

abroad. A few discouraging Russian requirements —
such as that Kaczynski could not attend in any official
capacity — did not halt the

Poles

. Kaczynski would go

anyway on non-official, “personal” business. To

background image

Russians, such a distinction would be meaningless, not
lessening the possible international excoriation of such
an event. A

problem

ripe for a modern, Russian solution:

a tragic, “natural” accident.

Yes. The airplane crashed at 8:41 a.m. Moscow time,
April 10, on its final approach to the Smolensk airport, in
bad weather, killing all 96 people on board. Practically
everyone in

Poland

, and many others around the world,

strongly suspected that

Russia

, especially

Putin

, must

have had a hand in the crash. Not an unusual claim since
the same accusations followed the poisoning and/or
mysterious “natural” deaths of

Putin

critics: Anna

Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, among others.”

(

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/2,484507.html

)

President Mr Lech Kaczynski had been elected

as a president in 2005, defeating Donald Tusk (now a
prime minister).
(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612843.stm

). That time also

his brother Jaroslaw Kaczynski had won parliamentary
voting and formed a new government. According to
United States Congress Research Centre analytic, Mr
Carl Ek the presidency and prime minister's
post are held by Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, identical
twin brothers who have increasingly consolidated their
power. Their government's nationalist policies have
caused controversy domestically, in both the political and
economic arenas, and in foreign relations as well.
Relations with some neighbouring states and the

background image

European Union have been strained at times, but ties with
the United States have not undergone significant change.
Some observers believe that a recent dispute within the
coalition may spark early elections.

This was a time of warming in Polish-America

relations. However also the time of great dissatisfaction
of Russian authorities and Col. Putin. The reason was
simple - natural Russian aversion to United States, based
especially on the Cold War experiences, when Col. Putin
had been working in KGB. The dissatisfaction however
comes also from 800 years of history of Russian
aspiration to concerning Poland and Central Europe.

According to Mr Gene Poteat:

The crash of the plane wiped out the cream of the top
officials who were behind the push to expose the secret
police files of past and current collaborators of both the
Polish and Soviet/Russian secret police. With these
people now dead, there is no political top cover
in

Poland

to continue this effort. This is exactly what

Putin

wanted. Prime Minister

Tusk

is a weak and

manipulability guy who hated the late Polish president.
The Russians now have their creature to work in place,
with no opposition from a strong anti-communist
president.
Policy-wise, the Russians saw our decision to grovel
before them (the “reset,” the giving up of ballistic missile
defense after we promised the Czechs and

Poles

, our

acquiescence to their activities in Georgia and

Ukraine

,

our begging for their non-help on Iran, et. al.) as a green

background image

light to do what they did with the plane crash. They
concluded we would say nothing — and we did not.
And what, if anything, can America do? Nothing. Our
plate is full with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a vast
ecological disaster unfolding in the Gulf, North Korea
starting the next war between the Koreas, and at home,
unrest over the illegal invasion of America by Latinos
hiding under the misapplied term of “immigrant,” a
failing economy, and other political tsunamis. Besides,
strategic utility isn’t reserved only for Turks. Aren’t the
Russians helping in America’s war on terrorism? That
means American outrage and concerns over the Polish
“accident” will have to be as hollow and toothless
as

Russia

’s “investigations” to solve the crash mystery.

The

Poles

, however, see this as Yalta II, i.e., another sell-

out by the U.S.

Poland

is seething over this; the Obamisti

may think this will fade away, but the

Poles

and the rest

of Central Europe know better. For them this is a
monumental betrayal.
Life — as is history — is unfair. The

Poles

are in the

same spot as the Armenians, the Somalis, the Tutsi, the
American Indians, the Incas, the Eskimos and others.
Crucial alliances trump acknowledgement of prior bad
acts. I ignore your genocides, you ignore mine. The
guilty get a free pass. Or, in the argot of modern TV
sitcoms: Nobody Talks, Everybody Walks. And then
there is the old KGB saying, “It is no accident, comrade!
There were so several people, could be called “enemies”
by Russia or Mr Tusk.

background image

According to Prof. Peter Cheremushkin, Moscow State
University, an expert in Polish-Russian relations
research, relations between modern Poland and Russia
suffer from constant difficulties.
(http://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RS22509.txt)

During last several years, thick dividing line is

visible between two independent Polish foreign relation
politics. First, of the Prime Minister, Mr Tusk, pro-
Russian and second of the President Mr Lech Kaczynski
anty-Russian.

There were some people, could be called

“enemies” by Russia or Mr Tusk.

Eventual motives analyses.

Person
(function)

For Donald Tusk

For Moscow

Lech Kaczynski

(president, law
professor)

-Political opponent
-Re-election
candidacy
-Independent
foreign politics
-Knowledge about
contents of secret
annex to a report
describing Polish
military
intelligence
liquidation and
establishing new
secret service.
Former (WSI) was
establishing banks,

-Opponent in
international
politics
-Supporting
independence of
Ukraine
-Surviving
independence of
Georgia
-Supporting
Latvia in
conflict with
Russia
-Criticizing Col.
Putin
-Planes of

background image

political parties,
sponsoring mafia
and terrorists,
trading arms,
killing people. It is
possible, that the
annex blamed Mr
Tusk or member of
his party.
-After death
replaced by former
WSI supervisor (as
deputy defense
minister) count
Bronislaw
“Bronek”
Komorowski.

building
pipeline steer
clear of Russia
to Europe.
-Projects of
shale gas in
Poland and $
milliards tolls of
Gazprom.
-Requesting of
Russian files
concerning
Katyn Massacre
disclosing.

Slawomir
Skrzypek

(Head of
central bank,
economist)

-Independent from
the prime minister
Tusk (but also the
president) financial
politics.
-Prohibiting of
transferring his
bank’s profits to
central budget.
-Reluctance to
Euro money
(follower of British
monetary
arrangements)

-Opponent of
the Gazprom’s
dept remitting
by Polish
government.
-Replaced by
leftist and pro-
Russian
economist Mr
Marek Belka

Franciszek

-Agreed to

-Planes of

background image

Gagor

(Chef of
National Staff,
general,
military expert,
English
philologist)

liquidate WSI
-Very respectable
commander, fully
independent from
the defense
minister, due to his
authority.
-After had died
replaced by advisor
of the defense
minister.

NATO to be
Gagor NATO
military head.
-Knowledge
about NATO
secrets
-Secret
documents with.
-Not studying in
Russia or SU
-Replaced by
the men who
was studying in
Soviet Union

Janusz Kurtyka

(Chef of
National
Remembrance
Institute,
historian)

-Controversies
about his Institute
publications
concerning i.a.
political
environment of Mr
Tusk’s government
-Independence
from the
government.

-Going to
disclose files of
communistic
secret police,
shaming Russia,
operating these
data – kept in
archives of
GRU and have
influence on
Polish
politicians,
including Mr
Komorowski,
who was only
one member of
parliament
voting against

background image

liquidation of
WSI secret
service co-
operating with
Russian GRU.

Andrzej Blasik

-Nominated by Mr
Lech Kaczynski
-Nearly to be
dismissed by Mr
Klich, MD minister
of defense, but
according to
Gazeta Wyborcza
“protected” by
Kaczynski
-After died staff
com-out in PAF

-Graduated
studies in US,
replaced by the
man, who
graduated
studies in Soviet
Union

Andrzej
Karweta

(admiral of
fleet)

-Nominated by Mr
Lech Kaczynski

-Graduated

Royal College of
Defense Studies

in London,
-NATO
commander and
expert
(submarine
fighting and
mine clearance
aspects)
- Replaced by
the man who
inter alia studied
in Soviet Union

Tadeusz Buk

-High stage of

-NATO expert

background image


(general, land
forces
commander)

independence

and commander
of International
division in Iraq,
deputy
commander of
NATO
consolidated
forces training
centre, deputy
commander of

Combined
Security
Transition
Command

Afghanistan
CSTC-A

Mr Wladyslaw
Stasiak (head of
presidential
office)

-The most trusted
officer of Mr
Kaczynski

On the 26

th

of

March
organized anty-
Gazprom
seminar among
experts.



According to Dr. Witold Waszczykowski,

former deputy head of National Security Bureau, former
deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland and
ambassador of Poland in Teheran, Iran, there is a policy
of European expansion of Russia that Mr Kaczynski was
an opponent.

As stated by Mr Waszczykowski, Mr Sergei

Karaganov, head of Council of Foreign Politics
appointed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the

background image

Kremlin is promoting the idea of creating an union
between Russia and Europe.

http://rt.com/Interview/2008-10-
07/Interview_with_Sergey_Karaganov.html

According to him – Waszczykowski relates – it is the
only way for surviving of the Western Civilisation. This
demands to establish the “united forces of power”. The
OSCE (Organization of Security and Co-Operation in
Europe) is now holding the negotiation concerning this
matter on the isle of Corfu. President Medvedev and
minister Lavrov are the authors of this project.

http://www.radiomaryja.pl/artykuly.php?id=1073
42

On the 20

th

of August 2010 Mr Dmitry

Medvedev, President of Russian Federation stated, that
Russia reserved the key role in the region of Caucasus It
had signed an agreement with Armenian Republic for
prolongation the stay of Russian armed forces’ base in
this country (in Gyumri) up to 2044 year.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61780

Next agreement is to be signing with

Azerbaijan. Russia will sell them two complexes of S-
300 Favourite high-speed surface to air missiles. The S-
300 are already spaced in Abkhazia and South Osetia.
Russian Black Sea Navy at the Crimea, Ukraine,
quartered in Sevastopol and Novoryisk seaports will stay
to 2042.

http://www.ewi.info/sevastopol-europes-date-
history

Up to the 10

th

of April 2010 Mr Lech Kaczynski was the

only one, who crossed Russian path and opposed Russian
plans to realise the idea formulated by Mr Karaganov.
Mr Kaczynski had united the East and Middle Europe to
be independent from Russia.

background image

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/0
4/12/11839.shtml

Now Russian road to divide Europe on two is again
opened. The history repeats itself.

2.

Information process and investigation analyzes

2.1

Credibility of the investigation

In the international aviation experience, there were

thousands of catastrophes and air disasters. Only three
ultimate intercessions had been noticed – an error of
flyer, machine systems malfunction or a criminal act. No
catastrophe cased by pressure on pilots had been
noticed.

1

Nevertheless, leading Polish media seek only to

convince to public opinion a version assuming a pilot’s
error forced by Polish president Mr Lech Kaczynski,
who had to force landing in heavy fog. Any official or
credible evidence has not confirmed this version. It also
stands in complete contradiction with the Cockpit Voice
Recorder transcripts.

This version is very convenient both for the

government of Mr Donald Tusk

2

, in political opposition

to Mr Lech Kaczynski

3

, and for Russian Interstate

Aviation Committee (MAK) of Moscow, which
certified:

The aircraft’s designer

4

The aircraft

5

 Its renovation in Samara (2009)

6

background image

A facility were it was made

7

both facilities were it was renovated

8

a facility which overhauled the aircraft’s engines

9

a facility which overhauled the aircraft’s
hydraulics and Auxiliary Power Units

10

probably also an airfield

11

The average price of the MAK’s certificate rises about

$3.000.000

12

. For example by Joint Stock Company

Aviacor” Samara Aircraft Plant three another
certificates are held. This corporation carried out the
aircraft’s overhaul in December 2009, which entailed
series of serious defects (including “steerage block”
failure in January 2010 during a rescue operation on
Haiti, after tragic earthquake. The aircraft carried Polish
rescuers with rescue dogs and search equipment had a
defect during the mission at a stop in Puerto-Rico

13

).

This all brings MAK’s credibility to zero, because it is

responsible for the quality of the aircraft (facilities,
aerodromes, devices), that are certificated by MAK, but
moreover MAK certificates are so expensive, as can be
considered as a form of corruption.

14

Polish mainstream media not only force-out MAK’s

version, but also extend it by Mr Kaczynski’s pressure to
the pilots hypothesis. The actions of the media are likely
to be correlated with the activities of MAK (in particular,
with the sequence of next MAK’s reports)

15

. The

activities of newspapers, online portals, radio and
television is carried at the two stages:

1. Disinformation

16

. Transmission to the public

opinion many, each other conflicting
informations. Overwhelming public opinion

background image

thousands of pieces of information. Removing
the ability to understand events, and distractions
by different kind of hypotheses concerning rather
scenario, then causes of the air disaster.

2. Indoctrination of the pilot’s error version and

president’s Mr Lech Kaczynski (and Air Force
Commander-in-Chief Gen. Andrzej Blasik) role
in pressuring on the pilots to land in heavy fog.
Opinions and statements of experts are mainly
used to convince confused viewers much
differing from factual version of events.

These two items are nothing more than two stages of

brainwashing

17

, propaganda base. Not least, they are not

so separated from each other, as in the purely totalitarian
propaganda, because from the first minutes after the time
of accident, in public opinion, faith in assassination could
be noticed. Of course, to this day we do not know if it
was an attack or (failure is equally possible)

18

, but to

reduce public the tendencies to conspiracy theories

19

,

inculcation faze also has been introduced. Other words
beside disinformation, an official version, currently well
exhibited by Polish mainstream media had been
inculcated since the first minutes.

How to mistake the truth – brief instruction by Josef

Stalin

The disinformation is the best indication if in an affair

Russian intelligence had been taking part. The
disinformation was one of the biggest Russian weapons,
which make them able to easy defeat Germany in Europe
and Japan in Central Asia. Disinformation was the base

background image

of the propaganda, the only factor of interior, foreign,
social and ideological policy of Soviet Union. The
disinformation was also clearly visible during Russo-
Georgian war, conflict in Chechnya, several hundred
accidents in Russia, including terrorist attack in Moscow
underground, Nevsky Express attack, Bieslan school
assault, Dobrovka theatre special action, Kursk sinking,
but also foreign affairs – for example Mr Alexander
Litvinenko killed by Russian intelligence, because the
Polonium killed him travelled London from Moscow.

According to Mr James H. Fetzer, American professor

and conspiracy theories specialist, disinformation was an
inherent part of Mr John Fitzgerald Kennedy
assassination.

The subject of disinformation appears to be far more
deserving of study by members of the assassination
research community than it seems to have had in the
past. Disinformation involves the dissemination of
incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise misleading
information with the objective, goal, or aim of deceiving
others about the truth. Sometimes the source is
accurately acknowledged (this might be called "overt"
disinformation), but sometimes it is concealed by
providing no identification or by providing misleading
identification (call this "covert"). The quantity and
quality of disinformation may be difficult to judge, but it
should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying,
but where the motives that usually bring about lying (to
preserve a relationship, to conceal an affair, to secure a
loan, and such) are displaced by other, often political,
motives, aims, or goals. Because this subject has received

background image

so little attention, my purpose here in raising the issue is
to create
the opportunity for further discussion by advancing MY
OPINIONS in the hope of encouraging others to offer
their own views in order to promote theorizing about
disinformation.
Therefore cases of nearly all Soviet Union secret actions
indicate clearly that if it is not possible to cover an action
it should be prolonged by a disinformation process.
Another kind disinformation was a part of Kennedy
assassination. Consequentially analysing disinformation
after Kaczynski’s death it is possible to detect
assassination or Russian intelligence traces. However
please notice that both the traces are clearly visible on
common sense…

2.2

Just after the catastrophe

As far beck as the 10

th

of April (!) two-piece of such

information had been noticed:

1. Russian Member of Parliament (Duma) Mr

Vladimir Jirinovskiy: “A kind of role in the
catastrophe could play a stubbornness of
President of Republic of Poland”.

20

2.

Mr Waclaw Radziwinowicz, journalist of Polish

daily “Gazeta Wyborcza” (the biggest and the
most popular newspaper of Poland): „When the
Polish pilot refused landing in airport of Tibilisi,
referring to the extremely difficult conditions
Kaczynski shouted at him and threatened, and

background image

then was a big scandal that the pilot did not
comply with an order of the president. The pilot
was discarded from service and did not return
until the time of Prime Minister Tusk. Above
Smolensk could happened something like this!”

21

The sentence of Mr Waclaw Radziwinowicz (number 2)
is completely incompatible with the reality

22

:

 “Polish pilot refused landing at airport

in Tibilisi” – it is not truth. The situation
happened on the 12

th

of August 2008,

when Polish Air Force HQ and 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment
Commander Col. Tomasz Pietrzak did
not permitted Pilot-In-Command of
presidential aircraft, Capt. Grzegorz
Pietruczuk
to change flight destination
from Ganja, Azerbaijan, on Tibilisi,
Georgia as ordered Mr Kaczynski. Gen.
Krzysztof Załęski, PAF chef of staff
decided to permit only on flight to Ganja,
and then from Ganja to Tibilisi. President
Mr Lech Kaczynski finally decided to
travel from Ganja by car. During the visit
in Georgia unsuccessful attempt on the
Mr Kaczynski was noticed – his car was
probably shoted by a sniper

23

, near front

line (Chingvali, Georgia). At least two
shots were performed.

 “Referring to the extremely difficult

conditions” – that is also not truth.
Weather conditions over Tibilisi on the

background image

12

th

of August 2008 were very good. The

reasons of not making a flight directly to
Tibilisi were three: lack of diplomatic
permission from Georgia, lack of data
about the airport status after Russian
bombing and presence of Russian
fighters in the Georgian air space,
without friend-foe identification
receivers comparable with receivers
mounted on the board of presidential
aircraft.

24

 “Kaczynski shouted at him and

threatened” – that is also not truth. As it
was confirmed – Mr Kaczynski asked
the pilot “who is [constitutional] chef of
the armed forces?”
. Pilot-In-Command
replied: “You, Mr President”. “So please
do my request and fly to Tibilisi” –
Kaczynski ordered. Despite this the
flight directly to Tibilisi was not madden
due to procedures and flight regulations
that PIC had to comply.

 “The pilot was discarded from service” –

that is not truth. Capt. Grzegorz
Pietruczuk was never discarded from
service. After the time of incident before
a flight to Georgia, he was immediately
medalled by Minister of National
Defense in Donald Tusk’s government
Bogdan Klich, MD. Capt. Grzegorz
Pietruczuk
is 36

th

Special Air Transport

Regiment pilot even now. Please also

background image

notice that in Republic of Poland
President is not able to throw a pilot
away from work.

25

 “didn’t return until the time of Prime

Minister Tusk” – this sentence seems to
be fully aware of the lie. Mr Donald
Tusk
has been a Prime Minister of
Republic of Poland since the 16

th

of

November 2007, so he was already PM
at the time of incident (12

th

of August

2008).

26

However, in the background, disinformation processes
were also clearly visible. As a piece of evidence must be
treated official, information noticed also on the 10

th

of

April 2010.

On the 11

th

of April, “Gazeta Wyborcza” quoted Mr

Aleksandr Bastykin, Deputy Attorney General of
Russian Federation, who standing alongside of Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin stated that: “Recording of the
conversations of pilots of Tu-154 which crashed near
Smolensk indicates, that after ignoring Russian
recommendations, the Polish crew decided to land”.

27

This sentence can be treated only as official, because of
the rank of the man who firmed it. It was not only
presented and quoted by Polish “Gazeta Wyborcza”, but
also by Russian media, especially by newsru.com. Now
we know that “reading” of Cockpit Voice Recorder took
MAK

28

weeks

29

and Mr Bastykin could not know it on

the 10

th

of April when he should tell it.

The article (“Pilots landed contrary to

recommendations. It is confirmed by conversations

background image

recordings”)

30

, in which Mr Bastykin’s sentences are

quoted, had been published on the 12

th

of April (Monday)

on the front page of “Gazeta Wyborcza”. On the
website of this Polish daily, gazeta.pl, the time of the last
actualization concerning this article is specified very
precisely: 01:03AM, 11.04.2010 (Sunday). It means that
it is concerning only the information from the day of
catastrophe, when:

1. The Russians had known causes of catastrophe

before commission started first investigation
works.

2. The Russians had known contents of CVR

recordings before their opening, examination and
reading works had been even started.

3. The official version, which is currently presented

by MAK was already created (at the day of
catastrophe!).

In the same article, other disinformation relations can

be noticed. “Gazeta Wyborcza” wrote as following:

“Due to bad weather conditions: fog and

terrible visibility, the Russians recommended
landing at the airport in Minsk – informed the
Prime Minister President’s representative
Georgiy Poltavchenko, who was waiting at the
airfield on the Polish delegation and was a
witness of the catastrophe. He told – as
reported newsru.com, - that during the landing
of the aircraft, engines’ noise could not be
heart, but only few strange beats. ‘Where you
first at the place of event?’ – asked Putin,
‘within three minutes’ – Poltavchenko

background image

answered.” - we can only ask how did he
know (as a “witness”) what had Air Traffic
Control recommended Polish Air Force
aircraft? It is not possible for him to hear radio
conversations, while he was standing on the
airfield, waiting for Polish delegation to
welcome them as a representative delegated by
President Dimitriy Miedviediev.

According to the Russian Transport Minister
Igor Levtin, pilot of Polish airplane decided to
land on his own, although the visibility was
only 400 meters, despite it is necessary 1000
meters - informs Interfax news agency”

31

Nevertheless, the most clearly disinformed gen.
Aleksandr Aloshyn, Deputy Chef of Staff of Russian
Air Force (VVS). He spoke probably falsely

40

, that crew

of the presidential aircraft repeatedly failed to comply the
flight controller’s commands. Now, after CVR transcripts
are published, we know that only one command was not
executed – “go around”, which had been only one time,
when the aircraft was flaying below the glideslope for a
long time

32

, moreover after hitting trees on the terrain

33

.

General Aloshyn told as fallows (10.04.2010)

34

:

 “the crew of the aircraft with the Polish president

did not respond to the warnings, what
unfortunately led to a tragedy.
” – CVR was not
opened yet. That is why he could not know about
the systems warning. The same applies to ATC
warnings.

“When the crew had not accomplish flight control

chef commands, he several times commanded to

background image

direct the aircraft to alternative airport” – that is
not truth. ATC chef at Smolensk-North
aerodrome, Lt.-Col. Pavel Plusnin had not
directed aircraft to alternative airport, did not
recommended to fly to alternative airport

35

and

did not close the aerodrome for landing and take-
off operations although he was obligated to do it
by aviation rules.

36

“Aircraft Tu-154M with Polish president Lech
Kaczynski
on the distance of 50km entered the
zone and by the chef of flights

37

had been

informed about poor weather conditions in the
region

38

of planned landing.

39

It was

recommended for him to fly to the alternative
aerodrome. (…) The crew – unlikely did not
cease descending and everything ended
tragedious.”

41

All sentences quoted above, are a kind of focus, a

direction of the whole disinformation process, that have
been started on the next day – on the 11

th

of April 2010.

Please notice, that Russians clearly identified a cause of
the air disaster several hours after it had happened, at the
time when body of Polish President Mr Kaczynski still
was laying profaned in the mud.

42

In Russia, there is a tendency of blame on the dead,

after each air disaster. This tendency is the most
comfortable as a background of the investigation and
political processes around it - both for Russians as for the
Polish government of Mr Donald Tusk, and a new
president from the Tusk’s formation PO (Civic Platform)
count Bronislaw Komorowski.

43

We do not exactly

background image

know if anybody is guilty, but it is clearly evidenced, that
a target of the investigation is to cover the truth.

2.3

Next days

(Up to 72 hours after the catastrophe)

On the 11

th

of April 2010 at 14:45, “Gazeta

Wyborcza” published again disinformation article, titled:
“Investigative findings: catastrophe couldn’t be caused
by technical problems”. This publication demonstrates
conclusively that:

 Supported by MAK even now hypothesis,

that there were no failures concerning the
aircraft, appeared a day after catastrophe,
before the time of opening Flight Data
Recorder, and before Russian technical
commission of MAK has started
investigational works.

As (dis)informs “Gazeta Wyborcza”: “Russian
investigators working at the prosecutor’s office initially
ruled out, that presidential aircraft catastrophe in
Smolensk could be cased by technical problems”
.

44

This

information is double sourced, because the same
communicate had been published by Polish second-
largest press agency IAR, public institution. Quoted by
IAR and “Gazeta Wyborcza” Mr Aleksandr Bastrykin,
“Head of Investigation Committee of Russian Attorney
Office” declared as follows: “The Tupolev, on the board
of which to Katyn

45

on the anniversary celebrations

president was flaying, was in excellent condition

background image

That is not a place for polemics, but please notice that

not every 20-years old Soviet aircraft, enjoys excellent
condition
, especially according to very large repair card
index of Polish Air Force 101.

46

In the technical part of the book all Flights Registers’

history, and known data will be described. In this section
disinformation, evidence should be however shown. By
the biggest and the most popular Polish daily “Gazeta
Wyborcza
” as follows had been written

47

on the 11

th

of

April, when no flight recorders had been opened yet:

“Russian investigators and Polish experts begun
examination of the “black boxes” of the presidential
airplane, which crashed on Saturday morning at
Smolensk - announced on Sunday Russian prosecutor’s
office. Experts agreed that the tape recording flight
parameters has moved inside the “black box”. As
reported by PAP

48

, also evidence at Okecie

49

had been

secured.” - A kind of inaccuracy is clearly shown after
reading official communicates, which had been published
time after the one quoted above.

Moreover, a scale of disinformation in mainstream

media of Poland was much larger. For example focused
on intellectualists and regarded as greatest and most
opinion forming in Poland daily “Rzeczpospolita” (Eng.
“The Republic”) published on Monday, 12

th

of April

2010, 48 hours from the time of air disaster quoted Polish
prosecutors Mr Andrzej Seremet, Attorney General of
Republic of Poland, and Col. Krzysztof Parulski, Head
of Supreme Military Prosecution. Probably as a subtle
element of polemics with competitive “Gazeta
Wyborcza” article had been titled: ”There is no

background image

information that has been a pressure on pilots”. Polish
prosecutors, according to “Rzeczpospolita” told on a
press briefing as following

50

:

 Mr Andrzej Seremet:

o

“experts will try to ‘pick up’
background of conversations from
cockpit, to confirmed if there have
been any suggestions for pilots”

o

“On this stage of investigation there
are no data from which it would
appear, that the pressure on the pilots
to landed in spite of difficult
conditions was exerted”

 Col. Krzysztof Parulski:

o

“The third ‘black box’ is found.”

o

“We forwarded it to Moscow, to the
same Polish-Russian team, that is
analyzing previous two recorders”

o

“A preliminary examination indicated
that it was not damaged, but
everything will turn out after it will be
opened”

o

“The box records co-called increased
flight parameters, and from the
content of its recordings also
appropriate conclusions will be
reached” .

o

“There are no obstacles that in some
fundamental manner would impede
reading of information.”

o

“Confirmed in contents of black
boxes’ recording is version most

background image

probable – concerning landing in
difficult weather conditions”.

Article described above reports also that Col. Parulski
assessed cooperation with Russian services as
exemplary”.

Therefore, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. Polish Investigators (although they were

glorifying cooperation with the Russians) stayed
in conflict with Russian communicates.

2. On 48 hours from the time of catastrophe so-

called “forced landing” version, currently most
likely in Polish mainstream media was
preliminary excluded.

3. The investigators were working rather to find any

evidence of pressure on the pilots, than cause of
the air disaster.

4. Informations from quoted in this section articles

of “Gazeta Wyborcza” have been demented
officially a day after.

5.

Black boxes: Mars-BM Flight Data Recorder and

ATM Quick Access Receiver have been found
10-11

th

of April, and Flight Data Recorder on 12

th

of April 2010.

51

6. Quotes of Polish prosecutors show that they two

days after catastrophe tried to indicate as a cause
of catastrophe pilot’s error, completely like
MAK. They became participants in
disinformation.

2.4

Mourning time

background image

(12

th

-16

th

of April 2010)

Disinformation reached it’s apogee in the first week

after the air disaster. Lots of staying in conflict with each
other pieces of news had been published by media and
press agencies all over the world.

At this time, Poland was in mourning. State flags were

lowered to half a mast. Millions of people put flowers
and candles on the pedestrian crossing in front of the
Presidential Palace in Warsaw. Under these conditions,
more and more speculations about the causes of
catastrophe were presented by media but also statistical
citizens. All of the versions (from pilots’ error up to
assassination or terrorist attack) were confirmed by many
different pieces of information, from many different
sources, both official and unofficial. At the same time,
many another, different pieces of information negated
them.

52

Due to the disinformation, (misinformation) public

opinion was very confused. On the 12

th

of April 2010 at

11:38 on Polish portal niezalezna.pl, (“independent”
short information was published, concerning an article
from weekly “Wprost” (“directly”)

53

. According to the

portal and “Wprost” 48 hours after the time of disaster:

1. Two flight recorders had been examined.
2. Experts had been matching voices to people.
3. Russians had not opened flight recorders to the

time of Polish expert’s arrival.

Discussion about this article, in the comments on the

page of niezalezna.pl portal is direct evidence of scale
and efficiency of disinformation on 12

th

and 13

th

of April.

background image

(It was Monday and Tuesday, aircraft crashed on
Sunday). As linked in footnotes, people were reflecting:

1. Why Russians provide ambiguous informations

about the number of approaches? (user Zorro).

2.

What about the tower, which aircraft hit into?

(user Rut)

54

3. In what language did Air Traffic Controllers

speak? (user A)

4. Immediately after the disaster, the FSB arrested a

flight controller. There are photos of the start of
Tu-154 from Warsaw, on which something
strange is going on with its engine (user Jacek)

Such comments could not be only noted at every Polish

online forum those days, but also in mainstream media
and on the streets. Grief was mixed with disinformation,
and pain with a doubt.

Confusion of millions

55

of people, who were

wondering about in front of Presidential Palace, crying,
praying, putting flowers, as well as millions of people
who stayed at home this weekend was an ideal basic for
misinformation.

On the 13

th

of April Gen. Tatiana Anodina, Head of

Interstate Aviation Committee (as announced wp.pl
Polish web portal) and col. Krzysztof Parulski, stated
that “the third black box” would be traced in Poland
because it is “Polish patent (…) and it only can be
responded in Poland
”, as Col. Parulski described it. As
it is known now, it was not truth, according to “Gazeta
Polska”, because the same model of Quick Access
Recorder of “ATM Awionika” company, Poland, had
also a Tupolev-154M of China Northwestern Airlines on

background image

its board. The aircraft (flight 2303) crashed in an air
disaster on the 6

th

of June 1994, shortly after take off

from Xian-Xianyang International Airport (ZLXY, XIY),
China. At that time, a Polish QAR recorder had been sent
to Interstate Aviation Committee MAK, Moscow,
Russia and without any problems, it was redden by MAK
in their laboratories. It had not been sent to Poland then

56

.

Mr Parulski stated also on the 13

th

of April as

following:

 „Works concerning the recorder will be

held with the participation of the representatives
of the Russian side”.



Reading of the black boxes will last at

least 2 weeks.

A specifying objective of the disinformation was

winning the election by ruling PO party candidate, count
Bronislaw Komorowski. Because Mr Jaroslaw
Kaczynski
, ex-prime minister and brother of president
Mr Lech Kaczynski, who died in the air disaster, was an
opponent of Mr Komorowski, disinformation should last
nearly two month, until the election

57

. So long, without

unavailable in democratic system, it is not possible to
keep high disinformation efficiency. Please notice that
not every newspaper (but all mainstream) in Poland was
taking a part in disinformation, and it is not possible to
censure the Internet in democratic system.

That is why on the 14

th

of April substitution subjects

appeared for media. The reason was to distract public
attention from the cases of tragedy and conflicted each
other sentences of Polish and Russian prosecutors
(quoted above).

background image

Because all over the world public opinion was truly

interested in knowing why so high-rank people was
flaying to Russia, a 2007 Polish feature-documentary
film “Katyn” of Mr Andrzej Wajda

58

(one of the best

Polish film directors, honoured by Oscar) was to be
projected by many TV stations and cinemas all over the
world

59

.

This news was a perfect substitution subject. One of

the basic human needs, a specially in a sadness is to be in
the centre of other’s attention. Even normally without
any sadness we need a closure of another people, we
need to have someone to talk with.

The same positive feeling is concerning international

attention. Please notice that this simple psychological
schema works in a mind of everybody. For example a
kind of proud appears, when Mr Barack Obama says, that
the Great Britain is the main strategic partner of USA”.
We can do not like him, but it is ennobling.

Completely another situation is concerning a personal

disaster, for example a funeral of a family member. Of
course, every person feels bereavement completely
different then others, fully on his own, support of another
people in extremely important.

An information process that took place on the

Wednesday 14

th

of April 2010, 4 days after air disaster

mixed both situations described above.

PAP communicated as follows: “All the world

wants to see ‘Katyn’ of Wajda”.

background image

This information penetrated all the news portals, TV

news, and front pages of newspapers. Radio stations and
TV experts commented only that.

The substitution subject perfectly introduced a process,

directly targeting the public opinion to an official
version.

On the 15

th

of April, very well frequented statement

was published. The statement was prepared probably
several days earlier. Russian daily “Kommersant”, of
course commonly quoted by all mainstream Polish media
released its columns for an anonymous Russian expert,
who had perfectly known all the details concerning the
catastrophe, as well as the details of an official version.
He stated as following

60

:

1. “A likelihood of catastrophe in such landing is

very high. A pilot of the presidential machine
knew about it very well. No less he made an
unreasonable from a standpoint of all flaying
manuals and common sense.” – as we know, it is
not truth, because landing in low visibility likely
of catastrophe is not high. Many times in poor
visibility emergency landing are performed all
over the world and usually are successful.

2. “During approach to Smolensk, the local

controllers informed the crew, that landing is
impossible and proposed a departure to the
alternative airport in Minsk or Moscow, but the
commander [PIC] urged for descending to a
decision point, which in case of Tu-154M is
100m over an airfield” – That also is not truth,
because Smolensk Air Traffic Controllers of

background image

Russian Air Force, Mr Pavel Plusnin and Mr
Victor Ryjenkho did not propose PLF-101 to fly
to an alternative airport. Pilot-In-Command did
not urge, but only one time asked for a
descending permission. An alternative airfield
was not Moscow and Minsk, but Vitebsk and
Minsk.

This lying statement was probably a kind of test,

concerning a reaction of the public opinion on shock
information, because objected pilots a self-killing
proceeding. There was no reaction. It was a first success
of disinformation.

2.5

Volcanic Funeral?

(16

th

-18

th

of April 2010)

On the 16.04.2010 took place a significant situation.

An Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull had erupted

61

. A

volcanic dust cloud crossed the Europe at a cruise
altitude of passenger airplanes. Because the dust can
probably damage turbine engines, all around the Europe
flights had been stopped, airports closed and aircraft
grounded.

At this point, a kind of conclusion must appear. Air

disaster took place on the 10

th

of April, dust grounded all

European aviation only few days later. It also became a
pretext to do not come for the Mr Lech Kaczynski’s
funeral to Krakow. For example, Mr Barack Hussein
Obama did not come to Krakow, due to the dust he could
play golf and relax.

background image

A week after a catastrophe was a time of national

mourning in Poland.

62

.

On the 11

th

of April, a body of Mr Kaczynski came

back to Poland on the board of military CASA C-295M
transport aircraft, escorted by two MiG-29A multirole
fighters of Polish Air Force. Mr Kaczynski was
unbelievable quickly identified.

63

After finding and coming back of a first lady, Mrs. Maria
Kaczynska’s body to Poland on the 13

th

of April both

coffins had been exposed to public view in the haul of
Presidential Palace, Warsaw

64

.

Due to millions of people wanted to honour it was

nearly impossible to get Presidential Palace for Polish
people that days

65

.

On the 18

th

of April, a public ecumenical devotion was

celebrated on the Pilsudski’s Square in Warsaw, Poland,
where present about 100.000 people

66

.

On the 19

th

of April took place a Funeral Ceremony in

Krakow, during which several thousands of people were
present, including 34 attending dignitaries of only 16
countries.

These were only representatives, who were present not

due to a kind of obligation, but due to an honour. Mr
Gordon Brown ex-Prime Minister did not come, along
with Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France. President
of the United States Mr Barack Hussein Obama,
preferred to play golf

67

, although Mr Mekheil

Saakashvili, President of Georgia managed to came to
from USA to Krakow by plane.

background image

Also a representative of Pope, His Holiness Benedict

XVI, cardinal Angelo Sodano did not come from Italy,
although via Italy came Mr Mekheil Saakashvili,
President of Georgia. Italian prime minister Mr Silvio
Berlusconi also did not manage to come.

Please notice that a Georgian first lady, Mrs. Sandra

Roelofs, friend of Mrs. Maria Kaczynska came from
Brussels by car. To get on time she was driving without
stop for 13 hours

68

.

Mrs. Angela Merkel did her best to came, but it was

impossible for her to get on time, because she was in a
travel.

Not only friends, but also international politics

opponents of Mr Lech Kaczynski came for his funeral.
For example Mr Victor Yanukovych, president of
Ukraine, had no problem with flaying throw the dust on
the board of 30 years old Tupolev-134A. In addition, Mr
Dmitry Medvedev, President of Russian Federation
came.

Mr Abbas El Fassi, Prime Minister of Moroccan

Kingdom flew to Poland without earlier confirmation and
with no flight permission. For him there was also no
problem with volcano ash cloud, he shown to the world
not lies, which usually are characterizing politics but an
honour – his own and his state, which he is representing.

The best relative from the funeral is an article from
“the Sunday Times” (The Times):

background image

“Polish President’s funeral is local affair as volcanic
ash grounds world leaders

Roger Boyes in Krakow

World leaders, kings and princes cancelled their trips to
pay tribute to the late President Lech Kaczynski at a
grand state funeral in Krakow, blaming the cloud of
volcanic ash hovering over Europe.

As a result, the Polish head of state was seen off by two
dozen Central and East European leaders — who had
made their way to Poland by car and by train — as well
as by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and hundreds
of thousands of Poles who had been travelling across the
country to Krakow for the past 36 hours.

“It is perhaps better this way,” said Kamil Podgowinski,
a boy scout who had spent the night waiting for an open-
air Mass in Krakow’s Market Square. “We are together
among ourselves. It has become a Polish event again.”
Despite the closure of Polish air space, the coffins of the
President and his wife, Maria, were flown by a turbo-
prop aircraft to Krakow early today and were due to be
laid to rest in the crypt of Wawel Cathedral, alongside
Polish kings, poets and national heroes.

President Barack Obama topped a long list of statesmen
and women who decided that attending the funeral would
be too risky. Although it would be feasible to fly in a
small plane — a delegation from Morocco flying in a
small Cessna touched down in Krakow without problems

background image

on Saturday night — many politicians are worried about
a fresh ash cluster stranding them in Poland.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, on her way back
from the US last week, found herself re-routed to Lisbon.
She managed to fly to Rome before taking a convoy of
cars to Germany via South Tyrol. Back in Berlin, she
cancelled the trip to Krakow but Germany will be
represented by President Horst Koehler.

President Sarkozy of France, Spanish premier José Luis
Zapatero, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the
Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the
president of the European Council Herman van Rompuy,
the Prince of Wales and the crowned heads of Norway,
Denmark, Spain and Sweden are all staying at home.

Some refused to be deterred. Jerzy Buzek, the President
of the European Parliament drove across Europe, while
many European deputies crowded into trains.

However, the character of the funeral was unmistakably
changed. “It was supposed to have been a geopolitical
occasion,” Maciej Wierzynski, a veteran Polish
commentator, said. “You could tell that by the fact that
President Obama agreed originally to come as soon as
Russian President Medvedev said he would be there.”
The subtext of the funeral is that the air crash that killed
the President and 95 others, including many senior
officials, has brought Poles and Russians emotionally
closer. The delegation had been flying into the fog-bound

background image

city of Smolensk, in western Russia, to commemorate the
thousands of Poles murdered by Soviet hitmen in 1940.

The crime, denied or barely acknowledged by Russia for
decades, has suddenly become part of the country’s
national discourse.

But if Poles and Russians draw closer there is a knock-on
effect and US policy towards Eastern Europe has to be
redrafted. The funeral was to be an opportunity to make
a first assessment of the changing political landscape.

Instead, it has become an opportunity for Eastern
European leaders to say farewell to a hard-headed
politician — and for Poles to shed the last of their public
tears.”

2.6

Between the funeral and the national holiday.

A funeral of Mr Lech Kaczynski and Mrs. Maria

Kaczynska did not stop the disinformation campaign. It
was only a kind of gap, which allowed disinformation
authors to regroup forces and attack harder.
Disinformation flared up anew.

A typical example of propaganda is an interview

69

of

Gen. Gromoslaw Czempinski, former chef of Polish
Office of State Protection (UOP), agency based on
communistic special services of Ministry of Interior (SB
–eng.: The Security Service). Managed by Czempinski
agency was only a copy and powers extension of
communistic archetype. However, commander of UOP
was many times accused of being a Russian intelligence

background image

– so called - agent of influence

70

, until 1996, when UOP

had been finally abolished

71

.

An evidence of the influence of communistic secret

services in Poland is the fact, that in contrast to the
Germany where The Federal Commissioner for the Stasi
Archives

72

had been established – in Poland to this day

archives of SB are nearly completely secret and
unavailable for normal people.

73

However, on the 20

th

of April Gen. Czempinski, like at

the time of his already forgotten prosperity, again fleshed
in the media. His radio interview was commonly quoted
in newspapers, TV, web portals

74

.

Mrs. Monika Olejnik: And a guest of Radio ZET is

general Gromoslaw Czempinski, former chef of UOP, a
pilot.

Gen. Gromoslaw Czempinski: Good morning.

MO: General Gromoslaw Czempinski is a guest of

Radio ZET, we are all the time reflecting what could be a
reason of catastrophe of Tu-154, in which 96 people are
killed. There are informations that a pilot could mistake
a gorge, but this pilot had been flaying to Smolensk
before.

GC: Maybe let’s say from the beginning. It seems that

a reason of the catastrophe was pilot’s error. On this
pilot’s error imposed – we can say – a second factor
weather, a weather conditions, which cased, that
approaching to landing he takes excessive risk, as to how
far I can descend above the ground, to take a decision
will I land or won’t land. In conditions of this airport, so
an airport unequipped with ILS, many airports are still

background image

without ILS equipment, such decision should be taken
maximal, lowest, so to say, at some 80 meters, normally
it is 100 meters.

Today we can only reflect, I think, that common

commissions, which are working, air investigation
commissions will explain it, how it happened, that pilot
occurred so low, so far from the airport and let’s
remember that noticing of for example, a difference of
levels of 60 meters, how they say, that it could be in
Smolensk is extremely difficult.

75

(…)

Using this words general Czempinski confirmed a

medial news from several days before, that a pilot did not
know about a kind of gorge or a ravine situated on the
approach course in Smolensk. PIC major Arkadiusz
Protasiuk had landed at Smolensk many times
previously

76

, but it probably does not matter for gen.

Czempinski or he does not know about it. He is also
hardly evidencing alleged pilot’s error.

We cannot say that the funeral of Mr Kaczynski and

his wife was a substation subject – of course not.
Nevertheless, analyzing information of subsections
above, we can notice, that Polish and Russian
prosecution was not interested in quickly disclosing of
the “black box” recordings. Now, on the August 2010,
only a CVR transcripts is let on, FDR and QAR
recordings are still secret, although possessed by Poland
for weeks.

77

Although “Polish prosecutors” allegedly were present

during CVR and FDR examination, Russia for a long
time had not replied for Polish requests concerning the

background image

“black boxes”. To this day, they are in MAK, Moscow
and nobody noticed that they are a property of Poland.

On the 20

th

of April Mr Andrzej Seremet, Attorney

General of Republic of Poland of his press briefing stated
as following:

1. Already today, we will refer to the Russian side

for an access to a preliminary analysis of
conversations recorded by the flight recorder.

2. The investigation may take up even more than a

year.

3. I had in mind transcripts as preliminary analyses.

Clearly visible has become a trend of presenting of the

“black boxes” as the key evidence in the investigation.
Because the Russian side described recordings as the
main evidence already on the day of the catastrophe
undisputable is compliance. As it is determined by
international regulations, there is not only voice-
recording “black box” on the board on an aircraft, but
also co-could “flight data recorder”. Greater weight as an
evidence has of course Flight Data Recorder FDR,
because it shows what is going on not with a crew, but
with an airplane. No less speeches of Polish and Russian
prosecutors show, that they put a greater emphasis not for
FDR, but for CVR “black box”. This trace can assume
that, both investigations - Polish and Russian - were
conducted to reach a result formed in advance. Both
investigations were also perfectly synchronized to prove
one cause – precession on the pilots, exerted by president
Mr Lech Kaczynski and commander of the Air Force
Gen. Andrzej Blasik. The main evidence appeared to be
“black boxes”. Such situation is as unbelievable, because

background image

the aircraft was a 20-years old Tupolev, with regular
failures, renovated in Russia. It is commonly known that
exploitation of aircraft with similar or such
characteristics is quite dangerous. That is why uncritical
assumption of the pilot’s error is completely contrary to
prosecutors/investigators objectivity and independence
rules.

These theses are confirmed in the investigations

conduct analyses.

The political character of the Polish investigators’

works (including Mr Seremet and Col. Parulski) has been
fully shown on the 22

nd

of April 2010, when an

announcement of two Polish ministers to Moscow
appeared. As radio RMF and PAP agency proclaimed:

“announced departure regarding Smolensk Air Disaster is
to strengthen a request of Prosecution, which requests
flight recorders and its recordings”.

78

Meanwhile a disinformation campaign turned in a high

gear. Superiority absolutely kept “Gazeta Wyborcza”

79

,

which nearly every day let front-page articles concerning
pilot’s errors in Smolensk. A middle column of this most
popular Polish daily was full of Russian experts’
opinions, also concerning pilots’ error. No evidence of
course – “Gazeta Wyborcza” was only quoted so called
“experts”. They had a right to do it, but objectivity had
been lost many days before.

No less “Gazeta Wyborcza” was only a part of great

medial machinery. With “Gazeta Wyborcza” completely
agreed nearly all Polish dailies concerning most popular
tabloid “Super Express” and the most opinion-forming

background image

“Rzeczpospolita”. Every article from the newspapers was
very positively commented in weeklies for example
“Newsweek Polska”, and quoted in news of all Polish
information TV’s: national TVP INFO, using a satellite
and terrestrial transmitters, and also by TVN-24 and
POLSAT News – satellite channels. Any such
information was enclosed by an interview with so called
“expert”, especially Mr Tomasz Hypki, who every
information concerning a pilot’s error confirmed
certainly, although in the details they were all completely
conflicted each other.

80

TV press reviews were not exposing articles

concerning another versions – they nearly only quoted
pilot’s error opinions.

Every article concerning a pilot’s error was of course

also quoted by web portals, and local small broadcasting
institutions, as well as local newspapers and magazines,
through PAP news agency, which forwarded every article
concerning catastrophe, but by some miracle, only those
concerning pilot’s error appeared in local media.

Radio of a national “Polish Radio” managed full

objectivity. They maintained a balance between opinions
concerning all air disasters cases. However, commercial
stations are in Poland more popular than for years
founding in a faze of tissues withering “Polish Radio”.

National holiday and farther disinformation

1-3 of May are day of national holiday in Poland.

It have been carried out by disinformation coordinators to

background image

perform processes targeted onto remaking mourning
atmosphere in the public opinion, to have time to
reorganize forces and an emotional background to use
manipulation in their disinformation strategy.

Commercials stations no objectivity preserved

and informed not only that, but also why it was a mistake
of pilots. In order to visualize a construction of main-
stream media transfer an article of leading “Gazeta
Wyborcza” from the 5

th

of May 2010, quoted by one of

the biggest Polish web portals Interia.pl (of course
through PAP agency, as described above) will be
summarized. A headline is clear: “Russian expert: it
was classical mistake of the pilot!”.

According to Interia.pl and PAP

81

:

1. “The Russian experts whom, ‘Gazeta Wyborcza”

was talking with, opine, that a case of
presidential aircraft’s catastrophe was a classical
pilot’s error, i.e. “collision with ground in
controlled flight”, known as ‘SFIT’”.
– Of
course, this statement (traditionally) is not truth.
Even MAK announced, that “an aircraft crashed
during a try of going around” – so classifying the
catastrophe as a Controlled Flight Into Terrain is
rather controversial. In additional every pilot
knows, that a SFIT incident category does not
exist. SFIT can be only St. Francis Institute of
Technology, University of Mumbai part. They
could only have on their mind a CFIT accident, a
Controlled Flight Into Terrain.

2. ”As claims well-known Russian test pilot-

specialist, who reserved an anonymity, the Tu-

background image

154 three times flew above an aerodrome in
Smolensk, drawing a rectangle, to measure out
ground-based beacons. It was to help pilot in
precise defining of landing direction. For there is
‘imprecision’ aircraft guidance system working
on the aerodrome, so a crew has to control their
flight level using on-board instruments”
– As it is
not difficult to notice, it is also not truth. As
announced days after, and as CVR transcripts
evidences Tu-154 did not fly three times above
aerodrome. They made only a half off full round
and then started approach from east to south,
opposite to enroute flight direction. Therefore,
only one rule can be noticed - lies are different,
but only one target – a pilot’s error. As “Gazeta
Wyborcza” did not notice, they did not have to
define centreline by beacons, because it had been
automatically determined by on-board flight
managing systems, using gyroscopic inertial
systems, GPS and NDB directions. NDB had
been used specially as approach markers – inner
and outer. Approach including a sink rate moment
have been madden by the autopilot in all
channels, using FMS Universal Avionics UNS-
1D, to a time after the first obstacle impact.
Russian pilot quoted by “Gazeta Wyborcza” odds
with the truth also in the last sentence - as every
pilot knows you must all the time and every time
control your flight level, even in precise approach
– this is a basic rule.

3. “As evidenced by previous findings Tu-154

undergone with correct course over the first

background image

beacon, but further due to unknown reasons
reduced the flight level.”
– this statement is
completely tommyrot. Please notice that a
‘course’ does not relate to flight level, but to
direction. Approach path is related to flight level.
Moreover descending is ex-definicione reduction
of flight level.

4. Russian expert opines that reason of the error

could be the fact that an aircraft was flaying this
time over a deep gorge – one of the altimeters can
therefore read off distance of machine to soil and
confuse the pilot.
– this is a classical statement
concerning the catastrophe - a background of
thousands of articles and reasoning of that days. It
is a quintessence of disinformation. As a time
after CVR transcripts evidenced, pilot and flight
level controlling autopilot were using barometric
altimeter during approach that is why any gorge
does not matter. It is impossible to set an
autopilot of Tu-154M (ABSU-154-II) to use radio
altimeter, because it is not compatible with. That
is why gorge cannot deviate a glide path during
approach. Please also notice that Pilot-In-
Command, major Arkadiusz Protasiuk had been
an airman for almost 21 years, including 13 years
of flaying experience on this exemplar of
Tupolev-154M. During this time major Protasiuk
many times had landed at Smolensk-North Air
Base, Russia (XUBS), last time three days before
the catastrophe, on the 7

th

of April 2010. That is

why he known airport’s topography perfectly and
could not be confused by radio altimeter.

background image

5. At this moment, according to the expert crew

ceased to watch instruments and started to search
ground.
– this also is not truth. As evidenced in
the CVR transcripts nobody was searching the
ground. Flight level was controlled every 10m
permanently, instruments were controlled to the
last moment.

As can be inferred from the already quoted articles

many conflicted each other allegation ware terminated to
convince, that pilot’s error cased the air disaster,
according to the rule “End justifies the means”. That is
why following hypotheses were published in the
mainstream media:

1. “Pilots did not speak Russian language” – not

truth, later demented

82

.

2.

Pilots made 4 approaches” – not truth, later
demented

83

3. “Pilots made 4 rounds over the airfield” –not

truth, later demented

84

.

4. “Pilots were searching the ground” – not truth,

completely conflicted with CVR transcripts

6. “It was landing forced by Kaczynski or Blasik” –

not truth, force aspect completely unconfirmed by
CVR transcripts, probably it was not a landing,
only missed going around after decision level
during approach. Landing faze had not been
started by the crew.

These are only examples of the theories that are

inculcated to public even now.

2.7

Before the Preliminary Report of MAK

background image

(5

th

– 19

th

of May 2010)

On the beginning of May 2010, Russians had to be

preferred to publish the preliminary report of the
investigations, because according to them, ICAO rules
impose sum first month of investigation.

At this time disinformation campaign next time was set

to full power. In Poland, many articles concerning pilot’s
error had been published by “Gazeta Wyborcza” and
“Rzeczpospolita” along with tabloids “Fakt” and “Super
Express”. TV campaign had been lead by TVN and
TVN-24. In addition, their web portals were used in the
campaign.

Nevertheless, this time not Polish media were going to

create a flashpoint in disinformation direction. A
breakthrough character had a statement of Mr Yuri
Chaikha, Attorney General of the Republic of Russia. He
stated on the 6

th

of May, that: “The Interstate Aviation

Committee [MAK] is preparing to transfer to the Polish
party, a materials from the work of Committee”.

In this materials – according to Mr Chaikha should be
included inter alia:

1. FDR recording copy
2. CVR recording copy (probably with pilots’

conversations transcripts)

http://www.tvp.info/informacje/swiat/polska-na-razie-
nie-dostanie-akt-sledztwa/1748920

The most probable reason of the statement were not the

legal issues, which usually determine activities of an
attorney or prosecutor, especially Attorney General,
because transferring of the evidence via Attorney office

background image

is not an answer to the application for legal help,
requested by Polish Attorney General, Mr Andrzej
Seremet Office – one reason the evidence is not
administrated by Russian Attorney General Office, but
by international organization MAK – Interstate Aviation
Committee. MAK is in possession of diplomatic
privileges, that is why it has a right to treat Polish and
Russian Attorneys equally.

So if Mr Yuri Chaikha had not any legal reasons, what

kind of reasons directed him to the statement above?
Only political reasons. Please notice that “black boxes’”
recordings are one of the most important evidence,
concerning official version of the catastrophe, so an error
of the crew, landing in heavy fog, poor visibility,
probably forced by president Mr Lech Kaczynski. This
irrational, but most popular and underpinning the
disinformation campaign version is not only the most
well-known, but also widely confirmed (officially and
unofficially) both by Polish and Russians ruling
politicians and media as the most probable.

A strategy of shifting in the time a publication of the

Cockpit Voice Recordings was reasoned, not by works,
but by presidential campaign considerations, because if
the official version is evidenced, Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski,
opponent of ruling party candidate, Mr Bronislaw
Komorowski, would discredited by this version, as a
twin-brother of president who indirectly killed 96 people.
Finally, reality was not so brutal, because published
transcripts not fully confirmed official version, but due to
disinformation campaign, as a base of the presidential
campaign Mr Bronislaw Komorowski won the election

background image

and became new Polish President. Mr Jaroslaw
Kaczynski had been defeated, and his person in many
aspects became a modern analogy of Mr Robert Francis
Kennedy, who stands for the White House after his
brother’s, Mr John Fitzgerald Kennedy assassination.
There were be only one difference, 2010 campaign made
Kaczynski politically beaten – the 1968 campaign made
Kennedy killed. He died on the 5

th

of June of 1968.

Moreover, 7 month passed from death of Mr J.F.

Kennedy to death of Mr R. F. Kennedy. From death of
Mr Kaczynski passed to now only less than four month.
That is why if we were Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski, we
would cease to travel by plane and request a Police
security to responsible for our residence prosecution.

Nevertheless, many weeks before the presidential

campaign started, disinformation managers were doing
preparations to the Preliminary Report of MAK, the
biggest and the best-transmitted event in the
investigation.

The second stage of disinformation game had been

now started. Please notice, that due to the previously
publications, the public opinion was rather directed to
believe the official version, than disinformed. That is
why to do not show conclusions between media
campaign and official statements of MAK disinformation
changed into misinformation, into disorientation
campaign, targeted to confused people. Confused
peopled can more successfully believe in the clear,
credible, serious, official report of MAK.

Moreover, a week forgetfulness of the previous

statements can make them lie on the depth of people

background image

mind, who were much excited by new, sensational and
spectacular statements. In such situations previous
informations became operate at the subconscious.

A person confused respecting circumstances and

causes of the disaster, subconsciously remembering that
it could be a pilot error, than exhaustively informed in the
preliminary report, full of new details will be perfectly
directed in the next (but not last) stage of the
disinformation – the presidential campaign. Please notice
that people subjected to disinformation stayed in
mourning after a national tragedy yet. That is why it was
easier to effect on them.

Please imagine (although it is completely impossible in

the reality), how would you feel, if Her Majesty
Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, First See
Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Air Force Chef
of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton,
Chef of the General Staff, Gen. Sir David Richards,
along with governor of Bank of England Mr Mervyn
King, 7 British crew members and nearly 90 other people
including World War II combatants and national heroes
were killed during one occurrence. Of course such
tragedy will never be happened, we should hope so, but
please only imagine what was a scale of disaster, which
hurt Polish people.

We can now visualize feelings, emotions of people.

That is why it was easier to effect on them.

In order to start such disinformation process, process of

effecting on people, RMF FM, one of the most popular
radio station and wp.pl web portal announced around six
o’clock am as following:

background image

“The fifth voice in voice in the cockpit belonged to a

woman!

An information about recording by the black boxes, the

fifth voice reported on Wednesday TVN-24 and RMF FM.
Both stations relied on an anonymous source in Polish
prosecution.

Reporters of RMF FM found, that the fifth voice

recorded, by the recorders saving conversations in
cockpit of the presidential aircraft, is a voice of woman.

At the moment, however it is not still known to whom it
precisely belonged.

A flight crew of Tu-154 consists of four people – a

pilot, co-pilot, navigator and mechanic. At the end of the
flight to the cockpit had the right to enter only three flight
attendants and a member of the Government Security
Bureau.

Shortly after the catastrophe of presidential aircraft

appeared speculations that somebody could exert
influence onto the pilots, to land on the airfield in
Smolensk. Media recalled situation from a few years ago,
when during a visit to Georgia pressured the pilots, to
make the plans and land directly in Tibilisi.

So far, causes of catastrophe of Tu-154 in Smolensk on

the 10

th

of April, where 96 people were killed are not

known.

On the board were among the others president Lech

Kaczynski with his wife, the last president in exile
Ryszard Kaczorowski and commanders of the all military
formations.”

background image

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1342,title,Piaty-glos-w-

kokpicie-nalezal-do-
kobiety,wid,12237396,wiadomosc.html

This article refers to publications of already mentioned

TVN-24 and RMF FM, concerning the fifth voice in
cockpit from the 5

th

of May. Publications from 5

th

of May

and morning of 6

th

May pave the way for rarely huge

wave of speculations, a basis of current described above
stage of disinformation game.

Please notice that quoted above article contains in its

structure two substantial manipulations. Firstly, not
nameless “media”, but no one else, than “Gazeta
Wyborcza” “recalled situation from a few years ago”.

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,7808706,Incydent_gruzinski.
html

Secondly, it is not officially confirmed fact, that Mr
Kaczynski in that days pressured pilots. Moreover then
the flight plan had not been changed – an aircraft did not
fly directly to Tibilisi, Georgia, but as in flight plan, took
off to Ganja, Azerbaijan. It is necessary to add, that the
“recalled” incident took place not airborne, but on the
airfield in Symeropol, Ukraine, before the take off in
flight to rapt by war Georgia.

As it was reported on 7

th

of May so about 24 hours

later, that not a woman but Mr Mariusz Kazana, a
Director of Diplomatic Protocol in Foreign Affairs
Ministry. It is not surprising, that it had been reported by
“Gazeta Wyborcza” jointly and in consultation with
TVN-24, RMF FM, onet.pl, wp.pl. This information was
of course in mass quoted by nearly all web portals, all the
TV and radio news – all the mainstream media. Please

background image

notice that all these titles had already taken leading part
in disinformation campaign.

“Gazeta Wyborcza” as always used the top-flight

formulations showing the highest standards of
journalistic ethics. Manifestation of this objectivity was
however only the title in form of question “Fifth voice in
cockpit, director Kazana?”
.

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,7851954,Piaty_glos_w_kokpi
cie__dyrektor_Kazana_.html

And then stated as following: ”Smolensk investigation.

The evidence in case of aircraft catastrophe is collected.
It is only necessary to confirm identification of the voice
of one of the persons recorded in cockpit of machine.
According to our information, it belongs to Mariusz
Kazana – chef of diplomatic protocol.”

Please notice, that minister of interior of Republic of

Poland Mr Jerzy Miller, quoted by “Gazeta Wyborcza”
stated officially, as if he wanted to stoke media
speculations.

Conspicuously visible is a precision synchronization of
Mr Miller with disinformation processes conducted by
media. Another words disinformation on this stage, like
previously is mosaic of medial speculations and official
statements of both parties – Russian and Polish. (here
statements of Mr Yuri Chaikha and Mr Jerzy Miller).

Please also notice, that the article of “Gazeta

Wyborcza” seems to be comparable with reality, because
CVR transcripts confirmed, that Mr Kazana entered the
cockpit. Nevertheless, please analyze one statement from
the article: “The official asked crew if everything is going

background image

according to the plan and if delay should be reckoned –
relates our source in Ministry of Interior”.
This stays in
conflict with CVR transcripts. Mr Kazana did not ask (on
his own), but had been informed by the Pilot-In-
Command (probably via an on-board intercom), that it
was not possible to land under those conditions. Mr
Kazana several minutes later informed Pilot-In-
Command that president had not been yet decided, what
to do farther
(what alternative airport choose). A
classical disinformation clause is clearly visible – an
anonymous source.

After this article, disinformation direction in media had

been clearly defined.

Nevertheless, very as very surprising can be described

maintenance of Col. Edmund Klich, a self-styled Polish
representative in Russian investigation of MAK,
Moscow. His statements were perfectly synchronized
with medial informations. On the 6

th

of May, his

metamorphose was clearly visible.TVN-24 reported as
following on the 6

th

of May 2010:

“Yesterday we were a suppliant, today is already

perfect?

Edmund Klich changed his mind – say the Russians.
He as first loudly pealed that on own wish we put
ourselves in a role of suppliant and relied on the mercy
of the Russians. Edmund Klich was repeating after the
catastrophe of Tu-154, that in Russia dominated great
chaos. Two weeks were enough, to Head of State
Commission of Air Accident Investigations changed his
mind diametrically. (…)

background image

However now, as informs Russian Interstate Aviation
Committee (MAK) in official statement (…) on a working
meeting of Technical Commission of MAK, whit Poland-
formed commission was to say, that ‘Works of technical
commission are provided according to international
standards, appointed by Annex 13

th

to the Chicago

Convention, which allows an independent and objective
work’.”

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1655117,0,1,wczoraj-bylismy-
petentem--dzis-jest-juz-idealnie,wiadomosc.html

However, this changing of one’s mind was not the

only, concerning Col. Klich. His behaviour on the 8

th

of

May seemed to be unethical. Col. Edmund Klich stated,
according to RMF FM, as following:

1. “I can suppose or actually I know, to whom can

belong the fifth voice recorded by recorder
installed in cockpit of Tu-154, which crashed on
the 10

th

of April.”

2. “Voice will be identified on Sunday” [9

th

of May]

3. “In fact in background is the fifth voice, but I

didn’t hear it, when I was hearing out tapes. In
cabin is noise of engines, of fans, sometimes even
voices of crews aren’t fully clear. Only specialists
with right tackle reduce noises and detect
details.”

4. “In Moscow is a person, who has to verify to

whom belongs voice. Exactly I find out who
should identify him. (...) I got very short fragment
of the recording. There were several statements, I
don’t know what was later and what before. I had
to only fix the person, who will help to identify the

background image

voice. On Sunday probably it will be known to
whom belonged the fifth voice in the cabin.”

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-lech-kaczynski-nie-zyje-
2/kaczynski-fakty/news-edmund-klich-byc-moze-w-
niedziele-zostanie-rozpoznany,nId,276588

After an analyze of the speech of Col. Edmund Klich it

is clearly visible, that he was probably not talking truth
all the time. Please notice, that according to CVR
transcripts there were three so-could “fifth voices”,
belonging to Ms Barbara Maciejczyk, flight attendant,
probably to Mr Mariusz Kazana and last belonging
probably to Gen. Andrzej Blasik. No one talked several
statements
as announced Col. Klich. Please also notice
that he did not say anything more than media that is why
his only target was probably to strengthen
disinformation. Moreover, the same day, so on the 8

th

of

May 2010 Col. Klich was no less talkative in TV TVN-
24, a very well deserved resonator in previous
disinformation processes. According to TVN-24 Col.
Klich stated as following:

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1655478,0,1,piata-osoba-nie-
miala-wplywu-na-katastrofe,wiadomosc.html

1. “I saw a list, which terms as a tenth of a second

correspondence and conversations. There are still
several dozen of brackets.”
Col. Klich was
probably talking about the CVR transcripts, in a
form of table, showing correspondence and
conversations of the crew. Incomprehensible
statements are marked by brackets in CVR.

2. “Commands incomprehensible, which still need

explain, because they can have an influence on

background image

action of the crew”. – Col. Klich clearly
suggested, that there have been some commands
that could alter crew activities.

In these simple statements, although a little bit non-

grammatical, Col. Klich showed clearly, that he is only a
part of disinformation campaign.

His words, although had form of suggestion,
unconfirmed, unofficial information, fuelled significantly
embers of media speculations. The message resonated by
Col. Edmund Klich was clear: I know recorded crew
conversations. There were commends, that probable
influenced the crew.

In the same interview, Klich announced also that: “It

was not a fault or attempt”. He expressed a hundred
percent sure, that is was not any of this two causes.
Therefore, it was a pilot error as indicates an official
version.

On the 9

th

of May situation became quite clear – no

public opinion reaction on the news of Col. Klich – enter
on the misinformation stage was successful.

On the 10

th

of May Major Alexander Khoronchik,

former Russian Air Force pilot, Smolensk Air Base
service worker, who had found a national emblem from
the presidential aircraft said about circumstances of the
catastrophe, that “Telling about pilot’s error is an
insult”
. However, no mainstream media quoted his
statement. It appeared only on low-rating website
niezalezna.pl (

http://niezalezna.pl/article/show/id/33998

).

May however was the time of disinformation

offensive, witch should be a base for MAK preliminary

background image

report, issued on the 19

th

of May and signed by Mrs. Gen.

Tatiana Anodina (Head of the Interstate Aviation
Committee – MAK), Mr Alexei Morozov (Head of the
technical commission of the MAK) and Mr Edmund
Klich (self-styled Polish representative, imported by Mr
Morozov from Poland, not respecting international
aviation law).

Speculations concerning the fifth voice in the cockpit

as well as pilot’s error had reached their apogee about 4-
5 days before the official MAK briefing, and after this
time transformed into smaller maintenance dose.

The biggest scale of the disinformation is visible in an

article from opinion-forming “Rzeczpospolita” (“The
Republic”) from the 14

th

of May 2010.

The article titled “Catastrophe in 36. Regiment”

(

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/68342,479922_Katastrofa_w_3

6__pulku_.html

) is very similar to MAK preliminary

report and is one of the publications evidencing more
disinformation activity before the MAK publication,
which indicates on the connections between MAK and
disinformation coordination. Please look at following
fragments of the article:

1. “The crew which was flying together second time

in life” – This is a typical manipulation. Please
notice that pilot-in-command and co-pilot have
been training and flying together for over 20
years (since aviation high school, where they
were flying Cessna-size aircraft, than jets in the
Air Force Academy and passenger aircrafts
commonly for 13 years).

background image

2. “None of the pilots had the certificate to carry out

conversations with the tower in Russian.” – such
certificates do not exist, so it was not possible for
the crewmembers to have them.

3. “Never before had not trained together an

emergency situation in a flight simulator” – last
time trained in 2010, just before the catastrophe,
according to Gen. Czaban, Polish Air Force.

4. “The media named the crew of the feral flight

<<elite of the Polish Aviation>>. The truth is that
they were young, talented soldiers, but their
experience is not breathtaking.” – Media refers to
low-circulation far right magazines. As in a
military aviation (were every flying hour is much
more difficult than in civil aviation: flights during
to war zones, to Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, VIP
flights, long oversea routs, flying by unsafe,
Russian aircraft) the aircrew experience was
“breathtaking”.

On the 18

th

of May PAP had announced, that on the

19

th

of May 2010 (Wednesday), there would be a press

briefing of Interstate Aviation Committee in Moscow. As
it later happened.

2.8

Everything was beautiful, only the pilots are

guilty…

Transcripts, found by us in one of the ring binders

describe a situation that had happened on the 19

th

of

May, and was completely identical with a recording we
had watched hour earlier. So, Moscow, huge, beautiful

background image

conference room. Everything was beautiful. Many
journalists, one born every minute. A kind of respect is
possible to detect for Gen. Anodina among the
journalists. If we had Disinformation Awareness
Warning System (or Enhanced Disinformation Proximity
Warning System), it would scream as loud as it could be
possible. It would surely detect following factors:

1. In contrast to every other so huge

conference there were not flashes
lighting, every second (was it a sacrum
or photographers ban? Well there was
live TV transmission in Poland,
according to PAP), the journalists were
unbelievably calm and polite – did not
attack by a strike of questions, as they do
normally.

2. Questions to Mrs. General neither from

Russian nor from Polish were difficult –
only one planted the thrust of MAK – a
journalist of Gazeta Wyborcza asked the
empress of Soviet aviation
about the
certificates of MAK and her pilot-
blaming strategy after each air disaster.
However, she was perfectly prepared –
answered also perfectly. It looked like
had been previously agreed.

3. Consensus politics of Polish self-styled

representative (had been requested to
came Russia not by Polish government,
but by Mr Morozov, friend and deputy of
Gen. Anodina). He was quiet and mousy.
One of the journalists asked him a

background image

question, but Mrs. Anodina said as real
empress: “I will answer, Mr Klich can
speak later!”.

4. Not completely preliminary report was

published during the briefing, but only its
fragments – separated elements.

5. The document (official preliminary

report) was not shown.

After the briefing on the website of MAK all, the text

appeared of course in Russian language only. There had
been three people present behind a big table in MAK
conference room: Mrs. Anodina, Mr Morozov and Mr
Klich. Nevertheless, the preliminary report is parted on
two. One of the sections is signed by Gen. Anodina,
second one by Mr Morozov. There is not any section or
even a fragment issued by Mr Klich.

We can state, that we probably never have seen a

document less truthful, although we had already been
analyzing Russian disinformation processes concerning
airspace disasters. Following fragments are not
comparable with the reality or self-conflicted:

1. “With a conviction, I declare that all the

circumstances and causes of the disaster
will be determined objectively and
transparently. The basis for this is that
the Russian and Polish governments have
decided to examine the plane crash Tu-
154 of Polish Ministry of Defense
[originally: MinDefense], which was
flying on an international route with
passengers on board, in accordance with

background image

international principles of the Chicago
Convention, which ratified the 190
countries, including Russia and Poland
.”
T. G. Anodina. – Please notice, that there
are two self-conflicted statements in this
fragment: Chicago Convention does not
refer to military aircraft – no military
aircraft catastrophe in the history had
been examined according to the Chicago
Convention. General however stated, that
the aircraft had been a property of Polish
Ministry of Defense so – a military
aircraft.

2. “For the implementation of the

Convention on the independence of the
investigation, it is important that the
investigation is conducted by an
international organization, which is
guided by norms of international law and
has extensive experience of international
investigations in 53 countries
worldwide
.” – T.G. Anodina, but about
“international” character of MAK she
stated once again: “MAK Technical
Commission, consisted of specialists of
the Ministry of Defense of Russia, works
closely with a large group of Polish
military and civilian experts, the Polish
Plenipotentiary Mr. Klich at the head.
” –
MAK does not respect any international
standard, because all the members of the
technical commission examining the

background image

catastrophe are representing military of
Russia! Moreover large group, gen.
Anodina was talking about consists of
two people - Mr Waldemar Targalski
(pilot) and Mr Slawomir Michalak
(expert), according to Col. Miroslaw
Grochowski, Ministry of Defense Flight
Safety Inspectorate (quoted by Gazeta
Wyborcza).
(

http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,8066385,Za

gadki_na_zoltych_karteczkach.html

)

3. “We highly appreciate the fact that the

beginning of the investigation, we have
the support of colleagues from the United
States, European Union countries who
have declared that they did not question
the independence, objectivity and
professionalism of our Commission
.”
T.G. Anodina – us, as well as Google,
Bing, AltaVista and British experts asked
by us do not know anything about such
“declarations”. Moreover before the
catastrophe, as well as after opposite
statements appeared in USA and EU.
MAK did not benefit any support from
European Experts (Americans are
examining own-made devices, but also
here objectivity is low, because this
examination is to be carried out by… the
producer)

4. “Since the first day of Polish specialists

have been involved in all aspects of the

background image

investigation, and have had access to all
necessary materials, both at the scene of
the event, and the deciphering of the
<<<black boxes>>>
” T.G. Anodina –
that is not truth, Polish experts did not
receive Air Traffic Control recorder and
transcripts, did not receive testimonies of
a crew of Russian aircraft, did not talk
with air controllers, do not know
anything about the radar and other
airport’s equipment details. Polish
experts (or even prosecutors, officers,
diplomats) were not present during 95
medical examinations of passengers and
crew members, Polish representative Mr
Klich at the time of conference and much
later did not know all the cockpit voice
recording and did not receive
documentation found in the aircraft. Mr
Klich did not watch official crash
animation.

5. “Comes to an end analysis of the data

from conducted by the Technical
Commission test flight to research all the
flight aids of the airport, including
landing radio equipment and other
materials, obtained by deciphering the
object control devices
.” – This statement
of Mrs. Anodina completely discredits
MAK – the airport was examined by a
commission consisted by the Russian
military specialists, so representatives of

background image

airport’s owner. That is why results of
their work cannot be objective, due to
conflict of interest.

6. “The work on deciphering conversations

crew members had been completed
commonly. Identification of their voices
was carried out by Polish pilots
.” – That
is not truth, Mrs. Anodina forgave to add,
that “the pilots” refers to one and alone
Lt.-Col. Bartosz Stroinski, who moreover
did not authorize the identification by his
signature. According to Russian and
Polish law, the voice identification is
invalid.

7. “Work was impeded by a high-level of

the noise, including going thought the
opened door of the cockpit.
” Cockpit
Voice Recorder transcripts clearly
indicates, that during approach cockpit
door was closed (it will be evidenced in
farther sections). This statement can be
furthermore cased only by a terrible
insolence of Mrs. Anodina or a kind of
mistake, which however discredits MAK
corpulently.

8. „In order of cleaning the record from

noise special apparatus owned by the
MAK with unique software were used.
The voices of the members of the crew
have been exactly identified
.” – as it
appeared later, after transcripts’
disclosing that this statement of Mrs.

background image

Anodina was not truth – 34% of
crewmembers voices were unidentified.
Moreover, Russian “unique software
left in the transcripts 143 unreadable
statements and expressions in 37 minutes
recording. No comments need.

9. “It was found out, that in the cabin were

another persons, not the members of the
crew. The voice of one of them precisely
identified, the voice of another (or
others) is subjected to additional
identification by the Polish side. This is
important for the investigation.
” – In the
transcripts published later, but preferred
before the conference, both voices had
been already identified. Nothing
indicates, that any of these voices had
any importance. Probably Mrs. Anodina
tried to suggest, that Mr Lech Kaczynski
forced landing on the pilots.

10. “In the laboratory, a research centre in

the U.S. with the participation of MAK’s
and Polish specialists, with the
participation of the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
in the framework of our bilateral
agreement with the U.S. has been
deciphered the information system of the
Terrain Awareness and Warning System
TAWS and satellite navigation system
GNSS. Specialists began to analyze the

background image

results.” – before and later MAK stated,
that this devices had been send to the
producer, Universal Avionics of Tucson,
US, so please notice, although Mrs.
Anodina barely able to name all the
institutions taking part in the examination
did not stated, that “the specialists” refers
to Universal Avionics workers, whose
work can not be objective due to a
conflict of interest.

11. “In the unit lacks of a detailed program

crews’ preparation. Not performed
regular periodic training on the
simulator in order to develop habits of
cooperation and technology work of the
crew, in case of special events during the
flight.
” – According to Gen. Czaban,
Polish Air Force crew was training on
flight simulators – last time in 2010. It
would be a wrong way to act as a
solicitor of the 36

th

Regiment, because of

their negligence, but crew-training
program exists in the unit, according to
their officers.

12. According to Mr Morozov, flying

experience of the crewmembers was less
than in reality (concerning all the
crewmembers).

Mr Morozov also stated and wrote that all of the

devices of the aircraft as well as the engines were
working perfectly until the ground impact. The airfield

background image

according to Morozov was perfectly prepared, what
clearly contrasts with the truth.

The preliminary report of MAK started a wave of

speculations, especially due to a statement of Mr
Morozov concerning turning of the autopilot only 5-4
seconds before the trees impact. This statement is in
some measure (not completely) comparable with the
MAK’s transcripts prepared using “unique software”,
where all the voices are “exactly identified”, excluding
unidentified of course.

2.9

The truth is covered. Farther indoctrination.

To describe disinformation process it had been

necessary to chose only 60 days, but it seems to be
enough to prefer surely full and clear description of the
disinformation, which will indicate whether Russia is
guilty of the air disaster. To perform such analyze, before
this stage a basic work should be to translate and analyze
512 pages of the documentation – press articles and TV
news transcripts. To be sure, that we fully understand all
the problems we also researched Flight Management
System UNS-1D operational manual and a manual of the
aircraft Tupolev-154M – nearly 1000 pages of
documentation, but of course, it was not a titanic work,
because it was not obligatory to study all the manual
pages as strictly as the press articles. Moreover, many
pages of the Tu-154M instruction consist of draws in
contrast with press articles, analyzed by ourselves in text-
only version. On this stage, we had already researched
1400-1500 A4 pages.

background image

On the 20

th

of April appeared many opinions in media

concerning flight on the autopilot up to trees impact. For
example, business portal sfora.pl announced “Pilots:
Crew of Tu-154 switched the autopilot off too late”.
Portal makes use from the statement of the pilot Dariusz
Sobczynski, who without complex data and not waiting
for the final report suggested, that the crew tried to land
on the autopilot. (

www.sfora.pl/Piloci-Zaloga-Tu-154-za-

pozno-wylaczyla-autopilota-a20355

)

Also on the 20

th

of April 2010, Gazeta Wyborcza

quoted Lt. Artur Wosztyl, pilot-in-command of another
Polish Air Force Flight - PLF-044, who had called PLF-
101 just before they crashed. According to Lt. Wosztyl,
the Air Traffic Control had to close the airport, but not
this statement was keynote of the Gazeta Wyborcza
article, but the fact, that PLF-044 informed PLF-101
three times about poor weather conditions and
recommended flying to an alternative. This became a
base of the medial allegations against the pilot Capt.
Arkadiusz Protasiuk, that he “landed” although 3 times
had been warned about meteo conditions. Lt. Wosztyl
added also, that PLF-101 was not landing but only
performing an approach, not going to descend below the
minimal safety altitude of 330 ft.

According to Lt. Wosztyl air traffic controllers did not

probably know, that Tu-154M had crashed, because a
man, who left the tower said, that the aircraft “flown
away”.

(

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,7912876,Pilot__Mowilem

_im_o_zlych_warunkach_w_Smolensku.html

)

background image

The biggest Polish information TV – TVN-24

suggested that the pilots ignored weather reports and
Terrain Awareness Warning System: “Pull up! Pull up!”
commands, just after a visit of Polish Air Force head –
Gen. Andrzej Blasik. This suggestion had as a target
evidencing that it was a forced landing – forced by Mr
Lech Kaczynski and Gen. Blasik. Please however notice,
that estimate time of Gen. Blasik’s visit in cockpit was
(in contrast to TVN analyze) only 10 seconds and he did
not say anything to the pilots or any other crewmember.

http://www.tvn24.pl/1,1657127,druk.html

Of course, it would not be a good idea to paste here

500 pages of documentation, because the lecture would
became even more boring, than it is now. However, the
20

th

of April was a specific and significant day that also

one article should be described. On the 20

th

of April

Polish Press Agency PAP forwarded to all the web
portals (that published it on their front-pages or in the
best exposed available place) and TV stations an article
from Russian Kommersant also blaming the pilots and
completely not compatible with the reality. Tactics of
disinformation on the 10

th

of April were to strike public

opinion by lots of different articles describing thousands
of versions showing unreal circumstances, but every time
blaming pilots. Many self-conflicted versions appeared –
but every one in mains stream media (TV, radio, most
popular dailies) concerned the pilot error.

Kommersant quoted by all the Polish news TV
stations stated as following:

1. “Russian experts are convinced that the

Tu-154M crash occurred, due to

background image

inexperience of the presidential pilot, who
wishing to fulfil the request of the officials
agreed on lethal landing, and then,
listening to the navigator, made fatal
errors in the piloting
” – Russian and
Soviet experts many times were already
convinced of something, but history
verified their false theories about the air
disasters.

2. According to Kommersant “commands of

the controller were little bit to late”, but he
“not keep up with reading meanings
because of too high speed descent of the
machine
”. – He was using Precision
Approach Radar; such situation could not
take place.

3. „The first error consisted in the fact that

the commander, performing imprecision
approach to landing, turned on the
autopilot system, you absolutely should not
do.”
According to operational manual of
Tu-154M, that Russian experts have not
probably redden, or already forgotten –
when the GPS is available crew should use
autopilot, just like PLF-101! Also retired
Polish Airlines pilot, Mr Janusz
Wieckowski (19.000 flying hours
experience on inter alia Boeing B-767 and
Tupolev Tu-154M) states clearly that using
of the autopilot was not prohibited.

4. “After entering the glideslope on which

according to his calculations should

background image

descent the machine, the commander
entered to the autopilot descending rate of
4m/s and begun landing, thinking, that the
gear would touch down the threshold of
the runway”
- It is not truth, because in
Tu-154M not a descending rate but an
angle (from 21

o

descending to 29

o

ascending) can only be entered to the
autopilot ABSU-154-II (using a shifter).
Moreover, – in conflict with Kommersant
insinuations - the pilot ceased descending
on the decision level of 100m (ft330).

5. “Meanwhile, the navigator was controlling

the altitude using a radio altimeter - the
instrument setting out the distance from the
ground on the basis of reflection from the
surface of the radio signal.
” – This is a
basic lie started by Kommersant, and
repeated hundreds times by Polish and
Russian media. According to CVR
transcripts, the navigator was using only
the barometric altimeter.

6. “Role in the fatal crash - according to the

experts - has played a gently sloping, long
ravine, deep on about 40 meters, located in
front of the airport and the inexperience of
the navigator.” – It is not a fact, because
the navigator should not have any
experience to be able to correctly read the
altimeter. In addition, this insinuation was
basic for farther disinformation – “they
dived into the gorge, they were descending

background image

[incorrectly] on the radio altimeter” –
media to be speaking. Nobody was able to
read the manual – Tu-154M autopilot can
only use barometric altimeter. It is
impossible to descent on the autopilot with
applied radio altimeter glidepath keeping.

7. “When the plane was flying above the

bottom of the ravine and the earth began to
flee down the navigator panicked and
began to inform the commander that they
were going above the course”. – It is not
truth, no such statement in CVR
transcripts. Moreover, the course is a
magnetic or geographical direction – so it
is possible to fly left or right off the course,
but not above.

8. “The commander believed his subordinate

and doubly increased descending rate.
Meanwhile the ravine ended and a long hill
appeared. And about excessive descending
rate pilots forgave” – This is impossible
for pilots to forgive about descending rate
– clearly visible on the all indicators.

http://www.tvn24.pl/1,1657106,druk.html

However, the problem is that, these completely absurd

theories had been stated by somebody who knows
nothing about flying and Tu-154M characteristics had
been published by the most opinion forming
Kommersant, read by Russian elite – lawyers, politics,
and doctors. Such serious newspaper would never print
so – the only one word is correct here - idiot opinion.
This one of the evidences, that disinformation processes

background image

are conducted by authorities, forcing defined behaviour
on the editors, which in Russia is normal. Moreover, it
indicates that disinformation is coordinated by the
Russians.

On the 21

st

of April 2010 comparable with “The Sun”,

popular daily “Fakt” (pol. “Fact”, owned by German
Axel Springer Group), quoted Mr Vladimir Ivanov, who
was lying that he recorded the first film form the place of
the catastrophe. It was one of few persons, who said that
they are authors – but every of them say one thing:
“There were no shots on the recording and if even was
nobody was killed by Russians”, of course on this first
recording from the place of the catastrophe (14 minutes
after the terrain impact) there were three shots.

This aspect, of course commonly reported by the all-

mainstream media was prepared to evidence that it was
not an assassination.

On the 21

st

of April 2010 also echo of the words of Lt.

Wosztyl, MAK report and radio-altimeter using
hypothesis can be detected.

This was also a time of flooding, a tragedy, but making

able disinformation coordinators to stop their processes
(to not be diagnosed as a propaganda they should before
every bigger strike find or scatter substitution subject).

Also Polish self-styled Polish representative, Col.

Edmund Klich (do not mistake with Mr Bogdan Klich,
MD) suddenly appeared on the end of May, to show, that
he has a CVR transcripts, but he did not give it anybody
and did not disclose it. He wanted only to boast and next
time state, that it had been a pilot’s error.

background image

(

http://www.fakt.pl/Zapis-czarnych-skrzynek-jest-juz-

w-Polsce-,artykuly,72644,1.html

)

The number of publications concerning pilots’ error

suddenly decreased because the end on May Polish
interior minister Mr Jerzy Miler meet Mrs. Anodina in
Moscow and received his own CVR transcripts, but also
CVR audio on CD (still secret) and the most important
Flight Data Recorder parameters on CD (also still secret).

2.10

Self-styled but necessitating representative,

investigation who is who and notable so-called

“experts”.

Edmund Klich

“Yes, it was a pilot error”.

Edmund Klich

The 22

nd

of May was not a flashpoint, but a

continuation of started processes. On the other hand, it
was also a time of great come back of Mr Edmund Klich.
According to Polish officers, Mr Klich requested to
Smolensk by Mr Alexei Morozov, came. There are many
self-conflicted versions of the work of Mr Klich.

However, that is a fact, that Mr Klich decided to

contact with journalists on the 23.04.2010 and stated as
following (

http://dlapilota.pl/wiadomosci/polska/klich-

nie-musielismy-byc-petentem-rosjan

):

1. There was a chaos in Russian investigation.

background image

2. Poland took a role of a petitioner in Russian

investigation.

3. He had been forced to co-operation with

prosecutors by the minister Klich, MD.

4. “I know what is the target and who is doing

clamour here. People who are guilty of the
catastrophe want to lay everything on the
pilots’ doors, but the cause was another. And
they
[pilots] are only the last on the end of a
daisy chain taking errors of everybody.”

had out Mr Klich with Klich, MD.

On the 6

th

of May 2010, Mr Klich had been requested

to the Commission of the Air Transport and Naval
Economy of the Parliament Infrastructure Commission,
to explain sense of his statement and submit a
clarification. He came.

http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-06-

27-stenogram-z-przesluchania-edmunda-klicha.html

.

In his interrogation took part: Mr Cezary Grabarczyk,

minister of the infrastructure, Mr Tadeusz Jarmuziewicz,
deputy minister of the infrastructure, Mr Marcin Idzik
deputy minister of defense, Mr Henryk Litwin, deputy
minister of foreign affairs, Mr Maciej Krych, deputy
head of consular department of ministry of foreign affairs
and Gen. Anatol Czaban, head of training command of
the Polish Air Force Headquarters in Warsaw. President
of the commission (PTLiGM) – Mr Krzysztof
Tchorzewski of conservative Law and Justice, of dead
president (opposite to governing Civic Platform liberal
party of Mr Donald Tusk) was interrogation Mr Klich.
(Translation word-by-word)

background image

Head of Commission: I ask Mr Representative of
Poland to introduce to today meeting.

Edmund Klich: First. I would like to state, that if some
dates won’t compatible,

I don’t have these notes

, that

would today be useful, so there any shifts of one day, or
the hours won’t be compatible, so please forgive. If there
will be questions in writing I can answer later.

HC: A mike, closer please.
EK: Excuse me, repeat or... (?)
HC: No.
EK: It was already understandable. Second. I want to
demarcate two concepts. If I will speak “examination” it
means that it is examination by commission either Polish,
or of Russian Federation. If I will speak “investigation”,
it means that it is an affair of the prosecution. And this
should be demarked, cause often this concepts are
mistaken and information chaos arises then and some
misunderstandings are due to this reason.

I'll start from the first information, about which – like
perhaps most of you – I know from media. Even called
also a son. He said: “Dad, do you know what is
happening?”. I turned on TVN-24, I see what is
happening, and as a result I started packing and I go to
Warsaw, because I knew already that can be legal
problem. Why? Because that aircraft is an aircraft - was
an aircraft of state aviation. The crew was military.

Therefore, it concerns the state aviation, which doesn’t
involve Annex 13 to the Convention of International
Civil Aviation.

(…)

background image

So somewhere half away, perhaps in region of Garwolin,
cause I live in Deblin, and for weekends I go to Deblin,
in week or if necessary, I live in Warsaw, so there is no
here some problem of way in, to the place of accident or
aught.
Half away I received a call from Mr Alexei Morozov, this
is currently head of Commission of Russian Federation,
deputy of Mrs. Anodina – a head of <<Miezhnarodna
Aviatsionnaya Komisya…>> Committee, it means
International Aviation Committee Because that
Committee has bigger task than examination and
examination conducts in 12 countries of former Soviet
Union, it means every besides Baltic Countries.
He called me and told mine, that there is a catastrophe in
Smolensk, and he treats it as a telephone notification,
however official will be later. And there was at once
question about procedures, according to which will this
accident be examined.
He proposed Annex 13 to Convention, cause I think, that
according to his knowledge, and then my knowledge, it
was the only document, that signed Polish side, and
Russian Federation as a Chicago convention – so called
‘from ’44 year” .

Following facts are here interesting:

1. After a month of working Mr Klich did not even

know what is the name of Russian institution –
Interstate Aviation Committee – that Mr Klich
called in Russian word-by-word International
Aviation Commission (with an error in the first
word: exactly he said something like

background image

“Intnational” or “Intenation”, not “International”),
which he interpreted in Polish: “International
Aviation Committee which still was incomparable
with real name. It means that:

a. Mr Klich cannot speak Russian.
b. Indolence of Mr Klich is clearly visible. If

he cannot determine what is the name of
commission he is cooperating with, he
will not be able to determine causes of the
air disaster. Moreover, he did not have an
access to own notes in Warsaw, it is
possible that he left it in Moscow.

2. Mr Klich did know perfectly that it is illegal to

examine (or investigate) Smolensk Air Disaster,
but after Morozov called he agreed to perform
such illegal steps.

3. Mr Klich had been requested by Morozov half

away to Warsaw from Deblin, Poland, so
according to Google Earth 40km from Warsaw,
he had been called by Mr Morozov.

Because statements of Mr Klich are extremely difficult

in perception, due to his specific language and grammar,
as difficult in sense-by-sense translation, as well in word-
by-word translation, his long testimony is abstracted in
paragraphs.

1. Mr Klich had arrived to the Ministry of

Infrastructure and was explaining minister, Mr
Grabarczyk what is Chicago Convention.

2. Then Mr Klich was watching TVN-24 news in

the ministry.

background image

3. At 14:50, he received decision that he would fly

to Smolensk – he was on the list of passengers
of Mr Donald Tusk, prime minister.

4. He had arrived Warsaw Frederic Chopin

International Airport before the prime minister
and decided to departure by Yak-40 military
aircraft to Smolensk, without the prime
minister. Prime minister took off earlier, by a
civil aircraft. Mr Klich had been flying in
company of Mr Waldemar Targalski, who
according to him was able to identify voices in
the black box, as [former] Tu-154M pilot of the
36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment.

5. According to Mr Klich on the place of accident

it appeared that, they do not have visas, and
have to comply many formalities.

6. At 20:00, he had been finally allowed to view

place of the catastrophe. He was informed by
Mr Morozov and Mrs. Anodina, who welcomed
them that they already found the black boxes
and there have to be two Polish people – a pilot
and an expert necessary to examine recorders
(black boxes) in Moscow. Mr Klich decided to
send Mr Targalski, and a Head of Military
Aviation Institute, but he did not agree,
justifying, that better expert would arrive with
the prime minister.

7. Mr Tusk and other passengers of his aircraft,

including the expert were not stopped due to
formalities, like Mr Klich. Mr Tusk’s delegation
landed at Vitebsk, Belarus, had no any formal

background image

problems on the airport and than on the Russo-
Belarusian border.

8. On the 11

th

of April, Mr Klich was documenting

place of the accident until afternoon, when huge
delegation of the flight safety inspectorate of
the Ministry of Defense arrived. It was about 20
people.

9. Mr Klich was managing all the activities on the

place of the air disaster, but organizational
problems he ceded on Col. Grochowski, from
the inspectorate.

10. On the Monday chef of Polish commission

became Col. Grochowski. Col. Klich however
forced on him being his deputy, claiming that
he knows Annex 13 in contrast to Col.
Grochowski.

11. Russian side had been represented in

negotiations with Mr Klich and Mr Grochowski
by Mr Morozov and a general who was a chief
of Russian commission, but Mr Klich does not
remember his surname! [According to
unofficial information, it was Aleksandr
Bastrykin].

12. Mr Grochowski proposed to be Poland

represented by 7 representatives, but Mr Klich
told him, that according to the Annex 13 there
could be only one representative, which can
have advisors.

13. Russians were not going to agree with the

proposition of Mr Grochowski. But Mr Klich
helped them stating that:

a. There can be only one representative.

background image

b. Because the Chicago Convention and its

Annex 13 refers to civil aviation, Polish
representative should become a civil
person. Please notice, that Col. Klich
represents civil commission, he is not
military officer.

The negotiations have been ended without result. There

was no any agreement to use Annex 13 or to be Mr Klich
a Polish representative.

14. On the 13

th

of April, Mr Klich had been

requested to meet Prime Minister Col. Vladimir
Putin.

15. Mr Klich called Minister Cezary Grabarczyk

[the same who did not know what is a Chicago
Convention – it is terrible, because Mr
Grabarczyk is a lawyer. For example, one of us
feels that this Convention is known by him
perfectly.] Mr Grabarczyk did not permitted on
the meeting with Col. Putin, but also did not
prohibit it.

16. Mr Klich carried out a teleconference with:

a. Col. Vladimir Putin, prime minister of
Russian Federation

b. Mr Sergei Ivanov, deputy prime minister
of Russian Federation.

c. Gen. Tatiana Anodina, head of the
Interstate Aviation Committee [but also wife
of former prime minister, shareholder of the
second larger airlines in Russia, empress of
Soviet Aviation,
professor of aircraft
designing, mother of one of wealthiest
Russians].

background image

17. Col. Putin and Mrs. Anodina told Mr Klich that

they would proceed according to the Annex 13.

18. After the teleconference Mr Morozov designed

Mr Klich a representative of Poland stating: Now
you are the boss.

19. Mr Klich though that Mr Putin and Mrs.

Anodina before had consulted examining the air
disaster (or rather conducting the investigation)
according to the Annex 13, with the Polish
government and became a self-styled Polish
representative. MAK dismissed col. Grochowski
back home and Klich became an only leader of
Polish expert’s team – 20 workers of Col.
Grochowski and 1 worker of Mr Klich – Mr
Frydrych.

21. Mr Klich made Col. Grochowski his deputy,

although it is not normal practice in
investigations, to be conducted according to
Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention.

22. On the 15

th

of April Mr Bogdan Klich, MD

appointed official Polish commission to
explain the catastrophe and nominated all it’s
members Polish representatives, so did

not

agree to use Chicago Convention and Annex 13.

23. Mr Klich was nominated to be the chef of the

Polish commission.

24. Mr Klich argued with military attorney Gen.

Krzysztof Parulski (colonel and the time), because
Mr Morozov asked him how it was possible, that
an expert of Polish commission helped the
prosecution.

background image

25. Mr Parulski told Mr Klich, that he was acting

to the detriment of Poland deciding to use Annex
13 However, Mr Klich extinguished his zeal,
asking if Mr Parulski could speak English of
Russian and how was he going to talk with Mr
Morozov, not speaking these languages.

26. “Mrs. Fiszer” from Polish Embassy in Moscow

took to Smolensk an interpreter… student of high
school, who should help in interpreting and
translating materials in one of the most important
investigations in last years of NATO and European
Union history.


The following conclusions come from the Mr

Klich’s interrogation.

1. Mr Klich perfectly knew that using Annex

13 in investigation, so examining on the civil
rules is illegal, because it was not civil but a
military aircraft.

2. Mr Klich was endeavouring to break the law

and conduct the investigation using Annex
13.

3. Mr Klich after becoming a head of Polish

commission betrayed state interest.

4. Russians were able to unbelievable simply

manipulate Mr Klich. He was not competent
even to guess, that if minister Grabarczyk
knew nothing about planes of meeting
Klich-Putin, Col. Putin had not previously
talking with Polish government about the air
disaster investigation plans.

background image

5. Mr Klich consciously managed to decrease

number of Polish representatives to be the
only representative.

6. Working of Mr Klich in a light of his own

testimony, cover characteristics of the act of
the article 129 of Polish Penal Code, Who
being authorized to acting on behalf of
Republic of Poland, acts to the detriment of
Republic of Poland, is punishable from one
to ten years of imprisonment.

Because the acts of Mr Klich were inspired by the

Russians, who could control him like a child – it is
sure, those farther statements of him were also
inspired by the Russians.

However, that statement was very

interesting.

Please analyze his behaviour in a context

of the text above.

Statements and work of Polish self-styled
representative in Moscow Col. Edmund Klich

Date

Edmund Klich Behaviour

10.04.2010
-
22.04.2010

-Mr Klich requested by Russians to Russia
-Mr Klich has not any problems concerning co-
operation with Russians
-Mr Klich although had known, that it is illegal
managed to make wrong document legal base of the
investigation
-Mr Klich did not permit to carry out international
investigation, going to be the investigation
conducted according to Annex 13
-Mr Klich managed to become the only Polish
representative.
-Mr Klich received military experts group of Col.
Grochowski and became their new chef.
-Mr Klich in conflict with attorney Parulski, because
Russians (Mr Morozov) prohibited Klich to “lease”
Parulski a meteorologist “received” from Grochowski’s
commission.

background image

-Mr Klich contacts with minister Klich, MD to
complain attorney Parulski, but vainly
-Mr Klich conquered in Russia role of the only
Poland’s representative
-Mr Klich dominated his concurrent Col. Grochowski
-Mr Klich defended himself from indictment of
attorney Parulski, because Parulski was depended from
his help in investigation works and… talking with Mr
Morozov, because speaks Polish only

-

http://zbigniewkozak.pl/?p=1220

23.04.2010

-Mr Klich criticises Polish negotiations with Russia
(please notice, that he took part in this
negotiations supporting Russians from MAK)
-Mr Klich reports, that Poland took “suppliant role”
in Russian investigation.
-Mr Klich accused guilty people of doing “clamour”.
-Mr Klich reported, that he knew what had happened
-

http://www.tvn24.pl/12690,1653371,0
,1,klich-nie-musielismy-byc-
petentem-rosjan,wiadomosc.html

06.05.2010

-Mr Klich expressed appreciation for the co-operation
with Russians. -

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1655117,0,1,w
czoraj-bylismy-petentem--dzis-jest-
juz-idealnie,wiadomosc.html

08.05.2010

-Mr Klich reported about “the fifth voice in
cockpit”.
-He did not hear this voice in original CVR recording
-Mr Klich saw official crash animation.

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-lech-
kaczynski-nie-zyje-2/kaczynski-
fakty/news-edmund-klich-byc-moze-w-
niedziele-zostanie-
rozpoznany,nId,276588

15.05.2010

-Mr Klich reported, that the official crash animation
did not answer what had happened (earlier he told
something opposite).
-There were 8 Polish experts in Moscow
-The investigation results would be known in a year.

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-lech-
kaczynski-nie-zyje-2/kaczynski-

background image

fakty/news-edmund-klich-odtworzono-
ostatnie-minuty-lotu-
prezydenckiego,nId,278212

19.05.2010

Official preliminary report

www.mak.ru

19.05.2010

-An information (not of Edmund Klich), that Gen.
Blasik had been present in the cockpit appears.
-Gen. Anodina reported, that affair of forced landing
would be examined yet.

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1656971,0,1,p
ap-to-glos-generala-
blasika,wiadomosc.html

24.05.2010

According to Mr Edmund Klich (radio RMF FM, morning):
-There was a fifth person in cockpit at the moment of
catastrophe
(not comparable with CVR)
-According to Annex 13

th

of Chicago Commission the

only authorized to publish any information is
international committee (this is an untruth, no any
international committee assumption in the annex
)
-Mr Klich confirmed that did not know (after 1,5
month of investigation!) how does Tu-154M cockpit
look like (!).

-Mr Klich stated that he is not allowed to inform who
had been the fifth voice owner.
-Mr Klich stated that it was a fault of system.

http://www.rmf24.pl/opinie/wywiady/
kontrwywiad/news-edmund-klich-
katastrofa-smolenska-skutkiem-
wieloletnich,nId,279719

24.05.2010

TVN television, evening
-At the same day he disclosed that the fifth voice
was a voice of gen. Blasik, breaking his words from
morning.
-Mr Klich stated that it was a pilot error, breaking
his morning words.

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1657727,0,1,k
lich-w-kabinie-pilotow-do-konca-
byl-gen-blasik,wiadomosc.html

background image

1.06.2010

CVR transcripts disclosed

(

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2178777,

11,1,1,item.html

):

-No evidence of forced landing
-CVR transcripts seems to be dishonest

A table above completely disqualifies Mr

Klich. His own statements indicate that
he is not characterized by any
professionalism, self-restraint and
honesty. He seems to be unbalanced and
confused.

Col. Stefan Gruszczyk: it was a suicide!

Next days of the disinformation were full of the Polish

and Russian expert’s opinion.

Behaviour of Mr Stefan Gruszczyk should be also

described here, because this former pilot seems to be the
most immoral voice of the all criticizing PLF-101 crew.
There are several another experts taking probably the part
in disinformation, including for example Mr Tomasz
Hypki, Col. Piotr Lukaszewicz, Capt. Robert Zawada but
nobody had descended to mental level of Mr Gruszczyk.
That former pilot is commonly quoted by Polish
mainstream media as an expert, knowing himself as a
former commander of Tu-154M squadron – such
squadron however never existed…

For example:

1. RMF FM: “It was a nonchalant flight”, “the crew

was not harmonious

http://www.rmf24.pl/opinie/wywiady/przesluchan
ie/news-stefan-gruszczyk-lot-tu-154m-byl-
nonszalancki-zaloga-nie,nId,284218

background image

2. TVN-24: „It was a hazard, playing Lotto, suicide.

They broke rules written by blood.”

http://www.tvn24.pl/1,1658058,druk.html


Mr Gruszczyk on the 24

th

of May in TVN-24 had

been explaining mistakenly sense of command “Posadka
dopalnitielna”
(landing conditionally), evidencing that
this command exists only in Russia, because there is a
possibility, that some aircraft had not left the runway (!).
He did not notice that aircrafts use runways not only in
Russia, so such argumentation should be missed.
Moreover, before this command Smolensk ATC reported
PLF-101 “runway is free” – it stays in conflict with Mr
Gruszczyk argumentation.

Moreover in a comment for Gazeta Wyborcza,

when accuse dead colleagues, he mistook Global
Positioning System (GPS) with Distance Measuring
Equipment (DME), stating that GPS is only additional
device helping in distance estimating. Please however
notice, that during approach in Smolensk GPS was basic
navigation form the autopilot to carry out approach.

In the same article Mr Gruszczyk was evidencing

not truthfully, that beacons has not any influence during
approach and 10 degrees beacon direction oscillation had
been correct (!). He also tried to justify Air Traffic
Control, full of mistakes.

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,8114173,Katastrofa_w_Smol
ensku__To_byl_lot_na_slepo.html

– please translate this

article via for example google translate. Only reading of
the manual can be recommended for Mr Gruszczyk.
However, a number of his statements in mainstream
media are unbelievable.

background image

Tomasz Hypki and his boys

Tomasz Hypki is according to “Nasz Dziennik”

former WSI (military intelligence of Republic of Poland
before 2006, co-operating with Russian intelligence,
dealing guns, sponsoring mafia, training terrorists and do
not performing any intelligence role) co-operator.

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?dat=20100616&ty
p=po&id=po51.txt

He is not credible, because of his

statements concerning all modern Polish Air Force
equipment in his journal “Skrzydlata Polska”. Mr Hypki
many times tried to blame Polish pilots for the air
disaster performing disinformation in mainstream media
as well as in professional aviation press edited by him.
He also in many interviews tried to accuse for the air
disaster Polish Air Force or the pilots when it only was
possible (

http://www.bibula.com/?p=20420

).

Nevertheless not Mr Hypki, but his colleague and

subordinate Mr Wojciech Luczak evidenced that do his
best to blame the pilots and inculcate to public opinion,
that it was no a technical fault and not an assassination or
downing. In an interview from the 2

nd

of June 2010 stated

shamelessly: “Pilots made all possible errors!”. As well
as he was talking about his hands shaking, when reading
the CVR transcripts. Mr Luczak was lying: There was a
chaos in cockpit! (…) Commander of the Air Force was
reading manual of wing mechanization!
– Please notice
that it is a manipulation of facts, because such manual
does not exist. Mr Luczak performs also typical
manipulation concerning “Consultations with the
passengers”
(there were people on the board who

background image

according to procedures PIC had to inform about the
situation!) and “Lack of decision of the president”. Mr
Luczak tries to evidence, that the pilots were idiots and
Mr Kaczynski forced landing on them. He names Russian
MAK “International Commission” what is an absurd. He
also stated, that crew was inharmonious (he does not add,
that the pilots had been training in common for 21 years
and flying in common for 13 years), and of course the
aircraft was efficient.

http://www.se.pl/wydarzenia/opinie/zpiloci-poruszali-sie-
po-omacku_141424.html

Mr Luczak however should not be accused for anything,
because maybe the money, he received were for example
necessary for his family – in such situation he cannot be
accused. Due to this reason, the interview on Mr Luczak
is not suitable to be farther published. Please remember
that he is not an expert, although in mainstream media of
Poland introduces himself as an expert. For example, he
was evidencing after one of the Su-27 catastrophes that
The speed was too high to inject” – this statement
completely discredits him, because in Su-27 it is possible
to inject with maximal airspeed.

Gen. Parulski

Gen. Krzysztof Parulski as Col. Krzysztof Parulski,

Head Military Attorney supervises Polish prosecutors
investigating Smolensk air disaster. He many times
appears in media, but if does not have any positive
information about work of Russians or new pilot error
evidence for example he rather prefers to talk via Col.

background image

Zbigniew Szelag. Col. Szelag – spokesman of the
Military Attorney Office and Lt.-Col. Robert Kurpacz,
his equivalent in Air Force Command, are designated to
answer “dangerous” questions of the few, independent
reporters. For example in on the 12

th

of May 2010 in state

TV TVP at 22:55 (on first or second channel probably) a
reportage concerning Smolensk air disaster doubts had
been emitted – Lt.-Col. Kurpacz in the face of journalist
asking about aircraft’s unreasonable damage panicked
and was not able to ask reliably.

However, Mr Parulski is not a man to the dirty

work. He in spotless uniform stood near the wreckage
and stated: I had been sleeping only half an hour last 3
days – I was working so hard…

Nevertheless, not only insomnia makes Mr

Parulski even less credible than Mr Edmund Klich. His
CV crosses him out. He was born in 1957. According to
former Justice Minister Mr Zbigniew Ziobro, quoted by
Polish Newsweek on the 25

th

of February 2008

(

http://www.newsweek.pl/artykuly/sekcje/postać_tygodni

a/wierny-ogrodnik,6725,1

) Mr. Parulski was a member of

Polish communistic party (PZPR) during the time of
could war and Soviet dominance. Moreover, he did not
leave pro-Soviet formation until the Iron Curtain
collapsed. According to Ziobro during Marshal Law in
Poland, he was a prosecutor in the armed part of
communistic secret service (SB) fighting against
democratic opposition including the “Solidarity” of Mr
Lech Walesa.

Moreover, according to Newsweek Col. Parulski

had been nominated three days after Mr Donald’s Tusk
got control in Poland. During rules of Prime Minister

background image

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, twin brother of late president Mr
Lech Kaczynski, he had been dismissed after his critics
concerning the government.

Mr Parulski has therefore reasons to be pro-

Russian (because of his pro-Soviet allegations) and
would not be able to maintain political objectivity – his
target would be probably to hurt public relations of
president’s brother and the president, who died.

Moreover, Mr Lech Kaczynski (in contrast to

now-a-day Polish president count Bronislaw
Komorowski) refused to designate Col. Parulski to be a
general. In addition, several another Polish officers
taking part in Polish investigation 54/10 had not been
promoted by Mr Kaczynski, including (

http://smolensk-

2010.pl/2010-04-27-kto-prowadzi-sledztwo.html

):

1. Director of Ministry of Defense Office, Col. Artur

Kolosowski,

2. Director of Military Courts Department in

Ministry of Justice, Col. Zenon Stankiewicz,

3. Director of Military Foreign Affairs, Gen.

Romuald Ratajczak.

background image

2.11 Summary

Disinformation and indoctrination after Smolensk Air
Disaster is carried out on three independent scenes:

Scene

Target

Methods

Russia
(interior)

-To evidence
that it was a
pilot error
-To show
Putin’s power
and good will
of Russian
authorities

-Using of dishonest
argumentation (for
example that Polish pilots
did not speak Russian)
-Official statements of
authorities, making
impression of perfectly
conducted investigation
-Using of laying sentences
of Polish experts and
journalists (for example
interview of Mr Waclaw
Radziwinowicz).
-Dishonest communicates
(for example from the 1

st

of June, Russiya-1 TV,
“Polish commission is
interested in finding out,
why did the pilots landing
under such conditions and
who could force it” – for
information it was not
landing but go around
attempt)

West and
NATO

-Statement of
highest rank
generals,

-Convince that the
investigation is carried out
according to all western

background image

prosecutors,
ministers and
president
Dmitry
Medvedev.

standards.
-State clearly and
undeniably that it was a
pilot error.

Poland

-Medial
offensive
-Official
statements of
Polish
authorities

-Confuse people showing
self-conflicted information
-State clearly that it was a
pilot error
-Convince perfect
condition of the aircraft
-Convince poor training of
the pilots and their errors
-Convince that the
president forced landing
-Laugh down conspiracy
theories
-Use only Polish people to
accusing that it was a pilot
error to be out of suspicion
-Strength Polish experts
and officials by unofficial
Russian experts statements


Disinformation is coordinated by the same decision

making centre that official investigation, what is
evidenced by the synchronization of all the scenes of
mass disinformation campaign and with next stages of
the investigation. Disinformation is strength by
authorities of Russian Federation and Republic of
Poland, what is evidenced clearly by their official
statements.

background image

background image

Testimony of Mr Kaczynski

published by TVN-24


According to official testimony of Mr Jaroslaw

Kaczynski, former prime minister and brother of died
president, less then a hour minutes after the time of
the air disaster he had been called by Mr Radoslaw
Sikorski, foreign affairs minister of Poland, who
stated categorically, that “it was a pilot error”.

http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1673692,0,1,kaczynski-w-
prokuraturze-tusk-odpowiedzialny-za-
katastrofe,wiadomosc.html

Moreover, Mr Sikorski knew about the air disaster 15

minutes after it had happened.

Such behaviour of Mr Sikorski, who sent to Smolensk

his deputy indicates clearly, that he clearly knew
minutes after the air disaster how would be the
disinformation campaign carried out. He probably also
had known about the air disaster more then a day before.

Please notice, that during a call of Mr Sikorski it was

still unknown how many people were travelling by flight
PLF-101, but Mr Sikorski already had found out cases.

background image

1. This thread seems to be very interesting,

because of its relevance. We – so to say –
tentatively asked dozen of pilots and experts
and nobody of them knows about a
catastrophe, concerning an aircraft carrying
high-ranking people, who exerted a kind of
emphasis to pilots, which led to a disaster.
There is of course a set of catastrophes, where
presidents, prime ministers, governors died.
For example in 1986 crashed, an aircraft of
Mr Samora Machel, president of
Mozambique, who is Tupolev-134, crashed in
similar (of course only in some aspects) to
Smolensk Air Disaster circumstances.

http://aviation-
safety.net/database/record.php?id=19861019-
0

But never any president personally cased an

air disaster of his own aircraft.

2. Mr Donald Tusk is Polish PM since 2007

http://www.thenews.pl/national/?id=69544

3. Mr Donald Tusk was opponent of Mr Lech

Kaczynski during 2005 election. It’s
confirmed by Polish State Election
Commission:

http://prezydent2005.pkw.gov.pl/PZT/PL/WY
N/W/index.htm

4. JSC “Tupolev” Russia, Moscow, number of

MAK certificate: P-62, issued from
12.10.2000 for all civil aircraft designations.

5. Tupolev Tu-154M lux

background image

6. The MAK representatives as well as the main

engineer of 36 Special Transport Regiment
were present in Samara at the time of the
general repair and modernization works,
which took several month. The Samara
Aircraft Plant “Aviacor” is Joint Stock
Company certificated by MAK as repair
station for Tu-154M aircraft. MAK
certification for the repair station number:
СПР-27, issued from 07.02.2000, renewed
17.02.2009, Joint Stock Company “Aviacor-
aviatzionny zavod” Samara, Russia

7. Certificate for: The Tu-154M, An-140, An-

140-100 aircraft production, number ОП50-
ПВС, issued from 06.09.2001, renewed
30.04.2008. The aircraft had been produced in
Kyubishev (now Samara) in 1990.

8. - Joint Stock Company “Aviacor-aviatzionny

zavod” Samara, Russia, certificate number: №
СПР-27 (as above)

- Joint Stock

Company “VARZ-400” Moscow, Russia,
certificate number: № СПР-09, issued from
31.03.98, renewed 05.12.2008

9. Joint Stock Company “NPO Saturn” Rybinsk,

Russia, certificate number: № СПР-29, issued
30.09.2002, renewed 06.10.2008.

10. Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Ufa

Aggregate Enterprise “GIDRAVLIKA”, Ufa,
Russia, certificate number: СПР-82, issued
from 12.01.2009.

background image

11. MAK certificates only few airports.

Smolensk-North Airport (XUBS) had not
been certificated by MAK, but as dated on
19

th

of May 2010 MAK’s preliminary report

says: “On 16

th

of March at the airfield

Smolensk “North” a technical flight was
curried out by a commission of Russian
specialists to check readiness of the airfield to
receive Tu-154 and Tu-134

(

http://www.mak.ru/russian/russian.html

).

Although it was military airfield (but since
2009 not an airbase) it did not have to be a
military commission, because the main user of
the Smolensk-North was a civil facility,
Smolensk Aircraft Plant (74, Frunze str.,
Smolensk 214006, Russia), a part of
Yakovlev concern (

http://www.yak.ru/ENG/

).

12. MAK issues certificates throw Aviaregister

company. Information concerning their prices
appears here:

http://prawica.net/opinie/22208

,

http://www.bibula.com/?p=24697

,

http://wing2009.salon24.pl/190567,anodina-z-
kgb-nie-z-krakowa

.

13.

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1342,title,Rzado
wy-samolot-wreszcie-moze-leciec-po-
Polakow-na-
Haiti,wid,11887293,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1
a938

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-

trzesieniezieminahaiti/trzesieniehaiti3/news-
tu-154-naprawiony-ratownicy-wracaja-do-
kraju,nId,234663

background image

14. Due to a lack of reliable sources (listed in 12

are not so sufficient to base whole topic on
them) we asked high-rank Russian Aircraft
industry exponent, who told me that a price of
MAK certification can reach even $3-5
million, and has to be paid again during the
certification renewing. However, not only
official price, but also “additional
gratification” (so-could “viatkha”) should be
paid to get MAK certificate. It is only
unofficial information. Nevertheless, even
Boeing is forced to pay charges for
certificates of MAK - that is a fact.

15. All MAK reports about this disaster are

published on the website of the organization.

http://www.mak.ru/russian/russian.html

, but

investigation reports are only presented in
Russian language.

16. Disinformation (Rus. Dezinformatsiya)

was many times used by KGB and
contemporary Russian intelligence FSS.
British novelist, Mr Ken Follett described it as
follows: “He would be the unconscious
channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at
another country’s intelligence service”.

17. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually

political or religious, aimed at destroying a
person’s basic convictions and attitudes and
replacing them with an alternative set of fixed
beliefs.

18. The possibility of pilot’s error is completely

unbelievable, because diving flight on sink

background image

rate of 12 m/s would be suicidal act at an
altitude of 250-300 feet. Some piece of
evidence concerning loose of control will be
described in the next sections of this
publication.

19. Term “Conspiracy theories” (Pol. Teoria

spiskowa) seems to be used in Polish media,
every time when logical contra-theory of
official version is published.

20. For Russian popular radio station

“Kommersant” from 10.04.10. This sentence
of Mr Jirinovskiy was also published in Polish
TV stations: TVP INFO (part of Polish
national TV concern TVP -

www.tvp.info

),

TVN and TVN-24 (of TVN inc. media
concern), Polsat / Polsat News and also by
“Gazeta Wyborcza” and many web portals
including firs Polish web portal wp.pl, and
one of the most popular portals onet.pl (part
of TVN inc.). This sentence was also quoted
by Polish Press Agency (PAP).

21. Review for Russian “Novaiya Gazeta” from

11.04.10.

22. All the information according to

governmental answer for interpellation of Mr
Karol Karski (Member of Parliament)
concerning situation before the flight to
Ganja.

http://www.raportnowaka.pl/doc/ZAPYTANI
E%20%202496%20posla%20Gosiewskiego.p
df

Even an article of “Gazeta Wyborcza”

titled “Incydent Gruzinski” (“Georgian

background image

Incident”) from 24.04.10, which has been
published online:

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,7808706,Incydent
_gruzinski.html

, and official text completely

discredit sentences of Mr Radziwinowicz.

23.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7744859.st
m

24. Probably IFF transponder was comparable

only with NATO IFF systems. For example,
American Raytheon APX-113 already used by
Polish Air Force or Polish Radwar “Suprasl”
IFF systems or did not have any IFF systems
installed on the board.

25. According to Polish lawyer, president has not

such powers in Poland, and he cannot dismiss
an officer. According to Polish Constitution
voted in 1997, there is rather parliamentary
demarcation, than presidential demarcation
system in Poland. President is chef of armed
forces only in symbolical meaning. The real
competences are owned by the Prime Minister
and Government, elected by Parliament.
– he
explained.

26.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tusk

“Tusk was officially designated as Prime
Minister on 9 November 2007 and took office
on 16 November. His cabinet won the vote of
confidence in the Sejm on 24 November
2007.”

27.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80
708,7757486,Piloci_ladowali_wbrew_zalecen
iom__Potwierdza_to_zapis.html

background image

28. CVR was examined by MAK, after it had

been undertook by the Russians probably
without Polish representatives. During the
CVR examination, Polish representatives Mr
Waldemar Targalski and Mr Slawomir
Michalak were present.

29. The first exemplar of the first version of the

CVR transcripts was prepared by MAK on 2

nd

of May 2010. Before this time Polish military
prosecutor informed, that to read 1 second of
recording should be spend 3 minutes of time.
As we can calculate, it gives about 114 hour
for all CVR recording.

30. See footnote: 27.
31. It is necessary to quote a message form a

friend of one of us: “I am now watching on
TV Putin’s commission. Our transport
minister has just said that <they landed when
a visibility was 400m horizontal, and 50m
vertical and a ‘normative’ for Tu-154M is
visibility 1000 and 100 meters.> This cretin –
as a railway specialist - never heart about a
word ‘minimum’.”

32. On the surface, 10 or 15 seconds seems to be

not much. Nevertheless, according to CVR
transcripts from the most probable moment of
the glideslope deviation to the time of
controller’s command “Go around” (Rus.
Ukhod na vtoroi krug
) at least 13 statements
are noted.

33. “The sound of a collision with a forest

massif” – 10:40:59,3-10:41:04,6

background image

D: Ukhod na vtoroi krug” (go around) –
10:41:02,0 – 10:41:03,4.

34.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80
625,7754920,Rosja__Polska_zaloga_nie_wyp
elniala_polecen_kontrolera.html

35. As alternative airports, Vitebsk, Belarus

(UMII, VTB) and Minsk, Belarus (UMMS,
MSQ) were chosen.

36. According to opinion of serious expert, Mr

Andrzej Gieroczynski, Head of Air
Navigation Services Department of Polish
Civil Aviation Authority, whose expressions
are quoted here:

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?dat=20
100703&typ=po&id=po02.txt

37. As for Smolensk Airport Zone CTR, below

the altitude of 11810 feet. Phrase “Chef of
flights” refers to Lt.-Col. Pavel Plusnin, Air
Traffic Controller of Russian Air Force.

38. Literally.
39. As for the Smolensk-North Aerodrome

(XUBS, LNX).

40. It should not be assumed, that he lied

deliberately, as he seemed to do. Probably he
mistook or had been previously by someone
misled. However, such situation, concerning
so serious general should not ever happen.

41. Without the Flight Data Recorders opened, he

could not know yet, that crew did not try to
cease descending.

42. Sources of this information:

background image

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1664853,0,1,br
udzinski-tusk-zostawil-cialo-
prezydenta-w-blocie,wiadomosc.html

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomo
sci/1,80271,8136016,Kolejna_relacja_
ze_Smolenska__cialo_Kaczynskiego_
lezalo.html?order=najnowsze&v=1&o
bxx=8136016

http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-07-23-
lecha-kaczynskiego-identyfikowano-
w-obskurnej-budzie.html

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomo
sci/1,80271,8136016.html

http://www.bibula.com/?p=24728

http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-07-23-
w-smolensku-tusk-z-putinem-nawet-
nie-podeszli-do-ciala-prezydenta-
lecha-kaczynskiego-przez-5-godzin-
zwloki-lezaly-w-blocie.html

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/459542,5084
08.html

http://www.polskieradio.pl/wiadomosc
i/kraj/artykul176663.html

http://www.pardon.pl/artykul/11984/_/
25

http://www.fakt.pl/Co-Rosjanie-robili-
z-cialem-prezydenta-,galeria-
artykulu,77758,3.html

43. en.wikipedia.org: Komorowski was the

governing Civic Platform party’s candidate in
the resulting 2010 presidential election, which
he won in the second round of voting on 4

background image

July 2010. He will be sworn in as President in
his own right in August 2010.

44.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80
625,7758345,Ustalenia_sledczych__katastrof
a_nie_mogla_byc_spowodowana.html

45. Katyn is situated about five miles away from

Smolensk-North (XUBS) Aerodrome.

46. Since last general repair and modernization in

Samara, Russia in December 2009 to the time
of catastrophe in April 2010, at least 10
serious faults had been noted, including 2
emergency landing, 1 aircraft’s grounding
during a mission in Puerto Rico (TJSJ, SJU).
Tu-154M 101 was the only aircraft of the 36
Special Air Transport Regiment which had in
2010 (before April the 10

th

) any fault en route.

47.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80
625,7757743,Sledczy_badaja__czarne_skrzyn
ki__samolotu__Moga_byc.html

48. PAP – Polish Press Agency (Polska Agencja

Prasowa), the biggest Polish press agency.
PAP is public institution.

49. Concerning Warsaw-Okecie Frederic Chopin

International Airport (EPWA, WAW),
Poland, a departure airport of presidential
flight PLF-101, from 10

th

of April 2010

(aircraft took off at 7:27 GMT+2).

50.

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/459542,460498.html

51. It could also be Polish ATM-QAR “Black

box”. In such situation CVR/FDR would be
found on the 11

th

of April and QAR a day

after.

background image

52.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/12
/poland-national-mourning-plane-crash

53. Article “The black boxes read”

http://www.niezalezna.pl/article/show/id/3295
4

Wprost weekly description:

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/source-
information/122081-wprost

54. On the first animation published online by

“Gazeta Wyborcza”, and then another one
created by TVP, national TV, an airplane hit
the tower, before crashed. As appeared a time
after, there is no a tower near airport, but as
many witnesses reported, before the crash
airplane cut an antenna of inner marker NDB
beacon (310). A Russian soldier related that
he was near the antenna, when it was cut, but
later reports demented also this information.

55.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/04/po
land_in_mourning.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/
article-1265255/Polish-president-Lech-
Kaczynski-killed-plane-crash-mourned.html

56.

http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-07-21-secrets-
of-the-black-box.html

http://www.bibula.com/?p=24419

http://aviation-
safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940606-
1

57.

http://www.polskieradio.pl/prezydent2010en/

58.

http://www.wajda.pl/en/default.html

59.

http://www.tvn24.pl/24467,1652095,0,1,katyn
-chce-obejrzec-caly-swiat,wiadomosc.html

background image

60.

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,119674,title,Kom
miersant-warunki-ladowania-nie-zle-ale-
ekstremalne,wid,12173854,wiadomosc.html

61.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX9uBGS
KYJI

62.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0411/poland.htm
l

63.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6390Q
U20100411

64.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tquqtte4e
3M

65. As reported Polish lawyer, a friend of one of

us: “Hi, still nothing of course. We have been
all standing in the queue for 6 hours and still
cannot get the Palace. We don’t know what to
do now, cause according to my orientation
we’re half a way, and it is getting dark.
Regards from Poland.”

66.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/201
0/04/17/2010-04-
17_100000_poles_meet_in_warsaw_square_t
o_mourn_polish_president_lech_kaczynski_o
the.html

67. Pictures of Mr Barack Hussein Obama,

playing golf and have fun during the funeral
of his third largest ally of Iraq and
Afghanistan war president’s funeral, are
published here:

http://www.fakt.pl/Gdy-

chowali-prezydenta-Obama-gral-w-
golfa,artykuly,69661,1.html

, description:

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,119674,title,Jedni
-przylecieli-mimo-chmury-pylu-inni-grali-w-

background image

golfa,wid,12187928,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=
1a9ef&_ticrsn=3

,

68.

http://www.plotek.pl/plotek/1,78649,7792615,
Jak_prezydent_Gruzji_przedarl_sie_do_Polsk
i.html

69.

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,119674,title,Wyd
aje-sie-ze-przyczyna-katastrofy-byl-blad-
pilota,wid,12189698,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=
1a9a9

70. See publications of Mr Henryk Piecuch, for

example “Sluzby specialne atakuja!”

71.

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Ur
z%C4%85d_Ochrony_Pa%C5%84stwa

72. So-called Gauck Office, a federal agency

publishing all Stasi acts. In Germany,
everybody can read Stasi Acts.

73. A postulator of SB archives opening was Mr

Janusz Kurtyka, who died in Smolensk Air
Disaster, 10.04.2010. Gen. Czempinski did
not ever hide his disapprobation for the IPN
and Mr Kurtyka planes.

74. As in 69 – it had been quoted for example by

wp.pl web portal but also by a number TV
news.

75. Mrs. Olejnik was also talking with Gen.

Czempinski for example about volcano ash
cloud over the Europe and piloting in such
conditions.

76.

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,4892,title,Kpt-
Protasiuk-byl-jednym-z-najlepszych-pilotow-
byl-z-

background image

elity,wid,12192969,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1
a9f5&_ticrsn=5

77.

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2159290,11,1,1,,ite
m.html

78.

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-lech-kaczynski-
nie-zyje-2/kaczynski-fakty/news-kiedy-
ministrowie-przywioza-z-rosji-czarne-
skrzynki,nId,273892

79. Sourced from official web sites: Wyborcza.pl

and Gazeta.pl web portals of Agora S.A.,
Warsaw, Poland, Joint Stock Company, a
publisher of “Gazeta Wyborcza” owned by
enigmatic “Agora Koncern” Corporation and
Mr Adam Michnik.

80. Mr Tomasz Hypki is not pilot, but a

journalist.

81.

http://fakty.interia.pl/raport/lech-kaczynski-
nie-zyje/news/rosyjski-ekspert-przyczyna-
klasyczny-blad-pilota,1474078,6914

82. Please see as following:

o

http://www.tvp.info/informacje/swiat/r
ozmawiali-z-wieza-po-rosyjsku-mieli-
problemy/1645736

o

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-lech-
kaczynski-nie-zyje-2/kaczynski-
fakty/news-pulkownik-stroinski-
dobrze-mowimy-po-
rosyjsku,nId,272287

83. Please see as following:

o

http://www.tvn24.pl/12690,1651767,0,
1,pilot--ktory-latal-z-prezydentem-
bylo-jedno-zajscie,wiadomosc.html

background image

o

http://zulusmjz.blog.interia.pl/?id=187
6255

84. Demented by Col. Edmund Klich, (self-styled

Polish representative in MAK, Moscow
investigation concerning Smolensk Air
Disaster) in TVN “Teraz My” show on the
24

th

of May 2010.

background image

3. Facts

3.1 The last travel


Before the tragic flight Polish Military Counter-

Intelligence Service (SKW) noted extraordinary activity
of Russian Secret Service in Poland. It was clearly visible
for them that the activity should had been concerning
presidential flight. After analysing of the informations,
head of the Military Counter-Intelligence Service decided
to issue alert about Medium Danger of an Assassination,
according to an officer we were talking with. However
there was no reaction of the governmental security
service (BOR). Moreover it was permitted for Russian
engineers to enter the board of the aircraft less than 24
hours before the air disaster. Here is described what
unfortunately happened later.

Polish Air Force Tupolev-154M, flight number

PLF-101 took off Warsaw Frederic Chopin International
(WAW/EPWA) on the 10

th

of April 2010 at 7:00 local

time, in a presidential HEAD status flight to Smolensk-
North Air Base, Russia (XUBS). That day, at the dusk
another Polish Air Force jet – PLF-044, departed
Warsaw, and landed in Smolensk at 9:15 Moscow time,
about 15 minutes before PLF-101 taking off.

Polish delegation for anniversary ceremony in

Katyn, Russia consisted of 129 people. It included people
officially invited, representatives of the Polish embassy
in Moscow and official presidential delegation.

http://www.naszapolska.pl/index.php/redakcja/975-klich-
mia-lecie-qnpq-publikuje-pierwotn-list-pasaerow-tu-
154m

background image

Office of Mr Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of

Republic of Poland decided to send two aircraft to
Smolensk. Smolensk Air Base is situated only about 5
miles way from Katyn, a place of II World War Stalin
crime – massacre of Polish officers. First part of the
anniversary celebrations took place on the 7

th

of April,

but due to precisely synchronized common action of
Polish Government of Mr Donald Tusk (opposition for
president Mr Kaczynski) and Russian government
celebration were divided – Mr Kaczynski was not able to
fly on the 7

th

of April to Katyn, and had to go there on

the 10

th

of April, although his desire was to participate in

celebrations on the 7

th

of April, with Mr Tusk and Col.

Putin.

On the 10

th

of April, Mr Tusk or any minister of

his government did not go to Katyn and did not enter the
board of flight 101.

Minister of National Defence, Mr Bogdan Klich,

MD (anti-war activist, medical doctor-psychiatrist

http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,6305447,Przywitanie_z_bron
ia__Rzecz_o_Bogdanie_Klichu.html

), in conflict with

preliminary declarations, coincidentally broke own’s
words and with no giving reasons resigned of the flight.
However, he agreed in writing, to 7 head Polish armed
forces commanders fly (by one plane), and sent his
deputy, Mr Kremer, who was killed in Smolensk Air
Disaster.

In addition, two other Mr Tusk’s government

members – Mr Bogdan Zdrojewski and Mr Radoslaw
Sikorski sent to Smolensk their deputies.

A while after the catastrophe Mr Sikorski, was

talking with president’s brother Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski,

background image

instead of condolence he was told him that “it had been a
pilot error”).

First of the aircraft sent, little jet took off Warsaw

at dusk under a call sign “PLF-044”. It was piloted by Lt.
Artur Wosztyl. List of passengers of PLF-044 consisted
with 15 journalists:

1. Mr Jerzy Kubrak (Fakt)
2. Mr Jacek Turczyk (PAP)
3. Mr Wojciech Cegielski (Polish radio)
4. Mr JakubBerent, (Radio ESKA / VOX FM /

WAWA)

5. Mrs. Agnieszka Lichnerowicz (Radio TOK- FM)
6. Mrs. Danuta Woźnicka (Radio ZET)
7. Mr Pawel Swiader (RMF FM)
8. Mr Pawel Zukowicz (TV TRWAM)
9. Mr Jan Mroz (TVN-24)
10. Mr Piotr Ferenc (Gazeta Polska)
11. Mr Marcin Wojciechowski (Gazeta Wyborcza)
12. Mr Krzysztof Strzępka (PAP)
13. Mr Pawel Wudarczyk (Polsat News)
14. Mrs. Joanna Bichniewicz-Lichocka (TVP)
15. Mr Marek Pyza (TVP),

as well as three crewmembers and a flight attendant.

Probably on the board of Yak-40 there were also

1-5 additional people, including Mr Jacek Sasin,
Chancellery of President.

According to the decision of the Prime Minister

Office (KPRM) other members of the delegation got
Smolensk on their own (by rail) or airborne by
governmental Tu-154M, operated by the 36

th

Special Air

Transport Regiment in Warsaw.

background image

Official HEAD instruction, regulating VIP flights

in Poland obligates to chose also an alternative aircraft
for a flight under head status. However government did
not charter additional plane and there was no alternative
airplane chosen by the 36SATR, due to lack of such
comparable with Tu-154M aircraft in the fleet. Only one
Tu-154M was in readiness to perform the presidential
flight.

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/bpl_index.php?dat=2

0100811&typ=po&id=po01.txt

According to MAK the aircraft was in correct

technical condition. It was fed by oil of correct quality
and enough fuel value to perform flight to Smolensk with
alternatives and formal reserve accounted.

The aircraft was equipped with operational GPS

systems, as well as Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning
System, TCAS and FMS.

FMS and EGPWS (TAWS) were operational

during terrain impact, as confirmed MAK.

The only problem is the fact of the technical

examining should be carried out by Russians a day before
the air disaster, which can be a base for eventual sabotage
or assassination. The reason of the Russian engineers
work was the bird mid-air contact during night
instrumental flight on the 8/9 of April 2010.


To PLF-101 perfectly co-ordinated Polish Air

Force aircrew was chosen to perform the flight– Maj.
Arkadiusz Protasiuk (Pilot-In-Command), Lt.-Col.

background image

Robert Grzywna (co-pilot) and 2Lt. Andrzej Michalak
(air engineer).

To basic crew also a fourth member, Capt. Artur

Zietek (navigator) was added to improve flight safety in
VIP flight. Navigators are also added during for example
long oversea routs.

In addition, three flight attendants Ms. Barbara

Maciejczyk, Ms. Justyna Moniuszko and Ms. Natalia
Januszko were serving on the board.

The list of passengers consisted of 89 people:

1. Mr. Lech Kaczynski – president of Republic of

Poland (F1)

2. Mrs. Maria Kaczynska – first lady (F1)

3. Mr. Ryszard Kaczorowski – the last president of

Republic of Poland in Exile (F2)

4. Mr Slawomir Skrzypek – president of National

Bank of Poland NBP (probably F2)

5. Gen. Franciszek Gagor - Chief of the General

Staff (F3)

6. Gen. Andrzej Blasik – Commander of Polish Air

Force (F3)

7. Adm. Andrzej Karweta – Commander of Polish

Navy (F3)

8. Gen. Wlodzimierz Potasinski – Commander of

Polish Special Forces (F3)

background image

9. Gen. Tadeusz Buk – Commander of Polish Land

Forces (F3)

10. Gen. Bronislaw Kwiatkowski – Operational

Commander of Polish Armed Forces (F3)

11. Gen. Kazimierz Gilarski – Commander of

Warsaw Garrison (F3)

12. Gen. Stanislaw Nalecz-Komornicki, chancellor of

Virtuti Militari (highest Polish Military Order)

chapter (B)

13. Bp. Gen. Tadeusz Ploski – Catholic Ordinary of

Polish Armed Forces (F3)

14. Abp. Gen. Miron Chodakowski – Eastern

Ordinary of Polish Armed Forces (F3)

15. Col. Czeslaw Cywinski, president of World

Union of AK Soldiers (Official partisan army of

Republic of Poland, under German and Soviet

occupation during WWII), (B)

16. Col. Wojciech Lubinski, MD – presidential

doctor, deputy commander of Military Medicine

Institute in Warsaw (B)

17. Rev. Col. Adam Pilch - Evangelic Chaplain of

Polish Armed Forces (B)

background image

18. Rev. Col. Jan Osinski – Military Ordinariate of

Poland (B)

19. Lt.-Col. Zbigniew Debski – member of Virtuti

Militari Order Chapter (B)

20. Mrs. Grazyna Gesicka, MP (F3)

21. Mrs. Krystyna Bochenek – deputy speaker of

Senate, from ruling PO Party. (F2)

22. Mrs. Izabela Jaruga-Nowacka, MP (B)

23. Mrs. Aleksandra Natalli-Swiat, MP (B)

24. Mrs. Jolanta Szymanek-Deresz, MP (B)

25. Mrs. Janina Fetlinska, Senator (B)

26. Mrs. Joanna Agacka-Indecka – President of

National Bar Council (B)

27. Mrs. Ewa Bakowska (B)

28. Mrs. Anna Maria Borowska (B)

29. Mrs. Bozena Mamontowicz-Lojek – president of

Polish Katyn Foundation (B)

30. Mrs. Bronislawa Orawiec-Löffler - Katyn

Families Federation of Podhale (B)

31. Mrs. Katarzyna Sikorska (B)

32. Mrs. Teresa Walewska-Przyjalkowska – Golgotha

of the East Foundation (B)

background image

33. Mrs. Anna Walentynowicz – hero of Solidarity

(Organization of Mr Lech Wałęsa in communistic

Poland), (B)

34. Mrs. Gabriela Zych - president of association

Katyn Family of Kalisz (B)

35. Mrs. Katarzyna Doraczynska – press officer of

Mr Lech Kaczynski (B)

36. Mrs. Barbara Maminska, Director of the

Personnel and Decorations Office in President’s

Chancellery (B)

37. Mrs. Janina Natusiewicz-Mirrer (B)

38. Mrs. Izabela Tomaszewska – director of protocol

team of President’s Chancellery (B)

39. Mr Aleksander Szczyglo – head the of National

Security Bureau (BBN), former Minister of

National Defence (F2)

40. Mr. Krzysztof Putra – deputy Speaker of

Parliament, member of PiS (conservative party of

Mrs. Kaczynski) (F2)

41. Mr. Jerzy Szmajdzinski – deputy Speaker of

Parliament, member of SLD (socialist fraction),

(F3)

background image

42. Mr Janusz Kochanowski – ombudsman (B)

43. Mr Janusz Krupski – head of Office for War

Veterans and Repressed Persons (B)

44. Mr Janusz Kurtyka – chairman of the National

Memory Institute (B)

45. Mr Maciej Plazynski – MP, ex-member and

founder of ruling PO, head of the association

“Polish Commonwealth” (F3)

46. Mr Wladyslaw Stasiak – chief of President’s

Chancellery (F2)

47. Mr Pawel

Wypych – secretary of state in

President’s Chancellery (F2)

48. Mr Stanislaw Komorowski – deputy Minister of

National Defence (F3)

49. Mr Andrzej Kremer – deputy Minister of National

Defence (F3)

50. Mr Tomasz Merta – deputy Minister of Culture

and National Heritage (F3)

51. Mr Mariusz Handzlik – deputy secretary of state

in President’s Chancellery (F3)

52. Mr Stanislaw Mikke - deputy president of

Council for the Protection of Struggle and

background image

Martyrdom Sites, lawyer, editor of advocacy

magazine “Palestra” (B)

53. Mr Andrzej Przewoznik – secretary of Council

for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom

Sites (F3)

54. Mr Leszek Deptula – MP (B)

55. Mr Grzegorz Dolniak - MP (B)

56. Mr Przemyslaw Gosiewski - MP (B)

57. Mr Sebastian Karpiniuk - MP (B)

58. Mr Arkadiusz Rybicki - MP (B)

59. Mr Zbigniew Wassermann - MP (B)

60. Mr Wieslaw Woda - MP (B)

61. Mr Edward Wojtas - MP (B)

62. Mr Stanislaw Zajac – Senator (B)

63. Mr Bartosz Borowski (B)

64. Mr Edward Duchnowski, secretary general of

Siberians Association (Organization of Polish

people, who had been expelled from Poland by

Stalin, during the Soviet occupation, and came

back home) (B)

65. Rev. Bronislaw Gostomski, rector of Polish

Parish of Northern London (B)

background image

66. Fr. Józef Joniec, piarist (B)

67. Rev. Zdzislaw Król – ret. Chaplain of Warsaw

Katyn Family (B)

68. Rev. Andrzej Kwasnik – Chaplain of Katyn

Families Federation (B)

69. Mr Tadeusz Lutoborski (B)

70. Mr Stefan Melak - president of Katyn Committee

(B)

71. Mr Piotr Nurowski – chief of Polish Olympic

Committee (B)

72. Mr Andrzej Sariusz-Skapski – president of Katyn

Families Federation (B)

73. Mr Wojciech Seweryn - sculpt artist, author of

Katyn Victims Memorial in Chicago (B)

74. Mr Leszek Solski - Katyn Family Association (B)

75. Mr Aleksander Fedorowicz – Russian language

interpreter (B)

76. Rev. Roman Indrzejczyk - presidential chaplain

(B)

77. Mr Dariusz Jankowski – organizational service

officer of Mr Lech Kaczynski (B)

background image

78. Mr Mariusz Kazana – director of diplomatic

protocol with Ministry of Foreign Affairs (F3)

79. Rev. Prof. Ryszard Rumianek - rector of Cardinal

Wyszynski’s University (B)

80. Mr Janusz Zakrzenski - actor (B)

81. Lt.-Col. Jaroslaw Florczak – close security officer

82. Capt. Dariusz Michalowski – close security

officer

83. Lt. Pawel Janeczek – close security officer

84. 2Lt. Piotr Nosek – close security officer

85. WO Artur French – close security officer

86. WO Jacek Pig – close security office

87. WO Pawel Krajewski – close security officer

88. WO Marek Uleryk – close security officer

89. WO Agnieszka Pogrodka-Weclawek – close

security officer, classified by Russian authorities

incorrectly as a flight attendant (B)

F1 – foremost compartment (situated on the right)

F2 – fore compartment (on the left and back from the

presidential F1)

F3 – middle compartment (middle part of the aircraft,

business class standard)

background image

B – main passenger part (3+3 standard seat

configuration)

Please notice that on common sense such list of

passengers is an evidence of indolence and terrible
organization of the visit in Smolensk.

It is impossible if only NATO rules would be respected,

for all the head generals to be travelling on the board of one
airplane.

Such situation happened however due to a decision of

Polish governmental Minister of National Defense.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80708,78343

35,Minister_Klich_podpisal_zgode_na_wyjazd_dowodcow_
_dokumenty_.html

Minister Bogdan Klich, MD permitted on travel of all the

generals listed above.

background image

Agree, especially that I also takeoff”.

B. Klich,

[17

th

of March 2010, 13 days before the air disaster)

background image



























Annex to presidential travel plan showing location of
passengers in the aircraft. Source: TVN-24

background image

This list is however also next piece of evidence

concerning indolence of Polish government during
organisation of the visit and flight to Smolensk. For example
bishops and generals are named “Pan”, which means
“Mister” in Polish.

These documents however are only the tip of the iceberg.

To be able to understand background of the history of the

flight it is necessary to state that in Poland government and
president are two independent institutions. Government,
voted by the Parliament can stay in opposition to the
president elected in public election. Government of Mr
Donald Tusk was a political opposition of president Mr Lech
Kaczynski.

On the 23

rd

of February 2010 Ministry of Foreign Affair

of the Republic of Poland sent a request to Chancellery of
President and stated that wishes the president to be a leader
of Polish delegation of Poland and appointed date of the visit
on the 10

th

of April. Ministry of Foreign Affairs clearly

stated that the organiser of the visit would be governmental
agency
“Council for the Protection of Struggle and
Martyrdom Sites”.

background image



























The request sent by deputy minister of foreign affairs Mr Andrzej
Kremer (†2010) to Head of Presidential Chancellery Mr Wladyslaw
Stasiak (†2010), with a copy to Mr Tomasz Merta (†2010), Andrzej
Przewoznik (†2010), as well as Mr Tomasz Arabski, closest inferior of
Prime Minister, Mr Donald Tusk.

background image

The letter above however is the flashpoint, because

evidences that Polish government forced date of the visit on
the president (†2010), as well as the visit had not been
organised by the president.

Several days before, Russian government was going to

organise one anniversary ceremony on the 7

th

of April and

only Col. Vladimir Putin and Mr. Donald Tusk to be present.
It had been strictly prohibited for president Kaczynski to go
Russia.

Please notice that nearly all of the governmental officials,

taking part in the decision process that days died later in the
air disaster of PLF-101.

Mr Kaczynski had decided to ask Russian diplomatic

services to make him able to visit Smolensk on the 7

th

of

April and meet Vladimir Putin, as well as pray for Polish
victims of WWII on the scene of Stalin’s massacre in Katyn.

Russians faced an international scandal. Under given

conditions happened a situation without a precedence in the
history – Russian Embassy stated that had not received any
letter from the president!

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1342,title,Spor-wokol-listu-
Lecha-Kaczynskiego-do-ambasadora-
Rosji,wid,12003603,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1aee9

However later, after the request of Polish Ministry of

Foreign Affairs to divide the anniversary on two, the letter
by some miracle… became confirmed by the Russians.

However it was not the first note sent by Mr Kaczynski

and his Chancellery. He had informed that the president
informed Russian Embassy, Polish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Council for the Protection of Struggle and
Martyrdom Sites.

background image



























On the 2

nd

of March 2010 Mr Bronislaw Komorowski (than

Speaker of the Parliament, now president) requested Mr
Kaczynski to share him several seats in the aircraft for the
MP’s going to go to Katyn (flight to Smolensk).

background image

Document described above indicate that there Russian

and Polish side were going to divide the anniversary and
performed a game with a target of the flight of Mr Lech
Kaczynski to Russia without Donald Tusk in Tu-154M with
all head generals.

Moreover it was prohibited for officers of the president to

take part in the organisation of the visit.

On 16

th

of March Mr Mariusz Handzlik (†2010)

informed Minister of Foreign Affairs informing that he was
going to go Moscow in order of organisation of the
president’s visit.

background image

However it was impossible to go Moscow, because Embassy
of the Republic of Poland in Moscow did not permit Mr
Handzlik to fly Russia before PLF-101 flight.

background image

According to the writing above, Polish ambassador in

Moscow stated (using more official and beautiful words of
course) that he would be very busy, due to the visit of prime
minister on the 7

th

of April and would not be able to meet

presidential delegation.

He also refused to organize other meetings of Mr

Handzlik also due to a visit of the delegation organising a
visit of the prime minister.

Time of the catastrophe, security aspects, rescue operation,

passenger list and other misunderstandings


Security officers had been located in both compartments

(excluding presidential) and in passenger part. It is only
confirmed, that Mrs. Agnieszka Pogrodka-Weclawek, close
security, was sitting in a passenger part.

Head of Governmental Security Bureau (BOR)

responsible for presidential security did not know what was
the passengers list of the aircraft.

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1342,title,BOR-wizyta-
prezydenta-w-Katyniu-nie-byla-
oficjalna,wid,12220307,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1aed3

Gen. Marian Janicki, head of BOR was not interested in

securing of the visit in Smolensk, because according to him
it was unofficial visit.

There was no BOR officers on the aerodrome during the

air disaster.

http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-08-06-oficer-bor-

nie-ma-pewnosci-ze-lotnisko-bylo-bezpieczne.html

According to Polish TV Polsat News there was also no

pyrotechnical and radiological examining of the aerodrome
before the visit, although it is obligatory.

background image

According to our, unofficial information there was only

one BOR officer in Smolensk – Mr Bartlomiej Hebda, as
well as two additional BOR officers from the Polish
Embassy. All of them were not present on the aerodrome.

Generals travelling by Tu-154M did not have security,

although it is commonly known that NATO procedures
obligate to have at least one security officer for every force
commander.

Mrs. Zofia Kruszynska-Gust had had lots of luck and

came late to the airport. Her place was occupied unluckily by
WO Pogrodka-Weclawek, who previously had not been
going to fly.


List of passengers is very good indicator of Russian
effort rate. Official list published by Russian Ministry of
Emergency is the most sloppily prepared document
concerning the air disaster.

Correct surname

Russian error

Joanna Agacka-Indecka

Joanna Agatka-Indecka

Andrzej Błasik

Andrew Blasik

Grzegorz Dolniak

Gregory Dolniak

Jarosław Florczak

Jarosław Lorczak

Franciszek Gągor

Francis Gagor

Stanisław Nałęcz-
Komornicki

Stanislaw Komornitski

Stanisław Komorowski

Stanislaw-Ezi
Komorowski

Dariusz Michałowski

Mikhalowski Dariush

Andrzej Kwaśnik

Andrew Kwasnik

Stefan Melak

Stefan Melaka

Aleksandra Natalli-
Świat

Alexandra Natallia-
Swjat

Katarzyna Piskorska

Catherine Piskorska

Katarzyna Doraczyńska

Catherine

background image

Dorazcynskaya

Andrzej Sariusz-
Skąpski

Andrew Sariusz-Skapski

Arkadiusz Protasiuk

Protasyk Arkadiush

Robert Grzywna

Gzivna Robert

Andrzej Michalak

Mikhaljak Andrzej

Artur Ziętek

Zentek Artur

Barbara Maciejczyk

Mazejcik Barbara

Natalia Januszko

Janushko Natalia

Justyna Moniuszko

Monyushko Justina

Agnieszka Pogródka-
Więcławek

Podrudka-Venclavek
Agneszka

http://www.mchs.gov.ru/emergency/detai
l.php?ID=31715

However these are not all the errors – for example

one of the close security officers, had been classified as a
flight attendant.

All the people on the board died, when aircraft

suddenly crashed on a sinkrate during approach in poor
visibility.

Russian Emergency Minister, Mr Sergey Shoigu

since the 10

th

to the 28

th

of April has been affirming,

that a time of catastrophe had been 10:56 (UTC +4), in
contrast to current official time of the catastrophe
(10:41:05,4), received by CVR.

Probably the reason was dissemination of

rumours, that pilots performed approach several times to
the time of crash. Mr Shoigu well knew what time of
catastrophe was truthful, because the first car of his
ministry came to the place of catastrophe at 10:50-10:51,
just five minutes after the fire fighters.

background image

That is why probably Mr Shoigu to authenticate

disinformation medial rumours, that pilots tried to land
many times "delayed" hour of catastrophe, completely as
Russians did it after Kursk sunk. Please notice that only
reported by Shoigu time of catastrophe, could make
pilots able to perform more then one approach.

But Mr Shoigu had to remove his, modified crash

time, because it appeared, that Polish journalists,
including Mr Wiktor Bater, reporter of TVN, should had
knew about the air disaster, before it happened, that is
why real time was disclosed by MAK.

Moreover, several seconds before catastrophe

aircraft had cut on-ground energetic lines, what was
registered by computer in atomic power plant at
10:10:39:35; it stays in conflict with official findings. A
protocol from the Smolensk Power Station evidences
clearly, that a time stated by Mr Shoigu was not truth.

The commission in manning:


Director of branch of the Joint Stock Company "MRSK
Centrum" - "Smolenskenergo" - Fiodorov N. V.
Head engineer - Kireyenkho N. P.
Manager SPK i OT - Mordykhin V. V.
Head engineer PO ZES - Kravtsova Yu. A.
Head of Energetics, Energetic Efficiency and Tariff
Policy Department of Smolensk Oblast Administration -
Rybalkho O. A.
Head of Department of the Central Board of
Rostekhnadzor in Smolensk Oblast
- Khulmanov I. V.

background image

Stated:
10.04.2010 r. at 10: 39: 35 on DP CUS (dispatcher
station of System Managing Centre) received a signal
TM o concerning disconnecting of the high voltage line
602 from energetic station "The North", about what
informed DODG of Smolensk Oblast Power Station
[Please notice that this is an atomic power station -
authors], at. 10: 41: 11 high voltage line 602 had been
turned on again 602.
(…) –
[a technical activities table in this place]
At 12.20 arrived an information that in region of airfield
“North”, an aircraft of Republic of Poland crashed, and
because in the region near the airfield is situated our
high voltage line at 12:35 in order of inspection and
explain cases, the OVB brigade had been sent after
arriving to the place at 14.00 on the command of
dispatcher was turned on R-294 and at 14.05 brigade
OWB under the regulation started inspection of the line.
As a result of inspection found, that the cables of the high
voltage had been broken in a space of poles 2/3 and 2/4
of the energetic line, and in a distance of about ten
meters from the pole 2/4 were found a remains of the
aircraft.

At 15:00 a commission arrive on the place of line
damage and found:
- On the space of high voltage line 602 poles 2/3 and 2/4
had been broken cables type SIP-3,
- In the distance of 10 meters from the pole 2/4 occur
remains of the aircraft.

1. Short description of the inspection:

background image

Section of the high voltage line 6 kV in the space between
poles of electro energetic line nr 2 – 2/7 of high voltage
line-602 from the electro energetic station “North” is on
the balance shit of individual entrepreneur, Yakubenkov
I. P. The year of introducing into service of the high
voltage line 6 kV – 21.07.2008. Agreement of
technological connection N

o

. 61/1 – 29 of 06.02.2008.,

protocol of demarcation with balance belonging to the
network N

o

61/1-29 of 06.02.2008., protocol of

demarcation of exploitation responsibility N

o

61/1-29 of

06.02.2008

Connection points (cables) of the airfield "North" receive
power from:

high voltage line 602 of the electro energetic

station "North" TP-329 "Rostelekom - Airfield
"North";

high voltage line 606 of the electro energetic

station "Kholodnia" TP-628 "VCh (military unit)
06755";

high voltage line 613 of the electro energetic

station "West" TP -272 "VCh 06755 far cable";

high voltage line 613 of the electro energetic

station "West" TP-285 "VCh 06755 0.4 kW".


During the visual inspection of the segment of the high
voltage line 6 kV in the space between the poles of the
electro energetic line Nr 2 – 2/7 found:
As a result of the crash of the aircraft close of the high
voltage line 602 had been cut tops of trees and in a
distance of about, 10 meters from the pole 2/4 lay a part

background image

of the aircraft wing. Under the influence of the external
force, had been broken a cable of the high voltage line
602 in the space between poles 2/3 and 2/4

CONCLUSION:
Probably, due to the crash of an aircraft, occurred to
braking cables of the high voltage line 602 on the space
between poles of electro energetic line 2/4 – 2/4 from the
electro energetic station “North”.


Fiodorov N.V. /-/
Kireyenkho N.P. /-/
Mordykhin W.W. /-/
Kravtsova Yu.A. /-/
Rybalkho O.A. /-/
Khulmanov I.W. /-/ “


background image

Report of Smolensk powerplant quoted above. 1

st

page with table.

background image

Report of Smolensk Powerplant, page 2

nd

, with

signatures.

background image

According to official preliminary report of the

Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK) in Moscow,
published on the 19

th

of May 2010, by Mrs. Gen. Tatiana

Anodina and Mr Aleksey Morozov in a company of Col.
Edmund Klich, a self-styled Polish representative:
“14 minutes after the plane crash, a place of tragedy was
surrounded by a cordon of 180 people”.

This is unbelievable, because a group of

energetics should had 3 hours to get the place in order to
repair cables, according to the report above. Therefore it
is impossible to collect much bigger group of 180 people
in

Please notice, that it was a Saturday; first power

plant workers came there at hours after the incident,
although a high voltage line was broken and did not
transmit energy, inter alia to the airfield! So how was it
possible to organize a transport for 180 people to situated
about 20-30 minutes way from the downtown of the city
airfield? It clearly indicates that Russian security services
had known about the catastrophe much earlier, then it
happened.

In order to complete a part concerning the time of

the disaster (easily modified in order to adapt it to the
current version), an auto-test of CVR recorder could
happen, that is why more probable, then end of recording
(10:41:05,4) is 10:41:04,6, but according to his wife a
watch of Gen. Andrzej Blasik, commander of Polish Air
Force stopped at 10:38. That is why the most probable
time of catastrophe, so alien for commission of MAK
(Russian Interstate Aviation Committee in Moscow),
could be 10:38-10:39. .

background image

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?typ=po&d

at=20100724&id=po01.txt

The Pilot-In-Command of PLF-101 flight had

landed at Smolensk Air Base many times for last 12
years. Last time on the 7

th

of April, just three days before

the time of catastrophe.

As the alternative airfields, Vitebsk and Minsk on

Belarus had been chosen.

In contrast to previous Russian statements,

including interview of Lt.-Col. Pavel Plusnin from the
11

th

of April (day after catastrophe), pilot in command

was speaking Russian fluently. All the crewmembers
spoke instead of Polish both Russian and English
languages, all had been flaying to Russia before.

Weather conditions:

1. Temperature: 35,6

o

F (according to MAK 34-

36

o

F)

2. Dew point probably 33,8

o

F

3. Pressure 993 HPa QFE
4. Visibility 200m (according to Smolensk ATC

400m, according to MAK 300-500m)

5. Wind 6,7 mph, 120

o

(according to MAK 4,5 mph,

110-120

o

)

6. Clouds base above 50m
7. Rain/Snow 0mm
8. Heavy fog



background image

Short history of the flight


The PLF-101 took off Frederic Chopin

International (WAW, EPWA) directly to Smolensk Air
Base (XUBS); the flight had been carried out on the
flight level of 350.000 feet with cruise speed of 800km/h,
lower then maximal cruise speed on 100km/h.

According to Polish authorities PLF-101 entered

Belarusian, air zone, at 7:45 UTC +2, according to CVR
transcripts at 10:06:31,6 UTC +4, passed first Belarusian
Area Control sector and contacted Minsk Air Traffic
Control at another frequency.

Radio communication had been carried out by the

navigator in English language.

At 10:09:40, PLF-101 started descending. At

10:14:06 from Belarusian Air Traffic Control PLF-101
received information about poor visibility at Smolensk
(XUBS) – 400 meters.

At 10:22:19, PLF-101 at flight level of 12.795

feet entered Russian air zone, and contacted Russian
Area Control in Moscow. Airplane continued descending
to level 10.825 feet.

At 10:23:29 PLF-101 had contacted “Khorsaj”

(Rus. Corsair) Smolensk Air Base Air Traffic Control, at
distance of about 30 miles from the airfield. Farther radio
communication was carried out by Pilot-In-Command in
Russian language.

At 10:24:16, PLF-101 was contacted by a co-pilot

of Polish Air Force PLF-044 flight, which had landed
Smolensk about 9 o’clock.

Pilot-In-Command of PLF-044 and Smolensk

ATC on two other frequencies had been informed about

background image

extremely difficult weather conditions – low clouds base,
heavy fog and visibility below 400meters, but in contrast
to procedures ATC had not closed airport. Moreover PIC
of PLF-044 jet, suggested PLF-101 co-pilot to make two
approaches to airfield before flying to an alternative
airport (he suggested Moscow).

At 10:27:58, unidentified aircraft informed

Smolensk ATC, that he had “ended the drop” and
reported descending to east. ATC did not repeat on two
communicates of the aircraft.

PLF-101 had been permanently descending with

course on outer Smolensk NDB marker, and then
changed direction, entering the pattern. Runway direction
was opposite to enroute direction. During performing a
downwind PLF-101, took fl of 1640 feet – an altitude of
starting approach. After making two turnings and taking
runway centreline, crew got a distance of starting
approach (10,1 km from the runway threshold) at
10:39:08.

At 10:37:01, PLF-044 informed PLF-101, about

quick decreasing of visibility to 200m. PIC received this
communication.

It was not precision approach, because an airfield

did not have Instrument Landing System, only Precision
Approach Radar RSP-6, as well as two Non-Directional
Beacons marking distance 6,1 and 1,1 km from the
threshold.

Approach was carried out using autopilot in all

the channels, turned off about 5s before hitting trees on
the ground, after a deep sink rate.

At 10:39 during a check-list crew started

approach (using barometric altimeter) in a distance of 10-

background image

8km. Speed was increasing, during this time aircraft was
flaying over the glide slope – firstly 330 feet above, then
less then 300 feet. Smolensk ATC, although should had
known it, did not inform flight PLF-101, about incorrect
descending and probably missing a start of glide slope.
Controller was telling with compartments of about 15
seconds, that aircraft is “on course and glide slope”,
which deepened risk of missing approach, overshot or
catastrophe.

At 10:39:50, PLF-101 passed outer NDB marker.

At 10:40:06, the Enhanced Ground Proximity

Warning System (Universal Avionics TAWS) warned
“Terrain Ahead!”.

At 10:40:42 first time, EGPWS (TAWS) warned

“Pull up! Pull up!”

At distance of about 1,8km from the threshold,

aircraft suddenly entered a sink rate. At altitude of 262
feet crew tried to cease approach and go around in
automatic mode. It was failed.

Descending speed increased after pressing “go

around” button on ABSU autopilot, and probably picking
flaps one stage up. Highest descending speed reached
4000 feet/min, in contrast to normal approach speed of
normal approach vertical speed 690 feet/min for this type
of aircraft.

At 10:40:52, 10 seconds after beginning of sink

rate controller requested to cease descending.

At 10:40:56, at the time of passing inner NDB

marker Pilot-In-Command tried to carry out going around
by hand.

At 10:40:59, aircraft contacted trees, crashed and

destroyed.

background image

CVR recording, according to official version

ended at 10:41:05,4.

As states currently promoted version, captain tried

to “dive” (please notice, that he had to dive via autopilot)
below clouds base to see ground and land. Why did he
descent below level of runway (situated a top of low hill)
- there is still no answer.

Please however notice, that the max. descending

speed for this aircraft (on fl 330 feet – decision level and
start of sink rate) to make any chance to land or go
around is 1560 ft/min. Pilot-In-Command descending
4000 ft/min would now that he will die… It is not
possible because it could not be a pilot error, but self-
killing.

So pilot’s self-killing is current official version,

although nobody said, that it was (only, that he “dived” is
stated).

background image

3.2. Crew information


Pilot-In-Command

Pilot-In-Command (captain) is a primary function

in every aircraft. According to the International Civil
Aviation Organization PIC is “The pilot responsible for
the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight
time
“. So in contrast to many Russian and Polish
opinions that somebody forced landing. Pilot-In-
Command is fully independent, because he is responsible
for the flight safety. Poland as a member of NATO, UE,
and Eurocontrol has to obligatory respects these rules.

PIC, Major Arkadiusz Protasiuk had been a Tu-

154M crewmember for 13 years, but his flying
experience is much longer – it concerns flying hours in
Air Force Academy (TS-11 lead-in-fighter trainer, An-2
and PZL M-28 light transport aircraft, as well as PZL-
130 turbo-propelled combat trainer). Before that time, he
had also a flying an experience including piston aircraft,
gliders and parachute jumping course in the Aviation
High School.

PIC was a I class pilot as well as III class test

pilot, qualified as an instructor and captain of Tupolev
Tu-154M, captain of Embraer E-175 and Yakovlev Yak-
40, as well as a navigator of Tu-154M. He was allowed
to make IFR procedure (IMC) flights day and night.

The last periodical test and enhanced flight

simulator training he passed in 2010 in Switzerland. The

background image

training concerned also crisis situations and cooperation
in a crew.

He was employed by the first squadron of the 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment in Warsaw. Instead of a
PIC, he performed professionally also other functions in
the unit - at the time of the air disaster he was a section
officer of the squadron.

PIC made at least 8 flights to Smolensk Air Base

(XUBS), last time on the 7

th

of April 2010- three days

before the air disaster.

He was an absolvent of:

1. Military Technical Academy in Warsaw

(cybernetics faculty).

2. Warsaw University (journalism and politics

faculty),

3. Air Force Academy in Deblin (aviation and

cosmonautics faculty),

He had a proficiency in English and Russian.

(only languages involved in radio communication listed
in the section).

He had a wife and two children.

It was only lacking of 2 years of flying to be

retired for him.

Co-pilot

Co-pilot (first officer) is a second-in-command of

the aircraft, to the captain who is the legal commander. In
the event of incapacitation of the captain, the first officer
will assume command of the aircraft

background image

Co-pilot Lt.-Col. Robert Grzywna had been 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment pilot for 13 years,
completely like PIC. His flaying experience however is
also much longer. He together with PIC graduated Air
Force Academy and had passed Aviation High school, on
the same faculties. He had been training in common with
PIC, Maj. Protasiuk for 21 years. That is why the pilots
were perfectly harmonious.


Co-pilot was a I class pilot, qualified as a captain

of Yakovlev Yak-40 jet, as well as a co-pilot of Embraer
E-175 and Tupolev Tu-154M aircraft.

He had also navigator’s qualification on Tu-154M

aircraft.

He was allowed to perform IFR procedure (IMC)

flights on a day and night.

The last periodical test on a flight simulator he

passed in Switzerland in 2010, jointly with the Pilot-In-
Command

He was employed by the first squadron of the 36

th

Special Aviation Regiment in Warsaw. Instead of pilot,
he did not perform professionally, any other functions in
the unit. However, he was making flights as a PIC in
Yak-40 aircraft.

He was an absolvent of Air Force Academy in

Deblin (aviation and cosmonautics facility) and Academy
of National Defense in Warsaw (military studies).

He had a proficiency in English and Russian.
He had a wife and a daughter.

Air engineer

background image

Air engineer (flight engineer) is an aircrew

member concerned with the control and monitoring of all
aircraft systems, and is required to diagnose and where
possible rectify or eliminate any faults that may arise.

AE, 1Lt. Andrzej Michalak, his basic training

graduated in 1993 in Technical High School in Rawa
Mazowiecka, Poland, and then started a secondary
training in the Collage of Technical Warrant Officers of
Aviation in Olesnica. He also graduated business
administration studies in the Trade and International
Finances Collage in Warsaw in 2000.

He had been employed as an aircrew member by

the 1

st

squadron of the 36

th

Special Air Transport

Regiment in Warsaw since 2008. Before this time, he had
been an engineer in a ground service of Tu-154M in the
36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment in Warsaw.

He had been trained as an air engineer, but for last

two years he did not complete any flight simulator
exercises, including periodical tests- have been replaced
by permanent exercise program including supervisor
hours in air, with instructor and on ground-training in Tu-
154M cockpit, due to the Russian prohibition (since
2007) of using simulator in Moscow, the only making
possible FE training. Polish government than did not
protest, because they stated that the Russian simulators
were “old-fashioned”. There was however also a
possibility to use simulators in Ukraine.

The AE had been qualified as an air engineer of

Tupolev-154M and Yakovlev Yak-40, as well as a
technical service engineer of Tu-154M

He had a proficiency in English and Russian.

background image

He had a wife and a son.

Navigator

Navigator (second officer) in Tu-154M is only an

optional crewmember. In the late 60

th

the first series of

Tu-154 aircraft had been flying without a navigator, so in
3-people crew. However, Aeroflot was obligated by
Soviet Union law to designate a navigator to every flight.

Now a day navigators are not still trained in

Russia for civil aviation, because of the plans to retire all
the Soviet constructions.

The 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment bases

flight operations on the instruction concerning basic crew
composition, so without a navigator. However during
long range, or oversea flights as well as HEAD status
(with a very important person on the board) a navigator is
also added to aircrew to relieve pilots in air navigation
aspects – during the flight he is contacting to Air Traffic
Control, operating a navigation computer of Flight
Managing System Universal Avionics UNS-1D, setting
navigation devices (for example GPS devices or beacons
direction finders) as well as he is reading aloud check-
lists and data from approach charts (or Jepessen charts).
Nevertheless, not operational manual, which is possessed
by an air engineer.

The navigator, Capt. Artur Zietek had been a 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment pilot and a navigator for
3 years, so he started his service in aircrew at the same
moment, as the air engineer. His flaying experience
however is also much longer, because it concerns Air

background image

Force Academy, Aviation High School training and
flying hours as a pilot in other units.

He was a II class pilot, qualified as a pilot-in-

command of PZL M-28 Skytrack turbo-propelled
aircraft, co-pilot of Yakovlev Yak-40 jet, as well as a
navigator on Tupolev Tu-154M aircraft.

He performed a number of trainings and

periodical tests on a flight simulator, however as a Tu-
154M crewmember any flight simulator training he did
not perform.

The navigator was employed by the first squadron

of the 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment in Warsaw as

a pilot. Instead of a crewmember, he did not perform
professionally, any other functions in unit.

He had a proficiency in English and Russian.
He had a wife and two children.


Flying experience of the crewmembers


Polish pilots have rather good opinion in the

world, due to successful share of 4 Polish squadrons
during a Battle of Britain. Polish pilots were only 5% of
Royal Air Force power, but they downed 12% of shoted
Luftwaffe aircraft, so they had more than twice better
combat efficiency, than the British pilots reached.
Moreover, 50% of Polish pilots served in bomber
squadrons, what means that combat statistics of Poles
were much better, than seem to be.

There are probably no airlines that, like the 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment, accepts pilots after 7
years training and give them PIC qualification after

background image

dozen of years of flying as a co-pilot of presidential
aircraft.

Both PLF-101 pilots graduated aviation studies

and started their service in the unit the same year. They
both begun collecting their experience flying on 20-seat
jet, Yakovlev-40. They however also started training and
flights on Tu-154M, also as crewmembers. Very quickly
they graduated Yak-40 captain training and both became
performing flights as Yak-40 PIC, as well as on the board
of Tu-154M.

During that time they made many flights together

in a crew of Yak-40. For 10 years they have been
regularly passing flight simulator training on Yak-40 and
Tu-154M, mostly together.

However most of the flights of co-pilot were

performed as a PIC of Yak-40 jet aircraft. During the
service Lt.-Col. Robert Grzywna was flying inter alia
with presidents and prime ministers receiving higher
military rank, than PLF-101 PIC. Maj. Protasiuk on the
other hand, was flying most as a crewmember of much
heavier presidential jets Tu-154M, collecting airborne
hours faster.

During 13 years of service with co-pilot and

navigator qualification he became a captain of the Tu-
154M. Before that moment he passed - according to the
documents received by us - several dozen of flight
simulator enhanced trainings concerning Yak-40 and Tu-
154M, however for a long time he was only passing
training for new aircrafts, unit was going to receive.

He was also performing flights as Yak-40 PIC

and co-pilot, however not often. He graduated two

background image

collages, including Military Technical Academy, as well
as was performing some functions in the unit.

Last full training program (three years, after

reaching Tu-154 PIC qualification) he graduated in a
form of enhanced flight simulator training in 2010. It was
concerning western Embraer E-170 jests, receiving
primary PIC qualification of the Embraer. In the training
program Lt.-Col. Grzywna took part as a co-pilot.

Among the basic targets of the training was co-

ordination and co-operation in the crew aspect. During
the training pilots also received high number of tasks
making them familiar with TAWS.

PIC received also instructor powers on Tu-154M

and passed research pilots training, reaching III class test
pilot qualification.

Crew of the PLF-101 flight had been formed in

2008 in basic composition with Major Protasiuk as a PIC,
Lt.-Col. Grzywna as a co-pilot and Lt. Michalak as an air
engineer. All of the basic crewmembers had additional
college studies graduated. During the flights on Yak-40
crew compositions many times was changed, because
both pilots were able to perform function of PIC, but Lt.-
Col. Grzywna had higher rank and was more experienced
on Yak-40.

The crew of PLF-101, according to Gen. Anatol

Czaban, Polish Air Force Training Department Head,
made following number common flights in 2009 and
2010 (excl. 2008):

A. Pilot-In-Command with the Co-pilot 39

flights

B. Pilot-In-Command with the Air Engineer

81 flights

background image

C. All the crew in common 21 flights


Flights involve over 170 operations of the PIC and Air
Engineer, over 100 operations of the pilots together and
around 50 operations of the full crew together, excluding
2008 and years before.

Flying experience table

Flight
Function

Aged Total

flying
hours

Hours on
the type

Start of
the
service
in 36SATR

Pilot-In-

Command

36

3528

2937

1997

Co-pilot

36

1939

506

1997

Air

engineer

37

330

290

1998

Navigator

32

1070

60

2007


A table above shows a number of hours flown by the
crewmembers.
Please notice that, due to low frequency of presidential
flights, number of hours indicate much longer pilot’s
career, than it would be in civil aviation. Other words to
collect 3500 hours of airborne experience, PIC had to
work about 2 times longer, than airlines captain. It means
that passed twice more periodical tests and trainings than
experience would indicate. Gaps between flights made
pilots able to graduate high numbers of studies and
trainings impossible to realised in airlines.
Moreover the hours listed above include difficult
landings never operated in commercial companies, for
example regular training tasks with engines, wing

background image

mechanization or some avionics turned off. In airlines
such activities are only carried out twice a year on a
flight simulator. Here were also being carried out
regularly, airborne in real airplane. Such training is much
more efficient, than common flight simulator trainings,
because not performed virtually.
Due to 13 years of experience in crisis situation and crew
co-operation regular airborne trainings in the aircraft,
crewmembers were much more familiar with the aircraft
(the exemplar), than normally in airlines. It also means
that their experience was much more worthy, than an
equivalent in airlines.
Please also notice that flight simulators of Tu-154M are
never comparable with western avionics of presidential
aircraft. That is why regular airborne training were very
worthy experience.
There are also instructor and research pilots trainings
included in the experience of the PIC, also much more
worthy, than normal flying hours. However some farther
experience reached airborne as an instructor and a
supervisor is not included in the flying experience table.
One fact also evidences incorrectness of civil model of
experience calculating in this situation. Their flights were
also much more diversified, because concerned travels
with a president, as well with as full load of cargo. It
concerned long oversea missions (for example Australia,
South Africa, USA, Canada), as well as short domestic
hauls. Due to high number of domestic flights (for
example on a distance of 200km) experience indicates
much higher number of landings, than normally concerns
Tu-154M or Boeing B-737 pilot in airline aviation.

background image

Crews of the 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment

perform flights to most modern and best equipped
airfields in the world, like New York JFK, London
Heathrow, Dubai, Beijing, as well as to poor equipped
airports and conflicts regions of Afghanistan, Iraq,
Georgia and to many non-NATO states for example Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Israel.
Also in the same composition the aircrew (including the
same navigator) carried out a mission to Haiti in January
2010, where delivered humanitarian and medical aid and
Polish rescuers with high technology searching
equipment and rescue dogs, after the earthquake on Haiti.

The mission concerned 6 landings and long

oversea route. Due to limited time that a human is able to
stay alive under the rubble, that flight was also a real
fight against the time.

Moreover, according to Gen. Czaban the situation

on the airport in Port-Au-Prince was extremely difficult.
American troops that took control on the airfield were not
able to maintain any order. Extremely high number of
military and humanitarian aid flight completely surpassed
maximal efficiency of the airport. Furthermore,
thousands of people stormed airfield searching an aid or
wanting to leave their country, just like on the war.

During another mission to Haiti the Tu-154M

piloted by Capt. Grzegorz Pietruczuk, who was not a
crewmember of the PLF-101 flight to Smolensk, had a
serious deficiency at the airport in Puerto Rico, USA,
which concerned several elements of the steering system
including inter alia (according to Polish Air Force, 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment and Gen. Czaban)
steering block, rudder and flaps steering devices and one

background image

of the autopilot’s channels. The Polish rescuers for many
hours were not able to come back home, but also (trapped
by situation on the airfield) could not help anybody. They
could only counterproductive lie on the grass, near the
runway.

An air engineer had to on his own, and by himself

fix the problems (for example some autopilot functions
he had to turn off), consulting with Warsaw only by a
satellite phone, because Americans had not had any spare
parts and knowledge how to make a reparation in
Tupolev aircraft. Nobody in Polish Air Force (although it
is carried on all over the world) did not think about
sending in such mission any technical personnel with the
aircraft.

Moreover, now Gen. Czaban does not know what

exactly happened in Haiti and what did the air engineer
do. Probably nobody in Polish Air Force knows because
their statements are self-conflicting. Coincidentally the
service book of the Tu-154M somehow appeared on the
board of flight PLF-101 and probably was damaged
during the air disaster.

Please notice that it seems to be every of these

faults were able to cause an air disaster if only happened
airborne. After coming back Warsaw, the faults had been
professionally repaired by Russian warranty team of
Aviakor Joint Stock Company of Samara, Russia.

All the PLF-101 crewmembers were speaking

Russian and English language fluently.

Pilot-In-Command performed as a captain of

Tupolev-154M, according to Polish Air Force 27 flights
to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Co-pilot in a period of
2008-2010 performed 10 flights to Russia and Ukraine.

background image

3.3 Air Traffic Control

Smolensk Air Base (military unit 06755)

personnel had been reduced to about 50 people after
liquidation of the regiment, quartering there.

Commander of the airfield – Col. Anatolyi

Muraviov had under his command only two air traffic
controllers – supervisor and controller (aerodrome
military dispatcher) – Lt.-Col. Pavel Plusnin and
approach controller (aerodrome military navigator) Capt.
Victor Ryjenkho.

http://www.tvn24.pl/-

1,1674784,0,1,rosyjscy-kontrolerzy-cywilni-czy-
wojskowi,wiadomosc.html

Smolensk “Corsair” ATC competitions schema.

However on the 10

th

of April not Muraviov was

commander of the airfield. It is unknown why, but
another officer, Col. Nikolay Krasnokutskiy arrived to
the airfield that day from Tver. He took command on the
tower. He was ordering all the activities of the ATC. It is
still kept in secret who was exactly him.

Moscow (Logics)

Krasnokutskiy

Plusnin

Ryjenkho

PLF-101

background image

Krasnokutskiy however cased unprecedented

situation – he was not taking decision on his own, but
calling higher decision command “Logics” (Logikha) in
Moscow. What was his consultations like? It is also
unknown.

There are however some piece of fact concerning

the situation on the tower.

Air Traffic Control was working using very

specific approach system – called PAR (precision
approach radar) type RSP-6, modernized to RSP-6/M2
variant.

This system indicates to ATC position of the

aircraft on the glideslope. Pilot, who does not see
indications of the Instrument Landing System that
Smolensk was not equipped with, can follow ATC
communicates. Controller can for example say: “You’re
10 m on the left, but on the glideslope”, “You’re 10m
above the glideslope, but on course”, “You’re on the
right 30 and 10 below”. Statements of the ATC refer to
the glidepath, the only correct to be able to touchdown
not out of the runway. If the descent rate is incorrect as
much, as it would be too dangerous to continue the
approach, controller can request the crew to cease
descending. If there is a possibility of an air accident he
must say “go around!” immediately. However when the
aircraft is strictly on correct course and glideslope ATC
reports “On course, on glideslope”.

PLF-101 communication (in Russian)

Time
(GMT)

Smolensk Air Traffic
Control

PLF-101 Pilot-In-
Command

6:23:29,9

Corsair-Start, Polish
101, good day!

background image

6:23:33,7 Corsair replied.

6:23:39,6

On outer leading we’re
descending 3600
meters.

6:23:47,3 Polish Foxtrot 1-0-

1, fuel balance, how
much fuel you’ve
got?

6:23:55,0

11 tones left.

6:23:59,7 And what are your

alternatives?

6:24:03,8

Vitebsk, Minsk

6:24:08,3 Vitebsk, Minsk,

correctly?

6:24:10,7

You correctly
understood.

6:24:22,3 PLF 1-2--0-1, on

Corsair fog,
visibility 400
meters.

6:24:33,1

I understood, please
give me meteo
conditions.

6:24:40,0 At Corsair fog,

visibility 400
meters, four-zero-
zero meters.

6:24:49,2

Temperature and
pressure, please.

6:24:51,2 Temperature plus 2.

Pressure 745, 7-4-5,
there are no
conditions for
landing.

6:25:01,1

Thank you, but if it
is possible we will
try one approach, but
when there will not be

background image

weather, we will go
around.

6:25:12,3 1-0-1, after

approach attempt
will you have enough
fuel for
alternative?

6:25:19,1

Enough.

6:25:19,6 Received.

6:25:22,9

Permission for farther
descent, please.

6:25:25,3 1-0-1, with course

40 degrees,
descending 1500.

6:25:32,0

1500 with course 40
degrees.

6:30:10,2

Corsair, Polish 101,
we keep 1500.

6:30:14,2 Aaa... Polish 1-0-1

according to the
pressure 7-4-5,
descending 500.

6:30:21,9

According to the
pressure 7-4-5,
descending 500 meters,
Polish 101.

6:30:36,4 Polish 101, course

79.

6:30:31,1

Course 79, Polish 101.

6:31:57,8 PLF 1-0-1, here’s

Corsair.

6:32:01,4

We reply!

6:32:02,7 Have you taken 500

meters?

6:32:05,8

At the moment not,
1000, we are
descending.

background image

6:32:08,0 Received.

6:33:40,1 PLF 1-0-1, altitude

500?

6:33:45,4

We are taking 500
meters.

6:33:47,2 Received.

6:34:50,8 PLF 1-0-1, taken

500?

6:34:54,3

We have taken 500
meters.

6:34:56,2 500 meters, on a

military aerodrome
have you madden
landing?

6:35:02,9

Yes, of course.

6:35:04,6 Reflectors from

left, from right, on
the end of the
runway.

6:35:11,3

Received.

6:35:14,4 l-0-l, make the

third, radial 19.

6:35:19,9

We are making the
third, Polish 101.

6:35:22,6 Polish 101, and from

100 meters be ready
to go around.

6:35:29,5

Yes, sir!

6:37:23,1

And we are making the
fourth, Polish 101.

6:37:26,2 101, make the

fourth.

6:39:08,7 101

st

, distance 10.

Entering the
glideslope.

6:39:30,1 8 on course, on

glideslope.

background image

6:39:33,6

Flaps, gear extended,
Polish 101.

6:39:37,3 The runway’s free.

Landing
conditionally 120-3
meters.

6:39:49,9 You’re taking outer,

on course, on
glideslope distance
6.

6:40:13,5 4 on course, on

glideslope.

6:40:16,7

On course, on
glideslope.

6:40:26,6 3 on course, on

glideslope.

6:40:31,2 Set on the

reflectors!

6:40:34,0

Set on.

6:40:38,7 2 on course, on

glideslope.

6:40:52,4 Horizon, 101!

6:40:54,7 Altitude control,

horizon!

6:41:02,0 Go around!

Source: Cockpit Voice Recorder transcripts. Prepared by
the authors.


A table concerning reconstruction of ATC

recording is placed on. However it is only a
reconstruction, carried out according to CVR transcripts
of the PFL-101 black box. All the CVR statements of
crew to the ATC and ATC to the crew had been included
above. The time copied from the CVR transcripts (the
time of statement is beginning according to MAK).

background image

ATC recording is still secret. It would also

concern many other fragments, not only a radio
communication with PLF-101, but also a recordings,
older than 10:23:29,9, (Russian time) involving
correspondence with PLF-044 and with Russian Air
Force Ilyushin Il-76M, which after two missed
approaches decided to fly to an alternative airport around
10:20. Moreover, telephone conversations.

There is no much information concerning ATC,

instead of Lt.-Col. Plusnin’s interview for Russian web
TV, from the 13

th

of April, so three days after the

catastrophe (air disaster happened on Saturday, Mr
Plusnin interviewed on Monday). Originally in Russian
language.
Presswoman: What was your conversation with the
crew like?
Lt.-Col. Plusnin: -I was proposing them to land at an
alternative airport. They didn’t agree.
Did you proposed them?
-Yes.
What was the reason?
-I saw that weather deteriorates.
What answer did you receive?
-The answer was: It’ll be enough fuel, an approach and
I’ll direct to another airfield, if it fails.
Apparently, there were proposals of landing in other
towns?
-So I proposed.
Why did he refuse?

background image

-Him should you ask!

Why did they take so risky
decision? They argued or
maybe they were so stubborn
that you didn’t manage to
convince them?
-It was a decision of the
commander of the crew.
And what happened farther?
He told you that he will do one
circle more and will fly to the
alternative airport?
-He said that if he won’t land
he’ll fly to the alternative
airport.
And what did you do?
-As I told you I cant’s say more.
And what farther? Did you lost communication?
-No, why? The communication was long later.
What did they say?
-They were talking about my commends. Initially they
were informing, later stopped.
They ceased to listen to your commends?
-They should give confirmation, they didn’t.
What kind of confirmation?
-On the level on with a trying of landing.
You did not receive such information?
-No.
Was it involved with a danger?
-With a staff you carry out a radio exchange, here it
wasn’t.
But why they did not confirm?

Lt.-Col. Pavel Plusnin

(photo: TVN-24)

background image

-How I’d know that? Because they Russian spoke poorly.
There was nobody on the board, who could speak
Russian?

-Were, but number for them is a “black magic”!

Does it mean that you had no information about the
altitude?
-No.
I understand that he once again approached to land, he
did not touch down, and he flied out to the alternative?
Or otherwise?
-No, no, otherwise. He made one approach and that’s it.
then he started to land.
He made the landing that you prohibited him?
-No I couldn’t prohibit him anything, I recommended to
don’t do it.


This is probably the first time in the history, the

first time since 1919 when the International Commission
for Air Navigation (ICAN) had been created to develop
General Rules for Air Traffic, as well as a term “Air
Traffic Control”, that an air traffic controller two days
after an air disaster comments what happened! Moreover,
he blames pilots who were killed. He also recommended
the presswomen two ask dead people about their
exercises. Did not he know that the captain is dead, that
he had been killed in the air disaster?

Mr Plusnin not only accuses, indicates guilty

among the dead, but he also prevaricates. He is
colloquially speaking wide with the truth. Please notice
following statements conflicted with the CVR:

background image

1. Proposal of flaying to an alternative

airport – Lt.-Col. Plusnin did not propose
flaying to the alternative airport directly.

2. Statement of the pilot concerning flaying

to the alternative airport if he will not
land – It is not truth, PIC was going to
descent to decision level, as evidences
CVR. (After the final approach pilot starts
landing. Landing is manoeuvre started
over a threshold, usually on a level of
20m and ended by a touch down, decision
level concerns 100m here, so the
difference is more than subtle.)

3. The PLF-101 started landing – The CVR

does not confirm if Mr Plusnin was even
informed, that a crew had been going to
land, so he could not know, that they
started landing. Moreover, the last
statement concerning crew manoeuvres
had been said at a level of 90 meters and
it sounded “We go around!” Any farther
statements not appear until the end of
recording- excluding altimeter reading by
a navigator and a statement “fucking
hell!” and “fuuuuck!” and the last
experience protractedly. In addition, that
is it
, paraphrasing Mr Plusnin.

On the other hand, very important, and we hope

not too boring cause is a status of Air Traffic Control. In
Civil Aviation Air Traffic Systems, so popular towers are
participating on two basic statuses, which conditions

background image

competences of the tower. These are information status
and control status. Information towers staffed not by
controllers, but by informers. Their work job is called
“AFIS – Aerodrome Information System. The AFIS we
can meet on the smaller airfields, usually if there is no
radar, but also (rarely) in some zones of international
airports. AFIS concerns only aerodrome services, never
for example Area Control. An informer does not issue
any commands – he can only suggest, so he uses
expressions like “I suggest”, “suggesting”, “suggestion”,
“propose”, “I propose you to”, “Please inform me when”.
He cannot require.

Much more enhanced properties possesses an Air

Traffic Controller, working in a higher stage of Air
Traffic Service organization, known as Air Traffic
Control. A controller, although is not a superior of any
aircrew, operates some package of commands. He is able
to prohibit landing for example.

Of course, there are situations when one person

can be in some measure an informer and a controller. For
example in some airports using Precision Approach
Radars, with a limit of safety work level. Down of this
level, their precision is not enough to safely guide aircraft
until the touchdown (for example 100 ft) and to the
reaching by an airplane this altitude air service worker is
an Air Traffic Controller, but when aircraft descends
below, he becomes an informer of AFIS, he goes to the
mode of information. It is also not usual situation –
normally the dividing line is clear and constant.

However, was a status of Smolensk ATC? If we

listen to read the words of Lt.-Col. Plusnin, it will be
clearly visible, that he was an informer. Please notice the

background image

characteristic phrases in his statements – “I proposed”, “I
suggested”, and he maintains that he allegedly “Could
not prohibit anything”. Under such conditions we would
be even able to ignore inconsistencies in his interview
(Mr Plusnin was navigating PLF-101 using “commands”
according to the interview), because they are not
shameful yet.

Completely another, however, was Mr Plusnin’s

status according to CVR transcripts. Please once again
peek on the table above. There are not any suggestions
and not any proposals – only orders and commands. Lt.-
Col. Plusnin and his college Capt. Victor Ryjenkho are
clearly Air Traffic Controllers.

Moreover, how can Mr Plusnin say, that the crew

did not inform him about their flight level, although not
him, but Capt. Ryjenkho was navigating PLF-101 during
approach?
How can he prevaricate, that he did not have any
information about the flight level, although they were
using a Precision Approach Radar RSP-6M in Smolensk?

One more thing. Mr Plusnin states, that they had

no any information concerning the altitude of PLF-101.
So how Mr Ryjenkho was able to repeat “On course,
glideslope”, which means another words “You are on
course and on the glideslope”. Glideslope or glide path is
an indicator of an aircraft location during approach in
vertical parameter. Course is an indicator of horizontal
parameter.

To rate if the PLF-101 was “on the glideslope” or

not he had to know it’s altitude precociously, which stays
in a deep contrast with Mr Plusnin’s statement.

background image

According to Russian rules of military Air Traffic

Service, Smolensk “Corsair” was not an AFIS and not an
ATC – it was so-could Military Aerodrome Disposition
Centre. So Mr Plusnin was neither an informer, nor a
controller, he was a Dispatcher, a dispatcher, an officer
able to control and order nearly everything in his control
are. He was more than controller; he was able to permit
the landing. Why he did not? We will not probably know
it never.

But according to Polish aviation experts (inter alia

Mr Andrzej Gieroczynski, head of the Air Navigation
Services Department of Civil Aviation Authority and Dr
Tadeusz Augustynowicz, former manager at London
Heathrow Airport, military aerodromes coordinator, and
retired Polish Airlines pilot) in every situation – it
doesn’t matter if he was a dispatcher, informer or a
controller – his duty was to close the airfield under this
meteo conditions. He had such right and obligation.

The minimal visibility, when Smolensk Airport is

able to conduct start and landing operations is for every
type of an aircraft 000 meters. Lt.-Col. Plusnin had
permanently receiving meteo information.

Please notice that there was no ILS (Instrument

Landing System) in Smolensk, only NDB markers – pilot
can use only GPS, gyrocompass and NDB indicators
(automatic direction finders). If he wants to land he will
have to trust ATC on 100%, because only they have
precession indications from PAR radar.

Smolensk ATC activities.

Time
(GMT)

Conditions

Obligatory ATC
reaction

Real ATC
reaction

2:00

Visibility

Carry out

Not

background image

over 1800m

operations –
the airport is
ready

operational
yet

5:00

Visibility
below 1000m,
low clouds
base

Immediately
cease
operations,
close the
airport

Airport
operational

After
5:00

PLF-044
successfully
landing, but
with 1000m
overshot of
the runway
threshold
(according
to Gazeta
Wyborcza)

Immediately
cease
operations,
close the
airport

No reaction
of ATC

5:30

Visibility
800m, fog

Immediately
cease
operations,
close the
airport

No reaction
of ATC

6:00

Missed
approach of
Ilyushin-76M

Immediately
cease
operations,
close the
airport

No reaction
of ATC

6:11

Visibility
below 400m,
heavy fog,
extremely
low cloud
base,
conditions
preferring
an icing.

Immediately
cease
operations,
close the
airport

No reaction
of ATC

6:20

Second
missed
approach of

Immediately
cease
operations,

No reaction
of ATC

background image

Ilyushin-
76M, nearly
crashed on
landing
attempt.
(according
to Gazeta
Wyborcza)

close the
airport

6:22

PLF-101
arriving to
the zone

Redirect to
another
airport

Permitting
on carrying
out of the
approach

6:27

Unknown
aircraft
contacts ATC
and informs
about ending
of “the
drop”.

Find out what
was a sense
and source of
the
communication.
If unknown to
say “Calling
aircraft
repeat!”

No reaction
of ATC, no
contact to
the
aircraft

6:27

Unknown
aircraft
contacts ATC
and informs
about
starting of
descending
on east.

Find out what
was the sense
and source of
the
communication.
If unknown to
say “Calling
aircraft
repeat!”

No reaction
of ATC, no
contact to
the
aircraft

6:27

Unknown
aircraft
reports
“Permitted”
or
“Permitted?”

Find out what
was the sense
and source of
the
communication.
If unknown to
say “Calling
aircraft
repeat!”

No reaction
of ATC, no
contact to
the
aircraft

6:37

Visibility

Redirect PLF-

No reaction

background image

below 200m
(!) very
heavy fog.

101 to an
alternative
airport, cease
operations,
and close the
airport,
inform PLF-
101, about
weather change

of ATC, no
information
to PLF-101

6:39

PLF-101
starts
approach

Do not permit
on the
approach

Command
“Runway is
free”

6:39:30

PLF-101 much
above the
glideslope

Command
“Glideslope!”
or information
about level
above the
glideslope

Information
about
flight on
correct
course and
glideslope

6:40:13

PLF-101 40%
(30ft) above
the
glideslope

Information
about
incorrect
approach,
command
“Glideslope”,
if necessary
“Go around!”.

Information
about
correct
glideslope.

10:40:16 PLF-101

pilot
confused by
ATC –
confirmation
of incorrect
glideslope
as correct.

Immediately
request “Go
around!” or
inform pilot
about
incorrect
descending
rate.

No reaction
of ATC

background image

10:40:26 PLF-101

still much
above the
glideslope.

Immediately
request “Go
around” or to
inform pilot
about
incorrect
descending
rate.

Information
about
flight on
correct
glideslope.

Around
6:40:40

PLF-101 on
decision
level (VPR)
of 100m

Information
“decision
level” (vysota
riesheniya
)
and asking if
the pilot can
see the runway
(poloza)

No reaction
of ATC

Around
6:40:45

PLF-101 on
sinkrate

Command “Go
around!”

No reaction
of ATC

6:40:50

PLF-101 on
extreme
sinkrate

Command “Go
around!”

Command
“Horizon.”

Around
6:41:00

PLF-101
shears the
trees and
contacts the
terrain

Command “Go
around”

Request of
the flight
level and
“Horizon.”
Command

6:41:02-
6:41:05

PLF-101
crashes and
brakes up

Immediately
contact rescue
services, and
inform them
about the last
position of
the aircraft.

Command “Go
around!”
After 15
minutes
turning on
an alarm
and
probably
informing
the rescue
service

background image

On the day of the interview, Mr Plusnin became

retired. Why? It is also a question without an answer.

In addition, Capt. Ryjenkho already does not

work in Smolensk – he is moved to another airfield.

However lack of decision of Mr Plusnin does not

indicate that he was for example in poor condition, but
indicates some questions about Krasnokutskiy.

The most possible scenario of the decision could

look as following:

1. ATC is not going to permit on PLF-101 landing.

ATC does not have the flight plan – does not
know what are the alternatives airport.

2. After contacting PLF-101 Plusnin finds out that

the plane will fly out of Russia, to Belarus if only
will not land. He permits on farther descending.

3. Krasnokutskiy has to take very difficult decision

– there are very difficult weather conditions,
however due to some reason the aircraft should
not fly away.

4. Plusnin or – more probable – Krasnokutskiy

contacts Moscow and asks what to do

http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1674784,0,1,rosyjscy-
kontrolerzy-cywilni-czy-
wojskowi,wiadomosc.html

.

5. By unknown reason PLF-044 crew persuades

PLF-101 to try landing. He says “we
succeeded…”, “I’ll tell you honestly, you can try
as the most...”.

6. By some miracle PLF-044 has the same view as

Russian ATC – PIC of PLF-044 recommended

background image

PLF-101 to fly Moscow, although he should have
the same alternatives as PLF-101.

7. PLF-044 is very determined to persuade landing

of PLF-044. PLF-044 PIC said that the PLF-101
should rely on APM lights, although they could
not be helpful – lighting on the runway, invisible
in heavy fog.

8. PLF-044 reports probably wrong position of the

APM lights.

9. Controller Plusnin and his unofficial boss from

Tver are very well co-ordinated with PLF-044 –
all recommend PLF-101 to approach only to go
around.

10. PLF-101 decided to carry out approach.
11. PLF-044 PIC prohibited air engineer to record

conversations of ATC and PLF-101.

12. After leaving the board of PLF-044 by the PIC

and co-pilot, air engineer reported PLF-101, just
before the approach that the visibility is twice
worse than reported by ATC “Arek, now visible
200”.

13. On approach of PLF-101 PAR controller is

talking incorrectly “On course, on glideslope”
like being scared of PLF-101 flying to the
alternative. He seems to be terrorised.

14. PLF-101 crashes, PIC of PLF-044 comments it

“Well, surely the guys have just crashed.” (“No,
chyba chłopaki się rozbili”).

15. Krasnokutskiy escapes the tower startled. On the

question of somebody from the crew of PLF-044,
about the Tupolev he answers “Flew away”.

http://www.fakt.pl/Wstrzasajace-slowa-pilota-

background image

Slyszalem-jak-zgineli-koledzy-z-
tupolewa,artykuly,72620,1.html


3.4 Aircraft Information

However not all the conspiracy theories include

assassination. Please now analyse the history and
capabilities of the aircraft to be fully sure that the
conspiracy theories seem to have much better base than
all the theories concerning eventual pilot’s error. Class
and education of the pilots stay in deep contrast with the
aircraft.

The Careless(ness) of Mr Shengardt

Tupolev-154 (NATO: Careless) is one of the most

famous Soviet aircraft. It is a soul of Russian design
thought. Russians planned to introduce Tu-154 as mid-
range jet, which had to supplement a gap in Soviet
aircraft spectrum – much smaller Yak-40, smaller Tu-134
and bigger Il-62. The first aircraft even in than conditions
was tight and loud, about it’s success decided only one
parameter – alighting run (only 450m), due to which this
plane was successively displacing propelled
constructions from the smallest airports of Soviet Union.

The Tupolev-134, the first flight passed only 5

years earlier, that is why it did not have to replacement of
new aircraft. Tu-134, although as fast as Tu-154 was
nearly twice smaller and had twice shorter range,
insomuch as it was not able to satisfy the hunger of the

background image

(centrally-controlled) market in Soviet Union and allied
states in Europe, Asia, Africa.

Much bigger Il-62 was initially produced only for

Aeroflot, and even years after it did not managed any
market success excluding exportation for (inter alia)
CSA, LOT, TAROM and Interflug, where they operated
Atlantic routes. The last aircraft delivered to Sudan was
not even 300

th

produced. It shows clearly, what the

market demand was.

Requirements for a new airplane had been defined

in 1964. New airliner – a Tupolev-154. Generally, say, it
had to compare affordable airport needs of previous
Russian designs – Antonov-10 (most successful in
Siberia) and Ilyushin-18, Soviet export hit, as well as
transport An-12.

It also was planned for Tu-154 to have as good

performance, as Tu-104. However, Tu-104 lived to see a
successor – Tu-134 the same capabilities, but more
modern, based on Sud Aviation Caravell.

That is why Tu-154 could became not a

replacement of older constructions, but the new quality in
Russian aviation. Because that time was a time of
Russian intelligence KGB and GRU bloom (Soviet secret
service felt perfect in conditions of personal and
organizational stabilization inside, in post-Stalin time), a
new aircraft also should be based on some western
project.

Boeing B-727 had been chosen by Russian

authorities, what was not derogation from those times
current trend:

1. De Havilland Comet Tupolev-104
2. Vickers VC-10 Ilyushin-62

background image

3. Sud Aviation SE-210 Tupolev-134
4. Boeing B-727 Tupolev-154

Its engines configuration is classical for the late

60

th

Russian design, the same as in the western designs,

which became archetypes for inter alia Mr Shengardt.

Tu-154 performed much better flight level, than

B-727 it was probably the only parameter, noticeably
better, than archetype. This single parameter however
does not allow say, that the Tu-154 was an improvement
of the best Boeing of the 60

th

.

Contrary – Russian designers was not able to

oppose many problems that had been previously
eliminated in B-727 – the problems was an electronic.
Boeing (excluding first series of B-747) was able to
produce aircraft with two people crew (two pilots),
Russian design trend was 4-8 people aircrew – two pilots,
two flight engineers, navigator, radio-operator… - it was
a norm that times. That is why Tu-154 really was an
achievement – it was able to fly with 3-4 people crew, it
fit in modernization trend in Russia – Yak-40 was able to
fly with 3 people on the flight deck, Il-62 with 3-5,
Tupolev 134 with 3-4.

There were some problems, including engines and

electronics quality, as well as unprecedented sensitivity
to two factors – loading balance and a turbulence. The
new aircraft was going to conquer markets of 18 states,
multiply itself to nearly 1000 produced exemplars, and...
kill 2975 people in 57 air disasters and 5 terrorist attacks.
Analyzing that time safety statistics, it is allowed to state,
that Tu-154, although according to Soviet standards
successful, was not safety aircraft, probably that is why it

background image

received significant NATO reporting name – the
“Careless”.


Flight safety statistics of Tu-154M comparison.

Aircraft
Type

First
flight

Number
built

Number
of hull
losses

Number of
catastrophes

% of
crashed

Tupolev Tu-
154

1968

923

66

57

6,2%

McDonnell
Douglas DC-
10

1970

446

30

26

5,8%

Lockheed C-
141
Starlifter

1963

284

26

16

5,6%

Convair CV-
600

1965

38

3

2

5,3%

Boeing B-727 1963

1984

166

93

4,7%

Ilyushin Il-
76

1971

938

60

44

4,7%

Antonov An-
26

1968

1986

116

90

4,5%

Airbus A-300 1972

561

26

18

3,2%

Lockheed C-5
Galaxy

1968

131

6

4

3,0%

Boeing B-747 1969

1369

48

39

2,8%

Boeing B-737 1967

5873

148

137

2,3%

Source: FSF, prepared by the authors (2010).

Please notice, that according to the statistics, that

Tu-154, although one of the safest Russian airliners –
must say- has twice worst statistics than comparable
western constructions, for example the most comparable
with Tu-154M Boeing B-737 (excluding 727, which is
older construction) – the same capabilities, the same age,

background image

the same class- has nearly 3 times better statistics,
moreover better survival rate. It will not be a
manipulation, if we say that B-737 is the safest airliner in
the world.

Tu-154M is also less safety, than it’s archetype B-

727, although had been designed later.

Only C-141 and DC-10 look not well, according

to the statistics. However the first one is a military
aircraft, many times overloaded and flaying in very
difficult conditions of desert, Alaska or battlefield (Tu-
154M of course flies in cold places, but legitimates high
number of catastrophes also in quite good climate
conditions of Iran, as well as do not rather take part in
military conflicts). The second one has perfect 60%
survival rate, so even if this (mostly transport) airplane
crashes, there is great chance to stay alive.

Please notice that, both of this aircraft, however

are much safer than Tu-154M, according to the statistics
only.

According to Mr. Nikolai Vasylenko, Russian

constructor, former test pilot and Aeroflot – Russian
Airliners captain, who spend airborne 16.000 hours on
many types of military and civil aircraft, including Tu-
154M:

“For me it was from the beginning a failed

designs. Testified that even the fact that immediately after
the introduction of Tu-154 machines, there were two
completely unexplained air disasters - in Prague and in
Kiev, and later also to many other similar catastrophes.
We, pilots often called it a “flaying coffin”. And it was
through all this air disaster, when either it is unknown
what had happened or the blame had been thrown on the

background image

pilots. (…) in the last 40 years, in air disasters of the
type, excluding hijackings died sever thousands of
people. From 1000 (excluding prototypes it is less than
1000) bout 110 had a kind of accident, including 65
catastrophes, and this latest 66

th

one. So the aircraft is

very unsafe. (…)

Why also Aeroflot does not already use Tu-154,

but operates Boeings and Airbuses?
Because nobody will chose an airline using unsafe
aircraft. (…)

Then after the Russians already found the box of

FDR – which certainly indicates, what exactly had
happened, they have been afraid to disclose it, as to don’t
be discredit. I am talking both about the Russians and the
Polish. Besides every time for all it is good to blame died
people and that is why they published only CVR, but FDR
is Still secret. (…)”
– said Mr Vasylenko.

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?dat=20100

809&typ=po&id=po41.txt


Mr Vasylenko, because leaving out of Russia

seems to be very objective.

Why Tu-154 crashes twice often, than the

American, European or British aircraft? Please notice
that the base of the statistic is very representative,
because the number of produced aircraft, as well as a
number of crashed are high.

For the main constructor and the head of the Tu-

154 project, Mr Alexander Shengardt it does not
probably matter, that the result of his work has a bad
statistics, and nearly 3000 people died in its catastrophes.

background image

He stated on the 1

st

of June 2010 (so on his 85

th

birthday)

as following:

1. To the 10

th

of April, there were not any tragic

accidents of Tu-134 or Tu-154 cased by an
aircraft fault.

2. How they (about the Tu-154 aircraft) should not

to fall down, if the pilots don’t know home listen
to – commands from the ground or the highest
command, standing behind their back, although
they have no such right?


I hope, that is was a mistake, because if not, it is

impossible to find words to describe insolence of Mr
Shengardt.

Both his aircraft have terrible image, concerning

flight safety. Tu-134, also designed by Mr Shengardt had
71 hull losses of 725 aircraft produced. I do not say that it
is a world record – of course not, many aircraft in history
had worse statistics, but it is also very much. If the Tu-
134 would be added to a table above, it would be
undisputed leader. In all accidents (excluding hijackings
of course) of Tu-134 died 1404 people, Tu-154 deprived
2964 people. It means that 4368 people (please notice,
that in Soviet Union many catastrophes had taken place
and a the world was not informed about them, as well as
in many situations a number of victims was
underestimated by the authorities - there are also
catastrophes when we do not know how many people
died – and we have to than write “0” in a statistic table)
died at least 4368 people!

background image


Mr Alexander S.

Shengardt,

Photo: PSC Tupolev

(2005)


Comparing

statistics of B-737 and
Tu-154 we can see,

the safety level of this two comparable (similar
dimensions, capabilities, age) is different. Tu-154 crashes
2,7 times more often than B-737, we can note, that
(according to this statistic only of course) 2,7 times
people less can be alive if instead of Mr Shengardt design
Boeing B-737 would be used, that is about 3 times less,
after including Tu-134 statistics. Please notice, that first
(Classical) B-737 had not modern systems like current
time TAWS and TCAS, so their safety is related with
their quality and highest designation standards.

I thing that this simple data is very good evidence,

that Mr Shengardt should sometimes think about that
3000 people, that died due to the fact that they did not fly
Boeing (in Soviet Union they had no choice – must fly
Tupolev), but Mr Shengardt’s machines.

In order to complete description of Mr Shengardt

and his statement, please notice, that if he would be
going to read aloud all the surnames of this 3000 people,
who according to statistics would be alive (if they were
flaying Boeing, not Mr Shengardt’s Tupolev), he should

background image

read with no break 25 hours if only assumed that each
surname he is possible to read in 2 seconds.

Source: Flight Safety Foundation, prepared by the authors (2010).


Please notice that although B-727 has worst than

Tu-134 killed-per-aircraft statistics, the only reason is,
that it has twice more seats.

We are not going of course to say that these

people had been killed by Mr Shengardt, but it is
necessary to reflect, what is the reason that Tupolev’s
crash 2-3 time more often than Boeings, although even in
perfect Boeing’s designs there are some times situations
of serious technical fault, casing an air disaster. Tupolevs
never have technical cases – only so called man factor, so
only a pilot error can case an air disaster.

So how difficult should be piloting of Tupolev, if

they crash more than 3 times more pilots errors
concerning this aircraft? How is it even possible? It
means that piloting of Tu-154 is really difficult. We had a
pleasure to research the official operation manual of Tu-
154M and it does not seem to inform that the aircraft is
so extremely difficult in piloting. If not, it can only mean

Aircraft
type

Number
of
built

First
flight

Number of
fatalities

Max
number
of
seats

Killed
/number of
aircraft
(/100 seat
places)

Tupolev
Tu-134

725

1963

1404

86

1,94 (2,25)

Tupolev
Tu-154

925

1968

2964

180

3,20 (1,77)

Boeing
B-727

1832

1963

3960

189

2,16 (1,14)

Being B-
737

5873

1967

4420

189

0,75 (0,40)

background image

that Russian pilots cannot fly safety, but according to a
British expert, we asked, “Russian pilots are perfectly
trained. There were sometimes situations, when they have
a kind of communication problem, talking in English with
ATC, but right now it never happens. Their skills and
knowledge are very good and compare all the western
standards.”.

Another expert asked by us said: “I think that it

was maybe a kind of error or lapsus-lingua of Shengardt,
it had to be a kind of mistake!”
. Nothing more, nothing
else.

Operational history


The Tu-154M, which crashed near Smolensk was

20 years old Russian construction (military) passenger
aircraft. In contrast of another Polish Tupolev it had
never been a part of LOT fleet, had been delivered
directly to the 36

th

Regiment to replace older and smaller

Tupolev-134A planes.

A

A

i

i

r

r

c

c

r

r

a

a

f

f

t

t

t

t

y

y

p

p

e

e

:

:

T

T

u

u

p

p

o

o

l

l

e

e

v

v

T

T

u

u

-

-

1

1

5

5

4

4

M

M

l

l

u

u

x

x

Serial number / msn :

090A837 / 85837

Date of production:

1990

Date of order:

1988

Price during the order:

USD 4,5 million (14 million of rubbles)

Price paid:

USD 1,16 million (14 million of
rubbles)

Market price 1990:

USD 25 million (1990 dollars)

Marker price 2009:

USD 10 million (estimate)

First flight:

28.06.1990

Delivery:

11.07.1990

background image

Manufacturing place:

18

th

Aviation Plant, Samara, Soviet

Union

Designer:

Tupolev, Moscow, Soviet Union

Overhaul date:

02-12.2009

Overhaul broker:

MAV Telecom, Warsaw, Poland

Overhaul , co-operating broker:

Polit-elektronik, Warsaw, Poland

Overhaul executor:

Aviacor Joint Stock Company, Samara,
Russia

Overhaul customer:

Ministry of National Defense of Poland

Last overhaul place:

Samara, Russia

Hydraulics and APU gen. repair
place:

Ufa, Russia

Engine overhaul place:

Rybinsk, Russia

Owner:

Republic of Poland

Holder:

Polish Air Force

Airline Operator:

36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment

Despatcher:

Prime Minister Office of Republic of
Poland

Aircraft status:

Military air transport aircraft (subsonic)

Base airport:

Frederic Chopin, Warsaw Int. (WAW,
EPWA)

Length:

157 ft 6 in

Wingspan:

123 ft 2 in

Wing area:

2,169 sq ft

Maximum take-off weight:

230,000 lb

Maximum taxi weight:

231,100 lb

Maximum landing weight:

198,425 lb

Minimal runway lenth cross-wind
20m/s:

2,100 m

Minimal runway lenth no wind:

2,500 m

Minimal runway lenth tail-wind
5m/s:

2,900 m

Alightin run (no wind)

2,300 m

Empty weight:

122,000 lb

Using load:

39,685 lb

background image

Maximum seat:

104 (accordning to 36

th

SATR)

Service seat:

80 (according to Polish Air Force)

Nominal seat for the type:

114-189

Range fully loaded:

2851 NM (3,280 mi)

Range with max fuel:

3563 NM (4,100 mi)

Cruise altitude:

39700 ft

Maximum altitude

41,995 ft

Maximum speed:

510 kn (590 mph)

Engines (number):

D-30KU-154-II (3)

Engines manufacturer:

OKB 19, P.A. Soloviev, Perm, Soviet
Union

GPS:

3x GPS-1000 plus

Radar:

Honeywell Aerospace RDR-4B

TCAS:

Rockwell-Collins TCAS-II

EGPWS:

Universal Avionics TAWS


The aircraft after delivering had been equipped

with Russian only devices.

It was the time when Poland was already

not communistic state. However, Soviet Union did not
collapse yet.

Before the democratic reforms in Poland (1989),

communistic government of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski
ordered from Soviet Union one Tupolev, the same, that
crashed.

Due to extreme inflation in dying Soviet Union as

well as very profitable price (resulted by the Polish-
Soviet Agreement, concerning bilateral trade) Poland
finally paid for the aircraft only US dollars 1,16 million
only. World market price of the type was about 25 than-
year dollars, so it was possible to sell the aircraft with the
increment of over 2000%.

background image

Then Polish government of Mr Tadeusz

Mazowiecki did not manage to do it – decided to fly a
Soviet construction, which was going to retaliate 20 years
later.

Another decision took LOT Polish Airlines,

which under the same agreement bought 18 Tu-154M
aircraft in 1985. The reason of this order was not only
attractive price, but also the fact, that Tu-154M was
designed on request of PLL LOT, which previously
refused buying Tu-154 and Tu-154B aircraft. According
to Dr. Tadeusz Augustynowicz, former PLL LOT
manager, the reason was strictures concerning flight
safety of early Tu-154. LOT decided than to buy only
long range Il-62 and short range Tu-134. The lack of the
medium range aircraft gave on the other hand its toll. Lot
firstly leased Tu-154B from Aeroflot, but it was only a
short episode. That is why LOT decided to order a new
version of Tupolev aircraft, that would be safety and
optimal for exploitation by the LOT. Russian side agreed
to the request and started work under Tu-154M, medium
range jet airliner, the most successful version of Tu-154
with new D-30KU engines, the same that were designed
to be mounted on some Il-76 and Il-62M. Also produced
in afterburning version for MiG-31 supersonic
interceptor - the second fastest fighter of Soviet Union,
one of the biggest and fastest fighters in the history.

However the first Tu-154M (from 1984) had not

been delivered to LOT, but to Gromov’s Aviation
Institute as well as for several another clients including
Bulgaria, Guyana, Syria and China.

background image

Produced in 1984, RA-85609 is the oldest Tu-

154M remains in service (with UVAUGA Airlines,
Russia), was produced as the 4

th

Tu-154M aircraft.

Another 1984/1985 aircraft Still fly only in China,

Iran as well as in Azerbaijan (1) and Russia (1 leased by
KMV airlines).

Many of these early Tu-154 have had very

interesting history. For example 85A719 produced in
December 1985 had been delivered to Guyana Airlines,
than had been serving in the Cubana de Aviacion until
the half of the 90

th

, when came back Russia, flaying for

Omsk Avia, Russia. than became a part of Iran Air Tours
fleet, and once more came back Russia, in service with
Omsk Avia, and than by KrasAir. Farther it has been
flaying with Samara Airlines. Its exotic wonder, has
however already been ended - now a day it is retired at
Yemelyanovo, Russia (KJA, UNKL). It is parked among
the vast and desolate land of snow, the same were
governor Lebied’ was hunting wild animals, typical in
interior of the south-eastern Siberia (such as wolf, bear,
glutton, Siberian deer, musk deer, etc), from a board of
an air ambulance helicopter.

The first aircraft was delivered in 1986 nearly as

cheep as to the Air Force exemplar. It had been registered
SP-LCA and started a series of 14 aircraft ordered and
received by LOT Polish Airlines.

Deliveries took place in 1986-1990; however

since 1989 Poland was already not a communistic state,
that is why LOT was able to change fleet policy, ordering
in 1989 Boeing B-737 and B-767 aircraft to replace
Soviet designs. That is why new Tupolev aircraft had
been introduced just before their replacement. Since 1989

background image

to a half of the 90s all, the Tupolev aircraft were
withdrawn. The last regular flight of Tu-154M took place
in 1993, last charter flight in 1996.

During replacement operation, LOT was able to

sell all the aircraft with great grist to the mill, as high as
would be Air Force in the early 90s.

The newest Tu-154M – SP-LCO, produced in

1990, was withdrawn with LOT in 1994 and sold to
Polish Air Force 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment. It

became a twin of another governmental Tupolev, which
later crashed in 2010.

Tu-154 aircraft operated in Poland,

Serial
Number

Regis
trati
on in
LOT

Produ
ction
Year

Last
operator

Curren
t
status

Registrat
ion
residues

79A331 None

(leas
ed
1985-
88)

1979

Belavia

Smashe
d

Soviet
Union,
Belarus

86A727 SP-

LCA

1986

Turan
Air

Operat
ional

Azerbaija
n,
Bulgaria

86A733 SP-

LCB

1986

Turan
Air

Operat
ional

Iran,
Bulgaria,
Russia,
Azerbaija
n,

86A745 SP-

LCC

1986

S7
Siberian
Airlines

Stored Russia

87A755 SP-

LCD

1987

Kolavia

Operat
ional

Iran,
Russia

88A769 SP-

LCE

1988

Bashkiri
an

Stored Kazakhsta

n, Russia

background image

Airlines

88A774 SP-

LCF

1988

Iran Air
Tours

Operat
ional

Iran,
Russia

88A775 SP-

LCG

1988

Air
Union

Stored Kazakhsta

n,
Hungary,
Russia

88A776 SP-

LCH

1988

Bashkiri
an
Airlines

Smashe
d

Kazakhsta
n, Russia

89A805 SP-

LCI

1989

Samara

Stored Russia

89A806 SP-

LCK

1989

Samara

Stored Kazakhsta

n, Russia

89A812 SP-

LCL

1989

KMV

Operat
ional

Pakistan,
Russia

89A824 SP-

LCM

1989

Aeroflot Smashe

d

Russia

90A831 SP-

LCN

1990 Aeroflot Smashe

d

Russia

90A837 None

(mili
tary)

1990

36

th

Special
Air
Transpor
t
Regiment

Crashe
d –
damage
beyond
repair

Only
Poland

90A862 SP-

LCO

1990

36

th

Special
Air
Transpor
t
Regiment

Operat
ional

Only
Poland


According to Polish-Soviet contract the Polish Air

Force aircraft (90A837), crashed in Russia had been
covered by Soviet (then Russian) warranty program,
which has been systematically prolonging after every
overhaul , against payment, carried out initially in

background image

Vnukovo Facility, Moscow, Russia under new, Polish
warranty program of Bumar Inc, Poland.

The servicing in Moscow included:

1. Mounting devices enabling an international

service inter alia TCAS and GPS.

2. Two overhaul s
3. Warranty servicing (in Moscow)

The aircraft had been delivered in 1990 in version

lux – it originally had intervals compositions of 3
intervals: 1

st

, (behind the cockpit door, a toilet and a

gallery) of 4 seats in (2+2), than 2 farther intervals of 8
places (2+2), farther two toilets, and a passenger part
(3+3). The summary passenger capabilities: 114 or 133,
according to several another sources.

On the back of passenger parts there was 4 seats

in two oblique lines 1+1. Farther back there is only a
gallery and two toilets on the left and on the right.
Farther only an engine section – there are no seat places
on the tail and it is not possible to enter that side from the
board.

Two general renovations changed seats layout and

flight deck avionics.

According to Polish media, the renovation in

Samara, Russia changed on-board seat layout on more
luxury. However, the composition of intervals already
changed on the previous two renovations in Vnukovo,
Moscow, Russia and did not change in Samara. Seat
places, armchairs, and sofas are standard manufacturer’s
equipment of Tupolev for Tu-154M lux version.

On the photos of the crashed presidential aircraft,

that had been taken in 1999 changes of flight deck and a
board are already visible.

background image

The flight deck style changed from classical green

Tupolev style changed into white. Main pulpit, head-up
panel, and a flight engineer panels became white. It
brought the cockpit not archaic, but more modern look.

In addition, avionic and navigation equipment had

been upgraded. American flight managing system,
probably early Universal Avionics UNS had been
mounted, as well as TCAS-I, with a single display.

In addition, a GPS receiver had been mounted,

but probably not in 1999, but in early 90s, just after the
aircraft delivering, because it probably had not been
equipped with GPS in 1990.

Probably also in 1999 or in 2005 had already

changed also the intervals layout – on photos from 2005,
the presidential interval had not already 2+2 composition,
but have been moved to right, what is a normal practice
in business and governmental arrangements of Tu-154,
and places in the art-design trend of Tupolev.

Later upgrades of Tu-154M lux, as well as new-

mounted Tu-154M lux of the 90s had such right-situated
interval on 2-3 places.

Presidential interval of Polish aircraft had one,

comfortable armchair of directed opposite, to the flight
direction, a table and a sofa, situated frontal to a
presidential armchair, so facilely to a flight direction.
Sofa had been designed for two seat places and is
equipped with double security belts installation.

Between the sofa and the armchair, a table is

situated. On the ceiling elements of air conditioning and
a lamps. In some arrangements of Tu-154, there is a blue
illumination or floor illumination. In the presidential
aircraft, there was only classical white ceiling

background image

illumination. This interval was very elegant, limited by
three walls, the wall behind the sofa had a big national
emblem, that later was found by Mr Alexander
Khoronchik in Smolensk, after the catastrophe.

Left wall with single door, right wall with 5

th

windows, covering by plastic veils sliding to down.
There are no curtains or covers.

Walls, furniture light, dark facing floor. In

previous configuration walls were dark.

Probably between 1999 and 2006 a next repair or

modernization had been carried out, because of the
changing in flight deck equipment. There are many
photos of the flight deck concerning 2006-2007. There
are displays of EGPWS, radar and a multifunction
display visible, as well as double flight managing system
UNS-1D panels.

According to Polish media, modern avionics and

navigational equipment had been mounted in Samara,
Russia, but according to this photos all the devices
present in the flight deck after the renovation in Samara,
had been mounted previously in Vnukovo.

Flight safety and equipment after the overhaul in

2009

2006 (before the modernization)

2010 (after the modernization)

Flight management system UNS-1D Flight management system UNS-

1D

TCAS

TCAS

background image

Meteorological radar RDR-4B

Meteorological radar RDR-4B

Universal Avionics TAWS

Universal Avionics TAWS


Please notice, that after the modernization, this

equipment had not probably changed. In addition, basic
piloting devices (including flight parameters measuring
equipment) and the autopilot had never changed –
mounted in 1990, during the serial production in every
Tu-154M aircraft.

Polish Air Force and Ministry of National

Defense do not confirm any information about the last
aircraft equipment. However, Russian Interstate Aviation
Committee stated that there was American Flight
Management System UNS-1D of Universal Avionics
Systems of Tucson as well as GNSS GPS navigation, and
Terrain Avoidance Warning System mounted on the
board.

The equipment listed above is visible on the

pictures of the cockpit from 2010, so after the overhaul in
Samara.

This is a list of electronic (navigation, flight

safety and communication) devices installed in the
aircraft during the catastrophe and mostly confirmed by
the pictures or in the service book (repair list) of the
aircraft.

Device

Function

Origin

UNS-1D

Flight Management
System (B-NAV, GPS)

United
States

UNS-1D NCU

2x Computer Navigation
Unit of UNS-1D

United
States

background image

UNS-1D FPCDU 2x Flat Panel Control

Display Unit of UNS-1D

United
States

GPS-1000

3x GPS receiver

United
States

CL-401

3x GPS antenna

United
States

TCAS-II

Traffic Alert and
Collision Avoidance
System

United
States

Universal
Avionics
TAWS

Enhanced Ground
Proximity Warning
System

United
States

ABSU-154-II

Autopilot

Soviet
Union

Khurs-MP-70

VOR/ILS/DME navigation
and landing system

Soviet
Union

MFD-640

Multi Function Display

United
States

TKS-P2

Gyroscopic direction
indicator

Soviet
Union

WBE-SWS-M

Air Signal System -
aerodynamic central
unit with digital
barometric altimeter

Russia

VBE-2A

2x Additional
electromechanical
barometric altimeter

Russia

RV-5M

Radio altimeter

Soviet
Union

DISS-013

Doppler speed and drift
indicator

Soviet
Union

ARK-15M

Automatic Direction
Finder (VOR/NDB
“Radiocompass”)

Soviet
Union

RDR-4B

Meteorological Radar
with Windsheare
Detection

United
States

RDR-4B A CON control panel of the

radar antenna modes

United
States

RDR-4B MFRD

Multi Function Radar

United

background image

Display

States

Orlan-85ST

2x UKF Radio unit

Russia

Mikron

2x HF Radio unit

Russia

R-855UM

4x Survival radio
station 121,5 MHz

Soviet
Union

SPU-7B

On-board interphone

Soviet
Union

SGS-25

Speaker and headset
system

Soviet
Union

MSRP-64M-6

Flight Data Recorder

Soviet
Union

MARS-BM

Cockpit Voice Recorder

Soviet
Union

ATM-
QAR/R128ENC

Quick Access Recorder

Poland

KBN-1-1

Quick Access Recorder

Russia

SELCAL

Selective calling radio
communication system

United
States

SD-75 (?)

Radio Reference Sensor
(Distance Measuring
Equipment)

Russia

ARM-406 (?)

Emergency radio beacon

Russia

Unknown

Presidential satellite
phone

United
States


Please notice that most of these devices had

already been installed in the Tupolev from 1990 or had
been mounted before 2008.

According to Mr Nikolay Vasylenko, Russian test

pilot and constructor, who was commenting electronic
equipment of PLF-101 aircraft, the flight safety was
poor. “It was necessary to remove everything and add all
the elements American (a company Israeli Aerospace
Industries – IAI willingly takes such orders, also
concerning Russian aircraft). Else, they should install
matching Russian elements. In Russia navigational
devices, which are very modern are produced. So as

background image

radar and computers. TAWS also they shouldn’t install
American, but Russian. And please remember, that
Russian TAWS is much better, than the American,
because it works also in Russia and American doesn’t. In
addition, Russian TAWS is more effective, faster and
simpler in using. This type of devices is produced in
works in St. Petersburg and in Kiev. Also, GPS is made
in Russia – in Saratovo works. Such system sure won’t be
at odds with other devices of the aircraft
.” - Said Mr
Vasylenko. Please notice, that the Russian pilot expresses
reluctance for American technology. The expert however
opines that there were two ways of modernization works:

1. Uninstall all the Soviet devices, and install only

American devices.

2. Uninstall old-fashion Soviet devices and install

modern Russian devices.


Thinking of Mr Vasylenko is realistic, because of the low
compatibility rate of American and Russian devices.
Poland decided to make their Tu-154M the most modern
Tupolev in the world, but creating their flight decks a
mosaic of Russian (Soviet) and American systems.

Mr Vasylenko indicates also one factor, which

also seems to be very realistic:
Every country has its own secret service. Poland and
Russia also. So it is just that when an aircraft is repaired
in Russia, there are installed some devices – let’s say-
such ‘additional’. And than Polish secret service install
their devices to detect that ‘additional’. This all also
gives a resultant, which worsen work of the electronics in
the aircraft.”

background image

Other words there could be some wiretapping and

anty-wiretapping systems hidden somewhere in the air
electronics systems.

Argumentation of Mr Vasylenko becomes very

well evidenced when we lock at the list of faults of Polish
presidential Tu-154M in 2010. Another one is Still under
repair in Samara, Russia. The one, which had noted
technical problems in 2010, so just after the overhaul in
Samara, crashed in Smolensk on the 10

th

of April 2010.

Date of a
fault

Description

12.2009

End of the overhaul in Samara, Russia

07.01.2010

1. Alert “check the altimeters”
2. Information of the UNS-2 “adc

input failed

3. Lack of a possibility to connect

UNS to automatic type on the
work AWU-UNS

Come back and emergency landing.

17.01.2010

1. Lack of vibration level indications

on IV-50 indicator of the engine
#1 (left)

2. SELCAL system fault

Resignation of the take off.

23.01.2010
(at Puerto
Rico)

1. Inefficiency of the autopilot.
2. Fault of the aileron steering

system Ra-56-V-1

3. Steering block fault (according to

36

th

SATR)

4. Flaps control fault (according to

Polish Air Force)

Resignation of the take off.

background image

28.02.2010

1. Lack of oil indications of the

engine #3 (right)

2. Fault of GPS #1
3. Fault of GPS #2
4. Fault of the Automatic Direction

Finder – VOR beacon signal not
detected until the distance of
20NM (correctly indications
should be shown on the distance
of 80-120 NM)

Emergency landing at the destination
airport.

8.04.2010

Bird impact, decision of continue the
flight. Little nose peen scratch, noticed in
Warsaw.

Emergency landing at the destination
airport.

10.04.2010

Flight into terrain, with all engines shoot
down or defected, symptoms of poor
navigability, descending 30 seconds after
a try of go around, impossibility of going
around, probably autopilot and ailerons
fault. Missing runway centreline on 80m
to the left.

Crashed killing all on the board.

http://www.tvn24.pl/12690,1665836,0,1,11-usterek-w-
trzy-miesiace,wiadomosc.html


Moreover, the Tu-154M 101 was the only aircraft

of the 20 operated by 36

th

SATR having any faults.

Conversation with an officer of the 36

th

Special Air

Transport Regiment, carried out on July 2010.

background image

(...)
One of the authors
: Were the faults often?
Officer: Often.
A: Just after the renovation in Samara?
O: Yes, it is so-could overhaul. It had been completed in
December 2009.
A: Also emergency landings?
O: There was one situation when the aircrew had to
discontinue the task, to come back. But even when it is an
emergency, when the destination airport is not more far
than 1-hour flight, it is possible to continue the task,
according to an order, and to the flight plan, you
prepared. It also happened. Mostly, thanks goodness, the
faults, the breakdowns are detected on the ground,
during inspections, during reviews and when you
perform pre-flight check, before every task you must
check systems.

A: Was it the only aircraft having serious faults in
2010?
O: The only.

A: And how many aircraft do you operate?
O: 20 and we have over 300 officers, soldiers and
workers employed in the regiment.
A: Well, quite large airlines.
O: Yes. It is a regiment.
A: And what was the reason of the first fault, noted here?
O: Well, probably barometric altimeter failed, that’s why
there was a control lighted, during the task. And than
UNS could not take control of the aircraft because it is
comparable with only digital barometric altimeter. This
is a key indication for flight safety.
A: VBE-SVS altimeter?

background image

O: Yes. Air Signals System with Barometric
Electromechanical Altimeter, in Russian Vysotometr
Barometricheskyi Elektromekhanicheskyi – Sistema
Vozdushnych Sygnalov,
in Polish elektromechaniczny
wysokosciomierz cisnieniowy – system sygnalov
powietrznych.
A: Installed during the overhaul?
O: Installed in Russia, during the overhaul, but not last,
earlier. You know, American systems should have
aerodynamic central and digital indications to work,
that’s why they installed digital system. VBE-SVS uses
two VBE-2A electromechanical altimeters. So it has to
have also an input to work.
A: So there were two UNS on the board and if one
Russian altimeter fails, both UNS will be out of order?
O: Yes, they will. The altimeter compatible with UNS is,
or was the only one. If it fails you mast cease the task
ordered.
A: Autopilot also cannot be used?
O: No, the autopilot can use also two additional
barometrical, electromechanical altimeters VBE. Only
barometric altimeters. It is not compatible with a radio
altimeter.
A: But Mr Edmund Klich self-styled Polish
representative in MAK, Moscow said that they could use
radio altimeter during the approach in Smolensk. (…) In
such situation the autopilot could dive in the gorge,
situated below the runway level.
O: Self-styled. No, that is impossible. He should know
that! Autopilot is not compatible with the radio altimeter.
A: And what about the all GPS and the VOR indicator
fault?

background image

O: According to the pilot flaying, there was a problem
with a radio unit, which noised the GPS and
radiocompass, but it was not international flight, so
captain decided to continue the task and perform all the
procedural steps to reach the runway in Warsaw. It was
no worthwhile to back Krakow. Fortunately, there was
no problem with ILS on the board, so they with no
problem managed to touch down. So it was a problem
with radio unit.
A: What kind of radio unit?
O: As I remember it was so-could ARM.
A: Installed when? In Russia?
O: Installed in Samara, during the last general overhaul.
A: ARM is UKF, VHF radio unit? What was that?
O: In the documentation there is an inscription that radio
unit failed.
A: But what kind of radio unit?
O: ARM- Avariynyi radio mayak in Russian, so it is
emergency radio beacon, it is also a kind of radio unit.
You can activate it by hand during emergency, but
sometimes it activates by itself during a task.
A: And is it normal that it disrupts all the navigation
devices?
O: Not all, for example gyroscopic system…
A: Is it enough to carry out the flight?
O: You mast have TCAS and GPS fully usable to
continue the task.
A: So they had installed incompatible devices in Russia?
O: Yes. As it looks like...
A: And what after a fault? Do you repair it on your own?

O: No, there were Russians in Poland, a warranty team.
Only they can repair something, because the aircraft is

background image

covered by the warranty.

Since 1990 there were several

warranty programs, all the time they monitor the
technical condition.
A: So not Polish, but Russians repaired the aircraft? And
you cannot even monitor the technical condition by
yourselves? Russians can only do it?
O: Yes, but we make a test flight a day before each
HEAD flight task and also we examine every serious fault
by a special commission of Polish experts.
A: But the Russians maintain the presidential aircraft, is
it normal? What about the NATO procedures?
O: I don’t know. It is… Well, we if it is possible maintain
all the procedures of NATO and all the procedures
concerning flight safety, issued by NATO, ICAO,
Ministry of National Defense, as well as the HEAD
instruction. Every task is planned in details, we prepared
everything and get ready just after the task order so 48
hours before.
A: We can see. We would love, if it was possible to ask
you also about the other faults. For example the situation
at Puerto Rico.
O: Yes, on Haiti there was a problem with the autopilot
and with the ailerons. There were exactly two
independent faults.
A: Were the ailerons conserved in Samara?
O: Yes, of course.
A: Was the autopilot conserved in Samara?
O: Yes, also the autopilot, so ABSU-154-II, in Russian
Avtomatitscheskhaya Bortnaya Systema Upravlenya,
ABSU… was also overhauled. An overhaul of the
autopilot was one of the points of the order of general
overhaul for both our Tupolevs.

background image

A: And what about the SELCAL, was it installed in
Samara?
O: Yes.
A: So, all the devices failed, had been installed or
repaired in Samara?
O: You know, it was an overhaul, so yes of course.
During the overhaul every systems and devices were
conserved or checked, some devices were installed.
A: And did the flight deck changed?
O: What you mean changed?
A: Did they change avionics systems?
O: Rather not. On my taste the flight deck was after the
overhaul just like it had been before. Only several
devices were installed, but these devices were not key
equipment.
A: Was the passenger cabin modernised?
O: Yes, but not much.
A: So maybe a toilet or cargo part?
O: No, rather not.
A: So you say that in Samara, in worth USD 25 million
contract they had not changed anything, only had
installed several devices that, than failed airborne? As
well as they had touched autopilot to overhaul it (if it is
even possible) and it also failed, before a long oversea
flight.
O: Why? It is possible – as the most. I think that the
autopilot can be overhauled, it is a computer, so you can
modernize software or hardware for example. Engines
and hydraulics for example had been overhauled.
A: And after this overhaul, engines indicators and
hydraulic devices such as aileron steering system, flaps,
steering block failed.

background image

O: Yes. In an aircraft you have systems and their parts
called blocks. Steering block is a part of autopilot system,
which executes commands of the software.
(…)
A: You say that there was a warranty team, as you
defined it. Due to an access to the board computer
Russians could know everything about how do Protasiuk
and Grzywna fly, what are their strengths and
weaknesses.
O: I know what you mean… I know what you mean… I
think they didn’t – there is no enough data. They had an
access to tapes of Russian Quick Access Recorder KBN-
1-1, series 2. And if they know who each day was flaying,
it is possible. But if they wanted to make an
assassination, a sabotage, they would choose a package
of faults, so that no pilot would bring through. They say
just in case, in Russian “na vsiakhi pozharnyi slutschai”.
[Rus. For any extreme situation]
A: Na vsiakhi pozharnyi slutschai?
O: “Na vsiakhi pozharnyi slutschai” in Russian
language. (...)
A: So, was it a pilot error?
O: No, it wasn’t. It was a pozharnyi sluchai.

Due to the Polish low, the informations above can be
secret that is why this was unofficial conversation. A last
name of the officer would not be disclosed before the
ending of the official investigation and after he will agree
to do it.

3.5 The overhaul and the aircraft condition

background image

“President will be content!”

Please imagine... It is winter, 2009, Russia.

Cloudy sky, ground is covered by fluffy snow. Two
Russian women are scrubbing left wing of the aircraft. It
is difficult task, because of the snow, wind and freeze.
They however can be proud, because their faces and
hands in titanic work also had been filmed and shown in
Russian TV.

In the snow, white fuselage of the aircraft is

nearly invisible, only red strips draw its outline on the
background of white sky.

Suddenly the supervisor Mr Afanasiev, engineer

experienced and deserved is coming. Women are
working faster, as fast as they can. With Afanasiev there
are no delays- only hard, scrupulous work. For Soviet
Union -
it would be adequate to add. Mr Afanasiev
indicates scaffolding. The camera operator and reporters
enter the board. Interior for 8 month has been covered by
protective foil. Afanasiev is showing a seat, disclosing it.
Beautiful white upholstering (unknown for typical
Aeroflot passenger) is outfacing the journalists. They are
not touching anything. He is talking about the interior,
comparing it with 5-stars hotel. Polish president will be
content –
ensures Afanasiev, touching typical woolen,
Russian cap on his head.

Here is a cockpit, and here is saloon. – Afanasiev

just like the best Kremlin guide describes every detail of
the place of the excursion. Of course it is strictly
prohibited for strangers to enter the board of presidential
aircraft; it is prohibited to film its devices without special
permission. But for so pleasant Russian journalists Mr

background image

Afanasiev made a little exception – these are not
terrorists
, he should thought.

These are seats and a table to conversations. And

here we even added two seats! – He describes
breathtaking scale of work supervised by himself.

Camera of Russiya-1 TV recorded also the head

of the whole facility – Mr Alexei Gusiev. CEO has not
woolen cap – he looks really serious in his business suit.
As indicates dressing, he is talking about business. All the
heads of European countries fly Tu-154!
– ensures
Gusiev, praising features of this business jet. His
enthusiasm is really unbelievable – aircraft has one of
the best navigational systems in the world!
– Gusiev
describes equipment of Polish Tu-154M, unchanged
much since the 90s. He is showing production hall with
three uncompleted Tupolevs, nobody wanted to bay for
years, but he of course is not talking about this fact.
Dozen of workers are going to and from, across the haul
make impression of a movement, of serial production in
progress and great prosperity of the facility.

This description is fully compatible with films

from the overhaul, which can be admired online on
YouTube.com.

It seems to be impossible to perform an overhaul

outdoor. Airliner with engine failed goes to a hangar,
where all the works concerning the fault are conducted.
How is it possible to carry out much more work on white
snow? There was no visible modernization of avionics
and interior – other words – there was probably no
overhaul in Samara.

It means that Tu-154M which was grounded for

several months due to resource (maximal time airborne)

background image

completing, flew (illegally – without resource) Russia,
where has been parked in snow for ten month. Finally
came back and was flying with president.

Financial aspects of the modernization

Polish government decided to overhaul Tu-154M

in 2009. Public bid nr DZSZ/2/IX-50/UZ/PRZ/Z/2009 to
choose overhaul executor had been constructed to be the
overhaul possible to conduct only in Russia.
Requirements made only the intermediaries, not real
facilities to take part in the tender.

Commission lead by Mr Tomasz Banka and Maj.

Grzegorz Bakala had not difficulties in choosing, because
the number of legal duties (to apply an offer) had been so
high that 2 of 3 bidders were discarded.

An offer of two companies MAW Telecom

International Co. and their partner had been chosen,
because it was the only application. However not MAW,
but the partner – Polit-Elektronik is the most interesting
part of the affair.

Polit-Elektronik is not registered in any Polish

companies’ register. How the firm, which is not legal
company, could won a tender, comparing thousands of
formalities? How did they collect required USD 8 million
on the bank account to apply the offer? Of course, they
could collectively “show” this money with MAW, but
under such conditions, what was the reason of MAW to
establish consortium?

background image

Polit-Elektronik is official “dealer” of MiG

Aircraft Corporation in Poland. It is very strange
situation, because MiG… has own office in Warsaw!

RAC "MiG" General Representative Office in
Europe

ul. W. Rzymowskiego 53, office 319, 02-697

Warsaw, Poland

Tel.: + 48 22 548 01 25
Fax: + 48 22 548 01 62
E-mail: migeuro@yandex.ru

It can indicates that Polit-Elektronik can be

owned by Russian intelligence.

The most ridiculous was however a prize of the

overhaul: USD 20.000.000 for two Tu-154M overhaul.

According to Mr Andrey Lovtsov, vice-president

of aircraft dealing and leasing company Aero Asia,
estimate prize of Tu-154M overhaul (the prize
concerning overhaul of the aircraft in variant similar to
Polish governmental) reaches USD 800.000 (1.6mln per
two aircraft). Mr Lovtsov was talking about an aircraft in
version and technical condition similar to Tu-154s.
operated by the 36th Special Air Transport Regiment,
therefore his statement fully refers to the exemplar
overhauled and later crashed.
Other words Polish Ministry of Defense overpaid
1250%.

Moreover, they perfectly knew that the prize of

overhaul is bigger than the total worth of both aircraft,
estimated for USD 7.4mln.

http://www.dostawy.wp.mil.pl/dzsz/monunit.2006-02-
23.0171991069/proceeding.2009-02-
16.3839392794?set_language=pl

For the prize paid, it was possible for example to

bay younger (produced in 1991) Tupolev Tu-154M RA-

background image

85712 (serial number 91A888), in much more luxurious
variant (41 seats instead of 90) equipped of course with
TAWS, TCAS, GPS. Please notice that RA-85712 is
much more safety, than Polish Air Force presidential
Tupolevs, because has an oxygen system installed.

http://www.aviastock.com/Aircraft/AD12590


According to MAK all the documentation

concerning the overhaul by some miracle… had been
carried on the board of PLF-101. Moreover MAK stated
that found in the wreckage 14.000 pages of documents.
Survival rate of documents stays in deep contrast with
injuries to person and damages to the aircraft...

Also a volume of documents put on the board is

an instant conspiracy theory.

How to be killed?


Poland operates following list of presidential and VIP
aircraft as an equipment of 1

st

and 2

nd

Squadron of the

36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment or leased:


Fleet of the PAF 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment in

Warsaw

Aircraft type

Introduction Place of production

Number in
service

Tupolev Tu-
154M

1990-1994

Soviet Union (ex-
LOT)

1 + 1 crashed

P

Embraer E-
175

2010

Brazil (leased from
LOT)

2

L

Yakovlev-40

1979-1980

Soviet Union

4 + 4 retired

P

background image

PLZ M-28
Skytrack

2002-2004

Poland

3

P

Bell-412 HP

1991

United States

1

H

PZL W-3

1993-1999(?)

Poland

3

H

Mil Mi-8

1973-1983

Soviet Union

7 (+ 1 crashed)

H

Medium range
VIP airliner

2012-2014

Plans to order

(1)

P

Long range VIP
airliner

2012-2014

Plans to order

(1)

P


All the helicopters (H) are operated by the 2

nd

Squadron, airplanes (P) by the 1

st

Squadron, however E-

175 aircraft are a property (in leasing) of LOT Polish
Airlines and are a part of 36

th

SATR on the form of wet

leasing, after the catastrophe. It means that they have
aircrews of LOT, although the 36

th

SATR has, pilots

trained and qualified as pilots-in-command and co-pilots
on E-175 aircraft. Such situation is strange and comes off
Polish government decision of Mr Donald Tusk, a prime
minister. It looks, like some kind of contempt to the 36

th

Regiment pilots. During the funeral of captain, Maj.
Arkadiusz Protasiuk on the Parish Cemetery in Grodzisk
Mazowiecki, (in contrast to most of another
crewmembers and passengers graved in the “Avenue of
Deserved” in Warsaw “Powazki” Cemetery, designed
100 years ago for the “heroes”), there was not any
representative of Mr Tusk’s government. Mr Bogdan
Klich, MD - as already stated – a doctor psychiatrist,
former anty-war activist and now a day a minister of
national defense of Republic of Poland did not come.

background image

However maybe searching of subtext is not

necessary, because the only reason of wet-leasing form
could be a poor financial situation of state-owned LOT
Polish Airlines, and there is not any another reason.

Moreover, maybe politicians of Mr Tusk’s

government did not come to the funeral of pilot-in-
command because of the far distance (more than 20 miles
from Warsaw, according to the Google Earth).

(

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?dat=2

0100430&typ=po&id=po01.txt

)

Anyway, the fleet carrying the most important

persons in the state institutions of Poland seems to be not
in service with European country (NATO member), but
rather in Sudan or Uganda. All the aircraft, excluding 2
leased Embraers, and several Polish-made light aircraft,
are very old Soviet constructions aged 20-37(!) - 37 in an
age of the oldest helicopter, according to Wikipedia.
There is only one American helicopter, but also nearly 20
years old.

Technical problems of the Tu-154M and it’s

catastrophe in Smolensk was not the only accuracy of the
36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment.

According to Wikipedia, on December 4, 2003, a

Polish Mi-8 helicopter operated by the 36th Special Air
Transport Regiment with Poland's Prime Minister Leszek
Miller on board crashed
[during emergency landing]
near Piaseczno, just outside of Warsaw.

There were no fatalities. The case was that the

pilot-in-command did not turn on anti-icing installation,
because the military weather forecast, he had received
indicated, that it is not necessary. Also icing avoidance
system did not alarm the crew, although it should.

background image

However the pilot, Lt.-Col. Marek Milosz could

presumed, due to the season (December) it was possible
for icing to take place.

Therefore, the catastrophe was a combination of

poor weather conditions, incorrect meteorological
information system, pilot error and aircraft systems fault.

PIC had been advanced to form major to Lt.-Col.

rank because of the emergency landing performing, due
to which nobody died on the board, however the landing
had not been extremely difficult, like stated farther, and it
was not fully successful, because the helicopter finally
crashed. Today he is a commander of the 2

nd

Squadron of

the 36

th

SATR.

Moreover, Tupolevs fleet also has had technical

problems nearly all the time, last years. According to
Polish TV TVP-INFO
(

http://www.tvp.info/informacje/polska/rzadowe-

samoloty-od-lat-sprawialy-problemy/1642781

) for many

years these aircraft have been seen as obsolete. Despite,
Polish governments had been procrastinated
buying or
leasing of new machines. However, Tupolevs have been
passing out overhaul s – The aircraft flaying today with
the president several months ago, the second one now.
TVP INFO in this, on of the first after the catastrophe,
describes sever interesting incidents, showing the truth
about the 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment:

1. In 2007 during visit of Mr Lech Kaczynski in

Central Asia and Pacific Region, the Tu-154M
had a fault of anti-acing system on the ground.
He had to fly Japan, for meeting with the
Emperor, chartering B-737 from Mongolian
Airlines.

background image

2. In 2005 minister of national defense, Mr

Radoslaw Sikorski (now, after he changed
political orientation, but also a specialization -
became a minister of foreign affairs in Mr
Tusk’s government. He did not fly to
Smolensk, but sent his deputy), had technical
problems with Tu-154 in Kabul. There was a
necessity to bring technicians from Poland to
repair the fault.

3. In 2004 during a flight with then-prime

minister, Prof. Marek Belka, to Hanoi,
Vietnam, there had been an on-board fire in
Tu-154, and an emergency landing in China
was successfully performed.

4. In 1999 Tu-154M emergency landed on the...

desert in Saudi Arabia, with then Senate
Speaker, Mrs. Alicja Grześkowiak.

This all incidents only confirm well-known fact.

Tu-154 is unsafe aircraft. Mr Nikolay Vasylenko, admits,
that from the beginning pilots have called it “a flaying
coffin”, that there were many unexplained catastrophes
and the blame has been every time thrown on the pilots.

Nevertheless, Poland still was operating Tu-154

for VIP flights? What is the reason?

It is not an economical background. Poland is the

biggest and richest countries of the Central-Eastern
Europe. Moreover, according to ex-prime minister Mr
Józef Oleksy in 2007 there was 50.000 governmental
limousines in Poland. This number had not be decreased,
but increased. In 2007, Mr Oleksy, during a conversation
with Mr Aleksander Gudzowaty, stated, that even local

background image

administration officials have governmental luxury cars
with drivers, at the state expense.

In addition, the aviation does not seem to be

underinvestment. For example in 2006, 48 F-16 Fighting
Falcon in Block 52+ variant had been purchased by
Poland. Every one costs $42 million, excluding $18
million weapons, external fuel tanks, electronic warfare
equipment, spare parts package, and approximately $20
million to cover all the other introduction costs.
The estimate cost of only F-16 program reached about $4
billion.

The F-16 however is not the only military

program introduced last years in Polish Air Force. Also
C-295M medium transport aircraft, M-28 utility aircraft,
N-12 long range radar unit, Grom rockets, Loara fire
unit, Gunica rocket units command centre, S-125 and S-
200 rocket complexes’ modernization and many other
military programs.

The reason was firstly wrong decision of Mr

Tadeusz Mazowiecki, who introduced Tupolevs fleet, did
not replace another VIP aircraft, and even managed to
bay Russian MiG-29 multirole fighters. This although
officially pro-Western politician, not only was baying
Russian fighters, but also was redirecting refugees from
German Democratic Republic, back to hands of Stasi.

However, the next governments did not appear

better-lucked determination, desire, and money. Poland
was that time a country undergoing painful and costly
metamorphose. That times also the only Tu-154M was
still new and there were no serious plans to replace it.

Nevertheless the erroneous decision took prime

minister, Mrs. Hanna Suchocka, socialist and pro-

background image

Russian politic, ruling in 1993, when the second Tupolev,
SP-LCO was bought from LOT Polish Airlines. It was
the newest of 14 LOT Tupolevs that they sold.

Next Polish Prime Minister, Mr Waldemar

Pawlak, as very protectionist politic, received ordered by
Suchocka aircraft from LOT, and accepted new formed
fleet shape of the 36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment,

probably to increase financial rate of LOT and decrease
sate deficit. External sign of his politics was changing his
governmental limousine into Polish-made Polonez low-
cost car.

Years 1995-1997 were a time of leftist SLD

ruling with their two pro-Russian prime ministers, who
was not going to think about changing aircraft.

Some change in that status quo ante brought the

cadence of Mr Jerzy Buzek (now speaker of European
Parliament), who after two years of ruling send both Tu-
154 on overhaul to Russia (1999) they flew back as the
most modern and the most luxury Tu-154 in the world.
However, Mr Buzek did not managed to organize a
public offer two bay new aircraft, which is very difficult
due to a high number of legal complexities. He, busy due
to his groundbreaking reforms, only was able to organize
public offer to buy new supersonic multirole fighter (F-
16 Fighting Falcon was chosen).

Next years generated next time, the same

problem, that before. Socialist governments of Mr Leszek
Miler and Marek Belka due to their pro-Russian
orientation were not going replace Tupolevs by new
aircraft. That was also a time of ups and downs a
reparation of the tragic condition in public finances, due
to feckless reformatting aspirations of Mr Buzek. They

background image

have to decrease one of the biggest in Europe
unemployment, reduce re-ignited inflation and pay for
Mr Buzek’s F-16s. Fighting Falcon.

For certain the plus of this labour cabinets was an

access to the European Union, a continuation of the only
successful work of Mr Jerzy Buzek, who – must say to
maintain objectivity – is to be suspected for collaboration
with communist secret service before 1989 and snitching
his friends from the Solidarity of Mr Lech Walesa, as a
secret agent “Charles” (in Polish “Karol”).

http://www.kurier.wzz.org.pl/kz/kz62/10.shtml

The minus of leftist rules were mass corruption

scandals, some of which resulting even special
parliamentary commission investigation!
(

http://www.warsawvoice.pl/WVpage/pages/article.php/7

092/article

)

Labour Prime Minister Mr Leszek Miller did not

take action to replace Russian fleet, even after the
catastrophe, he had been involved
(

http://www.miller.pl/strona.php?zm=english

).

His labour successor Prof. Marek Belka had not

been changing his mind, until he survived on-board fire
and emergency landing in China. Nevertheless, it was
already a decay of ruined by polls labour SLD.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Left_Alliance)

The conservative Low and Justice (PiS) won

election in 2005, the same year when Mr Lech Kaczynski
became a president, winning with now-a-day Prime
Minister Mr Donald Tusk.

PiS established coalition with populist

Samoobrona (in Polish… self-defense) of Mr Andrzej
Leper, known due to scandals, farmer’s leader with

background image

revolutionary views and ex-boxer
(

http://wyborcza.pl/1,86738,3325237.html

), The coalition

joined also a nationalist party LPR (League of Polish
Families) of young lawyer Mr Roman Giertych, who
reached popularity standing against the Love Parade in
Warsaw and stating (via a sound system) about the
homosexuals: “Two pederasts and their dog is not a
normal family!”.
Rooting of Mr Giertych is a material
for a whole book – his father Prof. Maciej Giertych,
staunch opponent of the Darwin’s theory of evolutions by
the legends (for example Loch Ness Monster) evidenced
(?), that dinosaurs were living on earth when people
already had appeared. Ground-father of Mr Giertych,
Jedrzej Giertych was before the WWII an author of
disgusting anti-Semitic publications.

New Prime Minister Mr Kazimierz

Marcinkiewicz designed as a minister of national
defense, British journalist of Polish origin, Mr Radoslaw
Sikorsky, a husband of well known American (Jewish
origin) writer, journalist and editor, Mr Ann
Appelbaumn. Sikorski was going to replace Tupolevs,
but due to formal and legal problems, Sikorski had been
preparing public offer documents for months.

However, on the 16

th

of June interior problems in

the coalition forced very quite demission of Mr
Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, who exiled to London, and
became a manager in the European Bank of
Reconstruction and Development. He had been replaced
by Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski, identical twin of president Mr
Lech Kaczynski.

Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski reorganized government,

inter alia removing Mr Sikorsky from office and

background image

designating Mr Aleksander Szczyglo (died in Smolensk
Air Disaster), who discovered high number of errors in
Mr Sikorski’s project of public offer concerning new
governmental aircraft – Mr Sikorsky promoted rather
good toilets than good engines, and his project could
reason in buying unsafe aircraft. Mr Szczyglo prepared
his own project, but no less feckless, than Mr Sikorsky.
Mr Szczyglo planed to purchase… 6 intercontinental
aircraft to be operated by… 4 people. This indolence next
time stopped the project until Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski,
after a corruption affair, concerning Samoobrona stated
that he was not able to put up with Samoobrona and LPS.
He played about the everything leading to dissolution of
the parliament, and he lost everything.

The election had been won by Mr Donald Tusk’s

liberal PO (Civic Platform). Sikorski came back with
honours, but became not a national defense, but a foreign
minister.

A new minister of national defense became Mr

Bogdan Klich, MD. He had not been previously
interested in defense. He was only an anty-war activist.
First months of this doctor-psychiatrist office had been
covered by several air disasters in Polish military
aviation – in Air Force, Army Aviation and Naval
Aviation.

According to Mr Andrzej Romaczek, with a

communistic weekly “The No” (official name: “No – the
week daily), (number 22/2010) edited by Mr Jerzy Urban
extreme anticlerical and antireligious activist, labour
journalist, political satirist and leftist politician: “Since
2008 four crashes have taken place
[In Polish Armed

background image

Forces], died 121 people, including two presidents, whole
entire command and prominent politics”.

Statement, although in bigot press does not seem

to be meaningless.

On the 23

rd

of January 2008 during approach to

Miroslawiec Air Base, new Spanish-build Airbus C-
295M (PLF-019), transport aircraft crashed killing 20 on
the board, including Gen. Andrzej Andrzejewski. ILS
system in the airbase was under conservation, Enhanced
Ground Proximity Avoidance System in the aircraft
turned off due to wrong signals, poor visibility, night and
on-board GPS out of order, due to GPS military decoder
unit fault. There was an error of an air traffic controller
on Miroslawiec Approach, who wrongly set runway
lights power. During the second approach attempt, the
runway lights were already correctly set, but the PLF-019
aircrew was not able to see the lights in the fog.

Air traffic controller was not able to correctly

direct aircrew on the runway centreline.

Pilot-In-Command tried to find direction using

handhold Garmin GPS (GPSMAP 196) receiver. Co-pilot
was not observing radio-altimeter and the aircraft
descended below 270 ft decision level and crashed with
bank angle, probably during go-around attempt.
Contributing factors were

(http://aviation-

safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080123-0):

1. The Air Traffic Controller broke NATO rules and

reported to the aircrew pressure in Russian format
QFE (measured of the level of air base) in
millimetres of Hg, but the aircrew mistook it with
QNH (measured of the sea level), setting
altimeters in QNH Hectopascal, that is why

background image

altimeter indicated much higher altitude (about
140m).

2. The Instrument Landing System in Miroslawiec

was not available due to a technical failure.

3. The co-pilot was not qualified and trained to

perform night flights on C-295 and was rather
inexperienced – only 100 flaying hours on C-
295M, total experience 800 hours.

4. The Pilot-In-Command had no any experience on

the version, although had total flaying time 2500
hours, including 800 on the type.

5. GPS was unavailable due to decoding device

failure (enroute aircrew was using only the IRS,
not enough to performance an approach).

6. Pilot-In-Command had not been previously

experienced in no-ILS approaches by night.

7. Approach controller had not any experience in

conducting aircraft other, than fighters on PAR.

8. In Miroslawiec Airbase, the same controller

served Approach and Tower computers at the
same time. That is why he had to perform two
jobs at once and could not safety navigate.

All the passengers on the board including Gen.

Andrzej Andrzejewski were coming back… form a flight
safety congress in Warsaw.

Please notice that we are not talking about Nigeria

or Taliban Afghanistan of late 90s., but about European
Union and NATO member-state, and XXI century!

On the 27

th

of February 2009, heavy, combat

helicopter Mi-24D of Polish Land Forces crashed during

background image

training before the foreign NATO mission. The combat
systems officer died.

On the 29

th

of March 2009 during the training

flight, light transport aircraft Antonov An-28 crashed
killing pilot-trained, pilot-in-command, supervisor and a
flight engineer. In a blood of the pilot-in-command,
according to “No” narcotics were detected.

On the 2

nd

of February 2010 Polish Air Force C-

130H Hercules, during a task of NATO mission nearly
crashed in Afghanistan. Although extreme damage of
aircraft the crew succeeded to land in Mazar-El-Sharif,
Afghanistan. The probable case is a rapid decompression,
extreme g-load during a turning, airborne collision or had
been shot by a missile. Some of the damage appeared
during contact with trees on emergency landing. Notable
damage:

1. Huge cavity of airframe below the left wing
2. Right wing fixing damage
3. Right fuel tank damage
4. Luck of rudder surface both-sides, seriously

damaged horizontal stabilizer.

5. Right gear air shield damage


“The No” nicked Mr Klich, “minister-

catastrophe”. There is also one much more perspicuous
sentence: “The case in the ill army headed by a
psychiatrist”.

However, not the balance of Mr Klich in military

aviation is important. The most important fact is a
document signed by him, concerning fleet condition.

Before the Smolensk Air Disaster, in his decision

number 40, Klich, MD stated as following (in 1

st

background image

paragraph): “The 36

th

Spec-Regiment and its fleet are not

able to provide safety realization of the tasks, concerning
transport of the most important people of the state”.
(

http://www.polskieradio.pl/wiadomosci/kraj/?id=178978

).

However, he with terrible reckless permitted on

the common flight to all the prominent generals.
(

http://www.polskieradio.pl/wiadomosci/kraj/artykul160

607,1.html

) Moreover, Mr Klich did not hold a criminal

label, but holds an office, still.

Tu-154 best before and Brazilian cure-all nostrum

In January 2009, presidential Tu-154M should be

scrapped. Its maximum lifetime ended. Exhaust aircraft,
although the most modern Tupolev in the world would be
smashed if only Mr Tusk Government were obey the law,
and demonstrate any sense.
Without resource aircraft should not take off in flight to
plant in Samara- it did.

Prime minister, Mr Donald Tusk broke his words

from 2008, when he said that Soviet VIP fleet would be
certainly replaced.

In 2008, Col. Tomasz Pietrzak, commander of the

36

th

Special Air Transport Regiment resigned, due to

condition of his fleet, he contended, that 36

th

Regiment

aircraft are simply say – too old.

Moreover, Mr Tusk was the only and the first

prime minister who was able to buy new aircraft with any
problem, without a public order. On 2008, Office of

background image

Public Order permitted for resignation of the public offer
procedures, due to “State security threat”.

Nevertheless, Mr Tusk did not. His government

issued a public offer to modernize both Tupolevs. The
bidders were: the biggest Polish defense concern Bumar
Inc., Metalexport-S and a consortium of MAW Telecom
and completely unknown before Polit-Elektronik, who
offered a overhaul in Samara, Russia.

The contract was signed on the 9

th

of April 2009.

Total prize of the overhaul had been fixed on

Until 2009 however, Mr Tusk and Mr Klich, MD,

although aware of the risk did not manage to purchase or
lease a new aircraft. They however had such possibility.
In every moment, it was possible to lease aircraft from
LOT Polish Airlines – two Embraer E-175.

There was already no turning back, because –

planes were ordered, pilots of the 36

th

Special Air

Transport Regiment started training in Switzerland. As it
appears later only three days were only necessary to
receive new planes from LOT, but Mr Tusk stopped the
process.

The presidential Tu-154M unlawfully took off

after several month grounding, and although no
certification took flight to Samara, Russia, were overhaul
was going to be carried out, however it was not.

According to a video published by

Komsomolskaya Pravda and Russia-1 TV the aircraft had
been standing covered by the snow, outside the facility
(overhaul can only be carried out indoor!). Taking into a
count three factors:

1. Minimal time of an overhaul of Tu-154M

indoor, according to Mr Nikolai

background image

Vasylenko (evidenced, by a time of
another Polish Air Force Tu-154M
reparation as well as a technical
documentation of Tu-154M: maintenance
instruction page 148) estimates 8-10
month

2. Tupolev was parked in snow for many

days, due to lots of snow on the aircraft.

3. Tupolev’s modernization started in

Summer, ended in the Winter 2009

4. The recording shows situation before re-

painting.

5. According to MAW Telecom, overhaul

concerned disassembly and reassembly of
all the aircraft parts.

6. Representatives of Polish Air Force and

MAW Telecom had not been present on
the place, because they stated that the
aircraft had been repaired indoor.

7. There were nearly no changes on the

flight deck.

8. There were nearly no changes in the

cabin.

9. Specified in order devices, had not been

replaced.

10. There were many faults after the

overhaul.

11. The aircraft was researched in Samara

only by Russian pilots.

12. The aircraft was maintained by Russia

engineers in Warsaw to the catastrophe.

background image

We can state without doubt, that the aircraft

modernization and overhaul in Samara, Russia was a
fiction. Overview of the engines and installing of the
refrigerator costs… $11,5 million.

This is very serious matter that is why we asked a

British expert, to know if it could be truth, that there was
no any repair.

It seems that they knew it will crash! That is why

they did not make any reparation. It is a scandal; I never
have seen a 10-month modernization outside the hangar,
on the snow. I know that it’s Russia, but providing all the
works indoor is an absolute standard, bare bones. (…)

Well, without any control, if I were

businesspersons I would probably also do not any
renovation. Please notice, that if they do not any
reparation they will still have great profit, an increment,
because they earned much more money, than the aircraft
is worth, so all the warranty reparation and spare parts
of no-touched aircraft would be less, than a cost of
reparation.

Another expert:

The reparation could be fiction. It is normal in

Russia. You do not know Russia yet. It was a private
facility, so they want only to earn money, and do nothing.
In state enterprise, they will not a bribe – much of a
muchness.

Do you think that in Poland in the ministry they

did not take any extra money, to repair an aircraft paying
as much as it is worth to fly it for 8 years? It is a
mockery!

background image


It is hard to do not agree with the expert, Russian

pilot and engineer.

All the data above is evidenced by the table showing data
form order confronted with photos from 2010:

Aviacor Samara Modernization balance:

Specified in order

Real modernization in Samara

Aircraft lifetime
extension

6 years extension, a kind of
warranty program.

Autopilot block
overhaul

No change of systems (still
ABSU-154-II), faults noted after
the renovation.

Engines reparation

Checked, renovated, washed,
oiled, new certification for 6000
flying hours.

Auxiliary power unit
renovation

(No information)

Complex interior
modernization

Two armchairs and one table
added.

Spare parts reparation (No information about)
Trimmer control
modification

No visible changes.

Anty-fire installation
overhaul

No visible changes: the same
smoke alarms in the toilets,
extinguishers without change,
flight deck fire avoidance
controls on the air engineer
pulpit without any visual
changes.

Speedometer

(No information about)

A kind

background image

“overhaul”

of incorrect speed indication
could be noticed in the CVR
transcripts

Altimeter “overhaul”

Only minor changes, faults after
the renovation

Emergency
transmitter EMT
repair

Having faults, which could case
a catastrophe after the repair.

Board refrigerator
replacement

Completed

Painting

Completed

3.6 Meteorological information - once again

There was already little fragment concerning a

weather conditions with several key meteo indications
listed.

The Russian Interstate Aviation Committee

(MAK) in Moscow has been researching weather for
three months, to finally state on the 19

th

of July 2010 that

had ended analyzing of the meteo conditions. Effects of
their titanic work were however… Estimate temperature
and wind and several another parameters, but grossly
inconsistent with the reality.

Weather conditions over Smolensk during PLF-101
catastrophe

Parameter

According to
MAK.ru

According to CVR
transcripts

Temperature

1-2

o

C

2

o

C

Wind

direction

110-130

o

120

o

background image

Wind speed

2m/s

3m/s

Clouds type

Stratus

(Stratocumulus) 500m

thickness

Clouds degree

100% (10/10)

(100%)

Clouds base

30-40m

Below 50m

Pressure

Secret

993 HPa


One of us heart that in Britain efficiency of

weather forecasts reaches 70%. However many times it
was possible to find out something else, during
unexpected rain. There was many times a necessity to run
startled to nearest tube station.

Nevertheless, due to extreme changeability of the

weather it is impossible to detect in advance all the
possible atmospheric processes. Only the global warming
experts, with unprecedented stubbornness evidence, that
in 2240 we will live not only on Sahara, but also under
the water, but their promises seem to enjoy the coverage
as credible as checks of Mr Bernard Madoff…

However weather forecasting, although a

beautiful field of science is much more difficult, than
describing weather aback. For example if we measure the
temperature every day we will know on 100% what was
the temperature each day, but we will not know what
temperature would be in the future, unless we performed
mathematical calculation and had complete data package.

Of course it is not possible to know on 100%

what was the weather 400 years ago (although global
warming experts somehow know), but it is known on
100% what was a weather in 2010 in European city!

Errors and empty spaces in Russian meteo report

can be only reasoned by a kind of malice.

background image

There is no need to describe exaggeratedly strictly

weather in Smolensk – it was poor, heavy fog, but it was
not also monsoon or a hurricane. Just Russian “spring”,
cool and foggy. According to many witnesses visibility in
many places was less than several meter – one witness
had not seen the aircraft, although the blast fallen him
down, so there was no visibility. Many observers
described the fog, as “just like milk”.

Polish prosecutors asked even US Attorney office

to check whether there is a possibility to induce artificial
fog. Of course it is possible, just google “artificial fog” or
“theatrical fog”. Many conspiracy theories were in
Poland based on the idea, that enigmatic Russian Air
Force Ilyushin Il-76M, that after two missed approaches,
and nearly had crashed, before stated “had just ended the
drop, descending on east, permitted” had dropped down
an artificial fog.

Other than, Dr. Sergei Amelin stated that there is

several evidence, that it was no artificial fog, according
to himself:

1. The fog had been forecasted days before.
2. The fog covered nearly whole Smolensk-Oblast,

50 miles “long” ellipsis

3. The fog came was several times coming back

after the air disaster

4. The fog, although looking other than in general,

could be case by unusually low temperature –
explained me living in Smolensk Dr. Amelin.

Smolensk temperature according to temp.smolensk.ws

background image

To maintain leftover of objectivity it is necessary

to state, that:

1. Weather conditions were poor.
2. Airfield should be closed due to the weather

conditions; it was a crime of Smolensk ATC, that
they did not it, although it was their duty.

3. In flight order, commander of the 36

th

SATR,

Col. Ryszard Raczynski stated, that minimal
conditions in the destination airport should be
clouds base above 120m and visibility 1800m.
That is why it was a crime of the orderly officer
of the 36

th

SATR, who permitted on the take-off

and did not inform PLF-101 crew, about poor
weather conditions.

background image

4. Pilot-In-Command, although it is not prohibited,

should not rather carry out an approach, it was his
error.

5. Pilot-In-Command of PLF-044 should not

persuade the PIC of PLF-101 to carry out an
approach.

6. Smolensk ATC dispatcher, Lt.-Col. Pavel Plusnin

had a duty to prohibit PLF-101 an approach, he
did not.

7. Smolensk ATC dispatcher, Lt.-Col. Pavel Plusnin

had a duty to inform PLF-101 about farther
weather deterioration (visibility decreasing from
400 to 200m).

8. MAK does not want to disclose what the real

pressure, basic to set altimeters was.


3.8 A page about the navigation.

Installation/device

Position

Radio

Frequency

Distance

to

threshold

Instrument Landing

system

No ILS

N/A

VOR beacon

No VOR

Outer marker

(NDB)

N54

o

49,7’,

E32

o

8,5’

640 MHz

6,1 km

Middle marker

No

Inner marker

(NDB)

N54

o

49,6’

E32

o

3,8’

310 MHz

1,1 km

Smolensk Tower

128,8

MHz

background image


Precision Approach Radar: RSP-6/M2.

According to Polish newspaper “Rzeczpospolita”

(The Republic), currently the most serious and the most
opinion-forming daily in Poland there was another kind
of PAR, type RSP-10MN or modified (so RSP-10MN-1),
but it is not truth. According to photos showing
Smolensk radar, as well as the reports of Dr Sergey
Amelin there is less modern, but still keeping precision
RSP-6/M-2.

The RSP-6 is a system consisted with two

independent units:

Circle Observation Radar, not showing altitude,

operated by TWR controller, Lt.-Col. Pavel
Plusnin

Precision Approach Radar, showing altitude,

operated by APR controller, Capt. Victor
Ryjenkho

Two indicators: PAR and circle mode in a container
or inputted to the computers on the tower

RSP-6 is a military radar, also operated on civil

airports in the Soviet Union, for example at inoperative
now Smolensk-South (LNX) airport. This is a typical
PAR, showing two parameters (position on course and
altitude on glideslope), to allow the air traffic controller
to safely conduct the aircraft to the level of 400-450 ft. It
however does not mean that the radar is characterised by
such low precision. Exactness of the unit depends of
several factors and if the radar had been well calibrated
and the signal had been inputted to a computer it was
possible to reach exactness level of 20-30 ft, but even a

background image

minimal, specified by the producer reaches 80ft. So why
did the air traffic controller Capt. Ryjenkho not reacts,
when PLF-101 was 300ft above the glideslope we do not
know.

During our visit in Smolensk, we received a

confirmation that during PLF-101 approach, as well as
right now, the airport is equipped with RPS-6 unit.

One thing more about markers – the NDB,

although named – Non-directional Beacon, are not as
non-directional as it appears. Other words it is possible to
head direction on the NDB, but only in two situations:

1. Not using the autopilot – controlling steering

manually.

2. On the autopilot, but using also GPS. According

to the manual of Flight Managing System, Tu-
154M was equipped; there is a possibility to
carry out approach using GPS and NDB, or only
NDB. UNS-1D is possible to head only on NDB.

3.9 The Airport


The airport, as stated PLF-044 pilot was a “hell-

hole” in sense-by-sense translating. Smolensk in the
400.000 Russian city situated few miles from the
Belarusian boarder, were it’s twin city Vitebsk is
situated, no more far than Smolensk.

During the World War II, several miles from

Smolensk, in Katyn Forest, 20-25.000 Polish people had
been killed by Soviet secret service in a mass murder,
ordered by Stalin. This number includes 8.000 Polish
officers taken prisoner 1939 by Soviet Army, and about

background image

15.000 officials, professors, landowners, lawyers, priests,
pilots, scientists, doctors and businesspersons. According
to the historians, all were murdered shot in the back of
head. That was not the only, but the biggest of three
confirmed mass murders of Polish, by Stalin.

Since Soviet Union collapsed, there is a cemetery

and a monument build by the Polish in Katyn, Russia.
The number of victims is not still clearly confirmed
(about 20.000 bodies were founded), for the reason that
Russia to the present day is not going to disclose their
fails.

This is not however separated affair, because for

example Great Britain since 1943 has not disclose secret
British fails (after 60 years!) concerning Polish prime
minister Gen. Wladyslaw Sikorski, who was assassinated
in an air disaster in Gibraltar. All on the board excluding
Czech RAF pilot, Capt. Prchal, were killed. It was
probably also Russian manslaughter, although (there are
clear evidence that it was on 100% assassination) Great
Britain keeping files secret in some measure pleads
guilty. The reason of such absurd behaviour is unknown;
it unfortunately looks like a heroic loyalty for Stalin.

Polish delegations every year visit Katyn, to carry

out celebrations in honour of the fallen, and use
Smolensk-North Air Base to carry out air transportation,
because the airfield is situated only 3miles form the
Katyn Forest and 2 miles from Smolensk.

Usually smaller jets had been used by Polish Air

Force, probably never before 100-tones weight Tu-154M.

The Smolensk Air Base is a military airfield – of

the two in the city. Another, Smolensk-South is
inoperative. Moreover, Smolensk-South runway length

background image

(less than 1.500m) is not enough high for Tu-154M to
stop with all brakes and trust reverse fully applied. The
alighting run of the Tu-154M under normal conditions,
without wind estimates 2.500m.

Smolensk Air Base had been established (in 1920

according to Kommersant) as a civil airport before the
WWII and had been operated for intermediate landings
of Russian wooden airlines on the international routs.

Then during the WWII, it was probably converted

into the military airport, however there is lack of data
concerning its role in war. One of the Smolensk
inhabitants remember the episode from that time, when
Soviet fighter crashed – a pilot who did not managed to
use the parachute died. than my interlocutor, run two the
aircraft as the firs and find the pilots Komsomol (youth
organization) member card, which he send to a museum
in Moscow in early 90s.

After war period is also shrouded in mystery – to

early 60s. when the airfield sow the concrete runway
done.

There are many photos from the 70s., including

taxing schema, showing completely the same airfield
layout like in our day. Another photos show parked
Antonov-12 transport aircraft, as well as MiG-23
fighters. Also plates “Death threat! Do not overreach!”
appeared on the barbed wire fence.

According to Dr Sergey Amelin living in

Smolensk, there was one catastrophe of An-12 aircraft,
which crashed due to an icing. Although Mr Amelin
explained, so as to that air disaster took place probably in
1984, but I was not possible to find any information
about it anywhere, so it is still unconfirmed incident.

background image

(According to airdisaster.ru) There were only 15 air
catastrophes that year in Soviet Union, including 2 Tu-
154, but no An-12 crashed.

It is probably a mistake off Mr Amelin, cased by

the fact that in 1986 An-12 crashed in Omsk-North, but it
is far away from Smolensk.

According to Russian newspaper Kommersant, it

appears as the I class aerodrome, so able to service
aircraft heavier, than 75.000kg.

Smolensk Air Base Operational History

Years of
quartering

Unit/Institution
operating

Aircraft flown

1920-1932

Chief Administration
of the Civil Air Fleet

Administrator

1922-1936

Deutsch-Russische
Luftverkehrs A.G.

Fokker F-III,
Junkers F-13,
Tupolev ANT-9,
Dornier Merkur

1926-1928

Aviation Repair Plant
Number 3

Facility

1928-1941

Military Aviation Plant
Number 35

Facility

1932-1941

Head Directorate of
Air Civil Fleet

Administrator

1930-1941

Aeroflot – Russian
Airlines

PS-84

1941

Soviet Air Force

Fighter Aircraft

1941

Luftwaffe

Logistics

1944-1966

Aviation Plant Number
475

Facility

1944-1966

People’s Commissariat

Administrator

background image

of Aviation Industry

1946-2009

103

rd

Guardian

Military Transport
Regiment (15401
Military Unit, also
numbered as 101, 31,
214 regiment)

Ił-76M, An-12,
Li-2, Ił-14, An-
24, An-26,
Douglas DC-3

1951-1990

401

st

Interceptor

Regiment

MiG-23P

1951-1991

871

st

Interceptor

Regiment

MiG-23, Su-27

1966-1974

Smolensk Machine
Building Plant

Facility

1974-1993

Smolensk Aviation
Plant

Facility

1975-2009

Military Repair Plant

Part of 103

rd

GMTR

1993-today Smolensk Aviation

Plant Joint Stock Co.

Facility

2009-today 216

th

Airfield

Command

Administrator

2009-today Russian Air Transport

Command

Ił-76 and An-12
storage

Now a day Smolensk Air Base serves about two

military aircraft per month, which is necessary minimum
for functioning of Smolensk area military unit’s logistic
system, as well as the airport itself. There are about 50
people employed in the airfield, whose duties are
maintenance of the airfield operational and securing of its
area. Currently the airfield does not have a fence, but
facility, storage ramp and hangars, as well as several

background image

another military buildings are fenced and guarded – must
say, that soldiers are very aggressive.

The main function of the airfield is storage of the

28 Ił-76 aircraft, former Russian Air Force and Aeroflot,
as well as one An-12 transport plane. There is also
Aviation Plant in Smolensk, located closely near the
airport and even bigger than whole air base. The lion’s
share of SAP production however in transported rather
by land, than airborne, for the reason that these cover
generally not aircraft but parts and systems produced for
Yakovlev, Moscow and Aviacor, Samara. Currently only
Sukhoi Su-38 are produced series, but with low rate.
Sometimes nevertheless new Su-38 agricultural aircraft
gets airborne from Smolensk – frequently for test flights.

Polish Air Force uses Smolensk Air Base since

the late 90

th

, when during the presidency of Mr

Aleksander Kwasniewski, who started visiting Katyn,

while just the once arrived… alcoholic intoxicated to the
degree that, the close security officers had to support
him, when putting candles and wreaths, but after he had
genuflected, he lots his balance and felt the ground.

Source

Date

Runway
Direction

Magnetic
Clination
(east)

Original Russian
Approach Charts

2004

261

o

+6

Charts used by PLF-
101 and PLF-044

2005

259

o

+7

MAK official
preliminary report

2010

259

o

N/A

MAK schema

2010

259

o

+7

Reality

2010

257,8

o

?

+8,2

background image

From the time, when first Polish Air Force Yak-

40 touched down Smolensk Airbase it did not changed to
a large extent – if even, for the worse.

Source

Existing condition of the airfield, as well as its

dated condition during PLF-101 approach and missed go-
around, is the best emitted by the airfield’s
documentation, including approach charts. It is clearly
visible, that the airport equipment had been maintaining
the same status quo for many years. Approach charts had
been printed about 20 years ago and not have been
changed, which resulted in significant flight safety

deterioration.
The typical
example is
runway
direction, a
magnetic
direction, which
depends of
changeable
magnetic
declination rate.

A table

above shows
only several
numbers, but if
we analyse it
from a flight

safety standpoint we will have to be in alarm. Please
notice that if in situation of instrument approach the

background image

direction of the runway that an aircraft is flaying is
incorrect, it will crash.

There was incorrect course for 47 years in the

charts or the current announced runway destination is
mistaken.

What is a magnetic declination? When we take a

compass to our hands we do not really see the north, it
shows of course the North Pole, but not the same, that is
marked on a map, on globe model or by Google Earth.
Your compass every time will indicate another north pole
– magnetic one, in contrast with geographic.

Other words there are two north poles –

geographic, the same for ages and magnetic, changing
every second.
A schema on the left, source:

http://www.compassdude.com/compass-declination.shtml

shows how the magnetic pole changing in last 110 years
did.
However, the only pole drift is not the one problem.
Earth as a natural object, not like all the artificial thinks
seeks to disorder. That is why in contrast of invented by
the Portuguese meridians, which as longitude lines,

background image

indicate magnetic pole, real Earth electromagnetic field
line, indicating magnetic pole are not straight lines, but
rather curves. That is why also magnetic declination is
irregular – a line connecting points of the same
declination rate is named isoclinic line, and is on of the
simplest and most important in aviation utilities
concerning earth magnetism.

So what is the problem in Smolensk? Please

imagine that you stay in a circle, looking forward, your
nose indicates 0, but to perform about face (to the right)
you must turn off 180o to the right. If you would like to
make half of about face – you should turn on 90o, 1/3 on
60

o

, 1,5 on 270

o

. The same turnings refer to a compass

needle. It is widely accepted, that on a compass dial the
north is marked by the 0

o

, south by 180

o

, east by 90

o

, and

west by 270

o

, northeast – 45

o

, southeast – 135

o

,

southwest – 225

o

, northwest 315

o

.

Magnetic direction in aviation, naval navigation

and in the written rules of Islamic mosques construction
is a basic utility.

PLF-101 started final approach flying on the

(extended of course) runway centreline, with direction
259

o

. Please notice, that this direction is situated on the

compass dial between
West (270

o

) and southwest (225

o

), so it is possible to

state undamagingly, that they were flying from the east to
the west. Of course before they started approach the had
to turn back in the pattern, as their enroute course was
from the west (Poland) to the east (Russia).

However the runway direction, which is one of

the basic indications for the autopilot, strictly speaking
by Flight Management System. It is not difficult to

background image

calculate, how serious would be even 1o deviation on
10,4km final.

The line drew for a degree from the centreline,

and started in distance of 10,4 from the threshold, and up
to a point equal to the threshold, will be as length, as
indicates sinus of 1

o

angle. Using cotangents, we see that:

X- summary deviation from the course

A- opposite

55,29 – cot. 1

o

10,4/55,29 = 0,19 [km] = 190m.

Deviation of 190m would be killable for the

aircraft. According to google earth Smolensk, runway
width reaches 49m at threshold. Therefore, the maximal
safety deviation for Tu-154M is only 15m!

Course
deviation [

o

]

0,1

0,2

0,5

1

2

3

4

5

Deviation to
the side [m]

18,1 36,2 90,6 190 363 526 727 910


Please notice, that even 0,1 degree deviation will

make the aircraft out of the runway.

Maximal safety course deviation estimates 0,083

o

.

The maximal safety deviation for Tu-154M at Smolensk-
North can estimate 2,306

-4

of a circle.

Under this environment Russians easiness in

magnetic direction, (course) calculating is horrific, and
clearly shows what is the condition of Russian Air Force,
as well as the Smolensk-North Air Base. However, it is
not only a sin of Russians. Also Polish government, Air
Force, and president’s contributors are guilty, because
they sent old, 100-tones weight Russian aircraft, to an
airfield, with unprecedented in a history of world aviation
sloppiness concerning airport documentation.

background image

The Smolensk Approach Charts printed in 2004,

had a runway direction and magnetic declination
parameters dated on 1960-1965. There is also a
possibility, that the declination parameter had not been
updated for only 20 years. It is not able to detect, because
the mess, which became documentation self-conflicted.

Please notice, that if 2004 runway direction stays

in a bind with declination, as well as in 2005, how is it
possible that declination changed 1 degree and direction
2 degrees? Which chart has an error? Is it possible, that
an error had been in a copy-passed method
documentation making process overlooked for 20 or even
50 years?

According to MAK, current magnetic declination

is not less, and not more, than 7 degrees, runway
direction not less, not more, than 259 degrees.

This data is also incorrect, according to all the

magnetic declination calculators and maps known by
Google and me. Smolensk declination is not less, not
more than 8,2 degrees, so the only correct runway course
can be 258 degrees, or there is a local deviation, another
than commonly known. It however is not impossible,
because the British Navy, with perfect cartography, does
not know anything about the local declination deviation.

It probably did not have any influence on the

catastrophe, because the aircraft deviated to the left, in
contrast to right-deviating runway direction
incorrectness. Nevertheless also, this problem should be
described to show a scale of mess in Russian Air Force
and in MAK, which is not even able to find runway
direction, basic parameter for any landing operation, not
conflicted with reality.

background image

Moreover on the 19

th

of May 2010 MAK stated

that Actual aero navigation data of the airport Smolensk-
North the crew did not have”.
On approach charts from
2010 all the data are strictly confirmed by materials on
MAK and by transcripts of CVR, which clearly indicates,
that the crew had the same data, that stated by MAK. So
what kind of out-of-date did MAK detect? Probably this
statement of MAK is also a lay, covering the mess or
manslaughter, and if it does not put into question their
goodwill, it means, that MAK is unprofessional
organization.

It is also necessary to state, that approach charts

received by PLF-101 crew had been sent from Russia in
2006 by fax and seem to be unreadable. Moreover both
on the charts from 2004 and 2005 (sent in 2006) there are
many disqualifying typographical errors.

Airport Equipment Efficiency

1.

Precision Approach Radar

– RSP-6 was available

and serviceable.

2.

Outer NDB

– was available and serviceable.

3.

Inner NDB

– Available, sending signals, but out

of incorrect angle indicating. According to
Interstate Aviation According MAK during the
test flight on the 16

th

of March 2010 there was a

number of objections concerning radio equipment
of the runway direction 259. Moreover in relation
to Lt. Artur Wosztyl, Pilot-In-Command of PLF-
044, who successfully landed at Smolensk before
the PLF-101:

background image

a. Continuity of signalization was not

maintained, the beacon was braking off.

b. There were hesitations in direction

indication more than maximal limited.

c. The beacon suddenly indicated direction

of 10 degrees to the right.

d. The distance between beacons could be

different, that specified.

4.

Approach lights

- situated three exemplars every

100m on the extended centreline, from the inner
beacon to the threshold (21 lamps yellow color),
during PLF-101 approach overgrown by bush and
trees, not visible from the air.

5.

Horizon lights

– 500m from the threshold, 13-15

pieces, unserviceable due to a lack of bulbs,
installed after the catastrophe, which is confirmed
by the photos of Belarusian journalist.

6.

Runway lights

– Orange, according to MAK

during a test flight on the 16

th

of March there

were objections concerning runway light
equipment. From this time any light repair had
not been performed, because also other light were
not operational.

7.

APM- 90

– Reflectors situated 50-200m from the

threshold, but lighting to the runway, so not
useful in the fog, were lights directed to the side
of aircraft would be useful.

This is clearly evidenced, that equipment of

Smolensk XUBS Air Base on the 10

th

of April was not

sufficient for Tu-154M aircraft to land safety. It was a
duty of Lt.-Col. Pavel Plusnin, ATC supervisor, airport

background image

commander that time, the highest rank officer on the
airport and TWR controller (dispatcher), to immediately
close the airport due to the weather conditions and
redirect PLF-101 to another airfield. Pilot-In-Command
of PLF-101 should not make approach, knowing that the
conditions are not enough. Crewmembers should not
confirm with the PIC and propose him to change the
decision. The Pilot-In-Command of PLF-044, Lt. Artur
Wosztyl is in great part responsible, alack, for the
catastrophe, because he had been persuading PLF-101
crew to make more than one approach.

The airfield should be checked by Polish services

before the flight, however it was not. The PLF-101
should not receive permission for take-off from the
orderly-officer of the regiment.

Belarusian Air Traffic Control should rather

suggest PLF-101 to direct on Vitebsk, instead of ASKIL,
although it was not their legal duty, and any allegation
should not be expressed.

However if the air disaster factor or case was a

technical fault or assassination/sabotage the aircraft
would crash even in Vitebsk or Minsk, so decisions
above did not have any influence.

background image

Russian officers screwing light bulbs in the airport approach lights
after the air disaster. Photo: Serge Serebro, Vitebsk Popular
News.

Russian officers connecting approach lights to power source, after
the air disaster, to be the lights available due to airport examining
technical flight. Photo: Serge Serebro, Vitebsk Popular News.

background image

Approach Charts

There are two versions of Smolensk Approach

Charts, so documents similar to so-could Jepessen Charts
– schemas helping pilots with navigation, delivering all
the necessary information concerning airfield layout,
equipment and organization of the air traffic in the
control area.

Smolensk approach charts had been prepared by

Soviet Air Force and then actualized incorrectly in 2005
by Russian Air Force. Then approach charts were re-
actualized, also incorrectly in 2006. Charts of 2006, sent
via fax to the 36

th

Regiment have been used by Polish Air

Force during flights to Smolensk, last time in 2009.

background image





Chart 2006

background image





Chart 2005

background image

This is runway 259 approach chart to Smolensk

Air Base. Package of Smolensk navigation data consists
of 5 pages of charts. Probably charts were of course
much more readable and visible, but after copied in
Poland quality decreased.

There is possible to detect, that from Belarus (on

the left of the chart) an aircraft from position ASKIL –
AirNav point over Russo-Belarusian border, should fly
with direction of 41 deg. 70 km. than on an altitude of
700m over the runway level, enter the pattern, turning
right to course of 79 deg. than perform a downwind
flying on parallel of the runway centreline.

After reaching precision described point aircraft

should turn right performing turning number 3. After this
moment with course of 169 deg. fly on base,
perpendicular to the centreline. After base performing
just before point of crossing of the centreline, aircraft
performs 4

th

turning to be on final. During the final

approach from altitude of 500m aircraft starts descending
with angle of about 2,66 deg., so with descending rate of
about 3,5 m/s. On approach started in distance of 10,4km
aircraft on altitude of 300m outer marker NDB should be
passed. than on descending pilot on the level of 100m
over the runway checks if the ground or runway lights
are visible. If not perform go around, ascending back to
500m.

If the pilot on the level of 100m, so-could

decision level is able to see surface, he should continue
approach through inner marker, which he has to pass on a
level of 70m. After this moment he is flying over
approach lights – one light section every 100m.

background image

background image

(CAUTION: Please do not use any

of the charts presented here for real
navigation or in flight planning
process).

However in Smolensk this lights were unavailable

– there were hidden in bush and there was no bulbs in
some lamps.

Flying over the threshold on correct level of 20m,

above the runway pilot should stabilize the aircraft and
little pull up, to carry out touch down gently.

Another approach chart is older than first on a

year. Please notice, that the runway 261 in a year
transferred into runway 259. Chart with 269 is older one.

However direction of flight from ASKIL and

entering of the pattern did not change. By some miracle
all other changed.

On this chart many airport data is visible.

Transition level 1500m. Entering the glideslope on final
in distance of 10,41km.

I the upper left corner magnetic declination is

visible, printed in a form of two vectors.

However there are many differences, for example

concerning decision level: 70m in 2005, 100m in 2007.

PLF-101 charts

According to MAK, 10.000 pages of

documentation including charts of navigation aids set
Jepessen
were present on the board.

MAK however also stated that: Actual

navigational data of aerodrome Smolensk North crew did

background image

not posses. It is very interesting, because farther question
appears. What, therefore, navigational data did crew
have?

Data

PLF-
101

2005
charts

2006
charts

Enter of the
pattern

1000m 500m

700m

Runway
direction

259

261

259

Magnetic
declination

(8,2) 5

6

Decision
level

100m

70m

100m


Because an altitude of enter of 1000m was a mistake off
the ATC, which to late requested descending, it means,
that probably crew really received charts from 2006.

The chart above indicates, what are the minimums of
Smolensk, as well as frequencies of the beacons. For
every aircraft landing at Smolensk it is possible to carry
out landing when there is a visibility of 1000m and cloud
base of 50m. It means, that Tu-154M pilot was able to
touch down and continue approach if on decision level of
100m grounds was visible.

Behaviour of the PLF-101 crew, so performing

approach to decision level of 100m, under weather
conditions much below the minimums was blameworthy,
however did not bring a danger, because the altitude of
100m is safety. According to law, pilots were able to
carry out approach - they did not break any rules.

background image

However under those conditions ATC duty was to

close the airport due to weather conditions, cease
operations and redirect PLF-101 to another destination –
alternative airport. ATC broken rules and their behaviour
was illegal.

In situation of closed airport (airfield) PIC has not

possibility to perform approach and should fly
somewhere else. His alternatives are included in the
flight plan.

One thing more to the approach charts: there is no

a possibility to bring out an air disaster giving pilots
wrong charts. For example according to Mr Witold
Michalowski, quoted on the beginning of the book, crew
of Gen. Lebied’s helicopter was not familiar with the
terrain and received wrong charts. In the valley, when
that catastrophe took place, there is a permanent fog on
the season similar, due to specific air circulation in
Siberian mountains.

Pilots of Lebied’s helicopter in the fog, using

wrong charts should crash, because of the energetic lines’
layout, marked wrongly on the charts. There was no
possibility to do not contact the high-voltage cables.

There are some analogies to PLF-101, because of

the fog, energetic lines, contacted in both situations and
kinds of problem with the charts. However PLF-101 crew
was familiar with the terrain. Circumstances of the air
disaster indicate, that PLF-101 catastrophe had not been
cased by wrong charts – nothing indicates charts as a
factor.


background image

3.10 Flight recorder, do not open! Enregistreur de vol,

ne pas ouvrir!

“Flight recorder. Do not open! Enregistreur de

vol. Ne pas ouvrir!” – it is a typical inscription on every
orange device called “black box”.

Currently Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit

Voice Recorders are required equipment off all passenger
aircraft in the world. Polish Air Force 101 as passenger
aircraft also was equipped with Flight Recorders.
Unfortunately only one of these, a Polish Quick Access
Receiver was present-day device – both of other were
factory-installed recorders. All the equipment looks like
follows:

http://www.npw.gov.pl/491-4a112b267c50b-

20256-p_1.htm

1. Flight Data Recorder type MSRP-64M-6, (s/n

90969).

2. Cockpit Voice Recorder MARS-BM, probably

with tape 9A11 and OL-4 container, but it is
unknown if these are Polish, Russian or NATO
marks, as well as whether there was another kind
of tape.

3. Polish Digital Quick Access Recorder - ATM-

QAR/R128ENC.

4. Russian Quick Access Recorder – KBN-1-1.
5. FMS/GNSS interior navigation data recorder.
6. TAWS data recorder.
7. Another exploitation recorder.
8. Recorders used for training, probably TV recorder

(unconfirmed if installed).

background image

9. Recorders installed by the Military

Counterintelligence Service (unconfirmed if
installed)/

10. Maybe also listen-in devices installed unofficially

by the Russians (according to Mr Gene P and
Capt. Nikolay Vasylenko).

11. Maybe also anty-listen-in devices installed

unofficially by MCS (according only to Capt.
Nikolay Vasylenko).


To be able to correctly understand form and

content of the CVR Transcripts is necessary to examine
their way before there was a possibility to prepare
transcripts and calculations of the flight data recording.

According to Mr Edmund Klich

(

http://zbigniewkozak.pl/?p=1220

) Polish experts team

landed at Smolensk at 20:00 local time on the 10

th

of

April, 9 hours after the air disaster.

All the recorders were found about 14:00, so

before arriving of Polish experts.

http://www.newsweek.pl/artykuly/sekcje/polska/znalezio
no-czarne-skrzynki-prezydenckiego-tu-154,56504,1

http://www.pomorska.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201
00410/KRAJSWIAT/15874245

To this time both black boxes were hold by

Russians, who received 6 hours to check and modify
their recordings.

Direct evidence, that the black boxes had been

that time opened by Russians is the fact tape of cockpit
voice recording was moved in the black box, which never
had happened before in any Tu-154M air disaster.

http://gazetapolska.pl/artykuly/kategoria/54/3490

background image

Moreover Russians stopped Polish delegation for

about 2 hours, according to the same Mr Klich’s words,
due to some formal and legal procedures.

After this procedures black boxes were

immediately shown Polish delegation. There should not
be any traces of opening, because removing and
installing a void again is very simple.

Legal procedure in Smolensk was not necessary,

because next Polish plane’s passengers, that landed the
same day in Vitebsk, Belarus, also without visas, did not
undergo any legal procedures although they did not have
not only Russian, but also Belarusian visas.


The CVR transcripts


10:02:48,6-10:02:50,1 Anonym: (unread)

10:02:51,3-10:02:54,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:02:54,6-10:02:56,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:02:59,2-10:03:00,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:03:08,1-10:03:11,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:03:12,1-10:03:15,6 Navigator: (unread) across the
great water… (PL)

10:03:17,4-10:03:19,7 Navigator: (unread) commander
said. (PL)

background image


10:03:20,1-10:03:21,8 Co-pilot: (unread) across the great
water... (PL)

10:03:22,4-10:03:25,0 Co-pilot: (unread) across the great
water on a four-stars general. (PL)

10:03:30,8-10:03:35,2 Co-pilot: And now he is so
humping off, because he has to fly 40 hours yet. (PL)
In Polish Air Force every pilot, including generals has
to fly no less than 40 hours per year, to maintain his
license.


10:03:35,8-10:03:43,9 Co-pilot: No, if he can’t, you
know, he pisses off to Poznan. (PL)
The biggest Polish Air Force Base is situated in
Poznan-Krzesiny. Inter alia 32 Polish F-16 Fighting
Falcon operate from Krzesiny Air Force Base.

10:03:47,0-10:03:54,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:03:54,1-10:04:01,3 Anonym: And at the end of career,
surely (unread) for adequate (unread) (PL)

10:04:02,4-10:04:09,7 ATC: DHS contact Minsk 118
correction 120,125. (ENG)

10:04:04,1-10:04:09,6 Anonym: (unread) the commander
didn’t know (unread) (PL)

10:04:11,4-10:04:14,8 Anonym: It will be... macabre
will. Nothing will be visible. (PL)

background image


10:04:15,4-10:04:18,6 ATC: DCMHS (ENG)

10:04:16,7-10:04:17,2 Co-pilot: Cargo. (PL/ENG)

10:04:19,7-10:04:34,2 Anonym: (unread)

10:04:29,6-10:04:32,2 ATC: DCMHS (ENG)

10:04:33,1-10:04:34,2 DCMHS: Go ahead! (ENG)

10:04:34,3-10:04:36,8 ATC: Contact Minsk 120,125.
(ENG)
Please notice a little mistake off Belarusian Air Traffic
Controller in a dialog above.
DCMHS plane is not awn by any airline, that is why
Co-pilot stated, that it is a cargo plane.


10:04:39,1-10:04:43,0 DCMHS: Minsk 120,125,
DCMHS, good bye. (ENG)

10:04:43,5-10:04:44,3 ATC: Bye. (ENG)

10:04:49,1-10:04:56,9 Anonym: (unread)

10:04:57-10:04:58,9 Co-pilot: Exactly no, he earned
nothing extra. (PL)

10:04:58,8 -10:05:06,1 Anonym: (unread)

10:05:58,8-10:06:03,9 ATC: Polish Air Force 101,
contact Minsk 118,975. (ENG)

background image

That is a moment when PLF-101 crosses one Belarus
Area Control Zone and enters another, on different
frequency, where will be guided by another Belarusian
controller.


10:06:05,0 -10:06:09,7 Navigator: 118,975, Polish Air
Force 101, thank you, good day. (ENG)
During VIP or long oversea flights in Tu-154M there is
also a fourth crew member – a navigator. Please notice
that during this flight navigator was communicating
with Air Traffic Control (in English language).


10:06:09,9 -10:06:10,6 ATC: Bye. (ENG)

10:06:11,1-10:06:12,7 Co-pilot: "Do svidaniya" they say.
(PL)
Do svidaniya means in Russian language goodbye.

10:06:12,7-10:06:14,2 Navigator: Well I don’t know if it
is “do svidaniya” or…(PL)

10:06:14,2-10:06:14,6 Co-pilot: Or how? (PL)

10:06:14,5-10:06:16,3 Navigator: I wouldn’t agree…
(PL)

10:06:16,3-10:06:17,3 Co-pilot: "Dobroye ranietso”.
(BL)
Dobroye ranietso means good day in Belarusian
language.


10:06:18,5 -10:06:21,8 Co-pilot: Tell like this, we’ll see

background image

if he’ll understand (laugh) (PL).

10:06:27,0-10:06:28,8 Co-pilot: “Dobroye ranietso”.
(BL)

10:06:31,6-10:06:37,7 Navigator: Minsk-Control, Polish
Air Force 1-0-1, Dobroye ranietso, FL 3-3-0, over Minsk.
(ENG, BL)

10:06:38,6 -10:06:44,3 ATC: Polish Air Force 1-0-1,
Minsk-Control, dobriy… dobriy dien, Radar Contact.
(ENG, RUS)
Dobriy dien means in Russian language good day or
good morning. Please notice, that Belarusian Air
Traffic Controller rather preferred to speak Russian
than Belarusian. All the other communication with
PLF-101 is carried out in English language.


10:06:45,3 -10:06:49,6 Co-pilot (laugh) I said (unread)
(PL)

10:06:49,1-10:06:54,8 ATC: Aeroflot 141 work on
Minsk-Kontrol 133,425.(RUS)
Pleas notice that Russian and Belarusian aircraft
communicate with Air Traffic Control in Russian
language.

10:06:55,5-10:06:57,7 Co-pilot: What? Of course not!
(PL)

10:06:56,2-10:06:59,6 141: 133,425 repeat. (RUS)

background image

This frequency was incorrect, that is why Aeroflot asked
Air Traffic Controller to repeat.

10:06:57,6-10:06:59,1 Pilot-In-Command: Jasiek asked
him. (PL)

10:06:59,1-10:06:59,3 Co-pilot: What? (PL)

10:06:59,7-10:07:00,9 ATC: Correctly? (RUS)

10:07:01,2 -10:07:02,5 Pilot-In-Command: Jasiek asked
him. (PL)

10:07:01,5-10:07:05,4 141: 33,425 thank you, goodbye,
Aeroflot 141. (RUS)
Incorrect frequency was confirmed by Aeroflot crew.

10:07:02,5-10:07:04,2 Anonym: (unread) thee. (PL)

10:07:07,1-10:07:12,0 ATC: Polish Air Force 1-0-1,
what FL are you going to
reach to ASKIL? (ENG)
ASKIl is an AirNav point situated on the airway over
Belarusian-Russian border. Because Smolensk Air
Base (XUBS) is located only about 45 miles from
ASKIL point, PLF-101 had to start descending before
passing ASKIl. That is why Air Traffic Controller was
asking the crew of PLF-101, to what flight level (FL)
they had been planning to descent through this point.

10:07:08,4-10:07:10,1 Anonym: (unread).

background image

10:07:12,1-10:07:13,6 Anonym: Three thousand nine
hundred. (ENG)

10:07:14,1-10:07:16,8 Navigator: 3900 Polish Air Force
1-0-1. (ENG)
Flight level in meters.

10:07:16,9-10:07:17,6 ATC: OK. (ENG)

10:07:17,8-10:07:19,7 ATC: Report when ready for
descent. (ENG)

10:07:20,5-10:07:21,1 Navigator: Yeah. (ENG)

10:07:29,3-10:07:33,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:07:34,6-10:07:35,6 Co-pilot: Of course. (PL)

10:07:37,3-10:07:45 Anonym: (unread)

10:07:48,5-10:07:49,2 Co-pilot: Good. (PL)

10:07:49,3-10:07:50,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:07:54,4-10:07:56,3 Co-pilot: Give the next. (PL)

10:07:56,3-10:07:59,7 Anonym (unread)

10:07:59,4-10:08:01,2 141: Minsk - Aeroflot 141. (RUS)

10:08:02,1-10:08:05,5 ATC: I perhaps mistakenly
133,55. (RUS)

background image

Air Traffic Controller corrected his previous mistake
concerning radio frequency.

10:08:06,1-10:08:09,9 141: 133,55 with Vilnius see you,
thank you. (RUS)

10:08:32,7-10:08:34 Co-pilot: Have you decided? (PL)

10:08:33,9-10:08:36 Anonym: (unread)

10:08:36-10:08:36,4 Co-pilot: What? (PL)

10:08:36,4-10:08:39 Anonym (unread): Michalak. (PL)

10:08:39-10:08:39,9 Co-pilot: You know. (PL)

10:08:40,9-10:08:42,7 Co-pilot: You know what just will
be. (unread) (PL)

10:08:42,6-10:08:43,5 Co-pilot: Perfectly. (PL)

10:08:43,8-10:08:49 Anonym: (unread)

10:08:48,9-10:08:50,9 Co-pilot: You know what? (PL)

10:08:52,5-10:08:53,7 Pilot-In-Command: Okay.
(PL/ENG)

10:08:55,3-10:08:56,7 Co-pilot: (unread).

10:09:17,0-10:09:20,5 Anonym: (unread)

background image

10:09:22,1-10:09:26,3 Navigator: Minsk-Control, PLF,
Polish Air Force 1-0-1, ready for descent. (ENG)
PLF-101 started descending.

10:09:27,0-10:09:34,2 ATC: Polish Air Force 1-0-1, now
descent to FL 3900 meters. (ENG)
Formal descent command of Air Traffic Control.

10:09:35,7-10:09:40,1 Navigator: Descending to FL 3900
meters, Polish Air Force 1-0-1. (ENG)

10:09:40,7-10:09:41,5 Pilot-In-Command: Little gas.
(PL)
Little gas is the lowest engines working power. In Tu-
154M it is suggested to add little gas every time before
descent, due to incontrollable speed increasing risk,
during descent with high or medium engines power.

10:09:41,7-10:09:42,4 Air engineer: Little gas. (PL)

10:09:47,3-10:09:48,1 Pilot-In-Command: And WN-s.
(PL)
WN-s refer to an anti-ice installation – devices
protecting every passenger aircraft against icing.
Should be applied before descending.


10:09:48-10:09:49,2 Air engineer: WN-s on. (PL)

10:09:49,6-10:09:51,5 Anonym: (unread)

10:09:52:2-10:09:53,1 Navigator: Can I have the card?
(PL)

background image

Probably an Approach Chart or a Check-list.

10:09:53,1-10:09:54 Pilot-In-Command: Here you are.
(PL)

10:09:54-10:09:55,2 Navigator: Procedure? (PL)
Landing procedure.

10:09:56-10:09:57,4 Pilot-In-Command: Unknown yet.
(PL)

10:09:57,4-10:09:59,3 Navigator: Landing data? (PL)

10:09:59,3-10:10:00,6 Co-pilot: Partly entered. (PL)

10:10:00,5-10:10:06,2 Navigator: TKS. We have a
course of 72, type of work GPK. (PL)
TKS is a kind of compass showing direction using
gyroscopic direction indicator, so could gyro-compass
(in western aircraft replaced by Inertial Navigation
System). TKS is also comparable with automatic
direction indicator (radio-compass), showing direction
of a beacon. GPK is a type of work, which should be
applied enroute. 72 was than aircraft direction.


10:10:06-10:10:07,8 Anonym: (unread).

10:10:07,2-10:10:10,3 Navigator: RW, RW signal? (PL)
RW signal is a sound signal of radio-altimeter, set on
some altitude. This signal informs about a decision
altitude – here: 100 meters.

background image

10:10:10,6-10:10:11,9 Pilot-In-Command: 100 meters.
(PL)

10:10:12,1-10:10:14 Pilot-In-Command: Runway
direction for a little moment. (PL)

10:10:13,9-10:10:15 Navigator: Fuel? (PL)

10:10:14,9-10:10:16,8 Co-pilot: About 11 tones to
landing. (PL)

10:10:15,1-10:10:23,7 1958: Good morning, Minsk-
Kontrol Belavia 19-58. I’m on course of 085, climbing
level 190, signed 9-100 . (RUS)
Belarusian aircraft contacts Minsk Air Traffic Control.

10:10:16,8-10:10:17,9 Air engineer: I confirm. (PL)
Air engineer confirmed level of fuel.

10:10:19,3-10:10:20,6 Co-pilot: Ok, we don’t set yet.
(PL)

10:10:21,1-10:10:23,2 Pilot-In-Command: We will set 2-
5-9 from the other side. (PL)

10:10:23,9-10:10:31,8 ATC: Belarusian 19- 85... 58,
Minsk-Kontrol. Good morning, secondary control, on the
changed course continue climbing 7500 meters. (RUS)
Classical lapsus lingua of Belarusian controller – he
said 19-85 instead of 19-58

background image


10:10:31,9-10:10:36,4 1958: On changed course 7500
meters climbing, 19-58. (RUS)
10:10:37,3-10:10:39,3 Navigator: (unread).

10:10:40,6-10:10:41,6 PIC: Not to worry. (PL)
Probably commenting mistake off the controller.

10:10:41,7-10:10:42,5 Navigator: Yes. (PL)

10:10:45,6-10:10:48,2 PIC: Runway course 2-5-9 is set.
(PL)

10:10:47,8-10:10:48,9 Co-pilot: I’ve also. (PL)

10:10:48,9-10:10:50,3 Co-pilot: I’ve also.. (PL)

10:10:51,3-10:10:52,7 Co-pilot: I’ve also got alike. (PL)

10:11:01,5-10:11:05,0 Co-pilot: Oh, not so bad, the
ground I can see… Something I can see… Maybe there
won’t be a tragedy… (PL)
Surface had been visible that moment. But sun after
this words there was a tragedy.


10:11:07,2-10:11:08,7 Co-pilot: Do you have anything
for writing? (PL)

10:11:10-10:11:11,8 Navigator: Yes, I have. (PL)

10:11:16,7-10:11:19,2 Co-pilot: So what? Let’s prefer
gradually. (PL)

background image


10:11:22,1-10:11:25 Anonym: (unread)

10:11:23,2-10:11:29,2 ATC: German Cargo 5-1-0,
contact Moscow on 128,8. (ENG)

10:11:29,5-10:11:34,2 Anonym: Today course,
temperature, pressure, (niezr). (PL)

10:11:30,2-10:11:33,1 510: 128,8, German-Cargo 5-1-0,
bye-bye. (ENG)

10:11:33,4-10:11:34,0 ATC: Bye. (ENG)

10:11:34,7-10:11:36,3 Navigator: Can I have pressure
and temperature else? (PL)

10:11:36,5-10:11:37,9 Co-pilot: How do I know
(unread)? (PL)

10:11:38,5-10:11:42,7 Co-pilot: I don’t know. No, say
what’s the temperature. Freeezing! (laugh). (PL)

10:11:43,6-10:11:45,9 Anonym: (unread)

10:11:46,3-10:11:48,7 Anonym: (unread)

10:11:50,8-10:11:51,7 Co-pilot: Freeeezing! (PL)

10:11:51,3-10:11:52,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:11:52,1-10:11:52,7 Co-pilot: No. (PL)

background image

Probably concerning a statement of co-pilot.

10:12:17,1-10:12:19,1 Co-pilot: (unread) Isn’t it? (PL)

10:12:19,9-10:12:20,6 Pilot-In-Command: No. (PL)

10:12:20,7-10:12:22,6 Co-pilot: Can we still see? (PL)

10:12:22,3-10:12:27,0 ATC: Belarusian 9-58, on the
changed course continue climbing 9100. (RUS)

10:12:27,9-10:12:33,2 1958: On course 0-85, we
continue climbing 9100, Belavia 19-58. (RUS)

10:12:28,9-10:12:31,1 Co-pilot: (With gaining to nine,
isn’t it?)/ (With gaining to nine hundred, isn’t it?). (PL)
Asking about Air Traffic Communication.

10:12:31,7-10:12:33,2 Pilot-In-Command: To 9100. (PL)

10:13:10,1-10:13:13,0 Anonym: (unread)

10:13:28,6-10:13:30,1 Co-pilot: How money? (PL)

10:13:30,2-10:13:32,6 Anonym: 2-5-2. (PL)
252 is a runway level above the sea in meters at
Smolensk (XUBS).


10:13:33,5-10:13:35,7 Anonym: (unread)

10:13:35,6-10:13:37,3 Flight Attendant: Did not say that
me? (PL)

background image


10:13:37,6-10:13:39,1 Anonym: (10 hours). (PL)

10:13:39,1-10:13:42,6 Pilot-In-Command: No, Basia
(unread)
To flight attendant (Barbara Maciejczyk, diminutive
Basia)


10:13:50,2-10:13:59,0 Anonym: (unread)

10:14:06,5-10:14:21,9 ATC: Polish 1-0... Polish Air
Force 1-0-1, for information at 06:11 Smolensk visibility
400 meters fog. (ENG)
A piece of information concerning weather from 6:11
UTC, so about 3 minutes earlier – 10:11 Russian local
time, 8:11 according to the time in Poland.
400 meters is about 600 meters less than Tu-154M
landing minimum.


10:14:22,1-10:14:24,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:14:25,4-10: 14:27 Navigator: Roger, Polish Air Force
1-0-1. (ENG)
The navigator confirmed receiving and understanding
the weather data.


10:14:30,1-10:14:37,5 ATC: (unread) Good morning,
taking the point RATIN on 9600 meters with change 3-4-
0. (RUS)

10:14:37,8-10:14:40,2 ATC: Belarusian 19-58, course
ASKIL. (RUS)

background image


10:14:40,6-10:14:43,6 1958: Course ASKIL, we are
climbing 9100, Belavia 19-58. (RUS)

10:14:44,2-10:14:50,5 ATC: Aeroflot 258, Minsk-
Kontrol. Good morning, secondary control, SQUAWK
51-31, with change, what level did you receive? (RUS)

10:14:50,5-10:14:53,0 285: 3-4-0, if we can Aeroflot 2-8-
5. (RUS)

10:14:50,8-10:14:53,9 Navigator: (unread)

10:14:53,9-10:14:54,1 Co-pilot: What? (PL)

10:14:54,3-10:14:56,4 Navigator: (unread)

10:14:54,9-10:14:57,6 ATC: Aeroflot 285-ty, gain 340.
(RUS)

10:14:58,6-10:15:03,1 285: I gain level 3-4-0, SQUAWK
51-31 we set, ready for LETKI. (RUS)

10:15:033-10:15:04,7 ATC: Please LETKI ahead. (RUS)

10:15:05,6-10:15:08,2 285: And we head course ahead to
LETKI, Aeroflot 2-8-5. (RUS)

10:15:07,6-10:15:10,0 (Navigator): It’s not much, isn’t
it? (PL)

background image

10:15:11,3-10:15:13,6 Anonym: (niezr)

10:15:24,5-10:15:28,8 Anonym: (unread)

10:15:29,2-10:15:33,2 Air engineer: We have fuel
(unread) (PL)
Probably stating that there was enough fuel to make an
approach to Smolensk (XUBS) and than fly to an
alternative airport, as a crew had planed to do.

10:15:42,1-10:15:56,1 Anonym: (unread)

10:15:59,1-10:16:01,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:16:11,9-10:16:17,3 Co-pilot: Don’t you know
(unread) what about weather in home, what? (PL)

10:10:17,2-10:16:24,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:16:29,7-10:16:33,8 Anonym: (unread)

10:16:34,7-10:16:37,5 Co-pilot: But 10 o’clock and a
fog? (PL)
10 o’clock is quite late for an apogee of a fog in
Smolensk. Usually fogs start at morning and than are
very light around 10 at Smolensk. But usually there is a
temperature around 8 degrees C in spring, when fogs
appear, but that day it was only 2 degrees. Probably a
temperature generated so strange fogging process. Yes
or not, in Poland many people have been thought that it
was an artificial (theatrical fog).

background image

10:16:38,1-10:16:41,7 Anonym: (unread) (PL)

10:16:45,6-10:16:48,5 Co-pilot: Give me that, I’ll
transcribe, what I already gave you. (PL)

10:16:48,8-10:16:52,5 Anonym: (unread)

10:16:52,9-10:16:53,5 Anonym: Once again. (PL)

10:16:53,5-10:16:59,2 Anonym: (unread)

10:16:59,7-10:17:11,2 Anonym: (unread)

10:17:25,8-10:17:31,6 ATC: Aeroflot, work Minsk-
Kontrol, 120 125. (RUS)

10:17:31,9-10:17:35,1 285: 120,125, all the best for you,
Aeroflot 285. (RUS)

10:17:33,9-10:l7:38,2 Pilot-In-Command: (unread)
Basia. (PL)
Probably the Pilot-In-Command was talking to the
flight attendant via an interphone.

10:17:40,2-10:17:43,7 Pilot-In-Command: Not
interesting. A fog appeared, we don’t know if we will
land. (PL)

10:17:43,6-10:17:47,6 Flight attendant: Really? (unread)
(PL)

10:18:09,2-10:18:11,4 Anonym: And if won’t land,
what? (PL)

background image

Probably the flight attendant.

10:18:13,0-10:18:14,4 Pilot-In-Command: We’ll go
around. (PL)

10:18:14,2-10:18:17,1 Anonym (unread)

10:18:17,2-10:18:20,4 Anonym: What information we
already have (unread) to Warsaw? (PL)

10:18:19,9-10:18:20,9 Anonym: Around seven. (PL)
Probably the flight attendant.

10:18:22,2-10:18:23,8 Anonym: How much fuel do we
have? (PL)
Probably the navigator.

10:18:24,7-10:18:27,9 Co-pilot: We have about 13-12,5
tones. (PL)

10:18:32,1-10:18:48,9 Anonym: (unread)

10:18:32,3-10:18:33,3 Co-pilot: We’ll scrap by! (PL)

10:18:33,3-10:18:48,2 Anonym: (unread)

10:18:49,1-10:18:51,9 Pilot-In-Command: Maybe he’s
landed, maybe find out if there’s a fog. (PL).

10:18:51,1-10:18,59,7 331: Minsk-Kontrol, dobriy
raniets, Transaero 331, I approach point ASKIL, level
9600, on change 3.2.0. (RUS)

background image

Transaero airlines are one of the biggest airlines in
Russia, joint stock company owned by gen. Tatiana
Anodina, (head of the Interstate Aviation Committee,
investigating cases of the catastrophe), her son and his
wife.


10:18:52,9-10:18,58,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:19:02,1-10:19,14,8 ATC: Dobroye ranietso, Transaero
3-3-1, Minsk-Kontrol, secondary control I permit on
course on LETKI, gain level 3-2-0, SQUAWK 51-35.
(RUS, BL)

10:19:14,0-10:19:16,0 Anonym: Remek (unread), you
know? (PL)

10:19:15,8-10:19:21,8 331: Course LETKI, gaining 3-2-
0, SQUAWK 51-35, Transaero 331. (RUS, BL)

10:19:17,4-10:19:20,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:19:24,8-10:19,25,3 Pilot-In-Command: And than
we’ll approach and we’ll see! (PL)
10:19:24,8-10:19,26,8 Co-pilot: We’ll approach, we’ll
see! (PL)

10:19:43,4-10:19:53,4 Co-pilot: I have had like this. And
after we already landed (unread) (PL)

10:19:49,6-10:19:52,3 Anonym: (unread) But in Gdansk
we have had (unread) and at Gdansk (unread) (PL)

background image

10:20:07,7-10:20:12,2 Co-pilot: Here 2-5-9, would be
even better, cause it wouldn’t be in front of the Sun. (PL)

10:20:12,9-10:20:14,3 Anonym: Hmmm... (PL)

10:20:35,5-10:20:36,8 Pilot-In-Command: 7-6. (PL)
76 - 76% engines power.

10:20:36,9-10:20:38,1 Air engineer: 7-6. (PL)

10:20:37,7-10:20:40,4 Anonym: And one level leave.
(PL)

10:20:44,1-10:20:45,8 Pilot-In-Command: Or even 7-8!
(PL)

10:20:45,9-10:20,47,8 Air engineer: 7-8. (PL)

10:20:54,9-10:20:57,1 Anonym: There’s 7-8. (PL)

10:20:56,4-10:20:59,1 Flight attendant: Arek, we fasten
the belts? (PL)
To PIC – major Arkadiusz Protasiuk (Arek is an
diminutive of Arkadiusz)

10:20:59,4-10:21:01,6 Pilot-In-Command: The belts we
fasten. (PL)

10:21:08,3-10:21:10,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:21:17,6-10:21:22,2 Co-pilot: You take care to the
direction. Arek, read you altitude after the distance? (PL)

background image

Probably to the navigator, to use FMS to head the
direction on the runway centreline and two the PIC –
proposal to read altimeter indicator. In the real the
navigator after setting head was able to read the level
and the co-pilot became a visual observer during
approach.

10:22:11,2-10:22:19,0 ATC: Polish Air Force 1-0-1,
position ASKIL, contact Moscow-Control on 128,8 good
bye. (ENG)
PLF-101 was crossing Russian border that moment.

10:22:18,8-10:22:20,8 Anonym: (unread)

10:22:19,6-10:22:22,6 Navigator: 128,8, Polish Air Force
1-0-1, thank you, bye. (ENG)

10:22:28,9-10:22,30,7 Pilot-In-Command: (unread)

10:22:31,8-10:22:32,4 Anonym: Pardon? (PL)

10:22:32,4-10:22:33,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:22:34,3-10:22:43,0 Navigator: Moscow-Control,
Polish Air Force 1-0-1, good day, at FL 3900 feet, over
ASKIL and we are ready for farther descent. (ENG).
A little lapsus lingua of the navigator. He said a flight
altitude in feet, instead of meters.


10:22:35,2-10:22:36,5 Co-pilot: Push down, Mr Arek!
(PL)

background image

10:22:39,0-10:22:40,0 Pilot-In-Command: Little gas.
(PL)

10:22:39,8-10:22:41,0 Air engineer: Little gas. (PL)

10:22:43,6-10:22:44,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:22:45,2-10:22:59,1 ATC: E... PLF 1-0-1, Moscow-
Control, good morning, descent to 3600 meters and than
contact... Corsair frequency 124,0. (ENG)
Khorsaj (Eng. Corsair) is a cryptonym of Smolensk Air
Traffic Control. Russian Area Control redirected PLF-
101 on Smolensk frequency immediately.


10:22:45,3-10:22:46,3 Anonym: (Visible)/ (Welcome).
(PL)

10:22:46,2-10:22:47,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:23:00,4-10:23:07,8 Navigator: Descending 3600
meters and contact 124,0, PLF 1-0-1, thank you bye.
(ENG)

10:23:00,4-10:23:01,2 Air engineer: Commander. (PL)

10:23:01,1-10:23:01,9 Navigator: Commander. (PL)

10:23:01,8-10:23:08,3 Anonym: Mr captain, after you
will already landed, (unread), may I ask? (PL)

10:23:08,4-10:23:09,2 Pilot-In-Command: Yes, certainly.
(PL)

background image


10:23:11,2-10:23:13,0 Co-pilot: 3300, yes? (PL)

10:23:12,8-10:23:14,9 Navigator: 3600 meters. (PL)

10:23:14,7-10:23:15,3 Co-pilot: It’s ok. (PL)

10:23:15,2-10:23:16,0 Anonym: (unread)

10:23:16,1-10:23:17,6 Navigator: Will we speak Rusky?
(PL)

10:23:17,8-10:23:19,9 Anonym: (unread)

10:23:20,7-10:23:21,7 Anonym: It is... (PL)

10:23:21,7-10:23:22,4 Pilot-In-Command: Yes. (PL)

10:23:26,0-10:23:27,4 Co-pilot: Remember, in meters!
(PL)
Russians use meters as a flight level unit.

10:23:27,4-10:23:28,7 Anonym: (unread)

10:23:29,9-10:23:32,4 Pilot-In-Command: Corsair-Start,
Polish 101, good day. (RUS)
In a distance of about 40 miles PLF-101 contacted
Smolensk Air Traffic Control. Please notice, that
communication was curried out in Russian language.


10:23:33,7-10:23:37,4 ATC: Polish 1-0-1, Corsair
replied. (RUS)

background image


10:23:39,6-10:23:43,2 Pilot-In-Command: On outer
leading we’re descending 3600 meters. (RUS)
Outer leading – refers to outer NDB marker.

10:23:47,3-10:23:53,4 ATC: Polish Foxtrot 1-0-1, fuel
balance, how much fuel you’ve got? (RUS)

10:23:55,0-10:23:56,9 Pilot-In-Command: 11 tones left.
(RUS)

10:23:58,3-10:23:59,0 Pilot-In-Command: 7-8. (PL)

10:23:59,2-10:23:59,8 Air engineer: 7-8. (PL)

10:23:59,7-10:24:02,6 ATC: And what are your
alternatives? (RUS)

10:24:03,8-10:24:04,9 Pilot-In-Command: Vitebsk,
Minsk. (RUS)

10:24:08,3-10:24:10,0 ATC: Vitebsk, Minsk, correctly?
(RUS)

10:24:10,7-10:24:11,2 Pilot-In-Command: You correctly
understood. (RUS)

10:24:12,6-10:24:13,3 Pilot-In-Command: 8-0. (PL)

10:24:13,3-10:24:14,0 Air engineer: 8-0. (PL)

background image

10:24:16,3-10:24:19,8 PLF-044 Guys, Rafal on this side,
exceed to 123,45. (PL)
Polish Air Force PLF-044 co-pilot contacted the crew
of PLF-101.


10:24:20,7-10:24:22,9 Anonym: (unread)

10:24:20,8-10:24:21,0 Pilot-In-Command: OK.
(PL/ENG)

10:24:22,3-10:24:30,1 ATC: PLF 1-2--0-1, at Corsair
fog, visibility 400 meters. (RUS)

10:24:22,9-10:24:23,5 Navigator: I’ve already got it.
(PL)
Navigator was probably talking about this part of
weather conditions. Pleas notice that although the
navigator spoke Russian, a correspondence with ATC
provided the Pilot-In-Command.


10:24:23,5-10:24:24,9 Co-pilot: Arek, you talk, I’ll
exceed. (PL)

10:24:33,1-10:24:36,4 Pilot-In-Command: I understood,
please give me meteo conditions. (RUS)

10:24:37,0-10:24:37,4 Co-pilot: Artur. (PL)
Artur – Lt. Artur Wosztyl, Pilot-In-Command of PLF-
044


10:24:40,0-10:24:47,0 ATC: On Corsair fog, visibility

background image

400 meters, four-zero-zero meters. (RUS, ENG)
A little misunderstanding between ATC and PIC.

10:24:48,1-10:24:49,2 Co-pilot: Artur, I’m here. (PL)

10:24:49,2-10:24:50,8 Pilot-In-Command: Temperature
and pressure please. (RUS)
PIC explained that he needs temperature and pressure.

10:24:49,7-10:25:02,4 PLF-044: So we welcome you
warmly. You know what, in general, hell-hole here.
Visible some 400 meters about and for our taste bases far
below 50 meters. (PL)

10:24:51,2-10:24:58,9 ATC: Temperature plus 2.
Pressure 745, 7-4-5, no conditions for landing. (RUS)

10:25:01,1-10:25:10,0 Pilot-In-Command: Thank you,
but if it is possible we will try one approach, but if won’t
be weather, we will go around. (RUS).

10:25:04,3-10:25:05,4 Co-pilot: And have you already
landed? (PL)

10:25:05,8-10:25:24,0 PLF-044: Well, we succeeded so
in the last moment to land. Well, but I’ll tell you honestly
- you can try, as the most. There are two APM-s, they
made a gate, so you can try, but... If you won’t succeed
for the second time I propose you to fly for example to
Moscow or somewhere. (PL)

10:25:12,3-10:25:17,5 ATC: 1-0-1, after a trial approach

background image

will you have enough fuel to alternative? (RUS)

10:25:19,1-10:25:19,1 Pilot-In-Command: Enough.
(RUS)

10:25:19,6-10:25:20,8 ATC: Received. (RUS)

10:25:22,9-10:25:24,5 Pilot-In-Command: Permission for
farther descent, please. (RUS)

10:25:24,8-10:25:29,6 Co-pilot: Ok, I’ll report to Arek,
bye for now. (PL)

10:25:25,3-10:25:31,0 ATC: 1-0-1, with course 40
degrees, descending 1500. (RUS)

10:25:28,5-10:25:29,5 PLF-044 So, bye. (PL)

10:25:32,0-150:25:34,2 Pilot-In-Command: 1500 whit
course 40 degrees. (RUS)

10:25:37,0-10:25:37,5 Pilot-In-Command: Little gas!
(PL)

10:25:37,8-10:2538,6 Air engineer: Little gas. (PL)

10:25:38,9-10:25:40,6 Navigator: 1500 (unread) (PL)
1500 was a flight level, according to pressure on the
airfield.

10:25:41,5-10:25:42,7 Co-pilot: 49. (PL)

background image

In flight controls settings flight level should be set in
hundreds of feet. 4900 feet = 1500 meters.


10:25:43,9-10:25:44,5 Anonym: (unread)

10:25:48,7-10:25:51,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:25:51,2-10:25:51,9 Anonym: Arek! (PL)

10:25:52,5-10:25:54,7 Anonym: Artur is there. (PL)

10:25:55,0-10:25:56,9 Anonym: (unread)

10:25:55,1-10:25:57,9 Co-pilot: For their taste 400
visible, 50 meters base. (PL)

10:25:57,6-10:25:58,3 Anonym: How much? (PL)

10:25:59,0-10:26:02,6 Anonym: 400 meters visible, 50
meters base (unread) (PL)

10:26:04,5-10:26:05,8 Anonym: (unread)

10:26:05,2-10:26:06,9 Co-pilot: They succeeded. (PL)

10:26:07,9-10:26:11,1 Co-pilot: He says, that fog
(unread) (PL)

10:26:11,1-10:26:12,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:26:17,1-10:26:18,8 Pilot-In-Command: Mr director, a
fog has appeared…(PL)

background image


10:26:19,1-10:26:24,7 Pilot-In-Command: At the
moment, under this conditions, which are now, we will
not get by to touch down. (PL)

10:26:26,0-10:26:30,9 Pilot-In-Command: We will try to
descent, we will make one approach, but probably it will
be nothing of this. (PL)

10:26:31,6-10:26:343 Pilot-In-Command: And if it will
turn out, that (unread), what will we do? (PL)

10:26:38,1-10:26:40,2 Pilot-In-Command: We do not
have enough fuel to that (unread) (PL)

10:26:43,6-10:26:44,8 Anonym: So we have a problem...
(PL)
According to MAK, Mr Mariusz Kazana

10:26:44,8-10:26:47,3 Pilot-In-Command: We can hover
for half an hour, and than fly to the alternative. (PL)

10:26:47,7-10:26:49,0 Anonym: What alternative? (PL)

10:26:48,8-10:26:50,2 Pilot-In-Command: Minsk or
Vitebsk. (PL)

10:27:03,3-10:27:04,2 Co-pilot: To how many we’re
descending? (PL)

10:27:05,1-10:27:05,6 Co-pilot: To 600? (PL)

background image


10:27:05,9-10:27:06,8 Anonym: 1500. (PL)
Flight level in meters.

10:27:07,8-10:27:09,4 Anonym: 4900. (PL)
Flight level in feet.

10:27:09,4-10:27:10,7 Pilot-In-Command: On 7-4-5.
(PL)
Pressure.

10:27:11,4-10:27:11,9 Co-pilot: On how many? (PL)

10:27:12,7-10:27:13,8 Pilot-In-Command: 7-4-5 (PL)

10:27:15,3-10:27:16,5 Anonym: (unread)

10:27:17,9-10:27:19,6 Co-pilot: 7-4-5, yes? (PL)

10:27:19,3-10:27:21,1 Pilot-In-Command: two degrees,
7-4-5. (PL)
Temperature and pressure.

10:27:21,0-10:27:22,2 Anonym: 2 degrees? (PL)

10:27:23,7-10:27:25,4 Air engineer: 2 degrees, 7-4-5.
(PL)

10:27:25,2-10:27:26,5 Anonym: (unread)

10:27:31,7-10:27:33,0 Anonym: (unread)

background image


10:27:32,9-10:27:34,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:27:34,7-10:27:35,2 Anonym: I’ve got it. (PL)

10:27:45,9-10:27:47,8 Pilot-In-Command: Ask Artur, if
the clouds are thick. (PL)

10:27:50,2-10:27:52,6 Co-pilot: I don’t know if they will
be… will they still be there. (PL)

10:27:52,5-10:27:53,5 Co-pilot: Ok, I’ll exceed. (PL)

10:27:55,9-10:27:57,2 Co-pilot: Artur, are you Still
there? (PL)

10:27:58,0-10:27:58,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:27:58,8-10:28:01,5 Board: (unread) I have ended the
drop, descending on east. (RUS)
It is not know what aircraft was that and what kind of
drop he had on mind. There were many suggestions,
that he was dropping an artificial fog, but is in not
possible, due to a very big area of heavy fog that day.


10:28:02,5-10:28:04,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:28:04,0-10:28:04,9 Board: (they) Permitted. (RUS)

10:28:06,6-10:2S:07,3 PLF-044: I am Remek. (PL)
Remek – WO. Remigiusz Muś, air engineer of PLF-044

background image

10:28:08,2-10:28:12,1 Co-pilot: Aaa, Remek, ask Artur,
or... Or maybe you know, if the clouds are thick? (PL)

10:28:22,4-10:28:23,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:28:33,3-10:28:34,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:28:40,6-10:28:41,7 Co-pilot: How many? (PL)

10:28:42,4-10:28:44,0 Pilot-In-Command: 9-9, hold.
(PL)

10:28:44,4-10:28:45,1 Co-pilot: 9-9. (PL)

10:28:45,4-10:28:46,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:28:47,5-10:28:49,0 PLF-044: About 400-500 meters.
(PL)

10:28:50,5-10:28:51,7 Navigator: Stay on a course? (PL)

10:28:51,6-10:28:52,0 Pilot-In-Command: No. (PL)

10:28:51,7-10:28:53,6 PLF-044: About 400-500 meters.
(PL)

10:28:54,7-10:28:56,0 Co-pilot: But is it a thickness?
(PL)

10:28:57,6-10:28:58,4 Anonym: As it’s visible. (PL)

10:29:00,5-10:29:01,1 PLF-044: Are you there? (PL)

background image


10:29:03,1-10:29:05,3 Co-pilot: But is the thickness of
the clouds 400-500 meters? (PL)

10:29:08,4-10:29:11,7 PLF-044: As we remember, on
500 meters we were above the clouds yet. (PL)

10:29:13,5-10:29:16,7 Co-pilot: Aaa... On 500 meters
above the clouds... Ok, ok, thanks. (PL)

10:29:17,5-10:29:24,0 PLF-044: Aaa.. Once else... APM-
s are some 200 meters from the threshold of the runway.
(PL)
APM – provisional field reflectors.

10:29:24,8-10:29:25,3 Co-pilot: Thanks. (PL)

10:29:27,0-10:29:28,4 Co-pilot: APM-s they arranged.
(PL)

10:29:29,6-10:29:32,4 Co-pilot: 200 meters from the
threshold of the runway. (PL)

10:29:29,8-10:29:33,6 Pilot-In-Command: Ask, if the
Russians have landed. (PL)

10:29:34,9-10:29:37,1 Co-pilot: Have Russians already
landed? (PL)

10:29:37,7-10:29:39,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:29:40,0-10:29:43,0 PLF-044: Il two times was going

background image

around after approach, and probably they flew
somewhere. (PL)
Il- refers to Ilyushin Il-76M, which tried to land around
10:20.

10:29:44,4-10:29:45,3 Co-pilot: I see, thanks. (PL)

10:29:46,3-10:29:46,9 Co-pilot: Did you here it? (PL)

10:29:46,7-10:29:47,4 Pilot-In-Command: Fine. (PL)

10:29:47,9-10:29:48,7 Pilot-In-Command: Who is there?
(PL)

10:29:51,0-10:29:51,9 Co-pilot: At yours also? (PL)

10:29:53,5-10:29:57,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:29:57,4-10:29:58,2 Pilot-In-Command: Yes
(Artek)/(Bartek)? (PL)

10:29:58,1-10:29:58,9 Anonym: He said... (PL)

10:29:58,3-10:30:02,0 Co-pilot: Altimeters 9-9-3 / 7-4-5.
(PL)
Pressure in hectopascal and in millimetres of mercury.

10:30:01,4-10:30:15,1 Navigator: ILS we unlikely don’t
have. Runway course 2-5-9 is set. ARK we have
prepared, 310/640, set. fiver, six, automatic throttle .
ILS – instrument landing system.
310 – inner beacon frequency

background image

640 - outer beacon frequency

10:30:07,7-10:30:08,9 Pilot-In-Command: 7-8. (PL)

10:30:10,2-10:30:13,0 Pilot-In-Command: Corsair,
Polish 101, we keep 1500. (RUS)

10:30:14,2-10:30:21,0 ATC: Aaa... Polish 1-0-1
according to the pressure 7-4-5, descending 500. (RUS)

10:30:21,9-10:30:24,7 Pilot-In-Command: According to
the pressure 7-4-5, descending 500 meters Polish 101.
(RUS)

10:30:23,0-10:30:24,2 Air engineer: There is 7-8. (PL)

10:30:25,6-10:30:27,5 Anonym: Robert, will you set...
Thank you. (PL)
To co-pilot Lt.-Col. Robert Grzywna.

10:30:36,4-10:30:29,9 ATC: Polish 101, course 79.
(RUS)

10:30:31,1-10:30:32,7 Pilot-In-Command: Course 79,
Polish 101. (RUS)

10:30:32,7-10:30:35,4 Anonym: At the time there is still
no decision of the president what to do farther. {Director
Kazana}(PL)

10:30:35,2-10:30:36,7 Anonym: (unread).

background image

10:30:37,9-10:30:43,0 Navigator: Yyy... to 500 we have
approval, so to... (PL)

10:30:41,2-10:30:42,1 Pilot-In-Command: Yes. (PL)

10:30:42,9-10:30:43,7 Pilot-In-Command: To an altitude
of a pattern. (PL)

10:30:43,9-10:30:45,0 Co-pilot: To the altitude of a
pattern. (PL)

10:30:45,1-10:30:50,7 Co-pilot: The worst is that, there
is a hole, there are clouds and a fog appeared. (PL)

10:30:45,3-10:30:48,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:30:52,6-10:30:53,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:30:54,0-10:30:54,5 Co-pilot: So... (PL)

10:30:54,4-10:30:55,1 Pilot-In-Command: What about
us, Basia? (PL)

10:30:55,5-10:30:58,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:30:58,3-10:30:59,7 Co-pilot: To 500 meters. (PL)

10:31:00,4-10:31:01,1 Pilot-In-Command: Ok.
(PL/ENG)

10:31:01,0-10:31:03,4 Navigator: Eeee... fiver, six,
automatic throttle. (PL)

background image


10:31:03,9-10:31:07,2 Pilot-In-Command: Fiver, six
prepared and I stay with no automatic. (PL)

10:31:05,9-10:31:07,1 Anonym: He is approaching to
landing. (PL)

10:31:07,1-10:31:11,1 Co-pilot: It turns out that, aaa...
TAWS, will be enough, to be entered by Zietas. (PL)
Zietas – nickname of the Navigator, Capt. Artur Zietek.
TAWS – Terrain Awareness Warning System


10:31:10,9-10:31:13,9 Co-pilot: (unread)

10:31:19,7-10:31:23,7 Navigator: And at the moment we
have 5 miles to the central. (PL)

10:31:28,5-10:31:31,1 Anonym: (unread)

10:31:50,7-10:31:52,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:31:55,3-10:31:56,7 Co-pilot: Yeah, and we are 5
miles where? (PL)

10:31:56,4-10:31:56,9 Navigator: On the side. (PL)

10:31:57,1-10:31:58,7 Co-pilot: (unread)

10:31:57,8-10:32:01,0 ATC: PLF 1-0-1, here’s Corsair.
(RUS)

10:32:01,4-10:32:02,2 Pilot-In-Command: We reply!

background image

(RUS)

10:32:02,7-10:32:04,5 ATC: Have you taken 500 meters?
(RUS)

10:32:05,8-10:32:07,6 Pilot-In-Command: At the
moment not, 1000, we’re descending.(RUS)

10:32:08,0-10:32:08,8 ATC: Received. (RUS)

10:32:12,6-10:32:14,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:32:14,4-10:32:16,0 Anonym: (unread)

10:32:15,7-10:32:17,0 Anonym: (unread)

10:32:16,9-10:32:18,5 Anonym: (unread)

10:32:55,8-10:32:58,9 Pilot-In-Command: We are
approaching. In situation of a missed approach, we go
around on the automat. (PL)
Automat – refers to the autopilot, equipped with
automatic go around mode “Ukhod”.

10:32:58,8-10:33:00,3 Air engineer: On the automat.
(PL)

10:33:01,4-10:33:03,7 Co-pilot: Arek, will you give
(unread) (PL)

10:33:23,6-10:33:24,8 Anonym: Fuel. (PL)

background image

10:33:25,1-10:33:27,4 Air engineer: Actually we have 12
tones. (PL)

10:33:29,7-10:33:31,3 Anonym: We have 200 meters.
(PL)

10:33:40,1-10:33:43,1 ATC: PLF 1-0-1, altitude 500?
(RUS)

10:33:45,4-10:33:47,0 Pilot-In-Command: We are taking
500 meters. (RUS)

10:33:47,2-10:33:48,0 ATC: Received. (RUS)

10:33:57,3-10:33:58,9 Anonym: (unread)

10:33:59,6-10:34:00,9 Anonym: (unread)

10:34:07,3-10:34:08,2 Pilot-In-Command: 7-0. (PL)

10:34:08,5-10:34:09,6 Air engineer: 7-0. (PL)
Engine power 70%.

10:34:17,5-10:34:18,7 Pilot-In-Command: And unlock
the throttles. (PL)
Throttle should be unlock to be used by the autothrust
system of the autopilot.


10:34:18,7-10:34:21,5 Air engineer: 7-0 set and throttle
unlocked. (PL)

10:34:21,5-10:34:22,4 Pilot-In-Command: Automat. (PL)

background image

Autothrust should not be switched on during such
approach.


10:34:22,6-10:34:23,9 Air engineer: And automat set on.
(PL)

10:34:27,9-10:34:29,4 Anonym: I reduce 400. (PL)

10:34:32,8-10:34:33,9 Co-pilot: It is 400. (PL)

10:34:34,3-10:34:35,6 Pilot-In-Command: (unread)

10:34:35,5-10:34:36,4 Co-pilot: 3-8-0. (PL)

10:34:43,4-10:34:44,7 Anonym: Landing gear. (PL)

10:34:45,2-10:34:45,7 Sound signal F=506 Hz.. Gear
extending signal.

10:34:47,3-10:34:48,2 Anonym: 6. (PL)

10:34:50,8-10:34:53,8 ATC: PLF 1-0-1 taken 500?
(RUS)

10:34:54,3-10;34:55,5 Pilot-In-Command: We have
taken 500 meters. (RUS)

10:34:56,2-10:35:00,7 ATC: 500 meters, on a military
aerodrome have you madden landing? (RUS)

10:34:56,7-10:34:57,6 Pilot-In-Command: Flaps 15. (PL)

background image

10:34:57,7-10:34:58,9 Anonym: Lighted. (PL)

10:35:02,9-10:35:03,7 Pilot-In-Command: Yes, of
course. (RUS)

10:35:04,6-10:35:09,1 ATC: Reflectors from left, from
right, on the end of the runway. (RUS)

10:35:11,3-10:35:12,3 Pilot-In-Command: Received.
(RUS)

10:35:11,9-10:35:14,6 Flight attendant: Commander, the
board is ready for landing. (PL)

10:35:14,2-10:35:15,1 Pilot-In-Command: Thank you.
(PL)

10:35:14,4-10:35:18,9 ATC: l-0-l, make the third, radial
19. (RUS)
The third – the third turning, penultimate, before
entering the runway centreline.


10:35:19,9-10:35:21,3 Pilot-In-Command: We are
making the third Polish 101. (RUS)

10:35:21,6-10:35:22,3 Anonym: 3-3-0. (PL)

10:35:22,6-10:35:28,5 ATC: Polish 101, and from 100
meters be ready to go around. (RUS)

10:35:29,5-10:35:30,2 Pilot-In-Command: Yes, sir!
(RUS)

background image


10:35:41,1-10:35:43 Air engineer: And a tap of gear to
neutral, please. (PL)

10:35:46,4-10:35:52,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:35:59,2-10:36:01,4 Navigator: 0-7 mils from the
centreline. (PL)
Distance to runway centreline: 7 miles.

10:36:25,4-10:36:27,0 Navigator: 0-1. (PL)
1 mile to the centreline.

10:36:34,1-10:36:35 Anonym: Flaps. (PL)

10:36:35,3-10:36:36,8 Co-pilot: Flaps 28 (unread) (PL)

10:36:36,9-10:36:41,6 Anonym: (unread)

10:36:42,0-10:36:43,4 Anonym: (unread)

10:36:43,5-10:36:44,8 Anonym: (unread)

10:36:45,7-10:36:47,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:36:47,2-10:36:48,2 Anonym: (unread)

10:36:48,6-10:36:54,5 Anonym: (unread)

10:36:56,4-10:36:57,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:37:01,3-10:37:02,8 PLF-044: Arek, now visible 200.

background image

(PL)

10:37:01,4-10:37:02,3 Pilot-In-Command: Flaps. (PL)

10:37:03,1-10:37:04,2 Anonym: (unread)

10:37:04,2-10:37:05,2 Pilot-In-Command: Thanks. (PL)

10:37:18,9-10:37:20,1 Anonym: (unread)

10:37:23,1-10:37:25,4 Pilot-In-Command: And we are
making the fourth, Polish 101.(RUS)

10:37:26,2-10:37:27 ATC: 101, make the fourth. (RUS)

10:37:38,1-10:37:40,0 Anonym: (unread)

10:38:00,4 -10:38:02,2 Anonym: He will lose his rug, if
else (niezr) (PL)

10:38:02,0-10:38:03,2 Anonym: (unread)

10:38:20,0-10:38:22,1 Navigator: Half a mile left us.
(PL)

10:38:35,9-10:38:37,3 Pilot-In-Command: Flaps 36. (PL)

10:38:37,2-10:38:38,7 Co-pilot: And I reduce 300. (PL)

10:38:49,2-10:38:51,9 Co-pilot: And flaps 36, we have 2-
8-0. (PL)

background image

10:35;55,5-10:38:56,6 Co-pilot: (unread)

10:38:56,5-10:38:57,2 Pilot-In-Command: By now! (PL)

10:38:58-10:38:59,0 Co-pilot: Flaps 36. (PL)

10:39:00,0-10:39:01,1 Navigator: Riding. (PL)

10:39:02,2-10:39:08 Navigator: Cabin: Front gear
steering we have set on. Wing’s mechanization? (PL)

10:39:07,5-10:39:10,7 Anonym: Mechanization of a
wing is designed for… (unread) (PL)
According to MAK Gen. Andrzej Blasik, head of Polish
Air Force


10:39:07,7-10:39:09,6 Pilot-In-Command: Flaps 36. (PL)

10:39:08,7-10:39:10,6 ATC: 101st, distance 10. Entering
the glideslope. (RUS)

10:39:10,4-10:39:11,9 Navigator: Stabilizer. (PL)

10:39:12,4-10:39:13,5 Pilot-In-Command: Minus 3. (PL)

10:39:13,6-10:39:15,2 Navigator: Spring loaders. (PL)

10:39:14,9-10:39:16,4 Pilot-In-Command: Disconnected,
lighting. (PL)

10:39:16,4-10:39:17,2 Navigator: Interceptors. (PL)

background image

10:39:16,7-10:39:18 Pilot-In-Command: Hidden, not
lighting. (PL)

10:39:17,8 -10:39:19 Navigator: Reflectors. (PL)

10:39:20,6-10:39:22,2 Pilot-In-Command: Set on and
extended. (PL)

10:39:22-10:39:23 Navigator: Gear. (PL)

10:39:22,4-10:39:23,9 Air engineer: Extended. (PL)

10:39:23,1-10:39:25,7 Anonym: (unread)

10:39:23,8 -10:39:25,2 Navigator: Wheel fans. (PL)

10:39:24,6-10:39:25,9 Air engineer: Set on. (PL)

10:39:25,5-10:39:27,4 Navigator: And front gear
steering. (PL)

10:39:26,9-10:39:28,3 Pilot-In-Command: Set on, with
10. (PL)

10:39:28,3-10:39:30 Navigator: Thank you, the card is
completed. (PL)

10:39:30,1-10:39:31,4 ATC: 8 on course, on glideslope.
(RUS)

10:39:33,6-10:39:35,9 Pilot-In-Command: Flaps, gear
extended, Polish 101. (RUS)

background image


10:39:37,3-10:39:38,5 ATC: Runway is free. (RUS)

10:39:39,2-10:39:40,8 Anonym: (unread)

10:39:40,8-10:39:43,8 ATC: Landing conditionally 120-
3 meters. (RUS)
Wind speed and direction.

10:39:41,4-10:39:44,7 Anonym: (unread)

10:39:45,6-10:39:46,8 Pilot-In-Command: Thank you.
(PL)

10:39:49,9-10:39:52,3 ATC: You’re taking outer, on
course, on glideslope distance 6. (RUS)

10:39:50,2-10:39:58,0 Sound signal, F=845 Hz. Outer
marker NDB.

10:39:52,2-10:39:53,7 Anonym: Outer. (PL)

10:39:54,1-10:39:55,0 Pilot-In-Command: (unread)

10:39:57,1-10:39:59,3 Anonym: 400 meters. (PL)

10:40;02,6-10:40:15,6 Anonym: (unread).

10:40:06,7-10:40:07,8 TAWS alert: Terrain Ahead!

10:40:13,5-10:40:14,6 ATC: 4 on course, on glideslope.
(RUS)

background image


10:40:16,7-10:40:17,6 Pilot-In-Command: On course, on
glideslope. (RUS)

10:40:18,6-10:40:20,1 Anonym: (unread)

10:40:19,6-10:40:21,1 Navigator: 300. (PL)

10:40:22,8-10:40:25,6 Anonym: (250 meters). (PL)

10:40:24,6-10:40:26,7 (Navigator): (250). (PL)

10:40:26,6-10:40:27,8 ATC: 3 on course, on glideslope.
(RUS)

10:40:29,6-10:40:30,3 Anonym: (unread)

10:40:31,2-10:40:32,4 ATC: Set on the reflectors! (RUS)

10:40:32,4-10:40:33,5 TAWS alert: Terrain Ahead!

10:40:32,9-10:40:33,6 Navigator: 200. (PL)

10:40:34,0-10:40:34,8 Pilot-In-Command: Set on. (RUS)

10:40:37,1-10:40:38,1 Navigator: 150. (PL)

10:40:38,7-10:40:39,9 ATC: 2 on course, on glideslope.
(RUS)

10:40:39,4-10:40:42,0 TAWS alert: Terrain Ahead!
Terrain Ahead!

background image


10:40:41,3-10:40:42,6 Anonym: 100 meters. (PL)

10:40:42,6-10:40:42,7 Navigator: 100. (PL)

10:40:42,6-10:40:44,1 TAWS command: PULL UP!
PULL UP!

10:40:44,5-10:40:46,1 TAWS command: PULL UP!
PULL UP!

10:40:46,6-10:40:49,2 TAWS alert: TERRAIN AHEAD!
TERRAIN AHEAD!
According to TAWS characteristics PIC ceased
descending before this alert, because is he did not, there
would not be alert, but next “PULL UP! PULL UP!”
command.
PIC reacted immediately on “PULL UP!” command,
setting horizontal flight.

10:40:48,7-10:40:49,4 Navigator: 100. (PL)
Horizontal flight for nearly 8 seconds. (during
continuing of the approach estimate descending rate
would reach 3,5 m/s, so 30m in 8 sec.)

16 seconds moment.

10:40:49,2-10:40:49,6 (Co-pilot): In the norm. (PL)

10:40:49,6-10:40:50,1 Navigator: 90. (PL)

10:49:49,8-10:40:51,3 TAWS: PULL UP! PULL UP!

background image

10:40:50,0-10:40:51,3 Navigator: 80. (PL)

10:40:50,5-10:40:51,2 Co-pilot: We go around! (PL)

10:40:51,5-10:40:58,0 Sound signal F= 400 Hz. Radio
altimeter.
100m (330ft) above ground level. Navigator is reading
barometric altimeter showing altitude above the
runway.


10:40:51,7- 10:40:53,4 TAWS: PULL UP! PULL UP!

10:40:51,8-10:40:52,4 Navigator: 60. (PL)

10:40:52,3-10:40:53,1 Navigator: 50. (PL)

10:40:52,4-10:40:53,4 ATC: Horizon 101. (RUS)

10:40:53,0-10:40:53,6 Navigator: 40. (PL)

10:40:53,7-10:40:55,5 TAWS: PULL UP! PULL UP!

10:40:54,5-10:40:55,2 Navigator: 30. (PL)

10:40:54,7-10:40:56,4 ATC: Altitude control, horizon.
(RUS)

10:40:55,2-10:40:56 Navigator: 20. (PL)

10:40:56-10:40:58,2 Sound signal, F =400 Hz, Autopilot
ABSU.

background image

Autopilot switched off in one of three applied work
types.

10:40:56-10:40:58,1 Sound signal F=800 Hz. Inner
marker

10:40:56,6-10:40:57,7 Sound signal, F =400 Hz,
Autopilot ABSU.

10:40:56,6-10:40:58,2 TAWS: PULL UP! PULL UP!

10:40:57,9-10:40:59,0 Sound signal, F=400 Hz,
Autopilot ABSU.

10:40:58,6-10:41:00,2 TAWS: PULL UP! PULL UP!

10:40:59,3-10:41:04,6 Sound of collision the forest
massif.

10:41:00,3-10:41:01,4 Co-pilot: Fucking hell!

10:41:00,5-10:41:01,8 TAWS: PULL UP! PULL…

10:41:02,0-10:41:03,4 ATC: Go around!

10:41:02,7-10:41:04,6 Scream: Fuuuuuuck!!!!

10:41:05,4 Recording ended.


background image

Authenticity aspects.

The reliability of the Interstate Aviation

Committee in Moscow, as well as the Russian military
attorney office, has been finally compromised after the
publication of CVR transcripts.

The transcripts is simply say - forged. The

evidence available:

1. In the original MAK document on page 40, there

is no signature of Poland co-representing, Lt-Col.
Bartosz Stroinski, commander of the squadron,
who was the only person who performed voice
identification.

2. Unreadable ratio is much bigger, than normally in

Tu-154M transcripts, although Polish Air Force
aircraft had special sound-reducing materials
installed in broadsides.

3. At 10:09:41,7 the air engineer set minimal

operational engine power using his personal
throttle. At this moment autothrust mode of the
autopilot should automatically turn off and the
autopilot ABSU should sound, just like at
10:40:56,6. There is no the sound on the
transcripts.

4. At 10:23:39,6 Pilot-In-Command reported

heading course on the outer NDB marker. There
is no possibility to head such course on the
autopilot- it can only direct on VOR beacon. That
is why it should be turned off, which was also not
confirmed by the sound of a turning off.

5. 10:40:50,1 the navigator ended saying “90”, and

at 10:40:50,0 started “80” so he was speaking two

background image

statements, the same time. Before he ended
speaking “90”, he had been started speaking 80. It
is impossible on common sense. Please try to
speak two things simultaneously.

6. There is a mistake, concerning the time entered as

10:49:49,9 instead of probably 10:40:49,9.

7. At 10:40:52,4 the navigator ends speaking “60”,

but at 10:40:23 starts “50”. It is also impossible.

8. At 10:40:53,1 the navigator ends speaking “50”,

but at 10:23:53,0 starts “40”. It is impossible.

9. At 10:40:53,6 the navigator ends speaking “40”,

but at 10:40:53,5 starts “30”. It is impossible.

10. At the same moment when the navigator ends

“30”, he starts “20”, which is very difficult to do.
Please notice, that Polish numbers, are extremely
difficult to say, specially as fast, as the navigator,
for example:

a. 90 – dziewięćdziesiąt
b.
80 – osiemdziesiąt
c.
50 – pięćdziesiąt
d.
30 – trzydzieści

11. At 10:41:00,5, so 5 seconds before the terrain

impact, the Terrain Awareness Warning System
does not complete its command, just like new,
that there is already no possibility to survive.

12. According to MAK the cockpit door was opened,

but there is no in the transcripts a typical sentence
of the stewardess: “Ladies and gentlemen, we are
on approach to Smolensk Airport, please fasten
your security belts…”.
Either this is the next
evidence on falsification of the transcripts by
MAK or MAK lied in official preliminary report.

background image

13. According to Professor Romuald Szeremetiew,

former deputy Defense Minister of Republic of
Poland, during transmitted (before the transcripts
disclosing) by Polish TV official press briefing
Russian attorney, who had listened the CVR tape,
stated, that the Polish pilots said before the terrain
impact “Jesus, Jesus!” (refers to Jesus Christ),
instead of “Fucking hell!”, as later appeared in the
transcripts.

14. The following sound signals were recorded:

a. 10:40:51,5 - 10:40:58,0 (Frequency 400

Hz)

b. 10:40:56,0 - 10:40:58,2 (F =400 Hz).
c. 10:40:56,0 - 10:40:58,1 (F=800 Hz)
d. 10:40:56,6 – 10:40:57,7 (F=400 Hz)
e. 10:40:57,9 – 10:40:59,0 (F=400 Hz)
Please notice that the same speaker system
emitted at the same time, simultaneously
several similar sounds, including 3 on the
same frequency, so not able to be separated,
even using the best equipment and software in
the world.. This is the reason, why it is not
possible to separate them and detect their start
and end with a 0,1 sec exactness, even using
the.

15. The ABSU autopilot, should make 3 sounds

simultaneously, which if even technically
possible – impossible to detect in Cockpit Voice
Recorder tape.

16. According to MAK the aircraft hit the ground

overturned, inverted 180

o

, but it stays in the

conflict with the CVR Transcripts:

background image

a. There is no sound signal concerning

excessive tilt on the right.

b. There is no TAWS alert: “Bank angle!

Bank angle!”

Either the CVR transcripts (by MAK) are forged
or the Interstate Aviation Committee in Moscow,
MAK lied in it’s official preliminary report.
According to MAK official schema from the 19

th

of May 2010, the stabilization indicators were
available, so there is no possibility, that both –
TAWS and Soviet alarm did not respond to the
threat. Moreover, according to Mr Alexei
Morozov, vice-president of MAK all the devices
on the board were efficient.

17. According to the Transcripts between distance of

the 2km (10:40:38,7) and 1,1km (est. 10:40:57)
aircraft’s speed decreased to average 177km/h
(49m/s), because the aircraft flew 900m in 18,3s.
Minimal safety speed of Tu-154 is specified on
235km/h. At speed of 210, there is a deep stall.
However according to the transcripts there was no
deep stall, because stall avoidance alerts would
turn on, the sound alert would appear, the yokes
would be shaken rapidly. According to the
transcripts any symptoms of a speed close to
minimal, minimal and stall were not detected.

18. During a speed of 177km/h (110mph) the

autothrust would add max engines power. But
according to MAK, it was added by the pilot just
before the threes impact. It is not possible for the
start power to be added by the pilot, while it had

background image

been already added 10-15 seconds before. There
would not be a possibility to move throttles more.

19. If the transcripts were truthful, there would be

Stall Warning System alert, concerning critical
attack angle or minimal speed.

20. If the transcripts were truthful, the TAWS would

not say “Pull up!” because that would be
murderous.

21. There was no full engine power sound detected in

any moment.

22. According to the crew of PLF-044, the ATC

requested PLF-101 descending to the level of
50m, what stays in deep contrast with CVR
transcripts, indicating, that the ATC (Lt.-Col.
Pavel Plusnin) ordered to be ready for go around
from 100m.

23. According to MAK official schema of the 19

th

of

May 2010, the aircraft contacted a tree, and than
hit large birch-tree, when lost left wingtip. than
was flying about 1s., before contacting farther
trees. It is conflicted with CVR transcripts, where
“sound of collision the forest massif” is protracted
and imparted, unlike should be in reality.

24. According to people, knowing Mr Kazana, who

were listening to CVR recording the voice,
identified as Mr Kazana did not belong to him.

25. 30 minutes recording recorded 38 minutes

operation.

26. According to the crew of PLF-044, tower

requested PLF-101 descending to 50m on
approach – according to transcripts to 100m.

background image

27. According to MAK’s official schemas there were

several separated trees aircraft contacted before
the crash, but in the transcripts there is one single
sound of trees.

28. Although 100% engines power set, according to

MAK, there is no sound of engines on high power
noticed in CVR by the authors of the transcripts.

29. Muteness of the pilot-in-command is strange.
30. According to Mr Edmund Klich Gen. Blasik said

several statements, but according to the
transcripts only half of a statement.

31. Diplomats of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

did not confirm that it was a voice of Mr Kazana
recorded.


Moreover according to MAK’s transcripts after
20m/s descending (calculated according to
navigator’s statements in the transcripts) the aircraft
(without 100% power yet), performed horizontal
flight just before the terrain impact, and during this
time turned into upside down. Not only the turning is
an absurd and stays in deep contrast with all the Tu-
154M incidents concerning wing damage (or losing).
After descending 20m/s Tu-154M would descent
only about 30m to the horizontal flight. It is
impossible.
According to official operational manual of Tu-154M
this type should descent 10m before horizontal flight
performing if descending 3,5m/s. It means that during
normal approach only 10m would be enough to carry
out go around. Of course it concerns an aircraft with
flaps and gear extended.

background image

During descending 5m/s, 20m is enough to perform
go around, cease descending or perform horizontal
flight.
During descending 8m/s (with more than double
approach descending speed) aircraft must have 50m
to stop descending and do not crash. On the altitude
of less than 50m it is not possible to perform go
around from descending 8m/s or carry out horizontal
flight – only heavy landing or crash is possible.

Operational manual does not take care to higher
descending speed because of the assumption, that never
exist during approach. However it is not difficult to
notice, that parameter described above is characterized
by a kind of square function – not linear function. Please
imagine such parabola on drawing. It indicates that the
aircraft descending 12 m/s would need over 100m to
cease descending. With descending rate of 20m/s, as of
PLF-101, about 200m would be enough to cease
descending. How was it possible for PLF-101 to cease
descending not in 200 but in 30m? Moreover please
notice, that 100% engines power (basic for all these
calculations) was not set yet, according to MAK.


background image

Schema of flight of Tu-154M during go around –
attitude loosing calculation before re-ascending.

background image

Absurd described above, as well as most of listed

evidence induce that last 16 seconds are in 90-100%
forged.

Furthermore it is confirmed by behaviour of Mr

Jerzy Miller, Polish minister of interior who received in
Moscow CVR copy on CD from Gen. Anodina.

http://tvn24.lajt.pl/1657830,1,1,wiadomosc.html

After

come back to Poland it appeared that there is no last 16
seconds on the recording.

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2184931,11,na_pierwszym_na
graniu_z_czarnych_skrzynek_brakuje_16_sekund,item.ht
ml

Mr Miller confused by this fact had gone Moscow

where met Gen. Anodina again. He received made by
Russians copies and tried to keep whole the situation in
secret.

http://www.wprost.pl/ar/198897/Rosjanie-

przekazali-Polsce-niekompletne-nagrania-czarnych-
skrzynek-Interwencja-ministra-Millera/


Falsification of the transcripts discredits MAK as well as
Polish authorities and investigation services, which do
not want to detect MAK manipulations.
. Statistics of independent organizations, just like the
Flight Safety Foundation, stay in as big contrast with
ensures of the designer, Mr Shengardt, concerning the
alleged total reliability of Tu-154, as it is not difficult to
perceive, that unprecedented in World’s history scale of
hypocrisy and dishonesty in aircraft accidents’
investigation. Moreover, this Soviet-created tendency had
not been ever changed. Since today, there was many
situation in Russian Federation investigation of MAK,
that some misconducts are evident. For example on 14

th

background image

of September 2008 Nordavia Boeing B-737 crashed VP-
BKO. The history of the aircraft was as interesting as the
circumstances of the catastrophe. It was American-
production Boeing, with French engines, certified by the
interstate MAK of Moscow, owned by a firm from
Bermuda, took in leasing of Irish Pinewatch Limited,
with engines serviced in China and Singapore, after 20
years of service in China, was directed to the Russia,
where with Russian crew of Nordavia was flaying for
Aeroflot. Final report is of course perfectly prepared,
over 160 A4 pages document is full of negligible photos,
tables and graphs prepared in WinArm of... Ms Excel (so
as always in MAK “using unique software) by Mr
Morozov and signed by him. Although the pilot had been
fully trained in Lufthansa training centre, he according to
MAK was not familiar with Boeing speed indicator(!).

MAK credibility is also extreme low due to

corruption affairs and unreal results of every
investigation.MAK moreover according to Polish-
Russian agreement from the 14

th

of December 1993

concerning military flights (in relation with the
agreement form the 7

th

of June 1993 concerning military

co-operation) MAK should not examine or investigate
this air disaster. According to article number, 11 of the
December of 1993 agreement all the incidents of Polish
Air Force aircraft happened in Russia as well as Russian
in Poland should be investigated by joint commission.

Moreover MAK has not powers to examine

military incidents (or catastrophes), because it is a civic
organization. In addition, famous 13th annex does not
refer to military air disasters.

background image

Mr Edmund Klich (not minister Klich, MD) as

former Polish Air Force colonel and head of Air Accident
Investigation Commission should now about this
agreement – it is not possible to be another. So why did
he styled his own to be Polish representative and
succeeded to be the air disaster investigated by MAK
according to Annex 13 of Chicago Convention?

Moreover, Polish correspondence investigation is

carried out not by civic prosecution, but Territorial
Military Prosecution in Warsaw under a supervision of
the Head Military Prosecution. Number of the
investigation: PO Śl. 54/10 WPO.

background image

3.10 Injuries to person

Injuries to person are, regrettably the most tragic

constituent of every transport accident.

Nearly every safety regulation concerning

transport is designed to decrease number of injuries and
injuries possibility. Due to this strategy introduced (also
in aviation), a number of fatalities (victims) is not self-
increased, as fast as number of aircraft, airlines,
passengers and millions of miles flown by them all over
the world.

However it is very common situation when all the

people on the board die, due to an air disaster.

According to Russian Federation highest aviation

authority and air accident investigating service – MAK
“Interstate Aviation Committee” in Moscow, all the
passengers of PLF-101 died due to terrain impact.

However circumstances of the terrain impact,

medical documents and Tu-154M safety statistics say
something completely opposite to the statements of Mrs.
Gen. Tatiana Anodina - “Empress of Soviet Aviation”
and her MAK.

There are only three possible outlines of survival

rate description after an air disaster:

1. Everybody on the board survived the catastrophe.
2. Some of the people died, during or due to the

catastrophe, but some survived.

3. Nobody survived.

It is possible to exclude last (third) possibility,

because of the recording from the scene of the air
disaster, recorded by (currently late) author, just after it
had happened. The recording is strictly authentic, what is

background image

officially confirmed by attorney offices and secret
services examining it.

Not whole the recording, but words of a women

travelling the aircraft are significant “Don’t kill us! I
beg…
”. then three gunshots. Camera operator ran
startled, just after the shots.

Author of the film, Mr Andrei Menderey was

murdered several days after, on the 15

th

of April 2010.

(

http://smolensk-2010.pl/2010-04-21-adrij-mendierej-

zostal-zamordowany.html

).

Because usually in similar accidents about 26% of

passengers are alive (

http://aviation-

safety.net/database/type/type-stat.php?type=475

), it had

been officially stated (not truthfully) by Gen. Tatiana
Anodina, head of MAK, that an aircraft hit the ground in
diverse position (upside down). Due to low-wing
construction a back of plane is not as strong as belly.

Official Preliminary Report of MAK states, that

“Medical examinations indicated, that on passengers
affected acceleration of 100g. Under these conditions it
was not possible to stay alive”. It is not probably possible
under these conditions, where wings, centerwing, trees
assumed most of g-load, as well as speed of aircraft was
not high.

Alas it is not possible to calculate precisely g-

load, due to high complication of reference system,
however even on common sense it is possible to state that
is was much less then 100g, no more then 10g – that’s a
fact. It is only possible to calculate g using general
cinematic rules. However it will be very simple using
special software and computer simulation, we cannot
perform without FDR, still secret.

background image


Survival rate of all fatal accidents (according

to the Flight Safety Foundation):

Type of Aircraft

First flight year Survival rate

Boeing B-377

1947

45,5%

Boeing B-314

1938

38,5%

Boeing B-737

1967

33,7%

Vickers VC-10

1962

33,0%

Tupolev Tu-154

1968

25,8%

Boeing B-707

1954

24,0%

Boeing B-747

1969

24,0%

Ilyushin Il-62

1963

22,0%

Lockheed L-1011
TriStar

1970

16,6%

Boeing B-727

1963

15,5%

Boeing B-757

1982

14,6%

Lockheed C-130
Hercules

1954

14,4%

Antonov An-12

1958

12,5%

Boeing B-767

1981

6,1%

Scottish Aviation
Twin Pioneer

1955

5,6%

Boeing B-720

1959

3,3%

Cessna 500
Citation I

1971

2,2%

Ilyushin Il-76

1971

1,9%

BAC Concorde

1969

0,0%

Prepared by the authors

Pleas notice, that 100-g concerning MAK

communicate cannot be reliable explanation of so high
death rate. G-force is a kind of acceleration, a physical

background image

quantity, directly proportional to decreasing or increasing
of speed and inversely proportional to time. 100g =
9800m/s

2

. It seams that to induce such overload an

aircraft should decrease 9800m/s of speed every second.

100g overload is of course real when you hit a

tree by your car, with brakes not applied on high speed.
Estimate time of hit is about 0,001 sec.

The estimate time of braking up aircraft was here

about 4 sec! That is why, if such g-load can exist here,
and if it was based only on airspeed, aircraft should fly
23.520km/h, so about Ma=69. That is 69 times faster
then sound, 34-35 times faster then F-16 Fighting Falcon
or BAC Concorde. Such speed, on Earth is not
achievable for any aircraft, even high-supersonic rockets.

Speed of Polish Air Force 101, during contact

with ground ranged 250-350 km/h (155-220 mph).

Of course, as it is already stated, it is not possible

to precociously calculate g-load in this very complicated
reference system. Using very simple software it is
however possible to calculate g-load according to less
then 10 calculable piece of data and rate of aircraft
damage. We will come back to this calculation to show
results of such examination.

Nevertheless, here it must be stated that, in

keeping with medical examination protocol one of the
PLF-101 passengers was still alive, 10-20 minutes
after the catastrophe. Rescue operation did not
concern medical help – even one ambulance was not
called on, medical doctor was not present on the place
of disaster.

According to niezalezna.pl and “Gazeta Polska”,

but also apart from them, a daily “Nasz Dziennik” at least

background image

one person on the board survived the accident, and died
at 10:50-11:00, so up to 19 minutes after the air disaster.
The information is sourced on the death certificate, filled
by the medical examiner after the examination in Russia.

http://www.wprost.pl/ar/203601/Niescislosci-w-kwestii-
godziny-smierci-ofiar-katastrofy-Tu-154M/

Of course medical examiners could work under

the pressure of their chief then, the Russian Emergency
Minister, Mr Sergey Shoigu, who, as evidenced above,
wanted to upset time of crash, to convince that the pilots
had many times performing approach before the crash.
However, please notice that in such situation lower limit
of estimate death time would not be before the time
published by Mr Shoigu. That means, that pathologists
estimated real death time – after the catastrophe (if they
wanted to confirmed Mr Shoigu version they would
probably “estimate” around 10:55, or for example 10:55-
11:00, so after Shoigu’s time of the catastrophe, not
before).

There are no many photos showing bodies of the

fatalities. Some users online had published whole
galleries, later commonly available online in Poland of
the photos that are a typical example of photomontage. In
many situations even we had fallen for, before the British
expert examined them. Online it is possible to find about
10-20 real photos showing bodies or their parts. On one
of the photos that we have got, and is now not published
online (due to a kind of embargo, a kind of censure,
forced by Russian government of Col. Putin), there is a
body of Polish president, Mr Lech Kaczynski. It had been
taken at 14 o’clock, so about 3 hours after the air disaster

background image

(if only there is local Russian time on the photo). Mr
Lech Kaczynski seems to be alive on the picture, like
sleeping. He locks like to be grey – his skin is very light,
with a greyish shade. A garniture also seems to be grey,
as well as all the objects around, concerning parts of the
aircraft. It is possible that a contrast or balance was not
properly set in the camera, or everything had been
covered with a dust.

There is no blood near Mr Kaczynski, he has not

much external injuries, three scratches on the face. Only
his leg had been cut off, but according to farther
information the body of Polish president was completely
massacred, not only the leg, but also a hand was cut off.
It seems that the Russians deliberately massacred the
body to difficult ascertainment that somebody could
survive.

Because the members of parliament from

Kaczynski’s formation visiting Smolensk saw Kaczynski
completely massacred and without both legs and a hand
(not only the left cut)

http://www.se.pl/wydarzenia/swiat/jarosaw-rozpozna-
ciao-brata_136110.html

. It means that these are post-

mortem injuries or an effect of thermo-baric weapon
using, described by Mr Kuleba.

There is also a possibility of combination of

injuries to people – primary injuries cased by weapon and
terrain impact and farther optional injuries cased during
criminal “rescue” operation and post-mortem wounds.

Thermo-baric weapon indicates injuries similar to

high g-load, because it destroys internal organs of
human. During extreme g-load due to excessive weight

background image

organs became self-smashed. That is why there is a
possibility of wrong medical examination results.

It is impossible to be detected, because all the

documents concerning medical examinations are kept in
secret by Russian MAK – secret for Polish authorities
and for the public opinion.

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-lech-kaczynski-nie-

zyje-2/kaczynski-fakty/news-rosja-przekazala-polsce-11-
tomow-akt,nId,293367

Medical examinations had been carried out by

Russians illegally – without part of Polish experts and
without informing of the Polish government.

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/459542,468036.html

smolensk-2010.pl/2010-04-28-rosjanie-

przeprowadzili-sekcje-zwlok-wszystkich-ofiar-
katastrofy.html
http://www.se.pl/wydarzenia/kraj/sekcji-zwlok-ofiar-
katastrofy-nie-bylo-ewa-kopacz-_142145.html

Only in one examination – of President of the

Republic of Poland, Lech Kaczynski Polish
representative took part.

According to dr. Mikhail Petrovich Maksimenka,

who performed medical examination of the president’s
body (along with Dr. Sergey Vasilevich Ovcharov), there
was only attorney Parulski, who did not speak Russian,
representing Polish investigation authorities.

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?typ=po&d

at=20100823&id=po01.txt

Moreover, according to dr. Maksimenka, there

was a coroner on the place of the air disaster, 10-15
minutes after it had happened. It seems to be impossible,

background image

due to the distance – to get the airport he would have to
cross all the city.

To be able to get there so fast, he should be

present on the airfield during the air disaster.

It is however also possible that he had been

informed about the air disaster 1-2 minutes after it had
happened and later was escorted by the Police. However
even alarm on the airfield had been turned on 15 minutes
after the catastrophe.

http://forum.wprost.pl/glowne/?w=263837

This fact indicate that information flow after the

catastrophe could not be efficient. Therefore visit of 180
soldiers and secret service officers, along with the
coroner 14 minutes after the air disaster is impossible.
180 people units should be under readiness near the
scene, knowing that would happen, before the air
disaster.

Detailed analyse of the injuries to person indicate

possibility of death due to other aspects, then an accident.












background image

The photo above had been taken by some of the

Russian services at the day of the catastrophe. Although
the author is unknown, it had been commonly published
online, be able to be downloaded from Yandex.ru and
Rapidshare.com. It was received by us from the Polish
Attorney General Office, where had been sent by Polish
Intelligence Agency, what confirms its authenticy.

The picture indicates internal destruction of the

body without a damage to the outerwear. It is fully
comparable with the catachrestic of the thermo-baric
weapon. According to Mr Kuleba, journalist, when
Chechen soldier entered a house hit by thermo-baric
weapon, he saw a baby looking like sleeping. After he
took the infant in his hands, it disintegrated into parts.

It does not only indicate similarity to PLF-101 air

disaster, but also can explain progress of post-mortem
injuries. Uniforms of Polish generals travelling the
airplane had been undamaged.

Due to this fact (to maintain balance between

damages of the aircraft, injuries to person and damage to
the uniforms) they were artificially damaged after the air
disaster – the distinctions of the generals, including
medals and national emblems were manually ripped out.

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?dat=20100825&ty
p=po&id=po01.txt

An uniform of Gen. Potasinski, head

of Polish Special Forces, (managing special units taking
part in nearly every NATO mission and using high
technology NATO weapons and warfare devices) was,
according to the widow profusely wet by air fuel.

Burning of some of the wears by Polish Attorney

Office clearly confirms and evidences all the doubts
described above. To be able to burn the wears (and other

background image

personal properties from the board) Attorney had to
qualify wears as… medical waste.

http://www.wprost.pl/ar/195717/Odziez-ofiar-nakazal-
zutylizowac-inspektor-sanitarny/

All the bodies of the fatalities had been put into

metal coffins and sealed. It was prohibited for families
to open the coffins – no of the bodies was viewed in
Poland.

http://niezalezna.pl/article/show/id/36397

http://fakty.interia.pl/raport/lech-kaczynski-nie-
zyje/news/rosjanie-nie-zyczyli-sobie-otwierania-
trumien,1508237

http://www.radiozet.pl/Programy/Gosc-Radia-
ZET/Krzysztof-Kwiatkowski2

Survival aspects

Polish Air Force presidential aircraft destroyed

when it crashed after contacting trees.

Tu-154M, although very often crashes, it is rather

strong construction, characterized by high resistance on
mechanical damage. Although PLF-101 is completely
destroyed, it is possible to survive such catastrophe.

An Airbus A-330 crashed several weeks after

PLF-101 in Libya, was much more damaged then Polish
Air Fore aircraft, and one little boy from Nederland
survived.

http://aviation-

safety.net/database/record.php?id=20100512-0

A Tu-154 catastrophe of Aeroflot in Noril’sk,

Russia NSK (16

th

of November 1981), when the aircraft

was damaged nearly completely like Polish Tu-154M,
evidences that if even the aircraft is destroyed, there is a
possibility to survive. Moreover in Noril’sk survived 68

background image

people (sic) from 167 on the board, so 40,7%, nearly
twice of the normal survival rate.

We ordered an analyse of two British aviation

safety specialists, who helped us to estimate survival rate.
We took into the considerations following factors:

1. Flight safety statistics of Tu-154M:

 General survival rate
 Subjection of the aircraft damages

and injuries to people

 Survival rate in the particular

compartments in Tu-154M

2. Individual safety system, for passengers in the

aircraft

3. Terrain characteristics
4. Fire characteristics
5. Injuries to people on the pictures
6. Estimate g-load calculations (as already stated - it

is not possible to exactly calculate a g-force)

7. Survival rate in similar accidents concerning

comparable passenger aircraft:

 Tupolev-154/A/B/B-1/B-2/S/M

(16 similar of all 67 accidents)

 Tupolev-134/A/A-3/B-3/LL (18

similar accidents of all 71)

 Iliushin-62/M (3 similar accidents

of all 23)

 Boeing-727-100/200 (24 similar

accidents of all 111)


Preparing the analyse we generated many data,

which we have to compare with Smolensk Air Disaster

background image

description. The British experts used two independent
methods of estimating.

The firs one had chosen FMEA method. He was

analysing 7 factors with 21 sub-factors. He described 18
accident sequences of cases and effects, concerning all
the factors and sub-factors. FMEA method had been
invented by NASA in 60’s, and has been used even today
in aviation safety risk analyzing processes. The expert
did not estimate rate of survival, but a risk of death. To
every sequence of factors he added risk rating (max 30
points) – 10 points for a scale of factor, 10 points for
probability of existing here and 10 points for it’s effects.
He divided his calculations to every part of the aircraft.

The second one used method that is much more

complicated and we have to wait for a long time for his
results. In a contrast to the first expert, he was calculating
a rate of survival, not a risk. He based on groups of data
that he marked as a “sets of numbers”. To analyse data he
used a special computer program based on a sector of
mathematics called “fuzzy logic” a multi-valued, not a
zero-one logic. It let him to define a degree of affiliation
of every factor to every set. Due to this solution, the
expert was able to combine factors with statistics, and
then everything into integrity. He also divided his
calculations to estimate survival rate in particular parts of
crashed aircraft.

After receiving the results, it was possible to

compare them, and they were… similar! Both experts
reached the same conclusion – someone survived!

Moreover, after summing up the numerical results

of both experts (risk of death during hit and survival rate)
in each section of the plane a value of 100% is received,

background image

so although the experts had been working separated to
each other, their results were completely similar!

The results of the experts are entered into

damage-describing table below.


A possibility of surviving and damages analyze:

Part of
aircraft

Damage
description

Survival
rate

Cockpit

Completely
destroyed,
unshaped, only
nose survived

2%,

Front gear

Completely
destroyed, only
one wheel
survived

N/A

Foremost
compartment

Completely
destroyed,
unshaped parts,
Broadside
undamaged

10%

Fore
compartment

Completely
destroyed,
unshaped parts,
Seats undamaged

10%

Middle
compartment

Completely
destroyed, left
and right
section with
windows
survived,

About
5%,

Left wing

Destroyed,

N/A

background image

parted on
three, shape
readable, gear
survived, cut
of from the
centerwing

Right wing

Destroyed,
parted on
three, shape
readable, gear
survived, cut
of from the
centerwing

N/A

Passenger
part

Destroyed,
seats survived,
some parts
maintained
their shape

10%

Rear board

Partly
survived,
aircraft
profile
readable, many
parts including
toilet survived

5%, only
four
seats
here

Tail

Upside down,
damaged, clear
shape,

N/A

Horizontal
stabilizer

Parted on two,
rudder surface
dropped

N/A

Vertical
stabilizer

Cut off from
the tail, not

N/A

background image

inverted,
rudder surface
turned to the
right

Engine no.
1

Damaged, but
not cut off
from the tail

N/A

Engine no.
2

Cut off from
the tail,
readable shape

N/A

Engine no.
3

Medium damage,
inside the tail

N/A

Prepared by the authors

At the middle compartment 18 people were

sitting, so a probability that at least one person
survived in this section reaches nearly 100%.

At the passenger part, probably 61 people were

present, so 6 people should survive.

On the back compartment, with low rate, 4 seats

(31/32) are located as well as two toilets and a
gallery. From this, 4 people there is nearly lack of
survive possibility under given conditions, although it
is normally the safest place in Tu-154M.

If we sum all that ratings, it is possible to state,

that for even 10 people could survive. According to
the experts, minimal rate of survival was an
equivalent of 3 people. 3 people survived at least.

On the 10

th

of April had appeared a pres agency

note, that 3 people had survived and were taken to a
hospital, but this information was demented by
Smolensk governor, Mr Sergei Antufev.

background image

Moreover, coincidentally three shots are audible

on the first recording from the place of the air disaster…

MAK went to evident manipulation of the g-force

calculation (involving the airspeed of spacecraft rather
then passenger plane) to evidence that it was, according
to Gen. Anodina, impossible to survive.

The bodes, including Mr Kaczynski, had been

then massacred by “rescuers” or other governmental
services of Russian Federation, also to evidence, that it
was not possible to survive.

Relation between injuries to people and damage to the

aircraft and analyse of the possible circumstances of

thermo-baric weapons or another missile using.

There was 96 people on the board. They were

according to official data travelling in 6 particular
compartments of the aircraft:

1. Cockpit (C)
2. Staff compartment (G)
3. Presidential compartment (F1)
4. Fore compartment (F2)
5. Middle compartment (F3)
6. Passenger part (B)

Topography of the aircraft was modified several

times. In the nose part cockpit was designed for 5
crewmember seats – three for basic crew (two pilot’s
seats in typical layout – left for the captain, right for the
co-pilot – and situated sheer to the flight direction seat of
the air engineer with huge switchers and indicators
console) and two for additional crewmembers – a
navigator (between the pilots, little bit moved back) and a

background image

supervisor (much moved back). Behind the door of the
cockpit a compartment with galleries and a toilet was
situated as well as an access to two doors: fore basic door
for passengers (1,73 m x 0,80 m) and a service door 1,28
m x 0,61 m).
Service door was situated on the right of the fuselage –
passenger door on the left. It is typical layout for Tu-
154M maintained in the all parts of the aircraft.
Farther back there was a fore compartment separated on
two by a jamb. In first part there were two seats and a
table, behind the jamb (in the second one) there were six
seats.
In the foremost part of the compartment on the right a
presidential sub-compartment F1 was situated. It was
isolated from the fore compartment by sliding doors and
a partition facet. There were three seats – an armchair
and a sofa, as well as a table and satellite phone inside
the compartment.
Armchair of the president was directed opposite to the
flight direction and was the foremost passenger seat in
the aircraft, excluding a supervisor.
Behind fore compartments (F1 and F2) there was a
middle compartment with a gallery (G), own service door
and a passenger door. Dimensions of the doors were
completely like in the foremost part.
The passenger doors there, were the backmost door.
Therefore there was no any normally used door behind
the wings. The door was situated nearly in the centre of
the fuselage.
The biggest part of the aircraft was the passenger part (B)
situated over the centerwing of the aircraft. There was a
typical airline layout 3+3 of seats situated on the left and

background image

on the right, however there was no as much seats that in
normal commercial arrangement. Direction of the seats
was changed into custom variant – half of the seats were
directed opposite to the flight direction and half in
harmony to the direction. Therefore every 6 seats created
a group, where each passenger sitting had a passenger in
front, being isolated each other by a table. Each group
had a table (tables were located in front of every three
seats) and on the other broadside there was relative group
of seats.
In the half of the passenger part (named also
“compartment for the guests”) there was four emergency
doors (overwing exits) with dimensions of 0,90 m x 0,48
m. On each side there were two exits, separated by two
windows. Such exits are commonly known from Boeing
or Airbus aircraft – also in Tupolevs they have a window
in the centre.
Last three lines of the 3+3 composition were not
equipped with tables. The only difference from the airline
arrangement was more comfortable seat features.
In the backmost of B, there were only several seats in
specific 2+2 configuration, moved to the board
centreline.
Behind these four sits there were two emergency doors
on both sides with dimensions similar to the service
doors, however 1 inch wider.
The compartment was completed by two toilets and a
gallery between.
It is logic that the people travelling in more damaged part
of the aircraft should also be more damaged, so to be
more injured. In an environment of more damaged parts
it is more difficult to find the bodies. There is also more

background image

difficult to identify them, because of the more serious
injuries. Because these basic activities are more
complicated, they should take more time. Therefore there
should be a kind of visible relationship between the time
of body fining, identification and come back home in a
coffin and the damage of the aircraft part.
In the cockpit (C) there were 4 people during terrain
impact – captain, co-pilot, navigator and air engineer.
In the foremost compartment (F1) there was two people –
the President and the First Lady.
In the fore compartment (F2) there were 8 people – state
officials.
In the middle compartment (F3) there were 18 people –
generals, priests and some officials.
In the staff room (G) there was three flight attendants.
In the passenger part 61 people.
All the bodies had been transported to Poland in 6 flights
organised by Polish Air Force using two types of
transport aircraft:

1. Boeing C-17 Globemaster III – heavy strategic

transport aircraft,

2. Airbus (CASA) C-295M – medium tactical

transport aircraft.

All the flights took off on four dates – on the 11

th

,

13

th

and 14

th

of April, on the 15

th

of April, on the 16

th

of

April and last on the 23

rd

of April. Number of coffins

transported each day looks as following:

1. 11

th

of April – president (C-295)

2. 13

th

of April – first lady (C-295)

3. 14

th

of April – 30 people (C-17)

4. 15

th

of April – 35 people (C-17)

5. 16

th

of April – 8 people (C-295?)

background image

6. 23

rd

of April – 21 people (C-17)

Summary: 96

It is possible to state that about:

1. 4,2% of people were present in the cockpit.
2. 2% of people were present in the F1.
3. 8,3% of people were present in the F2.
4. 18,7% of people were present in the F3.
5. 3,1% of people were present in G.
6. 64,6% of people were present in B.

Summary: 100% = 96 people.

Therefore if there would be the same time of the bodies
identification, so the same aircraft injuries to people in
every compartment, there would be following
distribution of coffins every flight back date:

14

th

of April and before:

1. C: 1-2
2. F1: 0-1
3. F2: 2-3
4. F3: 5-6
5. G: 0-1
6. B: 20-21

Summary: 32

15

th

of April:

1. C: 1-2
2. F1: 0-1
3. F2: 2-3
4. F3: 6-7
5. G: 1-2

background image

6. B: 22-23

Summary: 35

16

th

of April

1. C: 0-1
2. F1: 0-1
3. F2: 0-1
4. F3: 1-2
5. G: 0-1
6. B: 5-6

Summary: 8

23

rd

of April:

1. C: 0-1
2. F1: 0-1
3. F2: 1-2
4. F3: 3-4
5. G: 0-1
6. B: 13-14

Summary: 21


All the proportions above shows how many

coffins of the fatalities should come back home each
flight from with division on the parts of sitting. Other
shows clear relation between number of people sitting
and number of coffins come back, with assumption that
damage to the aircraft was regular. Using lists of coffins
coming back every of four days it is possible to conclude
calculations above to the reality:

14

th

of April and before:

7. C: 0

background image

8. F1: 2
9. F2: 5
10. F3: 5
11. G: 1
12. B: 19

Summary: 32

15

th

of April:

7. C: 0
8. F1: 0
9. F2: 3
10. F3: 4
11. G: 1
12. B: 20

Summary: 35

16

th

of April

7. C: 0
8. F1: 0
9. F2: 0
10. F3: 1
11. G: 0
12. B: 7

Summary: 8

23

rd

of April:

7. C: 4
8. F1: 0
9. F2: 1
10. F3: 8
11. G: 1
12. B: 8

background image

Summary: 21


It is clearly visible that data received after

analysing of the lists of bodies in every flight and date
received after analysing of the passenger lists are
different.

It indicates that there is a relation between place

of sitting and injuries, because in some compartments
bodies had been identified faster, in some parts slower.

Relation between returns and passenger

distribution looks in the table as following:

14

th

of April and before:

1. C: Less 1-2
2. F1: More 1-2 (all)
3. F2: More 2-3
4. F3: In the norm
5. G: In the norm
6. B: Less on 1


15

th

of April:

1. C: Less 1-2
2. F1: (comp.)
3. F2: In the norm
4. F3: Less 2-3
5. G: In the norm
6. B: Less 2-3


16

th

of April

1. C: 0 Less 1
2. F1: 0 (comp.)
3. F2: 0 In the norm

background image

4. F3: 1 In the norm
5. G: 0 In the norm
6. B: 7 More 1-2


23

rd

of April:

1. C: 4 More 3-4 (all)
2. F1: 0 (comp.)
3. F2: 1 In the norm
4. F3: 8 More 4
5. G: 1 In the norm
6. B: 8 Less 5-6


However first three summaries, concerning three

first flights, there is a lot of internal factor – including
especially time of coming of the families of killed people
to Moscow, where the identification was carried out.

Fourth section however delivers high number of

data, because the people listed in the table from the 23

rd

of April were identified using DNA analyses and could
not been sent home, before their completing and final
confirmation of the results.

Simple maths indicate that the most damaged

place of the aircraft was the cockpit, at the lowest
estimate presidential compartment.

Fore compartment (F2) was only little bit more

damaged, then the presidential compartment.

Excluding cockpit, the most damaged place of the

aircraft was the middle section (F3), however the seats of
the flight attendants (G) and passenger part (B) were less
damaged, then the F2.

Crashed aircraft’s wreckage does not indicate any

relation between damage of the left and right section.

background image

Conversely there are differences between rate of

injuries of the passengers in each compartment. It can
indicate what broadside could be hit by eventual missile
(weapon). However it can also be clear coincidence,
because aviation accidents are characterised by high rate
of randomness.

On the other hand rate of calculation indicating

middle par of the aircraft as the most unsafe cannot be
coincidence, because this section seems to be very safety,
in contrast to foremost part usually hitting ground. It is
impossible to be ground hit by middle compartment. It is
depended of the detail conditions, but usually aircraft
impacts ground by its nose, wing or tail. Any other
impact is unimaginable, considering construction and
flight direction of an aircraft – it can fly only forward.

If the aircraft hit ground secondary by middle

compartment, in other sections that firstly impacted
injuries character could not be less serious, then in
middle compartment.

If the middle compartment hit the ground firstly,

it would indicate that the aircraft was damaged airborne
and hit ground parted on two.

Else it can indicate that the middle compartment

was the place, where hit a missile. Other words maths
indicate that one of the factors making the air disaster
possible was the missile hitting. It probably happened in
the last moments of the flight, after a stall cased other
exterior factors.

There could not be an artificial fog, because

nobody was planning that the pilot would perform
approach under poor weather conditions – such decision

background image

was irrational and can be only explained by high rank of
the celebrations and delay not reduced during the flight.

Please notice that lack of damage to the uniforms

of the generals is a trace complementing evidence
collected. Thermo-baric weapons are sometimes named
“fuel-air explosives”. To hide the truth, a kind of
explosive based on aviation fuel could be used in
preparing of the missile, to be sure that after-effects of
the hit would not be classified as using of inorganic
substance. This fact would perfectly explain that
navigational documents and other documentation find in
the cockpit was extremely wet due to the fuel. Because of
this fact experts of MAK examining it should use masks
to not be poisoned by the fumes inhaled.

http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-lech-kaczynski-nie-zyje-
2/kaczynski-fakty/news-mak-przekazal-polsce-
dokumenty-z-miejsca-katastrofy-w,nId,294244

Also the uniforms of the generals were wet due to the
fuel. Because the fuel tanks are much backward (in the
centerwing and in the wings) there is very little
possibility to be documents in the cockpit and people in
the middle compartment flooded by petroleum.
If it even is possible (everybody who was on the scene of
a catastrophe knows characteristic smell of kerosene
everywhere around the wreckage) probably an explosion
would happened, due to two commonly known facts:

1. Fire is a typical result of an air disaster.
2. Aviation fuel is an explosive.


However PLF-101 after had crashed did not get fire.
Only two little flames, extinguished by the fireman in a
quarter were detectable. There was no any symptoms of

background image

complex conflagration, although there was more then lb
22.000. Therefore extreme leakage of the fuel into the
aircraft interior seems to be impossible.

There are so two possibilities of the elements

wetting, both discrediting Russian side:

1. Documents and the uniforms were wetted

artificially, to evidence that had been on the
board during the air disaster (but had not) or
their damage seemed for Russians to be too
slight.

2. Some of the sprayed explosive could be not

fired during the explosion of the missile
warhead and leave residues, however would not
be detected in cockpit if explosion took part in
middle compartment.

3.11 Damage to the aircraft

Some of the elements should be added to this

section are already described above, due to the fact that
injuries to people seem to be much more credible impact
indicator, then the aircraft damages. It is not only cased
by the fact that human organism is much more sensitive,
then metal fuselage of an aircraft, but also by the fact of
the activities concerning artificial wreckage damaging
much more advanced, then little post-mortem injuries.

Day after the air disaster high number of people

equipped with heavy vehicles started several days
operation of damage inducing. There was only one target
of the operation – to make everybody sure that nobody
survived.

background image

Russian soldiers and policeman started to slash

wings of the aircraft by circular saws. Windows were
knocked out by a pole, fuselage was smashed by a
bulldozer. After days of operation scene of the disaster
became one of the most depressing and horrific place of
the world.

Although description above seems to be

impossible it is only one chapter of whole story called
“smash everything, kill everybody”.

background image













Officers of the Russian Federation Ministry of
Emergency in official operational uniforms of the
Ministry are damaging mechanisation of the wing.
Recording: TVP.

background image

Officer of the military of Russian Federation breaking
and knocking down glass widows in the fuselage of
Polish presidential Tu-154M after a PLF-101 air
disaster. (TVP)


The same officer. Recording: TVP. All the glass
windows became destroyed.

background image

Russian Ministry of Emergency worker cutting PLF-
101 aircraft electric and hydraulic cables.

background image


Another Russian Ministry of Emergency officer
destroying Polish Tu-154 slots. (TVP)

All the photos above are a frames sourced by the
recordings from the scene of the air disaster just after it
happened, because coffins are still under delivery on the
recording.

http://www.tvp.pl/publicystyka/magazyny-
reporterskie/misja-specjalna/wideo/21092010/2632524

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYrcy7GnIOs

Therefore operation of the aircraft destroying had been
started extremely early, probably on the 11

th

of April, a

day after the air disaster.
There are also some interesting details on the recording,
for example high number of coffins collected very fast.
This detail seems to be significant, when analysed along
with the fact that not any ambulance, but a coroner was
called to the scene several minutes after the air disaster-
before the alarm on the airport sounded, coroner already
had got the aircraft and started his work.
The recording however is so worthy due to perfect shots
of Russian officers working on the place of the air
disaster – it is clearly visible that the only target of them
was to destroy the aircraft and it was not a pleasure, but a
hard work for them.

Nevertheless it is necessary to analyse damage to

the aircraft, trying to demarcate “post-mortem” damages
and real damages to the plane.

The only elements that we can be sure that were

not damaged artificially are the elements not damaged.

background image

Moreover elements not damaged can indicate

much more, then damaged.

The engines of the aircraft did not work during

the hit to the ground. According to MAK a full thrust
(start power – 100%) had been applied by the Pilot-In-
Command, about 8,8 sec before the end of the FDR/RVR
recording. It means that a speed of rotating for engine
elements should be increased to 16-18 thousands rounds
per minute to the time of crash. This, in turn, means that
all the moving parts of the engines: shaft, turbines,
superchargers were revolving, about their own axis each
second 267 times!

Please notice, that a blink of an eye lasts 0,3 sec,

so during every blink 80 rounds are rotated. Now please
imagine that you are able to percept all the rounds. In
addition, every 10 seconds you have to blink one time –
it is natural. Otherwise, your eyes slowly will begin to
weep. So every time you blink (we all are doing it
mechanically, just as we breathe), you will overlook 80
rounds. Therefore speed of engines rotation was
unimaginable.

Now please imagine that you are rotating on the

office chair. It is very 1 time per second. The turbine is
rotating 267 times faster.

2 of 3 engines had been cut off from the tail,

during the first stage of disintegrating of aircraft
construction, and fall down, hitting very hardly into the
ground. Engines are much heavier, then the body of the
airplane, in relation to the size because they have
thousands of mechanical parts inside. Therefore they
should hit ground harder. Please notice that instead of
engines, a body of aircraft has a shape of empty,

background image

aluminium pipe. Under these conditions the body was

destroyed,
engines not.
(Photo
Russian
federal
services,
published by
Dr Sergei
Amelin,
about 24
hours after
the air
disaster)
.


Engines hit the ground. If turbines had been working,
rotating 18.000 rounds per minute, how was it possible
that they completely did not became disintegrated?

Turbines would be in such situation smashed up,

and their parts would be able to find several miles from
the place of the crash.

Nevertheless, in the contrast to so far world

aviation experience it was completely another. Not only
external parts of engines, but also their extremely hot,
fast-rotating turbines are not damaged.

Engines of Polish presidential TU-154M were

signed in a factory as “Soloviev D-30KU-154-II” and
characterised by overall pressure ratio higher then
engines of Concorde.

There were two factors would make engines more

damaged. First – they were old construction with 20

background image

years of exploitation period. Due to this fact elements of
the engines were more susceptible on mechanical
damages, including impacts and fatigue during working.

On the other hand the engines had just been

overhauled that is why their performance was very well.
Due to this fact they were reacting faster, faster
increasing power and faster increasing damage
possibility.

Therefore, now it is possible state seriously, that

one of the causes of the catastrophe was the engines’
stop, power of autorotation, around 0%. No engine was
working.
On the photo not disintegrated supercharger disc, which
had not rotate 18000 rnd/min. Please notice that blades
are not even fully covered by mud. It evidences, that the
engine did not “suck” the mud, as it would do rotating
extremely fast.
Looking on the fuselage it is possible to state that it is
completely destroyed.

Even Russian authorities were able to notice that

damage to the aircraft is excessive. That is why they
projected new version concerning hitting the ground in
upside down position, what officially stated Mrs. Gen.
Anodina and what was confirmed by Mr. Morozov.

What was the reason of the upside down flight if

it was a pilot error? MAK does not state it clearly.
However Dr Sergei Amelin, a blogger from Smolensk,
Russia, who although is not, and never has been an
aviation specialist stated it before MAK evidencing it,
just like MAK would love. Mr Amelin although very
nice person seems to be working as an outpost of MAK.
He is stating and evidencing the theories of MAK in

background image

advance. This fact makes Smolensk Air Disaster the first
case in the history, when professional investigation
organisation benefits a knowledge of an amateur.

So according to Dr Amelin (electronic education)

and in full harmony with official schemas of MAK
published on the 19

th

of May 2010, after hitting in a tree

aircraft missed a tip of left wing – and a lift force became
unbalanced. Right wing had bigger surface and inversed
aircraft on the left – tries to explain Mr Amelin.

This theory although is got as a sure by Polish and

international public opinion.

Please notice that a stage of disintegrating of

aircraft body, and injuries to person was extremely high.
Aircraft hit ground with low speed. If even was falling –
from a low altitude – maximally 20 meters. So why is the
aircraft smashed utterly?

Farther analyse – as it appeared – confirmed

altitude of falling and excluded theory of MAK/Amelin.

Turkish flight

1951 is a typical of
no-fatalities accident
concerning the
aircraft of the same
size that Polish Tu-
154 that crashed with
the same speed and
angle.

(photo Wikimedia Commons)

background image

For comparison a photo of PLF-101 wreckage – a

frame from Russia-24 TV.

There are notable differences between the two

photos.

It is possible to explain it, but the Russians did

not. MAK absorbed a version of Dr Amelin, although he
does not know nearly anything about aviation – he is an
electronic.

This is the first time in the history, when

professional investigation group based their findings on a
work of an amateur. Dr Sergei Amelin, although his
findings are not comparable with reality can be very
proud of himself, and I think Col. Putin should give him
an order.

Because and only because of the work of Dr.

Amelin, MAK received a pretext to explain stage of
damage. These two photos (both from Wikimedia copied
under the license of Creative Commons) became a base

background image

of so-could conspiracy theories, as it is called in Polish
media every version not concerning the pilot’s error.
MAK and Russians had to add a kind of pretext, why did
they all die?

Very popular in Poland, due to his analyses dr.

Amelin, bring it to them. From the time of Dr. Amelin’s
publications, a new official version, confirmed by MAK
and Gen. Anodina in the official preliminary report, is the
inversion and that “aircraft hit ground it’s gentler back
that is why it completely disintegrated”.

Why it could not? As culprit dr., Amelin and gen.

Anodina unanimously mentioned a birch-tree. So it is
currently the first situation of nearly 100-years of
aviation history, that 80-tones jet had been inversed by…
1,5-feet width tree. So according to MAK and Dr Amelin
aircraft’s wing suffered. That is right. About 50 yards
from the birch-tree a tip of wing collapsed…
Nevertheless, MAK did not think about the one thing. Of
course, aircraft can inverse, when it has only one wing
for example, but Tupolevs with a tip of wing missed, as if
PLF-101 can normally fly and with no problems, directly
to the airport to make emergency landing.

On the 26

th

of September 2006 took place an

accident, which circumstances disprove the thesis of Mrs.
Anodina. According to Flight Safety Foundation:

“A USAF Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker had

landed at Bishkek (FRU) at 20:03 following a combat
mission over Afghanistan. After landing, the KC-135R
was parked at the intersection of the active runway and a
taxiway while the crew awaited clarification on
instructions from the air traffic control tower.
Meanwhile, a Tupolev 154M of Altyn Air (EX-85718) had

background image

been cleared for takeoff on runway 08. The TU-154's
right wing struck the fairing of the KC-135R's No. 1
engine. The force of the impact nearly severed the No. 1
engine from KC-135R and destroyed a portion of the
aircraft's left wing. The TU-154 lost approximately six
feet of its right wingtip, but was able to get airborne and
return to the airport for an emergency landing. The KC-
135 caught fire and sustained extensive damage.”

http://aviation-
safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060926-0

There are many pictures showing a wing tip

missed by PLF-101. On one of the photos, there is a
Russian officer in characteristic uniform in a cold war
style. It is a kind of comparative scale. The officer can be
5,5-5,7 feet tall. A wing tip is about 1-1,5 feet longer,
then his tallness. Therefore, PLF-101 could not miss
much more wing area, then Altyn Air Tupolev, which
had not any problem to land. That Tu-154M is flying to
the present day, now as a part of Kyrgyzstan Airline fleet
(ex-Altyn Air).

So if not a wingtip, what could inverse PLF-101?

Dr Amelin evidenced, his untargeted theory by self-
measured angles of cutting the trees, which he estimated,
photographed, put on the map. Using this data he tried to
describe a flight track, results of his – must say – huge
work he published online and on his Picasa, a Google
gallery.

http://picasaweb.google.ru/Amlmtr/MWzNeJ#


Being impressed by scale of disinformation

performed by Sergey we can only describe it.

background image

3.12 Other damage – main evidence, but evidence

in past tense only…

During our visit to Smolensk, all the trees had

been already cut and removed. Trees however were the
only indication of real PLF-101 bank angles and path,
because sharp wings contacted lots of trees before the
terrain impact.

The only reason of the trees cutting could only be

next stage of evidence killing campaign.

Now a day there is no any part of the aircraft in

Smolensk, bigger elements had been found and moved to
a square inside the airbase, where are corroding. Smaller
elements are already stolen by people. The surface on the
place of the crash is offset by a bulldozer.

Not only the trees, but also a grass is killed

evidence. According to an owner of the plot, where the
birch-tree is situated, when airplane hit this great plant,
an oil matter dropped the ground. It was probably oil
from hydraulics systems of the aircraft, which “powers”
all the rudders flaps, gear, slots, interceptors and ailerons,
but also kerosene could be.

Because the plot is not huge, there is a wasteland,

a meadow, on the flight course, about 200 yards from the
place of air disaster (muddy forest). All the plants
(mainly grasses of course) on the meadow had been fired.
There is now completely no evidence in this matter.

Under these conditions, we could only make a

geographical reconnaissance concerning long GPS walk
and other simple geodesies. We have to base in this

background image

publication only on the pictures taken there in the first
days after the air disaster, also by Dr Amelin.

So as a first on any picture there is no any kind of

crater or hole in the grand, madden by the plane hitting
the ground. It is not possible, to do not force any
immersion in muddy surface, during the crash were
whole airplane had been completely destroyed, not
damaged – destroyed.

This fact clearly indicates, that it could not hit the

ground upside down, could not hit the ground by the nose
– an angle of hit was little, just like during normal
landing. If a Tu-154M, with a centre of gravity located
behindhand, hits the ground contacting firstly by a
horizontal stabilizer, situated on a tip of the vertical one,
a kind of physical lever is formed. The nose is with huge
power directed to the ground and hits it in less then 0,1
sec. After such heavy hit, when a resultant force contains
from a force of gravity, force induced by lever and lift
force would groove a 20 feet deep crater with many
disintegrated parts of 82-tones weight (18078,7 pounds)
aircraft inside and around.

Such power of hit, although with not inverted

position grooved a very deep hole, when on the 15

th

of

July 2010 a Tu-154M of Caspian Airlines crashed in
Iran.

If the aircraft hit upside down, whole, stronger

bally part would survived – here it did not. The biggest
shaped fragment of PLF-101, after the catastrophe is
aircraft’s tail. Exhaust nozzles are however directed like
the course of the aircraft. Tail, like a needle of compass
shows runway threshold. We can say – it had hit upside
down, aircraft crashed, the tail overturned and if directed

background image

to the runway, it had to fall not inverted, so not upside
down.

However, it did not. Aircraft painting was a

combination of red and white stripes. A combination of
stripes on the tail, evidences, that it was inverted after the
air disaster! Therefore, aircraft could not hit inverted,
inversion in only an affect of turning over after it had
broke up.

Somebody will probably ask, how is it possible

that two other, large parts of the aircraft, wings with a
gear, are also turned out – why gear is collapsed to top?

Well, on the pictures from the place of

catastrophe, one wing is turned not only gear to top, but
also its top is not directed to the side, but indicates a
flight direction. Another one is of course inversed, but its
flaps (located on the backside) are directed forward, as it
would not be if it hit by a beck. Aircraft hit by belly! All
the elements, which seem to be inverted (so gears and
tail) had turned off because of the hit, as it normally takes
place.

MAK evidence

On the 5

th

of February 2003 Mr Collin Powell, US

secretary of state presented American evidence
concerning high number of biological and chemical
weapons in Hussein’s Iraq. His evidence was covered by
ecstasy of American journalists and laugh independent
experts.

Later it appeared that the Americans have not

been able to find any trace of hundreds tonnes of

background image

weapons, rockets and advanced nuclear program,
described by Mr Powell.

Completely same situation concerns MAK’s

schemas of PLF-101 disaster aspects.

The first and most popular material is a photo

published by MAK (Russian Interstate Aviation
Committee in Moscow) to overestimate scale of damage
– it had been taken before whole wreckage was re-
completed. No side elements with windows in the fore.

background image















background image

Please notice, that visible on the other

photos parts of the foremost part, including broadsides
with windows rows were not present during photo taking
yet. It is the only official aircraft photo after the air
disaster. It clearly indicates low seriousness of MAK.
Description on the photo means “Interstate Aviation
Committee”.

Please also notice, that right wingtip in contrast to

left probably has not front slots extended. Aviation plant
in Smolensk is a producer of such wingtips (for Tu-154M
in classical white painting with red crowning). If it even
origins from Polish aircraft – on unofficial photos looks
completely another then on this one.

Second, one is the photo of Mr M. Borawski,

showing Tu-154M from backside.

The most hypocritical is however a schema –

showing the aircraft bank angle and inverting process to
the time of impact - in upside down position.

Please notice, that the birch tree is not cut but

broken, so it could not be hit by a wing, rather by another
airframe part.

Moreover it is physical impossible to be big

passenger aircraft turned of on a distance equivalent to 4-
5 flying seconds, because of it’s weight.

However, the schema of MAK indicates clearly

that traces on the ground just before the place of crash
PLF-101 Tu-154M left. It means that because there are
two traces they could be only traces of the gear – not of
the stabilizer. It also evidence how low could be MAK’s
credibility – only left trace is photographed by them to
manipulate evidence.

background image

background image

Moreover, how was it possible, that the

cockpit was completely destroyed, but avionic by some
miracle survived?

One calculation should also be add here.

Diameter of the birch-tree was estimate 30cm (

12in).

http://smolensk.ws/blog/183.html

The wingspan of Tu-154M is estimate 37,55 m

(123 ft 2 in). It indicates that the birch was only as thick
as less then 0,8% of the aircraft wingspan.

Please imagine, that you take into your hands

whole-metal model of an aircraft with the wingspan of
12in and please hit by it a toothpick pounded deeply in
flowerpot. And later please check wing damages.

Other words it was impossible to be the wing cut

by the birch. If even cut, the aircraft could not inverse
upside-down.

4. Analyses and conclusions

What happened?

We are sure that the aircraft crashed.

The most possible case of the catastrophe is

technical fault or an assassination, including sabotage or
downing.

In the all sections above we have shown facts,

pictures, tables and analyses. Of course we are not going
to convince any version – please do it on your own, just
like you feel on your taste.

However we will show here a possible version

based on our analyses and investigation. We of course do

background image

not have much data, we have less materials than the
commission. In reality we only read less than 4-5.000
pages of information, but commission researched
estimate 10-20 times bigger package of data! It is
incomparable difference, cased of course, by a lack of
sources available for us. In this section we however also
will present several additional analyses and documents
seem to be very important.

All our conclusions are based on the fact.

The aircraft took off Warsaw with 27 minutes

delay – that is a fact. However 3,5 hours before, the
pilots had preferred a flight plane, which had not been
received by the Russians, because Lt.-Col. Plusnin, Air
Traffic Controller was asking the PLF-101 crew about
their alternatives airports.
Flight plan sourced:

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/2,541802.html

.

Plusnin did know that there was PLF-101 on

approach (Captain introduced himself under a call sign
“Polish 101”, but the controller answered “Polish
Foxtrot”, what evidences that he had only an
announcement of the flight under a number), but if he
had had a flight plan, where both alternatives were filled
in, he would not request a piece of information
concerning the alternative airports.

Maybe suggestions to perform approach and fly

Moscow, to out of Russia as in flight plan, commonly
performed by PLF-044 and ATC, as well as for example
incorrect command (only to they don’t go Belarus) or
consultations with Moscow can indicate something. Also
the fact that not ambulances, but the coroner had been
requested and came just after the catastrophe (before

background image

alarm was turned by the ATC tower) can indicate
assassination as a case. Please however look once again
on the situation happened in Warsaw.

Because in extremely poor weather conditions

Pilot-In-Command would not take off, but according to
MAK Polish Air Force did not give him weather forecast,
although Hydro Meteorological Office of Polish Armed
Forces received civil weather forecast, not complying
minimums for Tu-154M. Being under the pressure of
delay and high importance of the ceremony Pilot-In-
Command decided to take off without weather forecast of
destination airport. He had received only forecasts and
current weather conditions of:

1. Warsaw Frederic Chopin International,

Belarus (departure)

2. Minsk-1 International, Belarus (alternative)
3. Vitebsk International, Belarus (alternative)
4. Enroute Poland
5. Enroute Belarus
6. Enroute Russia


Any meteo information for the destination airport he did
not receive.

Orderly officer of the 36

th

Special Air Transport

Regiment broke law and agreed for the take off, probably
whereas prolonging delay.

We would suggest a reflection about a problem, if

the pilot would take off with imperfect weather
conditions. Maybe people involved in organisation of the
flight was going to protect the forecast before the eyes of
the PIC. It seems to be impossible to be the weather
forecast do not sent to the presidential flight!

background image

Before the take off crew had been requested to the

airport at 4:00AM, so the crew was very tired. Pilot-In-
Command had been performing before a flight to
Smolensk on the 7

th

of April on the morning with flight

back on the evening. than same looking flight to Prague,
Czech Republic. During a night come back at initial
climbing the Tu-154M contacted birds, but there was no
damage to the aircraft.

On the 9

th

of April, Pilot-In-Command on a day

was interrogated by the commission examining collision
with the bird. He was not able to get long sleep and take
a rest. To get the airport at 4:00 on the 10

th

of April from

the place of leaving he had to get up at 1-2:00AM also on
the 10

th

of April.

The evidence of the overworking and tiredness of

the PIC is the flight plane, with incorrect flight altitude
(6500 too low, according to the Tu-154M operational
manual), which indicated lower air speed, bigger fuel
consumption and farther delay. There were also
typographical errors in the flight plane: instead of ASKIL
AirNav point AKSIL had been filled, which could be a
base of the flight plane rejecting or serious navigational
problems enroute.

According to the flight plane PLF-101 left

Frederic Chopin Int. controlled zone at AirNav point
BAMSO and farther directed on the east being in contact
with Polish Area Control (Warsaw Control, zone SIE).

During the flight, crew received civil weather

forecast of the Smolensk Air Base via Notice to Airman
Communication from civil Polish Air Navigation
Services, concerning weather below minimums. Probably
the PIC, who took off without military forecast asked

background image

civil control to receive it. It is the fact that the crew
should receive the fist forecast from Polish tower.

The evidence is the comment of a crewmember:

“It will be… Massacre will be. Nothing will be visible”.

Future tens of the statement indicates, that they

had a forecast, not then real weather conditions report.

That is why the crew decided to continue the

flight over Belarus to Smolensk.

Else they would rather say “Maybe the weather

will be better for an hour”.

During enroute over Republic of Belarus PLF-101

received via radio communication first actual meteo
report: “Polish Air Force 1-0-1 for information at 6:11
[GMT, local 10:11] Smolensk visibility 400m”.
“Roger, Polish Air Force 1-0-1” – answered a navigator.
But the crew, being in the same distance to the
alternatives, as to the destination, decided to continue the
flight. “We’ll approach, we’ll se” – decided Pilot-In-
Command. Co-pilot confirmed this decision.

After entering the Area of Russian Federation,

Moscow Control redirected PLF-101 to the Corsair
Tower of Smolensk Air Base, using the frequency of
124,0. Enroute communication had been carried out by
the navigator in English language. It is clearly visible that
perfect coordinated crew (over 20 years of common
training and flights of the pilots) was performing flight
and radio communication in custom variant.

The radio communication with ATC in Smolensk

had been carried out by the Pilot-In-Command, because
the navigator operating Flight Management System was
conducting flight direction in the pattern. Probably the
PIC did not want to overwork the navigator, who was

background image

operating systems and reading the altitude. The navigator
successfully entered extended runway centreline and
conducted it on approach.

The fact that the co-pilot was not carrying out

radio correspondence however can indicate something
else – the captain wanted him to monitor airspeed due to
autothrust turned on – a dangerous situation.

Co-pilot before the approach had been monitoring

and regulating airspeed. Co-pilot also had been talking
with the crew of PLF-044.

During entering the glideslope Pilot-In-

Command, that time was performing checklist with the
navigator.

Co-pilot was during that time responsible for

visual ground observing. There are no any information
about the visibility on approach, what indicates that the
pilots were not searching ground in panic, but performing
instrumental approach with correct roles dealing.

However, everything shows, that they probably

missed entering the glideslope. Although having all the
indication of the systems and after a request of the ATC.

However there is also another possibility – the

problem is situated somewhere inside the speedometer. It
is clearly visible that the co-pilot thought that they were
flying 50km/h slower than in reality. If the speedometer
failed, the autopilot could not maintained correct angle.

Autopilot had a package of data from Flight

Management System and was heading correct runway
direction automatically - there was no need to be the
direction regulated by the navigator or co-pilot (pilot-in-
command had not his personal FMS panel in the aircraft).

background image

Co-pilot could enter the glideslope regulating

descending rate by a shifter, because the only autopilot
main console is situated somewhere between the
navigator and the PIC, far from the co-pilot. Because
correct air speed, set by the crew basing on two factors:
landing weight and flaps extending angle. Speed set by
the co-pilot after the pre-landing briefing’s elements
containing conversation, indicates that with flaps 36, total
weight of the aircraft was about 80-86 tones, nearly the
max landing weight. The aircraft therefore instead of the
passengers had also additional load on the board, with
high weight.

Because the air speed had been regulated

incorrectly by the autothrust, which according to the Tu-
154M operational manual the crew should not to turn on,
it suddenly had increased, before the autothrust was able
to react. Because of the high-speed, the autopilot was not
able to maintain descending rate set by the autopilot, and
became approaching over the glideslope.

After passing the checklist, on the distance of

8km from the runway threshold, Pilot-In-Command took
control again. The deal of role in the crew seemed to look
as following:

1. Pilot-In-Command: piloting, radiocom,

instrument observer.

2. Co-pilot: visual observing, trying to reach

visual contact with the ground.

3. Navigator: altitude controlling, reading current

level over the runway.

4. Air engineer: engines work monitoring.

background image

According to the pilots I was talking with, pilot as

experienced as PIC of PLF-101 was able to turn on
autothrust without consequences (so break manual rules)
without any flight safety risk.

Also the role dealing in cockpit can be rate as

good, because for Pilot-In-Command, who was observing
instruments it was simpler to communicate with ATC. He
also was not searching the ground contact. Altitude was
clearly monitored by the navigator, and all the
crewmembers were to be informed about flight level
permanently.

Pilot-In-Command knowing altitude, attack angle

and real descending rate was maintaining specified in
approach charts glideslope descending angle. But he was
flying above the glideslope and in parallel to the
glideslope. There was a great risk of missed approach
and overshot, but the PIC had not any information about
flight level much above the glideslope.

The Approach controller Capt. Victor Ryjenkho

using Precision Approach Radar PAR-6M (RSP-6M)
have seen perfectly that PLF-101 is about 330ft, so more
than 30% above the glideslope, but with premeditation
was informing PLF-101 about flight on correct course
and glideslope.

PLF-101 PIC had not any indication of spatial

glideslope layout, so could only trust ATC and was
performing precision approach maintaining correct
descending rate by the angle shifter, he was regulating.

After Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning

System alert: “Terrain Ahead!” PIC had been again
informed by the Air Traffic Control, that he was flying

background image

on correct glideslope, conducting him to the runway. He
was confused, confirming “On course, on glideslope”.

Shortly after had orientated, about incorrect level,

increased descending rate. The EGPWS (TAWS)
command had been exacerbated from “Terrain Ahead!”
to “Terrain Ahead! Terrain Ahead!” stage.

On the increased descending rate airspeed

increased above set, and autothrust reduced engine power
to minimal, so called “little gas”.

After reaching decision level, Pilot-In-Command

ceased descending and had started missed approach
procedure using automatic go around.

Just before the descending ceasing, the EGPWS

(TAWS) commanded: “Pull up! Pull up!” twice. Due to

The later situation can only be describe according

to the photos of damaged to the trees, because it is to
much evidence, that farther CVR transcripts is not
truthful, and is incompatible to the reality.

background image


Approach parameters – is the airspeed killer?


It is not possible to conclude calculations above

without truthful speed analyse. However there is no
Flight Data Recorder sheet published, so only indications
of the CVR are possible to be used in the calculation.

There are three indications showing airspeed

detectable in the transcripts:

1. Statements of the co-pilot concerning speed.
2. Time of the specific approach points passing.
3. Time of the markers signal.


However only 2 first sources are examinable,

because there is lack of data concerning momentary
markers (NDB beacons) parameters and their
characteristics.

As it appeared in the subsection above airspeed is

strictly related with descending parameters.

In farther analyse the airspeed should be

described with unusual emphasis to the all co-relations.

According to layout of characteristic points in the

pattern estimate values of a groundspeed can be
calculated. In the pattern the co-pilot set automatic speed
holding on 280km/h. He also confirmed reaching of the
set speed, although according to calculations it is
impossible to be the airspeed equal to his statement – it
was a horizontal flight, therefore groundspeed could not

background image

be different than the airspeed because of the very low
power (speed) of wind.

On the turning from the base to the final airplane

reached speed of about 340km/h. 340km/h = 280km/h.
Autopilot was therefore holding incorrect speed.

On the final approach groundspeed, very similar to an
airspeed (under those conditions no more different than
5%, on 10-8 nearly identical) .

Distance [km] Time [sec.] Speed [km/h]

10-8

21,4

336

8-6,1

22,7

309

6,1-4

19,4

389

4-3

13,2

272

3-2

12,1

297

2-1,1

17,1

189

1,1 - crash

7,3

290

Set speed: 280km/h

Please notice that according to the transcripts

airspeed during approach had been set as 280km/h, so no
less, no more, than 151kts. In the transcripts, it is
possible to state that the crew probably missed the
glideslope or due to the airspeed higher it was not
possible to keep set descent angle. Heaving speed
incorrect autopilot can induce flight over or below the
glideslope if no ILS glide path available.

The most possible situation was that the

speedometer fault (clearly visible in the calculations and
transcripts – it is impossible to be pilot stating “280” if
there was 340 [km/h]). Due to this fault autopilot
entering the glideslope did not enter it with correct angle,
but 2 degrees less than set. Therefore practical angle on
approach was about 0,5%. PIC was performing checklist

background image

and missed that fact. Co-pilot that time was observing
ground, not all the instruments, which moreover were not
indicating the glideslope.

PIC 8

th

km to the threshold realized probably to

less angle and increased it by a shifter (a knob). His taste
turn out to be perfect, because an angle set by him (not
precision) – “by ear” was perfect glideslope.

Such situation cased unusual situation – the

aircraft’s descent rate was correct, but each point of level
on approach they were taking 2 km too far.

ATC should be scared and afraid and heaving

clear indications that the aircraft is flying above the
glideslope did not report it him – in order to do not cease
approach and do not fly to an alternative. It is unknown
why Col. Krasnokutskiy told Capt. Ryjenkho to lay.
Ryjenkho lied however “on course, on glideslope”, what
was incorrect.

PIC was confused by the statement of Ryjenkho,

and thought that the path is correct – descent rate was
correct, distance clearly unknown. He should be more
confused because the parameters of the runway in the
charts were incorrect and the “virtual” centre of the
runway found by GPS was situated about 1km from the
correct runway, moreover to the right (according to
Google Earth-based charts analyses).

Under such conditions PLF-101 was about 330ft

above the glideslope, but thinking that it is correct, due to
ATC incorrect statements.

Let’s now analyse the airspeed (estimated

according to groundspeed calculation).

Smolensk glideslope and autothrust aspects

background image

Distance Correct altitude PLF-101 Charts

10,4

492

500

500

10

474

500

8

380

500

6,1

297

404

300

4

201

330

3

156

246

2

110

146

1,76

120

100

1,1

70

20

70

1,0

65

>10

00

20


The diagram shows relation between speed and

flight level. However level below the runway, so below 0
is not marked on the draw.

Speed of the PLF-101 is marked by blue line, set

speed, that the autopilot was not able to maintain is
marked by dashed line, also blue.

Red solid line shows altitude of the PLF-101 in

relation to correct descending line (glidepath), which
indicates glideslope, which is marked by dotted red line.

Axis y gives a reference in both units of level and

airspeed. In relation to red line, y category axis is
calibrated in meters over the runway level. In relation to
blue line y axis indicates airspeed in km/h.

background image

Due to kinetic and potential energy

transformation in this simple reference system, in
situation of red value (level) decreasing blue value
(speed) would decrease. Of course in contrary situation
air speed would increase, when level decrease.

Lift force forfeiture

During the go around procedure take off (100%)

power had been applied, but the aircraft did not perform
go around. In place of this, descent rate increased rapidly.

Pilot-In-Command reacted pulling up by the

shuttlecock, but the aircraft did not react.

Under such conditions nose of the aircraft should

be pulled up several degrees more, than normally, what
brought higher attack angle and stall possibility.

There is a possibility, that the autopilot could not

maintain aircraft’s balance, due to a deep stall and other
complication characteristic for a stall.

Distance

100

200

300

400

500

600

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

background image

There was no engines’ reaction, what is evidenced

by lack of their power more than a dozen seconds before
the impact, what in turn is evidenced by lack of the
engines damage.

Decreasing of the engines power to 0%, cased

missed go around, because without additional thrust
autopilot could not be able to execute re-ascending.

It did not take the autopilot much time, but only

several seconds to pull up reaching critical attack angle.

Critical attack angle is an angle of ascending,

where lift force became unbalanced and brings out stall
effect, when aircraft falls down rapidly. Mostly during a
stall a tail-spin effect appears. However it is possible to
manage the stall by some activities of the crew and do
not crash if only there is enough altitude left to perform
sinking in order to increase speed. After increasing of the
speed also angle of attack can be increased.

If the aircraft is flying with a minimal speed

critical angle is estimated below 0, so stall happens also
in horizontal flight. During farther speed increasing also
critical angle value decreases farther. Therefore even
during a sinkrate stall can happen.

During approach nose of the aircraft is little bit

pulled up. Therefore minimal speed of the aircraft
reaches more than in horizontal flight (for example
enroute), that is why a package of wing mechanization is
used to increase value of minimal speed and critical
angle. Please notice that the critical angle and speed of
the aircraft are directly proportional. When speed is
higher – critical angle of attack can be higher. When
speed is lower, also angle comes lower. Else – of course
stall effect will appear.

background image

Therefore stall speed parameter is also depended

of the angle – if angle higher, stall speed higher.

During approach of PLF-101 nose of the aircraft

should be minimally pulled up to maintain glidepath –
just like in every passenger aircraft. Please notice – that
is why every huge passenger aircraft touches down firstly
by its backhand gear.

When on 100m a go around had been set

automatic go around – according to PIC CVR-recorded
declaration during briefing before the landing In situation
of missed approach we go around on the automat.
Captain was planning to use automatic go around
pressing button “go around” (Ukhod) on the autopilot
console. That is why all the farther activities should be
examined in the autopilot’s point of view.

Such assumption is directly confirmed by Russian

MAK, who stated that: “Flight on the glidepath was
proceeded with applied automatic pilot in yaw and bank
channel, as well as the automatic thrust regulator.
Turning off of the autopilot in yaw channel and
automatic thrust happened during go around attempt
respectively on 5 and 4 seconds before impacting the
obstacle (tree), which initiated destruction of the aircraft
construction. Turning off the autopilot in bank channel
happened at the moment of the third collision with the
obstacle, which initiated destruction of the
construction.”
[unofficial translation].

This statement is in some measure comparable

with the CVR transcripts. However lack of possibility of
detecting of several fully identical sounds the same time
evidences that the transcripts are matched to statement of

background image

Mr. Morozov and his statement was not firstly based on
real cockpit voice or data recordings.

However it should be noticed that official Tu-

154M operational manual prohibits using automatic
thrust regulation during approach to the runway similar
to Smolensk. “During approach without Instrument
Lansing System able to guide aircraft on the course and
glideslope in autopilot’s regime on both modes zakhod
and gliss applied, automat of the thrust should not be
applied”
[refers to ABSU-154-II autopilot; unofficial
translation].

Other words from the viewpoint of the operational

manual decision of PLF-101 PIC to turn on the autothrust
was an error. PIC was keeping speed through the
computer realising suggestion of the navigator, optional
crewmember.

However should be a reason of the regulation

prohibiting using of the autothrust during non ILS-guided
approaches.

During approach on sinkrate or for example flight

above the glideslope and excessive descent to re-enter the
correct path, speed increases naturally, what is also
naturally countered by the computer. Software reacts by
decreasing of the engines power. It is possible to be
power decreased up to 0%, minimal engines power on
turned on internal fuel burning. It is higher power, than
so-called autorotation regime, however force produced
by the engines is inappreciable – it is known in Russia as
“little gas”. In Polish translation it had been used by PIC
of PLF-101 as a command to the air engineer.

During 0% power it is very simple to be the

aircraft stalled during any pull up.

background image

Such situation case Norilsk Air Disaster on the

16

th

of November 1981, when the crew tried to pull with

“little gas” set by the autopilot’s software with autothrust
turned on.

Nearly 100 people died then, due to a stall.

The type is characterised by deep stall strictly

connected with nearly the all stall situation of Tu-154M,
when there is no possibility to control aircraft under a
stall. Therefore there is even much higher danger on
critical angle, than in Boeing or Airbus aircraft without
T-tail configuration.

To protect before from the stall, there is a

prohibition of using autothrust during approach. However
there is no necessity of an air disaster only due to having
it applied. Russians however preparing their version of
the air disaster should have a starting point of the official
version. They prepared CVR transcripts to evidence
Norilsk Air Disaster circumstances also in Smolensk.

However their tactics is much more complicated –

current official version seems to be diving in gorge in
order to descent below clouds and unfortunate contacting
the trees, which by some miracle destroyed airframe. It is
very probable that there will be a farther version, because
current is not comparable with CVR transcripts.
Therefore a stall should be announced by MAK.

There is a lot of evidence that it really existed.

Firstly there were three trees cut before the impact

to the feral birch (which in unbelievable Amelin/MAK
version destroyed left wing). They were according to
MAK cut on the level of 2,5m, so before impacting the
tree on 5m the right wing was damaging plants on 2,5. It
is impossible to be trees cut so low, without excessive

background image

bank angle (here to the right), because else the gear
would touch down the ground, what did not happen due
to lack of interceptor (spoilers) applied in the aircraft in
automatic touch down reaction.

Moreover there are no traces on the ground there,

so about 900-1000m to the threshold of the runway.
MAK also states only that the lowest altitude was 2,5m.
Because time intervals analyse in CVR transcripts
indicates that there should be an altitude of about -5m
that moment, and the point of cut is situated according to
MAK and our GPS about 15m below the runway level,
the aircraft should be banked to the right on 30-34
degrees, because the point of cut should be in a distance
of half of the wingspan from the point of altitude
measuring.
37,55/2 = 18,775 [m]
10/18,775 ≈ 0,53 [m/m] = Sinα
Where α refers to estimate bank angle
Caution: point of cutting location could be not a tip of
wing, therefore some estimation should be introduced.

Calculations indicate the sinus of bank angle of

about 53, what equals angle of 32 degrees.
Sinα = 0,53 ↔ α=32

o

+/- 2

o

→ 30

o

≤ α ≤ 34

o

Instead of the trees PLF-101 cut also some of the

bush situated left from the runway centreline (the aircraft
was therefore flying about 40-60m left from the
centreline). Cut angle of the bush was a perfect mirror of
the aircraft bank angle and was fully compatible with the
calculation above.

Dr Sergey Amelin accused bank angle of being a

trial of preventing of the birch hitting, however according

background image

to Mr Morozov there was still bank channel (known also
as a stabiliser) applied.

Stall induced bank angle as the first faze of a tail-

spin – when aircraft banks and falls on the nose spinning.
Path of such spin looks like screw drown airborne by
descending airplane.

Of course during all the stall descent rate of the

aircraft is very extreme and similar to a sinkrate – if
drawn on a graph.

Therefore when the stall happened physical forces

where not only bringing PLF-101 down, but also tried to
bank it left or right. Stabiliser – a software of bank
channel was countering the bank permanently to prevent
the aircraft of a t-tail. It is impossible to maintain own
balance for the aircraft under stall and it is not depended
of the method of control. It does not matter if the bank
would be countered manually by the pilot or
automatically by the software – there will appear an
oscillation.

Under the rules of pilot-inducted oscillation (PIO)

the aircraft under given conditions must be oscillating
more and more, performing higher and higher bank
angles. After several up to dozen of seconds of such
oscillation aircraft every time falls right or left to enter
the tail-spin. Else if only the speed is satisfactory high,
the aircraft will be able to be re-stabilised and perform a
flight without undesired banks.

Bank angles by itself unlikely upset stall speed

value. That is why undergoing oscillation aircraft should
have more speed to leave stall, than to be prevented
before the stall in advance.

background image

However loosing of about 100-120 meters of

altitude (since more than 100m up to -15m) gave some
speed to the aircraft, because it’s potential energy had
been changed into kinetic.

Classical mechanics would let us to describe the

energy by very simple formula:

mgh → (mv

2

)/2

2mgh → mv

2

∆V = √240*9,8 ≈ 48,5 m/s = 175 km/h

Of course such value is only estimate, because

classical mechanics is not invented to calculate aircrafts
paths – characterised as one of most complicated
reference system in the world, needing computer
simulation. However the calculations indicates maximal
acceleration due to energy transformation available for
the aircraft in the last faze of the flight.

10:40:48,7 – beginning of stall

10:40:59,3 + 0,5s – lowest altitude before the

impact

∆t = 11,1s

A ≈ 4,37m/s

2

Therefore maximal acceleration induced by the

sinkrate was higher than maximal acceleration of the
engines, which could be estimated on 3,2m/s

2

.


Looking on the diagrams again it is possible

notice that the software should change power several
times, because of the airspeed changing completely
incomparable with the descent rate. On approach speed
was to high, so the autothrust reduced power of the
engines. However later it increased it.

background image

The crisis happened on the 2km when the descent

rate changed suddenly into sinkrate. It was probably
programmed fault of the autopilot, first stall due to
engines problem or captain’s reaction, when he realized
that flying above the glideslope.

Please notice that in CVR transcripts crew several

times set “little gas”, so minimal engines power to stop
speed rapid increasing that would appear, during descent.

Both lines are not compatible with their, correct

twins. Every such situation indicates a pathology in
approach conducting. Every time when red lines are not
covered each other, ATC should inform the crew about
flight over or below the glideslope.

In situation, when blue lines are not fully

homogeneous after infliction, autothrust of the autopilot
should react by increasing or decreasing speed. Other
words when speed is bigger than set autothrust would
turn down engines power, if it is necessary until “little
gas”. When airspeed level is lower than set, autothrust
turns up engines power. Of course if it necessary it would
increase power until 100% or until set speed reaching.

ABSU-154-II is very simple autopilot system,

looking very old-fashioned in comparing with current
time devices.

ABSU for example gives many half-automatic

functions, based on shifters. By a shifter it is possible to
set a radial of turning and set turning without a necessity
of using navigation computer or B-NAV systems.

Another shifter – descending/ascending is not

similar to a joystick, but rather to shifter installed in F-22
Raptor modern American fighter. However in contrast to

background image

combat aircraft it does not set nozzles vector angle, but
angle of descending.

This shifter is also basic during descending on

glideslope, because it is the only control, which makes
PIC able to regulate descending speed on the glideslope,
during approach without ILS.

In most of western autopilots there is no such

shifter, but a knob, setting descending rate. There is also
target altitude parameter in western autopilots. To this
level will the system descent with set descending rate and
will take it in horizontal flight. This procedure concerns
also ascending. You should also set your target level,
above current level and reach it with set descending
speed.

In Tu-154M there is no target level parameter. It

is possible to modulate very smoothly attack angle by the
shifter – since descending 21 degrees until 29 ascending.

It means that on approach it is possible to cease

descending every moment and perform climbing, as well
as carry out re-descending during climbing, without
changing any functions.

However the autopilot is not as primitive device,

as it appears according to description above. There is also
automatic approach function in two channels – glideslope
and course on ILS. ABSU-154-II is also possible to
perform fully automatic go around, after pressing one
button, as well as direct on omni-directional beacon
VOR. Autopilot in navigational mode, so with shifters
active can also co-operate with navigational devices.
Normally it works commonly with KURS navigational
computer. Polish aircraft was equipped with Flight

background image

Management System, diametrically expanding autopilot’s
capabilities.

However even without navigational computers

applied, autopilot is able pitch current speed or a speed
set – by a PIC or by co-pilot. There is also an automatic
stabiliser and automatic level keeping function.

Although there are many functions and working

modes of the autopilot, there are only three channels of
the autopilot:

1. “M” Stabiliser (kren), bank channel.
2. “V” Longitudinal channel (arretir).
3. “H” Autothrust channel (tangazh)


Autothrust channel works in scope of +/- 10km/h.

There was an airspeed of 280km/h set. Therefore when it
was dropped below 270km/h autothrust reacted by
increasing of the power. When the airspeed reached
290km/h or more the autothrust was decreasing power.

It is clearly evidenced, that the autothrust had

been damaged or the speedometer had been working
incorrectly – as already described above.

Of course it is possible to state, that decreasing of

the airspeed after entering the glideslope at the distance
of 10km was cased by descending.

However it is not the truth.

Please notice, that in CVR transcripts co-pilot

reduces speed two times. Firstly to 400km/h down to
280km/h. In a speed of 280km/h flaps were extended to
28 degrees, what clearly indicates that the airspeed of
less than 330 km/h had been reached, according to the
avionics.

background image

The speed was however higher. Moreover, co-

pilot stated “we have 280” what can only refer to the
speed. 280km not equals 340km/h.

Also the time after beginning of the turning

number 4

th

until reaching entering of the glideslope (10-

10,4km) indicates, that the most possible airspeed that
time was about 335-350km/h.

Therefore it is impossible to be airspeed

incorrectness cased by the excessive descending.

Speedometer was failed. Probably it was a part of

sabotage plane, however it is possible to be Pitot tube,
basic element of the speedometers iced or plugged. Such
situation can take place due to sabotage, altimeter fault or
crew error – anti-icing of the Pitot tube not to be turned
on. Such situation took place on the 21

st

of May 1986,

when in Tupolev Tu-154 Pitot tubes became iced.
Airspeed rapidly descended on the altimeter, below
minimal, although in real it was no less than 800km/h.
Crew added take off power and sunk 100m/s (25 floors
of building each second), be scared of stall. This
manoeuvre cased extreme g-load, damaging aircraft.
Crew had landed safely, but the aircraft was written off –
“damage beyond repair”.

Analyzing of the FDR diagrams is simple,

because of the engines’ power line, making simple
comparing of the descending/speed parameter.

However here only autothrust characteristics

information can be useful to correctly analyze the
diagram.

In the first section, all the lines are parallels. It

means, that no energy transformation had not been
carried out.

background image

Crew by some reason missed entering of the

glideslope and to be not warned by the ATC continued
horizontal flight on the final.

However then airspeed dropped just before the

descending start.

It is possible that first engine problem, wind

changing or delta of the speedometer error induced
power decreasing. However after that time crew started
descending.

Please notice that Pilot-In-Command thought

descending on correct glideslope, confused by ATC
confirming “On course, on glideslope”. PIC was holding
normal descending angle, although flying much over the
glideslope.

During that time autothrust reacted by reducing of

the power, because the speed decreased without relation
to the descent.

Fluent modulating of the descending rate is

clearly visible on the red line.

Please notice, that the autothrust, pitching

incorrect speed of 310-330km/h should change one’s
mind and pitch speed of about 280-300km/h (still not
correct 270-290km).

However more possible is that the autothrust

added power until reaching of the limit, and then started
reducing of speed.
However during reducing of the speed reached lower
limit on four kilometres.
Because the graph shows not maximal, but average
speeds (every 1000-2000m) it is sure, that the speed on

background image

distance of 3km should be higher and reach about
330km/h.
At the distance of 2km a sinkrate happened.
Captain reacted by a shifter – he set ascending.
In fact it is evidenced that on the all little bit excessive
descending autothrust was reducing speed and it
happened also on the last sinkrate.
This manoeuvre is clearly visible on the red line.
Because of the low engines power and pull up (to catch
the glideslope, and not induce sink rate) speed became
farther decreasing.
Under this conditions engines’ power should be
decreased.
However it did not.
At an altitude of 100m PIC pressed “Go around” button
to perform automatic go around, because with a nose
much pulled up he was not possible to land on that
approach and he did not see the ground on the decision
level. However engines stopped. It is visible, because the
stall speed on the graph was reached before short
horizontal flight.
On stall speed autopilot pulled up.
It is evidenced, because TAWS ceased to command “Pull
up! Pull up!” and only became warning “Terrain Ahead!
Terrain Ahead!”. With nose-up for 7 seconds autopilot
maintained horizontal flight.
After this time a deep stall appeared or the PIC tried to
sink. However probably he did not know about the stall
speed, because of the speedometer fault.
He should know about engines fault and was not able to
do anything.

background image

Stall induced sink rate. It is evidenced by 20m/s

descending rate oscillating characteristically for stall.
During the stall aircraft became uncontrollable.
It banked to the right and than to the left.
Speed increased due to high descent rate.
However there was no enough speed to cease descending
and reach runway.
Engines were not working because high-temperature
gases did not damage tress or grass. Engines were also
undamaged, although should round 20.000 times per
minute.

However on the level of 10m, when the PIC was

able to touch down in the forest the aircraft should be
attacked by a missile.

Why not a pilot error (not self-inducing sinkrate)

Path and terrain

0

100

300

500

700

2000

7000

12000

background image

A graph above shows relation of the glideslope and real
path to the terrain. Terrain line is drown not above the
runway, but above the sea level of 0 meters. Y axis is
scaled in meters above the sea level, X axis in kilometres
from the runway. Correct glideslope enter is a virtual
point situated 500m over the runway in distance of
10.4km. It is clearly visible on the graph in the place of
black line’s breaking.
Blue line refers to real path and red line of course refers
to the terrain. 252m is a level of the runway over the sea
level.
This graph is similar to graphical analyzes of Dr Sergey
Amelin, who – as it is already stated above – tried to
evidence, that the descending had been carried out using
the radio altimeter, which indicates in aircraft current
distance to the terrain, so current altitude over terrain.
Because of this fact, according to many descriptions path
graphed above is an evidence on radio altimeter use.
Graphing of such draw indicates some problems, because
of lack of data from Flight Data Recorder, which still is
kept in secret. Due to this fact points of every altitude
reaching can be only estimate.
However any relation of the path and terrain until last
several seconds of the flight cannot be evidenced.
Flight path has only relation to the glideslope and does
not have relation to the terrain.
A graph above delivers however piece of information
about the TAWS settings.

background image

Excessive descent rate graph, official material of Federal
Aviation Administration of U.S. Shows, that TAWS
alerts are dependent of descent rate and height above
terrain. Commands of TAWS were however other,
because there was no Instrument Landing System in
Smolensk, the airport is not added to TAWS database
(there is no Russian any airport in the database due to
other pressure format, not QNG – TAWS base) as well as
specific version of TAWS installed – it is unknown
whether it was a military device.
However rule of TAWS reaction is unchangeable: there
are several steps of alerts. On the graph above, on the
altitude of about 650m TAWS alerted first time using

background image

alert “Terrain Ahead”. The alert had not been repeated
regularly, but since the time of 150m over terrain
crossing, TAWS changed command into “Terrain Ahead!
Terrain Ahead!”, until altitude of 100m, when TAWS
screamed “Pull up! Pull up!”.

Terrain Impact

Once again - during go around procedure take off

(100%) power had been applied, but the aircraft did not
perform go around, the descent rate increased rapidly.

Pilot-In-Command reacted pulling up by the

shuttlecock, but the aircraft did not react.

There is a possibility, that the autopilot could not

maintain aircraft’s balance, due to a deep stall.

Because although 100% power had been applied

and a stall took place, there should not be any engines
power that time. Another words engines did not react on
the full power setting.

During the terrain impact engines were dry –

because did not take fire. For the reason that there were
no any engines rounds, all of them were turned off (or
failed) 15-20s before the impact, so just on the decision
level of 330ft, during max power setting.

The main case of the catastrophe was therefore

engines failure.

There are several possibilities to be the work of an

engine stopped. On the common sense, it is possible to
state, that during break in fuel pumping installation, or
technical fault (self-acting fault, fatigue, mechanical
damage). There is also a possibility to be engines failed

background image

(all the engines) due to a bird strike, for example during
famous and well-known Airbus emergency landing of the
Hudson river. But there was no any confirmed bird
activity over Smolensk. Moreover, never in the history
any Tu-154M has had any engines problem, casing
serious safety occurrence, because of bird strike.

There was only one situation when all the engines

suddenly ceased working, after the air engineer did not
apply fuel installation – however such error can only
happen just after the take off , in initial climbing phase,
except during approach.

So the only case of engine problems can be

sabotage or terrorism act, because failure of all engines
(just after an overhaul) in one, specific moment of go
around procedure, could not happen coincidentally.

All the steering during impact was usable,

because all the rudder of horizontal stabilizer was moved
to down, right wing aileron were made up, and a vertical
stabilizer rudder surface was moved to the right.

On the photos of the aircraft crashed, there is a

horizontal stabiliser’s trimmer in pull-up position and
rudder drained in little, but not full pushdown position.
However the aircraft was not navigable, because the
angle of trees cut indicates, that from the time of first
trees contact to the terrain impact aircraft several times
banked up 4-5 times. According to time interval of 4-6
seconds, it should be an oscillation cased by deep stall
effect.

According to Mr Alexei Morozov, deputy of the

MAK head, the autopilot in yoke channel had been
switched off during the hit in birch-tree. Nevertheless,
before according to Sergei Amelin (which is confirmed

background image

by the photos from the place of accident) before that
impact, the aircraft was tilted to the right and was during
re-tilting to the left. The evidence is an angle of trees
bezel. Analyzing the photos it possible to notice, that the
velocity of the returning to the left was high, which
clearly evidences stall – pilot cannot do it because the
autopilot was that time stabilizing the flight.

Having no possibility to perform go around, due

to no power, PIC performed emergency landing, with
touch down in a distance to the runway threshold.

Farther trees cutting angle indicates, that max

bank angle on the left reached about 60 degrees (!), and
than 30 degrees on the right(!).

During touch down, the aircraft was nearly

stabilized with little bank to the left, but deepening.
There was a hard landing, with high g-force of probably
8g.

Under such conditions left gear, which touched

down as first make the felt wing broken, and cased, it’s
fall of.

The aircraft’s tail, with very heavy engines broke

on two in half of the pre-last body section, because of the
high g-force, which made the tail extreme heavy, much
more, that the airframe was certified to survived.

It is a normal situation concerning Tu-154

aircraft, very common in hard landings of this model.
The best example can be hard landing of Malev
Hungarian Airlines Tu-154 in Prague, Czech Republic in
on the 21

st

of October 1981, when the aircraft hit the

runway with a 4g acceleration braking on 10 seat rows
from the tail section, just behind the wings. Nobody died
then, but the aircraft damage was serious. The huge part

background image

of the aircraft’s airframe has been steel present in the
bush at the Prague Airport.

Because the tail section had been clearly cut on

the photos from the PLF-101 catastrophe place, it is just
like in Prague broke on two.

Tu-154M belongs to the group of aircraft with

engines on the tail, so (excluding much smaller inter alia
Cessna and Golfstreem models) the most unsafe aircraft
in the world. Poor statistics characterise McDonnell-
Douglass, Douglass, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Yakovlev, Sud
Aviation, Vickers aircraft with engines on the tail. Please
notice that such aircraft every time have also wings
moved back, what is a natural consequence of moved
back centre of gravity.

When the aircraft like Tu-154 M, touches down,

by its gear a physical lever arises without directly levied
on the airframe.

The levers summary length cannot be greater than

a distance between engines and gear.

In Prague this distance was maximal, so with the

overload of 4g, Tu-154 brakes up in the place of wing
clip – were strong centerwing is situated.

In PLF-101, looking like indicating the flight

direction first bigger elements laying on the ground are
back passenger parts of 2 seat rows, gallery, two toilets
as well as tail section with engine compartment.

It indicates clearly that a lever, enough to break

aircraft came into being in a distance 2 times smaller than
in Hungary. There is no much difference concerning
engines weight and weight of the passenger section.

Of course, even in this situation it is very difficult

to calculate g-load. 8 is only the estimation.

background image

However, 8g touch down and tail section losing

was not the only effect of the ground hitting. Moreover,
the tail paradoxically was the best-conserved part of the
aircraft. Tail as a separated part starts bouncing which
indicated following effects:

1. The right engine #1 left frame and hit the

ground.

2. There was no any damage for the #1, but with

such strike, lb5.000 engine should be
completely damaged if only mechanical parts
were revolving. #1 was shutdown during the
hit, its revelation was not faster than
autorotation, fuel flowing was stopped. The
external housing of the engine was damaged,
but - must say - housing is not revolving
mechanical part of the engine, but rather a part
of the aircraft holding the engine. Face of the
compressor disc left its envelope.

3. A engine #3 foremost compressor disc left its

engine, but the vans of the disk were damaged
in less than 15%. 85% of the vans were in
perfect condition. Nevertheless, please imagine
condition of the vans during hit with revolving
20.000 rounds per minute. Undamaged vane
rate would reach 0%; disk would be
disintegrated. This is specific situation, because
hitting ground revolving part, would be
completely free – not connected with mother
engine. Under such conditions during impact
fan disc would be parted on 10 or even 100
parts. Many of this would be probably possible

background image

to find in a distance of several kilometres, not
50m. Soloviev D-30-KU-154-II foremost disc’s
diameter estimates 1,4m, and with full thrust
(take off100% power according to MAK had
been added). Therefore, if it would be a truth, a
disc would rotate 333 times per second and if
we imagine it as a wheel of a car, it would ride
circa 6500 mph! Please imagine now what
would make with such extremely fast rotating
disc power, which completely destroyed
lb20.000 airplane. Even in low engine power
about 10%, so much less than on normal
approach engines would be destroyed.
Destroyed much more, than the airframe.

4. The vertical stabilizer left the tail during the hit

and flew on its own 50m. After the ground,
impact it performed one turning airborne and in
normal layout stand left from the clearly visible
aircraft’s centreline. The horizontal stabilizers
and rudders were destroyed and laying on the
centreline. The vertical (direction) rudder was
turned right.

5. Tail section had been turned over, so the space

after the stabilizer touched ground, but also
directed opposite to the flight course. Other
words engine nozzles were indicating flight
direction (west), as well as the rest of the
aircraft.

6. The little part of the passenger compartment

was situated also inverted, also turned out, and
even more far to the rest of the aircraft, than a
tail. It means that the tail had been inverting

background image

after the impact. It is not truth, that parts of the
aircraft situated rearmost had contacted ground
firstly. It is idiot conception, because under this
conditions, aircraft would have to fly back,
what is impossible. Please for example do not
believe in such reasoning representing by Dr.
Sergei Amelin. If it would be truth, it means
that the ground is a big area of stick. That
would be why, any element did not perform
several turnings off. Please notice that when
the aircraft is destroyed during the hit, parts
will be flying all the directions and 90% of
them will make half, one or several turnings
off.

7. The #3 engine did not left his place in the tail

compartment, it is situated inside the airframe,
like in the past. It’s down door flap using by
the ground service to get access to the engine,
is taken from the hinge, and left big hole, that
is able to be admire on the pictures, however
#2 engine is not visible on any picture.

At the moment of the tail breaking also another

damages should happened, because of much higher
destroy rate of the other aircraft body and airframe parts.
Main part of the airframe in a centerwing situated circa in
1/3 of total aircraft’s length – it is moved back.

On the centerwing two low wings, long and thin

are going to the back with high angle as in a passenger
aircraft. In Boeing B-727 wings, although shorter seem to
be much more solid. Please notice, that B-727, archetype
of Tu-154 has gear situated under the body, but Russian

background image

design has gear situated on the wing, like many other
aircrafts.

Gear of Tu-154 has not a tendency to collapsing,

although there were such situations after rolling off the
runway. Nevertheless, during very hard landing it is
possible for the wing to cracking, because of their high
load rate, because of the main gear.

According to Russian pilot Mr Ivan Khohlov,

former Aeroflot flight instructor (on Tu-154, Tu-134, Il-
62) and former member of air accident investigating
commission, who spend airborne 18.000 hours, including
10.000 as a pilot of Tu-154, the aircraft did not hit upside
down, as MAK states.

To my mind, it was a technical fault. Flaps were

extended on 28 degrees in the aircraft, so the pilots made
them up, during go around in automatic mode at a level
of 100 or 80 meters. Plane from unknown cases went
down. Pilots wouldn’t give up landing configuration
(which admittedly evidences making up flaps) for go
around configuration, if they wanted to land. Flap
making up lasts a while, it is not just, that I set suddenly
they are up.

In the last phase of the flight, when the pilots pull

the rudder it was already no time for thinking about the
flaps, so they had been set up earlier.

It is complete tommyrot that the aircraft impacted

allegedly turned over. It never took place yet. Tupolevs
with subtracted huge parts of wings were come back
airport safely. It is not just, that an aircraft ad hoc turns
out in 3 seconds. It weights 80-100 tones! Please
visualize yourself that it is so much as 1200 adult man.

background image

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/index.php?typ=po&dat=201
00804&id=po18.txt

.

It seems to be very truthfully, but Mr Khohlov

also explains what could happened with Tu-154M after
hard landing and losing it’s tail with engines, which is
typical behaviour, confirmed by Tu-154 accidents.

They tried to settle emergency on the mead before

the runway, but the aircraft swing so much in lateral
side, that strongly hit the ground either left or right wing,
or even gear. The hit had been so strong, that it cased
detachment of wing-gear section from the centerwing and
the aircraft broke on two. Fuselage became smashed.
Both centerwing parts, along with main wing parts with
gear fall in upside down position. After a huge impact
elements somersault.
– explained Khohlov.

Maybe version of Khohlov is not a flashpoint on

the way to reach the truth, but it puts in plain words what
should happened with the aircraft after the touchdown,
when it destroyed, losing the tail.

The real sequence of events could be simple:

1. Left gear contacts ground (on the satellite photos,

left gear trace is longer), it is not possible to be
the aircraft upside down, because there is mud on
all the landing gear tires.

2. During touching down of the right gear, the tail

was to be cut off by the g-load force, and the left
wing ruptured. The traces of the gear suddenly
turn left, just as a left gear collapse happened, but
on the aircraft photos (after the air disaster), the
gear is undamaged, and so the wing should
rupture.

background image

3. The left wing and the tail became somersaulting

and farther damaging.

4. The centerwing, without mainstay of left gear

also hit ground; the section closer to the
centerwing had been cut off from the fuselage by
the impact force, and during farter movement
separated from the right wing. Both wings had to
fall in upside down position, because the side
with gear is not stabilize with single gear section.
There was not possibility for the wing to maintain
the stabilisation on this side, so it overturned.

5. Foremost part of the compartment during 5g also

had been damaged, as seriously, as about 20% of
the fuselage was able to cut off from the foremost
interval. The damage of this section is the most
interesting because both back and belly are
destroyed, but both walls with windows survived.
It means that this part received two impacts: first
in normal position, second after overturning.

6. It was however only about half time of the

impact, so there was some reserve of speed and g-
load was enough to complete aircraft destroying.
On this stage only about 50% of the fuselage
without main gear and wings was able to be
somersaulting on its own. It was farther
somersaulting and there was farther damage
process.

7. The foremost fuselage shallow dug mud, and

overturned to forward, because the cockpit is
fully destroyed (due to pressure of the fuselage
remains) and the nose with radar cover (on the
some pictures even beautiful, modern-looking

background image

RDR-4B antenna is visible), launched to forward.
Finally, the foremost part with completely
smashed cockpit once again hit ground, which
finally disintegrated its construction. In the
foremost part (excluding cockpit), many people
could survive, because their primary injuries were
not huge. For example Mr Kaczynski had left leg
cut away. Nevertheless, he had also post-mortem
injuries. His left leg was probably cut off during
last overturning, when overloaded table in his
compartment should hit him and cut wing.
However, Mr Kaczynski died during the last
impact.


Survival aspects however were not hopeless due

to not extreme g-load. With 8 or even more overload
fighter pilots every day fly, turn and train combat
operations. It is not truth, that they could not survive so
high g-force only due to special overload overall.

Future

Farther investigation will be carried out just as it

is now – by Russian, Polish and interstate (consisted with
Russians only) commission. In addition, Polish and
Russian prosecution will conduct own investigation.
Such complicated investigation process indicates
problems with documentation and evidence examination
co-operation.

background image

There is a possibility that MAK and than Polish

military commission (possessing Flight Data Recorder
parameters on CD) will state, that the reason of the
catastrophe was simple pilot error, concerning controlled
sinkrate into gorge and crash during missed go around. It
could be however too predictable and risky, due to high
number of counter evidence, beyond MAK’s evidence.

That is why much probable is another version.

Because on the 19

th

of May 2010, in the official

preliminary report MAK stated that:

1. There was no any technical fault or terrorist

attack.

2. Pilots’ training system was poor.
3. The pilots were unwell prepared.


Therefore, the only version that could MAK show

is a pilot error. Because there are many conflicted each
other versions, concerning that factor – MAK has to
choose and present one, consistent version, of course
concerning pilot’s error.

MAK forged CVR transcripts to be the official

version (compatible with CVR and preliminary report) as
following:

1. During approach the crew in conflict with

manual, turned on autothrust channel.

2. When above the glideslope, PIC increased

descending angle, which case speed increasing.

3. When the speed had been increasing, autothrust

reduced engines power to 0 (little gas).

4. On the decision level, PIC ceased descending,

and performed for 7 seconds a horizontal flight,

background image

but due to 0% power setting, there was no
enough power to maintain level – speed
increased rapidly.

5. Aircraft had stalled, crashed after 10-15

seconds and broke into parts.


MAK will blame the pilot to fail go around and

crash, due to horizontal flight attempt on 0% power.

Nobody will notice that the engines were turned

off, nobody will notice, that the autothrust would
automatically (step by step) add 100% start power after
the stall or even before, due to speed parameter less than
added.

Nobody will ask why the Terrain Awareness

Warning System commanded mortally “Pull up!”, why
there was no a sound signal of stall speed in the flight
deck, although such devices had been installed, as one of
the basic airliner warning equipment. Nobody will also
ask how was it possible to cease descending in several
seconds from 20m/s sinkrate. Nobody will ask why after
full power setting TAWS did not alert: “Don’t sink!
Don’s sink!”. Nobody will ask why the Russians lay
again…

background image

Meters to feet multiply by 3,281
Feet to meters multiply by 0,305

Km/h to knots multiply by 0,539
Knots to km/h multiply by 1,853

Km to nm multiply by 0,539
Nm to km multiply by 1,852

M/s to ft/m multiply by 196,8
Ft/m to m/s multiply by 0,0051

Pounds to kg multiply by 0,453
Kg to pounds multiply by 2,205

Litters to gallons multiply by 0,264
Gallons to litter multiply by 3,785

Kg to gallons multiply by 0,33
Gallons to kg multiply by 3,03


Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
Wybuch niezmiernie?lekiej supernowej potwierdza, że Wszechświat rozszerza się coraz szybciej (2)
03 55 zakres raportu wojewódzkiego o korzystaniu ze środ (1)
Naukowcy potwierdzili podgrzewanie się atmosfery nad uskokiem przed japońskim trzęsieniem
Były szef FBI otruty potwierdził że smugi chemiczne są prawdziwe
potwierdzenie ze jest sie malym przedsiebiorca nie podlegajacym pod Mwst (Vat)
Stary człowiek i morze - udowodnij że człowieka można zniszczyc ale nie pokonać, Przydatne do szkoły
Badania potwierdzają, że życie może znajdować się głęboko pod powierzchnią chłodnych, odległych plan
Naukowcy ostrzegają, że eksperymenty w LHC mogą doprowadzić do katastrofy
Raport o kosztach podróży ze zwrotem kosztu przejazdu1
2012 04 24 Postępowanie egzekucyjne musi potwierdzić, że firma nie ma majątku
Ajurwedyjski detoks Naukowo potwierdzony 4 stopniowy program na stany zapalne zdrowie jelit ciala i
Naukowcy ogłosili, że człowiek powstał z pyłu gwiezdnego
Antoni Macierewicz To pewne Tu 154M został zniszczony ładunkiem wybuchowym
Potwierdzono, że materia i antymateria to lustrzane odbicia
Test ze znajomości Balladyny(1), SZKOŁA POMOCE NAUKOWE
Socjologia wykład 5 mini, ''pomoce naukowe'' ze wszystkiego
Raport ze sprawdzianu czwartoklasisty

więcej podobnych podstron