Antoni Macierewicz response to the Miller's report

Antoni Macierewicz response to the Miller's report (photo Mariusz Trolinski)
What happened 15 metres above the ground?

The most mysterious enigma of the 10th April tragic flight is what happened 15-17 metres above the landing strip, when all the power to TU-154 was cut?. The plane did not rotate or change course after passing the legendary “iron birch” as claims Mr. Miller. According to witnesses and the recorded flight data, the plane continued on a straight path. A silver birch did not cause the tragedy, but something else. It is obvious, that between the two points of the last TAWS warning and the “freezing” of the on-board-computer memory, something else happened

Minister Miller's report is a political elaborate, whose content is intended to please Russians and allow Donald Tusk's cabinet to remain in power till the upcoming elections. There are some true facts in the report, it’s just a pity that it is on such a limited scale. Being confronted with the sheer facts Miller must have had no option, but to give up some of his most controversial notions and admit that:
The aircraft and the airfield were of military character.
The pilots did not intend to land. The opposite – they intended to go around.
Air traffic controllers delivered false information about the plane's position within the last minutes and seconds before it crashed.

After the publication of the “White files” Miller had little option but to admit his failings in the report. Nonetheless, he did everything he could to support the Russian version and thus, minimise g their responsibility and blame the Polish crew.

And if we scrutinise the report and focus only on the suggested irregularities in the 26 Air Forces Regiment, the blame sits firmly with the Donald Tusk cabinet. This is the cabinet which is responsible. Most of the report points the responsibility at Jerzy Miller personally, who as Home Office Chief, was responsible for supervising the Government Protection Bureau.

He is responsible for not performing a thorough inspection of the airfield as required by law. He must be held responsible, as by law a Government Protection Bureau agent must be present at the time of an airplane landing and there was none present.

These duties are described by the law in force – The Government Protection Bureau Act and HEAD instruction which regulates state services’ duties during senior state officials’ travels. Miller has clearly breached this..

Pilots were professionals

In the report the committee plays down the responsibility of the Russians who are bound by their own regulations to close down the airfield if weather conditions do not allow landing. The Russians encouraged the crew to land, commanding: “continue approach”, “landing strip clear”, even when landing was strictly forbidden. It means that they were directing the aircraft into a prepared trap. The air traffic controllers, together with their supervisors in Moscow, to whom the controllers consulted with in all their actions must be held responsible. About that grave responsibility the report remains silent, it recalls the controllers’ faults but vaguely. It is clearly evident that Miller wants to keep his promises given by Tusk in Moscow, that those responsible for the crash are the Polish crew. It was clearly stated by Russian President Medvedev after his meeting with his Polish counterpart President Komorowski, in December 2010.

Millers committee have tried to demonstrate that commanding officer Captain Protasiuk did not command "Go Around", until it was too late, a result of his poor judgement. It has been stated by Miller that because Captain Protasiuk had received such poor training, he wanted to land in automatic mode, unaware that this is not possible with airfields not equipped with ILS systems, such as the one in Smolensk. . This is a lie, and such a statement contradicts Miller’s own report, which states it is possible to land in automatic mode, unless the other two procedures – the glide path and the landing one, are initiated. Captain Protasiuk was well acquainted with the procedures of this type of aircraft having flown a total of 2,500 hours Mr. Miller confirms that General Blasik was present at the last phase of the landing, and that Captain Protasiuk had informed that he would not land in severe landing conditions and would “Go Around” in automatic mode. It is hard to imagine that not one member of the crew or indeed General Blasik would not know the basic flying procedures to pilot this type of aircraft. It is akin to saying a rally driver does not know how to change gears in his car.

I do not know how Minister Miller and his experts can make an assumption that pilots equipped with pressure altimeters and a radio-altimeter would allegedly delay the decision to “Go Around”. If the pilots were not faced witha mechanical breakdown or two jolts hitting the plane causing its disintegration 15-17 metres above the landing path level, they would have safely gone for another round.

Miller contradicts facts.

According to Miller, the pilots would have survived, had it not been for the silver birch tree they hit and the 180 degree rotation of the plane before it hit the ground. This is the exact explanation given by General Anodina, the authoress of the Russian report. But if we draw a line of the movements made by the the aircraft based on what was recorded; the signals sent by the TAWS system and the aircraft's main on-board computer FMS, it is clear that after passing the birch tree it did not rotate ort change its course but continued progressing in the same direction. This has been re-confirmed by Mr Bodin, who was an eyewitness to the tragedy. The aircraft turned aside later, just before the computer memory "froze". It was not a birch tree which caused the tragedy but something else, something which happened between the fifth TAWS warning and the computer “freeze”. This fifth warning was not considered a factor in the Russian report, but it was a considered factor in the American producer of the TAWS system report.

And here is the greatest mystery of the crash: what happened 15-17 metres above the level of the landing path when the electric energy supply failed? It is a fact confirmed by the black boxes and central computer readings. How can Mr. Miller claim that all the systems were functioning properly prior to the plane hitting the ground, if there was no power supply? Has anybody seen a functioning plane which has had its power supply cut?

It was acknowledged by the Americans, the Russian report and Gazeta Polska weekly, which was the first medium to deliver that important information to the public; Parliamentary committee I happen to be the Chairman who presented the information in its “White files”, the fact was confirmed by military prosecutors.
The truth is - I must repeat, the aircraft disintegrated 15-17 metres above the landing path level and let Mr. Miller's experts supported by prosecutors focus on explaining how it happened?. What caused the entire power supply, including the emergency supplies to cut off in one moment?

Facts are pointing to the Russians

There is one issue left to analyse. What caused the two jolts which proceeded the power supply failure, as described and presented to the Parliamentary committee by Professor Kazimierz Nowaczyk from Maryland University, after analysing the Polish Tu-154 recorded flight parameters (in the Russian report - presented on page 79 of the Polish version). Professor Nowaczyk is an unquestionable expert on spectroscopic analysis and he researched those parameters which reflect two subsequent jolts inside an aircraft. The jolts occurred after the fifth TAWS warning, just before the power supply failure. What could have caused these?

Minister Miller, who refused to acknowledge the fact that the aircraft underwent two subsequent jolts before the crash during a recent press conference, should study the Russian report first; the main problem with the investigation into the Smolensk crash lies in the fact that the Donald Tusk cabinet does not want to see the obvious and the simple. This being that something must have happened in the air prior to the aircraft hitting the ground.
This is why Miller’s report looks as it does. It consists of evasions, inconsistencies and blunders. The reason for that is his appointment as committee Chairman. Miller works for the Ministry of the Home Office, as a direct supervisor of the Government Protection Bureau, so must be held responsible, together with Donald Tusk. If the airfield had been checked beforehand, as required by law by a special Government Protection Bureau unit, 96 individuals would not be dead today as Tu-154 would not have landed on this particular airfield. Minister Miller refuses to admit that he is jointly responsibility for the tragedy

Antoni Macierewicz
Written down by lm, gw

Gazeta Polska 3 August 2011
Posted on Wed, 2011-08-03 20:09