Plane crash government investigation committee distorted the the "blackbox" data…

A pilot is being sued for 8 years with a false “flight recorders” decoding.
The company ATM AVIONICS, that performed the decoding, confirmed, that the “black box” decoding from the crashed airplane has been done with the data from another airplane.

A passenger plane AN-28 crashed on November 23rd 2001 on the Estonian island Hiiiumaa. As a result of the crash 2 people have died. Pilot was blamed for the crash.
Court still have not reached a verdict. (October 2010)

One of the main reasons for such a long trial is the absurdity of the accusation that is based on the Government committees investigation. Members of the committee, then questioned in court could not explain how they came to a conclusion that captains actions were the reason for the crash. Non of Members of the committee could not explain how was the “black box” decoded and what do the graphs obtained from the “black box” actually mean. Or at least how to open the files that were obtained from the “black box”. All the explanations come to “I think that it is correct” “I suppose that’s how it was” “don’t know” “we reached a consensus” etc. Such hesitation is understandable when you know some of the facts that came to light during the trial. Here are some of them:

-In 2004 the polish company ATM AVIONICS, that performed the decoding, confirmed in court that the “black box” decoding has been done with calibration sheets from a different plane. As a result the data from the “Black box” does not represent the actual flight.

– The CD with the data from the black box in the accusation has a file with a data diagram from a crash in Venezuela of a different airplane M-28 that happened on 12 July 2001. The creation date of the file is 16.08.2001, 3 months before the Hiiumaa crash.

-There is no information in the investigation about the weather during the crash and after.

-Non of the Government investigation committees members is an expert in decoding or analysis of the data from the flight recorders

-It was stated by the “Head expert of the Government committee” in court that the investigation was conducted with the use of a coping machine, scissors, glue, and color pencil – without the use of the computer files or the software to analyze the “black box” data that was received from Warsaw on a CD.

-The moment when the plane passed over the final approach beacon OZ is missing from the paper version of the government committees data charts, but is visible in the computer source files. Possibly the beacon was removed on purpose, to distort the trajectory of the flight. The trajectories of the airplane in the investigation and in the indictment do not match and both don’t fly over the OZ beacon. And both don’t match with the data from the “black box”

-Except for the visual examination of the place of the accident, no analysis of plane systems and engines have taken place. The plane was disassembled for scrap metal.

-There have been 2 GPSs on the airplane, that recorded the flights data and trajectory independently from all the other systems. As an evidence a video recording has been shown in court that showed a working GPS after the crash, but the investigation’s documents state that “GPS could not be started”.

-It was found out after the crash, that the plane was de-icid by “ELK Airways” employees with the de-icing Fluid “Arktika” that has past its expiry date a year before the crash. The Fluid froze on the airplane before the takeoff of during the takeoff. Anti-icing fluid experts in the trial are also “ELK Airways” employees. 35% of “ELK Airways” shares belong to the Estonian government. In the court employees of ELK AIRWAYS started to claim that the plane was deiced with the liquid “Arktika DG”, even though there were already statements, examinations and many more documents submitted in the case for the liquid “Arktika”. Such behavior could mean, that the people responsible for the de-icing understand their involvement in the crash and are trying to hide it.

So the members of the Government investigation committees not only could not correctly interpret the material they had but the data it self has been collected with violation of all possible standards and sometimes simply distorted.

An independent data investigation makes it possible to make a conclusion that the cause of the accident is not so obvious, the unconventional behavior of the airplane in the last seconds of the flight confirm it. Second correctly conducted investigation can give a more clear picture of what really happened. But a decision to make a second investigation has not been reached so far, even with all the violations that became clear during the trial.

In short: The accusation VS the analysis of the correct “Black box” data decoding, done with the data from the ES-NOV (the plane that crashed) airplane .

3 main accusations in court.

1) “Transition from instrumental approach to a visual approach”
How this could cause a crash remains to be answered because the transition does not brake the rules of the landing approach in Kärdla. The plane got into a strong wind shear, when it was on course and on glideslope, during the final stage of the landing.

2)” Failure to start a go-around or a turn-back evolution”
Again why is there an accusation of not doing a go-around is impossible to understand. From the flight decoding it is clear that the go-around process was started 23 seconds before the collision with the ground. Barometric altimeter= 127 meters Radar altimeter 75 meters. The engines were put to full power in 3 stages, to prevent the plane from stalling. The engines were at full power for 4 seconds before the crash.

Data chart of the thrust lever position.
http://esnov.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/bur01.png

3)”Maintaining an unfoundedly slow flight speed and fast descent speed during the approach”
False accusations, since the speed of the airplane matches with the rules of the airplane АН-28 flight manual. For the given weight of the airplane (6100 kilogram) according to the АN-28 flight manual the recommended speed of the flight on a glideslope in strong atmospheric icing conditions should be 159 kilometers an hour. As it is seen from the flight recorders data decoding the average speed of the airplane after passing the OZ beacon and before getting hit by the wind shear, from 48 second to 32 second before the crash, was 159 kilometers an hour.
Also the plane was descending according to the approach chart rules.The flight recorders data decoding shows that the speed of the altitude loss after passing the OZ beacon and before getting hit by the wind shear, from 48 second to 32 second before the crash was 4.69 meters a second. The angle of the glideslope was 3.13 degrees. The angle of the glideslope according to the approach chart should be 3.5 degrees.

Website about the crash with documents and charts. http://esnov2.wordpress.com/
Interview with the captain “Data from Venezuelan plane crash in the Hiiumaa crash investigation”.http://esnov2.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/interview/
Final report of the government investigation committee submitted to ICAO http://www.icao.int/anb/aig/testing1/files/2001/01006330.htm