Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread

[FlySkyHigh1]

I was at a Polish airforce wedding a few months before the crash and two who died in it were there too.
From what we have heard the Polish president had prior form or ordering pilots to land against their professional judgement. In a previous case the pilot had refused and had later been 'removed from duty' so the pressure on this pilot would have been huge; not least because of the politcial and historical significance of the remembrance ceremony they were going to attend. Diverting to an alternative airfield would have made them hopelessly late for the ceremony and been a potential great embarresment to Polish officials.
We also heard, my wife speaks Russian as well as Polish, that the Russian authorities strongly advised against attempting to land. It is a well known tricky airfield, in hills with forests, and even regulars there would have been unlikely to attempt a landing in the foggy conditions of the day.

In other words it all seems down to an error of judgement due to political and higher ranking pressure on the pilots. If it had gone OK it would have made a great story to boast of but we all know how it turned out. Very sad.

[afhelipilot]

L@ , is there any reason to treat the information in the transcript given by Tiger referring to pp.9 as a reliable one? Is there any reason to believe that one of the Presidents ( especially the one stationed in London ) could had been one of the 6 people showing the signs of life as indicated on pp.9? It is shocking. I am still in a process of reading and re reading.The black box should really reach the neutral place to cut off the wonderings at once or " university publication game".

[Lena.Kiev]

What "pp.9"? What "presidents" (plural)? Please explain in detail. Please give exact link.

[afhelipilot]

Lena, thank you. The page 9 from a transcript provided by Tiger: ( Read for a first time )
http://home.comcast.net/~fotoszop/ks...s%20Report.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/~fotoszop/ks...s%20Report.pdf)
There were two Presidents, one stationed in London the representative of the most distinguished government which was set up in London during WWII, and the President was chosen to continue politics of this government and he was also on this tragic flight. And many of his friends ended up in Africa. Now, as for the information provided on pp.9, I started to have doubts and I started to wonder ... and I got scared really. I really like your explanations with many others as well at least they are realistic.

[Lena.Kiev]

The "report" of anonymous "experts" mentions a hearsay "Initial reports from the crash scene indicated that 6 people on the crash scene showed signs of life". Do you believe every hearsay?

[afhelipilot]

Well, maybe not really, So the information on pp.9 may be treated as “ hearsay”. I think Lena that the entire black box should be placed at Neutral place in order to avoid any kind of the enquires or these wonderings. Hmm the President stationed in London who passed away, for sure would ask for a little bit more of common sense. I like your explanations a lot.

[aerobat77]

Another thing that has puzzled scientists specializing in mechanical engineering was a crash site. There were literally thousands of plane debris scattered at the crash scene. With no barrel roll, low altitude (few meters off the ground), low speed, no deep impact traces the plane could not desintegrated the way it was officialy stated.

well, from that what i understood due to avilable data the aircraft started to climb at last second and even after seperation of the wing it reached an altitude of roughly 20 meters again and than fell with a bank of more than 90 deg to the ground an at impact fully inverted. hitting the ground "ballistically" with roughly 300 kmh from 20 meters may result in such a destructive damage i would say. but noboy knows for sure.

i speak it out : do you think that the russians shot it down at final? and some people even survived but were "eliminated"?

[Tiger65]

You can't say "fully inverted". None of recovered data support that. Moreover, all electronic/electric devices were shut down prior to the impact with the ground due to uknown reason.
KGB is now FSB :)
As for the answer, I do not know what happend during the crash and the following first minutes after.

[aerobat77]

hi !

such pictures :

http://rt.com/files/politics/rejects-polish-presidential-crash/rescuers-april-tu-154-smolensk-981.n.jpg

show that the debries at least came to rest fully inverted but i agree that this does not mean the aircraft hit the ground fully inverted. but, does it make a difference? at least a massive roll was introduced due to wing separation, what angle ever at moment of impact .

what electronic devices were shut down before impact ?

[Karel_x]

This disaster was relatively good clarified, may be better then average. But when somebody believes in conspiraton theories it is very hard to talk him out of it. Some part of Poles will never accept that PAF 101 was common disaster caused firstly by violation of essencial rules for non precise approach in condition of poor visibility.
Hate with paranoia against "Russkies" are not the question of intelect, it cant be changed by rational arguments.

[sebaska]

Sorry Tiger65, but you're spouting nonsense :=. All the data supports the fact that it hit allmost fully inverted. Whether it's roll was "only" 150 degree or it was full 180 degree it matters a little. There were two separate FDR's read by separate parities and they both agree.

The "working report" you cite is a a bad joke -- it's purely political job designed to muddy waters to consolidate deceased president's brother's party.

They found some phd from some american university to support their line? So what? Looking deep enough they could also find some phd from some other university claiming parapsychological reasons for the crash. There are some professors claimng and showing "proofs" that 9/11 was a inside job. Same quality of nonsense.

Gentlemen should agree not to use such utter political motivated rubbish as a data source...

[aerobat77]

karel and sebaska , you nailed it down and i fully agree with you. like said previously- all in all the mak report in my eyes shows the thruth.

maybe some minor, absolutely non essential details were not reported, but thats all.

its somekind discussion like the moon landing was a fake or 9/11 theories.

[Green Guard]

moon landing

hm Moon Landing ? Landing is done on Land only. On Moon there is no Land. There must be only Moon there. Unless you mean Hollymoon oooops.. Hollywood.

[Tiger65]

Lets check who did read the reports :)

Question:
What was a roll registered by two separate FDRs?
(read and agreed by two independent parties)

[Lena.Kiev]

What was a roll registered by two separate FDRs?Both FDRs register the same digital data. Analog data is converted to 8-bit digital by an ADC. 8 bit is quite coarse resolution, so each parameter has limits. Judging by abrupt evenly horizontal line at the end of the roll angle data on page 175 of English version of MAK report (http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigations/2010/files/tu154m_101/finalreport_eng.pdf), FDRs record roll over the limit as the limit. But that's too complicated for conspiracy theorists. If you indeed are interested in anything else than ominously shouting "Russians did SOMETHING", read RTE (technical manual, not flight manual) what are limits of recorded roll angle. Yak-42 aircraft has similar FDR MSRP-64M-2, on page 606 of chapter 142 of its RTE (http://www.aviadocs.net/RLE/Yak-42/CD1/RTYE/YAK-42_RTYE_r23,110,113,142.pdf) the limit of recorded roll angle is specified: +-60 degrees.

[Tiger65]

MSRP-64 limit is +/- 82.5 degrees

[Lena.Kiev]

Read what "tarirovka" is and think why the line at the end is evenly horisontal.

[Tiger65]

Lena you are a smart girl, so lets look at MRSP-64:
Item 10
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/fvaTsAfvyZ-FGav292RugdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
Item 24
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/lBU_pAsvEUCVgypnt_0l_tMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
I repeat, the limit is 82.5 degrees
Data are read from both horizons.

Now, can you tell me why registered values stopped below 82.5 degrees if there was a barrel roll?

[Lena.Kiev]

You don't listen, I give up.

[JCviggen]

Now, can you tell me why registered values stopped below 82.5 degrees if there was a barrel roll? Already did?

But yeah I'm sure the Russians created the fog and advising them to divert was all a big ruse to get them close enough to shoot down and make it look like an accident:ok:

[Tiger65]

Lena, do not give up :ok:
The horizontal line should start at around 82 degrees and not at 65.
Last recorded FMS event 15m above the ground which happend just moment before the first contact with the ground, registered 13 "visible" satellites and 11 "tracked". Is it possible to receive GPS signals during barrel roll with the inverted antennas?

[aerobat77]

Last recorded FMS event 15m above the ground which happend just moment before the first contact with the ground, registered 13 "visible" satellites and 11 "tracked". Is it possible to receive GPS signals during barrel roll with the inverted antennas?


absolutely yes since gps does not report sattelites in a second livestream. if you have a handheld gps you can confirm this by the following : let it establish satellites fully and report a position. then invert it and look that it takes a much more time than the whole crash to report you have the satellites lost- thats all about the gps conspiraton tiger.

[Tiger65]

I will not argue, that was a question - I did not know the answer.
However, Lena's " тарировка" (calibration) was out of scale even for the Russian standards :)

[aerobat77]

no problem, but the gps reading is really a non event. when it comes to the roll angle - i just looked at the fdr data of the mar report a roll angle up to 65 deg is shown and after that just the comment " extreme roll angle" . it seems for me- without knowledge of the tu 154 fdr, that it stopped reading above this value and the impact roll angle was estimated by debries/ ground damage / computing and not fdr values. but tiger... what difference does it make if theý hit the ground at 70 deg 120 deg or 180 deg?

it stays a fact that the pilot input was right aileron and the aircraft rolled ( due to the separated wing) to the left- so it was out of control . it may be like said 70 or 180 degrees, but it gives nothing vital to any "conspirancy" .

[Tiger65]

I am not a conspirologist, but the official findings don't match up.

The plane crashed with separated part of left wing. That's the fact.
As I showed above, there is no direct proof for barell roll as claimed.
Have you ever seen videos showing the planes hitting the ground with 65-90 deg roll? In Smolensk, there were shallow impact traces on the ground, no fire-balls and thousands of debris.

What is your personal view on that matter?

[Lena.Kiev]

What is your personal view on that matter?What is yours?

[aerobat77]

The plane crashed with separated part of left wing. That's the fact.
As I showed above, there is no direct proof for barell roll as claimed.
Have you ever seen videos showing the planes hitting the ground with 65-90 deg roll? In Smolensk, there were shallow impact traces on the ground, no fire-balls and thousands of debris.

What is your personal view on that matter?

like said my view is pretty what we can read in the report. it seems the plane hit the ground first with the nose section since this section is completely destroyed . due to the fact that it has at this moment forward speed many traces are found and the debries is located in a wide area. due to the fact that first ground contact was made not with the stongest parts of the aircraft ( wing root, main undercarriage) but the "soft" nose the traces are shallow and simulatany it resulted in a real massive destruction of the aircraft. due to the fact that first contact was made with parts not containing the fuel ( it was in the wings and the center tank) as well they hit a "soft" ground without many sparks there was no fire ball but only some minor fires.

a barrell roll cannot be proved since the fdr does not record such but it also cannot be excluded and like said- its unimportant at which exact angle they hit the ground and i think they hit it pretty inverted.

a controlled flight into ground, thats all. surely no "help" from the russians to bring it down, no artificial fog, no bomb on board.

it maybe rises conspirancy theories since the place where they crashed and the reason for their visit is more than tragical irony , but it happend.

a far more interesting question is why all the flight crew , when trying somekind of a selfmade approach with the intention to go below published minimums even disregarded several "pull up" warnings.

[Lena.Kiev]

a far more interesting question is why all the flight crew , when trying somekind of a selfmade approach with the intention to go below published minimums even disregarded several "pull up" warnings.Because the PIC heard such warnings during previous normal successful approaches to Smolensk-Severny, because the TAWS manufacturer forbade users to input into the airport database manually, because the American manufacturer wants more money for selling updates to the database.

[SadPole]

a controlled flight into ground, thats all. surely no "help" from the russians to bring it down, no artificial fog, no bomb on board.

It was not a normal flight where rules could be followed because:

1. It was a political mission to rub history to the bad Russkies. Therefore, all advice from the ATC's was suspect and subject to political interpretation by politicians who previously frequently insisted that it is them and not the pilots who have final say on everything.

2. The "Main Passenger" previously got rid of competent, experienced pilots after they refused to let politics override commonly accepted aviation procedures. The pilots at helm pretty much had no training and no qualifications to fly that plane, certainly not in these conditions and the only reason they were formally given that job was because there was nobody qualified left after the competent ones where "reassigned"

That's the core reason for the crash but if anybody brings it up the fanatics scream that this is politics. Well - it was from the beginning and it still is.

[aerobat77]

@ lena: that maybe an explanation regarding the TAWS, even when a strange one. it seems fact that this airport was not in the database.

The pilots at helm pretty much had no training and no qualifications to fly that plane, certainly not in these conditions and the only reason they were formally given that job was because there was nobody qualified left after the competent ones where "reassigned"

thats another interestong story. from the summary of the mak report all crew members were bloody fresh on the tupolev in their positions. and this piece of russian metal seems to be a pretty complicated, not easy to fly aircraft. in civil life you would for sure not go leftseat on a +100tons airliner jet with this experience on type.

the first consequence is that the whole military department of VIP flights seems to be cancelled after this and the president or chancellor of poland are now flying with lot airlines aircraft, operated by civilian pilots.

the second tu154 stays in hangar after a completely overhaul , with brand new engines. and the crashed one had some over 100 flight hours after completely overhaul.

[Ptkay]

Ptkay, if you can not provide more substantive arguments other than invectives, please be silent.

You are just a stirrer...
You joined this forum short after the Smolensk accident.
From the very beginning you were just poking and nit picking,
never contributing any viable or substantial information to the forum.
All your post are just on the Smolensk thread, no other.

I do not know your aviation experience or education, but following
your posts, I can assume it's near to nil.
I assume also you are a Polish journalist of certain political orientation
fishing for sensation and confirmation of your conspiracy theories
on this forum.

I am here, on this forum, since over 7 years, I am a pilot and
aviation enthusiast.

I contributed enough of the "substantive arguments" on different topics.

So you are certainly not the one to tell me to be silent. :=

[Tiger65]

Ptkay,

Let me address your post.
Many people have joined this site/forum after the Smolensk accident and many more follow the thread. Is it something criminal? Here is a place to discuss circumstances of this tragic event, isn't it? One of the victims I knew in person but that doesn't automatically mean that my views at the crash are filled with conspiracy theories. I am far away from that.
Neither I am a Polish journalist nor politically biased. Just neutral with technical university background.


I am here, on this forum, since over 7 years, I am a pilot and
aviation enthusiast.


Even if you were an astronaut it would not have automatically meant you could profesionally investigate the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster (by the way, dr. Binienda did).

With all due respect you are not NTSB investigator. I do believe you have strong professional experience as pilot, but null as air crash investigator.
Me neither.

Both official reports contain findings which contradict each other. I am sure, you will agree, that the main objective of any investigation is to improve flight safety. If some of the final conclusions are wrong or based on wrong assumptions similair accident may happen again with equally disastrous consequences.


Aerobat77,

The roll both parties calculated/estimated based on the measurement of trimmed trees near a car dealer (Kutuzov Str.) was approx. 110 deg.
I think, it does matter whether the plane hit the ground at 65 deg or 200 deg roll.

[Lena.Kiev]

I think, it does matter whether the plane hit the ground at 65 deg or 200 deg roll.Matters for what?

[Green Guard]

Neither I am a Polish journalist nor politically biased. Just neutral with technical university background.



well well...If you were born in the year 1965
you can never be a tiger, but simple ol' snake
most probably poisonous one

[Skyglider]

18.01.2011 Raport Polskiej Komisji badaj
Its all in Polish but the main thing is that the radar controller the whole time gives them information that they are on course & glidepath, when in fact the whole time they are 80m to the left of course & glidepath varies from +125m to -70m of the intended one.(these are not small numbers)
The command horizon (goaround)from the controller was given when the airplane was 70m below glidepath? it should have been given 11sec earlier when they ware 100m above airport level? The PLF crew commenced a goaround 3 sec before the command horizon.... unfortunately to late.
I'm just saying that the actions from the ground radar controller contributed to this accident, why didn't he warn them? but afcourse the PIC has the final responsibility! You wont see anything mentioned above, in the MAK report!

[aerobat77]

well, the russians did not mentioned such things like a bad airport equipment or incorrect radar readings , simply not to be blamed for this disaster. lets do not forget that this was not a "simple" airliner crash- and taking any responsibilityany for this might result in a international political disaster. even when the aircraft would be faulty could cause this since it was russian build and overhauled.

in my opinion- but its just purely me- having read also the voice recording of the tower, there was somekind of a lazy athmosphere from russian side after the controller informed the crew that a landing will not be possible and maybe he thought "when you are such a hero c,mon and show me how you will manage this" . the controller expected a go around and then a comment from the russian side like "hey you polish hero, i told you, no landing possible" .

only in the last seconds he realized that the pilot tries to come down at every cost and realized that the situation gets critical. so he shouted into the micro to level off. but it was too late.

we do not know how exact the russian approach radar at smolensk is, and also we do not know how proficient the tower controller was in monitoring approaches in such bad weather.

maybe , when this would be an ordinary commercial flight, the russian would refuse a clearance to make an approach at this conditions, but they were aware of the consequences doing this here. the newspapers would write

" the russians refused landing clearance for the polish president travelling for ceremony of murdered polish officers by russians in ww2"

[afhelipilot]

Lena,please do not give up at all. I really wish you could be a member of the investigation committee. Basically, we had entered a dangerous sphere of the “ university publication game” it’s started to be humiliating. Yesterday spoke with an American expert. All what I would do is; I would call the nearest American base ( friends ) and kindly ask them for permission for the emergency landing explaining all the details with a cockpit just using a last sense of the common sense and I would ask a President stationed in London to talk with a base so they would agree. I will ask you some questions Lena, after reading the entire materials provided here. By the way, let’s do not shout at Tiger or at anyone else at all on this thread. Just these further investigations are confusing all. I will ask you more questions your explanations are like a medicine after this tragedy.

[Green Guard]

Yesterday spoke with an American expert. All what I would do is; I would call the nearest American base ( friends )

sounds like, for example when someone tries to engage the prosecutor to act like a judge.

[ARRAKIS]

I think Lena that the entire black box should be placed at Neutral place in order to avoid any kind of the enquires or these wonderings.

afhelipilot,
what would be the purpose of doing it?? I see none, as there is nothing new to be learnt here. Basically there are no questions regarding the raw data coming from CVR/FDR/QAR/ATC tapes/trees. As they were 3 separate teams working on the Polish side on the CVR recording, and much longer than the Russians did, some new elements showed here, but only that.
The problem is about interpreting those data, and personally I have to disagree with the image/interpretation presented by both MAK and the Polish report.

[afhelipilot]

I’m in the middle of reading M report now. The reason why I would place a black box at a neutral place is to avoid further meaningless types of the investigations. I would place a black box in London or at the base for the screening and would just live it there. After reading M report, I will ask Lena more questions regarding the interpretation of the facts.

[Karel_x]

By the rules of ICAO (UNO), investigation is done by state, where the disaster happens and to store black boxes on “neutral” place is very unusual and nonstandard request. I think that problem is not in the way of MAK investigation, they did their investigation on good standard level.

Anyway if MAK did anything, some part of Poles will dispute something else. Read Polish reaction to MAK report. They collect tens or hundredths reasons why the MAK report is incorrect. It is mostly stupid discussion - if captain have several hours more or less, whether 4-th steward was or not a member of crew and so on. I understand when they should disuse a few important issues and give their own version or scenario. Bud this is not the goal – the goal is to blame and to defame Russkies.

[aerobat77]

karel is fully right . polish people are ( and thats good so! ) proud people so its hard for them to understand that basicly very very poor airmanship of the polish pilots created this disaster and nothing else.

[afhelipilot]

I am still reading the m report, is not a bad one. I really doubt that a woman T a head of the Russian sky , would let her commission to state anything that would had been against the common facts. Perhaps, there was a pressure. Lena is right. It’s one of the first feelings after reading m report for a first time. I spoke with my friend, following what Lena has stated so far, we would take actions, upon hearing the first information regarding the situation. We would discuss the other landing options with other President the one who used to live in L and with a cockpit. I would defend him.Well, we would had proposed perhaps a base just to avoid an embarrassment. Having several hours on this flight is a long time really. For sure, I know if I would had flown again the helicopter with the others who would at constant insist of what I should do they would end up at the nearest park. I will point out the points for Lena to explain further on few doubts and will draw a picture of what we would do to learn. As for now, I see that that further investigations are meaningless.

[afhelipilot]

Karel yes had read few of the comments ( emotional ones ) so far and stopped at the “ shooting scenery”. I agree with Potato232 comments.

Lena, the correct answers for this tragic crash accident could be easily found on: pp.101-105 at m report. Do you agree with a term “ clash of the motives” as pointed in m report?. I definitely do. This should had been a beginning point of the investigation.. Lena, were there any shootings at Smolensk or were they implemented if any in order to scary and to stop the locals coming up and watching this tragedy? Or is it a disinformation? I got scared again really. As I said, I would stay with the other President living in London to the nearest end and would had tried to land with the others at the nearest base after hearing the first negative information instead of being a lamb.

[punkalouver]

No reason to shout.

Some research would have brought up from this post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/415657-polish-presidential-flight-crash-thread-36.html#post5781959) an unofficial transcript (Google Docs):

http://bit.ly/92Jb76

No transcript in this link.

[wozzo]

No transcript in this link.
Try clicking on "English" at bottom of page. Or download this PDF printout (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3761182/TU-154-101-CVR-transcript-translation.pdf).

[afhelipilot]

Following the PDF ( for a first time ) the voice belongs to the General ( I am sure ) . If there was enough fuel to fly to Moscow as proposed -then there would had been also enough to fly to the base. Yes, of course the base would had given an emergency landing permission already had asked. I guess all must find the suitable answers on their owns, following the material given here.

[Starbear]

Prosecutor shoots himself according to BBC


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16466522 >

[coldair]

Polish prosecutor Mikolaj Przybyl shoots himself after news conference | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084259/Polish-prosecutor-Mikolaj-Przybyl-shoots-news-conference.html)

[talkpedlar]

Oh Lordy..Has there ever been an accident investigation plagued by so many allegations and distractions?

Whatever communications were hacked/tapped/altered, here we had an aeroplane full of VVIPs flying into the ground in wx clearly below minima.

(Yet another Mull of Kintyre/Ron Brown tragedy.. wtf plans and approves these flights? eggs in baskets etc..)

Regarding this particular tragedy, maybe time that some nations adopted a rigid sterile-cockpit policy? Just MHO of course. TP

[LeClercus]

On January 16, 2012 Office of Millitary Prosecutor released new version of transcript prepared by Forensic Lab. I added part of that new transcript (starting 10:25.7) to the 2 other transcripts released earlier.

In this spreadsheet all three are put side by side with each row representing one second:
http://goo.gl/Uunk7

Now we have three versions of the transcript. One prepared by Russians in 2010 and released by Polish government. One prepared by Polish side and released in January 2011. Finally, the newest one prepared by Polish forensic lab and released yesterday, January 16, 2012.

All three have different timelines. Scroll to 10:25.7

[Flytiger]

There are all sorts of fail written over the flight, without even looking at the cockpit: They put that many VIPs on the one flight? Ironically, the prosecutor's aim was off - he's still alive.

[Flytiger]

Please, continue your discussion...

Was my comment so shocking?

[averow]

One is put in mind of the tragedy involving most of the USA figure skating stars/coaches/etc. dying en-masse in the early 60's (70's ?) in a crash. It took an entire decade to rebuild the sport here.....One might as well put all of the UK's Parliament/USA Congress on a charter flight. I thought it was SOP now to diffuse such concentrations of leaders for such an event...very tragic indeed for our colleagues from Poland.

[captplaystation]

I don't think it would be at all tragic, to put all of the Govt of MOST countries on one flight & ask them to shoot a NPA below minima. . . . in fact it might sort out some of the rest of the sh1t we are all forced to live.

However, that comment has very little to do with this accident & is more akin to somewhat cynical social comment on my part. . . . nonetheless :hmm:

[andrasz]

CP, if you take the controls, I'll be happy to hand out the boarding cards ... :ok:

[captplaystation]

If we could retrofit a 747-800 with ejection seats I would be happy to fly a 6 sector day till the job is done.

As the old jokes go define a "good politician" . . . . Er how about , a "DEAD politician"

"How do you know a politician is lying ? when you see his lips moving"

If anyone wants to correct me, you are welcome to try.

[Tiger65]

University of Akron engineering professor raises doubts about jet crash that killed Poland's president | cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2012/04/university_of_akron_engineerin.html)

[Lena.Kiev]

University of Akron engineering professorIn terms of USA vs. USSR enmity, I'm glad that some American professors are that stupid (or corrupt).

[afhelipilot]

Lena, I definitely agree with you, I will only follow you on this thread. Just think this way that we only have these 2 last minutes left…I spoke with my best female pilot friend. Would you ignore the towers Lena?? To be honest just very honest I am not sure if we wouldn’t…considering the atmosphere…like... this time we will make it....We can live behind these professors, as we can expect nothing new.It's like searching the needle in the hay. Do you believe that the other Professors would had been interested in investigating this tragic accident? I don’t believe so at the time of the recession? Let’s look this way from now on…By the way, pls remember there were two Presidents ....

[Tiger65]

Some info related to Cleveland's article:


*****************************************************
LEFT ROLL


The situation shown in official reports: according to them, the aircraft when in 65 to 90 deg. left Roll angle and with a lack of one aileron and left wingtip and with an hydraulic malfunction doesn't turn to the left during Roll, but flies straightforward. The Tu-154 pilots are absolutely sure, that it is IMPOSSIBLE. This was the reason for commisions to hide the last TAWS#38 readout, which shows that there wasn't turn when, according to MAK and Miller Commision, the aircraft was in deep left roll, with wings perpendicular to the ground. The most probable cause the Roll reading didn't reach the maximum was that the power was lost and the aircraft did hit the ground with angle no more than 90 degrees. But it's still examined. Why we assume that? No eyewitness (except one unnamed "witness" in MAK report, but this narrative must be treated very careful, because no one else has affirmed that) has seen the aircraft flying upside down. Many of them, who spoke to journalists, so it's no problem to check it- including Polish cameraman, S. Wiśniewski, saw the aircraft flying in deep, about 45 left Roll, crossing Kutuzov street, about one second before FMS was frozen and the aircraft hit the ground. Drivers on Kutuzov street violently hampered their cars, when Tupolev flew low, with left wing pointing down. But according to official reports, over Kutuzov street the aircraft was upside down- with Roll angle no less than 135 degrees.


AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION


The aircraft was perfectly configured to make a trial approach. The configuration of flaps shows, that they didn't want to land, and that configuration gave more "dynamics" during Go around because of less drag. Especially when making an automatic Go-around, when Tupolev behaves like a fighter and ascends very fast.


DECISION HEIGHT/MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE


When approaching RSP+OSP (PAR+NDB) the minimum is 100m, not 120.

CRM IN COCKPIT


There is no sign of bad CRM in the cockpit, and the information, that the co-pilot was reading the proper altimeter, proved that cooperation in cockpit was good.


DESTROYED TREES


When parts of the aircraft fall from the sky, they destroy trees. And when the aircraft is out of control, at low level, it also cuts them. Part of the trees was destroyed with falling, high speed debris, as the whole aircraft wouldn't fit between them:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ojybkZcNPd5Ay0Aq6S-nPtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

and they resemble forest bombarded by an artillery fire more, than being cut by wings of a jet:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/o_koqyuiHB9v39y24d-2EdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

As we can see, such look of some trees might be caused by explosion. The colour photo above is taken nearby the TAWS#38 location, in which an explosion may have occur. Marks on the trees were the base for the Commisions to "reconstruct" the trajectory, and the Comissions failed. Official data are ridiculous (see table 2, last column is calculated from KBWL LP Report data by a blogger, and shows speed of rotation in deg./sec.[kąt obrotu na sek.]):

Ostatnie 5 sekund TU-154 - Muni - NowyEkran.pl (http://xiezyc.nowyekran.pl/post/50645,ostatnie-5-sekund-tu-154)


TAWS#38


The real point is, that trees around TAWS#38 alert point were (were, not are, because Russians removed them all) destroyed in a way which shows not the aircraft hit them, but it's debris. Also TAWS readout shows that aircraft was 12 m above treetops, where TAWS#38 occured and the parts fell from it. Even Commisions failed to describe flight there properly: Roll speeds, which were established from the cut angles on destroyed trees, are unphysical and impossible. And both Commisions ommited TAWS#38 readout, as it clearly shows the airplane was higher. All trees around the TAWS#38 point have been cut, and even the layer of earth under them was exchanged in summer of 2010. The evidence was destroyed by Russians. There are only some photos left. Please look how it looks on KBWL LP commision graph (localization of aircraft according to Commision- black, I've drawn on the graph it's localization according to TAWS#38 data- blue, in the same scale of course):

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/lzZrHsI6g1wmfRDuIOhmNtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink


TORN OFF END OF THE WING. THE SLAT.


1- the torn wingtip has an extended slat, which wasn't cut or crushed, but was divided at the end of technological border of two slat sections (parts), what can be easily seen here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/icIRsXOZT1uhOBfcFVvzN9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink


One should note, that slat is extended closer to the fuselage than the torn off part of the wing- which means, that that part of aircraft didn't hit the tree, because the slat had to be destroyed, too. The most probable cause of breaking the wing but dividing the slat in another place are aerodynamical forces acting from downwards, not a hit. Therefore, if the wing did hit the tree, as You stated- it survived, an the birch should be broken apart; 2- neither the neighboring slat section end (marked by an red arrow) didn't hit the tree, what can be seen on an picture made after Russian investigators placed the parts of wreck together:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/sUbtcMe4uljTl5Tg13h63tMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

That means, that probable place of hitting the tree must be moved farther towards the fuselage than the cut line of torn-off wing. Did anyone see the destruction zone of primary wing construction spanning more than 1 meter out of the birch diameter? The slats survived, but primary beams behind are annihilated. 3-Also one of official reports stated that the place of hit to a tree was much closer to a fuselage than the line of tearing on broken the wing end. Commission oficially stated, that the aircraft did hit the birch by a place which was 10,8m away from it's centerline. It means, that a 3 METER WIDE PART OF WING STRUCTURE was destroyed by a tree 44-cm in diameter. I enclose an drawing, where the officialy report mentioned place of hit to a birch is marked by a red arrow and a yellow star, and the torn off end of wing is painted red. Anyone can see, that official version is ridicoluos and absurd. It's no explanation of destruction of so big area of the wing by tree, no matter how wide. It seems quite different with dr.Szuladzinski explosion scenario.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/rX_drawXqe0VF8v-ZuUh6NMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

The rip-off line on the end of the wing should be close to parallel to the direction of motion, including yaw angle. So, the slat is extended in a way it should be destroyed first. To preserve both visible slat fragments, the aircraft should be in 12 deg. Yaw.


WALKING STABILIZER


The left stabilizer, which walked itself (with a little help of Russians) several dozens of meters in the night of 11/12 April, what can be seen on sat photos (drawing by Dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk):

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Qy59sgiDUDuUrXHH8fHMmeuF8judUwFA00hIcpVP0-8?feat=directlink

The Report should take into consideration their primary location, not changed. In MAK Report the position of stabilizer is falsified, because the last, not first location, was shown. THE BIRCH Neither the birch was examined for presence of micropieces of metal, nor the wing wasn't examined for the presence of pieces of wood. Generally, the birch wasn't examined at all, and, according to the press informations, Russian Persecutor's office didn't establish any link between the birch and the falloff of the wing. The lack of collision comes straightforward from the calculations, which were made based on TAWS, FMS and accelerations readouts, and it's most probable behaviour of the aircraft according to our knowledge for today. The other argument is that the front part of the wing in the place Commisions blame for collision isn't damaged the way we're forced to believe. Of course I take into consideration, that it's low probablity of aircraft hit the tree- but in such case the birch could be cut, what Professor Binienda showed. The problem is that the potential number of photographs doesn't adjudge, how these pieces have found themselves in the birch, because some parts of aircraft on the crash site were moved, and Reports say only about their changed location, not initial, which is a lie. Therefore: microtraces examinations protocols are still required. Since the investigation is on, we may comment some things (like the collision with the birch) only in category of probablity.


CHANGED GRAPHS IN MAK REPORT


Some of the graphs were moved by MAK on timeline by WinArm software. It can be clearly seen on the Radio Altimeter readouts, which, according to Commisions, were done properly even when the aircraft was upside down. The Radio Altimeter readouts don't end when the antennas looked in the sky. It's absurd, but it shows that MAK MOVED SOME GRAPHS. It's out of question. (Exact readout from RW-5 may be done when Pitch is less than 30 degs., and Roll is less than 15 degrees.). A Russian MSRP FDR readout: it really gave less than 50 m as the final readout. But we also have Polish ATM QAR FDR, which last RAlt readout was 340,6 m:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/79c7yxX7_SHU_CNi_ItGENMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

Conclusion: as the Commisions say, Polish ATM QAR stopped recording about 1-2 seconds before the Russian MSRP did. Unfortunately, despite of this, we won't find value of 340,6 metres, which was recorded in Polish FDR, shown before the end of MAK RAlt graph, which was made based on Russian FDR and had data from the same source. (Both FDR-s use the same sorce data: the Radio Altimeter RA-5.) It means, that MAK MOVED AND CHANGED THE RADIO ALTIMETER GRAPH. Therefore, we assume also Roll graph is basically true, but moved in time. Testimonies of eyewitness' generally confirm it.


POWER OFF


According to Polish Military Prosecutor, the power was off between 1 and 2 seconds before impacting the ground.


The birch

The important detail is that long splinters in the birch trunk, such as were photographed at the crash site, are formed during a slow, static wood destruction , that even Prof. Artymowicz himself admits. However, the alleged collision took place at velocities comparable with a starting small firearms bullet.

It is visible on photos, that front edge (slot) of the wing is not disturbed and covers the fissure in the wing.
After supposed collision with the birch and loosing part of the wing the plane did not change the flight direcition on a distance about 150 m (to TAWS „landing”) – these facts cancel the „birch project”.
Sorry - you must read reports before starting in discussion - otherwise your writing is political - not technical and substantial.

Mr JK, let's concentrate on Table 1 in MAK report (page 84).
Why position 8.
"Fragments of the left wing in the tree trunk, H=5m; 856; -61. " one must consider as thrue
when position 33.
" Fragment of a left stabilizer with elevator; 522; -106." is FALSE.
We have photos from an idependent source to prove the latter, do you have some photos to prove the former?
Short & tersely.

You are repeating arguments formerly discredited on Polish forum S24.
Do you have some photos from an idepended source to prove "the birch project"?
All damaged trees are broken with aeroplanes?
What metod of trajectory reconstruction may be used when crash takes place on a desert or an ocean?
Short & tersely.


Two explosions

Scenario of two explosions is based on two registered parameters: vertical acceleration and roll angle, which in two exactly the same time moments, differing of 0.75 s (equivalent to 50m of flight ) have exhibited rapid peaks. Vertical acceleration peaks correspond to a force acting from above, roll angle peaks to left roll, which can be interpreted as explosions inside the fuselage at the central left side of it, or inside left part of the wing near the fuselage. Second of them may mean the beginning of in-flight airframe destruction caused by aerodynamical forces and preceding explosion.
The interpretation of the first peak as a result of collision with a tree is ridiculous, since the tree in such a case should hang above the plane and should have a few dozen times greater weight. Let's say once again: the direction of acceleration (and force, respectively) change is downwards, not upwards.
The second peak of vertical acceleration and roll angle cannot be ascribed to a collision with medium voltage line, since that line is at 80 m (not 50 m) distance from the place of first peak occurence,
Immediately after the second peak of the vertical acceleration the TAWS#38 landing alert appeared, which normally should appear when the left landing gear touches the ground. At that time the plane was 30m above the ground. This effect was probably caused by the main landing gear carriage inertia in time when a rapid force acting downward and the rapid roll of the left wing has been registered - the time of probable mid-air airframe collapse start.
It is not true that all recorders worked continuously – immediately after the second peak appearance and TAWS landing alert, a half-second space occurs where MAK considered parameters as missing or unreliable.
Prof. Artymowicz imputes a political phraseology to all statements he criticizes, which in fact is not present there. On the other hand, he is known from political journalism full of opinions about other people's competency without giving any reasoning.
A five-seconds ( between dashed vertical lines) fragments of vertical acceleration graphs from MAK report (upper one) and roll angle (lower one) with marked time of TAWS landing signal is here

imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/wvr4.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/wvr4.jpg/)

Your writing about vibrations shows that you do not know how rapid changes in vertical acceleration and roll angle are represented on diagrams in the reports, similary as prof. Artymowicz. The bottom half of waveform occurs two times and is represented with two or more measurments. There are no measurments that may by assigned to upper half of waveform. This are not vibrations but two times occurence of rapid downward force impuls. The scale of registered peaks of acceleration – about 1g on the accelerator placed in the center of 50 t fuselage, about 17m far from the point of alleged collision , is absolutely not adequate to an effect of the wing collision with a tree.
They are registered simultaneously in roll angle too, about which you and prof. Artymowicz do not know. We are discusing about that:

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/wvr4.jpg/)

not about politicaly motivated notion about crash.

I wrote "The bottom half of waveform occurs two times and is represented with two or more measurments. There are no measurments that may by assigned to upper half of waveform."
It means" There ARE NOT MAESURMENTS THAT ARE ADEQUATE TO COLLISIONS WITH THE TREES (upward force) and there ARE MANY MESURMENTS ADEQUATE TO EXPLOSIONS (downward force).
Because downward force was registered in two or more consecutive measurements, it is obvious, that upward force impuls related to collisions with trees must be registered, if exist.
Your comments are addressed to persons, who did not see diagrams in reports at all.
Next, you must show, that the scale of registerd peaks - about 1g- is adequate to collisions with ground structures- could you do it?!


The trajectory

Mr JK$ All
you are not right, acceleration readouts of the Tu154 data recorder can be used to calculate trajectory because they are used with readouts of height and other parameters registered by TAWS and FMS systems using the least squares method. It is a basic method used in data elaboration in technical science, if you dont know.
"means missing height cumulative" - interesting - why not compensative?


Miscellaneous

Several topics brought up by Prof. Artymowicz are based on false assumptions, or are incorrectly interpreted by him.
Additionally- there is no registered Roll angle, which could describe a half of a Barrell Roll- maximum registered Roll angle is 65 deg., while the FDR used in tupolev registers values to 82,5 degrees of Roll angle! Both of You, Gentlemen, are aware of this. So why, Mr J.K, You claim that a whole half of the Barrell Roll is registered? Show us the diagrams from official reports, please, or we shall do it.

There are no recorded parameters which could confirm the narrative of the official Reports- are they in MISSING DATA all?


JK ( John Kowalski from U.S.A. ? ) wrote "And let me correct you"- I don’t force You to use my formulas, but You forget, that there were “"glasnost & perestroika", and we aren’t oppressed to believe in truths coming out from a certain capital city.

Prof. Artymowicz wrote "My next chapter of the blog in a day or two will present a more detailed model. No mystery there, just differential equations explaining lots of completely independent data such as timing, ground and vertical track, including the start of the final destruction field and its orientation."

We are waiting impatiently, in hope, that solution of differential equations will be shown to our eyes sooner, than Your DYNAMIC calculations of the wing impacting a tree- which aren’t ready yet, Professor Artymowicz.


Mr John Kowalski from U.S.A.
On Polish forum S24 you delt mainly with lousy ciders and squezing out pimples. Here we get to know you as a person, who is competent to appraise other persons scientific qualification. Please, let us know, who is the person with such Renaisance horizons. We sign our names.

[ATC Watcher]

Well, it would appear at least some have learned from this crash anyway ;

Yesterday evening the newly elected French President Hollande was inaugurated and flew to Berlin to meet Chancelier Merkel in Berlin in quite bad weather ( Cbs) .Just after take off the Falcon 7X was struck by lightning, and the Captain decided to go back to have the a/c checked. It is reported that President Hollande himself, and later his staff on board put a lot of pressure to the Captain to continue the flight (apparently both wanted the meeting to appear on the 20:00 TV news in their respective countries.)
The Captain refused and landed back. They took another aircraft one hour later. The story does not tell if it was with the same Captain. I hope it was, and I wish him a long carreer.
.

[His dudeness]

Or one could come to the quite opposite conclusion:

that some never ever learn, aka Mr.Hollande and his entourage....

Still I would like to wish the colleague with the back bone the same as you do: have a long career sir!

[Green Guard]

Just after take off the Falcon 7X was struck by lightning, and the Captain decided to go back to have the a/c checked.

MAY BE prudent...though

Can anybody remind us of any accident done to any aircraft
with metal skin after being hit by lightning.... ever ?
Please !

[Heathrow Harry]

The Iranian AF lost a 747-100 in 1976 that was put down to a lightning strike exploding a fuel tank

interestingly TW800 that was lost in '96 was put down to a fuel tank explosion caused by loose wiring

Both planes were from the same batch IIRC - a set that were developed for the Iranian AF and TWA bought one after the revolution

[meekmok]

Ah, yes, lightning does cause accidents, quite a few actually....

1980 -- Kuwait Air Force KAF317
1988 --- Nürnberger Flugdienst flight 108
1995 -- Bristow Flight 56C
2000 -- Wuhan Airlines Flight 343
2001 -- Flightline Flight 101 Reg EC-GDV
2002 -- Ocean Airlines Reg 9XR-RB

[Tiger65]

Question to the experts:

When analyzing TAWS logs one can notice a very strange correlation between recorded baro and MSL altitudes.
From the event#33 (takeoff in Warsaw) to event#37 (shortly before the crash in Smolensk) there is systematic, permanent displacement of the barometric and GPS altitude (MSL). GPS readings, converted to the altitude above the airport runway are ~60 meters higher than corrected, barometric readings. Horizontal positions recorded in TAWS events showed very good accuracy, less than 5 meters. But vertical positions were displaced by 60 metres.

How is it that GPS and FMS receivers made a such a disastrous mistake? Any ideas? Hardware/software mulfunction?

[Tiger65]

SOME MECHANICAL AND STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF THE SMOLENSK AIR CRASH - report by independent expert:

www.simulate-events.com/getdata.do?source=3&id=23 (http://www.simulate-events.com/getdata.do?source=3&id=23)

[DownIn3Green]

Wow...Great find Tiger...Report makes sense...can't see how anyone could disagree with an inflight explosion...

[Lena.Kiev]

I'm staggered that someone could put so much effort into a report and manage to get it so completely wrong.It's not a wrong technical report, it's a political scam.

[RatherBeFlying]

Is there an instrument rated pilot anywhere that does not believe that the pilot killed everybody aboard by deliberately descending below MDA?

Sometimes the radar altimeter will allow you to sneak low, but descending low over a valley gets you in conflict with terrain and/or trees when the ground rises -- as has been demonstrated in this and other cases.

[fullforward]

Fed up of loads of b...s here and there trying to explain the very old stupid mistakes that keep on killing people.:ugh::ugh:

[Ptkay]

I would recommend banning the Tiger65 from this forum
for propagating political scam on professional threads.

Fed up with those morons trying to push their conspiracy theories
ad absurdum...

[jcjeant]

It's a shame ... Russian-built aircraft are not what they were ... :(
A small tree can cut them in half a wing ...
By cons .. Airbus are much stronger
The A320 that landed accidentally in a forest kept its wings
Le savoir faire français :ok:

[sideslyp]

Perhaps you're the bunny ptkay - while you are trying to explain the crash based on MAK report which has already been proven to be incorrect, inconsistent and false, the rest of us can easily see that there's something not quite right here...What's the point of trying to analyze this crash if the data about the crash has been altered and falsified and the polish people still have not received a single piece of the wreckage, the real blackbox or an explanation as to why the coffins needed to be sealed tight ... So, stop propagating the government's preferred line (are you on their paycheck or something?) and make your conclusions when (if ever) we get any real evidence back from Moscow. When we do, we can certainly engage in a more meaningful discussion on cause and effect, which undoubtedly will prove to be something else then a single standing tree...

[Lena.Kiev]

A small tree can cut them in half a wing ...
By cons .. Airbus are much stronger
The A320 that landed accidentally in a forest kept its wingsThe same Tu-154M landed in a forest around too short and too narrow abandoned airstrip (emergency landing) and kept its wings:
Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alrosa_Mirny_Air_Enterprise_Flight_514)
Depends on thickness of the trees, more exactly cross-section (proportional to thickness squared). Many thin trees can gradually slow the plane down. One thick tree breaks a wing.

[Ptkay]

Sideslyp,

who are you?
Came here to post just one political opinion?
Are you a pilot, a specialist?

I live in Poland, I am Polish (not polish), I was trained by military pilots,
I know the country, I know the military pilots mentality and the
structures and procedures.

It would be nice to have another case of heroism, another
heroic victim of foreign conspiracy and ambush.

But the truth is simple and pathetic.

Error over error, over error, starting with training, then procedures
and ending with the typical Polish "jakoś to będzie".
(so or so, it will work out...)

There were three independent systems registering flight parameters,
Russian black box, Polish recorder and US GPWS.
They were read and analysed independently in Russia, Poland and US.
What else do you want?

All of them delivered consistent and conclusive data on the flight
path and parameters.

It was a pathetic CFIT, classic case.

And yes, I am a Polish patriot, I love my country and people,
but it doesn't mean I must close my eyes to the obvious truth.

[Ptkay]

Just to give you the feeling, how Polish pilots are trained
and how they fly, here a nice example.

911 - YouTube

An ex-military pilot flying in this case a SAR mission wit PA34,
delivering a heart for transplantation to an airfield in small town.
GPS approach, at 5:20 missed the runway, close over tree tops,
eventually landed by second approach.

BUT: it was SAR, life saving flight, just pilot and nurse on board.
Pilot well acquainted with the airfield.
Mission accomplished.

If you try the same in Tu-154 with 100 on board,
in unknown terrain and airfield, this is another story...

:(

[Karel_x]

while you are trying to explain the crash based on MAK report which has already been proven to be incorrect, inconsistent and false

I've read carefully both reports, made by Polish and MAK. They are very similar in basic results and they are very different in hundreds of details. I think that most important diference is question if pilot gives command for GA. MAK supposed that he search ground to the last second and Polish investigators supposed that CPT gave the GA command, but he didn't know that that he can use the GA push button only when locked on ILS. So the MAK said that they deliberately violate rules (because of VIP presence) and Polish said that he "only" didn't know how to fly TU5.

Polish understood words of command in loud noise in the place, where I cant hear that anyone spoke at all... But both reports blames CPT.

Conspirational theories are quite crazy and seems to be based on blind rusophobia.

[Tiger65]

2012 Smolensk Conference in Warsaw, Poland
October 22, 2012 – October 22, 2012

The conference will provide a forum intended for discussion and dissemination of interdisciplinary studies related to the 10 April 2010 crash of the Polish Air Force TU-154 in Smolensk, Russia.

The conference will cover all technical aspects associated with the destruction of the plane TU-154 M irrespective of the technical field to which the matter should be eligible. Papers for the Conference may therefore apply to both general issues related to the mechanics of flight and the mechanics of destruction as well as specific issues related to on-board data analysis, materials testing, research, modeling, simulation and others.

http://smolenskcrash.com

There will be live streaming of the Conference here:
live Transmission (http://smolenskcrash.com/live/)

[Lena.Kiev]

The conference will cover all technical aspects associated with the destruction of the plane TU-154 M irrespective of the technical field to which the matter should be eligible. Papers for the Conference may therefore apply to both general issues related to the mechanics of flight and the mechanics of destruction as well as specific issues related to on-board data analysis, materials testing, research, modeling, simulation and others.Of course, the only papers will be the paid for by politicians, designed to impress fools and feed the paranoiacs. Sane people will not waste time and effort explaining the obvious.

[Heathrow Harry]

Christ!

I hope they all don't start posting on PPrune!!!

[Tinribs]

I cannot speak to the findings in this cae and I have not made a study of the report but I do have some experience of Russian aircraft accident reports having been in a crash on the Kola

Our aircraft was out of control from about 100 feet on the approach to a wild landing sight on a river bank. It seemed to me to be a classic vortex ring given the circumstances of the approach, slight tailwind, high power hover, slow rate of descent, slow forward movement

We hit the ground very hard, thank you Russians for a helo built like a boiler house, cartwheeled, rolled, a minor fire developed and the tail cone lay across the door. All the wheels remained intact but the aircraft nose was destroyed, we had struck nose first.

The report said the pilot allowed the tail to touch the ground during the landing

The Russian investigator told me vortex ring was not a Russian problem.

In this sort of environment reports become suspect

[scud]

You cannot generalize based on your experience of a single occurence. I read the Russian report on the TU-154 PAF crash, and it was very thorough and factual. In fact, given the very high profile nature of this accident, the Russians would have no interest in making fools of themselves.

Similar was the report on the Yak-42 crash carrying the hockey team. There was a lot of blame in that one, including the Civil Aviation regulators.

I take it that you have no idea about some of the reports from the US NTSB. In quite a few cases, it took a second analysis from ALPA's accident investigation division to make the NTSB reverse some the cop-out conclusions the NTSB had made: namely simply blaming the pilots in question.

Your report of vorex ring state not being a Russian problem may simply have been a language issue.

[Karel_x]

IMHO the level of Russian (or interstate MAK) investigators and their reports is on the standard level. There are other safety problems in Russian aviation, namely too much effort to accomplish the task without proper consideration of risks. I had read dozen of reports as well as many reports of NTSB, BEA etc. I think that all are on similar level. In all of them you can find both objective solid facts and subjective effort to puzzle this facts to the most probably picture of accident. It is clear, that everyone can always discuss this subjective puzzling. It is important not to be biased.

All of us have a right for their own interpretation and it will be always more or less subjective puzzling. Poles should be aware of taking a wild tendentious theories as a solid facts. One of many examples is CVR transcript, where some Polish specialists understood the sentence in place, where MAK and I could hear absolutely nothing, only sheer noise. How much convincing are evidences like that..?

I believe that the conference will not be a fair of tendentious theories.

[antheads]

Remigiusz Muś was theflight engineer of the Yak-42 that landed at Smolensk before the Tu-154 and was found hanged in his basement yesterday night. He was one of the most important witnesses to the smolensk investigation.

Muś could hear the communication between the Tu-154 crew and the Smolensk air traffic controllers via his onboard radio and had always stated that the tower had told the Yak-42 and the Tu-154 to descend to no less than 50m. This is in contradiction of the MAK and Polish report which specified 100m.

The 36th Unit of which he belonged was disbanded and its members threatened with legal action for landing the yak-42 in bad conditions which might be a factor in this apparent suicide.

[cldrvr]

Rzeczpospolita, a leading Polish newspaper, said it has seen a report from
Poland's Central Forensic Laboratory and Central Bureau of Investigation saying
experts found traces of TNT and nitroglycerine on numerous bits of the wrecked
Tupolev Tu-154 including 30 seats and sections of fuselage


Smolensk plane crash: 'explosives remnants found on aircraft' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/9643392/Smolensk-plane-crash-explosives-remnants-found-on-aircraft.html)

[Dg800]

Rzeczpospolita, a leading Polish newspaper, said it has seen a report from
Poland's Central Forensic Laboratory and Central Bureau of Investigation saying

Pity nobody else seems to have seen the same report... :mad: :ugh:

[cldrvr]

Pity nobody else seems to have seen the same report... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif
:ugh:


AP carried it first, slowly being picked up worldwide for what it is worth, guess the press is a bit busy with this rainshower in NY for them to notice anything else....

[cldrvr]

Here is the originator of the article

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_POLAND_PLANE_CRASH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[cldrvr]

This last link probably belongs in JB, I am just sharing it don't want to get a conspiracy going with it.........

[Lena.Kiev]

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/katastrofa-smolenska,5291845,temat.html

Automatic translation (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwiadomosci.onet.pl%2Fkatastrofa-smolenska%2C5291845%2Ctemat.html&act=url):The position of the prosecution ws. reports of TNT in the Tu-154M

- I would like to reassure the public. Called experts who work with prosecutors in Smolensk did not find the wreckage of TNT or any other explosive material - said Colonel Ireneusz Szelag, who presented the reports of today's position on the "Rzeczpospolita".

- Today's publication of a newspaper contains a number of false statements


spectrometers respond to pesticides, solvents, compounds included in the plastics, cosmetics, organic compounds commonly found in soil. He added that these devices react eg tent made of PVC.

- These devices are used only for preliminary screening and rapid tests indicate that the item should be protected and subjected to detailed laboratory tests - said the prosecutor. He stressed that it can not be based on such signals to request the presence of explosives.

He also noted that the actions of security experts samples were used, rather than drawing conclusions. - Only laboratory tests can be the basis for claims about the existence or non-existence of traces of explosives - said Szeląg. He added that such requests can now "draw only a layman, who is not an elementary knowledge of this kind of research."

- Only people who do not have the relevant qualifications can based on the residual information incorrect conclusions

[Dg800]

AP carried it first, slowly being picked up worldwide for what it is worth, guess the press is a bit busy with this rainshower in NY for them to notice anything else....

You need to distinguish between:

1 - someone claiming to have directly seen such report
2- other press agencies reporting on the fact that said someone is claiming to have seen the report, whilst nobody else has and the authorities are denying the claim as ridiculous and unfounded

They're two completely different pieces of news.

[Stuffy]

I still think it was political panic to land, but.........

Odd, that this engineer was found hanged.
Bulgaria: Key Witness in Kaczynski Plane Crash Case Found Dead - Novinite.com - Sofia News Agency (http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=144582)

Then there is the claim about explosives....
BBC News - Smolensk jet crash: Polish prosecutors deny explosives claim (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20143486)

I wonder.........?

[Lena.Kiev]

As Amelin (the author of photos or broken tree branches and blog (http://smolensk.ws/blog/187.html) with explanations) explained (http://forum.smolensk.ws/viewtopic.php?p=8172375#p8172375), during WWII the airport was bombed for 2 years by Soviet army and for 2 years by Nazis (http://forum.smolensk.ws/viewtopic.php?p=8170671#p8170671). Plenty of unexploded ordinance are unearthed to this day. The place of the crash and a kilometer around it are expected to contain traces of TNT and other old explosives. That's in addition to poor selectivity of express spectrometers used only for quick selection which fragments to test with more precise methods.

I wonder.........?It's what the newspaper printed that article for: for people to wonder. No matter the disclaimer in next issue, people don't see or disregard it and wonder.

[hetfield]

Never ever either Poland's gouverment will admit any failure, neither the Russians will.

It's like a ping-pong game.

In the very end, both will lose......

[Lena.Kiev]

Reports of nitroglycerin being found are surely spurious and incorrect.Nitroglycerin tablets are popular among older people with cardiac pain in Eastern Europe. :)

Seriously - that equipment reacts to PVC in same way.

[wangdangdoodle]

The editor-in-chief of the right-wing newspaper that carried the story about the traces of explosive has resigned "in order to preserve the good name of the newspaper." Even two days ago, he admitted that the "evidence" is inconclusive and noted in a video that Poland has been distracted for far too long by various "absurd" Smolensk crash theories that have diverted energy from more pressing problems (video at the bottom of the story (http://www.rp.pl/artykul/459542,947468-A-jednak-nie-mozna-wykluczyc-materialow-wybuchowych.html)).

Resignation statement at the top of the Rzezcpospolita main page (http://www.rp.pl/) (accessed 0010 Z Nov. 1, 2012)

Story in another paper about the resignation and various reactions to the "explosives traces" issue by Polish investigative officials. (http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/katastrofa-smolenska,5293442,temat.html)

Esteemed Pprune posters often provide first-hand knowledge about accident investigation, and I wonder if any of them would confirm that a bomb explosion on board an aircraft typically leaves evidence that can practically be seen with the naked eye, such as "severe pitting, cratering, petalling, or hot gas washing" (p. 258 of the NTSB report on TWA Flight 800 (http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf)), along with the presence of soot. Richard Clarke, former US National Coordinator for Security and Anti-Terrorism under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, recounts in a recent book how he accompanied an NTSB official to look at the wreckage of TWA 800 and could immediately see the signs of an internal explosion. Similarly, didn't investigators into Pan Am 103 manage almost immediately to pinpoint the location of the explosive device on the basis of visible damage to the aircraft skin?

It is striking that Polish experts who have come forward over the last few months with "scientific proof" of the near simultaneous explosion of two different bombs on board the presidential Tupolev in a precisely timed sequence that would make it look as if the pilots had flown the airplane into the ground seem to base their hypotheses on self-developed computer simulations that work backwards from the scattering of the wreckage.

If bombs did go off on the Tu-154 that so tragically crashed at Smolensk, wouldn't there have been the kind of gross, visible signs noted in the wreckage of aircraft involved in analogous cases?

P.S. for the combination of structural damage and the discovery of traces of explosives including TNT and some others, pp. 257-259 of the NTSB report on TWA Flight 800 are quite interesting.

[Green Guard]

LOT of wishfull (dirty) thinking...but from where and why ???:}

[criss]

I think the causes of this accident are actually pretty straightforward, and you can find them out reading some statements from the Yak's crew that landed shortly before the crash. For example "facilities at the airport worked incorrectly which can be established from the fact our GPS was off the mark during the approach. Had we flown by the GPS, we would have ended some 50m off the centerline". Poor training, zilch experience, they simply shouldn't have been allowed in these cockpits.

[Tiger65]

Home (http://smolenskcrash.eu/home)

I can bet Lena will be first to comment ;)

[RedFoxy_PL]

Look here (http://komisja.smolensk.gov.pl/palm/kbw/633/8877/Final_report_of_the_Committee_for_Investigation_of_National_ Aviation_Accidents_i.html), read all reports and annexes. Nothing more in this classical CFIT.

[Green Guard]

Tiger65= lot of wishfull ( dirty) thinking

[RetiredF4]

That sums it up nicely, everything else is noise and chaff.

Final Report Committee

3.2. Cause and Circumstances of the Accident
3.2.1. Cause of Accident
The immediate cause of the accident was the descent below the minimum descent altitude at an excessive rate of descent in weather conditions which prevented visual contact with the ground, as well as a delayed execution of the go-around procedure. Those circumstances led to an impact on a terrain obstacle resulting in separation of a part of the left wing with aileron and consequently to the loss of aircraft control and eventual ground impact.


3.2.2. Circumstances Contributing to the Accident
1) Failure to monitor altitude by means of a pressure altimeter during a non-precision approach;
2) failure by the crew to respond to the PULL UP warning generated by the TAWS;
3) attempt to execute the go-around maneuver under the control of ABSU (automatic goaround);
4) Approach Control confirming to the crew the correct position of the airplane in relation to the RWY threshold, glide slope, and course which might have affirmed the crew's belief that the approach was proceeding correctly although the airplane was actually outside the permissible deviation margin;
5) failure by LZC to inform the crew about descending below the glide slope and delayed issuance of the level-out command;
6) incorrect training of the Tu-154M flight crews in the 36 Regiment.

[hetfield]

Circumstances Contributing to the AccidentCircumstances...

wasn't there his master's voice on the flight deck...?

[LGW Vulture]

Seems like the Commission's investigation is going well.....

From the FT today (only excerpts as the page needs a log in)


The commission’s crisis of credibility deepened when one of its leading experts, Jacek Ronda, an engineering professor specialising in underwater welding, admitted that he had lied on national television about a crucial piece of evidence supporting the explosion theory. During an interview, he said he had a Russian document proving that the Polish airliner had not descended below 100m.

“There was nothing on that document – it was a bluff,” Mr Ronda admitted in a later radio interview, explaining he had tried to fool the television journalist because he did not want to weaken the case for an explosion in public.

The blunders continued. Last month, Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper obtained records of conversations by commission members with Poland’s military prosecutor's office quizzing them about their expertise in plane crash investigations, as well as how they supported the theory that the airliner was blown up.

One of the experts, whose name was blacked out in the testimony, admitted that his expertise stemmed in part from gluing together model aircraft, as well as sitting in the cockpit of a fighter jet during an air show. He added he often observed the working of airliner wings while peering out of the window as a passenger.

None of the experts had visited the site of the crash. They based their conclusions on photographs and the internet.

Finally, Wieslaw Binienda, a professor of Polish origin working in the US, was accused of using a manipulated photograph of the wing of the destroyed airliner. He was trying to prove his thesis that it was damaged by a bomb and not by hitting trees in the landing attempt. Mr Binienda denies this.

[olasek]

Seems like the Commission's investigation is going well.....
I think any real investigation ended some time ago. They won't deliver any new results even though theoretically the investigation may still be 'open'.
It is time to lay this beast to rest...

[mbar]

There are new (supposedly more detailed) transcripts if anybody is still interested:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=pl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/news-rmf-fm-ujawnia-nowe-stenogramy-publikujemy-pelny-zapis-rozmo,nId,1712081&usg=ALkJrhgS9PyXtVJmMwCStcr13jzQo8Tllg#

http://doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/nowe_stenogramy.pdf

[porterhouse]

Yeah, but they really don't change anything. After 5 years (anniversary today!!!!) they really should lay this one to rest, time to move on.

[Volume]

There is a point in remembering from time to time who is responsible for the aircraft and who should not try to influence the decisions of those in the interest of aviation safety.
This applies to high ranked military, politicians, VIPs and managers.
Leave the flight deck decisions to the captain.

[olasek]

On the other hand captain should keep its integrity/authority and not let be influenced by ignorant passengers. He is in much better position to ascertain dangers of pushing the limits and in this case limits weren't just 'pushed', they were obliterated.