Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/katastrofa...845,temat.html
Automatic translation:
Automatic translation:
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
- 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
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Then there is the claim about explosives....
BBC News - Smolensk jet crash: Polish prosecutors deny explosives claim
I wonder.........?
Odd, that this engineer was found hanged.
Bulgaria: Key Witness in Kaczynski Plane Crash Case Found Dead - Novinite.com - Sofia News Agency
Then there is the claim about explosives....
BBC News - Smolensk jet crash: Polish prosecutors deny explosives claim
I wonder.........?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Amelin (the author of photos or broken tree branches and blog with explanations) explained, during WWII the airport was bombed for 2 years by Soviet army and for 2 years by Nazis. 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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Resignation statement at the top of the Rzezcpospolita main page (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.
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), 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.
Resignation statement at the top of the Rzezcpospolita main page (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.
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), 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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like the Commission's investigation is going well.....
It is time to lay this beast to rest...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Poland, Zyrardow
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are new (supposedly more detailed) transcripts if anybody is still interested:
https://translate.googleusercontent....cr13jzQo8Tllg#
http://doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/nowe_stenogramy.pdf
https://translate.googleusercontent....cr13jzQo8Tllg#
http://doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/nowe_stenogramy.pdf
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
This applies to high ranked military, politicians, VIPs and managers.
Leave the flight deck decisions to the captain.