Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Your Mom's Bedroom
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many VIPs
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
However, that comment has very little to do with this accident & is more akin to somewhat cynical social comment on my part. . . . nonetheless
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Africa Asia EU all together
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ....
Last edited by afhelipilot; 15th May 2012 at 07:24.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/phot...eat=directlink
and they resemble forest bombarded by an artillery fire more, than being cut by wings of a jet:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=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
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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/
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
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.
*****************************************************
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/phot...eat=directlink
and they resemble forest bombarded by an artillery fire more, than being cut by wings of a jet:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=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
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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/phot...eat=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/
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
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just after take off the Falcon 7X was struck by lightning, and the Captain decided to go back to have the a/c checked.
Can anybody remind us of any accident done to any aircraft
with metal skin after being hit by lightning.... ever ?
Please !
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Earth (currently)
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by meekmok; 18th May 2012 at 13:41.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAWS Polish 101
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOME MECHANICAL AND STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF THE SMOLENSK AIR CRASH - report by independent expert:
www.simulate-events.com/getdata.do?source=3&id=23
www.simulate-events.com/getdata.do?source=3&id=23
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts