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... |
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. |
moon landing |
Lets check who did read the reports :)
Question: What was a roll registered by two separate FDRs? (read and agreed by two independent parties) |
Originally Posted by Tiger65
(Post 6837480)
What was a roll registered by two separate FDRs?
|
MSRP-64 limit is +/- 82.5 degrees
|
Read what "tarirovka" is and think why the line at the end is evenly horisontal.
|
Lena you are a smart girl, so lets look at MRSP-64:
Item 10 https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=directlink Item 24 https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=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? |
You don't listen, I give up.
|
Now, can you tell me why registered values stopped below 82.5 degrees if there was a barrel roll? 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: |
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? |
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? |
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 :) |
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" . |
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? |
Originally Posted by Tiger65
(Post 6838563)
What is your personal view on that matter?
|
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? 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. |
Originally Posted by aerobat77
(Post 6838762)
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.
|
a controlled flight into ground, thats all. surely no "help" from the russians to bring it down, no artificial fog, no bomb on board. 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. |
@ 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" 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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.