Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
    Today is the second anniversary of this Crash that killed Polish President and 95 other officials from Poland traveling to Katyn forest where thousands of Polish Offices got executed by Russians during WW2.
    Stalin was Georgian, so was Beria. Most of the officers on the site were also not Russian.
    ( To fly Polish Air Force one you have to speak Russian and English)
    Not true. Russian is an ICAO language but you don't have to speak it. Even on the transcript it is clear that they were somewhat surprised that they will be speaking Russian.

    Comment


    • check it out all you need to know



      http://www.doomedsoldiers.com/MAK-cr...-analysis.html (pictures + report + charts and more)

      also

      Scientific simulations proved that the wing of the Tu-154M plane cuts through the birch tree for every analyzed scenario, without losing its lifting capabili...


      Polish TU-154 plane crash near Smolensk, Russia No Accident - Former CIA Officer: The Crash No Accident! Russian Image Management - Making Unpleasant Historical Truths About Poland Disappear: The KGB’s latest intelligence coup, and NATO’s latest intelligence disaster, by Eugene Poteat.


      Polish Ottawa Bulletin, presentations and panel discussion in Ottawa on the subject of investigation of the Smolensk Polish Air Crash Tragedy of April 10th 2010. Panelists: Honourable Antoni Macierewicz (Member of Polish Parliament, Chairman of the Parliamentary Group for the Investigation of the Polish President plane crash), Dr. Wieslaw Binienda (Professor, University of Akron, Ohio. Provided expert services to the Parliamentary Group), Dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk (Associate Professor, University of Maryland. Provided expert services to the Parliamentary Group), Dr. Maria Szonert-Binienda (Libra Institute, Cleveland, Ohio. Attorney Szonert-Binienda represents the Katyn 2010 Families Association in the Smolensk crash case in the United States.)



      Two Explosions On Board of the Polish Government Plane Before the Crash: MAK and KBWL LP 2010 Crash Reports Analyzed by Dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, Ph.D.


      The Official Polish & Russian Smolensk Crash Reports Under Scientific Scrutiny of Dr. Kaziemierz Nowaczyk, PhD:

      Author: Kazimierz Nowaczyk, Ph.D.
      Assistant Professor
      University of Maryland

      Summary:

      The main causes of the [Polish Government Tupolev Tu-154M] crash were two explosions taking place just before landing.

      One of them impacted the left wing near its mid-point and caused an extensive damage, effectively breaking the wing in two. The other, inside the fuselage, caused an profound damage and dismemberment of the latter, as well as loosening the connection of the left wing and fuselage. The landing in a woody area, no matter how unfortunate and at what angle, was incapable of causing the documented fragmentation of the structure.
      The Analysis

      Conventions:

      MAK – Interstate Aviation Committee

      KBWL LP - Polish Air Incident Investigation Committee

      Parts of presentation:
      • First impressions
      • Results of analysis:
      • horizontal trajectory
      • the likelihood of a roll to the left
      • TAWS #38
      • Possible cause: preliminary findings

      Properly secured air crash investigation site?


      Above & Below: Two years later, March 2012 ...
      Above: April 10, 2010


      The plane’s left horizontal stabilizer position on satellite pictures:

      Above: Left horizontal stabilizer has been moved about 20 meters closer to the main part of the wreckage.

      The plane’s left horizontal stabilizer position (33) in MAK Report identical to position on satellite picture from April 12, 2010


      The final seconds of the flight analysis
      Right: KBWL Report
      Right: Russian amateur photographer Sergey Amelin
      Flight Data Recorders:
      1. Black Box MŁP-14-5 (Russia)
      2. ATM-QAR Quick Access Recorder (Poland)
      3. Flight Management System (FMS) (USA)
      Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS)

      Differences between MAK and KBWL reports Angle of Attack


      The angle-of-attack values are taken from a Russian and a Polish recorder, respectively. Both devices are merely data recorders and not measurement devices

      Conclusions:

      The final reports of both MAK and Polish Air Incident Investigation Committee do not include any information as to the methodology of the analysis or provide any data which would make the analysis replicable.

      Data recovered from some of the aircraft’s recording devices have been subject to arbitrary alterations and some of the data (FMS and TAWS logs) have not been included in the analysis.


      Data Extraction conclusion:
      The amount of raw binary data that was captured electronically is very large. UASC software engineering can convert additional parameters to human-readable format if they are needed for the investigation.

      FMS (Flight Management System) and TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning System)

      Table 1


      MAK added 3 seconds to real UTC time recorded in log files, the Polish investigating committee has added 6 seconds to most of the FMS and TAWS log times, both without releasing any further details

      Horizontal Plane Trajectory Near the Birch Tree


      According to TAWS #37 and #38 logs, the aircraft did not change its magnetic course 140 meters past the birch tree, which is inconsistent with information in both MAK and KBWL reports.

      TAWS Alert Log #38 (Alert Type “Landing”)


      Track Rate Computed rate of change of true track, in degrees/sec.
      Track rate is used to determine if the aircraft is turning.

      Uncontrolled Roll to the Left

      Are flight parameters reported by MAK as evidence of an uncontrolled roll to the left consistent with what we know about the aerodynamics of this particular type of aircraft?

      Literature:

      В.П.Бехтир, В.М.Ржевский, В.Г.Ципенко Практическая аэродинамика самолета Ту-154M , Мocквa 1997.

      Пуминова Г.С. Практическая аэродинамика самолета Ту-154В (Ту-154М), Cанкт Петербуг 1995.

      Critical flight phases of a Tu-154M aircraft in cruising configuration [1]


      Lift coefficient (Cy), and drag coefficient (Cx) of a TU-154M aircraft in landing configuration [1]



      Pitch angle and Roll left parameters (MAK)


      Taking into account the effects of the aircraft rolling to the left as well as losing a considerable amount of airfoil surface, we can conclude that the critical angle of attack would have been exceeded one second after left wing’s impacting the birch tree.

      Airflow vectors



      The behavior of the aircraft after losing part of the wing has also been analyzed by a team of researchers lead by prof. Brawn of the University of Akron.
      As the aircraft loses part of its left wing, drag works to counteract roll with the force equivalent to air moving at 5 meters per second, applied to the top of the right wing and to the bottom of the left wing.

      The left wing moves downwards with an initial acceleration of -23.9, which then decreases to -2.5 deg/s2 because of drag induced by the rolling motion
      The net effect is that the aircraft is being rolled to the left
      (3.0 to 0.55 deg/s2)
      The nose pitches down violently (1.3 to 6.1 deg/s2)
      Conclusions

      1. The horizontal plane trajectory of Tu-154M, reconstructed from TAWS alert logs, does not change 140 meters after the birch tree. Impacting the tree resulting in separation of part of the wing and an uncommanded roll would also have to result in altering the aircraft’s horizontal plane trajectory. Such change in trajectory is inconsistent with TAWS Alert Log #38
      2. Flight parameters reported by MAK and KBWL describe a roll to the left event which is inconsistent with technical accounts of aerodynamic properties if this type of aircraft.
      3. If Tu-154M 101 had lost part of its left wing on impact with the tree, it would have to roll to the left, pitch downwards, and impact the ground no later than one second after hitting the tree. 21

      Satellite Images of the Area Where the Last TAWS Event Has Occurred (April and June 2010)


      Fig. 46 of the MAK report, showing the aircraft’s trajectory base on TAWS logs #34 through #37 (purple line) as well as a reconstruction of radio altitude (blue line).


      The blue line does not contain any explicit information from TAWS #38 or any of the FMS logs. We do see that the blue and purple lines cross at one point. All TAWS and FMS logs were known to both MAK and KBWL very early into their investigations.

      The KBWL Report Omits TAWS #38 and FMS Logs.



      This slide shows the method used by KBWL to disguise the existence of this data. The fact of this disguise suggests that KBWL is fully aware of the fact that this data is inconsistent with their final conclusions.

      MAK Report, FDR Parameters (Fig. 25 and 45, English Version)



      Two sudden dips in the graph of vertical acceleration (red line) appear in graphs of both MAK and KBWL reports. Neither report mentions them in the analysis.

      Time correlation between peaks of vertical acceleration (MAK) and roll left KBWL



      Please send questions and comments to [email protected]

      10 Coolawin Rd, Northbridge 2063, Australia
      Tel.: (061) (2) 9967-0998
      Email: [email protected]

      ANALYTICAL SERVICE CO.


      Report No. 456
      SOME TECHNICAL AND STRUCTURAL ASPECTS
      OF THE SMOLENSK PLANE CRASH
      Author: Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
      Independent Technical Advisor
      of the Parliamentary Team of Antoni Macierewicz
      Dr Gregory SZULADZINSKI received his Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Warsaw University of Technology in 1965 and Doctoral Degree in Structural Mechanics from University of Southern California in 1973. From 1981 until present, he has been working in Australia in the fields of aerospace, railway, power, offshore, automotive and process industries, as well as in rock mechanics, underground blasting and military applications. Especially since the early 90’ties he has been doing computer simulations of such violent phenomena as rock breaking with the use of explosives, fragmentation of metallic objects, shock damage to buildings, structural collapse, fluid-structure interaction, blast protection and aircraft impact protection. He has done a number of state-of-the-art studies showing explicit fragmentation of structures and other objects. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Engineers Australia, member of its Structural and Mechanical College, a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
      Data for analysis has been submitted by the Parliamentary Commission

      The left wing, view from the bottom. The parts are pieced together based on images from the day of the incident.
      The airplane change magnetic heading after TAWS #38 on baro-altitude 37.5 m.
      Phase I

      Internal or external explosion in front of the left wing


      Phase II

      Internal explosion in central position in airframe


      The loss of the wing’s leading edge near the fuselage and the entire left-most part of the wing had two aerodynamic effects: loss of lift on the left side and increase of drag. The first effect induces roll to the left, while the second one induces a change in magnetic heading.

      Phase III

      The rear part of the airframe with wings and vertical stabilizer rolls to the left independently of the front part which stays in its natural position


      Phase IV

      Impact with the ground: only the rear part of the fuselage is inverted.


      Angular momentum about the roll axis breaks the fuselage apart completely, separating the front of the fuselage from the rear, with the rear continuing to roll to the left.


      Cockpit and front part of fuselage are not inverted


      Rear parts of the fuselage in inverted position

      Summary of Results

      The main causes of the crash were two explosions taking place just before landing.

      One of them impacted the left wing near its mid-point and caused an extensive damage, effectively breaking the wing in two. The other, inside the fuselage, caused an profound damage and dismemberment of the latter, as well as loosening the connection of the left wing and fuselage. The landing in a woody area, no matter how unfortunate and at what angle, was incapable of causing the documented fragmentation of the structure.

      Comment


      • In the Military Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw there is a testimony of the Yak-40 pilot who was on the ground near his plane in Smolensk waiting for the arrival of Tu-154:
        "The crew left the aircraft to watch the landing of Tu-154M 101. We knew it was approaching from the radio. During our conversation with the crew of Tu-154M 101 nothing was indicating that there were problems. We were not talking to them, just listening. While waiting for the landing of that plane we had no visual contact. I heard the sound of the engines indicating that the plane was approaching. After a while one could hear the increase of thrust. One could also hear that the thrust was increased to the maximum. I heard the explosions, and then the sound of engines dying down. And afterwards silence."
        This testimony was recorded few hours after the crash.

        Comment


        • Another piece of information that surfaced today.
          Apparently Russians are getting ready to send the wreckage back to Poland. They cleaned the plane's remains so thoroughly that it looks like a new car.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            I also remember that these commissions presented transcripts of the CVR showing (among other things) that the captain states "at 100 we'll go around on autopilot", a procedure that was not allowed in non-precision approaches in this plane. Again unless you object that CVR is fake, but then don't use the same fake CVR to support your side of the story.
            Maybe you forgot it, but we discussed this issue already. The avionics of this plane was light years ahead of any Russian flight manuals that were used to support this conclusion. Tests ran on the twin Tu-154 with the tail number 102 showed that that procedure worked.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
              French, German and US had also some thing to do with that.
              All wrong. It was the New Zealanders. They sit there happy as larry in the South Pacific doing sweet FA... But in reality they are EVIL. They even won the William Webb Ellis Cup! (that proves it).

              I offer as much sincerity and proof as you do in this pronouncement.*

              * Note - just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it's right. And that's a point lost on a great number of people on this forum. The OFFICIAL investigations by EXPERTS in their FIELD (I almost feel like using ITS like Bold, but won't go that far). The CONCLUSIONS reached fit the scene (but they also fit may other situations, however Occam's Razor should apply). The INVESTIGATION by the duly QUALIFIED OFFICIALS has been released and it showed that the pilots "SCREWED THE POOCH" to use the vernacular. There were probably a string of contributing reasons, but at the end of the day it is a tragedy that this incident OCCURRED (note: was not deliberately CAUSED by anyone), and it only BESMIRCHES the REPUTATIONS of the OFFICIALS, DENIGRATES the MEMORIES of the deceased and causes ANGUISH to the victims families to continue to stir this up.

              Why not just continue with the Area 51 conspiracy theories - it hurts less people and confirms most people's opinions that you are trolls without a shed of evidence to back up your crazed theories (the stuff presented is SPECULATION by the unqualified or qualified people without direct access to all the facts).

              GIVE. IT. UP. IT'S BORING AND DISRESPECTFUL.
              Last edited by SYDCBRWOD; 2012-04-12, 01:12. Reason: Decided to let the world think how I really feel on this unfortunate incident.

              Comment


              • justLOT,

                Ok, I see that they conclude that the cause of the accident was two explosions. Now, in all that long report, where on earth do they mention any evidence of the explosions? They jump from stating a lot of what they think are inconsistencies in the Russian and polish reports to, suddenly and from nowhere, dscribe the phases I, II, II and IV of the explosions (I still don't get what explosions they are talking about), and from there to find these explosions as the main cause of the accident.

                Northwester,

                The testimony of the Yak-40 pilot is perfectly compatible with the Russian version: They had firewalled the throttles already a few seconds before colision of the left wing with the birch (explosion).

                Regarding the go-around procedure, my point in this instance was not whether the maneuver was possible or not, but whether the pilot were disciplined following carefully learned and well trained procedures. The fact that they had to test it AFTER THE CRASH to see if it would work or not talks volumes about wheter it was for the pilots an appropiate procedure to be used in the accident flight. That said, I'm still not convinced that these tests showed that this procedure can be safely and reliable applied as to make it an acceptable standard flight procedure. Is it now allowed?

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                  In the Military Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw there is a testimony of the Yak-40 pilot who was on the ground near his plane in Smolensk waiting for the arrival of Tu-154:
                  "The crew left the aircraft to watch the landing of Tu-154M 101. We knew it was approaching from the radio. During our conversation with the crew of Tu-154M 101 nothing was indicating that there were problems. We were not talking to them, just listening. While waiting for the landing of that plane we had no visual contact. I heard the sound of the engines indicating that the plane was approaching. After a while one could hear the increase of thrust.
                  One could also hear that the thrust was increased to the maximum.

                  The attempted go-around

                  I heard the explosions, and then the sound of engines dying down.

                  Which is what you may expect to hear when an aircraft crashes. If the aircraft was not in sight, the testimony implies very little. He didn't see it shot down.

                  And afterwards silence." This testimony was recorded few hours after the crash.

                  No sound of shots as they executed the survivors?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                    * Note - just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it's right. And that's a point lost on a great number of people on this forum. The OFFICIAL investigations by EXPERTS in their FIELD (I almost feel like using ITS like Bold, but won't go that far). The CONCLUSIONS reached fit the scene (but they also fit may other situations, however Occam's Razor should apply). The INVESTIGATION by the duly QUALIFIED OFFICIALS has been released and it showed that the pilots "SCREWED THE POOCH" to use the vernacular. There were probably a string of contributing reasons, but at the end of the day it is a tragedy that this incident OCCURRED (note: was not deliberately CAUSED by anyone), and it only BESMIRCHES the REPUTATIONS of the OFFICIALS, DENIGRATES the MEMORIES of the deceased and causes ANGUISH to the victims families to continue to stir this up.
                    SYDCBRWOD, Spectator, Gabriel... everything you point out would resonate with the objective mind. But that caliber of thought no longer resides here.

                    Inconsistencies mean nothing to the conspiratorial mind. Remember our conversations about confirmation bias...?

                    THIS THREAD IS OFFICIALLY CLOSED TO REASON, but it is still open to ridicule...

                    BTW: Congratulations Spectator on making the 2000th post on this thread!!!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      BTW: Congratulations Spectator on making the 2000th post on this thread!!!
                      A dubious accolade indeed...

                      Comment


                      • I haven't read all 2001 posts here...well...2002 now !

                        ...but...

                        of all those who have posted here I would dearly love to know how many are recognised, qualified experts in air crash investigation ?

                        Most opinions here are those of people who have their own ideas (and ideaologys ? ) concerning what happened based on their unqualified personal thoughts.
                        It is entirely likely that the full true facts of this incident will never be known given the region of the world that it occurred in and the political ramifications of the potential truth.

                        That, of course, is always assuming that this wasn't simply a case of pilots under extreme pressure from their superiors to get to a nationally important event, without delay or diversion and therefore simply going past the reasonable rules of safe flight and paying the ultimate price ?
                        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                          That, of course, is always assuming that this wasn't simply a case of pilots under extreme pressure from their superiors to get to a nationally important event, without delay or diversion and therefore simply going past the reasonable rules of safe flight and paying the ultimate price ?
                          And that, of course, is exactly what it was a case of. The pilots were not trained to respect safety over the will of authority, or to fly this mission under these conditions. The Russian EXPERTS came to this conclusion. Dubious of the Russians, the Polish EXPERTS also came to this conclusion. The Polish EXPERTS acted to disband the unit and referred new missions to LOT. Lessons were learned. Steps were taken. It's over.

                          There were no executions, missiles, death rays or mind control implants. There was no plausible motive for a conspiracy or execution of this scale. This is not a discussion forum for the RPG home entertainment version of the tragedy (although I'm sure it's in the works).

                          Brian, can we close this thread before it eats itself? It's become kind of an embarrassing fungus on the forum.

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=Evan;594467]And that, of course, is exactly what it was a case of. The pilots were not trained to respect safety over the will of authority, or to fly this mission under these conditions. The Russian EXPERTS came to this conclusion. Dubious of the Russians, the Polish EXPERTS also came to this conclusion. The Polish EXPERTS acted to disband the unit and referred new missions to LOT. Lessons were learned. Steps were taken. It's over.

                            Evan Dude: How do you come up with those theories it’s beyond me, if pilot is not trained he doesn’t fly it’s just that simple, unit was disband because they have no planes left to fly (and they are scared to fly 102) Polish Government should be baying new better and safer planes Boeing or Airbus not disbanding the unit like they did, it's all a cover up. Every one has their own ideas what happened that day so do I, and nothing in the world will change my mind on this issue. As to closing this topic it wont happen because the investigation is not done, and this topic even if not on this site will go on for years, we are not experts but we try to be only GOD and people involved really knows what and how it really happened. To some it’s was an execution to others it was a accident, and others are just in their own world with other ideas.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                              Every one has their own ideas what happened that day so do I, and nothing in the world will change my mind on this issue.
                              I realize that. So there is no point in appealing to reason or discussing what has been learned here. I will listen to the experts and you listen to the voice in your head.

                              Goodbye.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                                [...]it's all a cover up. Every one has their own ideas what happened that day so do I, and nothing in the world will change my mind on this issue.
                                This is a beautiful summary of the mindset that got this thread off the rails in the first place. Some people are open to reason and things that are demonstrably true.
                                Some are not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X