Tweet
These pics show position of the plane at TAWS 36, 37, MM, TAWS 38, and FMS freeze point. Again, the alt. of the plane at the MM would be correct for the length of the MM signal received by the plane.
-
-
Binienda repeated the simulated collision with the birch increasing some of the parameters. The density was increased to 1000kg/m3, the diameter to 44cm. Still the damage was limited to the leading edge of the wing, about 60cm wide.Comment
-
These pics show approach to finding the trajectory of the broken off fragment of the wing. First 3 pics show the method, pic 4 shows the air flow changes, pic 5 shows the resistance stresses.Comment
-
Here's what happened to the broken off wing. Pic 1 shows the 3D trajectory. Up to the red dot is the controlled flight, after (with the cute parachute) a free fall. The piece moves forward and to the right. Given the fixed distance between the wing and the fall location in the direction perpendicular to the plane movement, it was possible to set the separation point in the direction of the flight. Pic 2 shows both MAK and calculated options. Pic 3 shows the points in relation to the terrain.Comment
-
This graph shows that if the plane started a roll at 5m above the ground, where, according to MAK, it collided with the birch, it would have hit the ground shortly after the collision.Comment
-
These pics try to examine the violent roll that the plane was subjected to at some point before TAWS 38. According to Binienda the forces acting on the ends of the wings were in the range of 5g.Comment
-
Binienda also provided an illustration showing how a broken off wing behaves. Basically it starts falling down very quickly.
Very unfortunate accident.
And:
Comment
-
They did one comparison that is very visual. Pic 1 shows 2 plots of acceleration forces acting on a plane that rolls and crashes. The blue one is from a crash of Boeing 737, the red one shows Tu-154. No comment necessary.
The second pic shows the plane and the birch (that brought the plane down) in the same scale.Comment
-
Eyewitness comments:
0:30 and 1:00Comment
-
You believe this guy over the ATC guy?
Not to name your Polish AF comrades in the other plane in the tarmac?
--- 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
-
Like I said and no one will ever convince me otherwise. This was not just a normal accident that happen all this was staged and planed by Tusk and Putin. They wanted to get rid of Mr. Kaczynski because he was standing in there way. Mr. Kaczynski wanted a strong and independent Poland. Russia and Germany don’t want to have a strong and independent Poland it’s bad for their business. Tusk is German and Russian collaborator working against Poland he’s like a spy. But Poland will be one of the strong nations in the future. Today Russia and Putins regime is falling a part and German EU is falling apart and Poland is gaining. All this is good for Poland. In 20-30 years Poland will be a dominant force in Europe and the World the way Mr. Kaczynski wanted it to be. I will never accept this as just an accident but rather then an assassination of Mr. Kaczynski and his people. One thing that I will never understand why all those people that died had to get on that plane. The truth is that on September 17th 1939 Russia invaded Poland and killed thousands of innocent good smart people and Russia will never in a million years cover this up. Putin and Russia will fall a part and brake off in to smaller countries and in this day and age of advancing technology Putin does not stand any chance any more. Germany and it’s EU will fail as well because one currency will never work for so many different countries. The bottom line is the accident on 4/10/2011 was not just a accident but a execution of a strong and brave President.Comment
-
It's not the matter of believing this guy or not. He has no reason to lie. And there is another testimony from another guy (in Russian only in a different clip) that confirms it.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
The fog might have been localized in the airport area only and he might have been 200 or 300m from the crash site where the fog was much lighter. But I would believe this guy before the ATC guy. The ATC guy already stated that he gave the pilots worse conditions than the real ones.
But the weather thing is less important - it is to a degree subjective. It might have looked different for a driver on the ground than for a pilot in the air. What is more important here is the testimony about the sound of the engines. Something was wrong with the engines and there is nothing about it in any of the reports.Comment
-
This is the other clip:Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
0:13 - sound of the engines
0:50 - light fog or no fog
The same news agency, some of the witnesses the same, but this guy is different.Comment
-
Of course, you have all the evidence.Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
Well, not all but a lot.
Some at least.
Or just a little bit.
Any?
--- 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
-
The CVR also has something in the lines of "we don't see a shit" seconds before the crash. And it has no strange engine sounds. And no engines anomalities were recorded in the FDR.
Oh sorry, I forgot allt hose were tampered with.
You are a liar and I'm a stupid that falls in your lies over and over.Originally posted by Northwester View Post
--- 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
Comment