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 EltorroOK View Post
    How can I understand this tragedy if the official report is bogus (at least in some points - it is small detail, irrelevant? For me not so yet again, why should I excuse that?).
    THe official report is not "bogus". It has certain shortcomings, but it manages to point out the very obvious truth.

    It was pilot error.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
      Forgive me if I don't believe a single word you say.
      I expected that. It is no problem. Peace. I will not try to convince You because there is no need to do that. I just want to let You know that there is a totally different thinking about this topic in Poland and it can happen that foreigners may not get it at all.

      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      THe official report is not "bogus". It has certain shortcomings, but it manages to point out the very obvious truth.

      It was pilot error.
      Excuse me Evan but "certain shortcomings" are excuses. You just accept them in official international document. And why only one side is being excused? And when You say obvious, it means that You already have Your opinion fixed. For me, and for a lot of others, all of theses additional things which happened make in not so obvious. You can call it "paranoia" if You like. But for us this case is not closed.

      Thank You for possibility to express it and I will try not to interrupt anymore.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by EltorroOK View Post
        I expected that. It is no problem. Peace. I will not try to convince You because there is no need to do that. I just want to let You know that there is a totally different thinking about this topic in Poland and it can happen that foreigners may not get it at all.


        Excuse me Evan but "certain shortcomings" are excuses. You just accept them in official international document. And why only one side is being excused? And when You say obvious, it means that You already have Your opinion fixed. For me, and for a lot of others, all of theses additional things which happened make in not so obvious. You can call it "paranoia" if You like. But for us this case is not closed.

        Thank You for possibility to express it and I will try not to interrupt anymore.
        In your continued pursuit of the truth, here's something you can try making at home that might help:

        Information about psychotronic mind control blockage using an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie

        Comment


        • EltorroOK,
          Do you use the same fragance than Northwester?

          --- 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 Fear_of_Flying View Post
            Actually, we passed 2000 awhile back, but in an attempt to extricate myself from this mess - and as a symbolic act of protest - I recently deleted the vast majority of my posts on this thread.
            Deleted some of your old nonsense to make a room for a new one. Good thinking FoF. You should make a habit of it, every 10 posts or so.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Peter_K View Post
              Deleted some of your old nonsense to make a room for a new one. Good thinking FoF. You should make a habit of it, every 10 posts or so.
              If I had my way, the whole thread would have been shut down ages ago, including and especially the nonsense propagated by those whose main goals are political. Be that as it may, you're now on my ignore list. Do widzenia.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
                If I had my way, the whole thread would have been shut down ages ago, (...)
                You hate this thread, yet you can’t stop reading it and posting in it. You are addicted to it. You want it locked, because you want somebody else to make a decision for you. You have no Will.

                Comment


                • The Polish Final Report has several attachments with data and simulations. Attachment 4 includes a simulation that uses FDR data to demonstrate flight parameters in the last phase of the flight. What is interesting is the fact that the time scale differs from the one shown on the trajectory graph. It is shifted by 2.3 sec. This could indicate that the time shown in the simulation is the time read from the FDR before any adjustments. What is more interesting though is the fact that the simulation shows readings from both baro and radio altimeters (as read from the FDR). Two events are worth looking at.

                  The first one is the first damaged tree located at N54d49'31.26" E 72d03'39.00". It is about 42m before the MM, and according to the reports it was clipped at about 10.8m above ground. The topo at the location reads as 786' so it is 15.42m below thw RWY elev. (RWY at 255m or 836.6'). The screen shot (pic 1) from the simulation (time 08:40:57.2) shows the PIC baro altimeter reading as 570' which is 5.7m above the RWY (570' = 173.7m - 168m = 5.7m this altimeter was reset to standard pressure, hence the 168m adjustment). So the plane was 5.7 + 15.4 = 21.1m above ground. How did it clip the tree at 10.8m ?

                  The second one is the famous birch located at N54d49'30.01" E32d03'25.51". It is about 250m from the first tree, and about 3.2 sec. of flight time. The topo here reads as 814' which means 6.89m below the RWY elev. The screen shot (pic 2) from the simulation (time 08:41:00.5) shows 596' on the PIC baro alt. That translates to 13.66m above the RWY (596' = 181.66m - 168m = 13.66m). So the plane was 6.89 + 13.66 = 20.55m above ground. And it clipped the birch at 5m above ground?

                  All the data in the simulation was taken directly from the FDR.

                  Comment


                  • I'll play!!

                    How long is the plane? You are showing a 15M difference. Was the plane at least 15M long? Is it possible that the nose of the plane was 15 M higher than the wing?

                    Comment


                    • And why was the plane 20.55m above ground without the runway in sight?

                      Russian mind control?

                      You seem good at math Northwester. Why can't you add this up?

                      Comment


                      • What I see is that you don't understand a baroaltimeter if you believe that a difference of 10/15m between the reading and the actual position of the plane is abnormal.

                        --- 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


                        • I guess a picture will be necessary.

                          Comment


                          • An explanation will be needed:

                            baro altitude = "If the sea level was actually at the pressure set in the Kolessman window and the atmosphere all the way from the sea level to the static port was exactly compliant of the ISA model and if the pressure detected by the static port was actually the static pressure and if the baroaltimeter itself had zero error, what would be said distance from the sea level to thes static port?"

                            --- 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


                            • First of all, the closest to the RWY the more accurate are the readings of the baro altimeter, so at 13m above RWY and about half a mile from the threshold the readings should be spot on. Second, if we place the plane where the "narrative" portion of the reports places it (outline in magenta, 1.1m baro and 5.1m radio), take into consideration speed and AoA and the fact that the fuselage was almost exactly above the shed, we see how absurd it looks like. This whole area would have been blown to pieces.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                And why was the plane 20.55m above ground without the runway in sight?

                                Russian mind control?

                                You seem good at math Northwester. Why can't you add this up?
                                Northwester, could you PLEASE answer that question?

                                Postscript: Damn.. I so swore I would never contribute to this thread again... hahaha... but it is way too much fun to follow those conspiracy nerds.
                                Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2012-07-13, 21:33.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X