Tweet
Another issue that was presented was what would have happened to the aircraft if it really hit the tree and lost a part of the left wing.
-
-
They also showed 2 pictures indicating that the area, where Dr. Szuladzinski maintains the explosions happened {area near TAWS #38}, has been subsequently cleaned up, trees removed, grass burnt off.Comment
-
I have heard that there are some new single-engine aircraft that come with parachutes.
I believe that this is an excellent idea that should be required for all light aircraft.Comment
-
The TU-154 is not a single engine aircraft. Even after it hit the tree it was perhaps at worst a twin. I wasn't there to check.Originally posted by Praehapt Bubtah View Post
The TU-154 is not really a light aircraft, only a little bit lighter after it hits trees.
Many microlight/ultralight aircraft include a full vehicle parachute. It's not practical on heavier aircraft to recover the entire aircraft with parachutes. Some bizjets and military aircraft have stall recovery chutes. Nevertheless I don't think a chute would have helped in this case...Comment
-
Andrew Wakefield Speaks at Parliament on AutismOriginally posted by Evan View Post
After reading the best-selling book Callous Disregard, Autism and Vaccines: the Truth Behind a Tragedy, Member of the European Parliament Marta Andreasen invited Andy Wakefield to present at the Parliament’s HQ in Brussels on the causation of autism.Comment
-
What I read (and it's hard to find anything reliable with all the conspiracy theory crap crowding out the factual reporting, hyping him up until he was publicly defamed and then deserted him in droves and going elsewhere, except for the real nutjobs) there was a single member of Parliament in attendance for his presentation in a rented room. Marta Andreasen is an accountant and sits on the Committee on Budgetary Control. Finances are her specialty. What would make her get behind a doctor on an issue of medical science is beyond me. Anyway, she isn't behind him anymore...Originally posted by Northwester View Post
In light of this, you might have at least admitted to the probability that Gabriel is correct.Comment
-
I only have three questions:
1- What is the official body calling the hearing?
2- Who and in what name is interrogating the whitnesses? (if they are being interrogated at all)
3- Are the whitnesses under oath like in an NTSB public hearing, and could they face any consequence if they lie?
Bonus:
--- 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
-
-
Actually, nada on Szuladzinski:
Only a commemorative ceremony a year ago:
How do you explain this Northwester?Comment
-
Could the plane have been flying in a headwind, and then turned into a tail wind, resulting in a loss of airspeed and a stall?Originally posted by Evan View PostComment
-
Szuladzinski was not present during the hearing. Just his findings were presented.Originally posted by Evan View PostActually, nada on Szuladzinski:
Only a commemorative ceremony a year ago:
How do you explain this Northwester?
Here's more info.Comment
-
I mean why isn't this monumental hearing mentioned on the actual European Parliament website, where every other miniscule little hearing is carefully documented?Originally posted by Northwester View Post
A) There wasn't actually a hearing before the European Parliament
B)... what is B Northwester???Comment
-
Ok, go to the European Parliament website and click on what is in the red box.Originally posted by Evan View PostComment
-
Ok, it's coming into focus for me. This was an ECR hearing, not a proper European Parliament hearing.Originally posted by Northwester View Post
The hearing was held before the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR). The ECR is essentially a right-wing fringe of the European Parliament composed largely of Poles, Czechs and Eastern Europeans with stated anti-Russian sentiments (specifically a post-communist-era bias).
Their "Prague declaration principals" are a direct reference to the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism. Look it up. It comes as little surprise to me that they would want to hear anything that might be used as defamatory propaganda to undermine trust in the current Russian leadership. They are not a disinterested body. Case in point: The headline on the ECR website states "Smolensk: Two explosions onboard the Polish plane" as if it were an established proven fact rather than a new claim worthy of investigation.Originally posted by ECR website
So what did they expect would come of this? What has come of this? Did anyone in parliament take this seriously? Has anyone in parliament taken any action as a result of this?Comment
-
See if there is some sort of emoticon that is a cricket chirping.Originally posted by Evan View Post
That would be the best possible reply to Nutwester.
Same to you Gabe.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
Comment