Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smolensk 2010 crash - new technical report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Northwester View Post
    There wasn't hardly anyone securing the airport. Most of them were securing the approach area. That's not a normal procedure.
    Went to see Busch II once...I was troubled by the shallow approach of the helicopters over a less protected area...and thinking about a nutjob in their back yard with a slingshot. Once you get to the airport, the security is somewhat better and easier...doesn't seem that far out.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      The classic example being shooting someone who has already jumped off the roof of a tall building, you could be charged with murder/attempted murder.
      Well, according to Northwester, that's what happened here.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Well, according to Northwester, that's what happened here.
        No, it's according to you.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Northwester View Post
          No, it's according to you.
          Remind me how the plane got that low in the first place?

          --- 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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Northwester View Post
            Nothing. But they know everything about mapping an area, dividing it into sectors, and documenting every fragment of the aircraft or human body found, and handing the results over to crash investigators.
            Really? Archaeologists typically deal with aircraft fragments? Since when?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Northwester View Post
              Polish side has just copies of the recording. 5 different versions of it. Why wouldn't Russians return the original black boxes and the wreckage?
              For one thing, they don't have to. For another, as someone who's read the Russian report in the original, I can tell you that I got the feeling that MAK investigators tried their goshdarndest to find a way (ANY way) to make the crew look at least in some way not culpable. They failed (predictably so), but the effort was definitely palpable. The Polish report (which I read only in English) is FAR more scathing.

              Comment


              • #22
                I wonder if we could go off topic and talk about the total lies that have been offered?

                I was fascinated by the History Channel documentary that guys would 'cheat' on their altimeter settings to silence low-altitude warnings.

                Especially the top pilots, Especially the dudes hauling El Presidente, and Especially dudes doing an approach when weather is at/below minimums.

                Rather amazing...maybe there is a conspiracy?
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                  For one thing, they don't have to. For another, as someone who's read the Russian report in the original, I can tell you that I got the feeling that MAK investigators tried their goshdarndest to find a way (ANY way) to make the crew look at least in some way not culpable. They failed (predictably so), but the effort was definitely palpable. The Polish report (which I read only in English) is FAR more scathing.
                  I understand that you would rather talk about the good heart of Russian investigators than about the findings of the new technical report that show evidence of explosions. Btw, the first Polish report that you are referring to has been declared null and void.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                    I understand that you would rather talk about the good heart of Russian investigators than about the findings of the new technical report that show evidence of explosions. Btw, the first Polish report that you are referring to has been declared null and void.
                    Actually, no, let's by all means talk about the "technical report" (interesting term, by the way, but I digress). I do have a few questions, perhaps you could clarify some things for me:

                    1. On page 10 of the report, we read:

                    "...In October 2017, the Committee received official information from the spokesperson of the Ministry
                    of Foreign Affairs that further diplomatic notes from the government of the Republic of Poland,
                    regarding the return of the debris, were rejected by the Russian Federation. As a result, the
                    Committee officially filed a document with the Minister of Foreign Affairs asking him to undertake
                    necessary steps to secure permission from the Russian Federation to analyze and investigate the
                    debris in Smolensk, and carry out a reconstruction of it, according with the ICAO recommendation(s).
                    The KBWLLP Committee is in constant contact with the ProsecutorÂ’s Office and its representative(s)
                    participating in the ongoing exhumations, and actively observes these activities...."


                    Does that mean that members of the Committee have actually NOT been to Smolensk and had access to either the site or the debris? I'm not placing fault here, I just want to make sure I understand.

                    2. In fact, on the same page we read:

                    "...Due to the decision of the government of Donald Tusk, handing over the investigation to the Russian
                    Federation, and the decision of the majority of the Polish parliament from May 2010 not to take over
                    the investigation from the Russians, Poland was deprived access to the key evidence materials and to
                    its analysis. As a result, the Committee appointed 6 years after the crash, had limited access to the
                    evidence material. The KBWLLP Committee had to come up with innovative and break-through
                    research methods. The newest scientific-technological developments were helpful in this matter. In
                    reference to the three essential groups of evidence the Committee used: analysis of photographs,
                    video recordings, satellite pictures, available maintenance documentation, and numerous
                    experiments and simulations. In reference to the bodies of the victims, the Committee performed an
                    original reconstruction of the distribution of body parts at the crash site, based on photographic
                    analysis, and prosecutorÂ’s documents..."


                    It sounds to me that the Report openly admits that it's based on exactly ZERO physical evidence analysis. Is that correct?

                    3. On page 13-14, an issue is made of the "errors" made by the air traffic controller referencing distance from the runway. The largest error apparently was when the controller called 9km when the airplane was 10.5km away. I trust members of the Committee are aware that in the absence of a PAR or ASR systems, an error of 1.5km (at the greatest) is not unexpected. Is that not the case? Do they not know that? Hence the higher approach minimums, but we'll get into that later...

                    I have a few more questions, but let's start with those three. Thanks in advance.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I am glad that you pointed out to how strongly Russians are preventing access to the wreckage and original black boxes. Thank you.

                      You are still avoiding discussing the key findings of the new report.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                        I am glad that you pointed out to how strongly Russians are preventing access to the wreckage and original black boxes. Thank you.

                        You are still avoiding discussing the key findings of the new report.
                        You're welcome. I'm not avoiding anything, I just need to make sure I understand some things correctly, hence my questions.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Remind me how the plane got that low in the first place?
                          The pilots descended to MDA, AP go-around failed, the pilot overpowered AP, started ascending, explosions happened. We don't know why the AP go-around failed.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                            The pilots descended to MDA, AP go-around failed, the pilot overpowered AP, started ascending, explosions happened. We don't know why the AP go-around failed.
                            How do you know how much the pilots descended or that the AP GA failed or that they started ascending?

                            --- 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


                            • #29
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn01.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	39.9 KB
ID:	1027632Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn02.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	45.3 KB
ID:	1027633Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn03.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	34.5 KB
ID:	1027634Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn04.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	34.0 KB
ID:	1027635Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn05.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	30.2 KB
ID:	1027636

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn06.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	38.1 KB
ID:	1027637Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn07.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	33.3 KB
ID:	1027638Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn08.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	26.5 KB
ID:	1027639Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn09.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	25.2 KB
ID:	1027640Click image for larger version

Name:	Glenn10.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	24.6 KB
ID:	1027641

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X