Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 93

Thread: Smolensk 2010 crash - new technical report

  1. #21
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #22
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    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.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #24
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    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.

  6. #26
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn01.JPG 
Views:	11 
Size:	39.9 KB 
ID:	15311Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn02.JPG 
Views:	11 
Size:	45.3 KB 
ID:	15312Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn03.JPG 
Views:	9 
Size:	34.5 KB 
ID:	15313Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn04.JPG 
Views:	9 
Size:	34.0 KB 
ID:	15314Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn05.JPG 
Views:	9 
Size:	30.2 KB 
ID:	15315

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn06.JPG 
Views:	9 
Size:	38.1 KB 
ID:	15316Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn07.JPG 
Views:	11 
Size:	33.3 KB 
ID:	15317Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn08.JPG 
Views:	7 
Size:	26.5 KB 
ID:	15318Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn09.JPG 
Views:	8 
Size:	25.2 KB 
ID:	15319Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn10.JPG 
Views:	7 
Size:	24.6 KB 
ID:	15320

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn11.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	32.2 KB 
ID:	15321Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn12.JPG 
Views:	12 
Size:	44.8 KB 
ID:	15322

    This is all work of Glenn Jorgensen

  12. #32
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn11.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	32.2 KB 
ID:	15321Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn12.JPG 
Views:	12 
Size:	44.8 KB 
ID:	15322

    This is all work of Glenn Jorgensen
    Who is Mr. Jorgensen?

  13. #33
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn11.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	32.2 KB 
ID:	15321Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn12.JPG 
Views:	12 
Size:	44.8 KB 
ID:	15322

    This is all work of Glenn Jorgensen
    Where does all the raw data for this analysis come from?
    And remind me please how much above the runway is 45 m above the local ground?
    (And don't you love the 50% probability area? So the plane could have been outside that area with equal probability)

    --- 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 ---

  14. #34
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Who is Mr. Jorgensen?
    A guy who got 560 hours of community service and 3 years’ probation for falsifying documents?

    https://www.newsday.com/long-island/...day-1.11217002

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    A guy who got 560 hours of community service and 3 years’ probation for falsifying documents?

    https://www.newsday.com/long-island/...day-1.11217002
    Nice try. Try again, this time in Denmark.

  16. #36
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    A guy who got 560 hours of community service and 3 years’ probation for falsifying documents?

    https://www.newsday.com/long-island/...day-1.11217002
    Wrong, it is a Danish civil engineer. As reported by the independent and impartial Somlensk Crahs News Digest:

    The recent change of the Government in Poland paves the way for the Danish civil engineer to participate in a new study of the plane crash that has racked Poland for nearly six years. Many believe that the crash was a Russian assassination operation sanctioned by Putin himself.
    http://www.smolenskcrashnews.com/dan...stigation.html

    --- 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 ---

  17. #37
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Wrong, it is a Danish civil engineer. As reported by the independent and impartial Somlensk Crahs News Digest:


    http://www.smolenskcrashnews.com/dan...stigation.html
    As the conspiracy theorists like to say, "there are no coincidences".

    I make a motion that this entire thread be conducted in blue font.

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Where does all the raw data for this analysis come from?
    And remind me please how much above the runway is 45 m above the local ground?
    (And don't you love the 50% probability area? So the plane could have been outside that area with equal probability)
    I will get you answers soon.
    I think the 50% probability refers to the range of possible trajectories, as indicated by min. and max.

  19. #39
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    I will get you answers soon.
    I think the 50% probability refers to the range of possible trajectories, as indicated by min. and max.
    The 50% probability is the grey area. According to that analysis, there is a 50% chance that the plane flew within the grey area and a 99,9% chance that it flew above the dotted line.

    --- 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 ---

  20. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn13.JPG 
Views:	7 
Size:	66.0 KB 
ID:	15378Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Glenn15.JPG 
Views:	6 
Size:	46.7 KB 
ID:	15379
    Glenn was using GPS and black boxes data checking its reliability through comparing recorded sink rate with recorded altitude in given time intervals. The most consistent was the GPS data that allowed him to plot the most accurate trajectory. He used a statistical method with added data noise to create the possible and the most likely range to confirm that his trajectory is within this range. The trajectory is with 99.9% certainty above the dashed line which means that in the worst case the plane was 45 m above ground at the lowest point of the trajectory, but more likely it was about 60m above ground. The runway elevation is on the left side of the graph, so the spot where the tree is shown is about 12m below runway elevation.
    What is interesting is that the go-around trajectory from the initiation point corresponds with the one shown in Russian specifications for TU-154 (dH=46m with specs showing dH=50m).

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •