Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 93

Thread: Smolensk 2010 crash - new technical report

  1. #61
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    Attachment 15505

    At 6:26:19 Krasnokutsky says to ATC: Pasha, bring him to 100 meters. 100 meters. No discussion, shit, ...

    Krasnokutsky is the commanding officer from Tver.
    Did you purposely forget to translate the top part, where it says it was the Captain's decision to go to the MDA? Krasnokutsky seems incredulous (he knows what the weather is like), which is why he gives the order to "bring him down to one hundred meters" (the implication being 100 meters and no further) followed by "shit, end of discussion".

    Context is imporant, as you yourself pointed out.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Nice try, Northwestern. Taking a sentence out of the context, and assigning to it a meaning that fits your argument.

    Would you please translate let's say the minute or so that preceded this sentence?

    That is EXACTLY what I was talking about and why this report is bullshit.

    --- 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 ---

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Did you purposely forget to translate the top part, where it says it was the Captain's decision to go to the MDA? Krasnokutsky seems incredulous (he knows what the weather is like), which is why he gives the order to "bring him down to one hundred meters" (the implication being 100 meters and no further) followed by "shit, end of discussion".

    Context is imporant, as you yourself pointed out.
    You are so biased, you don't even see you are contradicting yourself. Few lines before the Captain asks that if it's ok, they will try an approach, and if no conditions they will go around. Then he asks for permission for further descent. At any point the ATC can redirect the plane to an alternate. Only then Krasnokutsky informs the ATC about Captain's intent, and orders him to bring the plane to 100 meters.

    And if you run out of arguments, you can always use the last one: "this is bullshit".

  4. #64
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    You are so biased, you don't even see you are contradicting yourself...
    Riiiight....

  5. #65
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Ok, so since Northwester is reluctant, this is what I found. I will let you decide if ATC was intentionally guiding Polish 101 to its doom.
    This is the conversation between the Captain and ATC, except in the one line where noted differently:

    Korsaż-Start, Polish 101, good morning.

    Polish 1-0-1 Korsaż answered.

    For outer marker, lower altitude 3600 meters.

    Polish Foxtrot 1-0-1, remaining fuel, how much fuel do you have?

    11 tonnes remaining.

    What backup airport do you have designated?

    Witebsk, Mińsk.

    Witebsk, Mińsk, correct?

    You read correctly.

    PLF 1-2-0-1, at Korsaż fog, visibility 400 meters

    Understood, please give me meteo.

    At Korsaż fog, visibility 400 meters, 4-0-0 meters.

    Temperature and pressure, please.

    Temperature plus 2, pressure 7-45, 7-4-5, there are no conditions for landing.

    Thank you, but if we can, we would like to try approach, but if not , there will be no weather, we will leave for a go around.

    After the trial approach will you have enough fuel to fly to backup?

    Enough

    Understood

    Asking for permission for further descend.

    1-0-1, on course 40 degrees, descend 1500

    1500 on course 40 degrees.

    [ATC second commander internal conversation]: Paweł, You will guide to 100 meters. 100 meters. No discussion... and..., so what about that alternate? Hurry.

    Korsaż, Polish 101, maintaining 1500.

    Aaa... Polish 1 -0-1, pressure 7-4-5, descend 500

    Pressure 7 -4-5, descending, 500 meters, Polish 101

    Polish 1 -0 -1, course 79.

    Course 79, Polish 101.

    PLF 1-0-1, Korsaż here.

    Answering.

    Are you on 500 meters?

    Not yet. 1000, descending.

    Understood.

    PLF 1-0-1, altitude 500?

    Approaching 500 meters.

    Understood.

    PLF 4-0-1 are you on 500?

    We are on 500 meters.

    500 meters. Have you landed on military airports before?

    Yes of course.

    Lights on the left, on right, for front of the runway.

    Understood.

    1-0-1 perform third, radial 19

    We are making third, Polish 101.

    Polish 101 from 100 meters be prepared to go for a second go around.

    Aye aye, sir
    At the same time, this other conversation was taking place in a second radio between the first officer of Polish 101 and a Polish pilot that had already landed.

    [The pilot that had already landed] Guys, Rafał here, change to 123,45.

    [First officer] Artur, I am here

    Hi, welcome. Generally speaking it is a bitch down here. Visibility about 400 meters and in our opinion (clouds) are well below 50 meters. [Note: that was well below the instument minimums for the approach]

    Have you landed yet?

    Well, yes we managed in the last moment. Honestly, you can try by all means. Two APMs are there, they set a gate, so you can try, but… If you will not be able to make it the second time, then I suggest you fly to Moscow for example or somewhere.

    OK, I get it over to Arek [Alek is the captain], bye.

    [Now the FO talks with the cpatain]

    Areczku... And Artur is saying that in their opinion there is around 400, visible 50 meters base.

    How much?

    400 meters visibility 50 meters base.

    But he landed. What is he saying?

    Yes, they made it. He said only that if we don't land the second time, than - he is saying, to Moscow.
    [Immediately after, we have this]

    [Captain] Mr. director - fog came out, right now in these conditions, that we have at present we will not be able to land. We will try to approach, we will make one pass, but probably nothing will come out of it. So please think about decision on what we will do. We do not have enough fuel to hang around.

    [Director Kazana]: So, we have a problem..

    [Captain]: We can hang/stay up for half an hour an fly to backup.

    What backup?

    Mińsk or Witebsk.

    Is there anything else?
    [Then we have a conversation again between the fliught crew and the landed pilot]

    Artur, are you still there?

    I am here, Remek

    Remuś, ask Artur, and maybe you know, are these clouds thick?

    About 400-500 meters

    Did you hear it Arek? About 400, 500 meters

    But the thickness of these clouds, 400, 500 meters?

    As far as we can remember, at 500 meters we were still above the clouds.

    Aha. At 500 meters above the clouds. OK, OK. Thanks.

    Have Russians arrived yet?

    IL went around twice, and I think they left somewhere.

    [Second officer to the captain]

    Did you hear?

    Yes.
    [Minutes later]

    10:40:01 [Navigator] 400 meters
    10:40:09 [TAWS] TERRAIN AHEAD
    10:40:23 [Navigator] 300
    10:40:26 [First Officer] 250 meters
    10:40:35 [Navigator] 200
    10:40:45 [TAWS] TERRAIN AHEAD
    10:40:40 [Navigator] 150
    10:40:42 [TAWS] TERRAIN AHEAD
    10:40:43 [TAWS] TERRAIN AHEAD
    10:40:44 [First Officer] 100
    10:40:45 [TAWS] PULL UP, PULL UP [continuing to 10:40:48]
    10:40:49 [TAWS] TERRAIN AHEAD
    10:40:51 [Navigator] 100
    10:40:51 [Captain] Go around
    10:40:52 [Navigator] 90, 80
    10:40:52 [TAWS] PULL UP, PULL UP [Continues until end of recording]
    10:40:53 [First officer] Go around
    10:40:53 [Navigator] 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20 [until 10:40:58]
    10:40:55 [ATC] Level 101
    10:40:57 [ATC] Control altitude, level
    10:41:03 [First officer] Fuck
    10:41:04 [ATC] Go around
    10:41:05 [Scream]

    --- 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 ---

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    What I see here, and this is only my opinion, is the intent from the Captain to descend to MDA and leave if there are no conditions for landing. He asks ATC twice for permission, first to do the trial approach, second, to continue the descent. Krasnokutsky, who has no place at the ATC, orders ATC to bring the plane to 100 meters. Why is this critical? This is a military airfield, and the flight is classified as military. The ATC can order the plane to go to an alternate airport at any time. He doesn't do it because he is told not to do it. Yes, it required an intent from the Captain to descend to 100m, but considering the importance of the visit, the chance of the Captain not checking the weather conditions first hand was very small. But again, the ATC had the power to send the plane away before it descended to 100m, and was ordered not to do it.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    What I see here, and this is only my opinion, is the intent from the Captain to descend to MDA and leave if there are no conditions for landing. He asks ATC twice for permission, first to do the trial approach, second, to continue the descent. Krasnokutsky, who has no place at the ATC, orders ATC to bring the plane to 100 meters. Why is this critical? This is a military airfield, and the flight is classified as military. The ATC can order the plane to go to an alternate airport at any time. He doesn't do it because he is told not to do it. Yes, it required an intent from the Captain to descend to 100m, but considering the importance of the visit, the chance of the Captain not checking the weather conditions first hand was very small. But again, the ATC had the power to send the plane away before it descended to 100m, and was ordered not to do it.
    Riiiight....
    As I said, the data is there and people can judge by themselves.

    --- 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 ---

  8. #68
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    But again, the ATC had the power to send the plane away before it descended to 100m, and was ordered not to do it.
    But he was also ordered to try, repeatedly, to convince the crew that there were no conditions for landing and to be assured that they would still have enough fuel to alternate when they abandoned the approach at 100m?

    Crafty Russians!

    So now I'm very excited to see this conversation where Russian ATC is ordered to 'order' the flight to try the approach while at the same time trying to convince them not to. Why haven't you posted that yet? You are usually so good at providing evidence before reaching a conclusion...

  9. #69
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    What I see here, and this is only my opinion, is the intent from the Captain to descend to MDA and leave if there are no conditions for landing. He asks ATC twice for permission, first to do the trial approach, second, to continue the descent. Krasnokutsky, who has no place at the ATC, orders ATC to bring the plane to 100 meters. Why is this critical? This is a military airfield, and the flight is classified as military. The ATC can order the plane to go to an alternate airport at any time. He doesn't do it because he is told not to do it. Yes, it required an intent from the Captain to descend to 100m, but considering the importance of the visit, the chance of the Captain not checking the weather conditions first hand was very small. But again, the ATC had the power to send the plane away before it descended to 100m, and was ordered not to do it.
    If you don't mind my asking, whatever happened to the Captain's power to go to the alternate without even trying any of these shenanigans? Why was he waiting for ATC to "order" him to do so?

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    If you don't mind my asking, whatever happened to the Captain's power to go to the alternate without even trying any of these shenanigans? Why was he waiting for ATC to "order" him to do so?
    Of course he didn't have to wait for ATC to order him to go around. But because the previous plane landed, the weather was changing, and the visit was important, he decided to check the conditions himself. Normal procedure. But that does not change the fact that if the ATC told him to go to an alternate at 500, he would have done it. ATC was told to bring him to 100m.

  11. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But he was also ordered to try, repeatedly, to convince the crew that there were no conditions for landing and to be assured that they would still have enough fuel to alternate when they abandoned the approach at 100m?

    Crafty Russians!

    So now I'm very excited to see this conversation where Russian ATC is ordered to 'order' the flight to try the approach while at the same time trying to convince them not to. Why haven't you posted that yet? You are usually so good at providing evidence before reaching a conclusion...
    Let's assume for a moment that after reading the report you came to your senses and realized that all that evidence of explosions is convincing. So there is a conspiracy to bring the plane down and kill a lot of people including the president. How many people would have a full knowledge of such a plot? Most likely very few, and some others would be given only instructions to do what is necessary from their side. ATC didn't have to know what will happen to the plane, they just had to guide it to certain altitude. That's why they talked about alternates and amount of fuel. All the military securing the area of the crash hours before the plane even started, didn't have to know anything.

    And btw, maintaining that the Russians didn't have the know-how, means, capacity, technology, or motivation to do it, is rather naïve.

  12. #72
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    ATC was told to bring him to 100m.
    If ATC was told to do anything at all, they were told to halt him at 100m. Otherwise, why would 100m even be mentioned? And that they did with great reluctance.

    Let's assume for a moment that after reading the report you came to your senses...
    Well, as I've stated repeatedly (and you have produced nothing to address) one sense that immediately intervened was logic. There is no logical motive for attempting this without the assurance of an investigation-proof cover up. Inciting war with Poland would be illogical. Doing such a thing in a way that leaves explosive residues, a final report full of obvious holes and a trial of conspiracy-baiting evidence just waiting to be revealed by the crackpot academics and Northwesters of the world would also be illogical. There is, in fact, nothing in what you are proposing that conforms to logic. If you came to your senses, you would realize it doesn't make sense.

    But this is how grand-conspiracy theorists fall victim to their own nonsense, by ignoring the larger picture, the overall logic, or, as my drawing teacher used to preach, "step back from your work so that you can see it in context".

    I have not the faintest belief that you are onto something here, but you fascinate me as a specimen of the blind, biased, partial and impenetrable conviction that drives conspiracy theory. That is, assuming you are over the age of 10.

  13. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    So following your logic, if you come across a crime scene, a dead body in front of you, the first thing you do is look for motives? You don't investigate the crime scene, you don't check if the person was killed, had heart attack, or fell from the roof, but the first thing you do is look for the reasons? There is enough evidence from the crime scene in Smolensk to check the conspiracy option. And btw, there is no war between Russia and Holland, there is no war between Russia and Great Brittan. Such events end up in denials and mutual accusations, but not wars, not in the nuclear age.

    Nice getting personal, Evan. I appreciate your class.

  14. #74
    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 previous plane landed...
    Again, picking, choosing what to take into account, what to discard, what to ignore, and from that you pick, how to interpret it to better fit your agenda.

    The previous plane did not land. The Polish pilot that had landed earlier informed the Polish 101 crew that he landed in the last minute, that the conditions were a bitch there, that the visibility was about 400 meters, that the ceiling was less than 50 ft, and that the previous plane (the IL) had gone around twice and apparently had diverted.

    --- 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 ---

  15. #75
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    So following your logic, if you come across a crime scene, a dead body in front of you, the first thing you do is look for motives? You don't investigate the crime scene, you don't check if the person was killed, had heart attack, or fell from the roof, but the first thing you do is look for the reasons?
    If I see a dead body on the sidewalk, look up and realize that there is a window open in the 10th floor, find out that that window is in an apartment that belongs to said individual, I will have a hard time believing that somebody shot him dead when he was 5 meters AGL.

    --- 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 ---

  16. #76
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    If I see a dead body on the sidewalk, look up and realize that there is a window open in the 10th floor, find out that that window is in an apartment that belongs to said individual, I will have a hard time believing that somebody shot him dead when he was 5 meters AGL.
    A more fitting parallel would be that the window is open on the first floor, so you would expect the person to have maybe broken legs, but the person is dead with a bullet hole visible. Yes, you can blame the person for jumping out of the first floor window, but you cannot ignore the fact of the person being shot.

    For me to better understand your thinking, it would be very helpful if you could go, one by one, through all the findings of the new report, and explain why do you find them not credible.

  17. #77
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    A more fitting parallel would be that the window is open on the first floor, so you would expect the person to have maybe broken legs, but the person is dead with a bullet hole visible. Yes, you can blame the person for jumping out of the first floor window, but you cannot ignore the fact of the person being shot.

    For me to better understand your thinking, it would be very helpful if you could go, one by one, through all the findings of the new report, and explain why do you find them not credible.
    To begin with, because I don't trust the findings. Remember the "mostly intact fuselage"? Remember the Bineda report? (not only the first one about the wing, but the totally ridiculous second one about the plane would have remained largely intact after crashing at 300 knots and 3000 fpm inverted and nose first) Or you already forgot all that?

    Then, let's say that I take the evidence:
    - The CVR and ATC internal comms is totally and intentionally misrepresented in the report in a way that almost makes me vomit. I posted the evidence above, and each one can decide. I already did. And I have NO, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO doubts here.
    - The way that they analyze the pilot's actions ad relieves him from ALL and ANY mistake or responsibility. To begin with, he attempted a go around in a mode that was not allowed in the flight manual, for God's sake! How can you say that all the pilot did was good?
    - The door: I don't have an explanation, but the report clearly picks and chooses the way the door was inserted into the ground (with a Bineda's like analysis of how much speed the door should have had) but fails to explain the lack of deformation that would be consistent with such a big explosion. As an alternative (that I don't know if it is correct, but it is possible in principle) I offer that maybe the door was buried into the soft ground pushed by the weight and inertia of the plane (instead of taking the vertical speed of the plane and considering a free and isolated door hitting the ground at said speed).
    - The traces of explosives, the report doesn't go very deep in what exactly was found, but I've read other reports that say that in fact what was found were elements and compounds used for some explosives but also used in other uses.
    - The fragments of bodies and airplane parts, I don't know, I don't have an explanation for that. I don't propose but neither discard the possibility that this finding is fake.

    Bottom line, I know it is frustrating for you, but I don't replace "I don't know" with creativity. I can speculate as I did, but it's just speculation, not conclusions.

    Now your turn:
    - Why did the pilot didn't divert, as clearly recommended by the ATC? (interpreting "visibility 400, 4-0-0, conditions not suitable for landing, say fuel remaining and alternates" in any other way is dishonest)
    - Why the pilot attempted a go-around in a mode that was not allowed by the Aircraft Flight Manual? (yes, later reconstructions showed that it should have worked anyway, but it is was still not allowed).
    - Why were the setting of the different altimeters different? (the CVR clearly shows the contrast between the FO and the Nav)
    - Why would any superior criminal mind plan a plot counting with the following factors, and what would they have done if any of these would have not happened?
    -- The pilot would not divert
    -- The altimeter setting would be incorrect
    -- The pilot would attempt to go around in a mode not allowed
    -- The go around in that not-allowed mode would failed
    -- The pilot would not react more quickly with a manual go-around

    Brian, the last post of the previous thread prayed "Lock it, would ya?" Time to start considering the option...

    --- 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 ---

  18. #78
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    A more fitting parallel would be...
    When trapped by logic, conspiracy theorists commonly divert to analogies, "parallels" as you put it, which leads me to believe this is actually how they parse logic.

    Lay off us the analogies Northwester, we're not letting you take refuge there.

    Here's what we do know:

    - The mission was not sufficiently planned or briefed.
    - The crew were not well chosen, and chosen for their obedience rather than their experience and cautious wisdom.
    - There were significant power gradient pressures and recklessness within the culture of the VIP air wing at the time.
    - In the aftermath of the investigation, this was recognized and admitted to, the air wing was disbanded and these missions were taken over (temporarily?) by LOT pilots.

    In other words Northwester, the investigation revealed a cultural problem and an accident waiting to happen, which did happen; hard lessons were learned and changes were made that have resulted in successful missions ever since.

    That is what I call a successful investigation and an intelligent, healthy outcome, and an admirable achievement for Poland! Why do you feel you have to attack that with biased interpretations of evidence based on wildly illogical motives featuring cliche blockbuster plot conveniences?

    Nice getting personal, Evan. I appreciate your class.
    I rarely get personal here, but I think people understand why I have in this case: it's THE factor behind this discussion. We are tired of indulging your adolescent fantasies and blind disregard for all the arguments that have been made against them by very knowledgeable people. There are plenty of dark web forums where you can play out this fantasy. If you're looking to proselytize anyone to your ideas, you are simply wasting your time--and ours--in the wrong place.

    The only reason I even bother with you is that aviation investigations are about finding the truth through a meticulous, disciplined process while conspiracy theorists insult those efforts and actively work against them by spreading disinformation and paranoia. Because the latter is far more infectious, and because populist disinformation and paranoia is currently eroding faith in both science and society, I feel obligated to do my part in always speaking up to it. It's a cancer for sure.

    So I've done my part here. I only wish Brian would do his...

  19. #79
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,365

    Default

    So...

    Let's say the Russians fabricated/altered the CVR, FDR, Tower Tapes, Whatever radar recordings there may be AND the physical evidence that 325 cites...

    We may be on to something.

    Of course, a meteor could also have hit the plane and generated those small 'explosion fragments' 325 cites.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #80
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    - The door: I don't have an explanation, but the report clearly picks and chooses the way the door was inserted into the ground (with a Bineda's like analysis of how much speed the door should have had) but fails to explain the lack of deformation that would be consistent with such a big explosion. As an alternative (that I don't know if it is correct, but it is possible in principle) I offer that maybe the door was buried into the soft ground pushed by the weight and inertia of the plane (instead of taking the vertical speed of the plane and considering a free and isolated door hitting the ground at said speed).
    - The traces of explosives, the report doesn't go very deep in what exactly was found, but I've read other reports that say that in fact what was found were elements and compounds used for some explosives but also used in other uses.
    - The fragments of bodies and airplane parts, I don't know, I don't have an explanation for that. I don't propose but neither discard the possibility that this finding is fake.

    Now your turn:
    - Why did the pilot didn't divert, as clearly recommended by the ATC? (interpreting "visibility 400, 4-0-0, conditions not suitable for landing, say fuel remaining and alternates" in any other way is dishonest)
    - Why the pilot attempted a go-around in a mode that was not allowed by the Aircraft Flight Manual? (yes, later reconstructions showed that it should have worked anyway, but it is was still not allowed).
    - Why were the setting of the different altimeters different? (the CVR clearly shows the contrast between the FO and the Nav)
    - Why would any superior criminal mind plan a plot counting with the following factors, and what would they have done if any of these would have not happened?
    -- The pilot would not divert
    -- The altimeter setting would be incorrect
    -- The pilot would attempt to go around in a mode not allowed
    -- The go around in that not-allowed mode would failed
    -- The pilot would not react more quickly with a manual go-around
    Quick response about the door and connected comments. The plane was still above ground where the door was found. So the plane itself could not push it in. And there is some damage to the door itself. It is logical that when subjected to high explosive pressure from the inside, the weak points would fail first, the only points of attachment (hinges and the lock), and the door would be ripped from the frame. I don't know what percentage of the door perimeter constitutes the attachment, but I would imagine that not more than 20%, the rest is a seal. The opposite door was shot out too, in the air, and was found about 80m down the flight direction. The only logical explanation here is that the explosive pressure caused it.

    The equipment used to detect traces of explosives on the wreckage was the same equipment that is used at high risk airports to detect explosives. As far as I know such equipment does not react to shoe polish or cosmetics. It was a poor attempt by someone to discredit the readings of the detectors.

    I have no reason to believe that the archeologists have not done the first rate professional job mapping the crash site. They had no reason to prove or disprove anything. They are professionals of high integrity, and reputation that has been established through decades of excellent work in the Middle East and Africa.

    Now to your questions.
    - I don't know that, I suppose he wanted to check the conditions himself
    - We covered that before. The plane had non-standard equipment that was most likely not covered by the Flight Manual, and the pilot must have known that AP go-around was ok, for he announced that that was what he intended to do
    - Don't know, probably to silence the annoying alerts
    - Not enough information
    -- Maybe there was a contingency plan - don't know
    -- Not a necessary factor
    -- Most likely not true
    -- We don't know that for sure - Glenn Jorgensen maintains that the go-around trajectory was correct
    -- We don't know that for sure either

    You forgot to address the sheet metal deformations (curls), that can occur only during explosions.

    And one important question: If, as previous reports maintain, the plane lost a small fragment of the wing colliding with a tree, and the new wind tunnel experiments proved that such a loss could be compensated by the pilots, what caused the full roll of the plane?

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
  •