Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smolensk 2010 crash - new technical report

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

  • #76
    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.

    Comment


    • #77
      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 ---

      Comment


      • #78
        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...

        Comment


        • #79
          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.

          Comment


          • #80
            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?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Northwester View Post
              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?
              1) Do you know the difference between could have and did? How many accidents do you want me to list where the pilots could have controlled the plane but did not?
              2) As I mentioned earlier, one thing is to control roll with asymmetric lift at 1G and another very different thing to control roll with asymmetric lift at 2G. The pilot was pulling fully up to the stop by then. Of course the report very conveniently doesn't investigate the roll control under such conditions.

              --- 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


              • #82
                Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                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?
                I think that busting off the ends of wings is a rather intimate to ailerons and control cables...doesn't seem too far out that something might have gotten yanked/shoved/crinkled to a full up or full down position- with the opposite, linked side dutifully being forced the other way to a full-roll deflection.

                I think this has probably occurred somewhat often (and maybe some wing torqueing malformation)- and that busting wing tips cleanly where you still have great aileron function and authority is probably the exception.

                If the the math says that wing area vs. control authority = control authority wins, that's super cool, except what's that mean if the control authority is saying full roll? (For clarity- the yoke inputs are NOT what I'm discussing)

                And since we're now into analogies- please take a peek at auto racing and car wrecks where you glance off the wall...not_uncommon that the steering is boggered full in one direction...(Again, meaningless if the math says that the tire friction could have been adequate to maintain directional control).

                One another good analogy...ever driven a small tractor with manual steering, and clipped a tree stump and had the wheel ripped out of your hand? (even though there was adequate authority to maintain directional control).
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  1) Do you know the difference between could have and did? How many accidents do you want me to list where the pilots could have controlled the plane but did not?
                  2) As I mentioned earlier, one thing is to control roll with asymmetric lift at 1G and another very different thing to control roll with asymmetric lift at 2G. The pilot was pulling fully up to the stop by then. Of course the report very conveniently doesn't investigate the roll control under such conditions.
                  To make sure I understand it correctly: are you saying that if the pilot did everything right, he could have controlled the roll, or, that, because of the combination of factors, even if he did everything right, the chances of controlling the roll were almost zero?

                  And, would it be possible to establish from the wreckage, the configuration of the controls, if the pilot was doing the right thing to counter the roll?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                    ***are you saying that if the pilot did everything right, he could have controlled the roll***
                    He's saying many things. One of them is that quick flip overs can sometimes be done very efficiently by pulling up relentlessly on planes with fully in-tact wings. (Do you participate at an aviation forum called "Jetphotos.net"?- they talk about this topic with some regularity and could provide insight.)
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      To make sure I understand it correctly: you are debating how delaying and then botching a go-around, descending below runway elevation at flight idle in dense fog and suddenly colliding with a foot-wide tree that severed 21 ft off the left wing could possibly result in CFIT?

                      You're right, it just doesn't add up...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                        To make sure I understand it correctly: are you saying that if the pilot did everything right, he could have controlled the roll, or, that, because of the combination of factors, even if he did everything right, the chances of controlling the roll were almost zero?
                        To make it clear, what I am saying 2 things:
                        1- is that EVEN IF the plane was controllable, which I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE CASE, that doesn't mean that the pilot did control it.
                        2- The report only explores a basic scenario of "missing this much of the wing vs controls that were still there" without exploring the chance that perhaps the controls were not fully functional (if at all) and more importantly, they make the comparison by dividing the wight of the plane by the area of the wing and multiplying by the are that was lost and the distance, without ever taking into account that the plane was pulling up hard a that point (full elevator up deflection, according to the FDR) which means a couple of things: a) quite more than 1 G so quite more asymmetric lift (wing produces more lift at more than 1 G but ailerons don't gain any roll authority) and b) high angle-of-attack with severely diminishes the effectiveness of the ailerons. Any team seriously, fairly making an unbiased investigation the accident with the objective of FINDING the truth (which is not known or assumed) would not leave these factors aside because they are central in this aspect they are investigating and are obvious. This was not a mistake, it was intentional, following an agenda.

                        Pick, choose, an interpret the evidence to fit the agenda. An investigation made not to reach to a conclusion but to fit the pre-defined conclusion.

                        --- 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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          To make sure I understand it correctly: you are debating how delaying and then botching a go-around, descending below runway elevation at flight idle in dense fog and suddenly colliding with a foot-wide tree that severed 21 ft off the left wing could possibly result in upside down CFIT?

                          You're right, it just doesn't add up...
                          Fixed.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Closely related investigation report:
                            This video of some extremely large planets and moons near our earth was made from raw, unedited footage from the Federal Aviation weathercams in Alaska and ...

                            --- 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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              Closely related investigation report:
                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUSVo1c-l0c
                              I mean, if they've already built a celestial object blurring mechanism, I suppose I've been rather naive to dismiss the Russian mind-control ray as mere fantasy. So this is a game changer...

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Just to remind you what this is about.
                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X