Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Smolensk air disaster. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Controversy about MAC's report

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article is written according to the russian statements and do not considers polish observations. We can't even know if polish pilots conversation released by Russian MAK is true. Readers must know that MAK is postsoviet organisation, involved in political affairs. MAK didn't give the most important evidences (flight data recorders, shipwreck, audio recordings) to Poland, even Smolensk Airport officers could not be questioned by polish authorities. There are many questions about landing phase, fog around the airport and work of airport services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.123.42 (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

MAK video diagram of accident sequence

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Here, in English. I am somewhat surprised that the cockpit voice recording itself was released. This is usually not done in the United States. The recorded sounds at 39:49 are the reason why. N419 BH 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The translation of narrators voice seems surprisingly accurate, too bad the did not translate transcript inside.

I'm not sure if this is apparent from this video, but landing radar view is NOT from the day of the accident. It was taken by folowing another plane that went along the same trajectory to reproduce radar readings. That is why the view disappears in the last seconds - since at this point the plane pulled up to avoid the crash (it is shown in red from the height of 100m). 91.76.14.34 (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The landing radar view is an animation...N419 BH 18:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

MAK report incomplete?

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

According to this, analysis of cockpit tapes by Polish experts was able to almost completely transcribe the cockpit recordings. Almost all sounds which were marked as "incomprehensible" in the released MAK cockpit transcript have been deciphered. It was also possible to assign each spoken sentence to specific people. In the Polish transcript there will be no sentences marked as "incomprehensible", unlike in the MAK report where they are numerous.

As the MAK theory of "psychological pressure" is mainly based on a few disjointed statements in the transcript, possibly taken out of context ("He will get mad ..." etc.), the complete transcript may invalidate its main conclusion (it may of course reinforce it as well). 99.236.14.72 (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of this week's media coverage is reminiscent of the splits between investigators that followed the Tenerife airport disaster in 1977. Spanish and American investigators believed that the audio transcript showed that the captain of the Dutch 747 had caused the crash through pilot error, but controversy persisted over the meaning of some of the phrases in the recording. For this article, the problem is that the Polish and Russian investigators are now citing what they believe are different versions of the cockpit voice recorder transcript of the Tu-154.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Russian investigator (MAK) version is very incomplete, as even a casual glance at the transcript they published shows. Poles, who of course know the nuances of Polish language better and could probably use people who knew the crew personally to recognize their voices (just my guess), clearly have the more reliable transcript at this point. Why MAK rushed to publish its reports without incorporating Polish expertise, one can only wonder.

At this point, the most crucial finding of Polish analysts is that the Captain of the Tu-154 gave a clear command to go around when he passed the decision altitude of 100 m, which was acknowledged a few seconds later by the 2nd pilot (that acknowledgement is in the MAK transcript). That basically invalidates the MAK theory that the captain, acting under psychological pressure, was determined to land at any cost. It also opens the real question in this crash: what happened which prevented the Tu-154 crew from successfully going around, once they made a decision to do so at the correct height and with enough time to spare. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The YouTube video with the audio [1] shows that parts of it are of such poor quality as to be almost indecipherable. There is also a risk of Chinese whispers when interpreting very distorted audio. If the pilot and co-pilot did decide to abort, the puzzle is why the final ten seconds appear to show no real pulling up by the plane, or undue worries from the crew until they hit the tree.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprocessed raw audio in a Youtube video may sound bad to the untrained ear, but modern analysis techniques can make it comprehensible. I agree that the final 10 seconds of the flight is a mystery at this point. I can only assume that the pilots were working hard to save the plane and did not have time to provide a running commentary of their actions to the voice recorder.

There is one possible explanation. The pilots descended on autopilot and had a plan to perform the go around on autopilot too, by activating the "go around" function (this is shown in the MAK transcript). They seemed to have been unaware that the "go around" function will only work when the autopilot is in the mode for ILS guided approach, and so it would not work at Smolensk airfield. So, I could imagine how the time to go around comes, the captain presses the "go around" button, and nothing happens. By the time the captain processes this information and decides on a new course of action (going around manually), the critical few seconds have passed and it is too late to avoid the crash. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, genuine attempts to avoid collision would involve pulling up before the point of no return. By the way, Vesti.fm has asked several aviation experts to give their comments on the crash. They unanonimously agreed that pilots wanted to get visual contact whatever the cost, hence they are responsible.[2] Artem Karimov (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling "Go Around" and actually doing it are two different actions. This crew called "go around" several times. They never initiated a go around until they were 15 meters BELOW the runway. Even the Polish investigation has confirmed this. I would expect any international investigation to come to the same conclusion. The crew decided they were going to land, and they ignored a large number of warning signs which indicated it wasn't safe to do so. It's a classic Controlled Flight Into Terrain scenario that happens several times per year, although it happens somewhat infrequently to large airliners. N419 BH 06:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The question is that why was their behavior so irresponsible and somewhat inadequate? I guess we'll never find out... Artem Karimov (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We call it "get-there-itis" in the industry. You become so task-oriented on the goal of landing at your destination that you begin to ignore warning signs that indicate such a landing is unsafe. When you get to approach minimums you decide to "push the envelope" just a little bit (aviation is where this term comes from, specifically the Center of Gravity envelope of an aircraft). It appears from the evidence that this crew, before the approach began, had already decided to push the envelope to 60m radar altitude, hence their bugs were set at 60m. When 60m (~180ft, CAT I ILS minimums are 200ft) arrived, the crew decided to push the envelope a little bit more. They hit the ground fifteen seconds later. Pilots are trained to recognize when they are entering an unsafe situation, but under stress it can be difficult to recognize the danger until it is too late. In thick fog the crew never saw the ground coming, and likely didn't register in their minds how close the ground actually was despite radar altitude readings. They only realized what was going on at 20m (~60ft); -15m in relation to the runway, when they finally saw the treetops sticking up through the fog. At that point it was far too late. N419 BH 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Any idea why the actual recording was of such a poor quality as to be nearly useless? I am not aware that there were some extraordinary conditions on board prior to impact and the boxes are designed to survive a crash. Richiez (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's very common. Airplanes are noisy, particularly the cockpits due to wind noise. It's very common for the headset microphones (the ones which are actually worn by the flight crew and used to communicate with ATC) to pick up very well and the area microphone (usually mounted in the overhead panel) to pick up poorly due to background noise. Also depending on how the voice recorder is set up there may be limits on how many channels it can record. Certainly the pilot and copilot were recorded at their headsets, but the engineer and navigator might not have been. The commander of the air force was almost certainly not recorded by a headset mic. That leaves the area microphone to record everything else. Hence phrases which are only picked up by the area mic are often reported "unintelligible" in the transcript because it's unclear exactly what is said. And in an accident investigation it's better to say "unintelligible" than it is to make an educated guess and possibly be wrong. N419 BH 06:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The report (pp60-63 of the English version) discusses the CVR, with photos. The casings were damaged though the tapes survived. But there was a problem with the area mic track which suggests an existing fault. It is not uncommon in accident investigations for the report to say that some of the parameters on the crash recorders were not properly recorded, and the truth is that unless the recordings are actually needed in an investigation such faults can go undetected for some time. Even if the area mic were properly installed and set up, something like a loose connection later could easily have been overlooked. AJHingston (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So it is actually a great surprise that the voice of Blasznik was "intelligible" while substantial portions of what the pilot did say were declared unintelligible by the MAK? Richiez (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

B class

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

As part of the B-class review for WikiProject Poland, I reviewed this article and it appears to continue to meet the criteria for B-class. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with previous assessment that the article seems fit for B-class. Interested editors may want to think about a WP:GA nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think GA maybe a bit premature, although I feel that the article has FA potential. We are waiting on the Polish authorities to give their reaction to the MAK final report. Once that has been published and assimilated into the article, then GA can be tried for. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Once that's done, what would FA require? N419 BH 06:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I dare say a going over by WP:GOCE would help, further info at WP:FA? on what a featured article is. However, one step at a time. GA first, see what comes out of that, and then consider the next step. Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

ISO date format in references

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've reverted the conversion of ref dates to ISO format. As the creator of the original article, I did not use ISO dates because they are ugly, and hard to read. The use of ISO dates was not an issue in the days when you could set your preferences for linked date display, but since the date unlinking debate, I've not used them. Ref dates in this article have used the format day month year since creation. I see no good reason or consensus to change this. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made them all consistent. I converted the refs to ISO format because it is a *standard* and is more concise. The 'original creator' preference smacks of ownership, to me (although I'm not referring to Mjroots, rather to the overall view). My view is that dates should always be in ISO form and users should set their preference (and the IPs should get a pref per their geo-location). I guess some consensus got this wrong, as often happens on this site ;) NB: I've converted your en.wilipedia.org-specific-diff to use the {{diff}} template which facilitates use from the secure sever). Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack, it's not so much ownership as WP:ENGVAR. In the UK, we use day, month, year. In the USA they use month, day, year. As I said, use of ISO date format didn't matter when all dates were linked and you could set your preferences to display linked dates how you liked them. Like it or not, that has been done away with and the dates have to be written in one form or another. I don't think we would write dates in ISO format in the main text of the article, so I don't see why we should use them in refs either for reasons stated above. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that we should use ISO dates in all refs in Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is global, so we should use the global standard and not give special treatment to US and UK users. The yyyy-mm-dd format is concise, international, least ambiguous and makes interwiki cooperation, fact-checking and translation easier. Nanobear (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is misleading and not credible

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

The present article "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash presents the "skewed view" as provided by the Russian State Commission. It does so without citing the extensive criticism of the methods and the lack of transparency in the process; and does so with a tone of undue credulity, as though all such criticisms have been fully refuted and need not be mentioned, nor highlighted. While the MAK Interstate Commission report should be included as "official" documentation of its proceedings, its failure to definitively engage, let alone refute, criticisms leave this as an inadequate commentary on events. It is recommended that both the "official report" and the criticisms run in a parallel compare/contrast format until a technologically capable and independent jurying entity, weighs in.

On the 10th of April 2010, the Polish military plane, Tu-154, was involved in a fatal crash in the city of Smolensk, Russia, killing all the crew and passengers aboard. The deaths included the Polish President and First Lady, the last Polish President in exile, the Chief of the General Staff, Commanders-in-Chief, the Chairman of the Polish National Bank, the President of the Institute of National Remembrance, as well as a number of MP's, senators and prominent figures of the Polish elite, among the 96 dead.

This incident, which includes these prominent deaths, naturally calls for a complete and transparent investigation - the natural work of international aviation agencies with extensive experience is just such investigations. Yet, on the day of the crash, the Polish government decided to leave the investigation solely in Russian hands, without securing the rights to appeal to international organizations, aviation organizations, and relinquishing the right of an inspection, or any efficient supervision over examination procedures.

Specifically, the Polish government refused to consider any help from NATO, and did not attempt to gather any support from other European Union countries. As a result, all the evidence gathered has been left on Russian soil, including confidential military and security codes belonging to NATO's armies, "black boxes", and other flight recording devices containing all flight parameters. None of this evidence, as well as any debris of the wreckage, has ever been returned to Poland.

Such capricious actions and obscured procedures, running contrary to both the scientific rigor and general Western trend towards transparency naturally invites wariness as to the methods and conclusions of the investigation. No detached observer, cognizant of the influence of loyalty to faction and party in overwhelming loyalty to the people and to the truth, would readily accept such results given the morass of Polish and Russian politics and diplomacy. Among the issues are the degree to which present sitting politicians may have cooperated with the SB (Polish Communist Secret Police), WSI, and KGB, and Polish dependence on Russian Oil. There is much to hide and much to lose through non-acquiescence.

Consider the record to date of investigatory procedures and government actions that incline one to suspicion.

The death certificates of the victims are cursory, barely containing any basic information, and some certificates are missing. There is doubt (no proof has been provided) that any post-mortem examinations were ever performed in Russia; none were undertaken in Poland, as opening the coffins was strictly forbidden. Families received the bodies of their relatives in sealed coffins, under the threat that they would be prosecuted under Russian criminal law, if coffins were opened or tampered with. No medical evidence has been produced so far.

Shortly after the funerals took place, Russia sent a number of coffins back to Poland with anonymous human remains inside, and claimed that thorough DNA examinations had been performed. Even these unidentified remains, released for burial, had never been inspected. There is no post-mortem examination data available.

All legal evidence is kept in secrecy. Polish authorities have had admittance only to some of the Russian reports, but not to the evidence itself, allegedly accumulated in Russia. The only interrogation ever performed in the presence of Polish army prosecutors in Russia has been withdrawn from files and replaced with a designated updated version, contradicting the original.

The only Polish inspections allowed were archeology and geology surveys, and these were strictly limited to narrowly outlined areas. Usage of any specialized equipment was strictly forbidden, reducing inspections to a "bare hands" retrieval method. All these survey results were confiscated by Russian officials. There were no Polish crash investigators, criminologists or explosives experts allowed to inspect the scene.

The scene of the crash investigation has not presently been secured and may have never been secured, except in regard to keeping independent investigators out. In the subsequent days and months following the tragedy, victims' relatives and mourners of the dead gathered at the nearby Polish War Memorial for murdered Polish prisoners of war, still in deep shock and pain in the acknowledgment that human remains still remain in the field where the crash took place.

The investigation in Russia is flawed, as no impartiality can be assigned. MAK (the Interstate Aviation Committee) is closely connected with the manufacturers of the crashed Tu-154 aircraft,and is responsible for certifying both the aircraft and the airfield.

The Russian Prosecutor's Office Chief, Mr. Tchayka, is the very same man who refused the British government's attempt to investigate Litvinienko's death in the Russian Federation, and curbed their attempts to extradite the suspect of politically motivated murder.

Within days following the tragedy, there was an unprecedented media disinformation campaign - in both Poland and Russia - to cover up and blur many of the facts, such as:

1. Within minutes of the crash the Russian government, with the acquiescence of the Polish government, newly headed by Bronislaw Komorowski of the opposition Civic Platform party, stated that the crash was due to "pilot error, lack of training and poor communication skills (i.e. that the pilot could not speak Russian)" After the investigation these accusations turned out to be complete false, as the captain of the aircraft was one of the most experienced, master class pilots of the regiment, with over a thousand flying hours completed on this aircraft type. He was also well versed in the specifics of the Russian airports, ground personnel habits, all the procedures, and spoke fluent Russian.

2. False reports of four abortive landing attempts were made afterwards, though only one look-and-see attempt was made.

3. It was reported that the aircraft's left wing hit a tree with a 40 cm (16") diameter trunk. This has been officially confirmed to be false.

4. Within hours after crash, and before any inspection had been completed, the Russian and Polish governments refused to consider the possibilities of either a mechanical/equipment failure or the possibility of a terrorist attack (a reasonable possibility, in this post-9/11 world, as well as Russia's penchant for blaming so many incidents on Chechen terrorists).

5. Reports were filled with erroneous information about the exact time of the crash. The official time given by the Premier of the Russian Federation Ministers is over a dozen minutes later than it was finally set.

The entire landing navigation, performed by the Russian airfield ground personnel (the flight control tower), misled the crew, falsely confirming their positions, which led to the crash. This conclusion is based on the hard evidence of the flight controller's recordings, and forced the officials to admit this fact. According to military procedures (both the crew and the ground personnel were military) and have a decisive power, in permitting or allowing an aircraft to land. In this case, all the flight controllers were Russian.

All independent inquiries and examinations show incoherency and incompatibility of the Russian version of events. There was no fuel explosion as the plane crashed ("emergency-landed") into a swampy forest ground, weakening the pressure - which was the Russian version of events. What, then, would have caused the crash?

The death of ALL the passengers on board, the total dispersal of wreckage (annihilating 40% of its mass), the unexplainable range and scale of the injuries, the carnage left from the crash, whereby most of the bodies were unrecognizable: all of these facts do not coincide with the Russian "perspective" on the crash.

In addition, there is the mysterious, unexplained phenomenon, at the Russian airport in Smolensk, between 8:20 and 9:14 Warsaw time, when the airport had no outside communication, no power supply, and no eye-witnesses present.

There are hundreds of examples of evidence being destroyed, or simply being overlooked and never considered for examination. This whole investigation has been characterized by misinformation so prolific as to indicate intentional fabrication, and conscious disinformation, delivered through the main media by both Colonel Putin and the Polish Prime Minister Tusk. Even the media has been forced to acknowledge the most obvious falsehoods.

Given these irreconcilable reports, accumulating in real time, independent Polish citizens have commenced their own inquiries, using on-line sources to tease out the story. Among these are pilots, flight controllers, physicians, mathematicians, engineers and scientists from several disciplines. Their efforts established that the Russian "final cockpit recordings transcript" shows signs of editing and splicing, and note that the protocol (report) delivered by the Russian Aircraft Accidents Investigation Committee contains neither technical data nor even official source documentation of the inspection. The investigation report fails to answer the questions that independent citizen inquiries have raised. Some of its crucial statements are at variance with known facts, and it is puzzling why the report met with such an easy acceptance by Polish officials assigned to review this tragedy.

The preliminary stages of this investigation revealed that the aircraft Tu-154 was deliberately driven to the outside of the landing path. There is a hypothesis that the "meaconing" (the interception and rebroadcast of navigation signals) might have been used. Russian flight controllers insisted until the very last seconds, and reassured the crew that they were "on the course and on the approach lane". This was despite the fact that the aircraft had not been on course, on the final approach lane, throughout the whole approach look-and-see procedure.

All public protests and demands for a thorough investigation and explanation of the "catastrophe" are being refused, blocked and prevented by both the Russian and Polish governments. The Polish people want to know what happened to that aircraft: the last minutes of the flight, the crash ("emergency landing"), the mysterious loss and restoration of communications - everything that occurred, up until the public was informed about the crash and President's death.

All original recordings related to this accident disappeared in Russia. There is neither any photographic evidence being presented, nor video or audio, which would assuredly provide the answers for how this flight progressed to its fatal end. There is no electronic trace of the evidence, no eye-witness testimony of the circumstances of the crash. No one saw anything; no one heard anything; no one filmed anything; and no one recorded anything with his mobile phone.

In this situation, only the world's public opinion can force the Polish government,and the government of Colonel Putin, to disclose the documents and all the evidence. Only military services of NATO, of which Poland is a member, who may possess or have access to the satellite pictures of the accident scene, can help establish the truth.

The truth is what victims deserve. The truth is what we are obliged to deliver. WingManFA2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

|}

I am sorry but nobody is going to read all that text, if you have a point to make on any part of the article then please raise a particularly point one at a time so we can review it. So please clear concise statements about why you think a section doesnt present a neutral point of view with a reasoned argument for each point, one statement at a time so other editors can consider each of the points. Note that a range of editors have worked on this article for a long period to gain a balanced and neutral article from reliable sources and you need to address why in your opinion that is not the case in your comments. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the above text is too long and borderline WP:NOTAFORUM. As ever, a Wikipedia article is limited to reporting material that has appeared in reliable sources. Even the Polish government accepted that decisions against international safety minimums by the crew of the Tu-154 played a significant part in the crash, although they highlighted other factors involving the air traffic control at Smolensk. Simply implying that Russia/Putin is bad will not improve the article, specific and sourced suggestions are needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also agree. Failing specific examples of where the article fails NPOV, I hereby give notice that I shall remove the NPOV template from the article at any time after 18:00 on Sunday. There have been many editors with pro- and anti- Russian and Polish leanings working on this article, along with many many more who are only interested in the crash and its aftermath, and for whom the nationalities involved are merely factual pieces of information, nothing more and nothing less. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As an individual who wrote a majority of the present article, I hereby state that I did my best to ensure my writing was in as neutral of a view as possible and utilized a large number of sources, including those critical of the MAK investigation. Many other editors, both in favor of the Russian report and against it, have contributed to bring the article to present state, including finding credible Polish language sources to back up minor factual/translation errors in the MAK report. As much as some individuals would want to blame the Russians, there are undeniable facts which point to the accuracy of the story portrayed by the present article, facts which the Polish government agrees with as stated by high-ranking members of such. Currently, I as an author am waiting for the Polish investigation to release their report, at which time I will include all relevant information it contains in the same manner as I have included all relevant information from the MAK report. Should a third neutral country be asked to perform an official investigation, I will include that information as well. The bottom line is, the article in present form accurately portrays the information released to date from both Polish and Russian sources. If your idea of NPOV is "it was terrorism the Russians did it" or something similar, then I am sorry but your definition of NPOV is not in keeping with the consensus by which we operate here at Wikipedia. N419 BH 19:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories is there for a reason. Just cite it and move on - this is going to repeat a lot of times. --illythr (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theories? Consensus? This perhaps the most thoughtful, non-existent part of this article. You are hereby notified, that I object to your arbitrary removal of the NPOV tag. The intent of the text is to document the claim that the article is biased. The flaw is the decision to take at face value for the main narrative from reports of suspect sources - to wit, the government of Russia and the government of Poland now lead by a party in opposition to the previous party.

The aforesaid claim necessitates several cites at variance with the article taken as a whole, and detail by detail correctives would fail to develop the claim of bias. It would be remiss to be less thorough or fail to provide an integrated challenge. The article does not meet the standard of being authoritative because it lacks critical examination and integration of the set of narratives that have emerged. The unchallenging acceptance of the Russian report violates the old editor's guideline "If your mother tells you she love you, check out her story." DrJacPhD (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be suspicious, but I hope this is not a WP:SOCK account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DrJacPD doesn't appear to be a sock. This editor has contributed to the discussion before. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DrJacPhD, I hear what you are saying about the current Polish Government being the previous opposition. If the situation reverses at some point in the future, and the current opposition launches their own investigation and publishes their own report, then such information can be added. WP:NOR is there for a reason. What we can WP:VERIFY beats the WP:TRUTH hands down every time. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am worried that the text style of the rebuttal is almost exactly the same as the original complaint. I can be wrong (this has been known) but in any case the NPOV tagging looks frivolous unless specific and sourced points are raised on the talk page first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I did read reports many of the complaints that were raised by WingManFA2 in respectable eastern European (not Polish) media. The fact this has not been reported in western media does not surprise me, the early interest did quickly fade away and the whole matter seems to be only of marginal interest form anyone west of Poland. Richiez (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we may be getting somewhere. Nobody has said we are against putting criticisms of the report/investigation into the article. What was said is that the article accurately reflects sources used. Show us the other sources and maybe criticisms can be included, subject to WP:RS being met. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Would Lidovky be ok as source? It surely meets RS unfortunately no English versions available as far as I know. Richiez (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a RS, there is no requirement that all sources must be in English, although English sources are preferred where possible. Online translators do a fairly good job nowadays, and the bones of an article's claims can usually be derived through them. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

unexplained abbreviation PLF

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article uses PLF often without ever explaining it. --Espoo (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It is the ICAO code for the Polish Air Force, I have added a note where it is first used. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the Polish report is delayed again...

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

According to this article, the publication of the Polish report has been delayed until after the 2011 Katyn ceremony, to be held on April 11, 2011 so as not to conflict with the one year anniversary of the plane crash. The presidents of both Poland and Russia are confirmed attendees. It also appears as though the initial delay was due to technical problems on a Polish Government TU-154 (likely PLF 102 that's pure conjecture on my part at this point) which was being used to re-enact some portions of the flight. I suspect we will have some very detailed additional information to work with once this report is published. N419 BH 01:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the latest as of May 13th, 2011. Poland conducted 3 test flights with the the other Polish Tu-154, the last on April 28, to reproduce some of the conditions during the crash. On May 13th the minister responsible stated that the report is now in its final stages of compilation, with all analyses completed, but there is no firm estimate on when it will be released.[3]

However, Poland is still expecting some documents it requested from Russia, and when these are received some parts of the report may have to be rewritten. Also, Polish officials are still expecting that the actual black boxes and wreckage of the aircraft will be returned to Poland at some point. Once that is done, these may have to be investigated further by the Polish side, possibly delaying the report.

The Polish Prime Minister is hoping that at least the main findings of the report are released by June, before the upcoming parliamentary elections in the fall of 2011. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I'm sure many of us await the report with interest. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash has been merged into this article. AFAIK, consensus was that they should remain as two separate articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, don't know how this found its way back again. It should really be in a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fences and windows (talk · contribs) merged it. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I know who but not how:) Prior consensus is that this should be in a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I share the misgivings. It is not as though the coverage of the crash itself is complete yet, and it is now a very unwieldy article. Might the best course be to divide it differently and separate out all the post-crash events that do not relate to the technical investigation, etc or to any follow up to that? The internal as well as international reactions and repercussions, funerals etc do go together and could make a worthwhile article, and the president's funeral is still separate. --AJHingston (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the merge per the clear consensus here. Per WP:BRD, the merge should not be redone unless there is clear consensus to do so. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Report files

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A Polish Wikipedian pointed me to: http://www.komisja.smolensk.gov.pl/portal/kbw/633/8695/Raport_koncowy_MAK_ze_wskazaniem_zmian_do_projektu_raportu.html?search=340159

The same report is at http://bi.gazeta.pl/mak/raport.pdf (Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5zf3EFa3M )

Also:

Russian version:

From the MAK, here are the report files:

Additional archives:

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/topofthetimes/world/la-fg-poland-funeral18-2010apr18,0,5234848.story
- In Death and state funeral of Lech Kaczyński and Maria Kaczyńska on 2011-03-17 04:14:30, 404 Not Found
- In 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash on 2011-06-18 15:23:03, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The lead to the article is highly biased and skewed very much towards a particular POV (Polish govt). That there are now 2 reports - the first being the MAK report which places blame on Polish crew, and the second being Polish report which places blame on both Polish crew and Russian controllers, that the lead is almost completely filled with Polish govt response to the MAK report really does skew the overall article towards the Polish govt POV, and it is not the most prevalent POV out there in relation to true aviation experts. This POV problem needs to be fixed before the POV tag is removed from the article. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead does seem to get caught up into things that probably don't beliong there - i.e. protocols for investingating accidents - it would probably be better if it said something on the lines of "The Russian report said this" and the Polish report said "This and That", rather than talk about comments on the Russian report. In addition, it would probably be helpful if the main body of the article discussed tthe Polish report rather than just linking to it - this would allow the amount on Polish comments on the Russian report to be reduced.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not forget that the Polish report has only just been published and is 328 pages long in the English version. It needs to be studied before rushing to make changes. The whole article may need to be recast and I suggest that it will be important to distinguish between those facts and opinions which are common to both reports and those areas where there are differences of fact or interpretation. Even then, POV issues will remain and will need to be discussed calmly, bearing in mind that there are those who will reject findings in both reports. It is probably important, therefore, not to appear to be questioning the good faith of editors who have been trying in a very sensitive area to give due weight to views which criticised the findings of an official enquiry. --AJHingston (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much POV as recentism - whenever something new came out on the topic during the last 10 months or so, someone felt the itch to put it in the most visible part of the article. The last two paras just need to be shortened to the basic facts as per Nigel Ish's suggestion. --illythr (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a short bit based on secondary sources (the BBC and Flightglbal) to the main body of the report. This may be of some use as a basis for revisions to the lead section.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I propose merging International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash into 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 19. The article seems unecessary as a stand alone. After a year there may be a clearer perspective on this. Maethordaer (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This was last suggested back in May, but lacks a clear consensus. The "reactions" have always been too lengthy for incorporation into the main article, along with WP:TOPIC and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The proposer may be unaware of the current situation, which is that the official Polish report into the accident has only just been published and the conclusions of that have still to be incorporated into the article, which will probably result in a significant rewrite but only after a great deal of debate. It is possible that the resulting article will be reduced to a length where a merger would be practicable, but I doubt it; the best way of dealing with the continuing debate over the crash will probably be to cover the events in sufficient detail that people can be satisfied that all the factors contributing to the crash have been included. If some reorganisation were to be considered desirable I would suggest taking out the reaction section of this article and perhaps anything else that dealt with the aftermath other than things relating to the investigation, leaving this article to be about the air accident alone. The other article could include those other things. --AJHingston (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait until after current rewrite The whole article needs to be rewritten now that the Polish report is out. Let's get that done first. N419 BH 19:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn Oops - I forgot to scan the archives. Sorry about the waste of time. Maethordaer (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MAK or IAC

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The Interstate Aviation Committee has been referred to by its Russian acronym MAK in the article, but was recently changed to IAC. I've undone the change as I feel it should be discussed first. I believe it's somewhat standard to use Russian acronyms in English text, examples include KGB and CCCP. Thoughts? N419 BH 03:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that some Russian acronyms are well known (like KGB) - But "MAK" may be known in aviation circles, but it's not really well known or iconic like "KGB"
The IAC itself uses that acronym in English:
http://www.mak.ru/english/o_mak.html -- "The Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) [...]"
http://www.mak.ru/english/info/seminars/seminar_iac_eurocontrol/materials.html "IAC Concept of harmonisation. Speaker - A. Okladnikov (IAC)"
English final report: http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigations/2010/files/tu154m_101/finalreport_eng.pdf Page 7 -- "The information about the accident was received by the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC)[...]"
Normally one uses the foreign language acronym ("BEA," "BFU," etc), but the agency has its own English-language acronym, "IAC"
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

MAK is the normal abbreviation, and is the one used by Flightglobal. I think we should use MAK instead of IAC. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In some stories Flightglobal uses "IAC" instead of "MAK": http://www.flightglobal.com/search/zibbsearch.aspx?searchType=site&sKeywords=IAC

At least two of the results (both from 2011) here are clearly the abbreviation of "Interstate Aviation Committee" into "IAC", like:

[4]"approved by the Interstate Aviation Committee ( IAC) of the CIS."

[5]"[...]Safety Agency (EASA) and Russia's Interstate Aviation Committee ( IAC) to[...]"

Looking at the list of the stories that use MAK, there are many more of those than there are stories that use IAC. The "MAK" ones are dated 1995-April 2011. The "IAC" ones are dated January 2011 and March 2011.

I checked to see if the IAC itself uses "MAK" as an acronym in any English documents. Based on http://www.google.com/search?q=%22MAK%22+site%3AMAK.RU&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs= , I cannot find "MAK" being actually used as an acronym. It's only used in the website domain, as an approximation for the Russian Cyrillic acronym.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I must add that the Polish agency Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents uses "IAC" to refer to the agency: http://komisja.smolensk.gov.pl/portal/ken/661/8892/Interstate_Aviation_Committee.html - However in the English final report it uses "MAK" as shown in the terminology page: http://doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/rkm_en.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Polish Final Report released

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Major rewrite coming. Unfortunately all I can find is a downloadable .zip file from the Polish Prime Minister's website, which contains the report in .pdf format. That file can be accessed here. I would highly suggest everyone intending to participate in the rewrite read both reports in their entirety so we can provide a high-quality article which highlights the similarities and differences between the reports. N419 BH 19:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course any highlighting of similarities between the two reports should come from reliable secondary sourcers - otherwise its just OR.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the difficulty is as great as all that. In this context the enquiry reports are secondary sources, the primary sources are the black box recordings, witness statements, etc. I would not trust anything in the usual secondary sources (press etc) without reference back to the reports. Of course, there is the risk of using the two reports and then coming up with a third conclusion that neither report contains, and that is covered in WP:SYNTH. But there is no difference between drawing on both reports to provide a summary of the causes, and using two text books for an article where we might summarise agreed facts and then say that Prof X concludes one thing, Prof Y another. --AJHingston (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

STRESS:

Listen up: the "Kaczynski ordered to land at any cost" is just hearsay, initially stated by Komsomolskaya Pravda. If this article is to be serious, let's stay away from hearsay and unverified information - including a million consipracy theories.

MAK has no information on the so called pressure theory, and the Poles deny it in full, as the Polish Military has from day one since its publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antekg (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. If you read the section you insist on removing, it says nothing about the pilot being ordered to land by the Commander of the Air Force, and MAK do not say anything regarding orders either. Rather the MAK conclude that the Commander's presence in the cockpit contributed to the pressure under the pilots and likely affected their decision making. If we are to include the Polish findings regarding Russian ATC we must also include the Russian findings regarding the pressure under the pilots. With that being said the paragraphs you have removed probably overstate the conclusion as fact when it is really more a theory. I will be re-adding the section with a rewrite for now, and will re-write the entire article as soon as I can read the Polish report in full. N419 BH 05:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that the Polish final report is out, and agrees in its main conclusions with the Russian report (i.e. pilot error chiefly responsible for crash), I don't think there is any need to have a separate "Polish" and "Russian" version sections. There should be only one unified description of the crash, with two versions provided in the few places where the two reports diverge. To make things even clear to the reader, we may then add a "Differences" sections which summarizes the differences, even in a convenient table form.

Also, now that we have two authoritative reports out, should we not remove most of the references to April/May 2010 news stories? Clearly those stories were based on limited information available at the time, and so are no longer adequate. 99.236.14.72 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Files related to Polish final report

Here is a listing of relevant files related to this report:

Some files are on a list at (English): http://www.premier.gov.pl/en/press_centre/news/final_report_into_the_causes_a,7213/
- http://www.webcitation.org/60leyfA4D
Photos are listed at (English): http://www.premier.gov.pl/en/multimedia/photographies/presentation_of_the_final_repo,7218/
- http://www.webcitation.org/60lh0yrOZ
Videos are listed at (English): http://www.premier.gov.pl/en/multimedia/videos/
Live (English): http://www.premier.gov.pl/en/multimedia/live/

English:

http://mswia.datacenter-poland.pl/FinalReportTu-154M.pdf
- http://www.webcitation.org/60ldne6T4
http://mswia.datacenter-poland.pl/AnnexesToTheFinalReport.pdf
- http://www.webcitation.org/60ldr6KEh
http://kprm.gov.pl/Prezentacja.zip (too big to archive on Webcitation.org)
http://kprm.gov.pl/RaportENG.zip
- http://www.webcitation.org/60leSCbfW
http://raport.kprm.gov.pl/RaportENG.zip
- http://www.webcitation.org/60lec3Ysf
http://komisja.smolensk.gov.pl/download.php?s=72&id=13484 (Haven't figured out how to archive it)

Polish:

Russian:

Photos (full size):

Photos (smaller)

Some photos may also be available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kancelariapremiera/ WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

13 Polish military officers were deposed?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

They weren't Kings or heads of states, so "deposed" seems a bit strange - what did happen to them, were they sacked?, demoted? redeployed?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit strange, but the article I'm sourcing it from (available here) is in Polish. The literal translation is "deposed" according to Google. I am not sure whether this means they were fired or demoted, as I do not speak Polish. What we really need is someone familiar with the Polish language who can help translate. N419 BH 00:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate translation is "dismissed" - Google translate's junk. What it looks like is that the special regiment (more precisely, squadron) responsible for transporting important officials is being reorganized and the first step is to disband it; that's why these folks were dismissed; their regiment no longer exists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually among the "dismissed" were several of the overall leaders of the Polish Armed Forces. I don't think they'll be invited back. Changing the wording now. N419 BH 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's some reshuffling going on. The Minister of Defense, Bogdan Klich, also got dismissed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We should compile a complete list of those dismissed and their positions. Such a list will be prudent to the article. I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment but as soon as I have time I plan to re-write the lead from scratch and edit the rest of the article taking into account the findings of the Polish investigation. N419 BH 04:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Minister Bogdan Klich resigned. He got dismissed by the President on his own request, so he resigned. User:Alan.Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.93.136 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Actual" vs. "Indicated"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This sentence: "...yet the aircraft was in fact 130 meters above its actual altitude..." does not make sense. You cannot be above your "actual" altitude. Should this read "BELOW its INDICATED altitude"? Which would correlate with the previous statement regarding the manual resetting of barometric pressure on the FMS, giving a false increase of 170m in indicated altitude. Could someone please clarify this and make an appropriate correction? Pmarshal (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Differences in recommendation in the respective reports

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems to me that the most important part of the reports (may it be the russian or the polish) are their Recommendations chapters. One recommendation in the russian report is "4.2 States: Consider the practicability of amending the national regulations to prohibit the presence of persons not included in the flight task in the cockpit as well as to determine liability for violating this provision." There is no corresponding recommendation in the polish report, so this is a difference. I think this difference is so important it should be listed, or at least referred to in connection to the point "information that no pressure of any kind was put on pilots to force them to land according to evidence" in the list. Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.112.139 (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Needs language review

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Much of the text is clearly written by authors who are not native english speakers, and in particular by authors who speak languages which lack the definite article. Errors like "Error was due to pilot not taking correct action" abound. 46.239.100.186 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Awareness" of 2008 flight

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The following text from the article is strange: "The Captain and First officer were also likely well aware of a 2008 flight when the President of Poland ordered a change in destination right before departure and again while airborne. The Captain and First Officer were First Officer and Navigator, respectively, on that flight."
According to the polish wikipedia pages on those two individuals, the last sentence is true. However, the word "likely" seems poor here. Of course they new about the 2008 flight. The were both in the cockpit! Remove the word "likely" and add a good citation for the fact that they were First Officer and Navigator on the 2008 flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.112.139 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not reread them, but as I recall this is addressed in some detail in the MAK report and largely dismissed in the Polish one. Since we cannot know what was in the minds of the crew the correct approach would seem to be to refer in summary to what the investigation reports had to say, recognising the extreme sensitivity of the matter. --AJHingston (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My original reason for writing "likely" was the MAK report surmised this incident played in the minds of the crew and may have affected their decision making. Of course the Smolensk Captain and First Officer knew about the 2008 incident, they were in the cockpit for it. The question is whether they were thinking about it on approach to Smolensk. We will never know the answer to that question so the issue is how to address the uncertainty of the matter. The MAK report does discuss it in some detail. I have yet to read the Polish report due to real life getting in the way, but when I do I will be sure to make relevant adjustments to the text. Anyone is of course welcome to do the same should they get to it first. N419 BH 05:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why didn't they?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

4th paragraph: The accredited representatives and advisors from the Republic of Poland were not present during its presentation.

Did russian investigators invite them?
Why didn't they show up?
Were they required/expected too show up?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.182.170 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011‎ (UTC)

An independent investigation vs. Russian propaganda

Latest comment: 12 years ago55 comments10 people in discussion

The official investigation is led by Russians, who are judges in their own case. All the evidence are in their hands. The official Polish Committee don’t have the direct access to the evidence (wreck, black boxes) and it works under a great political pressure. It mostly repeats the Russian version adding only small corrections. On 8 July 2010 Polish opposition politicians formed a Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe. They invited some independent experts from abroad. You can read about some of these experts here:
Wiesław Binienda http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/
or http://www.uakron.edu/engineering/research/profile.dot?identity=1064521
Kazimierz Nowaczyk http://cfs.umbi.umd.edu/cfs/people/kazik.html
Gregory Szuladziński http://www.simulate-events.com/principals-resume.html/
Michael Baden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden

The official site of the Parliamentary Team is here: http://smolenskzespol.sejm.gov.pl/
This independent investigation is mostly censored in the mainstream media in Poland but is widely described by some independent media. In these media there are also journalists who worked before in Polish public broadcasting corporation “Telewizja Polska” but they were fired or degraded after they tried to investigate the circumstances of the Smolensk Catastrophe (eg. Anita Gargas, Dorota Kania, Jan Pospieszalski).
There was a public hearing in Brussels held by the Parliamentary Team with, inter alia, experts and family members of the victims, video here (partially in english):
http://vod.gazetapolska.pl/1423-wysluchanie-publiczne-w-pe-w-sprawie-trudnosci-wyjasnienia-przyczyn-katastrofy-smolenskiej
and a short report on it here (you can use google translate, despite small errors the meaning should be understood):
http://niezalezna.pl/25927-smolensk-byly-dwie-eksplozje — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyt13 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK thank you. My primary concern is maintaining neutral point of view. At first instinct this information seems as though it may be worthy of inclusion (primarily due to it being a parliamentary investigation). However, I believe we must consider it a fringe theory at this time. I say this due to the nature of the claims made (basically that both the Russian and Polish accident investigations were a cover-up). I will ping the Wikiproject Aviation accident investigation task force to gather additional input, and perhaps a few more individuals fluent in Polish who can help dissect these sources. N419 BH 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is worthy of inclusion. IMHO, we should report this and present the conclusions reached, the same as the other two investigations. The reader can then be left to decide which version they believe. Chronological order would seem to be the best way for the three. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would suggest then to restore my previous version, I mean to undo this removal. Polish is my mother tongue, if you need some more help. Voyt13 (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you wait a bit. There is no rush and other editors should be given the chance to voice their opinions. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Voyt I agree with Mjroots, and actually I'd suggest that you shorten it somewhat or it's likely to be reverted again. Say what the committee is, who it is composed of (not specifically but generically aka opposition politicians), and then state their conclusions. You don't need the various dates and the timeline of the committee's findings. Double check the copyright on that animation too and make sure it's compatible with Wikipedia's licensing (needs to be GNU, CC-BY-SA, or public domain). Also, please be careful to maintain a neutral point of view in your writing; even if you personally believe the Russian and Polish accident committees are incorrect their findings as official government investigations deserve equal weight in relation to each other, and potentially more weight than this separate investigation though we have yet to determine that. N419 BH 17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Parliamentary Committee is composed of 96 members listed here. They are deputies (MPs) and senators of the main opposition party Law and Justice. The committee is cooperating with, inter alia, experts listed before (Wiesław Binienda, Kazimierz Nowaczyk, Gregory Szuladziński, Michael Baden) There are reports (like "The White Book of The Smolensk Tragedy"), transcripts from meetings, press conferences, public hearings, where the results of works are shown. The work of the Committee is still in progress and is supposed to end by the end of 2012, when a final report should be released. The video I inserted is a part of presentation of the simulation performed by one of the expert, Wiesław Binienda, and can be found here or similar here. An extensive presentation performed on 08 September 2011 by Binienda and Nowaczyk can be found here: part1 part2 part3 part4 part5. I don't think the section I placed was too long considering the proportion between this and the official version, which was scientifically proven to be false, internally inconsistent or at least strongly undermined. There aro no counterexamples of a simulation or such detailed scientific analysis which would come from the official committees. So, talking about neutral point of view, I would base more on scientific researches. However, until the investigation is not government's official, I agree that it should be presented at the end, as a contrary. Regards, Voyt13 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Important (in english): Analysis of the Polish Governmental Plane Crash in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010 by Prof. Wiesław K. Binienda, Ph.D., F. ASCE. Voyt13 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The most interesting one I found from MAK was this [6] which explains the Pilot Error/CFIT explanation quite well. N419 BH 18:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

RT can't be considered as a reliable source of information, you can read about its, to say at least, politicization here. First, the information about an additional person in cockpit is a lie:

Gen. Blasik wasn't in the cockpit

There was no voice of Blasik. Second, the pilots couldn't perform the maneuver "go around" because of failures detected by [TAWS] and presented by dr Nowaczyk. The record of conversation on black boxes (Polish side has only access to copies) has been falsified. So, there was no pilot error proven Voyt13 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another news from the Parliamentary Committee: On 27 June 2012 at the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee there was a presentation held by Kazimierz Nowaczyk. In the conclusions he stated:

The plane flew over the birch at a height of 20 meters above the ground, did not collided with a tree, has not lost the tip of the left wing in the collision with the birch.
For the next two seconds it was flying straight and rose up, and at the point TAWS # 38 reaching a record height of 35 meters above the ground.
After TAWS # 38, 144 meters after the birch the plane made a sharp turn left, which is against its aerodynamics (if it was as a whole).

Refs: Miller’s commission guilty of forgery part 1 and Miller’s commission guilty of forgery part 2 Voyt13 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see no new comments from none of you. I updated the section, removed some parts, but also added some new facts. Then I restored it. Regards, Voyt13 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is all this? Aren't things like this supposed to be backed by various independent sources? Opinions of three polish experts who were selected by a commission headed by a polish national-catholic is all that is needed to publish stuff like this? Not to mention that the credibility of at least one of them is very questionable - Katastrofa profesora Biniendy (also note one of the comments under that article stating that his wife represents some of the families of the victims of smolensk crash). And what are the results of this "investigation"? Did it produce anything that you can go to court with or it's just all talk - "presented/said/stated"?--95.24.34.94 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is plenty of black PR like this about experts like Binienda. For explanation, eg. here: Binienda invites prosecutors to the U.S. or http://niezalezna.pl/29062-prokuratura-markuje-spotkanie-z-prof-binienda or about Binienda himself http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/ . The results are that, inter alia, they definitely deny the official reports. And yes, the suitable report about suspicion of committing a crime has been reported to the prosecution. It was about forgeries in the report of the official government's commision: http://www.rp.pl/artykul/907771.html Voyt13 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's totally not obvious. According to Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines the only way to confirm or deny his and this comission's findings, that I believe everyone agrees are surprising and important, even exceptional, is to provide multiple independent high-quality sources. We need universities themselves to put their sings under such findings, it must be in reports of some sort of a European fact finding commision, NASA's word would be good too, even the US department of state's opinion matters here. And there's nothing of the like in here.176.14.114.151 (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you knew the realities of Polish-Russian relations, you would understand that it's obvious. The Bininda's report is published on the official website of University of Akron : http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/Parlament%20November%202011%20-%20English.pdf and many scientists sing under these findings (after conrefence in Pasadena, California http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtdvn4GiNR0 and after meetings at Polish universities) , although I don't know of any official statement of any university (in Poland mainly because of the political pressure). However, there is an opinion of the chairman of Polish Academy of Sciences about need to appoint an international investigation http://wpolityce.pl/wydarzenia/26757-prof-michal-kleiber-prezes-pan-opinia-zagranicznych-ekspertow-wydaje-sie-potrzebna-sprawy-w-kraju-przybieraja-fatalny-obrot . There is also a petition to the White House to set up an international investigation: http://wh.gov/zMU . Some associations in Poland involved in this case published an appeal: http://www.onepoland.eu/ . Voyt13 (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All valid points Voyt13. Unfortunately, this article has been nothing more than an unsophisticated and endlessly regurgitated agit-prop at best. Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call as always Robert! Voyt13 great job as well! Your contributions Voyt13 are for the most part the only reliable part of this article, the rest, shall we say, was written in some poorly ventilated bunker near Moscow. --WingManFA2 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the new section on Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe needs to be pruned down to one sentence the article should remain neutral and balanced and we cant add every new theory by what appears to be a somewhat bias committee. We already have information on the official report and balance that with the Polish response. We need to balance the article and not add undue weight by adding every fringe suggestion to the article (fringe being anything outside the official Russian and Polish investigation). All we need is some suggestion what the reduced sentence should say. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The investigation of the Polish Parliamentary Group is not a "fringe suggestion" (there are some really fringe theories, which have not been described in this article). This committee consists of officials and is a part of an official institution (Parliament). The cooperating experts are not anonymous, they are reputable scientists working on universities, members of scientific organizations and national institutions (eg. Gregory Szuladzinski in Australian National Security Researchers Directory http://www.secureaustralia.org.au/index.php/researchers/view/376 ; Wiesław Binienda http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/aboutme.html and his researches on the catastrophe published on the official site of the University of Akron http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/researchnew.html ). All the reports and hypothesis published in the section Polish Parliamentary Group... are deeply examined. There are also still unexplained issues like "autopsies" made by Russians, which consisted of over 95% false body parameters of the victims, the alleged finishing off the wounded - the shots that can be heard on the amateur video etc... We will not know the truth until an international investigation is not appointed. A petition to U.S. Congressmen and Senators to establish an independent international commission is here. Voyt13 (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but it ticks all the boxes for a fringe theory, the non-govermental group rejects the official findings (both Russian and Polish) and as we use the term fringe theory to describe ideas that depart from the prevailing or mainstream view that is both official reports. We have to keep a balance in wikipedia, keep a neutral point of view and not give overdue weight. So as I suggested we need to remove most of the section and add a brief summary and I propose we change to "In July 2010 a group of experts was formed by a Polish Parliamentary Group to investigate the accident, the group rejected both official reports and claim the accident was caused by two explosions. The report of the group was presented at a public hearing on 28 March 2012 hosted by the European Conservatives and Reformist Group to try and gain support for an international enquiry." MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Polish Parliament is not a fringe organization. It is an official body of the Polish Government. I suspect you are confusing Polish Parliament with your own not-so-democratic government bodies in Russia. --WingManFA2 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said that the Polish Parliament is a fringe organisation but note the committee which was set up by a parlimentary group is not part of the government. When I suggested is that any group that contradicts two official enquiries and has conclusions that differ widely from the mainstream is a fringe idea as I explained above. Not sure what "with your own not-so-democratic government bodies in Russia" is about but it looks like a personal attack to me and clearly not a neutral view on the subject. Suggest you have a read of some wikipedia policies particularly WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that your feelings are hurt, how 'bout a virtual hug? No one is accusing your country (Russia), or its good people as a whole, but rather an irrefutable scientific evidence exists that suggests that the Russian government's "investigation" of this "accident" stinks to high heaven. A parliamentary group is a part of the government i.e. Parliament = Part of the Government responsible for representation, legislation and parliamentary control. It isn't that complicated, you know. Wiki has a article that explains what "Parliament" is. Look it up. --WingManFA2 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not hurt my feelings more amused about your bias assumption that anybody that disagrees with your point of view must be Russian. And please dont be condescending it is like your other comments seen as a personal attack, next one will get you a formal warning, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I uphold my opinion that the section should remain as it is right now and then the balance is maintained. The section is already a summary. The problem is we don't have a non-bias committee so far. Both MAK and the Polish Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents are biased. The previous activity of the MAK commission had already aroused controversies, eg. http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/politics/news/18907/ not to mention about the politicians related like Sergei Ivanov and his contribution to war crimes in Chechnya or links to Russian services responsible for assassinations (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko). Also, Polish Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents is led by a politician. If any independent international committee wasn't established so far, we should present all the three reports. Voyt13 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood but as I have said the section is to large and gives undue weight to another unofficial (as regard to accident investigation is involved). I understand that some people are not happy with the results of the official investigations which is why we should mention this report but not the large section of text which goes into far to much detail that our sections on the official reports dont. You say that the Polish accident committte is led by a politician but isnt the Polish Parliamentary group that set up this new investigation also a bunch of politicians? I agree that in the unlikely position of an international independent investigation being held then that should be given equal weight. Although I have suggested some new text above we really need some other opnions on this from other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out one aspect that has been raised here, the crash site video has been discussed before in the talk page archive. The "shots" may be explosions from the wreckage, or Russian soldiers firing to keep bystanders away. The "alleged finishing off the wounded" makes little sense, as all of the people on board the plane would have died in the impact from the crash.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It does make sense, as the news "all died" (given in the first minutes after the crash when it couldn't be verified and when no rescue operation was carried out) was repeatedly questioned. Especially after the fake autopsies made by Russians. The turned on siren could have been used to drown out the sounds. The sounds are characteristic of shots, what else could it be? There are many analysis of that video, there are indistinct voices interpreted as "don't kill us!" in Polish [7] , strange voices in Russian with laughings . Voyt13 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Parliamentary gruop consists of politicians and I don't deny it may be biased. But I wanted to say that the two official committees are biased also. Furthermore, there are non-political experts cooperating with the parliamentary group, I think, much more reputable than the experts of the Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents. Voyt13 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

All of this is speculative to the point of being original research. The article is limited to covering what reliable sources have said. The crash of the plane was non-survivable, and there would have been no survivors to "finish off".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"non-survivable"? Why so sure? The plane flying at a speed below 270 km/h falls on a muddy, wooded terrain... I don't know, it may be non-survivable, especially in the epicenter of the explosions, but the plane was large... We cannot verify it and, rightly, there is nothing about it in the article, but here on the talk page we can discuss it. "Everyone suffered multiple injuries" - standard sentence characteristic of traffic accidents, pasted in the Polish government report , which reliability have been discussed before. Voyt13 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "niemożliwych do przeżycia" (impossible to survive) is in the official Polish government report linked below (section 1.14).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Section 1.14 of the Polish government report into the crash says that everyone on board the plane suffered multiple injuries that were impossible to survive. The stuff about Russian soldiers shooting survivors is pure blog speculation. Unless some proper sourcing is found, I am going to remove the "neutrality disputed" tag, as this should not be used as a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT response.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I also revisited the archive and spotted an interesting prediction that this "investigation" already got away form you gentlemen, and it indeed did "Gaping holes in Russia's Polish air crash report" by Diana West About the author: West has contributed essays and features to many publications including: The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, The New Criterion, The Public Interest, and Women's Quarterly. She has also written fiction for The Atlantic Monthly and has been a columnist for The Washington Times and Scripps Howard News Service and United Media. As a CNN contributor, West frequently appeared on the Lou Dobbs shows. She blogs at dianawest.net.

And this is what she said: "The answers Russia presented to the world in its official 2011 crash report are wholly unsatisfactory. Indeed, the Moscow-controlled crash investigation seems to have been designed to suppress or tamper with evidence to exonerate Russia of all responsibility for an accident -- or guilt for a crime ...Like a tired rerun of an old horror movie, the Russian pattern of investigation into the 2010 Smolensk crash is the Russian pattern of investigation into the 1940 Katyn Forest Massacre ...The Russians assert that Polish pilot error, induced by pressure to land supposedly by the Polish president himself, caused the crash. Poles, particularly those associated with the late president's conservative Law and Justice party, see something far more sinister.

In this worst case scenario, Russian air controllers incorrectly informed Polish pilots they were on the proper glide path when that wasn't true. On purpose? If so, the world has witnessed the mass assassination of a government. And done nothing." --WingManFA2 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the Examiner article is that it fails to point out sufficiently that the main published finding of CFIT was accepted by both the Russian and Polish teams. The Examiner article adds little to what is known already.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"All of this is speculative to the point of being original research. The article is limited to covering what reliable sources have said". For starts, let us take a closer look at the "reliable sources" you like Ian:

RT, Wiki's own article: "In the opinion of contributors to sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda. A 2005 report conducted by the U.S. government operated VOA, interviewed Anton Nosik chief editor of a major English-language computer internet site in Russia, in which he described the creation of Russia Today as an idea smacking of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns, and also noted that the channel was not created as a response to any existing demand. While another article in the Digital Journal called RT a "pro-Putin news outlet" and its advertising campaign as "open propaganda war". A 2009 article in The Guardian by their former Russia correspondent Luke Harding about RT's advertising campaign described the network as "unashamedly pro-Putin" and saw it as part of the Kremlin's attempt to create a "post-Soviet global propaganda empire." As long as clearly identified propaganda outlets are cited here, this article is not neutral. Hence, you had no basis for removing Robert's neutrality tag.

As far as the original research is concerned, you have to be mindful Ian, that in order to impeach scientific findings of the world-class NASA scientists, Boeing Designers, Explosives Experts, and countless others, you have to scientifically prove (again, your beloved Russia Today, and other Putin's propaganda outlets aren't' going to cut it Ian) that what they state is scientifically invalid. Let me explain it to you in plain language: you have to rewrite the laws of mathematics, physics, aerodynamics, materials' sciences, and others. I will be anxiously awaiting for you to explain how a 150 ton aircraft can do in the air what an agile fighter plane can't do. You can even use an example of Mig-29, if you wish. For this reason, I am reverting Robert's tag. Should you revert it again, it will be considered vandalism. --WingManFA2 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should be taken with a pinch of salt, since it has been added by an editor with a long history of POV pushing on the talk page, accusing other editors of being Putin's stooges etc. For this reason, I would like to ask for input from other editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess it must be stressed once again, that in this investigation there are no NASA scientists or Boeing designers or Explosives experts, and most importantly, there are no countless others. There is a total of three experts. All of them are Poles, and they work for a group headed by a polish ultraconservative politician. Until there are sources that can be read without google translate, this is anything but an independent investigation.93.80.137.44 (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"I guess it must be stressed once again, that in this investigation there are no NASA scientists or Boeing designer or Explosives expert, and most importantly, there are no countless others" You are incorrect Sir. "There is a total of three experts" - Are you sure 'bout that? Let us start with a few:

Dr. Harvey Kushner: "There's nothing in history like this, where you have an airliner that goes down with such important people, and within a matter of hours the Russians announce that it was pilot error, or someone was in the cockpit. This is sheer nonsense."

Credentials: As a recognized authority on terrorism, Dr. Harvey Kushner has advised elected officials, military personnel, and foreign governments as well as trained federal agencies from the DHS to the FBI, to name a few. He currently serves as an expert for the Polish Parliament tasked with investigating the April 10, 2010, plane crash that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski.

Dr. J. Michael Waller: "Historically things like this have not been a coincidence in Russia [...] Of course it's unusual. It's even more unusual that everybody seems to be putting faith in the former KGB to run a transparent and impartial investigation, under Vladimir Putin's personal supervision. It's absurd. The Polish government should be demanding transparency as a matter of principle, to remove all doubts - and the Russian government should be offering it without being asked. If the Russian government takes offense at such a request or resists it in any way, then we will know whom to blame for the crash. I think people in the West are afraid of making that request because they are afraid to know the answer to the question"

Credentials: Foreign Propaganda, Information, Warfare, Political Warfare, Public Diplomacy, Influence Operations. Mr. Waller has been a scholar-practitioner in public diplomacy, political warfare, psychological operations and information operations in support of US foreign and military policy for more than 25 years. He was a member of the staff of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, served on the White House Task Force on Central America, was an operative for members of the White House Active Measures Working Group, and has been a consultant to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the US Information Agency, the US Agency for International Development, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the US Army. In 2006 he received a citation from the Director of the FBI for "exceptional service in the public interest."

Colonel Tomasz Grudziński, ret. former Deputy Director of the Government Protection Bureau (abbr. BOR – Biuro Orchony Rządu):

"What took place [in regards to providing adequate security for President Lech Kaczyński, and the Polish delegation flying to Smoleńsk, Russia by the Government Protection Bureau wasn't a simple dereliction of duty, but rather, it was a [premeditated and] conscientiously carried out effort of somebody, who in an unofficial capacity, was diminishing the importance of all international visits undertaken by our late President, Mr. Lech Kaczyński".

Major Robert Trela (Government Protection Bureau): "I was asked questions regarding the [breaking of the] TU-154M windows [with crowbars by the Russians], and if I could comment on that, and if it could be considered a piece of evidence? […]. The aircraft's windows in particular, are, and should, of course, be considered an important piece of evidence. Why? Because, just as any window, in any vehicle, or, in any means of transportation, it is subject to [the internal barometric] pressure [and stress]. Even in a common car, as it [the glass window] is being mounted [onto the vehicle] and is glued-on, it is already then, subject to internal stresses […] as I was viewing photos of the [TU-154M] windows at an angle; I noticed clearly visible discoloration in the windows. This blemish, this discoloration, showed evidence of internal stresses to which they were subjected. An aircraft, and its windows, as it travels in the air, or not, are always subject to the pressure […] In order to conclusively discard a hypothesis of an internal explosion on the plane, the analysis of the pressure exerted on these windows, would have provided a considerable amount of invaluable information"

Credentials: Chief Pyrotechnics/Explosives Expert, Government Protection Bureau, BOR --WingManFA2 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This has previously been flagged for WP:FRINGE issues. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What's fringe here Ian? The sworn testimonies of the witnesses who were deposed before an official body of the Polish government - read Parliament? Or, is the Parliament fringe? Is there something "fringe" about these individuals' credentials? Your associate posting anonymously from a Russian IP made some peculiar statements including the national origin of the experts, their number, and their credentials. These were answered in an un-fringe-like fashion, and and in an un-fringe-like factual manner. With warmest regards, --WingManFA2 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not "an associate" of any editor on this page, or any government. If you cannot assume good faith in this thread, please stop posting in it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting I was happy to suggest that this unofficial investigation was worthy of a mention (if only a few lines) but thanks to WingManFA2s detailing some details about the three individuals I am sure that we are heading in the fringe direction. I cant see any evidence of experience in air crash investigation or even an open mind on the subject. They clearly had a bias and political agenda before they started. Perhaps the stuff is better of on a page about Polish politics or Russian-Polish relations, certainly not relevant to an aircraft accident. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"They clearly had a bias and political agenda before they started" ??? - What do you base the accusations on or who do you mean "the three individuals" ? Please point out any political past or links to politics in previous activities of eg. prof. Binienda or dr Nowaczyk or dr Szuladzinski or Michael Baden or dr Wacław Berczynski. They are the experts of the parliamentary group and WingManFA2s didn't mention any details about them, he presented some opinions of others. Voyt13 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

MilborneOne raises an interesting point. If none of these experts has first hand experience of air crash investigation, their chances of being taken seriously in an international forum would be slim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is improbable that anyone, and I mean anyone in the world would seriously consider your opinion while weighted against the expertise of someone whose body of work was essential in discerning the cause of the Challenger disaster (Binienda), or someone whose books are a cornerstone of materials sciences and explosives analysis (Szeludzinski), or someone whose work has been pivotal in designing number of Boeing platforms currently in use allover the world (Berczynski), or someone who is the man-to-go-to when it comes to the terrorist investigations (Kushner), and others. Voyt13, please be aware that Ian, Miborne, and couple of others here, have been "guarding" this article since day one and will be disparaging anything and anyone who questions the official Moscow's view of this "accident" till the cows come home. So, please be judicious how much time you want to waste on responding to obvious silly spins such as this one … With love from the Home of the Brave, --WingManFA2 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Prof. Binienda participated in the investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and was awarded by NASA [8] . Dr Szuladzinski deals with mechanics of breakdown of structures and belongs to Australian National Security Researchers Directory. And what is the experience of air crash investigations of experts of Polish government's committee? None. Voyt13 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully Milborne and I are going to be well paid for covering up The Truth™. To repeat, both the Russian and Polish government reports accepted that this was an accident caused by CFIT. See also WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid personal attacks or not-so sophisticated irony. Try to concentrate on arguments and facts. IanMacM, I assume your good intentions so I guess you are just confusing facts and people. You are not so familiar with the matter because you didn't read the sources. Voyt13 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The only area that I would significantly challenge is that Russian soldiers "finished off" the wounded. This is well into WP:REDFLAG territory, as Section 1.14 of the official report says that the plane crash produced forces in excess of 100G, leading to multiple injuries and killing everyone on board the plane instantly. Even a non-expert can look at the crash site and see that the crash was non-survivable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No evidence that Binienda had any real contribution to the NASA investigation, his name doesnt appear in the report. Szuladzinski an expert on the effects of explosions, no agenda with him then. Kazimierz Nowaczyk appears to be a professor of stuff to do with biochemistry and biology and the University of Maryland School of Medicine but nothing related to aviation or aircrashes. Bit off-track now but if you were to have an independent investigation where is the expert on CRM, somebody with experience of Russian aviation particularly military ATC and approach techniques, where is the expert on Russian-built aircraft crashes, nope cant see any which is why you have national investigation agencies that can call on all these types of experts. Suggest we prune the Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe section as I suggested earlier which would remove the need for the NPOV flag and close this topic down. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the investigation of the parliamentary group is still in progress so I suggest we wait for the final report which will be published by the end of 2012. Voyt13 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About that list of experts above. You and Voyt13 were previously talking about "irrefutable science" and "laws of mathematics, physics, aerodynamics, materials' sciences, and others". You do realize that "Putin is a KGB monster who eats babies, so of course he blew up the plane" coming from a self-styled "authority on terrorism" is not hard science, don't you? I also hope that you understand that this page here is not a place for investigations or research, so asking anyone around here to prove someone wrong or posting links to videos and texts for analysis is not very helpful for discussion.

I don't make any claims regarding the findings of this investigation or put my reputation on the line (I'm trying to say that the origin of my IP is irrelevant), but I eagerly want to see reputable and independent organizations that do! Let me stress it - organizations themselves, and not their members. So far, it seems that none has even shown any interest in this investigation. And that is the problem here that your list doesn't address.93.80.137.44 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The investigation and scientific research concerns only the plane crash. It is not about how much psychopathic murderer Putin is (That was the matter Politkovskaya or Litvinenko dealt with). I'm glad you would like to establish an independent international investigation, so if you are a U.S. citizen, please sing up the petition or join one of the organizations demanding that. Voyt13 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)