Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Edit request on 7 November 2012

Similar non-Polish aircraft accidents

1983 Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Iwugrad (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not done, Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was shot down by another plane, even the conspiracy enthusiasts have not suggested this yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Further dozens of scientists confirm the hypothesis of explosions, formulated by the Parliamentary Group

During the Smolensk Conference Prof. Piotr Witakowski has said that the current findings show that the Smolensk air crash was accompanied by an explosion.

A precise analysis of the documented air crashes from the last approximately 30 years shows that in the vast majority of the cases, when the plane hit the ground, it had damaged big areas of forests before and parts of the plane had never been scattered over such a large area as it was in Smolensk.

In Prof. Witakowski's view, according to the current findings what is the most probable is the hypothesis of an explosion of the plane in the air. In Prof. Witakowski's opinion, the Smolensk air crash is an accident accompanied by an explosion and hitting the ground was the result of earlier disintegration of the plane into fragments.

Witakowski's findings have been confirmed by Prof. Chris Ciszewski from the University of Georgia, who in his speech carried out a comparative analysis of the satellite photos of the venue of the air crash and analysed changes in the photos taken one after another. The expert came to a conclusion that the scatter of the remains of the plane was not in accordance with the expectations in the case of hitting and that it rather suggested an explosion preceding the collision. Moreover, the analysis of the satellite photos show that the appearance of the venue of the air crash as well as the location of the remains kept changing as a result of a manipulation.

While analysing the way in which a small fragment of the TU-154 M number 101 was destroyed, Prof. Jan Obrebki from the Warsaw Technical University said that what had been the cause of the air crash must have been a multipoint explosion.

http://freepl.info/3158-scientists-smolensk-air-crash-was-accompanied-explosion
The program and the participants of the Smolensk Conference:
http://www.konferencja.home.pl/Program_Oct162012.pdf
http://www.konferencja.home.pl/Aktualnosci-1a.pdf
Some of the new presentations, by:
Marek Dabrowski
Gregory Szuladzinski
Michal Jaworski
Wieslaw Binienda
Voyt13 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a good example of starting with a cause and working backwards to make it fit rather than the scientific approach of examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion, all points to WP:FRINGE. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

About the Smolensk Conference, from the Polish version of the article:
On 22 and 23 October 2012, in Warsaw, at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University, held a conference aimed at providing a forum for the presentation of interdisciplinary research on the mechanics of flight and destruction of the Tu-154M. It was attended by more than 100 professors from Polish and foreign technical universities. The composition of the organizing committee of the conference were Professors Peter Witakowski (Chairman), Andrew Wisniewski (Vice-Chairman), Paul Staszewski (Treasurer), Jerzy Urbanowicz (Secretary), Chris Cieszewski (foreign relations) and Dr. Ing. Wojciech Bilinski (editorial matter). Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the conference was Professor. Tadeusz Kaczorek, vice chairman prof. Jacek Ronda, members of the presidium Kazimierz Flaga, Robert Gałązka, Lucjan Piela and Peter Witakowski, honorary members: professors Janusz Turowski and John Weglarz .

One of the aims of the conference was an attempt to comply with the so-called the inverse problem, ie to determine the position and speed of the aircraft pieces at the time of defragmentation based on the technical documentation of the aircraft and photographic documentation of the wreckage pieces and their location at the crash site.

The participant, prof. Peter Witakowski of the Academy of Mining and Metallurgy in Krakow, in his paper presented photos of the accident, which can be compared with the disaster in Smolensk, saying that the fall of the aircraft on the "roof" in any case would not be so destructive to the machine. He pointed out that in such cases, the machine does not break up into many parts, and passengers have a good chance of survival. The scientist said that the current state of research points to an explosion of the aircraft in the air and falling to the ground occurred after the defragmentation of the plane. He stated that photos showing the wreckage of the Tu-154M lying at the airport in Smolensk points to that the Tupolev did not hit the ground, and was destroyed by the forces acting from inside the hull. In his opinion, the findings of the MAK and Miller are unreliable .

The findings of Witakowski were confirmed by prof. Chris Cieszewski from the University of Georgia. He analyzed the destruction of trees and a series of successive satellite images of the site. In his speech, he made a comparative analysis of these images and tracked changes sequentially captured images. The expert concluded that the scattering wreckage was not in line with expectations as the event of a collision, but rather suggests the occurrence of an explosion prior to the collision. In addition, the analysis of satellite images shows that the appearance of the scene of the accident and the location of the remains has changed over time as a result of manipulation.

Prof. Jan Obrębski Warsaw University of Technology, said that on the basis of the destruction of a small piece of the Tu-154M number. 101 as well as a large fragment of the shell detached, torn rivets and irregular shapes and jagged edges, states that the cause of the crash must have been multi-point explosion inside the machine.

Prof. Jacek Gieras from the University of Technology in Bydgoszcz pointed to deficiencies in the documentation to indicate that so far has not been any serious analysis of the electrical components, including generators, electric motors and cables of Tupolev. The expert pointed out that after the crash only the bulbs highlighting cockpit were tested.

Dr. Gregory Szuladziński, an expert of the parliamentary committee, argued that if there was a collision, the wing of the plane as stronger than birch tree, would cut the tree and not vice versa. Proved that damage of the hull of Tu-154 could be caused by relatively small amount of explosives. In his opinion, an explosion in the hull is the only logical explanation for the disaster. He argued that the evidence is such number of fragments, their location, as well as the "split of hull" .

Dr. Eng. John Blaszczyk, a retired employee of the Military University of Technology, said that he analyzed the strength of the wing of Tupolev and came to similar conclusions as prof. Wieslaw Binienda and Gregory Szuladziński that birch could not break the wing.

Prof. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, University of Maryland, another expert of the parliamentary group, said that even the data presented in the reports of MAK and Miller's committee shows that the plane flew over the birch.

Prof. Wieslaw Binienda from the University of Akron, the expert parliamentary group, presented the Tupolev flight simulations using specialized programs. He said that the lack of damage to the front edge of the wing, his place being wrenched off and the position of the birch in the direction perpendicular to the flight of aircraft indicate that there has been no collision of the machine with the birch, and the internal destruction of the wings and pulled rivets could be a result of the explosion. Also, the open walls on the outside of the hull show that it could be caused by an explosion inside the machine, as if there was no explosion, the rear part of the fuselage and the right wing should be in full. In his opinion, if there was an explosion, most of the passengers in the back and middle of the plane should survive.

Dr. Wacław Berczyński, designer of Boeing Military-Space Division reported that the damage occurred in the hull, the rear of the aircraft was rejected at high pressure, the wing was destroyed as a result of the enormous pressure inside the wing. Voyt13 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

TLDR - you are welcome to make a proposal to improve the article but repeating the same stuff at great length is getting to the point of being disruptive. Plenty of forums and blogs for this sort of speculation but this is an encyclopedia which is not the same thing. So unless anybody has a firm proposal to make to improve the article then the subject is closed, thanks for your contributions. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

First, the current section on the parliamentary group has to be changed, as it is now full of smear anti-Polish propaganda, pushing a strong POV by citing some absurd one-sided opinions (like "hysteric and bungler" by Sikorski... Why not to write that actually Sikorski is "hysteric and bungler", isn't he? We have refs for that, too: [1] . Do we have to go into that political disputes in Poland or rather present results of scientific researches?). Voyt13 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, lets insert instead your anti-Russian smear propaganda, by citing some absurd one-sided opinions to push a strong POV! The right forum for conspiracy theories are forums; not an encyclopedia. And as wikipedia definitely doesn't want to wade into internal Polish political smear campaigns we shall not mention this smear campaign in this article; but maybe we should add information about it in this article. noclador (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Are the hundreds of professors of technical sciences from all over the world members of the Law and Justice party? Or maybe they are bribed by it? Aren't you creating some conspiracy theories? Voyt13 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no hundreds of professors from all over the world. For some reason (ahem), the polish version of the article incorrectly quotes its source. "ponad 100 profesorów z polskich i zagranicznych uczelni technicznych" vs "Ponad 100 polskich profesorów z uczelni technicznych". Maybe you should fix that, Voyt13? 95.28.222.145 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction there. They are scientists from universities from various countries, not only from Poland. Voyt13 (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see an enormous quantity of contradictions, irregularities, and highly inplausible and/or massively coincidental assumptions in this "theory" alleging a massive conspiracy that push it well into WP:FRINGE territory. It's not going to get covered in the detail you desire in this article for those reasons; this is the WP:CONSENSUS that has emerged from these discussions. I strongly suggest, if you wish to have information on this dissenting investigation to be included at all, to formulate a brief section on it. I strongly suggest reading TWA Flight 800#Alternative theories for an example of the length and tone that would be expected of such a section. N419BH 01:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And I see how you substituted "scientists from universities from various countries" with "professors from all over the world". I'm sorry, but the latter sounds like there are British, American, French, German etc. scientists who support the theory. But that is not the case. All these professors, even though some of them work and live outside Poland, are still Poles. Every last of them is a patriotic Pole, which is really not that far from being a member of PiS. 95.28.222.145 (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The participants of the Smolensk Conference are, indeed, Poles of origin. However, eg. Binienda has presented his findings on ASCE "Earth and Space Conference" in Pasadena, CA with the participation of 204 scientists from 13 countries, including: USA, Australia, Canada, England, France, Netherlands, Germany, Korea, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia. (None of them had any objection to the researches and methodology except one who left during the presentation - he was from Russia). The official site of the Earth and Space Conference . Besides, saying that they are "Polish scientists living outside of Poland" is like saying (let me bring up an unusual comparison) "Ben Bernanke is a Jewish central banker living outside of Israel". Does it make any sense?

That other conference is dedicated to all sorts of things and Binienda was just one of the speakers. Given how innocently his presentation was titled, I wonder how many of the attenders really knew what is it exactly the were going to see. Most importantly, it seems that giving such presentation is Mr. Binienda's favourite pastime, so considering everyone who can sit quietly through his presentation a supporter of his theory is a bit of a stretch. Again, no one confirms anything until he partakes in an investigation and puts his sign under the final report. And I could say "scientists of Polish descent", what would that change? 95.25.61.120 (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The next issue about being fringe or not - the problem is, inter alia, in defining what is "mainstream media". In fact, the group of "Gazeta Polska" (with portal "niezalezna.pl") providing all these information about Smolensk is ranked as the third most influential media in Poland. Voyt13 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course. I would fully expect an investigation by Polish politicians to receive coverage in mainstream Polish media. Disagreement is natural in politics. The various 9/11 conspiracy theories and the various TWA Flight 800 alternative theories and the Moon landing conspiracy theories have all been covered in mainstream media as well. That doesn't make them of greater credence or credibility, it simply means covering them was warranted. N419BH 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

During the Smolensk Conference, there was a presentation by prof. Jan Obrebski, describing the damage of a part of the wreck that has been delivered to Poland and analyzed by Obrebski. The piece had broken edges, pulled and twisted rivets.

- I firmly declare: an explosion. There’s no other way to explain it - said prof. John Obrębski ( Warsaw University of Technology ), opening the presentation.

The described fragment has a size of 40 cm x 20 cm x 20 cm, with the thickness of the sheets of 1.22mm. It is ragged and unfolded. The edges are clearly torn - which can be compared with a typical state of tearing steel in a testing machine.

As argued by Obrębski, the piece is a fairing of a bracket. - With high probability it can be said that it is a fragment of the front section of the cover fastened to the aerodynamic shell of wings or fuselage - he said. Another series of photos showed the rapprochement of torn rivet holes and the edges of the plates torn as a result of tensile forces.

- the presence of planted and riveted metal sheet inside the element is interesting - he said. He suggested that the element could be used to put an explosive charge in it during the repairs of the plane. (The plane was repaired before the crash in a facility in Samara, Russia owned by Oleg Deripaska. – editor’s note)

video from presentation

report on presentation

Voyt13 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. The Parliamentary group is putting forward a theory which lacks support from the Polish or Russian governments, and is not worth more than a brief mention in this article. It is not the job of this article to discuss every dot and comma of what the Parliamentary group said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I didnt know that the government decides what is scientifically correct and what is not? Is that how it goes in your country? 100 scientists from the biggest Polish universities, from USA, Australia, Canada took part in a Smolensk Conference in October and they agreed that the cause of the crash can only be explained by an explosion. Is that understandable to people who write here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FitJock87 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Traces of explosives (TNT and Nitroglycerin) on the wreck !!!

In the wreckage of the presidential Tu-154M in Smolensk prosecutors found traces of TNT and nitroglycerine - announces today the "Rzeczpospolita". Government spokesman said that this information "is appalling."

One and a half months ago a special group of pyrotechnists equipped with the latest technology to detect the tiniest traces of explosives went to the crash site.

Group of experts examined the wreck primarily on the seats and in the wings found numerous traces of TNT and nitroglycerine. These substances are the basic material for the construction of explosives.

Starting with the first sample, from the inside of the aircraft, the wing and the plating machines, gave positive results. Devices showed among other things that on up to 30 seats there are traces of TNT and nitroglycerine. These substances have also been found at the joint of the wing fuselage. There were so many that one of the devices exhausted scale.

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/katastrofa-smolenska/w-tu-154m-odkryto-slady-materialow-wybuchowych,1,5291329,wiadomosc.html
http://www.rp.pl/artykul/613504,947282-Trotyl-na-wraku-tupolewa.html
http://fakty.interia.pl/raport/lech-kaczynski-nie-zyje/news/rzeczpospolita-na-wraku-tupolewa-sa-slady-trotylu,1857602,6911
http://niezalezna.pl/34309-trotyl-na-wraku-tupolewa
http://niezalezna.pl/34322-nasz-news-slady-trotylu-na-cialach-ofiar Voyt13 (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

they found TNT? well, that rules an explosion out. if TNT explodes it decomposes into either 3 N₂ + 5 H₂O + 7 CO + 7 C or 3 N₂ + 5 H₂ + 12 CO + 2 C. if there was TNT on the seats, then we know that the TNT did not explode. as for Nitroglycerin a) it is unstable b) a contact explosive and c) when detonated decomposes into 12 CO₂ + 12 H₂O + 5 N₂ + 2 NO, making it clear that it did not explode too... basic science; noclador (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Some experience with trace analysis of post-explosion residues says: Technical TNT and dynamite Danubit 2 have been used as real secondary explosives: at present they are the most frequently abused explosives on the territory of the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic.It has been shown that distilled water is a good medium for collecting the post-explosion traces of nitro compounds (TNT and DNT) in testing ground. Voyt13 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a similar explosive trace thingy as with the TWA Flight 800 case. UncleJester (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Traces of explosives are exactly what you'd expect to find in a military transport aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Do u find them traces on the wings and outside part of the plane aswell???--FitJock87 (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Useful BBC coverage here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Journalists who wrote about explosives have been fired

The editor-in-chief of Rzeczpospolita, the reporter who wrote the story and two other employees have all been given the boot from Rzeczpospolita for publishing this inaccurate report. So we can now ignore this lies; but maybe we should include that Kaczyński has completely lost touch with reality and keeps on repeating the "explosives" theory... [2]. noclador (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The journalist was fired and that proves he must have written lies? Is that your logic? 1. US tests prove presence of trinitroluene! (with the document confirming) 2. Author of the article about trinitrotoluene on TU-154 supports his thesis , Gmyz: I would write more as I know more today, I don’t withdraw anything 3. Examinations proved the presence of trinitrotoluene . Maybe it’s rather noclador, not Kaczynski, who "has completely lost touch with reality"? Besides, opinions like that clearly show that noclador is engaged in the political dispute and therefore is pushing his POV (despite the fact it's not the place for such opinions). Voyt13 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So what does it tell you if a stain of TNT has been found on a safety belt? UncleJester (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the story has since been dismissed by the authorities as untrue, it's a moot point. N419BH 22:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An analyze of a seat belt and a part of a blouse conducted by American scientist on the request of the family of one of the victims proved the presence of explosives on that material. Thats a clear proof and its important that it come from a neutral experts. Why it can't be included in this article?--FitJock87 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A witness in the Smolensk investigation, Remigiusz Mus, found dead, on 28 October 2012

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Let's move on from here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The police confirmed to niezalezna.pl portal that Ensign Remigiusz Mus, an on-board technician serving as a part of the crew of Yak-40, which landed in Smolensk on 10 April 2010, an hour before the Tu-154 crash, and a key witness whose testimonials contradicted official version of events in crash’s investigation, is dead. Ensign Remigiusz Mus, who revealed that the Flight Controller from the Smolensk’s Airport gave to Jak-40 crew orders to descend to 50 metres above the ground, assured that the same command had been given to Tu-154 no. 101, as well as to the Russian Il-76, what completely contradicted Voice Cockpit Recorders transcripts. Remigiusz Mus was one of the most important witnesses in the investigation concerning the Smolensk air crash. He heard the orders given from the tower in Smolensk and during an interrogation he spoke about 2 explosions taking place before the TU-154M engines stopped. "Serial suicider" on the run again Why Remigiusz Mus died Did someone persuade Remigiusz Mus to commit suicide? The case mentioned even in German “Westdeutsche Zeitung”: Absturz der Präsidentenmaschine lässt Polen nicht zur Ruhe kommen That’s another victim of the "serial suicider", related to the Smolensk case. Some of the other mysterious deaths related: Gregory Michniewicz – CEO of the prime minister Donald Tusk’s office. He hanged himself on 23 December 2009 on a cable of a vacuum cleaner, the date when TU-154 plane came back from repairs in Samara. Christopher Knyż, the operator of "Fakty" on TVN, on April 10, 2010 was in Smolensk. He died in Moscow on June 2, 2010. Death completely concealed. Prof. Marek Dulinicz, head of the archaeological group, died June 6, 2010 in a car accident while waiting for the trip to Smolensk. Dr. Eugeniusz Wróbel, a professor at the Silesian University of Technology, a specialist in aircraft computer control systems, expressed doubts on the investigation on the crash in Smolensk. Officially, killed with a chainsaw on 16.10.2010 r, by his son, who removed traces of blood, carried cut corpse to the lake, went back and forgot everything. His "mental ill health" has not been noticed for over 20 years by his mother, who is a psychiatrist. Dariusz Szpineta - professional pilot and instructor pilot, an expert and president of an airline company, was found dead in a bathroom during holiday in India. Previously, he spoke several times in the media on Smolensk, questioning the official finding. General Slawomir Petelicki, former commander of the "Grom". Found dead June 16, 2012 year. Sharply criticized the findings of the Commission for Aircraft Accident Investigation and tardiness of the Polish government to explain the causes of the crash in Smolensk. He died as a result of gunshot wounds. List of victims of the "serial suicider" Voyt13 (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry this page is related to improving the article and is not a forum for repeating fringe or made up conspiracy theories. If you keep adding this type of fringe forum stuff it may be seen as disruptive so please desist, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Is it time to start deleting these posts per WP:NOTAFORUM? N419BH 20:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe

One of the users changed the name of one of the sections from "Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe" to "Law and Justice investigation". I would like to ask the administrators to change it back to its previous name becouse the current one is incorrect. Law and Justice have not conducted any official investigation. The Parliamentary group is a -parliamentary- authority which can be formed according to the Polish Constitution and the Statute of Polish Parliament art. 17. Membership in this and other Parliamentary Groups is voluntary and open for members from all parliamentary parties. Please change it becouse its misleading for the readers. I would like to also ask to change that section entirely as in its current form it is merely just a bunch of negative opinions about the group itself and its members and experts expressed by some of the media and politics. During the Smolensk Conference in October, 100 academics from the biggest Polish universities, from USA, Australia, Canada and some other experts concluded that only an explosion can explain this catastrophe. Why are their findings ecluded from that section? Why there is no mention of the traces of explosive materials found by American scientists on the belt and part of one of the victim's blouse? That section in its current from is unacceptable. I hope for a substantive discussion about a new and encyclopedic form of that section.--FitJock87 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, other editors do not have to indulge you since, as far as I can tell, you're simply re-raising the same issues that have been rejected a number of times before. Please first re-read those prior discussions, then, if anything is still not answered, re-ask. One particular policy that is relevant here: Wikipedia is not supposed to cover every single viewpoint in great detail. If a particular viewpoint is only held by a small group of people, then we should mention it only briefly, in passing. And if the viewpoint is only held by an extremely small group, such that the position falls under WP:FRINGE, then we don't mention it at all. Finally, please do not try to argue about the actual "findings", or where explosives were found, or whatever. We don't argue about the actual facts of a debate here; all we do is figure out what reliable sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Assassination Theory

What is the problem with at least pointing out the existence of the assassination theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.233.156 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There is none, that's why the article includes a section on it: 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#Law and Justice investigation. N419BH 00:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

TNT

A coverage in French "Nouvelles de France", the prosecutors DO CONFIRM the detection of TNT:
Tragédie de Smolensk du 10 avril 2010 : les enquêteurs polonais ont bien découvert des traces d’explosifs sur l’épave de l’avion ! 88.156.86.194 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Detection, yes, but the problem is that other substances can be detected as TNT. From [3] "Col Szelag told a news conference later on Tuesday: "It is not true that investigators found traces of TNT or nitroglycerine. Evidence and opinions collected so far have in no way provided support to the belief that the crash was a result of actions by third parties, that is to say an assassination." He also pointed out that equipment used to detect TNT could react in a similar way to soil, perfume or everyday objects."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Could the detectors be used if they "beep" on every perfume bottle? All about the reaction on other substances have been many times denied, also by the producers of the detectors: [4] . Also, the damaged lungs in autopsies confirm the hypothesis of explosion: [5] . Also, why there is still no word about the Smolensk Conference with participation of over hundred scientists [6] [7] and other conferences: [8] [9] ? 88.156.86.194 (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar

Since this page is under the Semi-protection policy; I cannot make an edit, can someone please make an edit to the Initial Reports section, third paragraph, second to last sentence. The sentence "General Błasik not stayed in the cockpit and was a regular passenger" needs to be corrected and should say "General Błasik had not stayed in the cockpit and was a regular passenger". Thank you in advance and if my spelling and grammar needs correcting I am happy for someone to point that out for me and/or correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonym91 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Sorry you are unable to edit this article, but it has proved necessary to semi-protect it due to disruption from thos trying to push conspiracy theories. Welcome to Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand why it is protected so their is no need for apologies. I am happy that I got the help I needed and that we both made a small contribution in improving a wiki page.Tonym91 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 April 2013

Please change text fragment in chapter "Investigation", sub-chapter "International investigation", following sentence: "However, Bogdan Klich, the head of the Polish investigative commission, said that "Poland does not have a lot of things that (we) would like to have" and as an example gives lack of documentation of Smolensk airport and regulations about Air Control." to "However, Edmund Klich, the head of the Polish investigative commission, said that "Poland does not have a lot of things that (we) would like to have" and as an example gives lack of documentation of Smolensk airport and regulations about Air Control." Edmund Klich led Polish investigative commission (http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/raporty/katastrofa-smolenska/klich-wreczyl-mak-liste-zastrzezen,1,3699568,wiadomosc.html). Bogdan Klich was the Minister of National Defense at that time, but he was not directly involved in the actions of investigative commission.

Thanks!

Marlenabk (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing this out.  — daranz [ t ] 21:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Katyn Massacre material?

The digression into Russian responsibility for the Katyn Massacre is not relevant here. [doug123w - login is not working at the moment]72.66.109.33 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request/citation needed

"Despite initial suspicions, the aftermath and investigation of the accident had an overall warming effect on relations between the two countries. Poland felt the investigation was conducted in an open and overall fair manner in stark contrast to Russian and Soviet investigations of the past"

1) who is Poland in this paragraph? In this poll from 2011 68% declares "the circumstances of the crash weren't yet fully found" and 65% thinks, that "we'll never know the cause".

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/639468.html It's one of a leading polish newspapers, Rzeczpospolita

"The number of people denying the possibility of assasination falls" http://www.polskieradio.pl/5/3/Artykul/739458,Nowy-sondaz-CBOS-ws-przyczyn-katastrofy-smolenskiej (by Polish Radio)

"55 proc ankietowanych uważa, że władze rosyjskie celowo utrudniają dochodzenie w sprawie katastrofy smoleńskiej" "55% of the polled thinks that Russian authorities are obstructing the investigation of the Smolensk crash on purpose" http:// www.tokfm.pl/Tokfm/1,102433,11527211,Sondaz__Nie_wierzymy_w_zamach_w_Smolensku.html (by polish liberal radio station Tok FM)

I can't find any data that support the information in the first paragraph, there are also no citations or references. Please either find the sources or delete those two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.233.89 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

2010-Tupolev crash - outdated description of the crash

Please replace the following text: The pilots attempted to land at Smolensk North Airport, a former military airbase, in thick fog that reduced visibility to about 500 metres (1,600 ft). The aircraft was too low as it approached the runway. Striking trees in the fog, it rolled upside down, impacted the ground, broke apart, and eventually came to rest 200 metres (660 ft) short of the runway in a wooded area.

with the updated text: The pilots attempted to land at Smolensk North Airport, a former military airbase, in thick fog that reduced visibility to about 500 metres (1,600 ft). When the aircraft was approaching the runway in the fog, two powerful explosions occurred in the aircraft breaking it to thousands of pieces that fell to the ground over a partially wooded area, which can seen from the satellite pictures (see external link below the article).

Please add the link to the most comprehensive information about the crash published as a report of the Polish parliamentary group investigating the causes of the Smolensk crash: http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/ZespolSmolenskMedia.nsf/EventsByLink/MJAI-97K9TJ/%24File/Ksiazka_Raport_Smolenski_wyd2.pdf This report is a result of Polish parliamentary group comprising over 100 members of parliament. It is a serious official document that does not contain fringe theories. It is based on scientific analyses of independent scientists. The current text in Wikipedia relies on the MAK report and Miller's report which were published soon after the crash without thorough investigation. Many facts crucial to theories described in these two reports have since been proven to be false, and even impossible based on laws of physics. This concerns the theory that the plane was broken as a result of an impact with the land or trees that is now presented on Wikipedia pages. The cause is still unknown, The Polish State Prosecutor is still carrying an investigation of this crash. However, many small details are now revealed. It was thanks to the work of over 100 scientists in Poland and in United States, Australia, and EU.20:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ejm00 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not done - refer to reliable references which have no support for fringe theories. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lies! It was never blamed on polish pilots. That's what reports says. If you listen to scientist though you will fin out that reports are faked and the investigation wasn't conducted properly. Also it didn't have a positive influence on relations between Russia and Poland as most polish people know that it was not an accident. There were mistakes made by polish people but they did not lead to the crash. 99.234.82.49 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please make specific requests based on reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

merge proposal

I have proposed this merger as I can see no reason to have a separate article--Petebutt (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I presume you mean International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash ? if so I would oppose as it would not add anything to this article (or to the encyclopedia) and it would be kinder just to delete it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MilbornOne: The section here is already an appropriate summary. --illythr (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose merger - This article was split out from here due to size issues. Whether or not it should be deleted is another debate for another venue. Mjroots (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, as MilborneOne said, International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash would be better off being deleted. A long list of "leader x offered condolences" statements was never necessary for a full understanding of the crash.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash (2nd nomination) has been raised for discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits by User:Trasz

These edits, while claiming to correct WP:NPOV issues, seem to have their own POV, which is dismissive and rather rude about the alternative theories surrounding the crash. I was going to revert them, but at the very least they need to be toned down a bit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole section about Macierewicz's commission was extremely POV; my intent was to provide at least some context. If the results sounds rude - please fix it, but please stick to the facts, which can be summed up as "the whole thing is a politically motivated fringe theory". Trasz (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We could also note that even though some people in the Law and Order Party cling to their fringe theory hoping to exploit it for political gains, nobody outside their small circle takes them or their theory serious. noclador (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a whole lot of people take them serious. Both Gazeta Polska and Karnowski Brother's portals and newspapers were built around promoting it. Trasz (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 01 May 2013

The first paragraph in the section "Warning signs" contains incorrect conclusions based on potentially potentially unrelated information. While the information cited from the FAA's "Airplane Flying Handbook" is largely correct, it is incredibly general in nature and by no means speaks to the specific performance characteristics of the D-30 engines of the Tupolev Tu-154, or that of any other jet engine for that matter. The statement that "engine spool-up is nearly instantaneous over 78% N2" might be correct, but unless we refer to the aircraft manual or to actual flight test data for that type of engine under those operating conditions there is no way that statement can be correct. Also, the statement that a jet engine can take up to eight seconds to spool up from idle to maximum thrust is potentially incorrect as well; current FAA regulations require five second spool-up times; older regulations allowed longer spool-up times - when that manual was published, regulations at the time might have allowed eight-second spool-up. Beyond that, as the D-30 engines on the TU-154 were not only designed in the early 1970s, they were never certified by the FAA, so there might very well not have been any kind of spool-up time requirement when that engine was designed and certified. I can't speak to the state of aircraft certification regulations in the Soviet Union during the 1970s, though.

I suggest editing that paragraph to state that the TU-154's engines were at idle descending through 200 meters; the operator's manual requires a go-around if the engines are running at below 75% N2 while descending through 200 meters. Mentioning that jet engines take a considerable period of time to spool-up is important; just a quick citation from the FAA's "Airplane Flying Handbook" is enough without the need to go into the overly generalised numbers that book presents.

Thank you.

Background: I hold a Canadian Airline Transport Pilot License with over 3000 hours of turbine-powered flight experience.

I fully agree with your concerns for maximum accuracy. This is were Wikipedia lacks the most, thus making it quite an unreliable source of information. This article, however, is not so bad after all.

The D-30KU-154 engines of the Tu-154M take 8.5...10 seconds to accelerate from flight idle to TOGA power.

If established on the ILS with a normal power setting, the engines need only 2.5...3 seconds to accelerate.

I would add that bit of information to the article myself (including the reference), but for some unknown reason, the edit function is not available anymore.

Best regards,

Alexey, happily retired F/E (Il-18, Il-62, Tu-144, Tu-154) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.246.100.57 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@195.246.100.57: - Alexey, I've changed the protection level on the article. You should now be able to edit freely. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing

It seems to me that we have an IP pushing a pro-Russian POV. I've already reverted one edit, but now there's more. Would an independant editor please review these edits? If this carries on, it looks like we'll have to return to semi-protection. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove "Tu-154" from title

I don't think the aircraft type deserves as much significance in this high-level incident, thus I propose renaming as 2010 Polish Air Force crash; compare to, e.g., 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash. fgnievinski (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current title is fully in accordance with the naming convention for aircrash articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - meets the standard naming convention and it helps the reader identify the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:AATF#Accident article naming conventions says: "Some flexibility can be exercised. Some examples: 2006 New York City plane crash." fgnievinski (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)