Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Investigation

"and the information from the recovered black boxes has not yet been examined." - this is certainly not true, since the first black box decodings were already available yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.225.130.227 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Tu-154 - correct, TU-154 wrong. Merge? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, see Tupolev Tu-154 for reference on how the title of this article should look. Mieciu K (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, entirely my fault, was in a rush to get the article started so that it could appear in ITN. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, this was a very important news so the rush was understandeble 89.76.31.29 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The organizers of the commemorations chose the Soviet-made Tupolev aircraft as a mark of good will towards their Russian hosts.[8]"

I've read the article but I haven't found any confirmation of the fact (about a mark of good will). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.40.245 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Highly unlikely it is the normal presidential aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Russian TV the Prime Minister raised the question about buying a new aircraft but that was not done. It was also mentioned that the aircraft had been used during the presidential visit to Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.40.245 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly do you assume so? Because of a purported inferiority of the Tu-154 in comparison to Western aircraft? I can imagine that this particular aircraft, having been the presidential carrier, was well-maintained and perhaps refitted several times, and it certainly must have met the safety criteria of the EU - so perhaps there simply was no reason to change yet (since I assume that acquiring a new airliner would incure tremendous costs). Is a Boeing or an Airbus inherently more "prestigious" than a Tupolev?

Regardless, all of that is speculation and irrelevant to the article. If there is no source explicitly claiming that the Tu-154 was chosen as a "sign of good will", the sentence stays out of the article. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This particular plane was a second-hand Aeroflot Tu-154 that was 25 years old with a lot of flying hours on its maintenance log and a whole bunch of minor incidents (26 in the past 8 years, to be exact); it was purchased mainly because there was no money available to buy a better plane; and it was not well-maintained. FWiW 24.23.197.43 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to available data, it did receive a major overhaul in December. --Illythr (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

reference is not in article anymore: "According to a Polish military magazine the airplane was serviced in December 2009 at the manufacturer and received 5-year/7500-flight-hour warranty; the crash happened just after 138 flight hours." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.87.41 (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not a second hand aircraft, It was bought by LOT Polish Airlines but never used by this airline as after the fall of communism in Poland in 1989 this airline switched to western made aircraft, so this aircraft was still brand new when it was aquired by the Polish Air Force. This was still a good aircraft in 2010, and very well serviced and upgraded with modern equipment. This Air Force unit had much more problems with it's small Yak-40 jets and Mi-8 helicopters which were getting very old, the Tu-154 was still in good shape and it was supposed to serve at least until 2012-2014. 89.76.31.29 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Time

If the accident happened at 10:56 Moscow time, wouldn't that be at 7:56 UTC and not 06:56 UTC? I know BBC claims it happened at 06:56 GMT, but I guess they are wrong. Närking (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They may be wrong, but for now we'll have to stick with what they say. No word yet on Aviation Herald or JACDEC. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

10:56 Moscow time is indeed 6:56 UTC. Don't forget the Daylight saving time. — Marvin ^talk 09:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but anyway 10:56 in Moscow is 8:56 here in Sweden which would be 7:56 in London. The GMT or UTC is confusing more than help I would say since that's not the time people follow. Närking (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the time that civil aviation works on worldwide though. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Herald now covering the story. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Destination

Infobox states a military airfield, Aviation Safety Network gives a civil airfield. This needs to be checked and amended when further sources and details are known. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Russian Wiki says that this airfield using both for military and for experimental civil aviation purposes (for testing aircrafts made on Smolensk Aviation Plant)--NikitaKa (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

actually it says the last regiment based there had been disbanded 16.10.2009 and one can only guess level of maintenance after this step. Now, cynical question - why Il-76 with president's guard hasn't landed (due to fog), and then this Tu-154M with whole king-and-his-clout had risked (and failed) about landing? And who decided to go ex-military airfield as landing zone? Who made decision about landing airfield before flight took off? Who wrote flight plan and what they knew about landing site during planing? And who ultimately asked for this place as destination in first place, which side Polish or Russian? questions, questions, questions, no answer... silpol (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

answers, answers, answers - Poland asked for this destination, this was used by Polish official delegation several times in the past. Russians were kind and allowed this destination and provided service staff for operation. While Russian ATC had power to divert Il76 to other destination, they could not do that with presidential plane. Now the core thing that is investigated is if the pilot took decision to try land in Smolensk by himself, or - against rules - he took orders from someone - such as president (the President is also the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces), chief of staff or air-force chief general (all on board). We could assume that going to any other destination would mean that the passengers would miss the Katyń service and were quite desperate to make it on time. They presumably had high expectations with Russian officials participation in this service.85.222.87.41 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

oh it is a 'coldworldwarairfield' with now only a civil function. the flightplan to get to smolensk was as i understand it for this airfield, just because it was close so the president would be quick for the memorial service. it's not modernised, but under most circumstances probably completely safe, and used more often , although i dont know if only for special flights (tests etc.). it was probably also build for bombers so the runway be long enough to allow landing about every plane existing.80.57.43.99 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of an aircrash in the information box is not from the Smolensk crash, the registration number is indicating a Cuban plane. If used as just an illustration, it is still a bad choice of picture, while it shows buildings in the background, implicating fatalities or injuries at ground. I will change the picture. Yiwa 09:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The current image is problematic and will probably be speedied. -- samj _in^out 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the current picture an image of THE plane that crashed? If not I reccomend we replace it with one of the accident site - WackyWace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackywace (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

— As an alternative to the photo currently used in the article, this appears to be the same plane. Jared Preston (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Death toll

>"The aircraft was carrying at least 88 passengers and crew as the latest reports by Polish officials have indicated.[4] It is feared that all were killed in the accident."

>Fatalities: 87 (all)

Surely these two facts should match up?

Moreover, this source (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/3569743/Polish-president-dies-in-Russia-plane-crash, their source is AP) has the death toll at 132. 122.57.15.141 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As is usual in these accidents, details are sketchy at first, and become clearer later. Whatever death toll is quoted needs to be sourced. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This source is possibly useful if you're working on this section. -- samj _in^out 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we should keep all the figures which could be properly sourced, and then later remove the ones which prove incorrect. Of course, each figure should have an inline ctation. Timbouctou (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and amended the toll to 132, as AP is a trustworthy source. And thanks to Rambling Man for finding and adding a BBC source for that fact to replace my earlier one. 122.57.15.141 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This manifest was dumped into the article - moving to talk page. -- samj _in^out 11:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There are now four conflicting numbers of passengers/fatalities: ≥88, 96, 130, 132. These should be all in one paragraph with their respective sources. It's no problem to have conflicting sources, but the infobox shouldn't contradict the article. If, as the infobox says, the 132 deaths are indeed confirmed, the lower numbers and the It is feared part should be deleted.--87.162.45.118 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been mixed reports of the death toll. Most seem to be reporting that there were 96 people who perished. This article says that there were 97 deaths, however only few sources say that the death toll was 97 rather than 96. Does anyone know that correct number? I'm sure the answer will come out eventually. -Kylelovesyou (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ministry of Emergency Situations confirms[1] death toll of 96, 88 members of the Polish delegation and 8 flight crew members, in this crash. Arseniy V FreeAtNet (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is official list on Ministry of Emergency Situations's site [2]. It's 97. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alemand (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Polish government is saying 96 dead: 89 memebers of the delegation and 7 crew [3] [4]. Physchim62 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

97 according to updated information. EMERCOM added Krzysztof Ardanowski to the list. Source in the article. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

4th attempt?

I strongly doubt the plane crashed on the 4th attempt at landing. Most probably, it is yet another mistranslation of the Russian aviation term "четвёртый разворот" (literally "fourth turn"), which corresponds to "final turn" in English terminology. I think the mention of the three failed attempts and the fatal fourth one should be removed until we have a better source than Guardian. Dvv (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to it and you may well be right - 3 failed attempts to land at a closed airport seems a stretch, particularly given they apparently had fuel to redirect. -- samj _in^out 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold the phone - apparently the BBC are reporting multiple go arounds. -- samj _in^out 10:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

TVP Info says that the plane was floating about the landing place 3 times, and at the fourth times it started to land and wing of the plane got stuck in a tree and the plane exploded. Kubek15 ^write/sign 10:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a not so trust-worthy source - if you are citing correctly...a plane cannot be stuck in a tree, possibly be slown down and damaged by impacts with the trees, see the Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751. In the SAF751 Incident the plane was gliding without motor power, still it cut the trees down and continued to glide for some hundred metres. Yiwa 10:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.137.107 (talk)

It was just reported on television (France 2) that there were indeed three failed landing attempts. -- samj _in^out 11:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I bet anybody a dollar that all the reports about "three failed attempts" are based on the same mistranslation. Dvv (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is almost certainly true. I think the "three failed attempts" quote should be removed from the article. Unfortunately, many Wikipedians distort the reliable source policy to mean that if a reliable source makes a statement, then that statement should be included in the article. The reliable source policy actually just means that if a statement is made in the article, then it should have a reliable source to back it up, not that every ridiculous thing mentioned in a reliable source should be mentioned in the article. Ketone16 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Of course "final turn". Source : [5]. But Guardian and Sky News just retranslate incorrect sources (perhaps based on bad translation).--Ll0l00l (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, men, so change the article! My English is not good enough for it, and I do not know how to make reference, but my Russian is good enough to see that the info about four attempts is definetely wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.228.61 (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa

Can anyone think of a proper translation for this group? There's no wiki article for this group in EN Wikipedia.

Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa

I have no idea where to start with this translation.

If you're wondering why I'm mentioning this here, it's because the boss of this group was a victim in this crash. Podagrycznik (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked up their website and they haven't got an English page, which means they do not have a standardised translation we could use. I am not a Polish speaker myself so I can't be of much help, but you could start looking what is the common translation used by reliable third parties (for instance, if the Polish government mentions them in their English-language news service, or perhaps what other English-language news sites translate the group as). Most countries have national news agencies with services in English and you may want to look up their archives to see whether the group was mentioned before. Timbouctou (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found this source, a book at Google Books about Katyn massacre. It lists various organisations and it translated the group as Council for the Defence of the Memory of Struggle and SufferngTimbouctou (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Translate gives: Council for the Protection of Monuments to Struggle and Martyrdom--NikitaKa (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I trust a published book by an English-speaking author who probably either speaks Polish or had hired translators for the book much more than I trust an automated translation service such as Google translate. Timbouctou (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC gives "Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites" Physchim62 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK then let's go with BBC. Timbouctou (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

have you tried to google it on polish wiki ? It led via 'english' link to the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.87.41 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Instrument landing system

I've removed this one about ILS: "that would make a landing in dense fog a routine operation" - this is an unjustified blanket statement, and it is at the very least not true, when the pilot lacks necessary competence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.225.130.227 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

in this case pilot was experienced and (opposite to some speculations) spoken russian well (ATC spoken english, but approach staff in this airfield is not permanent and was set there to service planes from Poland on that day - that's why approach tower communicated in russian). He had done several flights to and over Russia in this machine, incl landing in military airfield in Smolensk (TVN24 interview with his superior). Reasons for reported lack of reporting height to approach tower could be only speculated (some problems with machine? focus on spotting the runway? any other?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.87.41 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk-North

According to the satellite images from [Google Maps], the airport doesn't have an ILS. The ILS instruments should be visible in the fairly good satellite pictures. Wooshcz (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

NDB is completely different type of radio-navigation system. It is used to navigate planes on their route, but it's useless during the IFR landing. Please read the article about Instrument landing system. Wooshcz (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

granted what I read on ru:Смоленск-Северный (аэродром) it used to be airfield for military cargo aviation regiment (regiment disbanded Oct'2009, confirmed in various mass-media), they can land and take-off without ILS, with only basic landing support in normal mode, and even just on simple field without ANY support. My formal education is exactly in this area (soviet military radio communication and navigation for aviation), so you can assume it partially as WP:OR . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silpol (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So... this is military base of this little puppies. i mean BIGGEST fucking planes in the world! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76

26 of IL-76. So I seriously doubt they land those mammuts on some short airfield without guidance! lets use logic for once! 71.99.91.247 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no ILS, but there's an NDB at the airfield (отдельная приводная радиостанция, ОПРС), source: [6], there may or may not be an NDB (non-precision) approach associated with it (my educated guess is there is one). Unfortunately, I don't see this airfield in my copy of Russian AIP, and I have no idea if Jeppesen has it either. Dvv (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Small pedantic point to user 71.99.91.247 - the IL 76 is not the largest plane in the world - you're probably thinking of the AN-225 Mriya, of which only one was built. Thisisgettingannoying (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming page

I think is not very important the type of the airplane. Other possible names:

• Smolensk disaster
• Polish President air crash

Seems to be the standard naming convention. I've turned these into redirects. Lugnuts (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

An example is Munich air disaster. SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If in doubt just give it some time to see what the media decides. There's precedent for both kinds of naming schemes. Joshdboz (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also I think Katyn massacre curse, Polish Black Saturday or Polish presidential airplane disaster could be another names. SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Who is the one which names this kind of articles in Wikipedia??? Why is always 2010 blah-blah?. And why a person will look in the search for air force tu 154 crash ?

The article's name needs to be more original, like Smolensk plane crash, Polish Presidential Plane crash in Smolensk, or the others names proposed (Smolensk Disaster; Polish President air crash), or perhaps the Airplane Crash of the Polish Delegation for the Memory of Katyn (a shorter version). --Inhakito (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do many Wikipedia articles about plane crashes include the number of the plane or flight? The vast majority of people do not know that, and hence won't search using those terms. Jim Michael (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

imo the type is expressed like this because initially it was not clear under what aviation institute it fell. now when you'd browse through eg. polish aircrashes (or TU, or 2010) it is explained how and why this type of plane could be involved.so i think it is an ok title for that reason.80.57.43.99 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tusk in tears

I'm a bit confused about the information that confused that Tusk start crying. I only heard in German media about it in German media, but not in english or polish.

Tusk was reportedly in tears when he given the news of the fatal air crash. He has called an emergency meeting of ministers.

[7] --Boris 11:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC repeats the info. I've read it in some other English-language media as well, but I can't remember where. Matbe the Polish media think it's relatively unimportant, given all the rest... Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This information is true and it was mentioned in polish media, for example here (polish site): http://www.gover.pl/news/szczegoly/guid/sikorski-premier-placze

it only quotes minister of defence, Sikorski, who said that Tusk cried. No other confirmed sightings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.87.41 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash → Death of Lech Kaczyński —

• I would like to propose that this article be renamed as Death of Lech Kaczyński, or at least add that page in tandem to cover his death. This is a whole lot more than a mere aviation disaster. This is the death of a fairly prominent head of state. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move - current title is in accordance with normal naming conventions for these accidents. Convert suggested title to a redirect. Mjroots2 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose' (as stated) But equally, it is the deaths of a whole lot more prominent individuals than just the President (tragic as his death is). Would you not have an article dedicated to the crash? Surely the President's individual death could be looked at (as it already is, I would think) in his article. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, perhaps having a separate article specifically for the president's death is more prudent. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 12:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move as per Mjroots2, --noclador (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - not only Kaczyński died, also many important Poles - [{Ryszard Kaczorowski]], Zbigniew Wassermann and others.
• Oppose article meets naming guidelines and as above many notable Poles have died not just the President, suggest other names be redirected as appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment If that section of Lech Kaczyński's article needs more space, by all means start a sub-article. But that's irrelevant from what happens to this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose it's an aircraft crash with 100-odd deaths. The Polish president was one of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I do believe that the article should be renamed, simply because the title is largely inconspicous in regard of the actual importance of the tragic event (namely the death of several high-ranking politicans), whereas "Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash" might signify any of a number of Tu-154s of the Polish Air Force that crashed somewhere for some reason. Compare: If, hypothetically, such a desaster were to happen in the U.S. for instance (God forbid), I doubt the article would be titled "xxxx U.S. Air Force Boeing VC-25 crash", but rather something like "xxxx Air Force One crash" or "xxxx U.S. presidential aircraft crash." A WP user searching for up this particular article might not find it. I'd propose a rename to at least something like "2010 Polish presidential aircraft crash" with redirects from "Death of Lech Kaczynski", "2010 Smolensk crash" etc. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with "2010 Polish presidential aircraft crash", people could not see the importance of the matter from the current title--1j1z2 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I also agree that "2010 Polish presidential aircraft crash" or something similar would be better. But as suggested by Joshdboz earlier on this talk page, we might well give it some time to see what name becomes established in media. --Jonik (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mjroots2's and TheRamblingMan's arguments. The current title follows existing conventions and the president was just one of almost 100 people killed. Also, unless the plane had some formal designation (such as "Air Force 1" or some such) it should stay as it is. Calling it "presidential aircraft" might be misleading as the plane is likely to have been used by many different high-ranking officials. Timbouctou (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, Kitch, whatever do you mean by "a mere aviation disaster"?! What kind of person says that? No disaster is "mere"! Above being prominent, these were human beings in the first place that died out there! That's a very cruel way to explain your proposal. How could you?! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirka80286 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The crash killed a large number of important people, not just Lech Kaczynski, although his death is, of course, the most signficant. Keep the article where it is and make a redirect to it from Death of Lech Kaczyński. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - This event is of significant merit for it to have its own article about the crash, rather than just one about the president. 216.131.90.48 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although some wikipedians may have not heard of any of the politicians or president. This event is signficant enough and notable enough to be given its own article rather than be renamed into one just about the death of the polish president. It is an event that has effected millions of people, and at least one country. Karun1234 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose with WP:SNOW - who's this Lech Kaczyński guy anyway? -- samj _in^out 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Your ignorance just destroyed your argument. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As has been stated by a number of people, the air crash killed considerably more people than just the Polish President and his wife. The appropriate way to deal with this is to have a Main article hatnote on the Lech Kaczyński page heading the section about his death, which would lead to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Many other important people died in the crash.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This article deals with a crash of an aircraft, not just the death of the president. Welshleprechaun 11:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Why has an open Move Request been archived? The matter is not yet closed (though it seems pretty clear that there is no consensus for a move). Skinsmoke (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conspiracy theories

It is inappropriate to include such claims in an article on wikipedia. "a deliberate act of martyrdom" by the Polish President??? deliberate?? what rubbish. --noclador (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not any conspiracy theory is fit for mention should be determined on by whether it is presented in reliable sources citing relevant groups or individuals, not the outrage of Wikipedia editors at the asserted claims. __meco (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

the article given as source does not mention anything about this "deliberate act of martyrdom" and what outrage? There is no place for this kind of pure rubbish (added twice by an IP) on wikipedia! Wikipedia is not a forum, where you can make up your own conspiracy fantasies. EOD. --noclador (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove that bullshit, its plain retarded. There is no such info in reference link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.230.150.9 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's not a shread of evidence for these hallucinations. They should be removed and anyone replacing them should be blocked for vandalism. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn straight, Physchim62! I was wondering if the loonies 'misguided' editors might leave this one alone, no such luck. The political fallout from this, considering the circumstances(Katyn massacre commemoration) and number of notable people killed would seem to be very high. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this should be deleted, it's ridiculous and there's no evidence that anyone seriously has suggested anything to that effect. 128.243.253.108 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's undue weight at this time, and happily is gone now. Evercat (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Meco's right. If conspiracy theories are reported sufficiently in reliable sources, then they are relevant regardless of how crazy they might be, but otherwise they don't belong here at all. Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, non-notable conspiracy theories have no place here. And unbelievable claims need very strong evidence for them. Plus it seems that the supposed source for this conspiracy theory does say any such thing. In short, it was vandalism, and fairly sick vandalism at that. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The "moon landing lie" is a noteworthy conspiracy theory, for instance - this "theory" is not, not in the least. On a side note, I'm positively shocked that already, just some 8 hours after the event, "conspiracy theories" start to emerge. Truly, the delirious mind knows no rest. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would hold off mentioning it in the article right now as there is no evidence, but there is certainly suspicion, especially given that Putin is taking personal control of the investigation. I think it could be wise not to completely discount it. There's also suspicion that Ukraine were in some way involved, particularly given the 2001 Black Sea crash with the same model of plane, that is usually attributed to Ukrainian missiles. 86.137.166.151 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if he wanted to die in order to turn Polish opinion against Russia, I doubt the other ~80 people on the plane were as suicidal. It makes no sense, not even as a conspiracy theory... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As a peculiar coincidence Pope John Paul II also died on the Saturday after Easter. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Only peculiar when you have been selecting data to fit a theory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Flight

does anyone know what the flight was designated in the air traffic control system? The serial number and tail number of the airplane?

65.94.253.16 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tail number was 101. Kubek15 ^write/sign 12:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it is true for this flight but the aircraft normally uses PLF101 as a flight number and uses POLISH AIRFORCE 101 as a callsign. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

what is source of geo-coordinates? if you look on google maps in sat mode, you can easily see that point had been put as if they were precisely targeted on landing strip axis, while it is not always that perfect even in clear visibility. I tried to roll down history of page down for 500 items but still can't see who and why put those coordinates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silpol (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be the coordinates of the airport, not the crash site. Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Airport coordinates usually point to the geometrical center of main landing strip. Moreover, if you look left on google maps, it has that little point. So current assumption is that point is taken by guess, without real measurement or GPS reading on site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silpol (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the mixed map/satellite window around Smolensk, you'll see that many of Google's coordinates are off by a good couple of hundred metres (or the satellite image is not correctly set). I assume the coordinates for the airport were taken from the Google satellite image (I doubt any Wikipedian or OpenStreetMapper went to the geometric centre of the runway of a military airport to take a GPS reading!) Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we know only that we don't know. Nobody had been on actual place with GPS or anything precise. My interest had been caused by the fact that point targeted exactly on line of landing strip axis, just few hundred meters before end of landing strip. silpol (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and with coordinates given to hundredths of an arcsecond (accuracy of about 30 cm, or one foot!). I don't even think that's the right point – it's going on the 300 m from the end of the runway, whereas the wooded area about a kilometre further out seems more like the photos, and fits with the "about 1½ km from the airport". Physchim62 (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know to which runway was the plane heading for (08 or 26)?Guswen (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Split up passenger names

I noticed the French version of this article has divided up the names of the passengers by category to make it a bit more comprehensible. Any interest in doing that here? Joshdboz (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea - but lets first establish a consensus before beginning to divide the passengers by category, --noclador (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Divide the passengers by category?

• In favor, --noclador (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree, it's a long list... Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Kubek15 ^write/sign 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• In favor That would be more handy. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• In favor, However, the rector of a university (albeit a Catholic one) is not a religious figure IMO GdB (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In favor. Rector of one of key catholic universities in Poland was a priest, presumably not a low-rank one. IMO he is a religious figure (sure, I recognize he was not a Pope or Lama ...)85.222.87.41 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How's this list look: Joshdboz (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Let's use it. Timbouctou (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Presidential and governmental figures

• Lech Kaczyński, President of Poland
• Maria Kaczyńska, First Lady of Poland
• Mariusz Handzlik, Undersecretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland
• Ryszard Kaczorowski, the last President of the Polish government-in-exile
• Andrzej Kremer, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
• Sławomir Skrzypek, President of the National Bank of Poland
• Władysław Stasiak, Chief of the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland
• Aleksander Szczygło, head of the National Security Bureau
• Paweł Wypych, Secretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland

Military figures

• Andrzej Błasik, Chief of the Polish Air Force
• General Franciszek Gągor, Chief of the Polish Army General Staff
• Vice Admiral Andrzej Karweta, Commander-in-chief of the Polish Navy

Senat members

• Krystyna Bochenek, Deputy Speaker of the Senat
• Stanisław Zając, member of the Senat

Sejm members

• Leszek Deptuła, member of the Sejm
• Grzegorz Dolniak, member of the Sejm
• Janina Fetlińska, member of the Senat
• Grażyna Gęsicka, member of the Sejm
• Przemysław Gosiewski, member of the Sejm
• Izabela Jaruga-Nowacka, member of the Sejm
• Sebastian Karpiniuk, member of the Sejm
• Aleksandra Natalli-Świat, member of the Sejm
• Krzysztof Putra, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm
• Arkadiusz Rybicki, member of the Sejm
• Jerzy Szmajdziński, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm
• Jolanta Szymanek-Deresz, member of the Sejm
• Zbigniew Wassermann, member of the Sejm
• Wiesław Woda, member of the Sejm
• Edward Wojtas, member of the Sejm

Religious figures

• Archbishop Miron Chodakowski, Orthodox Ordinary of the Polish Army
• Tadeusz Płoski, bishop of the Military Ordinariate of the Polish Army
• Ryszard Rumianek, Rector of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University

Others

• Janusz Kochanowski, Polish Ombudsman for Citizen Rights
• Janusz Kurtyka, Historian and president of the Institute of National Remembrance
• Piotr Nurowski, President of the Polish Olympic Committee
• Maciej Płażyński, President of the Polish Community Association
• Andrzej Przewoźnik, Secretary-General of the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites
• Anna Walentynowicz, free trade union activist, member of Solidarity

french wiki has an (apparently incomplete) list of 7 crew. other wikis don't name them but mention 8 (and 6)80.57.43.99 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• There's currently a discrepancy between two official lists (Polish MFA and Russian EMERCOM) - one marks one person as a member of the crew, the other - as a passenger. This will be synch'ed shortly. --Illythr (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Please keep to the Polish wiki - we really knew who these people were, after all, they were Poles 85.222.87.41 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The organizers of the commemorations chose the Soviet-made Tupolev aircraft as a mark of good will towards their Russian hosts.

Polish goverment has got only Russian VIP airliners, so that information is stupid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.165.2 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it - as the IP says it is the normal presidential aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos of the victims

Are these photos really that necessary? If someone wants to know what these people look like, they could just click on their respective entires, as these photos have been pulled straight from there. Seems like unnecessary clutter. Podagrycznik (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's removed the photos. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Just a list is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

i disagree! put the pictures back!

71.99.91.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC).

I think that the list was fine, it should be returned.--Avala (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How the photos benefit the article? It's not a fair use to use them as decoration. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The photos are unnecessary and just clutter the page. If you want photos, they are in the individual entries of the people involved.Podagrycznik (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No photos. -- samj _in^out 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A gallery of the passengers' photos is available on Commons. A link to it might be a good addition to either the notable passengers section, that article or both. --Illythr (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

lets put the pictures of the victims back. but in black and white!

thye have pictures here too :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_fossils 71.99.95.93 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Meteorological service

By information from president of consultative and analytical agency "Flight Safety" Valery Shelkovnikov: After disbanding of Aviation Regiment (in autumn 2009) airbase has no Meteorological Service... Link:(Russian)[8]. Add?--Ll0l00l (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Black box"

Who confirmed the recovery of the first flight recorder? Who are those ominous "Russians"? The media, government officials, members of the recovery team themselves? Please clarify. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, a cameraman from TVP who was at the crash site claimed that he saw the black box. Kubek15 ^write/sign 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I not found infos about the first flight recorder, but about second flight recorder reported with link to "Region Administration", it's government officials.[9]--Ll0l00l (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia's Emergency Minister Sergei Shoigu said both of the plane's flight information recorders had been found and were being examined. BBC. Physchim62 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

International response

This section is unnecessary. In any disaster there are typically expressions of condolence and solidarity from other nations. Unsurprisingly, there are in this case, too. Why create a list of countries and quotes? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors love to see their country get a mention? WWGB (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid point. These huge sections don't really bring much substance to the articles compared to the ratio they occupy. __meco (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The vast majority, if not all, of the entries in a list like this are pretty much meaningless and void of any useful information. We should only include responses here that are particularly unusual or otherwise notable, not the generic "we feel sad that a bad thing happened" that every diplomat on Earth can reflexively generate as needed. Bryan Derksen (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As with all other articles, split it and move individual responses by nations to another article. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I say we do the reaction like over at the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings and follow it up with it's own article like Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings. Personally, I don't like the secondary article, but it seems to make people happy for some reason. --Hourick (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What about collapsing this section, only leaving a summary outside the collapsed tables? __meco (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer this format:[10], but it was changed radically. --Hourick (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave it be for a day or two and then make the move as the interest (and reaction) peak passes. --Illythr (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.139.149 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the best not to resort to sneaky vandalism.--Avala (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, who are you referring to? --Illythr (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To those who propose to make removal of content edits that would be reverted immediately at this moment, at a later time when the attention drops.--Avala (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're hopefully aware that this is standard procedure for most such events? An article about an aircrash can't consist of condolences to 5/8th of its size. --Illythr (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're hopefully aware that this is an encyclopedia and not a variety magazine, so that we remove information after it's considered uncool and doesn't attract readers. Information added is here to stay, not to be removed. And as I said if real media considers such infromation to be very important to make the large chuck of their pieces after a couple of years then who are we to make up how it is not a good thing? I put this information in collapsable template, hopefully that will work.--Avala (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:NOT, WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. It's strange that you, as an admin of a wikiproject, aren't and would actually go so far as to call suggestions to delay the implementation of these rules "sneaky vandalism." --Illythr (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely most should be moved, and some is clearly UNDUE. FIFA?! A full article's worth from the EU? That should be summarized or cut. Joshdboz (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the reactions from other countries is predictable and does not contribute any information to the reader of the article. Reaction from Ireland? I can tell you the reaction: Condolences, horror, sympathy. It's cruft and needs to be removed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Its a significant international event and therefore I see no reason for the response section to be removed. Karun1234 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - As its a significant international event, the response of other countries is always important and notable. Simply because many people have not heard of the countries, or politicians does not made it not not notable or important, for other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.26.4 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Move or remove There is always a international response to tragedies of this sort, Personally I do not think that they are notable after the event, can we lookup useage stats on these types of pages? Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok please don't put European Union between countries EU is not a country ok? KalrinUE (talk) 23:11 , 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree. The EU meets all the criteria for being a country. It even has its own diplomatic service. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - this is a significant event and the response is significant. Please do not invent hot water, TV stations some years after similar events give a very strong accent to this very subject. Why should we be so "smart" to erase it?!--Avala (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support move: When 3/5 of an article about an aircrash is taken up by repetitive condolences, the solution is obvious. --Illythr (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

NB: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash it was moved and should now go. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Decided by Jack Merridew. Period. No one else is entitled to an opinion. Well I am sorry but no, the article you forcefully tried to split is now up for deletion.--Avala (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't split this off, I just took it to AfD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, do you even know anything about Poland, or countries outside your own? Its a very significant event, and your request for deletion is not appropriate. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, *ya*. I've spent many years living in multiple countries. I'm in no way seeking to diminish the event. The documenting of all the PR-guff put out by Albania, the World Bank, FIFA, and the Polish deli down the street, is another matter. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Either we split it out or delete it. I support to have it split because to page starts to be to large. A split page is here, but someone put it back into the article. --Kslotte (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Either we split it out, delete it OR KEEP IT. Do not impose your views on others as final, it is so rude.--Avala (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT, we need a split. And nothing here is final, this is a work in progress. --Kslotte (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - make the table look normal like in Polish Wikipedia article. Here we have fat table rows, large flags etc. so it is indeed visually distracting. But the information is valuable.--Avala (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And leave a third of the article cluttered with repetitive information that can be contracted into a single paragraph? --Illythr (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I put it into collapsable template, to make you happy.--Avala (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's much better. --Kslotte (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This will have to be eventually transformed into readable prose, if it stays. --Illythr (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The reactions page is at AfD and it is disruptive to paste it back here during the process. Regards, Jack Merridew 23:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. It is inappropriate to merge this back during this AfD. Regards, Jack Merridew 23:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of edits to this article

I believe when I looked at my watchlist several hours ago this article had more than 600 edits then. Now this number is only about 530. If anyone else made the same observation or anyone could offer an explanation for how this could have happened, please post a reply. Obviously I don't rule out the possibility that I misread the figure earlier on. __meco (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I'm more sure I wasn't seeing wrong earlier on. Currently the number of edits shows 518 whereas that figure was 532 when I wrote the above. __meco (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out by myself. It's my watchlist's 1,000 entries limit overflowing. It rarely does that in the same day, but obviously this article has exceptionally many edits. __meco (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"at the time it was the most deadly aircraft crash in 2010"

I think that until there IS a more deadly aircraft crash this year, this should be changed to "it is the most deadly aircraft crash of 2010" or something like that. The way it is currently sounds like it's suggesting that there's been another, more deadly aircraft crash already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcoe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I always forget to sign my posts! :P Dilcoe —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC).

It says "at the time" because 2010 is not over yet. Your version suggests this will be the largest crash for the rest of the year. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "it is the deadliest plane crash so far in 2010" 81.135.28.58 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly "As of April 2010 it is the deadliest plane crash of 2010"?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with this sort of thing is standard for WP. It should read "at the time it was the most deadly aircraft crash in 2010" ... That wording is future proof and will never be outdated. Format (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's very encyclopedic. If there turn out to be 10 crashes this year that are more deadly, who is going to care in the future that this crash was the deadliest of the year for a few weeks or months? Ketone16 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The other issue I guess is that if there are really no deadlier crashes (probably unlikely) in 2010 it's rather odd even if not technically incorrect to say "at the time it was the most deadly aircraft crash in 2010" if you're writing from the viewpoint of 2011 so it's not perfectly future proof. Saying "as of April 2010" isn't perfect either and some may feel it's unencylopaedic wording (although hardly uncommon on wikipedia) but better conveys the idea we're talking about the state of play at a certain point of time Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

State that this has the highest death toll of any plane crash in 2010. If any plane crashes with a higher death toll later this year, then remove the statement. It is a relevant piece of info now, but only remains relevant as long as it remains true. Jim Michael (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

Why were the images from Warsaw cut from the article? I think they're even more important than the other ones. If you want some other, they're grouped here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:10042010_Warsaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.14.132 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I know the main image is a picture of the plane involved in the accident, but wouldn't it be more appropriate if we moved this elsewhere in the article and replaced it with an image of wreckage at the accident site? Does anyone know of a licensed image we could use? Wackywace (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian response

Does anyone know if Australia has responded yet? Ive been trying to search google to add their response. But sadly I have not found any yet.216.131.90.48 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I managed to find a response from New Zealand on their nz herald newspaper. But so far I havent seen any from Australia yet. Karun1234 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm Australian, and I'm working on the Maria Kaczyńska (ex Polish 'First Lady') article. I know that's not what you're after. It was Saturday evening here when the crash occured, so it may take a while for anything official to show up. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We've come through! Thought the date is wrong. ex International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1038243/kevin-rudd-offers-condolences-to-poland. News.ninemsn.com.au. 2009-09-13 , Retrieved 2010-04-10. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Should I make a article called Reactions to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash or responses to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash Venustas 12 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)?

• I think you should put them straight in the article if you want to. 95.49.106.133 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

i think the russians quote "katyn claimed yet more victims" should be elaborated or removed, as he said that only after a long sentence expressing regret. like this i thoroughly misunderstood it and put it in the context of katyn as a nazi propaganda feature that had people from all over europe fight the russians.80.57.43.99 (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To those working on this article...

I just wanted to congratulate you on putting together this article so well and so quickly. It covers this tragic disaster tastefully and comprehensively. Well done. SmokingNewton (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- samj _in^out 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add my thanks. I had to create the barest stub to start with as I had a wedding to attend to, and wasn't able to do much to the article yesterday as I had various things to do connected with that event. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ILS?

The article states that the plane went below the glide slope, yet in the next sub-sub-chapter, it goes on to say there is no ILS at the air base - surely one of these facts has to be incorrect? Wackywace (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Would the ILS not be useless to a ground observer anyway? Does radar not provide this information? -- samj _in^out 22:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to sound flippant but, if the plane crashed, it was flying too low... Physchim62 (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Instrument landing system(ILS) and radar are two totally different systems. ILS provides guidance for landing. Radar can't do this in general, Ground controlled approach (radar operator 'talks' the plane down) was once used, but ILS removed the need for it.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this (in Russian), the airfield was abandoned by airforce in 2009. Prior to Putin's and Tusk's arrival on April 8, a transport plane brought in "all the necessary things", and still ILS did not work properly. The article does not elaborate if it was a new makeshift setup or a legacy system left by the airforce, but there was an ILS and it did not work properly on April 8, FWIW. Which raises another question, why plan the landing on an abandoned unsafe field. NVO (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Also depends on what they mean by 'glide-slope', they may mean the normal approach angle/slope for the aircraft. If you go below that you may be in trouble whether with ILS or not.
The text HERE at "Former military air base", "ILS... would make a landing in dense fog a routine operation" is very doubtful. Some civilian ILS can guide you to a fully automatic landing, most(?) would get you over the runway at the correct position to land, but the pilot needs to do the landing so has to be able to see the runway. (The plane is reported to have been on it's 4th attempt, so it is possible the pilot did not have enough visibility.) This pararaph is unsourced, sounds like someones opinion.

"The military cargo airplanes which were operated out of it can land and take-off without ILS, with only basic landing support in normal mode, which probably means the aforementioned PAR system". (my bolding) nb. PAR=Precision approach radar

Probably ? Synthesis? OR?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Chile's reaction

This is the official communiqué of the Chilean Goverment regarding the accident. Rakela (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Communications blackout ?

According to this chart I found in a BBC article, the aircraft lost communication at 0640 GMT. 16 minutes later, at 0656 GMT the plane was reported to have crashed. Is this information genuine, or it's a BBC blunder ? Was there a 16 minutes communications blackout ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.70.94 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The plane probably crashed shortly after it lost communication, but wasn't reported as crashed until shortly afterwards. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and I find no reference to the crew losing communications with ATC? Wackywace (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've clearly indicated the source of that claim. It's this chart that is present at the end of the BBC article, that I've mentioned earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.70.94 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC seem to be having a problem converting Moscow time to GMT! They've changed the image now to one that says contact lost at 10:50 Moscow time, but still with the conversion to 06:40 GMT! Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of a terrorist attack

I think it is a wrong unsourced allegation. There is no evidence, at all, that this accident could be related to a terrorist attack. Even if we have to wait for further investigation, this deadly and sad plane crash is an accident. By the way, the allegation of a russian missile i, by now wrong, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.112.145.199 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an obvious vandal. I reported him, let's see how fast the reaction comes. --Illythr (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PAR at Smolensk?

Was the Smolensk airfield equipped with Precision Approach Radar? I've heard reports that the tower was trying to give the flight crew vectors for the course and glideslope, but the pilot disregarded those instructions. Is that correct? 24.23.197.43 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of ILS

Is this section necessary? The runway being "rather short" obviously had nothing to do with the catastrophe, and I suppose the ILS or its absence still had no effect on the aircraft, had not it? This information concerns the airbase, not the air crash in question. Hellerick (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also against of listing it as cause of crash - Polish flight had two points where it could change its destiny, at planning with consequent take off, and when they were offered to flight Moscow or Minsk. They turned down both and did what they did. We know outcome.silpol (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The absence of ILS made landing in fog much more dangerous, so it is relevant. The runway was a shorter than at major civilian airports but sufficient for a safe landing in normal weather conditions. Sourcelat0r (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant as major factor which added to difficulties for pilot to land but until(if ever) we get information about flight planning from Polish sources and landing decision making from black boxes, whole causal model has some problem from formal logic. Fog happens here and there all the time, and traffic controllers usually have plan B landing, and in this case flight had been offered two other guidance variants. In other words it makes sense to mark absence of ILS as contributing factor but as cause it doesn't count.silpol (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Had the field been equipped with Cat-3 ILS, the pilots would've had precision course and glideslope guidance down to the runway level, which would've allowed them to make a full-instrument landing safely even in dense fog. As it was, with only a locator outer marker for guidance, I don't think even someone like Wiley Post or Amelia Earhart could've made this landing without cracking up. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And had Polish delegation a personal monorail from Warsaw to Smolensk, they wouldn't need to fly and bother to have pilots. But monorails don't grow here and there themselves on demand. And Soviet military airstrips had not been built for VIP landings. So hypothetical (conditional) arguments are good for future planing but extremely poor for making conclusions in aftermath - it might be adding factor of problems but certainly not a cause.silpol (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't something like this happen in Africa recently?

Sometime within the last five years, didn't some african country lose its entire military leadership in a plane crash?

Do we have an article on it? And would it be appropriate to put in the "see article" section here? JD Caselaw (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this 2006 Nigerian crash? No WP article it seems. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. Although my own searches just revealed yet another such incident: an April 4 2001 crash killing 14 senior Sudanese leaders: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].

• I suppose there could be some helpful context if we wrote stub articles on 2006 Nigerian Air Force Dornier 228 crash and on 2001 Sudanese Air Force Antonov AN-24 crash. I will start the latter article. JD Caselaw (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I created the stub articles; made sure they're linked to at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present); and added that page to the see also section here. I'm calling it a wrap -- but feel free to pick up where I left off! JD Caselaw (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

They could also be mentioned at the (year) in aviation article, and added to the List of aircraft by tail number article. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Political aftermath

Thanks for making my submission more in par with english syntax. However, I don't agree with opinion that it "seems unrelated". The accident had tremendous impact on politics of Poland, and the full context should certainly be included like I did before, not limited to names of the victims. Also, the statement that "both ruling coalition and opposition were represented on the plane" is a bit misleading, since opposition sent two Vice-Marshalls of Sejm (along with a number of regular MP's) and coalition only a few little-known (with exception of Sebastian Karpiniuk) and low-ranking MP's. The opposition in Poland has been literally slaughtered, and it's something that must be understood by foreign readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.161.19.226 (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Slaughtered? This is a huge exaggeration. The Sejm has 460 deputies, and 14 have perished in the crash (i.e. 3%). This is a horrible tragedy of course, but not of the magnitude that you are suggesting. The dead deputies will be automatically replaced by people from the same party according to Polish election rules, so there is no gain in mandates from their deaths for any party.

The political consequences will play themselves out. Wikipedia does not need to make predictions about the future, especially if they are not backed up by sources.

I will agree with you that the opposition had higher calibre people on the plane (not surprising as it was the president's plane and he does belong to the opposition party). I suppose Obama would probably have more high level Democrats than Republicans on Air Force One during an average flight. This is quite normal and does not need to be emphasized too much. Sourcelat0r (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not surprising. So what? Even unsurprising facts should get mentioned. By "slaughtered" i meant not the numbers, but the high ranks of people on board. 89.161.19.226 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking IPs

I'm sorry to bring this up, but isn't there a Wikipaedia policy that someone who modifies an article again and again against consent (like for more than 2 or 3 times in several hours or a day, I don't know the exact policy) should have his IP banned. This kind of a page is where Wikipedia's credibility is usually tested.

I PROPOSE that a moderator or whatever the power-that-be is called to watch this article and band the conspiracy theorists who violate wikipedia's policy and make everyone look like a lunatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean a admin (like me). For an article as fluid as this is, there has been relatively little vandalism, and I don't think that any has been sufficiently bad to warrant jumping straight in with the banhammer. Any editor who is being disruptive should be warned, and if the disruption continues reported to WP:AIV. I've got this article on my watchlist in any case. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The crash that killed Władysław Sikorski in 1943 still produces conspiracy theories, although most historians accept that it was a simple crash. There has been no wild speculation about the 2010 crash as yet, and no significant IP vandalism here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there has been some (1, 1 again, 2), but it's been dealt with. Depends on what you call significant, I guess. :-) So far, I don't think that anything more than editor vigilance is required. Should the dire need arise, short-term semi-protection can be used. Otherwise vandals are fairly quickly banned via the standard procedure. --Illythr (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that the mainstream media has accepted so far that the most likely cause was an accident. See also Aaliyah, where the pilot took off despite clear advice that the plane was overloaded.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to significant IP vandalism here, not conspiracy theories, sorry for being unclear. Seems it's intensifying now... --Illythr (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough: I have requested a 7 day semi-protection of the article to counter the now increasing number of vandalism by IP with crude terrorism, "Putin did it" ecc. nonsense. --noclador (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

GMT+1

What's with the random use of GMT+1 in some (but not all) parts of this article (e.g the first black box was found at "13:53 GMT +1", the second was found at "15:54 UTC")? Aviation works on UTC, Warsaw time is currently UTC+2, Smolensk and Moscow are both currently UTC+4. Britain is on UTC+1 currently, but I don't see what relevance that has to this article? I think we should standardise on UTC with local times in brackets afterwards. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should stick to UTC and local time. British Summer Time is not directly relevant to this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more usual it disaster articles to put local time first then UTC in brackets afterwards, but it's hardly a big deal. British Summer Time is completely irrelevant here, and the exact timings of the recovery of the flight recorders is not really relevant either. The only other relevant time is local solar time – the crash happened at about 9 a.m. local solar time, i.e. still quite early in the morning (hence the fog). Physchim62 (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

People add the time listed in the news pieces used as sources. This will all have to be standardized. --Illythr (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The ceremony they were travelling to

It's a black irony of course that this swathe of elite Poles died on the way to conmemorate the Katyn massacre, which had also been a blotting out of - an intentional attempt to wipe out - a large part of the elite of Polish society. But the article should state clearly that they were not going to the joint official Russo-Polish conmemorations - those had taken place three days earlier and with the Polish PM in attendance. President Kaczynski had been denied invitation to this by the Russians and had chosen to go three days later for a ceremony that would be, I understand, mostly unilaterally Polish. The fact that he was kept out by the Russian government at this highly charged memorial day shows how strained the relations between the Russians and him, personally, were - the President and the PM are not of the same party, of course - and how sore the subject of Katyn still is between the two countries, but this keep-out gesture might also give a clue why the pilot persisted in trying to land at Smolensk despite bad weather and despite warnings from the ground control people that it was now perilous. The pilot, or likely someone in the flight party, perhaps even Kaczynski himself, may have thought it was a sordid final attempt by the Russians to keep them out once more, and then may have decided they must land at Smolensk or they would never get there. The news coverage yesterday didn't really point out that the destination was not the shared memorial ceremony, so you got the impression that it was (I only read it as an aside in a news piece an hour ago, in the morning paper) but it's a rather vital piece of info I think. Strausszek (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this should be explained. The current article makes a quick mention of a "political disagreement" between the President and PM as the reason, but this is next to useless. I had been wondering why he was going to the event if the event had taken place a few days ago... Esn (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Partly to blame is the still poorly defined division of responsibility for foreign policy between the President and Prime Minister in the Polish political system. Since Tusk was invited, one could think that his presence would have been sufficient to represent Poland at the commemoration. However, Kaczynski did not believe so, and insisted on making a visit himself on a different day. Political rivalry between Tusk and Kaczynski seems to have played a significant role. Sourcelat0r (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the article makes to much of this already. Kaczynski and his party were travelling to the official commemoration which had been organized by the Polish government body responsible for such things: Tusk and his party took part in an official ceremony organized by Russia to commemorate the massacre. I fail to see how the political rivalry between the two of them could be said to be responsible for the crash, unless one claims that Kaczynski was suicidal or that Tusk wished to wipe out a large number of Poland's public figures, both of which claims are as ludicrous as they are in bad taste in the circumstances. You can't say that the crash happened because Kacynski wanted to go to Katyn: heads of state make all sorts of trips like this all the time, including some pretty difficult landings. Physchim62 (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply meant that if there was less rivalry and responsibilities were better defined, then there would have been only one Polish highest level delegation, most likely the one led by Tusk as he was invited personally, and this particular crash would simply not have happened, because there would have been no trip. I am not trying to assign blame to any side, obviously. Sourcelat0r (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's under "Pilot ignoring advice from air traffic control" now, but it ought to be made clearer early in the article. Matters to make it plain that the conmemoration that Kaczynski's group was going to was not the joint memorial, because up till recently, the Poles, but not Russia have been conmemorating Katyn in official ways. There was a mutual declaration to build a memorial complex in the nineties and some of that has been built, but the conmemorations have often been a nexus of conflict. This year was the first one that a Russian "leader" in office (was it Putin or Medvedev?) actually admitted at the memorial ceremony that Soviet Russia was to blame. So, if someone who has heard bits and pieces about Katyn and about the air disaster comes here and sees that Kaczynski was going to "the official commemoration which had been organized by the Polish government body responsible for such things", then it's likely he might slip to the conclusion that this was the joint memorial service. Because there hadn't really been much official Russian participation before. If the other celebration, the one Tusk and Putin were at, isn't cited in contrast nearby, that's the conclusion many people will likely draw. Normally, if two or more countries are involved in a memorial anniversary linked to a certain place, there's only one main celebration at that place, the joint one.Strausszek (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It does look as if Kaczynski's vanity is responsible for the mess - I can't imagine the pilot attempting such a dangerouslanding of his own free will.

I think the wording now "The official commemoration, organized by Polish Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites" is misleading, as it suggests this one, rather than the joint Russian-Polish commemoration on the 7th where prime ministers of both countries were present, was official. Perhaps this one could be called "another official commemoration"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.180.168.196 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's roughly my point too, and I think we need to find wordings that are clear but which don't invite editing from partisans of various people and countries in order to make backdoor implications about which memorial gathering was the good one, the honest one, the official one, whether Putin should have stayed out of it because he was an old KGB man, and so on. We could easily get edit warring on this point, precisely because what people might want to sneak in doesn't have to be stated fully.Strausszek (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Council have been organizing the ceremonies every year, so to answer your point it is sufficient to replace "official" with "traditional" or something similar in meaning. 89.161.19.226 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional" doesn't quite work. But I would assume that Saturday's ceremony had been planned long before Putin issued his invitation to Tusk in February. I don't think one is less "official" than the other, simply that they were organized by different people. But neither should we imply that Saturday's ceremony was just some whim of Kaczynski. Physchim62 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If the Russo-Polish memorial days are kept up regularly, - and now, there will be a strong expectation both from within Russian government level and from other states, that they should be kept going - they too will become traditional. I don't know how you feel about this, but my way of treating an article of this kind is that, if possible, what's stated or discussed should be phrased in a way that remains true in the future as well. Even if the facts regarding the present don't change, they could be "re-framed" by developments in the near future (e.g. a statement auch as "X is now deputy prime minister" should always have a date, or an embedded pointer to when was "now", and "Usain Bolt is the finest sprinter ever" is not useful because it isn't framed in time in a precise way - it's conceivable that somebody will beat his records one day - apart from being POV). In print reference works, it's mostly made clear what time is referred to, whether it's by the print date of the book or by explicitly framing an event within the text, as regards its place in the flow of time. Strausszek (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But this article already covers an accident (rather incidental, in contrast to Usain Bolt's continuous existence), along with it's date. Isn't it obvious that it describes the matters as they were back then? 89.161.19.226 (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but figure that people will be turning to the article in ten years time from now or later. By then, it will still be obvious what date it happened of course, but words like "traditional conmemoration" (meaning the gathering Kaczynski was going to - see my comment; the Russo-Polish solemnities may become a lasting tradition too), that kind of loose phrasings about the circumstances, may have become misleading, even if they were not deceiving at the time they were written (=now). We can't just rely on that the entire article will be painstakingly revised at any given date in the future, so that this kind of thing would be sorted out.

I know it's not that obvious an example right here, but this kind of thing, statements or conditions that you could claim were true at one time, near the time of writing, but which might become superseded by what happens later in history, but 'outside the scope of the article, can serve as a way to twist an article to a biased perspective. Strausszek (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but you base your opinion on assumption that, in the future, commemoration ceremony MAY look different. I'm sure you believe it's very likely to happen, but I'm also sure many people would disagree. In any way, nothing has changed yet. Let's stick to the facts. 89.161.19.226 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)