2nd anniversary of the Smolensk crash- a few facts

[kranz]

Today is the 2nd anniversary of the Smolensk crash. A few facts concerning this tragic accident:
-two (Russian and Polish) contradictory reports have been published so far
-the Polish side was refused to retrieve several important evidences such as:
the wreckage, the flight recorders, multiple minor objects of security importance: satellite phone, electronic devices etc.
-several evidences were either intentionally destroyed by the Russians days after the crash or their initial condition was changed
-at least one major part of the plane was moved from the place of its initial position after the crash to another position
- post-mortem autopsies performed in Poland last year and this year indicated that at least 3 bodies (out of 3 autopsies done) had: organs not belonging to the person killed, organs covered with mud, surgeon gloves were found inside the coffins; more autopsies are to be performed soon
-hundreds of human body parts and wreckage parts were found more than a year after the crash (even though both Russians and the Polish side claimed that the ground was dug up to 1 meter.
-our current liberal government rejected any international help of aviation institutions as well as a NATO mediation
-despite the fact that the presence of a "drunk Polish general sent by the Polish President" in Tupolev's cockpit was never confirmed, it is still the most popular explanation for the causes of the crash (not to mention how some people behaved here when it was revealed...)
- more and more Russian and Polish lies of the current government concerning the details of the flight and the preparations for it have been piling up since 10.04.2010
-the cause of the death of 96 people remains unknown

[nikimcbee]

"drunk Polish general

Why is it, when there is some sort of Russian aviation scandal, there is somebody "drunk" invovled?

Remember when Soviets shot down the Korean airliner? That pilot was drunk too.:hmmm:

What a lame excuse.

[Sammi79]

:nope:

That was a really sad day. I was drinking with a Polak friend when we heard the news, we both thought no way Dmitry & Vladimir would have done this, must be a tragic accident. We had watched the film 'Katyn' just 2 days before which was when I learned about the reason for this memorial pilgrimage. The way the Russian government acted after and on to this day has made us both question our initial assumptions. I personally was dissapointed that the UK amongst others never sent representatives to the service held for the victims, yeah sure Eyjafjallajokull was vomiting ash into the flight lanes, but they could have gone by boat. or something.

I saw a sensationalist documentary on a doc site, with a dodgy cellphone video claiming to be of the wreck, and suggesting noises were gunshots etc... it was less than convincing to be fair, but I got involved in a conversation with a Russian on the comments. I asked him what he thought. He said (quote edited for profanity)

"If Vladimir Vladimirovich would have had wanted to down this aircraft with its cargo there would be a trail of stinking poop all the way back to his door step at the kremlin. Since there is not a trail of poop I doubt he had anything to do with it. Sometimes Vladimir Vladimirovich is just one lucky SOB. Anyhow when Dmitry Anatolyevich does the modern peoples power shuffle with Vladimir Vladimirovich any poopy residue that was missed can be cleaned up."

He also said he thought that it would be very easy for an undercover KGB getting a low level technical job at the airbase, and changing the glide slope lights angle to make sure the plane would lawn dart, which it did. He also mentioned Lech Kascynski government building missile defense sites in Poland, which would give them a firm motive being practically on their doorstep. He was pretty funny and none too fond of his own government apparently. Took it all with a pinch of salt like, but as time goes on the hairs on my neck are standing up one by one. Medvedev always creeped me right out, from the first moment I saw him talk. Putin was much more likeable albeit dangerous looking.

For those who have not seen it or know little about the history of these events, (of whom I'm sure there are not many here) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0879843/

It is a really good film and true story but very heavy on the heart.

Regards, Sam.

[MH]

Kranz..the mess you described looks like sloppy job on crash site...bodies....gloves...and the rest.
Not conspiracy yet.

[kranz]

Kranz..the mess you described looks like sloppy job on crash site...bodies....gloves...and the rest.

yes and no.
you put all my points to one bag called "sloppy job" which is not right. I agree that the way the bodies were dealt with, searching for personal belongings etc are for sure evidences of a sloppy job but there are like hundreds of other facts- moving objects, changing their initial shape, cleaning up the wreckage (yes, after two years of rusting without any cover, the Russians decided to cover it under some kind of a wooden shelter and...they washed the remaining pieces of the plane so that it now looks shinny and brand new- even though they claimed that the wreckage cannot be returned to the Polish government (to the owner of the plane)as it is still treated as an evidence. Do you wash evidences before they are no longer evidences? I doubt)

Not conspiracy yet.
why do you say "conspiracy'? I want to have answers for the simplest questions. Please make an effort and read at least the Russian report. There are dozens of thesis and statements which have already been proven to be false. To quote a few:
-the Russian report states that the pilots were trying to land- how can one land with the engines set on full throttle?
-it states that the plane hit a birch and because of that collision a large piece of left wing was cut off- why there is no sound of this collision recorded?
-how far would you expect that broken and loose part of the left wind to fly after it was separated from the wing? The plane's speed: around 270 km/h, altitude at the time of the "collision" with the birch: 5,5-6,5 meters above the ground. Size of the broken element: 6,5m x around 2,5m.
So? My first guesses were around 30-50 meters away from the birch. Aviation experts calculated that the maximum distance it could fly was about 15-20 meters. However, the element was found 160 meters away from the birch, in a grove. Surprisingly, any of the trees was damaged by that element, what is more, the element had so sign of additional damages caused by the trees making that grove.
-the Russian report states that the FMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system) suffered a memory freeze (in other words it crashed/stopped working) 15 meters above the ground, around 160-180 meters before the place of the crash (I mean the spot where the plane hit the ground for the first time) and around 2 seconds before the destruction of the plane, whereas the flight recorders were still working at that time placing the destruction of the plane 2 seconds later etc. Question: why did the memory of this device freeze earlier than the destruction of the plane? Neither of the reports (Polish and Russian) give any answers.
- the Russian report states that: both 1st and co-pilot's hands and legs were in positions indicating that they were trying to compensate the roll. However, their bodies were returned with the last transport, several days after the crash as the Russian side claimed that the pilots couldn't be identified. How can you say that the pilots were fastened and were gripping the steering wheel and you could not identify them as the pilots?
Bear in mind I based the above on the Russian report which should work in favor of their narration of the plane crash instead of the Polish which you would probably call biased.

[gimpy117]

or....we can just accept the truth that those old soviet era transport aircraft are not safe anymore...and aren't being maintained properly

[Sammi79]

or....we can just accept the truth that those old soviet era transport aircraft are not safe anymore...and aren't being maintained properly

:hmmm:

The Tu-154 is 1 year younger than your Boeing 737, and it has roughly a third of the operational accidents. It is also able to operate in conditions that your aircraft is not and has done consistently throughout its operational history.

This one was a Tu-154M which is the most modern variant, the design is 20 years younger than your 737-100. For American or indeed global standards, this was not an 'old soviet era transport aircraft' The last one was manufactured in 2006.

This one was 20 years old, but almost all transport aircraft have a service life of 25+ years, this is not considered 'old'

You appear to lay the blame 'truth' on poor maintenance by the Polish Air Force, what evidences have you seen that might imply this?

Regards, Sam.

[gimpy117]

:hmmm:

The Tu-154 is 1 year younger than your Boeing 737, and it has roughly a third of the operational accidents. It is also able to operate in conditions that your aircraft is not and has done consistently throughout its operational history.

This one was a Tu-154M which is the most modern variant, the design is 20 years younger than your 737-100. For American or indeed global standards, this was not an 'old soviet era transport aircraft' The last one was manufactured in 2006.

This one was 20 years old, but almost all transport aircraft have a service life of 25+ years, this is not considered 'old'

You appear to lay the blame 'truth' on poor maintenance by the Polish Air Force, what evidences have you seen that might imply this?

Regards, Sam.

I mean no offense, but the 737 design had been constantly updated since it's construction. I was not speaking to the Design age however, rather than the condition of the aircraft itself. a 20 year old aircraft is not unheard of, not at all...but if an aircraft isn't being maintained properly it's problems are compounded with age. WMU has a 727 made in 1975...but let me tell you even with constant maintenance for it's long life, it still shows it's age very well. Now imagine when the Shop is cutting corners

[Sammi79]

I mean no offense, but the 737 design had been constantly updated since it's construction. I was not speaking to the Design age however, rather than the condition of the aircraft itself. a 20 year old aircraft is not unheard of, not at all...but if an aircraft isn't being maintained properly it's problems are compounded with age. WMU has a 727 made in 1975...but let me tell you even with constant maintenance for it's long life, it still shows it's age very well. Now imagine when the Shop is cutting corners

No offense taken, I just wanted to point out that an aircraft whose first flight was in 1990 could hardly be considered an 'old soviet era transport aircraft' which to me implied an arrogance or ill-founded feeling of superiority. However, my question was, what makes you think this Polish Air Force Tu-154M was poorly maintained?

Regards, Sam.