The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 233

Crash of Tu-154 at Smolensk-North--could it have been a bomb in the Polish plane?


Seanus 15 | 19,706
9 Sep 2010  #181
Convex, let's not go round in circles with this.

Delph, they still would have had the most basic of radars to guide them in.

Prove to me that the radars were faulty. I haven't seen any transcripts of the Russian ATC saying they were 100m above ground level.

That's just not good enough. A military airport, in order to accept planes, must have minimum standards according to aviation authorities. Safety must be an issue.

That doesn't refute what I said at all. Also, he saw that they were approaching far too fast and did nothing. A strategy should have been formulated sufficiently long enough before reaching the 100m point. They were dipping very quickly. An analogy was made that it would be like trying to reverse a car into a garage at 110mph in foggy conditions without lights.

The canyons are much further down that you are making out, Delph. Check the diagrams of the environs of the airport.

That says nothing about precautions, Delph. It was a Russian plane that was worked on just 3 weeks prior by Russian hands. They know the plane very well and had to install apparatus fitting for a visit of that magnitude. It wasn't like they didn't know.

It was losing altitude at an alarming rate and for some time. They weren't cautioned to do anything about it.
convex 20 | 3,978
9 Sep 2010  #182
Convex, let's not go round in circles with this.

No reason to go around in circles, it's very very basic. If they knowingly descended below 100m, they are at fault. Seeing as the navigator made that call out and they continued to descend, well, the only conclusion that I could draw would be that they either had the runway in sight (which they would have called out), or they decided to push it a little bit.

No need to discuss the radar, bulbs, weather conditions. They reached DH and continued their descent. They flew a perfectly good aircraft into the ground due to gross negligence on their behalf.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
9 Sep 2010  #183
Well, no need for further investigation then ;) ;)
delphiandomine 83 | 17,626
9 Sep 2010  #184
Prove to me that the radars were faulty. I haven't seen any transcripts of the Russian ATC saying they were 100m above ground level.

That's just not good enough. A military airport, in order to accept planes, must have minimum standards according to aviation authorities. Safety must be an issue.

It wasn't the ATC's responsibility to call out 100m. The captain, or pilot in charge - is ultimately in control of the plane. They were cleared to 100m - yet they went below it. There is really nothing else to say about it.

In so far as Smolensk-North goes, it was perfectly adequate to land a plane at. It had a runway, what more do you need? Of course, to land it safely in bad conditions, it's a whole different story - and the airport most definitely wasn't equipped to handle them in such conditions.

That doesn't refute what I said at all. Also, he saw that they were approaching far too fast and did nothing. A strategy should have been formulated sufficiently long enough before reaching the 100m point. They were dipping very quickly. An analogy was made that it would be like trying to reverse a car into a garage at 110mph in foggy conditions without lights.

They were descending a bit too steeply, but speedwise, there was nothing wrong with it. But - yes, they should have formulated a strategy before reaching that point. But - maybe at the critical moment, the captain lost it? It happened before with the Moorgate crash on the tube - it's not impossible to suggest that the Captain simply messed it up and no-one took corrective action.

In regards to the actual descent, while it was steep, there was nothing wrong with it per se - it was well within the capabilities of the airplane.

They know the plane very well and had to install apparatus fitting for a visit of that magnitude.

Seanus - Smolensk-North was stripped bare. We know the Russians discouraged the use of it, and it was really just a runway on the edge of a city - it wasn't even functioning as a military airfield at this point.

It was losing altitude at an alarming rate and for some time. They weren't cautioned to do anything about it.

There was no need to alarm anyone - the autopilot was set and they were descending quite willingly. It's not unusual to come in steeper than usual if you're a bit too high - remember, this was a military flight and not bound by the rules of civilian aviation.

Now - if you want a real story - why was there no Russian navigator on board?
convex 20 | 3,978
9 Sep 2010  #185
Well, no need for further investigation then ;) ;)

The question of why did they knowingly descend below DH needs to be answered. The entire point of the investigation is to find out why it happened, and put measures into place so that it never happens again.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
9 Sep 2010  #186
It cannot be known why they did it. What more info do you need to put that beyond reasonable doubt?

They were moving in too fast and pilots on various fora agree on this point.

Why would there be a Russian navigator on board?
Wroclaw 44 | 5,388
9 Sep 2010  #187
u all seem to focus on what happened at smolensk. i would say that if the pilot had done a proper job of his pre-flight planning he would know what to expect when he got there. the dip in the land is no-ones fault. flying into it is the pilot's fault. simples.
convex 20 | 3,978
9 Sep 2010  #188
It cannot be known why they did it. What more info do you need to put that beyond reasonable doubt?

They were moving in too fast and pilots on various fora agree on this point.

Why would there be a Russian navigator on board?

You'd look at things like training, auditing, CRM...

IFR flights in Russia usually require a Russian navigator.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,626
9 Sep 2010  #189
Why would there be a Russian navigator on board?

It was the rule up until very recently that Russia required a Russian navigator to be on board such flights - and anyone with an ounce of sense could see the value in taking one to an airport which was stripped bare and was really nothing more than a strip of concrete.
wildrover 98 | 4,452
9 Sep 2010  #190
I heard that the Polish peeps actually refused a Russian navigator when one was offered...!
Seanus 15 | 19,706
9 Sep 2010  #191
It would appear to have been an arrogant attempt at landing. This is not simulation stuff, it was for real. Most Polish people agree that it was a futile attempt based on cockiness.
pgtx 29 | 3,159
9 Sep 2010  #192
It would appear to have been

we'll never know 100%...
Seanus 15 | 19,706
9 Sep 2010  #193
True! It's amazing how many were so sure a day after ;)
wildrover 98 | 4,452
10 Sep 2010  #194
only a day ago a Tu154 of the same type involved in the Smolensk disaster suffered a power and systems failure while approaching Moscow....

Somehow the pilots managed to get it to an emergency military runway , which had only a short runway , way too short for a Tu154 , but there was no other option...

There was no chance of a second attempt , as they had no power , so they had to get it right first time...

The pilots got the aircraft down on the runway , but ran 200 meters off the end of the runway and into the forest , fortunatly with minimal damage to the aircraft , and no casualties among the 100 plus people on board....

Dam fine piece of flying..great pilots , and it shows the old 154 is quite a tough aircraft...

I think maybe its had its day though..perhaps time to retire it now....?
MediaWatch 10 | 945
10 Sep 2010  #195
Funny that the people in charge of the investigation on the Polish side aren't complaining...

Have a link regarding the controllers? Pavel Plusnin has disappeared?

Maybe you're just seeing what you want to see?

What's also funny is that your own article discussed how Poles were complaining about the delay in information coming from Russia on the plane crash including Prime Minister Tusk asking the Russian government to explain the reason for the delay. DID YOU READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE??? Maybe you're the one only seeing what you want to see.

As for these links I have been posting them. Its not my problem if you just dismiss them out of hand or ignore them.

Not to mention that recent link I commented on (Seanus' article in Polish - not mine) where one of the Polish investigators when he was in the US said he thought the Russian major in charge of the Russian airtower had responsibility in the plane crashing because he lured the plane to come down to 50 meters.

But you conveniently IGNORE any article or information that merely suggests the Russians may have goofed up an contributed to the plane crashing, like you have some kind of agenda.

MAYBE you are only seeing what you want to see?
wildrover 98 | 4,452
10 Sep 2010  #196
because he lured the plane to come down to 50 meters.

How do you lure a plane...??? Some tasty jet fuel , a huge magnet...or a sexy plane of the oposite sex...???
MediaWatch 10 | 945
10 Sep 2010  #197
You don't have to be a wise guy.

Did you read that article in Polish that Seanus referenced?
wildrover 98 | 4,452
10 Sep 2010  #198
Come on you're a little more Russian then just some guy having a Russian girlfriend.

Better to be wise than stupid....!

Yes i read the stuff Seanus posted , but i still have not seen anything that changes my mind about this crash....

Have a look on the sites where pilots chat about stuff...nobody on there thinks it was anything other than an accident caused by human error....

As i said , i am quite happy to change my mind and blame the Russians if i see any evidence they were at fault...but i just have not seen any yet....
MediaWatch 10 | 945
10 Sep 2010  #199
Take it easy. Don't get so mad comrade.

Did you really read the Polish article? So tell me what did the article say?

Also come on.......if there was a confirmed video, or pictures or evidence, showing Russian foul play you would still be repeating the mantra......... "But I just haven't seen any evidence that they are at fault" LOL
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Sep 2010  #200
It is but speculation. Nonetheless, the canyon factor must not be underplayed. It had a material effect on the tragic outcome. Were PO to be more proactive as a party, they would follow through on this.
wildrover 98 | 4,452
10 Sep 2010  #201
.......if there was a confirmed video, or pictures or evidence, showing Russian foul play

If there was...then i would condem the Russians as loudly as anyone else....and believe me...the Russian people themselves would not be too happy about their government bumping off the head of a neighbouring country....

Russia needs to be part of Europe , it needs business and econonmic trade with Europe , if they were found to be involved in any sinister plot to kill a Polish president they would be well and truly screwed...even their own people would turn on them...

But there is not any evidence of foul play...and i doubt very much there will be...
MediaWatch 10 | 945
10 Sep 2010  #202
Maybe it wasn't a sinister Russian plot.

Maybe they just made some mistakes that they are too embarrassed or proud to admit.
wildrover 98 | 4,452
10 Sep 2010  #203
Maybe they just made some mistakes that they are too embarrassed or proud to admit.

Well , that would be nothing new in Russia...but i am sure that any mistakes will be uncovered , and lessons learned from this tragedy...

The days when the Russian leaders were able to hide things from their own people , and the world are gone now..if the Russians screwed up...we will know about it...
convex 20 | 3,978
10 Sep 2010  #204
What's also funny is that your own article discussed how Poles were complaining about the delay in information coming from Russia on the plane crash including Prime Minister Tusk asking the Russian government to explain the reason for the delay. DID YOU READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE??? Maybe you're the one only seeing what you want to see.

Read the article again, then try again, and again. Notice the part about politicians using this as leverage, and the investigators being satisfied with the level of cooperation? Last time I checked, Tusk wasn't heading any investigations.

Not to mention that recent link I commented on (Seanus' article in Polish - not mine) where one of the Polish investigators when he was in the US said he thought the Russian major in charge of the Russian airtower had responsibility in the plane crashing because he lured the plane to come down to 50 meters.

The controller wasn't flying the plane. Read the transcript. They knowingly descended past DH. Radar had them roughly on glide slope down to 100m. They continued their descent into obstacles. If you don't believe the transcript, you're at odds with the Polish military.

Were PO to be more proactive as a party, they would follow through on this.

I doubt that. They'd look like fools trying to second guess the investigators. That would open up a brand new can of worms about preparedness and planning. It would probably get ugly fairly quickly.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Sep 2010  #205
They should at least try as Szeremet and Rzepa have yielded little from the Ruskies. PO really want nothing to do with it as they'd be on dangerous ground and they know it.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,626
11 Sep 2010  #206
As for these links I have been posting them. Its not my problem if you just dismiss them out of hand or ignore them.

The problem is that you're posting links that contradict what the top brass in Poland has been saying. The fact that you, as a so-called Polish patriot, are willing to believe Germans or Belarussians over Poles is absolutely unbelievable and certainly traitorous.

I start to wonder if you aren't a member of the FSB, who is coming on here to discredit the people who want to find out THE TRUTH about Smolensk. Certainly, your tactics seem very similar to the FSB-operated Kavkaz Center!

The thing is MediaWatch, you seem completely incapable of distinguishing between quality journalism and sensationalism. Take for instance, the following from the smolensk-2010.pl website.

The airplane was a 20-year-old Russian TU-154M that had been refurbished and upgraded in Russia four months before, and probably completely bugged. The TU-154 is a three-engine model similar to the older Boeing 727. The airplane was equipped with all the necessary electronic navigation and instrumentation to land safely, even in foul weather. The instrumentation was the latest and best, and included a standard ILS (Instrument Landing System) receiver which would guide the airplane to the edge of the Smolensk runway — providing the ILS receiver and ground based transmitters were reliable and working properly

Now - anyone with any knowledge whatsoever would know the following -

- The Poles would damn well make sure that no aircraft was bugged. Unless of course, conspiracy theorists believe that Poland and NATO would allow one of their aircraft to be bugged!

- What ILS at Smolensk-North? Is this the legendary portable system?

And that's just two small points from one small paragraph.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
11 Sep 2010  #207
How many PiS people are at the forefront of developments, Delph? ;)
FlaglessPole 4 | 669
11 Sep 2010  #208
if you take the development of arthritis and sclerosis into account, there must be quite a few. Not to worry, they'll be gone soon:)
Seanus 15 | 19,706
11 Sep 2010  #209
Yes ok. Thanks
delphiandomine 83 | 17,626
11 Sep 2010  #210
How many PiS people are at the forefront of developments, Delph? ;)

That's the problem. :)

I just hope that the report will be soon - I'm very, very curious to find out some details, such as the definitive chart showing where the plane was at what time.


Home / News / Crash of Tu-154 at Smolensk-North--could it have been a bomb in the Polish plane?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.