![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Article is written according to the russian statements and do not considers polish observations. We can't even know if polish pilots conversation released by Russian MAK is true. Readers must know that MAK is postsoviet organisation, involved in political affairs. MAK didn't give the most important evidences (flight data recorders, shipwreck, audio recordings) to Poland, even Smolensk Airport officers could not be questioned by polish authorities. There are many questions about landing phase, fog around the airport and work of airport services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.123.42 ( talk) 10:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Here, in English. I am somewhat surprised that the cockpit voice recording itself was released. This is usually not done in the United States. The recorded sounds at 39:49 are the reason why. N419 BH 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
According to this, analysis of cockpit tapes by Polish experts was able to almost completely transcribe the cockpit recordings. Almost all sounds which were marked as "incomprehensible" in the released MAK cockpit transcript have been deciphered. It was also possible to assign each spoken sentence to specific people. In the Polish transcript there will be no sentences marked as "incomprehensible", unlike in the MAK report where they are numerous.
As the MAK theory of "psychological pressure" is mainly based on a few disjointed statements in the transcript, possibly taken out of context ("He will get mad ..." etc.), the complete transcript may invalidate its main conclusion (it may of course reinforce it as well). 99.236.14.72 ( talk) 15:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
As part of the B-class review for WikiProject Poland, I reviewed this article and it appears to continue to meet the criteria for B-class. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the conversion of ref dates to ISO format. As the creator of the original article, I did not use ISO dates because they are ugly, and hard to read. The use of ISO dates was not an issue in the days when you could set your preferences for linked date display, but since the date unlinking debate, I've not used them. Ref dates in this article have used the format day month year since creation. I see no good reason or consensus to change this. Mjroots ( talk) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The present article "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash presents the "skewed view" as provided by the Russian State Commission. It does so without citing the extensive criticism of the methods and the lack of transparency in the process; and does so with a tone of undue credulity, as though all such criticisms have been fully refuted and need not be mentioned, nor highlighted. While the MAK Interstate Commission report should be included as "official" documentation of its proceedings, its failure to definitively engage, let alone refute, criticisms leave this as an inadequate commentary on events. It is recommended that both the "official report" and the criticisms run in a parallel compare/contrast format until a technologically capable and independent jurying entity, weighs in.
On the 10th of April 2010, the Polish military plane, Tu-154, was involved in a fatal crash in the city of Smolensk, Russia, killing all the crew and passengers aboard. The deaths included the Polish President and First Lady, the last Polish President in exile, the Chief of the General Staff, Commanders-in-Chief, the Chairman of the Polish National Bank, the President of the Institute of National Remembrance, as well as a number of MP's, senators and prominent figures of the Polish elite, among the 96 dead.
This incident, which includes these prominent deaths, naturally calls for a complete and transparent investigation - the natural work of international aviation agencies with extensive experience is just such investigations. Yet, on the day of the crash, the Polish government decided to leave the investigation solely in Russian hands, without securing the rights to appeal to international organizations, aviation organizations, and relinquishing the right of an inspection, or any efficient supervision over examination procedures.
Specifically, the Polish government refused to consider any help from NATO, and did not attempt to gather any support from other European Union countries. As a result, all the evidence gathered has been left on Russian soil, including confidential military and security codes belonging to NATO's armies, "black boxes", and other flight recording devices containing all flight parameters. None of this evidence, as well as any debris of the wreckage, has ever been returned to Poland.
Such capricious actions and obscured procedures, running contrary to both the scientific rigor and general Western trend towards transparency naturally invites wariness as to the methods and conclusions of the investigation. No detached observer, cognizant of the influence of loyalty to faction and party in overwhelming loyalty to the people and to the truth, would readily accept such results given the morass of Polish and Russian politics and diplomacy. Among the issues are the degree to which present sitting politicians may have cooperated with the SB (Polish Communist Secret Police), WSI, and KGB, and Polish dependence on Russian Oil. There is much to hide and much to lose through non-acquiescence.
Consider the record to date of investigatory procedures and government actions that incline one to suspicion.
The death certificates of the victims are cursory, barely containing any basic information, and some certificates are missing. There is doubt (no proof has been provided) that any post-mortem examinations were ever performed in Russia; none were undertaken in Poland, as opening the coffins was strictly forbidden. Families received the bodies of their relatives in sealed coffins, under the threat that they would be prosecuted under Russian criminal law, if coffins were opened or tampered with. No medical evidence has been produced so far.
Shortly after the funerals took place, Russia sent a number of coffins back to Poland with anonymous human remains inside, and claimed that thorough DNA examinations had been performed. Even these unidentified remains, released for burial, had never been inspected. There is no post-mortem examination data available.
All legal evidence is kept in secrecy. Polish authorities have had admittance only to some of the Russian reports, but not to the evidence itself, allegedly accumulated in Russia. The only interrogation ever performed in the presence of Polish army prosecutors in Russia has been withdrawn from files and replaced with a designated updated version, contradicting the original.
The only Polish inspections allowed were archeology and geology surveys, and these were strictly limited to narrowly outlined areas. Usage of any specialized equipment was strictly forbidden, reducing inspections to a "bare hands" retrieval method. All these survey results were confiscated by Russian officials. There were no Polish crash investigators, criminologists or explosives experts allowed to inspect the scene.
The scene of the crash investigation has not presently been secured and may have never been secured, except in regard to keeping independent investigators out. In the subsequent days and months following the tragedy, victims' relatives and mourners of the dead gathered at the nearby Polish War Memorial for murdered Polish prisoners of war, still in deep shock and pain in the acknowledgment that human remains still remain in the field where the crash took place.
The investigation in Russia is flawed, as no impartiality can be assigned. MAK (the Interstate Aviation Committee) is closely connected with the manufacturers of the crashed Tu-154 aircraft,and is responsible for certifying both the aircraft and the airfield.
The Russian Prosecutor's Office Chief, Mr. Tchayka, is the very same man who refused the British government's attempt to investigate Litvinienko's death in the Russian Federation, and curbed their attempts to extradite the suspect of politically motivated murder.
Within days following the tragedy, there was an unprecedented media disinformation campaign - in both Poland and Russia - to cover up and blur many of the facts, such as:
1. Within minutes of the crash the Russian government, with the acquiescence of the Polish government, newly headed by Bronislaw Komorowski of the opposition Civic Platform party, stated that the crash was due to "pilot error, lack of training and poor communication skills (i.e. that the pilot could not speak Russian)" After the investigation these accusations turned out to be complete false, as the captain of the aircraft was one of the most experienced, master class pilots of the regiment, with over a thousand flying hours completed on this aircraft type. He was also well versed in the specifics of the Russian airports, ground personnel habits, all the procedures, and spoke fluent Russian.
2. False reports of four abortive landing attempts were made afterwards, though only one look-and-see attempt was made.
3. It was reported that the aircraft's left wing hit a tree with a 40 cm (16") diameter trunk. This has been officially confirmed to be false.
4. Within hours after crash, and before any inspection had been completed, the Russian and Polish governments refused to consider the possibilities of either a mechanical/equipment failure or the possibility of a terrorist attack (a reasonable possibility, in this post-9/11 world, as well as Russia's penchant for blaming so many incidents on Chechen terrorists).
5. Reports were filled with erroneous information about the exact time of the crash. The official time given by the Premier of the Russian Federation Ministers is over a dozen minutes later than it was finally set.
The entire landing navigation, performed by the Russian airfield ground personnel (the flight control tower), misled the crew, falsely confirming their positions, which led to the crash. This conclusion is based on the hard evidence of the flight controller's recordings, and forced the officials to admit this fact. According to military procedures (both the crew and the ground personnel were military) and have a decisive power, in permitting or allowing an aircraft to land. In this case, all the flight controllers were Russian.
All independent inquiries and examinations show incoherency and incompatibility of the Russian version of events. There was no fuel explosion as the plane crashed ("emergency-landed") into a swampy forest ground, weakening the pressure - which was the Russian version of events. What, then, would have caused the crash?
The death of ALL the passengers on board, the total dispersal of wreckage (annihilating 40% of its mass), the unexplainable range and scale of the injuries, the carnage left from the crash, whereby most of the bodies were unrecognizable: all of these facts do not coincide with the Russian "perspective" on the crash.
In addition, there is the mysterious, unexplained phenomenon, at the Russian airport in Smolensk, between 8:20 and 9:14 Warsaw time, when the airport had no outside communication, no power supply, and no eye-witnesses present.
There are hundreds of examples of evidence being destroyed, or simply being overlooked and never considered for examination. This whole investigation has been characterized by misinformation so prolific as to indicate intentional fabrication, and conscious disinformation, delivered through the main media by both Colonel Putin and the Polish Prime Minister Tusk. Even the media has been forced to acknowledge the most obvious falsehoods.
Given these irreconcilable reports, accumulating in real time, independent Polish citizens have commenced their own inquiries, using on-line sources to tease out the story. Among these are pilots, flight controllers, physicians, mathematicians, engineers and scientists from several disciplines. Their efforts established that the Russian "final cockpit recordings transcript" shows signs of editing and splicing, and note that the protocol (report) delivered by the Russian Aircraft Accidents Investigation Committee contains neither technical data nor even official source documentation of the inspection. The investigation report fails to answer the questions that independent citizen inquiries have raised. Some of its crucial statements are at variance with known facts, and it is puzzling why the report met with such an easy acceptance by Polish officials assigned to review this tragedy.
The preliminary stages of this investigation revealed that the aircraft Tu-154 was deliberately driven to the outside of the landing path. There is a hypothesis that the "meaconing" (the interception and rebroadcast of navigation signals) might have been used. Russian flight controllers insisted until the very last seconds, and reassured the crew that they were "on the course and on the approach lane". This was despite the fact that the aircraft had not been on course, on the final approach lane, throughout the whole approach look-and-see procedure.
All public protests and demands for a thorough investigation and explanation of the "catastrophe" are being refused, blocked and prevented by both the Russian and Polish governments. The Polish people want to know what happened to that aircraft: the last minutes of the flight, the crash ("emergency landing"), the mysterious loss and restoration of communications - everything that occurred, up until the public was informed about the crash and President's death.
All original recordings related to this accident disappeared in Russia. There is neither any photographic evidence being presented, nor video or audio, which would assuredly provide the answers for how this flight progressed to its fatal end. There is no electronic trace of the evidence, no eye-witness testimony of the circumstances of the crash. No one saw anything; no one heard anything; no one filmed anything; and no one recorded anything with his mobile phone.
In this situation, only the world's public opinion can force the Polish government,and the government of Colonel Putin, to disclose the documents and all the evidence. Only military services of NATO, of which Poland is a member, who may possess or have access to the satellite pictures of the accident scene, can help establish the truth.
The truth is what victims deserve. The truth is what we are obliged to deliver. WingManFA2 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
|}
DrJacPhD, I hear what you are saying about the current Polish Government being the previous opposition. If the situation reverses at some point in the future, and the current opposition launches their own investigation and publishes their own report, then such information can be added. WP:NOR is there for a reason. What we can WP:VERIFY beats the WP:TRUTH hands down every time. Mjroots ( talk) 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The article uses PLF often without ever explaining it. -- Espoo ( talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
According to this article, the publication of the Polish report has been delayed until after the 2011 Katyn ceremony, to be held on April 11, 2011 so as not to conflict with the one year anniversary of the plane crash. The presidents of both Poland and Russia are confirmed attendees. It also appears as though the initial delay was due to technical problems on a Polish Government TU-154 (likely PLF 102 that's pure conjecture on my part at this point) which was being used to re-enact some portions of the flight. I suspect we will have some very detailed additional information to work with once this report is published. N419 BH 01:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash has been merged into this article. AFAIK, consensus was that they should remain as two separate articles. Mjroots ( talk) 07:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A Polish Wikipedian pointed me to: http://www.komisja.smolensk.gov.pl/portal/kbw/633/8695/Raport_koncowy_MAK_ze_wskazaniem_zmian_do_projektu_raportu.html?search=340159
The same report is at http://bi.gazeta.pl/mak/raport.pdf (Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5zf3EFa3M )
Also:
Russian version:
From the MAK, here are the report files:
Additional archives:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The lead to the article is highly biased and skewed very much towards a particular POV (Polish govt). That there are now 2 reports - the first being the MAK report which places blame on Polish crew, and the second being Polish report which places blame on both Polish crew and Russian controllers, that the lead is almost completely filled with Polish govt response to the MAK report really does skew the overall article towards the Polish govt POV, and it is not the most prevalent POV out there in relation to true aviation experts. This POV problem needs to be fixed before the POV tag is removed from the article. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 06:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I propose merging International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash into 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 19. The article seems unecessary as a stand alone. After a year there may be a clearer perspective on this. Maethordaer ( talk) 13:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn Oops - I forgot to scan the archives. Sorry about the waste of time. Maethordaer ( talk) 19:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The Interstate Aviation Committee has been referred to by its Russian acronym MAK in the article, but was recently changed to IAC. I've undone the change as I feel it should be discussed first. I believe it's somewhat standard to use Russian acronyms in English text, examples include KGB and CCCP. Thoughts? N419 BH 03:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I must add that the Polish agency Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents uses "IAC" to refer to the agency: http://komisja.smolensk.gov.pl/portal/ken/661/8892/Interstate_Aviation_Committee.html - However in the English final report it uses "MAK" as shown in the terminology page: http://doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/rkm_en.pdf WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Major rewrite coming. Unfortunately all I can find is a downloadable .zip file from the Polish Prime Minister's website, which contains the report in .pdf format. That file can be accessed here. I would highly suggest everyone intending to participate in the rewrite read both reports in their entirety so we can provide a high-quality article which highlights the similarities and differences between the reports. N419 BH 19:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
STRESS:
Listen up: the "Kaczynski ordered to land at any cost" is just hearsay, initially stated by Komsomolskaya Pravda. If this article is to be serious, let's stay away from hearsay and unverified information - including a million consipracy theories.
MAK has no information on the so called pressure theory, and the Poles deny it in full, as the Polish Military has from day one since its publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antekg ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is a listing of relevant files related to this report:
English:
Polish:
Russian:
Photos (full size):
Photos (smaller)
Some photos may also be available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kancelariapremiera/ WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
They weren't Kings or heads of states, so "deposed" seems a bit strange - what did happen to them, were they sacked?, demoted? redeployed? Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This sentence: "...yet the aircraft was in fact 130 meters above its actual altitude..." does not make sense. You cannot be above your "actual" altitude. Should this read "BELOW its INDICATED altitude"? Which would correlate with the previous statement regarding the manual resetting of barometric pressure on the FMS, giving a false increase of 170m in indicated altitude. Could someone please clarify this and make an appropriate correction? Pmarshal ( talk) 03:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the most important part of the reports (may it be the russian or the polish) are their Recommendations chapters. One recommendation in the russian report is "4.2 States: Consider the practicability of amending the national regulations to prohibit the presence of persons not included in the flight task in the cockpit as well as to determine liability for violating this provision." There is no corresponding recommendation in the polish report, so this is a difference. I think this difference is so important it should be listed, or at least referred to in connection to the point "information that no pressure of any kind was put on pilots to force them to land according to evidence" in the list. Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.112.139 ( talk) 09:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Much of the text is clearly written by authors who are not native english speakers, and in particular by authors who speak languages which lack the definite article. Errors like "Error was due to pilot not taking correct action" abound. 46.239.100.186 ( talk) 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The following text from the article is strange: "The Captain and First officer were also likely well aware of a 2008 flight when the President of Poland ordered a change in destination right before departure and again while airborne. The Captain and First Officer were First Officer and Navigator, respectively, on that flight."
According to the polish wikipedia pages on those two individuals, the last sentence is true. However, the word "likely" seems poor here. Of course they new about the 2008 flight. The were both in the cockpit! Remove the word "likely" and add a good citation for the fact that they were First Officer and Navigator on the 2008 flight.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.227.112.139 (
talk)
19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
4th paragraph: The accredited representatives and advisors from the Republic of Poland were not present during its presentation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.182.170 ( talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The official investigation is led by Russians, who are judges in their own case. All the evidence are in their hands. The official Polish Committee don’t have the direct access to the evidence (wreck, black boxes) and it works under a great political pressure. It mostly repeats the Russian version adding only small corrections.
On 8 July 2010 Polish opposition politicians formed a Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe. They invited some independent experts from abroad. You can read about some of these experts here:
Wiesław Binienda
http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/
or
http://www.uakron.edu/engineering/research/profile.dot?identity=1064521
Kazimierz Nowaczyk
http://cfs.umbi.umd.edu/cfs/people/kazik.html
Gregory Szuladziński
http://www.simulate-events.com/principals-resume.html/
Michael Baden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden
The official site of the Parliamentary Team is here:
http://smolenskzespol.sejm.gov.pl/
This independent investigation is mostly censored in the mainstream media in Poland but is widely described by some independent media. In these media there are also journalists who worked before in Polish public broadcasting corporation “Telewizja Polska” but they were fired or degraded after they tried to investigate the circumstances of the Smolensk Catastrophe (eg. Anita Gargas, Dorota Kania, Jan Pospieszalski).
There was a public hearing in Brussels held by the Parliamentary Team with, inter alia, experts and family members of the victims, video here (partially in english):
http://vod.gazetapolska.pl/1423-wysluchanie-publiczne-w-pe-w-sprawie-trudnosci-wyjasnienia-przyczyn-katastrofy-smolenskiej
and a short report on it here (you can use google translate, despite small errors the meaning should be understood):
http://niezalezna.pl/25927-smolensk-byly-dwie-eksplozje — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Voyt13 (
talk •
contribs)
15:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Another news from the Parliamentary Committee: On 27 June 2012 at the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee there was a presentation held by Kazimierz Nowaczyk. In the conclusions he stated:
Refs: Miller’s commission guilty of forgery part 1 and Miller’s commission guilty of forgery part 2 Voyt13 ( talk) 15:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What the hell is all this? Aren't things like this supposed to be backed by various independent sources? Opinions of three polish experts who were selected by a commission headed by a polish national-catholic is all that is needed to publish stuff like this? Not to mention that the credibility of at least one of them is very questionable - Katastrofa profesora Biniendy (also note one of the comments under that article stating that his wife represents some of the families of the victims of smolensk crash). And what are the results of this "investigation"? Did it produce anything that you can go to court with or it's just all talk - "presented/said/stated"?-- 95.24.34.94 ( talk) 11:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
All valid points Voyt13. Unfortunately, this article has been nothing more than an unsophisticated and endlessly regurgitated agit-prop at best. Doomed Soldiers ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly the new section on Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe needs to be pruned down to one sentence the article should remain neutral and balanced and we cant add every new theory by what appears to be a somewhat bias committee. We already have information on the official report and balance that with the Polish response. We need to balance the article and not add undue weight by adding every fringe suggestion to the article (fringe being anything outside the official Russian and Polish investigation). All we need is some suggestion what the reduced sentence should say. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
"All of this is speculative to the point of being original research. The article is limited to covering what reliable sources have said". For starts, let us take a closer look at the "reliable sources" you like Ian:
RT, Wiki's own article: "In the opinion of contributors to sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda. A 2005 report conducted by the U.S. government operated VOA, interviewed Anton Nosik chief editor of a major English-language computer internet site in Russia, in which he described the creation of Russia Today as an idea smacking of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns, and also noted that the channel was not created as a response to any existing demand. While another article in the Digital Journal called RT a "pro-Putin news outlet" and its advertising campaign as "open propaganda war". A 2009 article in The Guardian by their former Russia correspondent Luke Harding about RT's advertising campaign described the network as "unashamedly pro-Putin" and saw it as part of the Kremlin's attempt to create a "post-Soviet global propaganda empire." As long as clearly identified propaganda outlets are cited here, this article is not neutral. Hence, you had no basis for removing Robert's neutrality tag.
As far as the original research is concerned, you have to be mindful Ian, that in order to impeach scientific findings of the world-class NASA scientists, Boeing Designers, Explosives Experts, and countless others, you have to scientifically prove (again, your beloved Russia Today, and other Putin's propaganda outlets aren't' going to cut it Ian) that what they state is scientifically invalid. Let me explain it to you in plain language: you have to rewrite the laws of mathematics, physics, aerodynamics, materials' sciences, and others. I will be anxiously awaiting for you to explain how a 150 ton aircraft can do in the air what an agile fighter plane can't do. You can even use an example of Mig-29, if you wish. For this reason, I am reverting Robert's tag. Should you revert it again, it will be considered vandalism. -- WingManFA2 ( talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
MilborneOne raises an interesting point. If none of these experts has first hand experience of air crash investigation, their chances of being taken seriously in an international forum would be slim.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It is improbable that anyone, and I mean anyone in the world would seriously consider your opinion while weighted against the expertise of someone whose body of work was essential in discerning the cause of the Challenger disaster (Binienda), or someone whose books are a cornerstone of materials sciences and explosives analysis (Szeludzinski), or someone whose work has been pivotal in designing number of Boeing platforms currently in use allover the world (Berczynski), or someone who is the man-to-go-to when it comes to the terrorist investigations (Kushner), and others. Voyt13, please be aware that Ian, Miborne, and couple of others here, have been "guarding" this article since day one and will be disparaging anything and anyone who questions the official Moscow's view of this "accident" till the cows come home. So, please be judicious how much time you want to waste on responding to obvious silly spins such as this one … With love from the Home of the Brave, -- WingManFA2 ( talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Article is written according to the russian statements and do not considers polish observations. We can't even know if polish pilots conversation released by Russian MAK is true. Readers must know that MAK is postsoviet organisation, involved in political affairs. MAK didn't give the most important evidences (flight data recorders, shipwreck, audio recordings) to Poland, even Smolensk Airport officers could not be questioned by polish authorities. There are many questions about landing phase, fog around the airport and work of airport services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.123.42 ( talk) 10:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Here, in English. I am somewhat surprised that the cockpit voice recording itself was released. This is usually not done in the United States. The recorded sounds at 39:49 are the reason why. N419 BH 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
According to this, analysis of cockpit tapes by Polish experts was able to almost completely transcribe the cockpit recordings. Almost all sounds which were marked as "incomprehensible" in the released MAK cockpit transcript have been deciphered. It was also possible to assign each spoken sentence to specific people. In the Polish transcript there will be no sentences marked as "incomprehensible", unlike in the MAK report where they are numerous.
As the MAK theory of "psychological pressure" is mainly based on a few disjointed statements in the transcript, possibly taken out of context ("He will get mad ..." etc.), the complete transcript may invalidate its main conclusion (it may of course reinforce it as well). 99.236.14.72 ( talk) 15:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
As part of the B-class review for WikiProject Poland, I reviewed this article and it appears to continue to meet the criteria for B-class. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the conversion of ref dates to ISO format. As the creator of the original article, I did not use ISO dates because they are ugly, and hard to read. The use of ISO dates was not an issue in the days when you could set your preferences for linked date display, but since the date unlinking debate, I've not used them. Ref dates in this article have used the format day month year since creation. I see no good reason or consensus to change this. Mjroots ( talk) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The present article "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash presents the "skewed view" as provided by the Russian State Commission. It does so without citing the extensive criticism of the methods and the lack of transparency in the process; and does so with a tone of undue credulity, as though all such criticisms have been fully refuted and need not be mentioned, nor highlighted. While the MAK Interstate Commission report should be included as "official" documentation of its proceedings, its failure to definitively engage, let alone refute, criticisms leave this as an inadequate commentary on events. It is recommended that both the "official report" and the criticisms run in a parallel compare/contrast format until a technologically capable and independent jurying entity, weighs in.
On the 10th of April 2010, the Polish military plane, Tu-154, was involved in a fatal crash in the city of Smolensk, Russia, killing all the crew and passengers aboard. The deaths included the Polish President and First Lady, the last Polish President in exile, the Chief of the General Staff, Commanders-in-Chief, the Chairman of the Polish National Bank, the President of the Institute of National Remembrance, as well as a number of MP's, senators and prominent figures of the Polish elite, among the 96 dead.
This incident, which includes these prominent deaths, naturally calls for a complete and transparent investigation - the natural work of international aviation agencies with extensive experience is just such investigations. Yet, on the day of the crash, the Polish government decided to leave the investigation solely in Russian hands, without securing the rights to appeal to international organizations, aviation organizations, and relinquishing the right of an inspection, or any efficient supervision over examination procedures.
Specifically, the Polish government refused to consider any help from NATO, and did not attempt to gather any support from other European Union countries. As a result, all the evidence gathered has been left on Russian soil, including confidential military and security codes belonging to NATO's armies, "black boxes", and other flight recording devices containing all flight parameters. None of this evidence, as well as any debris of the wreckage, has ever been returned to Poland.
Such capricious actions and obscured procedures, running contrary to both the scientific rigor and general Western trend towards transparency naturally invites wariness as to the methods and conclusions of the investigation. No detached observer, cognizant of the influence of loyalty to faction and party in overwhelming loyalty to the people and to the truth, would readily accept such results given the morass of Polish and Russian politics and diplomacy. Among the issues are the degree to which present sitting politicians may have cooperated with the SB (Polish Communist Secret Police), WSI, and KGB, and Polish dependence on Russian Oil. There is much to hide and much to lose through non-acquiescence.
Consider the record to date of investigatory procedures and government actions that incline one to suspicion.
The death certificates of the victims are cursory, barely containing any basic information, and some certificates are missing. There is doubt (no proof has been provided) that any post-mortem examinations were ever performed in Russia; none were undertaken in Poland, as opening the coffins was strictly forbidden. Families received the bodies of their relatives in sealed coffins, under the threat that they would be prosecuted under Russian criminal law, if coffins were opened or tampered with. No medical evidence has been produced so far.
Shortly after the funerals took place, Russia sent a number of coffins back to Poland with anonymous human remains inside, and claimed that thorough DNA examinations had been performed. Even these unidentified remains, released for burial, had never been inspected. There is no post-mortem examination data available.
All legal evidence is kept in secrecy. Polish authorities have had admittance only to some of the Russian reports, but not to the evidence itself, allegedly accumulated in Russia. The only interrogation ever performed in the presence of Polish army prosecutors in Russia has been withdrawn from files and replaced with a designated updated version, contradicting the original.
The only Polish inspections allowed were archeology and geology surveys, and these were strictly limited to narrowly outlined areas. Usage of any specialized equipment was strictly forbidden, reducing inspections to a "bare hands" retrieval method. All these survey results were confiscated by Russian officials. There were no Polish crash investigators, criminologists or explosives experts allowed to inspect the scene.
The scene of the crash investigation has not presently been secured and may have never been secured, except in regard to keeping independent investigators out. In the subsequent days and months following the tragedy, victims' relatives and mourners of the dead gathered at the nearby Polish War Memorial for murdered Polish prisoners of war, still in deep shock and pain in the acknowledgment that human remains still remain in the field where the crash took place.
The investigation in Russia is flawed, as no impartiality can be assigned. MAK (the Interstate Aviation Committee) is closely connected with the manufacturers of the crashed Tu-154 aircraft,and is responsible for certifying both the aircraft and the airfield.
The Russian Prosecutor's Office Chief, Mr. Tchayka, is the very same man who refused the British government's attempt to investigate Litvinienko's death in the Russian Federation, and curbed their attempts to extradite the suspect of politically motivated murder.
Within days following the tragedy, there was an unprecedented media disinformation campaign - in both Poland and Russia - to cover up and blur many of the facts, such as:
1. Within minutes of the crash the Russian government, with the acquiescence of the Polish government, newly headed by Bronislaw Komorowski of the opposition Civic Platform party, stated that the crash was due to "pilot error, lack of training and poor communication skills (i.e. that the pilot could not speak Russian)" After the investigation these accusations turned out to be complete false, as the captain of the aircraft was one of the most experienced, master class pilots of the regiment, with over a thousand flying hours completed on this aircraft type. He was also well versed in the specifics of the Russian airports, ground personnel habits, all the procedures, and spoke fluent Russian.
2. False reports of four abortive landing attempts were made afterwards, though only one look-and-see attempt was made.
3. It was reported that the aircraft's left wing hit a tree with a 40 cm (16") diameter trunk. This has been officially confirmed to be false.
4. Within hours after crash, and before any inspection had been completed, the Russian and Polish governments refused to consider the possibilities of either a mechanical/equipment failure or the possibility of a terrorist attack (a reasonable possibility, in this post-9/11 world, as well as Russia's penchant for blaming so many incidents on Chechen terrorists).
5. Reports were filled with erroneous information about the exact time of the crash. The official time given by the Premier of the Russian Federation Ministers is over a dozen minutes later than it was finally set.
The entire landing navigation, performed by the Russian airfield ground personnel (the flight control tower), misled the crew, falsely confirming their positions, which led to the crash. This conclusion is based on the hard evidence of the flight controller's recordings, and forced the officials to admit this fact. According to military procedures (both the crew and the ground personnel were military) and have a decisive power, in permitting or allowing an aircraft to land. In this case, all the flight controllers were Russian.
All independent inquiries and examinations show incoherency and incompatibility of the Russian version of events. There was no fuel explosion as the plane crashed ("emergency-landed") into a swampy forest ground, weakening the pressure - which was the Russian version of events. What, then, would have caused the crash?
The death of ALL the passengers on board, the total dispersal of wreckage (annihilating 40% of its mass), the unexplainable range and scale of the injuries, the carnage left from the crash, whereby most of the bodies were unrecognizable: all of these facts do not coincide with the Russian "perspective" on the crash.
In addition, there is the mysterious, unexplained phenomenon, at the Russian airport in Smolensk, between 8:20 and 9:14 Warsaw time, when the airport had no outside communication, no power supply, and no eye-witnesses present.
There are hundreds of examples of evidence being destroyed, or simply being overlooked and never considered for examination. This whole investigation has been characterized by misinformation so prolific as to indicate intentional fabrication, and conscious disinformation, delivered through the main media by both Colonel Putin and the Polish Prime Minister Tusk. Even the media has been forced to acknowledge the most obvious falsehoods.
Given these irreconcilable reports, accumulating in real time, independent Polish citizens have commenced their own inquiries, using on-line sources to tease out the story. Among these are pilots, flight controllers, physicians, mathematicians, engineers and scientists from several disciplines. Their efforts established that the Russian "final cockpit recordings transcript" shows signs of editing and splicing, and note that the protocol (report) delivered by the Russian Aircraft Accidents Investigation Committee contains neither technical data nor even official source documentation of the inspection. The investigation report fails to answer the questions that independent citizen inquiries have raised. Some of its crucial statements are at variance with known facts, and it is puzzling why the report met with such an easy acceptance by Polish officials assigned to review this tragedy.
The preliminary stages of this investigation revealed that the aircraft Tu-154 was deliberately driven to the outside of the landing path. There is a hypothesis that the "meaconing" (the interception and rebroadcast of navigation signals) might have been used. Russian flight controllers insisted until the very last seconds, and reassured the crew that they were "on the course and on the approach lane". This was despite the fact that the aircraft had not been on course, on the final approach lane, throughout the whole approach look-and-see procedure.
All public protests and demands for a thorough investigation and explanation of the "catastrophe" are being refused, blocked and prevented by both the Russian and Polish governments. The Polish people want to know what happened to that aircraft: the last minutes of the flight, the crash ("emergency landing"), the mysterious loss and restoration of communications - everything that occurred, up until the public was informed about the crash and President's death.
All original recordings related to this accident disappeared in Russia. There is neither any photographic evidence being presented, nor video or audio, which would assuredly provide the answers for how this flight progressed to its fatal end. There is no electronic trace of the evidence, no eye-witness testimony of the circumstances of the crash. No one saw anything; no one heard anything; no one filmed anything; and no one recorded anything with his mobile phone.
In this situation, only the world's public opinion can force the Polish government,and the government of Colonel Putin, to disclose the documents and all the evidence. Only military services of NATO, of which Poland is a member, who may possess or have access to the satellite pictures of the accident scene, can help establish the truth.
The truth is what victims deserve. The truth is what we are obliged to deliver. WingManFA2 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
|}
DrJacPhD, I hear what you are saying about the current Polish Government being the previous opposition. If the situation reverses at some point in the future, and the current opposition launches their own investigation and publishes their own report, then such information can be added. WP:NOR is there for a reason. What we can WP:VERIFY beats the WP:TRUTH hands down every time. Mjroots ( talk) 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The article uses PLF often without ever explaining it. -- Espoo ( talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
According to this article, the publication of the Polish report has been delayed until after the 2011 Katyn ceremony, to be held on April 11, 2011 so as not to conflict with the one year anniversary of the plane crash. The presidents of both Poland and Russia are confirmed attendees. It also appears as though the initial delay was due to technical problems on a Polish Government TU-154 (likely PLF 102 that's pure conjecture on my part at this point) which was being used to re-enact some portions of the flight. I suspect we will have some very detailed additional information to work with once this report is published. N419 BH 01:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash has been merged into this article. AFAIK, consensus was that they should remain as two separate articles. Mjroots ( talk) 07:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A Polish Wikipedian pointed me to: http://www.komisja.smolensk.gov.pl/portal/kbw/633/8695/Raport_koncowy_MAK_ze_wskazaniem_zmian_do_projektu_raportu.html?search=340159
The same report is at http://bi.gazeta.pl/mak/raport.pdf (Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5zf3EFa3M )
Also:
Russian version:
From the MAK, here are the report files:
Additional archives:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The lead to the article is highly biased and skewed very much towards a particular POV (Polish govt). That there are now 2 reports - the first being the MAK report which places blame on Polish crew, and the second being Polish report which places blame on both Polish crew and Russian controllers, that the lead is almost completely filled with Polish govt response to the MAK report really does skew the overall article towards the Polish govt POV, and it is not the most prevalent POV out there in relation to true aviation experts. This POV problem needs to be fixed before the POV tag is removed from the article. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 06:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I propose merging International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash into 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 19. The article seems unecessary as a stand alone. After a year there may be a clearer perspective on this. Maethordaer ( talk) 13:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn Oops - I forgot to scan the archives. Sorry about the waste of time. Maethordaer ( talk) 19:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The Interstate Aviation Committee has been referred to by its Russian acronym MAK in the article, but was recently changed to IAC. I've undone the change as I feel it should be discussed first. I believe it's somewhat standard to use Russian acronyms in English text, examples include KGB and CCCP. Thoughts? N419 BH 03:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I must add that the Polish agency Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents uses "IAC" to refer to the agency: http://komisja.smolensk.gov.pl/portal/ken/661/8892/Interstate_Aviation_Committee.html - However in the English final report it uses "MAK" as shown in the terminology page: http://doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/rkm_en.pdf WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Major rewrite coming. Unfortunately all I can find is a downloadable .zip file from the Polish Prime Minister's website, which contains the report in .pdf format. That file can be accessed here. I would highly suggest everyone intending to participate in the rewrite read both reports in their entirety so we can provide a high-quality article which highlights the similarities and differences between the reports. N419 BH 19:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
STRESS:
Listen up: the "Kaczynski ordered to land at any cost" is just hearsay, initially stated by Komsomolskaya Pravda. If this article is to be serious, let's stay away from hearsay and unverified information - including a million consipracy theories.
MAK has no information on the so called pressure theory, and the Poles deny it in full, as the Polish Military has from day one since its publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antekg ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is a listing of relevant files related to this report:
English:
Polish:
Russian:
Photos (full size):
Photos (smaller)
Some photos may also be available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kancelariapremiera/ WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
They weren't Kings or heads of states, so "deposed" seems a bit strange - what did happen to them, were they sacked?, demoted? redeployed? Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This sentence: "...yet the aircraft was in fact 130 meters above its actual altitude..." does not make sense. You cannot be above your "actual" altitude. Should this read "BELOW its INDICATED altitude"? Which would correlate with the previous statement regarding the manual resetting of barometric pressure on the FMS, giving a false increase of 170m in indicated altitude. Could someone please clarify this and make an appropriate correction? Pmarshal ( talk) 03:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the most important part of the reports (may it be the russian or the polish) are their Recommendations chapters. One recommendation in the russian report is "4.2 States: Consider the practicability of amending the national regulations to prohibit the presence of persons not included in the flight task in the cockpit as well as to determine liability for violating this provision." There is no corresponding recommendation in the polish report, so this is a difference. I think this difference is so important it should be listed, or at least referred to in connection to the point "information that no pressure of any kind was put on pilots to force them to land according to evidence" in the list. Am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.112.139 ( talk) 09:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Much of the text is clearly written by authors who are not native english speakers, and in particular by authors who speak languages which lack the definite article. Errors like "Error was due to pilot not taking correct action" abound. 46.239.100.186 ( talk) 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The following text from the article is strange: "The Captain and First officer were also likely well aware of a 2008 flight when the President of Poland ordered a change in destination right before departure and again while airborne. The Captain and First Officer were First Officer and Navigator, respectively, on that flight."
According to the polish wikipedia pages on those two individuals, the last sentence is true. However, the word "likely" seems poor here. Of course they new about the 2008 flight. The were both in the cockpit! Remove the word "likely" and add a good citation for the fact that they were First Officer and Navigator on the 2008 flight.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.227.112.139 (
talk)
19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
4th paragraph: The accredited representatives and advisors from the Republic of Poland were not present during its presentation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.182.170 ( talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The official investigation is led by Russians, who are judges in their own case. All the evidence are in their hands. The official Polish Committee don’t have the direct access to the evidence (wreck, black boxes) and it works under a great political pressure. It mostly repeats the Russian version adding only small corrections.
On 8 July 2010 Polish opposition politicians formed a Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe. They invited some independent experts from abroad. You can read about some of these experts here:
Wiesław Binienda
http://www.ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/people/binienda/
or
http://www.uakron.edu/engineering/research/profile.dot?identity=1064521
Kazimierz Nowaczyk
http://cfs.umbi.umd.edu/cfs/people/kazik.html
Gregory Szuladziński
http://www.simulate-events.com/principals-resume.html/
Michael Baden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden
The official site of the Parliamentary Team is here:
http://smolenskzespol.sejm.gov.pl/
This independent investigation is mostly censored in the mainstream media in Poland but is widely described by some independent media. In these media there are also journalists who worked before in Polish public broadcasting corporation “Telewizja Polska” but they were fired or degraded after they tried to investigate the circumstances of the Smolensk Catastrophe (eg. Anita Gargas, Dorota Kania, Jan Pospieszalski).
There was a public hearing in Brussels held by the Parliamentary Team with, inter alia, experts and family members of the victims, video here (partially in english):
http://vod.gazetapolska.pl/1423-wysluchanie-publiczne-w-pe-w-sprawie-trudnosci-wyjasnienia-przyczyn-katastrofy-smolenskiej
and a short report on it here (you can use google translate, despite small errors the meaning should be understood):
http://niezalezna.pl/25927-smolensk-byly-dwie-eksplozje — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Voyt13 (
talk •
contribs)
15:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Another news from the Parliamentary Committee: On 27 June 2012 at the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee there was a presentation held by Kazimierz Nowaczyk. In the conclusions he stated:
Refs: Miller’s commission guilty of forgery part 1 and Miller’s commission guilty of forgery part 2 Voyt13 ( talk) 15:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What the hell is all this? Aren't things like this supposed to be backed by various independent sources? Opinions of three polish experts who were selected by a commission headed by a polish national-catholic is all that is needed to publish stuff like this? Not to mention that the credibility of at least one of them is very questionable - Katastrofa profesora Biniendy (also note one of the comments under that article stating that his wife represents some of the families of the victims of smolensk crash). And what are the results of this "investigation"? Did it produce anything that you can go to court with or it's just all talk - "presented/said/stated"?-- 95.24.34.94 ( talk) 11:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
All valid points Voyt13. Unfortunately, this article has been nothing more than an unsophisticated and endlessly regurgitated agit-prop at best. Doomed Soldiers ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly the new section on Polish Parliamentary group to investigate the causes of the catastrophe needs to be pruned down to one sentence the article should remain neutral and balanced and we cant add every new theory by what appears to be a somewhat bias committee. We already have information on the official report and balance that with the Polish response. We need to balance the article and not add undue weight by adding every fringe suggestion to the article (fringe being anything outside the official Russian and Polish investigation). All we need is some suggestion what the reduced sentence should say. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
"All of this is speculative to the point of being original research. The article is limited to covering what reliable sources have said". For starts, let us take a closer look at the "reliable sources" you like Ian:
RT, Wiki's own article: "In the opinion of contributors to sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda. A 2005 report conducted by the U.S. government operated VOA, interviewed Anton Nosik chief editor of a major English-language computer internet site in Russia, in which he described the creation of Russia Today as an idea smacking of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns, and also noted that the channel was not created as a response to any existing demand. While another article in the Digital Journal called RT a "pro-Putin news outlet" and its advertising campaign as "open propaganda war". A 2009 article in The Guardian by their former Russia correspondent Luke Harding about RT's advertising campaign described the network as "unashamedly pro-Putin" and saw it as part of the Kremlin's attempt to create a "post-Soviet global propaganda empire." As long as clearly identified propaganda outlets are cited here, this article is not neutral. Hence, you had no basis for removing Robert's neutrality tag.
As far as the original research is concerned, you have to be mindful Ian, that in order to impeach scientific findings of the world-class NASA scientists, Boeing Designers, Explosives Experts, and countless others, you have to scientifically prove (again, your beloved Russia Today, and other Putin's propaganda outlets aren't' going to cut it Ian) that what they state is scientifically invalid. Let me explain it to you in plain language: you have to rewrite the laws of mathematics, physics, aerodynamics, materials' sciences, and others. I will be anxiously awaiting for you to explain how a 150 ton aircraft can do in the air what an agile fighter plane can't do. You can even use an example of Mig-29, if you wish. For this reason, I am reverting Robert's tag. Should you revert it again, it will be considered vandalism. -- WingManFA2 ( talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
MilborneOne raises an interesting point. If none of these experts has first hand experience of air crash investigation, their chances of being taken seriously in an international forum would be slim.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It is improbable that anyone, and I mean anyone in the world would seriously consider your opinion while weighted against the expertise of someone whose body of work was essential in discerning the cause of the Challenger disaster (Binienda), or someone whose books are a cornerstone of materials sciences and explosives analysis (Szeludzinski), or someone whose work has been pivotal in designing number of Boeing platforms currently in use allover the world (Berczynski), or someone who is the man-to-go-to when it comes to the terrorist investigations (Kushner), and others. Voyt13, please be aware that Ian, Miborne, and couple of others here, have been "guarding" this article since day one and will be disparaging anything and anyone who questions the official Moscow's view of this "accident" till the cows come home. So, please be judicious how much time you want to waste on responding to obvious silly spins such as this one … With love from the Home of the Brave, -- WingManFA2 ( talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)