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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"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)
Tu-154 - correct, TU-154 wrong. Merge? -- Peter Porai-Koshits ( talk) 08:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
>"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk-North
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)
I think is not very important the type of the airplane. Other possible names:
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)
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)
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
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash → Death of Lech Kaczyński —
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Does anybody know to which runway was the plane heading for (08 or 26)? Guswen ( talk) 07:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
How's this list look: Joshdboz ( talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.139.149 ( talk) 19:00, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the official communiqué of the Chilean Goverment regarding the accident. Rakela ( talk) 22:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"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)
Tu-154 - correct, TU-154 wrong. Merge? -- Peter Porai-Koshits ( talk) 08:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
>"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk-North
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)
I think is not very important the type of the airplane. Other possible names:
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)
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)
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
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash → Death of Lech Kaczyński —
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Does anybody know to which runway was the plane heading for (08 or 26)? Guswen ( talk) 07:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
How's this list look: Joshdboz ( talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.139.149 ( talk) 19:00, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the official communiqué of the Chilean Goverment regarding the accident. Rakela ( talk) 22:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)