Jump to content

Talk:Smolensk air disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.99.91.247 (talk) at 14:36, 10 April 2010 (→instrument landing system: military base for il 26..). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Duplicate 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

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

Sorry, entirely my fault, was in a rush to get the article started so that it could appear in ITN. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, this was a very important news so the rush was understandeble 89.76.31.29 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The organizers of the commemorations chose the Soviet-made Tupolev aircraft as a mark of good will towards their Russian hosts.[8]"
I've read the article but I haven't found any confirmation of the fact (about a mark of good will). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.40.245 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unlikely it is the normal presidential aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Russian TV the Prime Minister raised the question about buying a new aircraft but that was not done. It was also mentioned that the aircraft had been used during the presidential visit to Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.40.245 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time

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

They may be wrong, but for now we'll have to stick with what they say. No word yet on Aviation Herald or JACDEC. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10:56 Moscow time is indeed 6:56 UTC. Don't forget the Daylight saving time. — Marvin talk 09:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but anyway 10:56 in Moscow is 8:56 here in Sweden which would be 7:56 in London. The GMT or UTC is confusing more than help I would say since that's not the time people follow. Närking (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the time that civil aviation works on worldwide though. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation Herald now covering the story. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destination

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

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

Picture

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

The current image is problematic and will probably be speedied. -- samj inout 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Death Toll

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

>Fatalities: 87 (all)

Surely these two facts should match up?

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

As is usual in these accidents, details are sketchy at first, and become clearer later. Whatever death toll is quoted needs to be sourced. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This source is possibly useful if you're working on this section. -- samj inout 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we should keep all the figures which could be properly sourced, and then later remove the ones which prove incorrect. Of course, each figure should have an inline ctation. Timbouctou (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and amended the toll to 132, as AP is a trustworthy source. And thanks to Rambling Man for finding and adding a BBC source for that fact to replace my earlier one. 122.57.15.141 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This manifest was dumped into the article - moving to talk page. -- samj inout 11:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

4th attempt?

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

Dvv (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly attached to it and you may well be right - 3 failed attempts to land at a closed airport seems a stretch, particularly given they apparently had fuel to redirect. -- samj inout 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the phone - apparently the BBC are reporting multiple go arounds. -- samj inout 10:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TVP Info says that the plane was floating about the landing place 3 times, and at the fourth times it started to land and wing of the plane got stuck in a tree and the plane exploded. Kubek15 write/sign 10:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a not so trust-worthy source - if you are citing correctly...a plane cannot be stuck in a tree, possibly be slown down and damaged by impacts with the trees, see the Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751. In the SAF751 Incident the plane was gliding without motor power, still it cut the trees down and continued to glide for some hundred metres. Yiwa 10:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.137.107 (talk) [reply]
It was just reported on television (France 2) that there were indeed three failed landing attempts. -- samj inout 11:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no sense to state that it crashed on a go-around, the plane crashed on the supposedly 4th approach-to- land attempt, Only the information in the black box can determine if the pilot actually applied power or made any changes to the landing configuration to go around whilst in a landing configuration. It would read better that after 3 go-arounds it crashed on the 4th attempt to land, however its ambiguous how many go-arounds they did, does anyone know for certain? John 12:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDedes (talk • contribs)

Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa

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

Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa

I have no idea where to start with this translation.

If you're wondering why I'm mentioning this here, it's because the boss of this group was a victim in this crash.

Podagrycznik (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up their website and they haven't got an English page, which means they do not have a standardised translation we could use. I am not a Polish speaker myself so I can't be of much help, but you could start looking what is the common translation used by reliable third parties (for instance, if the Polish government mentions them in their English-language news service, or perhaps what other English-language news sites translate the group as). Most countries have national news agencies with services in English and you may want to look up their archives to see whether the group was mentioned before. Timbouctou (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this source, a book at Google Books about Katyn massacre. It lists various organisations and it translated the group as Council for the Defence of the Memory of Struggle and SufferngTimbouctou (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate gives: Council for the Protection of Monuments to Struggle and Martyrdom--NikitaKa (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but I trust a published book by an English-speaking author who probably either speaks Polish or had hired translators for the book much more than I trust an automated translation service such as Google translate. Timbouctou (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC gives "Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites" Physchim62 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then let's go with BBC. Timbouctou (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

instrument landing system

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

This airport doesn't state if it has an ILS or instrument landing system. not sure why this article states that it doesn't. Strange considering its a military airfield. Does it have one or was it unserviceable at the time. John 10:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDedes (talk • contribs)

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

Its a military base, there must be something to guide a pilot into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-directional_beacon John 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDedes (talk • contribs)

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

It appears at this stage the airfield from what the post below indicates is that the military regiment was disbanded in Oct 09, therefore its likely the portable guidance went with it as well. Therefore the next logical question is to ask what landing guidance system were available to the pilot at the airfield and was it serviceable. John 13:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDedes (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Renaming page

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

Seems to be the standard naming convention. I've turned these into redirects. Lugnuts (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An example is Munich air disaster. SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If in doubt just give it some time to see what the media decides. There's precedent for both kinds of naming schemes. Joshdboz (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a more appropriate name title, this is a disaster on a much broader scale. A plane load of representatives elected by 38 million people needs appropriate title. John 13:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDedes (talk • contribs)

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

Tusk in tears

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

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

[1]

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

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

Pilot error/threats

The wiki article is heavy implying the pilots decision making process was corrupted back in 2008 as stated from supposedly source 16.

Does anyone have more information in regards to this, and I think it should be a new title in the article.

It makes no sense the pilot made so many attempts, seems to be a significant contributor to the accident.


John 11:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDedes (talk • contribs)

Move proposal

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

I would like to propose that this article be renamed as Death of Lech Kaczyński, or at least add that page in tandem to cover his death. This is a whole lot more than a mere aviation disaster. This is the death of a fairly prominent head of state. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

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

Whether or not any conspiracy theory is fit for mention should be determined on by whether it is presented in reliable sources citing relevant groups or individuals, not the outrage of Wikipedia editors at the asserted claims. __meco (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the article given as source does not mention anything about this "deliberate act of martyrdom" and what outrage? There is no place for this kind of pure rubbish (added twice by an IP) on wikipedia! Wikipedia is not a forum, where you can make up your own conspiracy fantasies. EOD. --noclador (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's not a shread of evidence for these hallucinations. They should be removed and anyone replacing them should be blocked for vandalism. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn straight, Physchim62! I was wondering if the loonies 'misguided' editors might leave this one alone, no such luck. The political fallout from this, considering the circumstances(Katyn massacre commemoration) and number of notable people killed would seem to be very high. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Meco's right. If conspiracy theories are reported sufficiently in reliable sources, then they are relevant regardless of how crazy they might be, but otherwise they don't belong here at all. Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, non-notable conspiracy theories have no place here. And unbelievable claims need very strong evidence for them. Plus it seems that the supposed source for this conspiracy theory does say any such thing. In short, it was vandalism, and fairly sick vandalism at that. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flight

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

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

Tail number was 101. Kubek15 write/sign 12:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it is true for this flight but the aircraft normally uses PLF101 as a flight number and uses POLISH AIRFORCE 101 as a callsign. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coordinates

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)[reply]

They seem to be the coordinates of the airport, not the crash site. Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Airport coordinates usually point to the geometrical center of main landing strip. Moreover, if you look left on google maps, it has that little point. So current assumption is that point is taken by guess, without real measurement or GPS reading on site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silpol (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the mixed map/satellite window around Smolensk, you'll see that many of Google's coordinates are off by a good couple of hundred metres (or the satellite image is not correctly set). I assume the coordinates for the airport were taken from the Google satellite image (I doubt any Wikipedian or OpenStreetMapper went to the geometric centre of the runway of a military airport to take a GPS reading!) Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split up passenger names

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

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

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

I have removed it - as the IP says it is the normal presidential aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smolensk_air_disaster&oldid=355144953"