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 WingManFA2 (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 11 November 2010 (→You Tube video: Silly continues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Disruption

The disruptive editor has been reported at WP:AN/EW. Hopefully he will shortly be blocked - when that happens, please can someone restore the page to how it was before his intervention - I'm going out.--Kotniski (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection as well. N419BH 13:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And he's blocked. I've restored the page to the last edit before his spree began. N419BH 13:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ownership of the black boxes has been a favourite topic in the blogs, but we are still waiting for the final report to be published, and the Polish government has not made any formal complaints about the handling of the investigation. On 16 April 2010, it was reported that one of the three black boxes had been returned to the Polish authorities.[1] See also [2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The black box which was returned was the one which was built in Poland specifically for the airplane.  Dr. Loosmark  13:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it's completely normal for the investigating authority to handle the black boxes. If a foreign civil airplane crashes on U.S. soil, it's the NTSB who handles the black boxes and the investigation. As this is a military airplane, I'm not too familiar with international agreements on this. However, if it were a LOT airplane crashing on Russian soil it would definitely be the Russians investigating per ICAO agreements. By the way, looks like pending changes was implemented, then removed. Dunno if we'll get protection or not. N419BH 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see people are still making the same mistake. This was not a civil flight, so civil flight rules, ICAO agreements etc do not apply. It was a military flight, so the issue of who does the investigation is something that has to be sorted out between the Polish and Russian Governments. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert speculation?

I see a couple of problems with this edit:

  • highly speculative - I heard of someone who sure knows etc....
  • weren't the supposedly full transcriptions of the tapes released earlier (unofficially afaics) - without a trace of such claims?
  • ":pl:Polska (dziennik)|Polska The Times" does not look like an appropriate translation. I have never heard anybody refer to "Polska" by that english name.

Should we point out the obvious contradiction or revert? Richiez (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this does not look ideal, but I left it for other users to see if they agreed. Since the full transcript of the pre-crash audio has been released, this adds little new and may be speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree, the transcript of the black boxes is the best source we have. This is a bit of a WP:REDFLAG issue, and needs far better sources than that. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There could also be a separate section listing all the discrepancies and obviously conflicting claims and information. This is not the first "redflag" and instead of ignoring them till everything is resovled (which is probably not going to happen) it might be better to list the issues as long as they are not presented as the last truth. Richiez (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this link suitable per WP:EL? It looks like a rehash of various blog sourced conspiracy theories.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of reliability, it has among others several sources typically regarded as highly reliable (such as Süddeutsche Zeitung), several other newspapers and apparently also many blogs or less reliable sources. It appears to be quite reliable with citing sources and categorizing them as speculations where appropriate. As of notability - mainstream media do a poor job of combining the available information and wikipedia would have a hard time to do it per WP:SYNTH (as an example the site points out information from Süddeutsche that Poland and Russia have a special agreement concerning investigation of air disasters) so I think there is room for that. Richiez (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False statements

This is a false statement:

"Russia is offering full cooperation to Polish prosecutors during the investigation.[52] Polish investigators in Russia have been given access to all procedures of Russian investigators. They do not have the authority to conduct investigative actions by themselves, but they are participating on equal terms with their Russian counterparts in the interviews with people involved and other parts of the investigation. Polish officials are to secure all Polish state documents found in the wreckage, as well as electronic devices (portable computers and mobile telephones) belonging to government officials and military officers."

please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.60.144 (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source for why this is a false statement.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source given in this part [52] "Gazeta Wyborcza" is not reliable, the point of view presented by this newspaper is highly anti-Polish. "Gazeta Wyborcza" is a "fifth-column" in Poland. Second, this article in GW is from April 12, from that day a lot changed. Russia indeed offered its help but it was just a "fool play". For example the plain wreckage and the black boxes are still in Russia, polish prosecutores applied to Russia to get them back but so far there is no reaction from Russian side. Also the presidential satellite phone have not been given back to Poland. You asked me about the source of these information - there are a lot of reliable sources in polish version of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.60.144 (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please cut the crap about Gazeta Wyborcza - it's a very well-respected national newspaper. But certainly this information needs updating in the light of recent events (reported, among others, in Gazeta Wyborcza).--Kotniski (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the opinion that Gazeta Wyborcza is well-respected, it is, for sure, well-respected by some, but it is also highly disrespected by many.
This appears to be a WP:REDFLAG issue. Therefore it cannot be sourced to one source which may or may not meet WP:RS. Should other sources which are RSs report this (Sky, CNN, ABC, BBC etc), then we can give due consideration to inclusion in the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gazeta Wyborcza is the second largest newspaper in Poland, not just some fringe publication. Which newspapers do you think would satisfy WP:RS? Anyways a hand-over of more documents should happen in a few days and there should be more sources on that after it. Taruti (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see. Things have gone quiet in the last few weeks, and there is no word on the likely publication date of the final report. If it is published and the Polish government says that it is happy with the findings, all of this will become academic.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New news has been released over a handover of documents: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15433548&PageNum=0 + various other sources Taruti (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is also covered here. What is lacking at the moment is any indication on when the final report will be published. It could be some months away, as 12-18 months is normal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Final report should be published in mid-December. MAK completed their investigations and sent a copy of their finding to the Polish authorities yesterday, they then have 60 days to comment before the report is published. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good. Then we can have a big clean up of the article and remove anything that had nothing to do with the accident, and, hopefully, get it to GA. I'm up for helping get it to GA, anyone else? Wackywace converse | contribs 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for GA, maybe even FA in time. Mjroots (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transport deaths

Further to my list suggestion "a while back": how practical would "a list of politicans who died in transport related incidents"?

Thus, for example, for the modern period:

Road: David Penhaligon and Jorg Haider

Rail:William Huskisson and Sergius Stepniak

Water: Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener

Air: The Polish disaster, Dag Hammarskjöld and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq

There are others - but are there sufficient for a list? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are rather loosely related to the Smolensk Crash. Dag Hammarskjöld and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq have similarities, but Kitchener etc are not really worth listing alongside the Smolensk crash. Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving state leaders is at the foot of the article, and gives the best comparisons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians and others killed in air accidents are listed at List of fatalities from aviation accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was for a more general list along the lines mentioned above - and I was giving some examples in each category. ('Horse related transport incidents' would probably be too numerous - William I of England and William III of England for starters). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tense

The tense of this article needs to be changed from a present/future tense to a past tense. Griffinofwales (talk) Come and join theSimple English Wikipedia 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Griffinofwales, for catching that! I have made necessary modifications; please let me know if I have missed anything. It's a pity I cannot come and join. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

I am a little puzzled but the following text which is currently in the article: Alexandr Aleshin, the First Deputy Chief of the Staff of the Russian Air Force, said that during the ensuing runway approach the aircraft increased its descent rate and went below the glide slope 1.5 km (0.93 mi) from the runway. Controllers instructed the pilot to abort the approach; when he did not, controllers advised the aircraft to fly to one of the suggested alternative landing points. According to Aleshin, this order was repeated several times but the crew continued with the approach and crashed.

I don't see anywhere in the transcripts of the flight recorders an order to abort approach repeated several times. I am pilot myself and I doubt very much that a pilot given an instruction to abort would continue the approach. Please check how a very reliable sources describes the accident: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20100410-0 There is nothing about the pilots ignoring an order to abort. In my opinion and assuming that the transcripts are correct, that text should be removed from the article for now because it might imply the responsibility of the pilots which at this point was still not established. Maciej37pilot (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point there. Can a Russian/Polish reading editor confirm the above and make the necessary changes please? Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm what? The statement he objected is practically self-contradicting. We need a section for claims that have been made but later have been retracted, falsified or shown unreliable because people remember all those false claims without realising they have been long since shown unreliable or misinformation. Richiez (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citation at [3] has the wording used in the article and the English translation is OK. Whether this is correct is something that will have to wait for the final report.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The translation is not precise. I am omitting the blurb around the direct quote but the direct citation in the article says "..air controller gave the crew order to go to horizontal flight, when crew did not follow this instruction several times gave them order to fly to reserve airport".. sorry for the technically imprecise wording, trying to stick to original. Overall this makes more sense for me than previous translation - in the previous translation order to abort landing would be practically identical to order to go to reserve airport hence second part of the statement would make no sense at all. Afaics order to go to horizontal flight is not equivalent to abort the landing and the landing might have been completed even during the same approach attempt. Summary, the claim is there were several orders/instructions to go to horizontal flight and one to go to another airport. Richiez (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even with my translation one question is left open. Normally I would expect this sequence of commands: "go to horizontal flight" or other corrective interventions, "abort approach", "go to another airport". The "abort approach" command is plainly missing in the original quote. Richiez (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on aviation language, so it is hard to be precise about what the citation says. Overall (not just with this quote) the advice to the pilot was that conditions were too foggy for landing and that the plane should divert to another airport. This quote could be modified, or removed since it has largely been superseded by the analysis of the cockpit voice recorder transcript.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we should drop it and record somewhere that it was based on a faulty translation. Richiez (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been removed:

Alexandr Aleshin, the First Deputy Chief of the Staff of the Russian Air Force, said that during the ensuing runway approach the aircraft increased its descent rate and went below the glide slope 1.5 km (0.93 mi) from the runway. Controllers instructed the pilot to abort the approach; when he did not, controllers advised the aircraft to fly to one of the suggested alternative landing points. According to Aleshin, this order was repeated several times but the crew continued with the approach and crashed. Transcripts of the flight recorders reveal that the order not to descend by the tower was given too late, the aircraft was already fifty meters lower than it should have been when told to abort landing. Up until that point, the tower was advising the aircraft was on the correct heading and path.[4]]

The quote comes from 10 April 2010, the day of the crash, and things have moved on since then. The article makes clear that the pilot did not heed advice from the tower about the weather being too foggy for a landing. Some of the specifics here would need confirmation from the final report, which has yet to be published.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image of wreckage

This photo appears to be on a Wikipedia compatible licence. Is it worth adding it to the article? Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the end of that image, it was speedily deleted. "Elcommendante" should state clearly whether he wants copyright or CC:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, now showing as a non-commercial image. We could use that image or one of the others under NFFU rules, with appropriate rationale. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before uploading this or a similar image, the tagging would need to be confirmed. I'm not an expert on CC, so could someone else look at this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt really add anything more to the article and to use a non-free image it needs a rationale to justify it. The article already has a free image of the wreckage which would count against it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "El Commendante" can keep this image, it would not add greatly to the article if it required a fair use rationale.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

This article needs serious additions. For example, we need to add information on the fact that Jaroslaw Kaczynski's column was forced to stop in order to let Tusk's column arrive in Smolensk first. Slijk (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Here we go. A TVP1 documentary. Synopsis: "Already during the first night of the crash, the Russians were removing the most important pieces of evidence from the crash site, that is, the remains of the Polish President’s Tupolev, TU-154M. Parts of the aircraft were transported away without any prior planning, and some of them were even destroyed. How is it possible, that the Tatiana Anodina's Interstate Aviation Committee (abr. MAK) investigating the causes of this crash was able to examine the remains so quickly? The MAK investigates crashes of planes, that itself certifies as airworthy, for use in its own airspace. In this respect, the MAK is serving as a judge in the case against itself. Conveniently, in 85% of the MAK’s investigations, its findings point to so-called human [pilot] error... The images and video footage you are about to see were never published before. This is the wreckage of the Polish government’s plane that crashed on April 10, 2010 in Smolensk. This documentary shows how the members of the Russian special services who were present on the site of the tragedy during the first days after the crash handled the wreckage. The majority of the trees, that the Tupolev TU-154 is alleged to have made contact with, were cut down ... The wreckage was left unprotected from the elements for months. The footage that documents the actions of the Russians show how the wreckage, that is the most important piece of the evidence in this crash, was being destroyed. The remains of the wreckage where moved from place to place. The larger pieces were stretched-out, compacted, and crushed. The majority of the aircraft remains were not analyzed in any way. In the end, the wreckage remains found their way onto an auxiliary landing strip at the Severny airport. The Russian investigators and the representatives of the Prime Minister Donald Tusk's Polish government claimed that the crash site was thoroughly searched, and that all human remains were carefully collected. Yet, contrary to those assurances, to this day more human remains are being found" Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And since we are at it, let's dispel some other myths appearing in this deceptive article ...

The TU-154M, 101, was the Polish Government's military Air vessel in service with the Polish Air Force’s 36th Special Aviation Regiment, operated by, and under jurisdiction of the Polish Ministry of National Defense. On April 10, 2010, the Tupolev TU-154M, 101, was conducting a flight designated as "HEAD" ("Important") with the President of the Republic of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, and 95 other individuals onboard. This flight was communicated to the Russian Federation as a military flight. Flights of governmental Air vessels traveling in Russian Federation airspace, are regulated by Russian Federal Aviation Laws. According with the Russian Ministry of Defense regulatory laws, and specifically, the Clause from September 24, 2004, regulating the military flights, flight supervisors (ground controllers) are obligated, at their discretion, to approve, or to forbid, landing of military Air vessels. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC). [reply]

POV edit

What's with this edit? It seems to completely change the meaning of the sentence. All the sources I've seen support the original version, not the new one. Can other editors please verify this? Offliner (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like we have a bit of POV-pushing going on here.--Kotniski (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[6] - can someone please take a look? Offliner (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look and it seems fine. Had the authorities declared the airfield closed, then the flight would have been forced to go elsewhere. They did not, but suggested that the pilots divert. The pilots chose not to divert and the aircraft crashed on approach. These two last items may or may not be linked, but we'll have to wait until the final report is published before we find out. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but suggested that the pilots divert - well according to the edit, they did not, but instead failed to ask them to divert. That's the problem. Offliner (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even it they had asked the flight to divert, the final decision is the captain's. Even if they had declared the airfield closed, the captain could still have insisted on landing there if an emergency had occurred. At the end of the day, he makes the decisions and subsequently has to justify those decisions if called on to do so. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit removes the sourced and relevant info that ground personnel asked the captain to divert - that's why it should be reverted. Offliner (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what's wrong with adding that back in? Why has it got to be one version or the other? Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong in writing a third version with the info reinserted - just go ahead if you have a suggestion. Offliner (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been addressed before in Talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash/Archive_4#Rules_in_Russia, which makes clear that the final decision on landing would rest with the pilot.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TAWS

The statement "No TAWS-equipped aircraft is known to have crashed since its introduction" in inaccurate. The plane in the Smolensk crash was equipped with functioning Terrain awareness and warning system, but the voice recording shows that the pilot chose to ignore repeated warnings from it.[7] As ever, technology is only as good as the people using it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell do you know that the pilot "chose to ignore repeated warnings from it?"? PilotPL20 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the pilot nor the co-pilot indicated any emergency (or even a minor technical problem) during the landing procedure. They show no reaction until swearing after the plane's wingtip hits a tree. It will be up to the investigation to determine why they did not heed the "terrain approaching" and repeated "pull up" messages of the TAWS system.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, from the transcripts I have read it's obvious they decided to abort at 80 meters. After that, they were probably throttling the engines and pulling up but they reached the other end of the jar and ran out of time and space. With all due respect, you don't know what exactly was the situation with the TAWS, at least wait for the investigation to finish, until then are simply writing your own personal speculations. PilotPL20 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation will have the final say. However, the decision to take the plane down to less than 100m was inadvisable, as it is unlikely that the plane's engines could have aborted a landing at this altitude.[8] Nothing in the voice recording indicates an attempt to abort the landing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they took the decision to take the plane down to less than 100m!? You are mistaken about the voice recording, there is an indication they are aborting the landing, I have read it. PilotPL20 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are wandering off into WP:OR territory here. At 10:40:50.5 and around 80m in the MAK transcript, the co-pilot Major Robert Grzywna says "Odchodzimy", variously translated from the Polish as "We're leaving/departing/coming away".[9] This has been interpreted by some reports as a decision to abort the landing.[10] Since the pilot does not confirm this and the plane's altitude continues to decrease, it is hard to say what this means. Let's hope that the final report clears all of this up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect Ian! While an "INCOMPLETE" and leaving much to be desired, MAK transcript indeed states that the pilot is aborting, similar command to abort is issued at 10:41:00,5. I wish many here had your mind-reading powers, but you are once again speculating. If anyone here is engaging in WP:OR, it is you. Two commands to "ABORT" were issued by the pilots! These are the facts! You interpretation is unqualified, and misleading. Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
According to the published MAK transcript (which is the only one that I have access to), At 10:41:00.5, the TAWS says "PULL UP! PULL UP!" and the ground control tower says "уход на второй круг!" (Russian: "Level off, for fuck's sake!") At this stage, it would have been too late for the pilot to abort the landing anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What had prompted this lively exchange Ian, was your insistence that that the crew didn't make any attempts to abort, and that, in essence, the pilots sucked. (1) They did attempt to abort! (2) They were also very experienced pilots. Now, you are insisting that "it would have been too late for the pilots to abort" anyhow. You lost me again, but it wouldn't be the first time ... Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The "уход на второй круг!" came from the ground control tower (диспетчер/kontroler ruchu lotniczego) just moments before the crash. I am not making any firm judgments about what the English translations mean, because it is beyond my expertise and is for the investigation to decide. However, at 10:41:03 the plane was within one second of crashing, and nothing that the pilots did at this stage would have prevented the crash, that much is clear. Let's wait for the final report.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Association of the Katyn Families 2010 Delivered 300,000 signed petitions to the Polish Parliament on October 21, 2010

"Warsaw, October 21, 2010

Association of the Katyn Families 2010

Honorable Bronislaw Komorowski, President of the Republic of Poland

Because of a particular significance of the Polish government plane crash near Smolensk, in which President of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczynski, and other individuals, leading the most important institutions of Polish state had died, on April 10, 2010, and having taking under consideration voices of the public opinion, the Stowarzyszenie Rodzin Katyn 2010, appeals to Mr. President to take the necessary actions to appoint an international commission to investigate the causes of the crash.

The investigation of the causes of this national tragedy, conducted by relevant institutions of the Russian Federation, raises serious doubts and concerns, leading to the appearance of many types of speculations. The attempts of the Polish military prosecutors, compelling the Russian authorities to conduct specific actions, have been thus far unsuccessful. A particular example of this is the treatment of the aircraft wreckage. Similarly difficult to understand are delays and untimely responses to Polish requests for legal assistance.

The Stowarzyszenie Rodzin Katyn 2010, received over 300,000 signatures of the Polish citizens supporting the initiative of establishing the above mentioned [International] Commission. We were supported by a great number of Polish-American, and Polish-Canadian citizens. We ought not to ignore their voices. We will be appealing this matter before all relevant Polish and International institutions. We believe that only the International Commission, having confidence of the [Polish] citizens, can and will contribute to the intensification of the investigation, and at the same time will lead to the explanation of the causes of the crash.

The said signatures were deposited in the offices of the Parliament of the Republic of Poland, and are at any time available for viewing.

Respectfully, on behalf of the Association of the Katyn Families 2010,

Zuzanna Kurtyka, Chairman

Magdalena Merta, Deputy-Chairman"

Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. The article notes the call for an independent investigation by Congressman Peter King, and gives a link to the full document.[11].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable quote

While a lot of the article is difficult to read probably because of the constant editing which means some it doesnt make sense or flow. Just like to make a point about the Technical installations at Smolensk North Airport section. Not sure what value the quote from Eugene Poteat gives to the article, certainly the statement Probaby a GCA radar and My guess is that.. is not particularly encyclopedic and statement that the pilots knew the ILS was unreliable when the article has already explained the airfield doesnt have an ILS. Can I suggest the bit from Poteat is just removed as unreliable and not-encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this was removed because of limited relevance. The article already makes clear that the Tu-154 lacked the required equipment for an instrument landing at the airbase, and this should have been factored into any decision that the crew made about a landing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MilborneOne about the readability. Hopefully once the final report is released it will be easy to bash the article into shape. Overall, it's not too bad, but some rough edges still need to be polished. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots is right; most air crash articles are in poor shape until investigations are concluded. Once the final report is released, it will be much easier to go through the article and remove anything that has little or no relation to the accident itself. Most accident reports have a summary of the accident and the findings of the investigation, so we will be able to craft a factual representation of the flight, and explain why it occurs. There is, realistically, very little we can do until the report is released; since we do not know if the ILS system was a factor, whether pressure from Kaczyński to land was a factor, along with most other things stated in the article in its current state. If the ILS wasn't a factor, we can perhaps mention it in a sentence or two, rather than the paragraph we have at the moment. If it was a factor, we can expand it further. Once the report is released, the article can be knocked into shape effectively. wackywace 18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lamps changing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The image and related text about changing the bulbs is added out of context and appear to be a bit of original research. It is suddenly introduced into the text without explanation of why it relates to the accident or the types of approach lights in use at the airport. The statement who are exchanging light bulbs in lamps, lamps approach runway airport in Smolensk and extend lighting feeders. which actually doesnt make sense in English but appears to be a guess as to what they are. Can I suggest that the lighting bit is removed as unrelated and/or original research. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here, but did not want to remove this until other users expressed a view. The section about the lamp changing appears to contain original research and should probably be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The material relating to the lamps [12] has been removed because it seems to be based on a mixture of speculation and original research. Other reports have not suggested that the lamps at the airbase were a factor in the crash, and it would have been up to the crew of the Tu-154 to decide whether there was a clear enough view of the runway to attempt a landing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent removal. Offliner (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree... Possible that it is one of reason accident. Crew can't see runway and ask about lights on runway. It is very important fact - unlit runway. Please wait for more opinions!!! --Swd (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be wider sourcing of why this story about the lamps in April is notable to prevent WP:UNDUE. None of the mainstream media reports since the preliminary findings in June suggest that they were a factor in the crash. At worst, the material about the lamps is speculation, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor reverted the removal of the lamps story. I've rolled it back. Further additon of this against census and I will semi-protect the artice to prevent such disruption. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit. Today I am a "Russian anty polish agent". As explained above by other users, even if the runway lights and ILS were not working on the day of the crash, it would still have been the pilot's decision on whether to attempt a landing. Hopefully the final report in December will clear up the loose ends, but I fear that it will be like the Warren Commission and some people will be dissatisfied regardless.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a bit of original research but the image looks like some soldiers setting up some temporary lights possibly to light the crash scene. Hence the reel of cable, putting lamps in, the lamps facing in different directions etc., I would be suprised if these were permanent runway lights. Support Mjroots statement we dont have a consensus to mention the lamps or include the dubious image. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comrades, Comrades, Comrades! I think, its time to get out of the bunker. Do you realize how preposterous and silly you are starting to look? What's a speculation? They were changing the damned lamps. Then, they destroyed the evidence! Then, they failed to surrender black boxes! Like I said, its time to get out of the bunker, and smell the roses! It already got away from you. It has nothing to do with ILS, or abcdefg, or some other silly spin! WingManFA2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
It *is* getting silly, because there is no consensus to add this. At the risk of setting off fresh arguments, the quote in the article from S. Eugene Poteat saying that ""political violence should not be ruled out under the circumstances of the aircraft crash" sounds like the sort of speculation found on 24 hour news channels when they are trying to pad things out. As other users have commented, Eugene Poteat does not have much to say that is reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are objecting because we are not quoting the "people's" RT, or "Pravda", or some other state-controlled (read as) *coerced* "media" sources? These, of course, had historically been, your preferred sources, of UN-"reliable" information in this article, Comrade IanMacM. WingManFA2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
There have been further additions of the material by IP editors. Therefore I've semi-protected the article for two months, which should be time for the final report to become available.
WARNING Addition of the material by autoconfirmed editors against the consensus demonstrated here will be treated as disruptive editing and dealt with as such. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and do not make silly accusations that editors are Russian agents etc. We have been through this before, and it is inevitable that the Russian government would have some say in the crash investigation. The next crucial phase will be how the Polish government reacts to the final report, which is due to be published in December. *If* it concludes that the cause was pilot error and the Polish government accepts this, then the article will reflect it. No doubt the conspiracy theories will continue in the blogs and forums, but that is the way of life on the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey men (talk to me) are you really soviet or russian agent?. What is yours nationality? Why you deleted facts? It is normal that in all airports lights don't work? All in Smolensk was good? It is part of article about Airport not about crew! This part is only about airport and FACT is one- lights didn't work! Russians after crash, repair lights! You must be objective! You do everything for delete and hide it! Hide fact falsify and conceal history! No lights- it is Russia and Smolensk air base fault. They don't carre about light sistem. ILS- ILS is somthing different! Remember that official report is very controversial and Russia maybe try hide facts. Polish archaeologists are still bones in Smolensk... All this crash is more and more secret! If you answer me that lamp failure is normal and you give me proof that it is normal in all airports around the world, i will be understand why you delete this facts! If Aircraft warning lights runway lights and airplane lights can don't work you can delete and hide this fact ! Light and lighting in aviation is nonsense? Answer! Administration! I suppose that maybe: User:Ianmacm User:Offliner they are Russophile. I want independent administrators will be decide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swd (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you have asked, I am British and not in the pay of the Russian government (WP:AGF). As explained above by other users and myself, the material about the runway lamps [13] is controversial because it appears to be original research and is not supported by other media reports or the view of the official investigators since the preliminary findings in June. There has been a WP:CONSENSUS not to include this, so please respect the decision. In a few weeks' time the final report will be published, and then we can all start arguing on the talk page about how "the truth" has been covered up. However, the article has to give appropriate weight to material that has been published in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember all in this crash is big (very big) secret. The Soviets also tried for 60 years to conceal the murders at Katyn... Finally freedom and true win! Don't be so sure. I wish you know polish langeuge and could read about mistakes what russians did... I think maybe we could create part of article: Unknows or Controverse... Salut! --Swd (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swd, regardless of whether or not the lights were working, the final decision of whether to land or not to land is down to the captain of the aircraft. His duty is to fly the aircraft safely, deal with any emergencies that may arise, and not to give in to pressure from the passengers (no matter who they are) to land at a specific airport if conditions are not suitable to do so. All we are saying is wait for the official report to come out, at which point we will evaluate what it says, and then make a decision on whether or not to include the stuff about the lights. Please do not add the material again without consensus, otherwise action will follow. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, this really isn't about the decision to land, or as you are implying, various other falsehoods promoted throughout this article, i.e. the pressures from the passengers, or the poorly trained pilots that didn't speak Russian, etc. We are talking about the landing lights that are an essential part of any airport in the world. You really are starting to look very, very silly. There is no reason this picture shouldn't go back. WingManFA2 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is every reason that the picture shouldn't go back for now - consensus is against it. There is WP:NORUSH, let's wait for the report and then reassess the situation once it has been released. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that your WP:NORUSH is superseded by the WP: Stop Perpetuating the Lies This Article, and by the WP: Get out of the Bunker. Your "cleanup" operation is becoming more, and more obvious! WingManFA2 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your WP: Get out of the Bunker and raise it with WP:REICHSTAG! Seriously, speculation is part and parcel of a number of high-profile aircraft accidents, such as British Airways Flight 38 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Once the reports started coming out, a lot of the speculation was debunked. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very hard to be taken seriously on Wikipedia while failing to assume good faith from the other editors. Either everybody else is wrong about the lamps issue, or WingManFA has overstated the case. There has been one rather speculative story in the media about the lamps, so there is clear WP:UNDUE. And once again, even if the runway lights were not working, it would still have been up to the pilot to decide whether it was safe to attempt a landing. This section has reached the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is always a bad sign. We have all exhausted ourselves by arguing about this trivial issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is very hard to be taken seriously on Wikipedia" when ones pronouncements of "facts" have absolutely nothing to do with "facts". After all, every airport in the world has such lights? Why, I wonder? You are silly! WingManFA2 (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, a consensus was reached - discussion closed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You Tube video

I'm afraid that the Youtube video is probably in breach of WP:ELNO, see WP:YOUTUBE for further explanation. That said, given the claim it was aired on Polish TV, {{cite episode}} may be the appropriate template to use for a cited reference. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is substantial, there should be some online print coverage which can be cited. YouTube videos could be removed tomorrow on copyright grounds, so they are never ideal citations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying to cite the video, I was saying cite the actual TV programme that was aired on whatever TV channel in Poland that it was on. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The video mentioned is Misja Specjalna - dok. "Smoleńsk" - nadany 05.10.2010 - całość (Special Mission - documentary "Smolensk" 5 October 2010). It is from Telewizja Polska, is fifteen minutes long, and all of the dialogue is in Polish. Leaving aside WP:YOUTUBE (which is mainly about not violating copyright), the main problem is verifying an English language version of the video. Judging by the general content of the video, concerns are raised about the Russian handling of the crash site, some of which have been raised elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A while back, we all got into an argument over the copyright status on this image, which apparently shows the Tu-154 wreckage at Smolensk airbase in April. If the investigation has been concluded, the wreckage may be regarded as scrap metal, even though the victims of the crash may find this distasteful. The last that was heard of the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103, it was at a scrapyard in Lincolnshire, England.[14]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that sources must be in English. In this case, I'd say that the Polish language video would be better, as it is easier to verify what was said, then translate, rather than verify that the translation was correct in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After this was raised, I tried to find the original documentary on http://www.tvp.pl/ or something in text about the documentary on Google, but had no luck on either count. The documentary itself looks like a reliable source, but would need translating into English by someone fluent in Polish.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the video has any notable or relevant points about the accident would they not be in the reliable print media somewhere. Worst case a reference to the programme in the media. Dont see why the video itself has to be included. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me to be more of a case of Investigative Reporting than actual news. It is perfectly normal for aircraft wreckage to be stored outdoors, then melted down and recycled after an accident investigation is concluded. TWA 800 and Pan Am 103 are exceptions as opposed to the rule. In TWA 800's case, it was decided the reconstructed airframe was far more valuable as a training tool for new investigators than it was as scrap metal. In Pan-Am 103's case, the prosecution of the defendants required the wreckage be retained as evidence under Scots Law. It was stored outdoors, in a scrapyard, until all appeals were complete some 15 years later. It now awaits an uncertain fate. In any case, the Polish Air Force owns the wreckage of their aircraft, and they would most certainly cry foul if they felt anything inappropriate was being done with their property. This does not appear to be happening. N419BH 19:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Seems to me to be more of a case of Investigative Reporting than actual news.” What is the difference between “Reporting” and “actual news”? This specific documentary aired on Polish TV and exposes important facts pertaining to this crash. What a novel idea! WingManFA2 (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Polish, so I can't evaluate the source directly. Nevertheless, it is perfectly normal for wreckage to be stored outdoors and discarded once it has been analyzed. The Polish Air Force owns their airplane (whole or in pieces). If they felt anything improper was being done with it, they would cry foul. This does not appear to have happened. In any event, both Poland and Russia have come to the preliminary conclusion that pilot error was to blame. The only evidence the airframe itself will provide are such things as flap position, gear position, and throttle position. The Russians would have given the plane a thorough once-over to make sure there was nothing out of the ordinary. Once this was accomplished, the airframe has provided all the information it can, and the investigation will move to the CVR, FDR, ATC, and radar track recordings. N419BH 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't bother to watch this documentary, did you? Did you see the "analysis" and "thorough once-over" it depicts? The footage came from one of the Russians present at the crash site right after the crash. Did the Polish TV reporters get it all wrong? Is the Polish TV not trustworthy enough for some reason? If you have a problem with that, we need to know why? You are an expert here, right? A lot of the content in this article is pure and unadulterated bullshit. So, lets start with the facts this particular documentary depicts, and then we will move on. And what is up with this "preliminary conclusion"? Is the "preliminary conclusion" a fact? What is a "preliminary conclusion"? What does it mean? WingManFA2 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak polish, therefore, I cannot watch the documentary and obtain any information. My only means of understanding are the translations provided by others. What I can speak to is the methods by which accident investigations are conducted. The fact is, it is perfectly normal for aircraft wreckage to be left outside. This was the case for Pan Am Flight 103, a terrorist attack, in which the wreckage was left outside and uncovered for 15 years while the investigation and later trial of the terrorists were conducted. Also, the Polish Air Force owns the wreckage of their airplane. If they felt anything improper was being done with it, they would say so. As for a "preliminary conclusion", an accident investigation is conducted by "ruling out" various possibilities. That is, you investigate the evidence and go, "the evidence says it wasn't the engines, it wasn't the weather, it wasn't terrorism, it wasn't....therefore, it has to be pilot error". The evidence so far overwhelmingly indicates the pilots intentionally ignored their Minimum Descent Altitude and the later warnings from the Ground Proximity Warning System. The evidence indicates they attempted to descend using their Radar altimeter, which is not a safe means of operation because of terrain features. However, in deference to the previous statement, the Russians are ruling out all other possibilities before concluding pilot error was to blame. Finally, as for the documentary itself, I have nothing wrong with Polish documentaries in general. I live in the city with the highest population of Poles outside of Warsaw. The body of the translations I've read indicate to me that it is more Investigative journalism than pure statement of fact. While some investigative journalism is reliable as a source, the body of the evidence that I have explained above does not indicate that the information contained in this particular report is reliable as fact. N419BH 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't speak polish, therefore, I cannot watch the documentary and obtain any information". Then, how can you make an informed decision to outright reject many important facts this documentary introduces? Particularly, since you didn't "obtain" any information to begin with? "Obtaining" the information would require "watching" and "understanding". Isn't that silly? WingManFA2 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the information contained in the documentary, as I understand it from the english translations, strongly contradicts the body of the evidence and standard practice in accident investigation. That's how. N419BH 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As we clearly dont understand what WingManFA2 is talking about would it not be of help if he/she could help us non-Polish speaking users and explain what the important facts actually are ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of standard aircraft wreckage storage. N419BH 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Pan Am wreckage was discarded, it was actually painstakingly analysed, and then thoroughly reconstructed. Wasn't it? I also don't believe you are suggesting that the wreckage was chopped up, smashed up, and destroyed with the use of heavy machinery? Oh, and it was never left unprotected from the elements for months either? Was it? Is that what you are suggesting? See here: Pan Am 103 Investigation Photo WingManFA2 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he's referring to this, and has labeled the removal of same by three different editors (myself included) vandalism. N419BH 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks I missed that, my ignorance:

  • This documentary shows how the members of the Russian special services who were present on the site of the tragedy during the first days after the crash handled the wreckage.
Not sure why that is significant a bit of a so what.
  • The majority of the trees, that the Tupolev TU-154 is alleged to have made contact with, were cut down.
Alleged? I dont see why they should leave damaged trees standing - nothing unusual.
  • The wreckage was left unprotected from the elements for months.
Nothing unusual why should it be protected ?
  • The footage that documents the actions of the Russians show how the wreckage, that is the most important piece of the evidence in this crash, was being destroyed.
What else are they going to do with at this stage it is not needed for the investigation.
  • The remains of the wreckage where moved from place to place.
Oh so they were sorting and checking it then - contradicts the earlier statements.
  • The larger pieces were stretched-out, compacted, and crushed.
Dont see why that is unusual.
  • The majority of the aircraft remains were not analyzed in any way.
No reason to investigate everything when the on site evidence doesnt point to a failure of the airframe.
  • In the end, the wreckage remains found their way onto an auxiliary landing strip at the Severny airport.
Oh so it wasnt all destroyed they left big bits alone and just moved them. Where else are they going to put it, out of the way I am sure that if it was left in a pile in the countryside on view people would not like it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


N419BH wrote in this thread: In any event, both Poland and Russia have come to the preliminary conclusion that pilot error was to blame. That's blatantly untrue, "Poland" has reached no such preliminary conclusion. PilotPL20 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smolensk_air_disaster&oldid=396189216"