Talk:Smolensk air disaster/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

YouTube video

The YouTube amateur video showing the aftermath of the crash is not currently mentioned in the text of the article. The main source of the video is Katastrofa samolotu w Smoleńsku - film amatorski, but it does not have any English subtitles. There are quite a few other versions with subtitles, but some include speculative theories. Some of the video has swearing in Russian. The video is mentioned in this English language news story.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a rumor cesspool. --Illythr (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ahem, the video has been reported as genuine, so it is not in itself a "rumor cesspool". There have been some wild interpretations of its content, but it is an important piece of news coverage of the crash. Here is what the citation above says (did you actually read this before replying?): "Meanwhile, amateur video taken not long after the crash has found its way onto the internet. The video shows aircraft debris strewn over an area of forest. A siren sounds and then four loud noises are heard. The fact that they sound like gun shots sparked off speculation in the media and internet forums." As long as the video is genuine, we can live with the wild interpretations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Important to those who "wildly interpret its content" maybe. Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate storage of information, nor a soapbox for conspiracy theorists. If this video gains some sort of encyclopedic value (such as by being commented on by official investigation teams) - it's in. Otherwise - no way. --Illythr (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This video has been added to the external links section. As long as it is not a hoax, why not? Should we ban showing the photos of the Apollo astronauts on the moon because they might be used by conspiracy theorists? Weird logic being used here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Unlike astronaut photos (which come from NASA, not an anonymous Youtube poster, last time I checked), the video possesses no encyclopedic value and is meant only for wild speculation. Please don't add it before establishing consensus on this page first. --Illythr (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, let's go for a consensus. The claim that the video is intended only to provoke conspiracy theories is your own personal interpretation. Nobody has said that this video is a hoax. Mostly it shows the wreckage in the forest. An off camera voice swears in Russian, expressing disbelief. There is a siren and what sounds like gunshots, but these could be parts of the wreckage exploding, or an alarm system at the airbase firing blanks. We will never stop the conspiracy theory nonsense in the forums because that is what they do, but there is no reason for us to censor a genuine video showing the aftermath of the crash.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Further comments requested here, since Illythr does not WP:OWN the article. YouTube videos need to be handled carefully as source material, but this video has been reported as genuine in the Polish media. There is nothing in the video to promote conspiracy theories unless you are already determined to do so.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you're adding this version of the flick. Anyhow, I'm still against it. This one can be added as showing the crash footage without the conspiracy stuff, I suppose. Anyhow, this needs input from the other regulars here. --Illythr (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The video Katastrofa samolotu w Smoleńsku - film amatorski has been watched over 1.6 million times and there is no suggestion that it is a hoax. Although we do not know the name of the person who shot the video, it meets WP:RS because it has been mentioned in other reliable media. There are other versions of this video on YouTube, but Katastrofa samolotu w Smoleńsku - film amatorski is the original, and there is no reason for it not to be used as source material in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous amateur YouTube flicks are not reliable. They can, however, be linked to as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed. Seeing as how it feeds the conspiracy theories around the crash, I see no particular reason to add it here. Still, if several other regulars (like Physchim62, N419BH, Mjroots, or Sourcelat0r; heck, just one of these four will suffice) agree that it should be there, I won't touch it again. --Illythr (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This video is hardly a "secret"! Many "credible" news outlets made more than a passing reference to it. As far as the so called conspiracy theories are concerned? What conspiracy? We don't have to editorialize it, and we shouldn't. This video depicts the crash scene. Where is the link? I'll place it. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous television news reports and amateur videos on YouTube, but Katastrofa samolotu w Smoleńsku - film amatorski is the most striking. It must have been taken only minutes after the crash, and shows a scene of utter confusion as bystanders wander through the wreckage in the forest. Nothing in it supports conspiracy theories, although the bangs have been interpreted as gunshots by some viewers. It is possible that soldiers at the air base fired over the heads of bystanders to drive them away from the wreckage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Er, "secret"? "Many news outlets,..., more than a passing reference"? Right. --Illythr (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, a "secret" known and, or viewed by nearly 2 million viewers is hardly a "secret". Apparently an official statement pertaining to this video was issued by the Polish Prosecutor General office today. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Where did you get this "secret" part? Got a link to the statement? --Illythr (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Was about to say the same thing. The first person to say anything about a secret (or imply secret in any way) was Doomed Soldiers Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The Biuro Badań Kryminalistycznych ABW which conducted analysis of the recording from the April 10, 2010 on behalf of the Prokuratura Generalna office provided an opinion that "the recording contains spoken words of men and [one] woman in Russian and spoken words of men in the Polish language […] No evidence of alteration of the continuity of the recording was found". 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Link? --Illythr (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here: [1]

I believe my opinion was asked for, so here it is. The videos are definitely authentic. However, I do not think they should be included here. We already have pictures of the crash site, so what do the videos add? All I can think of is a talk page full of conspiracy theories. If someone can find an online news article that includes the video, I would be more willing to include it here as the news article will provide a more objective analysis than a talk page. --N419BH (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind. We only have one photo of the crash site, and the videos give a firsthand look at the wreckage. Their inclusion is warranted. --N419BH (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The original video, that does not have any biased translations as subtitles, is fine. A video that has subtitles translated verbatim would also be fine. Those with conspiracy theories etc have no place here. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the video quality is too poor to conclude with any certainty that the peculiar noises heard are "shots". This is the conclusion of the Polish investigators [2]. To my mind, if you have a 55 ton plane shattered and on fire, there could be plenty of things which could cook off and produce noises which sound like shots. Sourcelat0r (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Pretty good video analysis work. Opinions please? Crash Site Video Analysis Doomed Soldiers (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's a pretty stupid "analysis work". For example, when someone is shouting "Уходим отсюда" (Let's go away from here), the so-called analysts for some reason transcribed it as "Он уходит" (He's getting away). Dart evader (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and the phrase right next to that one, "Idi otsyuda!" (Go away! - police clearing the area of looters and onlookers) was "translated" as "Не убивайте нас!" (don't kill us). Right. --Illythr (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
If you blindly trust YouTube videos, enjoy this one. Sourcelat0r (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This one is more famous. And since over 8M people have watched it, it's obviously true. --Illythr (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my basis for recommending inclusion is because the videos depict the crash scene. I am in no way endorsing any commentary or analysis. --N419BH (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The likelihood of a conspiracy

(As distinct from "failure to have sufficient maintainance"/"ensure adequate communications given the circumstances" etc.)

Quite apart from issues of international law relating specifically to persons with diplomatic status and/or holding government office, and Poland not being in conflict with any other states and organisations - any and all heads of states, governments, international organizations and other bodies would see such an act as a direct threat to themselves singly and severally. The response from all such bodies 'down to the smallest self-proclaimed microstate and military reenactment society' would be 'negative going on extremely hostile.'

The comeback from exerting other forms of pressure (fuel supply, publishing unflattering materials etc) would be less. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence needed here, not forum speculation. The crash investigation is the main focus of attention at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to develop the counter-argument to those who think there was a conspiracy/complicity by certain parties in what happened.

What are the actual international law aspects protecting heads of state etc? (Anyone care to develop an article giving an overview of the situation - ranging from the Brighton hotel bombing to the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories - covering 'the real' and 'the speculative'? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's no moon!
a) be careful of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, b), we already have quite a lot of 'em.  Chzz  ►  07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall we say points for theoretical articles "Relations between Russia and East European States 1991 on" and "Conspiracy theories etc involving heads of state/government: comments on" Jackiespeel (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should avoid original research, and stick to material from reliable sources. For entertainment purposes only, this article is the sort of Internet speculation going around at the moment. Let's stick to the known facts, and wait for the crash investigation to publish its results, which could take many months.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

'In due course' there should be an article or subsection on the long term impact of the crash on Polish-Russian relations, and, on a more OR-orientated website, a piece on 'international )and other) law and the non-peaceful deaths of heads of state and government and senior figures (and view on conspiracy theories arising)' - and the points I made at the beginning of this section could be thereby incorporated.

There should be a note in the text that conspiracy theories arose - and the logical arguments against. Sometimes useful to put such ideas on the talk page for others to develop. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Accident

Please change the article in the accident section where it currently reads " the pilot was told to divert to two other airports." In reality the pilot was SUGGESTED two alternate landing fields if conditions were poor enough not to land. A pilot is given conditions from the tower and makes the landing decision himself. A pilot can only be TOLD not to land if the airfield is CLOSED or imminent danger of hitting another aircraft.

The pilot acknowledged the suggestions and responded he had enough fuel to make one attempt, If conditions were bad he would divert to another field. 

Source- Interview with the air traffic controller in Smolensk tower that day.
Done: Agree completely with your reasoning. Statement has been changed. --N419BH (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish TU-154 Instrumentation

While I am unable to verify accuracy of this information, it could nonetheless, prove valuable to some editors here. I believe N419BH is the only one with enough insight into the avionics to be able to judge the relevance of this information. This was published on www.pprune.org by one of the users there:

"In contrast to serial machines, our Tupolev received during the operation and subsequent repair / maintenance primarily modern avionics. Thus became one of the most advanced Tu-154 used in the world. Pilots' cabin is a mosaic of old Soviet equipment and that from Western countries. Communications equipment HF radios are Micron, Orlan-85ST VHF, satellite phone (since 2008), R-855UM radio station, the device's internal communications SPU-7B, the speaker system SGS-25, tape recording conversations of the crew Mars BM. The modern navigation equipment includes:

  • Doubled navigation system FMS UNS-1D (the production of Universal Avionics) with the computer navigation Navigation Computer Unit (NCU) and two control panels (FPCDU - Flat Panel Display Control Unit) and two sets of 12-channel GPS receivers with antennas CI 401;
  • Radiocompass (ADF?) ARK-15M,
  • Radio altimeter RW-5M
  • Navigation and landing system Kurs-MP-70,
  • Additional navigation receiver GPS Bendix / King KLN-89 [Link here: Specifications ], previously was used receiver Garmin 155XL, on a plane / b had another 101-1000 GPS receiver with antenna type CI 401,
  • Radio receiver for radio signals from the antenna to the Reference Sensor DME, VOR splitter,
  • Aircraft Control System (AutoPilot?) ABS-154-2
  • Track following system TKS-P2
  • Aerodynamic parameters system WBE-SWS,
  • TAWS
  • Collision avoidance system TCAS-II

(detects up to 45 objects, illustrated 30 of them),

  • Weather radar RDR-4B [Link Here: Honeywell Aerospace Weather Radar Overview ]
  • Multifunction display MFD-640
  • Doppler meter of drift angle and speed of travel DISS-013,
  • Portable disk drive (Omega DTU) at the navigator desk".
This airplane was equipped with advanced western avionics not typical for a TU-154. I can't verify the accuracy of that specific listing but at least some of the items mentioned appear in photographs I have seen of the airplane's cockpit. As for what bearing these avionics have on the crash, it's hard to say right now. --N419BH (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The height of fall

How could the plane fall 200 m after cutting the top of a tree that is ca. 15 m high and loosing a part of a wing? The text should be changed to make it more logical.

--Jidu Boite (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to mean that the plane came down 200m short of the runway. Could someone confirm this with a source?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Then the text should be changed to: ... and hit the ground in a 200 metres distance(660 ft) from the edge of the runway, in a wooded area ... --Jidu Boite (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Where in the article is this? --N419BH (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done Nevermind, I found it. Sentence has been changed to "It struck trees in the fog, rolled upside down, impacted the ground, broke apart, and eventually came to rest 200 metres (660 ft) short of the runway in a wooded area."

Disturbing Reports - What kind of investigation is it?

FYI: According to numerous reports originating from Polish media, body parts, personal belongings, aircraft parts still at the crash site. According to one report (see link in Polish), you can even buy aircraft parts ... This is not good! The remains of the victims still lie in the mud! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: "The missing Polish pilots" - Nikolai Losyev, a retired military pilot, and an owner of a nearby plot, who was on site within 20 minutes after the crash in Smolensk stated that in addition to the broken cockpit, he saw crew members strapped in their seat belts. If you recall, according to the reports appearing after the crash, the bodies of the pilots were nowhere to be found. You may also recall, that according to all official reports, the remains of the pilots were among the last to be identified, and required DNA analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That flat out does not make sense under the laws of physics. The plane hit upside-down, nose first. Therefore, the cockpit would have been the most damaged. You can see that in crash scene photos as only the tail (furthest away from point of impact) and wing box (strongest part of the airplane) are visible as distinct sections. Also, "crewmember" could mean flight attendant, mechanic, or some other member of the crew besides the pilots. I think your source may be jumping to conclusions. --N419BH (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gorogm, 8 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It would be good the mention that ukranian Andrij Mendierej, the man who recorded the included amateur video was killed in a hospital. Source: http://chechencenter.info/n/events/530-1.html

Gorogm (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This claim has been going around the blogs and forums, but these are not a reliable source. Google News has nothing to say about this at the moment. Without a reliable source, it cannot be included in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny to hear! I hope every Russian statement is reliable :) What about this one, is it acceptable? it's in google news AND it's a russian site! The plane wasn't trying to land three times as mentioned on the page but only once: http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/16-04-2010/113049-kaczynsky_plane-0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorogm (talk • contribs) 10:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There have been reports like the one above, which said that the plane attempted to land only once, not three times. The crash site video on YouTube has become a popular subject for debate in the forums, with some people claiming that the bangs heard in it are gunshots from the Russians shooting survivors. None of this has been covered in reliable media, so caution is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Caution is needed, absolutely. A glance around that website referenced, http://english.pravda.ru, does not fill me with confidence that it has a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. I have cancelled out the {{editsemiprotected}}; ongoing discussions here may form a consensus (or not), but this cannot be processed as a plain edit request. Discussion is required. Gorogm, if you wish to question the validity of a source, use WP:RSN. Best,  Chzz  ►  10:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The story about the plane attempting to land only once is OK, but there is a lot of wild stuff going around the forums about Lech Kaczyński being murdered because of the Russians being jealous of the shale gas deposits in Poland.[3] This link was removed from the article per WP:EL, but it does give some idea of the "alternative" (ie not backed up by reliable sources) theories going around at the moment. The forums have repeatedly named Andrij Mendierej as the person who shot the famous YouTube crash site video, but so far I have drawn a blank on any reliable sourcing for this. Any help here?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article does not claim there was three attempted landings. We can easily ignore all the conspiracy theories, there are no reliable sources for that, just paranoid people on various discussion forums, and blogs calling themselves news sources. Conspiracy theories are normal for all big events like this, it's a part of human nature, the best is to ignore them. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article says that the plane circled the airfield three times before attempting a landing. This is where the confusion seems to have arisen.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that this so-called murder of some so-called Ukrainian guy is only found on websites which support Chechen terrorism? This is one. Kavkazcenter.com is another. Oh wait, sorry, I forgot this one. Some US Republican Congressman, Ron Paul, posted this on his website (which has been archived at this link in case it should be deleted). This is quite hilarious, given that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that this guy even exists. Of course, it doesn't stop people such as Ron Paul claiming the crash was assassination. And for reference, Andrij Mendierej in English is Andrey Menderey, and in Russian Андрей Мендерей - and of course, a search for news on the name brings up only blogs and Chechen terrorist websites as references. And many of the blogs do take the piss out of Paul for even posting this on his website. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is quasi-notable that some people are getting all worked up over Andrij Mendierej, but things are desperate when the only decent sources are blogs and Facebook pages like this one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed that dailypaul.com is not affiliated with Ron Paul, however, those sources which do mention this episode state they are the words of Paul himself. It makes one wonder how many times the author of the piece saw Elvis last week?

Also the person's name in Ukrainian would be Андрій Мендерій. And it should be noted that Menderey is neither a Russian nor Ukrainian name. As has been asked in response to some so-called news at censor.net.ua, someone has asked the following questions:

  1. If Menderey was a journalist, where did he work?
  2. If he is a journalist, it is likely he finished school or went to university. What school? What university? Where are classmates who remember him?
  3. Where are the grieving relatives and friends? Or was he an orphan and a social outcast?
  4. Why did Russian forces wait until he was in Ukraine before killing him? They could have killed him on the spot, or at the very least on Russian territory?
  5. First the guy got stabbed with a knife (not killed), and then they eventually pulled the plug?

And then other questions (which I would pose)

  1. What hospital did this killing occur at. The lack of this information indicates urban legend
  2. Why did the Ukrainian health ministry not issue any statements?
  3. Why was the Russian ambassador in Kiev not summoned to answer questions on why Russian forces are committing assassinations on Ukrainian territory?
  4. Why has there been no announcement from the Ukrainian prosecutor-general on a case being opened?
  5. And perhaps most importantly, why has all of this alleged episode not been covered by a single reliable source? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 12:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The YouTube video Katastrofa samolotu w Smoleńsku - film amatorski was uploaded on 14 April 2010 by http://www.youtube.com/user/ntopl, and currently has 1.9 million views. It is a pity that no reliable information has emerged about who shot it, and it has become the focus of the conspiracy theorists. There are numerous versions of the video with subtitles, some claiming that the Russians are shooting survivors of the crash. Clearly unsuitable, but there is no suggestion that the video itself is a fake.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This Polish language link suggests it was shot by someone who worked nearby. As one can see from Google sat map, there is industrial area in the direct vicinity of the crash site. I'll see if I can hunt down a name in Russian news, which we can then at least add to the article, in order to stop rubbish such as the above. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 12:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I'd say we've reached consensus on this. --N419BH (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Putin and the coffin

Given that he had been to the ceremony a few days before his reaction was probably in part 'There but for the grace of God...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rules in Russia

Russian rules AIP states that "pilots-in-commands of foreign aircraft operating in Russia, shall make a decision on the possibility of taking-off …and landing at destination aerodrome in their own, assuming full responsibility for the outcome of the landing". Russian AIP (svolume 2, AD 1.1, art. 1.c) (Russian and English)

Karel x (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Media reports say that the air traffic controllers at Smolensk wanted the plane to divert, but the plane attempted a landing anyway. One of the questions for the investigation is whether this was specifically against the advice of air traffic control.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-crew in cockpit in Polish president's plane crash (BBC article)

Just read this, in case anyone is interested in working it into the text. Jared Preston (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just pipped you by 15 min. . See Talk @ Unidentified passenger in cabin, above ↑ --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ha ha! Didn't see that – well done! Jared Preston (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference Replacement

{{editsemiprotected}} Reference № 116 does not have a web link to the article referenced.

<ref>Gertz, Bill, "Inside the Ring: NATO code compromise", ''[[Washington Times]]'', May 13, 2010, p. 8.</ref>

Please replace the above 'reference' with the code here:

<ref name ="wt86422687"> {{cite web | url = http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/inside-the-ring-86422687/ | title = Inside the Ring | work = ''[[The Washington Times]]'' | last = Gertz| first = Bill| page = 8 | accessdate = 19 May 2010| date = 13 May 2010}}</ref>

Thank you! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, cheers, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Tally Ho!. indeed! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
SpitfireTally-ho! 18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Time of crash

I noticed that time of crash is wrong. I know, at the beginning this information was supposed to be true, but later people who were examining it discovered that it was 8:41 CEST, not 8:56. They were talking about it in all Polish radio stations (believe me, I'm Pole :)). It's a small mistake, but we would be glad if you'll change it :) 94.141.144.201 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, provide a link to a reliable source that states that time and it will be done. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Nearly all media reports give the time of the crash as 8:56 AM CEST. This article is one of the few that suggests 8:41 AM.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added that as an additional ref stating that some sources give 08:41. Should that time be officially stated (MAK report) then it can be turned into a full reference for the fact. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It is now officialy stated in MAK preliminary report. There is the Polish translation of it: http://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/artykuly/422801,wstepny_raport_mak_o_dochodzeniu_ws_katastrofy_tu_154.html,5 ("Group 8 - Final approach and descent path", point E states that "The time that passed from the beggining of destruction of airplane construction to the full destruction of airplane's body construction in reverse position ground impact, was about 5-6 seconds. The final destruction of airplane's construction happened at 10:41:06." (Moscow time). 89.231.219.80 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)BoldSnake

After the sentance,"The airplane dropped below the glidscope 1.5km from the runway" The next sentance refers to conversations about aborting the landing. This does not make sense. The aircraft apparently was completly destroyed before it had travelled a further 1300 meters "stopping short 200 meters of the runway" This really would provide too short a time frame for any conversation? It also implies the airport personel had the aircraft on radar and had not noted the 150 meters tangent from the runway path.

Regards Michael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.20.51 (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is singing from two different hymn sheets at the moment. The initial media reports said that the crash was at 08:56 CEST, but the black box flight recorders seem to have fixed the time of the crash at 08:41 CEST. This needs to be cleared up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

MAK Preliminary report

The MAK have released a preliminary report (Russian). A Russian reading editor may be able to improve the article from this source.

Interesting discussion on Pprune about the report and its implications - this thread is free of conspiracy theories etc which the initial thread on Pprune was plagued with. We now have aviation professional discussing the accident and causes in a rational manner. This is for interest only and not to be used to reference the article (but linked RSs from the thread may be used as appropriate). Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Time of the crash is wrong, given in accordance with the early media information. The proper time is: 10:41:06 MSD (08:41:06 Polish time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.157.114.15 (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

See section above. There have been reports that the initially reported time of 8:56 CEST is wrong and that the crash was at 8:41 CEST. This is cited in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is the sentence that states the aircraft circled the airport three times, and then the pilot decided to land. Firstly, until the more precise details of the accident will be given by MAK, no-one can say for sure whether pilot decided to land, or just didn't have conscience of the altitude. Secondly, there was no three circles above the airport, it was clearly said by Edmund Klich, the head of the Polish investigate commision in May 25, 2010, journal programme "Teraz my" on TVN, and also the MAK preliminary report doesn't mention such a maneuvres ("Group 7 - Flight progress from entering the Smolensk-North responsibility area, to the beggining of descent path"): "A. On the flight crew request, the "attempted" landing approach to the Decision Altitude of 100 metres was made. B. Allowing flight crew to make the third turn, ATC informed that on the altitude of 100 metres, flight crew has to be absolutely ready to make go-around." The "third turn" refers to the 90-degree turn from downwind to base leg, not to the "circling" above the airport. Most of the journalist are ignorants in aviation related things, and so such nonsenses are published in media. Here are the interview with Mr Klich: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2174949,448,klich_w_kabinie_byl_gen_blasik_dramatyczne_dwie_sekundy_lotu,item.html (video) and the MAK preliminary report in Polish: http://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/artykuly/422801,wstepny_raport_mak_o_dochodzeniu_ws_katastrofy_tu_154.html,5 89.231.219.80 (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)BoldSnake

100% pilot error?

Blaming this crash on "pilot error" in the infobox may be simplifying the situation. This interpretation overlooks the fact that controller error may also have contributed to the crash. As is clear from the transcript, as the Tu-154 is approaching the runway, the controller gives no indication that anything is wrong until 5 s before the plane strikes the first tree. Even then the command is just "Level off". The definitive command to abort the landing ("Go to second approach") is given by the controller after the plane already struck the first tree and was doomed. This is being discussed by Gazeta Wyborcza, among others [5].Sourcelat0r (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the sources again, it is not ideal for "pilot error" to be in the infobox. It seems that this is based on interviews that Edmund Klich has given, but is not an officially published finding. Unless anyone strongly disagrees, I propose to change the infobox back to "under investigation".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Every single source agrees it was pilot error, including the pilots that discuss it in the above link, which agrees it was suicide to try to land with 200m visibility.
And btw, is it the controllers job to know something is wrong before the pilots do it? This pilot continued to go down, even after his warning system told him to pull up AND and his co-pilot asked him to go around. If the controllers warning had come earlier, why would the pilot listen to them when he didn't listen to his own co-pilot? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So far, the only official report is the preliminary MAK report published on 19 May, which did not say that pilot error was the cause. It ruled out terrorism, fire and explosion, and said that there was nothing technically wrong with the plane. Pilot error is clearly now the focus of the investigation, but the final report has yet to be published. The discussion of the cockpit voice recording in Gazeta Wyborcza is interesting, but it is not an official report.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Primary cause of the accident was pilot error. The aircraft got well below the glideslope at too high a rate of descent. Even at a normal rate of descent (3.5m/s), the TU-154 reportedly loses 10m in altitude when a go-around is initiated. In this case, the aircraft was reportedly descending at 18m/s, and would have lost over 50m from the point a go-around was initiated. At that point, the aircraft was less than 50m above ground level.
A major contributory factor would seem to be a lack of a "sterile cockpit" and certain passengers forgetting that "in the air, the pilot is in charge, irrespective of rank". Pressure to land in unsuitable conditions instead of diverting to an airfield where conditions were suitable. This isn't the first time it's happened, and it probably won't be the last. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, it is not the crew's job to provide a running commentary for the black box. When the second pilot says "abort" and we hear nothing from the captain, how do we know he is doing nothing, as some here have suggested? Maybe he is concentrating all his attention on increasing throttle and trying to gain altitude. The recordings from the black box that contain information about plane systems should help to answer that question. Sourcelat0r (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The black box records these things too, so running commentary is not needed. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but only the voice recordings have been released so far. Other data from the black box has not been made public. Sourcelat0r (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The words "pilot error" in the infobox may give the impression that this was was an official report finding, which is not the case at the present time. This is why it has been questioned, because although there have been numerous reliable media reports citing pilot error as the main cause, the final report has not been published yet, and may not be for several months.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it may give the impression that the investigation is still ongoing, yes. But there is little doubt that it's pilot error, and even some involved in the investigation has said so even if the report is not done. So I guess "Pilot Error", "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" and "Under Investigation" are all acceptable here. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A compromise would be to list the cause as "under investigation, pilot error suspected" or similar. This would show that the accident is still under investigation, but that pilot error is the most likely cause as most of the other causes have already been ruled out. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done This is a more accurate description of the current state of play.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Until the investigation is concluded it is impossible to say whois fault it really is. I'd just like to point out 2 things: first i am not aware that the pilot knew that the visibility was only 200m, the figure given was 400m. Secondly the claim that the aircraft was descending at 18m/s is complete nonsense and I don't get where does that come from.  Dr. Loosmark  10:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The polish plane on the ground told him that visibility had gone down to 200 meters. You are right about the descent speed. From the transcript it can be seem that the descent between 100m and 20m was done between times 10:40:48.7 and 10:40:55.2. That's 6.5 seconds, giving an average descent speed of 12m/s. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From my understanding the transcript quotes height from radar altimeter, i.e. distance from ground, so it cannot be used directly to see how fast the plane was actually descending. A radar altimeter will give variable height even if the plane is flying straight and level, if the ground under the plane changes elevation. You would have to know the shape of the ground the plane was flying over at any given second to give firm conclusions in this regard. Sourcelat0r (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Well, 18 m/s seems baseless any way. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, in starting this discussion I was not trying to exonerate the pilots, just to point out that like in most accidents, usually it is the combination of factors which causes tragedies, not any single factor by itself.
As for crew "ignoring warnings", it appears that the crew thought the warnings were "normal", in the sense that they were obviously approaching the ground intentionally to land, so the machine yelling "Terrain ahead" made sense. This may have had something to do with the fact that the military airbase at Smolensk was not in the machine's database i.e. it thought of it as just a normal piece of ground the plane was going to crash into. Sourcelat0r (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the other plane told them so however they were already busy making preparations for the landings and it's not clear to me whether they really got the message correctly, if at all. I mean the already bad visibility reducing by half surely would have triggered some kind of reaction. Also I don't agree with your descent speed calculation. Apparently they were using a radio altimeter and what you wrote above would be true if the terrain would have been flat, however it was not.  Dr. Loosmark  11:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The tower gave permission for the plane to perform the landing procedure down to altitude of 100 m, and be ready for an abort if they did not see the airfield at that altitude. If the plane had done that, i.e. descended to 100 m, not seen runway, then aborted, increased altitude and flew away, then there would have been nothing unusual in this. A Russian airplane attempted to land twice and aborted just before the Polish plane, and clearly no one is considering the crew of that Russian plane "suicidal". Whatever went wrong went wrong in only a few seconds when the plane reached 100 m altitude (or what the crew thought was 100 m altitude) and did not abort but continued to descend despite clearly not being able to see the runway. It is still not precisely clear why that happened. Sourcelat0r (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
True. It is very possible that the 100 m altitude was in fact 100m above the ground rather than the airport reference level. For example if they were flying over a big hole or a depression in terrain when they reached the edge of it the height measured with the radio altimeter started to drop dramatically, which a lot of people then interpret as if descent rate increased dramatically. However at this point it's all speculation and nothing more. In my opinion it is very unfair to blame anybody for the crash before the investigation is concluded and I therefore propose removing pilot error from the inbox for now.  Dr. Loosmark  12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The reports so far is that the warnings was ignored for 13 seconds and that no attempt to pull up or go around was made before the trees hat been hit. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Terrain ahead" warnings may have been considered normal by the crew (they were near the ground intentionally after all) so "ignored warnings" is not that simple. On the tape the pilot does not explicitly say "I am pulling up" but he could have well been doing it. In time of high stress pilot may have concentrated on doing his job and instead of talking about it. Further examination of black box data should show what actually happened. Sourcelat0r (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From the recordings it's clear that at height 80 meters the co-pilot says "odchodzimy" which means they were aborting. But you can't just pull up such a heavy aircraft because you risk to stall it. First you have to throttle the engines and according to some witnesses on the ground, that's what they heard.  Dr. Loosmark  12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Allowing for the 18 m/s being wrong, even at 12 m/s, from throttle up, considerable height would have been lost before the engines reached full power, height they simply did not have. You will notice that this info is not in the article as it is from a source not considered reliable by Wikipedia. It may appear in the final report into the accident, which should be out in the next couple of years or so. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Throttling up is consistent with the report, that claims they tried to abort after the plane hit the trees. Throttling up at 80 meters would not be consistent with that report, but it would be hard to see how witnesses on the ground could reliably judge the planes height. It also seems highly unlikely that they would have gone to 100 meters to try to see the ground if 80 meters was a height that you could not recover from. That would make descending to 100 meters an extremely dangerous operation. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
May I ask which report do you talk about?  Dr. Loosmark  21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I should say "reports", from the people conducting the investigation. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please provide a link for these reports?  Dr. Loosmark  22:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
They are quoted and referenced in the article page. Look for "Klich". --OpenFuture (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified passenger in cabin?

BBC Russian reports...

СМИ: в кабине польского Ту-154 был пятый человек (Mass-media: there was fifth person in cabin of Polish Tu-154) http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/rolling_news/2010/05/100505_rn_tu154_5.shtml

it mentions that black boxes has recorded voice of person which is not member of crew, according to Polish TV news channel TWN 24 (or TVN 24); it mentions according to radio channel RMF FM it was female voice

any reports on that in English? silpol (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing yet, but it is very recent news (released in Russian 14:57 UTC). Let's see if something comes of it. I find it strange that the report doesn't suggest what this "female voice" was saying, just that there was one... Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
and here is text (in Polish) on that RMF FM - W kokpicie Tu-154 nagrał się głos kobiety my Polish is rather poor so my understanding can be wrong, but they had records analysed and results show there was voice of person who was not expected to be in cockpit (4 in-cockpit people + 3 stewardess + 1 person from security), and voice had been female one. previous their article is W kokpicie Tu-154 nagrał się głos osoby spoza ścisłej załogi samolotu I'm not sure whether Google Translate is reliable for these 2 articles so better if native Pole helps with translation silpol (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
1st article went online 15:45 05 APR 2010, and 2nd article went online 09:03 05 APR 2010, i.e. today and presumably Polish local time silpol (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My interpretation (based on very poor knowledge of Polish or Russian) is that there was a "fifth voice", female, in the cockpit on the tapes, and they don't know whose it was. That doesn't signify that it wasn't one of the stewardesses. For as long as we don't know when that "fifth voice" appeared and what it said, the rest is just speculation! There's a difference between asking "what are we doing?" and "I've got a gun, land now!", for example! Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Could just be the flight attendant asking when the plane was going to land. We'll know more once we know what was actually said. Until then it's an interesting development but not yet meaningful. --N419BH (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems confirmed "Non-crew in cockpit in Polish president's plane crash " BBC, 19 May 2010, Retrieved 19 May 2010. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears the non-crew voices were recorded 16-20 min before the crash, so it does not appear likely they directly contributed to the accident. It is quite normal to have some communication between the cockpit crew and other authorized people on board during a flight. The fact that so many news stories have this "sensational" information in their titles only shows the continuing lack of information around this crash, which makes the news organisation seize on anything new, no matter how irrelevant. Pathetic really, but that's free press for you. [6]. Sourcelat0r (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, the voices are on transcripts and copies of original recordings. Until the black boxes and their contents are authenticated, or we see documentation of that authentication, I would not be quick to rely on voice analysis. This is especially true because the Russian MAK reportedly had to *try* to screen out intrusive noise on the CVR without explaining where it came from. We have not seen a Polish review of whether the screening was properly done, or what actually caused the noise and alleged damage to the CVR. The MAK had already announced that technical problems were not the cause. So what caused the extraneous noise cited by the MAK such that it would make it difficult to hear the voices captured on the alleged CVR?MWoodson (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Klich, head of the Polish investigation commitee, stated that besides the crew there were two persons in cockpit prior to crash - one, not yet identified, about 15 minutes before impact, and the second, who entered the cockpit few minutes before the crash and stayed there to the very end, was Gen. Andrzej Błasik, head of the Polish Air Force. Here is the article with video recording of Mr Klich statements: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2174949,448,klich_w_kabinie_byl_gen_blasik_dramatyczne_dwie_sekundy_lotu,item.html 89.231.219.80 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)BoldSnake

The Russian investigation raises doubts

Andrey Illarionov, former advisor to Vladimir Putin interviewed by Rzeczpospolita Illarionov was one of the five signatories of the letter of Russian dissidents expressing concern about the conduct of an investigation into the crash at Smolensk. This was widely reported by numerous media outlets and should be be incorporated into the article itself. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Must Read! An independent analysis of the final phase of flight of presidential Tu-154. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Telegraph.uk, some Russian authorities at the Smolensk crash site have been arrested for stealing funds from the bank account of one of the Polish officials killed in the crash. Crash site evidence was not professionally secured.MWoodson (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Credit card thefts

This report says that the Russian Interior Ministry denies the thefts, which have been reported in the Polish media today. Not sure if this site is a reliable source, but this needs to be followed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian: Voice of Russia is one of several new internet media sites that I have observed cranking out party line headlines packing the primary search result pages on the Smolensk April 2010 jet crash. Here is an informative BBC piece on who runs the Russian media.MWoodson (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Still under investigation?

I thought the crash was still under investigation, and whilst authorities had found evidence of errors by the flight crew they had not concluded the investigation? If this is the case, why has the infobox been changed for listing the cause as 'Under investigation' to 'Pilot error'? WackyWace talk 10:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The interview with Edmund Klich [7] makes clear that the Polish authorities now accept that pilot error was the cause of the crash. The full report has yet to be published, but it is not jumping the gun to say that pilot error was the cause.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The investigation is not finished, therefore conclusions are premature and likely to be political. The published findings to date are largely based on transcripts and recordings (not originals) from the purported original Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and three Flight Data Recorders (FDRs). Early on, the MAK reported that the CVR was damaged and that it contained intrusive noise requiring restoration. However, the Russian MAK has not surrendered the actual CVR and FDRs in its possession. There are no reports of these devices having been tested or examined by independent experts for authenticity, tampering, damage or negligent handling. Under the circumstances of past investigative integrity under the current Russian regime, authentication of the actual black boxes seems necessary before the reported findings may be taken at face value. MWoodson (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The investigation is not finished, therefore conclusions are premature and likely to be political. - That conclusion is completely unfounded.
The findings to date are largely based on transcripts and recordings (not originals) - So? Of course they are "recordings". The black box *is* a recording. And of course they don't listen to the original, that would wear it, you make copies and listen to them. Everything else would be stupid. The rest of your post is just baseless paranoid conspiracy theories. Come back when you have some sort of evidence for your speculation. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Russian Foreign Minister had represented that the investigation was not over and that the "original" black boxes would be surrendered to the Poles when the investigation was over, so the investigation is not over. The findings published to date ARE based on secondary evidence (transcripts & copies) and there is an authenticity issue (the purported black boxes, despite having location beacons were found in the evening and next day when the crash occurred in the morning according to the article we're discussing). During some time the site was unsecured. In lesser court cases, copies are not the best evidence to prove a proposition if the original recordings are present, and especially unreliable if there is a genuine authenticity issue with the source of the copies. Russia is run by a regime with a history of poor investigations of the deaths of opponents of the Kremlin. Nearly all killed on Kaczynski's plane were Kremlin political opponents. Thus, there is an authenticity problem with the investigation, much less the black boxes. Also, OpenFuture, I refer you to the Wikipedia guidelines for posting support for your assertions as well as etiquette matters.MWoodson (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The chief Polish investigator Edmund Klich seems happy enough with the way the investigation is going. There is little point in throwing mud at the Russian government over the crash investigation unless criticism can be supported from reliable sources. No reliable source has suggested that the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder has been faked. See also [8], in which Poland's ambassador to Russia Jerzy Bar says that he is satisfied with the investigation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ian, those are reasonable responses and I respect them. I haven't said the Putin regime downed the plane, however, I haven't ruled it out either. From my perspective, questioning Russian investigators where Russian investigative history is highly questionable (reliable source Forbes provided above) is not mudslinging, it is rationally tied to repeated, historically recent regime conduct. Poland's chief investigator Klich has never addressed legitimate questions about the authenticity and chain of custody of the 'black' boxes. Are you or is he prepared to say that Polish officials were with the black boxes every moment from crash site to present? Contrary to OpenFuture's assumptions, a covert evidence tampering operation would leave very few people aware of it, including Klich. Yet OpenFuture just throws the 'conspiracy theory' label around like a propagandist covering for a government instead of questioning power. Klich had never personally inspected the black boxes from the plane before the crash, had he? Did he have personal knowledge to identify them? Ambassador Bar is not an aviation or criminal investigator. His satisfaction is not much ado about anything. It is a protocol statement. The black boxes were unsecured for hours on April 10, 2010 not having been recovered until the evening and the next day. That opens up a gap in the chain of custody during which time unknown Russian personnel had access before Polish experts ever showed. That the Russians did not open the boxes according to Polish sources until Polish experts arrived does not prove whether the black boxes and their contents were the authentic, unaltered boxes to begin with. In a 2008 Kyrgystan crash, the MAK announced that the CVR was blank for the crash flight, but held a recording of a past flight. MAK's irregularities are not unprecedented.MWoodson (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This is getting in to the territory of asking someone to prove a negative, which is a classic feature of conspiracy theories. I cannot prove that the flight recorders were not tampered with, any more than I can prove that Elvis Presley is still alive and in hiding somewhere. This is clearly beyond the scope of the article at the moment, because exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ian, I've not asked you to prove a negative, much less anything else. I have raised unanswered questions that are answerable with further investigation. Therefore, this is not one of yours or OpenFuture's cliche labeling fallacies (the overuse of 'conspiracy theory' to dismiss lines of questioning you don't like).
Where governments are involved that have histories of astounding political violence, suppression, police states, genocide and propaganda, the formation of conspiracy theories is actually the more rational starting place until ruled out. Yet that is not what we have here. We have a line of inquiry not controlled by closed minds or paid commenters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWoodson (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, Good, so you are just asking questions, and not discussing the article at all then? Well, asking questions can be done elsewhere. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In OpenFuture's world, questions are not part of free discussion. That describes a totalitarian world. Duly noted.MWoodson (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a "free discussion". You are to discuss the article, not the topic. See WP:NOTAFORUM. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The decision to release the transcript of the cockpit voice recording was partly political. The Russians were keen to show that the conspiracy theories were unfounded, while the Poles wanted to show that the President had not pressured the pilot into landing. The final report has not been published yet, and there are still unanswered questions about why the pilot attempted a landing despite the obviously poor weather.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Right. But to go from that to that the *conclusion* is political is wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Premature conclusions qualified by the word likely, especially when foundational evidence issues remain unresolved, are most likely political press releases. Nothing new there in politically charged investigations.MWoodson (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Needed in Principal Article: Discussion of Need for Published Authentication of Crash Evidence in International Cases

The principal article should include a section on authenticity and reliability of the evidence purported to be the basis of investigative findings or conclusions about the Smolensk April 10, 2010 plane crash.

In ordinary legal cases, evidence is authentic if it is actually what it is purported to be. If it is not what it is purported to be and or prove, then it is not authentic evidence. If evidence is not authentic, it is not reliable. To be authentic and reliable, evidence must have been properly handled. It must not have been tampered with, altered, or modified since it became evidential in a particular case. This should be verifiable for evidence in the Smolensk 2010 plane crash killing the Polish presidential delegation on April 10, 2010. Authenticity and reliability should be verifiable re the purported actual Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorders (FDR). Were these items secure, free of mishandling, and are they what they are purported to be, i.e. those recorders from the Kaczynski plane? However, there are reports of mishandling of evidence at the Smolensk Airport crash site.

To determine if CVRs or FDRs have been mishandled, for instance, it may require expert testing, screening, comparisons between photographs, documents and the purported actual boxes. To rule out negligent handling, damage, alteration and the like, investigators need a verifiable documentary of the chain of custody and handling of all evidence, naming all persons and purposes for handling the evidence. Expert review and testimony may also come into play.

Where political leaders have died in an international incident of violent, sudden death, (accidental or deliberate) the legal standard of authenticity of evidence should strictly guide investigators, nation-states, and the jury of international opinion. A plane crash is an incident that takes on a different character if it decapitates a government, especially on the soil of an historical opponent. The importance to international relations and the letter and spirit of the Vienna Convention governing safety and security of foreign dignitaries should require utmost adherence to standards of proper evidence gathering and handling.

Bias shown early in an investigation may also call into question the reliability of investigative witnesses, findings and evidence selection.

Where there are gaps in authenticity, chain of custody, bias issues, or signs of mishandled evidence in internationally sensitive investigations, this should trigger international reviews of the cases in which they arise.MWoodson (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "purported" here looks like WP:CLAIM. As stated previously, any criticism of the investigation would need to come from a reliable source. The Polish authorities and media seem happy enough with the crash investigation at the moment. Discussing the authenticity of the evidence would be original research.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a cited link to the Telegraph UK story about the insecure crash site shown in the possibility of credit card fraud by Russian officers charged with securing the site for evidence. That source raised the issue of evidence security problems. There is also the notation on the timing of the finding of the black boxes versus the timing of the crash in the principal article we are discussing. Taken in combination with the former, the latter information in the principal article provides sufficient source reliability about the issue that should be discussed further in a comprehensive encyclopedic entry. Also, there are citations to non-original sources about standards of evidence handling in this new section on evidence authentication and reliability at Smolensk. Not all Polish groups are pleased with the investigation, and there are conflicting releases from Polish official sources about the investigation. A closer reading of those sources indicates that the investigation is clearly not over at this time.MWoodson (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Who is to determine what is a reliable source when we are looking at Russian and Polish media, or for that matter even the BBC? Did not all of them repeatedly distribute blatantly false information about the crash?
Also many of the sources for the 9/11 conspiracy could be regarded totally unreliable and still there is a whole article on that. Read polish internet sites and you will see how happy they are with the investigation. Richiez (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The final report on the crash has not been published yet. If there is reliable sourcing (eg, not blogs or forums) for the suggestion that the cockpit voice recording has been tampered with in some way, it should be possible to cite it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder this is an encyclopedia not a news service or blog we can wait for the official finding to be published and then report them. Also remember that we report reliable sources like the official investigation authorities and new agencies like the BBC it is not the place of an encyclopedia to actually carry out the investigation. As an encyclopedia we have no deadlines we dont have to be updated like a new service, so please just wait for the official reports and leave speculation to other media. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Its fine for me to wait for the final report and reactions to it but than should not all the preliminary findings be deleted? The statement of the Russian dissidents that was linked on this talk page clearly states concerns that there was an orchestrated campaign to blame pilot error and it was cited in polish media. Richiez (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Three points. Firstly, a crash investigation is not a court case, either civil or criminal. In principle, there is not an accusation and a defense. Second point, if the pilot dies, there is always a move to blame the pilot, as those who survived try to shift any semblance of blame off themselves: the move doesn't always work, of course, but people like ATC and the manufacturers will try it. Thirdly, there's rarely a single cause to an aircraft crash anyway. This debate is pointless. Physchim62 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The crash investigation takes place in the context of international relations. This makes documented evidence handling all the more important for future reference, especially considering how some factions within nation states and among their peoples will likely have trust issues with the others' investigations. Bringing higher legal standards to evidence handling is an angle the principal (& supposedly encyclopedic) article should discuss as an issue raised by controversy surrounding this investigation. Obviously, I think this is a topic for encyclopedic notation for future reference and disagree with those who assume that only official sources are citable. That is exactly the free media policy of the Russian Federation today. Encyclopedias are not mere recreational tomes like a crossword book or pulp fiction. Also, there are a few ways in which you are not correct. Yuri Chaika, Russian Prosecutor General opened a criminal investigation into possible violations of Russian aviation regulations according to wide reports. Also, under a treaty, Russia and Poland are supposed to be engaging in a joint investigation. Where one party to that investigation has dominated the investigation and taken custody of physical evidence yet has not properly secured evidence, legal standards become even more important in achieving the objectives of peaceful international relations.MWoodson (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. But you only talk about principles and questions and maybes. And this is an encyclopedia, not a place for speculation. Unless you can find reliable sources that something *is* wrong, it's all irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The citations of sources documenting and reporting evidence security problems are within my new section discussion. If you refuse to read them, then of course this will appear to you to be speculation. And yet, it is not. There are facts from which a reasonable issue of evidence security should be discussed within the context of international investigations into aviation incidents causing political deaths. It is exactly to avert the spawning of conspiracy theories that I believe the topic should be included in an encyclopedia article that notes the evidence security fact issues I've cited and which the principal article has raised by its text. Please read more carefully.MWoodson (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I read very carefully, please do not come with accusations or straw men. It does not help you. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, you're spinning a conspiracy theory. Please stop. Physchim62 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming a conspiracy theory where one isn't, and using it as a label to exclude wikipedia participants. I've cited specific sources that raise evidence handling problems. Not the least of which was that it was possible for Russian authorities to steal and abuse a crash victim's debit card. You do not see this as an evidence security problem?MWoodson (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
How do you explain this: Polish investigators requested weeks ago that the Russian side make the Smolensk air-controllers available for an interview - to no avail. From what I've read, one of them retired immediately after the crash, and is nowhere to be found. There is another interesting story developing concerning the identity of certain Krasnokuckiy, a mysterious third flight controller who was not interviewed to this day? Who was Mr. Krasnokuckiy? May Mr. Krasnokuckiy step forward please? How about 100,000 signatures under the petition to establish an international commission to investigate this "incident" that was signed by the Polish citizens? Is it significant? How about an open letter from the Russian dissidents, among them former aid, and adviser, to Mr. Putin himself, who openly questioned and criticized the manner of this investigation. This was not an ordinary air accident. It claimed the lives of 96 key Polish officials, including the president of Poland. And thank you MWoodson for daring to ask questions! Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

MAK's Transcripts. What do they tell us? An interesting riddle: According to the transcript released by MAK at exactly 8:39:35 Polish TU-154 flying at the height of 400 meters cut through power lines hanging off the electrical towers at the height of 20 meters? I ain't the brightest star in the galaxy when it comes to 'em numbers, but this just doesn't make any sense. Does it? Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

Polish Prosecutors and Military investigators are considering whether the controller in Smolensk gave Polish TU-154 crew wrong flight data.

Russian Air-Safety Laws may have been violated, by the Russian Federation, says Valeriy Shelkovnikov, Russian Air Safety expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this talk page is for comments related to the article not speculation, leave it to the experts. When they have published any findings we can report it in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure what it is you are objecting to? The two links I inserted for the benefit of other editors above lead to two credible news articles where both Russian and Polish experts express their learned (that would be an expert-like) opinions pertaining specifically to the investigation of this tragic plane crash incident. Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC).
Not objecting to anything in particularly other than trying to stop needless speculation. I read both the links above and I didnt see anything other than an investigation is ongoing, and nothing of note, and I even read the voice recorder transcript. What I dont see is any reliable references to anything other than an ongoing investigation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You need to define what you say is needless speculation because I don't see any speculation in this new section. What is proposed is a subtopic in the principal article about the Smolensk crash that addresses the need for evidence authentication procedures and standards in international aviation accidents. The Smolensk plane crash is a perfect illustrative case for international joint, technical evidence handling procedures that prevent problems of nationalistic distrust.MWoodson (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any in this new section - But there was plenty in *this* section. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If you are for real, you'll specify. What is speculative about the main point of *this section*? Speculation gives rise to new encyclopedic topics, and so some speculation illustrates the need for the subtopic -- unresolved issues likely to remain unresolved calling for a new subtopic on methods of resolving them using well-established professional evidence handling solutions in place within domestic polities IS encyclopedic.MWoodson (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now asking me what's speculative about your speculations. That question is really very hard to take seriously. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that there is anything fishy going on at all. You've only speculated that is *may* be so. Yes it *may*. Now go away until you can show that there *is*. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
OpenFuture: You cannot produce an example of speculations that you allege. Instead, you restate your fallacy by begging the question.MWoodson (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Challenging Reliability of Russian Media Sources Under Current Regime

The Wikipedia policy on sources [[9]] identifies promotional websites as questionable sources. Russian media outlets that lack independence from the Russian autocracy or its favored oligarchs are questionable sources because of a large number of Russia-based journalists penalized for press freedom by assassination, threats and violence.

State-coerced media outlets will angle their content to promote the controlling nation state. Russian media are widely recognized as promotional for the Russian Federation government. As an example, the principal article cites state-owned media outlet RIA-Novosti in footnotes 47 and 112 as sources promoting the notions that and that the pilot of the plane was advised not to land and that Russia would hold a day of mourning with Poland (both April 10th reports coming out the same day of the crash) There was no critical side or interview to the assertions supported in each piece. Each said what was self-serving to the Russian state because it appeared to exonerate its agents (traffic controllers et al) and made it look sensitive to the Polish people on the same day of the crash. Such promotional uses are questionable according to the Wikipedia policy on sources.

The Voice of Russia is also a state-owned network. It is cited in footnote 32 to assert that thick fog "led to" the crash, although a critical look at the story given the landing technology of modern aviation would not necessarily make fog a causal agent where cooperative and good faith use of technology would mitigate its effects. The article does not discuss that fact, and also puts the number of persons on the flight at 132. Again, this was an April 10, 2010 article setting the headline tone for what would become a Russian media blitz using new and old news websites.

To be questionable, does a media outlet in a coerced media nation state have to be state run or owned where the prospect of violence, harm to family, loss of job or assassination is enough to control private media? Here is a list of the media affiliations of the 52 killed journalists in Russia (scroll down). Publications or journalists critical of political and business elites in Russia have suffered the largest rate of journalist assassination. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ.org) 52 journalists have been killed in Russia since 1992. 32 were confirmed as murders from which 30 resulted in no punishment for the offenders. The plurality of killings hit journalists covering politics, corruption, war and human rights related to Russia.

Because an autocracy exercises such centralized control over Russian national power and society, criticism in most sectors runs afoul of the central government regime and party monopolist, United Russia. Fear of loss of life, crippling or unemployment are powerful agents that sap independence from Russian media and individual journalists.

Also suspect are Western news sources that cite Russian media on the premise that it could possibly be independent, and without sufficient qualification. Most qualify "according to..".MWoodson (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned with the sources used you can raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for discussion, users at that forum are more aware of the current thinking concerning reliable sources rather than using an article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Just because a source is Russian does not make it unreliable. Russia's culture may be different and certain journalistic freedoms may be lacking, but that does not make the entire country's media system unreliable. I would think that if there were any sort of discrepancy whatsoever in the investigation, the Polish government will be the first ones to cry wolf. Also note the Polish government is conducting their own investigation and monitoring the Russian investigation to ensure transparency. So far they've had nothing negative to say regarding the investigation. As an aviation professional myself, I have studied and seen similar accidents in the past where a competent and experienced pilot flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground because he/she was trying to land it in bad weather conditions. It's called "get-there-itis" in the industry. The weather says "you can't land, it's unsafe." Your brain says "but I have all these important passengers in the back, they can't miss this event." You ignore the warnings and try to land. For a specific example, read the article on the 2001 Avjet Aspen crash. This U.S. accident involves the same circumstances: bad weather, pressure to land on time, and a passenger in the cockpit. N419BH 14:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back N419BH. This will be one of those rare occasions when I will have to respectfully disagree with you: so far they've had nothing negative to say regarding the investigation - they had, and still do. Please see the list of suggested mainstream media sources unused in this article above. The current political situation in Poland is highly polarized, and I am afraid that suggesting that there are no questions about the conduct of this investigation is inaccurate. I would also like to add that MWoodson raised many valid points which should be carefuly considered. Once again, welcome back! Robert, Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've recently had some major transitions in my life (graduated college) and I'll probably disappear again next week (starting a new job). In the meantime, it's good to be back, and once the transition is over I'll be around more often. As to your point, I am not saying there are no questions whatsoever, and my statement you quoted above did not make that clear. Frankly, questions are what lead to a better investigation. So to clarify, my point is that from what I can gather from English sources, the main findings of the investigation (No mechanical problems; Controlled Flight Into Terrain; pilot error) have been agreed upon by both the Polish and Russian investigations. What is unclear are the details and aftermath (Why wasn't the airport closed?; Why did the pilots attempt to land in such poor conditions?).
I think it's pretty clear this crash is an event in Polish history similar to the JFK assassination in United States history. A large number of conspiracy theories have been and will continue to be forwarded, and even after exhaustive investigation there will be a sizeable Polish and worldwide segment that will not believe the results. The circumstances (bad weather, Soviet airplane, Russian territory, former Soviet airbase, large number of government officials killed) simply create too many avenues for a conspiracy. Eventually, there will probably be a "conspiracy theories" section in this article. However, that probably won't happen until the official investigation is concluded. N419BH 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
N419BH, it may be a little early to make the comparison with JFKs assassination, but I understand your reasoning behind the statement. Time will tell. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I read it so that in Russia there are still people who die for their ideals. Compare it with the rotten western press, BBC and many others ducked like cowards in the Trafigura case. No journalists lifes in danger but there was a court injunction and BBC decided it does not want to afford the legal defence! Regarding the sources for this article the problems are different. Smolensk is not the center of the world and Russia being fairly Moscow-centric there were probably zero journalists anywhere close. The famous free press from the west apparently not only has zero reporters doing any serious coverage but is mainly relying on google translate for their coverage of the case - I do not see any other plausible explanation for the grave inaccuracies in reports about the events.Richiez (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As has been pointed out many times, the Polish government has made no official complaints about the handling of the investigation so far, and the final report has yet to be published. Chief Polish investigator Edmund Klich has indicated that pilot error was the likely cause, and the real puzzle now is why the pilot attempted a landing despite clear indications to the contrary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Great way to put it. N419BH 01:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smolensk_air_disaster/Archive_4&oldid=1140257973"