It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Mystery of Poland's Presidential Plane Crash Deepens (gotta read)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

A picture of Russian airport personnel changing light bulbs in the approach lights to Smolensk airport under the supervision of a uniformed Russian military officer has been circulated in the Polish media. This prompted the Polish prosecutor in charge of the investigation to ask his Russian counterpart for an explanation.


Four days before the crash, jets of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk safely landed on the same tarmac in Smolensk. According to unconfirmed reports, Prime Minster Putin's security detail equipped the airport with an additional navigation system, MMLS (Mobile Microwave Landing System), before the landing which was dismantled after the visit was completed. In Poland the revelation fuels speculation about the crash. Russian authorities who lead the investigation have not yet answered if the report is true and if so why the same navigational equipment was not provided for the pilots of the Polish Presidential plane.


According to an anonymous source, the investigation into the causes of the Polish presidential plane crash may be subjected to political pressure which could hinder the ongoing investigation. This, claims the source, is due to the political aspect of the accident: the tragic death of the president on the territory of a foreign country.

The Polish presidential jet was not insured, which could mean that the party at fault in the tragedy may be subject to a multimillion dollar civil litigation suit by families of the victims. If the cause of the crash is determined to be a flight controller's mistake or a malfunction of the navigation equipment at the Russian airport, it could harm Polish-Russian relations, which for years have been far from satisfactory, the source says
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

The article goes on.... more questions and theories. What a shame. I can't help but feel there is more to this than just an accident. And I think the Polish people are (or have been) feeling the same. But, what will they do about it.... nothing I would guess. Not much they can do as anything they would do could start a war or conflict w/ Russia.




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Another thread that plays on my nerves, operating on old, boring speculations.

You know what's MAIN problem now?
Plane was polish, victims were polish, but Russia DID NOT give away OUR blackboxes.
IMAGINE THAT.
Another interesting fact:
was fog there, wasnt fog there, can you believe that actually DO NOT KNOW WHEN crash had place?
Every minute counts as SOME people DID not see ANY FOG before given crash time(i mean GIVEN time, not REAL time of crash).
Now, we have info, that power lines where crash had place lost power before 8.40 polish time.
Personally I think that Russia have no real interest in that crash(well, West had more to it), but it is ridiculous what's happening now.
How UE country can beg for evidence?
And there's NO media asking for that, can you believe?


[edit on 28-4-2010 by potential_problem]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by potential_problem
 


That is another great point. What media is really pushing Russia for info.

There is suppose to be a media event later today in Russia to discuss the investigation etc. We shall see but with the Poles screaming for an international/independent investigation-I would have to say they beleive there is something sinister going on with the whole mess.

I would like to know more about the accident area-prior to the crash.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


I Love new information keep it up mate.

Quite interesting hearing more on this.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
This is certainly a case right out of a Ludlum novel.

This should get very interesting. If there is a cover up, I certainly would not like to be caught up in the middle considering who these players are.

Let's keep our eyes peeled.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I wasn't going to post anymore on this but you did it....

Robert Ludlum: he is my favorite author of all time. I read his books most of my young years and into the my late 20's. Truly a great one. And you are correct-just like something he would write. Crash...Enter Bourne: Heck, I think I could write a novel from there. Let me ponder that one.

And, the other point you made about not wanting to be caught up in the middle with these players. How true. I think that is why just about everyone in the West has blown off the serivces etc- Ash- Please.

I bet if it was Putin that would have died in a crash of a similar nature, the whole world (politically) would have been at the sevices-would have driven there if they had to. Not cancelled due to Fake Ash and went and played golf-like someone did

I feel the US and most of the world is letting Poland down right now-again.

[edit on 4/28/2010 by anon72]

[edit on 4/28/2010 by anon72]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Here's what caught my eye in the article right away:


The Polish presidential jet was not insured, which could mean that the party at fault in the tragedy may be subject to a multimillion dollar civil litigation suit by families of the victims.


This may very well be less about possible sabotage and more about compensating the family members that lost a loved one on that flight.

This is not a judgement of any kind, but rather with such difficult times and strained relations between Russia and Poland, perhaps Poland needs someone to be responsible for this possibly multi-million dollar lawsuit.

I would be remiss however if I didn't say:
How can you not insure the plane that's carrying the President??



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Question. They sit their runway lights on peach baskets?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


How can anyone even travel on a plane-without insurance? Maybe, unless you are the President? I don't know. Someone probably made off with a lot of money somewhere on that one.

Yes, I agree that a lot of folks are looking at this from a liability standpoint and what Russia could have to cough up (or not-as the rifle bolt slams forward).

I don't know what to think. I was leaning towards an accident unitl the OP photo of the lights on crates came forth. One thing for sure, we will never get the whole truth and evidence.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
As an aside, if that's a VASI device (and Eastern Europe has a different system than the US) changing the bulb colour could be used to cause "pilot error".

Raises my eyebrows...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
It being the government plane, it is probably the government´s
(taxpayer´s) liability.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 



Could you expand on your post please. In dummy man terms
)

You got my interest-for sure.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
VASI means Visual Approach Slope Indicator. It shows red or white lights depending on the angle the lights are viewed at. There are a couple different versions of this, but the general idea is to give the pilot a visual indicator of whether he is high or low for a standard approach. You'd like to see the second set (furthest) of the lights as red and the first set as white. Two reds means you are too low. Two whites mean you are too high.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I should probably note that looking at the pictures, they are probably just approach lights. I don't see anything that would be used to change the colour of the lights based on the angle they are viewed at. And making sure all the approach lights are working when expecting a foreign dignitary, isn't exactly nefarious.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
My question has always been why did the pilot bank hard as to avoid the runway? I haven't read many threads or followed this closely and only now see that the black boxes aren't released. Why not? Do the voice recording from the cockpit reveal what the pilot was trying to avoid?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Marrr
 



They sit their runway lights on peach baskets?


I'm looking at that photo, too.

I am thinking less and less that what that shows is a permanent installaton of any kind. I was U2Ud with a question about whether it was a VASI ... and I suggested it resembled a PAPI more, except not like any I've ever seen. But, I haven't flown into Russia.

Still, ICAO standards for airport lighting equipment usually has them painted a bright orange, not yellow. AND, a PAPI is very precisely aligned, not like that photo shows.

I'm leaning towards calling them possibly portable work lights, for the clean-up of the crash site.

A photo like that just generates more and more wild rumors, doesn't it?




Here's a picture of a typical VASI unit, as used mostly in the US:


There will be a total of FOUR of those, two either side, and paired, one pair slightly farther down the runway than the first pair. At smaller airports, only two on one side.

Here's the pilot's view, simpler installation:



Remember aid is "Red Over White, You're Alright"

Basically, both red, too low. Etc. As you pass through, off glaideslope, they range from red to pink to white.

PAPI look like this:



Similar principle, different way to show it.



[edit on 28 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


This is the 2nd time today a fellow ATSer provide amazing intel and info on subjects new to me. I love it.

Yes, now the photo of the lights on baskets do make things seem odd. I don't know what to think.

I know Russia appears to be bending over backwards to show they care and how tragic this all is but you know propaganda can be funny thing. One thing for sure is that they can't stand in the way of any independant investigation or they will look very poorly.

Again-thank you for your efforts and time for the response



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


No problem


Now, I took another look (after the darn computer froze up on me
)

The article is calling the action being done, there in the photo, 'changing the bulbs in the approach lights'.

Well, again....those look nothing like any approach lights I've ever seen. Especially because of how they appear so temporary/portable in nature.


A quick note, regarding the instrument approach that (I heard somewhere) was in use by the Polish flight. I know the article mentions the MLS for Putin's airplane, and those portable MLS systems do exist. BUT, the airplane has to have the proper equipment installed onboard in order to use it.

Here's a description of an American-made system:
www.globalsecurity.org...

Going to be primarily for military use, as shown.

I read that the Smolensk Airport has only what's called an 'NDB' approach. That is a non-directional beacon, it operates in the same radio spectrum as AM radio. Dates back to very early days of aviation, actually.

It is what we call "non-precision", not only because an NDB is very 'rough' in its guidance capability, but that is a generic term to describe any instrument approach without an electronic glideslope (or, the equivalent from a radar facility, and that's called 'PAR'. AN air traffic controller, using specialized very precise radar, actually 'talks' you down. In the States, only used at Military fields).

A typical procedure, for non-precision approaches, is line up on the final approach course, planning to be fully configured for landing by the "Final Approach Fix" (FAF). There are proscribed minimum altitudes along each stage of the approach procedure.

Passing the FAF, a descent is initiated, typically targeting a rate of ~800 fpm. There is a final altitude (the minimum descent altitude -- 'MDA'), sometimes there is a two-step MDA --- and it is unlawful, per most countrie's regulations, to descend BELOW the MDA unless you have what is called the "runway environment' in sight. In the US, and for US operators, certain parts of the appraoch light system are considered sufficient to continue, but the runway lights, or threshold lights, MUST be in sight by the time you are ~100 feet below MDA, or a missed approach is mandated.

In the event the runway environment is not sighted, the missed approach (MAP) is determined by timing, from the FAF, in the case of the NDB approach. (Some other non-precision procedures utilize different MAP determiniation, sometimes).


Now, for the Polish flight...assuming for the moment no 'conspiracies' at work, here. It could be a case of the Captain, under the pressure of wanting to "get there" (get-there-itis) and, since I assume he was Polish AIr Force, he had an ego to uphold...might have risked a slight descent below MDA, in the hopes of seeing well enough to make it. These things do happen, but sometimes the result is tragic.


Sorry it's a long description, easier to be able to just show someone, in a simulator. Would take about five minutes....or in a classroom.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Here's what caught my eye in the article right away:


The Polish presidential jet was not insured, which could mean that the party at fault in the tragedy may be subject to a multimillion dollar civil litigation suit by families of the victims.


This may very well be less about possible sabotage and more about compensating the family members that lost a loved one on that flight.

This is not a judgement of any kind, but rather with such difficult times and strained relations between Russia and Poland, perhaps Poland needs someone to be responsible for this possibly multi-million dollar lawsuit.

I would be remiss however if I didn't say:
How can you not insure the plane that's carrying the President??



why would you need to insure something that probably goes through hours of pre flight checks and is most likely using top of the line aviation technology

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Shake]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join