Glenn Arthur Jørgensen, Danish Member of the Polish Independent Investigation Team
SCND August 27, 2015
British Expert within Air Safety Investigation Frank Taylor claims the Russian and Polish Investigations are full of major errors and neglect, stating:
”This disaster just bothers me. The fact is that the investigation had been conducted too superficially, and the conclusions drawn from it are too hasty. Here is where you drill down deeper. That to me is undisputed and I do not understand how anyone could say anything else."
Member of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators Dr. Bogdan Gajewski (Ph.D., M.Sc., M. Eng.) is a continuing airworthiness expert and lecturer with over 40 years of experience in civil aviation and a retired Senior Corrective Action Engineer at the Safety and Security Directorate of Transport Canada:
"Both accident Reports fell short of the proper in-depth investigation. There were some basic discrepancies found in both official Reports which cast doubt on their professionalism [...]"
Danish Engineer Ms. Sc. Mech. Eng. within fluid dynamics, pilot and member of the Independent Polish Investigation Team:
"Here 5 years after the disaster the many pieces of this puzzle are coming [...]"
Also See: "Accident of Tu154 on 10 April 2010: Preliminary Review of the Reports, their Omissions & Deficiencies" by Frank Taylor, BSc, CEng, FRAeS, FEI, FISASI
The description and analysis of the wreckage does not appear to explain some unusual damage to the aircraft, notably the opening outwards of a section of the rear fuselage. There have been reports that not all wreckage was cleared from the accident site, some being found some six months after the accident. Such lack of care is unacceptable on many counts including that this wreckage is most unlikely to have been identified and documented. More here
About the official story:
- The official Russian/Polish story is inconsistent with the laws of physics.
- The Russian investigations including the MAK report are incomplete, full of major errors and not at all trustworthy.
- The black box radio recordings released by the Russians show clear signs of manipulation.
What the data tells us:
- The birch tree officially claimed to cut the left wing tip and thereby initiating the crash was never in contact with the plane.
- About 460m before the crash site the plane lost first its left wing tip and then later the middle section in free air at more than 30m height were no obstacles exist.
- An unmotivated loss of wing in free air has never been reported for the 1000 TU‐154’s each flying millions of miles in all types of weather, and the possibility of the use of explosives needs to be investigated.
- All signs of ground contact suddenly stop 0.3s after the left wing made its first ground contact.
- The plane hit the soft ground at a low vertical speed at a shallow angle and demolished into 20.000 to 60.000 pieces without the formation of a crater.
- Data shows the pilots did the correct approach, prepared and initiated correctly the go‐around above 100m height as they called.
See Dr. B. Gajewski's and Ms. Sc. G. Jørgensen's presentations in the European Parliament March 2015 below:
The trip to Smolensk was expected to highlight Russia finally admitting culpability in the massacre, after long having blamed it on the Germans, an atrocity they had tried to conceal for over 70 years.
As for the reception committee, it had different ideas. Putin wasn’t looking forward to such an occasion. Into this poisonous reception brew was President Kaczynski’s well-known public criticism of Moscow and Putin, a habit that has ended the lives of others within Russia – and abroad. A few discouraging Russian requirements – that Kaczynski could not attend in any official capacity – did not halt the Poles. Kaczynski would go anyway on non-official, “personal” business. To Russians, such a distinction would be meaningless, not lessening the possible international excoriation of such an event. A problem ripe for a modern, Russian solution: a tragic, ‘natural’ accident.
Remigiusz Mus, the flight engineer on Yak-40 whose landing immediately preceded PLF 101 and whose testimony implicated the Russian flight controllers, died of suicide.
This rounds out the death of the entirety of key witnesses whose testimonies could prove that the flight controllers bore at least partial responsibility for the mysterious crash that killed the Polish President Lech Kaczynski and 95 others near Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010.
Suicide. So says the Polish Prosecutors office under the administration of Donald Tusk, Bronislaw Komorowski, and the Civic Platform party (Platforma Obywatelska, PO) - the people who came out on top following the disaster of Flight PLF 101. The position of the Prosecutors office is that the autopsy indicated death by hanging with no defensive wounds and and alcohol level of one permille (.01%).
General Konstantin Anatolyevich Morev, chief of the Federal Security Services (FSB), successor to KGB, office in Tver, who interviewed the Russian flight controllers, died at the end of August 2011. His body was found in his office. The official cause of death was a self-inflicted gunshot wound from his service revolver.
Not a single member of the Special 36th Aviation Transportation Regiment who testified before the Poland’s Military Prosecutor’s office said anything disparaging about the crew of the TU-154 or General Andrzej Błasik. To the contrary, the sworn testimonies of the deposed airmen praised the late Air Force commander and the crew for their professionalism.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views the SmolenskCrashNews.com. All information is provided on an as-is basis, and all data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The Smolensk Crash News DOT COM makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.
