Retired Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Senior Scientific Intelligence Officer S. Eugene (Gene) Poteat Analyses the April 10, 2010 Crash of Polish Air Force One TU-154M Near Smolensk, Russia: "Russian Image Management - The KGB’s latest intelligence coup, and NATO’s latest intelligence disaster".
"Amidst many existing theories, a frightening picture emerges. The facts [leading to my conclusions] are becoming more, and more persuasive, and neither Madam [Tatiana] Anodina's [Director, Interstate Aviation Committee (Russian Federation)] propaganda, nor the incoherent ramblings in [Minister Jerzy] 'Miller’s Report', will suffice any longer. After a year-and-a-half-long investigation, I became convinced that the Smolensk crash was no accident ..." Tomasz Sakiewicz, Editor-In-Chief of Poland's prestigious Gazeta Polska ["Polish Gazette"]Read Mr. Sakiewicz's Full Editorial Here ...
"In 1952, Congress investigated the Katyn Forest Massacre and proved Soviet guilt; in 2010 and 2011, there were calls in Congress for an independent investigation into the Smolensk crash. Such an investigation is urgently required in 2012, and not only to solve the mystery of a vexing crash." Diana West, Washington Examiner
Diana West writes a weekly column that appears in about 120 newspapers, including the Washington Examiner on Sundays. Her work has appeared in many publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The New Criterion, The Public interest, The Weekly Standard, In Character, and The Washington Post Magazine, and her fiction has appeared in the Atlantic Monthly. She has made numerous television appearances as a CNN contributor to "Lou Dobbs Tonight" and "Lou Dobbs This Week." She is now at work on her second book for St Martin's Press, The Hollow Center.
***
"There is nothing in history like this."
"There's nothing in history like this, where you have an airliner that goes down with such important people, and within a matter of hours the Russians announce that it was pilot error, or someone was in the cockpit. This is sheer nonsense." Dr. Harvey Kushner, Ph.D.
As a recognized authority on terrorism, Dr. Harvey Kushner has advised elected officials, military personnel, and foreign governments as well as trained federal agencies from the DHS to the FBI, to name a few. He also worked for to the U.S. Probation Department as an analyst for criminal investigations, intelligence and terrorism. Kushner’s private sector clients have ranged from chemical and petrol manufacturers to multi-national financial institutions.
Two Explosions On Board of the Polish Government Plane Before the Crash: MAK and KBWL LP 2010 Crash Reports Analyzed by Dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk, Ph.D.
Part 1: The Official Polish & Russian Crash Reports Debunked by Scientists.
Part 2: Smolensk Plane Crash Explained: An analysis of the inconsistencies in the official reports.
Part 3: Smolensk Plane Crash Investigation: New leads and emerging crash causes explained.
The Official Polish & Russian Smolensk Crash Reports Under Scientific Scrutiny of Dr. Kaziemierz Nowaczyk, PhD:
Author: Kazimierz Nowaczyk, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Maryland
Summary:
The main causes of the [Polish Government Tupolev Tu-154M] crash were two explosions taking place just before landing.
One of them impacted the left wing near its mid-point and caused an extensive damage, effectively breaking the wing in two. The other, inside the fuselage, caused an profound damage and dismemberment of the latter, as well as loosening the connection of the left wing and fuselage. The landing in a woody area, no matter how unfortunate and at what angle, was incapable of causing the documented fragmentation of the structure.
The Analysis
Conventions:
MAK – Interstate Aviation Committee
KBWL LP - Polish Air Incident Investigation Committee
Parts of presentation:
• First impressions
• Results of analysis:
• horizontal trajectory
• the likelihood of a roll to the left
• TAWS #38
• Possible cause: preliminary findings
Properly secured air crash investigation site?
Above & Below: Two years later, March 2012 ...
Above: April 10, 2010
The plane’s left horizontal stabilizer position on satellite pictures:
Above: Left horizontal stabilizer has been moved about 20 meters closer to the main part of the wreckage.
The plane’s left horizontal stabilizer position (33) in MAK Report identical to position on satellite picture from April 12, 2010
The final seconds of the flight analysis
Right: KBWL Report
Right: Russian amateur photographer Sergey Amelin
Flight Data Recorders:
1. Black Box MŁP-14-5 (Russia)
2. ATM-QAR Quick Access Recorder (Poland)
3. Flight Management System (FMS) (USA)
Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS)
Differences between MAK and KBWL reports Angle of Attack
The angle-of-attack values are taken from a Russian and a Polish recorder, respectively. Both devices are merely data recorders and not measurement devices
Conclusions:
The final reports of both MAK and Polish Air Incident Investigation Committee do not include any information as to the methodology of the analysis or provide any data which would make the analysis replicable.
Data recovered from some of the aircraft’s recording devices have been subject to arbitrary alterations and some of the data (FMS and TAWS logs) have not been included in the analysis.
Data Extraction conclusion:
The amount of raw binary data that was captured electronically is very large. UASC software engineering can convert additional parameters to human-readable format if they are needed for the investigation.
FMS (Flight Management System) and TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning System)
Table 1
MAK added 3 seconds to real UTC time recorded in log files, the Polish investigating committee has added 6 seconds to most of the FMS and TAWS log times, both without releasing any further details
Horizontal Plane Trajectory Near the Birch Tree
According to TAWS #37 and #38 logs, the aircraft did not change its magnetic course 140 meters past the birch tree, which is inconsistent with information in both MAK and KBWL reports.
TAWS Alert Log #38 (Alert Type “Landing”)
Track Rate Computed rate of change of true track, in degrees/sec.
Track rate is used to determine if the aircraft is turning.
Uncontrolled Roll to the Left
Are flight parameters reported by MAK as evidence of an uncontrolled roll to the left consistent with what we know about the aerodynamics of this particular type of aircraft?
Critical flight phases of a Tu-154M aircraft in cruising configuration [1]
Lift coefficient (Cy), and drag coefficient (Cx) of a TU-154M aircraft in landing configuration [1]
Pitch angle and Roll left parameters (MAK)
Taking into account the effects of the aircraft rolling to the left as well as losing a considerable amount of airfoil surface, we can conclude that the critical angle of attack would have been exceeded one second after left wing’s impacting the birch tree.
Airflow vectors
The behavior of the aircraft after losing part of the wing has also been analyzed by a team of researchers lead by prof. Brawn of the University of Akron.
As the aircraft loses part of its left wing, drag works to counteract roll with the force equivalent to air moving at 5 meters per second, applied to the top of the right wing and to the bottom of the left wing.
The left wing moves downwards with an initial acceleration of -23.9, which then decreases to -2.5 deg/s2 because of drag induced by the rolling motion
The net effect is that the aircraft is being rolled to the left (3.0 to 0.55 deg/s2)
The nose pitches down violently (1.3 to 6.1 deg/s2)
Conclusions
1. The horizontal plane trajectory of Tu-154M, reconstructed from TAWS alert logs, does not change 140 meters after the birch tree. Impacting the tree resulting in separation of part of the wing and an uncommanded roll would also have to result in altering the aircraft’s horizontal plane trajectory. Such change in trajectory is inconsistent with TAWS Alert Log #38
2. Flight parameters reported by MAK and KBWL describe a roll to the left event which is inconsistent with technical accounts of aerodynamic properties if this type of aircraft.
3. If Tu-154M 101 had lost part of its left wing on impact with the tree, it would have to roll to the left, pitch downwards, and impact the ground no later than one second after hitting the tree. 21
Satellite Images of the Area Where the Last TAWS Event Has Occurred (April and June 2010)
Fig. 46 of the MAK report, showing the aircraft’s trajectory base on TAWS logs #34 through #37 (purple line) as well as a reconstruction of radio altitude (blue line).
The blue line does not contain any explicit information from TAWS #38 or any of the FMS logs. We do see that the blue and purple lines cross at one point. All TAWS and FMS logs were known to both MAK and KBWL very early into their investigations.
The KBWL Report Omits TAWS #38 and FMS Logs.
This slide shows the method used by KBWL to disguise the existence of this data. The fact of this disguise suggests that KBWL is fully aware of the fact that this data is inconsistent with their final conclusions.
MAK Report, FDR Parameters (Fig. 25 and 45, English Version)
Two sudden dips in the graph of vertical acceleration (red line) appear in graphs of both MAK and KBWL reports. Neither report mentions them in the analysis.
Time correlation between peaks of vertical acceleration (MAK) and roll left KBWL
Please send questions and comments to denoiser@yahoo.com
Report No. 456
SOME TECHNICAL AND STRUCTURAL ASPECTS
OF THE SMOLENSK PLANE CRASH
Author: Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
Independent Technical Advisor
of the Parliamentary Team of Antoni Macierewicz
Dr Gregory SZULADZINSKI received his Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Warsaw University of Technology in 1965 and Doctoral Degree in Structural Mechanics from University of Southern California in 1973. From 1981 until present, he has been working in Australia in the fields of aerospace, railway, power, offshore, automotive and process industries, as well as in rock mechanics, underground blasting and military applications. Especially since the early 90’ties he has been doing computer simulations of such violent phenomena as rock breaking with the use of explosives, fragmentation of metallic objects, shock damage to buildings, structural collapse, fluid-structure interaction, blast protection and aircraft impact protection. He has done a number of state-of-the-art studies showing explicit fragmentation of structures and other objects. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Engineers Australia, member of its Structural and Mechanical College, a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Data for analysis has been submitted by the Parliamentary Commission
The left wing, view from the bottom. The parts are pieced together based on images from the day of the incident.
The airplane change magnetic heading after TAWS #38 on baro-altitude 37.5 m.
Phase I
Internal or external explosion in front of the left wing
Phase II
Internal explosion in central position in airframe
The loss of the wing’s leading edge near the fuselage and the entire left-most part of the wing had two aerodynamic effects: loss of lift on the left side and increase of drag. The first effect induces roll to the left, while the second one induces a change in magnetic heading.
Phase III
The rear part of the airframe with wings and vertical stabilizer rolls to the left independently of the front part which stays in its natural position
Phase IV
Impact with the ground: only the rear part of the fuselage is inverted.
Angular momentum about the roll axis breaks the fuselage apart completely, separating the front of the fuselage from the rear, with the rear continuing to roll to the left.
Cockpit and front part of fuselage are not inverted
Rear parts of the fuselage in inverted position
Summary of Results
The main causes of the crash were two explosions taking place just before landing.
One of them impacted the left wing near its mid-point and caused an extensive damage, effectively breaking the wing in two. The other, inside the fuselage, caused an profound damage and dismemberment of the latter, as well as loosening the connection of the left wing and fuselage. The landing in a woody area, no matter how unfortunate and at what angle, was incapable of causing the documented fragmentation of the structure.
-------
Also See: "Explaining complex physical events using large scale simulations. Case Study: Crash of Polish Air Force One in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010"
Source: Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute. The RI is part of the Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science.
Presenter: Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair, Civil Engineering Department, University of Akron
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, on November 30, 2012
About Carnegie Mellon: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) is a global research university with more than 12,000 students, 92,000 alumni, and 5,000 faculty and staff. CMU has been a birthplace of innovation throughout its 113-year history.
Abstract
We will show how a large scale simulation approach, that has proven successful in researching dynamics of high-energy impact in engineering, can be used to validate results of forensic investigations of air traffic accidents. In our case study involving the tragic April 2010 crash of Polish Air Force One in Russia, we use the finite element methodology to enable comprehensive high fidelity simulations of certain events that reportedly might have occurred during the crash. Using only publicly available data as inputs, we analyze physics of a presumed collision of a wing of the aircraft and a birch tree, and look into various scenarios of structural disintegration. Curiously, our results expose infeasibility of many findings published in the official investigation reports. The presentation will be preceded by a short introduction to the historical and political context of the crash. We argue for and emphasize the benefits of using a scientific method to explain complex events taking place in the physical world.
Speaker Biography
Dr. Wieslaw K. Binienda, F. ASCE. currently serves as Professor and Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Akron. He received his Master of Science degree from the Warsaw Polytechnic and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
His research interests include high energy impact simulation, fracture and damage of materials with emphasis on advanced composites, explicit and implicit finite element analysis, smart materials, structural design as well as optimization, characterization and constitutive equation development for ceramics, metals and polymer matrix composites.
He has authored or co-authored 55 journal papers, 21 NASA Technical Memoranda, and about 100 other publications. He successfully advised 15 PhD and 13 MS graduate students. He is a Principal Investigator or Co-PI of research projects in the amount of over $8.5M from federal agencies like NASA, NSF, state agencies such as EPIC, OAI, and the private industry.
In 2004 Dr. Binienda received a prestigious NASA Award titled "Turning Goals Into Reality" for valuable contribution to the Jet Engine Containment Concepts and Blade-Out Simulation Team and Exceptional Progress Toward Aviation Safety.
In 2007 Dr. Binienda was honored with the ASCE Fellow in recognition for his outstanding research accomplishments. He is also a recipient of the Outstanding Researcher Award and the Louis A. Hill, Jr. Award of the University of Akron. Recently, he received two prestigious ASCE awards: Outstanding Professional Service Award in 2010 and Outstanding Professional Contribution Award in 2011. Polish-American Congress Illinois Division awarded him the Heritage Award in 2012. He was a distinguished keynote speaker at the ASCE Earth and Space Conference in March 2012 in Pasadena, CA. He also was invited as the keynote speaker at the Polish-French Symposium on Mechanics at the Polytechnic University in Warsaw in May 2012. Dr. Binienda was also invited by COMAC Corporation as an aviation expert for the ISATCA Conference in Beijing China, in September 2012, where he presented his analysis of the Tu-154M airplane crash in Smolensk.
In 2010 Dr. Binienda was elected as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Aerospace Engineering. Dr. Binienda also serves as co-director of the Gas Turbine Testing Center at the University of Akron where he is responsible for impact, material and structural experiments.
Also see:
RI Special Seminar: Introduction by Maria Szonert-Binienda, Esq.
