Letter to The Institute of World Politics (extended)

If you want to see this text in one piece, press   Drukuj on the left.

Poniżej treść listu.

    Dear Sirs,

    I am writing regardingdr Kazimierz Nowaczyk presentation published on your pages. I would like to draw your attention to the slide shown below (http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20140411_IWPFourYears.pdf – page 22).

The part of this diagram concerning accelerations and roll angle is a compilation of diagrams from my work published in http://www.konferencja.home.pl/materialy/14.pdf- Rys.16, page 131 & Rys.23, page 133 and my numerous internet publications(eg.http://kaczazupa.salon24.pl/504092,ukryte-pol-sekundy-3), and the second part of the above diagram concerning the time location of collision with the birch (the yellow vertical line) is wrong because in both KBWL report and ATM expertise the collision with the birch is located about half a second earlier, as it is shown on the diagram below which contains fragments from "Rys. 17. Przebieg wybranych parametrów na ścieżce podejścia do lądowania – kanał poprzeczny – sterowanie lotkami” in KBWL report.

This (KBWL) location agrees with time of marker middle point of nondirectorial beam signal, ground speed in TAWS$#37 (before collision) and #38 (after collision) and the distance between the marker and the birch. Wrong location of collision time is also given in diagrams of acceleration and roll angle which dr Nowaczyk used on pages 16,21 and 26 of his presentation.

Dr. Nowaczyk incorrectly describes lateral acceleration as horizontal acceleration. This may mislead the reader that the acceleration is measured in reference to the earth while actually it is measured in the reference system of the plane, and in the Russian report is described as "pieriegruzka bokowaja".

   In the first part it is a violation of my copyright, in the second it is a tendentious manipulation of the data registered in black boxes.

    Another remark concerns the slide from page 24.

Glenn Jorgensen calculations can not be taken into account, because he used the wrong equations of motion. This precludes the possibility of obtaining the correct values ​​of the roll angle , which results in calculation of incorrect values ​​of other parameters. This is discussed inhttp://kaczazupa.salon24.pl/561582,teoria-a-zarejestrowane-parametry-beczki-smolenskiej.

    Last objection which I wish to communicate to the readers of dr Nowaczyk's presentation concerns the slide on page 30.

Conclusion of dr G.Szuladziński drawn on the basis of the following image are poorly justified and biased because he did not consider other photos of this fragment of the fuselage taken from different angles.

In the upper and lower picture one can see the tree trunk of thickness about half a meter which is a remainder of the tree after the collision. The collision with the tree most probably caused a tear in the roof in the part of the fuselage described by dr Szuladziński. At the time of collision with the tree the plane was turned upside down. In the middle picture the position of the tree trunk is shown (fragments scheme from MAK report). This issue was discussed in http://kaczazupa.salon24.pl/578192,pytania-do-p-marka-dabrowskiego-i-dr-grzegorza-szuladzinskiego , where the satellite image of the crash place from time before the crash can also be found.

 I think that these remarks should be published with dr Nowaczyk presentation because his controversial works are criticized in Poland by many authorities in aviation sciences.

In Poland the opinions on the causes of the catastrophe are divided. Poorly founded reasoning of dr Nowaczyk paradoxically gives support to MAK report which is more radical in blaming the human factor on the Polish side as the catastrophe cause than the Polish Report.

This letter will be also published on my blog, because dr Nowaczyk also publicizes the content of his presentation.

Sincerely yours

Michal Jaworski

W uzupełnieniu komentarz Pawła Styrny na stronie IWP