_2.jpg)
Glenn Jorgensen
A survey of the Smolensk tragedy – what is happening?
There is never a good time for painful truth: elections, further social unrest, care not to weaken the rulers, for whom it is hard to see a better alternate in Poland, all this does not aid in revealing problems. However, there is little time and the problem is growing. The support of state bodies in the investigation and investigation, and may, above all, in the corrective action to be taken after the publication of the Report, is effectively blocked by protracting and blocking work. Is this about dragging these jobs to a change in the governing squad so that we can't take these actions? I decide to talk publicly, after years of attempts to repair the situation outside the scope of the media, since I clearly see that the issue crucial to Poland, which I have devoted – like others active in the survey – is going in the incorrect direction.
Many of you, sincerely curious in the fact about the Smolensk tragedy, have most likely already realized that something bad is happening in a survey under the direction of Antoni Macierewicz.
More than 10 years after the disaster, and more than 5 years after the Law and Justice Office has ruled, questions arise about the chronicity and absence of the Final study documenting a complete, systematic, completed study, which is intended to repair the safety of the State and to supply a tool for essential actions in Poland and abroad. The Final study documenting what happened, how and why, is only the first step in the marathon, which you must take to be safe. The deficiency of access to the wreckage is not a actual justification for this state of affairs, many investigations have been successful with much little evidence than the 1 available to us.
Contrary to public assurances in the President's media that the study has been ready since July, as far as I know, members of the Subcommittee declare that they do not know the final version of the Final Report. After 5 years, Poland has another media message, movie material, another study, convincingly convinced, and inactive no efficient tool, the Final study gathering the basic requirements of specified a document, to which it could repair its security. In addition, in the Smolensk case another field of chaos opens, any people are convinced that the study exists, any ask where it is. That's how it goes.
Great hopes and amazing actions.
5 years ago, the Polish State established the Subcommittee on the Reinvestigation of Air Accident under the direction of Antoni Macierewicz, which resulted in the investigation of the disaster documented by the Final study which was not to be undermined in a reasonable manner. The subcommittee began work in a situation of media attack and misinformation exacerbated by the publication of 2 unreliable reports by the Russian MAK committee and the Polish Miller committee, which duplicated the main Russian thesis ignoring applicable evidence and remaining in conflict with the laws of physics. All of this caused pain, fatigue, and discouragement of parts of society.
The only way in this situation was to act efficiently, competently, to remove doubts and described in a reasonable way, which would build credibility in the eyes of the curious public in Poland and in the world, as well as serious global investigation partners, if specified could be obtained.
The president received full power in the Subcommittee, budget, time and free hand in the selection of resources – all assets in hand - to complete the mission in a reasonable time. Now it's 5 years.
Antoni Macierewicz was not only to supervise and politically pave the way to survey against possible obstacles, and then as a typical of the political side to receive the Final Report. He was to decide on the scope of method research, human resources and investigation tools. As a result, he manually interferes in issues where he lacks competence, frequently leading to absurdity against research.
When Antoni Macierewicz becomes Minister of National Defence taking over the HR and Financial Authority in the MONA for more than 2 years, it would seem that a golden time is coming to analyse the Smolensk tragedy. Not only does the president gain access to military radio stations, monitoring, infrastructure that can be a powerful tool in the investigation of the truth, but above all he has peculiar military services and military diplomacy at his disposal.
He can besides remove from positions in the military those he has come to know of as being capable of acting intentionally incorrect in the event of a TU154M disaster. Neutralize the possible threat of those in his line of work.
In the meantime, there are no tangible effects of specified action, but we are faced not only with serious delays or interruptions, but besides with irreparable harm resulting from decisions taken by the President. The completion of the investigation documented by the competent Final study according to recognised standards, in a way that removes any reasonable uncertainty about the image of events, without missing crucial investigation areas, in a form that would give a solid tool to the authorities of the State - remains in position beyond ever.
An immediate recovery process should be undertaken, especially since respective members have an highly valuable acquis, supported by large cognition and unique talent. Each of them started work not as a consequence of the Action Plan outlined in the Subcommittee – due to the fact that specified was never presented – but on its own initiative, long before the Subcommittee was established. It is simply a possible consistently wasted and compromised by erroneous organizational decisions and incompetent errors, or even incompatible with the President's communications in the media.
The problems are internally well known and debated for any time, and I, like others - as far as I know - members of the Subcommittee - have so far been convinced that it would be best to solve them outside the scope of the public, initially within the Subcommittee, and erstwhile this did not result, within the competent authorities.
Unfortunately, no corrective action has yet been taken in favour of Poland's most crucial state safety issue in modern history. That is why I am speaking on the same subject, which was raised by prof. Piotr Witakowski a year and a half ago, the author of 4 successful technological conferences of Smolenski. I know that there seems to be a bad habit of "shooting the messenger" alternatively of solving the basic problem – but in this case, we must not be silent, especially since it seems to be coming "in 5 twelve."
The current president Antoni Macierewicz presents fervent patriotism and is seen by many as a fighter for Smolensk truth. He has precious accomplishments of life, for which he is credited. However, managing and conducting an accident investigation requires circumstantial capabilities and competences. The president did not show a real effective organisational effort to identify all direct and underlying systemic causes and factors contributing to the disaster. I am not speaking here about another by nature, due to the fact that I have small cognition of the matter.
The main points listed below, describing the problems to be resolved after attempts to discuss and repair them in discussions with the President, were communicated in an interior letter to Antoni Macierewicz and 2 vice-presidents over a year ago, but no corrective action was taken.
Attacks on Antoni Macierewicz in fresh years by media specified as TVN, or people specified as compromised Maciej Lasek make it hard to address substantive and essential criticism calling for the essential corrective action.
It would be besides long to discuss all the examples of the incomprehensible conduct of the President, which would be detrimental to the study, so I will focus on a fewer points.
Poor task management
Although this is the most crucial survey in the fresh past of Poland, no appropriate task planning was carried out, which would include discussing and agreeing on the main investigative activities. The deficiency of haromonogram, time and resources for what to do, when, in what order and by whom, was raised repeatedly in unresponsive appeals to the President. The efforts of the members of the squad to carry out specified activities themselves have been ignored or discouraged.
Harmful substantive decisions
As most of you may remember – the Russian and erstwhile Polish explanation of the catastrophe combined to thin on the unproven hypothesis that the expected birch (Bodina) with a diameter of 35-40 cm can cut the left wing of TU-154M about 5.5 m from the wing tip. And losing that part of the wing would allegedly origin the plane to tilt about 150 degrees and hit the ground after about 340 metres of flight.
Although there are many another applicable evidence that is contrary to the MAK/ Miller hypothesis, including that the aircraft was not in a position to contact Bodin birch, it is essential to examine and address the issues listed as crucial in erstwhile reports.
Without this, it is hard to talk of a appropriate final investigation. A good accident survey is based on many layers of confirmation, and so - in the absence of real experiments of wing-to-tree collisions - it is crucial to simulate the collision with a tree in our work, besides due to the fact that the results could be easy to realize for a non-expert.
The National Institute for Air investigation (NIAR) in the United States is considered in the aviation environment to be the most competent in the simulation of aircraft hitting another facilities. The Institute was asked to analyse the collision of the wing with the tree and the aircraft on the ground, which would let us to answer over 13 crucial investigation questions.
The NIAR Institute started working in May 2017 before signing a written agreement under the influence of the verbal commitment of the then Minister of National Defence, at the same time the president of the Subcommittee, who pressed to make the results by April 2018. The Institute's work included precise laser scanning of any areas of the aircraft, as the Polish media informed at the time. The institute began building the digital model Tupolev. The full work was based on the Institute's own written plans. Antoni Macierewicz promised NIAR to sign the contract soon.
In 2018, after almost a year of spending more than $300,000 by the U.S. Institute from its own funds and inactive without a written agreement with the MON, with the disastrous organization of works condemning Americans to inaction of teams that were not provided with measurement data on time – the NIAR Institute resigned from cooperation and withdrew from the task by writing the incurred expenditures as a consequence of an oral agreement with the Polish Minister of National Defence for loss.
Through individual relations built between the leader of the NIAR task and members of the Subcommittee, the American NIAR Institute was convinced to change its decision during a crisis gathering held in Wichita, USA with the participation of Antoni Macierewicz, prof. Wiesław Biniendy and myself. In 1 day, NIAR's competent lawyer outlined an outline of a contract that Antoni Macerewicz was incapable to formulate for a year, NIAR's typical redrafted a solid task plan. Responding to the fear of subsequent downtimes at the work of the American Institute, I personally undertook to take work for the process of collecting data on the Polish side, and Antoni Macierewicz undertook to take work for the process of collecting data on the Polish side. in writing supply assistance to 12 qualified workers in this process. Finally, the president did not guarantee the presence of 12 people. Instead, in order to guarantee that the agreement between the Polish State and the American Institute so crucial for the investigation of the Smolensk disaster was not broken one more time - I was forced to employment - initially at my own expense - 1 full-time helper (it was yet concluded with the contract of the MON with that person) for secretarial work in drawing up 22,000 pages of the study with the measurements carried out and photograph material. Repeated requests for support remained unresponsive. respective hours of work per day 2 people, during the week and on any weekends for 18 months highly occasionally supported by others resulted in 99% of the work to which you committed to the Polish Ministry of National Defence contract with the American NIAR Institute – of course with any hold due to the failure of Antoni Macierewicz with guaranteed support.
At a gathering held on Friday 20 September 2019 in Antoni Macierewicz's office on Hożej Street, The president and his lawyer presented to me a letter addressed to the NIAR Institute, where Antoni Macierewicz fundamentally wanted to blame NIAR for the hold of the task and usage this accusation to force NIAR to give the results of his investigation before 10 April 2020 (on the basis of incomplete data from the Polish side!). erstwhile I protested against specified treatment of a serious and good partner and refused to participate in false accusations - any hold was caused not by the U.S. NIAR Institute, who worked very professionally and fulfilled all its obligations, but deficiency of planning the task by the president and the promised support of aiders in the works on the Polish side – The president found me disloyal to him, and my access to the duplicate P102 aircraft has been blocked by the president since that day. A fewer months later, Antoni Macerewicz banned NIAR from communicating with me, and in April 22 he suspended me in the Subcommittee. Pushing me out of the data transportation process to the U.S. NIAR Institute in 2019. Antoni Macierewicz personally began to transfer the remaining 1% of data to NIAR (location of certain point masses). This process was greatly delayed, what had to be done within 3 weeks, took 3 times more time to absorb a large condition of the remainder of the Polish American resource task (in another words, "consuming" money for which we could do valuable research), and any crucial data specified as the mass of floorboards " guessed" by Antoni Macerewicz were highly incorrect and later had to be corrected.
Relations with NIAR have evolved in a very bad direction, which was a natural consequence of many letters with calls under the rigor of legal consequences sent to NIAR by Antoni Macierewicz and his lawyer since September 2019, pressing on the American Institute to send preliminary and premature results and conclusions, erstwhile precisely at the same time Antoni Macerewicz delayed the final transportation of 1% of the remaining data to the American partner they needed to start simulations and supply the results they were asked for! During his weekly meetings with an American partner, the president reiterated that he had sent information that the Americans have been asking for for for respective weeks and expressed his amazement as to why this information had not come to light, suggesting that she was liable for his secretary, who simply did not send the data. Each time it was accompanied by an undertaking that the data would be sent back immediately. Repeating this ritual even for 7 or 8 weeks, concerning the same data, with unchanging – first astonishment, even disbelief, and then the incriminating secretary's justification – put all participants in the meetings in a very embarrassing situation.
The activities and working time reserved for Poland by the American Institute at the time of the project, with the large request to carry out key works - was mostly absorbed by weeks of delays, and then the request to correct data - which was due to the President's incompetence and completely incomprehensible decisions which clearly conflict with the interests of the survey.
Unwarranted doubts
The accuracy of the wing model as well as the tree model is equally crucial erstwhile simulating the plane's wing impact to birch. In the autumn of 2019 and spring of 2020, Antoni Macierewicz blocked the essential experiments on large trees by NIAR and the creation of a appropriate 3D model of the tree by the Subcommittee. The president never planned either the subject of the work, nor the means or human resources to plan the hearings of witnesses, and erstwhile they were taken on the own initiative of members, ordered the cessation of any ongoing interrogation of witnesses at the phase erstwhile they began to be interrogated by elder military staff. In addition, he claims that this is simply a lie, although a firm decision that the hearings are over and that the president will not sign any more subpoenas has been issued many times in front of witnesses and, as far as I know, is inactive valid.
Professor Binienda conducted experimental and theoretical works of large value in the USA (precisely without the support of the Polish State) concerning the characterization of bronze with a diameter of up to 16 cm under the influence of high-speed collisions. Based on these very good works, the U.S. NIAR Institute has offered to execute additional investigating works on trees with a diameter of 40 cm in diameter in the United States. Due to the errors identified in the first approach to experiments, NIAR offered to repeat them free of charge. The Polish website only had to cover additional expenditure on buying wood material and renting NASA's test facility, which represented little than 4% of the task budget.
Blocking this would be very detrimental to the investigation, not only delaying it, but causing harm to the formation of possibly erroneous simulations, as Antoni Macierewicz was warned about. Confronted and pressed at the Subcommittee gathering around the fresh Year 2019/2020, he stated that he would agree to take the essential experiments – but like many statements by the president – there was no cover in the truth. The deficiency of crucial data and a good tree model on the 1 hand and at the same time legal force on the U.S. NIAR institute to draw conclusions already, forced scientists from this Institute to importantly extend the safe scope of errors in key simulations and to simulate based on dubious output data from failed experiments.
The direct consequence of Antoni Macerewicz's failure to carry out an experimentation that would accurately characterize the birch - was a very large increase in the ability of the birch to cut into the wing during the simulation due to insurance erstwhile building a birch model with properties "like steel". The effects of the action – which could be easy avoided – allowing a simple experimentation – are highly harmful. erstwhile again, we are dealing with an action that strikes the heart of all study: alternatively of limiting and eliminating doubts – it starts to multiply them without needing to multiply them.
Worse still, Antoni Macierewicz despite the protests and statements of the NIAR Institute, that the results were preliminary - allowed public disclosure of questionable results, from the point of view of science, which were mentioned in the article by Mark Pyza "SMILEŃSK TIME".
Since mid-2019, Antoni Macierewicz has blocked the continuation of crucial work by world-class experts, included in the survey thanks to prof. Binienda - concerning the simulation of the effects of the detonation in the structure of the aircraft. These 2 decisions of the Subcommittee president limited the anticipation of making full usage of an investment of US$2.5 million in building a digital aircraft model through the NIAR Institute and allowed only 3 of the more than 13 crucial questions to be answered utilizing this model. Of these 3 remaining questions, only with a large – absolutely unnecessary – uncertainty could be answered, as in the case of the above mentioned effect of possible contact of the wing with the tree.
Worse still, since September 2019 Antoni Macierewicz eliminated the anticipation of full validation (checking) of any aspects of the aircraft model created, as the required access to the duplicate TU-154M (P102) in Minsk Mazowiecki was abruptly blocked without warning. The required validation process as defined by NIAR would be little than 3 weeks of work. Again crucial work was blocked just before the end of the trial.
Antoni Macierewicz has virtually declared the Subcommittee solemnly respective twelve times that the Prosecutor's Office is blocking access to the duplicate Tupoliev, but has not been able to show any letter addressed to the Prosecutor's Office in this case, which has been denied.
The prosecutors were given work for duplicate aircraft P102 only on 6 November, and they declare their willingness to make the duplicate plane Tupolev available, after the Subcommittee has submitted a request containing information on the planned work.
Access to detailed information on the TU-154M aircraft is crucial for the test. It allows you to realize from which location the elements of the found debris, how the structure is built, how strong the individual elements are, allows you to accurately find the material properties of each fragment. In the absence of meaningful information from a Russian producer, access to a likewise built TU-154M is necessary.
In 2016, then Minister of defence Antoni Macierewicz had the chance to acquisition TU-154M construction number 00A1003 for the price of scrap metal. The subcommittee had a appropriate budget. The request for investigation seemed obvious. Instead, the president blocked the purchase, returning at the end of the year a large part of the Subcommittee's budget to the state budget. This decision led the duplicate Tupoliev P102 stationed in Minsk Mazowiecki to become a critical component of the study. At the same time, in practice, this prevented a real experimentation from being conducted to hit a tree. specified an experimentation would be easy to realize and of large importance.
Why Antoni Macierewicz de facto prevented the acquisition of a duplicate Tupoliev from Poland at the price of scrap metal. Why was access to a duplicate aircraft in Minsk Mazowiecki blocked? And why is this blockade inactive going on? Is it not the key to creating doubts and not to destruct them? due to the fact that it's definitely the effect. The President's actions rise doubts as to NIAR's ability to answer even the last 2 out of 13 questions. In addition to taxpayers' money, the way Antoni Macierewicz treated the NIAR task is simply a large harm caused by the investigation – and action on the rule of leaving burnt bridges behind.
Bad relationships and isolation – measurable harm to the test
The prosecution and the subcommittee have different functions. 1 investigation is based on ‘finding facts without uncovering fault’, and the another investigation by prosecutors focuses on detecting guilty persons. In most another countries, both sides cooperate in the survey with common benefit.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with our investigation, in which Antoni Macierewicz seems to search to ban contact with the prosecutor. Cooperation should be based on respect and trust, allowing the efficient sharing of all evidence obtained by each investigation group. By issuing damaging statements in the press and leaks of preliminary results, Antoni Macierewicz made the relation of the Subcommittee with the Polish Public Prosecutor's Office very difficult. Although it may be crucial for policy to keep public favour, bad relations between the 2 parties are, in fact, a major problem for both investigations, as they make it very hard to share evidence between investigation teams. This is simply a "lost-lost" situation in which only those who want the fact to stay hidden are winners.
The efforts of the squad members to join the parties through direct contact with prosecutors were prohibited and eliminated by Antoni Macerewicz. Meetings with prosecutors are monopolized by the president and information from his fewer meetings is not made available.
Relations with a group of global experts, including Frank Taylor, were very bad due to the fact that they were practically confused about contracts in connection with work, in which common trust and credibility are crucial. Service of contracts, payments and communication from the Polish side, led by Antoni Macierewicz, made cooperation hard at the outset.
Again, the group was asked (by whomever, due to the Minister of National Defence) to urgently get to work without signed contracts, and erstwhile the agreements yet arrived, the deadline for their completion was almost over. Initially, experts repeatedly asked whether the agreement was inactive valid and could not get an answer – even with the two-man and three-man Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee, any doubted the undertaking. Payments have been delayed respective times. This made it very hard to interact decently with the group, due to the fact that either they were waiting for payment, either for formal contracts, or it was already after the deadline for their possible work. The group was mistreated to specified an degree that it yet gave up cooperation in a very bad atmosphere.
Antoni Macierewicz blocked authoritative attempts to meet a group of European experts, which would let the Subcommittee to meet another comparatively unknown members of the group selected in an unknown way. The deficiency of appropriate interaction besides meant that their work was mostly based on what they themselves managed to extract from MAK / Miller reports and on huge, comparatively unsorted material from the erstwhile Polish prosecutor's office. This deficiency of systematic input from the Subcommittee and information on its discovery - had a major negative impact on the group's work results. This is another area of demolition – not delays, not omissions, but demolition for which Antoni Macierewicz is responsible.
Contrary to the next agreement, suddenly, at the end of 2019, Antoni Macierewicz blocked the payments of a group of European experts, until each of them submitted a written report. At the same time, the president has consistently refused calls from afraid members of the Subcommittee to contact European experts to familiarise them with the key findings. After talks inside the Subcommittee, the president was aware that specified an approach could be harmful for many reasons, including, among others, experts will be forced to request incompletely, mainly on the basis of findings made by Russians and earlier Polish investigators without full cognition of the crucial findings made by members of the Subcommittee.
It took an extraordinary talent to destruct crucial assets for Smolensk's research, so as to destruct relations with friendly and helpful – 1 of the most respected specialists in the world, the creator of a training program, which has developed a large number of presently active aviation crash researchers in the world.
The withdrawal of an expert like Frank Taylor, who could bring global credibility and experience to the investigation, has deprived the Subcommittee of another crucial asset. Without expecting the president to actively gain specified authority, 1 would anticipate that the valuable specialist presented to the president would not be treated in a scandalous way, destroying all assurance in the Polish partner. And it's not just a deal, it's a work sentence. Doesn't that have a bearing on the Subcommittee's research? In any unusual way, the president can turn the top assets against investigation and matters.
Monopolization of access to evidence - demolition of squad capacity
Antoni Macierewicz did not make any effective efforts to systematically evidence the evidence collected (the evidence journal). This will later make it hard to bring any findings to the court erstwhile we would like to follow the Netherlands, which, after the 2014 MH17 plane crash, not only had the study published, but besides had Russia prosecuted before the Hague Court of Human Rights. Without the evidence log, members of the Subcommittee do not have the full cognition of the evidence at the disposal of the Subcommittee. Thanks to this, Antoni Macierewicz can monopolize access to this material, including public data, choosing which members of the Subcommittee have circumstantial data and who do not. frequently this choice has nothing to do with the actual competence to effectively analyse a given material of a "privileged-informed" person.
This is completely contrary to good investigative practices and severely harms the ability to cooperate with external experts and within the Subcommittee team, as each associate has a different starting point to analyse evidence in the area of his research.
Fragmentary study – study and Counter-Report
There is no effort to decently complete the investigation work and paper it in accordance with the applicable standards, not to be undermined in a reasonable way – although it is within our reach.
Instead of allowing the full squad to adopt a holistic approach and accomplish an adequate level of consensus based on a full knowing of all the evidence, Antoni Macierewicz orders an highly crucial function – the alleged Investigator-in-charge alternatively random person, known mainly for being a blogger, who collects and develops separate investigative fragments from colleagues from the Subcommittee.
This may lead to a paper far from the competent credible Final Report, although many findings of the Subcommittee members are crucial and precise.
Despite the evidence that allows for clear and beyond uncertainty the main conclusions, Antoni Macierewicz leads to a situation in which we are threatened with half-life, containing investigation weaknesses easy to attack, and even the publication of the Counter-Report – or adding attachments to the study with proposals in different directions – all within the framework of 1 subcommittee led by the same person. Will this aid solve doubts in the public domain?
Antoni Macierewicz never answered repeated questions of members who were part of the Subcommittee. However, everything points to the fact that a secret group under the leadership of Marek Dąbrowski, who, after the publication of the study by Antoni Macierewicz (if this happens), is working in isolation, publishing his counter-report or separate sentence.
This does not mean that it will aid to remove any reasonable doubts about the origin of the Smolensk tragedy – which is most widely within our investigation capabilities. Unfortunately, the effect will be the opposite.
Summary
The intent of any good investigation is to discover and to paper what happened. This should be done in a systematic manner, first presenting all possible possibilities, then systematic methods, based on all evidence and the laws of physics, in a competent manner excluding all another possibilities until there is 1 single reason that will not be undermined in a reasonable way. Only then will the investigation gain the credibility needed to make any change.
President Antoni Macierewicz directs the most crucial investigation in the contemporary past of Poland in a completely accidental way, without planning time and resources, without schedules and without the required competences. alternatively of promoting good teamwork, it introduces chaos and conflicts, alternatively of building good relationships with the needed partners who could very much help, creating enemies, monopolizing the information needed to be made available, spreading misinformation in the media and actively blocking any effort to conduct a systematic evidence-based investigation. An example of a miscommunication was, among another things, the inclusion in the media - contrary to the members' protests - that the aircraft landed its wheels down. Although this was at an early phase of the Subcommittee's work, there was already adequate evidence that this was not true. Among the actual evidence of explosions, the president in the media besides mentioned the inappropriate ones, which could easy be undermined, specified as an increase in the external temperature sensor value. The President's miscommunication was not due to his ignorance and was contrary to requests and warnings within the Subcommittee. The president mixes the essentials with the incorrect ones. And although many are crucial – a single mistake can medially dispel them.
Blocking key investigation by the Chair of the Subcommittee, while wasting a large amount of time and energy on insignificant issues, artificially created obstacles, management through chaos and conflict, arbitrary resolution of method issues without having the competence to do so – these are just any absurdities that a small, efficient group of Subcommittee members must face throughout the group employed by the President.
While at media declarations level The president seems eager to fight for the fact convincingly already convinced – it is at the level of investigation decisions that he behaves completely incomprehensible, frequently obstructing or preventing a solid justification of the investigation hypothesis, which is within our reach.
Instead of bringing the survey to an end so that it can be included in the Final study beyond reasonable doubt, eliminating any doubts – The president stops the essential research, takes actions that multiply chaos alternatively of answering the basic questions, thus giving a feed for further public argument.
The head of the Subcommittee is liable for destroying her most crucial asset as a investigation body, or credibility. It is very hard to see how the president of the European Union is doing by spending a large deal of time and work in research, aware of the highly valuable achievements we have at our disposal.removes authority and isolates the Subcommittee from relations with serious investigation partners, which took so much effort to obtain.
It's hard to realize why The president shall impede or suspend providing investigation partners with the data they need, does not accept the essential investigation reports from these partners, while at the same time forcing them to complete their work and submit proposals on the basis of incomplete information. At best, this could consequence in a very large generality.
Mistreatment, a deficiency of euphemistic speech, and fundamentally cheating partners, including in terms of contracts and working conditions, provokes their distrust, discourages and causes them to retreat from cooperation, builds an undesirable opinion in an global investigative environment.
Monopolising any external contacts by the president in the absence of his or her competence - it has a deplorable effect and prevents it from reaching its goal.
Priceless and robust investigation results of a tiny group of Subcommittee members are frequently achieved against interior organisational obstacles. In addition, the highly precise achievements developed with specified difficulty are mixed by the president with meaningless or questionable findings and presented to the public in an unbelievable way.
As a rule, an crucial investigation process can be cut at the last consecutive line to get any results for the next anniversary. The process taken most frequently against obstacles, under organizational conditions of extraordinary waste of time.
Now what?
We are not doomed to chronicity and chaos. It doesn't should be like this. We have many years of serious and invaluable work and investigation findings of respective very talented members of the Subcommittee, launched well before the establishment of this body and frequently obtained despite active action president to make them hard (which I realize is highly hard to believe). These are specified major achievements that they can be considered as investigative pillars for a conclusive, credible and nonsubjective Final Report. They deserve appropriate completion, complementing and documenting, in accordance with recognised standards, of the investigation of air accidents, thus providing the essential nonsubjective answers, allowing for the closure of the case with credible conclusions which cannot be undermined in a reasonable manner. This will aid to heal wounds and to take the essential corrective action to avoid a akin tragedy in the future. This requires a change in the position of the President, to a individual who, in addition to his willingness to come to the truth, would adopt a technological and evidence-based approach, would have organisational capacity, task management and method competence to usage the main energy to analyse alternatively than conflicts and artificially created obstacles. I can offer prof. Binienda as a individual who meets these criteria.
Glenn Jorgensen
[Thank you for sharing the first text].
We callback the video from the 4th Smolensk Conference featuring Glenn Jorgensen, in which he included the first results of his research.
