Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Gabriel]

The tree coordinates are from the Russian (MAK) report (Pic 1). I don't know how they measured it, of course. Taws 37 and 38 coordinates are from the Universal Avionics TAWS unit that was read at the company site in Redmond, US (Pics 2 and 3). You are not asking me how TAWS gets its coordinates, are you?

Yes, I am, but I will guess that it's from GPS or INS, which utlimatelly is linked to the nav equipment including the GPS.

Very likely the Russians got the coordinates of the tree (or better, of the "wing fragmens on the tree", I wonder how those fragments got there other than by being intentionally placed after cutting the tree with an exe) from GPS too.

The half of the Tu-154 cross dimension is 18.752 m, the distance between the TAWS trajectory and the tree is about 20.5 m.

I was wondering if the combined measurement error (you know, granularity, accuracy, measurment variation...) of the three data points (both points in the TWAS line plus the tree) plus maybe a slight error in assuming a straight trajectory could add up to, how much? oh, yes, 1.748 m, as to state, beyond any reasonable doubt, that "the end of the wing doesn't even touch the tree".

[Northwester]

I was wondering if the combined measurement error (you know, granularity, accuracy, measurment variation...) of the three data points (both points in the TWAS line plus the tree) plus maybe a slight error in assuming a straight trajectory could add up to, how much? oh, yes, 1.748 m, as to state, beyond any reasonable doubt, that "the end of the wing doesn't even touch the tree".

1.748 plus 5 -6 m to the "suggested" impact point. That's about 7 meters. Too much of an error.

[Gabriel]

If you say so...
By the way, an error of just 0° 0001' in just one of the coordinates would be more than enough to explain the 1.748m part.

[Northwester]

If you say so...
By the way, an error of just 0° 0001' in just one of the coordinates would be more than enough to explain the 1.748m part.

Right, but we are talking about +/- 7m.
And we have already 3 separate issues with the wing. One - Mr. Binienda's experiment. Two - undamaged slat on the edge that hit the tree. Three - GPS coordinates.

[Gabriel]

Right, but we are talking about +/- 7m.
And we have already 3 separate issues with the wing. One - Mr. Binienda's experiment. Two - undamaged slat on the edge that hit the tree. Three - GPS coordinates.

And we have dozens of trees cut by the plane and its wings, including trees with parts of the wings stuck in them... sorry, I forgot that only things AGISNT the official theory count.

[3WE]

If you say so...
By the way, an error of just 0° 0001' in just one of the coordinates would be more than enough to explain the 1.748m part.

And...just to round out the discussion, GPS coordinates of what?

Cockpit? Antenna? Back of plane? Top of tail, or landing gear?

Could the plane have been crabbed or slipping or banked or anything of that sort.

Those sorts of things add up to meters too.

Still, I wonder if there may have been other crashes in history of aviation where a powerful individual on board encouraged an aircraft to conduct an approach and fly below minimums and then crash?

[Northwester]

And we have dozens of trees cut by the plane and its wings, including trees with parts of the wings stuck in them... sorry, I forgot that only things AGISNT the official theory count.

All things count. But when you have not one, but several things that do not quite match the official theory, then at least you should re-examine the official version and check things again. For example one could recreate the trajectory of the plane base solely on the damage to the trees and see the plane can fit into that virtual "tunnel" considering all the parameters known, like accelerations, AoA, pitch, roll, roll rate, TAS, altitude, etc. If things checked, that would be a strong argument for the official version.

[Evan]

And we have already 3 separate issues...

You have. We don't have. You have to remain aware of that distinction. Most of us feel quite satisfied with findings of the official report.

[Northwester]

You have. We don't have. You have to remain aware of that distinction. Most of us feel quite satisfied with findings of the official report.

I am well aware of that. "Most of us"?

[guamainiac]

What kind of GPS, who owned and calibrated it and at what time?

[Gabriel]

All things count. But when you have not one, but several things that do not quite match the official theory, then at least you should re-examine the official version and check things again. For example one could recreate the trajectory of the plane base solely on the damage to the trees and see the plane can fit into that virtual "tunnel" considering all the parameters known, like accelerations, AoA, pitch, roll, roll rate, TAS, altitude, etc. If things checked, that would be a strong argument for the official version.

Northwester:

You can't take the same sources, take the parts of those sources that match your theory, and call the other parts "fabricated". I propose that the Binenda report is fabricated. Or that the TWAS report os fabricated and the real one showed the plane's wing passing exaclty through that tree.

Well, in fact you can and that's what you are doing. It's called... oh, have I said this lately already?

If there are inconsistencies (and there are, noone negates that), then they are just that. Worth investigating? Sure! But not if you are starting with prejudices of "what is the real story that is being conspirativelly hidden".

Let me tell you some things:
FDR have been wrong or incosisten several times.
GPS is not that perfect. 7 m combined in a three-coordinates determination (plus the assumption that a straigh line connects two of those three, plus the installation error -wat 3WE mentioned-) is not something that I see exraordinary.
Instruments that use accelerators and gyros tend to not work very well when the plane is crashing against trees.
Trees, on the other hand, are pretty accurate in the sense that they tend to be damaged when something damages them and not damaged when that thing misses them.
Planes are pretty fragile to out-of-design loads and I expect the usual outcome of a crash like this (the official one I mean) is everybody is dead on impact.
This crew did fly the plane down to minimums in conditions known to be impossible and in a field that was fitted with quite less than perfect technolgy, and for whatever reason they did not / could not go around. This part is what it's not very clear to me, but it seems to involve improper procedures (GA on auto). And they were approaching to fast and too steep, what gave them less time to recover (not to mention that 100m above the runway, what is less than that over obstacles is a too low minimum for an NDB approach for western standards).
The fog could not have been fabricated (don't come and tell me that there are witesses telling that it was a shiny day, I've seen the CVR of the YAK crew telling that it was horrible and worsening, and I didn't see any of themm come and yell that they never said that and that the CVR is fabricated, or maybe the YAK crew was part of the conspiracy?).
The russinas were so stupid as to fabricate an accident like this and still leave so many loose threads, but managed to make than none of the dozens of persons that must be involved or know "the truth" speak up.

So ok, there are inconsitencies. I see nothing so far that makes me suspect a conspiracy though. This is a very typical aviation accident with a very typical sub-par investigation like there are many in this World, including Russians and Argentinians, to name just two.

[Gabriel]

Oh, and I forgot to mention the irregularities in the selection of the crew (that did not qualify for the tasks assigned) and the horrible (or lack of) procedures, standards, policies and safety culture in the Polish wing that operated the flight.

[3WE]

Anyone ever seen the movie "Millenium"?

People from the future time travel back (via star-trek like beaming) to the past to bring people to the future. Much like the movie "Back to the Future", they make a big deal out of paradoxes where if you disrupt the past, you change the future.

But what these folks have figured out, is that if you grab folks from a plane, just before it crashes, (and replace them with look-alike dead bodies), that's a minimal disruption of the past with no significant effect on the future.

...I wonder.

[MCM]

7m is very explainable. Completely discount that as any indication.

If the aircraft was within 7m of the centreline on every GPS approach I'd be very excited (even though all indications say we are on centreline).

Its good - but its not THAT good.

[3WE]

7m is very explainable. Completely discount that as any indication.

If the aircraft was within 7m of the centreline on every GPS approach I'd be very excited (even though all indications say we are on centreline).

Its good - but its not THAT good.

Quick question- In the last few years in agriculture, we have started using GPS with RTK-supplimentation (a neary-by, ground-based beacon) for "cm-level" precision.

Just wondering if how much of that is present in the aviation world?

(...and I don't mean to imply that they should have had cm-level precision, or that it's something hugely lacking either)