Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Northwester]

But how would you explain the CVR manipulation?

Anyway, there is an old Russian proverb that says something like that: you suspect other of doing what you yourself are capable of.

Do you remember the Mozambique crash of 1986?

The Soviet delegation issued a minority report saying that their expertise and experience had been undermined by the South Africans. They advanced the theory of complicity of South African security forces and that the plane had been intentionally diverted by a false navigational beacon signal, using a technology provided by Israeli intelligence agents. The Soviet report focused on the 37 degrees' right turn that led the plane into the hills of Mbuzini. It rejected the finding of the Margo Commission, saying that the crew had read the ground proximity warning as false since they believed themselves to be in flat terrain as they approached landing

That's one of the theories out there. I don't know, but GPS signal manipulation is not difficult.

[Northwester]

It might come as a surprise, but you actually have to set the time on watches yourself.

It may come as a surprise, but my cell phone, my GPS, my car clock, my cable box, are all set automatically, and the time is ALL THE SAME!

What year do you have where you are from?

[Gabriel]

But how would you explain the CVR manipulation?

I'm not yet convinced of a "manipulation". The differences between the Russian and the Polish versions are very small, with the Polish version being more detailed (which is understandable) and a time shift of a few seconds. Ok, you'll say that the CVR was edited even before the Polish representants had an opportunity to listen to it. As said, I'm not convinced. This might work to delete things, but it'd be hard to invent things that weren't there.

I don't know, but GPS signal manipulation is not difficult.

The visibility, reported by their own Polish colleagues that had landed before, was less than the minimum, not just a little less, not 30% less, not one half. 1/5!!! The ATC told them "the conditions are not suitable for landing". They still attempted the approach. How do you manipulate that from outside the plane?

They botched the go-around, be it because they tried to save the approach, because of pilots' error, or technical failure (which I doubt). How do you manipulate that from the tower?

The captain decided that if they had to go around, they'd do it on AP, something impossible in this plane in a non precision approach. Was the pilot a KGB martyr, giving his life for the Party?

They ignored multiple "terrain ahead" and "pull up" warnings. Maybe the Russians shot them with a "deaf ray"?

Sorry, until something minimally material can be presented, I'm out of this.

[guamainiac]

From memory, his major claim was that there was a three second difference in the length of the tape or recording.

For instance (without going back and looking), if the stated capacity of the recorder was 120 seconds, the actual recording as provided by the Russians was 123 seconds.

Is that significant? If we examined all cockpit recorders would they all play for exactly "120 seconds" or would they vary from 118 to 122?

Is it only with Russian aircraft there is variation?

[Northwester]

From memory, his major claim was that there was a three second difference in the length of the tape or recording.

For instance (without going back and looking), if the stated capacity of the recorder was 120 seconds, the actual recording as provided by the Russians was 123 seconds.

Is that significant? If we examined all cockpit recorders would they all play for exactly "120 seconds" or would they vary from 118 to 122?

Is it only with Russian aircraft there is variation?

You are missing the point. The timeline is different. It is not the length of the tape. I believe the shift is about 6 seconds, plus some of the events are on different time points. The shift allows to support the radalt version (Russian) or the baro alt version (Polish). This is extremly important for supporting the Russian thesis.

[Northwester]

For the comparison sake, here are both versions of the CVR data in a graphic form.

This cannot be explained by some accidental factor.

[Taliesin]

It may come as a surprise, but my cell phone, my GPS, my car clock, my cable box, are all set automatically, and the time is ALL THE SAME!

What year do you have where you are from?

So your point is that because you own a smartphone with a radio controlled clock and a car and cable box with radio controlled clocks, the clock in the Tu154 HAS to be a radio controlled clock as well even though it first flew in 1968? Makes sense!

[MCM]

Even 'modern day' aircraft have CVR and FDR data that needs to be "synched" by matching up a known event, such as a transmission. The times you see on the well produced NTSB efforts are always matched, and not raw.

I don't know, but GPS signal manipulation is not difficult.

Correct, GPS manipulation is not necessarily difficult by itself - it is, however to do it in a fashion that is not detected as an error by the aircraft systems.

Techincally possible, yes - but if it was done, it wouldn't explain the manner or the location of the crash at ALL.

[Northwester]

So your point is that because you own a smartphone with a radio controlled clock and a car and cable box with radio controlled clocks, the clock in the Tu154 HAS to be a radio controlled clock as well even though it first flew in 1968? Makes sense!

When you have an official investigation and the results are published, time is synchronized and not by someone's wristwatch. Are you kidding me? Go back to eating your popcorn.

[Northwester]

Correct, GPS manipulation is not necessarily difficult by itself - it is, however to do it in a fashion that is not detected as an error by the aircraft systems.

Techincally possible, yes - but if it was done, it wouldn't explain the manner or the location of the crash at ALL.

I agree. But when I look at the CVRs and some other aspects of this investigation, something doesn't smell right.

The manner of the crash - yes. Location? The plane was off course, off path, about 1000m farther away from the RWY than the pilots assumed (and were informed by the ATC). Even if they were on path (correct altitude), they would have missed the RWY touching down to the left of it.

[guamainiac]

I'm not technical at all but how can you manipulate GPS.

In the old days the military used to vary the signal so some days you could be 1 mile off and others 3 feet. Hence the prohibition against navigation via GPS, you could use it as alternate to LORAN.

I never thought of it except for the dark humor, but are the satellites over Russia unique to them or would it be a localized signal strength akin to jamming in order to do that?

How can you assume what the pilots thought? If they "cued" off the searchlight perhaps?

[Northwester]

Sorry, until something minimally material can be presented, I'm out of this.

So if you look at both versions of the CVR plots, what conclusions can you come up with? Accidental shift of the timeline? Sloppy work? Lack of attention to detail?
Put both plots next to each other and compare. Not minimally material?

If you have the tape, proper equipment, and few months of time, you can do almost anything with it.

[Peter Kesternich]

(...)The visibility, reported by their own Polish colleagues that had landed before, was less than the minimum, not just a little less, not 30% less, not one half. 1/5!!! The ATC told them "the conditions are not suitable for landing". They still attempted the approach. How do you manipulate that from outside the plane? (...)

If ATC tells you that conditions are not suitable for landing and you try anyway, then you (and your passengers) are definitely beyond help. This is the fault of the Polish crew. Period.

(...)They botched the go-around, be it because they tried to save the approach, because of pilots' error, or technical failure (which I doubt). How do you manipulate that from the tower?(...)

The pilot and other crew members of the president's aircraft should be well-trained enough to execute a flawless missed approach. Hmmmmmm - if they weren't, whose fault was that?

(...)The captain decided that if they had to go around, they'd do it on AP, something impossible in this plane in a non precision approach. Was the pilot a KGB martyr, giving his life for the Party?(...)

See above.

(...)They ignored multiple "terrain ahead" and "pull up" warnings. Maybe the Russians shot them with a "deaf ray"?(...)

Well - what can I say? It may be hard to accept for some people in Poland, but the death of the president happened at the hands of his countrymen in the cockpit. Maybe the Russian report was not all that accurate. Maybe there were some flaws in the Russian ground equipment. Still, the final responsibility for any decision to land rests in the cockpit of an aircraft, and if somebody makes a mess of things like the Polish crew did, no conspiracy theory - no matter how entertaining - can shift that responsibility.

[Northwester]

I'm not technical at all but how can you manipulate GPS.

In the old days the military used to vary the signal so some days you could be 1 mile off and others 3 feet. Hence the prohibition against navigation via GPS, you could use it as alternate to LORAN.

I never thought of it except for the dark humor, but are the satellites over Russia unique to them or would it be a localized signal strength akin to jamming in order to do that?

How can you assume what the pilots thought? If they "cued" off the searchlight perhaps?

Even if they did all the mistakes the report says they did, but they were in the right place (on path, on course, as the ATC assured them they were), they would not have crashed, but either landed or executed GA without hitting any trees.
Did they make mistakes? Yes, they did. But if you overlook everything else, you are as guilty of being biased as I am.

A local stronger GPS signal can be easily generated.

[Peter Kesternich]

(...) Did they make mistakes? Yes, they did. (...)

They did not only make mistakes, they made THE mistake - busting minimums.

(...)A local stronger GPS signal can be easily generated.

Hmmmmm - I didn't quite read all the 50+ pages on here, but where does GPS come into play? From what I understand, they were not executing a GPS approach.