[English] Marek Strassenburg Kleciak – a specialist developing a system of three-dimensional navigation
Klikaj przycisk +1, aby osoby z listy kontaktów widzieli Twoje rekomendacje w wyszukiwarce
Zobacz także:» "List z Polski" » Marek Strassenburg Kleciak – specjalista opracowujący systemy trójwymiarowej nawigacji » [English] The Satellite Navigation Systems Expert Eliminates Pilot Error » [English] Could anyone have survived the crash? Who was shooting and why? » [English] In the murder of Kaczynski’s handwriting is seen Putin » [English] What was the elecronic equipment of the president’s aircraft? » [ENGLISH] Smolensk 2010 – PLANE CRASH RESUME » [English] Romanian Global News: Both Brothers Kaczyński Were to Die » [English] President Kaczynski’s last speech that was not delivered in Katyn » Marek Pasionek chciał postawić zarzuty Klichowi i Arabskemu » Prokurator Marek Pasionek odwołał się decyzji szefa Naczelnej Prokuratury Wojskowej » Seminarium na temat katastrofy smoleńskiej – Dr hab. Marek Czachor, prof. ndzw. Politechniki Gdańskiej Katedra Fizyki Teoretycznej i Informatyki Kwantowej » Ewidentne zacieranie śladów » emerytowany oficer CIA: TO NIE BYŁ WYPADEK
A translation based an article posted on this blog which was previously published on the web page of Wolna Polska (Monday, 19th April 2010)
Wolna Polska published a letter sent by Marek Strassenburg Kleciak – a specialist on 3D navigation systems. The author Marek Strassenburg Kleciak is a lecturer at the University of Humburg and is responsible for advanced research and development at the Harman/Becker Automotive Systems GmbH, Germany.
The author states that for him as a co-creator and developer of 3D navigation systems it’s hard to “imagine how the TAWS system, which was installed on the President’s plane, could fail if it didn’t “help it””.
With this he analyses the pictures taken by Sergiej Amelin
He highlights that in particular on the photograph nr 4 and 5 it’s seen that the plane “flies as it should” which according to him derives from “the analysis of individual damage to the first tree tops”, which in turn points to the correct “horizontal slope of the aircraft approaching its landing”
“The difference depends on the fragmental transfer. In the XY plane at about 15 m to the correct course, in the Z plane at around -5m (the plane is too low).
This may indicate a falsification of data. According to Marek Strassenburg Kleciak to disturb the navigation on the board the plane you would use the “meaconing” technique. Recording and rebroadcasting on the Receiving Frequency would confuse the positioning.
This relies on the fact that the satellites signal is recorded and with a slight delay in time and a stronger force that than the satellites original signal, sent out is in the ether at the same frequency as the original signal. The smaller the time delay interval is of the “meaconing” used, the harder it is to detect it, and the result is incorrect definition of your own position. If the change in position is not significant (as was the case with the accident of this flight) then not even an intelligent receiver such as: Receiver-Autonomous-Integrity-Monitoring is able to recognise this scam.”
The author of the letter encourages anyone interested in this topic to read the book “Satellitennavigation” written by Hans Dodel and Dieter Häuptler and published in German in 2009. Marek cities a quote from this book: “The disturbance of the function can happen in two different forms: internal and external disturbances. System either disturbs its own receiver, or is purposefully disturbed by a so called “Jammer”, which transmits a signal on the same frequency as that of the navigating signal with a great enough force ( > -160 dBW, the transmitting power of the skylight during a mating period), so that the reception becomes overshadowed.
In the modern receptor according to the concept of integrated navigation, for which the strength due to the absence of one orienting point has no consequences, “Jamming” of satellite frequencies stays without perceived consequences.
In comparison, the disturbance of the receiver by a falsified signal has worse consequences for the falsified location.
For this goal the “spoofer” has to stimulate an accurate structure of the signal, in particular a precise sequence of bits of the positioning signal, and in the system the identification code (PRN) of this satellite so as not to be recognised by the securing system.
Comparing to this – the “meaconing” is very technically simple (Recording and Rebroadcasting on the Receiving Frequency to confuse the Positioning): the signal here is simply recorded by a sabotaging device and with a slight shift in time, sent. This cheating is carried out using a copy of the original system. The satellite signal becomes recorded and with a time shift transmitted with a higher force on the same frequency. The slighter the time shift is the harder it is to detect this scam even for an intelligent receiver like the already mentioned Receiver-Autonomous-Integrity-Monitoring-Empfänger). The effect is a false perception of the plane’s position.”
The original text of this chapter in German mentioned by Marek Strassenburg Kleciak can be found on the following
The author of the letter also proposes that anyone interested in “meaconing” should go onto the Wikipedia page:
According to him (the author) a plane with an undisturbed TAWS system cannot crash “The TAWS system has an accuracy of an altitude of 1m”
The author also proposes that the readers visit: