Polish Presidential Flight Crash Thread

[SadPole]

BOAC – all your "concerns" are semantical misinterpretations and as such have very little substance. For example:

You say:
"It would appear that an "ASR" approach in this part of the world is quite different to the western style, and you do NOT need the a/c to tell ATC its altitude for an ASR approach!"

That's interesting as I have found a US "NAVAL AIR TRAINING COMMAND" manual that says the following:

*****
305. NONPRECISION APPROACHES
A nonprecision approach provides directional (azimuth) guidance only; altitude restrictions are listed in the approach procedure (FLIP Low Altitude Approach Plates). The pilot flies the aircraft along the depicted or directed course, keeping the aircraft within the published altitude restrictions as it descends toward the airport. Nonprecision approaches may be based upon VOR, VOR/DME, TACAN, NDB, GPS, or Localizer radio aids, or upon communications from a
controller.
306. ASR APPROACH
The ASR approach is a nonprecision radar ground controlled approach. During an ASR approach, the radar controller will provide the pilot with azimuth information in the form of headings to fly. All altitude information will be advisory. The controller will state, if the pilot requests, the recommended altitude at each mile of the approach. The ASR ground controlled approach also requires two-way radio communications and cannot be used for selection of an alternate airport for single-piloted aircraft An example of the controller's instruction would be:
"ON COURSE, TWO MILES FROM RUNWAY, ALTITUDE SHOULD BE ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FEET."
*****

http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-305/P-3050101.htm

Meaning, the Russian procedure is actually safer as it requires the landing plane to report its altitude to ATC in order for him to continually verify the path in addition to the aircraft crew doing that. The interview that I talked about describes all of Russian procedures in detail, and this is why I cannot wait to post it here.

You say:
"As for having to wait until DH to ask for and get landing permission................................ it just would not work. I begin to wonder why I trained to go to war against the Eastern block if they were all going to crash in bad weather waiting for 'landing clearance'"

Again, semantics. The Russian procedure simply requires to restate the decision to land in form of request on specific basis of (in this case) visually seeing the runway lights. It does not mean that the plane has to level off at decision height to await permission to land (that would not work). This "permission" requirement is simply procedural safety to force the pilot to go on record stating that he is landing under allowable conditions and all that it means is that the landing craft has to state one specific sentence and the ATC has to acknowledge it with another. They have not done that and as such broke the procedures and had no permission to land. This is discussed at great lengths in the interview.

The issue of pilots lying about seeing runway so they can proceed with landing is not exactly unknown issue in the western world. Please examine the Aspen 2001 crash transcripts where the pilots specifically discuss the issue of crews lying about seeing the runway and end up doing it themselves, killing everyone onboard:

*****
The first officer also stated, about 1848:04, "remember that crazy guy in this Lear[jet] when we were...on the ground in Aspen last time and he [stated that he could] see the airport but he couldn't see it." The captain did not respond to either of the first officer's statements.
*****
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...01MA034&rpt=fa

That Aspen crash is almost exact western "replica" of that Tu-154 crash.

As to competence of people in the East as demonstrated by the current Polish government, I have written very detailed opinion on the subject and posted it here. The post was quickly removed due to (no doubt) complaints of some fanatics.