Sorry, SadPole, but this just isnt convincing:
Originally Posted by
SadPole
- The approach at Smolensk like many here suggested was NOT a PAR approach. He says it is clear from the start. All what Smolensk North apparently had was ASR...
It has been
officially confirmed by the Russian Investigation Committee (MAK) that there was indeed an approach radar system installed at Smolensk North. Probably a russian made type "RSP" which consists of a secondary radar and a precision approach radar.
Citation from the
preliminary report
b. 25 марта 2010 года была проведена летная проверка всех средств и систем аэродрома. По результатам проверки был сделан общий вывод, что параметры и точностные характеристики
посадочного радиолокатора, дальней и ближней приводных радиостанций с маркерами, светосигнального оборудования и радиостанций соответствуют требованиям государственной авиации России и пригодны для обеспечения полетов. Средств для выполнения автоматического или директорного захода на посадку аэродром Смоленск "Северный" не имеет.
which translated to:
[/QUOTE]
On March 25, 2010 were conducted testing of all airport facilities and systems. The audit came to the conclusion, that the parameters and the characteristics of the
approach radar, the far and near NDB-markers, lighting equipment, and radio communications comply with the state aviation regulations in Russia and are suitable for maintenance of flights. The audit also concluded that Smolensk North did not meet the requirements to perform an automatic or flight-director approach.
[/QUOTE]
Notice the word
"approach radar" (PAR) ? As opposed to
"airport surveillance radar" (ASR) ?
Further more:
Originally Posted by
SadPole
- He asserted that the Tu-154 instruction specifically prohibits landing on autopilot even on ILS approach. They are supposed to disengage the autopilot between 100 to 60 meters above landing strip. I found the Tu-154 instruction on the internet and that is indeed what it says. Whether one agrees or disagrees whether it should be like that, the instruction like that HAS TO BE FOLLOWED because it probably means that it can become impossible to safely disengage the autopilot under some conditions after that threshold is passed,
Of course its forbidden to touch down on the runway on autopilot. But thats not what they were doing, did they? Otherwise they wouldnt have found themselves in the wood instead of the RWY. If i recall the CVR, at the height of 80m they initiated a go-around!