Fox3WheresMyBanana:
1) I did not find any explicit notification about landing procedure in CVR transcript, neither in the cockpit discussions nor in communication with ATCO. Only a few remarks:
10:24:51 ATCO: Temperature +2, QFE 745, there are no condition for landing
10:25:01 PIC: Thank you but if possible, we do the approach and if not wetter (conditions) we make GA
10:25:12 ATCO: 101, after checking/trial approach, have you enough fuel for diverting?
10:25:19 PIC: We have
10:25:19 ATCO: Roger
10:25:22 PIC: Request for descent, please
10:25:25 ATCO: 101, heading 40, descent to 1500
...
10:30:01 PIC: No ILS, heading 259, ARK ready, 310/640 was set, 5-6-autothrotle [two NDB]
...
10:34:56 ATCO: 500m…did you land at military airport (already)? [= Are you familiar with military landing procedure?]
10:35:03 PIC: Yes, sure [and nothing more...]
...
10:35:22 ATCO: Polish 101, at 100m be ready for GA
10:35:29 PIC: Exactly
...
10:39:38 ATCO: RWY free
10:39:40 ATCO: Landing (clearance) later, 120-3 m [wind]
2) It is hard to say, it is not clear what “hole” /dziura/ means. It may be the valley beneath glide slope:
10:30:45 PIC: The worst thing is that there is a hole, there are clouds and a fog fell
3) I can’t explain what ATCO’s calling “on GS” exactly means. I suppose that he has information from landing radar witch accuracy on height was approximately +/- 50m, so he need PIC’s height backreports. On distances 2km and more, ATCO can be sure that 101 is safe on/above GS. There is the problem to harmonize OM&MM signal with distances reported by ATCO (for example - signal OM/6,1km/ came 4sec after ATCO’s report 6km). It looks like the difference between ATCO’s reports an actual location of 101 was constant (320m).