I still think we should be focusing on why they failed to fly the selected approach correctly. I've given you my best guess, based on what others have kindly contributed to the debate. I'm open to further thoughts and info on the theme of the incorrectly flown approach.
That the approach was incorrect flown is out of doubt.
But what approach was selected? How do we know? Was there a clearance anywhere?
Did the crew itself state what kind of apprroach they planned? "procedure--- not known yet". What did they expect on a place with only 2 NDB beacons? What kind of publications did they have? There was no mised-approach procedure briefed.
Did the crew get a clearance from ATC for a specific approach? When?
At 10:39:08 state ATC distance 10, entering glideslope
At 10:39:30 states ATC on course, on glidepath, at 10:39:39 on course on glidepath, approaching outermarker, 6 km............ On what approach had they been? Did they have a missed approach clearance?
And in connection with that it is impotant, what kind of equipment ATC used to give the incorrect information concerning the glidepath and course as well as distance information. The crew might have assumed, that they get a valid precision approach radar information and therefore concentrated more on looking for the runway, thus neglecting the vital parameters like altitude, and sinkrate. They also had no distance information in the cockpit and relied as well on the range information of ATC (well, they should have timed it beginning from first marker).
We canīt ignore those facts.
Was it a "scud-run"? I doubt it, it would have been the worst planned i ever observed.
However as always again: Whatever approach it was, it is no reason to fly into the ground. The crew was in the cockpit and with correct application of procedures the accident could have been avoided.
franzl