gstaniak
Specifically: what were the causes or contributing factors of the accident that you can blame on ATC?
I myself and others elaborated on "not very helpful behavior of ATC" in great detail. Those arguments are based on the MAC report alone. Those arguments donīt blame ATC as being the main cause of the accident, but they raise several questions concerning the ATC handling of 101 being not helpful for them to catch up with their mistakes and shortcomings.
One example being the information "on glidepath on course", when they started out 100 meters above glidepath and ended up in the ground. The warning horizon 101 being the first warning of being not on glidepath anymore, 12 seconds after they dropped below glidepath and 25 meters above runway elevation. In a PAR this kind of information would be main cause for the accident. As we agreed that the crew did not request a PAR this information at least was wrong, useless and dangerous.
It is still not clear, what kind of approach they had been cleared to, also it is the responsibility of ATC to do that (after the aircrew states their request for the type of approach, which did not happen here) or to prohibit the approach itself if it is not clear what kind of approach is being flown.
Two examples of previus qualified comments based on MAC-report from other posters and myself. Iīm not going to repeat all of them.
You ignore those posters and their arguments at all and continue with your own agenda again and again. You think, it is a helpful behavior in this thread?
I ask you the same question here as SadPole; who are you, and what is your profession and qualification?
franzl