All Quotes from kontrolor
franzl, you are boring us with your re-definition of ATC and its tasks. Regardless what your idea about ATM managment is (that's why there is no more Air Traffic Control, but ATM - Air Traffic Managment),
Then i continue with boring you, but recognize here that is due to your wrong statements again.
Eurocontrol Guidlines for Airspace Management Edition 3.0
EXPLANATION OF TERMS
Air Traffic Management (ATM) is the dynamic, integrated management of air traffic and airspace including air traffic services, airspace management and air traffic flow management - safely, economically and efficiently - through the provision of facilities and seamless services in collaboration with all parties and involving airborne and ground-based functions. (I)
The general objective of ATM is to enable aircraft operators to meet their planned departure and arrival times and to adhere to their preferred flight profiles with the minimum constraints, without compromising agreed levels of safety.
Air Traffic Services (ATS) is a generic term meaning variously, Flight Information Service, Alerting Service, Air Traffic Advisory Service, Air Traffic Control Service (Area Control Service, Approach Control Service or Aerodrome Control Service). (I)
Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service is a service provided for the purpose of:
a) preventing collisions:
1) between aircraft, and
2) on the manoeuvring area between aircraft and obstructions, and
b) expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic. (I)
You dont need to look it up, it is the edition from 2010.
We all know what is meant by the term ATC, so i dont really care how you call it. Maybe we can agree on local Air Traffic Services, if that suits you.
the tasks of ATCOS is pretty clear. If you are asking what kind of approach PLF101 was cleared to - well, trial approach, according to the crew. Now go and find that in your books. I'm pretty sure you won't fnd them in ICAO documents.
Exactly, so how can a clearance be given for an approach, that does not exist? But i help you out here. The "trial" itself is to be seen like the term "practice" in paractice approach.
Correct approach clearance would have been something like ...
....."you are cleared for the NDB (or PAR-NDB, or PAR....) approach, trial approach .........
Even during PAR, it is NOT up to ATCO to command go-arround, unless prescribed otherwise by local authorities.
We dont know, what the local authorities prescribed. But we know, that given glidepath information has to be correct.
PLF101 had no official status (HEAD), but people at the airport had an idea WHO is coming.
Are you telling me, that the "had an idea who is coming" influenced the behavior of ATC in a way or the other, and might it have caused negative influence in the reactions of the people? Itīs probable in my oppinion.
Again, it was THE CREW which SCREWED it up,
and they screwed up big time, no doubt about that.
responsibility of ATCOS finished when PLF101 busted ALL minimas (by QFE and RA)
they didnīt recognize it, they saw nothing. Not that 101 started 100 meters high on glidepath, not that 101 came barreling down with double the normal descent rate, not that 101 came speeding in with too high approach speed, not that 101 continued on down until 25 meters above runway level. So how did they know that they had no responibility anymore?
Or are you trying to tell me, that they saw it and knew what was going to happen, but didnt do anything against it until 25 meters above ground?
plus, do you have any bloody idea HOW FAST IS 8m/s on approach?
Bloody hell i know, i once touched down with a descent rate of 1600 feet per minute, resulting in 4.8 Gīs on my G-meter. Glad our aircraft had been designed for carrier operation.
The more iīm wondering, why nobody on the radar screen did notice anything unusual, or do you tell me again they noticed it, but didnīt feel responsible to prevent an accident for some unknown reason?
Kontrolor, i would like to see your posts in context with your knowledge and your expierience. So my question to you: who are you and what is your profession?
Edit: I caught up with my last question out of your previous posts, so your point of view is influenced from the place behind the scope, as mine is influenced from the place in the pointy part of the aircraft.
That aside, also you should be aware of a lot of questions concerning the role of ATC or ATM or ATS in this accident. Denying any participation or any responsibility at all falls too short. Finally it was not any kind of uncontrolled glider strip they approached. What would you have done different in their place?
franzl