Both you and F4 are overplaying the transit nature of fog. Meteorology has advanced a great deal in the last few decades. 8-12 hour forecasts are accurate to about 80%. Short term forecasts (4-6 hours) to the 90-95% range.
I appreciate the fact that the impact of fog on flying decisions is not always clear cut.
Point taken.
However, one of the posters here is determined to prove that the crew was undoubtedly put under pressure - no, even under an imperative to land at all cost. The arguments put forward are:
a) Presence of Blasik in the cabin. At least one witness has stated that this suituation was quite common aboard 101 and does not prove that something out of the ordinary took place. A year or so prior to 9/11 I was flying Munich to Warsaw aboard a fairly empty plane and I took a wrong turn out of the toilet and walked into the flight deck - as the door was left wide open and the pilot's were flirting with the cabin crew - yes - prior to 9/11 an open flight deck door and occasional pax/cabin crew inside were quite normal. Civil aviation thrived for over 50 years with an open flight deck.
b) the crew took off despite known fog conditions. The forecast at departure did predict fog - but it was unknown if this fog would make a landing impossible - since fog is patchy. The best meteorological models (e.g. in the UK) typically have a grid size of approx. 4km. That is the resolution you get. Yes - there are local, more detailed models, e.g. for Heathrow, but not for an airport such as the one Smolensk. One could argue that if such a forecast had been made for any major civilian airport then flights would have been held at the departure airports. Of course - no one wants hundreds of planes waiting in the stacks around EGLL doing trial approaches ang going round most of the time - as this would be an ATC/logistical nightmare. But in the case fo a VIP flight to a minor airport the logic is different. Yes - it makes sense to fly to the destination, attempt to land hoping to get a visual on the runway before reaching MDA, perhaps go around a couple of times or hold until it clears, finally divert. I would expect this is a standard way of handling things in the case of VIP flights, be they governmental, film-star, rock-star, porn-star or corporate.
So I am still not convinced that there was an element of exceptional pressure for the crew to land at all cost.
As I stated a few pages of posts before - I was never a great fan of L.Kaczynski - but I am more and more inclined to agree with his brother that the MAK report's emphasis on the crew being under pressure and - in particular - Blasik's alcohol level do seem to have some kind of political agenda attached to them. (I am also also perfectly aware that the Polish side was involved in preparation of the MAK report so by no means do I point fingers at whose political agenda it may have been).
One last thing which I think is still being overlooked is the role of the YAK crew. Had their communication to PLF101 been a simple dry "
PLF101 Yak40 here, be advised visibility very poor, RVR 200m, cloudbase below minimums. Over." the outcome could have perhaps been much different. I mean, what was going on? Is this kind of friendly chit-chat on open frequencies some kind of a SOP under PAF rules?
Regards,
Golf-Sierra