criss

RegDep - that's exactly what I'm referring to. I said "alleged" interview with the controller, as I have some doubts about its authenticity.

SadPole

BOAC said: "SadPole - obviously we in the west place a greater trust in our military crews. There is NOTHING to show that the crew were receiving ANY approach control from the ground, was there - unless you know differently?"

Well, that's the whole point. Per Russian procedure, hey were supposed to tell him the altitude and he was supposed to give them corrections. The biggest controversy among the conspiracy circles is the fact that, per transcript, the ATC gave them three times the "on course and path" confirmations – which according to them led them into the ditch. If the dude had a PAR, the last confirmation would have been false. What they fail to mention is that this is specifically the only thre times when (according to ATC) the plane reports its altitude, which most likely was from the radar altimeter. See transcript:
10:39:57 Radio? 400 meters
10:40:14 ATC 4 on course and path.
10:40:19 Radio? 300 meters
10:40:26 ATC 3 on course and path
10:40:32 Radio? 200 meters
10:40:38 ATC 2 on course and path

Up to this point everything is OK. What the transcript does not show completely is which altitude readings were transmitted by the radio (I think the 'sht' are what was transmitted by radio). These three had to be because he confirms 400 meters with 4 on course and path, etc. Once they went below 'their' 100 m the radio pathway between the plane and the ATC shack was/could increasingly be obstructed by land, which means they might have been broadcasting their altitudes but the ATC could not receive them with sufficient quality.

The altitude readouts continue, but the ATC is silent until they read:
10:40:52 Radio? 50
at which point the ATC says
10:40:53 ATC Horizon 101



Are western pilots really more trustworthy than any other? If so, they are complete exception from the western populace. Just look at say any toaster or a microwave oven being sold in the west. They now come with following warnings:

• Do not use inside bathtubs filled with water
• Do not use to toast body parts
• Do not use to dry pets
• Do not stick metal objects inside
• Do not use as headgear
• Do not drop oven on your foot

Etc, etc.

In a way, this catastrophe shows that Solidarity uprising was yet another (west-sponsored) vulgar Marxist revolution that put Polish "Forest Gumps" in charge. And yes, it is safe to say that these people are idiots and there will be hell to pay when everyone finally realizes that.

BOAC

Can we forget this fixation with ATC 'control'? Based on the transcript I have -

At no point was an approach requested

At no point was an approach clearance given

At no point was an instruction given to commence descent for a glidepath

The 'height readouts' of which you speak are automated internal callouts - are you suggesting that the same transcript column, where readouts of height every 10m below 100, was being 'broadcast' to ATC???

What is the 'conspiracy' about "2k, on course on glidepath"? Were they not?

Where is your 'proof' that they were under control for the approach?

- indeed it is - IF they were Russian and IF they were being controlled and not 'doing their own thing'.

I have said before - the Captain (or another occupant of the cockpit) managed to kill everyone despite the warning from a watching ATC. Why not accept it?

Alice025

With all this I slightly wonder - did Plusnin and Co hear any thing said in the cabin but what the Capt. Protasiuk said?

Because I thought that not. I may be proven wrong - but what heights from on-board the plane 400, 200, 50 whatever? It is sweet of course for our controllers (thank you SadPole :o) that "plane said 400 - controller said "on path on course" - but I ain't sure the ground control heard anything of the kind. I thought the chaps were on line (or one chap - Plusnin) - with Capt. Protasiuk exclusively.

And in that sense it would have helped if, instead of saying "100" to each other - in the cabin - Protasiuk mentioned this very "100" - ONCE! to the ground control.

Alice025

And, BOAC, do not despair :o)

Your training did not go for nothing :o)

Here, a while ago, I have posted the answer of a Mig pilot I've asked, re the content and timing of his talks with the ground control. I don't remember him mentioning any additional requests for landing that he would ask at the 100 meters height. Rather, the exchange , acc to what he said, was taking place as far away as the circling height or at Far Marker or in approach to it.

And anyway he clearly mentioned when answering to me, I can find it again, that only civil aviation has the leisure to think ab something for hours :o), and talk with the ground control to perfection :o) - as his time btw exchange with the aerodrome re his landing intentions and actual landing is not counted in a dozen of minutes :o)))) but rather, in seconds :o)))) OK. forgot. may be 1 minute? can look up again.

Alice025

The radar equipment, as I understood it, is so rough - because it is by definition portable. Has to be able to function and be tuned within 10 hrs half of them can be night time, when aerodrome eh, quickly shifts :o)
To say nothing it is dating back to 2nd WW times. Or Great Cold War early times. That's why it is manual, in the sense requires heights' feed-back.

BOAC

Alice - I have spent some time in the 'seconds only' aeroplanes.

Even 'WW2' radar does not need any height reports from the aircraft.

How many ASR and PAR approaches have you posters actually ever flown?

RegDep

BOAC,
I lost you. Could you briefly summarize what your main argument is? Is it that you never needed to report your height or is it that reporting height was not required in Smolensk that morning? Or something else.
And no, I never actually flew SR and PAR approaches.
Cheers
RD

BOAC

- yes, never, during the approach, PAR or ASR.

RegDep

Thanks, BOAC, I appreciate.
RD

janeczku

Sorry, SadPole, but this just isnt convincing:

It has been officially confirmed by the Russian Investigation Committee (MAK) that there was indeed an approach radar system installed at Smolensk North. Probably a russian made type "RSP" which consists of a secondary radar and a precision approach radar.

which translated to:

[/QUOTE]
On March 25, 2010 were conducted testing of all airport facilities and systems. The audit came to the conclusion, that the parameters and the characteristics of the approach radar, the far and near NDB-markers, lighting equipment, and radio communications comply with the state aviation regulations in Russia and are suitable for maintenance of flights. The audit also concluded that Smolensk North did not meet the requirements to perform an automatic or flight-director approach.
[/QUOTE]

Notice the word "approach radar" (PAR) ? As opposed to "airport surveillance radar" (ASR) ?

Further more:

Of course its forbidden to touch down on the runway on autopilot. But thats not what they were doing, did they? Otherwise they wouldnt have found themselves in the wood instead of the RWY. If i recall the CVR, at the height of 80m they initiated a go-around!

SadPole

To BOAC

*****
Can we forget this fixation with ATC 'control'? Based on the transcript I have -
*****

I am not fixated on the ATC. The media is as the poor dude is the politically correct candidate to blame for that mess. (He spoke no English, he let them descend too low and once he issued the "Horizon 101" command, it was too late, etc, etc). This isn't too fair to him, especially since various Polish planes flying there would insist they knew all the Russian procedures required to land there and then would not follow them. So, yes, in retrospect, given the situation and the attitude of people flying from Poland to Smolensk north, they should never have been allowed to use that airport. The whole setup was similar to say fanatical gays doing "in-your-face" "tolerance" parade in Moscow or Warsaw. Any time Russians would disallow something for whatever reasons, it would be recognized as political provocation.


*****
At no point was an approach requested
At no point was an approach clearance given
At no point was an instruction given to commence descent for a glidepath
*****

Again, semantics. You are using the western procedures semantics, then someone translates Russian procedures language verbatim and then makes conclusions based on that being different from western procedures. They were given permission to descend to the decision height at which point they were supposed to "request permission" (Russian procedure language) to continue descend and landing on condition of seeing the runway or report abandoning the approach. They have not done that and this is what this whole confusion about "permission" to land comes from.

Some transcript examples:
10:24:58 ATC: Temperature +2, pressure 745, 7-4-5, conditions for landing - none
10:34:56 ATC: 500 meters, you ever landed on a military airport?
10:35:02 Captain: Yes, of course
10:35:22 ATC: Polish 101, at 100 meters be ready to abandon for go-around
10:39:08 ATC: 101, distance 10, enter(ing) path

SINGAPURCANAC

I thought that criss absolutely proved that no ATC involment at all.
So I left the topic. because criss knows,better.
Than after ten days people still speaking about ATC, role,scope etc......
Criss still knows that ATC has nothing with crash.

But,we now could read,that Military ATC in Russia is responsible for separation from ground during radar approaches,
-That Russian side confirmed that it was radar approach,
-we learned that if no correct read back by crew,ATCO must initiate go around imediatelly,
- and Good knows what else,because we still have no ATCOs from Russia with direct experience to tell exact rules.

And yes,we still have CFIT under RDR APP.,that it is the fact.
Of course if price for gas is reduced from current to prices to, let say criss' level, we may accept that only Polish side is guilty.
For 20% disscount,we may consider.......

P.S. It couldn't be only one side of story

criss

And you're still making your idiotic remarks.

SINGAPURCANAC

You inspired me in that direction....
My dear criss,
It could not be only one side....

ARRAKIS

According to XUBS data, it's an "ОСП+РСП" approach (which is not the same as "РСП+ОСП").
It means it's a nonprecision 2*NDB approach (ОСП) by the crew with an additional radar control from ATC (РСП).

Arrakis

Ptkay

Maybe not a "scud run", but "dive and drive".
Well discussed here:
http://flightsafety.org/asw/nov07/asw_nov07_p13-17.pdf

Not so "eastern", but quite "western" problem.

The Tu-154 certainly did a "dive", the "drive" went wrong...

RetiredF4

I did at least a thousand of them, in the western world and according to the western ATC-System (mostly on military european, canadian and US airfields). Doing and instructing, in good and foul weather. We had no ILS on board, a PAR was the only precision approach available down to minimum of 200 feet ceiling and a RVR of 800 meters. And i did approaches below minimim with the intention to land, if field in sight. It was common practice, one approach, if the fuel allowed it. I did nonprecision approaches as well, ASR, TACAN (basically like VOR/DME) and Airborne Radar approach. So i´m familiar with ASR and PAR approaches as well as western military procedures.

The PAR approach was the only approach, where the controller was giving information concerning Course and glidepath. No ATC station in the western world would be giving glidepath information without having it. So its natural for me to question the reason and origin for this kind of glidepath information.

If i look at the CVR - Information, i (from a western military point of view) see a mixture of precision and non precision elements.

Terms only common to Precision approaches are:

Glidepath: There would be none in a NPA. It would normally be a descent to the respective stepdown altitudes. There was none talking at all about that in the cockpit.

Information to glidepath: There would be none, because a fixed glidepath didn`t exist. The correct information for a NPA from ATC would be "your altitude or height (with QFE) should be "xy feet".

Decision Height: There is none in a NPA. There is a MDA (minimum descent altitude) or MDH with QFE, which is a minimum descent height. You dont go below this MDA / MDH, therefore you have to be already leveled off at this altitude / height, whereas at the DH= decision height on a precision approach you decide to land or go around, causing to drop slightly below the mentioned altitude / height. You might set yourself a higher DH in the cockpit, but you would not talk with ATC about it and it would not be identical with the MDA / MDH, but higher.

Now i´m not at all familiar with russian procedures, neither concerning a PAR (so it might have been some sort of PAR, but definitly not one i was used to) nor with the radar assistance to expect in a non precision-approach. it might have been one, but a lot of elements do not correspond with my expierience.

So i´m not saying it was that or that, wondering however that some posters are keen to favor - lets say a pure NDB approach - and explaining the nonstandard terms and talking with russian procedures, neclecting that those non standard procedures could also apply for a sort of PAR.

It is also abservable, that a lot of posters view the circumstances from a commercial aircraft operations point of view, despite the fact that it was a russian military airport and polish military aircrew operated under polish military procedures. That it involves an aircraft flown also in the civil aviation and having transported civil passengers does not change the common procedural military thinking and acting of the people involved.

So imho it might have been a PAR, it might have been a NDB, it might even have been, that ATC thought in terms of NDB and the crew was thinking in getting a PAR.

One fact remains however, none of the above is reason enough to fly in the ground.

franzl

ARRAKIS

There is very little ATC can do, if PIC is not flying by the book.
Unless bringing a broken truck in the middle of the rwy and closing it.

Arrakis

BOAC

Retired F4 - yes, I can match. The question was really aimed at the 'conspiracy theorists'.

ARRAKIS has it in one.