Good point, Alice. Is the controller forbidden to talk about anything at all? Like how he felt etc., and do the locals know him (somewhere it was mentioned he was specifically brought there for that flight?). I was also thinking about that - everybody seems to know better than him, might he have thought 'k tchorty s vami, jesli takie umnye' - to hell with you, if you all think you know better? Especially as the Yak is also said to have landed without permission.
Otherwise - lucky locals, all the freshly painted facilities and all :)

Presidential Tupolev crew asked for a Russian navigator - Warsaw Business Journal - Online Portal - wbj.pl

Ptkay,

In answer to your question on the Russian navigator...

An illustration to DeRodeKat and Ptkay points

http://s003.radikal.ru/i201/1006/49/d6076e3b8860.gif

I checked using Google Earth the distance between Smolensk rwy and the far beacon. GE shows 6300 m :suspect:.

Arrakis

Arrakis, the other forum broke their necks by google earth google line google landscape versions, (and checking how google works by distance btw 2 mountain peaks), by entering Near and Far Beacons' co-ordinates (in degrees, geographically, in the word overall), and it seems by all systems possible. Sometimes they get 6100 sometimes 6300. And say it's all turned 170 degrees sideways somewhere. Either way majotity votes for 6300. Amelin wrote "question open, suspended" :o)

Boac, you've been asking if any pilots in the other forum - No. No civil aviation regulars. Openly, as minimum.
Only Mig and etc., at max- something transport+plus military plane in one.
We used to have one but he defected after first 500 pages :o))) And after 1000 closed up private messages option and "send me an e-mail" option.
Anyway we check up on what they say in the aviation ru forum, but they didn't come up with anything sensible :o)
And are very minimalistic because how to say. Corporate thing. Any Polish 36th Air Force members over age 40, sure - over 45 - are likely to be graduates of their same alma mater (s).

The only reason I ask is that it might be useful to put the 'PAR' thing to bed by having an experienced Russian pilot confirm there was no such control.

One good thing out of all it - at last the process of accomodating new a/c for government use was sped up.

E170 in government colors on departure to Brussels this morning:

JetPhotos.Net Photo » SP-LIG (CN: 17000283) Poland - Air Force (LOT Poilish Airlines) Embraer 170-200LR by Marcin Jaworski

Same pilots??

Nope.

Leased from LOT, national carrier, with crews.

Today's news - TVN24

Iinvestigators confirmed that the pilot of Yak-40, landed just 2 hours befor Presidetial Tu-154, doesn't comply for go-around command. Pilot claims that he did not hear the ATC.

Pilot of Yak Arthur Wosztyl said that several times drawn attention to the crew of the Tu-154M in dense fog. In stenogramach are his words, bluntly describing the situation and the fact that he managed to land "at the last minute." After this publication emerged that the crew of Yak-40 landed in the Smolensk below the minimum acceptable conditions for them.

The internal committee of the Polish Air Force, which dealt with the incident, did not found in thisinfringement of Flight Rules.

probie,
"Is the controller forbidden to talk about anything at all? Like how he felt etc., and do the locals know him"

probie, all we could get hold in the forum, of aerodrome natives, seems to be their "Energetik" (electrician), and even that seems to be an ex.
And he oysters up often, constantly gets offended, it always seems to him all are scheming against his dear darling precious aerodrome and staff. so he quits. but is drawn by interest, what is discussed about them, and comes back :o))) At times he proves or dis-proves something, when loses patience. Like - wrong! not like that, we have it this way! stop it!
Then it seems to him he said way too much and he checks out again. :o))) But he is a natural, 100 %. Old grumbler. But that's all we've got.

Plusnin yes seems to be local not imported for the work. But I'll re-check again, with locals. No, nobody is allowed to speak, that's clear.
Apart from MAK (flying things, not a law entity) - there is also Prosecution case open on the crash, like, going to law. Because someone has to answer. And 2 Proescution cases, in both countries, are open.

Is it really that strange that a person directly involved in such an accident is not allowed to speak about it outside the investigation? Did you expect EHAM controllers to give an interview next day after the THY crash?

probie, P.V. Plusnin (can be Pavel/Paul or Petr) is confirmed aerodrome local. In the sense that it is unknown was he born in Smolensk, but air-controlled in Northern for many years. I wrote to private messages; and a reliable forumer (to me) (well, to all :o) speaks with a man who is long time acquaintance with the controller. As much as things can be known for sure in this imperfect world.

Re what his feelings etc. info N/A.
Not a joke, 100 people dead. One can imagine what he is thinking of now.
And definitely not in the chirruping mood with friends and acquaintance and they wouldn't ask. It is clear prosecution investigation case goes on and how will it end up nobody knows.
BTW there was a voice yest; air controllers trade union head gave an interview to a newspaper. Nothing interesting spoke about radio height meters where to be used where not to be used, something vague.
But we've got an air controller in the forum and he got happy said finally it's a message the trade union will stand up for Plusnin if anything, money for a lawyer after all will be needed when it comes to court stages and all.

On a lighter note, re "thoughts" - only speculation available:
"Chaps, flight below barometric zero - best way to hide from radars of possible? opponent. It was a NATO plane, training aerodrome approach beyond control zone of Russian radars. They went in regime of following the landscape, planned to jump out suddenly from under the hill and -bang! their controller loses consciousness from surprise.
- Sure, they got a hint from Yak, that controller in Smolensk is raging, won't let them to land, so they planned to tip-toe to him from under the hill, so that he won't send them away un-timely.
- The phrase from the record then - what if he gets wild/beserk - can it be it was about the controller?"

:o)))))

It's Pavel (Paul).

Arrakis

BOAC wrote:

Quote:

---

a) 1) There is no such thing as a 'trial' approach in this world. The approach was made to land or go-round if necessary.
a) 2) We understand there was probably a Precision (PAR) service available but not used by the crew
a) 3) None of the possible 'terrain' or 'obstacle' data would in any way affect the conduct of a properly flown approach

b) The 'approach' information given by ATC to the 'pilot' was, as far as I can see from the transcript, advisory due to a) 2 above. Certainly in the western world ATC cannot prevent an a/c from making an approach.

---

You may have noticed the flight was military, into a military airbase, flown by military pilots. This means that your expectations are not what happened. Based on 36 plus military flying with the highest attainable ratings:
a) There are trial approaches.
b) FAA and western world rules inapplicable here.
c) Terrain and obstacles determine minimas, and piloting technique. Ever been to Kai Tak?
Finally, in certain military organizations, ATC gives direct orders to the PIC about mission progress. ATC communication is part of C3I.

You may wish to note that it is not MY expectations to which I refer, but perhaps those of the unfortunate passengers on the flight.

a) 1) - refer to CVR and briefing given for the approach. Perhaps you could explain what you understand by a 'trial' approach since it means nothing to most of us?
b) Unnecessary comment? Looking after your passengers and crew SHOULD be a world wide priority, or are you saying you don't?
c) I said 'the conduct of a properly flown approach', not the minima, and - yes. The terrain there (Kai Tak) does not actually MAKE you fly into a hill, does it, just as a valley before the runway at Smolensk, however deep (+/- X m?) does not mean you have to hit the upslope - not even in your world I hope?

Lastly, what sort of approach do you think was being flown and on what evidence do you base that opinion? In view of what I understand to be your fine ?military? flying record, how would you have flown it?