Posted on 05/17/2010 3:28:32 PM PDT by theanchoragedailyruse
Russians did not want the Polish presidential plane to land in Smolensk, suggesting the airport in Bryansk instead. Polish authorities insisted on landing near Katyn, however.
Russian authorities warned the Polish delegation that they could not guarantee safety if the presidential Tu-154 landed near Smolensk, as the town’s Severny military airport was not fitted with proper guidance systems.
The Russians suggested that the Polish plane should land at Bryansk International Airport, some 250 km from Katyn. However, Andrzej Kremer, deputy Foreign Minister and Andrzej Przewoznik, Secretary of the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites, who had previously held talks with the Russians (and who died in the crash), accused them of trying to make it difficult for the Polish delegation to reach Katyn and persuaded the Russians to agree for the landing near Smolensk.
“The airport in Bryansk has a better guidance system than the airport near Smolensk, where there are only radio beacons which do not allow a pilot to assess a flight path precisely. Bryansk is fitted with SP-80M system, which guides a plane automatically to the runway, warning about land proximity. Pilots of the presidential Tu-154 practically used only airports equipped with such systems. If they had landed in Bryansk, they wouldn’t have had problems even if visibility was close to zero,” says one of the best Russian test pilots and expert on plane crashes.
In the past Russian authorities agreed several times that a Polish VIP delegation landed near Smolensk. It remains unclear why this time they did not want Poles to use the airport. One of the possible scenarios alleges that when Severny airport was converted into a civil-military airport last autumn, the army could have removed some of its equipment, such as a more precise guiding system. “The Russian Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK), which investigates the cause of the crash, is certainly inspecting if this was possible,” says Aleksandr Koronchin, chief power engineer at the airport near Smolensk.
96 people, including president Lech Kaczynski and other political and military notables, died after the Tu-154, which was carrying them for the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre, crashed outside Smolensk on April 10.
The first was broadcasted by K2K and the readback by the pilot.
The pilot asks what the visibility was and then without pause readbacks what was told to him. There is no answer by Russian ATC, that has been removed.
1:27 - 1:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDWfkloGDzc
Here is another version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HzdqZcDc10
In this version you hear the question asked by the pilot on visibility and the keyed mic breaks and then the readback by the pilot.
There is no Russian response between the question asked on visibility by the pilot.
The above article is based on what the Russians have said and the Russians still have the black boxes. And it is an attempt to shift focus away from other pieces of evidence.
Moreover, since fog was not forecasted for Smolensk and three days prior, Tusk landed there, the Russian excuse doesn't cut it.
In other words if it was okay for Tusk to land, it should have been okay for the Polish president.
When the story broke on the crash, the Russian officials stated that ATC told the pilot that they should use Minsk or Moscow before they conducted their "fourth" attempt to land.
This story on the 4 approaches was published before the leaked voice recording of the pilot.
I want to know why the plane was observed from the ground well before the crash but supposedly, the pilots were blinded by fog!
There is little doubt in my mind that there was equipment failure - accidental or otherwise.
Katyn Forest Massacre - Part 2!
And at jet approach speeds, obstacles loom very quickly.
“Fog can often be easily seen through vertically, but not horizontally. What may appear thin to an observer looking up at a plane may well be very thick to the pilot looking forward.
And at jet approach speeds, obstacles loom very quickly.”
Pucker effect, no seatbelt needed.
Yeah, this stinks like a day old bait bucket, and we’ll never know the real story.
Sorry Dio, not biting - if eyes on the ground can see the plane then eyes on the plane can see the ground.
Every approach has what is called the "decision height"...this is the altitude above ground level at which you must initiate a "missed approach" proceedure. If you do not have the runway environment in sight at this time, you MUST abandon the approach.
Fog can be a very thin layer, depending on moisture in air, ground and air temperatures, wind, etc.
Consider a fog layer that is thick enough to restrict visibility to 400 feet. Then imagine the layer is 100 feet thick. These are very common conditions, it's not unusual at all for a pilot to be able to see the tops of trees, but not the ground.
In this fog, with 400' visibility in a 100' layer, you CAN see an airplane 400' above you, but would not see a building 500' away from you on the ground.
In same scenario, pilot can see ground below, and slightly forward (due to slant range), but could not see runway 500' in front. For him to continue to descend below decision height is dangerous, especially during a non-precision approach, which can allow you to wander left and right of the correct line to the runway.
As an ATC for 35 years, approaches were my business.....and I can assure you fog is VERY dangerous.
So the end answer to your comment is eyes on the plane seeing the ground does not mean those same eyes can see the runway IN FRONT AND BELOW them....big difference, and a deadly one at that.
Nice try but the fact of the matter is this:
Given the glide angle and 1000 meters of visibility, they were able to see the ground for many miles prior to clipping the first 10’ tall birch.
There is no amount of sophistry that can negate that.
The big question is, what mechanical or failure by the Russians led them to beleive the runway started 1000 meters before it did.
Also, there is bad visibility everyday, and everywhere and that is no reason to expect AC to crash.
Every reply from you only shows more of your ignorance of aviation.
Do you know what type approach they were shooting? Of course you don't.
Do you know if the aircraft was properly equipped to execute the approach? Of course you don't.
Do you know what the "glide angle" you refer to was? Of course you don't.
Do you know how the approach instruments in use identified the runway end? Of course you don't.
In other words, you are totally ignorant of the immutable facts about a doomed instrument approach, and are only basing your remarks due to a belief in some conspiracy theory.
By the way, if you would like to know the facts I referred to, just ask, because I DO know these things.
Your name is apt as there is not much substance to your personal attacks.
The typical glide angle is a bit less than 3 deg.
This means that given the visibility, they would have had the ground in site for about 7 miles prior to their touchdown well short of the runway.
There was no “instrument” landing as Putin had removed the mobile beacon that he used earlier in the week for his own flight.
It’s time for you to give it up.....try boating, because you will die quickly if you ever try flying.
Which of my facts do you dispute?
Well,you are pretty scant on facts, and the ones you do have are misapplied. You state "The typical glide angle is a bit less than 3 deg." Well, there is no such thing as a 'glide angle' on an approach. The typical GLIDE SLOPE on a FAA approved ILS approach is 3 degrees....but they were shooting a NDB approach, which has segmented descent areas, NOT a continuous glide slope.
"There was no "instrument"landing"....
There is no such thing as an instrument landing....it's called an instrument approach........and there WAS an instrument approach in place, which the aircraft was neither equipped nor certified for....which the crew knew.
As for you not understanding the nature of fog, you appear to be so far off base I won't attempt to explain it. I would only suggest you ask any pilot you may know to explain it to you.
(yawn)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.