You presume that the baro reading was at zero.
The barometrtic pressure that was given by ATC was from the civilian airfield 10km away.
And in a PAR which this was, as indicated by the DH signal in the transcripts, you use the RA.
And since the ATC guru was not properly certified and has “medical” issues that the Russians won’t state, the ATC were screw ups just like the Russian pilot that was on the Armanian flt that crashed in Sochi years back.
The controler was brought in for the April 10th flt. Hence his question to the pilot if he had ever flown to a military base.
The pilot was there 3 days earlier and landed on the opposite end of Runway 26.
The question should be from you, why did ATC tell the pilot he was on glideslope and on course when he wasn’t.
And you should have known that when you are landing PAR and the DH is called out by ATC at 50 meters and you don’t agree with the DH of 50 meters, your crew will tell you when you hit the minima or DH of 100 as they correctly did and then conduct your go around.
As I said before, if the crew had gone by the ATC’s 50 meters DH, they would have gone nose first into the upslope side of the ravine.
The sink rate combined with the lag time would have insured that.
That is the definition of QFE.
The barometrtic pressure that was given by ATC was from the civilian airfield 10km away.
Source?
And in a PAR which this was, as indicated by the DH signal in the transcripts, you use the RA.
Source? There is no indication of Precision Approach Radar in use.
And since the ATC guru was not properly certified and has “medical” issues that the Russians won’t state, the ATC were screw ups just like the Russian pilot that was on the Armanian flt that crashed in Sochi years back.
Source?
The controler was brought in for the April 10th flt. Hence his question to the pilot if he had ever flown to a military base.
Source?
The pilot was there 3 days earlier and landed on the opposite end of Runway 26.
Source?
The question should be from you, why did ATC tell the pilot he was on glideslope and on course when he wasn’t.
The term "glideslope" was used only once in the english translations I've seen. As I previously demonstrated to the point of tedium, had the aircraft truly been under a PAR approach control, the term "glideslope" should have been in the transcripts literally scores of times. It was not.
And you should have known that when you are landing PAR and the DH is called out by ATC at 50 meters and you don’t agree with the DH of 50 meters, your crew will tell you when you hit the minima or DH of 100 as they correctly did and then conduct your go around.
Again, there is no evidence of a PAR approach.
As I said before, if the crew had gone by the ATC’s 50 meters DH, they would have gone nose first into the upslope side of the ravine.
The sink rate combined with the lag time would have insured that.
Again, if the aircraft were using radar altimeter, they shouldn't have ignored the TAWS. If the aircraft were using baro altimeter, they should have ignored the TAWS. They ignored the TAWS. You still insist that they were using baro altimeter when it is convenient to explain away the repeated TAWS warnings, insist they were using radar altimeter when it is convenient to explain away why they lowered into a ravine, and insist they were under PAR control when it is convenient to explain away that the ATC deliberately flew the aircraft into the ground.
You make assertion after assertion, with no references to back up your claims.
You know what? I agree with you. You have convinced me. The Russians conspired to deliberately kill the Polish President by directing the pilots, under precision approach radar control, to fly into a fog enshrouded ravine with zero-zero visibility.
They also provided the pilots with incorrect barometric pressure readings so that their baro altimeter would incorrectly state their altitude above terrain.
The Russians also insisted that the pilots ignore their baro altimeter, and use their radar altimeter instead, but ignore any TAWS warnings they may receive.
The Russians also insisted that in addition to the pilots flying under PAR control, that they also use the Russian PRMG instrument landing system, which was altered to force the aircraft to impact the ground short of the runway, and to the left of centerline.
The Russians did all of this with less than 2 hours advanced notice.
You make a strong case, and I agree 100% with you.