Pilot error, fog

[Todd[_2_]]

WARSAW (AFP) – A plane with Polish President Lech Kaczynski on board
crashed Saturday on landing at Smolensk in western Russia, foreign
ministry spokesman Piotr Pszkowski said.

"The plane scraped the tree tops, crashed and caught fire," he said on
the private television channel TVN24.

"On board were the president, accompanied by his wife, the army chief
of staff and Deputy Foreign Minisiter Andrzej Kremer," he said.

The plane, a Tupolev 154, had a capacity of up to 90 people, he added.

The regional governor of Smolensk said there were no survivors.

"It clipped the tops of the trees, crashed down and broke into
pieces," the governor of the Smolensk region, Sergei Antufiev, told
Russia-24 television news network by telephone.

"There were no survivors."

---

[Mxsmanic]

Doesn't Russia have IFR?

[Jim Logajan]

Todd > wrote:
> WARSAW (AFP) - A plane with Polish President Lech Kaczynski on board
> crashed Saturday on landing at Smolensk in western Russia, foreign
> ministry spokesman Piotr Pszkowski said.

According to reports the pilot disregarded controller suggestions to land
at another airfield.

[Todd[_2_]]

On Apr 10, 12:26*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Doesn't Russia have IFR?

Yes but with visibility near zero, AGL, there was no
opportunity to tweak the glide and avoid the close
trees upon approach.

http://www.merinews.com/article/polish-prez-officials-killed-in-plane-crash-in-russia/15803736.shtml

---

[bod43]

On 10 Apr, 19:19, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Todd > wrote:
> > WARSAW (AFP) - A plane with Polish President Lech Kaczynski on board
> > crashed Saturday on landing at Smolensk in western Russia, foreign
> > ministry spokesman Piotr Pszkowski said.
>
> According to reports the pilot disregarded controller suggestions to land
> at another airfield.

I understand it was a military airfield and that the only
approach aid was radar. I forget the term - Precision
Approach Radar (PAR)? This is normal in some militaries
and works very well. The operator has two screens one for
azimuth and the other for slope. He "talks" the pilot
along the glideslope to minimums. I have no idea what
typical minimums might be.

The technology very likely pre-dates ILS and one
advantage still relevant today is that to set it up on
a new airfield all you need is a truck containing the radar
and a seat for the operator. Could probably set it up an a
very few hours. ILS needs HUGE antennae and is probably
quite an effort to calibrate too. RAF for sure used in in the
1970's. I was in the operators station of one but did not see
a landing.

--

Please sign the libel reform petition - no matter
where you are in the world. Get others to sign too.
Help to change these oppressive laws.
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

More information:-
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/476
http://www.libelreform.org/news/449-libel-reform-campaign-welcomes-jack-straws-commitment-to-libel
http://www.libelreform.org/who-is-silenced
http://www.libelreform.org/our-report/key-findings-of-report


If your writing can be read in England or Wales you
can be sued here. If you get sued, *you* have
to defend yourself. You are assumed
to be defamatory unless you can prove otherwise.
Legal costs can be £Ms. Of course if you are in
New York state you are explicitly protected by the
"The Libel Terrorism Protection Act". Some other US
states have similar protection.

[Ed]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:06:43 -0700 (PDT), bod43 >
wrote:


>
>I understand it was a military airfield and that the only
>approach aid was radar. I forget the term - Precision
>Approach Radar (PAR)? This is normal in some militaries
>and works very well. The operator has two screens one for
>azimuth and the other for slope. He "talks" the pilot
>along the glideslope to minimums. I have no idea what
>typical minimums might be.

You are probably referring to GCA

[Peter Dohm]

"Ed" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:06:43 -0700 (PDT), bod43 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I understand it was a military airfield and that the only
>>approach aid was radar. I forget the term - Precision
>>Approach Radar (PAR)? This is normal in some militaries
>>and works very well. The operator has two screens one for
>>azimuth and the other for slope. He "talks" the pilot
>>along the glideslope to minimums. I have no idea what
>>typical minimums might be.
>
> You are probably referring to GCA

IIRC, the military called the procedure GCA for Ground Controlled Approach
and the major hub (airline) airports that could provide a similar service
called it PAR for Precision Approach Radar.

I have no idea whether the civil version still exists.

Peter

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Peter > wrote:
> IIRC, the military called the procedure GCA for Ground Controlled Approach
> and the major hub (airline) airports that could provide a similar service
> called it PAR for Precision Approach Radar.
>
> I have no idea whether the civil version still exists.

I've done a number of PAR approaches for my IMC rating training this week
(albeit at a Military field in the UK). IIRC correctly, the system minima is
something like 200 feet.

Andy

[a[_3_]]

On Apr 13, 5:36*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * *Peter > wrote:
>
> > IIRC, the military called the procedure GCA for Ground Controlled Approach
> > and the major hub (airline) airports that could provide a similar service
> > called it PAR for Precision Approach Radar.
>
> > I have no idea whether the civil version still exists.
>
> I've done a number of PAR approaches for my IMC rating training this week
> (albeit at a Military field in the UK). IIRC correctly, the system minima is
> something like 200 feet.
>
> Andy

GCA approaches are simply not common where I fly, but since there's
both horizontal and vertical info available to the pilot I would not
be surprised if minimums weren't about the same as ILS. The few I've
flown were at the request of approach for controller practice: as I
remember (it was some time ago) somewhere maybe starting at 1000 feet
agl I was told not to respond via the radio and if I did not hear the
controller for something like 5 seconds I should climb on whatever
heading I was on. This was in VMC. This was to a runway that also had
an ILS, and as I remember the controller pretty much had me a dot or
two high on the glide slope most of the way down.

News reports state the airplane crashed on its fifth(!) approach --
that is, they flew four missed approaches.

[Dave Doe]

In article <fd6cada7-6351-41a9-8026-5fbcc10c4eb5
@x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On Apr 13, 5:36*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In article >,
> > * * * * * *Peter > wrote:
> >
> > > IIRC, the military called the procedure GCA for Ground Controlled Approach
> > > and the major hub (airline) airports that could provide a similar service
> > > called it PAR for Precision Approach Radar.
> >
> > > I have no idea whether the civil version still exists.
> >
> > I've done a number of PAR approaches for my IMC rating training this week
> > (albeit at a Military field in the UK). IIRC correctly, the system minima is
> > something like 200 feet.
> >
> > Andy
>
> GCA approaches are simply not common where I fly, but since there's
> both horizontal and vertical info available to the pilot I would not
> be surprised if minimums weren't about the same as ILS. The few I've
> flown were at the request of approach for controller practice: as I
> remember (it was some time ago) somewhere maybe starting at 1000 feet
> agl I was told not to respond via the radio and if I did not hear the
> controller for something like 5 seconds I should climb on whatever
> heading I was on. This was in VMC. This was to a runway that also had
> an ILS, and as I remember the controller pretty much had me a dot or
> two high on the glide slope most of the way down.
>
> News reports state the airplane crashed on its fifth(!) approach --
> that is, they flew four missed approaches.

News reports are often wrong - as in this case too? ...

* wrong about the distance from the field
* wrong about the number of approaches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash


--
Duncan.

[Mxyzptlk]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:26:13 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

--
Viva la mort! Viva la guerre! Viva la sacre, Mercenaire!
Live To Spend It ! http://preview.xrl.in/4z9q

[Ricky]

> I understand it was a military airfield and that the only
> approach aid was radar. I forget the term - Precision
> Approach Radar (PAR)? This is normal in some militaries
> and works very well. The operator has two screens one for
> azimuth and the other for slope. He "talks" the pilot
> along the glideslope to minimums. I have no idea what
> typical minimums might be.

Gosh, I didn't think my IFR training was THAT long ago....I remember
studying and (I think) actually doing at least one PAR (Precision
Approach Radar) during my IFR instruction. This was early 90s and I
remember it well because somebody (instructor, perhaps) asked me at
one point "What are the only two precision approaches available for
IFR?" I could only answer "ILS," but then I was introduced to PAR. I
am sure we did one, too, which I think caught the tower off guard
because nobody ever did a PAR. There's talk here about a trailer or
something at the runway's end but I believe tower provided the
guidance for that one PAR I did.

Ricky

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

I think we’re at the point where we pretty much interchange the
terms,PAR and GCA, sort of like NDB and ADF. There is a correct way to
formulate it, but everyone knows what you’re talking about. I believe
the correct formulation today is that the GCA controller uses his
Precision Approach Radar for the approach pilots call PAR. You’ll
generally only find it at military facilities allowing civilian use.

If you want to see their eyes light up on the "Precision Approach"
question, you can also mention the ubiquitous Microwave Landing System!

[romeomike]

Ricky wrote:

..I remember
> studying and (I think) actually doing at least one PAR (Precision
> Approach Radar) during my IFR instruction. T
> Ricky


Yeah, I did them also. I understood that the controllers needed to
practice these approaches as well. So we would ask the controller if he
had time for it. They were fun and not very difficult.

[George Dance]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:26:13 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

> On Apr 13, 5:36*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>> Hi,

Bye.