Pilot error, fog

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."

---

Doesn't Russia have IFR?

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.

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/poli...15803736.shtml

---

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/...site/about/476
http://www.libelreform.org/news/449-...tment-to-libel
http://www.libelreform.org/who-is-silenced
http://www.libelreform.org/our-repor...ings-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.

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

"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

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

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.

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_Po...e_Tu-154_crash


--
Duncan.